ABC News International: Look Out Boeing, NASA, Here Comes China
President Hu struck a diplomatic tone with President Obama today, announcing $45 billion worth of deals that the White House said will support 235,000 U.S. jobs.
China agreed to purchase a wide variety of U.S. exports, everything from agricultural products and telecommunications equipment to engineering machinery and auto parts. The deal also includes a $19 billion contract with Boeing for 200 planes.
But even as China buys American, it is still hot on America's heels, expanding into frontiers dominated by the United States. It is designing its first commercial airplane, building its own space station and it brazenly tested its first stealth fighter jet when U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates visited the country last week.
"I think we're going to see a China that's going to spread its wings more, a China that is not going to be contained or pushed around," Beijing-based analyst Russell Leigh Moses told ABC News.
The statistics spell out China's rapid growth.
While state and municipal governments in the U.S. struggle with massive deficits, China is designing vast infrastructure upgrades.
It will begin construction this year on 16,000 miles of highway, boasting that in just five years the country will have more highways than America.
The Chinese also are beginning to lay 19,000 miles of railway lines, tracks that the country will need as 640 million people travel home for the spring festival in the next six weeks.
China not only is investing in physical infrastructure, but also in its people. Chinese children spend an average of 41 more days in school than their American counterparts, and Chinese students top the world in science, math and reading scores.
China also is more connected than it ever has been. The number of Chinese people on the Internet grew by 19 percent last year to 457 million, and the number of people accessing the Web via mobile phones jumped 29.6 percent to 303 million. The communist government welcomes and fears such numbers. While it promotes Internet use for business and education, it operates an extensive censorship system that blocks material the government considers subversive or pornographic. Such heavy-handed censorship is a source of ongoing tension between the U.S. and China.
For all the boom and buzz, sobering realities still loom large. China is a nation where 150 million people live on less than $2 a day and where human rights abuses abound. But China is determined to look to the future and grow even more influential on the world stage in 2011.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
NASA: New rocket not feasible with current budget
CNET NEWS: The Space Shot -- NASA: New rocket not feasible with current budget
KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, Fla.--Even using shuttle-derived hardware, established contractors, and long-standing engineering expertise, NASA's projected budget will not cover the costs of developing a congressionally mandated heavy-lift booster and a manned capsule for deep space exploration by 2016 as ordered, agency officials informed lawmakers this week.
NASA managers promised to continue studying alternative approaches and designs for a new Space Launch System heavy-lift booster and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, but insisted any such program must be "affordable, sustainable and realistic."
"To date, trade studies performed by the Agency have yet to identify heavy-lift and capsule architectures that would both meet all SLS requirements and these goals," NASA said in its report to Congress. "For example, a 2016 first flight of the SLS does not appear to be possible within projected FY 2011 and out-year funding levels."
An early concept for a possible heavy-lift rocket intended for deep space exploration compared to a space shuttle.
(Credit: NASA) As directed in its 2011 appropriations language, NASA focused on a rocket that would utilize extended shuttle boosters, main engines, and an advanced Saturn 5 upper-stage engine. The Orion capsule initially designed for the Bush administration's now-canceled Constellation moon program, was selected as the basis for a new Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle.
"However, to be clear, neither reference vehicle design currently fits the projected budget profiles nor the schedule goals outlined in the Authorization Act," NASA's report concluded. "Additionally, it remains to be determined what level of appropriations NASA will receive in FY 2011 or beyond -- a factor that will impact schedule as well."
Sen. Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat who flew aboard the shuttle in 1986 and who played a major role in adding the near-term requirement to build the new launch systems, said in a statement late Wednesday that NASA's answer was not good enough.
"I talked to (NASA Administrator) Charlie Bolden yesterday and told him he has to follow the law, which requires a new rocket by 2016," Nelson said late Wednesday. "And, NASA has to do it within the budget the law requires."
In a letter to Bolden that was released late Thursday, Nelson and Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Texas Republican, said "the report contains no specific justification or analysis to validate the claim that 'none of the design options studied thus far appeared to be affordable in our present fiscal conditions.' We expect NASA to work with Congress to identify the basis for the claims made in the report, how existing contracts and technologies will be utilized, and where any additional congressional action may be needed to ensure successful implementation of the law."
Nelson also plans to introduce legislation eliminating a requirement for NASA to continue spending money on Constellation. Due to a provision in the continuing resolution currently funding the space agency, NASA must follow a House directive in its 2010 budget that blocks the program's termination.
The continuing resolution expires March 4. But NASA's inspector general said today that unless Congress acts, NASA could end up spending $215 million on the program by the end of February.
