Fwd: China's First Lunar Return Mission A Stunning Success

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Kent Castle <kent.d.castle@hotmail.com>
Date: November 2, 2014 4:24:38 PM CST
To: Hultberg Jane <jhultberg@coa.edu>, Carman Gilbert <gil77546@sbcglobal.net>, Schwering Suanne <suannesch@mac.com>, Bogan Carole <bcbogan@earthlink.net>, Tetzloff Connie <owari567@comcast.net>, Heidel TQ <bheidel@highland.net>, Williams Tom <gtomwill@att.net>, Madsen Ron <ronstar@pdq.net>, Leach Larry <ljleach@tds.net>, Lozano Marianne <kemahsabe@comcast.net>, "lrodriguez@neighborhood-centers.org" <lrodriguez@neighborhood-centers.org>, Astrology Valkyrie <astrogoddess@valkyrieastrology.com>, Choban Peter <peter.s.choban@aero.org>, Martin Bobby <bobbygmartin1938@gmail.com>
Subject: FW: China's First Lunar Return Mission A Stunning Success

 

---

From:
Subject: FW: China's First Lunar Return Mission A Stunning Success
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 20:49:24 -0500

 

 

China's First Lunar Return Mission A Stunning Success by Morris Jones Sydney, Australia (SPX) Nov 01, 2014 illustration only The successful return of China's first circumlunar spacecraft has been somewhat downplayed by the media. Part of this is sadly due to the tragic loss of Space Ship Two and the death of a pilot that occurred just hours before this capsule landed. Despite this, the mission should be celebrated for a number of achievements. China has now become the first Asian nation to recover a spacecraft from the Moon, and only the third nation in the world to do so. The mission has proven the successful design of a re-entry system designed for the fast velocity of a return from deep space. It has also demonstrated precise navigation and attitude control to place the re-entry capsule on the right trajectory. The mission has also carried out China's first "skip" re-entry, where the capsule briefly skips out of the atmosphere before making its final plunge. This evens out the deceleration and heating imposed on the capsule. The mission also puts China's robotic lunar exploration back on track, after the problems experienced by the Yutu Moon rover. China has now effectively demonstrated most of the critical systems and technologies it will need for the difficult robotic sample-return missions it plans for the future. It seems reasonable to expect that China will not experience much of a delay in carrying out the first flight, which should occur in or near 2017. The landing of the capsule marks the end of the main goals of this mission, and that alone is enough to make the entire flight worthwhile. But the mission continues. The boxy spacecraft "bus" that carried the capsule to the Moon and back is still functioning. It's in a highly elongated Earth orbit, awaiting further tasks. Exactly what China plans to do with it remains to be seen. The spacecraft could be used to explore the particles and fields environment of cislunar space, as the Earth's magnetic field gradually diminishes with distance. It could also be sent to explore some of the Lagrangian points in the Earth-Moon system. These are five imaginary points in space where the gravitational points of these two worlds are in equilibrium, and some of them can serve as "anchor points" for orbiting spacecraft. These areas have barely been explored by spacecraft, and they should be investigated further for any debris that could be lurking in these places. Alternatively, China could send the spacecraft on a series of tricky gravity-assist maneuvers to gain free energy from the Moon, changing its trajectory. Such moves could lead to more spacecraft making complex but fuel-efficient flights to the Moon in the future. This analyst does not believe that the spacecraft will be sent on any interplanetary trajectories. The capsule was an experiment in its own right, but the capsule is also believed to have contained some rudimentary experiments. These were probably in the form of biological specimens, especially plant seeds. These have been exposed to the high-radiation environment of deep space, which is far more dangerous than low Earth orbit. They were not in deep space for long, but the length of their exposure mimics the time interval that human astronauts will experience on lunar mission. This leads to the biggest issue. The technology demonstrated on this mission clearly (if unofficially) brings China closer to achieving the goal of sending Chinese astronauts to the Moon. Again, it must be noted that the re-entry capsule used on this mission was a scale replica of the Shenzhou astronaut capsule. This is hardly a coincidence! The first Chinese astronauts (or single astronaut) to fly to the Moon will probably fly a short and simple circumlunar mission, just like this spacecraft. No orbit, no landing. But it will still be a flight to the Moon and back. China is developing powerful rockets that would be capable of sending a modified Shenzhou spacecraft directly to the Moon. It won't be long before the capability for such a mission will be in China's grasp. 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.

