Pages

Monday, February 27, 2017

Fwd: This Week in The Space Review - 2017 February 27



Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jeff Foust <jeff@thespacereview.com>
Date: February 27, 2017 at 5:11:53 PM CST
To: <bobbygmartin1938@gmail.com>
Subject: This Week in The Space Review - 2017 February 27
Reply-To: Jeff Foust <jeff@thespacereview.com>

This Week in The Space Review - 2017 February 27
This Week in The Space Review
View this email in your browser

This Week in The Space Review

February 27, 2017

Welcome to The Space Review's weekly newsletter!

The status of Russia's human spaceflight program (part 2)

In the second part of his comprehensive assessment of the state of Russia's human spaceflight program, Bart Hendrickx explores efforts in recent years by Russia to develop new crewed spacecraft and launch vehicles to support missions beyond Earth orbit.
 

The risks and benefits of accelerating crewed SLS missions

NASA announced earlier this month it is studying the possibility of putting astronauts on the first SLS/Orion mission, which currently is set to fly without a crew. Jeff Foust reports on the details of the study and some of the issues NASA will likely to encounter.
 

Human flight around the Moon: a worthy goal, but using the wrong vehicles

If sending people back to the Moon is a good idea, should it be done with SLS and Orion? Gerald Black argues that it makes more sense to send humans back to the Moon using commercial vehicles arguably further along in their development.
 

A radically easier path to space settlement

The promise of space settlements has remained just that because of the extremely high costs of establishing these outposts beyond Earth orbit. Al Globus offers an alternative approach that he believes could be much more feasible by sticking closer to home.
 

To the Moon, Uncle Sam!

As the debate continues about whether NASA should redirect its human space exploration program back to the Moon, another question is how to carry out such missions. Ajay Kothari says that such missions make sense provided they involve reusable launch vehicles.
 

Review: The Final Mission

Changing programs and restricted budgets often force NASA to make tough decisions about what older historic launch pads and other buildings it should maintain. Jeff Foust reviews a book that examines some of the issues associated with "space archeology" of NASA facilities, on Earth or on the Moon.
 
We appreciate any feedback you may have about these articles as well as any other questions, comments, or suggestions about The Space Review. We're also actively soliciting articles to publish in future issues, so if you have an article or article idea that you think would be of interest, please email me.

Until next week,

Jeff Foust
Editor, The Space Review
jeff@thespacereview.com
Copyright © 2017 The Space Review, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you previously signed up to receive these weekly newsletters from The Space Review.

Our mailing address is:
The Space Review
12205 Village Square Ter
Suite 101
Rockville, MD 20852

Add us to your address book


unsubscribe from this list    update subscription preferences 

SpaceX to fly two space tourists around the moon in 2018 - Feb. 27, 2017

SpaceX to fly two space tourists around the moon in 2018 - Feb. 27, 2017

Bet on that! Haha. Will not happen--- not even dead ones! Look how fast we are putting astronauts in orbit based on MUSK.



Sent from my iPad

USA space assets


Protecting USA space assets

VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, California – Gen. David Goldfein, the fighter pilot who now serves as the Air Force's top officer, had an unorthodox priority on his mind when he and the rest of the Joint Chiefs of Staff sat down for their first meeting with President Donald Trump on Jan. 27 to outline for the incoming commander in chief their top operational concerns.

"We talked about space more than any other topic," Goldfein recalls from that session in "the Tank," the Pentagon's secure facility for top-level meetings, "because there's this debate going on now, and will go on for the remainder of this year: Where are we headed in the business of space?"

[READ: Trump's Iran Sanctions List Included Hidden Message for China]

The debate centers on the 73 trillion cubic miles spanning everything from a few hundred miles above the Earth's surface to the farthest reaching satellites 22,000 miles out. It's a domain over which the U.S. claims it must continue to be the principal governing power if space is to remain a peaceful commons. And it involves both protecting orbiting U.S. assets as well as ensuring the safety of the vital military and commercial information they convey to Earth.

Yet, when are we getting Manned capabilities BACK?




Sent from my iPad

The End Of US Manned Spaceflight Looms Ever Closer ( we are there)!!!!

An old article, but interesting--- does not think winged vehicles way to go--- thinks we should go apollo capsules approach.

