Currency

  Subject: Currency Message Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 18:07:06 -0500 Ron Paul Sound Currency Message is Resonating With Worldwide Leaders, Including China While doing the research for this article, it appeared the leaders of China have been listening to Ron Paul while most leaders in the U.S. continue to mock him. Though history proves fiat currencies fail, central banks, including the Federal Reserve are bound and determined to convince the world that this time history won’t repeat itself. So, if you were China and you owned $1.2 trillion in U.S. bills, notes, and bonds, what would you do to hedge your bets and cover your fanny? Exactly what China is doing: buying gold. In fact, they are buying so much; it appears they are preparing for a world beyond the fiat dollar. A future world in which the renminbi backed by gold could become the dominant reserve currency. State-owned China National, CEO Sun Zhaoxue commented on the acquisition of African Barrick Gold Ltd, saying, “As gold is a currency in nature, no matter if it’s for state economic security or for the acceleration of renminbi internationalization, increasing the gold reserve should be one of the key strategies of China.” So, in spite of the fact China is the world's largest producer of gold, it appears important enough for China to still acquire interest in mines in other countries. And Zhaoxue sounds suspiciously like Ron Paul when he says, “Gold is currency.” But then we hear Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, telling students at George Washington University how impractical a gold backed currency is, “I mean, what you have to do to have a gold standard is you have to go to South Africa or some place and dig up tons of gold and move it to New York.”  So while Bernanke is teaching students it’s too much of a problem to mine and ship gold to the U.S. to fill our void, the Chinese are buying up the mines — in Africa. China is mining gold, buying gold, buying gold mines and encouraging its citizens to buy gold. They are even minting gold coins in various sizes to make it easier for citizens to accumulate. Maybe we need to take another look at Zhaoxue’s statement. “…for the acceleration of renminbi internationalization…” And right now the renminbi is fiat like all other currencies, right?   Reports in the past have told us it would be years before the dollars’ place, as the world reserve currency would end. At one time economists speculated if the dollar were ever replaced, it would be by the euro. Not anymore. Following the world wide financial collapse in 2008, and the stresses by such countries as Greece, the euro continues to teeter. The world watches for the impact of more Euro zone bailouts; it’s not looking good. All eyes right now are on Spain, as a not “if” but “when” bailout. And then there is the fiscal cliff Ron Paul has warned about in the U.S. Failure by our nation’s leaders to reign in spending on domestic social issues, tighten tax loop-holes that encourage off-shore banking and investments by the rich (Hello Romney), an out of control military industrial complex pushing U.S. imperialism all over the world, and of course the Bush era tax cuts that are getting ready to expire and the now loss of the petrodollar. Add to that, the never ending Federal Reserve’s QEs. How much more can the fiat paper dollar withstand, even if stacked a billion thick? Many people just don’t realize how aggressive the competition against the greenback has become in just the last two years by the red renminbi of China. The remnimbi is positioning itself to be viewed as a real global reserve currency alternative. China is not one to make public most of their financial plans, but let’s look at some of the stories that have made it into the mainstream media: Russia and China in 2010 decided to do away with debt exchanges using the U.S. dollar and instead trade directly in ruble and renminbi. In December 2011, Japan and China announced they would be promoting trades directly with each other and sidestepping the dollar. Last year's trades were about $340 billion. At the same time China announced a direct $11 billion currency swap with Thailand.   In January 2012, Wen Jiabao, the Chinese Premier, signed a $5.5 billion currency swap with the United Arab Emirates. Then at the end of January there is an article from Forbes answering the question “Why is China buying so much gold?” Forbes simple answer; a substitute against capital flight. What? The Chinese Premier, Wen Jiabao is the one flying all over the world setting up all these currency swaps. In late March 2012, according to Zeebiz, “The five major emerging economies of BRICS — Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa — are set to inject greater economic momentum into their grouping by signing two pacts for promoting intra-BRICS trade at the fourth summit of their leaders…” And, “The pacts are expected to scale up intra-BRICS trade which has been growing at the rate of 28% over the last few years, but at $230 billion, remains much below the potential of the five economic power houses.”  In March 2012, we learned Dubai-based Emirates NBD the largest bank is selling dim sum bonds, debt securities issued in the Chinese yuan. Again in March 2012, China and Australia sign a $30+ billion swap agreement. According to the Reserve Bank of Australia, “The main purposes of the swap agreement are to support trade and investment between Australia and China, particularly in local-currency terms, and to strengthen bilateral financial cooperation. The agreement reflects the increasing opportunities available to settle trade between the two countries in Chinese renminbi and to make RMB-denominated investments.” In April, we learn in a report from Forbes, that China will be avoiding U.S. financial sanctions against Iran by making oil purchases not only bartering goods, but also using gold.  So, again gold is money. And gold is as a petrocurrency as opposed to the petrodollar that may lead to more petrowars. In late June 2012, China and Chile agreed to strengthen their ties in a strategic partnership and double their trade in three years. The leaders of the two nations, Jiabao and Pinera, also announced the completion of negotiations on investment-related supplementary deals to a bilateral free trade agreement. Also in late June of 2012, China and Brazil agreed to a $30 billion currency swap. Hold on a minute, what did Ron Paul say about the U.S. establishing trade around the world but keeping our noses out of other nations business? Sounds like the leader of China was listening to Ron Paul. According to Paul’s critics, what we are witnessing from Jiabao is isolationism in action. Of course, the enlightened know this isn’t so. In fact, Jiabao is a stellar example of Paul’s non-interventionist stance and is promoting trade with other countries. Then in August 2012, Germany and China announced they are going to be doing a lot of their trade in the Euro and renminbi. The article leaves out any mention of bypassing the dollar. Maybe by now it should just be understood.  China encourages its citizens to accumulate gold. Gold coins are minted in China in varying sizes easing the way for the people to accumulate gold. China is the largest producer of gold in the world. And now as China increases trade around the world using renminbi, and it is also beginning to use gold as currency and in exchange for oil. Ron Paul has repeatedly said the U.S. should consider gold a currency and if we are to continue printing paper dollars we need to return to a gold standard, so the dollar will have value. The Federal Reserve Bank, Obama, Romney and their supporters brush away Paul's comments as though his warnings were gnats. Ron Paul alerts us of a day when the dollar has no value. He warns of a day this country topples over a fiscal cliff.   On that day, don’t be surprised to look up and see the renminbi--- backed by gold emerging as the world’s reserve currency. 

ISS & Hubble doomed w/o Shuttle--wonder why people are so pleased re: shuttle in museum!!

ISS & Hubble doomed w/o Shuttle

ISS & Hubble doomed by BHO decision on Shuttle 100 Billion on ISS & 4 billion on Hubble wasted due to shuttle termination decision. New STS will not be available in time to save these systems.( not planned at this time) Could be saved by restarting Shuttle in two years. Low IQ leadership in both parties responsible for loss of American Preeminence! MITT: can't hear you!

Either this, the Shuttle or the End of American Preeminence

Better get on with SSTO if not restarting shuttle!!!

VentureStar was a proposed single-stage-to-orbit reusable launch system by Lockheed Martin. As a United States federally funded program, the primary goal was to develop a reusable spaceplane to launch satellites into orbit at a fraction of the cost of other systems intended to replace the Space Shuttle. While the requirement was for an unmanned launcher, it was expected to optionally carry passengers as cargo. VentureStar was to be a single-stage-to-orbit vehicle, launching vertically but returning as an airplane. VentureStar was to be a commercial endeavor, and flights would have been leased to NASA as needed. After failures with the X-33 subscale technology demonstrator test vehicle, funding was canceled in 2001. Contents  [hide]  1 Advantages over the Space Shuttle 2 Cancellation 3 See also 4 References 5 External links [edit]Advantages over the Space Shuttle VentureStar would have stood approximately 17 meters shorter than the Space Shuttle. VentureStar's engineering and design had offered numerous advantages over the Space Shuttle, representing considerable savings in time and materials, as well as increased safety.[2] VentureStar was expected to launch satellites into orbit at about 1/10 the cost of the Shuttle. Readying VentureStar for flight would have dramatically differed from that of the Space Shuttle. Unlike the Space Shuttle orbiter, which had to be lifted and assembled together with several other heavy components (a large external tank, plus two solid rocket boosters), VentureStar was to be simply inspected in a hangar like an airplane.[2] Also unlike the Space Shuttle, VentureStar would not have relied upon solid rocket boosters which had to be hauled out of the ocean and then refurbished after each launch.[2] Furthermore, design specifications called for the use of linear aerospike engines that maintain thrust efficiency at all altitudes. The Shuttle relied upon conventional nozzle engines which achieve maximum efficiency at only a certain altitude.[2] VentureStar would have used a new metallic thermal protection system, safer and cheaper to maintain than the ceramic one used on the Space Shuttle. VentureStar's metallic heat shield would have eliminated 17,000 between-flight maintenance hours typically required to satisfactorily check (and replace if needed) the thousands of heat-resistant ceramic tiles that comprised the Shuttle exterior.[2] VentureStar was expectedly safer than most modern rockets.[2] (An exception is the Falcon 9, which has engine out capability, just as the Saturn V.) Whereas most modern rockets fail catastrophically when an engine fails during flight, VentureStar was intended to have a thrust reserve in each engine in the event of an emergency during flight.[2] For example, if an engine on VentureStar was to have failed during an ascent to orbit, another engine opposite to the failed engine would have shut off to counterbalance the failed thrust, and each of the remaining working engines could then have throttled up so as to safely continue the mission.[2] VentureStar would have been environmentally cleaner.[2] Unlike the Space Shuttle, whose solid rocket boosters expended chemical wastes during launch, VentureStar's exhausts would have been composed of only water vapor, since VentureStar's main fuels would have been only liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen.[2] VentureStar's simpler design would have excluded hypergolic propellants and even hydraulics, relying upon only electrical power instead for flight controls, doors and landing gear.[2] Because of its lighter design, VentureStar would have been able to land at virtually any major airport in an emergency,[2] whereas the Space Shuttle required much longer runways than publicly available. [edit]Cancellation

Even a low IQ person can understand !!

