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

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

Not Unsafe, but Not Safe---Dyer /ASAP killed Shuttle based on false premise!!

? Read these about Shuttle, US WASTES BILLIONS–PUTS SHUTTLE IN MUSEUMPEOPLE, WAKE UP, SAVE Shuttle, CAN’T leave in Museum ? CAIB– Though it is not unsafe, it’s not safe, needs more studies–Shuttle in museum based on this stupidity–Disgusting Posted on January 17, 2012 by Bob Americans, are you going to put up with this ignorance and arrogance? The Shuttle is the greatest vehicle the USA has ever constructed. It should be used and improved. We are loosing this capability, throwing away 100?s of billions, disbanding this large workforce, placing orbital assets in jeopardy and the new designs (years/ decades away) are not as capable as the shuttle–not even close. Does this reveal anything about Adm/NASA? ? Shuttle “Not Unsafe” but not Safe” ?? Posted on December 29, 2011 by Bob Americans, we have shut down this shuttle program based on this kind of thinking. We need an emergency session of the House and Senate space committees to reassess this situation . We are in a crisis situation, if any of you know anyone with influence, please get them to help. Please get this to all your Congressmen and senators.  This ought to awaken all of you to the gross mismanagement of the space program by the adm and NASA. Read this,           it is not unsafe, but not safe, needs more studies. We believe it would be unwise.  DOD aircraft extensions have not turned out well. The shuttle is risky and becoming more so.  More risk than folks should shoulder. We don’t think there is full transparency to that risk. These people adm Dyrer and Gehman have essentially put a Safe multi- billion program in the TRASH, based on their emotions. Gehman–to be safe we should fly as few missions as possible before retirement.   John Shannon , SPM states that Dryer utterances are disturbing based on the recent (flights from Columbia to present) have been very clean. Shannon comments below— . ASAP—-comments “The ASAP does not, I’ll emphasize that, does not support extending the shuttle beyond its current manifest,” noted Admiral Dyer in his opening remarks to the House hearing to discuss the initial findings of the Augustine Review into the forward path for Human Space Flight. That comment was specific to safety, as cited in the Admiral’s opening statement, which gained the opening question from Mr Bart Gordon, a Democrat representative from Tennessee – who chaired the hearing. “In your comments, you made a very definitive statement concerning no extension of the shuttle,” Mr Gordon asked. “Now is that period, or is that or is that in context to 2020 (likely 2015), and would you extend it if it was recertified, or if there was a mission – or two missions – that came up in the next short period that seemed to be very important? Is there still a period where you wouldn’t go one more?” “Three quick comments: The thing that scares us the most is that kind of serial extension,” responded Admiral Dyer. “Point number 2: We take this position because we think the risk is more than what we should ask folks to shoulder – and we don’t think there is full transparency to that risk. “Thirdly, the time to extend the shuttle in the panel’s opinion was several years ago when the supply chain was still intact and when there was an opportunity to go forward with a (inaudible) program. A number of folks, who participated on the (ASAP) panel, have lived through an extension of number of Department of Defense aircraft programs after they were supposed to terminate. It is never a good experience. “I will also offer one other caution. Could you, with significant money and with recertification, extend the shuttle? Yes. The money would be impressive, it would have to go well through the supply chain, and the risk of finding things that demand even more resources during recertification is a real risk.” With the heavy tone on the risk, and with six shuttle missions still to be launched, Mr Gordon asked if NASA should be looking at one less flight – if the risk was as bad as the ASAP was portraying. That led to an astonishing claim from Admiral Dyer. “We say in the military world that the operational commander always has the authority to proceed in the face of absolute requirements – and it would be an equivalent position in the opinion of the panel. The shuttle is risky, it is becoming more so, and extension beyond what is planned through the current manifest we believe would be unwise.” Regarding Hubble repair (sts125, 2009) Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., was not happy with the decision. Last spring she asked the head of the CAIB, retired Navy Adm. Hal Gehman, to review the decision and address the issue of shuttle safety. He responded on March 5. Reviewing the actual risk posed during a shuttle mission, Gehman said, for now, and in the foreseeable future, by far most of the risk in space flight is the launch, ascent, entry and landing phases. So, he said, to be safe, NASA should launch the shuttle as few times as possible before it is retired. Though he said it was not unsafe, he also said it was not safe, either, and he called for more studies. John Shannon SPM comments “There were some disturbing remarks from the head