In the Senate, more criticism of commercial crew
SpacePolitics.com
Wednesday afternoon’s hearing by the Commerce, Justice, and Science subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee revealed few new insights about NASA’s fiscal year 2013 budget proposal or Congress’s reaction to it. However, it did emphasize that commercial crew, and the amount of funding NASA is requesting for the program, is one of the most sensitive aspects of the overall budget.
“Mr Administrator, I believe that the core mission of NASA is to build cutting-edge systems that allow us to expand our knowledge of the universe,” said Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL). “This administration, I believe, seems to think that NASA’s job is to use taxpayer money as venture capital to support speculative commercial companies, the future Solyndras of the space industry.” He complained that NASA sought to cut funding for the Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion while increasing funding for commercial crew. “When is this administration going to get the message that the Congress, I believe, is not willing to subsidize so-called commercial vendors at the expense of NASA’s core mission of engineering and exploration?”
Earlier in the hearing, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), the ranking member of the subcommittee, reiterated similar concerns she expressed at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing earlier in the month. “I do support commercial crew,” she said in her opening statement. “However, I think NASA is continuing to throw money at too many companies with a hope of flying astronauts.” She said NASA should commission a study like it did for SLS and Orion to find what she said would be the quickest solution, one that would involve only one or two companies going forward. “Members of Congress are already coalescing around NASA choosing no more than two companies, providing competition as well as funding realities that we see in our budget and not stealing from the long-term future, which is Orion and the launch vehicle.”
Bolden did not make any new arguments for or other statements about the status of the commercial crew program or the commercial cargo providers, whose upcoming test flights may weigh heavily on commercial crew’s future. “Commercial crew and cargo are vital for me to be able for me to live up to my promise to you on the International Space Station,” he said in response to questions about the program from Hutchison, who is an advocate for station utilization. He said he believed SpaceX was still likely to launch on April 30, weather permitting, for its cargo test flight, and Orbital would be ready to launch in the summer, depending on the status of its launch facilities at the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS) on Wallops Island, Virginia—delays in the completion of those facilities clearly being a sore point for both him and subcommittee chairwoman Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD).
Hutchison appeared almost weary of the exchanges she’s had with Bolden about the program. “I’m going to ask you a question, you’re not going to answer it, and we’re going to be where we are and we’re going to settle this one-on-one,” she said with a sigh when it was her turn to question Bolden.
Beyond commercial crew, Mikulski quizzed Bolden about whether NASA was drawing up any plans should budget sequestration proceed as currently required by law, an event that would cut the agency’s budget by 8% across the board, she warned. Bolden, who previously indicated he wasn’t worried about sequestration, said he remained optimistic Congress could avoid it. “While I am a realist, I am probably the world’s greatest optimist, and I am confident that the Congress will avoid that,” he said.
“Well, you couldn’t be an astronaut without being an optimist,” Mikulski responded. She argued, though, that NASA should have some contingency plans in place if there is a budget sequester, something Bolden said the agency hasn’t done to date. “I really would recommend both to the administration and to you,” she warned, “to really be ready for some real challenges.”
The hearing was the last one the subcommittee planned to perform before marking up its appropriations bill, which could come as soon as mid to late April. Since Sen. Hutchison is retiring after this year, Mikulski presented Hutchison at the beginning of the hearing with a gift: a small crystal space shuttle. Mikulski emphasized that the gift was from her, and not from Bolden. “I never get gifts from him,” she joked. “I’d rather have one from him.”
ISS Research Vulnerable To Cargo Schedule
Mark Carreau - Aviation Week
The future research productivity of the International Space Station (ISS) rests on the delayed startup of U.S. commercial resupply missions within the next year, experts from NASA and the agency’s oversight panels told the House Science, Space and Technology Committee March 28.
The transition from space shuttle resupply to private cargo providers that began with NASA’s six-year-old Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) initiative must be in full swing by mid-2013 if the space agency is to avoid research and possible staffing reductions aboard the six-person orbiting science laboratory, according to testimony from representatives of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and a NASA Advisory Council (NAC) task force.
The U.S.-led, 15-nation ISS partnership is committed to station operations through 2020.
Even the short-term projection assumes the success of scheduled unmanned cargo deliveries by the European Space Agency’s Automated Transfer Vehicle, Japan’s H-II Transfer Vehicle and Russia’s Progress, which experienced a launch failure last August.
“If you have delays that extend into 2013 and beyond, you will see a lot of impacts on the space station and scaling back of research,” Cristina Chaplain, GAO’s director for acquisition and sourcing management, told the House panel.
Under current scheduling, NASA anticipates up to five test and delivery missions by the agency’s two COTS partners, SpaceX and Orbital Sciences Corp., by year’s end. They start with the April 30 launch of the SpaceX demonstration mission that includes plans for an early May station docking and a small cargo delivery.
A half-dozen additional Progress, ATV and HTV flights are slated for the remainder of 2012 as well, including Europe’s anticipated ATV-3 arrival at the station late March 28.
Much is at stake, as the U.S. space station partnership turns its focus from the station’s assembly, which drew to a close in mid-2011, to research and technology demonstrations.
“We are starting to begin serious use of the ISS,” said William Gerstenmaier, associate administrator for human exploration and space operations, who told the panel he anticipates at least one or two successful commercial cargo deliveries this year.
“Ultimately if we don’t get the cargo in the time frame we need, we will need to cut back on research first and then ultimately go to the survival mode,” he said. As few as two astronauts could maintain the station.
“In the near term, NASA’s plans are adequate,” testified Thomas Stafford, the former Apollo astronaut who chairs the NAC’s ISS Operational Readiness Task Force. However, he cautioned that the COTS initiative has been plagued by chronic overoptimism and remains vulnerable to lapses in management and contractor oversight.
“Beyond the mid part of 2013, NASA becomes increasingly dependent for its projected flow of spare parts and resupply needs on the planned fleet of cargo vehicles,” Stafford said.
He credited NASA with the foresight to equip the space station with critical spare parts, food and research gear on its final shuttle missions, STS-134 and STS-135, in May and July 2011.
“Without those two shuttle missions, right now we would be in a serious situation and probably be considering how we could de-crew the space station,” Stafford told the panel.
Examining ISS utilization
SpacePolitics.com
Friday, March 30, 2012
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Robotic cargo spacecraft docks with ISS
European Robot Cargo Ship Docks at Space Station
Denise Chow - Space.com
A huge, unmanned cargo ship arrived at the International Space Station Wednesday, delivering tons of fresh supplies for the six-man crew of the orbiting outpost.