Obama failed space program; Romney would revitalize it   Eugene A. Cernan – Orlando Sentinel (Guest Column)   "We now leave as we once came and, God willing, as we shall return: with peace and hope for all mankind."   With these words, I left the moon on Dec. 14, 1972, completing the final manned mission in the Apollo space program.   Those words still resonate in my heart four decades later. But in light of the abdication of leadership over the past four years under President Obama, I'm concerned that the peace and hope the crew of Apollo XVII expressed are more elusive than ever.   The U.S. space program has long been the envy of nations. Since it all began in the 1950s, the United States had become the unchallenged leader in space exploration. Apollo XI's historic mission to the moon united our country, not only because it was — as my friend Neil Armstrong said — "One small step for a man; one giant leap for mankind," but because it represented our nation's triumph over our adversaries.   Even in the midst of "the terrible '60s," when our nation was shackled by civil strife, campus unrest and the beginning of an unpopular war, we banded together and accepted the bold challenge of President John F. Kennedy and once again demonstrated America's collective exceptionalism.   Unfortunately, our nation's space program is today in disarray. Not only did Obama cancel long-held plans for NASA's Constellation program, breaking his earlier promise to fund and implement it, but he has failed to put in place any clear goals about our nation's space programs moving forward.   Frankly, the world's leading space-faring nation shouldn't have to pay Russia for rides to the International Space Station. That's not only an insult to the hundreds of women and men like me who have built a legacy based on, literally, reaching for the stars, but it also hurts the local economy and puts local jobs at risk at a time when Florida's unemployment rate is already higher than the national average.   Four years ago, Obama promised Floridians that space-industry workers wouldn't lose their jobs when the shuttle program ended; in fact, more than 7,400 people lost their jobs. The Kennedy Space Center's 8,500 workers represent its smallest work force in more than 35 years, and it's a far cry from the 15,000 workers the center employed in the mid-1990s.   In short, "hope and change" have not come for the Space Coast; neither have they come for the nation.   Instead, over the past four years, Obama has resorted to leading from behind and asks Americans to settle for a new normal that diminishes our position in the world. Not only is he willing to sacrifice the United States' pre-eminence in space exploration, but he seems unconcerned that our economic and national security might falter as well. It is not just about space; it is about the country.   In contrast, Mitt Romney believes that the 21st century should be an American century in which our country continues to lead the world in terms of the strength of our economy, our military and our space-exploration program. As president, Romney would bring together stakeholders — not only from NASA and leading universities, but also from the Air Force and commercial enterprises — to set goals, identify missions and chart a path that honors the legacy we have built so far and ensures the United States' continued leadership moving forward.   His plan would focus NASA on practical, sustainable missions that balance top-priority science and groundbreaking exploration programs. He would work to partner with our friends in the international community to achieve our nation's space objectives and to open new foreign markets so our aerospace industry can compete for and win business abroad.   And by strengthening our national-security space programs, we can also help ensure the continued safety of our interests around the world.   I've seen the greatness of America. And much of that greatness has stemmed from our unwillingness to settle for second best. I know America can do better than we've been doing over the past four years because I've witnessed it. And I believe America can once again reclaim our nation's strength and leadership by electing Mitt Romney this November.   Eugene A. Cernan flew three historic missions in space as the pilot of Gemini IX (1966), the Lunar Module pilot of Apollo X (1969) and the commander of Apollo XVII (1972). He lives in Houston.

Isn't it obvious, crystal clear, even one with low IQ can understand--Shuttle should be flying!!!!

Vehicle in museum, over a million unemployed, USA needs Capability, Bankrolling Russia, NASA helping Muslims Feel Better, USA in Danger, kids being brainwashed that there is lots of freebees out there, just print money---IT WON'T WORK, EVEN WALL STREET says END IS NEAR!!! The  losses in techincal, to semi-skilled (home-builders, Truckers who bring in the building materials, to those who make those 'products'), including the Realtors who 'sell' the homes, Bankers & the employees; the folks working Retail & Food Service; a big portion of them 'laid off' Because that had been directly involved with Shuttle Operations; for the most part, out of a fairly good b position; cannot pay for their homes;----which they. "walk-away from"---there goes the 'economy' of the area: than multiply by the total areas affected: Affects the AMERICA ECONOMY, right down the drain!!! Mitt, Mitt, Over a Million, A MILLION, out of a job AND  America NEEDS the CAPABILITY!!!! DOES NOT the CORRECTIVE ACTION HIT YOU , ISN'T IT OBVIOUS---RESTART SHUTTLE-- PUT the Shuttle Team Back to Work.!!! Like ·  · Share · Promote · about an hour ago ·  Sent from my iPad

STS1 launch as seen from U2

Vehicle in museum, thousands unemployed, USA needs Capability, Bankrolling Russia, NASA helping Muslims Feel Better, USA in Danger, kids being brainwashed that there is lots of freebees out there, just print money---IT WON'T WORK, EVEN WALL STREET says END IS NEAR!!! Even more unbelievable, WE WON'T EVEN HELP OUR OWN PERSONNEL!!!!!!

Early Shuttle Retirement --- Jeffs

On the Early Retirement of the Space Shuttle File image. by George W. Jeffs for Launchspace Bethesda MD (SPX) May 17, 2011 A Symbol: An in-space ballerina and hypersonic flying marvel, the Space Shuttle Orbiter is almost impossible for others to duplicate and continues to generate international admiration and respect for U.S. technical capabilities. Full Potential Not Yet Realized: The multi-functional Orbiter has performed “as designed” on all assignments including reentry and a key role in the International Space Station (ISS) assembly. Like any new manned system, as crews and engineers become more familiar (like a helicopter) performance “in the box” improves and extending-the-box opportunities are identified. So far the Orbiter has operated generally within the box. Too Young For Retirement: Each remaining Orbiter has many missions and years of life remaining. The Orbiter was designed for a one hundred mission life with a factor of four (i.e. 400 flight potential). It has experienced low flight rates and has not been structurally overloaded (maximum loads occur during the boost phase and high wind shear situations have been avoided through pre-flight meteorological observations) and receives a complete examination and any necessary refurbishment between each flight. The System is Safe for Continued Man Flights: No critical failures have originated from within the triply redundant Orbiter itself but like any spacecraft designed for light-weight, it is vulnerable to abuse (e.g. SRB O rings, ET insulation debris); these are now known and addressable problems. The Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME)s were my principal safety concern through the development years but their flight record has been excellent and it may be that the integrity of recovered, refurbished rocket engines is as good as or even better than new ones. Some rocket engine incipient failures may lie undetected in ocean graves. Real Usability Through “Landing With Dignity”: Turnaround man hours are costly for the Orbiter, not the least demanding being the heat shield preparation and changes are continually being made to improve the situation. Even so, this relatively light-weight, first generation radiant heat shield is itself reusable and obviates having to pay for a new vehicle and other ancillary costs such as ocean recovery for every flight. Note: In depth reviews of “flown” Apollo command modules concluded that second flights of the hardware would be too costly at that time. New Space Initiatives Depend On The Orbiter For Identification and Pursuit: The on-orbit assembly option for a deep space manned system became more viable upon completion of the International Space Station (ISS) using the Orbiter. An “Orbiter” segment of a deep space system would be used in assembly activities, on-orbit transfers, tug functions and most importantly for the crew Earth-to-orbit and orbit-to-Earth transfer. Reliance on an Orbiter for re-entry would eliminate configuration constraints on size and shape and the weight of items such as parachutes, heat shields and landing impact structure and the energy needed to transport this otherwise useless added weight throughout the entire deep space mission. This approach essentially would trade-off these advantages against the development of an additional propulsion module for return from deep space to high/low Earth orbit. The present Orbiter would be a key mechanism in the early development of such an on-orbit assembled system. The Shuttle Continues to Be An Intriguing Candidate For “Commercialization”: The system is presently operational. Its payload-to-orbit delivery and other capabilities are well documented. Its risks are known and assessable for payload insurance and crew-safety considerations and industrial elements are already doing much of the work in many areas. Bailing, leasing and/or other type of agreement for use of government equipment (Orbiters, pads, control centers, etc.) is probably feasible in some arrangement. Needed is an industry, NASA-government, Congressional meeting of the minds on all related elements including government flight requirements, (e.g. ISS servicing) and commercial pricing policies. If such a government hand-off to industry could be affected it would, of course, keep the Shuttle Program available for another decade or two should presently unforeseen government needs arise (even today it would be most helpful to have Apollo supply and rescue vehicles that serviced Skylab available for use on the ISS). U. S. Taxpayers Have Not Yet Realized Their Full Return-on-Investment (ROI) From the Shuttle System: + It really works; it is not just a briefing chart promise. + It has much life remaining and could be the key to the identification and development of new systems. + It is man-rated and safe–probably as safe as any manned system will be-no others will get over one hundred flights down the learning curve. + The infrastructure is in place and operational and has provided industry through extensive, hands-on participation with the depth of training necessary to assume total system accountability. + To replace the Orbiter capabilities will take decades and billions. Decommissioning the Space Shuttle should be postponed indefinitely. George W. Jeffs is the former President of Space and Energy Operations [including Shuttle Orbiter, Integration and Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs)] at Rockwell International. He is also the former President of the Space Division, North American Aviation-Rockwell International [including Apollo Command and Service Modules and the Space Shuttle Orbiter]. He is also a helicopter and fixed-wing pilot with multiengine and instrument ratings. Share This Article With Planet Earth del.icio.us Digg Reddit YahooMyWeb Google Facebook Related Links Launchspace Space Analysis and Space OpEds Search All Our Sites – Powered By Google Building a Heavenly Palace in outer space Moscow, Russia (RIA Novosti) Apr 29, 2011 China’s permanent space station, the Heavenly Palace, is to be launched into orbit within a decade. According to Chinese media reports, the 60-ton craft will include a central module and two laboratories, for a crew of three. So, it’s really more like a country cottage than a palace. This all-Chinese project was unveiled earlier this week in the capital, Beijing. To the public at home, the … read more

Dereliction of duty charges s/b levied against BHO

A former National Security adviser has strong words for Obama’s handling of the Benghazi attack: “Dereliction of duty.” Bypass the Mass Media: Get Articles Straight To Your Inbox! Choose Your Category* Featured Stories (Best Of The Day) Best Of The Web Morning Cartoons Daily Commentary Must See Videos Email* Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven’t already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates. Share with your friends! Facebook53 Email Print Reddit Digg Free Republic Fark It! Read More on this Subject Barack Obama’s Dereliction Of Duty Dereliction – Noun. deliberate, conscious, or willful neglect (esp. in... Bombshell: Clinton Ordered More Security In Benghazi, Obama Denied Request Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ordered additional security for the... Obama Linked To Benghazi Attack We learned Tuesday that Barack Hussein Obama, along with the... Benghazi-Gate: Obama’s Lax Security Led To Four Dead Americans On June 6, the Libyan consulate was attacked with an... Intelligence And National Security Priorities A generation ago, in the 1970s, the U.S. intelligence community...

