Monday, October 11, 2010

Obama signs new direction for NASA into law

President Barack Obama signed into law Monday a new direction for NASA that calls for an additional shuttle flight next year and puts more money into commercial rockets.

But disputes linger in Congress over whether to actually give NASA the extra money envisioned under the policy. Lawmakers must resolve that dispute after the Nov. 2 election.

Even so, administration officials claimed victory after a rancorous year of congressional debate.

"This legislation supports the president's ambitious plan for NASA to pioneer new frontiers of innovation and discovery," NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said.

-Bart Jansen, Washington

30 comments:

Anonymous said...

A very sad day for manned space exploration!!! I hope that we all will enjoy the remaining 3 shuttle missions before manned space exploration is shut down. This flawed policy is all nothing to just line the pockets of businesses that supported this administration. There is no innovation or new frontiers in this policy. It only serves to set the space program back to the 1950's. So I hope that these private companies have some sort of spacecraft on the drawing boards? Doenst seem like it to me? Where is vision when there is no plan? These companies have absolutely NOTHING to offer NASA except wishes and promises...I guess in the meantime we will have to rely on our Russian buddies!!!! Thanks Obama and Bolden!!!!

Anonymous said...

Apparently, this OTHER 'Anonymous' hasn't read the full details of the 2010 NASA Authorization Act... (This bill also gives NASA the go-ahead to develop a Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle aimed at taking astronauts beyond Earth orbit...to an asteroid, presumanbly...between 2020-2025)

Graham (from england) said...

Ah yes but that was already on the drawing board the (Ares 5 ).Which the high and mighty short sighted one just consigned to the damn dustbin. The Ares 1 and Ares 5 was the correct way to proceed. The people at the top go on about not wasting money,and then go and do exactly that TEN BILLION DOLLARS in development down the shute. CRAZY.!!!. By the way, you can't learn how to go to mars by landing on an asteroid. You need to go and learn to live on the moon for longer and longer periods of time.

Anonymous said...

Does this officially kill Constellation, or will work continue on it?

Anonymous said...

Yes I did read it..... Commercial rockets and spacecraft will ultimately wind up as a failure. Again I am asking where is the design for a rocket or spacecraft that these commercial companies are boasting? Have they been designed? Have they been tested and proven safe? Have they been built ready to fly? Or is this a shot in the dark or wishes? This will be a bonified failure for Obama. Our accomplishments in space will fade into nothing because of this!!!

Anonymous said...

This disaster began when George Bush and Mike Griffin canceled the Space Shuttle, which is finally working flawlessly. Bush canceled our only working human system to build Constellation, a hugely expensive program that produces no practical benefits even if it works, which it doesn't. Bush consigned us to years without human launches and thousands of layoffs. He destroyed the tooling for the Shuttle so we would have no way to continue to fly it.

>>Again I am asking where is the design for a rocket or spacecraft that these commercial companies are boasting?<<

Maybe you weren't watching when the Falcon launched last month, the first new rocket to launch from the cape in a decade? We haven't had more than five actual commercial launches from US soil int he past 5 years; SpaceX already has a dozen in their order books. The Falcon uses about half the processing man-hours of the Delta IV and about one-tenth that of the Ares I.

Anonymous said...

I agree that it was Former President George Bush & Mike Griffin who canceled our Space Shuttle Program. Shame on them! But there were other NASA leaders who could have tried to do something about it way back then. Everyone just seemed to assume that it would never come to this inevitable event of the end to our Space Program. Obama didn't ever make the final decision by himself & its high time people would wake up to realize it. Although, I am surprised he didn't try to change the decision of the jerks who initially did from Bush's supportive idiots with Mike Griffin and others.

Seems like the private companies are moving faster so they won't be sitting idle like NASA leaders did for years. Guessing we have no choice now except to wish the private companies success to continue our space exploration. Have to see the cup as half full sometimes.

Anonymous said...

Graham is right. How the Hell can NASA leaders like Bolden, Griffin & everyone else believe that we can go as far as Mars or attempt to land on an asteroid. Getting paid big bucks watching way too many Bruce Willis movies is not the answer guys. If we can't figure out how to live on the moon for a period of time like living on the ISS then you can give up this science fiction fiasko. Never gonna happen. Maybe in your dreams or in the next sequel of Mission to Mars or Armageddon!
To think these people are supposedly highly educated scientists & engineers shows how appear to be more like Complete MORONS hanging out with ex-astronaut Lisa Nowak.

HBJ said...