of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP). We are working to understand these concerns from a Shuttle risk standpoint,” Mr Shannon noted. “We are flying safer now, and have a better safety culture and integrated team approach with many checks and balances to ensure that we are flying as safely as absolutely possible.” Mr Shannon also cited the recent Flight Readiness Review (FRR) and Mission Management Team (MMT) decisions not to launch a mission until they were absolutely sure the shuttle was safe to carry it out. These decisions are well documented, from the continuous External Tank foam modifications from STS-114 onwards, to the Engine Cut Off (ECO) sensor/LH2 Feedthrough connector issues surrounding STS-122, to the extensive Flow Control Valve (FCV) discussions, to the GUCP (Ground Umbilical Carrier Plate) misalignment, and right through to STS-128?s LH2 Fill and Drain Valve indications – to name but a few. Also, as noted by Mr Shannon as safety culture, internal memos have shown major efforts to welcome dissent from throughout the shuttle engineering team, even when such dissent was proven to be unfounded. A “no stone left unturned” attitude was how one source described the current culture to this site. Each time a problem has been noted, it has been proven that managers have stepped back, listened to the engineering community, before making absolutely sure they both understand the problem and are in a comfortable position to launch. “We have demonstrated over the last several flows that when we are not ready to fly, we stop and take the necessary time to understand the situation before we proceed,” added Mr Shannon, who added he wasn’t even sure if Admiral Dyer was speaking of the current program, given how alien his representations were to the reality of the program since Columbia. “(I am) extremely proud of how the team has worked through recent problems. (I am) not sure if the concerns of the ASAP chairman were echoes of the past, but they do not accurately reflect the current environment. We will work to understand these comments and to be sure that we have not forgotten anything.” The reality of the actual risk – a risk that is obvious and never underestimated throughout manned space flight – was shown in the extension study report that NASA filed with the White House back in May of this year. Those findings revealed a 98.7 percent probability of safely executing each flight, which painted a very different picture when compared to Mr Griffin’s alarming 1 in 8 chance of a disaster. “The latest Space Shuttle probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) indicates that the single mission risk for loss of crew and vehicle (LOCV) is 1 in 77; stated another way, there is a 98.7 percent probability of safely executing each flight,” noted the NASA study into extending the shuttle past 2010 (available on L2). Interestingly, that study based its figures on the SSP since 1987. Had the study was based on post Return To Flight findings, it would be highly likely resulted in a risk ratio would be significantly lower – simply due to the flight history since the loss of Columbia, and the numerous modifications made since the fleet returned to action with STS-114. However, even based on the conservative study findings, the risk is not deemed to a ratio that would increase, which directly counters the Admiral’s claims. “The average risk of LOCV has remained fairly consistent over that time. This risk is predicted to remain consistent over the remaining life of the program. The primary drivers for LOCV are, in order of the magnitude of their contribution to the overall risk: micro-meteoroid/orbital debris (MMOD), ascent debris, and Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) malfunctions. “In addition, NASA will continue to evolve its PRA tools to address anomalies encountered during flight operations. By monitoring anomaly trends across different categories (for example, by whether an anomaly is due to design issues, age, operations or procedurally-induced effects, or unknown or random phenomena), NASA gains both near-term insights into Space Shuttle performance opportunities for potential safety improvements during ongoing operations as well as longer-term benefit in applying experience-based risk models to future programs like Constellation. “NASA’s safety and mission assurance strategy emphasizes the need for rigorous program and independent safety reviews, as well as continual safety improvements throughout a program’s life cycle. Improvements to both processes and hardware are made for each Space Shuttle flight, and NASA will continue to invest in prudent safety enhancements through the last mission.” The latest SSP Top Risks Review presentation on L2 shows the vehicle is becoming safer, with the latest ratio updated to 1 in 81 LOV/C, from the previous 1 in 77.  