Posted on 03/08/2015 8:21:10 AM PDT by rktman
NASA's Administrator Charles Bolden acknowledged Wednesday there is no back-up plan to fly the International Space Station if Russia cuts off U.S. access to space.
"We would make an orderly evacuation," Bolden said during a U.S. House Appropriations subcommittee hearing. Because both countries are dependent upon one another, the $140 billion station would be lost.
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
The only reason muslim outreach didn’t take off is because obama gutted the NASA budget and undermined his own initiative. Certainly it was supposed to be the foremost mission for NASA according to Bolden.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCn10YWsY1Q
One of those, "if a tree falls in the forest" kinds of things to me. The space station IS NOT space exploration, IMHO.
The 3 systems under development are the SpaceX (manned) Dragon, the Boeing CST-100, and the Sierra Nevada Dream Chaser. Of these, only SpaceX Dragon has performed unmanned supply missions to the ISS.
The other resupply system - the Orbital ATK Cygnus - is just a pressurized cylinder with no re-entry protection whatsoever. Furthermore, the Antares-100 rocket it usually rides up in just blew up destroying the cargo last October, and the planned replacement (Antares-200) will still rely on a Russian engine.
They’re going to pull out the Russian built pieces in a few years anyway - to use in their own station. And we will have no access to that one at all, just the way the One likes it.
Russia plans to create own space station by 2024
http://rt.com/news/235299-russia-space-station-2024/
Let's just say that not being able to keep it up wouldn't mean we aren't capable of taking it down.
Mega cool, thx!
There is a critical flaw in the aerospace industry where manned space flight is automatically assumed to be the proper role of a space program.
The sunk costs of the ISS as well as the immense costs to recreate the station justify to me its continued operation, but The ISS could be operated remotely for less cost and longer duration than it is currently with constant manning. Aperiodic manned missions can be sent up as needed for tasks requiring a human in the station.
The retrofitting of the station to operate remotely would be a good investment by NASA and one with additional mission value, like preparations for a potentially manned moon station and satellite maintenence.
I'm with you. The ISS has been manned for 16+ years. Strikes me that there isn't any more blood to squeeze out of this turnip. Just a big ol' UN goodwill tour now. I'm tired of paying cab fare to the Russians.
I think if the price is right, Space X and others would jump at the chance to use the station.
“NASA’s chief confirms it: Without Russia, space station lost”
Mission accomplished!!!
Don’t forget OrbSci...
So if everyone leaves the station unoccupied, Space-X could declare salvage rights by sending a crew up on a Dragon crew capsule, launched by a Falcon-9?
Here is the quote, which isn't vague:
Bolden said in the interview that Obama told him before he took the job that he wanted him to do three things: inspire children to learn math and science, expand international relationships and "perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering."
Bolden seems qualified to the job, and should know what NASA's mission is, shouldn't he? Surely the President sets the priorities of his appointments, doesn't he?
From NASA's website: http://climate.nasa.gov/solutions/resources/
NASA is an expert in climate and Earth science. While its role is not to set climate policy or prescribe particular responses or solutions to climate change, its purview does include providing the robust scientific data needed to understand climate change and evaluating the impact of efforts to combat it. NASA then makes this information available to the global community – the public, policy- and decision-makers and scientific and planning agencies around the world.
I highly recommend you check that site out. NASA certainly
Currently NASA get ~$17.5 billion per year.
On their current mission schedule (http://www.nasa.gov/missions/schedule/index.html) NASA lists an impressive 9 launches for 2015. Unfortunately, 7 of those are Russian Soyuz launches and 1 is Japanese.
Now I realize that NASA has continued monitoring that is done of ongoing missions, but for $17.5 billion, I would think that they could manage that AND put a man in orbit by themselves. Especially, as its something that we first did over 50 years ago. Or at least they could launch unmanned resupply missions to the ISS.
If NASA can only manage 1 unmanned launch on $17.5 billion, what would be required to conduct 9 launches, some manned?
I'm of the opinion that they are not focused to the task, and that is the problem. Do you see a problem, and if so, what do you think it is?
By that logic any satellite in orbit could be scrapped by salvage crews.
Dragon (spacecraft)
SpaceX is additionally developing a crewed variant of the Dragon called Dragon V2. Dragon V2 will be able to carry up to seven astronauts, or some combination of crew and cargo, to and from low Earth orbit.
Dragon 2 should be operational in 2016
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.