STORM2K

I know that flights are canceled on a regular basis when weather is bad, but do they REALLY pay attention to long term forecasts? They complain/mention that it is so expensive to land in CA, but continue to schedule things with seeming disregard to forecasts. Money could possibly close them down, but seems they aren't spending it wisely. Am I way off base?

They dont watch long term forecasts, but they pay a LOT of attention to short term forecasts.

Forecasts, especially for SFL during the summer, at 7 days are unreliable at best...let alone forecasts for something 2 to 3 weeks out. Hurricanes can pop up during a Shuttle mission and completely screw things up, as can daily thunderstorms. There is just no way to predict where those daily popcorn storms are going to set up 2+ weeks out, let alone where a cold front might be.

The reason I ask is because of the outrageous expense of landing in California. Especially when NASA is really on the line to even survive this recession or whatever it is we're in. I haven't paid attention, but are landings changed as much in the winter months as they are in summer? If it happens far less, then perhaps they should consider making changes and maybe coordinate necessary summer trips with another country who has maybe less problems during the summer so as to survive.

Not trying to be critical, but rather trying to evaluate the problem. The place I work depends on the NASA community to survive, so want to see them succeed if for no other reason. I also believe that the space program brings us too much good to be scrapped in the medical field especially.

It is much cheaper to land them in the US than elsewhere, and they do all they can to land in FL, but obviously it doesnt always happen.

Winter months are a little easier to predict, but there are still problems landing when cold fronts come in.

Sorry, what I meant was to have the Russians or someone fly the Space Station missions during the summer and we can do the winters thus avoiding a Calif landing.

The US is the one that has all the supplies to take up there, and I think the only ones that have room to take it up there on the shuttle. (dont quote me on that).

That definitely makes more sense, then. Keep thinking there has to be a logical reason why they take these kind of chances when finances are on the line, so to speak...discounting that they are, after all, a government agency. LOL

Isn't the space shuttle needed to keep bumping the ISS up in orbit every few months? What will happen when we aren't launching anything for at least 4 years?

Good question, RL3AO. I suppose, if that is the case, then it would be irresponsible for us to pull the virtual plug. Perhaps this might encourage other countries to step up to the plate more than they do now? Can't just leave them out there!

My have to "bother" one of the astronauts for an answer to that next time they come into the store.

Ive never heard that RL3AO, but Im sure other countries have those abilities.

The ISS can bump itself up...the Shuttle is needed for all of the parts of the ISS we are taking up. No other country can carry up those pieces, and Congress (go figure...the ones who are being marched on in D.C. by 10,000+ right now as I write this) said they want the Shuttle fleet retired before the end of 2010, no if's and's or but's about it...so NASA is in a crunch to get a big number of shuttle flights to finish the ISS, into a little tiny time slot.