WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich wants to create a lunar colony that he says could become a U.S. state. There's his grand research plan to figure out what makes the human brain tick. And he's warned about electromagnetic pulse attacks leaving America without electricity.
To some people, these ideas sound like science fiction. But mostly they are not.
Several science policy experts say the former House speaker's ideas are based in mainstream science. But somehow, Gingrich manages to make them sound way out there, taking them first a small step and then a giant leap further than where other politicians have gone.
Gingrich's promise that "by the end of my second term we will have the first permanent base on the moon" got amped up in a recent debate in Florida, which lost thousands of jobs with the end of the space shuttle program. By then, the lunar base had become a colony and even a potential state, and his moon ideas were ridiculed by rival Mitt Romney.
Returning to the moon and building an outpost there is not new. Until three years ago, it was U.S. policy and billions of dollars were spent on that idea.
Staying on the moon dates at least to 1969, when a government committee recommended that NASA first build a winged, reusable space shuttle followed by a space station and then a moon outpost. In 1989, President George H.W. Bush proposed going to the moon and staying there.
Sixteen years later, in 2005, his son, President George W. Bush, proposed a similar lunar outpost, phased out the space shuttle program and spent more than $9 billion designing a return to the moon program.
George Washington University space policy director Scott Pace, who was NASA's associate administrator in the second Bush administration and is a Romney supporter, said the 2020 lunar base date Gingrich mentioned was feasible when it was proposed in 2005.
But it is no longer, felled by funding cuts and President Barack Obama's decision to cancel the program. Pace said it would be hard to figure out when NASA could get back to the moon, but that such a return is doable.
What kept killing return-to-the moon plans were the costs, starting in 1969. The proposal died 20 years later when the price tag was released: more than $700 billion in current dollars. The second President Bush's plans started running into problems due to insufficient funding. After a special commission said those plans were not sustainable, Obama cancelled the return-to-the-moon program. Instead, he ordered NASA to aim astronauts toward an asteroid and eventually Mars, something many space experts say is even more ambitious.
"Some of you may like it and you may dislike it, but I gave the boldest explanation of going into space since John F. Kennedy in 1961," Gingrich said this week in Florida. "I believe in an America of big ideas and big solutions. I believe if we unleash the American people we will rebuild the American dream."
In Florida, nearly all the Republican presidential candidates promoted private companies sending astronauts into space. Several companies are building private spaceships. Commercial space companies taking over the job of getting Americans into low Earth orbit is a cornerstone of the Obama space plan. But, again, money has been an issue.
For example, NASA received $406 million in its current budget for private space programs. Obama had asked Congress for $805 million.
Neal Lane, former head of the National Science Foundation and White House science adviser during the Clinton administration, said Gingrich's proposals aren't crazy, although he may disagree with some of them. Gingrich's ideas and actions are "very pro-science," said Lane, who credited Gingrich with protecting federal science research from budget cuts in the 1990s.
"He's on the edge of mainstream thinking about big science. Except for the idea of establishing a colony on the moon, it's not over the edge," added Syracuse University science policy professor Henry Lambright.
In Iowa, Gingrich pushed a "brain science" initiative that advocates spending more private and federal money to map the human brain to help fight and cure Alzheimer's disease. He said the idea was based on the experience of watching his late mother's transformation from a happy person with friends to living in a long-term care facility suffering from bipolar disease, depression and physical ailments.
Gingrich said his "whole emphasis on brain science" is based on his mother's depression and mental illnesses. Discussing the issue in Iowa, he wiped away a tear, saying: "It's not a theory. It's in fact, my mother."
The idea of mapping the brain to figure out how it works is a traditional scientific approach to a difficult problem. Scientists have tried to conquer disease by mapping the human genome and figuring out the basic biology of cancer, said Arizona State University science policy professor Dan Sarewitz. The trouble is that, in the past, it hasn't paid off as promised, he said.
Gingrich also has raised eyebrows with his dire warnings about the threat of electromagnetic pulses. The fear being that a nuclear bomb detonated hundreds of miles above America could knock out the country's electricity for a long time. In 2009, Gingrich said it "may be the greatest threat we face ... We would in fact lose our civilization in a matter of seconds."
Paul Fischbeck, a professor of engineering and risk at Carnegie Mellon University, said the threat has existed for about a half a century and is real. But "it's getting more likely and more dangerous" as America becomes more electronic-dependent and other countries advance in technology, he said.
Still, it's space where Gingrich dreams biggest and raises the most eyebrows.
Much of the criticism of his space plans, especially in the media, have been unfair, said Alan Stern, NASA's space sciences chief during George W. Bush's administration. He said Gingrich is just thinking big, like a pioneer.
"That's how 'Star Trek' begins," said Stern, vice president of the Southwest Research Institute and director of the Florida Space Institute. "But when a government guy or politician talks that way, they just get clobbered about being unrealistic and that's unfortunate."
___
Associated Press writer Shannon McCaffrey in Florida contributed to this report.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
The Great Decline---by Freind
OPINION
Freind: Far out! Newt Gingrich Is Right to Shoot for the Moon
Published: Tuesday, January 31, 2012
0digg
0
By CHRIS FREIND,
Times Guest Columnist
Click to enlarge
In May 1963, the astronaut sitting atop the Mercury-Atlas rocket “went higher, farther, and faster than any other American … for a brief moment, Gordo Cooper became the greatest pilot anyone had ever seen.” So were the ending words of The Right Stuff, an incredibly inspirational film that followed the brave exploits of America’s space pioneers, as chronicled in Tom Wolfe’s famous book of the same title.
Heroes they were: Chuck Yeager, Alan Shepard, John Glenn, Neil Armstrong and all the others who volunteered to charge into the unknown, routinely working on projects that more often resembled suicide missions than scientific research. While they garnered glory and headlines, these men were deeply driven by something far more important: the opportunity to put America on top in the space race, and in doing so, become part of arguably the most exciting time in all of civilization. These explorers opened the door to the final frontier, an astounding achievement that taught the whole of humankind that no dreams were too big, and that men and women could aspire to do things greater than themselves. They literally made true the can-do spirit that “the sky is the limit.”
But their road was paved with ridicule and doubt. Just years before these men—and the countless unsung heroes at NASA—achieved the impossible, their ambitions were considered folly. Putting a man in space? Pure science fiction. Landing on the moon? Unthinkable, unattainable, unwise. Reaching for the stars? Grow up.
Yet a mere 58 years after the Wright brothers first took flight, America put those cynics out to pasture as Shepard blasted into the record books, with Armstrong later taking the greatest “step” in human history.
In addition to the lofty goals of exploring worlds beyond our own, the space race fostered something else: a fierce sense of nationalism that unleashed America’s competitive spirit as never before. And for good reason. The Reds beat us into orbit, hell-bent on dominating outer space. From that point, it was “game on.” And you know what? We won. Repeated trips to the moon, deep-space probes, interplanetary missions, permanently manned space stations, and newly discovered technologies that later benefitted Americans in every aspect of their lives.
That undisputed American leadership was as bold as it was purpose-driven, the result of generations inspired to study mathematics and science like never before, all for the opportunity to do things no one else had ever done—to be on the cutting edge not just of technology, but of humanity.
The United States still had its problems, of course, but there was never the slightest doubt that it would continue to achieve unparalleled greatness as the most benevolent nation the world had ever known. From attaining civil rights for all its citizens to being the beacon of hope for oppressed peoples the world over—and yes, to push the envelope in space—America embodied the spirit that it would always be on an upward trajectory. Mediocrity, timidness—and fear itself—were not part of the American vocabulary, and dreams were simply visions soon to be realized.
But somewhere along the way, we lost that spirit. And oh how things have changed.
Now we find ourselves in the midst of The Great Decline—a situation we have brought upon ourselves—slogging through a tragedy that only seems to be accelerating.
We haven’t been back to the moon to unlock its vast secrets in nearly four decades. We have all but abandoned plans for a manned mission to Mars. And most telling, we no longer possess any means of transporting Americans into space, instead relying on the Russians to get us to the (misnamed) International Space Station—you remember, the one America engineered, constructed, financed and put into orbit. Yes, the same one that the Ruskies have decided to eventually abandon, allowing it to fall back to Earth as a crumbling fireball, a once-proud testament to American ingenuity vaporizing right before our very eyes. The symbolism of America’s fate is sickening in its reality.
Freind: Far out! Newt Gingrich Is Right to Shoot for the Moon
Published: Tuesday, January 31, 2012
0digg
0
By CHRIS FREIND,
Times Guest Columnist
Click to enlarge
In May 1963, the astronaut sitting atop the Mercury-Atlas rocket “went higher, farther, and faster than any other American … for a brief moment, Gordo Cooper became the greatest pilot anyone had ever seen.” So were the ending words of The Right Stuff, an incredibly inspirational film that followed the brave exploits of America’s space pioneers, as chronicled in Tom Wolfe’s famous book of the same title.
Heroes they were: Chuck Yeager, Alan Shepard, John Glenn, Neil Armstrong and all the others who volunteered to charge into the unknown, routinely working on projects that more often resembled suicide missions than scientific research. While they garnered glory and headlines, these men were deeply driven by something far more important: the opportunity to put America on top in the space race, and in doing so, become part of arguably the most exciting time in all of civilization. These explorers opened the door to the final frontier, an astounding achievement that taught the whole of humankind that no dreams were too big, and that men and women could aspire to do things greater than themselves. They literally made true the can-do spirit that “the sky is the limit.”
But their road was paved with ridicule and doubt. Just years before these men—and the countless unsung heroes at NASA—achieved the impossible, their ambitions were considered folly. Putting a man in space? Pure science fiction. Landing on the moon? Unthinkable, unattainable, unwise. Reaching for the stars? Grow up.
Yet a mere 58 years after the Wright brothers first took flight, America put those cynics out to pasture as Shepard blasted into the record books, with Armstrong later taking the greatest “step” in human history.
In addition to the lofty goals of exploring worlds beyond our own, the space race fostered something else: a fierce sense of nationalism that unleashed America’s competitive spirit as never before. And for good reason. The Reds beat us into orbit, hell-bent on dominating outer space. From that point, it was “game on.” And you know what? We won. Repeated trips to the moon, deep-space probes, interplanetary missions, permanently manned space stations, and newly discovered technologies that later benefitted Americans in every aspect of their lives.
That undisputed American leadership was as bold as it was purpose-driven, the result of generations inspired to study mathematics and science like never before, all for the opportunity to do things no one else had ever done—to be on the cutting edge not just of technology, but of humanity.
The United States still had its problems, of course, but there was never the slightest doubt that it would continue to achieve unparalleled greatness as the most benevolent nation the world had ever known. From attaining civil rights for all its citizens to being the beacon of hope for oppressed peoples the world over—and yes, to push the envelope in space—America embodied the spirit that it would always be on an upward trajectory. Mediocrity, timidness—and fear itself—were not part of the American vocabulary, and dreams were simply visions soon to be realized.
But somewhere along the way, we lost that spirit. And oh how things have changed.
Now we find ourselves in the midst of The Great Decline—a situation we have brought upon ourselves—slogging through a tragedy that only seems to be accelerating.
We haven’t been back to the moon to unlock its vast secrets in nearly four decades. We have all but abandoned plans for a manned mission to Mars. And most telling, we no longer possess any means of transporting Americans into space, instead relying on the Russians to get us to the (misnamed) International Space Station—you remember, the one America engineered, constructed, financed and put into orbit. Yes, the same one that the Ruskies have decided to eventually abandon, allowing it to fall back to Earth as a crumbling fireball, a once-proud testament to American ingenuity vaporizing right before our very eyes. The symbolism of America’s fate is sickening in its reality.
Soyus delay
Launch of Space Station Crews Delayed 45 Days
RIA Novosti
The launch of two new crews to the International Space Station (ISS) will be postponed by about 45 days over the need to build a reserve capsule, a Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos) official said on Tuesday. It was earlier announced that three new crew members - Gennady Padalka, Sergei Revin and Joseph Acaba - were scheduled to launch on March 30 and dock two days later, bringing the station’s crew back up to six. However, the launch was delayed over faults in the capsule’s assembly.
Soyuz probe might shake up ISS plans
Todd Halvorson - Florida Today
An investigation into a Soyuz spacecraft test failure could prompt delays in the launches of new crews to the International Space Station, but officials expect to maintain full staffing on the outpost nonetheless. The six astronauts and cosmonauts now aboard the station all launched about two months later than initially planned. So their stays can be extended, officials said. The Soyuz spacecraft they flew to the station are certified to remain at the outpost through May and early July, respectively.
NASA
RIA Novosti
The launch of two new crews to the International Space Station (ISS) will be postponed by about 45 days over the need to build a reserve capsule, a Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos) official said on Tuesday. It was earlier announced that three new crew members - Gennady Padalka, Sergei Revin and Joseph Acaba - were scheduled to launch on March 30 and dock two days later, bringing the station’s crew back up to six. However, the launch was delayed over faults in the capsule’s assembly.
Soyuz probe might shake up ISS plans
Todd Halvorson - Florida Today
An investigation into a Soyuz spacecraft test failure could prompt delays in the launches of new crews to the International Space Station, but officials expect to maintain full staffing on the outpost nonetheless. The six astronauts and cosmonauts now aboard the station all launched about two months later than initially planned. So their stays can be extended, officials said. The Soyuz spacecraft they flew to the station are certified to remain at the outpost through May and early July, respectively.
NASA
Put Americas space team back to work--Restart Shuttle
I am amazed more people aren't bringing this up including some presidential candidates.
The shuttle is perfectly capable and America needs it. Why doesn't this jump out at people as an obvious and correct approach that makes sense. This decision can be reversed.
The shuttle can be used for exploration when the budget allows. Read The Case to Save the Shuttle. Why are placing a perfectly good vehicle in a museum, one that we have expended hundreds of billions on. It is one of the country's worst decisions.
It must be reversed.
The shuttle is perfectly capable and America needs it. Why doesn't this jump out at people as an obvious and correct approach that makes sense. This decision can be reversed.
The shuttle can be used for exploration when the budget allows. Read The Case to Save the Shuttle. Why are placing a perfectly good vehicle in a museum, one that we have expended hundreds of billions on. It is one of the country's worst decisions.
It must be reversed.
Monday, January 30, 2012
A Bold Vision that makes Sense, Puts Shuttle Team back to work and Maintains USA Space Supremacy
A radical idea---fly shuttle---use it to implement orderly plan for moon colony
The capability is available, shuttle and facilities paid for, all we have to do is operate it, design upper stages for moon as the budget will support.
Besides that we can support ISS, Hubble, make design improvements to shuttle and save money by having USA operate shuttle.
The Case to Save the Shuttle, On the Early Retirement of Shuttle, and the Nonsensical Retirement of the Shuttle cover the key points.
Continue commercial crew effort with prizes as determined by the presidents space council.
Additional bonus, puts our talented technical team back to work.
The capability is available, shuttle and facilities paid for, all we have to do is operate it, design upper stages for moon as the budget will support.
Besides that we can support ISS, Hubble, make design improvements to shuttle and save money by having USA operate shuttle.
The Case to Save the Shuttle, On the Early Retirement of Shuttle, and the Nonsensical Retirement of the Shuttle cover the key points.
Continue commercial crew effort with prizes as determined by the presidents space council.
Additional bonus, puts our talented technical team back to work.
Candidates short sighted on space---as is Obama/bolden/garver
Candidates short-sighted on space
John Kelly - Florida Today (Viewpoint)
The good news: Presidential candidates are paying attention to space as they campaign in Florida.
The bad news? The candidates who have plans are short on details. Some consider space exploration a luxury we can’t afford. Most, and maybe all, of the candidates don’t have even a loose grasp on United States space policy.
Let’s hope nobody is casting their vote for president based solely on space issues. But, if your vote might be influenced, here’s what we’ve heard from each candidate, plus some reality checking.
Newt Gingrich gave space the most attention. Recent presidents and NASA leaders are being too timid. While saying he agrees with the current White House policy to invest money to spur private space companies’ developments, he’s also pitching a big, bodacious, expensive Apollo-esque plan that could potentially cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.
Gingrich pledged to shake up the NASA bureaucracy, speed development and colonize the moon by the end of his second term — 2020. He said he’d focus scientists and engineers on propulsion technology that would make trips to Mars possible. Ten percent of NASA’s budget would go to prizes that would spur private developers to help overcome the big hurdles to deep space travel.
The details are shaky. That grand a plan, at Gingrich’s pace, costs big bucks. No U.S. president since John F. Kennedy has gotten Congress to devote truckloads of cash to space exploration. Gingrich said he would use political capital to force Congress to go along. He also suggested the private sector could be enticed to foot a big part of the bill.
Problem: He hasn’t said how he’d pull off either.
Mike McCulley, ex-astronaut and former chief executive of United Space Alliance noted the U.S. has what seemed like bold space plans under past presidents. Over the course of President George W. Bush’s second term and President Barack Obama’s first term, after tens of billions of dollars spent, “eight years later, we don’t have a helluva lot to show for it.” What McCulley meant: Big space goals aren’t met just by grandiose speeches.
