Fwd: Human Spaceflight News - September 16, 2013 and JSC Today

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Moon, Larry J. (JSC-EA411)" <larry.j.moon@nasa.gov>
Date: September 16, 2013 6:25:20 AM GMT-06:00
To: "Moon, Larry J. (JSC-EA411)" <larry.j.moon@nasa.gov>
Subject: FW: Human Spaceflight News - September 16, 2013 and JSC Today

 

 

 

 

Monday, September 16, 2013

Read JSC Today in your browser

View Archives

 

JSC 2.0 JSC External Homepage Inside JSC JSC Events Submit JSC Today JSC Roundup Reader's Room NASA News Connect Category Definitions

JSC TODAY CATEGORIES Headlines -  Ask the Directors Update Jobs and Training -  Final 2013 Financial Wellness Evening Classes -  JSC Imagery Online Training -  Job Opportunities Community -  Habitat for Humanity Aerospace Games -  Do You Have a Telescope You Don't Know How to Use?

Orbital Sciences' Antares Rocket and Cygnus Spacecraft at the Launch Pad

 

Headlines Ask the Directors Update The Ask the Directors website has been updated with questions and answers from the Director's All Hands on Sept. 5. Take a look at the answers to your questions, even those not asked during the All Hands. JSC External Relations, Office of Communications and Public Affairs x35111 [top]    Jobs and Training Final 2013 Financial Wellness Evening Classes 2013 financial wellness classes conclude this week. Counseling will be available by appointment. Spouses are welcome to attend! Estate Planning and Executorship Being an executor is a big step. It means more than reading wills and doling out property. The executor is the legal representative for the deceased and takes care of many arrangements. Learn the keys to a good estate plan, executor responsibilities and more. Asset Investment and Protection Investing and protecting your assets isn't just about stocks and bonds. A versatile portfolio can prepare you for a variety of upsets and upsides. Often people know about creating an investment portfolio, but many are unfamiliar with using insurance to their advantage. Fall Webinars: FW101: Financial Wellness Foundation FW102: Budgets, Debt, Insurance and Long-Term Care FW103: Investing and Retirement FW104: Taxes and Estates FW105: Debt Free For Life FW109: Financial Transitions Enrollment Details are here. Shelly Haralson x39168 http://starport.jsc.nasa.gov/ [top] JSC Imagery Online Training Need to find NASA mission pictures or videos? Learn how during a webinar on Wednesday, Sept. 18, from 9:30 to 10:45 a.m. Mary Wilkerson, Still Imagery lead, will show users how to find and NASA mission images in Imagery Online (IO) and the Digital Imagery Management System (DIMS). Leslie Richards, Video Imagery lead, will show employees the video functionality in IO. This training is open to any JSC/White Sands Test Facility employee. To register for the WebEx, go to this link. This training is provided by the Information Resources Directorate. Event Date: Wednesday, September 18, 2013   Event Start Time:9:30 AM   Event End Time:10:45 AM Event Location: WebEx Add to Calendar Scientific & Technical Information Center x34245 http://library.jsc.nasa.gov [top] Job Opportunities Where do I find job opportunities? Both internal Competitive Placement Plan (CPP) and external JSC job announcements are posted on the Human Resources (HR) Portal and USAJOBS website. Through the HR portal, civil servants can view summaries of all the agency jobs that are currently open at: https://hr.nasa.gov/portal/server.pt/community/employees_home/239/job_opportu... To help you navigate to JSC vacancies, use the filter drop-down menu and select "JSC HR." The "Jobs" link will direct you to the USAJOBS website for the complete announcement and the ability to apply online. If you have questions about any JSC job vacancies, please call your HR representative. Lisa Pesak x30476 [top]    Community Habitat for Humanity Aerospace Games Join the local aerospace community at Countryside Park in League City for the Third Annual Bay Area Habitat for Humanity Aerospace Games! The annual event brings together teams from local aerospace companies for a day of friendly competition in support of Bay Area Habitat for Humanity and the local aerospace community. Come watch aerospace companies compete in an array of outdoor games and enjoy live music, activities for kids, demonstrations and much more. Admission is FREE. If you're interested in forming a team and participating in the games, please contact Bay Area Habitat for Humanity Resource Development Coordinator Rachel Ward. Event Date: Saturday, November 9, 2013   Event Start Time:10:00 AM   Event End Time:5:00 PM Event Location: Countryside Park, 100 Alderwood St., League City Add to Calendar Cory Simon x31722 http://www.bahfh.org/our-initiatives/aerospace-build/ [top] Do You Have a Telescope You Don't Know How to Use? Do you have a telescope you don't know how to use? Take a class at the George Observatory. We will be offering two classes on Sept. 28. The first class will be how to use a refracting or reflecting telescope and starts at 4 p.m. (costs $30). The second class will be how to use a go-to telescope and starts at 6 p.m. (costs $35). For more information about these classes and to purchase tickets, click here. Note: Park entrance fees apply at $7 per person for everyone over 12 years old. Megan Hashier 281-226-4179 http://www.hmns.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=612&Ite... [top]

 

JSC Today is compiled periodically as a service to JSC employees on an as-submitted basis. Any JSC organization or employee may submit articles. Disclaimer: Accuracy and content of these notes are the responsibility of the submitters.

 

 

 

 

 

NASA TV: 9:20 am Central (10:20 EDT) – Expedition 37's Karen Nyberg with Associated Press

 

Human Spaceflight News

Monday – September 16, 2013

 

Antares & Cygnus cargo vehicle rolled to Wallops pad Friday ahead of Wednesday launch

 

HEADLINES AND LEADS

 

Technical Glitch Delays First Launch of New Commercial Spacecraft

 

Tariq Malik - Space.com

 

A combination of bad weather and a technical glitch have pushed a brand-new supply ship's debut test flight to the International Space Station back at least one day, to Wednesday. The unmanned Cygnus spacecraft, built by Virginia-based company Orbital Sciences, is now scheduled to blast off atop an Antares rocket from Wallops Island, Va., on Wednesday (Sept. 18) rather than Tuesday. Liftoff is set for 10:50 a.m. EDT (1450 GMT). "The combination of yesterday's poor weather that delayed rollout of the rocket to the launch pad and a technical issue that was identified during a combined systems test held last night involving communications between ground equipment and the rocket's flight computer drove the decision to delay the launch," Orbital Science officials wrote in an update Saturday.

 

Success is in sight for commercial launch plan

Wednesday launch of Orbital craft would verify 2 firms' viability

 

James Dean - Florida Today

 

A program hailed as one of NASA's biggest successes will declare mission accomplished if an Orbital Sciences Corp. cargo freighter safely links up with the International Space Station this week. For less than $800 million in taxpayer funds, the agency's partnership with Orbital and SpaceX has produced two new cargo spacecraft and two new rockets at a fraction of what traditional NASA-led developments would have cost, according to NASA's own analysis. Advocates say the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program, or COTS, has forever changed the agency, proving private companies can deliver critical space systems more affordably under the right conditions.

 

The skies. The limits.

The space station is one of humanity's great engineering triumphs. But what is it for?

 

Joel Achenbach - Washington Post

 

Long ago, in a dreamier era, space stations were imagined as portals to the heavens. In the 1968 movie "2001: A Space Odyssey," the huge structure twirled in orbit, aesthetically sublime, a relaxing way station for astronauts heading to the moon. It featured a Hilton and a Howard Johnson's. The international space station of the 21st century isn't quite as beautiful as that movie version, and it's not a gateway to anywhere else. It's a laboratory focused on scientific experiments. Usually there are six people aboard. When they leave, they go back home, down to Earth. Three came home Wednesday, landing in Kazakhstan. The space station circles the planet at an altitude of about 250 miles. Faint traces of atmosphere exert a drag on it, so the station must be boosted regularly to stay in orbit. In the grand scheme of things, the space station simply isn't very far away. The station has a phone number with a Houston area code.

 

Soyuz Space Capsule Landing Glitch No Danger to Crew, NASA Says

 

Miriam Kramer - Space.com

 

An apparent sensor glitch during the return to Earth of a Russian Soyuz space capsule with two cosmonauts and an American astronaut aboard may have sparked some concern among the crew, but never posed a danger to the space travelers, according to a NASA spokesman. The Soyuz spacecraft landed late Tuesday to return Russian cosmonauts Pavel Vinogradov, Alexander Misurkin and NASA astronaut Chris Cassidy home from the International Space Station after a 166-day flight.

