Obama has permanently shut the U.S manned Space program.

[PunkMaister]

Believe it or not is what he intends to do and before the congressional elections given the commie congress that is allied to the hip with him it is most likely that it will become a horrifying reality all too soon.

[Mike DiCenso]

Well, if Obama had instituted this rather suprisingly Libertarian space policy 7 years ago after the Columbia accident, it might have actually worked out. As it is, doing a hail mary pass to the private sector now not even a year before the space shuttle's retirement is just stupid. In fact, the whole mandatory retirement of the shuttle on some arbitary date is dumb. An external tank and the parts for several more are there, and extending the shuttle for a few years on minimal infrastructure to save money on fixed costs would keep some manned space flight going until either a government or a private orbit-capable spacecraft is ready to go.
-Mike

[Khas]

Believe it or not is what he intends to do and before the congressional elections given the commie congress that is allied to the hip with him it is most likely that it will become a horrifying reality all too soon.
Believe it or not is what he intends to do and before the congressional elections given the commie congress that is allied to the hip with him it is most likely that it will become a horrifying reality all too soon.

Well, that's just until they can get another space vessel line going. The space shuttles are getting on in years.

But as for calling him a Commie, Roosevelt was closer to being a communist than Obama is. The main reason that many Republicans are flipping out, calling him a communist, is because he's black. Seriously. Hypothetically speaking, if you were elected president, even though you're conservative, many Republicans would flip out because you're Hispanic.

And the thing about Republicans flipping out because he's black, was Roosevelt, who was far more left-wing than Obama, ever interrupted in the middle of a speech by a Republican yelling "You Lie!"? No.

And this comment isn't coming from some stereotypical poor black guy in the city. This is coming from a middle-class suburban guy whose ancestry traces back to Germany.

[PunkMaister]

Well, that's just until they can get another space vessel line going. The space shuttles are getting on in years.

That's what the constelation program is for dude...

But as for calling him a Commie, Roosevelt was closer to being a communist than Obama is. The main reason that many Republicans are flipping out, calling him a communist, is because he's black. Seriously. Hypothetically speaking, if you were elected president, even though you're conservative, many Republicans would flip out because you're Hispanic.

And the thing about Republicans flipping out because he's black, was Roosevelt, who was far more left-wing than Obama, ever interrupted in the middle of a speech by a Republican yelling "You Lie!"? No.

And this comment isn't coming from some stereotypical poor black guy in the city. This is coming from a middle-class suburban guy whose ancestry traces back to Germany.

Do not try the race card with me it won't work and no there is a lot of people of all colors that oppose shutting down the manned space program as he proposes, The African American community is not cheering this decision at all.

[Khas]

Oh, I'm also opposed to shutting it down. I was pissed as hell when I heard this a few months ago. But I'm also pissed at the fact that no other space craft were being researched at the time. I knew back in 2003 when Columbia was destroyed that the Space Shuttles were getting on in years, and that it was expensive as hell to repair them, and that they would be retired soon.

As for the race thing, that was only brought on by the Communist statement.

[sonofccn]

But as for calling him a Commie, Roosevelt was closer to being a communist than Obama is. The main reason that many Republicans are flipping out, calling him a communist, is because he's black.

I think it might have more to do with nationalizing industries, appointing czars to run everything, more or less lying through his teeth regarding his "healthcare reform" etc. You are free to disagree that the above qualifies as Comunistic, that we are overreacting but don't trot out its because of his skin tone.

Well, if Obama had instituted this rather suprisingly Libertarian space policy 7 years ago after the Columbia accident, it might have actually worked out. As it is, doing a hail mary pass to the private sector now not even a year before the space shuttle's retirement is just stupid.

Well to be fair to him seven years ago he really wasn't in a position to enact the policy. :)

Seriously through while I do believe the private sector will ultimatly lead the way into space what he's done has either killed our toehold into space or leaves us at the mercy of bumming rides from the Russians and or anyone else who decides to start building rockets. Not a good place to be in my opinion.