After five days chasing down the space station in orbit, the European Space Agency's third Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV-3) arrived at the complex at 6:31 p.m. EDT (2231 GMT). The vehicle is carrying about 7 tons of food, water, clothing, experiments and fuel for the space station in what is the heaviest load ever delivered to the outpost by a robotic spacecraft, ESA officials have said.
The ATV-3 flawlessly docked at a parking spot on the station's Zvezda service module using a sophisticated laser guidance system, as both vehicles flew 240 miles (386 kilometers) over the South Pacific Ocean. Dutch astronaut André Kuipers and Russian cosmonaut Oleg Kononenko were on hand to monitor the docking operations from inside the Zvezda module, NASA officials said.
"The capture was soft," one of the astronauts radioed to mission controllers. "We didn't even feel it."
The rendezvous and docking was managed by operators at ESA's ATV control center outside of Toulouse, France, as well as by NASA officials in Mission Control at the Johnson Space Center in Houston.
To celebrate the ATV-3's arrival at the space station, Dutch music group Love & Mersey, a Beatles tribute band, recorded a music video called "Back at the ISS." The musical greeting, which features lyrics in English, Dutch and Russian, has already been shown to Kuipers, Kononenko and the four other residents of the space station.
“Thank you, Love and Mersey," Kuipers said from space after watching the video, according to ESA officials. "Back at the ISS is a wonderful gift to music lovers everywhere, and I hope that it inspires young people to follow studies that take them into space one day, too."
The cylindrical, 13-ton cargo ship is 35 feet (10.7 meters) long and 14.7 feet (4.5 meters) wide and is so large it can fit a double-decker bus inside. The disposable spacecraft will remain attached to the space station for up to six months before the astronauts load it with garbage and deliberately send it to burn up as it re-enters Earth's atmosphere.
The ATV-3 launched into space on March 23 from Europe's South America-based spaceport in Kourou, French Guiana.
The spacecraft is named "Edoardo Amaldi," after the celebrated Italian physicist who is credited with helping to create the European Space Agency. Amaldi is also one of the founding fathers of CERN, the particle physics laboratory along the Swiss-French border that houses the Large Hadron Collider.
ESA names its ATV vehicles after historical figures in astronomy or space exploration. The agency's first ATV, Jules Verne, made its maiden flight to the space station in 2008. The ATV-2, named Johannes Kepler, followed in 2011.
Europe's next two planned ATVs, named ATV-4 Albert Einstein and ATV-5 Georges Lemaître, are currently scheduled to launch to the International Space Station in 2013 and 2014, respectively.
Space Station Crew Set to Land April 27 – Roscosmos
Denise Chow - Space.com
A huge, unmanned cargo ship arrived at the International Space Station Wednesday, delivering tons of fresh supplies for the six-man crew of the orbiting outpost.
After five days chasing down the space station in orbit, the European Space Agency's third Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV-3) arrived at the complex at 6:31 p.m. EDT (2231 GMT). The vehicle is carrying about 7 tons of food, water, clothing, experiments and fuel for the space station in what is the heaviest load ever delivered to the outpost by a robotic spacecraft, ESA officials have said.
The ATV-3 flawlessly docked at a parking spot on the station's Zvezda service module using a sophisticated laser guidance system, as both vehicles flew 240 miles (386 kilometers) over the South Pacific Ocean. Dutch astronaut André Kuipers and Russian cosmonaut Oleg Kononenko were on hand to monitor the docking operations from inside the Zvezda module, NASA officials said.
"The capture was soft," one of the astronauts radioed to mission controllers. "We didn't even feel it."
The rendezvous and docking was managed by operators at ESA's ATV control center outside of Toulouse, France, as well as by NASA officials in Mission Control at the Johnson Space Center in Houston.
To celebrate the ATV-3's arrival at the space station, Dutch music group Love & Mersey, a Beatles tribute band, recorded a music video called "Back at the ISS." The musical greeting, which features lyrics in English, Dutch and Russian, has already been shown to Kuipers, Kononenko and the four other residents of the space station.
“Thank you, Love and Mersey," Kuipers said from space after watching the video, according to ESA officials. "Back at the ISS is a wonderful gift to music lovers everywhere, and I hope that it inspires young people to follow studies that take them into space one day, too."
The cylindrical, 13-ton cargo ship is 35 feet (10.7 meters) long and 14.7 feet (4.5 meters) wide and is so large it can fit a double-decker bus inside. The disposable spacecraft will remain attached to the space station for up to six months before the astronauts load it with garbage and deliberately send it to burn up as it re-enters Earth's atmosphere.
The ATV-3 launched into space on March 23 from Europe's South America-based spaceport in Kourou, French Guiana.
The spacecraft is named "Edoardo Amaldi," after the celebrated Italian physicist who is credited with helping to create the European Space Agency. Amaldi is also one of the founding fathers of CERN, the particle physics laboratory along the Swiss-French border that houses the Large Hadron Collider.
ESA names its ATV vehicles after historical figures in astronomy or space exploration. The agency's first ATV, Jules Verne, made its maiden flight to the space station in 2008. The ATV-2, named Johannes Kepler, followed in 2011.
Europe's next two planned ATVs, named ATV-4 Albert Einstein and ATV-5 Georges Lemaître, are currently scheduled to launch to the International Space Station in 2013 and 2014, respectively.
Space Station Crew Set to Land April 27 – Roscosmos
Policy of NO
Bunk on Oil Issues
by Mark Green
Mar. 29, 2012
TAGS
access cap domestic energy economy energy policy federal lands gas prices gulf of mexico offshore drilling private lands taxes
Normally, we don’t bother with blog posts from the Center for American Progress on oil issues because, to borrow from an old saying, there’s no point in fact-checking someone who puts out propaganda by the barrel. But since this post yesterday sought to “debunk” our “claims,” let’s have a look at CAP’s. Warning: These point/counterpoint, counter/counterpoint things can get a little long.
From CAP:
CLAIM: “More domestic production is critical to putting downward pressure on gasoline prices — supply matters.” – Jack Gerard, American Petroleum Institute President and CEO, March 26, 2012
TRUTH: To test whether more U.S. domestic production would lower gasoline prices, the Associated Press just completed an exhaustive analysis of 36 years of monthly U.S. oil production and gasoline price data. AP found that there is:
“No statistical correlation between how much oil comes out of U.S. wells and the price at the pump. If more domestic oil drilling worked as politicians say, you’d now be paying about $2 a gallon for gasoline. Instead, you’re paying the highest prices ever for March.”