 

Boeing's CST-100 completes interface test at NASA's Johnson Space Ctr

 

Jason Rhian - AmericaSpace.com

 

Boeing recently tested systems that will be used on Boeing's Commercial Space Transportation (CST-100) spacecraft. The interface test was conducted between Mission Control Center (MCC) and software which will be used on Boeing's commercial offering. The tests were conducted at NASA's Johnson Space Center located in Houston, Texas. Boeing, along with launch service provider United Launch Alliance (ULA), is working to transport crew to the International Space Station under NASA's Commercial Crew Program. It is hoped that these efforts might return the capability of launching astronauts on U.S. spacecraft from U.S. soil.

 

Blue Origin Files Formal Protest of Proposed Shuttle Pad Lease

 

Dan Leone - Space News

 

A spat between Blue Origin and Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) over Kennedy Space Center's Launch Complex 39A, a disused space shuttle launch pad both companies want to lease from NASA, escalated when Blue Origin challenged the legality of the agency's search for a caretaker. On Sept. 3, Blue Origin filed a protest with the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) alleging that "there's a problem with [NASA's] solicitation that needs to be addressed," according to Ralph White, GAO's managing associate general counsel for procurement law.

 

Billionaires' battle for historic launch pad goes into overtime

 

Alan Boyle - NBCNews.com

 

A tug of war involving two billionaire-backed space ventures has forced NASA to put a hold on its plans to turn over one of its historic space shuttle launch pads to a commercial operator by the end of this month. Now it could take until mid-December for NASA to decide whether Kennedy Space Center's Launch Complex 39A should be given over to California-based SpaceX, founded by billionaire Elon Musk; or Blue Origin, the Washington state company founded by Amazon.com's Jeff Bezos. The competition demonstrates two kinds of clout at work: Musk's SpaceX was once seen as an upstart challenger to the space establishment — but after a string of successes, it now plays a leading role in NASA's vision for commercial spaceflight. Bezos' Blue Origin doesn't have as much of a track record in spaceflight, but it does have powerful allies in the launch industry as well as in the halls of Congress.

 

The Engines That Will Lift Americans Back to Space

Four RS-25 engines are undergoing the first stage of testing to fuel Space Launch System

 

Courtney Subramanian - Time

 

 

You've seen these motors before—135 times before in fact. They're the liquid-fueled muscle that helped launch all of the space shuttles. Now they're being repurposed in a new rocket, the planned Space Launch System (SLS). That's a prosaic name for an ambitious machine that could be the greatest booster the U.S. has built since the days of the legendary Saturn V. Will it fly? NASA's current stop-start record with manned space projects does not portend great things. Nor does the fact that the launch date for the first manned flight keeps slipping. At the moment the space agency doesn't plan for a meaningful test of the SLS with an unmanned Orion crew capsule atop until 2017. Still, this picture, which NASA touted on an Instagram post on Saturday, is impressive. The four engines on the SLS will use propellant at the rate of 1,500 gallons per second, emptying an average-sized swimming pool in one minute. When the rocket flies—if the rocket flies—that will produce a launch spectacle unlike anything we've seen since the 1970s.

(NO FURTHER TEXT)

 

On the importance of a NASA authorization bill

 

Jeff Foust - SpacePolitics.com

 

While Congress is back in session this month, few observers expect they will spend much, if any, time on the topic of a new NASA authorization bill. There are too many other issues for members to deal with, from foreign policy to a continuing resolution to keep the government funded; moreover, the differences between the versions of the bill approved over the summer by the House Science Committee and the Senate Commerce Committee appear to be too great to be reconciled, even if the full chambers are able to pass their versions. One recently retired Congressional staff member, though, emphasized this week the importance of such legislation to create policy and more sustainable funding for NASA.

 

China, Others Made Space Progress Despite ITAR

 

Bradley Perrett, Frank Morring, Jr., Amy Svitak & Jay Menon - Aviation Week

 

If U.S. restrictions on supplying space technology to China were meant to arrest the Asian giant's astronautical development, there is precious little sign of success. From a forthcoming family of advanced launchers to a manned space program, lunar exploration and an indigenous navigation system, China shows every indication of relentless progress in space. The same holds true for the other "BRIC" nations—Brazil, Russia and India—that have generally developed their space capabilities without U.S. help. Clearly, China would like access to U.S. spaceflight capabilities, above all because most space technology has military as well as civil applications. But for the vast majority of space activities, its space industry is progressing very well, whatever the restrictions of the U.S. International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).

 

Scientist Richard Feynman the heart of 'The Challenger Disaster'

The film, the Science Channel's first foray into scripted programming, focuses on the maverick physicist's efforts to uncover the truths behind the 1986 space shuttle disaster

 

Alan Eyerly - Los Angeles Times

 

At a hearing of the presidential commission investigating the 1986 space shuttle Challenger disaster, Richard Feynman conducted an experiment of sorts in the media-packed room. The Caltech physicist and Nobel laureate clamped material from a shuttle O-ring and dropped it in ice water. At merely the temperature of a cold soda, the rubber became rigid and dented. The conclusion was obvious — the gasket material lost its ability to seal, just as the O-rings had on the shuttle's right solid rocket booster. "I believe that has some significance for our problem," the scientist said with memorable understatement in demonstrating why America's 25th space shuttle mission had ended in horrific failure.

__________

 

COMPLETE STORIES

 

Technical Glitch Delays First Launch of New Commercial Spacecraft

 

Tariq Malik - Space.com

 

A combination of bad weather and a technical glitch have pushed a brand-new supply ship's debut test flight to the International Space Station back at least one day, to Wednesday.

 

The unmanned Cygnus spacecraft, built by Virginia-based company Orbital Sciences, is now scheduled to blast off atop an Antares rocket from Wallops Island, Va., on Wednesday (Sept. 18) rather than Tuesday. Liftoff is set for 10:50 a.m. EDT (1450 GMT).

 

"The combination of yesterday's poor weather that delayed rollout of the rocket to the launch pad and a technical issue that was identified during a combined systems test held last night involving communications between ground equipment and the rocket's flight computer drove the decision to delay the launch," Orbital Science officials wrote in an update Saturday.

 

"After comprehensive inspection and testing this morning, the problem was found and turned out to be an inoperative cable, which is being replaced," they added. "Orbital will repeat the combined systems test later today. Once that important test is successfully completed, the team will be able to proceed toward a September 18 launch."

 

The cylindrical Cygnus spacecraft and its Antares rocket are designed to launch cargo delivery missions to the space station for NASA. Orbital Sciences has a $1.9 billion deal with NASA for eight Cygnus delivery missions, but these flights can begin only after the company proves the spacecraft is ready to haul supplies to the orbiting lab.

 

Orbital Sciences launched the first Antares rocket test flight in April. But that demonstration carried only a mass simulator designed to mimic the weight of a Cygnus spacecraft on the rocket. Wednesday's planned launch will lift off from Pad 0A at the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport at NASA's Wallops Flight Facility.

 

The mission will mark the debut of a fully functional Cygnus cargo ship, Orbital Sciences officials said. If all goes well, the Cygnus supply ship will arrive at the International Space Station on Sept. 22 after a series of in-orbit tests, NASA officials said.

 

"This mission will mark the completion of a five-year journey that NASA and our company embarked on in 2008 to create a new medium-class rocket, a sophisticated logistics spacecraft and a world-class launch site at the Wallops Flight Facility," Orbital Sciences CEO David Thompson said in a statement Friday, the day Cygnus and Antares rolled out to the launch pad.

 

Orbital Sciences is one of two commercial spaceflight companies with billion-dollar contracts to provide cargo delivery missions to the International Space Station for NASA. The other company, the Hawthorne, Calif.-based SpaceX founded by billionaire Elon Musk, has a $1.6 billion deal for at least 12 cargo missions using its unmanned Dragon space capsules and Falcon 9 rockets. SpaceX has flown two of those 12 missions so far.

 

Unlike SpaceX's Dragon space capsules, which can return experiment hardware and equipment to Earth, Orbital Sciences' Cygnus vehicles are disposable and burn up in Earth's atmosphere at the end of each mission. Cygnus vehicles are cylindrical bus-size spacecraft designed to carry up to 5,952 pounds (2,700 kilograms) in their enhanced configuration.

 

The first Cygnus spacecraft launch Wednesday will carry about 1,300 pounds (589 kg) to the Expedition 37 crew aboard the space station. When Cygnus arrives at the station, astronauts aboard the orbiting lab will use a robotic arm to capture the spacecraft — a method also used for SpaceX's Dragon capsules and Japan's robotic cargo-carrying H-2 Transfer Vehicles.

 

You can watch the Cygnus spacecraft launch live on SPACE.com Wednesday, courtesy of NASA TV. NASA will also hold a press conference on Tuesday, Sept. 17, at 2 p.m. EDT (1800 GMT) to discuss the mission.

