Fwd: NASA and Human Spaceflight News – March 3, 2014 and JSC Today and miscellaneous news

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Moon, Larry J. (JSC-EA411)" <larry.j.moon@nasa.gov>
Date: March 3, 2014 10:32:18 AM CST
To: "Moon, Larry J. (JSC-EA411)" <larry.j.moon@nasa.gov>
Subject: FW: NASA and Human Spaceflight News – March 3, 2014 and JSC Today and miscellaneous news

 

Just got some more sad news from Larry Ratcliff that he received from Bob Brown this morning too that Jim Smith passed away up in the Pagosa Springs, Colorado area.   Jim was our outstaning thermal analyst on the Orbiter and he and others developed and maintained the Orbiter Heater book for ours and MODs use. See Larry's note from Bob Brown below.   I have searched google for an obit for Jim and could not find one.

 

Larry,


I got a call from Gloria Smith ( Jim Smith wife's ) yesterday and said that Jim passed away in his sleep the night of Feb 28 or the morning of March 1. The services will be Friday in Pagosa Springs, Colorado.

 

 

Bob Brown

 

On a happier note, please join us this Thursday at Hibachi Grill for our monthly Retirees luncheon at 11:30.   Then you can plan on going to hear the following NASA Alumni League talk at the Gilruth in the afternoon at 2:30 and then  join Larry Ratcliff and all for Keg of the Month at the Gilruth Pavillion at 4pm for a beer or soda—and hopefully not freeze!!.

 

Upcoming NASA Alumni League Programs          

 

Thursday, March 6, 2014                     "Commercialization of Space - A

retrospective"

Time: 2:30 - 4:00 PM                                       Alan Lindenmoyer

Gilruth Alamo Ballroom                 Commercial Crew & Cargo Program Manager

 

 

Tuesday, June 17, 2014                  "SPACEWALKER" - Jerry Ross, Astronaut

5:30 - 9:00 PM                                    NASA Alumni League Summer Social & Dinner

Gilruth Alamo Ballroom                

 

 

NAL programs are selected to update our members on what is going on at JSC and in Human Space Flight. Ideas? Contact the NAL Program committee - Denny Holt, Carl Shelley, Bob Wren, Mac Henderson, Phil Deans, Phil Engelauf

 

 

 

Denny Holt

Dholt1945@aol.com

 

________________________________________

Monday, March 3, 2014

 

                    JSC TODAY CATEGORIES

1.            Headlines

-  Space to Ground - 02/28/14

-  Tomorrow: All Hands with JSC Director Ellen Ochoa

-  Nominate JSC Exceptional Software by March 11

2.            Organizations/Social

-  NASA Young Professionals Lunch and Learn

-  March Sustainability Opportunities

-  We Want to Hear From YOU

-  Starport Adult Sports Leagues

-  JSC Wellness Fitness Assessments

-  Youth Spring Break Baseball Camp

3.            Jobs and Training

-  Ready, Set, Telework - PC and Mac Users - March 4

-  Scientific and Technical Info Training Tomorrow

-  Fire Extinguisher Training

-  Job Opportunities

4.            Community

-  2014 Yuri's Night Houston 5K Fun Run

-  Severe Weather Preparedness Week

Deploying a Set of CubeSats From the International Space Station

 

 

   Headlines

1.            Space to Ground - 02/28/14

NASA's Space to Ground is your weekly update on what's happening aboard the International Space Station. Got a question or comment? Use #spacetoground to talk to us.

 

Aniso Experiment:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/1013.html

 

SpaceX 3:

http://www.nasa.gov/spacex

 

OPALS:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/861.html

External Relations Office 281-483-2383

 

[top]

2.            Tomorrow: All Hands with JSC Director Ellen Ochoa

Join JSC Director Ellen Ochoa in the Teague Auditorium on Tuesday, March 4, from 1 to 3 p.m. NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden will address the agency live from Goddard Space Flight Center from 1 to 2 p.m. about the agency's fiscal year 2015 budget, followed by Ochoa, who will address the JSC team in person and answer questions.

JSC team members can watch the event live in the Teague Auditorium. If you would like to submit a question for consideration in advance or during the All Hands, please email it to:

JSC-Ask-The-Director@mail.nasa.gov

Please keep in mind that during this All Hands, only emailed questions will be accepted.

Those unable to attend in person can watch the All Hands on RF Channel 2 or Omni 3 (45). JSC team members with wired computer network connections can view the All Hands using the  JSC EZTV IP Network TV System on channel 402. Please note: EZTV currently requires using Internet Explorer on a Windows PC or Safari on a Mac. Mobile devices, Wi-Fi, VPN or connections from other centers are currently not supported by EZTV.

First-time users will need to install the EZTV Monitor and Player client applications:

•             For those WITH admin rights (Elevated Privileges), you'll be prompted to download and install the clients when you first visit the IPTV website

•             For those WITHOUT admin rights (Elevated Privileges), you can download the EZTV client applications from the ACES Software Refresh Portal (SRP)

If you are having problems viewing the video using these systems, contact the Information Resources Directorate Customer Support Center at x46367, or visit the FAQ site.

Event Date: Tuesday, March 4, 2014   Event Start Time:1:00 PM   Event End Time:3:00 PM

Event Location: Teague Auditorium

 

Add to Calendar

 

JSC External Relations, Office of Communications and Public Affairs x35111

 

[top]

3.            Nominate JSC Exceptional Software by March 11

This is the 2014 call for software award nominations at JSC, including White Sands Test Facility. Nominees will be considered for the following awards:

o             JSC Exceptional Software Award

o             JSC nominee for NASA Software of the Year Award

o             JSC software nominees for Space Act Awards

o             NASA Exceptional Technology Achievement Medals

The JSC Exceptional Software Award is designed to recognize software that has demonstrated outstanding value to accomplishing the JSC mission.

Apply online using the Web nomination form and to find out other information.

Directorates and individuals must provide their nominations by close of business March 11 via the form link listed. Questions can be sent to Lynn Vernon or Tondra Allen.

Lynn R. Vernon x36917 http://jscexceptionalsoftware.jsc.nasa.gov/SOY_nominate/

 

[top]

   Organizations/Social

1.            NASA Young Professionals Lunch and Learn

On Jan. 16, JSC participated in the first Virtual Cross-Center Early Career Lunch and Learn. There were a wide array of topics presented that ranged from the Development of Exercise Equipment for Future Exploration Missions to the Evaluation of LOX/Methane Propulsion Systems in Future Human Spaceflight.

Four early career scientists will present for 15 minutes each month.

Join in the next Cross-Center Lunch and Learn and become aware, network and collaborate!

Event Date: Tuesday, March 4, 2014   Event Start Time:12:00 PM   Event End Time:1:00 PM

Event Location: B35/Rm 108a

 

Add to Calendar

 

Oscar Guzman x47386

 

[top]

2.            March Sustainability Opportunities

Check out your March Monthly Sustainability Opportunities. March 22 is World Water Day and April 22 is Earth Day. We have a wide selection of events planned right here at our center for you to enjoy. Contact us anytime with questions or to schedule a presentation of our 2014 Sustainability Engagement Strategy.

Laurie Peterson x39845 http://jsc-web-www6.jsc.nasa.gov/ja/ja13/capp.cfm

 

[top]

3.            We Want to Hear From YOU

What safety topics are of greatest interest to you? What do you want to hear more or less about? Let us know what matters to you and watch for your topics to be discussed in the NS Safety Blog! (Please include "Safety Blog" in the subject line" of your email.)

Jennifer Hembd-Stitt x28242

 

[top]

4.            Starport Adult Sports Leagues

Come join the Starport Athletics adult sports leagues. We offer a plethora of leagues that range from men's and co-ed softball to even dodgeball. Come check us out! Right now we are offering a discounted rate for our whole spring season registration. Dodgeball, kickball and ultimate frisbee registration is now open! Hurry and take advantage of this great deal.

Robert K. Vaughn II x38049 http://www.imleagues.com/School/Home.aspx?SchId=b77f7df9172d4d8a84a81184...

 

[top]

5.            JSC Wellness Fitness Assessments

Fitness assessments are a major component of designing an effective exercise program. An objective assessment evaluates your current fitness level so that you can set goals for the future and measure your progress along the way. Whether you are starting a new exercise program or you have been exercising regularly, getting assessed can serve as both a motivational and educational tool.

Fitness assessments are available at the Gilruth Center with one of Starport's certified FitPros. This service is FREE to all Gilruth members.

Assessments include:

- Body composition

- Aerobic fitness

- Muscular strength

- Muscular endurance

- Flexibility

Participants will receive an analysis of their performance with comparisons to age/gender-adjusted standards for each test, an overall fitness "score" and immediate feedback regarding their results. Additionally, the Starport FitPro will make recommendations based upon individual results and personal goals.

Appointments are available by calling the Starport Fitness staff at x38112.

Joseph Callahan x42769 https://starport.jsc.nasa.gov/en/programs/wellness/jsc-wellness-fitness-...

 

[top]

6.            Youth Spring Break Baseball Camp

The NASA Starport Spring Break Baseball Camp provides instruction for all levels of youth baseball. Our coaches focus on the development of hitting, catching, base running, throwing, pitching and drills while preparing participants for competitive play. Former Major League Baseball pitcher Chuck McElroy will be leading the camp.

Robert K. Vaughn II x38049 https://starport.jsc.nasa.gov/en/programs/familyyouth-programs/sports-ca...

 

[top]

   Jobs and Training

1.            Ready, Set, Telework – PC and Mac Users – March 4

JSC's Information Resources Directorate (IRD) is hosting how-to-telework sessions based on device. These in-person sessions will focus on the Information Technology (IT) aspects of teleworking. Sessions will review tools required to telework, Virtual Private Network (VPN), collaboration tools, IdMax and tips and tricks to make your telework successful.

All sessions will be in the Building 3 Collaboration Center. No reservations are required, but seating is limited.

o             Mac: 9 to 10 a.m.

o             PC: 11 a.m. to noon

Join us and get ready to telework.

For questions, contact the IRD Customer Support center at x46367 (xGOFOR) - option 6, email JSC-IRD-Customer Support, or reference IRD's Work from Anywhere site.

For more Information on telework and Super Flex, go to Workplace Flexibilities.

Event Date: Tuesday, March 4, 2014   Event Start Time:9:00 AM   Event End Time:12:00 PM

Event Location: Building 3 Collaboration Center

 

Add to Calendar

 

JSC-IRD-Outreach x46367 http://ird.jsc.nasa.gov/infopedia/wiki%20pages/jsc%20telework%20toolkit....

 

[top]

2.            Scientific and Technical Info Training Tomorrow

Access to official NASA scientific and technical information is available in the NASA Technical Report Server (NTRS) Registered (replacement of the NASA Aeronautics and Space Database, or NA&SD). A representative from the Center for Aerospace Information will provide information on the new user interface and subject-matter collections, as well as basic and advanced search techniques. The training will be held tomorrow via WebEx from 2:30 to 3:45 p.m. This training is open to the JSC/White Sands Test Facility community. To register, click here.

  

This training is provided by JSC's Information Resources Directorate.

Ebony Fondren x32490

 

[top]

3.            Fire Extinguisher Training

Fire safety, at its most basic, is based on the principle of keeping fuel sources and ignition sources separate.

The Safety Learning Center invites you to attend a one-hour Fire Extinguisher Course that provides instructor-led training on the proper way to safely use fire extinguishers.

Students will learn:

o             Five classes of fires

o             Types of fire extinguishers and how to match the right extinguisher to different types of fires

o             How to inspect an extinguisher

o             How to use a fire extinguisher - P.A.S.S.

o             Understand the importance of knowing where extinguishers are at your location

o             Rules for fighting fires and the steps to take if a fire occurs

o             Hands on (weather permitting)

Date/Time: March 10 from 9 to 10 a.m.

Where: Safety Learning Center - Building 20, Room 205/206

Registration via SATERN required:

https://satern.nasa.gov/plateau/user/deeplink.do?linkId=SCHEDULED_OFFERING_DE...

Aundrail Hill x36369

 

[top]

4.            Job Opportunities

Where do I find job opportunities?

Both internal Competitive Placement Plan and external JSC job announcements are posted on the Human Resources (HR) Portal and USAJOBS website. Through the HR portal, civil servants can view summaries of all the agency jobs that are currently open at: https://hr.nasa.gov/portal/server.pt/community/employees_home/239/job_opportu...

To help you navigate to JSC vacancies, use the filter drop-down menu and select "JSC HR." The "Jobs" link will direct you to the USAJOBS website for the complete announcement and the ability to apply online.

Lateral reassignment and rotation opportunities are posted in the Workforce Transition Tool. To access: HR Portal > Employees > Workforce Transition > Workforce Transition Tool. These opportunities do not possess known promotion potential; therefore, employees can only see positions at or below their current grade level.

If you have questions about any JSC job vacancies or reassignment opportunities, please call your HR representative.

Brandy Braunsdorf x30476

 

[top]

   Community

1.            2014 Yuri's Night Houston 5K Fun Run

The 11th Annual Yuri's Night Houston 5K Fun Run is quickly approaching. Hosted by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Houston Section, the 2014 event will be held Saturday, April 5, along the same course that was introduced in 2013 through the streets of Nassau Bay. There will be some GREAT door prizes. To register, click here.