Again, George Bush went along with the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Committee/Augustine Committee to cancel the shuttle in 2010 unless it is re-certified for flight. He went with the recommmendation of the "experts". With that said, I think going from shuttle to Constellation, i.e. Apollo revisted, was a step backwards. Now that program is down the tubes and we're back to unknown launch systems from the commercial side. Think the ranks of the astronaut corp will be thinning out given the lack of rides to orbit.

Anonymous said...

Front Page News in UK - Adios NASA, You have overstayed your usefulness. With the current NASA administrator Charles Bolden; it comes as no surprise the US Space Program ended. Bolden made it absolutely clear with his bold statements “One of my priorities is to reach out to Islamic nations.” and “But this is what we call progress, unfortunately. If you look at every area of technology in this country, as you advance there are fewer and fewer manual-type jobs. That's what happens when you advance technology."

Pres. Obama 1st black/ biracial president - Charles Bolden, 1st African-American head of NASA. Providence had its moment of fame & if NASA’S chief would have been a white guy, we would have had endless racial discrimination protests throughout the projected NASA layoffs. Not to mention civil rights activist, Jesse Jackson rantings coming to town.

Anonymous said...

>>>>>Maybe you weren't watching when the Falcon launched last month, the first new rocket to launch from the cape in a decade? <<<<<<<<

Yes I have....is it human rated? Escape system? A manned spacecraft tested? Where are the plans for that? That first laumch doesnt come close to be safe much less human rated. Lets get it going then if Falcon is so superior!

Anonymous said...

Before Mercury ended, Project Gemini was well in development and ready to fly. Toward the end of Gemini, Apollo was well into development and pretty much ready to fly. Before the end of Apollo the shuttle progam was approved and in development. Well here we are at the end of the shuttle program and our fearless leader has no plan and delusions of grandeur of dishing out millions of dollars to rocket hobbyists with the hopes they come up with something that somewhat flies. Also hope that they can someone who will ride thier 1950's style Vanguard rockets!!!

Anonymous said...

NASA needs a clear plan that will NOT change everytime a new administration comes to office. This new heavy lift vehicle that is called for in actuallity will launch less payload than Ares V would. And Ares V was under development at least and progressing, now we are going to start over and end up with a vehicle that launches less payload? What's the point in that?
Despite the fact that some people do not like the Ares launch vehicle it was well on the way to getting off the ground, work has been done at the cape to modify the pad, and the mobile launch platform, a full scale stage 1 had been tested. The Orion capsule was nearing design completion (interior) size had already been determined. All we needed was time for production and a test launch or 2. Given effort and leadership it probably would have been ready in 3-4 years at most, now we are stuck with nothing and starting over. Good luck with those commerical tin cans, unless it comes from Boeing or Lockheed major participants in space for years I wouldn't trust em at all.

Anonymous said...

Now that's the best plan yet - "NASA needs a clear plan that will NOT change every time a new administration comes to office."

That was the main problem in the 1st place - Mixing science and politics always lead to a no-win situation. A shame NASA administrators & our elected politicians couldn't figure that out for the past decade. Just read another article in Florida Today "Officials try to lure space jobs to Brevard" ???? But for the past year they were getting rid of all the space jobs in Brevard! It would be nice if they can make up their minds of what they want to do before wasting more money on job transitions to nowhere. Unless it was a major plan all along to get rid of the current workers sitting idle for years to hire younger minds with a clearer vision to advancing space exploration.

Anonymous said...

Congressman Bill Posey Its time to retire. "Economic incentives to lure high-tech businesses to Brevard as the shuttle program winds down, ending the space industry careers of about 8,000 shuttle workers. Negotiating with 57 companies that could bring about 5,000 jobs if they can be lured to Brevard." UNREALISTIC!
Has anyone shown these 57 companies the living areas their employees would be moving to. Definitely not upper class Palm Beach life style. Local grocery stores & businesses are closing due to higher taxes & consumers buying less. There isn't a decent shopping mall but you can find plenty of run down tattoo shops & roach infested restaurants. The biggest attraction is the Brevard Zoo, one of Space Coast's most popular & endearing attractions! WOW! Let's All Move to Brevard County. The place sounds so exciting & we can all wait for the next round of space job layoffs when the next administration fails to provide the financial support needed to keep them in Brevard.

Anonymous said...