 

Success is in sight for commercial launch plan

Wednesday launch of Orbital craft would verify 2 firms' viability

 

James Dean - Florida Today

 

A program hailed as one of NASA's biggest successes will declare mission accomplished if an Orbital Sciences Corp. cargo freighter safely links up with the International Space Station this week.

 

For less than $800 million in taxpayer funds, the agency's partnership with Orbital and SpaceX has produced two new cargo spacecraft and two new rockets at a fraction of what traditional NASA-led developments would have cost, according to NASA's own analysis.

 

Advocates say the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program, or COTS, has forever changed the agency, proving private companies can deliver critical space systems more affordably under the right conditions.

 

"No one will ever be able to say again that commercial approaches do not work for human spaceflight," said Jim Muncy of PoliSpace, a space policy consultant. "And there were a lot of people who said it wouldn't work."

 

It now remains to be seen whether the same approach, still resisted in some quarters, can be applied more broadly as pressure on NASA's budget grows.

 

The program's participants are confident the answer is yes.

 

"You can take that model into many other areas of spaceflight, beyond even human spaceflight," said Frank Culbertson, a former astronaut who heads Orbital's advanced programs. "I think you're going to see more of it over the next 10 to 20 years."

Shuttle retirement

 

Started in 2006, COTS addressed the need to service the space station after the shuttle's planned retirement.

 

The concept was to start flying cargo, and potentially crews, commercially, something never done before in space.

 

"We started the program with the vision that we would be able to go to a catalog or the Internet and order up some cargo delivery services to the International Space Station," said Alan Lindenmoyer, COTS program manager at Johnson Space Center.

 

NASA then committed $500 million over five years, to be split among two partners. More money was added later.

 

If that sounds like a lot, consider: The agency will spend twice as much this year alone on the Orion capsule, which is being developed to fly crews in deep space and whose total cost is projected at more than $16 billion.

 

uch complex projects have traditionally used "cost-plus" contracts, in which NASA pays all the program costs plus a profit margin to the contractors, and calls all the shots.

 

Given its limited funding, COTS did things differently.

 

Fixed payments were awarded for completion of preset milestones and the partners had to share the costs.

 

In return, NASA ceded some of its usual control, specifying the basic functions that systems had to perform but letting companies create and own their designs.

 

The arrangement meant the companies were partners rather than simply contractors.

 

"When this was proposed, it was a radical departure from the status quo," said Max Vozoff, who led SpaceX's COTS bid and now runs a consulting business, mv2space.

 

NASA awarded deals to SpaceX and Rocketplane Kistler, firms with no track records, immediately raising doubts.

 

When Rocketplane Kistler failed to raise promised funding, NASA replaced it with Orbital.

 

Like most space development efforts, schedules slipped, but costs didn't soar as a result.

 

In May of last year, SpaceX's Dragon capsule flew beneath the station, was captured by a robotic arm and berthed to a port — all firsts for privately run spacecraft.

 

"Seeing it work was a real priceless moment," said Lindenmoyer, who counts the event among the great "firsts" in spaceflight history.

 

Orbital's upcoming demonstration flight, slated to launch Wednesday morning from Virginia, could establish it as a second cargo delivery service.

Built-in market

 

Culbertson said two things made the program work: both sides' commitment to do it right, and that "there was going to be a market for it after we developed it."

 

Seeing NASA as a near-term customer for station resupply missions and the potential for other customers, the partners were willing to risk their own money.

 

Indeed, SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket has won numerous contracts to launch commercial satellites, a market the U.S. had mostly lost to international providers. Orbital hopes to do the same with its Antares rocket.

 

The same logic doesn't yet apply to deep space exploration, such as NASA's plan to capture and send a crew to an asteroid.

 

Still, Vozoff and others see many more projects NASA could pursue in a "COTS-like" way, enabling it to do more even with a tighter budget.

 

Possibilities include lunar landers or habitats, orbital fuel depots, launches of small satellites, vehicle subsystems such as non-toxic propulsion, and Earth observation data.

 

NASA this year asked for ideas and got more than 40 responses.

 

"I am very confident that the end of this (COTS) program will open some new doors," said Lindenmoyer.

 

An immediate extension of the program has been the Obama administration's 2010 decision to fly crews commercially instead of with a NASA rocket, whose development was canceled.

 

Although COTS had proposed the concept years earlier, the shift sparked a nasty political debate.

 

Like its cargo predecessor, the commercial crew program began with fixed-price milestones and greater autonomy for the partners.

 

But Congress demanded a switch to traditional contracts that gave NASA more oversight, arguing it was necessary to certify the systems' safety.

 

NASA maintains that the commercial programs complement its exploration goals, freeing up resources for more challenging technologies.

 

But politically and inside NASA, some see the commercial success as a threat to the slower, more expensive development of exploration systems that support thousands of jobs.

 

Phil McAlister, head of commercial spaceflight development at NASA headquarters, told an advisory committee this summer that the agency was still adjusting to a difficult culture change.

 

"There is somewhat of a feeling that to the extent that this (commercial) approach is successful, that in some way it's a knock against our traditional approach," McAlister said, adding that he didn't agree.

 

Delivering cargo or people to the space station still isn't as simple as placing an order online, but COTS supporters say that vision is closer to reality.

 

"It was a great experiment, and we're just about to finish that and turn it into something real," said Culbertson.

 

The skies. The limits.

The space station is one of humanity's great engineering triumphs. But what is it for?

 

Joel Achenbach - Washington Post

 

Long ago, in a dreamier era, space stations were imagined as portals to the heavens. In the 1968 movie "2001: A Space Odyssey," the huge structure twirled in orbit, aesthetically sublime, a relaxing way station for astronauts heading to the moon. It featured a Hilton and a Howard Johnson's.

 

The international space station of the 21st century isn't quite as beautiful as that movie version, and it's not a gateway to anywhere else. It's a laboratory focused on scientific experiments. Usually there are six people aboard. When they leave, they go back home, down to Earth. Three came home Wednesday, landing in Kazakhstan.

 

The space station circles the planet at an altitude of about 250 miles. Faint traces of atmosphere exert a drag on it, so the station must be boosted regularly to stay in orbit. In the grand scheme of things, the space station simply isn't very far away. The station has a phone number with a Houston area code.

 

Advocates for human space exploration insist that NASA must think bigger, developing missions beyond Low Earth Orbit, into deeper space — perhaps back to the moon, or to an asteroid, and certainly to Mars eventually.

 

But NASA has been struggling for years to square ambitions with budgets. The space station is widely praised as an engineering marvel, but it didn't come cheap. The United States has poured close to $100 billion into the program and is contributing about $3 billion a year to the station's operation. Space policy experts warn that, without a significant boost in budget, NASA will not be able to keep running the station and simultaneously carry out new, costly deep-space missions.

 

The United States and its partners need to make a tough call: Keep the station flying? Or bring it down?

 

Deconstructing the space station

 

Boeing, the prime contractor, is trying to prove that the station's components can hold up through at least 2028. Three years ago, Congress extended funding for the station through 2020, and NASA's international partners — Russia, Japan, Canada and the European Space Agency — have made a similar commitment. But behind the scenes, NASA officials are working to persuade the White House to make a decision, pronto, to keep the orbital laboratory flying after 2020.

 

The alternative is to crash the massive structure into the South Pacific.

 

The decision needs to be made in 2014, said William Gerstenmaier, the top NASA official for human spaceflight.

 

Companies such as SpaceX and Sierra Nevada, which are competing for a NASA contract to carry astronauts to the station, need to know that their market isn't going to vanish in 2020, he said. Scientists, pharmaceutical companies and other organizations that do zero-gravity experiments also need to know soon whether "there's a horizon for the station beyond 2020," he said.

 

As the decision makers in the U.S. government discuss the fate of the orbital laboratory, they face tough questions about the future of NASA in a broader sense. The dean of space policy analysts, John Logsdon, former director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University, said of NASA: "It was not given a strategic purpose after Apollo. Why does it exist? What do you want to do?"

 

Life up there

 

Although it's true that the international space station (ISS) never strays far from Earth, cosmically speaking, it has the virtue of showing what life in space is really like. The PowerPoint version of space travel is always easier than the real thing. There are things that reveal themselves only in zero gravity.

 

"Stiction," for example — the way delicate materials stick together without gravity to tug them apart. There's no way to replicate that on Earth.

 

Dust has no urge to settle down, and so it clogs air filters faster than engineers had once anticipated. Bacteria grow in odd corners and crannies. Mysterious disks of zinc oxide have stopped up a water line, defying explanation.