Actual Truth: First off, the U.S. is the third-largest producer of oil in the world, so it would defy the laws of economics if there was zero correlation between “how much oil comes out of U.S. wells and the price at the pump.” More on that here. But don’t take our word for it – here are some thoughts from others:
William O’Keefe, the Marshall Institute: “…a policy of NO and a self imposed moratorium on increased exploration has probably resulted in hundreds of thousands of barrels or more not being produced. Adding those unproduced barrels to the current global supply would put downward pressure on crude oil prices which translate into to lower gasoline prices. Instead, there has been a policy of NO to the eastern Gulf of Mexico, NO to offshore drilling, NO to Alaska’s coastal plain, and NO to Keystone XL. With a more enlightened energy policy our oil production over the course of this decade could increase by a million barrels a day or more. That is not trivial.”
Geoff Styles, energy analyst: “Traders have to think about how prices are really set, and they understand that it's the interaction of the last few million barrels per day of supply, demand and spare capacity that really count, along with inventories. An extra million or two barrels per day – a quantity of which North America is certainly capable – can make a huge difference in oil prices.”
Sen. Chuck Schumer and the White House also agree that signals and supply matters.
Back to CAP:
CLAIM: “Opposition to higher energy taxes is rising among the public. A recent ‘What is America Thinking on Energy Issues’ poll showed that 76 percent of voters think that higher energy taxes could equal higher gas prices.” – Jack Gerard, API President and CEO, March 26, 2012
TRUTH: A Center for American Progress Action Fund poll conducted March 10-13, 2012 by Hart Research provided respondents with fourteen policy options asked which “would help a lot to address the issue of gasoline?” The following option was chosen by 55 percent of the respondents:
“Repeal the four billion dollars per year in federal subsidies that currently are given to the oil companies, and use that money instead to fund investments that will make us less dependent on oil.”
Another 22 percent said that this proposal “would help somewhat.” The combined totals finished highest among all the options.
Actual Truth: First of all, CAP’s response is a total non-sequitur. People can believe that higher energy taxes could equal higher gas prices and simultaneously believe that reducing oil use is needed to “address the issue of gasoline.” Second of all, this is a bit of a “garbage-in, garbage-out” question because oil companies don’t get subsidies. Here is a chart from EIA data:
Nor does the industry get tax credits (which reduce taxes dollar for dollar) or grants from the government. They get tax deductions for business investments that will generate tax revenues in the future. Unlike the case of credits or grants, the government will still be paid the full amount of tax owed on our operations. Which means the taxpayer is getting every dollar that’s owed. What the president is proposing is to front-load the tax collection, so that any increases in current collections come at the expense of future taxpayers.
And lastly, oil and natural gas companies are the largest investors in technologies that reduce greenhouse gases. So perhaps this question should be re-phrased: “Do you support the government taking private industry investments in new energy technologies so that the state can direct such research based on political whim?”
Back to CAP:
CLAIM: “API represents more than 500 oil and natural gas companies…that…supports 9.2 million U.S. jobs.” – Jack Gerard, API President and CEO, March 26, 2012
TRUTH: Using API’s NAICS criteria (codes for various occupations) with Bureau of Labor Statistics data, CAP estimates that there were 1,790,000 employees in the oil and gas industry in 2011. Of these, 828,000 – or 46 percent – worked at gasoline stations.
Actual Truth: Note that CAP focuses on employees (and is off by 400,000 there), ignoring the word Gerard actually used, “supports.” And CAP ignores that the industry’s job creation extends beyond the industry itself, as Caroline Baum notes:
“Oil-and-gas drilling crews need equipment, food, clothing and lodging. They want to frequent bars and restaurants in the makeshift boom towns sprouting up in areas of North Dakota, Montana, south Texas and Pennsylvania. Manufacturers of drilling equipment need raw materials, such as steel and chemicals. So there’s a natural multiplier effect. Think of it as fiscal stimulus without the government first taking from Peter to give to Paul…Every direct job created in the oil-and-gas extraction industry, for example, yields 2.3 jobs elsewhere in the economy, Franklin says. This is expressed as a multiplier of 3.3, higher than the average of 2 for the 195 industries tracked by the BLS. Petroleum-and-coal product manufacturing (refineries) happens to have the highest multiplier at 8.2. And yes, manufacturing industries are at once the most capital-intensive, the most productive and still have the biggest spillover effect when it comes to generating jobs.”
Back to CAP:
CLAIM: “Raising taxes will not lower energy prices for American families and businesses — in fact, the Congressional Research Service says this plan could cause gasoline prices to go higher.” – Jack Gerard, API President and CEO, March 26, 2012
TRUTH: A Congressional Research Service memo, “Tax Policy and Gasoline Prices” to Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) determined that eliminating tax breaks for big oil companies would have little impact on the price of gasoline.
Actual Truth: So CAP is rebutting our use of a CRS report from March 2012 by quoting from a CRS memo from last year? But since CAP brings it up, here’s what that earlier CRS memo said:
“… if the changes in taxes did impact domestic, or overseas exploration and development activity, that does not necessarily imply that less oil would be available in the U.S. market. More might be imported, with little or no effect on gasoline prices.”
In other words (which CAP apparently endorses), don’t worry – we can just import more!
More CAP:
CLAIM: The administration “says it is for natural gas, but 10 federal agencies are looking at new regulations that could needlessly restrict it.” – Jack Gerard, API President and CEO, March 7, 2012
TRUTH: Nothing of the sort is underway. Minority staff of the House Energy and Commerce Committee thoroughly investigated this claim, and debunked it.
“In a fact sheet supporting the 10-agency assertion, API lists numerous agencies that don’t even have legal authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing...”
Actual Truth: Um, that is sort of exactly our point – that a number of agencies with no business regulating hydraulic fracturing are jumping on the regulation bandwagon.
CAP:
CLAIM: “The industry receives not ONE subsidy, and it is one of the largest contributors of revenue to our government of any industry in America.” – Jack Gerard, API President and CEO, February 23, 2012
TRUTH: Numerous Republican leaders have noted that a tax break is the same as a direct government or subsidy, in a different form. This includes President Ronald Reagan’s chief economic advisor, Martin Feldstein, former Senate Budget Committee Chair Pete Domenici (R-NM), House Ways and Means Committee Chair Dave Camp (R-MI), and Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH).
Feldstein: “These tax rules — because they result in the loss of revenue that would otherwise be collected by the government — are equivalent to direct government expenditures.”