"Without congressional intervention, by the end of February 2011 NASA anticipates spending up to $215 million on Constellation projects that, absent the restrictive appropriations language, it would have considered canceling or significantly scaling back," the inspector general's report said. "Moreover, by the end of FY 2011 that figure could grow to more than $575 million if NASA is required to continue operating under the current constraints and is unable to move beyond the planning stages for its new Space Exploration program."
John Logsdon, a space policy analyst who serves on the NASA's Advisory Council, said the near-term issue facing the agency's plans for deep space exploration is more a matter of schedule than budget and that NASA already had indicated its belief that a new heavy lifter could not be deployed by 2016.
"This should not come as a surprise to Mr. Nelson and his compatriots," he told CBS News today. "Charlie Bolden told him the same thing last year when they first passed the authorization bill. So there is a small, or maybe not so small, element of posturing here. It seems to me that more than the budget...NASA is saying that there's no way they can do a development this large and have the thing flying by the end of 2016.
"This doesn't mean there's not going to be an HLV (heavy-lift vehicle)," he said. "There will be an HLV, and there will be work at the Cape to do it, among other places. Going back to the authorization bill and now this report, they are steps in a dialogue between NASA and the White House and the Congress on what makes sense...If the country is serious about having a good space program, Congress has to do its part."
"So there is a small, or maybe not so small, element of posturing here. It seems to me that more than the budget...NASA is saying that there's no way they can do a development this large and have the thing flying by the end of 2016."
--John Logsdon, space policy analystThe Obama administration's fiscal 2011 budget charts a controversial new course for NASA. The agency has been told to rely on private industry for future manned and unmanned rockets and capsules to service the International Space Station in low-Earth orbit.
The administration ruled out an immediate return to the moon, concluding the Bush administration's Constellation program was not affordable, and instead ordered a "flexible path" approach to a variety of deep space targets. But development of heavy-lift rockets to facilitate deep space exploration was deferred and no timetables were specified.
Space advocates immediately protested this approach and the president eventually agreed to begin development of a new heavy lifter in the 2015 time frame. Nelson and others then campaigned to begin development immediately and to have a system ready for first flight in 2016. Along with providing access to deep space for U.S. astronauts, the new system would serve as a backup in case untried commercial rockets run into problems or delays.
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, an Arizona Democrat who was severely injured during a shooting spree in Tucson, on Saturday, strongly disagreed with the Senate's requirement during budget discussions late last year, favoring instead the continued development of the Constellation program's Ares rockets.
Married to shuttle commander Mark Kelly and as chairman of the House space and aeronautics subcommittee, Giffords urged her colleagues not to go along with plans for a new rocket that was designed "not by our best engineers, but by our colleagues over on the Senate side. By NASA's own internal analysis, they estimate this rocket will cost billions more than the Senate provides."
"In short, the Senate bill forces NASA to build a rocket that doesn't meet its needs, with a budget that's not adequate to do the job and on a schedule that NASA's own analysis says is unrealistic," Giffords said. "That is not my idea of an executable and sustainable human spaceflight program."
In a report ordered by Congress in NASA's funding authorization, the agency said it "recognizes it has a responsibility to be clear with the Congress and the American taxpayers about our true estimated costs and schedules for developing the SLS and MPCV, and we intend to do so."
"Currently, our SLS studies have shown that while cost is not a major discriminator among the design options studied, none of the design options studied thus far appeared to be affordable in our present fiscal condition."
Operational costs are another factor, the agency said, along with funds needed to pay for development of other exploration systems, including habitats and landers.
"A feature of the Shuttle/Ares-derived reference vehicle is that it enables leveraging of current systems, current knowledge base, existing hardware and potentially current contracts, thereby providing schedule and early-year cost advantages," the report said. "However, a 2016 first flight does not appear to be possible within projected FY 2011 and out-year funding levels, although NASA is continuing to explore more innovative procurement and development approaches to determine whether it can come closer to this goal."
In the meantime, NASA said, "it is clear that successful development of SLS and MPCV will be dependent on sufficiently stable funding over the long term, coupled with a successful effort on the part of NASA and the eventual industry team to reduce costs and to establish stable, tightly managed requirements."
KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, Fla.--Even using shuttle-derived hardware, established contractors, and long-standing engineering expertise, NASA's projected budget will not cover the costs of developing a congressionally mandated heavy-lift booster and a manned capsule for deep space exploration by 2016 as ordered, agency officials informed lawmakers this week.
NASA managers promised to continue studying alternative approaches and designs for a new Space Launch System heavy-lift booster and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, but insisted any such program must be "affordable, sustainable and realistic."