In theory, equipment has its own storage space. But that's not how the place looks in real life. There are laptop computers everywhere and tools Velcroed to the walls. It's cluttered. New crews famously have to go on treasure hunts to find things that have vanished.

 

Mundane problems such as clogged filters and mold formation provide lessons for an eventual human mission to Mars. On a Mars voyage there would be no way to turn back halfway, so engineers have to understand in advance what could go disastrously wrong.

 

The Apollo model of spaceflight puts the emphasis on destination; the space station model puts the emphasis on simply living in space, in that alien environment.

 

"For folks like me, who consider Apollo a poor model for the future of human exploration, the ISS is the essential demonstration site and steppingstone for a sustained future in space with humans," senior NASA scientist Harley Thronson said.

 

Space is perhaps the most dangerous place that people have ever lived continuously. A stray pebble or piece of space junk could puncture the shell of the structure and lead to rapid depressurization. Day in, day out, ammonia is a concern. It is critical to the station's cooling system, but it is also highly toxic.

 

"Ammonia will kill you in one breath," said Chris Hadfield, perhaps the most famous astronaut of the 21st century.

 

Hadfield knows that most people aren't paying attention to the men and women passing by overhead. That's another striking feature of life in space: It's relatively anonymous. You can go around the world 16 times a day, but few of the 7 billion people down below will ever know your name.

 

Many astronauts do their best to connect to the earthlings. Astronauts tweet and update Facebook pages. A few months back, Hadfield made a humdinger of a music video — covering David Bowie's song "Space Oddity" — that has more than 17 million views on YouTube.

 

Hadfield also made videos about everyday life in space. Bodily fluids go in strange directions. Your vision blurs, your nose feels stuffy, and you lose your sense of taste.

 

Water is so dominated by surface tension that it can migrate around your scalp and over your face, as if seeking a hole to invade.

 

In zero gravity, a flame burns spherically — a ball of fire.

 

Experiments on the ISS have touched on fluid dynamics, crystal formation and changes in bacterial virulence. Next year, 20 to 60 rodents will come aboard as research subjects. And the astronauts themselves are under the microscope, revealing the effects of weightlessness and space radiation. NASA and the Russian Federal Space Agency plan to send astronauts to the ISS for an entire year, starting in the spring of 2015.

 

Astronauts talk about the transcendent experience of seeing the world without political borders, with the thin blue line of the protective atmosphere. Hadfield would often know where the station was over the surface, simply by checking out the color of the light shining up through the cupola, the nest of windows facing the planet. Usually the light would have a blue cast, from the ocean below. If orange, that would usually mean the station was passing over the Sahara. If red, that would be the signal of the Outback.

 

A typical work shift lasts 12 hours. Astronauts get one day off a week, a respite from the grind of chores and scientific experiments. Satellite TV reception in space is poor, oddly enough. Smoking and drinking are not allowed. Bodies deteriorate without gravity, and so the astronauts exercise constantly, at least two hours a day.

 

Astronaut Nicole Stott said she has never slept better in her life than she did in space. No pillow necessary. There are no pressure points on the body. A chronic pain in her arm simply disappeared forever. The only problem with space sleep is that the body naturally forms a zombielike pose, with arms dangling forward.

 

"It's kind of scary," she said.

 

Saturdays are cleaning days. Every surface is essentially a floor, gathering dirt, flakes of skin, stray drops of sweat and bits of food. (Jam has a diabolical tendency to launch itself off toast.)

 

"What come in really, really handy are baby wipes," astronaut Doug Wheelock said.

 

He also likes the Russian towels. They have a lot of texture, ideal for rubbing down a body. Without a shower, dead skin stays put and grows itchy.

 

"A towel with some texture on it is like heaven, because you can get all the dead skin off you," Wheelock said. "It feels so good, psychologically."

 

Astronaut Mike Fincke spent his downtime reading science fiction, including the Arthur C. Clarke novel "2001."

 

Picture it: A man in a space station reading a novel about people on a space station. That closed a cultural loop.

 

"We take these dreams and make them real," Fincke said.

 

The U.S. space vision

 

The international space station is another step in what space policy analyst Dwayne Day has called the Von Braun Paradigm, after Wernher von Braun, the German rocket scientist who, after World War II, came to America and became a leader of the U.S. rocket program.

 

In an influential series of stories in Collier's magazine from 1952 to 1954, von Braun and other space visionaries foretold an era in which human beings would conquer space. Von Braun imagined a steppingstone approach that included orbital flights, a space shuttle, a space station, a voyage to the moon and, finally, a human landing on Mars.

 

But the order of attack played out differently. The U.S. raced to the moon to beat the Soviets, who had their own lunar aspirations. NASA then wanted to build a space shuttle and a space station, but President Richard M. Nixon told the agency it couldn't do both. NASA went with the shuttle.

 

After aides mentioned to President Ronald Reagan that the Soviets had a space station, named Salyut, he decided that the United States needed one, too. In his 1984 State of the Union Address, he vowed to build a space station within a decade. "We can follow our dreams to distant stars, living and working in space for peaceful, economic and scientific gain," Reagan said.

 

Early estimates put the construction cost at $8.8 billion, but the government spent roughly that much simply designing the laboratory on paper while Congress debated whether to build it, said Howard McCurdy, an American University professor of public affairs and author of "The Space Station Decision."

 

The collapse of the Soviet Union created the final incentive to go forward. U.S. officials worried that Russian rocket scientists would go to work for rogue nations, spreading missile technology. In 1993, the United States and its allies brought the Russians into the fold for what would now be called the international space station. The international agreements ensured that the funds would keep flowing to the project despite changes in administrations and turnover in Congress.

 

Russia launched the first module in the fall of 1998. After more than 100 rocket and space shuttle launches to ferry components to orbit, and an astonishing 160 spacewalks, the orbital laboratory — as broad as a football field, including end zones — was finally finished in 2011. The ISS is modular, with one main truss lined with protruding elements and framed by symmetrical solar arrays, the whole thing rather insectoid, like something that would make a buzzing sound if a tiny version flew by your ear.

 

During a deployment of solar arrays in 2007, one of the arrays suffered a tear. Astronauts on the station and engineers in Houston scrambled to come up with a solution, pressed for time before the array disintegrated. In an emergency spacewalk, astronaut Scott Parazynski crawled to the remote end of a boom — farther from the air lock than any astronaut had ventured — and repaired the tear with makeshift "cuff links."

 

"It was definitely a Superman moment," said Mike Raftery, a top station official with Boeing.

 

A sociological truth has emerged from the international effort: American engineers are more likely to try to finesse a structure, to make it as lightweight and as efficient as possible, while Russians build things stout.

 

Mike Suffredini, the NASA program manager for the space station, said the station proves that in-orbit construction is possible, and he noted that no component has had to come back to Earth for retooling.

 

Said McCurdy: "It's one of the greatest engineering achievements in the history of the world. It ranks with the pyramids."

 

Logsdon, the policy analyst, said the station is a marvel, but he said it hasn't yet proved it was worth the investment. The science has been going full speed only for a couple of years, so it's too soon to make that judgment, he said.

 

"It's an awfully expensive engineering demonstration," Logsdon said. "If that's all it is, that's a hell of a price to pay."

 

Gerstenmaier, the NASA official in charge of human spaceflight, said of the station's cost: "We're in the process of proving now whether it's worth it or not. It's going to take a little while to see if these researchers will embrace this facility."

 

Walking on the edge

 

The ISS almost cost one human life. Italian astronaut Luca Parmitano nearly drowned in space this summer. The astronaut, who represents the European Space Agency, was spacewalking outside the station on July 16 when he felt water on the back of his head. It didn't seem to be coming from his water bottle. It didn't feel like sweat. And it was increasing — and migrating, around his head, into his ears, around his nose, doing all the strange things that water does in zero gravity.

 

Spacewalks are exquisitely choreographed and are not supposed to include surprises. The script for Parmitano's spacewalk ran to 72 pages. Astronauts go through a 500-step process simply putting on their spacesuits, which function like miniature spaceships, with elaborate life-support gear and an emergency jet pack. An astronaut on the ground will continuously talk to spacewalkers to ensure that they are feeling well, thinking clearly. But now here was Parmitano telling Houston that his helmet was filling with water.

 

Parmitano's account on his blog is harrowing:

 

"The water has also almost completely covered the front of my visor, sticking to it and obscuring my vision. .?.?. [T]he Sun sets, and my ability to see — already compromised by the water — completely vanishes, making my eyes useless; but worse than that, the water covers my nose — a really awful sensation that I make worse by my vain attempts to move the water by shaking my head. By now, the upper part of the helmet is full of water and I can't even be sure that the next time I breathe I will fill my lungs with air and not liquid."