Domenici: “Many tax expenditures substitute for programs that easily could be structured as direct spending. When structured as tax credits, they appear as reductions of taxes, even though they provide the same type of subsidy that a direct spending program would…”
Camp: “‘Tax expenditures’ [are] provisions that technically reduce someone’s tax liability, but that in reality amount to spending through the tax code.”
Boehner: “What Washington sometimes calls tax cuts are really just poorly disguised spending programs.”
Actual Truth: Each in turn: There’s no loss of revenue for the government (Feldstein), they’re not tax credits (Domenici), they don’t reduce tax liability (Camp), and they’re not tax cuts (Boehner). See above.
And lastly:
CLAIM: “Oil production on federal lands is flat, and oil production on federally controlled offshore areas is down.” – API, “Energy Myths and Facts”, 2012
TRUTH: The Energy Information Administration reports that 3.7 quadrillion BTUs of energy from crude oil were produced from federal lands and waters in 2011. This is a 12 percent increase over the 3.3 quadrillion BTUs produced in 2008 under President George W. Bush. It is also more than was produced from federal lands and waters in 2006 and 2007.
Actual Truth: Interestingly, they really are into comparing 2011 to 2008, 2007 and 2006. Let’s have a look:
2011 doesn’t look so pretty now. Especially compared to where we should be in some areas:
So, sorry CAP, your debunking is mostly just bunk. And speaking of bunk, here is what our current energy policy looks like, with all of its self-imposed limitations. Not bunk is what actual American progress looks like.
0 COMMENTSSHARE >
LikeNo
Post as …
by Mark Green
Mar. 29, 2012
TAGS
access cap domestic energy economy energy policy federal lands gas prices gulf of mexico offshore drilling private lands taxes
Normally, we don’t bother with blog posts from the Center for American Progress on oil issues because, to borrow from an old saying, there’s no point in fact-checking someone who puts out propaganda by the barrel. But since this post yesterday sought to “debunk” our “claims,” let’s have a look at CAP’s. Warning: These point/counterpoint, counter/counterpoint things can get a little long.
From CAP:
CLAIM: “More domestic production is critical to putting downward pressure on gasoline prices — supply matters.” – Jack Gerard, American Petroleum Institute President and CEO, March 26, 2012
TRUTH: To test whether more U.S. domestic production would lower gasoline prices, the Associated Press just completed an exhaustive analysis of 36 years of monthly U.S. oil production and gasoline price data. AP found that there is:
“No statistical correlation between how much oil comes out of U.S. wells and the price at the pump. If more domestic oil drilling worked as politicians say, you’d now be paying about $2 a gallon for gasoline. Instead, you’re paying the highest prices ever for March.”
Actual Truth: First off, the U.S. is the third-largest producer of oil in the world, so it would defy the laws of economics if there was zero correlation between “how much oil comes out of U.S. wells and the price at the pump.” More on that here. But don’t take our word for it – here are some thoughts from others:
William O’Keefe, the Marshall Institute: “…a policy of NO and a self imposed moratorium on increased exploration has probably resulted in hundreds of thousands of barrels or more not being produced. Adding those unproduced barrels to the current global supply would put downward pressure on crude oil prices which translate into to lower gasoline prices. Instead, there has been a policy of NO to the eastern Gulf of Mexico, NO to offshore drilling, NO to Alaska’s coastal plain, and NO to Keystone XL. With a more enlightened energy policy our oil production over the course of this decade could increase by a million barrels a day or more. That is not trivial.”
Geoff Styles, energy analyst: “Traders have to think about how prices are really set, and they understand that it's the interaction of the last few million barrels per day of supply, demand and spare capacity that really count, along with inventories. An extra million or two barrels per day – a quantity of which North America is certainly capable – can make a huge difference in oil prices.”
Sen. Chuck Schumer and the White House also agree that signals and supply matters.
Back to CAP:
CLAIM: “Opposition to higher energy taxes is rising among the public. A recent ‘What is America Thinking on Energy Issues’ poll showed that 76 percent of voters think that higher energy taxes could equal higher gas prices.” – Jack Gerard, API President and CEO, March 26, 2012
TRUTH: A Center for American Progress Action Fund poll conducted March 10-13, 2012 by Hart Research provided respondents with fourteen policy options asked which “would help a lot to address the issue of gasoline?” The following option was chosen by 55 percent of the respondents:
“Repeal the four billion dollars per year in federal subsidies that currently are given to the oil companies, and use that money instead to fund investments that will make us less dependent on oil.”
Another 22 percent said that this proposal “would help somewhat.” The combined totals finished highest among all the options.
Actual Truth: First of all, CAP’s response is a total non-sequitur. People can believe that higher energy taxes could equal higher gas prices and simultaneously believe that reducing oil use is needed to “address the issue of gasoline.” Second of all, this is a bit of a “garbage-in, garbage-out” question because oil companies don’t get subsidies. Here is a chart from EIA data:
Nor does the industry get tax credits (which reduce taxes dollar for dollar) or grants from the government. They get tax deductions for business investments that will generate tax revenues in the future. Unlike the case of credits or grants, the government will still be paid the full amount of tax owed on our operations. Which means the taxpayer is getting every dollar that’s owed. What the president is proposing is to front-load the tax collection, so that any increases in current collections come at the expense of future taxpayers.
And lastly, oil and natural gas companies are the largest investors in technologies that reduce greenhouse gases. So perhaps this question should be re-phrased: “Do you support the government taking private industry investments in new energy technologies so that the state can direct such research based on political whim?”
Back to CAP:
CLAIM: “API represents more than 500 oil and natural gas companies…that…supports 9.2 million U.S. jobs.” – Jack Gerard, API President and CEO, March 26, 2012
TRUTH: Using API’s NAICS criteria (codes for various occupations) with Bureau of Labor Statistics data, CAP estimates that there were 1,790,000 employees in the oil and gas industry in 2011. Of these, 828,000 – or 46 percent – worked at gasoline stations.
Actual Truth: Note that CAP focuses on employees (and is off by 400,000 there), ignoring the word Gerard actually used, “supports.” And CAP ignores that the industry’s job creation extends beyond the industry itself, as Caroline Baum notes:
“Oil-and-gas drilling crews need equipment, food, clothing and lodging. They want to frequent bars and restaurants in the makeshift boom towns sprouting up in areas of North Dakota, Montana, south Texas and Pennsylvania. Manufacturers of drilling equipment need raw materials, such as steel and chemicals. So there’s a natural multiplier effect. Think of it as fiscal stimulus without the government first taking from Peter to give to Paul…Every direct job created in the oil-and-gas extraction industry, for example, yields 2.3 jobs elsewhere in the economy, Franklin says. This is expressed as a multiplier of 3.3, higher than the average of 2 for the 195 industries tracked by the BLS. Petroleum-and-coal product manufacturing (refineries) happens to have the highest multiplier at 8.2. And yes, manufacturing industries are at once the most capital-intensive, the most productive and still have the biggest spillover effect when it comes to generating jobs.”