"To date, trade studies performed by the Agency have yet to identify heavy-lift and capsule architectures that would both meet all SLS requirements and these goals," NASA said in its report to Congress. "For example, a 2016 first flight of the SLS does not appear to be possible within projected FY 2011 and out-year funding levels."
An early concept for a possible heavy-lift rocket intended for deep space exploration compared to a space shuttle.
(Credit: NASA) As directed in its 2011 appropriations language, NASA focused on a rocket that would utilize extended shuttle boosters, main engines, and an advanced Saturn 5 upper-stage engine. The Orion capsule initially designed for the Bush administration's now-canceled Constellation moon program, was selected as the basis for a new Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle.
"However, to be clear, neither reference vehicle design currently fits the projected budget profiles nor the schedule goals outlined in the Authorization Act," NASA's report concluded. "Additionally, it remains to be determined what level of appropriations NASA will receive in FY 2011 or beyond -- a factor that will impact schedule as well."
Sen. Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat who flew aboard the shuttle in 1986 and who played a major role in adding the near-term requirement to build the new launch systems, said in a statement late Wednesday that NASA's answer was not good enough.
"I talked to (NASA Administrator) Charlie Bolden yesterday and told him he has to follow the law, which requires a new rocket by 2016," Nelson said late Wednesday. "And, NASA has to do it within the budget the law requires."
In a letter to Bolden that was released late Thursday, Nelson and Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Texas Republican, said "the report contains no specific justification or analysis to validate the claim that 'none of the design options studied thus far appeared to be affordable in our present fiscal conditions.' We expect NASA to work with Congress to identify the basis for the claims made in the report, how existing contracts and technologies will be utilized, and where any additional congressional action may be needed to ensure successful implementation of the law."
Nelson also plans to introduce legislation eliminating a requirement for NASA to continue spending money on Constellation. Due to a provision in the continuing resolution currently funding the space agency, NASA must follow a House directive in its 2010 budget that blocks the program's termination.
The continuing resolution expires March 4. But NASA's inspector general said today that unless Congress acts, NASA could end up spending $215 million on the program by the end of February.
"Without congressional intervention, by the end of February 2011 NASA anticipates spending up to $215 million on Constellation projects that, absent the restrictive appropriations language, it would have considered canceling or significantly scaling back," the inspector general's report said. "Moreover, by the end of FY 2011 that figure could grow to more than $575 million if NASA is required to continue operating under the current constraints and is unable to move beyond the planning stages for its new Space Exploration program."
John Logsdon, a space policy analyst who serves on the NASA's Advisory Council, said the near-term issue facing the agency's plans for deep space exploration is more a matter of schedule than budget and that NASA already had indicated its belief that a new heavy lifter could not be deployed by 2016.
"This should not come as a surprise to Mr. Nelson and his compatriots," he told CBS News today. "Charlie Bolden told him the same thing last year when they first passed the authorization bill. So there is a small, or maybe not so small, element of posturing here. It seems to me that more than the budget...NASA is saying that there's no way they can do a development this large and have the thing flying by the end of 2016.
"This doesn't mean there's not going to be an HLV (heavy-lift vehicle)," he said. "There will be an HLV, and there will be work at the Cape to do it, among other places. Going back to the authorization bill and now this report, they are steps in a dialogue between NASA and the White House and the Congress on what makes sense...If the country is serious about having a good space program, Congress has to do its part."
"So there is a small, or maybe not so small, element of posturing here. It seems to me that more than the budget...NASA is saying that there's no way they can do a development this large and have the thing flying by the end of 2016."
--John Logsdon, space policy analystThe Obama administration's fiscal 2011 budget charts a controversial new course for NASA. The agency has been told to rely on private industry for future manned and unmanned rockets and capsules to service the International Space Station in low-Earth orbit.
The administration ruled out an immediate return to the moon, concluding the Bush administration's Constellation program was not affordable, and instead ordered a "flexible path" approach to a variety of deep space targets. But development of heavy-lift rockets to facilitate deep space exploration was deferred and no timetables were specified.
Space advocates immediately protested this approach and the president eventually agreed to begin development of a new heavy lifter in the 2015 time frame. Nelson and others then campaigned to begin development immediately and to have a system ready for first flight in 2016. Along with providing access to deep space for U.S. astronauts, the new system would serve as a backup in case untried commercial rockets run into problems or delays.
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, an Arizona Democrat who was severely injured during a shooting spree in Tucson, on Saturday, strongly disagreed with the Senate's requirement during budget discussions late last year, favoring instead the continued development of the Constellation program's Ares rockets.