Brevard County Foreclosures, Short Sales, & Bank Owned Properties are all over Brevard County. Looks like the Wild, Wild West, Race for a Dream with plenty of run down houses left abandoned for banks to sell. The problem though is banks haven't cleared their paperwork properly to sell these dumped homes leaving new homeowners without a home either. Some recently purchased and banks aren’t giving refunds for all those incidentals, inspection fees, closing costs, mortgage & title insurance, appraisal & credit report fees, document preparation fees, survey, pest ( many homes in Brevard have major termite infestation & mold) , state recording fees, points / origination fees, etc. New homeowners lose their just purchased home & don’t receive any Refunds for fees collected at closing. Banks signed off on thousands of foreclosures before examining all documents necessary to legally foreclose on the property. Lawsuits by previous homeowners trying to reclaim their homes from banks who foreclosed on them. Why would anyone want to deal with Brevard’s huge housing chaos & move their companies here? Rising home taxes to recoup the shortfalls from taxes lost from foreclosures. Home values dropped in many areas 50% & still falling. These new space jobs would have to provide a lot more than NASA was paying their workers & offer decent health insurance & all the other incentives space workers were accustomed to. They’d have to be very rich & stupid at the same time to invest in Brevard County space jobs while NASA is still issuing pink slips for space workers.

Anonymous said...

HBJ said...Again, George Bush went along with the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Committee/Augustine Committee to cancel the shuttle in 2010 unless it is re-certified for flight.

Not so. The CAIB report stated that the Shuttle could and should be safely kept flying until a replacement vehicle was in service. Bush canceled the Shuttle leaving us for years without human launch. The CAIB report said that the Shuttle replacement should be designed for the sole mission of transporting crew to low earth orbit, "because any attempt to design a shuttle replacement vehicle for a more ambitious mission will fail." How right they were. The "recertification" was primarily to ensure that sustaining engineering was adequately funded for the additional years of Shuttle operations.

The Constellation program violated the recommendations of the CAIB by canceling Shuttle without a replacement in service and planning an impractical re-enactment of Apollo.

Anonymous said...

What practical value will the Constellation program provide for America that is worth its cost? Apollo was canceled by Nixon in 1974 because sending a few people to the moon with giant throw-away rockets was much too expensive to be practical. It still is.

The Shuttle was finally working superbly when Bush and Griffin canceled it and destroyed the tooling and supply chains. Obama looked to NASA for advice when he was elected. He asked if the Shuttle program could be continued. Wayne Hale said it was two years too late.

HBJ said...

6:02 PM.....I don't believe your assessment is correct. From the report "NASA's Implementation Plan for ISS Continuing Flight", which was the NASA ISS program response to the CAIB report, the recertification effort is more extensive than what you are calling out. Says in the report, as taken from the CAIB report: "R9.2-1 Prior to operating the Shuttle beyond 2010,develop and conduct a vehicle recertification at the material, component, subsystem, and system levels. Recertification requirements should be included in the Service Life Extension Program." This means all systems will be recertified prior to flight past 2010. The expense for this level of effort, having been part of it in Downey, is significant enough that NASA didn't want to spend the money to clear the vehicle. Why spend millions on shuttle just to recertify the structure, etc. to only have it fly for a few more years before being scraped. NASA said no, so so did Bush.

Anonymous said...

Dear HBJ:
The CAIB report said clearly that Shuttle could and should continue to fly safely until a replacement was operational. It cautioned that the replacement vehicle should be designed solely for the pupose of launch to LEO, saying that a vehicle designed for any more ambitious mission would inevitably fail. How right they were.

HBJ said...

12:45 AM.....I agree with "continue to fly safely" is a good directive for the shuttle. I still get emotional just seeing the damn thing lift off the pad and accelerate to orbit. Hopefully the next launch vehicle the US finally comes up with is as impressive....

Anonymous said...

>>Why spend millions on shuttle just to recertify the structure, etc. to only have it fly for a few more years before being scraped. NASA said no, so so did Bush.

In reality Shuttle sustaining engineering under USA has been monitoring the condition of all Shuttle systems for thirty years, and has learned a great deal over that time. The Shuttles are certainly not anywhere near their structural fatigue design lifetimes, which are dependent on mission cycles, nor would they be approached even in another ten years. The CAIB requirement for "recertification" at an arbitrary calendar date seems to lack any real engineering justification; obviously system health monitoring has to be complete for every flight and maintenance cycle. However I have heard more than one program manager say that if recertification had been performed it would have been largely analytical and not overly expensive.

HBJ said...

