NASA Space Exploration Workshop Discusses Moon vs. Asteroids (ContributorNetwork)

NASA conducted a workshop on the Global Exploration Roadmap, the plan for the human exploration of the moon, near Earth asteroids, and eventually Mars in San Diego, California on Nov. 14-16.

Kathy Laureni of NASA Headquarters and Roland Martinez of NASA's Johnson Spaceflight Center gave an audio presentation of the results of the workshop. There is an accompanying power point presentation.

What is the state of the roadmap as of the end of 2011?

As we've reported previously, the Future in Space Operations study group is still looking at two paths, Asteroids Next or Moon Next. However there seems to be a growing consensus that some kind of way-station at the L2 point where the Earth's and moon's gravity cancel one another out would be useful for sustained operations, either on the moon, toward asteroids, or both. This seems similar to the Nautilus-X concept that we have discussed previously.

What was revealed about the Asteroids Next path?

The participants are keenly aware of the fact that opportunities to visit near Earth asteroids are few and far between. If more of these asteroids were to be discovered, then the mission opportunities would increase. The idea of a prize competition for amateur astronomers to discover such asteroids was floated.

One of the other questions that have been raised, but not answered, is how astronauts will interact with asteroids? Will they directly explore them? Will they use tele-operated robots? Will they use a combination of the two? The notion that there should be robotic precursor missions to the target asteroids was also pretty much decided, in order to maximize the amount of science that could be done. Voyages to asteroids are good practice runs for deep space missions to Mars.

What about Moon next?

There is a growing realization that there are more opportunities for commercial participation on a lunar exploration program than on voyages to asteroids. In situ resource utilization is easier on the moon as well. The moon is accessible from Earth at will. The moon is a great test bed for sustained surface operations, basically learning how to live and work in space for the long term.

However trips to the lunar surface are still thought to be expensive. There was some discussion about how that cost could be mitigated, including the use of reusable landers and local resources, i.e. to create rocket fuel. There was also some discussion of using tele-operated robots from Earth or from the proposed L2 station.

What about the costs of all this?

Planners for deep space exploration are going to be keenly aware of cost issues. If something costs more than the participating governments are willing to pay it will not happen. Commercial and international participation will help to mitigate cost issues, however.

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 L.A. Times, and The Weekly Standard.

View the original article here

Boeing's Plan to Return to the Moon by 2022 (ContributorNetwork)

NASA Space Flight is reporting that Boeing made a presentation at the latest Global Exploration Workshop of a plan to return Americans to the moon by 2022, 50 years after the last astronauts walked on the moon.

The Boeing plan, which uses a "way station" located at the L1 point where the gravities of the Earth and moon cancel one another out as well as a reusable lunar lander is the first detailed approach to a return to the moon.

What would the way station look like?

The way station would be constructed at the International Space Station, using the remote manipulator arm. It would consist of a "Node4/DHS (Docking Hub System), an orbiter external air lock, a MPLM (Multi-Purpose Logistics Module) habitat module, and an international module." The various modules would be launched to the ISS with commercial rockets such as the Atlas V. Once assembled, a "space tug" would convey the way station to the L1 point.

How would the reusable lunar lander work?

A Space Launch System Heavy Lift launcher would deliver a fuel depot to the way station. Then a second SLS would deliver an Orion Multi Purpose Crew Vehicle and a reusable lunar lander. The lunar lander would take on fuel at the depot and then proceed on to the moon with the crew delivered by the Orion. The crew would conduct lunar surface operations, then return to the way station, transfer to the Orion, and return to Earth. Commercial launchers would top off the fuel depot as needed for subsequent lunar missions.

There is also a secondary plan that involves deploying the reusable lunar lander at the way station while it is built at the ISS. The SLS would launch an Orion MPCV and a Delta Cryogenic Second Stage (DCSS) to the way station. The DCSS would transfer fuel to the lander and then would boost it to the moon. As in the first scenario, the crew conducts lunar surface operations, then returns to the way station, transfers to the Orion, and returns to Earth.

The advantage of the second scenario over the first is that the long term storage of fuel is not necessary. The problem of preventing "boil off" of cryogenic fuel is one that would have to be solved before long term, space based depots become practicable.

What are the advantages of the Boeing plan?

Billions of dollars would be saved with a reusable lunar and one launch of an SLS per lunar mission. The way station could also be used as a base for running tele-operated robots on the lunar surface and deploying lunar surface infrastructure such as habitats.

What are some show stoppers?

The official plan, as articulated by President Obama, is still to bypass the moon and go to an Earth approaching asteroid. Also some analysts, such as Clark Lindsey, claim that there will be no money available for a way station and a reusable lunar lander and a heavy lift Space Launch System. But Lindsey's prediction of what the fiscal and political situation of 2018-2022 when this hardware would be developed and deployed remains idle conjecture, projecting the current situation into the future without changes that might be brought about by an election of a new administration.

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.

View the original article here

Russian President Medvedev Promises Punishment for Space Mishaps (ContributorNetwork)

According to Space.com, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev is threatening to punish officials who are judged to be responsible for a series of space mishaps that have embarrassed that country's space effort.

What are some of the mishaps that have plagued the Russian space program?

The most recent accident concerned Russia's ambitious attempt to send a probe, dubbed Phobos-Grunt, to the Martian moon Phobos to take soil and rock samples and return them to Earth. Phobos-Grunt was stuck in low Earth orbit, having failed to executed a pair of rocket firings that would have sent it on a trajectory toward Mars.

In August, a Russian Progress spacecraft that carrying supplies to the International Space Station suffered a failure of its Soyuz rocket and instead of going to the ISS crashed into Siberia, according to Space.com. The mishap resulted in serious doubts about the ability of the Russians to provide transportation services for both cargo and humans, leading to the possibility that the ISS would have to be abandoned. However the Russians were able to find the cause of the glitch that had destroyed the Progress and have since been able to launch both a Progress cargo mission and a manned Soyuz to the ISS.

Why is Medvedev contemplating punitive action?

Russia clearly sees space travel as an expression of a country that expires to be a super power. It has had this attitude ever since the early space program, when the old Soviet Union was able to accomplish a series of space spectaculars, including Sputnik, the first Earth satellite, and the flight of Yuri Gagarin, the first man in low Earth orbit. More recently, with the end of the space shuttle program, the Russian Space Agency boasted that the world had entered into the "Age of Soyuz" with America being forced to rely on Russia for trips to the ISS. There was even a dig at the fact that the Americans had lost two space shuttles, the Challenger and Columbia, with the boast of how reliable the Soyuz was. This form of chest pounding has come back to haunt the Russians in view of the Progress and Phobos-Grunt failures.