Back to CAP:
CLAIM: “Raising taxes will not lower energy prices for American families and businesses — in fact, the Congressional Research Service says this plan could cause gasoline prices to go higher.” – Jack Gerard, API President and CEO, March 26, 2012
TRUTH: A Congressional Research Service memo, “Tax Policy and Gasoline Prices” to Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) determined that eliminating tax breaks for big oil companies would have little impact on the price of gasoline.
Actual Truth: So CAP is rebutting our use of a CRS report from March 2012 by quoting from a CRS memo from last year? But since CAP brings it up, here’s what that earlier CRS memo said:
“… if the changes in taxes did impact domestic, or overseas exploration and development activity, that does not necessarily imply that less oil would be available in the U.S. market. More might be imported, with little or no effect on gasoline prices.”
In other words (which CAP apparently endorses), don’t worry – we can just import more!
More CAP:
CLAIM: The administration “says it is for natural gas, but 10 federal agencies are looking at new regulations that could needlessly restrict it.” – Jack Gerard, API President and CEO, March 7, 2012
TRUTH: Nothing of the sort is underway. Minority staff of the House Energy and Commerce Committee thoroughly investigated this claim, and debunked it.
“In a fact sheet supporting the 10-agency assertion, API lists numerous agencies that don’t even have legal authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing...”
Actual Truth: Um, that is sort of exactly our point – that a number of agencies with no business regulating hydraulic fracturing are jumping on the regulation bandwagon.
CAP:
CLAIM: “The industry receives not ONE subsidy, and it is one of the largest contributors of revenue to our government of any industry in America.” – Jack Gerard, API President and CEO, February 23, 2012
TRUTH: Numerous Republican leaders have noted that a tax break is the same as a direct government or subsidy, in a different form. This includes President Ronald Reagan’s chief economic advisor, Martin Feldstein, former Senate Budget Committee Chair Pete Domenici (R-NM), House Ways and Means Committee Chair Dave Camp (R-MI), and Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH).
Feldstein: “These tax rules — because they result in the loss of revenue that would otherwise be collected by the government — are equivalent to direct government expenditures.”
Domenici: “Many tax expenditures substitute for programs that easily could be structured as direct spending. When structured as tax credits, they appear as reductions of taxes, even though they provide the same type of subsidy that a direct spending program would…”
Camp: “‘Tax expenditures’ [are] provisions that technically reduce someone’s tax liability, but that in reality amount to spending through the tax code.”
Boehner: “What Washington sometimes calls tax cuts are really just poorly disguised spending programs.”
Actual Truth: Each in turn: There’s no loss of revenue for the government (Feldstein), they’re not tax credits (Domenici), they don’t reduce tax liability (Camp), and they’re not tax cuts (Boehner). See above.
And lastly:
CLAIM: “Oil production on federal lands is flat, and oil production on federally controlled offshore areas is down.” – API, “Energy Myths and Facts”, 2012
TRUTH: The Energy Information Administration reports that 3.7 quadrillion BTUs of energy from crude oil were produced from federal lands and waters in 2011. This is a 12 percent increase over the 3.3 quadrillion BTUs produced in 2008 under President George W. Bush. It is also more than was produced from federal lands and waters in 2006 and 2007.
Actual Truth: Interestingly, they really are into comparing 2011 to 2008, 2007 and 2006. Let’s have a look:
2011 doesn’t look so pretty now. Especially compared to where we should be in some areas:
So, sorry CAP, your debunking is mostly just bunk. And speaking of bunk, here is what our current energy policy looks like, with all of its self-imposed limitations. Not bunk is what actual American progress looks like.
0 COMMENTSSHARE >
LikeNo
Post as …
Post American World--written by fellow muslim. Bho reading----better pass this on
If each person sends this to a minimum of 20 people on their address list, in three days,
all people in The United States of America would have the message.
I believe this is one proposal that really should be passed around.
________________________________________________________________
THIS WILL CURDLE YOUR BLOOD AND CURL YOUR HAIR
Description: cid:image001.jpg@01CCB96D.4D1AFD50
The name of the book Obama is reading is called: The Post-American World, and it was written by a fellow Muslim.
"Post" America means the World After America ! , Please forward this picture to everyone you know, conservative or liberal. , Democrat or Republican, Folks we need to be aware of what our president is thinking--or planning
We must expose Obama's radical ideas and his intent to bring down our beloved America!
By: Kelly Barham
all people in The United States of America would have the message.
I believe this is one proposal that really should be passed around.
________________________________________________________________
THIS WILL CURDLE YOUR BLOOD AND CURL YOUR HAIR
Description: cid:image001.jpg@01CCB96D.4D1AFD50
The name of the book Obama is reading is called: The Post-American World, and it was written by a fellow Muslim.
"Post" America means the World After America ! , Please forward this picture to everyone you know, conservative or liberal. , Democrat or Republican, Folks we need to be aware of what our president is thinking--or planning
We must expose Obama's radical ideas and his intent to bring down our beloved America!
By: Kelly Barham
The Case to Save the Shuttle
By Allen J. RichardsonPosted 10.14.08NOVA
In August of 2003 the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) issued its report and concluded, among other things, that the space shuttles were aging, old technology, and too risky. Shortly thereafter President Bush initiated the Constellation program to retire the space shuttles and to replace them with the Ares Launch Vehicles and the Orion Spacecraft, patterned after the Apollo Program. As it stands, the space shuttles are to be retired during 2010, and the Constellation Project is well under way. This is a severe under-utilization of a valuable and still-usable national asset.
SHUTTLE ADVOCATES: SAVE THE SHUTTLE
To alert the public, my colleagues and I formed the Shuttle Advocates Team (SAT), an informal group of mostly retired Rockwell and Boeing engineers, with many years of experience working on the space shuttle Orbiter vehicle, from contract initiation through mission operation. We represent a cross section of space shuttle engineering and provide authoritative information regarding space shuttle performance and future capability. Many of us were also deeply involved in the Apollo Project and are therefore qualified to make comparisons between the space shuttle approach and the Constellation approach to space exploration. We call our team the Shuttle Advocates Team because our mission is to extend the use of the space shuttle system beyond the current end date of 2010. Much of the following information is drawn from material supplied to this writer by SAT engineers.
