We have all heard of change and the rumblings from within NASA echoing of veiws on the comissions report as posted on the NASAwatch site. Private industry still does not have the financial backing to make much of a change to how NASA will do business at this time with only hints of doing so in the future. The report will most likely sit idle after some initial changes to nasa's internal structuring but will fall sort on actually producing long term results. The continual battleling for funding is just one of the problematic areas that was not really addressed for change.

Xprize contestent Space Transport Corporation (STC)is still at work on its Suborbital Tourism Vehicle (STV) designed to carry two people to a 100-km (62-mile) altitude. The competition requires launching only one person and ballast equivalent to two other people or approximate 90 kg (200 lb).
Last years congressional testimony indicated that there is enough interest in Sub orbital flights. http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=9843

I do agree if the price is right.

Armadillo Ready to fly, everything is completely ready for flight testing on the big vehicle soon I hope. With any luck maybe some more of the xprize contestants will make there own attempt to achieving there first steps into space.

Thanks to the many involved with the successful Mars mission. Its care and pre-thought to design such advanced electronic capabilities into both Robots that keep going and going. Great camera shots of the red planet as well. It seems to me that the only missions that Nasa seems to be getting right are the robotic style at this time.

Maybe it is time for Nasa to hand over the reigns of manned flight to the private sector. They definitely could do no worse then they are at this time.

It just seems only a few weeks back we had another first with SpaceShipOne being the first pioneering craft from the private sector to venture into space using Nitroxide and rubber for fuel but what other combinations a wait this new venturing space race as it were. Mono propellants ignition less systems and more.

"Solaris X uses hypergolic propellants that ignite upon contact, eliminating the need for an ignition system. If you eliminate systems on a launch vehicle, it improves safety and improves reliability."

On that note you also reduce some weight from the craft as well.

On the ISS note:
"Mission: Space, The Node 2 Mockup Project
Tucked away at the Johnson Space Center is a huge machine shop. One of their latest projects is a mockup of one of the modules that's headed to the International Space Station. While these lifesize models are used to train the astronauts, engineers on the ground can use them to debug a problem while the crew is in space."
http://www.news24houston.com/content/headlines/?ArID=32044&SecID;=2

We are still go for completing the ISS or at least giving it one more module. No mention of how it will get there if there is no shuttle to deliver it however.

> "Solaris X uses hypergolic propellants...it improves safety"

Does the volitile nature of propellents that ignite on contact actually improve saftey? I would buy the argument that it reduces the weight and complexity of the vehicle by eliminating the ignition system. But does this completely counter the potential for disaster that the use of hypergolic propellants incurs?

The ultimate public-private partnership
Bigelow, NASA now working together on space hotel. He has already lined up launch vehicles for a couple of deliveries to orbit.

http://www.lasvegasmercury.com/2004/MERC-Jul-08-Thu-2004/24250261.html

SpaceShipOne Back on Course X Prize contender Burt Rutan says his team has solved a control problem that threw its spacecraft off course during a historic flight last month. The prize requires a privately funded craft to fly into suborbital space twice within two weeks to win the $10 million jackpot. But Rutan said his team plans to do more. "We'll do three flights in two weeks," he said.

http://www.wired.com/news/space/0,2697,64123,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_4

Warren,
Hypergolics improve safety since they generally don't have what are called 'hard starts'. A hard start is where you have fuel and/or oxidizer mixing in the chamber before you have ignition from the igniter. This can create an overpressure that can destroy the engine, and probably the vehicle. Without hypergolics you have to have your fuel/oxidizer flow valves and your ignition spark/flame source all working in exact synchronization. Hypergolics don't have that issue.

Something the Aldrigde commission did not touch on is length of mission and what do you do after it has elasped.
We really have not touched on the expense of robotic mission operations personel in any of the discussions thus far.

In this article it mentions only suficient funding though to September, or the end of the government's fiscal year. JPL officials are in touch with NASA headquarters in Washington about providing additional funds in hopes of a mission extension, probably into 2025.

I think it is entirely possible that one or both vehicles will make it through the Martian winter. Opportunity has been using deep sleep for several weeks now to save energy. This mode leaves the rover completely unpowered during the frigid Martian night. The main risk of this is to the mini thermal emission spectrometer, which could be damaged by the cold if its heater is turned off. So far it has not been damaged as of yet on the Opportunity rover.

This does present a problem when funding projects of any kind for Nasa in general not just robotic missions but probes or satelites of any veriety. How long should the item be used for?

That is just one of the possible reasons for ditching Hubble into the ocean. Have they run out of funds? Not to mention the safety issue since it does not have a deorbit booster.

I found this fascinating work done by Michael R. LaPointe from the Glenn Research Center.

he basically describes a way to produce quantities of Antimatter cheaply, relatively speaking.

If what he says is do-able, then this could have a major affect on the out come of Bush's Initiative, besides the entire world.

http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/GLTRS/browse.pl?2001/CR-2001-211116.html

One Item that came out of the report is to use prise to help give incentive to develope commercial industry.

Economic and Budgetary Issues with Cash Prizes to Achieve NASA's Objectives

CBO Testimony Statement of Douglas Holtz-Eakin Director before the
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics Committee on Science
U.S. House of Representatives

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5637&sequence;=0