Event Date: Saturday, April 5, 2014   Event Start Time:7:45 AM   Event End Time:10:00 AM

Event Location: 18300 Upper Bay Rd

 

Add to Calendar

 

Mana Vautier 832-422-5494 http://www.yuris5khouston.com

 

[top]

2.            Severe Weather Preparedness Week

 

 

National Severe Weather Preparation Week is March 2 to 8. This highlights the importance of preparing for severe weather before it strikes. A theme of the National Weather Service's Weather-Ready Nation initiative is "Be a Force of Nature." This means knowing your risk, taking action and being an example in your community.

For more information, click here or go here.

For southeast Texas information, visit this link.

Frank Brody x35639

 

[top]

 

JSC Today is compiled periodically as a service to JSC employees on an as-submitted basis. Any JSC organization or employee may submit articles.

Disclaimer: Accuracy and content of these notes are the responsibility of the submitters.

 

 

 

NASA and Human Spaceflight News

Monday – March 3, 2014

 

INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION: Space to Ground - 02/28/14

This week's episode of Space to Ground features the Aniso experiment, cubesats and more. NASA's Space to Ground is your weekly update on what's happening aboard the International Space Station. Got a question or comment? Use #spacetoground to talk to us.

 

HEADLINES AND LEADS

 

Oscars 2014: 'Space exploration isn't fictional' says Nasa with #RealGravity photo set

 

James Vincent – The Independent

 

In terms of awards, last night's Oscars were dominated by Alfonso Cuaron's Gravity (the space thriller took home seven gongs including Best Director for the 52-year-old Cuaron) but on Twitter, Nasa was keen to remind the internet that not all images of space are computer generated.

 

'Gravity' pulls in 7 Oscars – including best director – at Academy Awards

 

CollectSPACE

 

"Gravity" was a force at Sunday night's (March 2) 86th Academy Awards, but the pull of the space thriller was not enough to win the Oscar for best picture. As critics had expected going into the evening, "Gravity" attracted the most awards out of all of the films, taking the Oscars for seven of the 10 categories for which it received nominations, including best director for Alfonso Cuarón.

 

NASA tweets real 'Gravity' space pics

 

Jolie Lee – USA Today

 

NASA is sharing real photos taken in space that look like they came straight out of the Oscar-nominated film Gravity.

Using the hashtag #RealGravity, the space agency, tweeting from its account @NASA, shows astronauts working on the International Space Station and scenes of Earth from space. NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, based in Maryland, also posted some amazing pictures on Flickr.

 

Florida man gets 5 years for $30M NASA contract fraud

 

Associated Press

 

ALEXANDRIA, Va. -- A Florida man was sentenced to five years in prison Friday for his role in a $30 million fraud and bribery scheme that duped NASA into awarding contracts that should have gone to minority-owned businesses. Michael Dunkel, 60, of Merritt Island, Fla., falsely claimed he was an employee of an Arlington, Va.-based company that received preferences on security-related contracts through a federal set-aside program.

 

NASA's Southern California center renamed for Neil Armstrong

 

Associated Press

 

EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. -- NASA's Southern California flight research center is being renamed in honor of astronaut Neil Armstrong, the first man to step on the moon during the Apollo 11 mission in 1969. The agency's center for atmospheric flight research was designated NASA's Armstrong Flight Research Center on Saturday. Armstrong was a former research test pilot at the center. He died in 2012.

 

American access to space could be a casualty of the Ukraine crisis

 

Mark Whittington - Examiner

 

Charles Hoskinson, in a February 28, 2014 piece in the Washington Examiner, reminds us that one of the possible casualties of the crisis in the Ukraine might be American access to space. "As the crisis in Ukraine unfolds, it's important to consider just how much leverage President Obama has given Vladimir Putin's Russia over U.S. policy.

 

"The answer: All the way to outer space. That's right -- ever since Obama ended the U.S. manned spaceflight program, U.S. astronauts have depended on Russia to take them to the International Space Station."

 

Cooke: America needs a plan for space exploration

 

Doug Cooke – Houston Chronicle

 

It is long past due for the United States to have a cogent, meaningful plan for human space exploration. At a time when there is so much potential to make significant progress, I am more concerned than ever about the future of human space exploration, because of the current void in long-term direction. We are in dire need of a strategic plan consisting of logical goals supported by tactically placed specific missions that lead to the landing of astronauts on Mars.

 

At hearing, some argue Mars flyby mission can provide direction for NASA human spaceflight program

 

Jeff Foust – Space Politics

 

Dissatisfied with NASA's current asteroid mission plans, and seeking a more detailed framework to support eventual human missions to Mars, some members of the House Science Committee used a hearing Thursday to press the administration to support a once-private proposal for a Mars flyby mission. "While consensus on Capitol Hill might be hard to find, there is general agreement that the President's asteroid retrieval mission inspires neither the scientific community nor the public who would foot the bill," said Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), chairman of the committee, in his opening statement. He supported the idea of a Mars flyby mission. "NASA, the White House, and Congress should consider this Mars flyby mission proposal."

 

Opinion: Despite Boozer's claims NewSpace needs NASA

 

Jason Rhian - Spaceflight Insider

 

It has been stated firms which have benefitted from NASA, would be wise to tamp down the "defund NASA" rhetoric which comes out of the NewSpace movement's base. It appears some in their number are starting to realize that, given the fact that their "chosen" launch vehicles and spacecraft are funded primarily by NASA – it might be a good idea to not bite the hand that's funding them. A few however have failed to get the memo. Some are even willing to rewrite history to achieve their ends. One such case is highlighted in a recent interview of Rick Boozer by Spacevidcast.

 

An Alien March Madness: Is There Life in Space?

Science Channel and NASA in Marathon on Life Beyond Earth

 

New York Times

 

It's not an invasion from space, but it is an invasion about space.

 

A batch of programs related to the heavens and what might or might not be lurking in them are coming in March, and the Science Channel gets things started on Sunday with a week of offerings on the theme "Are We Alone"? The answer, of course, is, "We have no idea," but in exploring the question the Science programs at least prove one thing: No camera angle is too odd when the subject is extraterrestrials.

 

Retired NASA manager sues Discovery channel for $14 million over Challenger disaster movie

 

Lee Roop – Huntsville Times

 

A retired NASA manager has sued Discovery communications for $14 million for the way he says he was portrayed in a television movie about the 1986 Challenger disaster. The defamation suit on behalf of Judson A. "Jud" Lovingood was filed in Madison County Circuit Court today.

 

In JSC's district, space is a minor issue for GOP congressional candidates

 

Jeff Foust – Space Politics

 

On Tuesday, voters go to the polls in Texas for party primaries. Among the more interesting races will be the Republican nomination for the state's 36th congressional district, which is up for grabs after the district's current representative, Steve Stockman, decided to run against incumbent Sen. John Cornyn in the Republican Senate primary. The 36th district includes, near its southwestern borders, NASA's Johnson Space Center, so it's one of the few districts where space policy can be a campaign issue.

 

Crowd-Funded Twittering Nano-Satellite Successfully Deploys from International Space Station

 

Scott Lucas – San Francisco Magazine

 

Get ready for tweets from space. Just before midnight Pacific Standard time last night, SkyCube, the crowd-funded, twittering, nano-satellite was deployed from the International Space Station, where it had been stored since it was taken into space aboard an Antares rocket in January. This was the moment that the training wheels would come off, and the satellite's creators, including team leader Tim DeBenedictis, and the projects Kickstarter funders, would find out if their device was working.

 

Dream Chaser Successfully Completes Flight Profile Review, Passes CCiCap Milestone 4A

 

Mike Killian – America Space

 

Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) is quietly, but steadily, moving forward swiftly with the development of their reusable Dream Chaser spacecraft, and today SNC announced the successful completion a "flight-profile data review" milestone for Dream Chaser (as is required under the company's Commercial Crew Integrated Capability "CCiCap" agreement with NASA).

 

COMPLETE STORIES

Oscars 2014: 'Space exploration isn't fictional' says Nasa with #RealGravity photo set

 

James Vincent – The Independent

 

In terms of awards, last night's Oscars were dominated by Alfonso Cuaron's Gravity (the space thriller took home seven gongs including Best Director for the 52-year-old Cuaron) but on Twitter, Nasa was keen to remind the internet that not all images of space are computer generated.

 

The US space agency countered (or complemented) Gravity's wins by tweeting out a series of pictures showing off the stunning, real life vistas seen by astronauts in Space.

 

The photos show views of Earth from the International Space Station (ISS) as well as snaps of the final ever shuttle mission and pictures of astronauts carrying out repair work during space walks.

 

One image even shows the most adventurous space-walk to date:  Mission Specialist Bruce McCandless II is seen free-floating 320 feet away from his ship - further than any astronaut has been before, using a nitrogen jetpack known as the Manned Manoeuvring Unit.

 

The images were tweeted out by Nasa using the hashtag #RealGravity, and although they might not have attracted as much attention as Ellen DeGeneres' Oscar selfie, to our eyes they're more impressive and more inspirational than anything Hollywood can offer!

 

'Gravity' pulls in 7 Oscars – including best director – at Academy Awards

 

CollectSPACE

 

"Gravity" was a force at Sunday night's (March 2) 86th Academy Awards, but the pull of the space thriller was not enough to win the Oscar for best picture.

 

As critics had expected going into the evening, "Gravity" attracted the most awards out of all of the films, taking the Oscars for seven of the 10 categories for which it received nominations, including best director for Alfonso Cuarón.

 

"Like any other human ever making a film, it can be a transformative experience," Cuarón said in his acceptance speech. "And I would like to thank 'Gravity,' because for many of us involved in making this film, it was definitely a transformative experience."

 

"And it's good because it took so long, if not, it would be a waste of time," he added. "What really sucks is that while for a lot of people, that transformation was wisdom, for me it was just the color of my hair."

 

Born in Mexico, Cuarón is the first Latino to be honored as best director.

 

Losing best picture to the historical epic drama "12 Years a Slave," "Gravity" also "let go" the best actress award for Sandra Bullock (Cate Blanchett took it for "Blue Jasmine") and best production design (to "The Great Gatsby").

 

"Sandy, you're 'Gravity,'" Cuarón said, addressing Bullock during his acceptance speech. "You're the soul, the heart, of the film. You're the most amazing collaborator and one of the best people I've ever met."

 

Had "Gravity" won best picture, it would have marked the first time that a science fiction film was honored in the top category.

 

"Gravity" was awarded Oscars for best original score, best sound editing, best sound mixing, best production design, cinematography, best film editing and best visual effects.

 

The Warner Bros. movie follows spacewalking astronauts (Bullock and George Clooney) who are left stranded and tumbling through space after a debris strike destroys their space shuttle. Critically-acclaimed, the 3D movie was also a box office hit, taking in more than $700 million worldwide to date.

 

"Gravity" won for special effects over another space film, "Star Trek Into Darkness," in large part due to its detailed digital recreations of real spacecraft, including the shuttle, Hubble Space Telescope and International Space Station. The film also pioneered new technologies for reproducing the weightless environment of space without filming in real microgravity.

 

Some of the credit for the movie's success can be shared with real astronauts. NASA's Andrew Thomas advised the filmmakers throughout the making of "Gravity," while Cady Coleman gave acting tips to Bullock from onboard the real space station.

 

"Congratulations to the cast and crew of 'Gravity,'" Cady Coleman said in a video statement released by NASA on Sunday after the film had won. "Thank you for making the movie in our backyard and showing everyone around the world that it's their backyard, too."

 

The evening's awards add to the movie's already long list of honors, including best picture from the Producers Guild of America and the Golden Globe for best director. The film was named Best British Film by the British Academy of Film and Television Arts and won seven Critics' Choice awards including best director and best actress.

 

"Gravity" was released on Blu-ray, DVD and digital HD on Feb. 25. The movie was also uplinked to the International Space Station, where NASA astronaut Rick Mastracchio and his crewmates screened the film.

 

"Of course, nothing beats the real thing here in space, but we want to congratulate the entire production and directing team and stars of 'Gravity' for the honors they've earned from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in bringing this ultimate in extreme environments to movie-goers around the world. Well done!" Mastracchio said in a video from the space station.

 

NASA tweets real 'Gravity' space pics

 

Jolie Lee – USA Today

 

NASA is sharing real photos taken in space that look like they came straight out of the Oscar-nominated film Gravity.

Using the hashtag #RealGravity, the space agency, tweeting from its account @NASA, shows astronauts working on the International Space Station and scenes of Earth from space. NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, based in Maryland, also posted some amazing pictures on Flickr.

 

In one tweet, NASA notes that Gravity star and best actress nominee Sandra Bullock consulted with astronaut Cady Coleman to learn about life in space.

Expedition 27 Flight Engineer Cady Coleman peeks out of a window of the Soyuz TMA-20 spacecraft. (Photo: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center via Flickr)

From 220 miles above Earth, one of the Expedition 25 crew members on the International Space Station took this night time photo featuring the bright lights of Cairo and Alexandria, Egypt on the Mediterranean coast. (Photo: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center via Flickr)

 

Florida man gets 5 years for $30M NASA contract fraud

 

Associated Press

 

ALEXANDRIA, Va. -- A Florida man was sentenced to five years in prison Friday for his role in a $30 million fraud and bribery scheme that duped NASA into awarding contracts that should have gone to minority-owned businesses. Michael Dunkel, 60, of Merritt Island, Fla., falsely claimed he was an employee of an Arlington, Va.-based company that received preferences on security-related contracts through a federal set-aside program. In reality, Dunkel paid a kickback to the Arlington company so it would pass the work on to him.

