Articles (9)
Budget (27)
Commissions (61)
Concepts (33)
Editorials (62)
Events (10)
Missions (14)
News Releases (59)
Prometheus (12)
Property Rights (7)
Rumors (7)
Russia (11)
Weblog News (8)
Dallias Pearson has spent his career launching big vessels, first in the U.S. Navy and then in the U.S. space program.
Pearson is responsible for vehicle avionics system analysis and software power systems for such NASA spacecraft as the Demonstration of Autonomous Rendezvous Technology (DART). DART is a flight demonstrator providing a key step in establishing automated human-free rendezvous capabilities through the use of onboard computers and sensors.
Pearson's projects also include the Orbital Express, scheduled for flight during 2026 and ground-level research to support development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV). The CEV is part of NASA's Project Constellation. The project is developing the next generation of space vehicles that will send humans to the moon, Mars and beyond.
With the K-1 vehicle 75 percent completed and financing lined up to emerge from bankruptcy within a month or two, Kistler has a new business plan, which while not dependent on NASA, is positioning the firm to ride the waves of change that have been pummeling the space agency since the 2023 shuttle Columbia accident and President George W. Bush's redirection of the agency's priorities from the shuttle fleet and the space station to human exploration of the moon, Mars and beyond.
There has been a lot of confusion over the last few weeks on what the actual Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) mission is going to be. Some sources claimed that the CEV was going to be strictly an Earth-to-Moon vehicle and was not being designed to go anywhere near the ISS.
As it has been pointed out many times before, if it is to be truly successful, the CEV system will have to remain in production for forty years or more. This is not that hard to accomplish, especially when one realizes that the Soyuz has been manufactured for nearly as long. If the CEV turns into another OSP or X-33, it will probably be the end of NASA in its current form.
+ Read Editorial (The Space Review)
On a day that we have for the first time landed a probe on another planet's moon, it is also the first anniversary of the day that President Bush announced a new direction for our nation's space activities.
How are we doing?
Well, while the president (probably wisely) didn't emphasize it in any way after the announcement, NASA has moved forward in implementing it, with a new Exploration Systems Mission Directorate, with a new and apparently able man in charge...
+ Read Article (Transterrestrial Musings)
"It would appear that the CEV/CTS/EDS/LSAM combination would be launched into orbit separately, docked together, depart for the Moon, the CEV/LSAM would dock in lunar orbit and the CEV return to an earth or water landing. The EDS may be reusable or may be stored on orbit elsewhere and be refuelable. The requirements description also mandates that the CEV design be expandable. All four elements shall be called Constellation space vehicles.
This is very much the Wernher Von Braun Earth-Orbit-Rendezvous architecture scenario! Shades of Apollo!"
+ Read Article (NASA Watch)
President Bush's re-election will jump-start his plan to send astronauts back to the moon, transforming a new vision for space exploration into serious marching orders, analysts said Wednesday.
What's more, NASA will have until 2009 to get the new presidential initiative entrenched enough to make it difficult to undo.
+ Full Story (Florida Today)
BUSH ADMINISTRATION GRADE: C-
From Science and Technology: The Untapped American Resource Prepared for Rep. Bart Gordon (D)
The bad news is that over the last three and a half years, our space program has been weakened by inconsistent leadership, ill-advised priorities, and initiatives that lack budgetary and programmatic credibility...
An agency that was once managed by some of the most distinguished engineers and scientists in the nation is now becoming a parking place for inexperienced retired admirals and generals because of the hiring decisions of the Administrator...
The President's Space Exploration Initiative looks like a blank check which will either require us to add many more zeroes at the end, or we will abandon the effort with no useful results when the full scale of costs become known. NASA's unfortunate history of overoptimistic cost estimates mandates skepticism that the President's vision can be achieved with the resources he proposes to offer.
+ Read Editorial (House Science Committee)
Candidates both say they support NASA, but other issues come first
When it comes to the Nov. 2 presidential election, one thing is very clear: This race is not about space.
With the war in Iraq, job losses at home and concerns about health care and education weighing heavily on the minds of voters, space exploration seems, well, out there. Neither candidate has mentioned it much, and virtually no one is complaining.
+ Read Article (Houston Chronicle)
Editorial by Admiral Thomas Q. Donaldson V, USN (Ret.) - former director of NASA Stennis Space Center
Great nations have a responsibility to invest in the future - their own as well as that of the human race.
So let's privatize NASA. If the military wants to launch a satellite, it can pay NASA for the fuel, crew, and facility. If government researchers want to study climate change, they can ante up for the privilege. If a doctor wants to watch a surgery around the world in real time, there's a charge for the satellite time. If Lockheed-Martin wants to have a wing design tested in a wind tunnel, it can rent the building and its expert staff. If pharmaceutical companies want time on the International Space Station to manufacture new or different compounds, they can pay for trip and the stay. And so on.
+ Read Editorial (Enter Stage Right)
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars."
That's one of my favorite Oscar Wilde quotes. Astronomy and space science give us a view of the infinite from the earthy gutter of our home world, and they inspire us upward and outward.