Vehicle in museum, thousands unemployed, USA needs Capability, Bankrolling Russia, NASA helping Muslims Feel Better, USA in Danger, kids being brainwashed that there is lots of freebees out there, just print money---IT WON'T WORK, EVEN WALL STREET says END IS NEAR!!!

He maybe correct---USA needs STS more than sending man to mars , moon etc-- can be done after STS establishe!!!!

The man that jumped from edge of Space--disagrees with NASA budget He may have a point re: manned mars mission. IMO we should develop EO STS system first. No issue with Curiosity missions or similar ones. We can conduct manned mission later. We have much to do in EO. We have too many presidential advisors with no common sense re: Shuttle Termination!! Keith of NASAWatch disagrees with Baumgartner. The shuttle could support future manned missions to moon, mars, astroids as the EO transportation system. Previous administrations got us to this point--SLS , capsules, NO SHUTTLE!!! "A lot of guys they are talking about landing on Mars," he said. "Because [they say] it is so important to land on Mars because we would learn a lot more about our planet here, our Earth, by going to Mars which actually makes no sense to me because we know a lot about Earth and we still treat our planet, which is very fragile, in a really bad way. "So I think we should perhaps spend all the money [which is] going to Mars to learn about Earth. I mean, you cannot send people there because it is just too far away. That little knowledge we get from Mars I don't think it does make sense." Earlier this year Nasa landed the Curiosity rover on Mars. The plutonium powered robot will explore the surface of the Red Planet for upwards of 10 years at a cost of $2.5 billion (#1.5 billion). "That is tax money," Mr Baumgartner, 43, added. "People should decide 'are you willing to spend all this money to go to Mars?' I think the average person on the ground would never spend that amount of money - they have to spend it on something that makes sense and this is definitely saving our planet." Keith's note: I find it baffling, to say the least, that someone like commercial thrill seeker Felix Baumgartner - who just did something rather gutsy and improbable by jumping from a balloon 24 miles above Earth - thinks that sending humans to Mars is not possible because "it is just too far away". Really, Felix? How defeatist of you. As for the cost of what NASA does - the last time I checked, Felix was not an American taxpayer (you know, the people who actually pay those "taxes" for NASA) but rather, is an Austrian citizen. NASA doesn't get Austrian tax funding. It would seem, based on some simple Google searches, that Austria doesn't really have much of a space program to speak of. Nor do they seem to want one. Yet decades of polls clearly show that Americans really like their space program. So, Felix ... we'll run our space program the way we want to - and perhaps you should focus your space exploration criticism at home - where you pay your taxes? Maybe Austria can have a space program someday. Oh yes, Felix, since you raised the point: how many millions of dollars did your skydive project cost? How did it help to "save our planet"?

: Cernan: Future of America in JEOPARDY !!

Cernan---future of country is at Risk

Future of this country is at Risk---Cernan. Anybody Listening!!!! Cernan--“If we abdicate our leadership in space today, not only is human spaceflight and space exploration at risk, but I believe the future of this country and thus the future of our children and grandchildren as well… Now is the time to be bold, innovative and wise in how we invest in the future of America. Now is the time to re-establish our nation’s commitment to excellence

Vehicle in museum, thousands unemployed, USA needs Capability, Bankrolling Russia, NASA helping Muslims Feel Better, USA in Danger, kids being brainwashed that there is lots of freebees out there, just print money---IT WON'T WORK, EVEN WALL STREET says END IS NEAR!!!

Unbiased external evaluation of Commercial Shuttle

Nelson’s reply to Bolden: Email dated April 8. 2010 Charlie: Ms. Cline's reply to the Commercial Space Shuttle option typifies the disconnect between NASA's senior management decisions based on conjecture and decisions made on unbiased engineering analyses. In her letter she states: 1) “There may not be the market demand to profitably sustain a commercially-operated Space Shuttle.” The United States had lost its profitable commercial space launch market before the downturn in the satellite launch business. Our space launch industry is dependent on government support for its survival. However, while significant efforts were made to lower the operation cost of the privatized expendable launch vehicles (EELV’s), none were made for the reusable space shuttle even though a NASA JSC study report that: “Privatization of the SSP has the potential to provide significant benefits to the Government. (Ref.: “Concept of Privatization of the Space Shuttle”, Space Shuttle Program Office, Sept. 28, 2001). 2) “The R&D will target new approaches to first-stage launch propulsion, in-space advanced engine technology development and demonstrations, and foundational or basic propulsion research.” Exhaustive launch propulsion systems evaluations have proven again and again that no significant improvements in the performance of first stage chemical engines can be achieved. In other words, we’re stuck with what we got. In-space advance engine development can best be conducted if the engine can be tested in space and returned for evaluation. Only the space shuttle has heavy cargo return capability. 3) “NASA does not have a Plan B.” While there may be no Plan B, NASA is investigating a heavy launch vehicle (HLV) space transportation solution for the failed Ares Orion launch system.  The HLV’s will cost a minimum   $11 billion to develop, has no commercial applications, has no cargo return capability, and fails to solve the launch gap. The HLV like the Constellation program requires two launches to lift 66 MT to LEO for a seven day manned lunar mission. The existing space shuttle and EELV space transportation systems can deliver the same cargo mass to LEO and avoid the launch gap and loss of thousands of shuttle jobs. Using the space shuttle and EELV eliminates the HLV development risk and cost. A commercial space shuttle further reduces operations cost. The commercial space shuttle and EELV are the better candidates for establishing a human space based transportation system for lunar, deep space, and Mars missions. A space based transportation system is mandatory for human space exploration. To continue on the Apollo expendable vehicle concept path invites failure and disaster. In addition there is a safety issue associated in transporting astronauts to and from LEO in space capsules that has not been addressed. The Soyuz capsule has experience two fatal incidences. Warning signs of another catastrophic Soyuz capsule failure are becoming increasingly alarming. The commercial space shuttle not only significantly lowers the cost of mission operation, it can provide crew escape pods. Has NASA forgotten that crew safety is their number one priority? I strongly recommend that NASA have an unbiased external evaluation of the commercial space shuttle and EELV space transportation system…due diligence is mandatory in this nation’s critical stage of human space exploration. Once again Charlie…this is happening  on your watch. Don Don A. Nelson Nelson Aerospace Consulting   Retired NASA Aerospace Engineer 1407 Moller Road  Alvin, TX 77511 RETURN TO HOME PAGE

NASA knew the right answer

NASA knew right answer-- operate shuttle commercially--wanted to spend more There was a solution and NASA knew it. That solution was to commercialize the STS Space Shuttles and use them in conjunction with a new Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift Launch vehicle, such a Shuttle-C. Shuttle-C could have been built for about $10 billion or about the same money wasted on Constellation before it got cancelled. A Shuttle-C could have lifted some 70,000kg into space. Sharing resources, facilities, and even missions would have reduced the cost for both the Commercial Shuttles and the Shuttle-C. NASA demonstrated the ability to operate the Shuttles at reduced cost when it started shifting people from the bloated Shuttle program to Constellation because this reduce Shutle flight costs from about $1.3 billion to only $750 million. Something NASA kept sayind couldn't be done. The simple fact is the Shuttles died because NASA and the Aerospace Industry didn't want a couple of billion dollars a year flying the Shuttles, they wanted the $200 Billion + building Constellation. At the price you could have flown the Shuttles on over 200 missions. So the Shuttles died and our manned space program was slaughterd for pork. Now they are promoting SLS, which is a vehicle with no mission other than pork. The shuttle concept is the correct approach & Commercial Shuttle must be implemented. Don Nelson covers on his site nasaproblems.com.  We are now ceding control of space to China for which we will a pay a big price.

Space Capability

The American space capability has been exceptional over the past 50 years.  For the last 30 years we have utilized the amazing shuttle.  It has had its problems, most of them send flags up prior to loss of crew events and could have been corrected prior to LOC.  The shuttle's capabilities are unique and none of the new designs, SLS, spaceX , etc don't come close to shuttle's capabilities and will not be operational for several years.  The USA needs the capabilities of the shuttle NOW.  Hubble & ISS are and will suffer without this capability.  ISS may be deorbited by 2020.  Hubble will need maintenance soon.  This fact is obvious to everybody . We have orbiters going to museums, lot of people seem to enjoy this, many showing their respect for the shuttle.  But out of this large number, I would expect to see more with a passion like Cernan, the late Neil Armstrong, Kraft, Krantz, Crippen, and so on to retain this unique capability until we get a replacement.  I would expect a capable journalist to ask the question, why are we scrapping  this capability with no replacement. Strangely , I don't see many bring up this issue.  Don't see many former NASA /Contractor employees ranting & raving about this which seems strange.  You see lots of ranting about free birth control, plus many similar topics. I can only conclude that people just don't appreciate the significance of space capability.   A former major aerospace manager told me it will take fear to stimulate the USA to maintain the required capability.  Most do not believe it, China is making significant progress while we have many unrelated things on our minds.   Control of Space is critical to the USA , as Eugene Cernan & Harrison Schmitt have addressed. The other day on twitter , I ask an Astronaut, why we got rid of our capability & what he thought about our loss.  His answer was--- NASA is decommissioning the shuttle.

John Glenn pleaded with BHO to keep shuttle until replacement is operational!