 

He lost his sense of direction. Where was the air lock? He couldn't even see the handles the astronauts use for maneuvering. He tried to contact fellow spacewalker Chris Cassidy — all spacewalks are tandem operations, for precisely this sort of situation — but he couldn't hear him.

 

Then he recalled that his safety cable could be recoiled, and the gentle tug of that mechanism signaled the direction back to the air lock. He gradually felt his way there but still had to go through the laborious process of re-pressurization and reentering the station. NASA video captured the arduous efforts of Parmitano's crew mates as they removed his helmet and toweled up the rogue water.

 

NASA is still investigating where the water came from. Early evidence is that the spacesuit's cooling system malfunctioned. The incident illustrated the obvious fact that there is nothing routine about life in space — that even after nearly five decades of spacewalks, and even with elaborate safeguards, a failure mode could lurk within the American spacesuits.

 

As Parmitano put it on his blog: "Space is a harsh, inhospitable frontier. .?.?. The skills of our engineers and the technology surrounding us make things appear simple when they are not, and perhaps we forget this sometimes. Better not to forget."

 

Hadfield, who had left the ISS two months earlier, had a succinct description of what happened to Parmitano: "We just about killed him."

 

'Station'

 

Hadfield came back to Earth in May, retired from the astronaut corps — he had been a Canadian government employee for more than three decades — and retreated to his summer cabin on an island in the St. Clair River, which flows out of Lake Huron between Michigan and Ontario.

 

He can stand on his dock and watch the space station pass overhead. When you're an astronaut, you keep track of it and know when it's going to be visible. The best views are shortly after sunset.

 

"The station suddenly glows yellow, red, then winks out dark," he said. "It's really dramatic on board, and it's really beautiful to see it from here. It just echoes within me."

 

Is there an aesthetic, even spiritual justification for spaceflight? So often, NASA officials describe the space station in practical terms, as a way of developing new technologies and expanding the economic sphere of the human race. But for someone like Hadfield, space travel offers humanity something that goes beyond any commercial or scientific utility.

 

"Station" — Hadfield often refers to it that way, as if it's a proper name — "is so much more than some remote laboratory where some small number of people and robots are doing something that no one knows about. Station is so much more than that. It is our first great human outpost in space. It is our way of seeing our world that's unprecedented in the history of the human species. It's an amazing platform for human self-discovery."

 

Conceivably, NASA could lease the station to some private, commercial operation, but it is hard to imagine who might want to take up the cost of operating it. And all spacecraft get tired and creaky with age. Space is a harsh environment. Metal fatigue is inescapable, due to the expansion of the structure as the station moves in and out of sunlight.

 

So even if the station's life is extended beyond 2020, it is coming down, eventually. NASA could try to salvage a piece here and there, but there are no plans to deconstruct it, so the controlled de-orbit will be a spectacular, fiery event. Too big to burn up completely, the station will crash somewhere in the open water of the South Pacific.

 

It will be perhaps the most expensive man-made object that human beings have ever intentionally destroyed. This vision of the future will sink to the bottom of the sea, ending another chapter in the history of what people used to call the Space Age.

 

Soyuz Space Capsule Landing Glitch No Danger to Crew, NASA Says

 

Miriam Kramer - Space.com

 

An apparent sensor glitch during the return to Earth of a Russian Soyuz space capsule with two cosmonauts and an American astronaut aboard may have sparked some concern among the crew, but never posed a danger to the space travelers, according to a NASA spokesman.

 

The Soyuz spacecraft landed late Tuesday to return Russian cosmonauts Pavel Vinogradov, Alexander Misurkin and NASA astronaut Chris Cassidy home from the International Space Station after a 166-day flight.

 

The glitch popped up during the Soyuz's descent, with Vinogradov telling Russian news agencies that he and his crewmates could not get updates on their altitude as the fell back to Earth.

 

"There were problems. For some reason after the undocking all our parameters disappeared. Essentially, after the undocking, we flew blind," Vinogradov told Russian news agencies according to the Agence France-Presse wire service.

 

The malfunction appears to have been a sensor issue that prevented the spaceflyers from being able to see their distance from the ground during their trip back to the Earth's surface, NASA spokesman Rob Navias said.

 

"The bottom line is the crew was in no danger," Navias told SPACE.com.

 

Astronauts flying onboard a Soyuz have very limited means of affecting the flight of the spaceship, Navias said. Soyuz space capsules are three-person vehicles consisting of a central crew capsule flanked by an orbital module and a propulsion module. The crew launches and returns to Earth in the crew capsule while the orbital and propulsion modules are discarded during descent.

 

"What I can tell you is that the crew doesn't fly the Soyuz," Navias said. "They're passive. This thing about flying blind has to do with their situational awareness of altimeter data based on what appears to have been a sensor issue that prevented them from seeing data onboard."

 

Because the astronauts were unable to follow their altitude from readings in the cockpit, recovery crews on the ground kept them updated with information being relayed to them from Russian Mission Control.

 

"The bottom line is, the Soyuz performed as it was expected to," Navias said. "There were no issues with the vehicle performance, it was just the crew's insight into altimeter data that they can't do anything about anyway… It really was a minor issue."

 

The Soyuz TMA-08M space capsule carrying Cassidy, Vinogradov and Misurkin touched down on the steppes of Kazakhstan in Central Asia late Tuesday night. The three spaceflyers spent 166 days in space after launching to the space station on March 28 in a history-making one-day "express" flight to the orbiting outpost.

 

It was Misurkin's first spaceflight and Cassidy's second. Cassidy has clocked a total of 181 days in space while Vinogradov has 546 days under his belt over the course of three spaceflights.

 

The three astronauts made up half of the station's Expedition 35 and 36 crews. NASA's Karen Nyberg, European Space Agency astronaut Luca Parmitano and cosmonaut Fyodor Yurchikhin are still living and working aboard the space station.

 

Boeing's CST-100 completes interface test at NASA's Johnson Space Ctr

 

Jason Rhian - AmericaSpace.com

 

Boeing recently tested systems that will be used on Boeing's Commercial Space Transportation (CST-100) spacecraft. The interface test was conducted between Mission Control Center (MCC) and software which will be used on Boeing's commercial offering. The tests were conducted at NASA's Johnson Space Center located in Houston, Texas.

 

Boeing, along with launch service provider United Launch Alliance (ULA), is working to transport crew to the International Space Station under NASA's Commercial Crew Program. It is hoped that these efforts might return the capability of launching astronauts on U.S. spacecraft from U.S. soil.

 

"Every day, our connection to the humans living and working in space comes through the historic and hallowed MCC in Houston," said Ed Mango, NASA's CCP manager. "As low-Earth orbit opens to a growing commercial space industry, the ability of new spacecraft to communicate with existing space infrastructure is critical."

 

The test, conducted in August, validated that Boeing could send/receive data between the MCC and Boeing's Avionics Software Integration Facility. This use of the CST-100 simulator is viewed as an important first step toward integrated flight operations training.

 

"Our continued partnership with NASA Mission Operations Directorate brings valued experience to our Commercial Crew Program," said John Mulholland, vice president of Boeing Commercial Crew Programs. "This fully integrated team will ensure that we can safely and affordably conduct missions."

 

Boeing is working under a reimbursable Space Act Agreement (SAA), which was started during CCP's second phase, to develop flight training and operations for the CST-100. According to a press release issued by NASA, the company still has other interconnectivity assessments that still need to be done. One of the major ones noted by the space agency is software avionics testing for the ascent phase of flight and demonstrations with a person at the controls of the spacecraft simulator. During this test, the pilot will go through all of the key points of the flight. These include rendezvous, docking, navigation, and adjusting the CST-100's altitude.

 

As it currently stands, the CST-100 is on target to meet all of the 20 milestones laid out before it under NASA's Commercial Crew integrated Capability by summer of next year. Boeing is not alone in this field: To date, the other two participants under CCiCap, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) and Sierra Nevada Corporation, have seen their respective Dragon and Dream Chaser spacecraft accomplish the objectives laid out before them.

 

Blue Origin Files Formal Protest of Proposed Shuttle Pad Lease

 

Dan Leone - Space News

 

A spat between Blue Origin and Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) over Kennedy Space Center's Launch Complex 39A, a disused space shuttle launch pad both companies want to lease from NASA, escalated when Blue Origin challenged the legality of the agency's search for a caretaker.

 

On Sept. 3, Blue Origin filed a protest with the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) alleging that "there's a problem with [NASA's] solicitation that needs to be addressed," according to Ralph White, GAO's managing associate general counsel for procurement law.

 

GAO must rule on Blue Origin's protest by Dec. 12, White said. With rare exceptions, White added, agencies may not award contracts when a solicitation is under protest.