Mitt Romney called Gingrich’s plan to colonize the moon a waste of tax money. Romney says he would gather leaders from NASA, the military, private companies and academia to study NASA priorities. “I'd like to come together and talk about different options and the cost,” he said. In short, he has no plan. The U.S. doesn’t need another blue-ribbon task force to repeat the paralysis by analysis of the past eight years. Likely end: another dust-gathering study and little to show for it.
Ron Paul voted repeatedly against space projects while in Congress. In Thursday’s debate, he reiterated his position. “I would be very reluctant” to invest in human exploration, he said, “but space technology should be followed up to some degree for national defense purposes, but not just for the fun of it.”
Rick Santorum characterized space exploration as an expensive luxury. “The idea that anybody's going out and talking about brand new, very expensive schemes to spend more money at a time when we do not have our fiscal house in order, in my opinion, is playing crass politics and not being realistic with the people of this country as to the nature and gravity of the problem,” Santorum said this past week.
He added: “NASA and the Space Coast and Houston, Alabama, all of those places that have done remarkable work are huge assets to the country, but there are other huge assets in the country too.” So, expect a President Santorum to scale back space spending
John Kelly - Florida Today (Viewpoint)
The good news: Presidential candidates are paying attention to space as they campaign in Florida.
The bad news? The candidates who have plans are short on details. Some consider space exploration a luxury we can’t afford. Most, and maybe all, of the candidates don’t have even a loose grasp on United States space policy.
Let’s hope nobody is casting their vote for president based solely on space issues. But, if your vote might be influenced, here’s what we’ve heard from each candidate, plus some reality checking.
Newt Gingrich gave space the most attention. Recent presidents and NASA leaders are being too timid. While saying he agrees with the current White House policy to invest money to spur private space companies’ developments, he’s also pitching a big, bodacious, expensive Apollo-esque plan that could potentially cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.
Gingrich pledged to shake up the NASA bureaucracy, speed development and colonize the moon by the end of his second term — 2020. He said he’d focus scientists and engineers on propulsion technology that would make trips to Mars possible. Ten percent of NASA’s budget would go to prizes that would spur private developers to help overcome the big hurdles to deep space travel.
The details are shaky. That grand a plan, at Gingrich’s pace, costs big bucks. No U.S. president since John F. Kennedy has gotten Congress to devote truckloads of cash to space exploration. Gingrich said he would use political capital to force Congress to go along. He also suggested the private sector could be enticed to foot a big part of the bill.
Problem: He hasn’t said how he’d pull off either.
Mike McCulley, ex-astronaut and former chief executive of United Space Alliance noted the U.S. has what seemed like bold space plans under past presidents. Over the course of President George W. Bush’s second term and President Barack Obama’s first term, after tens of billions of dollars spent, “eight years later, we don’t have a helluva lot to show for it.” What McCulley meant: Big space goals aren’t met just by grandiose speeches.
Mitt Romney called Gingrich’s plan to colonize the moon a waste of tax money. Romney says he would gather leaders from NASA, the military, private companies and academia to study NASA priorities. “I'd like to come together and talk about different options and the cost,” he said. In short, he has no plan. The U.S. doesn’t need another blue-ribbon task force to repeat the paralysis by analysis of the past eight years. Likely end: another dust-gathering study and little to show for it.
Ron Paul voted repeatedly against space projects while in Congress. In Thursday’s debate, he reiterated his position. “I would be very reluctant” to invest in human exploration, he said, “but space technology should be followed up to some degree for national defense purposes, but not just for the fun of it.”
Rick Santorum characterized space exploration as an expensive luxury. “The idea that anybody's going out and talking about brand new, very expensive schemes to spend more money at a time when we do not have our fiscal house in order, in my opinion, is playing crass politics and not being realistic with the people of this country as to the nature and gravity of the problem,” Santorum said this past week.
He added: “NASA and the Space Coast and Houston, Alabama, all of those places that have done remarkable work are huge assets to the country, but there are other huge assets in the country too.” So, expect a President Santorum to scale back space spending
Romney position on space
Endorsement letter full text
ROMNEY WILL RESTORE AMERICA’S SPACE PROGRAM
The U.S. space program is a strategic national asset, which makes critical contributions to our scientific knowledge, technological innovation, economic competitiveness, national security, and international leadership. We have watched with dismay as President Obama dismantled the structure that was guiding both the government and commercial space sectors, while providing no purpose or vision or mission. This failure of leadership has thrust the space program into disarray and triggered a dangerous erosion of our technical workforce and capabilities. In short, we have a space program unworthy of a great nation.
Restoring the U.S. space program to greatness will require the leadership, management skill, and commitment to American exceptionalism possessed by only one candidate in this race: Mitt Romney. We support Mitt’s candidacy and believe that his approach to space policy will produce results instead of empty promises. As his long record of success in both the private and public sectors attests, Mitt will do more than provide our space program with an inspiring vision and mission of exploration. He will also set aggressive yet achievable goals, adhere to realistic budgets, and execute on a carefully drawn plan.
As president, Mitt Romney will facilitate close collaboration not only within the government’s civil and national security space sectors, but also with the private sector and with research institutions. He will create conditions for a strong and competitive commercial space industry that can contribute greatly to our national capabilities and goals. And he will ensure that NASA returns its focus to the project of manned space exploration that uniquely affirms American strength and values around the globe. Under his leadership, America will once again lead the world in space.
Scott Pace, Chair of the Romney Space Policy Advisory Group
Director, Space Policy Institute, The Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University
Former Assistant Director for Space and Aeronautics, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
Mark Albrecht
Chairman of the Board, USSpace
Former Executive Secretary, National Space Council
Eric Anderson
Chairman and CEO, Space Adventures
Chairman, Commercial Spaceflight Federation
Gene Cernan
Commander, Apollo XVII
Bob Crippen
Pilot, First Space Shuttle Mission
Former Director, NASA Space Shuttle Program
Michael Griffin
Former NASA Administrator
Former Head of the Space Department, The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
Peter Marquez
Former Director of Space Policy, National Security Council
Former Director of Special Programs, Department of Defense
William Martel
Associate Professor of International Security Studies, The Fletcher School at Tufts University
Former Alan B. Shepard Chair of Space Technology and Policy Studies, Naval War College
ROMNEY WILL RESTORE AMERICA’S SPACE PROGRAM
The U.S. space program is a strategic national asset, which makes critical contributions to our scientific knowledge, technological innovation, economic competitiveness, national security, and international leadership. We have watched with dismay as President Obama dismantled the structure that was guiding both the government and commercial space sectors, while providing no purpose or vision or mission. This failure of leadership has thrust the space program into disarray and triggered a dangerous erosion of our technical workforce and capabilities. In short, we have a space program unworthy of a great nation.
Restoring the U.S. space program to greatness will require the leadership, management skill, and commitment to American exceptionalism possessed by only one candidate in this race: Mitt Romney. We support Mitt’s candidacy and believe that his approach to space policy will produce results instead of empty promises. As his long record of success in both the private and public sectors attests, Mitt will do more than provide our space program with an inspiring vision and mission of exploration. He will also set aggressive yet achievable goals, adhere to realistic budgets, and execute on a carefully drawn plan.
As president, Mitt Romney will facilitate close collaboration not only within the government’s civil and national security space sectors, but also with the private sector and with research institutions. He will create conditions for a strong and competitive commercial space industry that can contribute greatly to our national capabilities and goals. And he will ensure that NASA returns its focus to the project of manned space exploration that uniquely affirms American strength and values around the globe. Under his leadership, America will once again lead the world in space.
Scott Pace, Chair of the Romney Space Policy Advisory Group
Director, Space Policy Institute, The Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University
Former Assistant Director for Space and Aeronautics, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
Mark Albrecht
Chairman of the Board, USSpace
Former Executive Secretary, National Space Council
Eric Anderson
Chairman and CEO, Space Adventures
Chairman, Commercial Spaceflight Federation
Gene Cernan
Commander, Apollo XVII
Bob Crippen
Pilot, First Space Shuttle Mission
Former Director, NASA Space Shuttle Program
Michael Griffin
Former NASA Administrator
Former Head of the Space Department, The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
Peter Marquez
Former Director of Space Policy, National Security Council
Former Director of Special Programs, Department of Defense
William Martel
Associate Professor of International Security Studies, The Fletcher School at Tufts University
Former Alan B. Shepard Chair of Space Technology and Policy Studies, Naval War College
Now we are in trouble --where is the Shuttle the ASAP put in Trash-- what a bunch of IDIOTS
NASA safety watchdogs are warning that continued underfunding of the agency’s commercial crew initiative could put astronauts at risk by increasing the temptation to cut corners in order to end U.S. dependence on Russia for accessing the international space station (ISS).
Under the 2012 budget Congress enacted late last year, NASA will get less than half of the $850 million it requested to put at least two U.S. firms under contract this year to develop privately operated crew taxis.
In a report released Jan. 25, the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) — an outside group of experts chartered to sniff out NASA safety problems and recommend changes — says the $406 million Congress approved will not allow commercial crew transportation to the ISS by 2016.
“In fact, if the new funding level continues into the future, it is the ASAP’s belief that the program is in jeopardy, thus extending the current lack of a U.S. human spaceflight capability and resulting in no alternative to reliance on Russia to obtain access to the ISS,” the ASAP wrote in its annual report.
While the ASAP praised Russia’s efforts to return its venerable Soyuz crew capsule to flight last fall following an August launch failure that destroyed a station-bound Progress cargo vessel, the panel noted its concern about continued U.S. reliance on Soyuz — a 40-year-old system, it said, “with an uncertain long-term future.”
NASA, seeking to end that dependence, is preparing to solicit proposals for a two-year effort to prepare competing astronaut transportation concepts for production.
But the ASAP points out that NASA managers are worried about commercial crew funding going forward and consider “inadequate budget” to be “the top program risk.”
In ASAP’s view, an inadequately funded commercial crew program threatens more than just spacecraft development timelines; it could also compromise safety.
“The ASAP considers the lack of a credible and appropriately funded plan to develop a U.S. capability to launch its astronauts to the ISS to be an issue with significant safety implications,” the report says. “If the development program is continued without adequate funding, it will increase the likelihood that safety-related testing and modifications to correct any design deficiencies would not be made.”
The ASAP also took issue with NASA’s abrupt about-face on the use of Space Act Agreements for the next phase of the commercial crew development program, known at the time as CCDev. NASA disappointed would-be commercial crew providers last summer when it announced it would award conventional fixed-price contracts, rather than more-flexible Space Act Agreements, for the next round of CCDev awards. But after Congress halved the Commercial Crew Program’s budget request in November, NASA announced Dec. 21 it would stick with Space Act Agreements.
“Previously, NASA had made a strong safety case for using conventional contracting on the next phase of the CCDev Program, an approach that was viewed as well reasoned and appropriate by the ASAP,” the report says. “The ASAP acknowledges NASA’s assertion that the change is primarily driven by funding uncertainties and the need to maintain more than one provider for commercial crew transportation services. However, we believe that the sudden change in acquisition strategy in an effort to salvage the [Commercial Crew Program] may have significantly increased the risk to safety that the previous plan had begun to address.”
The ASAP report also flagged the international space station as an area of special concern. The panel said NASA managers had not yet shared a plan for safely deorbiting the outpost if it had to be abandoned before its planned end of life in 2020.
Citing a briefing it received from NASA in May, the ASAP said the odds of a mission loss at some point in the space station’s remaining on-orbit life are greater than 30 percent. A loss of mission, ASAP warned, might force NASA and its international partners to abandon the station, never to return.
“One cannot escape the conclusion that the risk of an ISS [loss of mission] is more than an outside possibility,” ASAP wrote. “While this possibility has been known for some time, NASA has not yet shared with the Panel an explicit plan to deal with this situation.”
The report urges NASA to begin seriously considering how to safely deorbit the 400 metric-ton space station.
Under the 2012 budget Congress enacted late last year, NASA will get less than half of the $850 million it requested to put at least two U.S. firms under contract this year to develop privately operated crew taxis.
In a report released Jan. 25, the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) — an outside group of experts chartered to sniff out NASA safety problems and recommend changes — says the $406 million Congress approved will not allow commercial crew transportation to the ISS by 2016.
“In fact, if the new funding level continues into the future, it is the ASAP’s belief that the program is in jeopardy, thus extending the current lack of a U.S. human spaceflight capability and resulting in no alternative to reliance on Russia to obtain access to the ISS,” the ASAP wrote in its annual report.
While the ASAP praised Russia’s efforts to return its venerable Soyuz crew capsule to flight last fall following an August launch failure that destroyed a station-bound Progress cargo vessel, the panel noted its concern about continued U.S. reliance on Soyuz — a 40-year-old system, it said, “with an uncertain long-term future.”
NASA, seeking to end that dependence, is preparing to solicit proposals for a two-year effort to prepare competing astronaut transportation concepts for production.
But the ASAP points out that NASA managers are worried about commercial crew funding going forward and consider “inadequate budget” to be “the top program risk.”
In ASAP’s view, an inadequately funded commercial crew program threatens more than just spacecraft development timelines; it could also compromise safety.
“The ASAP considers the lack of a credible and appropriately funded plan to develop a U.S. capability to launch its astronauts to the ISS to be an issue with significant safety implications,” the report says. “If the development program is continued without adequate funding, it will increase the likelihood that safety-related testing and modifications to correct any design deficiencies would not be made.”
The ASAP also took issue with NASA’s abrupt about-face on the use of Space Act Agreements for the next phase of the commercial crew development program, known at the time as CCDev. NASA disappointed would-be commercial crew providers last summer when it announced it would award conventional fixed-price contracts, rather than more-flexible Space Act Agreements, for the next round of CCDev awards. But after Congress halved the Commercial Crew Program’s budget request in November, NASA announced Dec. 21 it would stick with Space Act Agreements.
“Previously, NASA had made a strong safety case for using conventional contracting on the next phase of the CCDev Program, an approach that was viewed as well reasoned and appropriate by the ASAP,” the report says. “The ASAP acknowledges NASA’s assertion that the change is primarily driven by funding uncertainties and the need to maintain more than one provider for commercial crew transportation services. However, we believe that the sudden change in acquisition strategy in an effort to salvage the [Commercial Crew Program] may have significantly increased the risk to safety that the previous plan had begun to address.”
The ASAP report also flagged the international space station as an area of special concern. The panel said NASA managers had not yet shared a plan for safely deorbiting the outpost if it had to be abandoned before its planned end of life in 2020.
Citing a briefing it received from NASA in May, the ASAP said the odds of a mission loss at some point in the space station’s remaining on-orbit life are greater than 30 percent. A loss of mission, ASAP warned, might force NASA and its international partners to abandon the station, never to return.
“One cannot escape the conclusion that the risk of an ISS [loss of mission] is more than an outside possibility,” ASAP wrote. “While this possibility has been known for some time, NASA has not yet shared with the Panel an explicit plan to deal with this situation.”
The report urges NASA to begin seriously considering how to safely deorbit the 400 metric-ton space station.
Drastic Mistake------Glenn on shuttle retirement
Newt Gingrich’s goal to establish a permanent moon base by 2020 if he is elected president would be costly and shouldn’t be the space program’s focus, said John Glenn, the first U.S. astronaut to orbit Earth. “Sometime we’ll go to the moon, but I think to have a lunar colony by 2020 is optimistic to say the least,” Glenn, 90, said by telephone from Columbus, Ohio. Glenn said he doubts the cost of a permanent base had been thought out in the middle of the political season, especially the expense of maintaining a colony. He called President George W. Bush’s decision to end the space shuttle program “a drastic mistake” and said the U.S. should be focusing on the boosters needed to reach the International Space Station.
We know we can work miracles together--QUEEN of SCIENCE FICTION Approach to Earth Orbit
We know we can work miracles together—-Reliable Shuttle in Museum–Brilliant
QUEEN of Science fiction approach—KEY Obama ADVISOR!!
Note her education—-B of ARTS in Politics & Economics, M of ARTS in Science, technology & public policy.
This is who the president is listening to.
Sounds like a really rigorous scientific education.
She helped get the shuttle in the museum and wants to work miracles.
The commercial approach has been largely science fiction per Lori Garver, however, she said together we can work miracles together. Interesting, the ASAP, CAIB have been very critical of shuttle safety , but in the case of the low budget CC be interesting to how they perceive the rigor of cots manned rating. The people leading the agency today do not understand what is involved in flying a manned vehicle. The ASAP will have to make significant adjustments to their requirements for giving the stamp of approval of the science fiction approaches.
Unfortunately, astronauts will pay dearly for the lack of NASA management knowledge of the required disciplines in manned spacecraft development.
As everyone will soon discover, the manned rating criteria used for Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and Shuttle are not remotely comparable to those of the commercial crew vehicles.
The results/conclusions of the upcoming Accident Board will be interesting
Of course if you look at the experience and eduction of NASA leading proponent of the commercial approach to earth orbit, one can understand how NASA arrived at this point in manned spaceflight. Brings home the warnings of a former NASA official–”reliance on hope over experience ” as discussed in NASA plan puts America at Risk.
