posted 12-18-2008 07:37 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr Meek:
Wayne Hale addresses (somewhat obliquely) the issue of man-rating expendable boosters in his latest blog entry.

---

I can appreciate what Hale has to say about the safety factor for manned vehicles versus unmanned vehicles. He seems to imply that you'd essentially have to build a new rocket to man rate one of the current expendable boosters. However, I have to wonder how extensive the retrofits were to Redstone, Atlas, and Titan in order to use them for Projects Mercury and Gemini. I know the Redstone had lengthened tanks, but that was for a performance boost...not a safety increase.

Also, I would have to assume one needs to build in a higher safety factor to a re-usable booster (like the first stage of Ares I will be) versus an expendable booster (like Delta or Atlas), so perhaps a direct comparison isn't applicable.

posted 12-18-2008 07:53 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mjanovec:
I would have to assume one needs to build in a higher safety factor to a re-usable booster...

---

In the space shuttle system only the 51-L event (a non-catastrophic failure of the SRB) has marred a perfect record in 226 SRBs, with 176 consecutive successful uses of the redesigned SRBs. This 1 in 226 history, or 0.996 launch success rate is perhaps the best of the best in launcher history.

posted 12-18-2008 11:43 PM               

To claim such success rate with a flawed design from Day 1 is nice way to spin things. And we should not be talking about breaking the launch vehicle into its different components to assess its reliability. 51-L manned launch vehicle failed thanks to the SRBs.

posted 12-19-2008 09:27 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by spaced out:
If the flame-through had occurred on the side of the SRB facing away from the external tank the flight would have reached orbit.

---

I think there are differing opinions on this. While the booster appeared to function properly following the breakup of 51L, the erosion in the side of the booster at the joint likely continued to grow significantly. If the flame-through had been at the outside, one has to wonder whether the shuttle could have continued to compensate for the changing thrust vectors from that booster. Also, the rate of burn within the boosters might have been affected as well, meaning one would might have burned out before the other...which could also be bad news.

I agree with Chris in believing it's somewhat wishful thinking to give the SRBs a "perfect" rating for the first 24 shuttle flights, despite a flawed design and numerous partial o-ring burn throughs that clearly showed a problem (from as early as the STS-2 mission). The booster failure on 51L was the same type of failure seen before, just to a greater extent.

posted 12-19-2008 08:20 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by MoonCrater1:
John, when did I say the word NEVER? ...

---

When did I say that you said the word "never"?

I was making two points. My points were in response to your post, but not in direct response.

I said: "IMO, we will build a spacecraft to access LEO, and that's it ... for a very long time. I would be very, very surprised if funding is forthcoming to keep any kind of exploration program on track."

You said: "I believe that you ARE wrong. IMO, the Obama Administration would be criticized if he would turn away from our space initiative."

Sounds to me like you think the Obama admin will fund Constellation because he'll be criticized if he doesn't.

posted 12-28-2008 11:40 AM               

The transition team does have the responsibility to collect information to assist President-elect Obama in understanding the issues and decisions he will be facing. The making of decisions of such import, however, is the responsibility of the president and should be guided by the best advice from the most able and skilled experts on the subject. He should have no difficulty receiving high-quality information from NASA. Engineers are painfully honest and insist on presenting any assumptions used in their decision process. Therefore a conclusion can only be challenged when an erroneous assumption can be identified. Because this approach is somewhat unfamiliar in business and politics, its importance is often overlooked.

A great deal of thought and analysis has gone into NASA's program to return to space exploration as the principal focus of the agency. The breadth of NASA's creative thinking was limited by the funding constraints, and compromises had to be made. Even so, the agency has fashioned a challenging but credible program to return to the moon and go on toward Mars.

posted 12-28-2008 08:38 PM               

...Engineers are painfully honest and insist on presenting any assumptions used in their decision process. Therefore a conclusion can only be challenged when an erroneous assumption can be identified. Because this approach is somewhat unfamiliar in business and politics, its importance is often overlooked

posted 12-29-2008 07:35 PM               

While some involved in developing the rockets have read volumes into the questions, a spokesman for the transition team, Nick Shapiro, said that "the role of the agency review teams is not to make recommendations on any of the issues they are reviewing. They are fact-finding and preparing the full range of options for consideration by the incoming appointees."