 

As it turned out, the company that Dunkel used as a front wasn't eligible for contract preferences, either. That company used a woman of Portuguese descent as a figurehead CEO to claim status as a disadvantaged small business. Dunkel is the eighth person convicted in the scheme.

 

The five-year term imposed at Friday's sentencing hearing was slightly less than the seven years sought by prosecutors, who said that Dunkel, a commercial pilot, profited personally from the scheme by $2.4 million. The money helped fund a lifestyle that included two private airplanes, a $350,000 race car and nearly a dozen other luxury vehicles and motorcycles, prosecutors said.

 

NASA's Southern California center renamed for Neil Armstrong

 

Associated Press

 

EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. -- NASA's Southern California flight research center is being renamed in honor of astronaut Neil Armstrong, the first man to step on the moon during the Apollo 11 mission in 1969.

 

The agency's center for atmospheric flight research was designated NASA's Armstrong Flight Research Center on Saturday. Armstrong was a former research test pilot at the center. He died in 2012.

 

The center was previously named for Hugh Dryden, who will now give his name to the center's aeronautical test range.

 

U.S. Rep. Kevin McCarthy, a Republican from Bakersfield, authored the bill to rename the center located on Edwards Air Force Base. The resolution passed unanimously.

 

A formal public ceremony is planned for the spring.

 

American access to space could be a casualty of the Ukraine crisis

 

Mark Whittington - Examiner

 

Charles Hoskinson, in a February 28, 2014 piece in the Washington Examiner, reminds us that one of the possible casualties of the crisis in the Ukraine might be American access to space.

 

"As the crisis in Ukraine unfolds, it's important to consider just how much leverage President Obama has given Vladimir Putin's Russia over U.S. policy.

 

"The answer: All the way to outer space. That's right -- ever since Obama ended the U.S. manned spaceflight program, U.S. astronauts have depended on Russia to take them to the International Space Station."

 

The problem started in 2010 when President Obama cancelled the Constellation program and with if it the "public option" of launching an Orion spacecraft on the Ares I rocket. Instead the Obama administration went all in for commercial space, paying a number of private companies vast subsidies to build their own crewed space craft. Currently these commercially run, government financed spacecraft are due to be operational sometime in 2017, three years hence.

 

Because of the president's ham handed cancellation of Constellation, which angered members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, the legislative branch has been somewhat stingier in providing subsidies for the commercial crew effort that its supporters might like. Neither the White House nor NASA seems capable of working with Congress or making the space program a priority.

 

Thus we are faced with the following scenario. Obama, somewhat belatedly, imposes a number of economic and diplomatic sanctions against Russia for its seizure of Ukrainian territory in the Crimea. One of the ways Putin retaliates is to deny American astronauts rides on Soyuz spacecraft to the International Space Station, in effect seizing control of the ISS.

 

This is one reason Obama is not likely to react very strongly to Putin's moves. He is not only a weak president but, because of policies he has pursued, has a weak hand. America will continue to be at a disadvantage in space until it regains its ability to fly its own astronauts.

 

Cooke: America needs a plan for space exploration

 

Doug Cooke – Houston Chronicle

 

It is long past due for the United States to have a cogent, meaningful plan for human space exploration.

 

At a time when there is so much potential to make significant progress, I am more concerned than ever about the future of human space exploration, because of the current void in long-term direction. We are in dire need of a strategic plan consisting of logical goals supported by tactically placed specific missions that lead to the landing of astronauts on Mars.

 

Logically sequenced missions should address science and exploration objectives. International collaboration is essential, but the U.S. must lead. Capabilities and technologies should be developed incrementally and paced with available budgets. Every mission undertaken and every capability developed should contribute to long-term exploration objectives.

 

Investments in current NASA human spaceflight programs are important in providing a balanced and solid foundation for human space exploration, including the International Space Station, crew and cargo transportation to low-Earth orbit, and the Space Launch System heavy-lift rocket and Orion capsule. These are the critical building blocks of an exploration infrastructure.

 

Additional enabling capabilities, technologies and research - including advanced in-space propulsion, space radiation research and protection, cryogenic fuel storage, closed-loop life support, space suits, entry, descent and landing technology and others - should be the focus of NASA technology programs.

We need a long-term road map that can gain traction through debate and refinement by stakeholders and advocates of the various approaches.

Begin with a human Mars/Venus flyby mission in 2021, a unique mission opportunity with a free return trajectory made possible by the exact Earth-Venus-Mars planetary alignment. It is the least complex mission profile for reaching the Mars vicinity. The next comparable flyby opportunity is not until 2033. The mission provides an opportunity for an incredible first step that will make travel to Mars real to the people of the world, demonstrating previously unimaginable possibilities in the span of a few short years.

 

The essential capabilities for such a mission are a Space Launch System vehicle with a fully capable upper stage, a habitat with an advanced life support system, and an Orion capsule with an advanced heat shield. A human mission to a large asteroid in its own orbit would be achievable with the same capabilities.

 

The most logical next step for the 2020s are missions to our own moon. Space-faring nations including China and Russia are all very interested in the moon.

Astronauts will collect samples in high-priority locations already identified by scientists to learn about the history of the sun, Earth and the inner solar system. They will employ surface operational techniques and test systems in the hostile lunar environment that will prepare for future Mars surface operations.

After initial lunar missions, Mars' moons Phobos and Deimos become logical destinations. Missions will require efficient propulsion, possibly through evolution of solar electric propulsion technology used today, nuclear electric propulsion, electric plasma engines or nuclear thermal propulsion. Astronauts will be in close proximity to Mars for a period of weeks, harvesting science samples and operating robots on the surface with minimal communication delays. A mission to Phobos or Deimos would prepare us for the ultimate step of landing a crew on the Martian surface.

 

A human landing on Mars will require a large lander capable of an atmospheric entry, a surface habitat, nuclear surface power, a lightweight spacesuit, a rover, and other assets. Human missions to Mars will be challenging and tremendously momentous, as astronauts explore the planet most like our own.

 

Through logical progression and meaningful missions, I believe Americans will be motivated to support appropriate but reasonable budgets, that are commensurate with the value of the plan and the work needed to accomplish it. We cannot afford to delay or prolong the debate, because timing is critical to catch the unique planetary alignment that makes the first step possible in 2021.

 

With this long-term plan, we can provide our youth and the rest of the world a future marked by technological progress and discovery that will inspire all.

In the process, we will regain U.S. leadership in space exploration with a cadence of achievements.

 

At hearing, some argue Mars flyby mission can provide direction for NASA human spaceflight program

 

Jeff Foust – Space Politics

 

Dissatisfied with NASA's current asteroid mission plans, and seeking a more detailed framework to support eventual human missions to Mars, some members of the House Science Committee used a hearing Thursday to press the administration to support a once-private proposal for a Mars flyby mission.

 

"While consensus on Capitol Hill might be hard to find, there is general agreement that the President's asteroid retrieval mission inspires neither the scientific community nor the public who would foot the bill," said Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), chairman of the committee, in his opening statement. He supported the idea of a Mars flyby mission. "NASA, the White House, and Congress should consider this Mars flyby mission proposal."

 

The proposal is a variant of the Inspiration Mars mission concept unveiled exactly one year earlier by a team lead by multimillionaire Dennis Tito, the first space tourist to visit the ISS. At that time, a privately-funded mission would launch in early 2018, flying by Mars later that year before returning to Earth 501 days after launch. The 2021 version, as described by Doug Cooke, former NASA associate administrator for exploration systems who has served on Inspiration Mars's advisory board, would launch in November 2021. The mission features a flyby of Venus in April 2022 and a flyby of Mars in October of that year before returning to Earth in June 2023.

 

The hearing, though, offered few other technical details about the mission concept, beyond its use of the Space Launch System (SLS) heavy-lift rocket and the Orion spacecraft. As mentioned in a November hearing, the SLS would require a new upper stage that NASA currently doesn't plan to develop until well into the 2020s; the mission would also require a habitation module of some kind as well. Cooke, asked at the hearing about how much this mission would cost, deferred to NASA. "I think that question should be asked of NASA, to go look at this mission seriously," he said. "To my knowledge, there's not been a cost analysis of this."

 

Cooke and another witness, Scott Pace of George Washington University's Space Policy Institute, argued that the 2021 Mars flyby mission could be part of a broader framework of exploration missions. Pace said that there was a growing international consensus that the next step for human spaceflight beyond Earth orbit was cislunar space. Yet a Mars flyby mission, he argued, "serves as an interesting bridge, a potential bridge, between where we are with the ISS and where we would like to be with Mars and where our international partners and commercial opportunities are with human spaceflight beyond Earth orbit." The firm deadline of a 2021 mission, dictated by orbital mechanics, would drive decisions "on how to rationally trade cost, schedule, risk, and performance."

 

Some other witnesses, though, raised concerns about the mission concept. "In my opinion, the Inspiration Mars proposal provides, I think, an exciting opportunity for our space exploration and certainly for NASA," said retired Air Force Gen. Lester Lyles. But, he added, "it does have high risk associated with it." AIAA executive director Sandy Magnus, a former astronaut, said she didn't doubt there would be astronauts willing to fly such a mission, but they would ask many questions about it, including life support, radiation, and other issues. "What am I going to do during the mission itself?" she asked. "If you are sending two people to Mars on a flyby they're going to need to occupy their time."

 

While Smith and other members expressed interest in the mission, that support wasn't universal. Committee vice-chairman Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) said he initially supported the Inspiration Mars concept when it was privately funded, but his mind had changed when it turned into something that required public funding. "I think this is a foolhardy use of very limited government resources," he said.

 

The committee's ranking member, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), also questioned whether the mission was suitable for the first crewed SLS/Orion mission, saying it was "unfortunate" that no current NASA officials were invited to testify. She noted that the title of the hearing was a question: "Mars Flyby 2021: The First Deep Space Mission for the Orion and Space Launch System?" "I would guess that the likely answer will turn out to be 'no,'" she said in her opening remarks. However, she added that NASA needs to provide more details on the steps it plans to take to reach the long-term goal of a human landing on Mars.

 

After the hearing, Reps. Smith and Frank Wolf (R-VA), chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that funds NASA, sent a joint letter to NASA administrator Charles Bolden. In the letter, they state that "it is time for NASA to begin to develop a clear, well-planned technical implementation plan for the future of human spaceflight over the next few months." Part of that assessment, they argues, should include both the 2018 and 2021 Mars flyby opportunities. The overall study, they added, "should be independent of the Administration's budget projections and instead based on what NASA believes such systems could be developed."

 

Inspiration Mars's Dennis Tito weighed in on the hearing in a statement Thursday afternoon, saying he was "very encouraged" by the discussion. "I continue to believe, as do many Americans, that Mars is the logical destination to put human space exploration back on track and demonstrate the 'can do' spirit that seems to have faded over time," he said. "The window of opportunity in 2021 is challenging but achievable and waiting to be claimed."

 

Opinion: Despite Boozer's claims NewSpace needs NASA

 

Jason Rhian - Spaceflight Insider

 

It has been stated firms which have benefitted from NASA, would be wise to tamp down the "defund NASA" rhetoric which comes out of the NewSpace movement's base. It appears some in their number are starting to realize that, given the fact that their "chosen" launch vehicles and spacecraft are funded primarily by NASA – it might be a good idea to not bite the hand that's funding them. A few however have failed to get the memo. Some are even willing to rewrite history to achieve their ends. One such case is highlighted in a recent interview of Rick Boozer by Spacevidcast.

 

The NewSpace entity, Inspiration Mars, has not only announced its goal of sending a married couple on a flyby of the Red Planet by 2018 was impossible (it's now 2021 at the earliest), but that to do so would also require the "villain" of many a NewSpace narrative, NASA's new heavy-lift booster, the Space Launch System and Orion spacecraft to allow them do it.

 

A report appearing on Space.com details how Inspiration Mars publically acknowledged they need what many in the NewSpace movement have dubbed the "rocket to nowhere" (or the "Senate Launch System") as well as an Orion spacecraft to actually do what they propose. Given this and considering that one of the chief promoters for commercial space efforts within the U.S. government, Barack Obama, has tapped SLS and Orion to fly his proposed mission to an asteroid, you would think the fan base would stop attacking SLS, realizing it is counterproductive at best and self-destructive to the NewSpace movement's aims at worse.

 

In regards to Inspiration Mars' call for help? Former NASA astronaut Sandra Magnus (currently with the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) as well as NASA's former Associate Administrator for NASA's Explorations Systems Mission Directorate, Doug Cooke, have expressed reservations about any aid NASA would provide to Inspiration Mars. The space agency was approached by Dennis Tito for assistance on his Inspiration Mars effort.

 

Despite this, there are still those who would have you believe NASA is in NewSpace's "way" and that NewSpace can still do it better than the agency with more than five decades of experience in the matter. Spacevidcast's Benjamin Higginbotham conducted an interview with Rick Boozer who penned: "The Plundering of NASA: An Expose'." Mr. Higginbotham is a SpaceX employee who opened his interview with an image and comments about how SpaceX's Falcon 9 is the way of the "future." This sets the tone for the interview.

 

The Inspiration Mars hearing is discussed, even though neither of Spacevidcast's hosts actually watched it. Boozer implies the Senate was behind the push for a 2021 Mars flyby mission. The Space.com report as well as those appearing on MSNBC, Space Politics and elsewhere run contrary to his claim. It wasn't the Senate or NASA looking for a reason to "justify" the Space Launch System – it was a NewSpace entity reaching out to NASA to use SLS and Orion to complete the stunt of sending a couple around Mars. Both the host as well as the interviewee share a laugh as this falsehood is allowed to pass as fact. Stating events how they actually took place would have proven inconvenient given the nature of the interview.

