More KSC Layoffs Announced

This is why I think a Shuttle extension is increasingly unlikely. The program is being allowed to wind down pretty much on schedule, though it's not unlikely that the last launch of the current manifest will happen in 2011.

In the meantime, the first Falcon 9 flight has been delayed until at least February next year:

http://www.spacenews.com/launch/requested-falcon-range-date-has-conflict.html

As for CxP, the next unmanned test flight, Ares I-Y isn't scheduled to fly until March 2014, assuming Ares I isn't canceled.

So, the U.S. HSF gap is looming large just up ahead.

Ares 1-Y deleted today.

While KSC workers are being laid off by the thousands...

According to the above article...

NASA is obliged to cough up almost $2 BILLION to SpaceX to launch 3 Demo rockets that are STILL
3 years behind schedule ?!?!?

Oh and the one schedule for at least Feb 2010 is "not to be counted" as one of those 3 ?!?!?

WTH?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

There are a few other things that REALLY bother me about the Falcon "deal"...

I believe the max capacity of a Shuttle cargo load is 26.8 tons, correct if I'm wrong please. :)

NASA was forced to give them funding, $1.6 BILLION, to deliver 20 tons between 2011 and 2016.

That's LESS than a SINGLE Shuttle flight capacity and WE, taxpayers, are giving OUR tax dollars to a PRIVATE company to develop, test and launch a vehicle which is in direct conflict/competition with the ARES/Constellation program which we are also paying for.

AND they want MORE $$$ from NASA and Congress to modify Falcon to carry crew AND it will take 3 YEARS for them to do it from the time they get OUR taxpayer $?

WTF?!?!?!?

Boeing and Lockheed Martin, and their offspring United Space Alliance, are private companies which depend on taxpayer money for meaningful development. SpaceX is the same but smaller, with 800 employees instead of thousands.

Their Falcon rockets are not cheap. One way to look at why NASA needs them is that the Constellation contract structure is a single-point failure mode. If the Constellation Program fails to deliver a safe affordable vehicle because of NASA policies or procedures, that puts U.S. space flight back years. COTS is a simpler deal, like a backup system.

Whether we fund Ares and Falcon in parallel or pick one over the other, the money we send them now is more important than what we spend during operations. The space shuttle suffered budget cuts during its development, and the case can be made that we would have had a safer vehicle if we'd spent more up front. -Jed

You are wrong.

1. 26.8 tons is not to the ISS orbit.
2. The cargo contract is for actual cargo delivered into the station.
3. The shuttle's capability is not the same. The shuttle has to carry a logistics module to hold the cargo. The module weighs 4.5 tonnes and can carry less than 9 tonnes.
4. one shuttle mission costs nearly $1.6 BILLION
5. There were two contracts for cargo, both 20 tonnes over a few years.
6. There isn't room on the ISS for one big delivery, also there are perishable items and last minute urgent items that need to be flown routinely.

All the more reason we should not be tossing the Space Shuttle in the trash can ten years earlier than planned, when we do not have anything comparable to replace it, and currently have no plans to ever have anything comparable to replace it. The Shuttle is finally working well. We just had four successful missions in five months. Thousands of careers are about to end because no one recognizes the value of what we have.

As to payload, the Shuttle is capable of carrying large ISS external payloads and new modules, neither of which requires the overhead of the PLM mass.

The sad truth is after we abandon the shuttle, Russia AND China will be the de-facto space leaders. Maybe for a very long time. They used to call us a paper tiger but now it's paper rockets.