...he would like to see a panel of "unbiased and wise people" under the new administration weigh NASA's plans against the alternatives while keeping in mind the broad range of budgetary, workforce and technical issues. "I don't frankly know what the answer is," he said, "but I know it's a lot closer and a lot more complicated answer than the one playing out in the media and the blogs."

posted 12-29-2008 11:42 PM               

hmmm, past tense? It's dead?

posted 01-02-2009 09:20 PM               

President-elect Barack Obama will probably tear down long-standing barriers between the U.S.’s civilian and military space programs to speed up a mission to the moon amid the prospect of a new space race with China.

posted 01-03-2009 02:52 PM            

The Ares 5 would still have to be developed though wouldn't it? All this talk is just to get Orion flying.

posted 01-03-2009 06:46 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercury7:
I am encouraged by the news being reported today, a cost sharing between NASA and the military space command may be just the ticket.

---

While the next administration may indeed consider Delta and Atlas rockets in place of (or in addition to) Ares, these are not "military rockets" as described in the article and do not need the Department of Defense's involvement to be used.

NASA has used both to launch probes in the past, as has private industry to launch satellites. Were NASA to use either, it would purchase services from United Launch Alliance, not the military.

posted 01-03-2009 09:23 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by cspg:
"Ares I was not perfect"

---

Note that Prof. Crawley does not seem to presage the end of Ares I, when he is further quoted as saying, "I don't have any reason to believe there are major technical issues to block its success."

posted 01-03-2009 11:39 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
While the next administration may indeed consider Delta and Atlas rockets in place of (or in addition to) Ares, these are not "military rockets" as described in the article and do not need the Department of Defense's involvement to be used.

The focus on China is also considered to be without foundation.

---

As for China, I have read that a "new space agency" has been formed to include China, Pakistan, Iran, Peru, Thailand, Mongolia and Bengladesh.

Just consider the first three members...

posted 01-03-2009 11:55 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by cspg:
...but now since both have been pulled off the commercial market, let's say they are Government rockets?

---

posted 01-05-2009 11:11 AM            

My only concern is the slippery slope this could evolve into... NASA has to remain independent because we do not want direct competition for dollars between the war machine and space flight, i.e. "let's cancel that flight so we can order some more bunker buster bombs".

posted 01-15-2009 01:15 PM               

We need to put scientists to work looking for the next great discovery, creating jobs in cutting-edge technologies and making smart investments that will help businesses in every community succeed in a global economy.

NASA: $600 million, including $400 million to put more scientists to work doing climate change research, including Earth science research recommended by the National Academies, satellite sensors that measure solar radiation critical to understanding climate change, and a thermal infrared sensor to the Landsat Continuing Mapper necessary for water management, particularly in the western states; $150 million for research, development, and demonstration to improve aviation safety and Next Generation air traffic control (NextGen); and $50 million to repair NASA centers damaged by hurricanes and floods last year.

posted 01-15-2009 02:05 PM               

Bill Adkins, a Washington aerospace consultant who worked on space policy in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, said Obama probably could get an extra $2 billion from Congress for NASA if he asks for it.

"I think there will be a premium on the new Congress and the new president to show they can govern and not start off bickering about issues," Adkins said. "If Obama actually puts the $2 billion in [his budget request] that he promised in his campaign, I think Congress is likely to go along with it because it's not big enough to have a fight over. If Obama doesn't, I don't see the mood in Congress to add the money."

posted 01-19-2009 10:39 AM            

Yes we can! How to ensure "change you can believe in" for the space program

The new Obama administration comes into Washington this month to make good on its promise to bring real change. How should that promise play out in the space sector?

posted 01-20-2009 05:26 PM               

I went there and found no reference whatsoever to the U.S. space program. Nothing under Technology.

Searched "space". Nothing.

Searched "Orion". Nothing.

Searched "Constellation". Nothing.

Searched "VSE". Again, nothing.

posted 01-20-2009 06:21 PM            

Ensure Freedom of Space: The Obama-Biden Administration will restore American leadership on space issues, seeking a worldwide ban on weapons that interfere with military and commercial satellites. They will thoroughly assess possible threats to U.S. space assets and the best options, military and diplomatic, for countering them, establishing contingency plans to ensure that U.S. forces can maintain or duplicate access to information from space assets and accelerating programs to harden U.S. satellites against attack.

posted 01-20-2009 09:13 PM               

I find it interesting that of the 13 "Urgent Needs" for the country as recommended by the GAO, "retirement of the space shuttle", and as a result, the future of our efforts in space, is the only issue not addressed on the new White House website.

