 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / July 2004Shuttle Costs Surge - Extensive Fixes to Fleet Will Run $1.1B
http://www.floridatoday.com/news/space/stories/2004b/spacestoryN0717SHUTTLECOST.htm "Shuttle costs surge - Extensive fixes to fleet will run $1.1B, NASA comptroller says" BY LARRY WHEELER FLORIDA TODAY - July 17, 2004 WASHINGTON -- Fixing the U.S. space shuttle fleet will be more expensive than originally estimated, top NASA officials said Friday. It could cost as much as $1.1 billion to accomplish all the safety upgrades and changes now under way and planned, said Steven Isakowitz, NASA comptroller. That's more than double the estimate NASA gave earlier this year. The price increase was caused by additional shuttle improvements NASA has begun and more extensive work on repairs it was already undertaking, said Michael Kostelnik, deputy associate administrator for the International Space Station and space shuttle programs. "It's not as if we couldn't estimate the cost," Kostelnik told reporters at a briefing at NASA headquarters in Washington. "We could not estimate the content." For example, Kostelnik said modifications to the insulation foam on the shuttle's external fuel tank, the culprit in the loss of shuttle Columbia, have been far more extensive than originally thought. Additionally, shuttle program managers are tackling far more improvements to the remaining three space planes than the 15 enhancements mandated by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board last summer, Kostelnik said. The new shuttle repair estimates come just days before a House appropriations subcommittee is scheduled to take up an annual spending bill that will set NASA's funding for fiscal year 2005, which begins Oct. 1. Isakowitz said NASA officials briefed members of Congress on the increased cost estimates. "They fully appreciate a program of this complexity," Isakowitz said. "There is no easy solution." The Bush administration has asked for an $866 million increase in NASA's budget for the next fiscal year. Of that increase, $750 million is for shuttle return-to-flight needs and other costs associated with the International Space Station. In meetings with lawmakers, Isakowitz stressed the need for Congress to approve the entire increase. "Unless we get the president's full request, the problem (of fixing the shuttles) could be a lot tougher," he said. Although the appropriations process may not wrap up until after Election Day, lawmakers have already expressed opposition to granting NASA such a big increase in a tight budget year when many other federal programs -- except defense -- are being told to endure cuts or only slight increases. This most recent cost increase isn't going to sit well with some lawmakers, said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., chairman of the Senate Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee. "We're pouring a lot of money -- $4 billion to $5 billion a year -- into the shuttle whether it flies or not," said Brownback. "There will be some real hard questions such as what are we getting out of putting more money into the shuttle." Brownback said he would rather retire the shuttle sooner and divert its budget and accelerate NASA's plans to follow through on President Bush's vision to send astronauts back to the moon and eventually to Mars. [end of article]  SignatureScott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com B : "Shuttle costs surge - Extensive fixes to fleet will run $1.1B, NASA : comptroller says" : BY LARRY WHEELER : FLORIDA TODAY - July 17, 2004 : WASHINGTON -- Fixing the U.S. space shuttle fleet will be more expensive : than originally estimated, top NASA officials said Friday. As Gomer Pyle used to say, "Surprise, surprise, surprise." regards, ---------------------------------------------------------- sjforsbe@bayou.uh.edu > As Gomer Pyle used to say, "Surprise, surprise, surprise." > >regards, >---------------------------------------------------------- >sjforsbe@bayou.uh.edu At some point congress may decide its time for nasa to cut their losses. the sad thing is that plans for real safety improvements, like launcch boost escape never werre implemented HAVE A GREAT DAY! > At some point congress may decide its time for nasa to cut their > losses. > > the sad thing is that plans for real safety improvements, like launcch > boost escape never werre implemented For good reason. If you think Congress may balk now, just wait for their reaction when the bill rises to $2.3-5.2 billion to add an escape system. Especially watch their reaction when you tell them you now have to redesign all the ISS modules sitting on the ground at KSC due to the weight increase from the escape system, and that ISS will now require more shuttle flights to complete. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. > > At some point congress may decide its time for nasa to cut their > > losses. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > from the escape system, and that ISS will now require more shuttle flights > to complete. I think we should accept a certain degree of risk in space exploration. Well, I guess "space exploration" isn't really accurate, is it? More like "orbital sightseeing". At any rate, I have yet to find one thing that manned spaceflight has given me as a taxpayer in exchange for my contribution. What, Tang? And maybe velcro. And let's not forget freeze-dried ice cream... real important one there. I hate to say it, but NASA's manned space flight program has got to be the least productive investment the American taxpayers have yet to make. We put men into orbit... and found out they could *usually* survive the trip. We put men on the moon... and got some rocks. Oh, and some really neat pictures. We built space shuttles that were supposed