NASA is now studying what it would take to keep the space shuttles flying to 2015 instead of retiring them outright in 2010, as the Bush Administration has decreed.

The space agency's administrator, Michael Griffin, asked for the study, saying that he expects to get questions at some point after the new President takes office. He, Griffin, thinks he might as well have some answers ready.

What concerns people who study the space program is that there will be a gap of some five years, probably more, between the time the shuttles are retired on instructions of that great spaceman, George W. Bush, and when the US has another vehicle to take humans into space. The next vehicle, part of the planned Constellation program, will probably fly no sooner than 2015. Stretchout is not unusual in the buildup of any new program, and is usually taken into consideration by its planners. But with an astounding lack of such foresight, the Bush Administration decreed the shuttles would retire as of October 2010, no matter what. The Bushocrats assumed we would buy transportation from the Russians once the shuttles were locked in the barn as we've been doing for several years. Of course, they didn't foresee the Russians' new ballicosity, which is fouling relations with the United States and other space-faring nations and may make further cooperation difficult, if not impossible. US renewal of contracts for use of Soyuz spacecraft is problematic. In an interview with CBS News Space Correspondent, Bill Harwood, Griffin said that he can now envision a period beginning in 2012 when there will be no one but Russians aboard the space station because, without the shuttles, there will be no way to get anyone else out there.

The shuttle program has created thousands of jobs, not only at Cape Canaveral and Houston, but in other locations like southern California, where parts and other supports are supplied. According to NASA executive, Wayne Hale, many of those supply sources are drying up as the program winds down and would be very hard-put to restart themselves, so material and talent are being lost in equal measure. That hits home pretty hard; there is a chorus of Senators asking that shuttle retirement be delayed at least a year and President-elect Obama is on the record asking for money to fly at least one more mission. Obama and his recent challenger, Senator John McCain, have both voiced strong support for NASA programs and American science in general, a refreshing change from the laid back -- read: negative -- attitudes of the Bush Administration which have allowed our technological leads to slip away.

As Administrator, Griffin previously opposed extending the shuttles, hoping to clear his account books of the expensive program so the money can be rolled over to the Constellation back-to-the-moon effort. That's understandable, since neither the Administration nor Congress have done much of anything to boost his budget in a way that would allow him to handle both efforts at the same time. But the fact remains that the space station is now a reality and the Lunar program is not, and any good General knows he must protect ground already gained before advancing further. The space station has great value as an international research base and should not be dismissed because something more exciting is down the road. In either case, you have to be able to get where you want to go. If you retire the shuttles, the station may be just as unreachable as the moon under our current circumstances.

I suppose we could borrow money from China..I've heard that works for wars.

Griffin has bothered me for some time. Once, in describing the complexities of builiding the station, he said: "I think that building the space station is far more difficult, and certainly far more complex, than was executing Apollo," he said. "Apollo was an incredible leap from where we were. But it was simpler than what we are trying to do today."

That statement is perplexing to me as a person who was witness to the Apollo program. In my view, Apollo was all the more difficult because of the small technological base from which it grew. The people who built Apollo were relying on theories based on what was known from the captured German rocket program, from World War two advances in aeronautics -- including just-blossoming jet technologies -- and the bright vision of those at the center. Space Station, on the other hand, had all of the Apollo experience to build upon. It seems to me that pulling something together for the first time .. relatively untried .. was probably much more difficult.

Parenthetically, it's interesting to notice how much Griffin's projected Constellation program borrows from -- even resembles -- Apollo and the shuttles.

When you're standing on the shoulders of giants, don't try to dance.

-- Jim Slade September 3, 2008. Updated November 11th, 2008

Comments or questions? Write to Jim Slade at: jsairlines1@aol.com