9:53 PM.....When I say "recertification" I mean analysis that certifies the vehicle to its design environment. The sustaining engineering you refer to that USA manages is more in line with life cycle analysis for "nominal flight" envelopes. I am referring to what they called, for example, the "V-n diagram" envelopes for entry flight. There are similar design constraints for ascent. The result is a large number of flight conditions that require analysis. Tis a big job. You might ask one of the program managers you refer to above about the cost of the 6.0 Loads Cycle, or one more recent, conducted by the contractor. Think it's a big number in EP, thus dollars.

With that said, a lot of this work, i.e. recertification, was completed by the shuttle contractors during the Columbia accident stand-down period. Therfore, the 2010 date called out by the CAIB is even less significant.

Whatsamatteru said...

"This disaster began when George Bush and Mike Griffin canceled the Space Shuttle, which is finally working flawlessly. ..."

Working flawlessly? You're kidding, right? It was working flawlessy when the STS-51L (Challenger) disaster struck. It was working flawlessly when STS-107 (Columbia) happened.

Look. I worked out there for 16 yrs. Left there in 2003. Nobody cherishes their experience on the program more than I. But even *I* recognize a death trap when I see it.

Constellation could have been restructured. Slimmed down to be more efficient. A$$es get kicked. Management gets replaced. Happens all the time in these big government programs. SpaceX? Not anytime soon. But here's hoping ...

Anonymous said...

"Constellation could have been restructured. Slimmed down to be more efficient."

Surely you jest. Name one practical benefit that Constellation will provide to justify its eourmous cost. And yes, it's still spending money, only the Ares I has been canceled, since it is too weak even to launch the Ares.

"even *I* recognize a death trap when I see it."

Funny you didn't raise your hand and say it was a death trap, since all employees were repeatedly asked to point out any problems. However the improvements since Columbia have been amazing, particularly the lack of damage from foam impacts. Almost all launch vehicle failures are the result of unanticipated failure modes, and as a system matures these problems are identified and corrected.

Whatsamatteru said...

"Surely you jest. Name one practical benefit that Constellation will provide to justify its eourmous cost."

Umm. How about 'continued U.S. presence in Space Exploration'? How about 'the continued ability to achieve LEO'? Can't do it without booster rockets. Sorry.

"Funny you didn't raise your hand and say it was a death trap, since all employees were repeatedly asked to point out any problems."

Then you said ...

"Almost all launch vehicle failures are the result of unanticipated failure modes"

Well, I guess you answered your own question.

"However the improvements since Columbia have been amazing, particularly the lack of damage from foam impacts"

I'll gently remind you that there were no significant foam impacts BEFORE STS-107.

HBJ said...

Dear 11:52 PM......When you say "I'll gently remind you that there were no significant foam impacts BEFORE STS-107.", I'd like to gentle remind you of STS-27, whihc had the largest number of damage sites counted in the history of the program. Sure the foam application process has changed, but doesn't excuse the fact......

Graham (from england) said...

I'd like to say i'm glad my comment has sparked a bit of good debate on the issue.Well done all.!!

Whatsamatteru said...

HBJ:
"I'd like to gentle remind you of STS-27, whihc had the largest number of damage sites counted in the history of the program."

Peace. By 'significant' I mean foam impacts leading to catastrophic structural failure. I should have been more specific.

In any case, while these tiles exhibit an absolutely outstanding heat transfer coefficient, they are equally FRAGILE. It's not just foam that could damage a tile. Could be a bird during ascent. Could be space junk on-orbit. They are so fragile and yet any burn-thru anywhere on the orbiter will most likely be catastrophic. And there's just no way to reasonably protect those tiles, is there?

This and other reasons are why the STS was declared unsafe at any speed.

The shuttle program was scheduled to ramp down anyway regardless of the two incidences. Actually, if memory serves, it was supposed to discontinue service earlier ....

HBJ said...

5:07 PM.....You're right. The tiles are great insulators. There have been improvments in the material used to help with the fragile aspects of these tiles. One such material I recall is TUFI (Toughened Unipiece Fibrous Insulation) that is very resilient to impact damage. A number of these tiles were tested on the orbiter base heatshield (a high debris impact damage area) and, to my knowledge, have never been damaged by debris impacts. Think they have also flown successfully on the forebody, but in limited locations. Problem is, it would be too expensive to re-tile the orbiters at this stage, plus the shedding ET foam issues seem to have been cured.

Yes, you are correct. A hole in the skin means a bad day for the orbiter. Would be a bad day for any re-entry vehicle.