John Glenn, the space pioneer and former Democratic senator, was so bothered by the prospect of a space gap that he personally pleaded with Obama last year to keep the shuttle program going until a replacement system was ready. After listening to Glenn’s appeal in a 40-minute meeting at the White House, the president said, “We just don’t have the money to do it,” Glenn recalls. He says he worries that, once the U.S. is a fully dependent space client, Russia will use its advantage to up the price. “I think it was very short-sighted,” Glenn says. “We’re throwing away the shuttle, which is the most complex vehicle ever put together by human beings. We’re saying that we’re putting complete reliance on the Soyuz, at enormous expense, to get our people back and forth from space. And you know, good and well, when they renegotiate that the next time around, it’s going to be a lot more money.”

Saturn's burp

The “burp” can be seen in the upper right of this image of the planet Saturn which was taken by the Cassini spacecraft. Photo Credit: NASA/JPL NASA’s Cassini spacecraft has captured an image of interstellar indigestion. The bus-sized satellite, orbiting the ringed planet Saturn, caught the massive gas giant as it “belched” long after scientists had thought the storm had passed. Information gleaned from Cassini’s composite infrared spectrometer (CIRS) instrument revealed the storm sent temperatures in Saturn’s stratosphere sky-rocketing to approximately 150 degrees Fahrenheit (83 kelvins) above normal. During this period, scientists at NASA’s Goddard Spaceflight Center noted an increase in the amount of ethylene gas. Scientists do not know where this colorless, odorless gas originated from as it is not typically found on Saturn. Cassini was launched from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida in 1997. Photo Credit: NASA Saturn’s “burp” of energy was detailed in a paper that will be published in the Nov. 20 issue of the Astrophysical Journal. “This temperature spike is so extreme it’s almost unbelievable, especially in this part of Saturn’s atmosphere, which typically is very stable,” said Brigette Hesman, the study’s lead author and a University of Maryland scientist who works at Goddard. “To get a temperature change of the same scale on Earth, you’d be going from the depths of winter in Fairbanks, Alaska, to the height of summer in the Mojave Desert.” The storm was detected by Cassini in December of 2010. The storm would eventually cover a region approximately the size of North America. The process, like many within the solar system, is cyclical, occurring once every thirty years or so (thirty years equals about one Saturn year). The discovery included a number of “firsts.” It was the first Saturnian storm investigated by Cassini as well as the first that was observed at thermal infrared wavelengths. It was the CIRS that collected the infrared data which scientists used to take the planet’s temperature. CIRS also allows the team back on Earth to study phenomena that would otherwise be invisible. Cassini is showing that there is still a great deal about Saturn that we do not know. When the ethylene spike occurred, it was 100 times greater than what scientists believed was even possible. This observation was confirmed by the McMath-Pierce Solar Telescope located on Kitt Peak in Arizona. The team is still trying to figure out where the ethylene cam from but has already ruled out a reservoir deeper in Saturn’s atmosphere. “We’ve really never been able to see ethylene on Saturn before, so this was a complete surprise,” said Goddard’s Michael Flasar, the CIRS team lead. The forceful storm generated unprecedented spikes in temperature and increased amounts of ethylene. In these two sets of measurements taken by Cassini’s composite infrared spectrometer, yellow represents the highest temperatures. Each strip maps a single molecule (top: methane, bottom: ethylene), with temperature measurements taken in the northern hemisphere, all the way around the planet. Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/GSFC The Cassini-Huygens mission was launch in 1997 , with the Huygens lander touching down on Saturn’s hazy moon Titan in 2005. The mission is a cooperative endeavor between NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the European Space Agency and the Italian Space Agency. For more info on this discovery: http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMLPIMFL8H_index_0.html For more info about the Cassini mission: http://www.nasa.gov/cassini Share:

Saturn's burp from Cassini

Evolve Shuttle, Don't End It!!

THE MANSPACE VISIONSTORELATEST BUZZCOMMUNITY EVENTS VIDEOS NEWS ARCHIVES PRESS KIT My Word by Buzz Aldrin: Let shuttle do heavy lifting Mar 17, 2010 Orlando SentinelBy: Buzz Aldrin There are numerous bits of information, disinformation and just plain wrong ideas now swirling about NASA and the Space Coast concerning whether or not it is possible to extend the operational life of the space-shuttle program. So here are the facts: Currently, there are five to seven shuttle external fuel tanks in various stages of assembly, with another tank ready for a “launch on need” mission. Some of these tanks would require more parts than others, but they exist. There are four remaining shuttle missions on the manifest, with the next flight, Space Shuttle Discovery, planned for early April. I have proposed stretching out these remaining flights to one every six months. With the four remaining flights, plus at least five sets of additional spare parts available for missions, that’s a potential shuttle extension of five years under the present capability. I have proposed that the heavy-lift rocket, which nearly everyone involved in space policy agrees we will need, be based upon the existing space-shuttle architecture. That means the heavy lifter uses the four-segment solid-fuel boosters, external tank and shuttle main engines, existing shuttle facilities, and, equally as important, the existing shuttle work force. Only the winged orbiter is replaced with a payload canister with the three engines mounted at its base. This first-generation, shuttle-derived booster could lift far more than any space capsule into low Earth orbit, doing in a single launch what would take many capsules to achieve. Compare that to the tiny amount of cargo that any space-capsule design, including the venerable Soyuz, can lift. The Apollo 11 Command Module Columbia that Neil Armstrong, Mike Collins and I rode to the moon and back in 1969 was a 10-foot cone. A single shuttle launch today could lift the equivalent of many Apollo space capsules. The shuttle-derived heavy-lift booster could haul even more. That first-generation booster could evolve into a Mars-capable heavy lifter, gradually replacing the two four-segment solids with winged fly-back boosters and new upper transfer stages. The funds to pay for this vehicle and tests of its designs are already contained in President Obama’s proposed fiscal-year 2011 budget. All I’m urging is that they be applied to a shuttle-based system. It’s a win-win for all. It allows full funding for a commercial crew capability, funds development of a new heavy-lift booster and uses the money now planned for termination of the shuttle to extend the program in incremental fashion. Makes sense, doesn’t it? The only potential obstacle is NASA’s current plan to start tearing down the shuttle pads to conform to the Ares rockets — the same rocket that Obama has ordered canceled. That’s right: NASA is planning to demolish shuttle infrastructure that we could use to keep the shuttle flying and develop a family of shuttle-based heavy-lift boosters for a rocket program that has been already terminated. If we are truly concerned about American space leadership and ways to keep the shuttle workers employed until new space vehicles have proved themselves, the solution is obvious: Evolve the shuttle; don’t end it. Read the original article at Orlando Sentinel Comments Off CONTACT BUZZGET BUZZ’S NEWSLETTERFOLLOW BUZZ ONDOWNLOAD BUZZ’S IPHONE APP © 2011 BUZZ ALDRIN ENTERPRISES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | SITE BY MH Edit

SPM Thompson's observations--shuttle s/b FLYING !!