Married to shuttle commander Mark Kelly and as chairman of the House space and aeronautics subcommittee, Giffords urged her colleagues not to go along with plans for a new rocket that was designed "not by our best engineers, but by our colleagues over on the Senate side. By NASA's own internal analysis, they estimate this rocket will cost billions more than the Senate provides."
"In short, the Senate bill forces NASA to build a rocket that doesn't meet its needs, with a budget that's not adequate to do the job and on a schedule that NASA's own analysis says is unrealistic," Giffords said. "That is not my idea of an executable and sustainable human spaceflight program."
In a report ordered by Congress in NASA's funding authorization, the agency said it "recognizes it has a responsibility to be clear with the Congress and the American taxpayers about our true estimated costs and schedules for developing the SLS and MPCV, and we intend to do so."
"Currently, our SLS studies have shown that while cost is not a major discriminator among the design options studied, none of the design options studied thus far appeared to be affordable in our present fiscal condition."
Operational costs are another factor, the agency said, along with funds needed to pay for development of other exploration systems, including habitats and landers.
"A feature of the Shuttle/Ares-derived reference vehicle is that it enables leveraging of current systems, current knowledge base, existing hardware and potentially current contracts, thereby providing schedule and early-year cost advantages," the report said. "However, a 2016 first flight does not appear to be possible within projected FY 2011 and out-year funding levels, although NASA is continuing to explore more innovative procurement and development approaches to determine whether it can come closer to this goal."
In the meantime, NASA said, "it is clear that successful development of SLS and MPCV will be dependent on sufficiently stable funding over the long term, coupled with a successful effort on the part of NASA and the eventual industry team to reduce costs and to establish stable, tightly managed requirements."
Lunar Mining Sparks Race to the Moon
Daily Tech: Lunar Mining Sparks Race to the MoonTiffany Kaiser
Space entrepreneurs look to extract resources from the moon, but others are arguing that international laws need to be made first
Lunar geologists and space entrepreneurs are becoming increasingly intrigued by the concept of lunar mining now that researchers have discovered an abundance of water on the moon. But others are suggesting that many obstacles need to be overcome before such a project can be executed.
The discovery of lunar water has raised questions as to whether other resources such as helium 2 and rare Earth elements could be found on the moon as well. Now, certain countries are looking to race to the moon.
Paul Spudis, Ph.D., a lunar geologist and Senior Staff Scientist at the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston, Texas, has expressed interest in lunar mining and has even devised a plan for returning to the moon despite the fact that the Obama administration has no plans to return to the moon at all due to its cancellation of the Constellation program. Spudis' plan involves "robotic resource extraction and the deployment of space-based fuel depots" using water from the moon before any humans return to its surface.
On the other hand, Mike Wall, editor of SPACE.com, believes lunar mining should not be attempted before ironing out a few technical and legal issues. For instance, an international agreement consisting of property rights, a salvage law and a mining law would be needed in order to decide who owns the resources once they are extracted. The Outer Space Treaty does not allow nation states to claim territories on the moon, but it does not mention anything regarding resource mining, and laws need to be set before any mining on the moon begins.
To set these laws, several proposals have been submitted with viable ideas to set lunar mining in motion. One proposal, which was published in the SMU Journal of Air Law and Commerce, recommended that "space faring countries" should claim and defend a large portion of land around an established lunar settlement and sell the land to investors on Earth, which could fund the commercial venture.
A second proposal suggested an international agreement to sell lunar land to investors in an effort to fund space exploration programs.
China, Russia and India have expressed interest in resource development on the moon.
Space entrepreneurs look to extract resources from the moon, but others are arguing that international laws need to be made first
Lunar geologists and space entrepreneurs are becoming increasingly intrigued by the concept of lunar mining now that researchers have discovered an abundance of water on the moon. But others are suggesting that many obstacles need to be overcome before such a project can be executed.
The discovery of lunar water has raised questions as to whether other resources such as helium 2 and rare Earth elements could be found on the moon as well. Now, certain countries are looking to race to the moon.
Paul Spudis, Ph.D., a lunar geologist and Senior Staff Scientist at the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston, Texas, has expressed interest in lunar mining and has even devised a plan for returning to the moon despite the fact that the Obama administration has no plans to return to the moon at all due to its cancellation of the Constellation program. Spudis' plan involves "robotic resource extraction and the deployment of space-based fuel depots" using water from the moon before any humans return to its surface.
On the other hand, Mike Wall, editor of SPACE.com, believes lunar mining should not be attempted before ironing out a few technical and legal issues. For instance, an international agreement consisting of property rights, a salvage law and a mining law would be needed in order to decide who owns the resources once they are extracted. The Outer Space Treaty does not allow nation states to claim territories on the moon, but it does not mention anything regarding resource mining, and laws need to be set before any mining on the moon begins.