Maybe the critics are right, since America is broke , and we may cause loss of life the way we are heading, the shuttles are “not unsafe” but ” not safe”, we could use money for space for the poor and needy in the USA and around the world. After all, most don’t think we need to go to space, most don’t think we need Hubble or JWT .
Just kidding, let’s get shuttle flying and return to the moon.
Lori Beth Garver (born May 22, 1961 in Lansing, Michigan) is the Deputy Administratorof the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). She was nominated on May 24, 2009, by President Barack Obama, along with Charles Bolden as NASA Administrator.[1] She was confirmed by the United States Senate by unanimous consent on July 15, 2009.[2][3][4][5]
Garver was the lead civil space policy advisor for Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign and led the agency review team for NASA during the post-election transition. She worked at NASA from 1996–2001, first as a special assistant to the NASA administrator and senior policy analyst for the Office of Policy and Plans, and then as the Associate Administrator for the Office of Policy and Plans.[6][7]
Contents [hide]
1 Early life and education
2 Career
3 NASA career
4 References
5 External links
[edit]Early life and education
Lori Garver was born in Lansing, Michigan on May 22, 1961, and she graduated fromHaslett High School in Haslett, Michigan in 1979. In 1983, she earned a Bachelor of Artsdegree in political science and economics from Colorado College. While working for Senator John Glenn from 1983–1984, she became interested in space, and went on to earn a Master of Arts degree in science, technology and public policy from the George Washington University in 1989.[6][8]
[edit]Career
During her career, Lori Garver worked in the nonprofit, government and commercial sectors. Garver has held advocacy roles for space exploration as a member of the NASA Advisory Council, a guest lecturer at the International Space University,[9] president and board member of Women in Aerospace, and president of the American Astronautical Society.[6][9]She was awarded both the NASA Distinguished Public Service Medal, and the NASA Distinguished Service Medal.[10]
Garver served as the second Executive Director of the National Space Society, a non-profit space organization based in Washington, D.C. for nine years, leaving the organization in 1998.[11] From 1998–2001, she served as the Associate Administrator of the Office of Policy and Plans for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.[12] Reporting directly to the NASA Administrator, she managed the analysis, development, and integration of NASA policies and long-range plans, the NASA Strategic Management System, the NASA Advisory Council, and the History Division. Prior to this appointment, Garver served as a Senior Policy Analyst for the Office of Policy and Plans, and Special Assistant to the Administrator.[13][14]
In 2001–2002, Garver initiated a project to increase the visibility and viability of commercial spaceflight. While providing support to a client who was paying for a trip to space, she attempted to secure her own sponsored space flight aboard the Russian Soyuz vehicle to the International Space Station. She worked to secure sponsorship funding as she began the initial medical certification and training in Star City, Russia.[13][15] The effort ended because of a conflicting bid from another prospective space tourist.[16]
Garver was the President of Capital Space, LLC, and served as a Senior Advisor for Space at the Avascent Group, based inWashington, D.C. She served as Vice President of DFI Corporate Services (the predecessor organization to the Avascent Group) from 2001–2003.[13][14] In these roles, Garver provided strategic planning, technology feasibility research and business development assistance. She also gave merger, acquisition, and strategic alliance support to financial institutions and Fortune 500 companies in many industries.
Garver served as a lead space policy advisor for the Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry campaigns for president.[17][18][19] In November 2008, she was named to lead the Obama Presidential Transition Agency Review Team for NASA.[20][21]
[edit]NASA career
Garver’s confirmation as deputy administrator marks the second time she has worked for NASA. Her first period of service to the agency was from 1996 to 2001. She first served as a special assistant to the NASA administrator and senior policy analyst for the Office of Policy and Plans, before becoming the associate administrator for the Office of Policy and Plans. Reporting to the NASA administrator, she oversaw the analysis, development and integration of policies and long-range plans, the NASA Strategic Management System, and the NASA Advisory Council.[6]
In June 2010, she addressed the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, and signed an Earth science satellite agreement.[22] She has participated in several NASA launch Tweetups.[23] In May 2011, she joined NASA scientists to participate in a field campaign studying how dust affects the snow cover in the Colorado River Basin. The team visited dust emission sites in the deserts of Utah and then snowpits in the Colorado mountains to learn how dust layers might help predict snow melt.[24]
[edit]References
Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Lori Garver
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
WikiProject NASA
^ KENNETH CHANG (May 23, 2009). ”Retired General Picked to Lead NASA”. The New York Times.
LAS CRUCES, N.M. — For NASA to achieve any of its lofty goals for the future, the commercial space industry must succeed, NASA deputy administrator Lori Garver said.
The space agency has bet big that private spaceships will be ready to carry cargo and astronauts to orbit soon. The future of the International Space Station, as well as the future of NASA’s robotic science missions and human deep space ambitions, depend on that outcome, Garver said yesterday (Oct. 20) here at theInternational Symposium for Personal and Commercial Spaceflight.
“In order to make good on the entire plan, it is this part of the plan that must be successful,” Garver said.
After 30 years of carrying astronauts into low-Earth orbit, NASA retired its space shuttle program earlier this year.
How To Patent Your Idea www.InventionHome.comGet Free Patent Info & Book Today We Can Help Your Idea Succeed!”Shocking” Horoscopes www.PremiumAstrology.comWhat Does 2012 Have In Store For You? Shockingly Accurate. See Free!Singapore is Future-Ready www.SEDB.com/Future-ReadySet to Become a Global Hydrohub. We are Innovating for the Future!Ads by Google
“Contrary to what you might have heard, that marks the beginning, not the end,” Garver said. “With the support of the President and Congress, NASA has made a renewed commitment to human spaceflight.”
One leg of that commitment is a plan to build a new heavy-lift rocket (called the Space Launch System) and a deep-space crew capsule (called the Multi Purpose Crew Vehicle) to take people first to an asteroid and then on to Mars.
But in order for NASA to devote its resources to that ambitious pursuit, private industry must take over transportation to low-Earth orbit and the International Space Station, Garver said. [Top 10 Fantasy Spaceships Headed for Reality]
NASA and its partners plan to operate the space station through at least 2020, but without the space shuttle, Russia’s Soyuz spacecraft is the only means of getting there. Until commercial spacecraft are ready, NASA must rent rides on the Soyuz for its astronauts.
For fiscal year 2012, NASA requested $850 million to devote to its Commercial Crew Development Program, which supports the development of these private vehicles.
The agency hopes to end its outsourcing to Russia by the year 2016, but “if we don’t get full funding in 2012, this is at risk,” Garver said. That could prove costly down the line. “One additional year from the Russians will cost us $450 million,” she added.
The agency gave four private space companies — Blue Origin, Sierra Nevada, SpaceX and Boeing — contracts under the most recent phase of the Commercial Crew Development Program. SpaceX, alone among the group, has already launched a test flight to orbit of its prototype spacecraft.
Still, Garver acknowledged that getting the private space industry off the ground isn’t easy.
“Many of us are frustrated that we have not been able to advance this agenda faster,” she said.
She also cited resistance from some within the space industry, particularly those who benefitted from NASA’s previous contracting methods and now oppose the government turning over the domain of low-Earth orbit to the private sector.
“The establishment typically doesn’t give away their own power and control readily without a fight,” Garver said.
Yet the issue is complicated, as many players in the traditional space establishment are the same private companies involved in the new commercial space renaissance.
Ultimately, though, Garver said that NASA’s encouragement of the commercial space industry will result in lowered costs, greater capabilities, and a more robust American space program overall.
“Together we’re developing an industry that until recently had largely been science fiction,” she said. “We know we can work miracles together.”
You can follow SPACE.com Senior Writer Clara Moskowitz on Twitter @ClaraMoskowitz. Follow SPACE.com for the latest in space science and exploration news on Twitter @Spacedotcom and onFacebook.
Sent from my iPad
Posted by keeptheshuttleflying.com at 7:39 PM 0 comments
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
QUEEN of Science fiction approach—KEY Obama ADVISOR!!
Note her education—-B of ARTS in Politics & Economics, M of ARTS in Science, technology & public policy.
This is who the president is listening to.
Sounds like a really rigorous scientific education.
She helped get the shuttle in the museum and wants to work miracles.
The commercial approach has been largely science fiction per Lori Garver, however, she said together we can work miracles together. Interesting, the ASAP, CAIB have been very critical of shuttle safety , but in the case of the low budget CC be interesting to how they perceive the rigor of cots manned rating. The people leading the agency today do not understand what is involved in flying a manned vehicle. The ASAP will have to make significant adjustments to their requirements for giving the stamp of approval of the science fiction approaches.
Unfortunately, astronauts will pay dearly for the lack of NASA management knowledge of the required disciplines in manned spacecraft development.
As everyone will soon discover, the manned rating criteria used for Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and Shuttle are not remotely comparable to those of the commercial crew vehicles.
The results/conclusions of the upcoming Accident Board will be interesting
Of course if you look at the experience and eduction of NASA leading proponent of the commercial approach to earth orbit, one can understand how NASA arrived at this point in manned spaceflight. Brings home the warnings of a former NASA official–”reliance on hope over experience ” as discussed in NASA plan puts America at Risk.
Maybe the critics are right, since America is broke , and we may cause loss of life the way we are heading, the shuttles are “not unsafe” but ” not safe”, we could use money for space for the poor and needy in the USA and around the world. After all, most don’t think we need to go to space, most don’t think we need Hubble or JWT .
Just kidding, let’s get shuttle flying and return to the moon.
Lori Beth Garver (born May 22, 1961 in Lansing, Michigan) is the Deputy Administratorof the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). She was nominated on May 24, 2009, by President Barack Obama, along with Charles Bolden as NASA Administrator.[1] She was confirmed by the United States Senate by unanimous consent on July 15, 2009.[2][3][4][5]
Garver was the lead civil space policy advisor for Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign and led the agency review team for NASA during the post-election transition. She worked at NASA from 1996–2001, first as a special assistant to the NASA administrator and senior policy analyst for the Office of Policy and Plans, and then as the Associate Administrator for the Office of Policy and Plans.[6][7]
Contents [hide]
1 Early life and education
2 Career
3 NASA career
4 References
5 External links
[edit]Early life and education
Lori Garver was born in Lansing, Michigan on May 22, 1961, and she graduated fromHaslett High School in Haslett, Michigan in 1979. In 1983, she earned a Bachelor of Artsdegree in political science and economics from Colorado College. While working for Senator John Glenn from 1983–1984, she became interested in space, and went on to earn a Master of Arts degree in science, technology and public policy from the George Washington University in 1989.[6][8]
[edit]Career
During her career, Lori Garver worked in the nonprofit, government and commercial sectors. Garver has held advocacy roles for space exploration as a member of the NASA Advisory Council, a guest lecturer at the International Space University,[9] president and board member of Women in Aerospace, and president of the American Astronautical Society.[6][9]She was awarded both the NASA Distinguished Public Service Medal, and the NASA Distinguished Service Medal.[10]
Garver served as the second Executive Director of the National Space Society, a non-profit space organization based in Washington, D.C. for nine years, leaving the organization in 1998.[11] From 1998–2001, she served as the Associate Administrator of the Office of Policy and Plans for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.[12] Reporting directly to the NASA Administrator, she managed the analysis, development, and integration of NASA policies and long-range plans, the NASA Strategic Management System, the NASA Advisory Council, and the History Division. Prior to this appointment, Garver served as a Senior Policy Analyst for the Office of Policy and Plans, and Special Assistant to the Administrator.[13][14]
In 2001–2002, Garver initiated a project to increase the visibility and viability of commercial spaceflight. While providing support to a client who was paying for a trip to space, she attempted to secure her own sponsored space flight aboard the Russian Soyuz vehicle to the International Space Station. She worked to secure sponsorship funding as she began the initial medical certification and training in Star City, Russia.[13][15] The effort ended because of a conflicting bid from another prospective space tourist.[16]
Garver was the President of Capital Space, LLC, and served as a Senior Advisor for Space at the Avascent Group, based inWashington, D.C. She served as Vice President of DFI Corporate Services (the predecessor organization to the Avascent Group) from 2001–2003.[13][14] In these roles, Garver provided strategic planning, technology feasibility research and business development assistance. She also gave merger, acquisition, and strategic alliance support to financial institutions and Fortune 500 companies in many industries.
Garver served as a lead space policy advisor for the Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry campaigns for president.[17][18][19] In November 2008, she was named to lead the Obama Presidential Transition Agency Review Team for NASA.[20][21]
[edit]NASA career
Garver’s confirmation as deputy administrator marks the second time she has worked for NASA. Her first period of service to the agency was from 1996 to 2001. She first served as a special assistant to the NASA administrator and senior policy analyst for the Office of Policy and Plans, before becoming the associate administrator for the Office of Policy and Plans. Reporting to the NASA administrator, she oversaw the analysis, development and integration of policies and long-range plans, the NASA Strategic Management System, and the NASA Advisory Council.[6]
In June 2010, she addressed the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, and signed an Earth science satellite agreement.[22] She has participated in several NASA launch Tweetups.[23] In May 2011, she joined NASA scientists to participate in a field campaign studying how dust affects the snow cover in the Colorado River Basin. The team visited dust emission sites in the deserts of Utah and then snowpits in the Colorado mountains to learn how dust layers might help predict snow melt.[24]
[edit]References
Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Lori Garver
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
WikiProject NASA
^ KENNETH CHANG (May 23, 2009). ”Retired General Picked to Lead NASA”. The New York Times.
LAS CRUCES, N.M. — For NASA to achieve any of its lofty goals for the future, the commercial space industry must succeed, NASA deputy administrator Lori Garver said.
The space agency has bet big that private spaceships will be ready to carry cargo and astronauts to orbit soon. The future of the International Space Station, as well as the future of NASA’s robotic science missions and human deep space ambitions, depend on that outcome, Garver said yesterday (Oct. 20) here at theInternational Symposium for Personal and Commercial Spaceflight.
“In order to make good on the entire plan, it is this part of the plan that must be successful,” Garver said.
After 30 years of carrying astronauts into low-Earth orbit, NASA retired its space shuttle program earlier this year.
How To Patent Your Idea www.InventionHome.comGet Free Patent Info & Book Today We Can Help Your Idea Succeed!”Shocking” Horoscopes www.PremiumAstrology.comWhat Does 2012 Have In Store For You? Shockingly Accurate. See Free!Singapore is Future-Ready www.SEDB.com/Future-ReadySet to Become a Global Hydrohub. We are Innovating for the Future!Ads by Google
“Contrary to what you might have heard, that marks the beginning, not the end,” Garver said. “With the support of the President and Congress, NASA has made a renewed commitment to human spaceflight.”
One leg of that commitment is a plan to build a new heavy-lift rocket (called the Space Launch System) and a deep-space crew capsule (called the Multi Purpose Crew Vehicle) to take people first to an asteroid and then on to Mars.
But in order for NASA to devote its resources to that ambitious pursuit, private industry must take over transportation to low-Earth orbit and the International Space Station, Garver said. [Top 10 Fantasy Spaceships Headed for Reality]
NASA and its partners plan to operate the space station through at least 2020, but without the space shuttle, Russia’s Soyuz spacecraft is the only means of getting there. Until commercial spacecraft are ready, NASA must rent rides on the Soyuz for its astronauts.
For fiscal year 2012, NASA requested $850 million to devote to its Commercial Crew Development Program, which supports the development of these private vehicles.
The agency hopes to end its outsourcing to Russia by the year 2016, but “if we don’t get full funding in 2012, this is at risk,” Garver said. That could prove costly down the line. “One additional year from the Russians will cost us $450 million,” she added.
The agency gave four private space companies — Blue Origin, Sierra Nevada, SpaceX and Boeing — contracts under the most recent phase of the Commercial Crew Development Program. SpaceX, alone among the group, has already launched a test flight to orbit of its prototype spacecraft.
Still, Garver acknowledged that getting the private space industry off the ground isn’t easy.
“Many of us are frustrated that we have not been able to advance this agenda faster,” she said.
She also cited resistance from some within the space industry, particularly those who benefitted from NASA’s previous contracting methods and now oppose the government turning over the domain of low-Earth orbit to the private sector.
“The establishment typically doesn’t give away their own power and control readily without a fight,” Garver said.
Yet the issue is complicated, as many players in the traditional space establishment are the same private companies involved in the new commercial space renaissance.
Ultimately, though, Garver said that NASA’s encouragement of the commercial space industry will result in lowered costs, greater capabilities, and a more robust American space program overall.
“Together we’re developing an industry that until recently had largely been science fiction,” she said. “We know we can work miracles together.”
You can follow SPACE.com Senior Writer Clara Moskowitz on Twitter @ClaraMoskowitz. Follow SPACE.com for the latest in space science and exploration news on Twitter @Spacedotcom and onFacebook.
Sent from my iPad
Posted by keeptheshuttleflying.com at 7:39 PM 0 comments
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Can we get anything done in Space?
Let's see
1. Newts nuts on space
2. Obama not interested in space
3. NASA has no money, can't do it if they had money
4. America's broke
5. Many are pleased that the crummy shuttle , our only way to do any thing in space, is in a museum, OR it's not mentioned.