What does Medvedev propose to do to people he finds responsible for Russian space failures?

Reuters reports that the Russian president, perhaps in a fit of whimsy, has promised that they would not be stood up against a wall and shot, as was the practice in Josef Stalin's time. But criminal penalties, including imprisonment and fines, as well as administrative penalties are on the table.

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.

View the original article here

NASA's Dawn Spacecraft Discovers Mountain on Asteroid Vesta 'Higher Than Mount Everest' (ContributorNetwork)

NASA's Dawn space craft has taken an image of a mountain on the asteroid Vesta that is higher than Mount Everest, according to the U.K. Daily Mail. It is the latest in spectacular pictures taken by the probe now orbiting the asteroid.

* The mountain, as yet unnamed, is 13 miles high and is surrounded by features that scientists believe were caused by landslides. By contrast Mount Everest is about 5 1/2 miles high.

* Dawn has also imaged a mysterious dark spot on Vesta's equator, about 60 miles wide.

* Dawn was launched from Earth on Sept 27, 2007. It used Mars for a gravity assist in February 2009. It arrived at Vesta in July. It will depart from orbit around Vesta in July 2012 and arrive at Ceres, the largest asteroid in the solar system, in February 2015.

* Dawn used an ion propulsion system to fly to Vesta, a voyage that took nearly four years.

* Dawn's instruments include a framing camera, a visible and infrared spectrometer, and a gamma ray and neutron spectrometer.

* Dawn's primary objective is to gain a better understanding of the origins of the solar system by studying Vesta and then Ceres at close range.

* Dawn is orbiting Vesta at a height of 420 miles, circling the asteroid every 12.3 hours.

* Dawn has completed a series of orbits designed to image Vesta's features straight down. It will now image those same features at an angle. This will aid in the creation of topographical maps of the asteroid as whereas stereo images of individual features. The images are being taken in both visible and infrared light.

* Vesta was discovered by German astronomer and physician Wilhelm Olbers on March 29, 1807.

* Vesta is named after the ancient Roman goddess of the hearth.

* Vesta's orbit around the sun takes 3.63 years.

* Vesta is an irregularly shaped body with an approximant diameter of 530 kilometers.

* Vesta rotates every 5.342 hours.

* Vesta's surface is silicate rock with a nickel-iron core. It is thought not to have accreted a lot of water or may have lost most of its water in the distant past.

* Scientists believe that Vesta suffered a major impact from another body almost its side, creating a crater that reaches deep within its mantle, exposing the material within. This gives Dawn an opportunity to examine that material remotely and perhaps gain some insights into the mantles of other celestial bodies, such as Earth or Mars.

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 L.A. Times and The Weekly Standard.

View the original article here

Boeing Contemplates Cargo, Crewed Version of X-37B Space Plane (ContributorNetwork)

Boeing is contemplating building a larger version of the X-37B test vehicle for delivering cargo to low Earth orbit. A third phase of the winged space craft could carry astronauts to LEO as well.

* The X-37B is an unmanned test vehicle developed by Boeing's Phantom works for the United States Air Force. It is launched into low Earth orbit inside a faring on top of an Atlas V rocket. It is designed to land like the space shuttle on a runway after orbital operations are completed.

* The X-37B is 29 feet, eight inches long, nine feet, six inches high, with a wing span of 14 feet, 11 inches. Its launch weight is 11,000 pounds.

* The X-37B was first launched into low Earth orbit in April, 2010 on a top secret Air Force Mission. The vehicle landed in December of that year after a seven month flight that the Air Force said was to test certain technologies needed for orbital operations. This apparently included at least four course corrections, observed by amateur astronomers.

* The course corrections suggested that one purpose of an operation vehicle based on the X-37B would be to intercept and either capture or destroy enemy satellites in time of war. The vehicle could also be used as a quick reaction space craft to deliver military satellites to low Earth orbit as needed. An operational X-37B could deliver a conventional warhead from the continental United States to any target in the world.

* The X-37B was launched again on March 5, 2011 and is currently conducting secret military tests.

* The idea of an X-37B derived cargo or even astronaut carrier is seen as a backup plan for space vehicles now under development under NASA's commercial crew program

* If the go ahead were given, the first step would be to launch the X-37B to rendezvous and dock with the International Space Station.

* The second step would be to build a larger version of the X-37B, which would be used to carry line replacement units (LRUs) to the ISS. The flights would also demonstrate the capability of flying an autonomous space craft to the ISS with astronauts.

* The crewed version of the X-37B derived vehicle would be able to carry five to seven astronauts at a time into low Earth orbit and destinations like the ISS.

* It is unclear how such an operational derivative of the X-37B would be funded, whether by NASA or the Air Force. The Air Force had, at one time, its own manned space program, which was cancelled in the mid 1960s. Before the Challenger accident, the space shuttle flew a number of military payloads. Subsequently military flights were conducted on unmanned launchers.

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 L.A. Times and The Weekly Standard.

View the original article here

Scientists Propose NASA Probe to Uranus (ContributorNetwork)

According to Space.com, scientists are contemplating sending a robotic probe to Uranus, the seventh planet from the sun, described as an "ice giant." Uranus has only been visited briefly by the Voyage 2 flyby probe in 1986.

* The proposed mission, which would orbit Uranus much as Cassini currently orbits Saturn and Galileo once orbited Jupiter, would be launched sometime in the 2020s, when the planet is in the best position to be accessed from Earth. The mission, which would comprise of an orbiter and a probe that would penetrate Uranus' atmosphere, would cost somewhere between $1.5 billion and $2.7 billion dollars.

* Voyager 2 flew within 50,600 miles of Uranus. It managed to image the planet, its rings, and five of its largest moons. It discovered 10 previously unknown moons. Voyager 2 also discovered that Uranus' rotation was 17 hours, 14 minutes, that its magnetic field was "large and unusual," and that the temperature of its equatorial region, which receives less sunlight than the polar region pointed at the sun, nevertheless has about the same temperature.