 

Neither White nor Blue Origin spokeswoman Gwen Griffin would disclose the details of the Kent, Wash.-based company's complaint. However, Blue Origin and SpaceX have been butting heads for months over their competing lease proposals. Blue Origin offered to operate the Florida pad on behalf of anyone technically and financially capable of launching from it, while SpaceX would keep the pad to itself.

 

SpaceX will not be sitting on the sidelines while GAO considers Blue Origin's protest. The company is participating in the case as an intervenor, White said. SpaceX spokeswoman Emily Shanklin declined to comment about the company's involvement.

 

Blue Origin filed its protest with at least five U.S. senators in its corner. Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and David Vitter (R-La.) registered their concerns about an exclusive lease in a Sept. 5 letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden.

 

NASA has been trying since May to rid its books of $1.2 million in annual maintenance costs for Pad 39A, which the agency says it no longer needs.

 

Now, with a GAO decision about the protest not due until mid-December, NASA could find itself paying for maintenance a little longer than it expected — the agency wanted to secure a tenant by Sept. 30. 

 

Hawthorne, Calif.-based SpaceX, which already launches cargo delivery missions to the international space station from nearby Cape Canaveral Air Force Station with its Falcon 9 rocket, is eyeing Pad 39A as a possible launch site for the Falcon Heavy it is developing.

 

Blue Origin has tested suborbital vehicles but has launched nothing to space so far. In addition to some U.S. lawmakers, Blue Origin's multiuser Pad 39A proposal is backed by United Launch Alliance of Denver, which uses Cape Canaveral to launch payloads for NASA and the Defense Department. United Launch Alliance is slated to perform initial launches of the biconic space vehicle Blue Origin is developing.

 

While NASA seldom discusses ongoing procurements, the agency suggested in an Aug. 2 letter to lawmakers that any operating concept, single or multiuser, is preferable to tearing down Pad 39A, which NASA says it would have to do if it cannot find a commercial lessee.

 

"NASA believes that the argument for or against one operating concept is secondary to the demonstrated capability of any proposer to undertake the financial and technical challenges of assuming an asset of this magnitude," wrote L. Seth Statler, NASA's associate administrator for legislative and intergovernmental affairs, in an Aug. 2 letter to Reps. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.) and Frank Wolf (R-Va.).

 

Aderholt, who represents a district nearby the Marshall Space Center in Huntsville, Ala., was concerned that such a lease would leave NASA's Space Launch System heavy-lift rocket without a backup launch pad.

 

The Space Launch System is currently slated to launch from Pad 39B,  Kennedy's other shuttle launch facility. Statler, in his response to Aderholt and Wolf's July 22 letter, said the big rocket did not need a backup pad. Furthermore, Statler added, the heavy-lifter could easily share Pad 39B with other rockets, even if its launch rate were higher than one mission every four years, as NASA now plans.

 

Billionaires' battle for historic launch pad goes into overtime

 

Alan Boyle - NBCNews.com

 

A tug of war involving two billionaire-backed space ventures has forced NASA to put a hold on its plans to turn over one of its historic space shuttle launch pads to a commercial operator by the end of this month.

 

Now it could take until mid-December for NASA to decide whether Kennedy Space Center's Launch Complex 39A should be given over to California-based SpaceX, founded by billionaire Elon Musk; or Blue Origin, the Washington state company founded by Amazon.com's Jeff Bezos.

 

The competition demonstrates two kinds of clout at work: Musk's SpaceX was once seen as an upstart challenger to the space establishment — but after a string of successes, it now plays a leading role in NASA's vision for commercial spaceflight. Bezos' Blue Origin doesn't have as much of a track record in spaceflight, but it does have powerful allies in the launch industry as well as in the halls of Congress.

 

Because of the continuing tug of war, NASA will have to keep maintaining Launch Complex 39A past Oct. 1 rather than ceding that responsibility to the private sector — and taxpayers will have to foot the bill, to the tune of an estimated $100,000 a month.

 

The reason for the delay? On Sept. 3, Blue Origin lodged a protest with the Government Accountability Office over the way NASA was soliciting bids for the right to manage and operate Pad 39A. "The protest is a challenge to the solicitation," Ralph White, GAO's managing associate general counsel for procurement law, told NBC News. "That means they think there's a problem with the solicitation that needs to be addressed."

 

That filing triggered a 100-day clock for a GAO ruling on the protest, with a ruling due by Dec. 12. NASA has until early next month to respond to the protest, and SpaceX has signaled that it's weighing in as well.

 

White declined to comment on the substance of the protest. Neither NASA, nor Blue Origin, nor SpaceX, nor any of their lawyers responded to NBC News' inquiries about the specifics of the case on Friday. But one of Blue Origin's main objections is thought to focus on what NASA Administrator Charles Bolden and other agency officials have been saying about Launch Complex 39B, Kennedy Space Center's other launch pad.

 

A tale of two pads

 

Since the retirement of NASA's shuttle fleet in 2011, both 39A and 39B have been idle. NASA intends to use 39B for launches of the heavy-lift Space Launch System, or SLS, which is currently in development. The space agency sees 39A as surplus to its needs, and that's why it wants to lease the pad to a commercial launch operator for at least the next five years.

 

SpaceX wants exclusive use of 39A to launch its Falcon 9 rockets, for commercial satellite missions and potentially for sending crew to the International Space Station. The pad could also serve as a home for the more powerful Falcon Heavy rocket, which is still in development.

 

Blue Origin, meanwhile, wants to operate 39A as a multi-user pad that could handle launches staged by a variety of companies, potentially including SpaceX. United Launch Alliance, SpaceX's biggest competitor, voiced support for the multi-user concept, along with other unnamed launch companies.

 

Here's where 39B, the pad earmarked for SLS launches, comes into the picture: In July, Bolden said 39B could also handle launches by commercial ventures. Essentially, Bolden was offering 39B as the multi-user pad in place of 39A. This could have been interpreted as signaling that Bolden favored reserving 39A for one company's exclusive use — and that was one of the factors setting off Blue Origin's protest.

 

Politics enters the picture

 

The protest comes against the background of a back-and-forth debate over the future shape of the space industry.

 

SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon cargo capsule have made three  successful  runs to the International Space Station, and the company is pushing ahead with the Falcon Heavy as well as a prototype fly-back booster project known as Grasshopper. It's conceivable that SpaceX could start flying NASA astronauts to the space station within the next three or four years.

 

Blue Origin weathered a failed flight test in 2011, but is nevertheless pressing ahead with its suborbital and orbital test programs in line with Bezos' motto: "Gradatim ferociter," which is Latin for "Step by step, courageously." Blue Origin plans to send its spaceships into orbit by 2018. It's the same strategy Bezos has applied to Amazon.com and his latest acquisition, The Washington Post.

 

In addition to his allies in the launch industry, Bezos has advocates in Congress. In July, House Republicans Frank Wolf of Virginia and Robert Aderholt of Alabama sent a letter to Bolden, voicing concerns about leasing the pad for one company's exclusive use. Another such letter was sent this month by five U.S. senators: Republican David Vitter and Democrat Mary Landrieu of Louisiana; Democrat Patty Murray of Washington state; Oklahoma Republican James Inhofe and Utah Republican Orrin Hatch.

 

"Blocking use of the pad to all but one company would essentially give that company a monopoly, stifling competition in space launches and therefore raising costs," the senators argued. They urged Bolden to withdraw the current solicitation and start over with a new one that would require any leaseholder to give other companies access to 39A.

 

The 100-day cycle that was put into motion by Blue Origin's protest could give NASA a chance to plead its case — not only with the GAO, but with congressional critics as well. It could provide a break for NASA to negotiate changes that would somehow satisfy Blue Origin as well as SpaceX. Or it could lead to a hardening of the political lines — and yet another round of uncertainty about the fate of America's most famous launch pads.

 

On the importance of a NASA authorization bill

 

Jeff Foust - SpacePolitics.com

 

While Congress is back in session this month, few observers expect they will spend much, if any, time on the topic of a new NASA authorization bill. There are too many other issues for members to deal with, from foreign policy to a continuing resolution to keep the government funded; moreover, the differences between the versions of the bill approved over the summer by the House Science Committee and the Senate Commerce Committee appear to be too great to be reconciled, even if the full chambers are able to pass their versions. One recently retired Congressional staff member, though, emphasized this week the importance of such legislation to create policy and more sustainable funding for NASA.