THE SPACE SHUTTLE  -  MY OBSERVATIONS By Bob Thompson   NASA Shuttle Program Manager 1970-1981   The recently retired Space Shuttle Program has been on the human spaceflight stage for the past 40 years. It is probably too early to establish or comment on its historical place in the evolution of man’s venture into this vast region that we call Space. However some observations may be of value at this time. Personal observations are always biased to a certain extent and one never has all of the facts. We must accept these limitations. I was closely associated with the initial phases of the program and offer the following observations in a constructive intent to be helpful in this time of transition. THE SYSTEM The Space Shuttle System emerged out of a loosely focused 6 year planning effort led by NASA with contracted engineering and program planning support from the U.S. aerospace industry. The time period was from 1966 until 1972. Prior discussions by space visionaries were not constrained by real world considerations of cost and practicality and many wild speculations appear in the cartoon history of spaceflight. Who first sat around an open fire pit and visualized man flying into space in various vehicles has been lost in history. Many NASA studies prior to this time were primarily conceptual renderings. The loosely focused nature of free thinking can be valuable. However by this time we (the U.S.) had progressed thru the Mercury and Gemini programs and had established the Apollo system configuration as the solution to the initial lunar landing and return objective. These programs had to live in the real world of weight, thrust, control, cost etc. They had each fulfilled their program objectives by taking maximum advantage of throw away staging and capsule type earth entry vehicles. These systems worked quite well and were successful with most program objectives met. Cost is relative and by 1966 the annual funding allocated to NASA had grown to nearly 5% of the nation’s total spending at the federal level. Both the Executive and Legislative branches considered this too high for the Agency when overall National needs were considered. Annual funding includes all NASA activity. There was a majority opinion to continue manned spaceflight evolution after fulfilling the Lunar commitment but at a significantly lower annual budget level. The acceptable support level was left open for future discussion by the Johnson administration in 1966 but it was to come down from the 1966 peak. From 1966 to 1970 NASA concentrated on Apollo and Skylab, brought the budget down and left future program planning in what was known as Phase A (Concept phase/ free thinking). Skylab was not considered a traditional program in the sense that it was scoped to effectively use residual hardware from Apollo and was limited to the three planned manned missions. The Skylab workshop was not designed for use beyond this planned visit by three crews staying about 1,2, and 3 months respectively.. Future program planning beyond Skylab converged on the Shuttle and a Modular Space Station in low earth orbit as the evolution objectives to follow Skylab. The annual funding level was still to be discussed. The Shuttle concept that emerged from Phase A was to improve cost thru reusability and improve on earth return with a runway landing. The orbiting vehicle was to have significant space work capability and a wide range of potential uses. It was an enabling system that would certainly improve our manned space capability and support the assembly of modular Space Stations and other applications in earth orbit.  It could also assemble vehicles for missions beyond low earth orbit. It was to be the first step in an expanding space transportation system and provide for traveling to and from low earth orbit with useful payload and crew.  In 1970 senior NASA management decided that the Agency was ready to enter Phase B with the Shuttle. Plans for the completion of Apollo and the utilization of residual hardware for Skylab were firm. Major program planning would be directed toward low earth orbit and a long term fully reusable concept was to lead to the configuration used to establish a set of detailed program plans. This two-stage fully reusable configuration was the decision from the Phase A effort with some specific lower order design issues such as wing sweep and earth entry energy management unsettled. With the move to Phase B a more focused effort was required. A program office was established at NASA headquarters and project offices were established within the three NASA centers. The thinking at this time was that this first vehicle program in the major evolution step after Apollo was to be the Shuttle and the two-stage fully reusable configuration would fit the Apollo model of center assignments. JSC would manage the Orbiter development, MSFC would manage the fly back booster development and KSC would manage launch support. Everyone was anxious to move forward. At this move to Phase B, I was appointed as the Project Manager responsible for the day to day activities at JSC in support of Shuttle and reported in a program organization headed by the NASA Headquarters Shuttle Program Manager, Charley Donlan. Similar center level project offices were located at both MSFC and KSC. The first order of business for this new program organization was to issue an RFP for Phase B design studies for the chosen configuration. This was accomplished in a timely fashion and two Phase B study contracts were awarded. Rockwell to be managed by my office at JSC and Mc Donnell/Douglas to be managed by the MSFC Shuttle Project Office. Each contractor was to perform preliminary design and manufacturing planning for the complete two-stage fully-reusable configuration and the project offices were to report results to the Program Office in NASA Headquarters. In addition to the two study contracts awarded it was decided to award level of effort contracts to the other interested contractors in order to keep them in the game for the larger development contracts that would be forthcoming. Grumman was assigned to my office as one of the level of effort contractors. By late 1970 we were underway with Phase B, the preliminary design and program planning phase of the two-stage fully-reusable configuration chosen during Phase A. Shortly after I was assigned as the JSC Project Manager I opened a dialogue with Charley Donlan and began to question the wisdom of the decision from Phase A relative to the configuration. The capabilities required for the system were appropriate for this point in our manned spaceflight evolution and were completely satisfactory to me.  However the full-reusability decision was very troubling. Carrying the propellant internal to the vehicles, developing two large complex manned systems at the same time and flying them thru their planned flight regimes seemed to me a bad choice. Charley was a very capable engineer. We could communicate very effectively by phone. He listened patiently to my arguments and we arrived at a very satisfactory approach at the time. I would keep Rockwell focused on the fully reusable system in sync with MSFC project direction to McDonnell-Douglas and I was free to direct Grumman as I pleased in their level of effort support as long as I met our desire to keep them knowledgeable for the forthcoming development phase. With this agreement we directed Grumman to study the effect of putting the rocket engine liquid propellant in throw away tanks starting with the orbiter. Phase B continued thru 1970 and most of 1971 focused on the fully reusable system. We managed the alternate partially-reusable configuration evaluation by Grumman in a non-disruptive manner. As the two development centers (MSFC/JSC) proceeded with their contractors on the Phase B design work, headquarters would collect the results and negotiate with their Washington interfaces in both the Executive and the Legislative branches of the government seeking approval to proceed into the development phase of the program. About half way thru the planned Phase B period, it became clear that this approval was in jeopardy. By this time the NASA annual budget was down to about 2% of the nation’s budget and a sustainable level had not been agreed on. A strong minority voice was emerging in the Senate against manned spaceflight and the Nixon Administration was facing tough budget choices. The fully-reusable system required the start up development of two large manned vehicles at the same time and the required annual funding forced the NASA budget to hold near the 2% or slightly higher level. NASA could not get support at this level. By this time at JSC we had completed our off line study of a partially reusable configuration featuring a throw away tank and had budget projections that Washington found more agreeable. It is important to recognize that the two systems had the same on orbit capability. Putting the rocket propellant in an expendable tank and operating the orbiter engines at lift off reduced the staging velocity considerably such that low performance solid propellant boosters were adequate. This allowed time spacing of the development periods required for the various flight elements such that the yearly development costs in the program never exceeded 1 billion dollar. (We were budgeting with 1971 dollars). This allowed NASA to assure the Administration that it could target its annual budget at 1% or less and go forward with Shuttle development as a formal program. President Nixon decided that if NASA could get its budget down to 1% or less and build and operate the Shuttle we had a deal. He made it clear that Space Station was not a part of the deal. That decision could come later by another Administration at a budget level of its choice. With this milestone, which occurred early in 1972, we quickly finished our extended Phase B work targeted toward the expendable tank configuration. Grumman had been very helpful in evaluating the expendable external tank configuration. Mc Donnell Douglas provided the analysis that led me to accept and recommend the solid propulsion boosters. It was then decided by NASA Headquarters that the next Phase of the Shuttle Program would be managed on a daily basis out of JSC and that I was to be the Program Manager reporting to a Program Director in the office of the Associate Administrator for Manned Spaceflight. I immediately set about creating a program organization and preparing a Phase C/D request for proposal to release for contractor bidding to build the orbiter and support system engineering and integration. A contract for engine development had been released earlier and won by Rocketdyne. The tank and booster rocket developments could be delayed to a later start and keep the budget under control. I decided that NASA had the necessary talent to integrate the program with suitable contractor support from the contractors having responsibility for manufacturing the vehicle elements. Major integration support would come from the contractor building the orbiter and minor support from the engine, tank and booster contractors. All contractor direction would come from the designated NASA project office or program staff office. All major design decisions were finalized by the designated NASA program or project office. NASA retained the   responsibility for system engineering and integration of the vehicle and the program. NASA also retained close control of software development and the critical flight control system. We decided that the location of the major avionics development laboratory would be at JSC in order to facilitate long term program support. The engines were to be controlled by their own computers with minimum interface with the orbiter computers. These and many other implementing decisions were made and by late 1972 we had selected Rockwell as the contractor to build the orbiter and to provide major support to system engineering and integration. We were under way with the design, development, test and evaluation phase of the program and looking forward to first orbital flight. A few years ahead but in a stable program plan. Observation:  A very reasonable configuration and program evolved and served the nation well. Budget A few remarks on budget:  We at my level had estimated that the Design, Development, Test, and Evaluation ( DDTE) phase of the program for the expendable tank configuration could cost 5.15B$ in the purchasing  power of the 1971 dollar and that first flight could occur in NOV. 1979 if we were perfect. We also said that it was not prudent to expect perfection and that the DDTE phase of the program should expect to cost 6.15B and get to first orbital flight 18 months later. We felt that it was prudent to plan optimistically and expect problems. The DDTE budget included cost for the first 4 orbital flights. Flight cost after this was to be contained in an operations budget. (An observation). This budget information was passed from my level in the program to my Washington interfaces. We were subsequently informed that the program would go forward with a DDTE budget of 5.15B and a first orbit flight date of Nov. 1979. The 5.15B was placed in the federal budget in 1973 dollars.  My attempt to find out what happened to 1B$, 18 months of time, and two years of high inflation were unsuccessful and I was willing to continue as Program Manager. Overrun criticism could be dealt with as it develops. Unfortunately the budget terminology of operations after 4 flights was badly interpreted several years later as a safe shift in vehicle risk maturity. These were unintended consequences: I should have anticipated a misuse of “perfect” program estimates and vehicle risk cannot be derived from budget terminology. Observation: The development program was successfully completed slightly under the 6.15B projection and first flight came slightly less than 18 months after the Nov 1979 optimistic planning date. Observation on configuration:  The relatively free environment of NASA Phase A planning led to a much larger, probably more complex configuration with a higher development cost than was supportable. The useful work capability of the two configurations under discussion was the same. The Phase A configuration was assumed to be “low” in operating cost due to full reusability, and it appealed to the NASA organization. Each development center had a moderately independent vehicle to build similar to our Apollo experience. Had funding support been provided, a successful program might have ensued at a lower cost per flight. The development cost was certainly going to be higher by at least a factor of 2 or3. It is my opinion that both the cost of ownership and the cost per flight would have been higher with the fully reusable configuration. I have doubt that the development program with that Phase A configuration would have succeeded. I feel that we shifted to the correct configuration during our Phase B studies independent of development cost. The budget pressure and the availability of a suitable alternate configuration led to a successful vehicle development and 30 years of useful flight.       Manned Spaceflight Evolution and the Shuttle Program: I often refer to the Shuttle as an enabling system to draw attention to the versatility and capability of the configuration that was chosen. The propulsion elements were arranged such that the Orbiter elements forward of the three main rocket engines could be readily replaced with a cargo carrier having significant capability. In the initial planning for the Shuttle program this possible arrangement was referred to as Shuttle C. Shuttle C was not pursued very far in the 1970 time period since the Shuttle and the modular Space Station needed to come first in an evolutionary sense. My observation: The enabling potential of the Shuttle configuration was lost during the 30+ years of Shuttle/Space Station evolution. After the second Shuttle accident confidence in the system was at such a low point that termination was allowed to proceed without responsible evaluation. NASA was a willing spectator.   Cost of ownership  How to evaluate the value of the Shuttle to the nation is a challenge. We see a lot of discussion about cost per pound of payload to orbit and the Shuttle being too expensive on this basis. This is a poor parameter to attempt to use in determining the value of a system like the Space Shuttle. What is important is the value of what it does and is it affordable on an annual budget that is sustainable. The Shuttle fit comfortably within a NASA annual budget of 1% or less of the nation’s budget for 40 years and enabled additional steps in the evolution of manned spaceflight. Hubble and Space Station are two examples of the evolution during this period. We have truly been a space faring nation since Apollo within an affordable cost of ownership. The perception that the Shuttle was too costly and risky should have been corrected. We should have been more thoughtful about how to evolve our manned spaceflight capability within a cost of ownership consideration.   Risk How to evaluate the risk that the Shuttle entailed is also a challenge. The two fatal accidents contributed significantly to the perception of risk and hastened the desire to move on to a “safer” system. Safety is most often accepted as the gain/risk ratio and what the so called safer system does must be considered. It is my observation that current thinking favors the need for a separate launch escape system and a capsule/parachute earth entry configuration. This attempt to lower risk may become counterproductive to an evolving capability and should be carefully reevaluated. In this same issue of risk we seem to want to require a direct return to the earth surface from all regions in space occupied by humans. This will also be restrictive to our evolving move to deeper regions in space. The Shuttle experience will contribute to these considerations perhaps in an unfortunate way. The failures that led to the two Shuttle accidents should be carefully reviewed and objectively understood. The design weaknesses that led to the accidents are typical of the issues that must be corrected during operations in any complex flight system. In summary my looking back observation is that the Shuttle configuration was a wise choice. The enabling capability that was used gave us a productive 30 year flight activity. The enabling capability for beyond earth orbit flight support was not properly understood by evolving management and essentially destroyed by the two fatal accidents. The decision to retire the Shuttle system made in 2004 by the Bush Administration and subsequently upheld by Obama Administration caused a radical shift in our manned spaceflight evolution path. Where we go from here is unclear at present. The shift to “commercial” for low earth orbit operations may prove beneficial and history may well record this as a wise move at this time. How to approach travel beyond earth orbit is currently vaguely directed toward an asteroid visit and a possible Mars fly by at some future date. We have embarked on a high cost high risk of cancellation program to develop SLS/Orion without a proper understanding of what we intend to accomplish. The so called “Flexible Path” discussion from the Augustine study directed by the current Administration may have value in providing guidance to research activities but does not give adequate focus for formal program planning. Before entering the high cost phase in any program you should have detailed plans on what you want to accomplish and a fair idea of when. Budget support is vital.     Modular Space Station In the transition from Apollo to Shuttle a major consideration was the approach to a long term Space Station configuration. After much debate a modular approach was chosen and the desired modular size helped establish the payload bay size for the Shuttle. Modular assembly on orbit drove many of the capability features of the Shuttle. The modular Space Station approach was a wise choice.   Why was the program terminated? My best summary of why the Shuttle program termination was announced in 2005 by President Bush and allowed to occur in 2012 by the Obama Administration would have to combine several factors. No clear rationale for termination was ever given by either the Bush or Obama Administrations that spanned the 7 year phase out leading to the final flight in 2011. The Bush Administration announced in its “Vision for Space Exploration” that the venerable Shuttle would be terminated at a future date (2010) and that we would embark on a Lunar/Mars program. This Lunar/Mars program decision was not well thought out and proved to be a folly. It spawned a program called Constellation that expired due to poor engineering, poor planning, poor execution and lack of funding support. It was properly cancelled by the Obama administration but pieces linger on due to confused support by the Congress and the Obama Administration. Clearly the two fatal accidents led to a perception that the Shuttle was unsafe. Most discussion of cost led to the perception that the Shuttle was too costly. The chronological age of the system led to a perception that the Shuttle was too old. These loose perceptions were never properly responded to by NASA. In fact they were instituted by many key NASA officials. For example when Mr. Griffin became the NASA Administrator he quickly proclaimed that the Shuttle and Space Station were a mistake and he was here to correct this mistake. He promptly wasted about 12 Billion dollars and five years. Therefore perception became fact and the Shuttle program was allowed to fade away gracefully over several years with no responsible study as to why. The Nation quietly found its self without a means for launching people into space. Depending on the Russian Soyuz system was the only option available to continue manning the Space Station. The “Vision for Space Exploration” announcement by the Bush Administration following the second Shuttle accident and the confusion left by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board essentially set the country up for an inadvertent “Bait and switch” situation. Let’s terminate the venerable Shuttle, go back to the moon with an Apollo type throw away system and on to Mars. We can do this within current budget levels. Once the bait was taken the Shuttle was allowed to terminate and the idea of” Apollo on Steroids” disappeared. We are now in a “Down Time” and can hope for commercial to get us back in the space business with some limited capability. This so called “commercial” program started by NASA during the Bush Administration and wisely continued by the Obama Administration should be encouraged and properly supported. It is now May 2012, 42 years after establishing the Shuttle Program as a formal NASA endeavor. We are temporarily out of the manned launch business. We need an Administration that can plan to use our available Space budget wisely. We should continue with commercial and carefully review the reasoning behind SLS/Orion. The budget level for NASA and all high cost program efforts need careful Executive and Legislative Branch understanding. NASA’S Manned Exploration Program is not effectively planned.                       Edit