To set these laws, several proposals have been submitted with viable ideas to set lunar mining in motion. One proposal, which was published in the SMU Journal of Air Law and Commerce, recommended that "space faring countries" should claim and defend a large portion of land around an established lunar settlement and sell the land to investors on Earth, which could fund the commercial venture.
A second proposal suggested an international agreement to sell lunar land to investors in an effort to fund space exploration programs.
China, Russia and India have expressed interest in resource development on the moon.
The League of the New Worlds
Just read about this organization...
http://quantumeditions.com/league/page01.html
The League of the New Worlds is a non-profit research foundation committed to the permanent human settlement of the ocean and space frontiers. The League is primarily an expeditions and explorations based group. It is our express purpose to plan, design, launch and permanently occupy the unsettled regions of the world’s oceans and space. We approach our purpose with an incremental development of off-the-shelf technologies integrated with intelligence and purposeful synergy, fusing the goals of ocean and space settlement into a single enterprise called the League of the New Worlds.
http://quantumeditions.com/league/page01.html
The League of the New Worlds is a non-profit research foundation committed to the permanent human settlement of the ocean and space frontiers. The League is primarily an expeditions and explorations based group. It is our express purpose to plan, design, launch and permanently occupy the unsettled regions of the world’s oceans and space. We approach our purpose with an incremental development of off-the-shelf technologies integrated with intelligence and purposeful synergy, fusing the goals of ocean and space settlement into a single enterprise called the League of the New Worlds.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
NASA's Human Space Exploration Framework Summary -- Is It 'Affordable?'
NASA's Human Space Exploration Framework Summary -- Is It 'Affordable?'
Mark Whittington Mark Whittington – Fri Jan 14, 5:45 pm ET
Ever since President Barack Obama canceled the Constellation program, NASA has been struggling to come up with a new program that not only incorporates the desires of the President but is aligned with the authorization bill passed by Congress.
In that spirit, NASA has released a new Human Space Exploration Framework summary, a beautiful thing to behold. The summary describes the technical requirements it views as necessary for sending human explorers beyond Low Earth Orbit to a number of destinations, including even the lunar surface. Significantly the included charts imply that landing on the moon is a detour from a straight line process that leads from Low Earth Orbit all the way to Mars. That suggests NASA is still remembering how President Obama distained going back to the moon "because Buzz has already been there," while also acknowledging that the Congress and many of the public have a different idea.
The summary uses the word "affordability" a lot, which is a word that Congress, the White House and the public want to hear. The document also has some verbiage about bringing in other government agencies, other countries, and various private sector entities as partners.
All in all, the latest Human Space Exploration Framework summary is a nice, sensible document that reveals what NASA is currently thinking about exploring the high frontier of space.
There is one principal problem that the HSEF document does not address, which no such document could likely address. That is the question of what constitutes "affordability?"
"Affordability" is an elusive term, with the amount of money involved constantly changing according to the vagaries of the economy and political whim. When Constellation started, then NASA Administrator Mike Griffin presented a plan for exploring the moon, Mars, and beyond that the White House and the Congress agreed was affordable. Then the White House and the Congress changed their minds and provided less money in the following years than they had originally agreed was "affordable."
It is very hard to design a program that meets that kind of moving target. The HSEF plan likely doesn't do that. Indeed, current disagreements between NASA and the Congress over how much the shuttle derived heavy lift vehicle and the Orion space craft will cost gives us a prelude of things to come.
A few months from now, NASA could present its final plan for going beyond LEO, with cost estimates, schedules for technology development, a list of destinations and deadlines, and page after page of supporting documentation and justifications. Congress and the White House are capable of doing a number of bad things.
First, as with Constellation, it can agree with the estimated cost, authorize the program, and then underfund it. This assumes, by the way, that the cost is not being low balled, as has happened in the past, to make it more palatable to the Congress.
Second, Congress can mandate, as it seems to be doing with the SD-HLV and Orion, that the program does not cost X. It really costs X-Y. NASA must deal with it.
Third, Congress could just decide to defer space exploration to the next President, fund some kind of face saving technology program and call it a day.
In the current political and economic climate, with no leadership from the President, agreeing to the program and then properly funding it is very unlikely. Despite calls from some quarters in the Internet that space exploration can be done so much more cheaply "commercially" — whatever that means — any commercial option remains more of a concept than a plan.
So that leaves us with the forlorn hope that the next President will have the wherewithal and the inclination to set things right. In the meantime, more waste, more fraud, and more going nowhere.