He right about one thing--- the USA manned program is over until we get a strong leader who supports Space Operations--- better hope we get going-- or bad days a coming for USA !


http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-03zj1.html


Sent from my iPad

Fwd: hypersonic space plane that makes the Space Shuttle look primitive



Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Robert Hooi" <rwlh21@sbcglobal.net>
Date: February 25, 2017 at 10:50:16 AM CST
To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:;>
Subject: hypersonic space plane that makes the Space Shuttle look primitive
Reply-To: "Robert Hooi" <rwlh21@sbcglobal.net>

China is developing a hypersonic space plane that makes the Space Shuttle look primitive

China is developing a space plane that'll go from runway to orbit and back down again at hypersonic speeds, reports Popular Science. When it is completed, the hypersonic space plane will boost the Asian country to the forefront of the aerospace industry — eclipsing the capabilities of the now retired Space Shuttle and competing with the cutting-edge British Skylon.

The China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CATSC) is mining the best talent and technology in the aerospace field to create the next generation hybrid plane and spacecraft. The space plane will use a combined cycle engine that allows it to take off from an airport landing strip and blast into orbit.

The horizontal takeoff will be powered by a turbofan or turbojet engine, followed by a ramjet engine that will propel the plane upward toward through atmosphere. As the spacecraft reaches supersonic speeds, it then will switch to a scramjet engine that will push it through the "near space" portion of the atmosphere that lies between 20 kilometers to 100 kilometers above sea level. Once it is through this "near space" environment, the space plane finally will use its onboard rocket motors to maneuver itself into orbit.

Related: Straddle up! China's new megabus plows over traffic instead of through it

Just like the U.S. space shuttle, the Chinese version will be reusable, allowing the astronauts to orbit, land, and take off again with only minimal repairs. This reusability will lower costs for the space program and allow Chinese astronauts to access Earth's orbit more frequently. In a broadcast on China state television broadcaster CCTV, CASTC engineer Yang Yang also alluded to a possibility of using the space plane for tourism.

Because of its combined cycle engine, the space plane will propel itself into space much more gradually than a rocket engine-powered craft. This gentle launch reduces the physical strain on passengers, improving the "ease of access to space for untrained persons."

China's hypersonic shuttle is slated for development and testing over the next three to five years, with a target service date of 2030. The space plane is very similar to the British Skylon, which also will use a combined cycle engine and rocket motors to achieve hypersonic launches. Instead of a scramjet for hypersonic flight, the British version of the space plane will use pre-cooled jet engines. Both space planes are under development and are expected to begin flight testing in 2020 with deployment on or before 2030.

Apparent lack of sense of Urgency !!

DOES NOT appear to be a sense of Urgency to REACQUIRE our manned capabilities!!!
The USA has vast assets in EO. Consider our manned capabilities in 2011 & now ( essentially none) & those planned ( still near zero compared to Shuttle/RMS) and ask yourself WHY are we neglecting this critical capability ?
Don't forget Hubble --- recently Dreamchaser contractor proposed mission to update Hubble --- we have needed capability in MUSEUM!!!

Friday, February 24, 2017

UNBELIEVABLE !!!!!!

The USA has vast assets in EO. Consider our manned capabilities in 2011 & now ( essentially none) & those planned ( still near zero compared to Shuttle/RMS) and ask yourself WHY are we neglecting this critical capability ?
Don't forget Hubble --- recently Dreamchaser contractor proposed mission to update Hubble --- we have needed capability in MUSEUM!!!

Thursday, February 23, 2017

Scare the hell out of you !!


Better hope the USA still has sufficient capabilities to defend ourselves.
FOR EXAMPLE-- LOOK at The CAPABILITY we now have in our manned capabilities ( & that coming) Compare to our manned capabilities we had in 2011 with the Space Shuttle!!!!!!! Ought to scare the hell out of you.


Another example, approximately half navy aircraft can't fly!!!


Sent from my iPad

Former CIA agent: Intel community playing 'very dangerous game' designed to damage Trump | Herman Cain

Better hope the USA still has sufficient capabilities to defend ourselves.
FOR EXAMPLE-- LOOK at The CAPABILITY we now have in our manned capabilities ( & that coming) Compare to our manned capabilities we had in 2011 with the Space Shuttle!!!!!!! Ought to scare the hell out of you!
https://www.hermancain.com/former-cia-agent-intel-community-playing-very


Sent from my iPad

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

Why was shuttle terminated?

