STS-135 Is Almost A Certainty

Why did NASA plan to have a backup for the last mission if it wasn't necessary?

Now, RC, there you go flaunting your ignorance of government logic. Since when does something the govt does have to actually make sense or be consistent?

slow the loss of jobs in order to protect the highly skilled workforce

What kind of a stupid argument is that? If the desire is to protect the individuals, then why is it relevant to mention that they are highly skilled? If anything that would suggest they don't need help. If on the other hand preserving the skill set is what is required, then merely slowing down the job losses doesn't do any good, because the skills will be lost in the end anyway.

The more likely explanation is that Kosmas is happy the less skilled parts of the workforce, or those with skills that are not needed outside the Shuttle program will hve more time to find another job. The rest is just fluff to imply federal taxpayers are getting value for their money.

Let's say it'll cost a billion dollars to keep 5000 people employed for another year. What material good comes from that? Another visit to ISS with a manifest that we don't even have a rough draft of yet? Feeling good about ourselves?

That would also buy 20 seats on Soyuz, or 5 test flights or working flights of Falcon 9, if I've got the right numbers. Or some really nice progress on adapting Orion to Delta-IV.

Keeping STS going is good for the people who work on it -- maybe -- but it's a step backwards for the country.

The majority of the workforce to be protected has skills that we don't need anymore, namely processing Shuttles. The skills being preserved have nothing to do with designing and developing a new Space Launch System. These are the skills that are sorely lacking and desperately needed at NASA right now.

The backup mission was a launch-on-need capability in the event of TPS damage on ascent preventing reentry. STS-135 will be slightly more risky in that there will be no rescue capability. However, they could hunker down on ISS until we could get more Soyuz up there to bring them back, assuming the Russians could produce.

It's been pretty clear for many years now that NASA HSF is nothing more than a public works project.

Now, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Public works projects can be good. And space flight is cool. If we sent people back to the moon I'd be glued to the TV watching. I've been a HSF fanatic for decades. I dreamed of being an astronaut. I watched missions with eyes glued to the TV, even invaded the local cable company offices and camped out there to get a chance to see the live feed.

But the ISS project clearly did nothing, served no purpose but to justify shuttle flights and employ "scary" Russians and entitled Americans. Maybe the Russian part was worth it, I dunno.

You see it all the time here. People claiming that if we don't take a certain course, the US is abandoning its destiny... and that particular course just coincidentally happens to be the one they personally work on, the one that pays their mortgage.

And others seem lost in their dreams, like the ones I had when I was 14... and the dreams don't have to adjust to fit reality or logic - reality and logic must be twisted to help them realize their personal dreams.

I would LOVE to see people exploring Mars. Imagine - fossil hunting on Mars! Incredible!

Would the current cost justify such a mission? With what we're facing these days, would it be a wise expenditure? I haven't seen any clear indication that it would. I'm not saying it WOULDN'T be worth it, I'm just saying that NO argument for such missions has ever been able to completely hide the fact that those advocating for it are NOT impartial, that there's always been a strong dose of "oh man it would just be SO EFFING COOL!" coloring their "analysis."
Either that or in other cases, "oh man it would be so effing PROFITABLE!"

And most importantly - even if I'm off base on the last points, there's still another reality that nobody is facing.

Such missions are currently impossible. Not technologically, politically. Budgetarily.

Apollo was an anomaly. A simpler, less connected and informed, more frightened and simple populace. A popular president martyred, needing a legacy. An "evil" enemy to race against. Even so, the program hadn't even landed on the moon before the budget cutters were sharpening their knives.

A decade-long or decades-long development cycle for a project of this scale simply isn't currently possible with the way NASA is funded, with the way the US budgetary process works.

The shuttle program was gutted from its initial concept until it was justified dishonestly and changed technologically to be less useful and more dangerous than it would have been.

The ISS was changed so many times I lost count, and was only saved because of the fear of jobless Russian scientists helping rogue nations.
Even after construction began, after pieces were launched, it was changed, cut back, modules dropped.

How exactly do we construct a Mars mission when parts are dropped from the program even after deployment has begun?

It's time to be honest. The current NASA HSF reason for existence is NOT to explore, not to go anywhere. It's there to employ people, and to a much lesser extent to thrill a relative handful of others.

If human space flight in the US is going to continue, it can't be run in the same way it has been. We're not a China or Russia trying to flex nationalistic muscles, Americans are not in the mood for that.