 

---

 

Letter From Astronauts and Apollo Veterans Regarding Space Shuttle Retirement and Risk to ISS Operations | SpaceRef - Your Space Reference

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=37583


Sent from my iPad

Shuttle was a marvelous machine---WHOSE CAPABILITIES the USA MUST MAINTAIN

The shuttle was a marvelous machine. There were problems but they are all well documented. If we were allowed to build a new and better, safer and more reliable shuttle, we could do so, avoiding many of the weaknesses. It is like today's passenger planes, allowed to evolved over the decades, they are leaps and bounds safer, better and more comfortable than their first generation carriers.

 

NASA Panel Warned About Risks of Budget on Cargo Missions - Bloomberg-- ALL you idiots were told not to retire shuttle w/o replacement --- to do so puts ISS in danger!

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-30/nasa-panel-warned-about-risks-of-budget-on-cargo-missions.html


Sent from my iPad

Fwd: SIERRA NEVADA CORPORATION'S PROTEST IS JUSTIFIED

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Robert Hooi" <rwlh21@sbcglobal.net>
Date: October 31, 2014 7:11:16 AM CDT
To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:;>
Subject: SIERRA NEVADA CORPORATION'S PROTEST IS JUSTIFIED

SIERRA NEVADA CORPORATION'S PROTEST IS JUSTIFIED

Photo Credit: Ken Ulbrich / NASA

COLLIN SKOCIK

OCTOBER 5TH, 2014

On Sept. 16, NASA announced the winners of the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contract. The winners—Boeing and SpaceX— should not have surprised anyone. But were they the best choices? In the aftermath of the decision, Sierra Nevada Corporation is laying off ninety employees, but plans to continue its work on the Dream Chaser spacecraft it developed under the initiative. Mark Sirangelo, head of SNC's Space Systems Unit in Louisville, Colorado, said that SNC will bid for the next round of NASA's Commercial Resupply Services contract, but that the company may have legal grounds to file a formal protest for NASA's rejection of their Commercial Crew bid.  

From the moment President Obama announced his intention to have private companies launch crewed spacecraft to the International Space Station, the deck was stacked in favor of SpaceX. Elon Musk's campaign contributions have been interpreted by a number of space enthusiasts as a factor in Obama's decision to cancel the Constellation Program and turn NASA over to private companies.

NASA astronaut Serena Aunon is suited up in preparation for fit tests of Bowing's CST-100 spacecraft. Photo Credit: Robert Markowitz

Curiously though, SpaceX received a minority contract of $2.6 billion, whereas Boeing received a contract for $4.2 billion. Was this a logical decision? Why Boeing? And why the majority contract for Boeing? Perhaps SpaceX received all the money it requested, but since NASA is not discussing the reasons for its decision, the true reason is, at present, unknown. According to a 29-page internal report, Boeing scored "excellent" for "mission suitability" in every major category, where SpaceX scored "very good."

The other prominent contender for the Commercial Crew contract was the Sierra Nevada Corporation with its Dream Chaser, a lifting body spacecraft that would make a piloted landing, like NASA's retired fleet of orbiters. Dream Chaser's test flight is slated for November of 2016—a year ahead of Boeing's scheduled unmanned test flight. But in the report, Dream Chaser was found to have "technical uncertainly and schedule risk"—an odd conclusion after Dream Chaser's rapid progress, lower cost, and successful approach and landing test in October of 2013.

To be fair, this test could have gone better as, apparently Dream Chaser careened off the runway upon touchdown due to a failure of one of the rear landing gear. NASA has long been lauded for carrying out its affairs in the glare of the public spotlight. Given that the video released of this test conveniently ends just prior to touch down? The "new" "commercial" era – has a long ways to go in terms of transparency. Perhaps this was part of the rationale behind the Dream Chaser decision. Being able to be open about your failings says a lot. Failing to do so – also says a lot.

It's easy to be cynical about the selection of SpaceX, given Elon Musk's extravagant campaign donations. But in all fairness, SpaceX has successfully launched four missions to the ISS, an unprecedented feat for a private company—government funding notwithstanding. So it makes sense that SpaceX would be selected, even without the politics and the preferential treatment the president paid to Musk during his April 2010 visit to KSC.

Photo Credit: Ken Ulbrich / NASA

But for even SpaceX to come second to Boeing is odd, since Boeing has yet to launch its CST-100 capsule, which will not be  flown until 2017. Dream Chaser offers an innovative mini-shuttle as an alternative to capsules, and will fly its first test flight a year before Boeing. SNC also underbid Boeing by $900 million.