* Uranus was discovered to be a planet by the British astronomer William Herschel on March 13, 1781. Herschel named the planet "Georgium Sidus" after his royal patron, King George III. Eventually the planet was named Uranus by 1850 in conformity to naming planets after gods of Roman mythology.

* Uranus appears to have been hit by multiple strikes so that its axes, rather than its equator, are parallel to the plane of the elliptic.

* Unlike Jupiter and Saturn, Uranus is composed primarily of rock and ices, primarily water, ammonia, carbon dioxide, and methane. Its atmosphere is mainly composed of hydrogen, with some helium and methane.

* Uranus has 13 known rings, common to all of the other outer planets.

* According to 1-2-3problemsolved.com, Uranus' magnetic field is "odd" in that it is not on the center of the planet and is tilted 60 degrees with respect of the axis of rotation.

* Uranus is 2,870,990,000 kilometers from the sun and takes 84 years to revolve around the sun. Uranus is 51,118 in diameter.

* There are 27 moons in orbit around Uranus, only five of which are much larger than the average asteroid. The moons of Uranus are named after characters in Shakespeare's plays and the poems of Alexander Pope. The five largest moons are Miranda, Ariel, Umbriel, Titania, and Oberon.

* Questions that the proposed probe to Uranus would try to answer include why does it radiate more heat than do Jupiter and Saturn, why is it so tilted in respect to the plane of the elliptic, and why does its atmosphere have less hydrogen and helium than do Jupiter and Saturn. An orbiting probe around Uranus would also examine its weather patterns.

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 L.A. Times and The Weekly Standard.

View the original article here

Alone in Space on 9/11: An Astronaut's Photographs and Memories (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | September 11 is a day that is indelibly etched upon the mind of most Americans that were old enough to experience it (and even some who weren't), a traumatizing event that has become a part of America's collective conscious memory. It would difficult to imagine what it would have been like on that fateful day had there not been someone to turn to, someone with which to talk and discuss and lament and mourn. But one man did just that: NASA astronaut Frank Culbertson. On 9/11 he was an American alone, cut off from not only his home country, which was under attack, but from his world, which had been forever altered by the day's tragic events. On Friday, the astronaut released through NASA both photographs and letters of his 9/11 experience.

"I was flabbergasted, then horrified," he wrote, recalling that the first he heard of the attacks was from a radio transmission from a NASA flight surgeon. "My first thought was that this wasn't a real conversation, that I was still listening to one of my Tom Clancy tapes. It just didn't seem possible on this scale in our country. I couldn't even imagine the particulars, even before the news of further destruction began coming in."

The particulars were horrifying. The September 11 terrorist attacks on the twin towers of the World Trade Center, one of the world's foremost architectural achievements and symbolic of the economic might of the United States, was reduced in a matter of hours to a smoking pile of concrete, steel, glass, and rubble. Nearly 3,000 people would die in the attacks (including those killed at the Pentagon in Washington, D. C.). Over 400 first responders would also die helping search for, aid, and treat survivors as well as trying to restore order and contain fires. Evidence suggests that many are dying still, slowing succumbing to the carcinogenic dust and debris that pervaded the air in Manhattan after the towers fell.

The tenth anniversary of 9/11 has produced a plethora of testimonies, documentaries, human interest stories, histories, and memorials. Of them all, Culbertson's is profoundly different. He was roughly 300 miles above the Earth, circling like the major character in the hit David Bowie song "Major Tom":

"... am I sitting in my tin can

Far above the world

Planet Earth is blue

And there's nothing I can do..."

He was a lone American aboard the International Space Station, forced to deal with the trauma of the day's events without the aid of physical companionship with other Americans. Except for live radio and television feeds from down below, Culbertson was cut off from much of the emotional and psychological support afforded to most that were experiencing the trauma of the attacks.

Culbertson was alone and he knew it. "Other than the emotional impact of our country being attacked and thousands of our citizens and maybe some friends being killed, the most overwhelming feeling being where I am is one of isolation."

He also showed signs of helplessness, as was evidenced through his thoughts of a post-9/11 world. From a second letter: "It's difficult to describe how it feels to be the only American completely off the planet at a time such as this. The feeling that I should be there with all of you, dealing with this, helping in some way, is overwhelming. I know that we are on the threshold (or beyond) of a terrible shift in the history of the world. Many things will never be the same again after September 11, 2001."

Still, unlike "Major Tom," Culbertson knew he would eventually go home. Hope soon overcame the shadows of doubt and uncertainty.

From a third letter: "I hope the example of cooperation and trust that this spacecraft and all the people in the program demonstrate daily will someday inspire the rest of the world to work the same way. They must!"

Frank Culbertson's photos and letters provide the world with an insight into how humans deal with tragedy through gradual acceptance and the determination to overcome the tragic event(s). His is a testament of the hope for a better future born of the lessons learned from that late summer day.

On the tenth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on 9/11, it should be hoped that the present is part of the realization of that better future.

View the original article here

How to Preserve the Apollo Lunar Landing Sites (ContributorNetwork)

Recently, NASA released some Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter images of some of the Apollo moon landing sites. While this would seem to be the final nail in the coffin of the "we never went to the moon" conspiracy theory, they raise another question.

NASA is expressing interest in protecting the Apollo landing sites from contamination from future lunar landers. The motive is as much scientific as it is cultural and historical. According to an article by Chris Bergen at NASA Space Flight, there is concern that future lunar landers, such as are being developed for the Google Lunar X Prize will damage not only the footprints and treads left on the lunar surface by the Apollo astronauts, but the hardware.

Nevertheless there is some interest in revisiting some of the Apollo sites to ascertain how four decades of micrometeorite bombardment and exposure to lunar weathering have affected the descent stages and other hardware left behind. How to do this and not damage the landing sites is a vexing question.

Protocols will no doubt be developed to allow for the traversing of lunar rovers on or at least near the landing sites. However there is a longer view question that has to be answered, especially as humans sooner or later begin to return to the moon.

The Apollo landing sites are historical and cultural areas, where history was literally imprinted on the soil by the footsteps of astronaut explorers and the tread tracks of lunar rovers. When people start living and working on the moon, same care has to be made to keep from contaminating the sites while at the same time eventually facilitating the desire of people on the moon to visit them.

The desire to preserve the sites down to the very footprints make preserving them a more daunting task than the equivalent, say a famous battlefield, on Earth. The disturbance caused by future lunar explorers, kicking up dust, might damage the sites irreversibly.

