NASA today announced the 10 members of a blue-ribbon presidential panel, led by Norman Augustine, that will review the agency's plans for human spaceflight over the next 60 to 90 days. The committees first public meeting is scheduled June 17 in Washingon, D.C.
Here's the press release - let us know what you think of the panel:
NASA ANNOUNCES MEMBERS OF HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT REVIEW COMMITTEE
WASHINGTON -- NASA announced Monday the members of the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee. They are:
- Norman Augustine (chair, shown at left), retired chairman and CEO, Lockheed Martin Corp., and former member of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush - Dr. Wanda Austin, president and CEO, The Aerospace Corp.
- Bohdan Bejmuk, chair, Constellation program Standing Review Board, and former manager of the Boeing Space Shuttle and Sea Launch programs
- Dr. Leroy Chiao, former astronaut, former International Space Station commander and engineering consultant
- Dr. Christopher Chyba, professor of Astrophysical Sciences and International Affairs, Princeton University, and member, President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
- Dr. Edward Crawley, Ford Professor of Engineering at MIT and co-chair, NASA Exploration Technology Development Program Review Committee
- Jeffrey Greason, co-founder and CEO, XCOR Aerospace, and vice-chair, Personal Spaceflight Federation
- Dr. Charles Kennel, chair, National Academies Space Studies Board, and director and professor emeritus, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego
- Retired Air Force Gen. Lester Lyles, chair, National Academies Committee on the Rationale and Goals of the U.S. Civil Space Program, former Air Force vice chief of staff and former commander of the Air Force Materiel Command
- Dr. Sally Ride, former astronaut, first American woman in space, CEO of Sally Ride Science and professor emerita at the University of California, San Diego
Norman Augustine will chair the independent review of U.S. human space flight plans. During the course of the review, the panel will examine ongoing and planned NASA development activities and potential alternatives in order to present options for advancing a safe, innovative, affordable and sustainable human space flight program
following the space shuttle's retirement. The committee will present its results in time to support an administration decision on the way forward by August 2009.
"I look forward to working with the members of the committee to assist in defining the future U.S. human space flight program," Augustine said. "The members offer a broad spectrum of professional backgrounds, and we are all committed to offering sensible proposals that will serve the White House and NASA in their deliberations."
Dr. W. Michael Hawes is leading the NASA review team that will provide technical and analytic support to the committee. Hawes is NASA's associate administrator for program analysis and evaluation. Philip McAlister is the executive director of the committee and the designated federal official.
The committee will hold several public meetings at different U.S. locations. The first public meeting will take place June 17 from 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. EDT at the Carnegie Institution, located at 1530 P Street NW in Washington. Topics on the agenda for the meeting include previous studies about U.S. human space flight; national space policy; international cooperation; evolved expendable launch vehicles; commercial human space flight capabilities; and exploration technology planning.
The Federal Register published a notice May 15 officially announcing NASA's establishment of the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee. The committee will operate according to the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
NASA Acting Administrator Chris Scolese signed the charter for the committee Monday, enabling it to begin operations. The charter can be viewed at:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/353935main_RUSHSFPC_charter.pdf
The Federal Register notice is available at:
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-11412.htm
For information about NASA and agency activities, visit:
http://www.nasa.gov
-end-
Congresswoman Suzanne Kosmas, who represents Kennedy Space Center, issued the following statement:
"Our primary goal must continue to be finding ways to minimize the spaceflight gap, and the members of the Augustine Panel possess a wealth of experience and technical knowhow that will be invaluable in addressing this challenge. It is my hope that they will work quickly to identify solutions that will help preserve as many jobs as possible while maintaining America's status as the world leader in space, science and technology."
IMAGE NOTE: Above, artist's rendering of the Ares I rocket. Source: NASA. Below, Norman Augustine. Source: AAAS.
3 comments:
Just like to old days, going to the moon on a beans and corn bread budget.
Back in 70's, a comment often made in the hallways at NASA Headquarters was, "This isn't ecomony, it's castration!'.
Still true.
It's time for NASA to get back on track
By WALTER CUNNINGHAM
HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Aug. 1, 2009, 7:47PM
The Review of the U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee is expected to publish its report at the end of the month. It is charged with the thankless task of reaffirming or redirecting NASA's vision for space exploration. What should the agency be doing with its existing hardware and its plans for the future? The real catch is the part of their charter that reads, “fitting within the current budget profile for NASA exploration activities.”
Money isn't NASA's only problem, but it has been its biggest problem for decades. NASA is one of the most successful agencies in history, providing the best return on investment of any government agency in my lifetime.
My main concerns with NASA's plans going forward include the decision to ground the space shuttle, the woefully inadequate funding for the last several decades and the absence of a space program that will restore the sense of wonder and adventure to space exploration that we knew in the 1960s.
The continuing debate for several years over the Constellation program and alternatives to the Orion/Ares architecture needs to be resolved. There is a general feeling that NASA's 2007 trade-off study of those alternatives, updated last year, is tainted and protective of the status quo. NASA officials are best qualified to make that evaluation if they can find it within themselves to be objective.
The international space station is one of the great engineering marvels of history and is now funded only through 2015. The political decision to make Russia a full partner in the ISS condemned it to a 51.6-degree orbit. That orbit has pretty well compromised its utilization for anything but a laboratory in space. There are many highly qualified scientists prepared to exploit the ISS beyond 2015. We should fund it and operate it for as long as it is viable.
NASA's current plans call for grounding the shuttle in 2010, launching an Orion/Ares mission in 2015, returning to the moon by 2020 and flying a mission to Mars “sometime after 2030.” The 2015 date could easily slip to 2016 or beyond, and is only crucial in limiting “the gap” created by the arbitrary and self-imposed grounding of the shuttle and the first flight of our next-generation manned spacecraft. The 2020 date is only significant if we choose to compete with the Russians or the Chinese who, conceivably, could land a man on the moon in that time frame. If NASA meets either or both of these deadlines, it contributes nothing to maintaining America's preeminence in space, which should be our principal focus.
I believe strongly that we should continue to fly the shuttle while we develop our next generation of spacecraft in an orderly fashion. Continuing shuttle operations will automatically minimize any gap, eliminate pressure on the first manned Orion/Ares mission date, allow time to update trade-off studies of Ares, shuttle-C, Jupiter 120, Delta IV and any other candidate, and allow NASA to retain its trained work force. Continuing to fly the space shuttle is the only practical way to shorten “the gap” and remove our vulnerability to future Russian political pressure. The only price we would pay is a delay in the non-time-critical deployment of the next-generation spacecraft.
CONTINUE:http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6557448.html
Post a Comment