With its record of successful resupply missions to the ISS, SpaceX deserved the majority contract. SpaceX's Dragon capsule and Sierra Nevada Corporation's Dream Chaser would be good complements in terms of crewed spacecraft. Sierra Nevada has said that choosing Boeing's CST-100 over the Dream Chaser "would result in substantial increased cost to the public despite near equivalent technical and past performance scores," and that NASA's own selection document "indicate[s] that there are serious questions and inconsistencies in the source selection process."

Image Credit: NASA

"All the companies submitted an acceptable contract with their proposal, which meant you could start very quickly," Sirangelo said. "Because of that we had to say 'We can't wait until contract announcement to start hiring people; we have to go out and start gearing up ahead of time.' So we did that, and we hired about 120, 130 people who came on board knowing that their jobs were contingent on the win. Those people we did lay off yesterday, but that still leaves a very significant core team."

From an outsider's perspective, it seems the only reason Boeing won the majority contract is…because it's Boeing. SpaceX was always going to win some part of the contract; there was little doubt of that, but most of the companies competing for the final phase of the Commercial Crew contract are unknown quantities.

No private company has ever launched a manned spacecraft—except for Scaled Composite's suborbital SpaceShipOne. Boeing has worked with NASA since the beginning, developing the first stage of the Saturn V Moon rocket, the Lunar Roving Vehicle, the Space Shuttle orbiter, and, most recently,  is developing the first stage of NASA's Space Launch System (SLS).   Is it possible the selection of Boeing has more to do with a long partnership than whether it has truly produced the best alternative for the next generation of spacecraft?

The whole point of the Commercial Crew program was to turn flight to low-Earth-orbit over to commercial companies while NASA focuses on deep space flight. Since the retirement of the Space Shuttle in 2011, NASA has been dependent on the Russians for rides to the International Space Station. With the political situation deteriorating and Russia threatening to discontinue its partnership with the United States, it's more important than ever for the United States to regain its space flight capability as soon as possible. SpaceX can accomplish this, with its first manned flight scheduled for 2015 and it appears SNC could have also gotten Dream Chaser on orbit before the CST-100 takes to the skies.

Now NASA has ordered a work stoppage while the U.S. Government Accountability Office reviews Sierra Nevada's protest.

Photo Credit: Ken Ulbrich / NASA

Stephanie Schierholtz, a NASA spokeswoman, said, ""Pursuant to the GAO protest, NASA has instructed Boeing and SpaceX to stop performance of the CCtCap contract."

In the wake of the protest NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden declined to answer questions about the Commercial Crew Program, evidently for legal reasons. Even so, NASA has not revealed the reasons for choosing Boeing. Depending on the outcome of the protest, NASA might reverse its CCtCap contract decision. SNC plans its first unmanned test in 2016, and its first manned flight in 2017. Had NASA selected SpaceX and SNC, we might have had a robust crewed space program sooner rather than later. The work stoppage is said not to affect the scheduled dates for the test flights, but since any work under the new contract will be delayed, it's hard to see how this will not affect the schedule.

 

The views expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author and do not, necessarily reflect those of  SpaceFlight Insider

Welcome to SpaceFlight Insider! Be sure to follow us on Facebook: SpaceFlight Insider as well as on Twitter at: @SpaceflightGrp

 

Fwd: SIERRA NEVADA CORPORATION'S PROTEST

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Robert Hooi" <rwlh21@sbcglobal.net>
Date: October 31, 2014 5:26:19 PM CDT
To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:;>
Subject: SIERRA NEVADA CORPORATION'S PROTEST

House Republicans Clamor for Commercial Crew Source Selection Document

By Dan Leone | Oct. 27, 2014

Republican Reps. Lamar Smith (Texas) and Steve Palazzo (Miss.). Credit: Getty Images photo by Mark Wilson (left)/SpaceNews photo by Chris Maddaloni (right)

WASHINGTON — More than a month after NASA awarded Boeing Space Exploration and Space Exploration Technologies Corp. contracts to build the first U.S. crewed spacecraft since the space shuttle, the Republican leaders of the House Science Committee are fuming that they have yet to be briefed on the logic behind NASA's selections. 

"To date, the Committee has not been briefed on the source selection, nor has it received the source selection statement, despite the fact that the offerors have been briefed, details were released to the press, the [Government Accountability Office] is now involved; and NASA has decided to proceed with the contracts," Reps. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Steven Palazzo (R-Miss.) wrote in a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden dated Oct. 21. Smith and Palazzo chair the House Science Committee and House Science space subcommittee, respectively.