6. Commercial initiatives won't work
7. General public nor Congress interested in space.
Maybe we should just cancel space efforts and support Obama to give more housing, food, free education, etc. To the poor.
Many don't feel we can get a JFK initiative , like man on moon, going again.
Oh, well, we can go to the museum, look at the shuttle, express our happiness over how we are not wasting money and polluting the earth with those nasty launches and discuss how we are helping the poor with the money we are saving.
Maybe we can increase our efforts in helping the poor in needy countries around the world.
Below is a list of comments to the following article.
There are a few optimistic, pro newt comments, but the majority aren't.
Is Gingrich's Pro-Obama Space Policy Stance About to Flip Flop?
By Keith Cowing on January 25, 2012 12:07 AM. 45 Comments
Gingrich plans major speeches, including one on space, CNN
"Riding the momentum of his South Carolina win on Saturday, Newt Gingrich said Sunday he planned a week of big speeches offering "big solutions for a big country." "I'll be at the space coast in Florida this week giving a speech -- a visionary speech -- on the United States going back into space in the John F. Kennedy tradition," the former House Speaker said on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal."
Gingrich & Walker: Obama's brave reboot for NASA, Washington Times (earlier post)
"Despite the shrieks you might have heard from a few special interests, the Obama administration's budget for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration deserves strong approval from Republicans. The 2011 spending plan for the space agency does what is obvious to anyone who cares about man's future in space and what presidential commissions have been recommending for nearly a decade."
Gingrich promises JFK-like space speech, CNN"
"Two years ago, Gingrich came out in support for Obama's 2011 NASA budget in an editorial co-authored by Walker. Specifically, the two praised a proposed program to allow private companies to transport astronauts to and from the International Space Station."
- Precursors to a Paradigm Shift
- Gingrich on Space, earlier post
- Newt Skywalker, earlier post
Categories: Election 2012
Tags: election 2012, Florida, Gingrich, Obama, policy, Walker
inShare
4
LikeNo
Post as …
Cessna_Driver
6 days ago
Great news and will force other candidates to start expressing some kind of expected space policy. Perhaps our nation, greatly perceived in decline, will turn it's eyes again to the stars and know that will help raise us up again.
reply
Stevenwh99
6 days ago
Newt should announce that he will cancel Obama's as yet unnamed mission to rendezvous with the as yet unnamed asteroid by 2025. Instead, we should put humans on Mars by 2022, within fifty years of Apollo 17. America, that would be truly bold. Yes, we can!
hide 4 repliesreply
jski
6 days ago
A much better plan would be to do something that's sustainable: a permanently manned lunar station/colony. In addition, have it function as lunar resources exploration facility - i.e., give it an economical rationale.
Mars can and will follow.
hide 2 repliesreply
RogerStrong
4 days ago
A sustainable colony means having and raising kids. For the sake of bone development that means you want as close to Earth-gravity as possible. Which makes Mars a far more likely target for colonization.
An economical rationale - for people who aren't space buffs - means a payback for the taxpayers back on earth. You could find unlimited resources on the moon and still not find that payback. Those resources would still be cheaper to obtain on earth. And yes, that includes helium 3.
But yes, the moon is the best first stop, the best place to develop much of what would later be used for Mars.
hide 1 replyreply
Paul451
3 days ago
"For the sake of bone development that means you want as close to Earth-gravity as possible."
No one knows. We have no data points between zero and 1, so we have no idea of the shape of the curve.
reply
Jim Wittenborg
3 days ago
Although I have been involved with and supported the manned space Program for 30 years, I would like to see us concentrate more on deep space robotic exploration rather than sending a human. Humans in the loop increase the cost tremendously, and in doing so, lengthen the schedule and complexity of the mission considerably. For what? Pride? Let's advance our technology, retrieve the data deep in space, and propel our knowledge of the stars WITHOUT having to send a human out there to do it.
reply
Joshua Diamond
6 days ago
Yet another politician sucking up to the local populace. If this were really about space for Newt, he would have been discussing this all along. Doing it when Florida's primary is around the corner? Pure political theater, to be discarded when he moves on to states where low taxes and economic austerity are the mantra...
hide 1 replyreply
Rick Boyett
5 days ago
Yes and no... Of course there is a Florida primary, but Gingrich has consistently shown that he is very much in favor of manned space exploration.
reply
Dennis Ray Wingo
6 days ago
I find the uninformed speculation interesting here. In all probability Newt will call for a very big prize for return to the Moon.
He might even push for ZGZT
If either one of these or both happens, the world will change, for the better.
hide 3 repliesreply
Paul Roberts
5 days ago
I can see something like ZGZT and/or some sort of policy on extraterrestrial land ownership rights being a near zero-cost way of encouraging space business & industry without getting bogged down in the morass that is any effort to put through a long-term plan at NASA. It would mesh well with the traditional Republican pro-business less government approach. I don't know if his handlers are smart enough to know about it (or care about it), but it would be a pretty good fit.
Paul
reply
no one of consequence
4 days ago
No Dennis.
4 the lulz.
reply
DTARS
5 days ago
What's zGzt ??
Zero G zero tax
google is a wonderful thing :)
reply
Joe Cooper
5 days ago
Maybe he'll even pitch Zero-Gravity Zero-Adults, his plan to use child astronauts to keep unions out of orbit.
reply
Steve_Whitfield
6 days ago
“the United States going back into space in the John F. Kennedy tradition”
I’m sorry to say that I think that line was a mistake on Gingrich’s part. First off, the US can’t afford to go to space “in the John F. Kennedy tradition”; the money just isn’t there and the country’s industries couldn’t survive the upset and redirection they would experience. At the time of Gemini, Kennedy had serious concerns about “what the space program was doing to the country’s economy.” And things are much more fragile now.
Additionally, the nature of the aerospace community is very different now. In the time of Kennedy and Johnson, nationalism drove everything, especially the space program. The aerospace companies are now much more multinational, both in terms of management and the marketplace.
The Kennedy era was great, but it shouldn’t happen again.
Steve
hide 9 repliesreply
Cessna_Driver
6 days ago
Great nations dare great things, it's how they stay great.
The nations that lead on the frontiers, dictate the course of human history. I believe that is the JFK tradition he has in mind, not because they are easy but because they are hard as JFK said, yes he had cold war motives, but doing extremely challenging things be it as a nation or as individuals has immeasurable benefits. Cancel all NASA budgets or double them. Neither would make any difference to the immediate fiscal problems the nation faces today. It's one half of one penny of federal discretionary spending. Yet the horrible price this nation would pay if we turn our back on space will will come due in time.
hide 6 repliesreply
Steve_Whitfield
6 days ago
I hear what you’re saying Cessna_Driver, and I seriously applaud the sentiment, but first you’ve got to pay the bills, and that requires cash, not sentiment.
A lot of people have made the half of one cent, or half of one percent, argument, and it is valid in my mind. The problem is that the space program is not the only concern that’s vying for a portion of the money. There are more potential beneficiaries than there halves of one percent to dole out. If the American government and the American people were both willing to allocate 0.5% to space, every year, then I think there’s a lot that can be done. But clearly Congress controls the money, and clearly Congress is trying to cut NASA funding back.
This thread is about a Presidential possibility, but I think we have to face the reality that, as far as space goes, it makes no difference who is elected in November, because the President no longer has any control over the situation. Congress has long controlled the money, and now they control the program selection and definition as well. And Congress has no interest whatsoever in a JFK tradition space program. They (collectively, at least) have no idea what it’s all about when it comes to space. They shot down President Obama’s practical plan for NASA, one of the reasons being that they couldn’t see anything in the way of a short-term return to satisfy everybody’s desire for instant gratification, and instead forced on everybody a “plan” (SLS/MPCV) that would actually take much longer to produce anything of value, if it could be made to work, which it can’t.
I don’t hesitate at all to say that if a President were elected who understood the space situation, was a great fan of space, and was willing to commit sufficient money for a sufficiently long period, he/she would not stand a chance of putting any “great things” into play. He she would only be guaranteeing themselves no second term.
That’s how I see it. Can you envision any proposal whereby control over space is put back into the hands of people who understand it and are not driven by ulterior motives? Can you see away to break out of the current unsustainable road to nowhere? It would be great if you, or someone, could put this out-of-control train back on its tracks. Once we again have sanity in the driver’s seat, then we can again think in terms of great things. But fooling ourselves accomplishes nothing. We have to deal with the situation in terms of what it really is, not what we think it should be nor what we’d like it to be.
I’m not by nature a pessimist, but if we want to attack a problem, the first step is to understand the problem as it really is, and that means accepting that both the White House and NASA are Cinderellas, and Congress is the evil step mother.
Steve
hide 5 repliesreply
Dennis Ray Wingo
6 days ago
Until the speech happens, this is all speculation.
hide 1 replyreply
no one of consequence
3 days ago
Well ... he talked. He's a fool!
That fantasy didn't last long.
Kelly McDonald
5 days ago
There are really teo big problems at NASA. One is the funding aspect where a president has influence, but ultimately congress decides. The second is something NASA hasn't had since the 1960's (arguably the 1980's under Regan), a president willing to spend political capital on the agency. The only thing that can fix the multiple structrual challenges within NASA is through an administrator that has the political authority to make substantive changes in the organization and a president willing to back those changes through the inevitable firestorm of critisism.
reply
Robert Karma
4 days ago
Excellent points. The person who occupies the White House hasn't really mattered since JFK & Congress started cutting back on the Apollo Program starting in 1966 & we lost Apollo flights 18, 19 & 20 along with a vigorous follow-up to Apollo. We were lucky to get Skylab out of the leftovers of Apollo. Until the American people demand an aggressive manned space program that goes beyond LEO Congress will never get behind funding it at an adequate level over the long-term. With no bucks... no Buck Rogers! I just don't have enough faith in the American people to realize how important to our future as a great nation an aggressive space program is in a world that is quickly passing us by. JFK warned us about being left in the backwash of space exploration but it seems that once we successfully landed on the Moon and returned safely to the Earth the American people moved on to other priorities. I, too, am not by nature a pessimist but as a historian of the space program it is hard not to be on this subject.
hide 1 replyreply
Paul451
3 days ago
"Until the American people demand an aggressive manned space program that goes beyond LEO Congress will never get behind funding it at an adequate level over the long-term."
So, never?
There will never be more funding for NASA. Not next year, not in ten years. Not if this or a future President gives a grand Vision speech, nor if they don't. Not under Republicans, nor under Democrats. The buying power of NASA's budget will decline over the next few decades, may even decline in actual dollar terms too. Continuously. Forever.
NASA needs to understand that, to soak it into their bones, to carve it into every assumption they make. NASA needs to figure out how to do what they want to do on a smaller and smaller budget.
If that means closing centres, they need to lobby the President and Congress to be allowed to close centres. If that mean RIF, they need to lobby to be allowed to RIF permanent staff (not just contractors). If FAR is making projects more expensive, or preventing NASA from developing commercial competition that will lower costs in the future, NASA needs to lobby for specific exemptions to FAR. If SLS/Orion is sucking up money for a program which never get cheaper, they need to lobby against it like it's a deadly poison.
But most of all, they need to come together to develop the tools and technologies today that will allow future NASA to do things on a vastly smaller budget. Otherwise they'll just do less and less until the whole agency can be safely cancelled or rolled into another dept/agency as a single line-item.
DTARS
6 days ago
Give the guy a chance to speak lol We will see if he is for the future of human space flight or just kissing up for ksc votes. Obama never should canceled constellation lolol kiss kiss kiss vote for meeeeeeee
reply
newpapyrus
6 days ago
President Obama inherited an $8.4 billion a year manned spaceflight related budget from George Bush. That's $126 billion over the next 15 years.
The Augustine Commission determined that the hyper expensive Constellation program would cost NASA nearly $99 billion. NASA has already determined that an SLS based lunar program should be more than 25% cheaper than the Constellation program.
So $126 billion is plenty of money for a manned lunar program, if that's NASA's priority.
The Augustine Commission determined that the original Apollo program that gave us manned lunar landings and a space station (Skylab) cost nearly $130 billion in today's dollars.
Marcel F. Williams
reply
MNealBarrett
6 days ago
Let me guess: it will consist of $PENDING, $PENDING, and more $PENDING. Oh, and Obama sucks because he spends too much.
hide 2 repliesreply
aubskibob
6 days ago
The problem with Obama is twofold: he spends on the wrong things and he spends too much. Obviously the main issue is to reduce overall spending. However, there are areas that could use increased investment even with overall spending decreases. Education, Infrastructure, space, science, etc. There are the real valuable investments that have been neglected for feel-good emotional programs with only short return.
hide 1 replyreply
Chris B
5 days ago
Newt doesn't want spending on any of those things.
reply
Steve Harrington
6 days ago
I am sure Newt will come up with a nice speech. Aerospace enthusiasts will be thrilled. However, congress thwarted the Lunar plans of President Bush and the more limited space plans of President Obama, so don't expect anything to come of it.
Steve
hide 4 repliesreply
quarkburger
5 days ago
Not sure what you're talking about... Obama canceled Constellation. Congress acted to save a few important components of Constellation, namely Orion. If Obama had his way, the interplanetary space craft would have been relegated to being a life boat for the space station.
reply
quarkburger
5 days ago
It wasn't congress. It was Obama. Congress acted to save at least some parts of Constellation from Obama's wrath.
hide 2 repliesreply
Steve Harrington
5 days ago
Constellation was going nowhere. Obama did not kill it, he just noticed it was dead. See the GAO report, See the CBO report. There was never enough money appropriated by congress to maintain adequate margins and address technical problems. The schedule was slipping more than it was advancing. Congress saved a few jobs in key districts, but there was never enough interest among voters to make it work. This has not changed.
reply
nasa817
5 days ago
I think he means Congress never funded the VSE (or Obama's plans for that matter). In fact, Bush never asked for the budget he had laid out for 2005 and beyond when he announced the VSE, which Constellation was supposed to realize. Congress further dampened things by not funding what Bush asked for. Obama saved us tens of billions by canceling Constellation. It was a farce, just as SLS is. It doesn't matter what Newt says, or what Obama does, or what Congress funds. What you all forget is the NASA no longer has the knowledge and capability to do such things. NASA HSF ended with wheel stop of Atlantis. The only way NASA will ever develop another crewed vehicle is if we are given about $20 billion per year just for HSF. We might succeed if our entire budget were devoted to HSF for the next decade. That ain't gonna happen.
reply
sch220
6 days ago
Kissing up to Florida voters prior to that state's primary. I'm sure whatever solution he proposes will involve a massive number of launches and KSC activities. You betcha!!
reply
edfromred
6 days ago
It's time for America to return to space exploration with gusto, don't fall behind and lose the scientific, material, and societal benefits. Other nations are proceeding with plans to explore and colonize the regions beyond Earth. Don't let Americas greatest achievements in space exist solely in 20th Century chapters of history
reply
Steve_Whitfield
4 days ago
Every time I look at the cropped picture of Gingrich at the top of this thread he looks more like a Romulan Centurion. I don’t know if that’s a good sign or a bad one.
Steve
reply
edfromred
6 days ago
It's time for America to return to space exploration with gusto, don't fall behind and lose the scientific, material, and societal benefits. Other nations are proceeding with plans to explore and colonize the regions beyond Earth. Don't let Americas greatest achievements in space exist solely in 20th Century chapters of history
reply
DTARS
6 days ago
Very interested to hear what Mr. Gingrich will say. We should learn how much a student he really is of space.
reply
cheryl555
1 day ago
Gingrich has been talking about ramping up the space program in a big way for YEARS! So why would he NOT follow through with the same passion he has said? That is NOT who he is! We are so used to Liars like Romney & Obama and all of those before them that righfully so, when someone comes along who thinks big thoughts and believes in America everybody thinks it a joke. Well, we will NEVER know unless we get behind this guy and see what he can do. We have given much LESSER men the chance at running this Country and at least THIS ONE loves this Country and has proven that through all his years of dedication to fixing it in the Congress! I say, give him a chance!
reply
TPISCzar
4 days ago
It will be JFK like in stature, but it won't be the big spending plan like SLS disciples are hoping for.
Respectfully,Andrew GasserTEA Party in Space
reply
John Simonich
4 days ago
I'm with jski, what we need is a focused program that will achieve a sustainable SETTLEMENT on the Moon followed by Mars. In the near term, "self-sustainabilty" on either the Moon or Mars, might be impossible...but we should be planting the "seeds" and infrastructure for long-term self-sustainability. In the short-term, we should be focusing on building a settlement with structures that can safely house humans, as well as developing closed-circuit waste recyclement, as well as growing food sources. Of course, Scientific exploration is happenning concurrently. In the longer term, we can begin thinking of mining and exploiting some of the indigenous resources. I mean, there is no point getting all hot and excited about Helium-3, when we haven't even demonstrated the feasibility of controlled, energy-producing fusion of D/T. Pure Helium-3 fusion requires energies (temperatures) orders of magnitude greater then Deuterium/Tritium fusion cycle.
reply
DTARS
5 days ago
If Newt sells the x prize to the moon to the public we will see cheaper space flight in a flash and I bet Spacex falcon heavies would most likely have missions that would lead to Spacex developing Merlin 2 on their own dime :) 5 core falcon heavies for cheapp heavy lift lolol
How does this make NASA employees voters happy?