SPACE SHUTTLE HISTORY AND ITS CURRENT CAPABILITY
To clarify a point, what everyone commonly calls the shuttle or the space shuttle is what our team calls the Orbiter vehicle, that stubby-looking, winged spacecraft that holds the crew and payload. It is this unique United States vehicle that America and the world have come to identify with manned space travel, our "space truck," so to speak. The total space shuttle system consists of four major components: two Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs), one External Tank (ET), and the Orbiter. The SRBs and the ET are necessary to enable the Orbiter to achieve Earth orbit. Our comments and statements primarily concern the Orbiter vehicles.
The Orbiter named Challenger was lost due to a problem with the SRB circumferential field joint seals ("O-rings") losing their resiliency during a cold winter launch. The improved SRB joint seal has solved that problem. The Columbia spacecraft was lost when a large piece of the ET's external insulation inexplicably detached from a critical area on the tank surface. The critical area is a 15-foot-wide area opposite the Orbiter, which extends aft about five feet from the forward attach point of the Orbiter. The piece of foam struck the Orbiter on the lower surface of the left wing's leading edge, causing a mortal hole that resulted in the loss of the vehicle and crew from reentry overheating. Extensive corrective actions by the ET Project have restored confidence, and successful spaceflights have resumed.
We cite these two accidents to make the point that they were caused by the other shuttle components used during ascent to orbit. The Orbiter spacecraft has never been the cause of any failures. The Orbiter has a perfect record of 123 consecutive successful missions, and we are confident that this record number will grow. We also have a dedicated team of new engineers trained by their mentors, thus insuring that the Orbiter can continue to be operated correctly.
The Orbiters are, of course, aging but have two thirds of their 100 mission design lives (per vehicle) still ahead of them. Sean O'Keefe, a former head of NASA, states in the NOVA documentary that prior to the Columbia accident NASA was planning to keep the space shuttles in operation till 2020. One of the members of SAT recently delivered a technical paper on the built-in space shuttle longevity and compared it to the Douglas DC-3, an aircraft that has been flying for over 70 years and is known for its reliability and ruggedness. The vehicles are well maintained and to this day remain pristine. If you look inside one of the Orbiters today, for example, it looks very similar to the first Orbiter on its maiden voyage back in 1981.
Each of the Orbiters was designed and qualified by tests and analysis for a minimum of 100 space missions. Many of the component test programs were extended to 400 missions to flush out any hidden or unexpected failure modes. The most-used Orbiter in the fleet has only performed 35 missions, so today there is plenty of useful life remaining for additional space missions.
Furthermore, the space shuttles are not old technology. The Orbiter is very similar to military and commercial airplanes, and only evolutionary changes have occurred in airplanes over the last 27 years, as opposed to radical redesigns. Furthermore, those changes are mostly in the avionics, which are readily updated. The more familiar examples of this are the Boeing B-52 and B-1 bombers and the Boeing 747 airliner, all of which are still flying after a longer period, and in the latter case the plane is still in production. The fact is if a spacecraft were designed today to do all the things the space shuttle can do, it would be virtually no different from the existing proven hardware.
A former Orbiter Chief Engineer and VP of Engineering reports, "Many people are unaware that NASA has long maintained an upgrade process to provide current technology to the Orbiter. Starting with the early space missions, many upgrades were installed to improve performance, enhance system reliability, and improve operational safety. More than $1 billion was spent after the Challenger accident on the SRBs, the ET, and the Orbiter. The successful flights after the Columbia accident also show that NASA keeps these shuttle components operating with technology that can meet the mission requirements, consistent with the available funding for modification kits and their installation. Over the years of shuttle operations, these upgrades have received lots of attention as recorded in Reference (1)." (The reference is to a 1999 National Research Council Report entitled "Upgrading the Space Shuttle," published by the National Academy Press.)
As summarized by a former Chief Engineer at Kennedy Space Center, "The Orbiter is the most fantastic flying machine built by man. Its retirement in 2010 is premature and shortsighted. What a waste of unique hardware and all the associated infrastructure and people skills that have been developed at Kennedy Space Center. (This applies as well to the other NASA Centers and to the Corporate Suppliers.) The knowledge base and support for complex space launches take a significant time to establish, and now we're planning to dismantle the talented workforce at that site, together with the software and procedures established over 123 flights, to begin a new program. Skills will be lost as we wait on the Constellation hardware to materialize—a situation very similar to the tough six years between the last Apollo launch (Apollo Soyuz) in 1975 and the drawn-out buildup for the shuttle that finally culminated in its first launch in 1981. Such an extended development with the Constellation elements in these days of budget shortfalls could seriously impact the first scheduled launch of Orion in 2015.
MANNED SPACE VEHICLE EXPLORATION UTILIZING THE SPACE SHUTTLE
The space shuttles, used in concert with the International Space Station (ISS), could provide a viable means of launching manned space vehicles to destinations in our solar system, such as the moon, Mars, or an asteroid. In a single launch, the space shuttle can orbit a 50,000 lb payload, a capability that has allowed us to construct and operate the ISS, which weighs one million lbs. By designing the interplanetary vehicles in modular form and assembling them in orbit utilizing the ISS, we can assemble vehicles of enormous size, if required. This capability would be of indispensable value in the case of a Trans Mars vehicle, which would require the transport of considerable energy to power the vehicle there and back. Should additional single payload launch capability (either in weight or size) be required, a Space Shuttle-C (an unmanned space shuttle variant with increased payload capability) could be built. An additional benefit of this approach is that the ISS could serve as a mission return stopping point, followed by space shuttle transport of astronauts to Earth. This could provide an extra margin of safety for astronauts with unforeseen needs.
The specific advantages of continuing the space shuttle approach to solar system exploration discussed above, as opposed to the current Constellation "space shuttle replacement" approach, are numerous:
1) The space shuttle is a proven and predictable system. In contrast, the Ares-1 Launch Vehicle (ALV) is already beset with technical uncertainties regarding weight limitations and excessive vibration.
2) The space shuttle system is a combination of launch vehicle and spacecraft. The space shuttle Orbiter's on-orbit capabilities include a remote arm capable of manipulating and repairing satellites. The Orbiter also includes an airlock to support extravehicular activities such as space repairs and component assembly. The Constellation system (the shuttle replacement) is a combination of the ALV and the Orion spacecraft. The Orion spacecraft does not have the above capability.