The SSP also earned praise at the preceding meeting with the Senate side of Hearing from both the politicians in attendance and Mr Norm Augustine himself – who spoke of his “astonishment” at the morale and professionalism of the program’s workforce. Such comments are a good reflection of the highly respected SSP team. However, the continued uncertainty surrounding the future of both the Shuttle Program and NASA itself is understandably starting to pay a toll, as the program is forced to press ahead of a cull of its workforce based on the current plan to end the program after STS-133. This entry was posted in Space news. Bookmark the permalink. Edit ? Read these about Shuttle, US WASTES BILLIONS–PUTS SHUTTLE IN MUSEUMPEOPLE, WAKE UP, SAVE Shuttle, CAN’T leave in Museum ? Latest Space-Related News @TeamRickPerry please support a shuttle restart in reply to TeamRickPerry2011-12-28 @teamrickperry return shuttle to flight.http://t.co/tVjOMNDh 2011-12-26 @CGasparino Do you believe shuttle retirement was wise considering use of Soyus to support ISS? in reply to CGasparino 2011-12-08 More updates… Let Congress Know Your Opinion Please provide your full address so we can locate your Senators and Represenative. Street Address City State Zip Code Recent Posts Obama, End of Space Shuttle Program What shuttle meant to me—-Restart Shuttle–Americans can do it! Shuttle could fly till 2050 says Boeing official—IT IS IN A MUSEUM China and the Moon Solar Storm Recent Comments Louis Vuitton Damier Geant Canvas Loup Noir M93079 Australia on National Security/NASA/China’s Space Plans Bob on Different approaches to access to space–discussion BUBBLE SHOOTER 2 onDifferent approaches to access to space–discussion bubble shooter 2 on Safety gone berserk–shuttle safe–return it to flight payday loans on National Security/NASA/China’s Space Plans Categories Space news Space-related Ghostnasa home page Keeptheshuttleflying blog NASA’s Homepage Redorbit homepage Sciguy Spaceflightnow home page The Case to Save the Shuttle The Coalition to save manned space exploration Thespacereview homepage Meta Site Admin Log out Entries RSS Comments RSS WordPress.org Sent from my iPad

Eliminating our space capability JUST Plain Dumb---Guess Romney Afraid to Speak out!!!

Abandoning USA Space Capability to others will Eliminate our Capability to Defend Ourselves Credit: americasuncommonsense.com 7. SPACE POLICY AND THE CONSTITUTION #1 Harrison Schmitt Former Senator Schmitt Finds New Space Policy Cedes Moon to China, Space Station to Russia, and Liberty to the Ages The Administration announced a new Space Policy in 2010, after a year of morale bending clouds of uncertainty. The lengthy delay, the abandonment of human exploration, and the wimpy overall thrust of the policy indicates that the Administration does not understand, or want to acknowledge, the essential role space plays in the future of the United States and of liberty. Antagonism against America’s demonstration of predominance in space continues. Expenditures of taxpayer provided funds on space related activities find constitutional justification in Article I’s power and obligation to “provide for the Common Defence.” This power relates directly to the geopolitical importance of space exploration at this frontier of human endeavor. A vibrant space program sets the modern geopolitical tone for the United States to engage friends and adversaries in the world as well as building wealth, economic vitality, and educational momentum through technology and discovery. For example, in the 1980s, the leadership of the former Soviet Union believed America would be successful in creating a missile defense system because we succeeded in landing on the Moon and they had not. Dominance in space clearly constituted a major factor leading to the end of the Cold War. With a new Cold War looming before us, involving the global ambitions and geopolitical challenge of the national socialist regime in China, President George W. Bush attempted to put America back on a course to maintain space dominance. What became the Constellation Program comprised his 2002 vision of returning Americans and their partners to deep space by putting astronauts back on the Moon, going on to Mars, and ultimately venturing beyond. Unfortunately, like all Presidents since Eisenhower and Kennedy, the Bush Administration lost perspective about space. Inadequate budgeting and lack of Congressional leadership and funding during Constellation’s most important formative years undercut Administrator Michael Griffin’s effort to fully implement the Program beginning in 2004. Delays due to this period of under-funding have rippled through national space capability until we must retire the Space Shuttle in 2011 without a replacement to access to space. Now, we must pay at least $63 million per seat for the Russians to ferry Americans and others to the International Space Station. How the mighty have fallen. Not only did Constellation never receive the Administration’s promised funding, but the Bush Administration and Congress required NASA (1) to continue the construction of the International Space Station (badly under-budgeted by NASA Administrator O’Keefe, the OMB, and ultimately by the Congress), (2) to accommodate numerous major over-runs in the science programs (largely protected from major revision or cancellation by narrow Congressional interests), (3) to manage without hire and fire authority (particularly devastating to the essential hiring of young engineers), and (4) to assimilate, through added delays, the redirection and inflation-related costs of several Continuing Resolutions. Instead of fixing this situation, the current Administration did not retain Administrator Griffin, the best engineering Administrator in NASA’s history, and now has cancelled Constellation. As a