One idea might be to set up barriers around the landing sites, beyond which future lunar visitors will not be able to traverse. No doubt with careful mapping and the deployment of walkways that avoid the footprints and tread marks, future lunar tourists will be able to enter the sites, to a certain extent, and stand near where the first explorers of the moon stood so many decades before.

That's not an immediate problem, of course. The United States is still wrestling over what sort of space exploration program it should have or whether it should have one at all. But China, India, and perhaps other countries are interested in eventually sending their astronauts to the moon. The question thus arises, if the personnel of other countries are on the moon and Americans are not, will the United States have any say in how the Apollo landing sites are treated?

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 L.A. Times, and The Weekly Standard.

View the original article here

NASA: UARS Satellite Debris Poses 1 in 3,200 Chance of Hitting Someone (ContributorNetwork)

NASA's Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS) will fall to Earth sometime during late September or early October, NASA told reporters today in a teleconference. Atmospheric changes that take place on a daily basis making it impossible to predict exactly where or when it will come down with any real accuracy even as close as two hours prior to the re-entry.

Satellites the size of UARS, on average fall to Earth about once every year and are the subject of detailed break-up analyses by NASA scientists. In this case, NASA expects that UARS will break up in such a way that 26 pieces will strike the ground at speeds ranging from tens of miles per hour to hundreds of miles per hour, according to Nick Johnson of NASA's Orbital Debris Program. In fact, said Johnson, NASA has calculated the odds of any piece of the debris striking a person as 1 in 3200. A number which he says is very, very low and is simply based on the area of possible landfall and global population density.

The re-entry of UARS should be very visible even if it occurs in daylight said Johnson. However, it will b impossible to give enough advance information about where it will re-enter to advise people where and when to look for it. Based on the amount of water versus the amount of land in possible impact field, it is most likely that it will take place out over an ocean and may only be incidentally visible to passing aircraft or ocean vessels.

UARS made a number of important scientific observations over its 14 year effective lifespan including detailed measurement of Earth's atmosphere and of solar radiation. Since 2005, other satellites have replaced its full suite of observational capabilities.

Factbox:

* UARS was built in the 1980's and launched in 1991 at a total cost of $750 million.

* Intact, UARS masses 5.7 metric tons and completely fills the cargo bay of a space shuttle.

* Without NASA intervention, UARS would have remained in orbit until 2025, but its orbital decay was intentionally accelerated by using up all remaining onboard maneuvering propellants in 2005 when it had exhausted its scientific usefulness.

* UARS was the first satellite to record solar flux data over and entire 11 year solar cycle.

* The largest piece of UARS expected to reach the ground masses a little over 300 pounds.

* Other than being struck by fallen debris, NASA says, the biggest risk from the debris is a person getting cut by sharp edges if they try to handle the debris after is has landed. There are absolutely no toxic materials on board, according to Paul Hertz of NASA's Science Mission Directorate.

* All pieces of UARS remain the property of the U.S. government and their location should be made known to local law enforcement officials. Possession or sale of any of the debris by private individuals in the United States is illegal and subject to prosecution.

* In a typical year, 400 pieces of tracked man-made debris re-enters Earth's atmosphere.

* One piece of man-made space debris survives to reach the ground, on average, each week.

* In 2010, approximately 75 metric tons of man-made space debris fell from orbit Earth.

Read more:

Meteorite Men Star Turns Space Rocks into Career

China's Great Wall of Steel in the Blue Sky

Virgin Galactic CEO: What NASA Should be Doing

Follow @Space_Matters on Twitter or 'like' the Space Matters Fan Page on Facebook for more of this author's space-related writing.

Brad Sylvester writes about the space program for the Yahoo! Contributor Network. Watching the Apollo missions through the static on a small black and white television sparked a lifelong interest in the space sciences for him. Since then, he has spent 40 years watching improvements in the technologies of space travel and our understanding of the universe.

View the original article here

Two Commercial Space Companies Are Working to Put Americans Back into Space (ContributorNetwork)

There has been a lot of news lately about "Commercial Space" efforts -- since several companies are working on capsules that promise to be able to lift people into space. These efforts would help to replace a few of the Space Shuttle's capabilities. Recently I have seen some of the hardware from many of the commercial developers and wanted to share some thoughts about two of them.

Two developers stand out -- SpaceX (a company started by Elon Musk) and Boeing. In many ways these two remind an experienced space guy of the story of the tortoise and the hare. Is SpaceX the glamorous hare, getting a fast start? One of the advantages they have is Ken Bowersox, a retired Shuttle commander who knows exactly what has to be done to fly a reliable system. In this effort, is Boeing the cautious tortoise -- moving slowly but deliberately? They have not flown a capsule yet, and have recently decided to use the experienced Atlas rocket team to lift their capsule. Maybe due to their experience, they have an effort that is getting much less publicity.

SpaceX has already flown a version of their capsule and so has leaped ahead in the eye of the public. It is also a new company, started by a young entrepreneur who came out of the Internet business. Based in Los Angeles, it certainly has the star power. Since SpaceX is a company that is the project of a person -- Elon Musk -- what would happen if he is distracted? He also has a car company, Tesla Motors, that has taken a lot of his attention. Even his personal life and his recent expensive divorce could affect the priority that he could give to SpaceX. That company is spread very thin -- they are developing a series of rockets (the Falcon) as well as two versions of their Dragon capsules -- one for cargo and one for people. The Falcon rocket has had all of the developmental troubles that we have seen with similar complex systems, and could also delay SpaceX. Recently they have been working on a launch pad in California as well. The company has already started talking about possibly sending the Dragon capsule as far as the Moon -- an ambitious goal. SpaceX has the reputation of not wanting advice from any of the people who have the experience in spaceflight.

Boeing is using a capsule design that is intended to be as simple as possible -- it is designed to just go to the Space Station. As we have seen many times with aerospace systems, simplicity is the best assurance we have of reliability. They also have the resources of a company that has developed many space systems as well as innovative aircraft; so their pool of talent is very deep. The concern that observers have is -- could problems in their other businesses cause them to pull back from a risky investment? Are they too cautious, and too reliant on the government? Their recent decision to use the Atlas rocket, a system that has flown reliably for years and probably has few surprises left in it, gives them a strong rocket to lift their capsule into space. It also has a well proven launch team in Florida, they have flown that rocket many more times that SpaceX has flown Falcon.