Isn't the trick for newt to help transform NASA to save it from those evil cheap commercial guys?
Make NASA happy or launch human space flight ?
Sounds like a magic trick :)
I can't wait to hear what he has to say lolol a very smart Man
reply
Nothing Much
5 days ago
I don't see why this being political makes it wrong. Kennedy's Moon project was also political. Newt is willing to bring this up, and you know he's willing to defend his stances. You've seen that already (see the Dec 10th and Jan 19th debates, it's all on display in the first 15 min.). He does have the ability to gain votes by being attacked and striking back, look at S Carolina. No matter what you think, he's the only candidate willing to bring space into the national conversation and defend it. I'm willing to bet this is indicative that he'll maintain his space goals through out his administration. SDI was the last space program to be defended in the political arena. And before that, it was the Moon program. Everything else has had to sink or swim as an orphan, and only STS was able to survive in that environment.
Space will, in the end, probably be opened by a slow evolutionary moves. However, if you are of the revolutionary school of thought. Newt is just the guy to carry out a revolution from the political side. This is what the opening move looks like. For those of you who favor the political mode of operations. Gear up, and get your kit ready, space is about to enter the political discussion as you've wanted it to be for the past 20 years. Live it up.
hide 1 replyreply
Paul451
3 days ago
"I don't see why this being political makes it wrong. Kennedy's Moon project was also political."
That's why. Because it was political it wasn't about developing capability, it was aboutreaching a goal. Once reached, the balloon burst, and there was nothing left but wishes.
reply
kl_777
5 days ago
I am glad the lame, low orbit shuttle program is over. Time to do a lot of catch up R&D, get to the Moon and Mars in a respectable about of time.
reply
Spacelab1
6 days ago
No real exciting news here. He's probably just trying to get votes from the people who lost their jobs due to the shuttle's retirement.
Even if Gingrich wins the presidency and genuinely tries to help human spaceflight, it is very unlikely that a strong enough commitment is generated to build a successful space program. I can already see the whole "Newt Skywalker" thing getting nasty with his opponents and most of the public eventually saying he's too concerned with space and neglecting real problems on earth.
The truth is the general public and Congress don't really care enough about space, and the space advocacy community is too small to generate enough enthusiasm for a successful government funded space program to develop. Even space advocates disagree on how to make HSF successful.
If the private sector can't pull it off to make HSF cheaper and more reliable, I don't see us going anywhere within the next 70 years. I hate sounding so pessimistic but the pattern against spaceflight is definitely there.
Space colonization requires mastering spaceflight to the point where it is cheap and reliable, however; space travel is still as impractical and expensive as it was 40+ years ago and a relatively few want to do anything about it! Thus, one can easily see spaceflight being just as expensive, unreliable and prohibitive in 40+ years from now.
reply
DTARS
6 days ago
Thanks for the ISS thoughts the other day Steve. Sure helped me to have a clue.
reply
Sent from my iPad
1. Newts nuts on space
2. Obama not interested in space
3. NASA has no money, can't do it if they had money
4. America's broke
5. Many are pleased that the crummy shuttle , our only way to do any thing in space, is in a museum, OR it's not mentioned.
6. Commercial initiatives won't work
7. General public nor Congress interested in space.
Maybe we should just cancel space efforts and support Obama to give more housing, food, free education, etc. To the poor.
Many don't feel we can get a JFK initiative , like man on moon, going again.
Oh, well, we can go to the museum, look at the shuttle, express our happiness over how we are not wasting money and polluting the earth with those nasty launches and discuss how we are helping the poor with the money we are saving.
Maybe we can increase our efforts in helping the poor in needy countries around the world.
Below is a list of comments to the following article.
There are a few optimistic, pro newt comments, but the majority aren't.
Is Gingrich's Pro-Obama Space Policy Stance About to Flip Flop?
By Keith Cowing on January 25, 2012 12:07 AM. 45 Comments
Gingrich plans major speeches, including one on space, CNN
"Riding the momentum of his South Carolina win on Saturday, Newt Gingrich said Sunday he planned a week of big speeches offering "big solutions for a big country." "I'll be at the space coast in Florida this week giving a speech -- a visionary speech -- on the United States going back into space in the John F. Kennedy tradition," the former House Speaker said on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal."
Gingrich & Walker: Obama's brave reboot for NASA, Washington Times (earlier post)
"Despite the shrieks you might have heard from a few special interests, the Obama administration's budget for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration deserves strong approval from Republicans. The 2011 spending plan for the space agency does what is obvious to anyone who cares about man's future in space and what presidential commissions have been recommending for nearly a decade."
Gingrich promises JFK-like space speech, CNN"
"Two years ago, Gingrich came out in support for Obama's 2011 NASA budget in an editorial co-authored by Walker. Specifically, the two praised a proposed program to allow private companies to transport astronauts to and from the International Space Station."
- Precursors to a Paradigm Shift
- Gingrich on Space, earlier post
- Newt Skywalker, earlier post
Categories: Election 2012
Tags: election 2012, Florida, Gingrich, Obama, policy, Walker
inShare
4
LikeNo
Post as …
Cessna_Driver
6 days ago
Great news and will force other candidates to start expressing some kind of expected space policy. Perhaps our nation, greatly perceived in decline, will turn it's eyes again to the stars and know that will help raise us up again.
reply
Stevenwh99
6 days ago
Newt should announce that he will cancel Obama's as yet unnamed mission to rendezvous with the as yet unnamed asteroid by 2025. Instead, we should put humans on Mars by 2022, within fifty years of Apollo 17. America, that would be truly bold. Yes, we can!
hide 4 repliesreply
jski
6 days ago
A much better plan would be to do something that's sustainable: a permanently manned lunar station/colony. In addition, have it function as lunar resources exploration facility - i.e., give it an economical rationale.
Mars can and will follow.
hide 2 repliesreply
RogerStrong
4 days ago
A sustainable colony means having and raising kids. For the sake of bone development that means you want as close to Earth-gravity as possible. Which makes Mars a far more likely target for colonization.
An economical rationale - for people who aren't space buffs - means a payback for the taxpayers back on earth. You could find unlimited resources on the moon and still not find that payback. Those resources would still be cheaper to obtain on earth. And yes, that includes helium 3.
But yes, the moon is the best first stop, the best place to develop much of what would later be used for Mars.
hide 1 replyreply
Paul451
3 days ago
"For the sake of bone development that means you want as close to Earth-gravity as possible."
No one knows. We have no data points between zero and 1, so we have no idea of the shape of the curve.
reply
Jim Wittenborg
3 days ago
Although I have been involved with and supported the manned space Program for 30 years, I would like to see us concentrate more on deep space robotic exploration rather than sending a human. Humans in the loop increase the cost tremendously, and in doing so, lengthen the schedule and complexity of the mission considerably. For what? Pride? Let's advance our technology, retrieve the data deep in space, and propel our knowledge of the stars WITHOUT having to send a human out there to do it.
reply
Joshua Diamond
6 days ago
Yet another politician sucking up to the local populace. If this were really about space for Newt, he would have been discussing this all along. Doing it when Florida's primary is around the corner? Pure political theater, to be discarded when he moves on to states where low taxes and economic austerity are the mantra...
hide 1 replyreply
Rick Boyett
5 days ago
Yes and no... Of course there is a Florida primary, but Gingrich has consistently shown that he is very much in favor of manned space exploration.
reply
Dennis Ray Wingo
6 days ago
I find the uninformed speculation interesting here. In all probability Newt will call for a very big prize for return to the Moon.
He might even push for ZGZT
If either one of these or both happens, the world will change, for the better.
hide 3 repliesreply
Paul Roberts
5 days ago
I can see something like ZGZT and/or some sort of policy on extraterrestrial land ownership rights being a near zero-cost way of encouraging space business & industry without getting bogged down in the morass that is any effort to put through a long-term plan at NASA. It would mesh well with the traditional Republican pro-business less government approach. I don't know if his handlers are smart enough to know about it (or care about it), but it would be a pretty good fit.
Paul
reply
no one of consequence
4 days ago
No Dennis.
4 the lulz.
reply
DTARS
5 days ago
What's zGzt ??
Zero G zero tax
google is a wonderful thing :)
reply
Joe Cooper
5 days ago
Maybe he'll even pitch Zero-Gravity Zero-Adults, his plan to use child astronauts to keep unions out of orbit.
reply
Steve_Whitfield
6 days ago
“the United States going back into space in the John F. Kennedy tradition”
I’m sorry to say that I think that line was a mistake on Gingrich’s part. First off, the US can’t afford to go to space “in the John F. Kennedy tradition”; the money just isn’t there and the country’s industries couldn’t survive the upset and redirection they would experience. At the time of Gemini, Kennedy had serious concerns about “what the space program was doing to the country’s economy.” And things are much more fragile now.
Additionally, the nature of the aerospace community is very different now. In the time of Kennedy and Johnson, nationalism drove everything, especially the space program. The aerospace companies are now much more multinational, both in terms of management and the marketplace.
The Kennedy era was great, but it shouldn’t happen again.
Steve
hide 9 repliesreply
Cessna_Driver
6 days ago
Great nations dare great things, it's how they stay great.
The nations that lead on the frontiers, dictate the course of human history. I believe that is the JFK tradition he has in mind, not because they are easy but because they are hard as JFK said, yes he had cold war motives, but doing extremely challenging things be it as a nation or as individuals has immeasurable benefits. Cancel all NASA budgets or double them. Neither would make any difference to the immediate fiscal problems the nation faces today. It's one half of one penny of federal discretionary spending. Yet the horrible price this nation would pay if we turn our back on space will will come due in time.
hide 6 repliesreply
Steve_Whitfield
6 days ago
I hear what you’re saying Cessna_Driver, and I seriously applaud the sentiment, but first you’ve got to pay the bills, and that requires cash, not sentiment.
A lot of people have made the half of one cent, or half of one percent, argument, and it is valid in my mind. The problem is that the space program is not the only concern that’s vying for a portion of the money. There are more potential beneficiaries than there halves of one percent to dole out. If the American government and the American people were both willing to allocate 0.5% to space, every year, then I think there’s a lot that can be done. But clearly Congress controls the money, and clearly Congress is trying to cut NASA funding back.
This thread is about a Presidential possibility, but I think we have to face the reality that, as far as space goes, it makes no difference who is elected in November, because the President no longer has any control over the situation. Congress has long controlled the money, and now they control the program selection and definition as well. And Congress has no interest whatsoever in a JFK tradition space program. They (collectively, at least) have no idea what it’s all about when it comes to space. They shot down President Obama’s practical plan for NASA, one of the reasons being that they couldn’t see anything in the way of a short-term return to satisfy everybody’s desire for instant gratification, and instead forced on everybody a “plan” (SLS/MPCV) that would actually take much longer to produce anything of value, if it could be made to work, which it can’t.
I don’t hesitate at all to say that if a President were elected who understood the space situation, was a great fan of space, and was willing to commit sufficient money for a sufficiently long period, he/she would not stand a chance of putting any “great things” into play. He she would only be guaranteeing themselves no second term.
That’s how I see it. Can you envision any proposal whereby control over space is put back into the hands of people who understand it and are not driven by ulterior motives? Can you see away to break out of the current unsustainable road to nowhere? It would be great if you, or someone, could put this out-of-control train back on its tracks. Once we again have sanity in the driver’s seat, then we can again think in terms of great things. But fooling ourselves accomplishes nothing. We have to deal with the situation in terms of what it really is, not what we think it should be nor what we’d like it to be.
I’m not by nature a pessimist, but if we want to attack a problem, the first step is to understand the problem as it really is, and that means accepting that both the White House and NASA are Cinderellas, and Congress is the evil step mother.
Steve
hide 5 repliesreply
Dennis Ray Wingo
6 days ago
Until the speech happens, this is all speculation.
hide 1 replyreply
no one of consequence
3 days ago
Well ... he talked. He's a fool!
That fantasy didn't last long.
Kelly McDonald
5 days ago
There are really teo big problems at NASA. One is the funding aspect where a president has influence, but ultimately congress decides. The second is something NASA hasn't had since the 1960's (arguably the 1980's under Regan), a president willing to spend political capital on the agency. The only thing that can fix the multiple structrual challenges within NASA is through an administrator that has the political authority to make substantive changes in the organization and a president willing to back those changes through the inevitable firestorm of critisism.
reply
Robert Karma
4 days ago
Excellent points. The person who occupies the White House hasn't really mattered since JFK & Congress started cutting back on the Apollo Program starting in 1966 & we lost Apollo flights 18, 19 & 20 along with a vigorous follow-up to Apollo. We were lucky to get Skylab out of the leftovers of Apollo. Until the American people demand an aggressive manned space program that goes beyond LEO Congress will never get behind funding it at an adequate level over the long-term. With no bucks... no Buck Rogers! I just don't have enough faith in the American people to realize how important to our future as a great nation an aggressive space program is in a world that is quickly passing us by. JFK warned us about being left in the backwash of space exploration but it seems that once we successfully landed on the Moon and returned safely to the Earth the American people moved on to other priorities. I, too, am not by nature a pessimist but as a historian of the space program it is hard not to be on this subject.
hide 1 replyreply
Paul451
3 days ago
"Until the American people demand an aggressive manned space program that goes beyond LEO Congress will never get behind funding it at an adequate level over the long-term."
So, never?
There will never be more funding for NASA. Not next year, not in ten years. Not if this or a future President gives a grand Vision speech, nor if they don't. Not under Republicans, nor under Democrats. The buying power of NASA's budget will decline over the next few decades, may even decline in actual dollar terms too. Continuously. Forever.
NASA needs to understand that, to soak it into their bones, to carve it into every assumption they make. NASA needs to figure out how to do what they want to do on a smaller and smaller budget.
If that means closing centres, they need to lobby the President and Congress to be allowed to close centres. If that mean RIF, they need to lobby to be allowed to RIF permanent staff (not just contractors). If FAR is making projects more expensive, or preventing NASA from developing commercial competition that will lower costs in the future, NASA needs to lobby for specific exemptions to FAR. If SLS/Orion is sucking up money for a program which never get cheaper, they need to lobby against it like it's a deadly poison.
But most of all, they need to come together to develop the tools and technologies today that will allow future NASA to do things on a vastly smaller budget. Otherwise they'll just do less and less until the whole agency can be safely cancelled or rolled into another dept/agency as a single line-item.
DTARS
6 days ago
Give the guy a chance to speak lol We will see if he is for the future of human space flight or just kissing up for ksc votes. Obama never should canceled constellation lolol kiss kiss kiss vote for meeeeeeee
reply
newpapyrus
6 days ago
President Obama inherited an $8.4 billion a year manned spaceflight related budget from George Bush. That's $126 billion over the next 15 years.
The Augustine Commission determined that the hyper expensive Constellation program would cost NASA nearly $99 billion. NASA has already determined that an SLS based lunar program should be more than 25% cheaper than the Constellation program.
So $126 billion is plenty of money for a manned lunar program, if that's NASA's priority.
The Augustine Commission determined that the original Apollo program that gave us manned lunar landings and a space station (Skylab) cost nearly $130 billion in today's dollars.
Marcel F. Williams
reply
MNealBarrett
6 days ago
Let me guess: it will consist of $PENDING, $PENDING, and more $PENDING. Oh, and Obama sucks because he spends too much.
hide 2 repliesreply
aubskibob
6 days ago
The problem with Obama is twofold: he spends on the wrong things and he spends too much. Obviously the main issue is to reduce overall spending. However, there are areas that could use increased investment even with overall spending decreases. Education, Infrastructure, space, science, etc. There are the real valuable investments that have been neglected for feel-good emotional programs with only short return.
hide 1 replyreply
Chris B
5 days ago
Newt doesn't want spending on any of those things.
reply
Steve Harrington
6 days ago
I am sure Newt will come up with a nice speech. Aerospace enthusiasts will be thrilled. However, congress thwarted the Lunar plans of President Bush and the more limited space plans of President Obama, so don't expect anything to come of it.