Mark R. Whittington is the author of Children of Apollo and The Last Moonwalker. He has written on space subjects for a variety of periodicals, including The Houston Chronicle, The Washington Post, USA Today, the LA Times, and The Weekly Standard.
Mark Whittington Mark Whittington – Fri Jan 14, 5:45 pm ET
Ever since President Barack Obama canceled the Constellation program, NASA has been struggling to come up with a new program that not only incorporates the desires of the President but is aligned with the authorization bill passed by Congress.
In that spirit, NASA has released a new Human Space Exploration Framework summary, a beautiful thing to behold. The summary describes the technical requirements it views as necessary for sending human explorers beyond Low Earth Orbit to a number of destinations, including even the lunar surface. Significantly the included charts imply that landing on the moon is a detour from a straight line process that leads from Low Earth Orbit all the way to Mars. That suggests NASA is still remembering how President Obama distained going back to the moon "because Buzz has already been there," while also acknowledging that the Congress and many of the public have a different idea.
The summary uses the word "affordability" a lot, which is a word that Congress, the White House and the public want to hear. The document also has some verbiage about bringing in other government agencies, other countries, and various private sector entities as partners.
All in all, the latest Human Space Exploration Framework summary is a nice, sensible document that reveals what NASA is currently thinking about exploring the high frontier of space.
There is one principal problem that the HSEF document does not address, which no such document could likely address. That is the question of what constitutes "affordability?"
"Affordability" is an elusive term, with the amount of money involved constantly changing according to the vagaries of the economy and political whim. When Constellation started, then NASA Administrator Mike Griffin presented a plan for exploring the moon, Mars, and beyond that the White House and the Congress agreed was affordable. Then the White House and the Congress changed their minds and provided less money in the following years than they had originally agreed was "affordable."
It is very hard to design a program that meets that kind of moving target. The HSEF plan likely doesn't do that. Indeed, current disagreements between NASA and the Congress over how much the shuttle derived heavy lift vehicle and the Orion space craft will cost gives us a prelude of things to come.
A few months from now, NASA could present its final plan for going beyond LEO, with cost estimates, schedules for technology development, a list of destinations and deadlines, and page after page of supporting documentation and justifications. Congress and the White House are capable of doing a number of bad things.
First, as with Constellation, it can agree with the estimated cost, authorize the program, and then underfund it. This assumes, by the way, that the cost is not being low balled, as has happened in the past, to make it more palatable to the Congress.
Second, Congress can mandate, as it seems to be doing with the SD-HLV and Orion, that the program does not cost X. It really costs X-Y. NASA must deal with it.
Third, Congress could just decide to defer space exploration to the next President, fund some kind of face saving technology program and call it a day.
In the current political and economic climate, with no leadership from the President, agreeing to the program and then properly funding it is very unlikely. Despite calls from some quarters in the Internet that space exploration can be done so much more cheaply "commercially" — whatever that means — any commercial option remains more of a concept than a plan.
So that leaves us with the forlorn hope that the next President will have the wherewithal and the inclination to set things right. In the meantime, more waste, more fraud, and more going nowhere.
Mark R. Whittington is the author of Children of Apollo and The Last Moonwalker. He has written on space subjects for a variety of periodicals, including The Houston Chronicle, The Washington Post, USA Today, the LA Times, and The Weekly Standard.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Apollo Era Data Continues to Yield Moon's Secrets Decades Later
Yahoo News: Apollo Era Data Continues to Yield Moon's Secrets Decades Later
The Moon may be off the table as the venue of future human exploration, thanks to the decision by President Obama to cancel the Constellation space exploration program, but scientists are still finding out new things about Earth's nearest neighbor.
Thanks to an examination of rock samples brought back to Earth by the Apollo astronauts, scientists have concluded that lunar water was likely deposited by comet impacts. Recently frozen lunar water confirmed in great abundance by the LCROSS impact probe and various lunar orbiters, such as NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and India's Chandrayaan, existing in permanently shadowed craters at the lunar poles.
James Greenwood, of Wesleyan University, has published a paper in the journal Nature Geoscience that suggests, comparing isotopes in the Apollo rock samples with those found in comets such as Hale-Bopp, Hyakutake and Halley were quite similar. Greenwood posits that a considerable amount of the lunar water was deposited on the Moon while it was being formed over four billion years ago. Comet strikes may also have created the Earth's oceans, Greenwood adds.
Meanwhile, a team of NASA scientists have re-examined data collected by seismometers deployed by the Apollo astronauts between 1969 and 1972, which returned considerable data until they were turned off in 1977.