The next few years, as both companies fly their capsules and rockets, will be very interesting. This is a exciting time for the space business, as we watch two totally different companies approach a very difficult and merciless task with different philosophies.

View the original article here

Sens. Nelson, Hutchison Accuse Administration of Sabotaging NASA Rocket Project (ContributorNetwork)

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, have issued a statement accusing the Obama administration of deliberately attempting to undermine the development of a rocket crucial for NASA's plans for future space exploration.

The accusation comes in the wake of a story in the Wall Street Journal speculating, possibly based on a White House leak, that NASA's plans for space exploration would cost as much as $62 billion and that the White House was experiencing "sticker shock." A NASA document was subsequently released with more information concerning various scenarios for space exploration through 2025 with cost estimates.

The two senators, the chairman and ranking member of the Science and Space Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee, are essentially accusing the White House and NASA of cooking the books and making up inflated budget numbers in an effort to kill a heavy lift rocket known as the Space Launch System. Development of the SLS was mandated by Congress in a 2010 NASA bill that was signed by President Barack Obama.

The accusation of bad faith and even legal malfeasance by Nelson and Hutchison represents an escalation of the toxic relations between the White House and NASA and Congress that have developed since Obama ordered the cancellation of the Constellation space exploration program. Nelson and Hutchison seem to have concluded that the White House and NASA are not interested in following the law or of seriously pursuing space exploration beyond low Earth orbit.

The accusation fits the known facts. For most of this year, NASA has been pursuing delaying tactics to stop the commencement of the SLS program. This has resulted in mass layoffs of NASA and contractor personnel due to the end of the space shuttle program who might have instead transitioned to the SLS development program. Hiring back these people may prove to be difficult after a long delay.

The suspicion is that the numbers quoted in the Wall Street Journal article and the NASA document will be used to cancel the SLS program outright as part of a deficit reduction deal, pushing off the commencement of space exploration beyond low Earth orbit indefinitely. With budget deficits in excess of a trillion dollars and President Obama demanding $450 billion for a jobs program, cancellation of the SLS would seem to be almost inevitable.

It is unclear what Nelson and Hutchison can do about their accusation. If the White House and NASA are not disposed to follow Congressional direction concerning space policy, enacting new directions would seem to be pointless. The commencement of a formal Senate investigation, including subpoenas, would now seem to be indicated. But that will take time and, in the meantime, hopes for the recommencement of space exploration by astronauts for the first time in decades are, once again, placed on hold.

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 L.A. Times, and The Weekly.

View the original article here

Fund Raising Effort Reopens SETI Institute's Allen Telescope Array (ContributorNetwork)

The Allen Telescope Array, a dedicated cluster of radio telescopes dedicated to the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, is back in business thanks to a fund raising effort conducted by the SETI Institute.

The ATA, which was built thanks to private funding from Microsoft executive Paul Allen, was forced to shut down through lack of funding. The fund raising effort, according to Space.Com, has raised the $200,000 necessary from about 2,000 donors to reopen the facility and to recommence the search for ET's radio signals. One of the donors, coincidentally, was actress Jodi Foster, who played an astronomer who finds signals from aliens in the film "Contact," based on the novel by Carl Sagan.

SETI or the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence has had a long a storied history, ever since Project Ozma in 1960. SETI has been primarily a privately funded effort since NASA's effort was defunded by the Congress in the mid 1990s. The defunding of NASA's SETI was part of a wave of political attacks on big science projects in the early to mid 1990s that also terminated the Super Conducting Super Collider and almost ended the space station project.

The Allen Telescope Array consists of a 42 small dishes spread out over an area near the Hat Creek Radio Observatory, 290 miles northeast of San Francisco, California. Each dish is 20 feet or 6 meters in diameter, making them relatively small. However the ATA tracks areas of the sky simultaneously to conduct radio astronomy, especially of other galaxies, as well as conducting SETI operations. It is hoped that ATA will eventually consist of 350 dishes, making it one of the most powerful radio astronomy facilities on the planet. In this way the detecting power of the small dishes, when the ATA is eventually completed, would be combined as a "phased array" to make it the equivalent of a single dish 114 meters in diameter and the angular resolution of a dish 700 meters across. The plummeting price of electronics and the relatively small size of the dishes make the ATA a nimble observatory that can track targets in the sky relatively quickly. As technology improves, the dishes, because of their relatively small size, can be more easily upgraded or replaced than a single, large dish.

Besides SETI, ATA is "--being used for radio astronomy observations of our galaxy and other galaxies, gamma ray bursts and transient radio sources, and SETI." The ATA has been in operation since 2007 and has already garnered a great deal of radio astronomy science, including radio images of a number of galaxies.

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 L.A. Times, and The Weekly Standard .

View the original article here

NASA May Miss Its Astronauts as They Leave with the End of the Space Shuttle Program (ContributorNetwork)

The Daily Caller has published a piece that asks a pertinent question. That question is, now that the space shuttle program is over and there is no government run space flight program in sight, what is NASA going to do with its astronauts?

Rep. Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, is quoted as saying, "I firmly believe if we lose this talent, it won't be to another state or industry, but to another country."

Johnson is likely being overwrought. Russia has a very vigorous cosmonaut program and does not need to outsource it to unemployed American astronauts. Similarly, countries with nascent space programs such as China or India would prefer to train and fly their own nationals. At best, any ex NASA astronaut would find a job training or consulting for another country's space program.

Also, whether an astronaut is headed out the door of NASA depends on what kind he or she is. The Pilot Astronaut, who used to fly the space shuttle, would not have much to do and would likely seek other opportunities. Space flying opportunities will be limited to some of the commercial space companies such as SpaceX, but there are jobs in the executive suite or in consulting available for anyone with the job of astronaut on their resume. Academic, entrepreneurship, and even politics are other career possibilities, judging how former astronauts have handled their post NASA careers in the past.

Mission Specialists, scientists and engineers, will still fly on the International Space Station. With the completion of the shuttle program, the ISS is about to fulfill its potential as a microgravity research facility. Along those lines, if and when Bigelow Aerospace manages to deploy its private space station built of inflatable modules, NASA will have another venue to send researchers to.

But the bigger question is, if the United States is actually planning to send astronauts beyond low Earth orbit on voyages of exploration, how badly will the experience and talent now headed for the exits is going to be missed. To be sure, the mechanics of flying to the Moon or an asteroid will be different than those of flying a winged space craft to and from low Earth orbit, but the question is still pertinent.

