Resolution is Agreed on But it's Only a Resolution

"There is wide concern that a hard end date could jeopardize the safety of the eight remaining Shuttle missions and the thousands of government and private-sector jobs tied to NASA. Without FY 2011 funding, NASA would be unable to continue any missions that did not launch in time."

Well, postpone the end, I really do not understand why in the first place safety was the concern to end the SSP in 2010, It was just smoke and mirrors with budget back then as it is now.

If we look at the statistical risk analysis that Doc Aerospace put forth that Ares 1 is 70 time safer then the the space shuttle. I have some polluted land in Utah to sell you Rep Kosmas.
http://www.utahstories.com/utah_pollution.html

If NASA wants cover to not start destroying the Shuttle infrastructure, they now have it. It will be interesting to see how they react.

At best comical. At worst... I am sure Kosmas, just like Nelson, knows things about Shuttle that nobody else does.

From Scolese himself (page 9/9 http://images.spaceref.com/news/2009/2008_ASAP_Annual_Report.pdf):

11. Risks
a. Shuttle extension – I see this as the single biggest threat to the US future in space. There are people availability implications, spare parts availability etc.
that have safety implications. There will never be a painless time to end the shuttle and extending it now won’t make it any easier to end it gracefully later. To cast off my Pollyanna persona for a minute, extending the shuttle
now makes it likely that we will end the shuttle only when we have another serious accident or at best, a close call that wakes everyone up. Frankly, a much better strategy is to go to a real “ISS Block 1/Lunar Block 2” strategy
and accelerate the capability as much as possible.

Sorry, but I fail to see how eliminating a hard shutdown date, but keeping the same number of missions (possibly adding one), does anything but ELIMINATE the potential for "GO Fever"!

Constellation is NOT a "done deal". Keeping the option of slipping Shuttle launches beyond the 2010 "hard ceiling" may reduce the gap in U.S. manned spaceflight, should Constellation experience significant delays...such as if Ares I proves unfeasible! Is Shuttle unsafe? Yeah! But, so are a lot of space vehicles. And airplanes, and getting out of bed in the morning, and commuting to work along roads where ground vehicles miss each other by only a few feet!

I must admit, I've never understood the hard 2010 deadline for shuttle (save for budget reasons, of course). Am I really to believe that the safety and reliability of shuttle will take an immediate, sudden plunge at 23:59:59 UTC on December 31, 2010?

I applaud a shuttle retirement based on a certain number of flights rather than a set cutoff date. If you're really dead-set on time, wouldn't flight hours be a more accurate metric of shuttle wear-and-tear than arbitrarily-set calendar dates?

@Trailrider (Jim):

Hey Jim, I am with you on the frustration. But there are a number of articles you may want to read in Aerospace America dating back to 2004 (I believe by Sietzen) already showing all the worries about Shuttle (and there is a more recent by O'Brien I believe, can't find the link though).

There are 2 main reasons they (NASA, not the politics!) really don't want to extend Shuttle: 1) Constellation is in real pain for enough budget (regardless of the current management issues) and 2) an accident would damage this WH, this NASA and whoever is in charge of NASA then. You better believe this.

Please don't get me the usual commuting nonsense. Let's go beyond that. Astronauts fly Shuttle because they think the mission they fly is of national importance or they would not. Ask them. Yet, it is not even about astronauts. It is about the image of a country that cannot get its act together if an accident were to happen. And also please do not get started with the bail out stuff. How many space fans do we have say compared to how many peeople are losing their jobs? Apples and Oranges? Fair, unfair? You decide BUT space fans ARE NOT the MAJORITY.

Why do you have a problem say to fly Soyuz or even Shenzou for a little while as NASA comes up with plans to get new vehicles that work for the future of exploration? Why? National prestige? Too late.

Now as of the 2010 hard ceiling. I have NO IDEA whether it is THE date. BUT it was supposed to be back then when VSE was making sense. I hope that the WH will run an inquiry as to what the best date is considering the current turmoil. BUT it looks like Scolese is saying that is the date. So?