What does "finish the space station" mean?

Does anyone know if when Bush says "finish the space station" as part of his
new space policy, if he is talking about Core Complete or Expanded Crew?

Does anyone know if when Bush says "finish the space station" as part of his
new space policy, if he is talking about

Finiashed as in deep sixed in the pacific

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 18:44:55 -0500, "Peter Altschuler"
wrote:

Does anyone know if when Bush says "finish the space station" as part of his
new space policy, if he is talking about Core Complete or Expanded Crew?

Finished to International Core Complete. Expanded crew is still under
review.

Brian

On 16 Feb 2004 00:48:25 GMT, (Hallerb) wrote:

Does anyone know if when Bush says "finish the space station" as part of his
new space policy, if he is talking about

Finiashed as in deep sixed in the pacific

Cite, Bob? Where did anyone in the White House or NASA say this?

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote:

On 16 Feb 2004 00:48:25 GMT, (Hallerb) wrote:

Does anyone know if when Bush says "finish the space station" as part of his
new space policy, if he is talking about

Finiashed as in deep sixed in the pacific

Cite, Bob? Where did anyone in the White House or NASA say this?

Because the original poster asked what Bush meant, and not what Bush said, Bob's
answer is appropriate and a reasonable interpretation.

Bush's goal is clearly to meet the minimum committment to the ISS partners at
minimum cost and then get out of the ISS business. Whether the final step is to
de-orbit the poor thing or hand the keys for the US section over to the ESA hardly
matters.

Cite, Bob? Where did anyone in the White House or NASA say this?

Brian


I seriously doubt any of bushes election year get votes statements about nasa.
I think he really wants to gut the manned side of things and is really working
hard to set the stage for it.

Concerning deep sixing the ISS, at what point will the station be too
large for a Progress to provide a controlled de-orbit?



Brian Thorn wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 18:44:55 -0500, "Peter Altschuler"
wrote:

Does anyone know if when Bush says "finish the space station" as part of his
new space policy, if he is talking about Core Complete or Expanded Crew?

Finished to International Core Complete. Expanded crew is still under
review.

Brian

"Peter Altschuler" wrote in message
...
Does anyone know if when Bush says "finish the space station" as part of
his
new space policy, if he is talking about Core Complete or Expanded Crew?


What he really means is abandonining it at the first oppoutunity.

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 06:41:11 -0600, Richard Schumacher
wrote:

Does anyone know if when Bush says "finish the space station" as part of his
new space policy, if he is talking about

Finiashed as in deep sixed in the pacific

Cite, Bob? Where did anyone in the White House or NASA say this?

Because the original poster asked what Bush meant, and not what Bush said, Bob's
answer is appropriate and a reasonable interpretation.

No it isn't, because the US has no capability to "deep six in the
Pacific" the ISS. If ISS is to be deep-sixed, it will have to be
Russia or ESA doing it.

Bush's goal is clearly to meet the minimum committment to the ISS partners at
minimum cost and then get out of the ISS business.

And that's bad, why exactly? We've spent 15 years listening to critics
decry Freedom/ISS for being nearly useless and a waste of money. Now
that the US government has finally woken up to that fact, the critics
are whining that the US is going no farther than meeting its minimum
obligations to ISS?

Just for future reference, is there any way for NASA or Bush to
actually win this argument? I see none.

Whether the final step is to
de-orbit the poor thing or hand the keys for the US section over to the ESA hardly
matters.

Of course it does. Bob (and you) are implying that US absense from ISS
automatically means ISS will be abandoned and deorbited. It does not.

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote:

Bush's goal is clearly to meet the minimum committment to the ISS partners at
minimum cost and then get out of the ISS business.

And that's bad, why exactly? We've spent 15 years listening to critics
decry Freedom/ISS for being nearly useless and a waste of money. Now
that the US government has finally woken up to that fact, the critics
are whining that the US is going no farther than meeting its minimum
obligations to ISS?

There is no one set of critics. There are multiple sets of critics. ISS is a waste of
money, yet we must spend some more so as not to terminally **** off the partners.



Just for future reference, is there any way for NASA or Bush to
actually win this argument? I see none.

One course of action will win the argument for some listeners, and another course will
win it for others. No course will satisfy everyone.






Whether the final step is to
de-orbit the poor thing or hand the keys for the US section over to the ESA hardly
matters.

Of course it does. Bob (and you) are implying that US absense from ISS
automatically means ISS will be abandoned and deorbited. It does not.

Sorry to imply that. If the partners can find some use for the thing, more power to
them. But the US will be out of the picture and off the hook in any case.