Why was the shuttle terminated?
My best summary of why the Shuttle program termination was announced in 2005 by President Bush and allowed to occur in 2012 by the Obama Administration would have to combine several factors. No clear rationale for termination was ever given by either the Bush or Obama Administrations that spanned the 7 year phase out leading to the final flight in 2011.
The Bush Administration announced in its "Vision for Space Exploration" that the venerable Shuttle would be terminated at a future date (2010) and that we would embark on a Lunar/Mars program. This Lunar/Mars program decision was not well thought out and proved to be a folly. It spawned a program called Constellation that expired due to poor engineering, poor planning, poor execution and lack of funding support. It was properly cancelled by the Obama administration but pieces linger on due to confused support by the Congress and the Obama Administration.
Clearly the two fatal accidents led to a perception that the Shuttle was unsafe. Most discussion of cost led to the perception that the Shuttle was too costly. The chronological age of the system led to a perception that the Shuttle was too old. These loose perceptions were never properly responded to by NASA. In fact they were instituted by many key NASA officials. For example when Mr. Griffin became the NASA Administrator he quickly proclaimed that the Shuttle and Space Station were a mistake and he was here to correct this mistake. He promptly wasted about 12 Billion dollars and five years. Therefore perception became fact and the Shuttle program was allowed to fade away gracefully over several years with no responsible study as to why. The Nation quietly found its self without a means for launching people into space. Depending on the Russian Soyuz system was the only option available to continue manning the Space Station.
The "Vision for Space Exploration" announcement by the Bush Administration following the second Shuttle accident and the confusion left by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board essentially set the country up for an inadvertent "Bait and switch" situation. Let's terminate the venerable Shuttle, go back to the moon with an Apollo type throw away system and on to Mars. We can do this within current budget levels. Once the bait was taken the Shuttle was allowed to terminate and the idea of" Apollo on Steroids" disappeared. We are now in a "Down Time" and can hope for commercial to get us back in the space business with some limited capability. This so called "commercial" program started by NASA during the Bush Administration and wisely continued by the Obama Administration should be encouraged and properly supported. It is now May 2012, 42 years after establishing the Shuttle Program as a formal NASA endeavor. We are temporarily out of the manned launch business.
We need an Administration that can plan to use our available Space budget wisely. We should continue with commercial and carefully review the reasoning behind SLS/Orion. The budget level for NASA and all high cost program efforts need careful Executive and Legislative Branch understanding. NASA'S Manned Exploration Program is not effectively planned. Robert Thompson, Program Manager

Sent from my iPad

Dominance in Space

VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, California – Gen. David Goldfein, the fighter pilot who now serves as the Air Force's top officer, had an unorthodox priority on his mind when he and the rest of the Joint Chiefs of Staff sat down for their first meeting with President Donald Trump on Jan. 27 to outline for the incoming commander in chief their top operational concerns.

"We talked about space more than any other topic," Goldfein recalls from that session in "the Tank," the Pentagon's secure facility for top-level meetings, "because there's this debate going on now, and will go on for the remainder of this year: Where are we headed in the business of space?" 

The debate centers on the 73 trillion cubic miles spanning everything from a few hundred miles above the Earth's surface to the farthest reaching satellites 22,000 miles out. It's a domain over which the U.S. claims it must continue to be the principal governing power if space is to remain a peaceful commons. And it involves both protecting orbiting U.S. assets as well as ensuring the safety of the vital military and commercial information they convey to Earth.

Losing U.S. dominance in space could have wide-reaching effects, American officials fear, from limiting the ability to guide ships, foot patrols, manned jets, drones or missiles toward precision targets, to communicating with and saving wounded soldiers in the deep hinterlands of the Afghan Hindu Kush mountains, to more benign matters, like disrupting GPS systems that direct millions of American commuters and support domestic farmers who rely on them to steer combines in perfectly straight lines and maximize their crop yields. 


Launch facilities for rocket contractor United Launch Alliance at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California.

Launch facilities at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California PAUL D. SHINKMAN FOR USN&WR


The question facing the new administration is how far the U.S. should proceed in preparing for military action against either U.S. interests in space or the purpose of those missions, while stopping short of provoking an arms race from countries like Russia and China. They're among other world powers contemplating an alternative future for space, one in which they would have the ability to deny America's free movement and solidify their own positions as global military and economic contenders. 

Discussions of war above the atmosphere often lead to breathless predictions about space-age battles. The military is not anticipating – at least in the near future – astronauts fighting cosmonauts with laser guns. But that doesn't mean officials aren't concerned about aggression there.


Sent from my iPad

Tuesday, February 21, 2017

As abbey states, this is a very important capability!
Seems no one is listening!