3) The space shuttle system can return both payloads and astronauts from orbit to Earth via a runway landing, while the Constellation approach will revert to parachuting a capsule and the returning astronauts into the ocean, as was the case with the Apollo system.
4) The space shuttle will provide uninterrupted U.S. support to the ISS. Pursuing the Constellation approach will result in a gap of five years or more, when the U.S. will have no capability of delivering supplies to the ISS or of delivering astronauts to the ISS and returning them. Relying on the Russians to fill this gap has become more problematic with the controversy over the Russian invasion of Georgia and the reluctance of the U.S. Congress to renew the legislative exemption that enables NASA to continue to purchase Soyuz spacecraft services as a backup to the space shuttle. The current exemption expires in 2011. Therefore, Congress will need to extend the exemption till the ALV/Orion system is operational.
5) The space shuttle approach will insure ongoing utilization of the ISS, a space colony that humankind should keep in place and operating for the foreseeable future.
6) With the space shuttle system, both the Orbiter and the SRBs are reusable. With Constellation, a relatively larger part of the system, the ALV, is a single-use component.
7) The space shuttle and supporting facilities are paid for!
The advantages of the Constellation approach over the space shuttle approach appear to be nil, the switch to the Constellation approach being predicated primarily on the unwarranted fear of another shuttle "accident" as put forward by the President's CAIB. Fortunately, there is time to reconsider. Even though the dismantling of the space shuttle system has begun, it probably would be more advantageous to stay with this system than to design and construct a whole new system to support the Constellation program. At a minimum, the shuttle system should be extended till its replacement is operational.
The next President and his NASA administrator should also consider a change in the next goal of the U.S. manned space program as well as a change in the hardware to achieve that goal. Scientific interest now centers on Mars rather than on the moon. Four of the five elements of a manned mission to Mars are already in place:
1) The space shuttle (the launch vehicle)
2) The International Space Station, or ISS (the assembly and launch platform for the Trans Mars vehicle)
3) Extensive experience with on-orbit assembly
4) Numerous unmanned precursor missions to Mars
The only missing element is the Mars Aerobraker Vehicle (MAV) to transport the expected three astronauts to and from Mars. Conceptual designs already exist for this vehicle. At an estimated departure weight of 400,000 pounds, a dozen shuttle flights could deliver all needed modules of the MAV to the ISS over a period of years at a cost of perhaps $10 billion. This would leave most of $200 billion (the amount currently contemplated for lunar exploration) to design, build, and assemble the MAV. This redirection would focus the attention and resources of NASA and the aerospace community on the MAV, and would sharpen skills valuable to the nation for further exploration of our solar system. With the manned space program thus redirected, the goal of landing humans on Mars within the next decade appears to be feasible.
In August of 2003 the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) issued its report and concluded, among other things, that the space shuttles were aging, old technology, and too risky. Shortly thereafter President Bush initiated the Constellation program to retire the space shuttles and to replace them with the Ares Launch Vehicles and the Orion Spacecraft, patterned after the Apollo Program. As it stands, the space shuttles are to be retired during 2010, and the Constellation Project is well under way. This is a severe under-utilization of a valuable and still-usable national asset.
SHUTTLE ADVOCATES: SAVE THE SHUTTLE
To alert the public, my colleagues and I formed the Shuttle Advocates Team (SAT), an informal group of mostly retired Rockwell and Boeing engineers, with many years of experience working on the space shuttle Orbiter vehicle, from contract initiation through mission operation. We represent a cross section of space shuttle engineering and provide authoritative information regarding space shuttle performance and future capability. Many of us were also deeply involved in the Apollo Project and are therefore qualified to make comparisons between the space shuttle approach and the Constellation approach to space exploration. We call our team the Shuttle Advocates Team because our mission is to extend the use of the space shuttle system beyond the current end date of 2010. Much of the following information is drawn from material supplied to this writer by SAT engineers.
SPACE SHUTTLE HISTORY AND ITS CURRENT CAPABILITY
To clarify a point, what everyone commonly calls the shuttle or the space shuttle is what our team calls the Orbiter vehicle, that stubby-looking, winged spacecraft that holds the crew and payload. It is this unique United States vehicle that America and the world have come to identify with manned space travel, our "space truck," so to speak. The total space shuttle system consists of four major components: two Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs), one External Tank (ET), and the Orbiter. The SRBs and the ET are necessary to enable the Orbiter to achieve Earth orbit. Our comments and statements primarily concern the Orbiter vehicles.
The Orbiter named Challenger was lost due to a problem with the SRB circumferential field joint seals ("O-rings") losing their resiliency during a cold winter launch. The improved SRB joint seal has solved that problem. The Columbia spacecraft was lost when a large piece of the ET's external insulation inexplicably detached from a critical area on the tank surface. The critical area is a 15-foot-wide area opposite the Orbiter, which extends aft about five feet from the forward attach point of the Orbiter. The piece of foam struck the Orbiter on the lower surface of the left wing's leading edge, causing a mortal hole that resulted in the loss of the vehicle and crew from reentry overheating. Extensive corrective actions by the ET Project have restored confidence, and successful spaceflights have resumed.
We cite these two accidents to make the point that they were caused by the other shuttle components used during ascent to orbit. The Orbiter spacecraft has never been the cause of any failures. The Orbiter has a perfect record of 123 consecutive successful missions, and we are confident that this record number will grow. We also have a dedicated team of new engineers trained by their mentors, thus insuring that the Orbiter can continue to be operated correctly.
The Orbiters are, of course, aging but have two thirds of their 100 mission design lives (per vehicle) still ahead of them. Sean O'Keefe, a former head of NASA, states in the NOVA documentary that prior to the Columbia accident NASA was planning to keep the space shuttles in operation till 2020. One of the members of SAT recently delivered a technical paper on the built-in space shuttle longevity and compared it to the Douglas DC-3, an aircraft that has been flying for over 70 years and is known for its reliability and ruggedness. The vehicles are well maintained and to this day remain pristine. If you look inside one of the Orbiters today, for example, it looks very similar to the first Orbiter on its maiden voyage back in 1981.
Each of the Orbiters was designed and qualified by tests and analysis for a minimum of 100 space missions. Many of the component test programs were extended to 400 missions to flush out any hidden or unexpected failure modes. The most-used Orbiter in the fleet has only performed 35 missions, so today there is plenty of useful life remaining for additional space missions.