The first man to fly the space shuttle as a command pilot was John Young, who had previously flown two Gemini missions and two Apollo missions. Other Apollo era astronauts who flew the shuttle included Jack Lousma, who had flown previously on a Skylab Mission, Ken Mattingly, who flew on Apollo 16, Vance Brand, who had flown on the Apollo-Soyuz test project, Paul Weitz, who had flown on a Skylab, and Owen Garriott, who had flown on a Skylab mission.

Having a small cadre of experienced space pilots was no doubt beneficial to getting the space shuttle program off the ground. Currently NASA does not even envision a piloted test flight of its space exploration system, planned to consist of a MPCV, formally known as Orion, and the heavy lift space launch system until 2021. It is entirely possible that NASA will not have any experienced pilot astronauts in its employ by then.

Of course one work around would be to hire commercial space pilots from one or more of the commercial space taxi services that NASA plans to have in operation by 2015. That would be something of an irony that NASA, which pioneered space flight, would have to turn to the private sector for the talent it will need to take the next step beyond low Earth orbit.

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 L.A. Times, and The Weekly.

View the original article here

'The Economist' Celebrates the End of the Space Age (ContributorNetwork)

The Economist, a magazine published in Great Britain, has run one of those articles on the occasion of the conclusion of the space shuttle program, celebrating what it sees as the end of the space age in smug terms that are sure to offend.

The question of whether the space age is ending or just entering a new phase has previously been covered. But it is interesting to note the British version of schadenfreude that permeates the article in The Economist.

"No longer. It is quite conceivable that 36,000km will prove the limit of human ambition. It is equally conceivable that the fantasy-made-reality of human space flight will return to fantasy. It is likely that the Space Age is over."

It is sad that the country that brought us Arthur C. Clarke, the British Interplanetary Society, and the Garriott family of space travelers, should produce a paragraph so stark in its smug assuredness that the answer that it elicits is either a guffaw of laughter or a choice Anglo Saxon curse. The space age is over. America is in decline. And about time too,

Mind, The Economist has some evidence to support its assertion that the great dream of human space exploration is over. President Obama cancelled the Constellation space exploration program. What has replaced it is pretty much in chaos, with factions at NASA and in the Congress pulling at it this way and that and no one apparently in charge.

Even the vaunted new era of commercial space is in trouble. Having brought to the nascent commercial space sector a pot full of government money, NASA is about to demonstrate that where government money comes, so do government bureaucracy and government rules that some believe might choke off the age of private space flight before it is well begun.

But it seems that The Economist is making a common mistake in assuming that history always travels in a straight line. On July 20, 1969, most people were of the belief that by this year, if not sooner, there would be people living on both the Moon and Mars. A hit movie of the previous year, "2001: A Space Odyssey", predicted an expedition to Jupiter taking place ten years ago.

Of course none of those things occurred.

The Economist has not reckoned with the notion that the American political system has a self correcting mechanism. The bad decisions of one dysfunctional administration are often met with a popular uprising, followed by the election of a different administration which sets out to correct those mistakes. Carter, after all, was followed by Reagan and the rest, as they say, is history.

Many pundits have already concluded that President Obama is a one termer and will be followed by some Republican. No doubt fixing the space program will be down on the list of things to do, after the budget deficit, health care reform, and the standing of America's position abroad. But it will be on the list.

The dream of space has not died. It is only at bay, waiting for changed political circumstances to blossom once again.

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 L.A. Times, and The Weekly Standard.

View the original article here

NASA Veterans Plea to Keep the Space Shuttles Flying (ContributorNetwork)

On the eve of the last flight of the space shuttle ever, a group of men whose names define the history of the civil space program, spanning both the Apollo and shuttle eras, have published an open letter calling for the retention of the shuttle fleet.

The arguments presented by the group, which include Apollo Moonwalkers, former space shuttle pilots, and NASA flight controllers, are well presented.

"The Space Shuttle fleet is the only spacecraft, now operating or under development, that is equipped with the airlocks, life support supplies and robotic arm needed to support the required two-person spacewalking repair crews. We believe the Space Shuttle fleet should be kept in service to provide the capability of independent repair spacewalks in the event that the International Space Station is crippled by a systems failure or accident. The Space Shuttles would also be available to support one or two logistics and science missions per year, provide unmatched capacity to return components and scientific experiments to Earth (with low gravitational loads on crew and cargo during reentry) and extend the reliability of space station operations with a Service Life Extension Program.

"The capability of the Space Shuttles to provide the independent repair spacewalks, critical for restoring operations on a disabled ISS, would also be vital for protecting the ISS cargo and crew transport business of the emerging commercial space industry. Keeping the shuttle fleet in service would also comply with a new, internationally accepted flight criteria that we believe should be established: Any object placed in orbit that is too large for an uncontrolled reentry must have a spacecraft available to support independent EVA repairs."

The group recommends that the decommissioning of the space shuttles be halted to allow for a study ascertaining what it would take to allow the shuttles to keep flying. They also suggest that the last shuttle flight be delayed to allow for the construction of more spare parts, such as shuttle main fuel tanks, that would allow for a continuation of the space shuttle program. They finally suggest that cost sharing arrangements be initiated among the space station partners for such an effort.

There have been studies in the past to allow a two flight a year regime by a reduced space shuttle fleet to fill the "space launch gap" between the now scheduled end of the space shuttle program and the presumed beginning of commercial crew operations later in this decade.

Reconstituting the supply chain and support infrastructure for the space shuttles would be a daunting task. It would be a doable task, if there were money to pay for it. That is the sticking point. It would cost an enormous amount of money to continue the space shuttle program that frankly is not likely to materialize.

The original plan for the Constellation program, now cancelled by the Obama administration, was to partly pay for it with the savings wrought by cancelling the shuttle program. The space flight gap at the time of the decision seemed manageable. But funding shortfalls and technical problems have expanded the gap wide enough so that the lack of a space shuttle and, indeed, the lack of any American controlled access to space has become a clear and present danger.

Unfortunately a lack of leadership from NASA and the Obama administration means that the gap is not likely to be closed; it might, in fact, widen if the commercial crew program encounters problems. Short of an unprecedented effort by the Obama administration and the Congress to deal with the problem, the gap and all of its inherent dangers will remain.

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 L.A. Times, and The Weekly Standard.

