So, this is all well and good, but how do you pay for keeping the Shuttle alive AND continuing to work Ares I, Orion, Ares V, Altair...not to mention all the non-Exploration projects NASA does (MER, MSL, Earth Observing Spacecraft, Aeronautics research, etc.)? I noticed that conspicuously absent from the letter was any mention of funding this mandate, which is not surprising given the Senate can't even get together to give NASA the $2 billion repayment for the Columbia investigation, Return to Flight, and the Katrina repairs.

This was inevitable.

I think given the situation that Russia is involved in, this is a good idea as long as we can fund it...

Bill- I doubt it would cost very much to just delay dismantling the infrastructure; it's not (yet) keeping the Shuttle alive, only the option to do so. If tensions with Russia continue to escalate, politicians will likely be more open to giving NASA extra money to continue the Shuttle on top of everything else.

Does this mean that Ares and Orion will be delayed?

While the shuttle is capable of ferrying crews to/from ISS, it is not capable of staying at ISS for more than about a month and is not designed as a rescue vehicle. So, keeping the shuttle does provide a transportation system and means to help keep ISS supplied, it won't help to any significant degree in maintaining US presence to do research.

So, this is all well and good, but how do you pay for keeping the Shuttle alive AND continuing to work Ares I, Orion, Ares V, Altair...not to mention all the non-Exploration projects NASA does...

The answer is you don't. At the most you feign support while keeping the funding at life support levels. We've been here before, and it's time to dance this dance again.

If US relations with Russia fall apart, we will certainly have problems in sending astronauts to the ISS during the gap between Shuttle and Orion.

This is why, to paraphrase an old Russian saying, one should never throw away the old shoes until you have acquired new shoes. We knew the shuttle could not last forever when the Challenger exploded in 1986. So why did NASA spend billions of dollars messing around with impossible SSTO projects like the X-33 and silly lifting bodies like the X-38 and several other abandoned projects?

I’ll tell you why. A failed project can provide temporary budgetary cover. Money was spent but there was no result. Exploration is a gamble. Don’t investigate where this money went. (It went to black ops.)

In the current situation, it’s really a question of what is more important, our relationship with Russia or our relationship with Georgia.

Georgia is the site of an oil pipeline that is important to some people. It is also a marginal little country whose last period of independence, in 1918 – 1921, was marked by a war with Armenia, another ancient Christian kingdom that must fight to survive on the edge of the Islamic part of the world.

Russia is a major partner in the ISS. Without the ISS, where would the shuttle go?

Let’s put the interests of America and the future of mankind in space ahead of the interests of Georgia and those who directly benefit from the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline (or who benefit from the failure of the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline). Let the Russians have Abkhazia. Who cares? Smooth things over. This isn’t about democracy. Talk nice with the Russians (but watch their teeth). Maintain an American presence in space using Soyuz. Overall, NASA should concentrate on space exploration and cease to be a cover for black ops (except for making sure we know what the Russians are doing on their manned space station). In the meanwhile, we should invite the Chinese to join the ISS effort because they’re ready to produce a spacecraft that can compete with Soyuz. Dragon X, or a manned derivative of the European ISS resupply module, may also soon provide competition for Soyuz. In a truly competitive free-market situation, we would not absolutely need the old Shuttle.

We will still need the Soyuz as a lifeboat even with the Shuttle flying after 2010. Otherwise, the U.S. part of the ISS will be man tended.

Let's put a stake through the heart of this Aries monstrosity, build some Shuttle-C's to augment the shuttle fleet like we should have back in the early '90s, move space station into a 28 degree inclination orbit, use it as a assembly platform for lunar missions and go from there. Shuttle's not pretty or smart, but it's what we have. Let's make the best of it, get our space program back on track, and move forward. We're wasting time, ruining the lives of what little operational experience base we have. We've already run out of rocket designers and we need to fix that. We need to put some accountability back into the system and realize that Von Braun's postion should have never been eliminated. We need to stop chasing after magical answers and sound bite solutions, start being practical, and do what works.