Using modern computers used to analyze the decades-old data, NASA scientists have concluded that the Moon has an interior similar to Earth's, with a solid inner core and a molten outer core. According to MSNBC, Renee Weber of the Marshal Space Flight Center led a team processed the old data: by examining the existing catalogue of lunar seismic signals, which included more than 6,000 deep moonquakes. By processing the new data, Weber and her team were able to develop a good idea of the makeup of the Moon's interior.
"The density and size of the moon's core affects how long it would take for a moonquake to travel through it, Weber said. So the researchers could then predict when a hypothetical seismic wave would reach a certain point, which allowed them to compute the size and structure of the core with great precision."
The findings of Weber and her team have been published in the journal Science.
The remarkable aspect of both stories is how modern processing techniques can use decades old data and make new discoveries that were unimaginable when the Apollo lunar expeditions were still being undertaken. The Moon is still yielding her secrets as scientists continue to examine data gathered over the years, from the Apollo missions, as well as more recent, robotic missions.
This suggests that continued exploration, human and robotic, of the Moon, even leaving aside national security needs and commercial possibilities, is likely to yield more good science in the years and decades to come.
Mark R. Whittington is the author of Children of Apollo and The Last Moonwalker. He has written about space subjects for a variety of publications, including the Houston Chronicle, The Washington Post, USA Today, the LA Times, and the Weekly Standard.
The Moon may be off the table as the venue of future human exploration, thanks to the decision by President Obama to cancel the Constellation space exploration program, but scientists are still finding out new things about Earth's nearest neighbor.
Thanks to an examination of rock samples brought back to Earth by the Apollo astronauts, scientists have concluded that lunar water was likely deposited by comet impacts. Recently frozen lunar water confirmed in great abundance by the LCROSS impact probe and various lunar orbiters, such as NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and India's Chandrayaan, existing in permanently shadowed craters at the lunar poles.
James Greenwood, of Wesleyan University, has published a paper in the journal Nature Geoscience that suggests, comparing isotopes in the Apollo rock samples with those found in comets such as Hale-Bopp, Hyakutake and Halley were quite similar. Greenwood posits that a considerable amount of the lunar water was deposited on the Moon while it was being formed over four billion years ago. Comet strikes may also have created the Earth's oceans, Greenwood adds.
Meanwhile, a team of NASA scientists have re-examined data collected by seismometers deployed by the Apollo astronauts between 1969 and 1972, which returned considerable data until they were turned off in 1977.
Using modern computers used to analyze the decades-old data, NASA scientists have concluded that the Moon has an interior similar to Earth's, with a solid inner core and a molten outer core. According to MSNBC, Renee Weber of the Marshal Space Flight Center led a team processed the old data: by examining the existing catalogue of lunar seismic signals, which included more than 6,000 deep moonquakes. By processing the new data, Weber and her team were able to develop a good idea of the makeup of the Moon's interior.
"The density and size of the moon's core affects how long it would take for a moonquake to travel through it, Weber said. So the researchers could then predict when a hypothetical seismic wave would reach a certain point, which allowed them to compute the size and structure of the core with great precision."
The findings of Weber and her team have been published in the journal Science.
The remarkable aspect of both stories is how modern processing techniques can use decades old data and make new discoveries that were unimaginable when the Apollo lunar expeditions were still being undertaken. The Moon is still yielding her secrets as scientists continue to examine data gathered over the years, from the Apollo missions, as well as more recent, robotic missions.
This suggests that continued exploration, human and robotic, of the Moon, even leaving aside national security needs and commercial possibilities, is likely to yield more good science in the years and decades to come.
Mark R. Whittington is the author of Children of Apollo and The Last Moonwalker. He has written about space subjects for a variety of publications, including the Houston Chronicle, The Washington Post, USA Today, the LA Times, and the Weekly Standard.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
NASA: Space shuttle cracking finally understood
Yahoo News: NASA: Space shuttle cracking finally understoodCAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. – NASA finally knows what caused the cracking in space shuttle Discovery's fuel tank, a potentially dangerous problem that likely existed on the previous flight, managers said Tuesday.
Discovery's final voyage has been on hold since the beginning of November. If the remaining repair work goes well, the shuttle could fly to the International Space Station as early as Feb. 24.
At a news conference, NASA officials refused to discuss the flight status of astronaut Mark Kelly, the husband of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot in Arizona last weekend. He's supposed to command shuttle Endeavour's last mission in April. His identical twin brother, Scott, is currently serving as the space station's skipper.
"Out of respect to the family, we really are not ready to answer those questions today. We're going to let Mark decide really kind of what he needs to do," said Bill Gerstenmaier, head of NASA space operations. "Our hearts and prayers go out to the family, and we're really thinking about Mark in everything we do."
On the orbiting lab, Scott Kelly took a call Tuesday from Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.
