https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/03/x-37b-expanded-capabilities-iss-missions/
Sent from my iPad
Monday, July 17, 2017
Sunday, July 16, 2017
We need this capability to----
Speaking at a technology summit hosted by Defense One, Bhavya Lal, with the Institute for Defense Analysis at the Science and Technology Policy Institute, said focusing on the problems of the future will help the U.S. maintain its technological lead in space.
"One of the things we need to worry about is what are going to be the emerging technologies a decade from now so we can stay ahead of the Russia's and China's?" she said. "One potential technology that both the government and the private sector are starting to look at is on-orbit manufacturing, assembly, and servicing. I think it's an area we need to think about more, we need to bring the private sector in more, the government needs to think differently about how you construct and use an on-orbit platform in the case of war."
Friday, July 14, 2017
X37C
Abbey on space capabilities
Money spent on human exploration should be used to develop capabilities needed for a meaningful program. Research into long space flights can be done at the International Space Station, which should therefore be vigorously supported. Abundant launch vehicles are already on the commercial market, and yet a new and very expensive launch vehicle, with undefined payload and mission, is being developed. Three spacecraft are being developed to carry astronauts to space. Does the nation need three space capsules with limited capabilities? The capability that is lacking is the one that saved Hubble and built the largest structure ever assembled and flown in space. A redesigned X-37 that can carry astronauts could provide such a capability.
Reducing the cost of space flight would be a big help. Jeff Bezos of Blue Origin and Elon Musk of SpaceX are pursuing the technology for reusable rockets. United Launch Alliance is pursuing reusable first-stage engines for its next-generation Vulcan rocket. It expects the recovery of the engines alone to reduce the propulsion cost of the booster by up to 90 percent. A fly-back booster was considered during early design studies for the space shuttle, and could be achieved today. NASA should lead the way to provide such a capability and establish U.S. leadership in launch technology.
America needs a space policy that has a vision that can build on past achievements and keep moving forward. A big part of that is construction, maintenance and servicing in low-Earth orbit. Another is international cooperation. And we should realign our goals with those of other major space-faring nations and look back to the Moon, so we again become the leaders in space. After all, we've been there before. A lunar exploration program would provide the foundation for manned missions beyond the Moon. Our eyes must look to the skies with purpose toward that limitless frontier.
George Abbey is senior fellow in space policy at Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy. He is the former director of NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston.
Sent from my iPad
Thursday, July 13, 2017
X37C
Well, after talking to Capitol Hill staffers, they too are suffering the same head issues I am. At least I'm in good company.
Rather than talk about what Congress will or will not pay for, let's review what Congress has done since 2010 on space funding.
Congress has, on its own and despite both opposition from the Administration and aggressive delaying tactics on the SLS and Orion programs from NASA, appropriated those amounts needed to keep both Orion and SLS on track. And just as it's done since 2010, Congress is going to do what it wants on HSF, which is fund Orion and SLS fully.
What Congress sees is not a justification for Commercial Crew. Far from it. Congressional staffers are well aware of the true progress of that program and no, none of those players are getting us to ISS anytime soon. That's largely NASA's fault since Congress has informed it that the CCP program needed to down-selected years ago to better focus limited resources for faster progress. But NASA's leadership didn't do that for political reasons. Loose Boeing and CCP looses luster and respectability. Loose Sierra Nevada and we working on three capsule programs. And if you want to make engineers working in GN&C or ELSS laugh, tell them that one of the CCP companies will be flying crews by 2016. Guffaws galore.
And those in Congress specializing in space are well aware that, had getting independent access to ISS for our nation really been Job #1 for NASA's leadership, then the Administration would have approved Boeing's proposal for the X-37B follow-on, the 5 crew X-37C. We are talking about a dependable spacecraft that can sit in orbit for over a year and NASA said no to making it a crewed vehicle. Why?
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/03/x-37b-expanded-capabilities-iss-missions/
What Congress does see is that if we had not gone through the nonsense of 2010, we would be much closer to our own capability to launch crews to ISS than we are today. Instead, Neil Armstrong was right–the Administration changed our nation's HSF course in secret, without consultation, and mucked things up.
When it comes to the Moon, Congress is funding $3.5B annually on the DDTE for Orion and SLS. Anything else will have to wait for a new Administration as there is zero trust right now in Congress of anything the White House or NASA HQ are selling about human spaceflight.
Sent from my iPad
Saturday, July 8, 2017
Thursday, July 6, 2017
Wednesday, July 5, 2017
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)