to be "space trucks" for building a permanent manned presence in orbit... but wound up being "space winnebagos" instead. We had Hubble, which gave us some great pictures and a deeper insight into the origins of the universe... only to ditch the program when it was at its most useful. Honestly, I don't care if another shuttle lifts off... ever. In fact, I hope it never happens. Because all I've gotten out of the manned space flight program is a couple of multi billion-dollar fireworks shows and barbecues. Hell, I can do that in my back yard for $50. NASA should concentrate on programs that will yield benefits to human kind, not provide funding so a bunch of eggheads can study the effects of space travel on flatworms and elderly senators. Hell, I can't see any situation where having either of those aboard a spacecraft would be A Good Thing, anyway. There are much more pressing subjects. Improved atmospheric flight technology for one. Figure out a way to get me and my family from Texas to California and back for less than $200. We've been flying for 100 years and it's still cheaper to drive. We've had how many guys figuring out how to make rocket fuel from lunar dust for how long? How about figuring out a way to make cheap, renewable fuel for automobiles here on Earth? I remember growing up reading about all the new alloys and medicines that would be developed in orbit. Name one. Name one material in use at this very moment that was made in orbit and makes a positive impact on our lives. There are so many things that are more important than sending people into orbit to do basically nothing productive. The ISS will wind up doing what? Being an orbital hotel for multi millionaires? What will the space shuttle do? Aside from blowing up every few years, that is. Who here honestly thinks that NASA has what it takes to build a permanent manned outpost on the moon? Now, what good will it do us? So we'll get to find out what happens to people in low gravity. This will come in useful if the Earth's gravity suddenly reduces for some reason. Even if we go to Mars... then what? There's nothing there! It's basically an airless dustball. Oh, it has the solar system's largest volcano. Very nice. Going to Mars to explore the solar system's largest volcano is like taking a Concorde flight from Australia to Nebraska to see the world's largest ball of twine. An enormous expenditure of time and money that yields nothing. Which is what we've been doing with manned space flight since the beginning. Doc Signature"I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death." George Carlin > I hate to say it, but NASA's manned space flight >program has got to be the least productive investment the American taxpayers >have yet to make. No, the National Endowment for the Arts would be there, IMO. > > I hate to say it, but NASA's manned space flight > >program has got to be the least productive investment the American taxpayers > >have yet to make. > > No, the National Endowment for the Arts would be there, IMO. Point taken. Doc Signature"I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death." George Carlin >> No, the National Endowment for the Arts would be there, IMO. > >Point taken. >Doc at least the arts one doesnt kill people or destroy multi billion dollar equiptement.... HAVE A GREAT DAY! > >> No, the National Endowment for the Arts would be there, IMO. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > equiptement.... > HAVE A GREAT DAY! Another very valid point. Although Maplethorp was pretty damned revolting. Doc Signature"I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death." George Carlin > > >> No, the National Endowment for the Arts would be there, IMO. > > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Another very valid point. Although Maplethorp was pretty damned revolting. There was an art project over the grapevine [road between LA and Central Valley, on Interstate 5] of putting up umbrellas all over it. I saw it. Intriguing. But one of the umbrellas fell and killed a person. SignatureBarbara Needham <snip whining drivel> Go back in your cave and die. Signaturebp Proud Member of the Human O-Ring Society Since 2003 > <snip whining drivel> > > Go back in your cave and die. Better yet, why don;t you pull your head out of the sand and start answering questions that make you uncomfortable? Doc Signature"I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death." George Carlin > I hate to say it, but NASA's manned space flight >program has got to be the least productive investment the American taxpayers >have yet to make. One suspects you have not examined either the welfare system, nor the educational system. (Either of which *individually* cost far more than the space program.) D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. >>I hate to say it, but NASA's manned space flight >>program has got to be the least productive investment the American taxpayers [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > educational system. (Either of which *individually* cost far more > than the space program.) Not to mention the war on drugs or the entire Dept. of Homeland Security. There was a guy jumping up and down on a manhole cover. Over and over again for hours on end. Someone asked him, "Why are you doing that?" to which he replied, "To keep the tigers away!" The onlooker told him, "There aren't any tigers around here for 1,000 miles." The jumper replied, "See, it's working!" Signaturebp Proud Member of the Human O-Ring Society Since 2003 >> One suspects you have not examined either the welfare system, nor the >> educational system. (Either of which *individually* cost far more >> than the space program.) > >Not to mention the war on drugs or the entire Dept. of Homeland Security. DHS is just a consolidation of a bunch of pre-existing organizations under one umbrella, instead of scattered throughout government. Do you honestly think the United States Coast Guard is unproductive? Brian >>> One suspects you have not examined either the welfare system, nor the >>> educational system. (Either of which *individually* cost far more [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >under one umbrella, instead of scattered throughout government. Do you >honestly think the United States Coast Guard is unproductive? He's writing about knee-political beliefs, not facts. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. >>>>One suspects you have not examined either the welfare system, nor the >>>>educational system. (Either of which *individually* cost far more [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > He's writing about knee-political beliefs, not facts. Pot-kettle-black. IMO it's dishonest for anyone to state their views vis-a-vis federal spending of *any* kind and claim with a straight face that their analysis hasn't been swayed by their political beliefs. You say my views are based on "knee-jerk policital beliefs", but we're supposed to believe your argument is better because... you say so. Right. Time for you to re-acquaint yourself with the definition of "facts". Homeland security spending totals millions of dollars more than the sum of what was being spent before on the agencies and departments now under its umbrella. Even Congress admits it's become a bottomless spending trough into which they poured money without any idea what it was actually going to be spent on. It has created a huge new beuracracy at the federal level where everybody wants to grab a slice of the spending pie. That's a fact the last time I checked. When President Bush wanted to re-focus the spending priorities for FY 2005 in order to help the money get to where the risks were greatest the Senate refused. They'd already gotten used to this new barrel of pork. Partly as a result of this boondoggle is the _fact_ that next year's appropriations don't include one red cent for port security despite threat analyses that show the nation's ports are weak links in the chain. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04945t.pdf is a virtual blueprint of how to waste money at the federal level. The Coast Guard performs many critical functions. I _never_ said they were unproductive. Nevertheless, they recently embarked on a 20-year acquisition project. Ask your Congresscritter what's being acquired exactly. He won't know; because *nobody* knows. That hasn't stopped the program costs from rising by over $2.2 billion in just a couple of years. Our tax dollars at work. But that's not a fact either according to you. I hope the home-school crowd uses a different dictionary. We're all f.cked if we can't tell fact from fiction anymore. Signaturebp Proud Member of the Human O-Ring Society Since 2003 >But that's not a fact either according to you. I hope the home-school >crowd uses a different dictionary. We're all f.cked if we can't tell >fact from fiction anymore. *I* can tell the difference. Your rant shows plainly that you cannot. You can't even keep your arguements straight, claiming the Earth is round in one post, and that it's flat in the other. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. >Homeland security spending totals millions of dollars more than the sum >of what was being spent before on the agencies and departments now under >its umbrella. What is surprising about that? Members of both parties have said since 9/11 that we must increase spending for domestic security. DHS was built partially to streamline this funding, making it easier to tell what is security related and what is not. Or let me guess... you want to increase security to help prevent another 9/11, but you don't want to actually *pay* for it. How big of you. >Even Congress admits it's become a bottomless spending >trough into which they poured money without any idea what it was >actually going to be spent on. This being the same Congress that is doing the spending, I take it. "This spending bill is terrible! It is a waste! We don't even know what were spending it for! Oh, excuse me... I have to go vote in favor of it..." Somehow, that's not particularly convincing. >It has created a huge new beuracracy at >the federal level where everybody wants to grab a slice of the spending >pie. That's a fact the last time I checked. Alert the media! Government is a huge bureaucracy! Stop the presses! >The Coast Guard performs many critical functions. I _never_ said they >were unproductive. Backpeddal, backpeddal... You clearly implied the war on drugs and the DHS were unproductive wastes of funding. Since the Coast Guard is part of DHS, they must be guilty by association, or else you're just spouting off nonsense. >Nevertheless, they recently embarked on a 20-year >acquisition project. Ask your Congresscritter what's being acquired >exactly. He won't know; because *nobody* knows. That hasn't stopped >the program costs from rising by over $2.2 billion in just a couple of >years. Our tax dollars at work. You mean Deepwater? What's so mysterious about a plan to replace 1960s-vintage aircraft and cutters? Of the 39 significant Coast Guard services around the world, the US Coast Guard's fleet averages the 37th oldest. Brian > > I hate to say it, but NASA's manned space flight > >program has got to be the least productive investment the American taxpayers [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > educational system. (Either of which *individually* cost far more > than the space program.) I won't for a moment claim that NASA is the largest drain on this nation's resources. But it is a drain. For the past 40-odd years, NASA has been a money pit par excellence. Now, is anybody going to tell