Space News
space history and artifacts articles

Messages
space history discussion forums

Sightings
worldwide astronaut appearances

Resources
selected space history documents

Websites
related space history websites

  collectSPACE: Messages
  Free Space
  U.S. President Obama and space exploration (Page 3)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search


This topic is 5 pages long:   1  2  3  4  5 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   U.S. President Obama and space exploration
Jay Chladek
Member

Posts: 2270
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007

posted 12-16-2008 10:37 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jay Chladek   Click Here to Email Jay Chladek     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I know from Griffin's previous statements in years past that his contention for continuing Ares has been the capability to loft payloads beyond LEO. Delta and Atlas might be fine if they were just going to the ISS, but not necessarily for a moon shot. Of course I don't know if he is lumping Ares 1 and V into the same arguement.

I've heard a lot of talk about Jupiter and in my opinion it IS just talk. Yes it has potential to be lower development cost. But the operational costs will be higher (using a shuttle sized ET and TWO SRBs per Orion crew module launch for instance) if NASA were to change direction and go with it instead of Ares. Yes there have been cost overruns and all space launcher programs have had them in the development phase. Ares is no different. Its overruns just happen to be more high profile then Shuttle or Saturn was (and Saturn did have them and a fair share of technical problems) due to an age where information can be exchanged at a moment's notice and it often does.

Mr Meek
Member

Posts: 351
From: Chattanooga, TN
Registered: Dec 2007

posted 12-16-2008 05:54 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mr Meek     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Wayne Hale addresses (somewhat obliquely) the issue of man-rating expendable boosters in his latest blog entry.

Also related to this discussion is his 5-part series on Black Zones: 1, 2, 3, Q&A, 4

mjanovec
Member

Posts: 3636
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005

posted 12-18-2008 07:37 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for mjanovec   Click Here to Email mjanovec     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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.

Nevertheless, it's an interesting concept to ponder. Would man-rating Delta or Atlas be a more extensive/expensive task than building Ares from scratch?

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 30359
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 12-18-2008 07:53 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by mjanovec:
I would have to assume one needs to build in a higher safety factor to a re-usable booster...
Which was one of the factors cited by a 2005 SAIC study that considered reliability and crew safety using a solid rocket booster/J-2 based Ares 1.
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.
(And before anyone comments on the "non-catastrophic failure" of 51-L, the SRBs did not explode, but were rather detonated by range safety, which is to what the qualification refers.)

cspg
Member

Posts: 4787
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006

posted 12-18-2008 11:43 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for cspg   Click Here to Email cspg     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

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.

Chris.

spaced out
Member

Posts: 2741
From: Paris, France
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 12-19-2008 06:09 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for spaced out   Click Here to Email spaced out     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
If the flame-through had occurred on the side of the SRB facing away from the external tank the flight would have reached orbit. That is to say that the o-ring failure did not lead to the failure of the booster itself.

That's not to downplay the catastrophic results of the o-ring design flaw, which everyone knows only too well. It's just that as a rocket, the failure rate (even if you just take the post-Challenger launches) is better than that of any other launcher. That's what the report is saying.

mjanovec
Member

Posts: 3636
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005

posted 12-19-2008 09:27 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for mjanovec   Click Here to Email mjanovec     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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.

Just because a flawed design doesn't kill you the first time doesn't mean it's perfect. Time (and odds) will eventually catch up to you. The flawed boosters eventually got Challenger. The flawed foam design eventually got Columbia.

capoetc
Member

Posts: 1784
From: Newnan GA (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005

posted 12-19-2008 08:20 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for capoetc   Click Here to Email capoetc     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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.

------------------
John Capobianco
Camden DE

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 30359
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 12-28-2008 11:40 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
On December 26, the Wall Street Journal published a letter to the editor by Neil Armstrong.
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.

ilbasso
Member

Posts: 1501
From: Greensboro, NC USA
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 12-28-2008 08:38 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for ilbasso   Click Here to Email ilbasso     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
...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
Is Armstrong saying that engineers aren't influenced by political pressure in decision-making and formulating recommendations? Wasn't pressure to launch a contributing factor to the Challenger disaster, the investigating panel for which Armstrong served?