"We hope that NASA will not expect taxpayers to blindly fund billion-dollar programs absent any information related to the procurement or contract," wrote Smith and Palazzo, who are ardent supporters of the Space Launch System, major contractual details of which were only finalized this year and have not yet been made public.

NASA has not publicly released the 29-page source selection document for the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability procurement, in which William Gerstenmaier, the agency's associate administrator for human exploration and operations, detailed his reasons for giving Boeing and SpaceX contracts respectively worth $4.2 billion and $2.6 billion while rejecting Sierra Nevada Corp.'s (SNC) $3.3 billion proposal to build a lifting-body spacecraft called Dream Chaser. Gerstenmaier was the source selection authority on the program.

Nor does it plan to — at least not until the Government Accountability Office completes its review of the bid protest filed by SNC Sept. 26. The GAO has until Jan. 5 to complete its investigation.

"We're not releasing the source selection statement at this time due to the litigation," NASA spokeswoman Stephanie Schierholz wrote in an Oct. 24 email. "We are confident in our evaluation and selection process."

A copy of the document was obtained by SpaceNews. In it, Gerstenmaier said that while price was the single most important of three factors he considered, the combined importance of the other two — mission suitability and past performance — gave human spaceflight veteran Boeing a clear edge, despite the fact that SNC's $3.3 billion proposal was some $900 million lower than Boeing's winning bid.

Gerstenmaier also disagreed with the members of the source evaluation board about the importance of some planned Dream Chaser features. For example, Gerstenmaier gave less weight to Dream Chaser's ability to land on runways than did the evaluation board, and was more troublle.

---

SIERRA NEVADA CORPORATION'S PROTEST IS JUSTIFIED

Photo Credit: Ken Ulbrich / NASA

COLLIN SKOCIK

OCTOBER 5TH, 2014

On Sept. 16, NASA announced the winners of the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contract. The winners—Boeing and SpaceX— should not have surprised anyone. But were they the best choices? In the aftermath of the decision, Sierra Nevada Corporation is laying off ninety employees, but plans to continue its work on the Dream Chaser spacecraft it developed under the initiative. Mark Sirangelo, head of SNC's Space Systems Unit in Louisville, Colorado, said that SNC will bid for the next round of NASA's Commercial Resupply Services contract, but that the company may have legal grounds to file a formal protest for NASA's rejection of their Commercial Crew bid.  

From the moment President Obama announced his intention to have private companies launch crewed spacecraft to the International Space Station, the deck was stacked in favor of SpaceX. Elon Musk's campaign contributions have been interpreted by a number of space enthusiasts as a factor in Obama's decision to cancel the Constellation Program and turn NASA over to private companies.

NASA astronaut Serena Aunon is suited up in preparation for fit tests of Bowing's CST-100 spacecraft. Photo Credit: Robert Markowitz

Curiously though, SpaceX received a minority contract of $2.6 billion, whereas Boeing received a contract for $4.2 billion. Was this a logical decision? Why Boeing? And why the majority contract for Boeing? Perhaps SpaceX received all the money it requested, but since NASA is not discussing the reasons for its decision, the true reason is, at present, unknown. According to a 29-page internal report, Boeing scored "excellent" for "mission suitability" in every major category, where SpaceX scored "very good."

The other prominent contender for the Commercial Crew contract was the Sierra Nevada Corporation with its Dream Chaser, a lifting body spacecraft that would make a piloted landing, like NASA's retired fleet of orbiters. Dream Chaser's test flight is slated for November of 2016—a year ahead of Boeing's scheduled unmanned test flight. But in the report, Dream Chaser was found to have "technical uncertainly and schedule risk"—an odd conclusion after Dream Chaser's rapid progress, lower cost, and successful approach and landing test in October of 2013.

To be fair, this test could have gone better as, apparently Dream Chaser careened off the runway upon touchdown due to a failure of one of the rear landing gear. NASA has long been lauded for carrying out its affairs in the glare of the public spotlight. Given that the video released of this test conveniently ends just prior to touch down? The "new" "commercial" era – has a long ways to go in terms of transparency. Perhaps this was part of the rationale behind the Dream Chaser decision. Being able to be open about your failings says a lot. Failing to do so – also says a lot.

It's easy to be cynical about the selection of SpaceX, given Elon Musk's extravagant campaign donations. But in all fairness, SpaceX has successfully launched four missions to the ISS, an unprecedented feat for a private company—government funding notwithstanding. So it makes sense that SpaceX would be selected, even without the politics and the preferential treatment the president paid to Musk during his April 2010 visit to KSC.