me how NASA has returned my investment? Or anybody else's, for that matter. And if you trot out the old moon landing strawman, I'm going to burn it down. That was little more than a pissing contest with the USSR, as was 99% of what happened with manned space flight during the cold war. Doc Signature"I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death." George Carlin >> > I hate to say it, but NASA's manned space flight >> >program has got to be the least productive investment the American [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >contest with the USSR, as was 99% of what happened with manned space flight >during the cold war. Well, in terms of adding to the prestige of the USA I'd say it's paid for itself several times over. Certainly more than little adventures like Vietnam, for instance. It's probably added more to the security and general quality of life in the US than most government agencies. > I won't for a moment claim that NASA is the largest drain on this nation's > resources. But it is a drain. For the past 40-odd years, NASA has been a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > contest with the USSR, as was 99% of what happened with manned space flight > during the cold war. Back when Bell was still one company, Bell Labs did quite a bit of pure research in the hopes that someday, some of that research would produce technology that would eventually be used in products and services sold by Bell. Bell Labs is still be operating, but without the monopoly of Bell to back it up. NASA isn't much different, except that it's completely funded by the government and they are forced to spend quite a bit of money on technology in order to get into space to do the pure research. Surely one cannot ignore the great progress this nation has made in telecommunications, weather prediction, remote sensing, and the like that is a direct, and indirect, result of NASA's progress in space over the past several decades. Unfortunately in recent years, pure research appears to have taken a beating as NASA diverted more and more money into shuttle and ISS. The "human exploration" angle is more tenuous than the "research" angle. How does one justify exploration, when there has not yet been any real economic justification for such exploration? If such justification does happen, it may happen in the form of private space tourism. Certainly this does not directly involve NASA, but the people working on those programs and the technologies involved have some origins at NASA or with NASA funded projects. Jeff SignatureRemove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address. >> > I hate to say it, but NASA's manned space flight >> >program has got to be the least productive investment the American [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >resources. But it is a drain. For the past 40-odd years, NASA has been a >money pit par excellence. <meaningless blather having nothing to do with the topic at hand other than to serve as distraction why doody attempts to change the topic.> >Now, is anybody going to tell me how NASA has returned my investment? Or >anybody else's, for that matter. And if you trot out the old moon landing >strawman, I'm going to burn it down. That was little more than a pissing >contest with the USSR, as was 99% of what happened with manned space flight >during the cold war. <Strawman nonsense posted to avoid actually adressing the topic originally raised.> D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. > >Now, is anybody going to tell me how NASA has returned my investment? Or > >anybody else's, for that matter. And if you trot out the old moon landing [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > <Strawman nonsense posted to avoid actually adressing the topic > originally raised.> Um, you're the only one doing any evading here, jackass. Doc Signature"I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death." George Carlin "drdoody" <drdoody@dieslowly.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:brGKc.15012 Even if we go to Mars... then what? > There's nothing there! It's basically an airless dustball. Oh, it has the > solar system's largest volcano. Very nice. Going to Mars to explore the > solar system's largest volcano is like taking a Concorde flight from > Australia to Nebraska to see the world's largest ball of twine. The largest ball of twine is in Darwin, Minnesota - been there & seen it! Other than that quibble, I agree with your analysis. Steve >For good reason. If you think Congress may balk now, just wait for their >reaction when the bill rises to $2.3-5.2 billion to add an escape system. >Especially watch their reaction when you tell them you now have to redesign >all the ISS modules sitting on the ground at KSC due to the weight increase >from the escape system, and that ISS will now require more shuttle flights >to complete. Modules should of gone up on a shuttle C cargo version. I often wonder if nasa itself didnt really support that fearing job loss? HAVE A GREAT DAY! > Modules should of gone up on a shuttle C cargo version. I often wonder > if nasa itself didnt really support that fearing job loss? No, NASA strongly considered it for SSF around 1990-91 or so. However, the plan would have used OMV to carry the modules to SSF. When OMV experienced huge cost overruns and got cancelled, NASA tried to save the concept by using shuttles to deliver the modules to SSF. It turned out that this doesn't save you anything over using just a shuttle. Shuttle-C was later cancelled. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. "Steven James Forsberg" > : "Shuttle costs surge - Extensive fixes to fleet will run $1.1B, NASA If it is only $1.1 billion, Congress will, or should, be happy as hell. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.