 

"Right now, I think we are at the tipping point," warned Jeff Bingham, who retired from the Republican staff of the Senate Commerce Committee last month, during a session Thursday at the AIAA Space 2013 conference in San Diego. NASA has been getting squeezed by flat or declining budgets the last several years, he noted, but has continued to try and continue all of its major programs. "We're at the point, with the kinds of numbers you see particularly on the House side for 2014, I don't think NASA can play these cards that way very much longer… You're going to have to cut something. There's something major that's going to have to go."

 

That's where authorizing committees and their legislation step in, he argued. "It's the responsibility of those committee to look at programs in their jurisdiction and say what should NASA be, what should NASA do, how should NASA do it," he said. That policy should not be set solely by the White House, he added, but done collaboratively with Congress. "To do space right, you need 'X' kind of money," a figure that should come from the authorization process and work its way through both the administration's budget request and the budget allocations set by House and Senate committees.

 

The differences in the current House and Senate authorization bills are not evidence of NASA policy becoming more partisan, though, Bingham said, but instead an artifact of the bigger debate between the parties on fiscal issues. "It was actually hard to find areas in the policy substance in the Nelson bill that needed change or improvement," he said, referring to a review he did of the Senate authorization bill introduced by Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL). "If we can get past the money issue, then I think you'll see that apparent partisanship dissolve."

 

One area where there is, perhaps, a policy difference between the Republican-led House and the Democratic-led Senate is NASA's new asteroid initiative, highlighted by plans to redirect a small asteroid into lunar orbit. Both the House authorization and appropriations bills block that program from starting, while the Senate's versions contain no such prohibition. The initiative "has a negative view in the House partly because the House didn't really, in my view, look at what it was really all about," Bingham said. "I think they mistook it, or chose to mistake it, as the new announcement of the Obama vision" and thus attacked it.

 

The White House hasn't helped matters, though, Bingham added. "Their rollout on projects and activities has been miserable," he said. "Part of it is that they don't see the value in interacting with Congress effectively." Bingham said he's hopeful the asteroid initiative does survive Congressional debate on the 2014 budget. "I thought it was a good story," he said, referring to a panel presentation on the effort by NASA officials at the conference the previous day. "I hope it can, but I don't know."

 

As for an authorization bill, Bingham is skeptical that a bill will pass, despite his earlier discussion of its importance. "What's most likely is that we won't have any action taken on NASA programs and policy," he said. The policy provisions of the 2010 authorization act, he reminded the audience, remain in place even after the end of this fiscal year. "There's a fallback position that nothing new this year is better than anything new that we have a hard time passing."

 

China, Others Made Space Progress Despite ITAR

 

Bradley Perrett, Frank Morring, Jr., Amy Svitak & Jay Menon - Aviation Week

 

If U.S. restrictions on supplying space technology to China were meant to arrest the Asian giant's astronautical development, there is precious little sign of success.

 

From a forthcoming family of advanced launchers to a manned space program, lunar exploration and an indigenous navigation system, China shows every indication of relentless progress in space. The same holds true for the other "BRIC" nations—Brazil, Russia and India—that have generally developed their space capabilities without U.S. help.

 

Clearly, China would like access to U.S. spaceflight capabilities, above all because most space technology has military as well as civil applications. But for the vast majority of space activities, its space industry is progressing very well, whatever the restrictions of the U.S. International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).

 

ITAR "has not worked and it is counterproductive," says Joan Johnson-Freese, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College and long-time critic of the trade regime. "The rest of the world is perfectly willing to work with China, and China has advanced relatively far indigenously. What they cannot do, they can buy."

 

Germany helped China with communications spacecraft and Britain with microsatellites, for example. The Chinese space program's life support systems are based on Russian models. Johnson-Freese thinks that, instead of pointlessly refusing to cooperate with China in any space technology, the U.S. "should build very high fences around very few things"— capabilities that are a U.S. monopoly, for instance.

 

Highlighting China's progress despite ITAR in the next few years will be the fielding of a family of modern launchers. For decades, China has relied on descendants of its early ballistic missiles that burn hydrazine, a fuel with many drawbacks, including high toxicity and poor efficiency, but with the advantage of simplifying engine design. The new rockets—Long March 5, 7 and 6, in descending order of size—all use kerosene as a fuel, with hydrogen for the core stage of the largest.

 

Drawing on a clean sheet of paper and, evidently, a lot of funding, the Chinese industry is jumping ahead of competitors by building similar or identical propulsion modules for a large range of throw-weights, 0.5-25 tons to low Earth orbit. Airframe sections of three standard diameters are matched with mostly shared powerplants, primarily the YF-100 kerosene engine. (There is some confusion about the payload range for the new family, however, since the Long March 6 is officially stated as capable of lofting 1 ton to a sun-synchronous orbit.)

 

The Long March 7, which may become China's future human-rated launcher, is due to fly next year; a delay from 2013 was announced in March. The first flight of the Long March 5 was also put back from 2013 to no earlier than 2015. Progress on the Long March 6 has closely tracked the Long March 7.

 

The inability of ITAR to keep China from developing the YF-100 is underlined if, as is sometimes reported, the engine is based on the Russian RD-120. Officials say that like the RD-120, it uses staged combustion. At sea level, the engine has achieved a 305-sec. specific impulse figure that impresses foreign rocket engineers—and is another reminder that China can achieve a great deal without U.S. cooperation. Staged combustion is also used for the 18-ton-thrust kerosene second-stage engine of Long March 7.

 

 

Still, with a thrust of 120 metric tons (260,000 lb.), the YF-100 is not a very large engine. Engineers of China's Academy of Aerospace Propulsion Technology—Li Ping, Li Bin and Yu Zou—emphasized in a paper published last year that China was still behind in space propulsion. Their proposal, probably representing official thinking, is to develop the largest kerosene-oxygen rocket that China could use commercially—with up to three times the thrust of the YF-100—and then give it double combustion chambers to create an engine twice as large again. This, it appears, is China's path to propulsion for a Moon rocket.

 

A variety of small launchers also are proposed or under development. One, the Long March 11, was identified this year. It uses solid fuel, another dual-use technology that can be applied to military systems such as the anti-satellite weapon demonstrated in January 2007.

 

The U.S. government still considers spacecraft and launch vehicles as weapons, regardless of how they are used. But it is moving away from that position with a set of export-control reforms designed to rationalize what many see as an irrational system, particularly in the commercial-space arena (see page 52).

 

"[T]he United States is no longer the sole source of key items and technologies," said Thomas Kelly of the State Department's Bureau of Political-Military Affairs in congressional testimony last April. "Today, cutting-edge technologies are developed far more rapidly than 40 or 50 years ago, in places far beyond our borders. Many U.S. companies must collaborate with foreign companies to develop, produce and sustain leading-edge military hardware and technology if they are to survive as viable businesses."

 

China's space program is the best funded and most ambitious among the BRIC nations. All have developed solid space programs with little or no U.S. help, and have worked together to mutual benefit.

 

Brazil is already a hot market for commercial communications satellites, with its Star One, the largest satellite-fleet operator in Latin America. Brazil buys its satellites from the U.S. and Europe, and launches them abroad as well. But after many fits and starts, it is preparing to begin using its 30-year-old Alcantara launch center on its north coast to launch a new variant of the Soviet-era Cyclone rockets manufactured in Ukraine by the Yuzhnoye State Design Office.

 

The arrangement, to be outlined at the upcoming International Astronautical Conference in Beijing, gives the Ukrainian government access to Alcantara for its missions and sets up a joint commercial launch services operation called Alcantara Cyclone Space.

 

At 2.3 deg. N. Lat., the launch facility is even closer to the Equator than Europe's facility at Kourou, French Guiana. From Alcantara, the joint venture's Cyclone 4—with a new upper stage engine—should be able to put 5,685 kg. (12,500 lb.) into a circular low Earth orbit at 200 km (124 mi.), and 1,600 kg into geostationary transfer orbit. By launching over the open Atlantic to the north, the rocket is designed to deliver a 3,910-kg spacecraft to a 400-km sun-synchronous orbit.

 

However, launches with U.S.-built satellites will not be able to start until the Brazilian senate ratifies a technical-services agreement with the U.S. State Department.

 

While Brazil moves ahead in partnership with Ukraine, Russia's space industry is going through some hard times. A series of well-publicized launch failures with the Proton and Rokot launchers has brought down the Kremlin's wrath on Russian space executives over quality-control practices, and the Russian-owned Sea Launch venture—which uses Ukrainian Zenit rockets—has also had its troubles returning from U.S. bankruptcy protection.

 

Despite the trouble with its Soviet-heritage launchers, Russia is moving ahead with a new domestic cosmodrome at Vostochny in the far-eastern Amur region. Meanwhile, the Khrunichev Space Center shipped the first flight model of the lightweight Angara 1.2 rocket to the northern Plesetsk Cosmodrome in May in preparation for its inaugural launch next year.