Bill - One of the ways you pay for it is to delay any work on the Ares V & Altair, and any assoicated lunar systems, until after Ares I/Orion are fully flight certified and flying to the ISS. We'll eventually reach the Moon, and beyond, but given the situation with the Russians we really don't have a choice. We're in this situation because of years of neglect by both parties, both with regard to funding and overall policy, and only as the train wreak is about to happen do we see action. Let's just hope that we don't loose another Orbiter and crew, then ISS will be renamed Mir II.

It is thought that what triggered this was an indication that NASA has slated the ET tooling at Michoud for dismantling as early as this September! Had that happened, and if either the Russians refuse to make and fly Soyuz launch vehicles and spacecrafts, or Congress refuses to authorize paying for additional Soyuz, and Shuttle expendible components are unavailable for extension, the United States, as was stated in the letter, could be left with NO CAPABILITY TO REACH THE ISS! (Emphasis mine.) Should Ares I and eventually Ares V prove to have serious delays or prove unworkable, any alternatives requiring use of the 8.4 meter diameter tank tooling would be unavailable.

All this is NOT to say that extension of the Shuttle is inevitable, nor that Ares I/V won't be done. The next administration could cut it off, or Congress could refuse to fund further Shuttle flights. But that will be after the election and when the next admin/Congress takes over.

If the President issues an executive order to STOP dismantling of the ET tooling and whatever else, including NOT laying off workers, we at least have TIME!

Funding for NASA is currently tight...TOO TIGHT! But the changing world conditions may encourage the next Congress to free up more funding...especially AFTER the dust from the election settles out!

Let us hope the President listens!

Ad Luna! Ad Ares (Mars)! Ad Astra!

It is ludicrous that the most powerful and wealthy country in the world will not be able to count on itself to provide human access into space for five years, at best. Instead it will give hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars to a country who just invaded a new democratic nation which is what America represents to provide that access. This makes zero sense.

Telling NASA to stop any further dismantling of the shuttle infrastructure for at least a year makes perfect sense. As does that Russian saying about don't throw out your old shoes until you have acquired new shoes. The US relying on Russia for access to space for 5 or 10 years makes no sense at all.

It would be great if Obama would endorse the letter to the President, or follow up by sending one of his own.

Ares and Orion are dead. NASA just doesn't know it yet.
We'll keep on sending astronauts up on Soyuz as we dither and moan about lack of our own capability and as we elect members of a "do nothing" senate to the presidency.

"It is ludicrous that the most powerful and wealthy country in the world will not be able to count on itself to provide human access into space for five years"

--- You meant China, right?

The cost reduction from utilizing existing Shuttle infrastructure was a key selling point used by Griffin to push Ares over alternative launch systems. The upshot of this is that, if the Shuttle keeps flying, then the infrastructure will not be available to the Ares program.

Regarding comments that Ares is dead, I think it may be the VSE that is dead. My guess is that the Ares I gets developed along with a downgraded "Block 1" version of Orion sufficient for its sole mission to service the ISS.

Ad ISS! Ad LEO!

"So, this is all well and good, but how do you pay for keeping the Shuttle alive AND continuing to work Ares I, Orion, Ares V, Altair..."

You don't. What you do is cancel Constellation. Only a fool would continue it at this point. In business, when you are losing huge quantities of money, you just cease production.

It's too little - too late now. As Wayne Hale has stated in his blog, the logistics to support the shuttle began shutting down 4 years ago. Therefore - we are stuck with what we have now - which is total reliance in the Russians to access ISS after 2010 arrives. History has reappeared it's sometimes ugly head - as in the past when the Apollo Program elements were shut down before shuttle became operational, thus leaving us Earth-bound until shuttle became functional. Did we learn anything from the past? NO. Downsized budgets delayed shuttle by what 2 years or so from it's original 1st launch target? And what are we seeing these days - a repeat of the old process.... And it's great timing with the coming elections and the uncertain actions to come after January 20th, 2009....