 

Mr. Higginbotham asks if we should still fund SLS rather than let commercial companies such as his employer do it. The question he doesn't address is – do it for who? Who would be the customer? NASA is the only customer and the space agency is still waiting for commercial companies to send a single human being into orbit, much less to the Moon or Mars. While the unmanned cargo missions that have started to occur are lauded by host and guest, the fact no astronauts have ever flown on these commercial craft is downplayed.

 

During his interview Boozer suggests that the Dragon spacecraft or Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser might be able to return from a near-Earth-asteroid mission – but Orion wouldn't. He states this is due to the fact that it is based on the type of heat shield which conducted the only crewed mission to another world, Apollo, isn't up to the task. He sums up his opinion by calling the use of this proven system "ridiculous."

 

What might be considered ridiculous is getting the fact that it was Inspiration Mars who reached out to NASA and not the other way around wrong. Boozer follows this by using the comment: "…there's a reality-distortion field surrounding SLS." Well, he got that right, given he can't get basic facts like who approached who correct? – and that two SpaceX employees are promoting his comments? That's definitely distorted.

 

Boozer implies systems built by companies with no experience launching humans into space will do better than the space agency and supporting firms who have launched hundreds of astronauts into the black. Moreover he restates the sentiment NASA doesn't want SLS.

 

Having interviewed NASA officials such as the agency's Deputy Associate Administrator for Exploration Systems Development Dan Dumbacher and the NASA Associate Administrator for the Human Exploration and Operations Directorate, William Gertenmaier? The refrain employed by Boozer that NASA didn't "want" SLS – bears little resemblance with what these officials have stated repeatedly. In fairness, they work for NASA and therefore can't be expected to speak ill of the program of record. More on fairness later.

 

Boozer continues by suggesting the Orion which will fly the uncrewed Exploration Flight Test 1 (EFT-1) is a lesser version of the spacecraft which will one day carry crews for reasons; "he won't get into right now." Could it be it's an unmanned test flight and doesn't need the environmental systems he mentions? There was no need to try and mislead folks into thinking the EFT-1 Orion was different for any reason other than to fit the requirements of the mission it was built for. So why do so?

 

It's obvious the guest has issues with SLS and Orion, rather than address errors stated by Boozer the host allows them to pass. Why? If you're going to produce an interview shouldn't you want to at least appear to be unbiased?

 

The definition of "Conflict of Interest" is: "A set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgment or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest." One could argue working for a company which has competed for contracts for a project would preclude one from posting an interview with someone actively speaking out against your employer's competition.

 

The real issue here isn't just one of integrity or honesty, it's money. NewSpacers want SLS and Orion's funds. Here's the thing – preferential treatment, one way or the other – is wrong. The system in place now has funds going to Commercial Cargo and Commercial Crew and funds going to exploration efforts. Boozer? Is arguing against this, he wants funds to all go to commercial companies, at least those he personally approves of. NASA's current path, is far from perfect. But at least it makes sense.

 

What if another commercial company had won the contract, say RocketPlane Kistler? Where would we be then? Well, given this has already happened, that Kistler went bankrupt – the answer to the question is obvious. You don't give a massive, prestige-laden assignment to a company that has little experience in these matters, has no launch vehicle of the class required and has only conducted orbital, unmanned flights in the past two years. You give them to those who have been involved with every crewed flight the U.S. has conducted. Why? Because of the lessons taught to us by the demise of Kistler and others. Much as some wish it wasn't – experience matters.

 

NASA should serve as a pathfinder, with commercial companies taking over operations that NASA has left behind. This sums up current LEO operations. When the space agency goes to an asteroid and then Mars? Once they've laid the groundwork for you to follow – then they can take over. But not before and certainly not before they've even conducted a single crewed orbital mission. If Boozer wants to discuss "ridiculous" – he need look no further than his suggestion that the inverse is true.

 

So, are these people to be taken seriously? Given they ask: "Our question: can the Space Launch System survive in a marketplace where private space can do it cheaper, faster and better?" – the answer is "no." Why? Because no commercial firm has shown they can produce an SLS-class vehicle cheaper, faster or better. The question puts the cart before the horse. Moreover, those three words? Not the best.

 

For those who pay attention to space history – we know better than to ever use the terms faster, better and cheaper together in a sentence. Faster is how NASA's Mars Polar Lander ended up scattered across the Martian terrain, better is how CONTOUR became debris and cheaper is how Mars Climate Orbiter incinerated itself in the Martian atmosphere. History is a great teacher if you actually take the time to learn the lessons. Sure, I might be stretching the facts in that regard a bit to make a point. However, in comparison to Boozer's comments? I might as well be religiously adherent to these events.

 

To answer the show's question – no private space won't "kill" the Space Launch System – "private space" is a little preoccupied cashing the checks NASA is sending to them - of which Mr. Higginbotham is paid. Even SpaceX's CEO and Founder, Elon Musk, has taken to thanking the space agency that has made many of his efforts possible. Perhaps he should have a chat with his employee.

 

To his credit, Higginbotham queries Boozer, regarding concerns about commercial firms. However, this is cursory, the overall narrative is commercial is the "only" way. All the pre-show notations about the "views of this program" don't remove the responsibility to be unbiased from Higginbotham's shoulders. While we have surrendered to the fact the media is no longer unbiased. Watching Higginbotham and Boozer laugh, acknowledging he's an employee of one of the groups who could benefit from SLS' cancellation? – is disappointing. You can either be a journalist, tasked with telling the story in as unbiased a fashion as possible – or you can be a SpaceX employee – you can't be both.

 

The real tragedy here is there are a few issues which Boozer raises which bear hearing out. However, this is drowned out in the ensuing anti-SLS campaign. Coupled with the fact the host works for one of the firms that would likely benefit from the downfall of SLS and that the guest is willing to misrepresent facts to save the NewSpace "brand" embarrassment? None of what comes out of the interview is of value. It must be regarded as tainted and therefore discounted.

 

The reason is simple. Would a Boeing or Lockheed-Martin employee and their spouse (the show's co-host Cariann Higginbotham is also employed by SpaceX) be taken seriously after hosting a show critical of the competition? Imagine how the NewSpace fan base would react – I wager they would be apoplectic.

 

Higginbotham's complicity is increased when he asks if voters will turn on Congress for voting to "waste" $9 billion on SLS. I found myself wondering – why he didn't mention the $14 billion President Obama "wasted" when he cancelled the Constellation Program? Why didn't he show some journalistic integrity and ask that? Perhaps it's only okay to waste billions when your side benefits. It's a double standard which runs throughout the NewSpace movement.

 

You can't produce something for journalistic purposes while working for Boeing, Lockheed-Martin – or SpaceX. The under-the-breath snickers, eye-rolls and sounds of derision replete throughout Higginbotham's comments detail more eloquently why not - better than anything I could ever write.

 

An Alien March Madness: Is There Life in Space?

Science Channel and NASA in Marathon on Life Beyond Earth

 

New York Times

 

It's not an invasion from space, but it is an invasion about space.

 

A batch of programs related to the heavens and what might or might not be lurking in them are coming in March, and the Science Channel gets things started on Sunday with a week of offerings on the theme "Are We Alone"? The answer, of course, is, "We have no idea," but in exploring the question the Science programs at least prove one thing: No camera angle is too odd when the subject is extraterrestrials.

 

Take, for instance, the presentations in "Close Encounters," an embarrassing series being introduced with episodes on Tuesday and Friday. Using hokey re-enactments and a smattering of commentary by supposed experts, it dusts off old U.F.O. sightings — by a farm family in Kansas in 1971, police officers in Illinois in 2000, and more — that it says still defy explanation.

 

All will be familiar to the U.F.O. crowd, and the program adds no new information or credibility to them, especially since the re-enactments have a silly 1930s look regardless of when the sightings occurred. And the "experts" — authors, self-described U.F.O. investigators — are shot in heavy shadow reminiscent of found-footage horror movies in which someone shines a flashlight on his own face in a dark room.

 

And as if the shadow weren't spooky enough, the camera angles for these expert interviews jump around ridiculously, often in midsentence. We're looking the expert in the face for the independent clause, but for the dependent clause we're suddenly staring into his ear. The filmmaking theory seems to be that if you discombobulate viewers with random shifts of the camera perhaps they won't notice that your U.F.O. show contains no hard evidence of U.F.O.'s.

 

The experts are better lighted and more credible in "NASA's Unexplained Files" on Sunday night. The only thing missing is the "unexplained."

 

The program examines weird things NASA and its astronauts have noted over the years: odd lights observed by Leroy Chiao during a 2005 spacewalk; a triangular something-or-other seen from the space shuttle in 1986.

The segments are teased with attention-getting narration and quote fragments: "I certainly hope it's not a death star. Otherwise we're in serious trouble." But most everything turns out to be pretty explainable. No extraterrestrials here; just an assortment of interesting anecdotes.

 

The heavy shadows are back on Wednesday in a new episode of "Through the Wormhole With Morgan Freeman," and Mr. Freeman is the one shrouded in them, again an effort to add a mysterious ambience to the proceedings. But this always intriguing program, unlike "Close Encounters," features real scientists and scholars and high-concept theories, with the barely visible Mr. Freeman as the guide.

 

His subject for "Are We Alone?" week is, "Is God an Alien Concept?" At issue is whether other beings in the universe are likely to ponder the meaning of life and the possibility of God. That premise leads Mr. Freeman to introduce scholars and researchers who are exploring the nature of self-awareness — including in elephants — and the origins of religion.

 

The space theme comes in when the program speculates on two possibilities. One is that an advanced civilization Out There will have outgrown God, just as some scholars think humans will as their scientific knowledge grows. The other is that when we ultimately make contact with extraterrestrials we will find that the thing that binds all beings together is their shared need for a concept like God, because some questions are unanswerable.

 

If nothing else, "Are We Alone?" week sets the stage for the mix of dumb and smart space-related programming coming up. On the dumb side a four-part series called "The Happenings" begins on March 20 on the National Geographic Channel with an episode in which two illusionists try to convince an entire town that it is under alien attack.

 

The smarter side: On March 14 the same channel is presenting "Live From Space," broadcast in part from the International Space Station. And on March 9 comes the heavily promoted "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey" on Fox and other outlets.

 

Retired NASA manager sues Discovery channel for $14 million over Challenger disaster movie

 

Lee Roop – Huntsville Times

 

A retired NASA manager has sued Discovery communications for $14 million for the way he says he was portrayed in a television movie about the 1986 Challenger disaster. The defamation suit on behalf of Judson A. "Jud" Lovingood was filed in Madison County Circuit Court today.

 

Lovingood, who still lives in Madison County, was deputy manager of the Shuttle Projects Office at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville at the time of the disaster. The Challenger exploded shortly after takeoff from Cape Canaveral on Jan. 28, 1986, and an investigation found the cause to be a fiery leak in a solid rocket booster under Marshall's management that caused the main fuel tank to explode.

 

"(Lovingood) was never asked to give any testimony as depicted and he did not give testimony to the question shown in the movie."

 

A critical scene in the movie involving the accident investigation attributes quotes and positions to Lovingood that are incorrect and not in the official record, the lawsuit says.

 

The movie, which the suit says was depicted as "a true story," ran Nov. 16, 2013 on the Discovery and Science channels and was "the third most watched program in Science Channel history" with 5 million viewers, according to the suit. William Hurt played Dr. Richard Feynman, and actor Sean Michael played Lovingood, the suit says.

 

At issue is testimony before the Challenger investigation commission by characters identified as Feynman and Lovingood. The suit says that in the movie's crucial scene Lovingood is shown testifying falsely that the odds of a shuttle failure were much higher than other NASA engineers calculated. The suit says that Hurt, portraying Feynman, then says to Lovingood in the movie: "That's not scientific calculations. That's a wish."

 

"The clear statement and depiction was that Lovingood lied about the probability of total failure being 1 in 100,000 when NASA's own engineers said it was 1 in 200," the lawsuit says. "This movie scene never took place in real life at any hearing. (Lovingood) was never asked to give any testimony as depicted and he did not give testimony to the question shown in the movie in this made up scene."

 

"It makes it look like (NASA leadership) ignored a highly risky situation" in deciding to launch Challenger that day, Lovingood's attorney Steven Heninger of Birmingham said Friday. Heninger said the movie was the network's "first attempt at a scripted program ... and they took shortcuts because they were writing for drama."

 

The testimony in the movie was not in the investigation commission's records or Feynman's book "What Do You Care What Other People Think?," both of which were sources for the film, the suit claims.

 

Lovingood was "shocked and devastated that it made him look so bad," Heninger said. "It has caused him to lose sleep."

 

A call to Discovery Communications was not returned Friday.

 

In JSC's district, space is a minor issue for GOP congressional candidates

 

Jeff Foust – Space Politics

 

On Tuesday, voters go to the polls in Texas for party primaries. Among the more interesting races will be the Republican nomination for the state's 36th congressional district, which is up for grabs after the district's current representative, Steve Stockman, decided to run against incumbent Sen. John Cornyn in the Republican Senate primary. The 36th district includes, near its southwestern borders, NASA's Johnson Space Center, so it's one of the few districts where space policy can be a campaign issue.