 

The Angara family is a new generation of modular rockets that has been in development at Moscow-based Khrunichev since the mid-1990s. Based on the liquid oxygen/kerosene-powered URM-1 Common Core Booster (CCB), the Angara product line is designed to carry payloads weighing 3,800-35,000 kg to low Earth orbit. A single CCB will power the Angara 1.2, while the heavy-lift Angara A7 will require up to seven boosters. Khrunichev says it is also continuing work on the heavy-lift Angara A5 launch vehicle, which it expects to ship to Plesetsk in November.

 

Political isolation has long forced India to go it alone on satellites and launch vehicles. The Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) has two medium-lift launch vehicles in operation and a fleet of relatively sophisticated indigenous communications satellites built with some foreign help but as much Indian content as possible.

 

The saga of its latest launch attempt is emblematic of the approach. Launch of the GSAT-14 communications bird on a Geostationary Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV) was scrubbed Aug. 19 when the second stage started leaking its hypergolic propellant. The third stage, carrying the cryogenic engine India is developing to end its reliance on Russia for critical space hardware, was undamaged, but the rocket had to be destacked, and the second stage will be rebuilt.

 

The satellite is one of the largest India has tried to launch itself rather than with what ISRO calls a "procured launcher" like the Ariane 5. Built by ISRO's Satellite Center on the agency's 2-ton I-2K bus, GSAT-14 carries six extended C-band transponders, 6 Ku-band transponders and two experimental Ka-band "beacons" to test propagation of signals in that frequency band.

 

The leaky hypergolic stage is powered by the Vikas engine, which also powers the four strap-on boosters of the GSLV Mk. II. The first stage is solid-fueled, while the upper-stage engine is a domestic replacement for the Russian power plant used in the past.

 

The gas-generator cycle Indian engine is designed to deliver 73.55 kN in vacuum (16,534 lb. thrust), but it has yet to fly. A turbopump failed during its first flight test, taking an experimental satellite with it. The Russian engine has performed well, but overall the GSLV has fallen short of its predecessor—the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) that has achieved 23 consecutive launch successes. By comparison, four of the past 10 GSLV launches have failed.

 

Scientist Richard Feynman the heart of 'The Challenger Disaster'

The film, the Science Channel's first foray into scripted programming, focuses on the maverick physicist's efforts to uncover the truths behind the 1986 space shuttle disaster

 

Alan Eyerly - Los Angeles Times

 

At a hearing of the presidential commission investigating the 1986 space shuttle Challenger disaster, Richard Feynman conducted an experiment of sorts in the media-packed room. The Caltech physicist and Nobel laureate clamped material from a shuttle O-ring and dropped it in ice water.

 

At merely the temperature of a cold soda, the rubber became rigid and dented. The conclusion was obvious — the gasket material lost its ability to seal, just as the O-rings had on the shuttle's right solid rocket booster.

 

"I believe that has some significance for our problem," the scientist said with memorable understatement in demonstrating why America's 25th space shuttle mission had ended in horrific failure. As millions watched on television in January 1986, the spacecraft exploded, killing all seven astronauts aboard — including the first teacher in space, Christa McAuliffe.

 

The famously maverick scientist is at the heart of "The Challenger Disaster," a Science Channel movie about the national tragedy and the network's first stab at scripted programming. And, added Debbie Myers, the network's general manager and executive vice president, it's just the beginning. Three original works are already in development.

 

"For us, it marks a new era of satisfying audience hunger for smart entertainment," Myers said, adding that she hoped the film would make viewers appreciate "the power of science" and its ability to "speak truth to power."

 

Produced in collaboration with the BBC and based on Feynman's memoir ("What Do You Care What Other People Think?"), "The Challenger Disaster" debuts Nov. 16. Shot on location in South Africa, the 90-minute film stars William Hurt as Feynman, who is portrayed as a man doggedly searching for scientific truth while trying to avoid the quagmire of Washington politics.

 

The Academy Award-winning actor described Feynman as a "brilliant, brave, compassionate" scientist whose stellar reputation afforded him "the freedom to look for and tell the truth."

 

"We don't see Richard Feynmans anymore, but they're there," Hurt said. "There are remarkable people alive today, but I don't think they're being allowed to compete with fatuous, attention-grabbing personalities," he added, referring to the glut of low-brow entertainment in popular culture.

 

"The Challenger Disaster" combines Feynman's fascinating story, Hurt pointed out, with a tragedy that wounded America's psyche by underscoring the dangers of space travel and the fragility of human existence. The genius of Feynman and the magnitude of the Challenger explosion "are united in this particular project," Hurt said. "They meet at the apex."

 

The film also features Brian Dennehy ("The Good Wife") as former U.S. Secretary of State William P. Rogers, appointed by President Reagan to lead the high-profile commission that investigated the explosion.

 

Also, British actors take on many of the other roles, including Joanne Whalley ("The Borgias") as Feynman's supportive wife, Gweneth; Kevin McNally ("Downton Abbey") as Lawrence Mulloy, a heavily criticized NASA official; Henry Goodman ("Yes, Prime Minister") as Feynman's oncologist, Dr. Weiss; and Eve Best ("Nurse Jackie") as America's first woman in space, Sally Ride.

 

Canadian actor Bruce Greenwood ("Star Trek Into Darkness") portrays Air Force Gen. Donald Kutyna, who subtly guides Feynman's inquiries with the goal of protecting current and future astronauts from harm.

 

The movie has already been screened by some who figured prominently in events. One is NASA's acting administrator at the time of the disaster, William Robert Graham. Graham, who had been at his post for less than two months at the time of the disaster, said he had been assured by "a whole cadre of professionals" that the shuttle would launch successfully, just as it had done two dozen times before.

 

"The Challenger was the worst single event I've lived through," Graham said. "It was just terrible, but we had to keep going. What I told the NASA staff was: 'Tell the truth, don't speculate. Tell them everything you know.'"

 

As for the Science Channel movie, Graham said the filmmakers did an admirable job of portraying key characters such as Feynman, Rogers and Kutyna.

 

"I think they captured their relationships very well," said Graham, who's portrayed in the film by Nicholas Pauling. In terms of certain factual matters, however, the movie takes artistic license.

 

"I would call it a drama based on the people and events surrounding the Challenger disaster," he said, rather than an attempt to convey exactly what happened.

 

"It was a little bit like Shakespeare's 'Julius Caesar.' That's not to be critical," Graham said. "Shakespeare wasn't less of a playwright because he didn't get all the history correct."

 

The movie shows that Feynman reluctantly joined the presidential commission after being recruited by Graham. Although weakened by cancer, the outspoken Feynman fully committed to the investigation after arriving in Washington eight days after the ill-fated launch.

 

The scientist known for his unruly gray hair, nerdy glasses and keen intellect refused to accept the notion that the explosion's cause would never be determined, even though the shuttle was one of the most complex machines ever built and many of its 2.5 million parts were submerged in the Atlantic Ocean.

 

"An explanation can be found," Feynman asserted before beginning an independent probe. Most of the managers and engineers he encountered were closemouthed, worried about their careers. But as Feynman said, if no one was allowed to determine the explosion's cause, everyone would lose their job.

 

At first, Feynman believed the main shuttle engines were at fault, after discovering cracks in turbine blades and witnessing extreme vibrations during a test firing. That theory proved false, however, when telemetry data indicated the engines fired perfectly during the 73 seconds prior to the deadly blast.

 

A breakthrough came when NASA released photos showing a plume of flame spurting from the side of a solid rocket booster. Flame was a symptom of the failure, Feynman realized. But what was the cause? What was different about this launch compared to all the previous missions?

 

A call to the National Weather Service provided the answer. Cape Canaveral, Fla., experienced freezing temperatures that winter morning, while on prior launches it had never been colder than 53 degrees.

 

"That's the variable," said Feynman.

 

Engineers warned NASA about this critical, weather-related issue. But the space agency was under intense pressure from Congress and the military to maintain unreasonably ambitious flight schedules. The risky decision to launch not only claimed the lives of the Challenger crew members but also grounded the shuttle fleet for nearly three years.

 

Ultimately, Feynman's detective work arrived at this: Rocket booster design flaw + management failure + cold weather = disaster.

 

Feynman didn't live to see the next shuttle launch. He died in February 1988 at age 69 of cancer possibly caused by radiation exposure more than four decades earlier at Los Alamos, N.M.

 

In his appendix to the commission report, Feynman urged NASA to always be frank, honest and informative with the public so its tax dollars could be spent wisely.

 

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations," Feynman wrote, "for nature cannot be fooled."

 

END