Several members of Congress are concerned that NASA won’t have enough money to continue the shuttle program, the Houston Chronicle reported Wednesday. In a letter sent to President Bush last week, 29 House Republicans and six Democrats, led by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX), said that they are concerned about a shortfall of as much as $6 billion in NASA’s budget through 2010 caused by OMB plans to reduce shuttle funding during that time, although the cost savings originally envisioned to support that trend have not materialized. DeLay and colleagues said that without increased funding, NASA could be forced to mothball a shuttle and jeopardize completion of the ISS. “The best way I can express it is that we don’t want to leave things to chance, with all of the data and information coming over to us,” DeLay said. The Chronicle added that DeLay has met with both OMB director Josh Bolten and Vice President Cheney about this issue, while Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) has separately met with Bolten on shuttle funding.
The article doesn’t list the 35 Congressmen who signed the letter. However, it’s unlikely you would find a fellow Texas Republican, Rep. Jeb Hensarling, included in the group. In the same issue the Chronicle profiles the Dallas-area representative who made waves earlier this year as part of the Republican Study Committee, which proposed a series of budget cuts called “Operation Offset” to pay for hurricane relief without tax increases or deficit spending. Among the cuts included in Operation Offset, as the Chronicle article notes at the end, was eliminating funding for “NASA’s New Moon/Mars Initiative”.
… Without more federal money, the shuttle may fly only eight more times rather than the 19 missions that NASA says will be needed to finish construction on the orbiting space station and give the 15-year-old space telescope a makeover, DeLay and Hutchison warn.
As projected in the 2006 federal budget, shuttle funding will fall to $4.2 billion in 2007, $3.9 billion in 2008, $2.8 billion in 2009 and $2.4 billion in 2010.
The funding decline was part of the White House strategy to pay for development of a new Crew Exploration Vehicle by pulling funds away from the shuttle. The plan meant NASA would need only modest budget increases to accomplish the deep-space missions foreseen by the president.
…
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3523361.html
My recommendations are: budget for only nine more Shuttle flights — three apiece for the three remaining Orbiters. This includes a Hubble servicing mission. Don’t save the Hubble trip for last.
Retire the Shuttles at that point? Maybe not. If the Chinese and the Russkies continue to fly cosmonauts and taikonauts after the American limited modified pullout form the ISS, we’ll need to keep flying something. Perhaps we can a Shuttle mission to ISS about once a year after 2010 — a sort of feel good 4th of July summertime special. Just stop pretending that 19 more Shuttle missions can happen by 2010.
… Plus, maybe within another decade or so, the great minds of NASA and LM will know how to improve the spray-on foam on External Tanks. It is a possibility!
Also, if we’re going to get more realistic, we’ll have to clean the Thiokal moles, agents, shills, and pimps out of NASA. This includes Mickey Mouse Griffin. I seriously expect him to be a Thiokal VP or exploring other career opportunities after 2008 or anyway, if there’s any justice in this world.
How to save money? Cancel the Thiokal-based launch missiles and force NASA and the DoD to neck down to just one modular family of missiles — probably the Boeing Delta IV.
Perhaps we can a Shuttle mission to ISS about once a year after 2010
Now there’s a way to spend a lot of money. Because of the need to employ all those engineers maintaining the infrastructure, the Shuttle launch system costs circa $4-5 billion a year whether you fly it or not. One mission costs only marginally less than six missions. One of the great quandaries NASA finds itself in is the fact that you can’t save money by flying less. You can only save money by shutting the whole system down.
— Donald
Donald,
If the Russians and the Yellow Peril are flying to LEO, why HAVE TO have something that can do likewise.
I am sincere about this.
David,
I get that you are sincere. However, there are alternatives to spending $5 billion a year on the Shuttle. for example, NASA could offer $1 billion a year, starting in FY2011 (i.e. after Shuttle shutdown) to buy rides from t/Space, SpaceX, SpaceDev, etc…, and have four billion left over for exploration.
There are PLENTY of ways to get cheap human access to LEO. But flying the Shuttle will cost $5 billion a year, so there will be no money for exploration.
– Jim