NASA: No. Others: Maybe.

Despite his repeated admonishments that NASA's fleet of three remaining space shuttles will be grounded after 2010, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin is being cautioned by the ranking member of the Senate's space subcommittee to not count out the shuttle fleet just yet -- especially as it remains to be seen if the shuttles will be able to carry out their mission requirements by then.

Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida, himself a former shuttle astronaut, is not necessarily a proponent of continuing the shuttle program. There are two conditions, however, under which he would push NASA to extend the life of the shuttle program: if the International Space Station is not completed by 2010, as the shuttles' large cargo bays are necessary to transport components into orbit; and, if it looks as though NASA's shuttle replacement, the non-reusable crew exploration vehicle, will not be ready by 2012.

To go more than two years without an American manned presence in space, said Nelson to Cox News Service, would endanger national security and potentially send some of NASA's scientists off to seek other jobs.

While the shuttle fleet remains grounded over nearly three-year-old foam breakage issues, more and more people both within and without NASA are questioning the logic of continuing the shuttle program -- especially as initial budget estimates to continue the program are now known to have been as much as $8 billion off. Those people say the money would be better spent insuring the nation's future presence in space, instead of on a program seen by many as both uneconomical and dangerously unsafe.

According to James Andrew Lewis, director of the Technology and Public Policy Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, abandoning the shuttle program before its time is not an option. At issue is how NASA would meet its international obligations to complete the ISS without the shuttle.

While NASA looks to trim its budget through almost any means possible, says Lewis, the answer does not lie in cutting funding for a current dilemma in hopes of meeting future needs.

"The question is, do you want to anger our international partners by reneging on our obligation to finish the space station that they've poured billions of dollars into, or do you want to finish it and risk the funds you'll need for this new era of exploration?" said Lewis.

"You can do one, but you can't do both."

FMI: www.nasa.gov