Fwd: Really Amazing photos

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Moon, Larry J. (JSC-EA411)" <larry.j.moon@nasa.gov>
Date: August 30, 2014 10:47:16 AM CDT
To: "Moon, Larry J. (JSC-EA411)" <larry.j.moon@nasa.gov>
Subject: FW: Really Amazing photos

I thought these photos were amazing enuf to share.  Thanks to Walt Cunningham for sharing the below link to them.  

 

Passing on some more amazing pictures.      Walt

 

---

 

Really Amazing photos   

http://m.tickld.com/x/46-incredible-photos-you-may-not-have-seen-before

 

 

 

 

 

 

Insufficient funds/wrong approach

NASA's Space Launch System and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle Program (SLS/MPCV) will fail because…mission costs are too high, the Orion/MPCV crew module has an unsolvable water recovery issue, and there is no commercial application.

The following SLS/MPCV "operation" cost estimates were presented to the Congressional Budget Office after it failed to make the Congress aware of the prohibitive cost to operate expendable heavy lift vehicles.

·         The NASA human exploration budget will be flat lined at $2.8b for the foreseeable future. One report indicates a development cost of $38b and another reports that the first development version launch of the SLS could not take place until December 2017 and the 130mt production versions (crew and cargo) are not expected to unveiled until August 2032. This SLS development program scenario based on 13 flights over a 21 year period would have extreme difficulty maintaining the manufacturing labor force for such a low flight rate. However, it is the introduction of the cargo vehicle which forecast that it will require two launches of these mammoth vehicles to accomplish one mission.The SLS is the same heavy lift launcher concept used in the Constellation program which was cancelled because:"The U.S. human spaceflight program appears to be on an unsustainable trajectory. It is perpetuating the perilous practice of pursuing goals that do not match allocated resources." Such is the case today.

·        NASA has failed to reduce the mission operation cost of the SLS/MPCV. The following $4.2b estimate of annual operations cost for the SLS indicated it will cost more to manufacture the expendable vehicles, plan the mission, and conduct flight operation than NASA has budgeted for human exploration. NASA is assuming that future budgets will be increased to cover mission operations. THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN!

 "It's the Launch Cost…Stupid"… paraphrasing Bill Clinton's presidential economy election theme. NASA must reduce its launch cost and the commercial space shuttle is the only option! The SLS/MPCV shuttle replacement plan is unaffordable, unsafe, and like the Constellation program suffers from incompetent NASA management.

Don Nelson nasaproblems.com

Signs of failure were ignored.

 

As a NASA aerospace engineer I was trained to look for warning signs of possible failure. We had indicating signs of failure before the Challenger and Columbia disasters…they were there but we ignored them. Notice I wrote "disasters" not accidents. Both were disasters because they were preventable and even survivable…they were not accidents.  Instead of admitting that the space shuttle disasters were human failures, NASA management concluded that the space shuttle had to be decommissioned and that the shuttle funding be used to develop a safer system for getting humans into space.   However, NASA management is once again ignoring the warning signs that there shuttle replacement is not.

They call them Runway landers!

Evolve and USE SHUTTLE

Evolve And Use Shuttle
Posted on December 7, 2011 by Bob
Instead of planning the retirement of the Space Shuttle program, America should be preparing the shuttles for their next step in space: evolving, not shutting them down and laying off thousands of people. You know the very people whose experience we will need in the years ahead. Except if you lay them off now, they won't be around in the next decade. Today's Shuttle operation is made up of five elements. Here's how we can put them all to use in a whole new space program. America, extend and transform the Shuttle, don't end 'em.
Those five elements of a Shuttle extension – the four segment solid booster motors, the big orange External Fuel tank, the trio of liquid Shuttle main engines, the vast existing Shuttle facilities like hangars and launching pads, and above all the skilled and experienced work force that has been operating the Shuttle fleet for nearly 30 years, can be the foundation of a whole new space goal.
We need to start thinking like our friends in the Russian space program. The first launch of the Soyuz rocket that is used today for taxi flights to the International Space Station had its first flight in November 1963 — the same month President Kennedy was assassinated! But while the rocket and capsule look the same as the
one that flew first in 1963, there have been many changes, some subtle and some more obvious. Newer and more powerful engines, a new upper stage, and advanced spaceship controls and systems mark today's Soyuz. In fact, the Soyuz itself is a more advanced version of the R-7 ICBM that Russia developed in the late 1950s and which first lofted spaceman Yuri Gagarin in 1961. Instead of abandoning the system for something entirely new — which is what the U.S. intends to do after the Shuttle — Russia has made incremental improvements to Soyuz, basically building an entire space program around that space-going workhorse.
See any lessons here?
America has invested 30 years in the Shuttle system. Instead of retiring it and beginning with a new "clean sheet of paper" approach
that will take extra time and money, I propose we follow the Russian example and make the basic Shuttle the foundation of a space program that can take us literally to Mars. Use the boosters, engines and big tank as the backbone of a new heavy lift rocket. Fly that rocket from the same facilities as the current Shuttles use. Keep much of the existing workforce working, because the only thing you will change is older designs and engines, making way for a heavy lift launcher derived from the Shuttle basics and capable of carrying large new spacecraft to the station or destinations beyond.
You may ask — how do we get from here to there?
By continuing to fly the existing Shuttles until a commercial crew-carrying cousin comes available after testing, or until the all-cargo ships start flying. On my evolution chart, I see these cargo Shuttles evolving, too, until they become a truly huge heavy lift rocket that can fly elements of an interplanetary spaceship aloft and link them
together, using the space station as the testing ground.
But I also have a place for a space capsule in this plan. An Orion-like capsule can be docked to the interplanetary ship and provide aero braking tests as we advance further and further into the solar system, headed in the direction of Mars.
What's aero braking? That's a way to use the gravity and upper atmosphere of Earth to sling shot a ship out either deeper into space, or slow it down to be "captured" by Earth's gravity. It flies in a series of ever-widening spirals. What's the big deal? Because aero braking doesn't need a heavy and expensive rocket stage to muscle our ships around in space. It's a technique we have used successfully in robotic missions to Mars. If we truly want to make humans on
Mars a national objective without sending the money — printing presses into overtime, that's one way to get us there.
But none of this is possible if we abandon the Space Shuttle, and the many decades of experience in flying a winged craft into space and safely back to a runway. They call 'em a runway lander.
And the story of why we need that instead of a spaceship-turned-boat space capsule as our space taxis is the subject of my next blog. Along with ideas on using that big orange fuel tank so familiar to those who have watched Shuttle launchings in a new role: a spaceship itself. More on those ideas soon.
By Buzz Aldrin