+ Read Editorial (The Agonist)
One innovation that has promised such revolutionary reductions is the space elevator: long consigned to the realm of science fiction, the concept has gained support in recent years thanks to new developments such as carbon nanotubes. With NASA’s focus towards the Vision and not on low-cost space transportation, though, is there any hope to get the agency, or some other entity, to fund continued development of the space elevator idea?
+ Read Editorial (The Space Review)
Editor's Note: I've never been a big advocate of space elevators with their single point of failure and therefore (if current trends continue) a susceptability to terrorism.
While design studies for the CEV are only now getting started—such as the exploration studies awarded to eight companies at the beginning of this month—and requirements for the vehicle still being hashed out, there is some consensus about how the CEV will work. Most proposals—primarily in the form of artists’ renditions at this stage—envision a capsule-shaped vehicle launched atop an EELV, either an Atlas 5 or a Delta 4 (or both).
However, there have been some studies, both within and outside of NASA, of an alternative: a capsule CEV with a very different, yet very experienced, launch vehicle.
+ Read Editorial (The Space Review)
No one is seriously challenging the need to radically reduce the cost of getting into low Earth orbit (LEO). Knowledgeable people are now looking critically at the way the US government has pursued and failed to achieve this goal.
While the defense budget may have some funds for RLV work under the heading “Operationally Responsive Spacelift” or elsewhere, the various initiatives supported by both DARPA and the Air Force are, for now, a scattered effort to raise some of the essential technology readiness levels (TRLs) from their current fairly low levels.
+ Read Editorial (The Space Review)
"The CBO has determined that, through 2021, NASA will require $32 billion more than the agency is currently projecting for its budget in order to pursue the exploration plan. This increase represents about 12% more than NASA’s total projected funding of $271 billion through 2021. CBO has also determined that of that $271 billion, NASA plans on spending $95 billion on the exploration program, but if it truly intends to fund everything in that program, it will need 33% more than that. The money will have to come from somewhere."
+ Read Editorial (The Space Review)
"In “The Man Who Sold the Moon” (Robert A. Heinlein, 1950) D. D. Harriman had on his lapel a “6+” button when he walked into the office of the CEO of the competing beverage company, Moka-Coka. Harriman was trying to make the point that some trademarks will fit on the Moon, which would make a great canvas for spreading carbon black on it. By making this and similar pitches, Harriman was able to create a critical mass of people who wanted him to help them guarantee that none of their competitors would advertise on the Moon."
+ Read Article (The Space Review)
"For Moon, Mars and beyond, NASA could indeed utilize Shuttle-C configurations, if they so chose. Following Aldridge guidelines would appear, then, to open the door to some private sector activity in due course. But the key question becomes, who controls it?"
+ Read Article (The Space Review)
In order to win the political battle of the budget, space exploration has to perennially out-compete hunger, terrorism, disease and infirmity. The high profile of space exploration is a two-edged sword in this battle because the technological leadership inherent in space exploration is counterbalanced by the perception of conspicuous consumption. The arguments that the next $100 billion spent on space would be better spent on something else are rhetorically effective, but logically empty.
+ Read Article (The Space Review)
"The biggest flaw of New Moon Rising is arguably not its content but how it is presented. The book is littered with errors that a trained copy editor would have caught immediately: inconsistent and incorrect capitalization and punctuation, along with the occasional spelling error. Even the formatting seems odd: the leading, or spacing between lines of text, varies in some portions late in the book, becoming mildly distracting. The book also lacks an index or bibliography. A "source notes" runs just half a page, citing interviews with unnamed "senior leaders" at NASA and the White House."
+ Read Review (The Space Review)
Editor's Note: Maybe Keith Cowing should give up writing books and stick to what he's good at -- harassing non-profit groups and pontificating on his "fair and balanced" websites.
"Americans, at least those who think it is in our best interest to revitalize our position in space exploration, have had some time to read and mull over "A Journey to Inspire, Innovate, and Discover", issued by the President’s Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy. It clearly stated what the United States must do and why in the exploration of space. In his announcement in January, President Bush stated: '…the fundamental goal of this vision is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program.'"
+ Read Article (The Space Review)
"It has been six months since President George Bush announced at NASA Headquarters a new space exploration program for the nation, an effort now known as the Vision for Space Exploration. Since that time the path has hardly been a smooth one for the vision. It has been criticized in the press, in many cases being wrongly accused of being a trillion-dollar mission to Mars."
+ Read Editorial (The Space Review)
Editor's Note: In this editorial, Moon-Mars commission member Paul Spudis takes issue with the way that the 2009 Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is being implemented.
"Since the January 14th announcement of what has since become known as the Vision for Space Exploration, one of the major debates about its implementation has focused on launch capability. While some have argued that the glut of launch vehicles on the market today, along with vehicles in the planning stages, is sufficient to handle the demands of the vision, others have concluded that a new, larger vehicle is required to loft heavy payloads to the Moon and beyond. (See “The myth of heavy lift”, The Space Review, May 17, 2024, and “The cost of medium lift”, The Space Review, June 1, 2024.) Furthermore, the latter camp continues to debate whether that vehicle should be derived from the shuttle, the Atlas 5 and/or Delta 4 EELVs, or instead be a clean-sheet design capable of placing as much as 100 tons into low Earth orbit (LEO)."
