The Washington Post reported Wednesday that the cost of returning the space shuttle fleet to flight is going up, perhaps as much as $900 million over what was originally expected. Those cost increases could affect other, unspecified NASA programs as the agency seeks additional funding within the agency before asking Congress for more. That turn of events generated this response from someone on Capitol Hill:
One knowledgeable Republican source, who refused to be quoted by name because of office policy, acknowledged that Congress had heard about the shortfalls last month, and lawmakers “don’t know what to think about it.” While NASA is “acting responsibly” by voicing its fears early, the source said, the news “puts additional pressure on an already impossible budget — and what are you going to take it from? And is this as high as [the shortfall] is going to get?”
We’ll see how this plays out over the next few months…
… if it does at all. I don’t see either party cutting the space shuttle until after the election. Florida and Louisiana are swing states.
Could this be a way for NASA to get extra money for Space Exploration Vision?
Could this be a way for NASA to get extra money for Space Exploration Vision?
Not in any sane universe. What’s your rationale for that question?
The question you have to ask is why did they undershoot so badly?
Robert G. Oler
C’mon, folks, this is easy.
NASA’s initial estimates for Return to Flight costs were made before the Gehman board even issued its recommendations.
As part of their natural desire to check every subsystem on the Shuttle, NASA engineers and contractors have found more and more things that might go wrong, and have argued that those things must be fixed. This is all expensive.
Since no Congress is *ever* going to cut Shuttle again, not even after this election — they may accelerate its retirement, but they will not cut its budget while it is supposed to be flying — the real question is not how they “underran”,
but how to pay the bill.
Just to clarify, when I said cut the space shuttle, I meant retire it.
As I’ve said before, it takes more money than NASA will ever have to fly the shuttle safely and confidently, and in the same way it will take more time than I will ever have to keep my house tidy indefinitely.
Well one way to lower costs per flight would be to :
NASA looks to outsource space work
Agency asks groups to see if its research could be privatized
http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/1091641593184660.xml
Just what every American really wants, not.. to loss ones job. If it stays in America ok otherwise leave well enough alone.
At another $900 M, are we getting close to the point of where a new or modified launch vehicle is getting “cheap”?
Will the shuttle ever fly again? I think it is looking less and less likely.
Either “cut bait” now on STS and ISS and make peace with the Russians and the other ISS partners as best we can;
or,
Deploy an uncrewed Shuttle B with RS-68 engines and 5 segment SRBs ASAP and loft ISS payloads at a rate of 2 per shot with a high annual flight rate starting in 2008 or 2009. If orbiter returns to flight it could be on orbit when a shuttle B launches and then install 3 ISS modules per orbiter flight. 5 ISS payloads if a shuttle B payload can be left in orbit before the orbiter launches and a 2nd shuttle B launched while the orbiter is in orbit.
Shuttle B can carry 3 ISS payloads by mass and 2 by volume therefore lots of miscellaneous supplies can be tucked into the nooks and crannies of the payload module.
And we end up with a deployed HLLV before ISS is even complete.
or,
We revoke the “no money to Russia because of Iran” policy and buy Protons to lift whatever ISS modules orbiter cannot carry. Modify ISS as needed to allow at least 3 Soyuz to be available for ISS egress until CEV or Clipper come on-line.
= = =
IMHO – – Orbiter return to flight followed by a reduced US “core complete” for ISS followed by a fairly prompt abandonment of ISS thereafter strikes me as a combination of the worst of all options both diplomatically and for advancing the Vision for Space Exploration.
O’Keefe said a long time ago that the estimates for RTF were Ball Park figures, R&D is very hard to cost estimate.
My question before was a shot in the dark. I wondered if there was anyway NASA could use this money for other purposes. I think it would require an approval from congress or a subcommittee in order to redirect this money.
If we refuse to pay the Russians cash for their support of ISS (due to the Iran business); and if the Russians decide to withdraw from the ISS partnership (or perhaps deny Soyuz flights to American astronauts); and
If the orbiter has no useful purpose other than ISS completion, all of our return to flight money and the money budgeted for STS between now and 2010 is flushed down an even blacker hole.
International space politics hardball?
http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_id=4678227&startrow=1&date=2004-08-05&do_alert=0
NASA already agreed to pay Russia for Soyuz but it might have to be creative money laundering. If it came down to it, Congress could amend the act to allow NASA to purchase directly but that may take longer than NASA has to secure the Soyuz vehicles.
Even if Shuttle is operational NASA will not be able to support the promise 5 to 6 people on ISS in the coming years so they will have to buy Soyuz crafts.
Can the Russians leverage additional concessions from the Unoited States?
If the United Stares does not meet Russia’s price for Soyuz / Progress (which already includes dropping this Iran business) how much does Russia really suffer if ISS fails, provided the ESA and Japan are ready to blame the United States?
I smell some hardball diplomacy brewing here.
I smell some hardball diplomacy brewing here.
Wow! A triple dip mixed metaphor. Anybody seen Zubrin around here?