Posted in Space news | Leave a comment | Edit

Sent from my iPad

Runway landers. Re abbey--don't go back to capsules!

Orion Crew Module Crash Site

Remember one of reasons the space shuttle was decommissioned was to improve crew safety and that is not the case with crew modules! Ironically only the CSS would have crew escape pods that would protect the crew during every phase of flight. This is another NASA management blunder which again will have fatal consequences if implemented!

Recently published statements attributed to NASA state that the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle Is: "designed to be 10 times safer during ascent and entry than its predecessor, the Space Shuttle." As a retired NASA engineer with extensive experience in the operation of crew modules, I challenged the NASA Office of Safety and Mission Assurance about the authenticity of this statement.  Their reply (see below) was the Orion failed to meet the safety requirements for entry during their Constellation Program evaluations and that they have failed to establish a Level 1 set of requirement for the commercial crew modules and Orion MPCV. It is my opinion that the Commercial crew modules and Orion MPCV are potential deathtraps and NASA has misled Congress about the safety of these vehicles.

While the crew escape tower on the MPCV may provide significant improvement over a Space Shuttle without crew escape pods, it does not negate the many factors that have made crew modules a death trap during the re-entry phase of flight. As example, historically the Russian Soyuz crew module's safety record is not significantly better than that the Space Shuttle. While the Soyuz crew module has experienced a failure of the escape tower, it has been the re-entry phase of flight that has proven to be the fatal environment for flight crews. Potential fatal crew module failures are:  

·        Every crew module flight is a test flight! Manufacturing errors have occurred.  

·        Crew modules have very limited cross range capability which could require a reentry into unacceptable weather conditions.

·        Crew module's notorious reentry errors result in an expanses landing zone that could prevent rapid access to the crew in dire circumstances.

·        Parachutes are known to fail. This is another unacceptable single point failure.

There are too many potential failures with fatal consequences for a crew module to be considered for 21st century human space transportation. The Russian Soyuz crew module is still in service only because their government cannot afford to develop a safer reusable lifting body winged runway landing crewed spacecraft.

Don Nelson nasaproblems.com

Can NASA be Saved?

http://nasaproblems.com/


Sent from my iPad

Fwd: Jerry Ross Fondly Remembers His Friend, Steve Nagel

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Gary Johnson" <gjohnson144@comcast.net>
Date: August 29, 2014 10:19:12 AM CDT
To: "Gary Johnson" <gjohnson144@comcast.net>
Subject: FW: Jerry Ross Fondly Remembers His Friend, Steve Nagel

Thanks to Jerry Ross for allowing AmericaSpace to share with us Jerry Ross's Remembrance of Steve Nagel. I was blessed to have been able to work closely with Steve.

Take care,

Gary

 

 

 

AmericaSpace

For a nation that explores
August 27th, 2014 

Men of Similarity: Jerry Ross Fondly Remembers His Friend, Steve Nagel

By Ben Evans

 

Steve Nagel (1946-2014). Photo Credit: Joachim Becker/SpaceFacts.de

Veteran shuttle flyer Jerry Ross—the first human being to chalk up as many as seven discrete space missions—spoke touchingly and with humor yesterday (Tuesday, 26 August) at the funeral of his friend, astronaut Steve Nagel, who died from cancer last week, aged 67. Since their first meeting at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., almost four decades ago, Ross and Nagel "discovered we had a lot of things in common" and ended up flying two shuttle missions together. During his eulogy, Ross reflected warmly on the legacy of his former crewmate and their half-joking wish to someday regale each other at an Astronaut Retirement Home. "We would have two rocking chairs next to each other on the front porch," Ross wrote in his speech, which he has kindly permitted AmericaSpace to use, "and enjoy giving each other a bad time while talking about our 'similarities'."

