Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NASA Study: Shuttle Replacement Schedule 'High Risk'
WSJ ^ | Apr 21, 2009 | ANDY PASZTOR

Posted on 04/21/2009 10:03:51 PM PDT by zaphod3000

A National Aeronautics and Space Administration study warns that budget and technical hurdles will likely delay development of the replacement program for the space shuttle fleet beyond the agency's internal 2014 timetable.

The report is the agency's most pessimistic public assessment yet of its ability to meet its own deadline for delivering the new system of rockets and exploration vehicles, called Constellation. It identifies a $1.9 billion "shortfall between the available funding" and the amount needed to achieve initial launch by September 2014. Tooling for parts of Constellation, ground tests and wind-tunnel tests have been deferred or reduced in scope because of previous funding cuts, the report concludes. Those problems could be exacerbated, the report warns, by future funding constraints, posing a "high programmatic risk" to Constellation development.

In addition to the existing shortfall, the report says an additional $1.8 billion is necessary to reduce risks by assuring robust testing and integration efforts over the next five years.

SNIP

By casting doubt on Constellation's progress, the report may provide ammunition for lawmakers and others hoping to extend the life of the shuttle past its current retirement date of 2010. Extending the life of the shuttle could reduce the gap between the last shuttle flight and the initial operation of Constellation. Lockheed Martin Corp. is the prime contractor for the project.

SNIP

Still, the report highlights many of the same cost and schedule challenges that have been raised by NASA critics over the last few months. The study emphasizes that budget constraints since the program's start four years ago -- which some estimates peg at $12 billion less than initial projections -- along with likely future funding restraints, pose huge hurdles for the agency. .... NASA officials project the total cost for Constellation at around $30 billion.

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: constellation; nasa; spaceshuttle

1 posted on 04/21/2009 10:03:52 PM PDT by zaphod3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: zaphod3000

NASA has just gotten too big, its budget gets eaten up in administration costs. They should kill it, make a new agency that just focuses on research, and worry about things like safety concerns when they actually have a new launch system that needs it.


2 posted on 04/21/2009 10:15:33 PM PDT by Telepathic Intruder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zaphod3000
It identifies a $1.9 billion "shortfall between the available funding"

With all the funny money Obutt has been throwing around will he throw a few peanuts NASA's way? Nah, I'm sure he hates space exploration. Space exploration expresses national pride.

And has Oboma found a new NASA director to take the place of Griffin yet?

Hmmmmmmm.... he must be still look'n for the guy to take NASA apart.

3 posted on 04/21/2009 10:19:22 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Telepathic Intruder
Yeah, kill NASA so the funding will be redirected to Obama's Brownshirts,...oh, I mean AmeriCorps. /sarcasm It is what Obama really wants to do.
4 posted on 04/21/2009 10:24:21 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

It boggles my mind that they struggle to resurrect the Apollo program, even with new tech mixed in.


5 posted on 04/21/2009 10:38:17 PM PDT by catbertz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Kill NASA, provided the new one has the same budget or better, that is. I don’t trust Obama as far as I can throw a Saturn V first stage, but I still want the government space program to succeed. So far NASA isn’t accomplishing anything. They’ve made some progress with a workable scramjet, and their last prototype reached a speed of mach 10, so I wonder why they’re not trying to develop a space plane? Anyway, NASA could use a complete refitting, as well as the rest of our government for that matter.


6 posted on 04/21/2009 10:48:38 PM PDT by Telepathic Intruder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Telepathic Intruder

I agree. NASA and NOAA is nothing but a mouthpiece for global warming propaganda. And James Hansen is still on the public dole, whether I like it or not, courtesy of the Gestapo known as the IRS.

Shut ‘em down.


7 posted on 04/21/2009 10:50:09 PM PDT by JoJo Gunn (Stop the pirates in Washington D.C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: zaphod3000

N o
A ttainable
S pace
A chievements

Once hopeful of reaching the moon myself some forty years ago, I doubt man will return there before I die.

One of the biggest disappointments in my lifetime, has been the Babylon effect at NASA. It’s as if the hand of God came down and confounded the management. How do you go to the moon six or seven times, and not return for over 35 years?

NASA did it by the numbers...


8 posted on 04/21/2009 10:51:12 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Pres__ent Obama's own grandmother says he was born in Kenya. She was there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoJo Gunn

Good example. I wonder how many tax dollars were spend so that James Hansen could fake data on global warming. NASA also recently launched a satellite to study global warming (by comparing how the CO2 cycle differs from our theoretical models, as if that would prove anything), which crashed near the Antarctic. The crash thankfully saved a lot of taxpayer money.


9 posted on 04/21/2009 11:08:47 PM PDT by Telepathic Intruder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Telepathic Intruder

Have you ever looked at a NASA or NOAA web site lately? It reeks with the stench of inescapable UN propaganda. And we all know of the corporate culture that killed the crews of the Challenger and Columbia.

Shut ‘em down.


10 posted on 04/21/2009 11:17:07 PM PDT by JoJo Gunn (Stop the pirates in Washington D.C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: zaphod3000
Sounds like NASA = US Postal Service and AMTRAK...

Nice that the ‘Boma wants to turn our Health Care and Banking System into the same...

11 posted on 04/21/2009 11:44:38 PM PDT by Barney59 ("Amen")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Telepathic Intruder
And when this shiny new rocket is finished, it will have almost the same features, and about the same heavy lift capability, as the Russian Energiya/Vulkan configuration designed in 1986.

So NASA are essentially replicating 30-yr-old technology at about 50 times the cost of the original. I agree - shut it down.

And if we ever get serious about space flight, we know what to do: build the Delta Clipper for the humans, and Orion for everything else.

12 posted on 04/22/2009 1:31:33 AM PDT by John Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: John Locke

Actually there were a lot of resusable launch vehicle concepts underway around the time that the space shuttle was originally due to be retired, but it seems they were never seriously considered. It would have been nice if they were. And the Orion, do you mean the nuclear powered one or the service module using the Ares launch system?


13 posted on 04/22/2009 2:00:20 AM PDT by Telepathic Intruder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Telepathic Intruder

Many people forget that manned spaceflight is just one of the many aspects of NASA’s operations. The developments made in space science are great achievements, especially with the range of space telescopes covering all wavebands shedding new light on the formation of large-scale structures in the Universe. The pictures which have come out of Hubble, Spitzer and Chandra alone inspire many thousands of children to study scientific subjects, which has very positive economic benefits down the line. Shut it down and you’re shooting yourself in the foot for generations to come.


14 posted on 04/22/2009 2:22:16 AM PDT by Browen82
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Browen82

I’m not suggesting shutting down space science or manned spaceflight, just the over-bloated bureauacracy that is preventing it. My suggestions don’t have any weight, however, so NASA will go on despite me. They may even lauch another satellite or two in my lifetime to justify a tiny fraction of their budget.


15 posted on 04/22/2009 2:59:57 AM PDT by Telepathic Intruder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Telepathic Intruder

You could not be more accurate when you say nasa has gotten too big.


16 posted on 04/22/2009 4:10:05 AM PDT by Joe Boucher (yEP,i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Telepathic Intruder
Yes, I mean the nuclear powered Orion. The book can be found here.
17 posted on 04/29/2009 11:05:09 PM PDT by John Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson