ok, but is that $2B more than the equivalent service that the shuttle would provide ? what does a Progress launch cost ? etc ?

is it paying $2B to US industry rather than paying foreign industries ?

I think this is great news (for me anyway since I work on the Shuttle program)! This will give us the time to do shuttle replacement right.

Obama has proposed providing NASA the extra $2 billion per year and I think McCain would do likewise. Seems feasible to me if can afford to spend $2 billion per month in Iraq.

There is no arguing that we are in a tough spot here. Should we continue to fly the Shuttle with the replacement sometime in the future (depending on new Administrations to find the scarce funding)? Knowing that the new vehicle (when ever it finally appears) will be LESS safe than the Shuttle (a new vehicle will have to complete flight test, the Shuttle is a known vehicle) for several years?

If we continue to fly the Shuttle, on our limited budget, how can we ever find the money to develop a new vehicle?

FWIW - a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Anyway, President Obama will probably redirect NASA to writing lesson plans so we can explain to our kids how the Russians and Chinese are getting to the moon.

And Sally Ride will loan us her telescope so we can see them.

Well, as for the cost of a Progress I imagine it would be similar to the cost of a Soyuz. And since Richard Garriott just paid 30 million for 1 seat on a Soyuz a good guess is $90M. Now a shuttle launches regularly with 7 astronauts. It would therefore take 3 Soyuz launches (ok, you would get 2 additional astronauts but shuttles have carried more than 7 astronauts as well) so it would cost $270M (how many rubles???) just to replace the manned launch capacity of one shuttle flight. Now lets talk about payload. The Progress can lift 5200 lbs (sorry, only could find reference on Wikipedia). The heaviest Space Shuttle payload delivered to the ISS has been 35,678 lbs. That means it would take 6 (actually a little more but less than 7) Progress flights to fly the same amount of payload which, assuming a Progress costs the same as a Soyuz, would total $560M. Even if you only consider payload provided by MPLMs, this is 15000 lbs so it would take at least 3 Progress launches or $270M to replace this.

So to replace one Shuttle flight it would cost 270M + (270M to 540M) or $540M to $810M that would go to the Russians. And you are talking about 6 to 9 Soyuz/Progress flights to replace one Shuttle flight. And the Progress can't launch ISS replacement structures or even US/ESA/JAXA module racks. Can't bring anything back either.

Now call me cynical but aren't the Russians making enough money with oil? I know invading neighboring countries is expensive but does NASA have to subsidize this?

Now a good reason to cancel the Shuttle is that Mike Griffin hates it and the ISS. But lets think about this a little. Didn't Von Braun advocate for space stations. Hmmmm, should we listen to Von Braun who GOT us to the moon or Griffin who dreams about it?

What are we going to _do_ with the Shuttle?

Is this just a make-work program to prevent brain drain?

...Not that such a thing would be bad if they can afford it, I'm just curious. 2 billion doesn't sound like they'll be adding any new station modules...

@ Frapster

> What are we going to _do_ with the Shuttle?

Well, there are one or two things that can be done.

NASA can actually FINISH the ISS rather than simply stop work at the arbritary 'core complete' stage. There are a lot of modules that were going to be stuck groundside because of the 2010 cut-off date and all the other delays. They might even be able to convince the Russians to complete launching their own experiment modules.

With the Shuttle still operational (even if missions are cut back to a bare minimum with Soyuz and, later, Dragon doing most of the crew rotation), ISS utilisation will be able to continue at a much higher intensity that would otherwise be possible.

The Shuttle's large payload bay might also make it possible for NASA to test next generation technologies such as inflatable hab modules and various Orion components (like the solar arrays) in space conditions before their operational introduction.

From the above story I quote:

"It found no problems with the supply of spare parts and services for the three shuttles if they flew until 2015."

From Wayne Hale's blog I quote:

http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/waynehalesblog.blog/posts/post_1219932905350.html

"We started shutting down the shuttle four years ago. That horse has left the barn."

He certainly disputes the result of the study as his whole argument is about the spare parts and shut-down vendor issue being the reason it is time to retire the shuttle.

It would be interesting to see a live debate on this issue with NASA experts not afraid to speak their mind.

I personally have been predicting that the shuttle will fly at least until 2013.

And how about this. We take the plans for the Apollo capsule and build a new one as an escape capsule for the ISS. Work was done in the 1970s that would enable a capsule to fly with 5 astronauts which is more than adequate for the ISS. If the plans no longer exist take one of the completed Apollo capsules and reverse engineer it (if this is insults American engineering dignity we can outsource this to the Indians, Chinese or Japanese). By replacing original avionics and computers with new modern space qualified systems, I bet you might even be able to squeeze in 6. As for the service module, you would only need limited power since you aren't going to the moon. So how about building this from either a shuttle orbital maneuvering engine or if this is too powerful, a cluster of shuttle RCS thrusters, either the primary or vernier as required. No fancy fuel cells required, just solar panels as designed for the Orion. We aren't going to be orbiting indefinitely, just a few times to get the ISS crew down safely in the event that evacuation is necessary.

Oh, and the beauty of using the Apollo capsule and new service module would fit in the Shuttle cargo bay and its weight would allow it to be launched on a Shuttle. Now THAT is using existing designs.

Regarding John Shannon's comments vs Wayne Hale's. John is now the Shuttle Program Manager and Wayne is now DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR OF STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS. With thier different job titles it is not surprising that these honest men have different opinions on continuing the shuttle. I have the utmost respect for both men.

Neither man has to be lying. The Shuttle may have ample quantities of spare flight hardware, but a lot of other work has been done since the decision to retire Shuttle in 2010. A lot of ground operations and support infrastructure was bypassed in ongoing improvements and obsolescence-replacement upgrades, precisely on the grounds that it would not be cost-effective to upgrade things that would be decommissioned anyway at Shuttle end-of-life. So anyone who talks about extending Shuttle is going to have to account for the costs of ensuring that the necessary infrastructure doesn't crumble into dust before 2015.

Hale was the SP manager, Shannon is the SP manager, so my money is on Shannon. I've talked with some who were involved in shutting down some of these contracts and they have said that, while the original production line may not be opened, the parts can be re-created. The big and most expensive part is the ET and that's why it's critical to make sure that the machining and labor are kept in place until President Obama and his Administration figure out whether or not to continue Shuttle flights.

I have over the course of several months gotten to know at least over 100 KSC workers, most of whom work on Shuttle, and whoever thinks that Shuttle is a brain drain does not know those people or what they are talking about. What a great place and great people.

The think I object to, and I am a Republican, is our Party's penchant for positing that only contractors and private enterprise can do the job right, that gov't workers are hopeless dullards. That's BS. And we need to take some of those contractor jobs and their talents and bring them back in-house to NASA. The brain-drain has been in talent by misguided policies concerning civil servants, not from a piece of complicated hardware.