Referring to Wayne Hayle's blog in a more recent NASA Watch post, he makes some excellent points on why we can't rely on Shuttle for more than one or two missions. However, concentrating on Constellation will do nothing to close the gap, and will likely increase it. Ares I is already being slid to the right, and it is highly unlikely that any amount of funding will make this operational and safe.

Given these two constraints and the fact that "the Gap" is arguably the only issue with visibility in this election year, the nation would be best served by seriously considering an EELV/Orion for ISS access. Atlas and Delta exist as hardware, not paper designs. An EELV/Orion could be fielded much more realistically and affordably than any of the other alternatives.

Cancel Constellation? Add to the long list of post-STS project cancellations? How about just cancel Ares instead and move on to something that is closer to usable for Orion?

Short sighted and poorly conceived describe this letter and its proposal. It totally ignores the one fundamental factor that every beltway insider is intimately familiar with, namely money makes the world go round.

It is shocking that a presidential candidate would attach his name so prominently to a treatise that ignores the fact that unless additional funding is provided to adequately fund BOTH the Shuttle program AND Constellation both are doomed. Yes, doomed. Consider the following facts:

- Constellation needs the facilities at Michoud to re-tool to fabricate hardware essential to the Ares I launch vehicle. Without that happening Ares I will be stillborn when the Orion is ready to fly. But that tooling would displace tooling critical to the Shuttle program.

- The engineer and technician pool is extremely limited not only within the government ranks, but in the contractors as well. Without a significant influx of qualified people there will NOT be enough talent to adequately execute critical functions in three large programs (let us not forget the ISS).

- Facilities at the launch site are limited and cannot support two such dissimilar vehicles. There will have to either be new facilities built to support Constellation (not a bad idea in some instances to begin with as some of the facilities planned for use by Constellation are simply inadequate for the tasks they are being pressed into service for), or Shuttle operations will have to be modified significantly to make way for the new vehicle support infrastructure.

- Keeping the Shuttle program supported with adequate flight hardware spares while purchasing/fabricating new flight equipment for Constellation will be costly.

I could go on, but that adequately addresses the primary factors. Don’t get me wrong. I firmly believe we need to maintain our nation’s ability to place humans in orbit and support the ISS, but that requires money. Money to adequately do that is not being provided. The fact that the letter does not even address that crucial issue speaks volumes towards the shortsightedness of the Senators who attached their name to it. They apparently do not really want to do what needs to be done for the programs involved, they seem only to want to play to their constituency and make a show of wanting to keep jobs in their districts.

Ares I is the biggest disaster NASA has had in decades and needs to be cancelled. How can NASA management keep claiming that EELV's wouldn't be as safe as the underperforming Ares I? The Ares I design we have today is devoid of shuttle hardware. The five segment SRB is a new design and needs to be completely recertified. The upper stage with its new J-2X is a new design. And most importantly, the active damper system to keep Ares I from shaking itself apart is not only a new design, but a research project.

How on Earth can this be better than an EELV with added health monitoring systems to trigger Orion's LES if a serious problem develops emergency? Griffin wants Ares I is to hide as much of the Ares V development costs as possible. Otherwise, why conintue with this farce?

"Cancel Constellation?"

Say it over and over again until it gets through your thick skull and into your brain and nervous system. Don't be afraid.

The truth can't hurt you.

"just cancel Ares instead and move on to something that is closer to usable for Orion?"

The 'vision' is flawed, the 'program' is flawed, and the organization entrusted to implement it is flawed, all across the board. There are deep unresolvable fiscal, structural and engineering issues with Orion, Ares V and Altair as well.

Even the destinations of the vision are completely wrong.

If you want to continue this tragic charade, you can vote for an administration that actively embraces creationism.

They'll solve all of these problems with new techniques.

Hope, faith and prayer.