Steve
hide 4 repliesreply
quarkburger
5 days ago
Not sure what you're talking about... Obama canceled Constellation. Congress acted to save a few important components of Constellation, namely Orion. If Obama had his way, the interplanetary space craft would have been relegated to being a life boat for the space station.
reply
quarkburger
5 days ago
It wasn't congress. It was Obama. Congress acted to save at least some parts of Constellation from Obama's wrath.
hide 2 repliesreply
Steve Harrington
5 days ago
Constellation was going nowhere. Obama did not kill it, he just noticed it was dead. See the GAO report, See the CBO report. There was never enough money appropriated by congress to maintain adequate margins and address technical problems. The schedule was slipping more than it was advancing. Congress saved a few jobs in key districts, but there was never enough interest among voters to make it work. This has not changed.
reply
nasa817
5 days ago
I think he means Congress never funded the VSE (or Obama's plans for that matter). In fact, Bush never asked for the budget he had laid out for 2005 and beyond when he announced the VSE, which Constellation was supposed to realize. Congress further dampened things by not funding what Bush asked for. Obama saved us tens of billions by canceling Constellation. It was a farce, just as SLS is. It doesn't matter what Newt says, or what Obama does, or what Congress funds. What you all forget is the NASA no longer has the knowledge and capability to do such things. NASA HSF ended with wheel stop of Atlantis. The only way NASA will ever develop another crewed vehicle is if we are given about $20 billion per year just for HSF. We might succeed if our entire budget were devoted to HSF for the next decade. That ain't gonna happen.
reply
sch220
6 days ago
Kissing up to Florida voters prior to that state's primary. I'm sure whatever solution he proposes will involve a massive number of launches and KSC activities. You betcha!!
reply
edfromred
6 days ago
It's time for America to return to space exploration with gusto, don't fall behind and lose the scientific, material, and societal benefits. Other nations are proceeding with plans to explore and colonize the regions beyond Earth. Don't let Americas greatest achievements in space exist solely in 20th Century chapters of history
reply
Steve_Whitfield
4 days ago
Every time I look at the cropped picture of Gingrich at the top of this thread he looks more like a Romulan Centurion. I don’t know if that’s a good sign or a bad one.
Steve
reply
edfromred
6 days ago
It's time for America to return to space exploration with gusto, don't fall behind and lose the scientific, material, and societal benefits. Other nations are proceeding with plans to explore and colonize the regions beyond Earth. Don't let Americas greatest achievements in space exist solely in 20th Century chapters of history
reply
DTARS
6 days ago
Very interested to hear what Mr. Gingrich will say. We should learn how much a student he really is of space.
reply
cheryl555
1 day ago
Gingrich has been talking about ramping up the space program in a big way for YEARS! So why would he NOT follow through with the same passion he has said? That is NOT who he is! We are so used to Liars like Romney & Obama and all of those before them that righfully so, when someone comes along who thinks big thoughts and believes in America everybody thinks it a joke. Well, we will NEVER know unless we get behind this guy and see what he can do. We have given much LESSER men the chance at running this Country and at least THIS ONE loves this Country and has proven that through all his years of dedication to fixing it in the Congress! I say, give him a chance!
reply
TPISCzar
4 days ago
It will be JFK like in stature, but it won't be the big spending plan like SLS disciples are hoping for.
Respectfully,Andrew GasserTEA Party in Space
reply
John Simonich
4 days ago
I'm with jski, what we need is a focused program that will achieve a sustainable SETTLEMENT on the Moon followed by Mars. In the near term, "self-sustainabilty" on either the Moon or Mars, might be impossible...but we should be planting the "seeds" and infrastructure for long-term self-sustainability. In the short-term, we should be focusing on building a settlement with structures that can safely house humans, as well as developing closed-circuit waste recyclement, as well as growing food sources. Of course, Scientific exploration is happenning concurrently. In the longer term, we can begin thinking of mining and exploiting some of the indigenous resources. I mean, there is no point getting all hot and excited about Helium-3, when we haven't even demonstrated the feasibility of controlled, energy-producing fusion of D/T. Pure Helium-3 fusion requires energies (temperatures) orders of magnitude greater then Deuterium/Tritium fusion cycle.
reply
DTARS
5 days ago
If Newt sells the x prize to the moon to the public we will see cheaper space flight in a flash and I bet Spacex falcon heavies would most likely have missions that would lead to Spacex developing Merlin 2 on their own dime :) 5 core falcon heavies for cheapp heavy lift lolol
How does this make NASA employees voters happy?
Isn't the trick for newt to help transform NASA to save it from those evil cheap commercial guys?
Make NASA happy or launch human space flight ?
Sounds like a magic trick :)
I can't wait to hear what he has to say lolol a very smart Man
reply
Nothing Much
5 days ago
I don't see why this being political makes it wrong. Kennedy's Moon project was also political. Newt is willing to bring this up, and you know he's willing to defend his stances. You've seen that already (see the Dec 10th and Jan 19th debates, it's all on display in the first 15 min.). He does have the ability to gain votes by being attacked and striking back, look at S Carolina. No matter what you think, he's the only candidate willing to bring space into the national conversation and defend it. I'm willing to bet this is indicative that he'll maintain his space goals through out his administration. SDI was the last space program to be defended in the political arena. And before that, it was the Moon program. Everything else has had to sink or swim as an orphan, and only STS was able to survive in that environment.
Space will, in the end, probably be opened by a slow evolutionary moves. However, if you are of the revolutionary school of thought. Newt is just the guy to carry out a revolution from the political side. This is what the opening move looks like. For those of you who favor the political mode of operations. Gear up, and get your kit ready, space is about to enter the political discussion as you've wanted it to be for the past 20 years. Live it up.
hide 1 replyreply
Paul451
3 days ago
"I don't see why this being political makes it wrong. Kennedy's Moon project was also political."
That's why. Because it was political it wasn't about developing capability, it was aboutreaching a goal. Once reached, the balloon burst, and there was nothing left but wishes.
reply
kl_777
5 days ago
I am glad the lame, low orbit shuttle program is over. Time to do a lot of catch up R&D, get to the Moon and Mars in a respectable about of time.
reply
Spacelab1
6 days ago
No real exciting news here. He's probably just trying to get votes from the people who lost their jobs due to the shuttle's retirement.
Even if Gingrich wins the presidency and genuinely tries to help human spaceflight, it is very unlikely that a strong enough commitment is generated to build a successful space program. I can already see the whole "Newt Skywalker" thing getting nasty with his opponents and most of the public eventually saying he's too concerned with space and neglecting real problems on earth.
The truth is the general public and Congress don't really care enough about space, and the space advocacy community is too small to generate enough enthusiasm for a successful government funded space program to develop. Even space advocates disagree on how to make HSF successful.
If the private sector can't pull it off to make HSF cheaper and more reliable, I don't see us going anywhere within the next 70 years. I hate sounding so pessimistic but the pattern against spaceflight is definitely there.
Space colonization requires mastering spaceflight to the point where it is cheap and reliable, however; space travel is still as impractical and expensive as it was 40+ years ago and a relatively few want to do anything about it! Thus, one can easily see spaceflight being just as expensive, unreliable and prohibitive in 40+ years from now.
reply
DTARS
6 days ago
Thanks for the ISS thoughts the other day Steve. Sure helped me to have a clue.
reply
Sent from my iPad
Shuttle Concept most capable
Shuttle concept most Capable
Many are critical of the shuttle, they say it is not economically viable. Did you expect a vehicle as capable as the shuttle that is pushing the envelope to go into service and meet all the original design goals during the first design iteration and to be financially viable too?
Look at the history of other complex systems which ” push the envelope”. How many shuttles do you see flying on a regular basis?
Even if USA proposal was to have commenced, the shuttle at this iteration would require some gov support.
Eventually it could evolve into a financially sound operation. DOD operation would be integrated into shuttle services. Other LV would of course continue to be used for missions appropriate to those LV’s.
The shuttle would continue to evolve into an improved design. The shuttle concept supports a logical progression to earth orbit and to other destinations more distant from earth.
Failure to utilize the shuttle and improve it will essentially cede control of China.
Commercially operated shuttle for 1/3 cost
NASA knew right answer– operate shuttle commercially–wanted to spend more
Posted by keeptheshuttleflying.com at 8:52 PM 0 comments There was a solution and NASA knew it. That solution was to commercialize the STS Space Shuttles and use them in conjunction with a new Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift Launch vehicle, such a Shuttle-C. Shuttle-C could have been built for about $10 billion or about the same money wasted on Constellation before it got cancelled. A Shuttle-C could have lifted some 70,000kg into space. Sharing resources, facilities, and even missions would have reduced the cost for both the Commercial Shuttles and the Shuttle-C. NASA demonstrated the ability to operate the Shuttles at reduced cost when it started shifting people from the bloated Shuttle program to Constellation because this reduce Shutle flight costs from about $1.3 billion to only $750 million. Something NASA kept sayind couldn’t be done. The simple fact is the Shuttles died because NASA and the Aerospace Industry didn’t want a couple of billion dollars a year flying the Shuttles, they wanted the $200 Billion + building Constellation. At the price you could have flown the Shuttles on over 200 missions. So the Shuttles died and our manned space program was slaughterd for pork. Now they are promoting SLS, which is a vehicle with no mission other than pork.
What kind of people are leading US Space Program? Are they Brain Dead?
What kind of people are leading US Space Program?? Are they Brain Dead?
Posted on January 15, 2012 by Bob
We have a capable, reliable vehicle in a museum on which we have spent 100 of billions. We depend on this capability to service systems in orbit (HST, ISS, unknown national security assets) on which we have invested 100 or more billions. Replacement vehicles are 10 years or more away and none of them have the capability of the shuttle such as payload, use of arm, EVA capability, runway landing. We are spending 60 million 6 times a year for Russian transport to the station on a vehicle which does not meet NASA’s manned rating requirements ( read ASAP minutes on this subject, read NASA analysis of Soyus & Hale blog).
Failure to continue the shuttle concept will result in an inferior design solution. The commercial solutions now in work greatly under estimate the difficulty of the mission and are not adequately
funded.
The shuttle is unbelievably capable, three papers cover its history and potential they are:
The Case to Save the Shuttle
On the Early Retirement of the Shuttle
Nonsensical retirement of the Shuttle.
Posted by keeptheshuttleflying.com at 8:13 PM 0 comments
Many are critical of the shuttle, they say it is not economically viable. Did you expect a vehicle as capable as the shuttle that is pushing the envelope to go into service and meet all the original design goals during the first design iteration and to be financially viable too?
Look at the history of other complex systems which ” push the envelope”. How many shuttles do you see flying on a regular basis?
Even if USA proposal was to have commenced, the shuttle at this iteration would require some gov support.
Eventually it could evolve into a financially sound operation. DOD operation would be integrated into shuttle services. Other LV would of course continue to be used for missions appropriate to those LV’s.
The shuttle would continue to evolve into an improved design. The shuttle concept supports a logical progression to earth orbit and to other destinations more distant from earth.
Failure to utilize the shuttle and improve it will essentially cede control of China.
Commercially operated shuttle for 1/3 cost
NASA knew right answer– operate shuttle commercially–wanted to spend more
Posted by keeptheshuttleflying.com at 8:52 PM 0 comments There was a solution and NASA knew it. That solution was to commercialize the STS Space Shuttles and use them in conjunction with a new Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift Launch vehicle, such a Shuttle-C. Shuttle-C could have been built for about $10 billion or about the same money wasted on Constellation before it got cancelled. A Shuttle-C could have lifted some 70,000kg into space. Sharing resources, facilities, and even missions would have reduced the cost for both the Commercial Shuttles and the Shuttle-C. NASA demonstrated the ability to operate the Shuttles at reduced cost when it started shifting people from the bloated Shuttle program to Constellation because this reduce Shutle flight costs from about $1.3 billion to only $750 million. Something NASA kept sayind couldn’t be done. The simple fact is the Shuttles died because NASA and the Aerospace Industry didn’t want a couple of billion dollars a year flying the Shuttles, they wanted the $200 Billion + building Constellation. At the price you could have flown the Shuttles on over 200 missions. So the Shuttles died and our manned space program was slaughterd for pork. Now they are promoting SLS, which is a vehicle with no mission other than pork.
What kind of people are leading US Space Program? Are they Brain Dead?
What kind of people are leading US Space Program?? Are they Brain Dead?
Posted on January 15, 2012 by Bob
We have a capable, reliable vehicle in a museum on which we have spent 100 of billions. We depend on this capability to service systems in orbit (HST, ISS, unknown national security assets) on which we have invested 100 or more billions. Replacement vehicles are 10 years or more away and none of them have the capability of the shuttle such as payload, use of arm, EVA capability, runway landing. We are spending 60 million 6 times a year for Russian transport to the station on a vehicle which does not meet NASA’s manned rating requirements ( read ASAP minutes on this subject, read NASA analysis of Soyus & Hale blog).
Failure to continue the shuttle concept will result in an inferior design solution. The commercial solutions now in work greatly under estimate the difficulty of the mission and are not adequately
funded.
The shuttle is unbelievably capable, three papers cover its history and potential they are:
The Case to Save the Shuttle
On the Early Retirement of the Shuttle
Nonsensical retirement of the Shuttle.
Posted by keeptheshuttleflying.com at 8:13 PM 0 comments
Fly shuttle commercially, to do otherwise places reliance on HOPE over EXPERIENCE
By establishing commercialized Space Shuttle operations, NASA can take a known and reliable flight system and use it to develop and transition the governance and oversight processes needed for the COTS era operations. In addition to mitigating the risks and uncertainties associated with current NASA plans, America would retain its prominence as a leading participant in human space flight. A professionally done peer reviewed risk assessment will define the risks with their associated uncertainties and highlight where mitigations must be taken. To do otherwise places reliance on hope over experience.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Loss of shuttle does affect national security--without shuttle we only have HOPE
"In Part 3 of this series I noted that NASA human spaceflight (HSF) is a powerful component of US national security, enhancing prestige, demonstrating technical achievement, and engaging in activities evocative of national pride to which other countries can aspire (see “An enduring value proposition for NASA human spaceflight (part 3)”,
a notation that is flawed. As we are finding out grounding NASA's space shuttles did not affect national security in the least.
A goofy notion. a weak series of pieces Almost Taylor D like RGO
Report
Reply1 reply · active 2 weeks ago
0
rigganaut13 · 2 weeks ago
Really, you give it a few months with nothing to show and you sit back and say it doesn't affect our national security? Its better to have and not need than it is to need and not have. The FACT that we no longer have the abilities to travel to space and deliver payloads, people, hardware, supplies, retrieve satellites, rescue crew members is a threat to our "national security". We now depend on Russia to get us to space. Why is it that people are so quick to criticize and hate the things that make America, America. So quick to blast their bias views against these things. shut up for once. Just please, Shut up.
a notation that is flawed. As we are finding out grounding NASA's space shuttles did not affect national security in the least.
A goofy notion. a weak series of pieces Almost Taylor D like RGO
Report
Reply1 reply · active 2 weeks ago
0
rigganaut13 · 2 weeks ago
Really, you give it a few months with nothing to show and you sit back and say it doesn't affect our national security? Its better to have and not need than it is to need and not have. The FACT that we no longer have the abilities to travel to space and deliver payloads, people, hardware, supplies, retrieve satellites, rescue crew members is a threat to our "national security". We now depend on Russia to get us to space. Why is it that people are so quick to criticize and hate the things that make America, America. So quick to blast their bias views against these things. shut up for once. Just please, Shut up.
The obvious Question
This country has invested 100 ' s of billions on shuttle, similar amounts on ISS and considerable on Hubble. Additionally, the ISS with Russian rides to it, cargo support, is not being operated to its full capacity due to lack of equipment which needed shuttle to bring it to ISS, and lack of critical EVA operations. We can't support Hubble repair or reboost. JWT is having funding problems, as is SLS and cots. In this setting, various media stars interview presidential candidates. You would think an obvious question, would be, why did we retire the shuttle prematurely? Or it's a shame why place a perfectly good vehicle in a museum.?
Greta in an interview with newt, ask lots of questions about space-- not a mention of shuttle by newt or Greta. Or maybe-- too bad we can't use shuttle until we get a replacement.
Or, what a waste the shuttle after all we spent on it, it's in a museum.
What happened to the plan for USA to operate shuttle commercially?
What happened to the investigative media.? Are they braindead?
America, we will pay dearly for this decision. This has been characterized as NASA's worst decision. It is definitely America's worst.
It can be REVERSED.
Greta in an interview with newt, ask lots of questions about space-- not a mention of shuttle by newt or Greta. Or maybe-- too bad we can't use shuttle until we get a replacement.
Or, what a waste the shuttle after all we spent on it, it's in a museum.
What happened to the plan for USA to operate shuttle commercially?
What happened to the investigative media.? Are they braindead?
America, we will pay dearly for this decision. This has been characterized as NASA's worst decision. It is definitely America's worst.
It can be REVERSED.
Soyus capsule cracked--another delay----WHERE IS SHUTTLE? Our brilliant leaders put it in a museum!!
One thing that I like that Griffin did was COTS-D.Too bad he and the Congress did not fund it.I see that the next Soyuz capsule cracked when they pressurized it.So another delay in crew transport to ISS.I suggested long ago that this next Dragon flight be used to test Crew.They should have left the windows in.Instead of a mock-up of the interior that is due now,install it in the capsule that will launch.If you look at the picture they have out,there is plenty of room left for the little cargo they will carry.If Soyuz keeps having problems,maybe a fire will be lit under NASA and they will have to speed up DragonRyder.One thing I was worried about Dragon was putting the parachutes outside.How about heat?Do a search for Dragon.There is a picture of the other side of the capsule that is normally not shown.It is burnt all the way up.Either the parachutes are not on that side or are insulated enough.This was caused by the lifting reentry.If ballistic it would be equal and would not burn way up.This may be why they took the windows out.Will have to have windows on one side and make sure it is coming in upright.