Bold Vision that makes sense--Puts shuttle team back to work!!

A Bold Vision that makes Sense, Puts Shuttle Team back to Work–Keeps USA no. 1 A Bold Vision that makes Sense, Puts Shuttle Team back to work and Maintains USA Space Supremacy Posted on January 31, 2012 by Bob A Bold Vision that makes Sense, Puts Shuttle Team back to work and Maintains USA Space Supremacy A radical idea—fly shuttle—use it to implement orderly plan for moon colony The capability is available, shuttle and facilities paid for,  all we have to do is  operate it, design upper stages for moon as the budget will support. Besides that we can support ISS, Hubble, make design improvements to shuttle and save money by having USA operate shuttle. The Case to Save the Shuttle, On the Early Retirement of Shuttle, and the Nonsensical   Retirement of the Shuttle cover the key points. Continue commercial crew effort with prizes as determined by the presidents space council. Additional bonus, puts our talented technical team back to work. Edit

This Administration does not want Shuttle flying PEROID!!!

ADM does not want shuttle flying PERIOD–SIMPLE As That This last effort was purely commercial , no gov. Funds .  You would think NASA would be pleased to cooperate with the private venture or the United Space Alliance effort.   Let us face facts the adm Does Not want the shuttle flying PERIOD. Look at the people leading NASA, their backgrounds, look at the adm, advisors, czars, etc. Americans you need to get Mad, contact lawmakers, blog, tweet, Facebook — get the word out, save the shuttle.   This decision can be reversed. Reading a related article on Hale’s blog regarding the barn’s burned down, the horse is out of the barn , etc., Americans this can be reversed. A comment to Hale’s blog made an Excellent point—tell me what hardware/part you need an I will get it designed/fabricated This is Very Important —we can DO WHATEVER we need to. Edit

Email to Mitt re: Shuttle

USA Space Program---Message to Romney Cathy Please pass to your dad. John Sununu If the USA does not get the commercial shuttle going it will be decades before we get the space capability we have /had with shuttle.  By starting now we can get shuttle going again in 1 to two years.  We are wasting money on the present NASA approaches.  Since you communicate with Mitt Romney, please make him aware of this.  This can be verified by kraft, Crippen, Armstrong, Cernan, Aldrin, Krantz, Abbey plus others.  Don Nelson is an excellent contact at nasaproblems.com.   If we don't restart shuttle commercially, the USA has wasted over 200 billion dollars plus placed ISS & Hubble in danger and are bankrolling the Russian program to the tune of 400 million per year for 5 to 7 years. The only way to maintain our capability is with shuttle. If we do not restart shuttle, we will NOT have HSF capability for DECADES. Now would be an excellent time to make the announcement.  We must defeat BHO for the survival of the USA.  A Florida win would help immensely. Bobby Martin  5808913343 Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Bobby Martin Date: August 8, 2012 9:44:11 PM CDT To: "info@portsmouthmfa.org" Subject: USA space program Cathy Your dad made an excellent point the other night on Hannity, pointing out that we have outsourced our space capability to Russia .   I would like to get a message to Mitt that the Space Shuttle is America's Space Capability and our expertise & capability has been severely damaged with shuttle termination.  The shuttle did not get a fair treatment by the existing NASA management.  Don Nelson a brilliant retired NASA mission operations engineer has a site nasaproblems.com that summarizes the proper direction for our space program.  Commercial Shuttle should be funded or America will not be preeminent  which will place our national security at risk. The shuttle uses less than .1 percent of the national budget, consider what we waste yearly on various useless programs. Consider those out of work across the nation who worked for shuttle suppliers on a program America needs.  Consider impact on Florida.  I suggest an announcement 1 month prior to election by Mitt that he will Restart Shuttle might make a difference in Florida.  Mitt would be doing the right thing for America. Thank you Bobby Martin 5808913343 Keeptheshuttleflying.com Sent from my iPad

WHY?

One would think after watching shuttle/orbiters flyby that the obvious question would enter ones mind----WHY ARE WE PUTTING this Very Capable Vehicle in Museum??? Sent from my iPad

Can't do anymore thanks to BHO !!

Operate shuttle commercially. Re: nasaproblems.com

NASA knew right answer-- operate shuttle commercially--wanted to spend more There was a solution and NASA knew it. That solution was to commercialize the STS Space Shuttles and use them in conjunction with a new Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift Launch vehicle, such a Shuttle-C. Shuttle-C could have been built for about $10 billion or about the same money wasted on Constellation before it got cancelled. A Shuttle-C could have lifted some 70,000kg into space. Sharing resources, facilities, and even missions would have reduced the cost for both the Commercial Shuttles and the Shuttle-C. NASA demonstrated the ability to operate the Shuttles at reduced cost when it started shifting people from the bloated Shuttle program to Constellation because this reduce Shutle flight costs from about $1.3 billion to only $750 million. Something NASA kept sayind couldn't be done. The simple fact is the Shuttles died because NASA and the Aerospace Industry didn't want a couple of billion dollars a year flying the Shuttles, they wanted the $200 Billion + building Constellation. At the price you could have flown the Shuttles on over 200 missions. So the Shuttles died and our manned space program was slaughterd for pork. Now they are promoting SLS, which is a vehicle with no mission other than pork. The shuttle concept is the correct approach & Commercial Shuttle must be implemented. Don Nelson covers on his site nasaproblems.com.  We are now ceding control of space to China for which we will a pay a big price.

Get the shuttle out of museum, only way to regain our space capability!!!