NASA aborts SpaceX rocket launch after last-minute technical trouble | Fox News

Government watchdog says SpaceX, Boeing delays could imperil NASA's presence on the space station - The Washington Post

KRAFT LETTER to O---- in 2011
PRECISELY What KRAFT & a group of Astronauts/ Managers told the O ADM!! Now will be lucky to keep ISS in orbit!!!! Bm
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/18/nasa-aborts-spacex-rocket-launch-after-last-minute-technical-trouble.html


Sent from my iPad

Friday, February 17, 2017

Government watchdog says SpaceX, Boeing delays could imperil NASA’s presence on the space station - The Washington Post

Just now
iOS

Government watchdog says SpaceX, Boeing delays could imperil NASA's presence on the space station - The Washington Post

PRECISELY What KRAFT & a group of Astronauts/ Managers told the O ADM!! Now will be lucky to keep ISS in orbit!!  Bm


!!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/02/16/government-watchdog-says-spacex-boeing-delays-could-imperil-nasas-presence-on-the-space-station/?utm_term=.819154af41b8


Sent from my iPad

Thursday, February 16, 2017

Fwd: H.R.870 - REAL Space Act



Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Peter M. Callahan" <pmcallah@gmail.com>
Date: February 16, 2017 at 6:43:31 PM CST
To: Bobby Martin <bobbygmartin1938@gmail.com>
Subject: H.R.870 - REAL Space Act

H.R.870 - REAL Space Act

115th Congress (2017-2018)

Sponsor: Rep. Posey, Bill [R-FL-8] (Introduced 02/03/2017)

Committees: House - Science, Space, and Technology

Latest Action: 02/03/2017 Referred to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

--
Sent from Gmail Mobile

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

Why?

And those in Congress specializing in space are well aware that, had getting independent access to ISS for our nation really been Job #1 for NASA's leadership, then the Administration would have approved Boeing's proposal for the X-37B follow-on, the 5 crew X-37C. We are talking about a dependable spacecraft that can sit in orbit for over a year and NASA said no to making it a crewed vehicle. Why?

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/03/x-37b-expanded-capabilities-iss-missions/

What Congress does see is that if we had not gone through the nonsense of 2010, we would be much closer to our own capability to launch crews to ISS than we are today. Instead, Neil Armstrong was right–the Administration changed our nation's HSF course in secret, without consultation, and mucked things up.

When it comes to the Moon, Congress is funding $3.5B annually on the DDTE for Orion and SLS. Anything else will have to wait for a new Administration as there is zero trust right now in Congress of anything the White House or NASA HQ are selling about human spaceflight.


Sent from my iPad

Monday, February 13, 2017

Fwd: This Week in The Space Review - 2017 February 13



Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jeff Foust <jeff@thespacereview.com>
Date: February 13, 2017 at 4:18:10 PM CST
To: <bobbygmartin1938@gmail.com>
Subject: This Week in The Space Review - 2017 February 13
Reply-To: Jeff Foust <jeff@thespacereview.com>

This Week in The Space Review - 2017 February 13
This Week in The Space Review
View this email in your browser

This Week in The Space Review

February 13, 2017

Welcome to The Space Review's weekly newsletter!

Black ops and the shuttle (part 1): On-orbit servicing and recovery of the HEXAGON reconnaissance satellite

During the development of the space shuttle in the 1970s, the National Reconnaissance Office examined how it could use the shuttle to do more than simply launch its satellites. Dwayne Day examines what is known about proposals to adapt the HEXAGON satellites for the shuttle, including servicing.
 

Recalculating risk

NASA has grappled with the risks associated with human spaceflight for decades. Jeff Foust reports on how one top NASA official wants to reexamine how NASA calculates and communicates risk for crewed spacecraft.
 

Launch failures: new discoveries

For a while, it appeared that engineers had found all the ways a launch vehicle could fail. But, as Wayne Eleazer explains, new vehicles have created new failure modes, and even new categories of launch failures.
 

Presidential space leadership depends on the enabling context (part 1)

Space advocates continue to look back at President Kennedy as a model of presidential leadership in space policy. In the first of a two-part essay, Matt Chessen discusses what factors made Kennedy effective, and how they translated—or didn't translate—to later administrations.
 

Build a Moon mall and make the Moon pay for it

President Trump's preferred method of communication seems to be Twitter. Sam Dinkin provides ten tweet-sized recommendations on how to make space great again.
 

Review: Gravity's Kiss

It's been a year since scientists announced the first direct detection of gravitational waves, opening a new window on the universe. Jeff Foust reviews a book that provides a look behind the scenes as the LIGO team works to interpret the discovery and make the historic announcement.
 
We appreciate any feedback you may have about these articles as well as any other questions, comments, or suggestions about The Space Review. We're also actively soliciting articles to publish in future issues, so if you have an article or article idea that you think would be of interest, please email me.

Until next week,

Jeff Foust
Editor, The Space Review
jeff@thespacereview.com
Copyright © 2017 The Space Review, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you previously signed up to receive these weekly newsletters from The Space Review.

Our mailing address is:
The Space Review
12205 Village Square Ter
Suite 101
Rockville, MD 20852

Add us to your address book


unsubscribe from this list    update subscription preferences