Nagel's passing on Thursday, 21 August, was initially reported by the Association of Space Explorers (ASE) and drew numerous tributes, including former astronaut Tom Jones, who wrote that he was "an exemplary role model for astronauts and space professionals" and added that Nagel was "a terrific family man." He leaves behind his wife, fellow astronaut Linda Godwin—with whom he flew in space, together with Jerry Ross, on STS-37 in April 1991—and two daughters. "Steve was a great guy," Ross wrote in his funeral eulogy, "and I am glad that he was one of my very best friends." The pair met at Edwards in 1975. From February until December of that year, Nagel was at test pilot school, whilst Ross pursued the flight test engineer course, graduating in 1976.

The two men had many things in common. "We were in Bible Study together and we both loved to fly," Ross recalled at Nagel's funeral. "He was tall and thin and I wasn't. We were both from the Midwest. Steve was born and raised in Illinois, near God's country. I was born and raised in Indiana, which is God's country! Steve went to school at the University of Illinois [at Urbana-Champaign] and I went to Purdue University, a Big Ten Conference rival. These numerous 'similarities' were a source of a lot of fun over the years."

Four of the five STS-37 crewmates enjoy a light moment in Atlantis' middeck. From left to right are Linda Godwin, Steve Nagel, Ken Cameron, and Jerry Ross. Photo Credit: NASA, via Joachim Becker/SpaceFacts.de

As described in AmericaSpace's obituary article, Nagel was selected as one of 15 pilot candidates in the first shuttle astronaut class in January 1978. He flew first as a mission specialist on Mission 51G in June 1985, then as pilot on Mission 61A in October 1985—establishing a personal and empirical record, which endured for more than a decade, for the shortest interval between two flights by a single astronaut—prior to his post-Challenger assignment to command STS-37. Nagel was joined on the crew by Ross, Godwin, Ken Cameron, and Jay Apt. "I was honored to be Steve's best man when he and Linda were married," Ross remembered in Tuesday's eulogy, "and I really enjoyed reminding Steve that his second daughter is almost exactly the same age as my second granddaughter, even though he was much older than me!" (In fact, Nagel was 15 months older than Ross.)

During STS-37 in April 1991, the crew successfully deployed NASA's Gamma Ray Observatory (GRO), which required a contingency EVA by Ross and Apt to manually unfurl its jammed high-gain antenna. Another spacewalk was also performed to evaluate Space Station Freedom hardware. In his NASA oral history, Ross expressed surprise that Nagel had chosen him—an EVA veteran—to lead the spacewalks. "I really expected that Steve was going to probably choose Linda and Jay to be the EVA crew members on STS-37, so that we'd get more experience base within the astronaut office," Ross recalled. Nagel thought differently. "I think that's a good thing to consider," he told Ross, "but I'd look really stupid if we had to some kind of contingency EVA on a primary payload and you weren't one of the two guys that was outside!"

STS-37 was not the last occasion on which Ross and Nagel flew together. Two years later, in April 1993, they served aboard STS-55, the second German Spacelab mission. Those flights provided a great source of humor. "We frequently discussed our 'similarities'," said Ross at yesterday's eulogy, "and otherwise had a great time yanking each other's chain!" On one occasion, they brought pennants from their respective alma maters and strategically placed them on interior shuttle walls, to make them as visible to the cameras as possible. "We argued for days about whose school pennant was larger," said Ross. "We were each certain that ours was the larger one. Finally, we took both pennants down and placed them back to back. To the chagrin of both of us, they were exactly the same size!"

Steve Nagel, Linda Godwin, and Jerry Ross launch on STS-37 in April 1991. Photo Credit: NASA

After STS-55, their paths diversified. Ross remained in the astronaut corps and flew three more missions, visiting Russia's Mir space station and participating in the early construction of the International Space Station (ISS). For his part, Nagel initially worked within the Safety, Reliability and Quality Assurance Office at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston, Texas, then moved to the Aircraft Operations Division as a research pilot, chief of aviation safety, and deputy division chief. He retired from NASA in May 2011, less than a year before Ross himself.

Describing his departed friend as a "good and faithful servant" and thanking him for his friendship and for "my great memories of all the fun we had together," Ross concluded his eulogy with a touching, though somewhat tongue-in-cheek, picture of how the two former crewmates hoped to see out their days. "Steve and I often joked that we would retire to the Astronaut Retirement Home and that we would have two rocking chairs next to each other on the front porch, where we could rock and enjoy giving the other a bad time, while talking about our 'similarities'," he wrote. "Now I am looking forward to someday joining him on that porch in Heaven."

 

The author would like to express his thanks to Mr. Jerry Ross for entrusting and permitting AmericaSpace to reproduce the words of his eulogy in this article.

 

Copyright © 2014 AmericaSpace - All Rights Reserved

 

 

---