 

However, while the race for the GOP nomination has attracted a dozen candidates, only about half have devoted much attention to space policy, based on the issues sections of their campaign websites, and those who have don't go into much detail. A review of those who do discuss it:

 

John Amdur says he is "committed to exploration" on his website, including getting more people into science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. "The crown jewel of the U.S. Space Program, JSC has been left to atrophy by indecision and utter lack of leadership in Washington," he writes. "President Obama needs to stop sidestepping the issue and find a meaningful vision that will support the Space Center that has supported every single American to go into space; when I am in Washington, I will be the loud voice needed for CD-36's place at the center of Space Exploration and the STEM fields."

 

Doug Centilli doesn't mention space on his issues page, but his website does include an endorsement from Doug Morrell, who was NASA chief of staff when Mike Griffin was administrator. "People who believe in the importance of America's space program, and the role that the Johnson Space Center plays in human flight, need Doug Centilli in Congress," Morell states. "Doug has the experience and track record to effectively fight for a strong, visionary and well funded space program."

 

John Manlove says we must ensure that "we have continued excellence for our space capabilities" on the issues section of his site. "As your next Congressman, I will work vigorously to support NASA, protect it from any reduction of funding, and to strengthen our leadership in space exploration to ensure our national security and foreign policy objectives are met." Manlove also won the endorsement of the Houston Chronicle in January in part because he "seeks a new, long-term vision for NASA."

 

Kim Morrell only tangentially mentions space when, as a bullet point on the topic of "Military Readiness," states: "Regain our military superiority in the air, outer space and on the ground."

 

Dave Norman is the one candidate with an entire issues page devoted to space, with a similar theme of regaining leadership in space. "Unfortunately, President Obama is content to watch our space program fade away, sacrificed on the altar of an ambitious social agenda," he writes. "Dave will work to restore our space program and technological leadership in the world through both reinvigorated NASA manned space exploration and with a NASA partnership with commercial space enterprises."

 

Robin Riley worked nearly 20 years as a JSC contractor, so, not surprisingly, he has views on "Protecting NASA." "I strongly encourage the federal government and NASA to work with American citizens and American businesses to research and develop a new vehicle to continue human space flight and maintain American's leadership in space exploration," he writes, not explaining whether this "new vehicle" would be different from the Orion vehicle NASA is developing or commercial crew systems also under development.

 

The rest of the Republican candidates—Brian Babin, Jim Engstrand, Phil Fitzgerald, Pat Kasprzak, Chuck Meyer, and Ben Streusand—don't discuss space on their campaign sites. (In 2012, Meyer, who also ran for and lost the GOP nomination for the district, proposed a special kind of savings bond called "Space Bonds" to fund human spaceflight.)

 

With a field this large, the race for the nomination will likely go to a runoff election in late May. The eventual winner of the nomination, though, is likely to win the general election in November. In 2012, Stockman won the district with 70 percent of the vote. While a dozen Republicans are seeking their party's nomination, only one Democrat is running in the district: Michael Cole, who ran in 2012 as a Libertarian. He also does not discuss space policy among the issues on his site.

 

Crowd-Funded Twittering Nano-Satellite Successfully Deploys from International Space Station

 

Scott Lucas – San Francisco Magazine

 

Get ready for tweets from space.

 

Just before midnight Pacific Standard time last night, SkyCube, the crowd-funded, twittering, nano-satellite was deployed from the International Space Station, where it had been stored since it was taken into space aboard an Antares rocket in January. This was the moment that the training wheels would come off, and the satellite's creators, including team leader Tim DeBenedictis, and the projects Kickstarter funders, would find out if their device was working.

 

There was plenty that still could go wrong, according to DeBenedictis. "SkyCube has been in cold and dark storage for 4 months. We never tested how the batteries hold charge over that long," he said. "they may have discharged." Forty-five minutes after initial deployment, SkyCube's solar panels and radio antennas came to life, just as SkyCube came into the direct path of the sun's light. If everything was working properly, ground control would be able to communicate with the satellite as it passed overhead, downloading telemetry files from the CFTNS.

 

The first passes over ground came at 3 and 4:30 am Pacific time, when SkyCube orbited over Australia. A signal went out. No response. That wasn't surprising—it takes time for the solar arrays to gather enough energy to power these kinds of satellites. DeBenedictis didn't expect to hear anything. Some teams have taken up to weeks to establish contact. The next chance would be around 8:00 am, as the CFTNS passed over New Mexico. DeBenedicts would try again.

 

At 8 am, another hail went up from the ground. "We repeatedly sent it 'Get telemetry' commands, meaning 'send me your battery level, solar panel voltages, overall health level, etc.' Every 10 seconds or so. For the first minute or two, no response," wrote DeBenedictis in an email to supporters of the project. "Then the ground radio started detecting signal, then a digital signal. It wasn't quite strong enough to fully decode all the bits, but there was definitely signal coming back. The signal stopped coming back when the satellite crossed over the horizon, as expected. The guys here are 100% sure that was signal from the satellite." As he put it, "the patient is alive."

 

As we wrote about last April, the CFTNS is a four-pound, four-inch on a side cuboid that will orbit the earth, sending out personalized tweets written by those who donated to the project on kickstarter. DeBenedicts told us last month, just before the launch, that one of the project goals was the reawaken popular interest in space exploration and use: "The American space program has been sleepy. It's remote, removed. People like it, but it's not participatory. Twitter may be banal, but it's yours."

 

Dream Chaser Successfully Completes Flight Profile Review, Passes CCiCap Milestone 4A

 

Mike Killian – America Space

 

Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) is quietly, but steadily, moving forward swiftly with the development of their reusable Dream Chaser spacecraft, and today SNC announced the successful completion a "flight-profile data review" milestone for Dream Chaser (as is required under the company's Commercial Crew Integrated Capability "CCiCap" agreement with NASA).

 

The Dream Chaser coming in for an autonomous landing at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. As the image clearly shows, the left landing gear did not deploy properly, causing the vehicle to sustain minor damage on landing. Photo Credit: SNC

Dream Chaser's autonomous ALT-1 flight itself went about as good as SNC could have hoped for, until it came time to land. When the command was given to deploy its landing gear, only two of its three gear deployed, causing the engineering test vehicle to skid off the runway and sustain minor structural damage after touchdown. The problem, although not officially identified publicly yet by SNC, is suspected to have been a mechanical issue with the specific landing gear in question, rather than something related to bad software (none of the primary systems that gave the commands that control the flight failed or had any problems).

 

"Milestone 4a proved the Dream Chaser flies well and that the path the Dream Chaser will take throughout its expected flight profile can be reliably predicted," said Mark Sirangelo, corporate vice president and head of SNC's Space Systems. "SNC was able to show NASA that our trajectory analysis and flight performance modeling tools and techniques were able to accurately forecast the flight performance of Dream Chaser from the start of free flight through runway touchdown. Now that we have successfully passed a second flight-based milestone we have further reassurance that our vehicle design is sound and that our spacecraft can successfully fly within established and expected flight boundaries. We are now advancing and upgrading the Dream Chaser test spacecraft in preparation for additional expanded flight tests in 2014."

 

During ALT-1, Dream Chaser was outfitted with numerous aerodynamic modeling instrumentation sensors, which provided the Dream Chaser team with a wealth of valuable information relating to the vehicle's in-flight performance. The results of the ALT-1 post-flight analysis, which was also reviewed by NASA, validated the aerodynamic performance of the Dream Chaser and "significantly matured its aerodynamic database in the subsonic region of flight," according to SNC.

 

Dream Chaser has proven it can fly autonomously and fly well—at least at sub-sonic speeds—and the Dream Chaser team was able to authenticate that over 40 aerodynamic predictions, from extensive analysis, matched within the limits of the actual vehicle performance.

 

The Dream Chaser, described by many simply as a "mini space shuttle," is a lifting body human spacecraft designed to carry as many as seven astronauts, and it is the only spacecraft under the Commercial Crew Development Round 2 (CCDev2) agreement with NASA's Commercial Crew Program (CCP) that is winged and designed to land on any conventional runway capable of handling commercial traffic.

 

The company hopes to launch Dream Chaser on its first autonomous orbital spaceflight from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida in November 2016 atop the proven workhorse United Launch Alliance (ULA) Atlas-V 402 rocket, with the first crewed mission to launch in the third quarter of 2017. SNC intends on operating a fleet of Dream Chasers out of NASA's Kennedy Space Center, using the space agency's famed Operations and Checkout Building (known as the O&C) for pre-flight and post-flight Dream Chaser processing, as well as utilizing the three-mile-long shuttle landing facility (SLF) as the spacecraft's runway of choice when returning home.

 

The Dream Chaser's potential as a reusable lifting-body (winged glider) spacecraft is unique—no other company is developing anything similar, nor have those other companies announced any target launch date(s) for their first crewed orbital spaceflights. Dream Chaser will have no abort blackout zones and a 3.5-day free-flight capability—with the added benefit of deorbiting at any time (since Dream Chaser can land on any conventional runway, not just the SLF). The spacecraft will also be able to stay at the International Space Station (ISS) for up to seven months at a time, if needed, before having to return to Earth, and an expected 1.5 G nominal reentry will provide ideal conditions for returning fragile cargo and science experiments, in addition to making the return to gravity easier on the crew (SNC expects immediate access to crew and cargo upon landing). A quick turnaround and an almost entirely reusable vehicle put Dream Chaser in a class all its own.

 

A second autonomous free-flight test, known as ALT-2, is planned to take place at Edwards AFB again later this year before the company conducts its first piloted Dream Chaser free flight test. No specific date(s) have been announced by SNC for those flights, and we likely will not hear about it until after the flights are conducted (if history is any indication).

 

 

 

More detailed space news can be found at:

 

http://spacetoday.net/

 

 

 

Fwd: The Next Tiangong

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Gary Johnson" <gjohnson144@comcast.net>
Date: March 3, 2014 9:03:34 AM CST
To: "Gary Johnson" <gjohnson144@comcast.net>
Subject: FW: The Next Tiangong

 

 

 

The Next Tiangong
by Morris Jones
Sydney, Australia (SPX) Mar 03, 2014

The current Tiangong and Shenzhou configuration ready to dock.

In 2015, China is expected to launch its next space laboratory. Tiangong 2 will follow on from the Tiangong 1 module, which was launched in 2011 and is still in orbit at the time of writing. Tiangong 1 received two crews of astronauts and carried out China's first space dockings. It is a small, roughly cylindrical module with a crew cabin and a service module featuring solar panels. Although Tiangong 1 is officially designated as a "space laboratory", it is really a small space station.

The launch of Tiangong 2 has been expected for a long time, but space analysts are puzzled by the nature of this spacecraft. Originally, China planned to launch three Tiangong modules, and Tiangong 2 was expected to be a marginally improved version of the Tiangong 1 spacecraft. Later, China seemed to drop plans for three Tiangongs and launch just two. We wondered how this would affect the design of the next module to be launched. A whirlwind of rumours, speculation and conflicting reports circulated. China seemed determined to allow the confusion to flourish.

Recent snippets of information from China have helped to clear up some of the confusion, but have still not given us a totally clear picture of the next Tiangong.

China has essentially confirmed plans that a cargo spacecraft will dock with Tiangong 2. This is consistent with the long-term goal of the Tiangong program: To verify the hardware and technology required to build a large space station.

China has given a fair amount of information on the cargo spacecraft over the years. It's essentially based on the design of the Tiangong 1 module, but it's longer, larger and heavier. The cargo spacecraft, dubbed "Tianzhou" or "Heavenly Vessel", will also be manufactured in three variations: Totally pressurized, a combined pressurized and unpressurized version, and a totally unpressurized version.

This will allow different combinations of cargo to be delivered on different missions. Food and crew supplies will go inside the pressurized sections. Gear to be bolted to the outside of the station will travel in the unpressurized sections. Right now, it is not clear which version will be used on the mission to Tiangong 2. Tianzhou is also designed to be launched by the Long March 7 launch vehicle, which is currently undergoing development. Long March 7 has more power than the Long March 2F/G vehicle used to launch Tiangong 1.

It's nice to get so much information on the Tianzhou cargo spacecraft. Ironically, we probably know more certain facts about the cargo ship than the Tiangong 2 spacecraft itself!

We can still practice some deductive reasoning. In order to receive a docking from this cargo vessel, Tiangong 2 has to be a lot better than the small Tiangong 1 spacecraft. This analyst previously favoured the theory that Tiangong 2 would be a huge module, and could be a prototype for the core module of the Chinese Space Station. We still can't rule this out, but there is another possibility. Tiangong 2 could itself be nearly identical to the Tianzhou cargo spacecraft that will dock with it.

This would be a logical progression. A Tianzhou-based laboratory would be a major improvement on Tiangong 1, but it would still not stretch China's capabilities too far, too soon. It could also be practical for another reason.

A "huge" Tiangong would require the use of the Long March 5 rocket, which is also under production. Long March 5 has experienced a few technical problems, and may not be considered trustworthy enough for this mission. Although the smaller Long March 7 rocket is also untested, China may feel that it has a better chance of being ready to support the mission. Thus, it makes sense to match the cart to the horse.

The weird uncertainty of the nature of Tiangong 2 could be tied into the progress of these two new rockets. China could have considered a "medium" Tiangong launched by Long March 7 in parallel with plans for a "huge" Tiangong on Long March 5. Perhaps this competition has not been entirely resolved.

China plans to send at least one crew of astronauts to Tiangong 2. Trying to do this in concert with a cargo ship docking would be complicated. If Tiangong 2 features multiple docking ports (as a "huge" Tiangong probably would) then the cargo ship could be docked at the same time as a crew-carrying Shenzhou spacecraft. It is not clear if this will be the case. It could still be possible to fit a multiple docking adaptor to a "medium" Tiangong but we don't know if this will be done. Thus, the only choice would be to ensure that the cargo vehicle and the Shenzhou spacecraft both visit at different times.