Photo Credit: Ken Ulbrich / NASA

But for even SpaceX to come second to Boeing is odd, since Boeing has yet to launch its CST-100 capsule, which will not be  flown until 2017. Dream Chaser offers an innovative mini-shuttle as an alternative to capsules, and will fly its first test flight a year before Boeing. SNC also underbid Boeing by $900 million.

With its record of successful resupply missions to the ISS, SpaceX deserved the majority contract. SpaceX's Dragon capsule and Sierra Nevada Corporation's Dream Chaser would be good complements in terms of crewed spacecraft. Sierra Nevada has said that choosing Boeing's CST-100 over the Dream Chaser "would result in substantial increased cost to the public despite near equivalent technical and past performance scores," and that NASA's own selection document "indicate[s] that there are serious questions and inconsistencies in the source selection process."

Image Credit: NASA

"All the companies submitted an acceptable contract with their proposal, which meant you could start very quickly," Sirangelo said. "Because of that we had to say 'We can't wait until contract announcement to start hiring people; we have to go out and start gearing up ahead of time.' So we did that, and we hired about 120, 130 people who came on board knowing that their jobs were contingent on the win. Those people we did lay off yesterday, but that still leaves a very significant core team."

From an outsider's perspective, it seems the only reason Boeing won the majority contract is…because it's Boeing. SpaceX was always going to win some part of the contract; there was little doubt of that, but most of the companies competing for the final phase of the Commercial Crew contract are unknown quantities.

No private company has ever launched a manned spacecraft—except for Scaled Composite's suborbital SpaceShipOne. Boeing has worked with NASA since the beginning, developing the first stage of the Saturn V Moon rocket, the Lunar Roving Vehicle, the Space Shuttle orbiter, and, most recently,  is developing the first stage of NASA's Space Launch System (SLS).   Is it possible the selection of Boeing has more to do with a long partnership than whether it has truly produced the best alternative for the next generation of spacecraft?

The whole point of the Commercial Crew program was to turn flight to low-Earth-orbit over to commercial companies while NASA focuses on deep space flight. Since the retirement of the Space Shuttle in 2011, NASA has been dependent on the Russians for rides to the International Space Station. With the political situation deteriorating and Russia threatening to discontinue its partnership with the United States, it's more important than ever for the United States to regain its space flight capability as soon as possible. SpaceX can accomplish this, with its first manned flight scheduled for 2015 and it appears SNC could have also gotten Dream Chaser on orbit before the CST-100 takes to the skies.

Now NASA has ordered a work stoppage while the U.S. Government Accountability Office reviews Sierra Nevada's protest.

Photo Credit: Ken Ulbrich / NASA

Stephanie Schierholtz, a NASA spokeswoman, said, ""Pursuant to the GAO protest, NASA has instructed Boeing and SpaceX to stop performance of the CCtCap contract."

In the wake of the protest NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden declined to answer questions about the Commercial Crew Program, evidently for legal reasons. Even so, NASA has not revealed the reasons for choosing Boeing. Depending on the outcome of the protest, NASA might reverse its CCtCap contract decision. SNC plans its first unmanned test in 2016, and its first manned flight in 2017. Had NASA selected SpaceX and SNC, we might have had a robust crewed space program sooner rather than later. The work stoppage is said not to affect the scheduled dates for the test flights, but since any work under the new contract will be delayed, it's hard to see how this will not affect the schedule.

 

The views expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author and do not, necessarily reflect those of  SpaceFlight Insider

Welcome to SpaceFlight Insider! Be sure to follow us on Facebook: SpaceFlight Insider as well as on Twitter at: @SpaceflightGrp

Not LOST UNTIL DUMBSHIT got IN---EVERYBODY SAID " KEEP SHUTTLE". Now use x37( modified)---TOO DUMB!

NOT many appreciate the significance of shuttle capabilities, cots a bunch of nonsense!

U.S. Is Still Lost in Space

Oct 30, 2014 3:24 PM EDT

By The Editors

Accidents happen. That's especially true of space flight, one of humankind's more complicated and dangerous endeavors, and it's a truth that was spectacularly illustrated this week when a rocket blew up ferrying supplies to the International Space Station.

The rocket was supplied by Orbital Sciences Corp., which has a $1.9 billion contract with NASA to shuttle cargo to the station. The investigation into the explosion is sure to raise questions about the role of the private sector in carrying out U.S. space policy. But it's also worth asking an underlying question: What exactly is U.S. space policy?

Sent from my iPad