 |
 | 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 / September 2005STS cancellation in FY'06?
Anyone else see this yet? "David Radzanowski at OMB issued an action to NASA at the beginning of September asking the agency to provide him with an estimate of what shutdown costs would result from a termination of the Space Shuttle program in FY 2006. NASA provided a response to OMB on 9 September." < http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2005/09/is_omb_consider.html>  Signature"Fame may be fleeting but obscurity is forever." ~Anonymous "I believe as little as possible and know as much as I can." ~Todd Stuart Phillips <www.angryherb.net> That would make no sense at all. Brian SignatureBrian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > Anyone else see this yet? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > < http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2005/09/is_omb_consider.html> > That would make no sense at all. Unless NASA/CAIB is willing to move 2010 deadline to 2012, based on the fact that the shuttle will have been iddle 2 more years than the CAIB had originally anticipated, then someone will need to find an alternate way to launch ISS modules. It is normal and good that NASA would ask how much it would cost to launch the remaining modules on alternate launchers versus continued Shuttle operations. This is especially true if the 2010 deadline is really immovable and an alternate launcher will be needed anyways. Lets assume for sake of discussion, that ESA has told NASA that it would cost 300million to adapt ATV to imitate shuttle's cargo bay, and ESA would then charge 200 million per launch. It might then make sense to kill shuttle right away and pay ESA to fulfill's the USA's obligations. What I found telling in the Apollo-on-steroids announcement was the mention that Michoud and Stennis would continue to be used for the new Apollo. It seems to me that NASA would want to ensure that facilities that reli on Shuttle spending could quickly be shifted to developping and producing the new Apollo, thus reducing job losses etc etc. > That would make no sense at all. Why not? After initial costs, it generates budget for developing CEV... Rene >Anyone else see this yet? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >< http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2005/09/is_omb_consider.html> I'm not at all surprised, having expected this since the 114 PAL event. . NASA is already raiding everything else to pay for more ET foam improvement, over and above the $3.5 Billion NASA already asked for the Shuttle in FY06, which might, if they're lucky, result in *one* Shuttle launch. At some point, even NASA is going to have to ask "at what point is Shuttle no longer worth everyone else's sacrifice?" Evidently, OMB has already decided that point has been passed. I wonder how hard NASA would fight if the decision comes down from the White House. Griffin would probably make a big show of it, but I doubt his heart would be in it. Brian > At some point, even NASA is going to have to ask "at what point is > Shuttle no longer worth everyone else's sacrifice?" Evidently, OMB has [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Brian An interesting blurb from NASAWatch.com but in the wake of Katrina OMB was probably asking all federal agencies for things that could be cut. Shuttle was just the low hanging fruit at NASA. >Anyone else see this yet? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >< http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2005/09/is_omb_consider.html> Afaik, OMB studies whatever it's told to study, even if the purpose is to prove something is unwise or just to study unlikely contingencies. Think of the military. If they executed even 1 in 100 of the war plan contingencies they've drawn up, I doubt any of us would still be alive. -- David Ahh I applaude the shut down if it occurs. Invest all the savings in fast tracking the replacements and move on before another crew dies.... I think they know the foam CANT be fixed, at a reasonable cost and this is the first sign..... > Ahh I applaude the shut down if it occurs. Invest all the savings in > fast tracking the replacements and move on before another crew dies.... > > I think they know the foam CANT be fixed, at a reasonable cost and this > is the first sign..... Did you read the post you responded to? >>Anyone else see this yet? >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > contingencies they've drawn up, I doubt any of us would still be > alive. Well... there is a plan for the military that helps us all. Withdraw from Iraq one (1 !) day earlier than planned... this will generate enough budget to solve the hunger problem in Africa _for ever_ !!!!! Think about it. Rene > Well... there is a plan for the military that helps us all. Withdraw from > Iraq one (1 !) day earlier than planned... this will generate enough budget > to solve the hunger problem in Africa _for ever_ !!!!! > > Think about it. okay Rene, you have the floor. Explain to us, precisely and distinctly, how you would use a hypothetical budget savings to solve hunger in Africa forever. Don't give us generic