View the original article here

Hubble Telescope Marked Highlight of Space Shuttle Program (ContributorNetwork)

Yahoo! News asked its readers and contributors to share their memories of the space shuttle program as it nears its end in July. Below is a story from a contributor.

[Your Voice: Sign up with the Yahoo! Contributor Network to share your thoughts.]

As the final mission of Space Shuttle Atlantis approaches, marking the retirement of NASA's shuttle fleet, many of us are filled with nostalgia. Whether it is the youngest generation, which is just learning about the shuttle this year, or older ones like mine that can still remember debates over the costs of the plan to build a fleet of these ships, everyone has their own unique memories.

My personal favorite memory -- what I believe was the shuttle's finest hour -- was its first successful repair of the Hubble Space Telescope. After Hubble was launched into orbit by Space Shuttle Discovery in April 1990, it soon became clear that it was suffering from a flawed mirror that distorted its much anticipated photos of space. Despite attempts to correct them, it seemed the entire project was a failure. NASA's expertise in space was in question. Nothing seemed to be going right.

I could relate. In the early 1990s, the country was suffering another recession, just as I was finishing school and entering the job market. My relationships with family and friends were changing, and everyone seemed to be getting more cynical about everything. Life was quickly losing its wonder.

Then in December 1993, the newest shuttle of the fleet, Endeavour, embarked on a mission to the Hubble Space Telescope to repair its problems, and enhance its capabilities. I watched every newscast during its mission, and was truly impressed by the complex repairs the shuttle astronauts were doing; replacing gyroscopes, large solar panels, delicate lenses, and computer components. Not an easy job on Earth, much less in space. The mission turned out to be a great success, and Hubble was repaired.

If the space shuttles (and their crews) could successfully repair large objects in space, they could also build new ones.

Now, a little more than 18 years after that mission, the Hubble Space Telescope is still functioning and the International Space Station is now complete. Humanity has its first permanent fixture in space, and just as so many of us knew when Hubble was first repaired, the meaning of the Space Station is far more than scientific study.

If a space station can be built in orbit, a space port can be added to it. So can shipyards, where larger spaceships can ultimately be built. The ISS is our springboard into space, from where (over time) humanity will spread further out in exploration and commerce.

All this was made possible largely thanks to the Space Shuttle. It was already a marvel of invention in itself when it was put into service in the 1980s. It has been a critical tool in the quest to realize that great things can be completed, that dreams are worth having and pursuing, and that life can still be filled with wonder.

To the Space Shuttle Fleet (both past and present), we should wish the following;

Thanks for the memories of the past, and the dreams of the future.

View the original article here

Huntsman Gives Nonanswer to Space Policy Question (ContributorNetwork)

Another Republican presidential candidate, former Utah governor and ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, was asked about space policy. While former Speaker Newt Gingrich's response was hostile and angry, Huntsman's reply was vague.

According to the Orlando Sentinel: "When asked Thursday about the long period NASA now faces before it can have a manned space flight program again, Huntsman began by talking about first getting the country's economic house in order. He said space will be a part of that because of the 'long term return on investment" from space projects.'

"'We always want to be at the cutting edge of space flight. Today it's an affordability issue. When we get around to space policy, we'll come down here and make sure people are fully aware of what our hopes are,' he said."

The nonresponse that Huntsman gave had none of the luster of "We choose to go to the moon," but it was much as one might expect coming from a politician who had likely never been confronted with a space policy question before. Huntsman artfully gave a nod to the continuing debt crisis, but at the same time held out hope that something might happen that would tie space into jump starting the stalled economy.

There is not much yet from the Republican field of candidates concerning space issues, aside from Huntsman's tap dance and Gingrich's attack on NASA and lauding of the private sector. In a way, nether matters as neither man is given much of a chance of winning the nomination, not to mention the general election.

Huntsman is considered a moderate and the second coming of John McCain, but without the charisma and war record. Gingrich's campaign is in full meltdown mode with staff abandoning ship and questions about the former Speaker's seriousness about running for president being raised.

The candidates to look for a space policy that might actually have a chance of being implemented are Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann and Tim Pawlenty and -- if they choose to run -- Rick Perry and Sarah Palin. That is because these three candidates and two potential candidates might win.

Romney has spoken in vague terms about support for space exploration. Palin has lauded space as well in her two books, "Going Rogue" and "America by Heart." Coming from Texas, Perry would be expected to be supportive of NASA as well.

Nothing is certain, of course, until the candidates formulate a policy proposal. The debt crisis makes any increase for NASA a hard sale. However, regulatory and tax incentives for commercial space are certainly possibilities.

President Barack Obama's space policy, as unpopular as it is, has given the Republican candidates an opening to make space an issue, tying it perhaps to American exceptionalism, economic revival and national security. Whether anyone will take the opportunity remains to be seen.

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 L.A. Times, and The Weekly Standard.

View the original article here

Humanity Again Ready to Make Giant Leaps into Space (ContributorNetwork)

Yahoo! News asked its readers and contributors to share their memories of the space shuttle program as it nears its end in July. Below is a story from a contributor.

[Your Voice: Sign up with the Yahoo! Contributor Network to share your thoughts.]

Intellectually, I am certain that it is time to retire the space shuttles from active service. We need to focus on the future instead of continuing to fly outdated vehicles into orbit. Emotionally, however, I have to say I have mixed feelings about the end of the space shuttle era.

[Related: Former NASA Chief of Staff Explains Why It's Time to Retire the Space Shuttle]

I remember the sense of wonder and excitement that I felt when a classmate in grammar school, knowing my interest in the space program, handed me the latest edition of Scholastic Magazine that featured and article about a planned reusable space shuttle in development by NASA. By the popular demand of thousands of Star Trek fans, the article said, NASA had to change the name of one of the early test shuttles to Enterprise.

The idea of a reusable launch vehicle that could glide to a runway landing seemed to me at the time to bring us one giant leap closer to making space travel a reality for the average person. Today, as the last space shuttle flight prepares to launch, that vision is even closer to reality. George Whitesides, President and CEO of Virgin Galactic told me he expects to be sending paying passengers to the edge of space next year.

I also remember watching the space shuttle Challenger as it seemed to disappear in forked trail of smoke. As I watched, I hoped that the smoke was caused by the jettisoning of malfunctioning booster rockets and that the shuttle itself would reappear and perhaps proceed to an emergency landing. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case and seven brave souls lost their lives on January 28, 1986.

