As Mr. Augustine said we have to work with what we have.

@ Chance – LOL – I didn’t say most dependable, most flown, most inexpensive, or safest.

@ Major Tom

I am not really competent to comment on the internal politics of OMB and the current administration, those who are suggest that things may not be as clear cut as that.

Tom, as to the relationship between Shuttle operations and the ISS I’d like to point out what happened when SSP was shutdown for three years not so long ago, crew size was reduced to two. There is very little that has changed since then. ATV is hardly going to make up the shortfall in logistics, nor is it likely that Progress will be able to increase it’s flight rate to such an extent. HTV and COTS have not flown and hoping is not a great way to support a $100 billion program. There is reason to believe that even should HTV and COTS meet their goals we would still have a logistics shortfall and reduced crew size. This disregards the complete lack of ability to get large ORUs to the station that none of the existing or proposed vehicles can address except the Shuttle. Loss of the shuttle means loss of the station as soon as something big breaks, no matter the level of logistical support.

You mean the Soyuz?

The budget request to Congress is an articulation of White House/Executive Branch policy. It’s not OMB’s policy — it’s the Obama Administration’s policy.

“The budget summary is just that, a summary without details”

Here’s the NASA details in the President’s FY 2010 Budget:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/nsa.pdf

And here’s the detailed NASA FY 2010 Budget:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/345225main_FY_2010_UPDATED_final_5-11-09_with_cover.pdf

Not surprisingly, the details are consistent with the summaries.

“As for Scolese, he is chanting the HQ mantra,”

It’s not the “HQ mantra”. It’s the Obama Administration policy to shut down the Shuttle program after ISS assembly is complete (plus or minus AMS).

“I doubt many outside HQ buy into that anymore.”

It doesn’t matter whether the field centers “buy into” shutting down the Shuttle program in 2010. The funds to keep Shuttle flying flow from HQ, not from the field centers.

“I won’t accept the gap, I won’t accept the likely shortfall of logistics to the ISS reducing the crew size,”

Barring a miracle from Saint Augustine, there’s little can be done about it now. Such objections should have been raised two to three years ago when ESAS/Constellation started auguring in.

“I won’t accept a likely termination of the ISS in 2016, if not sooner, caused by such a shortfall,”

The former has little to do with the latter. Going back to a three-person crew doesn’t force ISS to shut down in 2016.

“I won’t accept the gutting of science on the ISS due to the lack of down mass capability,”

ISS science was gutted years ago to fund Ares I/Orion. Dollars, not downmass, are the issue.

“I won’t accept the loss of one of the most capable spacecraft ever built by mankind.”

She may be capable in LEO, but she’s horrifically expensive, arguably dangerous, and incapable of supporting exploration beyond LEO.

FWIW…

What does that mean, you “won’t accept” it? What are you going to do about it?

The OMB does not set national policy.
The budget summary is just that, a summary without details
As for Scolese, he is chanting the HQ mantra, I doubt many outside HQ buy into that anymore.

It’s already been confirmed that the remaining ISS assembly manifest plus AMS is all she wrote.

See the President’s FY 2010 Budget summary for NASA here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/National_Aeronautics_and_Space_Administration.pdf

Or NASA’s own FY 2010 budget summary here:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/344612main_Agency_Summary_Final_updates_5_6_09_R2.pdf

Or Scolese’s testimony here:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/338547main_Oral_Statement.pdf

FWIW…