He does, however, find the urgency to point out that "America's hunters and anglers are a key constituency."

posted 01-21-2009 10:22 AM            

I really wish the transition team had not circulated the eminent announcement rumor last week. I am sure it was not a fun time for those like me who have become obsessed with knowing what President Obama's plans are for NASA.

posted 01-21-2009 10:55 AM               

As explained by Wired, running, let alone redesigning the White House's website brings with it a set of rules (laws) that other websites do not face.

Amendments to the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, for example, require that all government Web content be made reasonably accessible -- in real time -- to disabled users.

...The incoming administration is still working to assess the implications of the Presidential Records Act, the post-Nixon legislation requiring the preservation of all White House written communications. But that means that once any page goes up on the White House site, it can't be altered, only archived and replaced, greatly slowing down the process of modifying and enhancing pages.

The Obama team was able to sidestep these kinds of troublesome rules on Change.gov, in part because, as a quasi-governmental site, it's not subject to executive-branch restrictions.

posted 01-22-2009 05:56 PM               

The House Committee on Science and Technology confirmed today that Rep. Pete Olson (TX-22) has been named the Ranking Member on the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, making him the top Republican in the House on Space and NASA issues.

"I am extremely pleased to appoint Rep. Olson as Ranking Member of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee," said Ranking Member Ralph Hall (TX-4). "Through his work for former Senator Phil Gramm, Pete already has a successful track record of supporting NASA. Pete understands that America's space agency drives innovation, creating technologies that help Americans and keep the U.S. competitive. He also knows that for too long, NASA has been asked to do too much with too little funding. I am confident that as Ranking Member, Pete will work to ensure NASA remains the World's preeminent space agency."

The Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee has the oversight and investigative authority for matters relating to NASA, aeronautical science research, space law, and space commercialization.

"Ensuring NASA remains fully funded and flying should be a national priority," stated Olson, "I look forward to working with leaders in Congress and the new administration to keep the commitments to the men and women of our space program."

"I am honored to take on a leadership role on the Science & Technology Committee," said Giffords. "Under the focused and bipartisan guidance of Chair Gordon, we are aggressively promoting scientific advancements that are key to U.S. competitiveness in the global marketplace. Smart research and development investments in several federal agencies, including NASA, will help create the innovations that will drive economic growth and create new jobs."

"Having gotten to know Gabrielle over the past two years, I think she would be good at anything she does. The Committee and the nation are fortunate that she has chosen the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee," said Gordon. "The issues before the Subcommittee are complex, but I know that she will play an effective leadership role in addressing them. The country owes a large part of its technical edge and our economic competitiveness to work done at NASA, and we need to ensure that we maximize NASA's relevance to addressing the science and technology challenges that will be facing the nation in the coming years."

Members of the Subcommittee include:

• Rep Marcia Fudge (D-OH)
  
• Rep. Parker Griffith (D-AL)
  
• Rep David Wu (D-OR)
  
• Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD)
  
• Rep. Steven Rothman (D-NJ)
  
• Rep. Baron Hill (D-IN)
  
• Rep. Charles Wilson (D-OH)
  
• Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL)
  
• Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL)

posted 01-22-2009 09:32 PM               

As a side note, in a documentary about Air Force One airing Sunday on the National Geographic Channel, there is a scene of then President-elect Obama meeting Col. Scott Turner, the new presidential pilot, for the first time.

Obama shakes his hand and says "You look like you're right out of central casting... like you know how to fly. You look like Sam Shepard in The Right Stuff."

posted 01-23-2009 10:37 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL)

---

Dear Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer:

This morning you announced the American Recovery and Reinvestment Bill of 2009 would include $600 million for NASA's science and aeronautics programs, as well as funding to repair some of the damage caused by natural disasters in 2008. While I applaud this much-needed infusion of funds into our space program, I write to urge you to include an additional $2 billion in funds for NASA to be directed towards exploration systems and space operations.

While the $400 million proposed in the summary released by the House Appropriations Committee this morning will go a long ways to strengthen NASA's science programs, I believe we would be remiss to leave out funding for our manned space exploration program from this recovery package. If the goal of this legislation is to stimulate our economy, support science, and maintain and create high-tech jobs, there is no better place to dedicate resources than to our human spaceflight program. Small businesses in nearly every state supply NASA programs, employing over half a million Americans and contributing nearly $100 billion to our economy in 2004 alone. The reach of the space economy is broad and its contributions are vital to enhancing our nation's economy and technological leadership.