[Khas]

But as for calling him a Commie, Roosevelt was closer to being a communist than Obama is. The main reason that many Republicans are flipping out, calling him a communist, is because he's black.

I think it might have more to do with nationalizing industries, appointing czars to run everything, more or less lying through his teeth regarding his "healthcare reform" etc. You are free to disagree that the above qualifies as Comunistic, that we are overreacting but don't trot out its because of his skin tone.

I should have said more extreme Republicans are flipping out because of this. I was just kind of groggy when I posted that.

Well, if Obama had instituted this rather suprisingly Libertarian space policy 7 years ago after the Columbia accident, it might have actually worked out. As it is, doing a hail mary pass to the private sector now not even a year before the space shuttle's retirement is just stupid.

Well to be fair to him seven years ago he really wasn't in a position to enact the policy. :)

Seriously through while I do believe the private sector will ultimatly lead the way into space what he's done has either killed our toehold into space or leaves us at the mercy of bumming rides from the Russians and or anyone else who decides to start building rockets. Not a good place to be in my opinion.

True, and since when has anything involving the U.S. and Russia gone smoothly? And given the old Soviet space disaster record...

[PunkMaister]

Don't let this happen people!

Join the Human Space Exploration program campaign now!

[Mike DiCenso]

I knew back in 2003 when Columbia was destroyed that the Space Shuttles were getting on in years, and that it was expensive as hell to repair them, and that they would be retired soon.

The loss of foam from the bipod ramp on STS-107 that damaged the leading edge RCC #8 panel and ultimately destroy the orbiter on reentry was not a result of age, it was the result of a design flaw that was not taken as seriously as it should have been. At the time a fix to redesign the bipod ramp was in the works, but not so much for safety reasons as for maintance since the loss of foam tended to hit tiles, which left them all dinged up, but not compromised, which in turn led to considerable post-flight repairs during turnaround. Had the fix been in place at the time, Columbia would likely still be with us today, and her crew still alive, ISS would have been completed around 2006-07 and we would be discussing a different issue all together.

In fact, NASA at the time was seriously looking into a life-extension program for the shuttle system that would have seen it through to as late as 2020 for operations. The orbiter airframes by all accounts are still in excellent shape and many systems are well-maintained or upgraded. As for increasing expense, the shuttle was actually a maturing system, and was not becoming more or less expensive that it already was. It really came down to whether or not anyone wanted to keep spending 3.2 billion a year for fixed infrastructure costs.
-Mike

[Mike DiCenso]

Seriously through while I do believe the private sector will ultimatly lead the way into space what he's done has either killed our toehold into space or leaves us at the mercy of bumming rides from the Russians and or anyone else who decides to start building rockets. Not a good place to be in my opinion.

The problem is not that Obama has killed off manned spaceflight completely, it is the fact that he is carrying out a policy that would have been better started years ago when by now that policy could have at least produced one or two private manned space systems to pick up the slack once shuttle is retired. Instead we have nothing, the only serious program (Constellation/Ares) is technically cancelled, that dispite being underbudget and behind schedule, was at least producing some results, and could still have produced something for sure in 5-7 years with full funding levels. Instead we have to gamble now on the private sector.

The other problem is even if Space X or someone manages to come through, what next? What's the vision? What's the actual goal here?
-Mike

[Cocytus]

Well, the retirement of the space shuttle pretty much guaranteed a reliance on Soviet rockets. The Russian Soyuz rocket will likely become the primary means of putting payloads in orbit for the forseeable future, which isn't really a problem in my eyes. We've relied on the Soyuz for quite some time, whenever the shuttle needed downtime or just wasn't available for a mission. The Soyuz has a record of reliability and service. There's nothing wrong with relying on it. There hasn't been a major accident with a Soyuz since 1971.