Gov. Romney, we can't wait for your special panel of experts, the shuttle is the only way we can regain our capability without the passage of decades.  The hardware exists, facilities exist, the team of personnel can be reconstituted .  None, none of the other plans for vehicles exist today ( manned rated).  Even the X series ,   including X37B does not have the capability of shuttle. The Shuttle is the ONLY answer.  All the others must be fabricated, tested & manned rated. Failure to Restart Shuttle will set the USA space capability back decades.  Isn't it OBVIOUS, SAY you will get the program going. BHO terminated it because he doesn't want American Preeminence. Read Arthur Herman's nypost article re: Atlantis. Talk to Cernan, Kraft, Krantz, Crippen, Cunningham, DeCastro, Jeffs, plus many more. Read what Neil Armstrong said , " America's Space Program Embarrassing" in Congressional testimony. Look at all the KSC, MSFC, JSC plus shuttle team from Rockford, Ill. To Windsor Locks, CT to Troy, Lima & Akron, OH to various Calif. Cities plus many other cities around the USA who are part of a critical technical team which USA must keep together. It has been a little over a year since last flight, come out and say you will restart shuttle, be BOLD---Critical to USA security & technical capability!!! Mitt, you can do it, get new space advisors--you need to do that since you have not uttered the words Restart Shuttle.  For Heaven Sakes, we have the hardware in a lousy museum & facilities exists which we spent another 100 Billion--we are wasting money & capability needed for proper operation of the 100 Billion dollar ISS plus we must provide for Hubble maintenance. Mitt, you must correct this for the security of the USA . Background: nasaproblems.com. By Don Nelson former JSC MOD engineer. Sent from my iPad

Disturbing & Ignorant remarks from ASAP & CAIB Chair

← Save Hubble, Restart shuttleTwitter Updates for 2012-05-28 → Risk Assessment like this used on shuttle–note last two paras. Of The Future of Hubble . Posted on May 28, 2012 by Bob Risk assessment like this used on Shuttle!! Americans, we have shut down this shuttle program based on this kind of thinking. We need an emergency session of the House and Senate space committees to reassess this situation . We are in a crisis situation, if any of you know anyone with influence, please get them to help. Please get this to all your Congressmen and senators.  This ought to awaken all of you to the gross mismanagement of the space program by the adm and NASA. Read this,           it is not unsafe, but not safe, needs more studies. We believe it would be unwise.  DOD aircraft extensions have not turned out well. The shuttle is risky and becoming more so.  More risk than folks should shoulder. These people adm Dyrer and Gehman have essentially put a Safe multi- billion program in the TRASH, based on their emotions. Gehman–to be safe we should fly as few missions as possible before retirement.   John Shannon , SPM states that Dryer utterances are disturbing based on the recent (flights from Columbia to present) have been very clean. Shannon comments below— . ASAP—-comments “The ASAP does not, I’ll emphasize that, does not support extending the shuttle beyond its current manifest,” noted Admiral Dyer in his opening remarks to the House hearing to discuss the initial findings of the Augustine Review into the forward path for Human Space Flight. That comment was specific to safety, as cited in the Admiral’s opening statement, which gained the opening question from Mr Bart Gordon, a Democrat representative from Tennessee – who chaired the hearing. “In your comments, you made a very definitive statement concerning no extension of the shuttle,” Mr Gordon asked. “Now is that period, or is that or is that in context to 2020 (likely 2015), and would you extend it if it was recertified, or if there was a mission – or two missions – that came up in the next short period that seemed to be very important? Is there still a period where you wouldn’t go one more?” “Three quick comments: The thing that scares us the most is that kind of serial extension,” responded Admiral Dyer. “Point number 2: We take this position because we think the risk is more than what we should ask folks to shoulder – and we don’t think there is full transparency to that risk. “Thirdly, the time to extend the shuttle in the panel’s opinion was several years ago when the supply chain was still intact and when there was an opportunity to go forward with a (inaudible) program. A number of folks, who participated on the (ASAP) panel, have lived through an extension of number of Department of Defense aircraft programs after they were supposed to terminate. It is never a good experience. “I will also offer one other caution. Could you, with significant money and with recertification, extend the shuttle? Yes. The money would be impressive, it would have to go well through the supply chain, and the risk of finding things that demand even more resources during recertification is a real risk.” With the heavy tone on the risk, and with six shuttle missions still to be launched, Mr Gordon asked if NASA should be looking at one less flight – if the risk was as bad as the ASAP was portraying. That led to an astonishing claim from Admiral Dyer. “We say in the military world that the operational commander always has the authority to proceed in the face of absolute requirements – and it would be an equivalent position in the opinion of the panel. The shuttle is risky, it is becoming more so, and extension beyond what is planned through the current manifest we believe would be unwise.” Regarding Hubble repair (sts125, 2009) Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., was not happy with the decision. Last spring she asked the head of the CAIB, retired Navy Adm. Hal Gehman, to review the decision and address the issue of shuttle safety. He responded on March 5. Reviewing the actual risk posed during a shuttle mission, Gehman said, for now, and in the foreseeable future, by far most of the risk in space flight is the launch, ascent, entry and landing phases. So, he said, to be safe, NASA should launch the shuttle as few times as possible before it is retired. Though he said it was not unsafe, he also said it was not safe, either, and he called for more studies. John Shannon SPM comments “There were some disturbing remarks from the head of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP). We are working to understand these concerns from a Shuttle risk standpoint,” Mr Shannon noted. “We are flying safer now, and have a better safety culture and integrated team approach with many checks and balances to ensure that we are flying as safely as absolutely possible.” Mr Shannon also cited the recent Flight Readiness Review (FRR) and Mission Management Team (MMT) decisions not to launch a mission until they were absolutely sure the shuttle was safe to carry it out. These decisions are well documented, from the continuous External Tank foam modifications from STS-114 onwards, to the Engine Cut Off (ECO) sensor/LH2 Feedthrough connector issues surrounding STS-122, to the extensive Flow Control Valve (FCV) discussions, to the GUCP (Ground Umbilical Carrier Plate) misalignment, and right through to STS-128?s LH2 Fill and Drain Valve indications – to name but a few. Also, as noted by Mr Shannon as safety culture, internal memos have shown major efforts to welcome dissent from throughout the shuttle engineering team, even when such dissent was proven to be unfounded. A “no stone left unturned” attitude was how one source described the current culture to this site. Each time a problem has been noted, it has been proven that managers have stepped back, listened to the engineering community, before making absolutely sure they both understand the problem and are in a comfortable position to launch. “We have demonstrated over the last several flows that when we are not ready to fly, we stop and take the necessary time to understand the situation before we proceed,” added Mr Shannon, who added he wasn’t even sure if Admiral Dyer was speaking of the current program, given how alien his representations were to the reality of the program since Columbia. “(I am) extremely proud of how the team has worked through recent problems. (I am) not sure if the concerns of the ASAP chairman were echoes of the past, but they do not accurately reflect the current environment. We will work to understand these comments and to be sure that we have not forgotten anything.” The reality of the actual risk – a risk that is obvious and never underestimated throughout manned space flight – was shown in the extension study report that NASA filed with the White House back in May of this year. Those findings revealed a 98.7 percent probability of safely executing each flight, which painted a very different picture when compared to Mr Griffin’s alarming 1 in 8 chance of a disaster. “The latest Space Shuttle probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) indicates that the single mission risk for loss of crew and vehicle (LOCV) is 1 in 77; stated another way, there is a 98.7 percent probability of safely executing each flight,” noted the NASA study into extending the shuttle past 2010 (available on L2). Interestingly, that study based its figures on the SSP since 1987. Had the study was based on post Return To Flight findings, it would be highly likely resulted in a risk ratio would be significantly lower – simply due to the flight history since the loss of Columbia, and the numerous modifications made since the fleet returned to action with STS-114. However, even based on the conservative study findings, the risk is not deemed to a ratio that would increase, which directly counters the Admiral’s claims. “The average risk of LOCV has remained fairly consistent over that time. This risk is predicted to remain consistent over the remaining life of the program. The primary drivers for LOCV are, in order of the magnitude of their contribution to the overall risk: micro-meteoroid/orbital debris (MMOD), ascent debris, and Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) malfunctions. “In addition, NASA will continue to evolve its PRA tools to address anomalies encountered during flight operations. By monitoring anomaly trends across different categories (for example, by whether an anomaly is due to design issues, age, operations or procedurally-induced effects, or unknown or random phenomena), NASA gains both near-term insights into Space Shuttle performance opportunities for potential safety improvements during ongoing operations as well as longer-term benefit in applying experience-based risk models to future programs like Constellation. “NASA’s safety and mission assurance strategy emphasizes the need for rigorous program and independent safety reviews, as well as continual safety improvements throughout a program’s life cycle. Improvements to both processes and hardware are made for each Space Shuttle flight, and NASA will continue to invest in prudent safety enhancements through the last mission.” The latest SSP Top Risks Review presentation on L2 shows the vehicle is becoming safer, with the latest ratio updated to 1 in 81 LOV/C, from the previous 1 in 77.  The SSP also earned praise at the preceding meeting with the Senate side of Hearing from both the politicians in attendance and Mr Norm Augustine himself – who spoke of his “astonishment” at the morale and professionalism of the program’s workforce. Such comments are a good reflection of the highly respected SSP team. However, the continued uncertainty surrounding the future of both the Shuttle Program and NASA itself is understandably starting to pay a toll, as the program is forced to press ahead of a cull of its workforce based on the current plan to end the program after STS-133. Posted by keeptheshuttleflying.com at 6:27 PM Email This BlogThis! Share to Twitter Share to Facebook This entry was posted in Space news. Bookmark the permalink. Edit