consequence, long-term access of American astronauts to space rests on the improbable success of an untested plan for the “commercial” space launch sector to meet the increasingly risk adverse demands of space flight. Histories of nations tell us that an aggressive program to return Americans permanently to deep space must form an essential component of national policy. Americans would find it unacceptable, as well as devastating to human liberty, if we abandon leadership in deep space to China, Europe, or any other nation or group of nations. Potentially equally devastating to billions of people would be loss of free nations’ access to the energy resources of the Moon as fossil fuels diminish on Earth. In that harsh light of history, it is frightening to contemplate the long-term, totally adverse consequences to the standing of the United States in modern civilization if the current Administration’s decision to abandon deep space holds for any length of time. Even its commitment to maintain the International Space Station using commercial launch assets constitutes a dead-end for Americans in space. At some point, now set at the end of this decade, the Station would be abandoned to the Russians or just destroyed. What, then, should be the focus of national space policy in order to maintain leadership in deep space? Some propose that we concentrate only on Mars. Without the experience of returning to the Moon, however, we will not have the engineering, operational, or physiological insight for many decades to either fly to Mars or land there. The President suggests going to an asteroid. As important as asteroid diversion from collision with the Earth someday may be, just going there hardly stimulates scientific discovery anything like a permanent American settlement on the Moon! Other means exist, robots and meteorites, for example, to obtain most or all of the scientific value from a human mission to an asteroid. In any event, returning to the Moon inherently creates capabilities for reaching asteroids to study or divert them, as the case may be. Returning to the Moon and to deep space constitutes the right and continuing space policy choice for the Congress of the United States. It compares in significance to Jefferson’s dispatch of Lewis and Clark to explore the Louisiana Purchase. The lasting significance of Jefferson’s decision to American growth and survival cannot be questioned. Human exploration of space embodies the same basic instincts— the exercise of freedom, betterment of one’s conditions, and curiosity about nature. Such instincts lie at the very core of America’s unique and special society of immigrants. Over the last 150,000 years or more, human exploration of Earth has yielded new homes, livelihoods, know how, and resources as well as improved standards of living and increased family security. Government has directly and indirectly played a role in encouraging exploration efforts. Private groups and individuals take additional initiatives to explore newly discovered or newly accessible lands and seas. Based on their specific historical experience, Americans can expect that benefits comparable to those sought and won in the past also will flow from their return to the Moon, future exploration of Mars, and the long reach beyond. To realize such benefits, however, Americans must continue as the leader of human activities in space. No one else will hand them to us without requiring a huge economic or political price. With a permanent resumption of the exploration of deep space, one thing is certain: our efforts will be as significant as those of our ancestors as they migrated out of Africa and into a global habitat. Further, a permanent human presence away from Earth provides another opportunity for the expansion of free institutions, with all their attendant rewards, as humans face new situations and new individual and societal challenges. Returning to the Moon first and as soon as possible meets the requirements for an American space policy that maintains deep space leadership, as well as providing major new scientific returns. Properly conceived and implemented, returning to the Moon prepares the way to go to and land on Mars. This also can provide an infrastructure for space exploration in which freedom-loving peoples throughout the world can participate as active partners. Again, if we abandon leadership in deep space to the any other nation or group of nations, particularly a non-democratic regime, the ability for the United States and its allies to protect themselves and liberty for the world will be at great risk and potentially impossible. To others would accrue the benefits—psychological, political, economic, and scientific—that the United States harvested as a consequence of Apollo’s success 40 years ago. This lesson has not been lost on our ideological and economic competitors. American leadership absent from space? Is this the future we wish for our progeny? I think not. Again, future elections offer the way to get back on the right track. Tags: American Space Policy, Article I, Common Defence, Jack Schmitt, Moon Landing, National Security, Obama Administration, Space Program This entry was posted on Monday, February 1st, 2010 at 9:32 pmand is filed under 1. new policy failures, SCIENCE & ENGINEERING, Space Policy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Posted by keeptheshuttleflying.com at 9:24 AM Email This BlogThis! Share to Twitter Share to Facebook