Providing these crucial resources will reimburse the agency for funds spent on return-to-flight expenses following the Columbia disaster and for repairs needed following Hurricanes Rita and Katrina. This infusion of funds will accelerate the Constellation program, which will create new infrastructure and high-tech jobs and minimize our dependence on Russia during the impending space flight gap while also providing an immediate and long-term economic stimulus for communities across our nation. Minimizing the space flight gap will ensure that our constituents' taxpayer dollars that would otherwise go to Russia, China, or other countries to ferry our cargo and astronauts to space will stay in the United States, driving our economy.

If we find ourselves dependent on other countries for access to space and the International Space Station for five years, as the current budget situation dictates, we will not only lose thousands of highly-skilled, high-paying jobs across the country, but also potentially cede our leadership in space and lose ground in technology and innovation. Technologies developed for manned space flight and research conducted on the shuttles and International Space Station, a National Laboratory which American taxpayers have invested $100 billion in so far, improve the quality of life for all our citizens and enable us to address important issues facing our nation, including developing alternative energy, improving health care, strengthening commerce and communications, and studying and understanding climate change.

There is no doubt that an infusion of emergency funds will have a wide-ranging impact resulting in a stronger economy. As you work to complete the economic recovery package, I ask that you strongly consider including an additional $2 billion for a healthy NASA.

I appreciate your consideration and look forward to working together for a strong space and aeronautics program for the United States.

posted 01-26-2009 05:09 PM               

Obama Administration Names Interim NASA Leadership

The Obama Administration has announced several interim leadership changes for NASA, which are effective immediately.

Christopher Scolese, NASA's associate administrator, will serve as acting administrator until a successor to Michael Griffin has been nominated by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

Ronald Spoehel, NASA's chief financial officer and a political appointee from the previous administration, has been asked to continue in his present position.

Several other posts usually held by political appointees will have acting leaders until the positions are filled by the administration.

Mary D. Kerwin, deputy assistant administrator for the Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, will serve as acting chief of the Office of Strategic Communications and the acting assistant administrator for the Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs.

Robert Jacobs, deputy assistant administrator for the Office of Public Affairs, will serve as the office's acting assistant administrator.

Kristen Erickson, deputy director of the Communications Planning Division of the Office of Strategic Communications, will serve as the acting division director.

posted 02-02-2009 03:14 PM            

Houston Chronicle: Baker Institute experts urge Obama administration to extend space shuttle operations, refocus NASA on energy and climate concerns

An assessment of space policy by the Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University would send NASA in new directions by giving up missions to the moon and placing a near-term emphasis on energy and climate concerns.

The shuttle's 2010 retirement would be postponed until 2015. The extension would enable American astronauts to reach the international space station without launching aboard Russian Soyuz capsules at NASA's expense. The station would become the focus of renewed scientific research.

The space agency's Orion moonship capsule, which is to replace the shuttle in 2015 would be down-sized from a six- to three-seat spacecraft for station missions. Orion's Ares 1 rocket launcher, a target of critics because of technical problems, would be cancelled, and NASA would use commercial rockets.

NASA would place exploratory resources on the development of a large rocket, something akin to the proposed Ares V, that could initiate human missions to an asteroid or a comet and reach across the globe to undertake those activities with greater international participation.

The robotic exploration of Mars would become more vigorous.

posted 02-02-2009 11:42 PM               

Chris.

posted 02-03-2009 11:37 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by cspg:
What's wrong with this plan?

---

One can argue the direction and focus that NASA should take and it will usually come down to a matter of opinion.

But I cannot see any reason why one would fly the shuttle to 2015 other than maintaining the pride of the nation in not having to hitch a ride from the Russians. Otherwise, the role for the shuttle will essentially be over once the ISS is built. Yes, one can find tasks for the shuttle to perform, but the shuttle is an enormously expensive vehicle to fly as a bus to the ISS...especially if non-ISS missions are out of the picture after the next Hubble mission.

posted 02-03-2009 11:49 AM            

I think it is pretty obvious that I am easily upset by any effort to derail the return of America to the moon. I can handle an international effort but I have a hard time imagining watching a Chinese broadcast of their moon landing while we are still stuck in low earth orbit.

Iran launched its first satellite today and both they and North Korea has expressed interest in joining China in their quest.

I am starting to feel like America does not want to be number one at anything anymore, NASA is just a small part of the big picture of globalization.

posted 02-03-2009 12:18 PM            

I am actually very grateful that the Chinese people are so enthusiastic about their space program...grateful and perhaps jealous that they seem to get it while we have lost our way.