I'm surprised I haven't seen any chatter about this from the sci.space
crowd yet.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/national/17nasa.html?>
"While the space agency is still studying how many missions the
shuttles can undertake once they resume flight, as early as next month,
Dr. Griffin said there could be as few as 15 and no more than 23,
because of the time it takes to process and fly missions."

Signature
Herb Schaltegger, GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
<http://www.individual-i.com/>
Jorge R. Frank - 17 Jun 2005 17:44 GMT
> I'm surprised I haven't seen any chatter about this from the sci.space
> crowd yet.
>
><http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/national/17nasa.html?>
I'm not surprised, mainly because it's not news. Griffin made no secret of
his plans for the shuttle in his confirmation hearings in April, but the
ISS program won't have a clear set of options for how many shuttle flights
it needs until July 1. So this story is really just Griffin and the news
media marking time until then.

Signature
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
ed kyle - 17 Jun 2005 21:24 GMT
> > I'm surprised I haven't seen any chatter about this from the sci.space
> > crowd yet.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> it needs until July 1. So this story is really just Griffin and the news
> media marking time until then.
According to Nasawatch.com, Griffin will probably
announce, sometime after he gets his 60 day study
reports on July 1, that ISS is going to end up being
smaller than currently planned. He seems intent on
retiring shuttle in 2010 rather than letting it fly
a few more missions beyond 2010.
- Ed Kyle
Revision - 17 Jun 2005 18:20 GMT
"Herb Schaltegger"
> I'm surprised I haven't seen any chatter about
> this from the sci.space crowd yet.
>
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/national/17nasa.html?>
Dr. Griffin is also easing a few division chiefs out the door, with
others to follow.
On a different topic, he also endorsed a smooth transition to the lunar
exploration phase, saying that a long gap between the close of Shuttle
ops and the commencement of continued manned flights was undesirable.
Personnel changes are detailed in the same article:
"Dr. Griffin has been acting rapidly to reshape the upper management of
the space program, and letters have gone out to dozens of officials
telling them that they will be reassigned or will have the option of
leaving NASA.
"The first to announce that he would leave was Rear Adm. Craig E.
Steidle, who led efforts to develop the next-generation crewed space
vehicle; he made his resignation public last week. The Aerospace
Industries Association, a trade group, announced on Thursday that he
would join it as vice president for international affairs.
"William F. Readdy, who heads spaceflight operations, told co-workers in
an e-mail message on Monday that he would stay on through the shuttle's
return to flight and then decide whether to take a new job within NASA or
to retire.
"Alphonzo V. Diaz, the agency's associate administrator for science, said
in a memorandum to colleagues on Monday that he would retire "in the next
several months." J. Victor Lebacqz, NASA's associate administrator for
aeronautics research, announced his departure on Tuesday."
Tim K. - 17 Jun 2005 22:39 GMT
> I'm surprised I haven't seen any chatter about this from the sci.space
> crowd yet.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Dr. Griffin said there could be as few as 15 and no more than 23,
> because of the time it takes to process and fly missions."
There's scuttlebutt going about as few as 16 - but then it ranges from we'll
miss the July window and never launch again to Sept. to mothballing Pad A
(which seems odd with all the work going on there now) to 26 flights.
thomsona@flash.net - 18 Jun 2005 16:23 GMT
> There's scuttlebutt going about as few as 16 - but then it ranges from we'll
> miss the July window and never launch again to Sept. to mothballing Pad A
> (which seems odd with all the work going on there now) to 26 flights.
Does the low-number scenario still keep STS flying through 2010,
just at a reduced average flight rate? Or does the program get
shut down early?
Any guesses about the budgetary implications of those two
possibilities?
Flying through 2010 would free up the marginal costs of the unflown
missions, shutting down earlier would add the yearly fixed costs, no?
Blurrt - 19 Jun 2005 02:05 GMT
> > There's scuttlebutt going about as few as 16 - but then it ranges from we'll
> > miss the July window and never launch again to Sept. to mothballing Pad A
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Flying through 2010 would free up the marginal costs of the unflown
> missions, shutting down earlier would add the yearly fixed costs, no?
Note also that there are only 8 flights neccessary for US Core Complete
status (2 are return to flight missions). The other 7 flights (to reach the
minimum of 15) would come from launching the European, Japanese and the
Centrifuge components. Cargo flights beyond 2008 would likely be done using
a commercial carrier (Kistler most notably) and it's possible that anything
remaining could be taken up using the Kistler K1 or equivalent low cost
vehicles. The European ATV could have a greater role. Shuttle derived
systems could also be employed - thus justifying their immediate
development.
Crew launch to the station would either be conducted using the new CEV or a
commercial alternative (such as t/space CXV or a crew rated K1).
This would allow Griffin to free up resources to implement the FLO - First
Lunar Outpost project with a demonstration landing on the moon at an early
opportunity (2012).
Nathan
ed kyle - 18 Jun 2005 23:27 GMT
> > I'm surprised I haven't seen any chatter about this from the sci.space
> > crowd yet.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> miss the July window and never launch again to Sept. to mothballing Pad A
> (which seems odd with all the work going on there now) to 26 flights.
If NASA decides to develop a shuttle-derived launcher,
it seems likely that at some point, likely even before
the shuttle is retired, one of the launch pads would
be taken out of service to be modified for use in
Project Constellation.
- Ed Kyle
Tim K. - 19 Jun 2005 18:48 GMT
> If NASA decides to develop a shuttle-derived launcher,
> it seems likely that at some point, likely even before
> the shuttle is retired, one of the launch pads would
> be taken out of service to be modified for use in
> Project Constellation.
Good point. I guess we'll know more about it all when the next vehicle is
decided.