answers. Be very, very specific about the exact programs that you would execute and exactly how and where they would be done. ...? SignatureTerrell Miller millerto@bellsouth.net "Suddenly, after nearly 30 years of scorn, Prog is cool again". -Entertainment Weekly >> Well... there is a plan for the military that helps us all. Withdraw from >> Iraq one (1 !) day earlier than planned... this will generate enough [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Explain to us, precisely and distinctly, how you would use a hypothetical > budget savings to solve hunger in Africa forever. it is not a hypothetical budget saving. I say: don't stop the war in Iraq, just leave 1 day earlier than planned and use the money for that last day to solve the hunger problem. As discussed in the UN, if all rich nations would use 0,7% of their Gross National Income for help in underdeveloped countries, this would solve the problem. At this moment, only the Netherlands is doing this. Who follows? Asking for more details just shows resistance to the idea. Rene > As discussed in the UN, if all rich nations would use 0,7% of their Gross > National Income for help in underdeveloped countries, this would solve the > problem. How, exactly? I see you didn't answer the question, most likely because you don't know. The old saying, "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll feed himself forever," comes to mind. So what, exactly, are you proposing to do with all the nations of the world's national treasure and resources? > At this moment, only the Netherlands is doing this. Who follows? So what's that coming to? About a buck ninety five? And how much measurable progress is coming out of the Dutch efforts? And how does their contribution compare to what the rest of the world has devoted financially to undeveloped countries since, oh say 1970 or so? > Asking for more details just shows resistance to the idea. No, it shows justifiable cynicism. That you cannot provide any details shows typical Euro-liberal utopianism unencumbered by fact. Stop spouting off like an assclown and provide some facts. YOU make a proposal, YOU explain how it's supposed to work. Signature"Fame may be fleeting but obscurity is forever." ~Anonymous "I believe as little as possible and know as much as I can." ~Todd Stuart Phillips <www.angryherb.net> > it is not a hypothetical budget saving. I say: don't stop the war in Iraq, > just leave 1 day earlier than planned and use the money for that last day to > solve the hunger problem. 1. How can you know when it is one day earlier than planned? 2. How can you know that if you leave one day earlier than planned, that money will be there? 3. How do you know that money will solve the hunger problem? It is more complex than just financial. 4. And what does this have to do with NASA? THEY are not fighting in Iraq. >Well... there is a plan for the military that helps us all. Withdraw from >Iraq one (1 !) day earlier than planned... this will generate enough budget >to solve the hunger problem in Africa _for ever_ !!!!! The problem of hunger in Africa is not financial, it is political. Ending the war in Iraq will have no effect on African poverty whatsoever. Brian >>Well... there is a plan for the military that helps us all. Withdraw from >>Iraq one (1 !) day earlier than planned... this will generate enough budget [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Brian Ending the war in Iraq is a nice ideal, but once it was started, we have no choice but to follow through or end up with a civil war over there and probably part of Iraq annexed by Iran (with it's nuclear ambitions). Too many things have been de-stabilized by the war. Also, the Kurds would almost certainly end up with their own state, which they probably deserve, but Turkey vehemently opposes so we'd probably end up having to protect them from Turkey, which is supposed to be a NATO ally, IIRC. Looking at the mess in the region, expect our soldiers to stay longer than planned, not less than planned. There are also the questions of how long the Saudi government will hold out and whether someone will bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, bringing one or both into the mess. The Russians won't be too happy if someone bombs the Iranian facilities either but getting rid of that stupid bill that keeps NASA and others from paying the Russians for anything and increasing our economic ties with them would probably make them happier about the situation. Maybe we could buy some of those nice non-nuclear submarines the Russians are exporting and help counteract the Chinese submarine buildup. -- David Theres a bill to allow NASA to buy stuff from Russia to support ISS. It appears a shoe in for approval. On a not good news note, we will never fix Iraq, the NEXT pres will have to withdraw us from the mess. So sad another Vietnam. Bush is a complete failure as a commander and chief, he didnt understand the situation:( Worse he didnt provide enough troops to provide security after saddam was removed. Iraq is currently having a low level civil war, and its not getting better... Bush the failure president:( |
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.