It needs to be justified properly, and funded realistically. And given the budgetary process, that just may not happen. There may be a way to adjust to these realities, but I don't know what it is, and I don't see it happening the way our system currently works.

"The rest is just fluff to imply federal taxpayers are getting value for their money."

if they were putting more money into the NASA budget to pay for this, that might be true. But instead, they might just be robbing one part of NASA to pay for another part of NASA. So what's on the chopping block?

so STS-335 was the back-up? what is the back-up for STS-135? it's like that superman quote: "you got me! well, who's got you?"

Anyway, if they are going to add STS-135 to go to ISS, what can they bring up? Can they bring up another module? wiki says they will bring up Raffaello. Will they leave it up there like they are going to do with Leonardo? I guess if the supplies will be needed for an extended ISS life, then Raffaello will be needed. But I thought that it what CRS is for? I'd rather see the shuttle bring up something that CRS can't, like another module, perhaps a hab such as an inflatable.

What everyone keeps forgetting is that when it was decided to retire the shuttle in 2010 the ISS was only scheduled to be in orbit till 2015. With an extension to at least 2020 the STS135 flight should be tasked with bringing up spares that will support that extension. The first thing I can think of would be control gyros and the rotary track for the solar panels.

This extra flight didn't just fall from sky, the ISS has a list of items that only the shuttle can bring up that will be need because of the extension.

That is a very good high level perspective on HSF. I am also a space geek and 20 years ago I would have called it hogwash. But time and its' maturity have taught me there is much more involved than my personal desire to see a man standing on the moon again, as worthwhile as that would be from s certain perspective. But all those nagging things you mention keep getting in the way. Things like people who don't have jobs and health insurance. To them seeing NASA and contractor employees still living relatively nice lives from government "work programs" is not something they care for. The hold out space geeks need to understand this. Less than a percent of GDP makes no difference to a homeless person. And how we have made a government space program kowtow to politicians grabbing the pork makes it even more pathetic. Those politicians really don't care about efficiencies or costs as long as the money flow freely to their states. And for many they will complain loudly about money going to pork projects elsewhere and federal deficits but seem to forget when it comes to their own pig sty. I like your analysis and share many of your feelings. Space is cool and I wish we could succeed with an efficient and successful program, but letting these politicians design rockets and plan programs is only going to amount to more money spent on failures.

Three extra missions?

Just spotted this in an interesting entry on STS-135 in wikipedia:

"In addition, two partially-built tanks, ET-140 and ET-141, have been prepared for accelerated completion in the event that Congress approves a shuttle extension. Finally, a previous-generation tank, ET-94, is currently in storage, but a mission using this tank would have a somewhat lower cargo upmass capability."

Does this mean, if Congress gave the funding, that 3 additional missions could potentially be launched after STS-135, using tanks ET-140, ET-141 and ET-94?

Rough reckoner: $500m a mission, + $150m for Soyuz rescue capability per mission...

The ISS was designed to be supported by Shuttle, not just for one more mission but as long as needed. After decades of struggle the Shuttle is finally working well, and it makes sense to fly it until something better is actually operational.

It doesn't make sense to claim that one more mission is accomplishing much; that's just posturing. That said, the idea of a "launch-on-need" shuttle being critical doesn't make much sense either; it was just one of those ideas that seemed vital post-Columbia. If the crew were trapped on ISS we could bring them down within a few months with Soyuz.

"Apollo was an anomaly ... the program hadn't even landed on the moon before the budget cutters were sharpening their knives."

Kennedy was very clear. The objective of Apollo was to land a man on the moon and return him to earth. It was not intended to settle the moon; it was a substitute for nuclear war. When Apollo 11 landed back on earth, the mission was complete, there was nothing geopolitically to be gained by continuing it. It wasn't the American people that didn't get it, it was NASA. They had gone to the moon, and to this day few people in the space program take the trouble to find out why they were asked to do it.

STS is a beautiful thing, but it eats its own children's dinner. The next crew launch vehicle will not be developed without cash, and it's currently budget-limited; less cash means later completion. Therefore each STS flight inevitably delays the beginning of the next era in HSF.

If we could satisfy the need for a decade with one STS flight per 1-2 years, then maybe you'd be right. But tending ISS while no other systems are being developed is like treading water. We need to break out of this rut, not dwell in it.