I can understand someone complaining about it from the point of view of national pride, but in the end it boils down to "do you want to go into space or not?"

[Mike DiCenso]

Big problem here is that Shuttle as a launcher and spaceship has had as many catastrophic failures as the Soyuz spacecraft and launcher, and has flown many more missions. In fact, it is unlikely that Soyuz or any foreseeable manned spacecraft outside of the sub-orbital Spaceship 2 will launch as many times in a calender or one year period as Shuttle has (9 and 11 times respectively).

Also, people are forgetting that Soyuz has had several very recent close calls with disaster on two missions, the most recent in April 2008 when a returning Soyuz capsule went off course due to a seperation failure, and nearly burned up. Luckily the bolts that failed to fire broke under the stresses and the capsule was able to assume a stable attitude for reentry. As it was, the landing was still very hard, and resulted in the injury of South Korea's first astronaut Yi So-yeon.

The other issue is that Soyuz as a launcher, and Progress cannot launch anywhere near the payload to ISS as Shuttle. A single Shuttle and MPLM can carry 3-4 Progress missions worth of dry cargo to ISS, and 2.5 Soyuz missions worth of crew at the same time. Most especially fustrating is that there is no heavy lift down capability in the works, either, which we had in abundance with Shuttle. Not even the ATV, nor HTV vehicles offer this capability which is criitcal for not only keeping the station from getting cluttered, but returning science experiments back to Earth for detailed analysis. Space X so far out of the two COTS contenders is the only one with any return capability, and even then it cannot match Shuttle/MPLM.
-Mike

[Cocytus]

There was never any question that the loss of the Shuttle would decrease the payload capacity that could be delivered to the ISS. And I recognize that, as a matter of percentage, the Shuttle's flight record looks better than the Soyuz's. But the Soyuz is a proven ship that can get the job done. It's not the Shuttle, but if it's all we have, then it's all we have. Simple as that.

I would love to see them keep the Space Shuttle online. They've been steadily modernizing them over the years, transitioning to glass cockpits and the like. Eventually the higher-ups may have to confront the reality that if we hope to have a continued presence in space, we need the Shuttle or some similarly-equipped craft. I think that's the best outcome, frankly. If the dropoff in per-mission payload capacity can't be compensated by increased Soyuz missions, then the Shuttle has to be brought back if we're to keep the ISS.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Believe it or not is what he intends to do and before the congressional elections given the commie congress that is allied to the hip with him it is most likely that it will become a horrifying reality all too soon.

A commie congress? Careful, stuff might burst in flames spontaneously, he he.
That's quite a good thing. Who needs to send bots to the Moon and Mars, really?
The only problem is the cuts on observation of space, the sun, and potentially dangerous objects.

[Mike DiCenso]

There was never any question that the loss of the Shuttle would decrease the payload capacity that could be delivered to the ISS. And I recognize that, as a matter of percentage, the Shuttle's flight record looks better than the Soyuz's. But the Soyuz is a proven ship that can get the job done. It's not the Shuttle, but if it's all we have, then it's all we have. Simple as that.

Worse than that as without Shuttle we have no heavy downlift capabilities, and given the near disasters on Soyuz recently, I hate to think what will happen if it suffers a catastrophic loss. We're down to a single string of failure from having to abandon ISS.

I would love to see them keep the Space Shuttle online. They've been steadily modernizing them over the years, transitioning to glass cockpits and the like. Eventually the higher-ups may have to confront the reality that if we hope to have a continued presence in space, we need the Shuttle or some similarly-equipped craft. I think that's the best outcome, frankly. If the dropoff in per-mission payload capacity can't be compensated by increased Soyuz missions, then the Shuttle has to be brought back if we're to keep the ISS.

That would be the best plan: keep shuttle going a reduced flight rate and minimum ground infrastructure until one or more COTS competitors or a program like Constellation produces a flying, reasonably safe manned spacecraft and launcher.
-Mike