I do expect that engineers will note their assumptions in making recommendations, but chain of command sign-offs don't often let phrases like, "Because the boss said that we have to use technology x" get into the final record.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 30359
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 12-29-2008 07:35 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Neil Armstrong, in his letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal (see above) drew a line between the responsibilities of the transition team ("collect information") and the President ("making of decisions"). Though many bloggers and columnists in recent weeks have tried to imply that those roles have been muddled, The New York Times reaffirms the reality.
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."
And what of those appointees, how should they proceed? Edward Crawley, a senior professor of aeronautics and astronautics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology tells The New York Times that "Ares I was not perfect" but "I don't have any reason to believe there are major technical issues to block its success." He advises though...
...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."

cspg
Member

Posts: 4787
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006

posted 12-29-2008 11:42 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for cspg   Click Here to Email cspg     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"Ares I was not perfect"

hmmm, past tense? It's dead?

Chris.

star51L
Member

Posts: 122
From: Vilano Beach, FL, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 01-02-2009 09:20 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for star51L   Click Here to Email star51L     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Very interesting article via Bloomberg:
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.

Mercury7
Member

Posts: 360
From: Greenville, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2006

posted 01-03-2009 02:52 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mercury7     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I am encouraged by the news being reported today, a cost sharing between NASA and the military space command may be just the ticket. Obviously a lot of people think Ares 1 can't be replaced by the Atlas 5 or Delta IV but if it ends up that it can and it keeps Constellation on track then I am all for it.

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

I also like that the media is starting to play up China, Nothing lights a fire like competition.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 30359
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 01-03-2009 06:46 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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.
The consensus among space policy analysts has been that this was a mistake by Bloomberg's reporter.

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.

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

John Charles
Member

Posts: 316
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Registered: Jun 2004

posted 01-03-2009 09:23 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for John Charles     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by cspg:
"Ares I was not perfect"
There are those in the astronautics community who are primarily interested in designing and developing new systems, more than using them. Maybe Prof Crawley of MIT is one such. I remember, at a pre-launch briefing at KSC in 1997, hearing Joe Rothenberg, then NASA Assoc. Administrator for Space Flight, say that the prime contractors had finished up their work on ISS manufacturing and were ready for the "next big thing." Thus, they were speaking of ISS in the past tense more than a decade ago, even though the flight program had yet to commence!

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."

------------------
John Charles
Houston, Texas

cspg
Member

Posts: 4787
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006

posted 01-03-2009 11:39 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for cspg   Click Here to Email cspg     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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.


Maybe the intended meaning was that Ares 1 is a NASA-funded rocket while both Atlas and Delta were partially funded by the DoD under the EELV program (but now since both have been pulled off the commercial market, let's say they are Government rockets?).

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...

Chris.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 30359
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 01-03-2009 11:55 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by cspg:
...but now since both have been pulled off the commercial market, let's say they are Government rockets?
Only Delta IV; Atlas V is available for commercial use.

Mercury7
Member

Posts: 360
From: Greenville, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2006

posted 01-05-2009 11:11 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mercury7     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I am just saying that a very careful merging/sharing of NASA infrastructure cost with the DoD would be a huge boost to the U.S. space program. The entire retrofit of the launch pads for example could be put on the DoDs tab freeing up money for NASA to use elsewhere.

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".

Anyway there are lots of overlapping programs that would save billions, probably the biggest thing is the political part. Congress could actually freeze NASA's budget at current levels in public and double it in private... i.e. buried in the trillions allocated to the defense budget.

DChudwin
Member

Posts: 1040
From: Lincolnshire IL USA
Registered: Aug 2000

posted 01-09-2009 03:11 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for DChudwin   Click Here to Email DChudwin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Members of the Obama transition team for NASA met today with a group proposing an alternative to Ares. They suggest using elements of the shuttle to launch a capsule instead of the shuttle.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 30359
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 01-09-2009 03:20 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The NASA transition team also recently met with former Marshall Space Flight Center managers "playing up the importance of continuing Ares rocket development and renewing dormant Earth science work performed in Huntsville."

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 30359
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 01-15-2009 01:15 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The $825 billion stimulus bill proposed by House Democrats today includes funding for extending scientific research, including funds for NASA:
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.

Mercury7
Member

Posts: 360
From: Greenville, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2006

posted 01-15-2009 01:53 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mercury7     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
...I was really hoping to see the $2 billion needed to help close the gap... still trying to think positive.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 30359
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 01-15-2009 02:05 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Though it was suggested by analysts that the $2 billion could be included in the stimulus package, the additional funds as proposed during the campaign were to be part of President Obama's budget request for NASA.
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."

