The Last 10 Days In The Space Shuttle's Bunker?, Atlantis apparently to be scrapped in 2008 |
The Last 10 Days In The Space Shuttle's Bunker?, Atlantis apparently to be scrapped in 2008 |
Guest_BruceMoomaw_* |
Feb 21 2006, 03:05 AM
Post
#1
|
Guests |
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20060...lantis_spa.html :
"Under orders to retire the shuttle fleet by 2010, NASA plans to cancel shuttle Atlantis' next scheduled overhaul and mothball the ship in 2008. "Rather than becoming a museum piece, however, Atlantis will serve as a spare parts donor for sister ships Discovery and Endeavour to complete assembly of the International Space Station. " 'People are already calling us and asking us can they display one of our orbiters in their museum after we're done. I'm not giving anybody anything until we're all agreed the station is complete and the shuttles' job is done,' shuttle program manager Wayne Hale told Kennedy Space Center employees during a televised address on Friday. " 'We're going to keep (Atlantis) in as near flight-ready condition as we can without putting it through a (modification and overhaul) so we can use those parts,' Hale said. ____________________ Jeffrey Bell has recently finished a piece for "SpaceDaily" proclaiming that the wholesale cancellation of other NASA projects in the FY 2007 budget to keep Shuttle and ISS going is actually just part of Michael Griffin's Machiavellian strategy to get both of the cancelled, by making it clear that they can be saved now only at the cost of a swarm of other projects (including Bush's lunar program) which are now more popular. Certainly that is the overwhelming message being conveyed, whether Griffin planned it that way or not -- I haven't seen a single newspaper editorial yet that favors retaining Shuttle at this point. (Bell also claims to see other, subtler evidence of this strategy in Griffin's moves over the last few weeks -- and also signs that he definitely plans to throw ISS from the train as well, by just giving it to the Russians half-finished in a few years and paying off the ESA and Japan for their unlaunched space lab modules. These include the fact that he's cancelled work on the unmanned cargo variant of the Crew Exploration Vehicle that will be necessary to take up replacement Control Moment Gyros to the ISS after the Shuttle is no longer available.) |
|
|
Guest_BruceMoomaw_* |
Feb 24 2006, 03:17 AM
Post
#2
|
Guests |
You've just said yourself that American politicians are eager to keep the level of space spending flowing to their particular districts big. Most aerospace firms involved with manned spaceflight are also involved in a major way with the unmanned variety, or could very easily switch to it. Give me one reason why they WOULDN'T have a very strong tendency to demand a compensatory rise in unmanned spending if manned spending declined -- and why their puppets in Congress wouldn't go along.
But then -- to repeat -- that's not the real phenomenon we may be on the verge of seeing, which instead involves the elimination of Shuttle-Station and simultaneous compensatory rises in both unmanned space spending AND Bush's new manned program. |
|
|
Guest_AlexBlackwell_* |
Feb 24 2006, 04:20 PM
Post
#3
|
Guests |
You've just said yourself that American politicians are eager to keep the level of space spending flowing to their particular districts big. Most aerospace firms involved with manned spaceflight are also involved in a major way with the unmanned variety, or could very easily switch to it. Give me one reason why they WOULDN'T have a very strong tendency to demand a compensatory rise in unmanned spending if manned spending declined -- and why their puppets in Congress wouldn't go along. Forgive me if I don't defer to your "expertise" in this matter but, in my opinion, you're just waving your arms, as usual. I have yet to see evidence that shrinking a country's manned space program automatically results in a commensurate increase in its unmanned space exploration efforts. The two examples that you offer in your ahistorical "analysis" (Europe and Japan) are irrelevant. Neither have ever had any real type of manned space program to begin with (other than flying "guest astronauts/cosmonauts"). And it's no surprise that your cherry-picking left out Russia. Its current manned space program has severely contracted; indeed, it's a shell of what it once was. So, under your theory Russia should have a booming unmanned space effort as a result, right? In fact, the former Soviet Union's unmanned space exploration efforts flourished at the same time as did its manned space exploration program. And so did the U.S. programs. But then -- to repeat ... This statement (or variations thereof) seems to be a mantra with you. Perhaps you could adopt it as a signature line, preferably IN ALL CAPS SHOUTING MODE. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 31st October 2024 - 11:16 PM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |