NASA: Continued Shuttle Use Would Be Risky

Flying Shuttles Past Next Year's Retirement Date Would Cost $3 Billion A Year

(AP)  The cost of continuing the life of the U.S. space shuttle past next year's planned retirement is $3 billion a year plus extending the risk of a deadly accident, NASA's chief said Thursday.

NASA Administrator Michael Griffin told an industry group that NASA has looked into what it would take to keep flying the aging shuttle past 2010. Otherwise, it will mean five years of relying on Russia to get astronauts to the international space station.

After the 2003 Columbia tragedy, President George W. Bush declared that the U.S. should head back to the moon in a new spaceship and to pay for that, the space shuttle would have to be retired.

President-elect Barack Obama has proposed delaying the shuttle's retirement. He and others have expressed concern about the gap between the shuttle's retirement and the new ship's maiden launch.

The new spaceship — a capsule called Orion sitting on top of a new rocket called Ares I — will not be ready until March 2015, according to current schedules. However, if the government spends an additional $3 billion over the next two years on the new ship, that first launch could happen a year earlier, Griffin said. He said building the rocket will cost $2.7 billion.

There are geopolitical reasons — a matter of American pride and standing in the world — for extending the shuttle's life, Griffin said. However, there are engineering reasons not to do that. Keeping the shuttle flying would divert effort away from a new ship to one that is almost 30 years old.

The choice will be up to the new president and Congress. NASA is finishing up a study on what extending the space shuttle program would entail. It should be released later this month, officials said.

Adding new shuttle flights — two a year for up to five years — means more rolls of the dice that there will be a deadly accident.

"We would have a one-in-eight chance of losing the crew in one of the 10 flights," Griffin said. He said that's based on the current risk, about 1 in 80, of a shuttle accident with each flight.

It is likely that NASA will get some additional money to shorten the gap because Obama has promised the space agency an extra $2 billion for at least one year, said Smithsonian Institution space scholar John Logsdon, who was an Obama campaign space adviser. Obama's campaign promise was for at least one additional space shuttle flight, but may stop at one, Logsdon said.

Logsdon said he would focus on the new ship instead of extending the shuttle at all.

There are three remaining shuttles — Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour — and nine flights scheduled through May 31, 2010.

Former NASA exploration chief Scott Horowitz said he worries that if the shuttle flies for five more years it would delay the first launch of the new spaceship. That's because crucial people and key equipment including a rocket test stand at Stennis Space Center in Mississippi and a launch pad at Kennedy Space Center — needed for Orion and Ares are also used for shuttle flights.

But Doug Cook, NASA's current associate administrator for exploration, said it would be tough, but "we'd find a way to do it."

Horowitz said he thinks the most logical solution would be to extend the shuttle's life by one more year and accelerate the new ship's development a year. It would cost $6 billion and shrink the gap to three years, he said.

To speed up development, Cook said, the new administration would have to commit money in the next few months, otherwise it would be too late to launch by 2014.

[displeased]

And so do you think that after we have destroyed our own Earth, that we should be able to travel to another planet and do the same thing to it?
Posted by erasmus606

Yep, that''s what parasites do.

[erasmus606]

If Mars is habitable and has a Mars Walmart, I''''ll live there.
This place (earth) is getting ready to POP.

GREED killed earth.

Posted by Search4Truth at 09:14 PM : Jan 08, 2009

And so do you think that after we have destroyed our own Earth, that we should be able to travel to another planet and do the same thing to it?

[search4truth-2009]

If Mars is habitable and has a Mars Walmart, I''ll live there.
This place (earth) is getting ready to POP.

GREED killed earth.

[erasmus606]

Do you live under a rock. Nasa has been working on tow designs for the replacement. One that the government supports (over budget and poor engineering as many there a reporting) or the one proposed by its engineers and scientist who are working on it on their own time.

Posted by au_fait at 03:12 PM : Jan 08, 2009

What did I say? I basically was saying that there was no way that I would believe that they hadn''t already started on something to replace the shuttles.

Now as far as WHAT they are doing, I have no freakin'' idea. Nor do I care. I live in Canada and my world doesn''t revolve soley around the space program.

[displeased]

How about we get rid of NASA and work on our own planet.
Posted by kevinkkloste

You obviously don''t realize how much we''ve learned about our own planet by studying the other planets.

[bigal321321]

For the cost of one small defense system we could prepare and fly men to Mars without too much strain. We lost a couple of shuttles, didn''t we? Then let rebuild them. Oops, that would be too much like rebuilding the twin towers. We don''t have that kind of pride in our country anymore....or do we?

[erasmus606]

We''''ll let China and Russia take the lead on space exploration

Posted by Displeased at 02:00 PM : Jan 08, 2009

Nah, that ain''t going to happen. Especially with China. I mean look how long it has taken them to get where they are now. And where they are now is pretty SCARY.:) Look at their vehicle. Didn''t they have a narrow escape when they landed last time. Or should I say CRASH landed. hahahaha Actually I can''t remember exactly what happened, but apparently they have had problems numerous time before, too. And look at what the Russians are landing in. NOPE, can''t see it, myself.

[patocc-2009]

So the same people are for a national work program similar to that of the New Deal to boost jobs and normally its the same people who trash the current administration for its attempt to push aside the scientific community are against a new shuttle. Do people realize how many Jobs would be created for the development and manufacturing of these.

[displeased]

ok, well since we are in a recession there won''''t be any money to build a new one so i guess we''''ll just stop space exploration. That should save a few billion a year.
Posted by getoffmine1

Great idea. We''ll let China and Russia take the lead on space exploration and the benefits while we follow. In the meantime, we''ll keep borrowing money to destroy countries that we borrow more money to rebuild.

[nikosk11]

ok, well since we are in a recession there won''''t be any money to build a new one so i guess we''''ll just stop space exploration. That should save a few billion a year.

Posted by getoffmine1 at 01:34 PM : Jan 08, 2009

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[smagboy1]

Or maybe, gasp, quit blowing up stuff around the world? That would work, too.

[erasmus606]

Oh please. You can''t tell me that if they are planning on retiring the space shuttle in 2010, that they haven''t already started building something to take over.

I was always for the space program, but with the way things are now, I think the money should be going somewhere else.

[getoffmine1]

ok, well since we are in a recession there won''t be any money to build a new one so i guess we''ll just stop space exploration. That should save a few billion a year.