Mercury7
Member

Posts: 360
From: Greenville, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2006

posted 01-19-2009 10:39 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mercury7     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Great article in The Space Review today, I hope Obama reads it. I know there are lots of reasons and issues beyond my understanding but it makes sense to me.

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?

328KF
Member

Posts: 911
From:
Registered: Apr 2008

posted 01-20-2009 05:26 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for 328KF   Click Here to Email 328KF     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Obama's The Change.gov website has now changed to WhiteHouse.gov.

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.

What gives, Mr. President?

Mercury7
Member

Posts: 360
From: Greenville, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2006

posted 01-20-2009 06:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mercury7     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The only thing I found was listed under defense, here's the quote:
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.

328KF
Member

Posts: 911
From:
Registered: Apr 2008

posted 01-20-2009 09:13 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for 328KF   Click Here to Email 328KF     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yes, I found that as well. My post would have been more to the point if I had referred to the U.S. manned space program.

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."

I didn't realize that fishing licences were such a hot topic.

Mercury7
Member

Posts: 360
From: Greenville, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2006

posted 01-21-2009 10:22 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mercury7     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
By the way, I did email whitehouse.gov this morning to ask why the space policy paper was not transferred from the change.gov website. I kinda doubt anyone will see it other than the secret service scanning for possible threats but I figure it was worth sending in just to show interest.

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.

Hopefully we will know soon but I am ending my frantic search for info, becoming sad instead of fun.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 30359
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 01-21-2009 10:55 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
While this doesn't necessarily excuse the inclusion of NASA, there's some reason to believe that much of the content on the new WhiteHouse.gov was frozen as early as before Change.gov debuted.

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.

So, it may take some time (or at least more than a day) for the next few revisions to move more of the material that was on Change.gov to WhiteHouse.gov. Our first good look at what the President has in store for NASA may be however, when he releases his budget request for the agency.

Mercury7
Member

Posts: 360
From: Greenville, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2006

posted 01-21-2009 11:32 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mercury7     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Thanks for the insight Robert. I didn't know all that.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 30359
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 01-22-2009 05:56 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
NASA's Congressional leadership has begun to take shape:

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."

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) was elected Chair of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. Her husband is NASA astronaut Mark Kelly.
"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)

328KF
Member

Posts: 911
From:
Registered: Apr 2008

posted 01-22-2009 09:32 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for 328KF   Click Here to Email 328KF     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
These appointments sound very encouraging Robert!

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."

Without going into the merits of the film or reading too much into this off-hand remark, maybe it's a good sign that our new President recalled the movie when meeting another pilot who certainly has some of that same stuff.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 30359
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 01-23-2009 10:37 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL)
Newly appointed member of the House Committee on Science & Technology Congresswoman Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24) sent a letter to House Leadership urging an additional $2 billion for NASA exploration systems and space operations in the upcoming economic stimulus package.
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.

She also outlined her position in an op-ed published Friday in the Orlando Sentinel.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 30359
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 01-26-2009 05:09 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
NASA notice to employees:
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.

Mercury7
Member

Posts: 360
From: Greenville, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2006

posted 02-02-2009 03:14 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mercury7     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I am not familiar with the Baker Institute but feel they should be rounded up and dropped off on a deserted island somewhere.

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.

cspg
Member

Posts: 4787
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006

posted 02-02-2009 11:42 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for cspg   Click Here to Email cspg     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
What's wrong with this plan?

Chris.

PS. If I were a member of the Baker Institure, could I at least pick which island I'll be dropped off?

mjanovec
Member

Posts: 3636
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005

posted 02-03-2009 11:37 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for mjanovec   Click Here to Email mjanovec     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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.

Continuing to fly the shuttle will only sap money from other NASA programs...both manned and unmanned.

Mercury7
Member

Posts: 360
From: Greenville, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2006

posted 02-03-2009 11:49 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mercury7     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Chris, I'll let you pick.

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.

So I guess we should all start learning Chinese unless we want to watch the next landing with subtitles... assuming they let us watch.

Mercury7
Member

Posts: 360
From: Greenville, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2006

posted 02-03-2009 12:18 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mercury7     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Just wanted to add that my statement above does not reflect any prejudice toward China or anyone else. It is just a matter of being proud of being an American and wanting us to maintain the lead in Science and Technology.

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.

Ultimately I will be very proud as a human being when China lands on the moon, after all we are all human before we are patriotic.


This topic is 5 pages long:   1  2  3  4  5 

All times are CT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts

Copyright 1999-2014 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a





advertisement