[Related: Why Do So Many Remember Exactly Where They Were When the Challenger Exploded?]

The return to space after Challenger demonstrated that we, as a nation, could overcome adversity, learn from our mistakes, and push forward toward our goals. It also taught me that where much is at stake, one must use an abundance of care to make sure that things go the way one expects them to go.

[Related: Space Shuttle Rocket Scientist Discusses the Return to Space Effort]

Moving forward after the space shuttle, my hope is that we can develop safer and more cost-efficient launch and recovery vehicles, freeing resources for those grander goals that represent the next steps in our journey. With private companies beginning to find profit in space travel, we are once again ready to take one more giant leap into a future of nearly limitless possibilities.

[Related: Three Big Goals for NASA to Inspire a New Generations of Students]

Follow @Space_Matterson Twitter or 'like' the Space Matters Fan Page on Facebook for more of this author's space-related writing.

Brad Sylvester writes about the space program for the Yahoo! Contributor Network. Watching the Apollo missions through the static on a small black and white television sparked a lifelong interest in the space sciences for him. Since then, he has spent 40 years watching improvements in the technologies of space travel and our understanding of the universe unfold.

View the original article here

Space Shuttle Retired but Memories Will Remain Forever (ContributorNetwork)

Yahoo! News asked its readers and contributors to share their memories of the space shuttle program as it nears its end in July. Below is a story from a contributor.

[Your Voice: Sign up with the Yahoo! Contributor Network to share your thoughts.]

When it was announced that the space shuttle program was going to be retired, I was disappointed, but I knew it only the end of a program and not space exploration. The shuttle program planning began in 1968, but a functional design named Enterprise, thanks to Star Trek fans, wasn't tested until Sept. 17, 1976.

While the fully functional Columbia was delivered in 1979, it didn't launch until April 12, 1981, (the 20-year anniversary of Yuri Gagarin's flight) with the minimal crew of two. Eventually, full crews would consist of seven people. Challenger, Discovery, and Atlantis were delivered to the Kennedy Space Center in summer 1982, late fall 1983, and spring 1985, respectively. After Challenger was destroyed in 1986, Endeavour was built to replace her.

Of 135 space shuttle flights, only two ended with the deaths of astronauts. On Jan. 28, 1986, the Challenger shuttle was launched even though the temperature was the coldest for a launch ever. Likewise, the crew received special attention when it was announced that a civilian, a school teacher named Christa McAuliffe, would be part of the crew.

After the launch, Challenger started to break apart and burn up 73 seconds after launch at an altitude of 46,000 feet, and the crew died when the remains of the shuttle crashed into the ocean. After an investigation, a faulty O-ring that shrank and leaked under cold compression was found to be the cause of the disaster, but another disaster would occur in 2003.

On Feb. 1, 2003, while preparing to land, the heat shielding in the left wing of the Columbia failed from damage sustained at take off. The resulting heat from re-entry destroyed the shuttle, and witnesses reported hearing a loud boom.

At the time, I was in Minnesota, but I watched the coverage closely. Yet, the coverage of the Columbia disaster was a limited event. News channels like CNN covered it for the day, and showed images of the shuttle ablaze. I felt terrible for the incredible astronauts who died on that shuttle and their families, but I gained a new respect for them as well. Risking their lives for the advancement of the human race was a risk worth taking. Even as pieces of the ship fell to Earth, I realized that they lived a life more exciting than almost every other human being, but this tragedy also makes it clear that we need to keep exploring space with humans.

Hopefully, humans will journey to the moon again in the near future and even to Mars. Someday, we will number too many to continue living on this planet, and we have a natural affinity to explore. Human space exploration will not end, but our progress may be slowed if NASA remains underfunded.

View the original article here

Withheld Documents Won't Win NASA Any Friends in Congress (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | The demands of the Senate Commerce Committee for documents from NASA, especially concerning the development of the Space Launch System, and NASA's failure to provide those documents have resulted in a sharply worded letter.

The letter, signed by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the committee, and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, the ranking member, expressed exasperation that NASA has failed to provide the requested documents that are required under the 2010 NASA Authorization Act in order to facilitate congressional oversight of the space agency.

The exasperation was clearly expressed in the second to last paragraph of the letter:

"We regret that NASA appears to be unwilling to cooperate with our efforts to conduct legitimate congressional oversight. Although NASA assured Commerce Committee staff in a May 27, 2011, telephone call that your agency was 'not looking to hide anything,' NASA's failure to provide the requested documents over the past month leaves us no choice but to conclude that NASA does not intend to cooperate with our efforts to make sure that your agency is complying with its duties under the 2010 Act and properly spending taxpayers' dollars."

The last paragraph of the letter contained a threat:

"Unless NASA decides to change its approach to our inquiry and provide the Committee with the materials requested in our May 18 letter by 6:00 p.m. on Monday, June 27, 2011, Chairman Rockefeller will issue you a subpoena for production of these documents."

The letter and the controversy surrounding the document request reflects a growing sense of distrust of NASA by Congress, which appropriates the money that NASA needs to operate. The failure to provide legally required documents to the Senate Commerce Committee suggests one of two possibilities.

One possibility is that NASA is unable to provide those documents. That would bespeak incompetence on an epic scale, since record keeping is something one would think that a government bureaucracy would be good at.

The other possibility is that NASA is stalling and, despite protestations to the contrary, actually has something to hide.

Congress has made its will very clear that it wants the MPCV, formerly known as Orion, and the heavy lift Space Launch System, flying by 2016. Congress may not provide enough funding to make this happen and is as yet ambivalent as to what the new spacecraft's mission is, aside from taking astronauts beyond low Earth orbit to -- somewhere. NASA has in turn been ambivalent as to whether it can build the spacecraft or whether it even intends to, despite the congressional mandate.

The tug of war between Congress and NASA, the direct result of President Obama's cancellation of the Constellation space exploration program, seems about to take an ugly turn. What Congress will do if NASA somehow defies the subpoena is as yet unknown. While the Obama administration could attempt to invoke executive privilege, that would tend to contradict the dictates of the 2010 NASA Authorization Act the president signed into law.

The matter could very well wind up in court for a showdown. It all depends on how far NASA, and by extension the Obama administration, intends to take the matter.

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 L.A. Times, and The Weekly Standard

View the original article here