Friday, January 27, 2012
32 month report card------Hope and Change
> Subject: 32 month report card
A MUST SEE FOR EVERY AMERICAN INTERESTED IN THE PRESERVATION OF AMERICA.
> This is unreal. Thank God someone had the background, intelligence, and
> determination to put this together. This took an enormous amount of work.
> I have to forward this to everyone I know. Please remember that we hold a
> great deal of power...we can vote.
by Rich Carroll
>
> The following article was written by Rich Carroll. Rich is a veteran of
the
> Vietnam war and he wrote "Orphaned Heroes" a book about his command there.
> Since his retirement from Reader's Digest, Rich has been a free lance
> writer. He is a well known op-ed writer whose articles often appear in Two
> Sisters From The Right and other conservative blogs. His book "Terrorists'
> Crossing" available through Amazon.com
> southern border with Mexico.
>
> Mr. Hope and Change wants to create a nation humbled; humiliated,
> casting-aside capitalism and individual freedoms for one where we the
people
> are government controlled. This would be a system that genuflects
> mediocrity, steals personal aspiration and opportunity, and punishes those
> who strive to succeed.
>
> A gallon of regular gasoline the day Obama was inaugurated was $1.79 on
> average in the U.S. Today that price is $3.59, a 100.6% increase. The
number
> of food stamp recipients has risen since Obama took office from 31,983,716
> to 43,200,878, a 35.1% jump. Long term unemployment soared 146.2% during
the
> same 32 month period from 2,600,000 to 6,400,000. Staggering hope and
change
> isn't it?
>
>
>
> American citizens living in poverty have risen 9.5% from 39,800,000 to
> 43,600,000, and the number of unemployed has jumped almost 25% from
> 11,616,000 to 14,485,000 as of August 31, 2011. The number of unemployed
> blacks has risen from 12.6% at the end of George Bush's term to 15.8%
today,
> a 25.4% increase, and finally, our national debt is up 34.4% from 10.627
> trillion to 14,278 trillion *
>
>
>
> Keep these figures in mind as we recount the number of firsts for this
> presidency:
>
>
>
> First President to refuse to show a valid birth certificate.
>
> First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he
> was a foreigner.
>
> First President to have a social security number from a state he has never
> lived in.
>
> First President to preside over a cut to the credit rating of the United
> States .
>
> First President to violate the War Powers Act.
>
> First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing
> oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico .
>
> First President to defy a Federal Judges court order to cease implementing
> the Health Care Reform Law.
>
> First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third
> party.
>
> First President to spend a trillion dollars on shovel-ready jobs and later
> admit there was no such thing as shovel-ready jobs.
>
> First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of
companies
> to his union supporters.
>
> First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through
> executive fiat.
>
> First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the
> deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S. , including those with
> criminal convictions.
>
> First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his
> political appointees.
>
> First President to terminate Americas ability to put a man in space.
>
> First President to encourage racial discrimination and intimidation at
> polling places.
>
> First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.
>
> First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and
> refuse to enforce it.
>
> First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly speak-out
> on the reasons for their rate increases.
>
> First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state they
> are allowed to locate a factory.
>
> First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to
> protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN)
>
> First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly
> issued years ago.
>
> First President to fire an inspector general of Ameri-corps for catching
one
> of his friends in a corruption case.
>
> First President to appoint 45 Czars to replace elected officials in his
> office.
>
> First President to golf 73 separate times in his first two and a half years
> in office.
>
> First President to hide his medical, educational and travel records.
>
> First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.
>
> First President to coddle American enemies while alienating Americas
allies.
>
> First President to publicly bow to Americas enemies while refusing to
salute
> the U.S. Flag.
>
> First President to go on multiple global apology tours.
>
> First President to go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and
> Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends, paid for by the
> taxpayer.
>
> First President to refuse to wear the U.S. Flag lapel pin.
>
> First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his
wife.
>
> First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000.00 a year at
> taxpayer expense.
>
> First President to repeat the Holy Qur'an tells us, and openly admit the
> early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most
> beautiful sound on earth.
>
>
>
> Remember that 32 months of Obama White House we the people have accumulated
> national debt at a rate more than 27 times as fast as during the rest of
our
> nation's entire history, as the Obama's plan their next extravagant
vacation
> to the Indonesian Island nation of Bali .
>
>
>
> Hope and change anyone ?????????
>
>
>
> * sources: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Wall Street Journal,
> Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Dept. of Labor, Standard &
> Poors/Case-Shiller, Federal Reserve, US Treasury, Heritage Foundation.
A MUST SEE FOR EVERY AMERICAN INTERESTED IN THE PRESERVATION OF AMERICA.
> This is unreal. Thank God someone had the background, intelligence, and
> determination to put this together. This took an enormous amount of work.
> I have to forward this to everyone I know. Please remember that we hold a
> great deal of power...we can vote.
by Rich Carroll
>
> The following article was written by Rich Carroll. Rich is a veteran of
the
> Vietnam war and he wrote "Orphaned Heroes" a book about his command there.
> Since his retirement from Reader's Digest, Rich has been a free lance
> writer. He is a well known op-ed writer whose articles often appear in Two
> Sisters From The Right and other conservative blogs. His book "Terrorists'
> Crossing" available through Amazon.com
> southern border with Mexico.
>
> Mr. Hope and Change wants to create a nation humbled; humiliated,
> casting-aside capitalism and individual freedoms for one where we the
people
> are government controlled. This would be a system that genuflects
> mediocrity, steals personal aspiration and opportunity, and punishes those
> who strive to succeed.
>
> A gallon of regular gasoline the day Obama was inaugurated was $1.79 on
> average in the U.S. Today that price is $3.59, a 100.6% increase. The
number
> of food stamp recipients has risen since Obama took office from 31,983,716
> to 43,200,878, a 35.1% jump. Long term unemployment soared 146.2% during
the
> same 32 month period from 2,600,000 to 6,400,000. Staggering hope and
change
> isn't it?
>
>
>
> American citizens living in poverty have risen 9.5% from 39,800,000 to
> 43,600,000, and the number of unemployed has jumped almost 25% from
> 11,616,000 to 14,485,000 as of August 31, 2011. The number of unemployed
> blacks has risen from 12.6% at the end of George Bush's term to 15.8%
today,
> a 25.4% increase, and finally, our national debt is up 34.4% from 10.627
> trillion to 14,278 trillion *
>
>
>
> Keep these figures in mind as we recount the number of firsts for this
> presidency:
>
>
>
> First President to refuse to show a valid birth certificate.
>
> First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he
> was a foreigner.
>
> First President to have a social security number from a state he has never
> lived in.
>
> First President to preside over a cut to the credit rating of the United
> States .
>
> First President to violate the War Powers Act.
>
> First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing
> oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico .
>
> First President to defy a Federal Judges court order to cease implementing
> the Health Care Reform Law.
>
> First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third
> party.
>
> First President to spend a trillion dollars on shovel-ready jobs and later
> admit there was no such thing as shovel-ready jobs.
>
> First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of
companies
> to his union supporters.
>
> First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through
> executive fiat.
>
> First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the
> deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S. , including those with
> criminal convictions.
>
> First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his
> political appointees.
>
> First President to terminate Americas ability to put a man in space.
>
> First President to encourage racial discrimination and intimidation at
> polling places.
>
> First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.
>
> First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and
> refuse to enforce it.
>
> First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly speak-out
> on the reasons for their rate increases.
>
> First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state they
> are allowed to locate a factory.
>
> First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to
> protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN)
>
> First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly
> issued years ago.
>
> First President to fire an inspector general of Ameri-corps for catching
one
> of his friends in a corruption case.
>
> First President to appoint 45 Czars to replace elected officials in his
> office.
>
> First President to golf 73 separate times in his first two and a half years
> in office.
>
> First President to hide his medical, educational and travel records.
>
> First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.
>
> First President to coddle American enemies while alienating Americas
allies.
>
> First President to publicly bow to Americas enemies while refusing to
salute
> the U.S. Flag.
>
> First President to go on multiple global apology tours.
>
> First President to go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and
> Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends, paid for by the
> taxpayer.
>
> First President to refuse to wear the U.S. Flag lapel pin.
>
> First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his
wife.
>
> First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000.00 a year at
> taxpayer expense.
>
> First President to repeat the Holy Qur'an tells us, and openly admit the
> early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most
> beautiful sound on earth.
>
>
>
> Remember that 32 months of Obama White House we the people have accumulated
> national debt at a rate more than 27 times as fast as during the rest of
our
> nation's entire history, as the Obama's plan their next extravagant
vacation
> to the Indonesian Island nation of Bali .
>
>
>
> Hope and change anyone ?????????
>
>
>
> * sources: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Wall Street Journal,
> Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Dept. of Labor, Standard &
> Poors/Case-Shiller, Federal Reserve, US Treasury, Heritage Foundation.
China will control space unless shuttle is returned to flight
What are the freedoms you cherish most?.? Freedom of religion, speech, right to bear arms, property rights, freedom to marry and have children, freedom to assemble, travel.
As a result of the ineptness of our leaders the USA is on the verge of ceding space to china and as a result control of the USA to china.
The shuttle, and the shuttle concept are critical to the defense of the USA in the space arena , which supports returning shuttle to flight on a commercial basis--like the USA proposal. Additionally,our budget problems are limiting our options. The shuttle exists and is paid for--this is very, very significant. A tremendous amount of money is involved in a new design and associated testing. USA proposal for commercial shuttle operation should be implemented immediately.
We are placing this country in peril by not using this vehicles capabilities.
Newt addressed this in his speech on space---I.e., lunar colony will have Americas name on it.
As a result of the ineptness of our leaders the USA is on the verge of ceding space to china and as a result control of the USA to china.
The shuttle, and the shuttle concept are critical to the defense of the USA in the space arena , which supports returning shuttle to flight on a commercial basis--like the USA proposal. Additionally,our budget problems are limiting our options. The shuttle exists and is paid for--this is very, very significant. A tremendous amount of money is involved in a new design and associated testing. USA proposal for commercial shuttle operation should be implemented immediately.
We are placing this country in peril by not using this vehicles capabilities.
Newt addressed this in his speech on space---I.e., lunar colony will have Americas name on it.
Visionary---newt on target--expand USA capability.
Newt Gingrich Proposes Moon, Mars Flights: A Reality Check
Can the U.S. Afford New Space Effort? Gingrich Proposes One
Gamma-Keystone/Getty Images
The lunar colony, as imagined by American engineers, Sep. 26, 1969.
By GINA SUNSERI
1/26/12, 3:28 PM EST
A colony on the moon? Republican Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich floated the idea before a massive audience on Florida's space coast. Thousands lost jobs there when the space shuttle quit flying, so what he told them was music to their ears -- the promise of jobs once again, another space race.
Gingrich offered his vision of an ambitious new space program. "By the end of my second term," Gingrich said, "we will have the first permanent base on the moon and it will be American." The crowd erupted in applause.
And he was just getting started; by 2020, he said, there would be regular flights to Mars.
"I am sick of being told we have to be timid
and I'm sick of being told we have to be limited to technologies that are 50 years old," Gingrich said.
But what are the realities? Earth already has a space colony in Earth orbit, and it's been
expensive. It is the International Space Station (no one ever came up with a catchier name because that's a political hot potato). This orbiting outpost cost $100 billion to build over 10 years, after a decade of planning, with the combined efforts of 16 countries.
Can the U.S. Afford New Space Effort? Gingrich Proposes One
Gamma-Keystone/Getty Images
The lunar colony, as imagined by American engineers, Sep. 26, 1969.
By GINA SUNSERI
1/26/12, 3:28 PM EST
A colony on the moon? Republican Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich floated the idea before a massive audience on Florida's space coast. Thousands lost jobs there when the space shuttle quit flying, so what he told them was music to their ears -- the promise of jobs once again, another space race.
Gingrich offered his vision of an ambitious new space program. "By the end of my second term," Gingrich said, "we will have the first permanent base on the moon and it will be American." The crowd erupted in applause.
And he was just getting started; by 2020, he said, there would be regular flights to Mars.
"I am sick of being told we have to be timid
and I'm sick of being told we have to be limited to technologies that are 50 years old," Gingrich said.
But what are the realities? Earth already has a space colony in Earth orbit, and it's been
expensive. It is the International Space Station (no one ever came up with a catchier name because that's a political hot potato). This orbiting outpost cost $100 billion to build over 10 years, after a decade of planning, with the combined efforts of 16 countries.
Close NASA and commercialize shuttle and other elements of program
Close NASA, Commercialize Shuttle and other elements of program
Posted on January 27, 2012 by Bob
Restart USA effort to fly shuttle on a commercial basis.
1. Fly shuttle for earth orbit operations
2. Evolve and use shuttle for placing upper stages in orbit to go to other destinations and do critical work in earth orbit such as keeping Hubble operational and delay JWT until economy improves.
3. Use shuttle c for heavy lift.
4. Commercialize shuttle as was started with united space alliance.
Commercialize design improvements, evolve and use shuttle as Aldrin recommends.
This approach will cover national security and exploration.
Newt, is right on target, commercialize and close NASA down, that will eliminate the "management" of Obama, garver, bolden , ASAP and they will cease to be a problem. The remainder of the GOP candidates including Obama do not appear to recognize the national security aspects. Also, newt will talk about the subject. The remainder do not seem interested.
Furthermore, newt is what we need for the deficit, food stamps, controlling various government excesses, energy, housing, federal reserve , etc.
After reading the various papers, and space news sites, most of them make it much more complex than it is. After all we have the shuttle built and paid for—-what a deal.!!
Posted by keeptheshuttleflying.com at 6:57 AM 0 comments
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Posted on January 27, 2012 by Bob
Restart USA effort to fly shuttle on a commercial basis.
1. Fly shuttle for earth orbit operations
2. Evolve and use shuttle for placing upper stages in orbit to go to other destinations and do critical work in earth orbit such as keeping Hubble operational and delay JWT until economy improves.
3. Use shuttle c for heavy lift.
4. Commercialize shuttle as was started with united space alliance.
Commercialize design improvements, evolve and use shuttle as Aldrin recommends.
This approach will cover national security and exploration.
Newt, is right on target, commercialize and close NASA down, that will eliminate the "management" of Obama, garver, bolden , ASAP and they will cease to be a problem. The remainder of the GOP candidates including Obama do not appear to recognize the national security aspects. Also, newt will talk about the subject. The remainder do not seem interested.
Furthermore, newt is what we need for the deficit, food stamps, controlling various government excesses, energy, housing, federal reserve , etc.
After reading the various papers, and space news sites, most of them make it much more complex than it is. After all we have the shuttle built and paid for—-what a deal.!!
Posted by keeptheshuttleflying.com at 6:57 AM 0 comments
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Keystone---Politics at its worst
President is putting your family's future at risk.......as well as that of our country!
Date: January 24, 2012
To: Valero Employees
From: Bill Klesse
Subject: Keystone XL Pipeline Statement
As you know, the Obama administration decided last week to deny TransCanada’s application to ship crude oil via the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the Gulf Coast. Valero has planned to be a shipper and purchaser of that oil since 2008, and obviously we were disappointed in the decision. We issued a statement in response to questions from the media, and I wanted to share it with you in case you get questions from friends or business partners, and so that you would know why Valero supports the Keystone XL pipeline. This is the statement:
Despite the uncertainty and political fighting over the Keystone XL pipeline, Valero has continued to invest in its U.S. refining operation. In 2011 we spent nearly $3 billion on projects, and for 2012 our capital expenditure budget is over $3 billion. These expenditures are keeping our employees on the job and putting additional people to work. To reference two of our refineries, at Port Arthur, Texas, we have 1,600 contractors working on an expansion project, and at St. Charles Parish, Louisiana, we have another 1,000 contractors working on a separate project. We need this kind of economic activity to accelerate to help all Americans.
This illustrates why the federal government’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline is so absurd. There are pipelines in every neighborhood all across America. The administration’s decision was not about pipelines, it was about the misguided beliefs that Canadian oil sands development should be stopped and that fossil fuel prices should increase to make alternative energy more attractive. Instead, we should be impressed with how well the oil sands engineering and recovery technology has advanced, and the economic benefits this development brings. Having more oil available in the marketplace has the potential to lower prices for consumers. As an independent refiner, Valero buys all of the oil we process. Due to the administration’s misguided policies, refiners like Valero will have to buy more oil from other sources outside the U.S. and Canada. Consumers will bear the additional shipping cost, not to mention the additional greenhouse gas emissions and political risks.
With all the issues facing our country, it is absolutely unbelievable our federal government says no to a company like TransCanada that is willing to spend over $7 billion and put Americans to work on a pipeline. The administration’s decision throws dirt into the face of our closest ally and largest trading partner.
The point above is that it is not about pipelines as many pipelines cross the Ogallala Aquifer, in the Great Plains region, and, in fact, there is already significant oil and gas production in the area covered by the aquifer. This is politics at its worst.
Thanks for your support.