This analyst favours the idea that the first ship launched to a "medium" Tiangong 2 will be a Shenzhou spacecraft with a crew of three astronauts. They will probably live aboard Tiangong 2 for roughly a month, then come home. This will allow them to inhabit the laboratory when it's still fairly "fresh" and its docking systems have not been over-used.

Months will pass, then a Tianzhou cargo ship will be launched to Tiangong 2. It will perform experimental dockings and undockings, then dock with Tiangong 2 for an extended period. The two spacecraft will be essentially mirror images of each other, producing a small but symmetrical space complex. Then China will leave the modules to orbit for at least two years while they perform engineering tests.

There are holes in the plot. What about cargo transfer on this mission? That probably won't happen. In any case, there's not much point if there is no crew aboard to use it. China has also given hints about refuelling tasks by the cargo spacecraft. Will these be performed with Tiangong 2?

This analyst is starting to reduce the odds of this happening. It largely depends on how the refuelling system works. Many analysts have probably expected that the Tianzhou spacecraft would use an automatic refuelling system like the Russian Progress cargo spacecraft. Progress connects hoses to a space station and pumps fuel and oxidizer directly into the station's tanks.

If Tianzhou can do this, then a refuelling experiment is highly probable. However, there could be a simpler alternative. An unpressurized Tianzhou could carry propellant tanks and simply bolt them to the exterior of the space station. This could be less complex than making plumbing links between two spacecraft and pumping volatile liquids. The propellant tanks could even be complete propulsion modules, with small thrusters already attached.

In such a case, the refuelling operation would be even more straightforward for China's future space station. But it would rule out any chance of this happening with Tiangong 2. Even though this technique is straightforward, an astronaut would need to unload the propellant module from the cargo spacecraft using a robot arm. No crew, and probably no robot arm, means no chance of this type of operation in the near future.

We know a bit more about the Tiangong program, but we still don't really know what the next module will look like. China needs to do a lot more to fill in the blanks.

Dr Morris Jones is an Australian space analyst who has written for spacedaily.com since 1999. Email morrisjonesNOSPAMhotmail.com. Replace NOSPAM with @ to send email. Dr Jones will answer media inquiries.

.

 

 

Copyright 1995-2014 - Space Media Network.

 

===============================================================

Fwd: Incredible Technology: Inflatable Aircraft Could Cruise Venus Skies

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Gary Johnson" <gjohnson144@comcast.net>
Date: March 3, 2014 9:07:26 AM CST
To: "Gary Johnson" <gjohnson144@comcast.net>
Subject: FW: Incredible Technology: Inflatable Aircraft Could Cruise Venus Skies

 

 

From: Rick Hashimoto [mailto:1rick.hashimoto3@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 8:31 AM
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: Incredible Technology: Inflatable Aircraft Could Cruise Venus Skies

 

 

 

 

Incredible Technology: Inflatable Aircraft Could Cruise Venus Skies

By Mike Wall, Senior Writer   |   March 03, 2014 07:01am ET

 

Artist's concept of an inflatable airship cruising through the skies of Saturn's huge moon Titan. Aerospace firms Northrop Grumman and L'Garde have been developing a Venus-specific version of this vehicle called VAMP (short for Venus Atmospheric Maneuverable Platform). Credit: Northrop-Grumman View full size image

A big robotic airship could ply the skies of Venus for up to a year, giving scientists an unprecedented look at Earth's hellishly hot "sister planet," the craft's developers say.

For the past year, engineers at aerospace firms Northrop Grumman and L'Garde have been working on an unmanned concept vehicle called the Venus Atmospheric Maneuverable Platform. Using a mixture of powered flight and passive floating, VAMP could stay aloft for long periods, collecting a variety of data about Venus and its atmosphere.

Further, no big breakthroughs are required to get VAMP — which remains in the design phase — up and running, team members say. [Mysterious Venus: 10 Weird Facts]

"There are no major technology unknowns," Northrop Grumman's Kristen Griffin told SPACE.com in December at the American Geophysical Union's annual fall meeting in San Francisco. "It really is something that could be developed when the [scientific] community is ready for it."

 

A Venus airship

VAMP is a big but incredibly light inflatable aircraft. While its 151-foot (46 meters) wingspan dwarfs that of NASA's now-retired space shuttle, the triangular VAMP would tip the scales at just 992 pounds (450 kilograms).

In the vehicle's envisioned mission architecture, VAMP hitches a ride to Venus orbit with a carrier spacecraft, then deploysand inflates (with hydrogen or some other buoyant gas) while still linked to this mothership. VAMP then detaches and spirals down toward the planet, hitting the atmosphere in a slow, smooth entry that requires only minimal thermal-protection gear.

This critical maneuver would be far less dramatic than the August 2012 entry, descent and landing of NASA's Mars rover Curiosity, which space agency officials dubbed "seven minutes of terror," Griffin said.

"This would be more like an hour and a half of trepidation," she said.

VAMP would then cruise through Venus' skies at altitudes ranging between 34 miles and 43 miles (55 to 70 kilometers), using propellers to get high up during the day and floating passively at lower altitudes after sunset.

Solar panels would power the craft's propellers, while night-time operations would be supported by batteries or an advanced stirling radioisotope generator (ASRG), which converts the heat produced by radioactive decay of plutonium-238 into electricity, VAMP's developers say.

The airship could carry up to 44 pounds (20 kg) of scientific gear if scientists wanted it to fly as high as 43 miles. But a minute sacrifice in maximum altitude — just a mile or so — would allow VAMP to tote a 440-pound (200 kg) payload, team members say. Data gathered by the vehicle's onboard instruments would be relayed back to Earth via the carrier spacecraft, which would remain in Venus orbit.

Venus' strong winds would sweep VAMP around the planet every 6 days or so. The aircraft could conceivably keep studying Venus for a year before the gradual loss of its buoyant gas brought its mission to an end. (The lead-melting temperatures at Venus' surface make long-term rover and lander missions difficult, but conditions high in the atmosphere are much more benign.)

Fly the otherworldly skies

Many scientists are eager to learn more about Venus' atmosphere, as such knowledge may help them understand how the planet changed from a potentially life-supporting world billions of years ago to the scorching hothouse it is today.

VAMP could help unravel some of the planet's most perplexing mysteries, serving as a sort of Venus "sky rover," said Griffin, who declined to provide a cost estimate for the concept vehicle. And VAMP-like airships could also find broader application, exploring other worlds as well, she added.

For example, such aircraft could help deliver landers and rovers to the surface of Marsand cruise through the thick, nitrogen-rich skies of Saturn's huge moon Titan, which sports lakes of liquid methane and ethane on its surface.

"You could do low-altitude flight at Titan," Griffin said.

 

Copyright © 2014 TechMediaNetwork.com All rights reserved.

 

===============================================================

 

Fwd: 45 Years Since Apollo 9

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Gary Johnson" <gjohnson144@comcast.net>
Date: March 3, 2014 9:10:17 AM CST
To: "Gary Johnson" <gjohnson144@comcast.net>
Subject: FW: 45 Years Since Apollo 9

 

 

AmericaSpace

For a nation that explores
March 1st, 2014

'We Were at War': 45 Years Since Apollo 9 (Part 1)

By Ben Evans

The year 1969 was pivotal in so many ways for humanity. At its dawn, American astronauts had newly returned from circling the Moon, and by July it had produced our first piloted landfall on another world. These astonishing achievements continue to resonate today—particularly following 2012′s untimely loss of Neil Armstrong—but there is one mission, flown 45 years ago this week, in March 1969, which is a decidedly unsung hero of the effort to plant bootprints on the lunar surface. It rose no higher than a couple of hundred miles from Earth, it went nowhere near the Moon … and yet, without it, those historic steps at the Sea of Tranquility could not have been taken. The mission was Apollo 9, and for its astronauts it would be forever remembered as a mission of gumdrops and spiders, sickness and golden slippers … and the flight of "The Red Rover."

By the beginning of 1969 the Apollo command and service modules (CSM) which would transport men to the Moon had been extensively tested, but an "all-up" demonstration of the entire ship, including the lunar module (LM), remained untried. The first flight-ready LM had arrived at Cape Kennedy in June 1967, and, though not wholly complete, it was successfully launched on an unmanned test in January of the following year. Its TRW-built descent engine was fired, as was its ascent engine, and the spider-shaped vehicle proved its guidance system. However, all was far from well with the LM. The ascent engine—needed for astronauts to rise from the lunar surface—had fuel-injector problems and the craft's windows became fractured or blown out during high-temperature tests. Broken wiring, stress corrosion, and excessive weight added to the LM's headaches.

Still, confidence in the first unmanned mission (LM-1) convinced NASA managers that a repeat (LM-2) was not necessary and efforts accelerated to send LM-3 into orbit with a human crew. It was called "the D-Mission," and to understand where it "fitted" in the Apollo lunar landing framework, it is important to recap a number of fundamental changes to NASA's plan.

The Apollo 9 crew of (left to right) Jim McDivitt, Dave Scott, and Rusty Schweickart began training to support the D mission in 1966. Their spectacular test flight cleared another hurdle on the road to planting American bootprints on the Moon. Photo Credit: NASA

In September 1967, the agency defined seven steps—"A" through "G"—to land on the Moon. First came unmanned tests of the mammoth Saturn V booster with the Apollo CSM, flown as Apollo 4 in November 1967. The "B" mission, completed by Apollo 5 in January 1968, was the unmanned LM test. A piloted "C" flight involved the CSM in Earth orbit and took place in October 1968. The final steps to the Moon focused on four increasingly difficult missions: "D" (a manned demo of the whole Apollo spacecraft in Earth orbit), "E" (a repeat of D, albeit in a high elliptical orbit), "F" (a full dress rehearsal in lunar orbit), and "G" (the landing itself).

During the course of 1966, astronauts Jim McDivitt, Dave Scott, and Rusty Schweickart were named to support the D mission. Their CSM would be launched atop a Saturn IB rocket, followed a few days later by the launch of another Saturn IB, carrying LM-3. McDivitt's crew would rendezvous, dock, and perform joint exercises with the lunar module, including a spacewalk by Schweickart to put the lunar EVA suit through its paces. Chomping hard at the heels of McDivitt's team was the E crew of Frank Borman, Mike Collins, and Bill Anders … but circumstances in early 1967 would complicate the relationship between these six men.

On 27 January, astronauts Virgil "Gus" Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee were killed when a flash fire swept through their command module during a launch pad test. More than a year later, the McDivitt and Borman crews seemed in line to fly the D and E missions sometime in late 1968 or early 1969. However, when the Saturn V flew its enormously successful first flight, and worried by CIA reports that the Soviet Union was close to testing its own lunar rocket, NASA accelerated Borman's mission to a full-blown circumlunar expedition, thus eliminating one of the steps in the A-G plan and bringing the landing closer. Hopes that their E mission could be retasked as something called "E-prime," flying to the Moon with LM-3, fell to pieces when it became obvious that the lunar module would not be ready in time. In August 1968, it was decided that Borman's crew would fly first on Apollo 8 to circumnavigate the Moon, without an LM, after which McDivitt's men would fly Apollo 9 on the D mission to wring out the whole spacecraft in Earth orbit.

Apollo 9 would be a tough mission, involving two separate manned spacecraft … and for Dave Scott, the command module pilot, it encapsulated rendezvous, docking, and an unspoken need to train for worst-case, what-if scenarios. If McDivitt and Schweickart, after undocking, were somehow unable to control the LM, Scott might be able to dock with them manually … but if not, the harrowing alternative was that he might have to abandon them and return home alone. "Bringing Apollo home as a one-man show," Scott wrote in his memoir, Two Sides of the Moon, "involved my mastering many aspects of all three jobs performed by the crew, Jim's as commander, Rusty's as systems engineer, my own as navigator. The sheer logistics of operating in all three positions, let alone learning the complex procedures this would require, was challenging, to say the least."

Pictured during LM-3 training in February 1969, astronauts Jim McDivitt (foreground) and Rusty Schweickart would put the Lunar Module through its paces. They would test its digital autopilot, its descent and ascent engines, and its overall controllability. Photo Credit: NASA

During training, Scott had devised a routine in the simulator to handle this daunting role. First, he would check Apollo's electrical, communications, and environmental systems from Schweickart's seat, then would move to the center couch to fulfil his own duties of setting up the relevant programs on the computer, before finally moving into McDivitt's couch to perform the re-entry manoeuvre itself. "It was pretty exacting," he wrote. Yet it was a dire eventuality for which all Apollo command module pilots would have to be prepared.

Equally exacting was the possibility that Scott might have to rescue McDivitt and Schweickart if the LM developed problems. For example, if it was unable to initiate its correct rendezvous maneuver within a minute of when it was planned, he would need to rescue them. If the two craft successfully redocked, but the pressurized tunnel was inaccessible, or if the hatches failed to open, McDivitt and Schweickart would need to leave the lunar module in their suits and spacewalk back over to the command module's side hatch. And this was hampered by the fact that McDivitt (who was not scheduled to make an EVA) would have been totally reliant upon Schweickart's emergency oxygen supply. "If he didn't make the EVA transfer within 45 minutes," Scott wrote, darkly, "he would die."