Furthermore, the space shuttles are not old technology. The Orbiter is very similar to military and commercial airplanes, and only evolutionary changes have occurred in airplanes over the last 27 years, as opposed to radical redesigns. Furthermore, those changes are mostly in the avionics, which are readily updated. The more familiar examples of this are the Boeing B-52 and B-1 bombers and the Boeing 747 airliner, all of which are still flying after a longer period, and in the latter case the plane is still in production. The fact is if a spacecraft were designed today to do all the things the space shuttle can do, it would be virtually no different from the existing proven hardware.
A former Orbiter Chief Engineer and VP of Engineering reports, "Many people are unaware that NASA has long maintained an upgrade process to provide current technology to the Orbiter. Starting with the early space missions, many upgrades were installed to improve performance, enhance system reliability, and improve operational safety. More than $1 billion was spent after the Challenger accident on the SRBs, the ET, and the Orbiter. The successful flights after the Columbia accident also show that NASA keeps these shuttle components operating with technology that can meet the mission requirements, consistent with the available funding for modification kits and their installation. Over the years of shuttle operations, these upgrades have received lots of attention as recorded in Reference (1)." (The reference is to a 1999 National Research Council Report entitled "Upgrading the Space Shuttle," published by the National Academy Press.)
As summarized by a former Chief Engineer at Kennedy Space Center, "The Orbiter is the most fantastic flying machine built by man. Its retirement in 2010 is premature and shortsighted. What a waste of unique hardware and all the associated infrastructure and people skills that have been developed at Kennedy Space Center. (This applies as well to the other NASA Centers and to the Corporate Suppliers.) The knowledge base and support for complex space launches take a significant time to establish, and now we're planning to dismantle the talented workforce at that site, together with the software and procedures established over 123 flights, to begin a new program. Skills will be lost as we wait on the Constellation hardware to materialize—a situation very similar to the tough six years between the last Apollo launch (Apollo Soyuz) in 1975 and the drawn-out buildup for the shuttle that finally culminated in its first launch in 1981. Such an extended development with the Constellation elements in these days of budget shortfalls could seriously impact the first scheduled launch of Orion in 2015.
MANNED SPACE VEHICLE EXPLORATION UTILIZING THE SPACE SHUTTLE
The space shuttles, used in concert with the International Space Station (ISS), could provide a viable means of launching manned space vehicles to destinations in our solar system, such as the moon, Mars, or an asteroid. In a single launch, the space shuttle can orbit a 50,000 lb payload, a capability that has allowed us to construct and operate the ISS, which weighs one million lbs. By designing the interplanetary vehicles in modular form and assembling them in orbit utilizing the ISS, we can assemble vehicles of enormous size, if required. This capability would be of indispensable value in the case of a Trans Mars vehicle, which would require the transport of considerable energy to power the vehicle there and back. Should additional single payload launch capability (either in weight or size) be required, a Space Shuttle-C (an unmanned space shuttle variant with increased payload capability) could be built. An additional benefit of this approach is that the ISS could serve as a mission return stopping point, followed by space shuttle transport of astronauts to Earth. This could provide an extra margin of safety for astronauts with unforeseen needs.
The specific advantages of continuing the space shuttle approach to solar system exploration discussed above, as opposed to the current Constellation "space shuttle replacement" approach, are numerous:
1) The space shuttle is a proven and predictable system. In contrast, the Ares-1 Launch Vehicle (ALV) is already beset with technical uncertainties regarding weight limitations and excessive vibration.
2) The space shuttle system is a combination of launch vehicle and spacecraft. The space shuttle Orbiter's on-orbit capabilities include a remote arm capable of manipulating and repairing satellites. The Orbiter also includes an airlock to support extravehicular activities such as space repairs and component assembly. The Constellation system (the shuttle replacement) is a combination of the ALV and the Orion spacecraft. The Orion spacecraft does not have the above capability.
3) The space shuttle system can return both payloads and astronauts from orbit to Earth via a runway landing, while the Constellation approach will revert to parachuting a capsule and the returning astronauts into the ocean, as was the case with the Apollo system.
4) The space shuttle will provide uninterrupted U.S. support to the ISS. Pursuing the Constellation approach will result in a gap of five years or more, when the U.S. will have no capability of delivering supplies to the ISS or of delivering astronauts to the ISS and returning them. Relying on the Russians to fill this gap has become more problematic with the controversy over the Russian invasion of Georgia and the reluctance of the U.S. Congress to renew the legislative exemption that enables NASA to continue to purchase Soyuz spacecraft services as a backup to the space shuttle. The current exemption expires in 2011. Therefore, Congress will need to extend the exemption till the ALV/Orion system is operational.
5) The space shuttle approach will insure ongoing utilization of the ISS, a space colony that humankind should keep in place and operating for the foreseeable future.
6) With the space shuttle system, both the Orbiter and the SRBs are reusable. With Constellation, a relatively larger part of the system, the ALV, is a single-use component.
7) The space shuttle and supporting facilities are paid for!
The advantages of the Constellation approach over the space shuttle approach appear to be nil, the switch to the Constellation approach being predicated primarily on the unwarranted fear of another shuttle "accident" as put forward by the President's CAIB. Fortunately, there is time to reconsider. Even though the dismantling of the space shuttle system has begun, it probably would be more advantageous to stay with this system than to design and construct a whole new system to support the Constellation program. At a minimum, the shuttle system should be extended till its replacement is operational.
The next President and his NASA administrator should also consider a change in the next goal of the U.S. manned space program as well as a change in the hardware to achieve that goal. Scientific interest now centers on Mars rather than on the moon. Four of the five elements of a manned mission to Mars are already in place:
1) The space shuttle (the launch vehicle)
2) The International Space Station, or ISS (the assembly and launch platform for the Trans Mars vehicle)
3) Extensive experience with on-orbit assembly
4) Numerous unmanned precursor missions to Mars
The only missing element is the Mars Aerobraker Vehicle (MAV) to transport the expected three astronauts to and from Mars. Conceptual designs already exist for this vehicle. At an estimated departure weight of 400,000 pounds, a dozen shuttle flights could deliver all needed modules of the MAV to the ISS over a period of years at a cost of perhaps $10 billion. This would leave most of $200 billion (the amount currently contemplated for lunar exploration) to design, build, and assemble the MAV. This redirection would focus the attention and resources of NASA and the aerospace community on the MAV, and would sharpen skills valuable to the nation for further exploration of our solar system. With the manned space program thus redirected, the goal of landing humans on Mars within the next decade appears to be feasible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)