Date: January 24, 2012
To: Valero Employees
From: Bill Klesse
Subject: Keystone XL Pipeline Statement
As you know, the Obama administration decided last week to deny TransCanada’s application to ship crude oil via the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the Gulf Coast. Valero has planned to be a shipper and purchaser of that oil since 2008, and obviously we were disappointed in the decision. We issued a statement in response to questions from the media, and I wanted to share it with you in case you get questions from friends or business partners, and so that you would know why Valero supports the Keystone XL pipeline. This is the statement:
Despite the uncertainty and political fighting over the Keystone XL pipeline, Valero has continued to invest in its U.S. refining operation. In 2011 we spent nearly $3 billion on projects, and for 2012 our capital expenditure budget is over $3 billion. These expenditures are keeping our employees on the job and putting additional people to work. To reference two of our refineries, at Port Arthur, Texas, we have 1,600 contractors working on an expansion project, and at St. Charles Parish, Louisiana, we have another 1,000 contractors working on a separate project. We need this kind of economic activity to accelerate to help all Americans.
This illustrates why the federal government’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline is so absurd. There are pipelines in every neighborhood all across America. The administration’s decision was not about pipelines, it was about the misguided beliefs that Canadian oil sands development should be stopped and that fossil fuel prices should increase to make alternative energy more attractive. Instead, we should be impressed with how well the oil sands engineering and recovery technology has advanced, and the economic benefits this development brings. Having more oil available in the marketplace has the potential to lower prices for consumers. As an independent refiner, Valero buys all of the oil we process. Due to the administration’s misguided policies, refiners like Valero will have to buy more oil from other sources outside the U.S. and Canada. Consumers will bear the additional shipping cost, not to mention the additional greenhouse gas emissions and political risks.
With all the issues facing our country, it is absolutely unbelievable our federal government says no to a company like TransCanada that is willing to spend over $7 billion and put Americans to work on a pipeline. The administration’s decision throws dirt into the face of our closest ally and largest trading partner.
The point above is that it is not about pipelines as many pipelines cross the Ogallala Aquifer, in the Great Plains region, and, in fact, there is already significant oil and gas production in the area covered by the aquifer. This is politics at its worst.
Thanks for your support.
Next Russian launch to ISS delayed---ISS escape plan questioned by ASAP --where have they been???
Russia 'to postpone next manned space launch'
Agence France Press
Russia is set to pospone the next two manned launches for the International Space Station (ISS) for several weeks due to technical problems with the Soyuz spaceship, an industry source told Interfax Friday. The source told Interfax that the Soyuz TMA-04M vessel had not withstood tests to its pressure chamber ahead of the planned mission on March 30 and the first flight would be postponed to mid-April or the first half of May. "This re-entry capsule now cannot be used for manned spaceflight," the source said.
Report: ISS escape plan not good enough
30% chance crew may need to abandon ship by 2020, group warns
Todd Halvorson - Florida Today
NASA is not adequately prepared to evacuate the International Space Station in an emergency and should put in place “a fully-vetted, detailed procedure” so astronauts and cosmonauts can escape in Russian lifeboats, an independent safety group reported this week. What’s more, there is “greater than a 30 percent chance” a crew might have to abandon ship between now and the planned end of outpost operations in 2020, and NASA is not adequately communicating that risk to the public or people in the agency. “One cannot escape the conclusion that the risk...is more than an outside possibility,” the Aerospace Safery Advisory Panel wrote in a report released during a week in which NASA is memorializing astronauts killed in the Apollo 1 launch-pad fire and the Challenger and Columbia shuttle accidents.
Solemn
Agence France Press
Russia is set to pospone the next two manned launches for the International Space Station (ISS) for several weeks due to technical problems with the Soyuz spaceship, an industry source told Interfax Friday. The source told Interfax that the Soyuz TMA-04M vessel had not withstood tests to its pressure chamber ahead of the planned mission on March 30 and the first flight would be postponed to mid-April or the first half of May. "This re-entry capsule now cannot be used for manned spaceflight," the source said.
Report: ISS escape plan not good enough
30% chance crew may need to abandon ship by 2020, group warns
Todd Halvorson - Florida Today
NASA is not adequately prepared to evacuate the International Space Station in an emergency and should put in place “a fully-vetted, detailed procedure” so astronauts and cosmonauts can escape in Russian lifeboats, an independent safety group reported this week. What’s more, there is “greater than a 30 percent chance” a crew might have to abandon ship between now and the planned end of outpost operations in 2020, and NASA is not adequately communicating that risk to the public or people in the agency. “One cannot escape the conclusion that the risk...is more than an outside possibility,” the Aerospace Safery Advisory Panel wrote in a report released during a week in which NASA is memorializing astronauts killed in the Apollo 1 launch-pad fire and the Challenger and Columbia shuttle accidents.
Solemn
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Note to Newt on Unbelievable Waste of placing Shuttle in Museum
I am sure newt realizes that we are wasting tremendous resources by placing the shuttle in a museum. Hundreds of complex and expensive systems have been developed with years of design and multilevel testing , system level testing costing many millions if not billions, we put this system in a museum when the USA desperately needs this capability to support the ISS and Hubble on which we have invested many more billions and to place upper stages of moon and mars vehicles in earth orbit--it is irrational/insane.
Who is a hypocrit??
James M Balzano Jr
He is such a hypocrit!
6 hours ago
Clifford F. Chiesa
Hypocrit!
Newt has been promoting the idea of a reward for goal program since the 1990s. Proof of this can be found in Robert Zubrins book "The Case For Mars", in which there was actually a photo of Gingrich promting the "rewards" case to promote a lower cost approach to manned flighs to Mars. Don't know what Zubrins political leaning are, but it was in the book.
Obama, while campagning in 2008 chided the Bush administration for not providing adequate funding for future manned space efforts. Yet one of his first actions was to cancel the entire Constellation program with no plan of action in sight. Shortly thereafter he gives a speech at the space center where he claimed that "There is no greater suporter of NASA than myself". Hypocracy?
3 hours ago · Like · 1
He is such a hypocrit!
6 hours ago
Clifford F. Chiesa
Hypocrit!
Newt has been promoting the idea of a reward for goal program since the 1990s. Proof of this can be found in Robert Zubrins book "The Case For Mars", in which there was actually a photo of Gingrich promting the "rewards" case to promote a lower cost approach to manned flighs to Mars. Don't know what Zubrins political leaning are, but it was in the book.
Obama, while campagning in 2008 chided the Bush administration for not providing adequate funding for future manned space efforts. Yet one of his first actions was to cancel the entire Constellation program with no plan of action in sight. Shortly thereafter he gives a speech at the space center where he claimed that "There is no greater suporter of NASA than myself". Hypocracy?
3 hours ago · Like · 1
Space policy being discussed
With the Republican primary season moving to Florida it’s natural that space policy has become a topic during the campaign. Heretofore it’s been nonexistent.
Newt Gingrich, who has long had an interest in space, declared the following during a campaign rally: “By the end of my second term, we will have the first permanent base on the moon and it will be American.”
That’s a good rallying cry in a state that would launch the many rockets needed to accomplish such a goal.
Although Gingrich did not elaborate a detailed plan, it’s clear that privatization would play a key role in any such feat. For example, he would consider using existing commercial rockets for such a goal (he asked about man-rating the Atlas 5) instead of NASA’s costly plan to develop a new heavy lift rocket.
Gingrich wants us to go back to the moon. And soon. (AP)
Gingrich’s idea of setting aside 10 percent of the NASA budget for commercial initiatives excited some in the space industry.
“Newt’s proposal to allocate 10 percent of NASA’s budget to establish a series of prizes would be revolutionary,” said Charles Miller, who recently stepped down as NASA’s Senior Advisor for Commercial Space and is now is President of NexGen Space.
“For example, if you took 10 percent of NASA’s budget next year — say about $1.8 Billion — and allocated it to a Reusable Spaceplane prize, call it Xprize 2.0, we would have a fundamental breakthrough in space transportation in very short order. It would transform national security space, civil space, and commercial space. We would have a race between the likes of Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and Paul Allen to build the nation’s first reusable spaceplane. The whole world would be watching.”
It’s unclear what effect further privatization would have on Johnson Space Center, in Houston, but any plan that gets astronauts flying more frequently, sooner, would be a boon for the place that trains astronauts and controls their flights.
Gingrich’s plans come in contrast to the White House-Senate plan for NASA, which calls for the development of a heavy lift rocket during the next decade, but does not allocate any money for actual missions beyond low-Earth orbit, because there is no money left over in the current budget.
With that said, promising the moon in less than a decade is not an achievable goal absent a significant increase in NASA’s funding.
But at least space policy is on the agenda.
Newt Gingrich, who has long had an interest in space, declared the following during a campaign rally: “By the end of my second term, we will have the first permanent base on the moon and it will be American.”
That’s a good rallying cry in a state that would launch the many rockets needed to accomplish such a goal.
Although Gingrich did not elaborate a detailed plan, it’s clear that privatization would play a key role in any such feat. For example, he would consider using existing commercial rockets for such a goal (he asked about man-rating the Atlas 5) instead of NASA’s costly plan to develop a new heavy lift rocket.
Gingrich wants us to go back to the moon. And soon. (AP)
Gingrich’s idea of setting aside 10 percent of the NASA budget for commercial initiatives excited some in the space industry.
“Newt’s proposal to allocate 10 percent of NASA’s budget to establish a series of prizes would be revolutionary,” said Charles Miller, who recently stepped down as NASA’s Senior Advisor for Commercial Space and is now is President of NexGen Space.
“For example, if you took 10 percent of NASA’s budget next year — say about $1.8 Billion — and allocated it to a Reusable Spaceplane prize, call it Xprize 2.0, we would have a fundamental breakthrough in space transportation in very short order. It would transform national security space, civil space, and commercial space. We would have a race between the likes of Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and Paul Allen to build the nation’s first reusable spaceplane. The whole world would be watching.”
It’s unclear what effect further privatization would have on Johnson Space Center, in Houston, but any plan that gets astronauts flying more frequently, sooner, would be a boon for the place that trains astronauts and controls their flights.
Gingrich’s plans come in contrast to the White House-Senate plan for NASA, which calls for the development of a heavy lift rocket during the next decade, but does not allocate any money for actual missions beyond low-Earth orbit, because there is no money left over in the current budget.
With that said, promising the moon in less than a decade is not an achievable goal absent a significant increase in NASA’s funding.
But at least space policy is on the agenda.
Bho tax plans destructive
Breaking News from Newsmax.com
Gingrich: Obama Tax Plan Will Bring Economic Destruction
Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich tells Newsmax.TV in an exclusive interview that President Barack Obama’s call for a 30 percent tax on millionaires is the “most destructive anti-jobs proposal by a president in my lifetime.” The former House speaker also says the Chavez regime in Venezuela is a “direct threat,".
Gingrich: Obama Tax Plan Will Bring Economic Destruction
Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich tells Newsmax.TV in an exclusive interview that President Barack Obama’s call for a 30 percent tax on millionaires is the “most destructive anti-jobs proposal by a president in my lifetime.” The former House speaker also says the Chavez regime in Venezuela is a “direct threat,".
At least it is a vision----McCulley
Gingrich said he would encourage commercial activities in space, including science, tourism and manufacturing. And in about eight years, he promises a rocket capable of reaching Mars.
Gingrich gave no details on how much a re-energized space program might cost or how he proposes to pay for it, except to say commercial interests might be promised prizes in the billions of dollars for developing the hardware.
His plan for "constant energetic and excited activities" would draw people back to the Space Coast, he said. "Because it's exciting and it's dynamic and who knows what next week is going to be like. Does that mean I'm a visionary? You betcha."
Later, at a roundtable with business leaders and educators, former shuttle pilot Mike McCulley recalled that President George W. Bush outlined an ambitious space agenda, which went nowhere. President Obama has also proposed a program much like Gingrich's that would use commercial rockets to carry cargo and crew to the International Space Station.
McCulley said he might quibble with a few of Gingrich's details, but at least it's a vision.
"It's been three or four major programs that have consumed enormous amounts of energy and money and time, and here we sit eight years later without a hell of a lot to show for it. I can say that now that I'm retired, of course," McCulley said.
The former House speaker's space plan is a classic Gingrich big idea. Whether he would be able to sell it to debt-weary taxpayers and Congress, to say nothing of whether it would succeed, can only be guessed.
Gingrich gave no details on how much a re-energized space program might cost or how he proposes to pay for it, except to say commercial interests might be promised prizes in the billions of dollars for developing the hardware.
His plan for "constant energetic and excited activities" would draw people back to the Space Coast, he said. "Because it's exciting and it's dynamic and who knows what next week is going to be like. Does that mean I'm a visionary? You betcha."
Later, at a roundtable with business leaders and educators, former shuttle pilot Mike McCulley recalled that President George W. Bush outlined an ambitious space agenda, which went nowhere. President Obama has also proposed a program much like Gingrich's that would use commercial rockets to carry cargo and crew to the International Space Station.
McCulley said he might quibble with a few of Gingrich's details, but at least it's a vision.
"It's been three or four major programs that have consumed enormous amounts of energy and money and time, and here we sit eight years later without a hell of a lot to show for it. I can say that now that I'm retired, of course," McCulley said.
The former House speaker's space plan is a classic Gingrich big idea. Whether he would be able to sell it to debt-weary taxpayers and Congress, to say nothing of whether it would succeed, can only be guessed.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Gingrich calls for permanent lunar colony
Gingrich calls for permanent lunar colony in 'grandiose' space speech
By Justin Sink - 01/25/12 06:08 PM ET
Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich called for the creation of a permanent lunar colony that could become the nation's 51st state and a re-dedication to sending a man to Mars during a sprawling campaign speech Wednesday in Florida.
"I am sick of being told we have to be timid and I'm sick of being told we have to be limited to technologies that are 50 years old," Gingrich told a cheering crowd.
Gingrich said that his vision was on par with President Lincoln's call for a transcontinental railroad, the Wright brothers' push for manned flight, and President Kennedy's vision to send a man to the moon. Later, he described the rally as "the second great launch of the adventure John F. Kennedy started."
And in what Gingrich himself described as "the weirdest thing I've ever done," the former House Speaker called for a "Northwest ordinance for space."
"By the end of my second term, we will have a permanent colony on the moon and it will be American," Gingrich said.
Gingrich also described a future where space travel would become more common, building space ports that operated like modern airports for commercial and industrial travel. He also said that if the lunar colony he hoped to build reached 13,000 Americans, he believed it should be considered for statehood.
"We will have commercial near-earth activities … precisely on the model of the airlines in the 1930s," Gingrich said.
Gingrich defended his plan as in the tradition of great American ideas, mocking Mitt Romney for dismissing his "grandiose thoughts" in a press release last week.
"I accept the charge that I am American and Americans are instinctively grandiose because we believe in a bigger future," Gingrich said.
The former Speaker described a series of government incentives and prizes that would create an industrial atmosphere.
"You put up a bunch of interesting prizes you're going to have so many people showing up wanting to fly it's going to be unbelievable," Gingrich said. "We had enormous breakthroughs in the '20s and '30s costing the government very little money because smart people were working on it."
Gingrich said that would create an environment where Americans were finding "lean and aggressive" solutions to seemingly monumental problems.
"I want us to have so much constant energetic constant energy that people are learning again," Gingrich said.
"Does that mean I'm a visionary? You betcha," he added.
By Justin Sink - 01/25/12 06:08 PM ET
Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich called for the creation of a permanent lunar colony that could become the nation's 51st state and a re-dedication to sending a man to Mars during a sprawling campaign speech Wednesday in Florida.
"I am sick of being told we have to be timid and I'm sick of being told we have to be limited to technologies that are 50 years old," Gingrich told a cheering crowd.
Gingrich said that his vision was on par with President Lincoln's call for a transcontinental railroad, the Wright brothers' push for manned flight, and President Kennedy's vision to send a man to the moon. Later, he described the rally as "the second great launch of the adventure John F. Kennedy started."
And in what Gingrich himself described as "the weirdest thing I've ever done," the former House Speaker called for a "Northwest ordinance for space."
"By the end of my second term, we will have a permanent colony on the moon and it will be American," Gingrich said.
Gingrich also described a future where space travel would become more common, building space ports that operated like modern airports for commercial and industrial travel. He also said that if the lunar colony he hoped to build reached 13,000 Americans, he believed it should be considered for statehood.
"We will have commercial near-earth activities … precisely on the model of the airlines in the 1930s," Gingrich said.
Gingrich defended his plan as in the tradition of great American ideas, mocking Mitt Romney for dismissing his "grandiose thoughts" in a press release last week.
"I accept the charge that I am American and Americans are instinctively grandiose because we believe in a bigger future," Gingrich said.
The former Speaker described a series of government incentives and prizes that would create an industrial atmosphere.
"You put up a bunch of interesting prizes you're going to have so many people showing up wanting to fly it's going to be unbelievable," Gingrich said. "We had enormous breakthroughs in the '20s and '30s costing the government very little money because smart people were working on it."
Gingrich said that would create an environment where Americans were finding "lean and aggressive" solutions to seemingly monumental problems.
"I want us to have so much constant energetic constant energy that people are learning again," Gingrich said.
"Does that mean I'm a visionary? You betcha," he added.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)