For months, the astronauts and their backups, Pete Conrad, Dick Gordon, and Al Bean, methodically rehearsed the complicated steps; steps which were further compounded as technicians and engineers tested them by dreaming up failures, systems faults, and other emergencies. "Our launch was almost postponed," added Scott, "because we could not get enough training, especially for the rendezvous profile. After every sim was finished, we were debriefed and often had to explain why we had failed to deal with a particular situation. It was all pretty intense."

Apollo 9 was indeed postponed, but not through lack of training. Originally set to fly on the last day of February 1969, the crew arrived at Cape Kennedy three weeks prior to launch to finish their training and quarantine. Living conditions had changed quite markedly from the spartan crew quarters of Mercury and Gemini days: they each had individual bedrooms, a shared bathroom, a large and comfortable living area, a miniature gym in which they played handball at night, and a superb chef, Lew Hartzell. "He was great," Scott related, "a former cook on a tugboat, who served us with marvelous meals every time we sat down." But in the final days before launch, Jim McDivitt's white blood-cell count was found to be low, hinting that he might be coming down with a cold.

Mounted atop the most powerful rocket ever brought to operational status—the Saturn V—the Apollo 9 spacecraft rolls out to Pad 39A. Photo Credit: NASA

By this time, the giant Saturn V booster had been sitting on swamp-fringed Pad 39A for almost two months, and its 28-hour launch countdown had begun. Thirty minutes into a planned three-hour hold at T-16 hours, managers decided to recycle the clock to T-42 hours and give McDivitt time to recover his strength. Indeed, in his autobiography, Deke Slayton related that "all three of the crew came down with colds," a suggestion which Scott and Schweickart attempted to dismiss by donning jogging clothes and running around the perimeter of the launch complex. Flight International quoted a medical report from the astronauts' physician, Dr. Chuck Berry, which mentioned "sore throats and nose congestion." Whatever the truth, it certainly illustrated, in Slayton's mind, that the crews were being worked hard and were increasingly susceptible to "opportunistic infections."

The brief postponement did not detract from what promised to be a spectacular, though challenging, year for NASA: the year in which John Kennedy's very public promise to land a man on the Moon would be realised. Up to five missions were planned, each one building on—and dependent on—the success of its predecessor. If the D mission was a success, the stage would be set for Tom Stafford, John Young, and Gene Cernan to ride Apollo 10 to the Moon in May for the F mission. Only if Stafford's flight verified the performance of the LM's engines and consolidated knowledge of the lunar gravitational field, could Apollo 11—the long-awaited G mission, with Neil Armstrong in command—stand any chance of touching down on the lunar soil sometime in July. Despite the confidence, the doubts remained. If Apollo 11 did not succeed, the task of making the first landing would pass to Apollo 12 in September, and if that failed there would be time for Apollo 13 in November to achieve Kennedy's deadline.

Even with the benefit of hindsight, it remains remarkable that such enormous steps were taken in such a short span of time. Four percent of the federal budget (during the mid-1960s) had much to do with the hectic pace of Apollo's journey to the Moon, but the ability of the United States to achieve a lunar landing on this timescale—barely eight years—certainly puts current projects to return humans to the lunar surface to shame. In an ironic twist, closer and more cordial working ties with the Soviet Union, cemented by the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks from 1969 onward, eliminated the need for such a vigorous, all-or-nothing human space program. Apollo's race to the Moon was seen, quite literally, as "peaceful warfare" with the Soviets and the astronauts were its warriors. "We were at war," wrote Gene Cernan in his autobiography, The Last Man on the Moon. "If they reached the Moon first, it would be Sputnik and Gagarin all over again, but much worse, and we would be the losers." Unlike Sputnik and Gagarin, failure to achieve the lunar landing would not simply be embarrassing, it would represent an abject failure to deliver on Kennedy's promise. As February wore into March 1969, the Apollo 9 crew—colds or no colds—could not launch soon enough.

Had the Saturn V risen or had Florida sunk? This question was on many minds whenever a Saturn V took flight, as Apollo 9 amply demonstrates in this stunning liftoff view. Photo Credit: NASA

By 7:30 a.m. EST, 1 March, when the clock resumed, the main concerns surrounded a low-pressure disturbance in the Gulf of Mexico, just southwest of Cape Kennedy, which was causing overcast weather conditions. As the countdown entered its final stretch, dull, storm-bringing stratocumulus clouds covered 70 percent of the sky, with darker blotches of altostratus high above them. Nonetheless, preparations continued. On the evening of 2 March, Scott and Schweickart drove out to the pad to watch as their Saturn V, lit up by searchlights, underwent its final checks. Next morning, clad in their pure white space suits, the three astronauts arrived at the pad to a very different scene. The scores of engineers and technicians were gone and it was an eerily silent place, the sense of stillness punctuated only by the hissing of the Saturn itself. As technicians helped Jim McDivitt into the left-hand seat of the command module and Rusty Schweickart into the seat on the right, Scott waited patiently outside on the gantry and had a few precious minutes to gaze out across the marshy expanse of the Cape and watch the Sun peek over the horizon.

Precisely on the stroke of 11:00 a.m., the five mighty F-1 engines in the Saturn V's first stage roared to life. From a height, weight, and payload-to-orbit standpoint, it remains the largest and most powerful rocket ever brought to operational status. McDivitt, Scott, and Schweickart's ride to orbit was virtually trouble-free, although the experience was truly unforgettable. For Scott, who flew two Saturn Vs in his astronaut career, it was like being compressed and released atop a giant spring, as the forces and vibrations alternately threw them against their restraining straps, then smashed them back into their seats.

In space, Scott's first task would make or break Apollo 9. Less than three hours after launch, he separated the CSM from the S-IVB final stage of the Saturn, whose adaptor panels were automatically jettisoned to expose LM-3. Using the thruster quads on the service module, Scott crisply turned his ship 180 degrees and prepared to dock with the spidery lander. At this point, the first problem arose when Scott found that his translational thrusters were not functioning properly. "If we couldn't pull the lunar module out from its storage pod," he wrote, "we didn't have a mission. We had this short moment when it seemed it wasn't going to work." As he held the ship's position steady, McDivitt and Schweickart scrambled to identify the cause of the problem. Eventually, it was traced to several of the attitude engine indicators, whose propellant valves were showing up as "closed."

"After all the pre-flight testing of the valves," Scott continued, "this was certainly not supposed to happen. At one point ground control thought one of us must have bumped several of the switches closed as we were jostled around during launch, but we were strapped into our seats so tightly this was impossible. Later analysis concluded that the valves had flicked shut as a result of the shock caused by staging." The problem was fairly straightforward to rectify: McDivitt recycled the switches to "open," and Scott was able to execute a perfect nose-to-nose docking, a little over three hours into the mission. The intricate procedure, known as "transposition and docking," was critical: On missions to the Moon, it would be done after the S-IVB had performed the translunar injection burn, "and that," wrote astronaut Mike Collins in his memoir, Carrying the Fire, "was no time to discover that the scheme didn't work for some reason."

In its Apollo 9 press kit, NASA identified no fewer than seven "alternate" flight plans which McDivitt, Scott, and Schweickart might pursue in the event of problems. Firstly, Alternate "A" presupposed a problem with the extraction of LM-3 from the S-IVB … and this would have enforced a full-duration, 10-day solo mission with just the CSM. The other alternates applied to problems with LM-3 itself—covering everything from life-support system failures to a troublesome engine, and from a faulty rendezvous radar to an unsafe descent stage—and in each case the crew would have performed as much as they could with the available set of options. Whatever happened, if possible they would attempt station-keeping with the lander, Schweickart's EVA, and a long burn of the descent and ascent engines.

Cocooned within the protective confines of the S-IVB final stage of the Saturn V, the Lunar Module is seen during the transposition and docking maneuver. Photo Credit: NASA

In completing the first transposition and docking, the Apollo 9 crew had achieved the first American link-up between two pressurized, habitable spacecraft. The next order of business was to confirm that the docking probe and tunnel between the command and service modules and the lunar module was functional. Unlike the spacewalk by Soviet cosmonauts Yevgeni Khrunov and Alexei Yeliseyev in January 1969, McDivitt and Schweickart would transfer between ships internally, in shirtsleeves.

After pressurizing the 4-foot-long tunnel between the two craft, verifying the integrity of the 12 latches on the docking ring, connecting umbilicals to provide the lunar module with electrical power, and disassembling the probe and drogue, it was time to separate from the S-IVB for good. Four hours into the mission, Scott threw a switch which fired pyrotechnics to release the lunar module from the S-IVB, and again pulsed the thruster quads to draw the complete Apollo craft free. Forty minutes after separation, the S-IVB's restartable J-2 engine was lit again to enter an "intermediate coasting" orbit, preparatory for a third and final burn. The final firing, which began some six hours into the mission and burned until the propellant supply was all used up, allowed the S-IVB to escape Earth's gravitational influence and established it in a solar orbit. Major objectives of the repeat firings were to demonstrate the J-2's ability to restart and to test its performance under conditions beyond those for which it was designed.

In the meantime, McDivitt, Scott, and Schweickart were preoccupied for the remainder of their first day in orbit with checks to ensure that the combined command, service, and lunar modules were spaceworthy. Among their initial tasks was a series of firings of the Service Propulsion System (SPS) engine, one of whose primary roles on missions to the Moon would be to perform the lunar-orbit-insertion and transearth injection burns. The first SPS burn, conducted late on 3 March and lasting five seconds, verified that the combined spacecraft could withstand the stress and gauge their "oscillatory response."

With this work complete, the time finally came for what Slayton called the mission's "big deal"—the checkout of LM-3 by McDivitt and Schweickart. After Schweickart made a dramatic spacewalk, the lunar module was to undock for a series of joint rendezvous exercises. During his planned two-hour excursion, Schweickart was to put the EVA suit with its bulky backpack, designed to enable astronauts to work on the lunar surface, through its paces. He was to exit through the small, square hatch and onto the lunar module's front "porch." Scott had spent more than two years perfecting his knowledge of the CSM, so McDivitt and Schweickart had devoted themselves to understanding every inch of "their" ship. Each man had prepared exhaustively for his respective tasks.

What they had not prepared for, or bargained on, was Schweickart's adverse reaction to the space environment, which almost stalled the mission in its tracks.

 

Copyright © 2014 AmericaSpace - All Rights Reserved

 

===============================================================

 

AmericaSpace

For a nation that explores
March 2nd, 2014

'Does Anyone Read Me?' 45 Years Since Apollo 9 (Part 2)

By Ben Evans

 

As Rusty Schweickart performed his EVA from Spider, Dave Scott made a "stand-up" EVA in Gumdrop's hatch. It was always recognized that in an emergency returning lunar crews might need to transfer by "extravehicular" means from the LM back to the CSM. Photo Credit: NASA

Early on 5 March 1969, 45 years ago this week, two men floated through a 4-foot-long (1.2-meter) tunnel from their command ship into a spider-shaped vehicle whose descendants would soon carry astronauts to the surface of the Moon. Apollo 9 was not destined to go to the Moon, or even depart Earth orbit, and yet, as noted in yesterday's history article, its criticality to the goal of planting American bootprints in the lunar dust before the end of the 1960s cannot be underestimated. During their 10 days circling Earth, the crew of Jim McDivitt, Dave Scott, and Rusty Schweickart would prove for the first time that Apollo—as a complete spacecraft, with its conical command module, its cylindrical service module, and its arachnid-like lunar module—was capable of performing as advertised. However, no sooner had they begun work, the first problem reared its head … for one of the astronauts was sick.

When McDivitt and Schweickart floated through the connecting tunnel into the lunar module early on the morning of 5 March, their actions to prepare it for its first manned flight were honed to perfection by hundreds of hours of training. At 6:15 a.m. EST, Schweickart entered its cramped cabin—about the size of a broom cupboard, dominated by the large, cylindrical ascent engine cover in the middle of its "floor"—and was followed by McDivitt less than an hour later. Both men agreed that the whirring systems, particularly the environmental control unit, were noisy. By 8 a.m., the first major step in preparing their lunar module for independent flight was completed when its four spidery legs were swung away from the body. Time, however, was not on their side, and shortly thereafter McDivitt was forced to admit to Mission Control that they were behind schedule. The reason: Schweickart, two days into his first space flight, was sick.

At the time of Apollo 9, "Space Adaptation Syndrome" was virtually unknown, and the bulk of military fighter and test pilots in the astronaut corps, imbued as they were with seemingly limitless stores of testosterone and The Right Stuff, tended not to report it, lest their susceptibility impair their chances of being assigned another mission. "It had been accepted," wrote Gene Cernan in his autobiography, The Last Man on the Moon, "that everyone felt woozy on getting up there, and … maybe you might even toss your cookies a couple of times, but you sure as hell didn't tell anyone … and neither did your crewmates." Frank Borman only reluctantly admitted to throwing up on the way to the Moon during Apollo 8, swearing Jim Lovell and Bill Anders to secrecy. McDivitt's crew was determined to avoid such problems and, upon reaching orbit, tried not to make sudden head movements and took the anti-nausea drug Dramamine.

Jim McDivitt (right) and Rusty Schweickart demonstrate the smallness of the lunar module's cabin in this telecast from Spider. Photo Credit: NASA

Still, issues of dizziness plagued them for the first couple of days of the mission. Things really got bad on the 5th, when Schweickart was preparing the LM for its first solo flight. He suffered a bout of nausea as soon as he awoke, and then felt increasingly queasy as he donned his space suit in the weightless cabin, finding a vomit bag just in time. As Lunar Module Pilot Schweickart performed his initial duties, flipping switches to begin powering up the lander's systems, his condition steadily worsened. As fellow astronaut Buzz Aldrin explained in his book, Men from Earth: "Rusty … experienced brief vertigo as he floated up through the tunnel into the LM, and ended up staring down at the lander's flight deck." When McDivitt, who had also suffered from episodes of dizziness, joined his crewmate, Schweickart vomited again.