Automated Shuttle

powered by Automated Shuttle--Space Transportation for 21st Century The Space Transportation Plan for the 21st Century Commercial Space Shuttle and Space Based Fleet “To get somewhere... we have to know where we’re going!” NASA MUST HAVE A FEASIBLE AND REALISTIC LONG RANGE SPACE TRANSPORTATION PLAN. WITHOUT “THIS” PLAN THE AGENCY WILL CONTINUE TO STAGNATE! ·        REDUCE THE COST OF LAUNCH OPERATIONS BY DEVELOPING A COMMERCIAL SPACE SHUTTLE FLEET (See: Commercial Space Shuttle Revival and Privatization). ·        REDUCE COST OF NEAR EARTH/DEEP SPACE TRANSPORTATION BY DEVELOPING A SPACE BASED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM(S) DESIGNED TO SUPPORT ROBOTIC, HUMAN, MILITARY, AND COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS AND TO BE OPERATED BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR (See: Space Based Transportation Plan). ·        RESTRUCTURE NASA AS AN AGENCY FOR TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND SCIENCE EXPORATION. It is mandatory that this nation’s 21st century space transportation system reduce launch operations costs. The two keys factors for reducing launch cost operations is the removal of NASA (government operations) from the control of space flight operations and introducing reusable vehicles for launch, near earth, and deep space transportation. This space transportation plan is an evolutionary process for establishing reusable launch and space based vehicles. In the near term existing expendable space transportation vehicles would supplement space transportation requirements. This is the only viable concept that can provide a feasible and realistic launch system in the foreseeable future. Its development is a mandatory requirement to provide a safe human transportation system. Key to this plan is the long range roadmap that provides direction to NASA and the aerospace community. The development schedule will accelerate or decrease as the needs for exploration requirements dictate. Unlike the SLS/MPCV, the CSS provides a stair step approach outlining the strategic plan for four decades. To get somewhere…we’ve got to know where we’re going.” The funding available may cause the schedule to vary, but the direction is clear. Commercial Space Shuttle Revival and Privatization There has been an extensive undertaking to reduce the cost of expendable launch vehicles but their launch costs are still too high. There has NEVER been any determined effort to reduce the cost of space shuttle operations. It is not too late to revive the space shuttle fleet. The shuttle orbiter airframes Atlantis at KSC and Discovery at the Smithsonian can be retrofitted to commercial configuration until new orbiters can be built.   Competitive Commercial Space Shuttle (CSS) launch cost can be achieved by: ·        Use the existing Orbiter airframes and install modular quick replaceable subsystems. ·        Removing onboard piloting functions to allow unmanned mission operations. ·        Removing all civil service launch operations support. ·        Consolidation of launch and mission operations at the launch site. ·        Automation of ground and flight operations. ·        Shuttle assembly at launch pad. ·        Eliminates cost plus fixed price contracts. ·        Establishing international launch operation cooperation.   Reducing commercial space shuttle launch cost is not a technical challenge…it is a political challenge.   The following chart shows the breakdown where significant cost reductions can be achieved by privatization of the space shuttle operations: As indicated above the two remaining CSS high cost systems are the solid rocket motors (SRM) and the external tank (EXT TK). Removing thrust nozzle gimbaling would significantly lower SRM cost and removing titanium from the external tank would also lower launch cost.   What is the Commercial Space Shuttle (CSS)? The CSS uses the orbiter airframe, external tank, and SRM boosters. The orbiter is updated with subsystem components that are quickly replaceable modules to reduce vehicle turnaround time. Computer software and hardware is upgraded and the vehicle is operation without inflight piloting requirements. Crews will be flown only on missions requiring their support for onboard payloads or to be transferred to space based vehicles. On crewed missions the crew escape pods will be installed. The entry thermal protection system will have on orbit repair capability and advanced X-37 program improved tiles. Pad assembly of the space shuttle will also reduce operations cost and turnaround time. Rapid turn-around is a unique CSS feature and which supports the military requirement and provide the capability of timely intercepts of asteroids/comets that may impact earth. Commercial Launch Market for CSS The predicted average commercial medium to heavy launches for the next ten years is 11 per year. The CSS has the potential to capture a majority of these launches by offering the unique capability of satellite on-orbit checkout before release and returning faulty satellites for repair. Once the space tug is operational satellites can be serviced on-orbit or retrieve. The CSS can offer tourist flights to reduce cost of cargo delivery.