How the Mismanagement of NASA Affects national Security re: nasaproblems.com

How the End of NASA Affects US National Security by Taylor Dinerman August 1, 2011 at 4:00 am Print Send Comment RSS Share Space exploration is not only critical in refusing to surrender the battlefield of space – our next serious theater of war — to our present and future adversaries; it also necessary in retaining US technological superiority and being able to utilize the energy and mineral resources of the Solar system essential for future global prosperity. The major problem is that It is not just NASA but the whole of the US space industry that is in trouble. It is laying off men and women by the thousand; their skills and experience will be lost forever. Reconstituting the ability to build complex and reliable space systems without these people will be an even more expensive and time consuming process. Meanwhile, this strategically vital industry will see its overseas competitors, such as China, grow and develop. America’s edge in space is endangered, and if it disappears, a large proportion of America’s global power will disappear along with it. Presidents have traditionally used NASA for both diplomatic and military purposes. During the Eisenhower administration the President’s advisors wrote that “The novel nature of space exploration offers opportunities for international cooperation in it’s peaceful aspects. ” Nixon did not hesitate to use the success of the Apollo Moon mission to enhance America’s global position, the Astronauts traveled around the world as living symbols of US technological superiority. Bill Clinton sought to cement a positive relationship with post communist Russia by giving them a major role in the Space Station project. NASA has also been useful in developing and preserving technologies with important military applications. The sensors used on interplanetary probes are similar and sometimes identical to the ones used on the most advanced spy satellites. Life support technologies developed for the shuttle find their way into the flight suits worn by pilots who fly high altitude military jets. And while America has not built a new ICBM or submarine launched nuclear missile for decades, NASA, by keeping the solid rocket motor industry alive has insured that if the decision were made to build a new type of missile for the US nuclear deterrent force, the Defense Department could do so without having to rebuild the nation’s solid fueled rocket making expertise from nothing. By keeping America’s space industry alive and healthy NASA has in the past directly contributed to overall US global power. As the agency succumbs to confusion and a lack of clear direction its ability to help keep America secure and prosperous will inevitably diminish. So, too, with the rest of the US aerospace industry. Boeing’s effort to set up a second production line for its new 787 airliner has been declared illegal by the National Labor Relations Board on the grounds that it was going to be built in South Carolina, a “right to work” state. The courts seem to have thought that this was supposedly Boeing’s way of illegally punishing the unionized workers in Washington state, who, by the way, will not suffer from a single layoff or lose a single hour’s pay due to this increase in 787 production. The F-22 manufacturing program is also shutting down. The administration claimed that it onlyneeds 187 of these air superiority fighters. Those parts of the F-35 program that are not “on probation” are under attack for what are perceived as massive cost overruns. It looks as if the Defense budget will be cut by more than $500 billion; and there is serious talk of shutting down America’s ability to build nuclear powered aircraft carriers As America’s space shuttle program comes to an end, NASA faces an uncertain and probably painful future. With a smaller budget and without a mission that has broad national support, the space agency has been floundering amid what the Washington Post calls “Rancor”. If NASA was in “disarray” in January 2009, as the current NASA leaders claim, then every single agency of the federal government that tries to accomplish or build anything was, and still is, in equal disarray. NOAA, the FAA, the Coast Guard, The Departments of Agricultural, Energy and Education, to name a few, have all proven incapable of meeting their goals or building hardware on time or within budget. Only those parts of the Government that are dedicated to stopping people from doing things,or regulating human activity, are not in “disarray.” They may not be doing anything useful, but they are not in disarray. To say, as Newt Gingrich did recently, that the problem at NASA is “Bureaucracy” is too miss the point. It was not NASA’s employees who got America into this humiliating mess; it was America’s politicians. Admittedly, NASA’s Administrator and his Deputy worked hard, along with the President’s science advisor and the rest of the White House team, to alienate a critical mass of members of Congress by ignoring their concerns, rejecting their advice and blindsiding them with critical space policy decisions. . The Obama administration then wrecked the previous program on the grounds that it was underfunded and behind schedule, and replaced it with a new program that looks as if it is now underfund and behind schedule. Congressmen and women being human, and under massive pressure to cut spending, have now cut the guts out of the space agency’s proposed budget. One of the more irony-laden recent press releases, at a time when this nation is saturated with them, is from the American Astronomical Society (AAS), protesting the House Appropriations committee’s cancellation of the James Webb Space Telescope. What did the astronomers expect? Did they really believe that the US Government would demolish the human spaceflight program and leave their precious “science” programs untouched? The House Appropriations Committee has cut deeply into NASA’s overall budget, leaving it with $1.9 billion less than the President requested. Its members slashed the Commercial Crew Development program, and agreed to increase support only for the new Space Launch System, sometimes referred to as the Congressional Rocket. To say that NASA is “screwed up” is to put it kindly. Sometimes destabilizing an institution may be necessary to revive it, but more often the destabilizing is simply destructive. NASA’s leadership seems honestly to believe that everything is A-OK. In a Washington Post article on July 2nd, the agency’s Deputy Administrator, Lori Garver, is quoted as saying, “We have a Program. We have a Budget. We have Bipartisan Support. We have a Destination.” Unpacking that statement is an interesting exercise: it will show that while NASA is losing support for its budget on Capitol Hill, NASA’s leaders do not seem to understand why this is happening. NASA has rejected the policy that the Bush administration had carefully crafted in cooperation with Members of Congress from both parties and which had been accepted with overwhelming bipartisan support. It was a policy that not only would get America back to the Moon sometime in the middle of the next decade, but would do so with a minimum of job losses. Of course NASA has a program; that is the easy part. Turning the program into reality is hard, and there is no sign that NASA’s current leadership can convince Congress to fund the Program. Traditionally NASA has undertaken the job of opening up the frontier and without the assurance that NASA can create it is hard to imagine that investors will be willing to risk providing the financing that the economic expansion of the US into the Solar system. NASA plays a role similar to one the US cavalry played when America moved west: it provides the settlers and business people with enough security to risk building a new economy. The House Appropriations Committee has given NASA a budget. It Is hard to imagine how that budget can be made compatible with Lori Garver’s and the administration’s program. Congress is funding its priorities: a new rocket and the new exploration vehicle that the new rocket will launch. Congress is cutting the budget for the things that the administration wants such as the budget for unfocused technology development The NASA program that the administration wants is one based on the idea that a new kind of ‘commercial’ space industry can provide access to orbit, while NASA invents new technologies that can explore the solar system at a lower cost than current technology would allow. The Congress disagrees and has ordered NASA to build a new heavy-lift rocket using existing technology. With this rocket, the US will be able to send human missions to the Moon or to Mars or, as the administration wants, to visit an asteroid. The administration says that it wants to go to an asteroid because it wants to gather information about the formation of the Solar system; that it believes that the experience of going to an asteroid will help develop the technology and expertise needed to go to Mars. Last year, Congress passed the NASA Authorization Bill with bipartisan support, but it lacked the overwhelming bipartisan support that previous NASA authorization bills had received in 2005 and 2007. Sadly, the space agency has lost much of its traditional base of Congressional support and has not been able to find much of a new one. People at NASA say that they have a destination:a so-far unidentified asteroid.They say this will provide better scientific information about the early development of the Solar System and that the operation will be a low-cost way to develop technologies that will be needed if NASA is someday to send people to Mars. But NASA lacks a serious plan to get there and also is having a real problem finding other nations ready to cooperate. As long as the US cannot maintain a space policy for more than several years at a time, few countries will dare to invest their time and efforts in cooperating with it. Last February, America’s premier space policy expert, John Logsdon, pointed out that, “Today, there most certainly is no pressing national security question for which the answer is: “go to an asteroid.” In an era of tight budgets and angry partisanship, it may be foolish to imagine that any national leader could convince a large majority of Congress to fund an ambitious national program, let alone the kind of transnational “feel good” project — such as the 1975 Apollo-Soyuz mission that was supposed to symbolize US- Soviet “détente”– that some people in this administration seem to believe is desirable. The expectation that the “New Space” commercial human spaceflight industry — which can be described as a collection of small entrepreneurial firms that have been building small rockets and have been trying to find low cost ways to get into space — will be able to replace NASA may not be realistic. Considering how things are going in Washington,however, it may be more realistic than any other part of the space agency’s current program. Congress seems ready to cut more than two thirds of the proposed budget for commercial human spaceflight –from the proposed roughly $900 million, down to about $300 million. That cut, however, will just slow the industry down rather than stop it. This will mean that for many years there will be no way for Americans to get into orbit other than to buy a seat on a Soyuz capsule from the Russians. As long as NASA depends on Russia for access to the ISS, Russia will be able to shut down that access at any moment and take full control of a station that America spent more than $80 billion dollars building. There is also the ongoing international image of America’s astronauts dependent on Russia for their professional existence. If NASA chooses to spread tiny — by government standards — sums of this $300 million around to all of the current recipients of “commercial” space contracts, the country will end up with a collection of undercapitalized, nearly bankrupt “New Space” companies that are totally dependent on government funding. There is also the possibility that regulatory actions by the Federal Aviation Administration, or by some other part of the government, could bring the whole effort to build the “New Space” industry to an a loud halt, in which event the US would lose an important body of technical and business knowledge,as well as the drive, enthusiasm and imagination that these bring to the whole aerospace industry. The problem is that the “New Space” industry is a valuable source of ideas and often pushes NASA and the large aerospace companies to innovate, to abandon their old procedures in favor of better new ones;but the industry lacks the capital to accomplish any really big projects such as building a rocket that can actually reach orbit. If America is going to be able to obtain access to the minerals and energy resources in the Solar System that it needs to thrive in the second half of the 21st century. We shall have to have both the large, old fashioned aerospace firms and the small, nimble “New Space” firms. SpaceX based in Hawthorne California, seems to stand by itself. The firm has the deep pockets of its founder, Elon Musk, co-inventor of PayPal, and it also has been developing its rockets and other space hardware for more than a decade. The company has so far successfully launched its Falcon 9 rocket twice . Sometime in the late fall of this year, it hopes to launch it again, carrying the company’s Dragon capsule. The Dragon will fly past the International Space Station (ISS), demonstrating that SpaceX can safely operate its maneuvering thrusters and its communications gear near that$100 billion orbital facility. If all goes well, next year the SpaceX Dragon capsule will dock with the station, proving that the firm can fulfill its obligations to fly supplies to the space station under the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services contract it signed in 2008. Once this happens, SpaceX will assume the mission of sending US cargo, consisting of food, water oxygen, and equipment,to keep the station running and to support the scientific experiments that are performed there. At some later time, SpaceX hopes to show that it can fly people, as well as cargo, to the ISS. Under the best of circumstances, NASA’s future access to orbit for people will depend on the success of a single firm’s launch-system. Based on past experience with space systems’ delays and cost overruns, this dependence on a single company will last until the end of the decade, if not longer. The Air Force learned that when it relied exclusively on a single rocket to launch its vital satellites into orbit, if something went wrong with America’s ability to keep its array of military satellites working and in orbit, it would not be able to monitor what was going on in important parts of the world. This happened in the late 1980s and early 1990s after a series of accidents grounded both the Space Shuttle and the Titan rockets. None of the other “New Space” firms that NASA has been supporting has any real chance of sending people into orbit within the next five years or more. If America’s wants to have assured, low cost access to space, both for military reasons and to take advantage of the economic opportunities that are out there in the Solar System, it will have to have multiple ways of getting people and payloads in orbit. The current Delta and Atlas rockets may be reliable but they are not low cost. Just as the Constellation Return-to-the-Moon program that the administration destroyed was constantly forced to adapt to funding shortfalls,the commercial human spaceflight program is also learning to adjust to constantly changing levels of government funding. If the next administration wanted to, it could cancel the whole commercial program and base the cancellation on the same grounds that were used to kill Constellation: that it is behind schedule and underfunded. It looks as if keeping a strong and prosperous aerospace industry – and America – is nowhere near at the top of the President’s priorities. Related Topics:  Taylor Dinerman receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free hudson new york mailing list Comment on this item Name Email Address Title of Comments Comments: Email me if someone replies to my comment Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. This site reserves the right to reject anything found to be objectionable. Edit