Unlike in Borman's case, it was impossible (and unsafe) to conceal Schweickart's condition from ground controllers. McDivitt knew that the timeline called for Schweickart to make his EVA on 6 March. "Throwing up inside a pressure suit," explained Deke Slayton, "would not only be unpleasant as hell, it might be fatal." And another problem lurked in the shadows. The very act of admitting that one of them was sick, in Gene Cernan's words, "was to admit a weakness, not only to the public and the other astros, but also to the doctors, which would give them reason to stick more pins in us." In the hyper-competitive fraternity of NASA's astronaut corps, racing against the decade to beat the Soviets to the Moon, weakness of any description was not tolerated. Although Cernan would later admit that Schweickart's sickness opened the door to closer medical exploration of the condition, ultimately he "paid the price for us all. Nothing was ever said in public against him, but he never flew another mission."

Apollo 9 marked the first time that two American manned craft would rendezvous, dock, and transfer crews, which demanded individual names for them. There were, admittedly, formal international designations—the main spacecraft was "1969-018A" after reaching orbit, the Saturn V rocket's S-IVB final stage became "1969-018B," crew-carrying ascent stage of the lunar module became "1969-018C," and its discarded descent stage became "1969-018D"—but those, surely, would not do. Names it seemed, for the two manned craft, were definitely needed.

Whither the "Gumdrop"? It has been suggested that the command and service module's shape, or its blue cellophane wrapping, or both, were behind the Apollo 9 crew's choice of name for their craft. Photo Credit: NASA

Frivolous or "sensitive" names were frowned upon by NASA, but for Apollo 9, names were necessary. The ungainly appearance of the LM and the conical profile of the CSM made the choice of names an easy one for McDivitt, Scott, and Schweickart: The former would be called "Spider," and the latter "Gumdrop." Two possible reasons have come to light for the Gumdrop name: Firstly, and quite obviously, the command module closely resembled the cone-shaped, sugar-encrusted candy, and secondly, it may have been on account of the blue-coloured cellophane wrapping in which that module was delivered to Cape Kennedy. Although introduced as nicknames, extensively use by the astronauts and their training teams led to their becoming official radio callsigns.

Aboard Spider, concern mounted about how to tackle Schweickart's forthcoming EVA. In a bid to preserve his comrade's privacy, McDivitt requested a closed-loop medical consultation with Mission Control, and it was decided that a planned spacewalk from Spider over to Gumdrop was too risky. The chances of Schweickart suffocating if he threw up again, inside his suit, did not bear thinking about. The plan called for him to spend two hours outside, exiting the lunar module and working his way by handrails over to the open hatch of Gumdrop, where a fully-suited Dave Scott would conduct a "stand-up" EVA to observe. Schweickart would then return to the lunar module. The purpose of this test, in addition to evaluating the suit, was to show that a returning lunar crew could spacewalk to the CSM in the event of their being unable to pass through the docking tunnel.

Instead, a comparatively straightforward opening of the hatch for 45 minutes, during orbital daylight, was advocated. By thus exposing themselves to vacuum, but remaining inside Spider, McDivitt and Schweickart could conduct at least some tests of the suits in the required conditions. As managers reprioritized the EVA, the lingering question of how much information to release to the media had worked its way to NASA Administrator Tom Paine. Many astronauts were furious and one even declared that he would "never tell the ground a goddamn thing from up there." Eventually, Paine concurred that the confidentiality of the Schweickart tape should be respected.

Rusty Schweickart's EVA sought to determine the effectiveness of the lunar surface suit in a vacuum. Unlike previous suits, it was completely self-contained. Photo Credit: NASA

If the spacewalk happened—and early on 5 March it seemed unlikely—the astronauts' third day in space was far too busy for them to worry about it. Their packed schedule of engineering and other objectives got underway at 9:28 a.m., with a five-minute televised transmission from inside Spider, showing its instruments and displays, various internal features, and the faces of McDivitt and Schweickart. Managers were suitably impressed by the quality of the images, but not by the sound, which they considered less than satisfactory. Three hours later, McDivitt executed the first firing of the descent engine. In addition to evaluating the combined spacecraft's handling characteristics, the six-minute burn demonstrated the effectiveness of the lunar module's digital autopilot and how the descent engine behaved at full throttle. McDivitt was impressed by the descent engine's performance. Only seconds after starting the burn, he had yelled, "Look at that [attitude] ball; my God, we hardly have any errors." Twenty-six seconds into the firing, those errors remained virtually non-existent and the commander even took a few seconds for a bite to eat.

Schweickart awoke on 6 March, apparently much recovered, no longer nauseous or pale, and McDivitt, notwithstanding the reservations of ground controllers, decided to press ahead with his scheduled EVA onto the lunar module's porch. The cabin was depressurized, although McDivitt found that he had to exert more force than expected to turn the handle and swing the waist-high hatch inward. Clad in a bulky suit virtually identical to that which crews would use on the Moon and anchored by means of a tether, Schweickart began moving onto the porch a little over 14 minutes later.

In essence, he was now a miniature spacecraft in his own right. "What was important about this EVA," wrote Deke Slayton, "was that the lunar pressure suit was completely self-contained. All the suits used on the Gemini EVAs had relied on the spacecraft to provide oxygen and communications. The consumables and communication equipment for the lunar suit … were all in [the] backpack." With the satisfying gurgle of water coolant and a stable pressure indicator, Schweickart lost no time. As soon as he was outside, he secured his feet in a pair of so-called "golden slippers"—boot restraints attached to Spider's porch, painted gold for thermal reasons—and gained his bearings before embarking on his first task: to observe, photograph, and retrieve thermal samples from the exterior of the LM. By now, Dave Scott, clad in a slightly different suit that was dependent on Gumdrop's systems for life support, had opened his hatch for a "stand-up" EVA.

Next, Schweickart—joking at his own sandy hair color by aptly nicknaming himself "The Red Rover"—began his first abbreviated attempt to evaluate his ability to move and control his body in the lunar suit. His planned transfer to Gumdrop and back had been cancelled, but he was able to obtain photography of Scott's activities and imagery of the exteriors of both spacecraft. At length, he returned inside Spider and Scott retreated to Gumdrop.

Balanced on the Lunar Module porch—with one of the footpads visible "below" him—Rusty Schweickart puts the lunar suit through its paces. Photo Credit: NASA

One sound that the astronauts apparently did not hear was the repeated calling from Mission Control; indeed, they were so preoccupied and talkative that the duty capcom was forced to radio 10 times—"Red Rover, do you read? Gumdrop, do you read? Hey, does anyone up there read me?"—before he received a response. The four-way radio chatter between Schweickart, Spider, Gumdrop, and Houston was all loud and clear. The main discovery was that leaving the lander in a pressurised suit was more straightforward than expected, and the depressurisation and repressurisation of the lunar module's cabin ran without incident.

Another key hurdle on the road to the Moon had been overcome. Said NASA's public affairs officer Jack Riley: "You heard it here, live, first-hand—the adventures of Red Rover and his friends, Spider and Gumdrop!"

Still to be tested were Spider's systems when flying independently of the CSM, including the rendezvous radar, descent and ascent engines, guidance computers, and the docking mechanism. Early on 7 March, keen to get an early start and get ahead on their timeline, McDivitt and Schweickart shimmied down the tunnel into the lander and sealed the hatches between themselves and Gumdrop. At the appointed time, Scott flipped a switch to release Spider … and nothing happened. The latches, it seemed, had "hung-up." After several more tries, in which he repeatedly flipped the switch back and forth, Scott was successful and the two craft separated cleanly. After performing a brief fly-around to ensure that all was well, Scott pulsed his thrusters to back away.

From his station on the left-hand side of the lunar module, McDivitt performed a pitch manoeuvre, then yawed, to enable Scott to verify that Spider's four legs were properly extended. Forty-five minutes later, McDivitt fired the descent engine to insert Spider into a circular orbit some 12 miles (19 km) "higher" than Gumdrop. As he throttled the engine for the first time, it ran smoothly until it achieved 10 percent thrust, but when advanced to 20 percent both astronauts noted a peculiar chugging noise. McDivitt paused and resumed and was delighted that the strange groaning did not recur, even when he throttled up to 40 percent.

Next, the pyrotechnics were fired to jettison the descent stage and the ascent engine blazed silently to life to place Spider into an orbit "beneath" and "behind" Gumdrop. The kick affected more than just the crew: As the two sections of the vehicle separated, a small cloud of debris hit the ascent stage and knocked out its strobe tracking beacon. In accordance with the laws of celestial mechanics, the lander, being in a lower orbit, began to gain on its quarry. Despite the apparent grace of this orbital ballet, the dangers were still present. Spider had no heat shield, so could not return the crew safely to Earth, which meant that if McDivitt and Schweickart encountered insurmountable difficulties, Scott would have to rescue them. A few hours later, the first all-up demonstration of the lunar module in flight was completed in spectacular fashion, with Scott lining up and McDivitt executing an almost-perfect docking.

Almost perfect, that is, because lighting conditions were less than ideal: the Sun was shining directly through the small rendezvous window directly above McDivitt's head. "Using my alignment device," Scott wrote, "I talked him through the manoeuvres and he was right on target, though there were more than a few tense moments." Retracting the docking probe produced the welcoming "ripple-bang" of the capture latches engaging. McDivitt quipped that "that wasn't a docking … that was an eye test!" During their six-and-a-half-hour independent flight, the two men aboard Spider had ventured around a hundred miles from Gumdrop and had cleared another obstacle on the road to the Moon.

With the successful splashdown of Apollo 9 on 13 March 1969, NASA stood poised to land on the Moon. Photo Credit: NASA

Two hours after docking, McDivitt and Schweickart rejoined Scott inside Gumdrop for what would be a fairly relaxed final few days in orbit. The now-unneeded ascent stage was jettisoned and one of the astronauts wistfully remarked that they hoped they had not left anything important behind. When the capcom asked if they had left the LMP—Schweickart—aboard by mistake, McDivitt replied that, no, "I didn't forget him … I left him there on purpose!" A hairy start to Apollo 9 had given way to a huge success … and an opportunity for humor.

The two parts of Spider would ultimately meet the same fiery fate, burning up in the dense layers of Earth's atmosphere, although at very different times. The descent stage lasted barely a couple of weeks, re-entering on 23 March 1969, with its remnants showering into the Indian Ocean, just off the coast of eastern Africa. For the ascent stage, on the other hand, more than a decade would pass before it finally took its destructive plunge. Shortly after being jettisoned by McDivitt's crew, its engine was fired for just over six minutes to put it into an eccentric orbit with an apogee more than 1,000 miles high. Trajectory specialists predicted that it might burn up in the atmosphere sometime in the mid-1970s, but not until 23 October 1981—this author's 5th birthday—did the last relic of what had been the Spider finally return to Earth in a firestorm of glowing debris.

As for the Apollo 9 crew, with the jettisoning of the ascent stage more than 97 percent of the mission was over and the final days were devoted to catching up on scientific and navigation experiments, Earth observations … and some well-earned rest. In his autobiography, Two Sides of the Moon, Dave Scott recalled McDivitt turning to him on their final night and telling him that Apollo 9 would be his last mission. The exhaustion caused by the tremendous responsibility and the burden of command had taken its toll. "It was easy to burn out on missions," Scott wrote, "get permanently tired and not want to fly again. The great NASA team made them look too easy. They were really, really hard."

Splashing down on 13 March 1969, the achievement of Apollo 9 and its intrepid crew brought the lunar landing inexorably closer. Publicly, and within NASA, an enormous groundswell of support rose and it was even muttered that the next flight, Apollo 10, should be retasked with the landing, rather than its mandate of a full dress rehearsal in lunar orbit. This was both unwise and impractical, but highlighted the "Go Fever" prevalent at the time.

"Whatever the decision," wrote Time magazine in late March, "there is now more confidence than ever that U.S. astronauts will be walking on the surface of the Moon this summer."

Never were truer words written.

 

Copyright © 2014 AmericaSpace - All Rights Reserved

 

===============================================================

 

Russia's leverage on the U.S. extends all the way to outer space | Mobile Washington Examiner

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/russias-leverage-on-the-u.s.-extends-all-the-way-to-outer-space/article/2544901


Sent from my iPad

SpaceFlight Insider Opinion: Despite Boozer's claims NewSpace needs NASA - SpaceFlight Insider

http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/space-flight-news/editorial-commentary-opinion/opinion-newspace-needs-nasa-know/


Sent from my iPad

Dumb !

Bobby Martin and REAL Space Act of 2013 shared a link.

American access to space could be a casualty of the Ukraine crisis

www.examiner.com

Charles Hoskinson, in a February 28, 2014 piece in the Washington Examiner, reminds us that one of the possible casualties of the...

• 

  Bobby Martin via REAL Space Act of 2013

  Hell of an decision by dc fools, placing shuttle in museum!

  Like ·  · Share · 17 seconds ago · 
• 

  REAL Space Act of 2013

  
  http://www.examiner.com/article/american-access-to-space-could-be-a-casualty-of-the-ukraine-crisis
  
  American access to space could be a casualty of the Ukraine crisis
  ...See More

  Unlike ·  · Share · 321 · 6 hours ago · 

Sent from my iPad