"There are no people in Russia who are not touched by this terrible news," Putin said through a translator.
The Endeavour mission is the last on NASA's official shuttle flight lineup before the fleet is retired. The space agency hopes to add one last trip to the space station by Atlantis at the end of August to bring up extra spare parts, provided there's funding. Officials initially were targeting the end of June for the launch, but said Tuesday they would prefer more time between flights.
As for Discovery's prolonged grounding, shuttle program manager John Shannon said a combination of inferior material and assembly issues is to blame. Cracks occurred in five of the 108 aluminum alloy struts in the center of the tank, which holds instruments. The damaged struts have been patched. Technicians will reinforce the remaining struts as a safety precaution, using thin 6-inch strips of aluminum.
Shannon called it "a very simple, elegant fix to the problem."
"We're going to fly with a lot of confidence in this tank," he told reporters. "We've gotten rid of the uncertainty."
The tank is covered with foam insulation, and NASA was concerned the cracks could force pieces to break off during liftoff, with chunks possibly striking the shuttle. A slab of foam doomed Columbia in 2003.
Engineers also worried that if four or more struts in a row failed, the entire structure could catastrophically buckle.
The cracking was discovered after an unrelated problem — a hydrogen gas leak — halted Discovery's launch countdown on Nov. 5.
Shannon said a batch of the material used for some of the 21-foot support struts, through heating, ended up more brittle.
In addition, weaknesses were introduced during assembly of the pieces.
The bad batch of material likely ended up on the fuel tank that launched Atlantis last May, Shannon said. Every indication is that the tank performed normally, even if cracks were, indeed, present, he noted.
The tank currently being prepared for Atlantis also has struts made of the suspect material and will need to be repaired. Engineers believe Endeavour's tank is unaffected, but extra tests are likely, which would push that mission into mid- to late April.
Once the 30-year shuttle program ends, the White House wants NASA focusing on expeditions to asteroids and Mars, rather than servicing the space station.
Discovery's final voyage has been on hold since the beginning of November. If the remaining repair work goes well, the shuttle could fly to the International Space Station as early as Feb. 24.
At a news conference, NASA officials refused to discuss the flight status of astronaut Mark Kelly, the husband of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot in Arizona last weekend. He's supposed to command shuttle Endeavour's last mission in April. His identical twin brother, Scott, is currently serving as the space station's skipper.
"Out of respect to the family, we really are not ready to answer those questions today. We're going to let Mark decide really kind of what he needs to do," said Bill Gerstenmaier, head of NASA space operations. "Our hearts and prayers go out to the family, and we're really thinking about Mark in everything we do."
On the orbiting lab, Scott Kelly took a call Tuesday from Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.
"There are no people in Russia who are not touched by this terrible news," Putin said through a translator.
The Endeavour mission is the last on NASA's official shuttle flight lineup before the fleet is retired. The space agency hopes to add one last trip to the space station by Atlantis at the end of August to bring up extra spare parts, provided there's funding. Officials initially were targeting the end of June for the launch, but said Tuesday they would prefer more time between flights.
As for Discovery's prolonged grounding, shuttle program manager John Shannon said a combination of inferior material and assembly issues is to blame. Cracks occurred in five of the 108 aluminum alloy struts in the center of the tank, which holds instruments. The damaged struts have been patched. Technicians will reinforce the remaining struts as a safety precaution, using thin 6-inch strips of aluminum.
Shannon called it "a very simple, elegant fix to the problem."
"We're going to fly with a lot of confidence in this tank," he told reporters. "We've gotten rid of the uncertainty."
The tank is covered with foam insulation, and NASA was concerned the cracks could force pieces to break off during liftoff, with chunks possibly striking the shuttle. A slab of foam doomed Columbia in 2003.
Engineers also worried that if four or more struts in a row failed, the entire structure could catastrophically buckle.
The cracking was discovered after an unrelated problem — a hydrogen gas leak — halted Discovery's launch countdown on Nov. 5.
Shannon said a batch of the material used for some of the 21-foot support struts, through heating, ended up more brittle.
In addition, weaknesses were introduced during assembly of the pieces.
The bad batch of material likely ended up on the fuel tank that launched Atlantis last May, Shannon said. Every indication is that the tank performed normally, even if cracks were, indeed, present, he noted.
The tank currently being prepared for Atlantis also has struts made of the suspect material and will need to be repaired. Engineers believe Endeavour's tank is unaffected, but extra tests are likely, which would push that mission into mid- to late April.
Once the 30-year shuttle program ends, the White House wants NASA focusing on expeditions to asteroids and Mars, rather than servicing the space station.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
