Pack bags for May 31st, 2010 Last Shuttle flight scheduled

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5876061.html

I still expect this to change.

--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
m...


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5876061.html

I still expect this to change.


Are the Americans really going to retire the shuttle in 2010 and leave
themselves unable to put people in space for 3 or 4 years?

"Katipo" wrote in message
...

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in
message m...


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5876061.html

I still expect this to change.


Are the Americans really going to retire the shuttle in 2010 and leave
themselves unable to put people in space for 3 or 4 years?

Yes. NASA's reaction to the Columbia disaster made the end of the shuttle
program inevitable. It's possible a few more flights might be added or the
schedule may slip a bit, but it's going to end.

Part of the reason for "the gap" is Griffin's desire to develop Ares
I/Orion. The shuttle facilities will need quite a bit of modification and
new construction in order to fly Ares I instead of the shuttle. It would be
very expensive to try to fly them both at the same time.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein

In sci.space.shuttle message , Fri, 18 Jul 2008
13:49:13, Katipo posted:

Are the Americans really going to retire the shuttle in 2010 and leave
themselves unable to put people in space for 3 or 4 years?

That's a two-part question, to which (with any luck) the answers are
respectively Yes and No. NASA does not speak for America.

And I dare say that, for a price, Europe could build a few extra Arianes
and ship then to a more northerly part of the West Shore. And the ex-
Soviets already ship launchers to (?) Long Beach and a launch site to
Kourou.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 18:43:10 +0100, Dr J R Stockton
wrote:


And I dare say that, for a price, Europe could build a few extra Arianes
and ship then to a more northerly part of the West Shore. And the ex-
Soviets already ship launchers to (?) Long Beach and a launch site to
Kourou.

For a modest price, we could launch Orion on Delta IV or Atlas V as
well. But the Ares is part of an infrastructure for going back to the
Moon and then on to Mar. So thus far, The President, Congress and NASA
are willing to put up with a few years gap in order to develop that
infrastructure.

We really need to review that infrastructure plan in light of
difficulties encountered with Ares and Orion, but so far, those
attempting to do so are being told to shut up and color.

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 18:43:10 +0100, Dr J R Stockton
wrote:


And I dare say that, for a price, Europe could build a few extra Arianes
and ship then to a more northerly part of the West Shore. And the ex-
Soviets already ship launchers to (?) Long Beach and a launch site to
Kourou.

For a modest price, we could launch Orion on Delta IV or Atlas V as
well. But the Ares is part of an infrastructure for going back to the
Moon and then on to Mar. So thus far, The President, Congress and NASA
are willing to put up with a few years gap in order to develop that
infrastructure.

It shouldn't be that hard going back to the moon. Didn't we do it in 1969?

I thought the moon was the stepping stone to the planets, and then the
stars. I thought there would be more progress in this direction in my
lifetime. I'm really disappointed.


We really need to review that infrastructure plan in light of
difficulties encountered with Ares and Orion, but so far, those
attempting to do so are being told to shut up and color.

Brian


--
"Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English, they'll
learn English; you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish."

Barack Hussein Obama

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 19:24:56 -0500, "johnny@." johnny@. wrote:


It shouldn't be that hard going back to the moon. Didn't we do it in 1969?

Yes, with about six times the budget.

Brian

In sci.space.shuttle message
, Sat, 19 Jul 2008 19:24:56, "johnny@." posted:

It shouldn't be that hard going back to the moon. Didn't we do it in 1969?


No : an earlier generation did it. Essentially none of them will have
an active part in the return attempt.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Turnpike v6.05.
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc : URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/ - see 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm moredate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.

"Katipo" wrote:

Are the Americans really going to retire the shuttle in 2010 and leave
themselves unable to put people in space for 3 or 4 years?

Isn't that exactly what happened when the Saturn V
was retired in favor of the STS?

And why would any recent/upcoming Administration
and/or NASA management be less likely to repeat that?

--
Regards, Bob Niland
http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 11:53:11 -0700 (PDT), rjn
wrote:


Are the Americans really going to retire the shuttle in 2010 and leave
themselves unable to put people in space for 3 or 4 years?

Isn't that exactly what happened when the Saturn V
was retired in favor of the STS?

That was the plan. The reality was 6 years. I wouldn't rule out a 6
year gap this time, either.

Brian