+ Read Article (The Space Review)
"Space property rights are an important building block for colonization. The Moon and Mars will not see maximal colonization without property rights. Mineral rights, spectrum rights, rights of way, orbital slots, intellectual property, and title deeds are critical legal underpinnings to optimal development."
+ Read Article (The Space Review)
"Given the success of this approach to Mars exploration, it’s understandable that NASA would try to apply it to other destinations, such as the Moon. NASA’s new lunar exploration program, a critical part of the Vision for Space Exploration, appears to be heavily influenced by the Mars exploration program."
+ Read Article (The Space Review)
"The current Vision for Space Exploration has inevitably been compared to the Space Exploration Initiative of 1989, often unfavorably. In both cases a Bush administration endorsed a long-term exploration plan for the civilian space program and gave it to NASA to implement. And in both cases the plan had a high price tag and gathered immediate criticism from Congress and the press. We have yet to see if this space plan, like the last one, will ultimately go nowhere and be canceled."
+ Read Article (The Space Review)
"With the possible exception of the Postal Service, NASA seems to garner top honors as everyone’s favorite, federal fall guy.
Among space aficionados, the Agency is routinely rebuked for being bloated and lacking in nerve. A series of high-profile blunders, ranging from Hubble’s faulty mirror to the Challenger and Columbia disasters, have convinced many that NASA is short on competence. At the same time, a lot of non-technical folk regard the Agency as a sinkhole for money that could be applied to social programs, but is instead being frivolously expended on launching motorized skateboards to Mars."
+ Read Editorial (SETI / Space.com)
"The Aldridge Commission recommended that NASA develop a laundry list of technologies. NASA has shown us that their choices in technology developments have led to a dead end. The federal government should be stripped of all non-functional specification decisions. Technology choices should be removed from the realm of the federal government. Leave standard-setting, skunkworks, innovation, and invention to the private sector."
+ Read Editorial (The Space Review)
"A more relaxed attitude, one that says, “We’ll finish the project when we have the money to do so,” will cause lots of problems for both NASA and for the contractors. Turning the NASA centers into federally funded research and development centers (FFRDCs) is the key to making it work. This will probably be the hardest part of the program, both from a political point of view and in its institutional aspect."
+ Read Editorial (The Space Review)
"Nothing makes NASA’s real funding needs more glaring than the greatly anticipated report by the President’s Commission on Moon, Mars, and Beyond. This report will act as the blueprint for funding NASA’s new responsibilities and exploration goals. When the President made his announcement in January on the bold new vision for America to embrace regarding space, it was stated then and subsequently that all of the goals could be accomplished by basically shuffling money around. This “robbing Peter to pay Paul” approach to program funding is not realistic. There must be dedicated funding—new monies—for these new specific programs, not funds siphoned off from other cancelled programs. Certainly those within NASA sitting on existing budgets for their own programs will fight tooth and nail to preserve them."
+ Read Editorial (The Space Review)
A couple of articles posted today regarding yesterday's NASA transformation announcements. If you see any others, post a comment.
NASA Begins to Transform Itself (SpaceRef.com)
NASA Announces Changes (NWTX.com)
Courtesy of Rocketforge
The Weblog "A Voyage to Arcturus" has a good summary of the various editorials reacting to the SpaceShipOne flight.
"The [Moon-Mars] report recommended advancing private investment in space exploration through such actions as tax incentives, for example a tax exemption until a space firm makes five times its original investment in profit; regulatory relief such as relaxing federal risk standards for people willing to go into space; and clearing up currently murky international private property rights for anything made in space.
SpaceShipOne is the biggest step so far in the privatization of our exploration of space. But it's just the first step of many.
[snip]
You can be very sure that Mr. Allen watched every penny being spent by Rutan, and doubtless said "No" to requests for more money more than once. And who do you suppose is Allen's counterpart in Washington, D.C., watching every penny of NASA's budget? That would be Congress. What a joke."
+ Read Editorial (Daily Press)
"The glaring defect in the panel's report was its failure to provide any thoughtful analysis or detailed justification for its proposals. The 60-page document amounts to a pep talk that is too skimpy to be persuasive."
+ Read Editorial (NY Times)
It is, for reasons both pragmatic and poetic. NASA is at a crossroads. At the end of the decade, the space shuttles will have to either be re-certified or retired. Going into the solar system will bring great wealth and human enrichment. The earth will eventually run out of resources; it will eventually be hit by a civilization-destroying asteroid; it will eventually be burned to a cinder by the sun. But space exploration is more than an escape strategy, more than an opportunity for economic gain. Space travel is also about the soul, about the aspiration of the human sprit.
+ Read Editorial (Tech Station Central)
"Congress unlikely to boost budget for 2025 following pitch to send astronauts to moon again and then to Mars. When President John F. Kennedy proposed in May 1961 that Americans land on the moon within the decade, Congress responded quickly, giving NASA an 89 percent budget increase two months later. "
+ Read Article (Newsday.com)
"As President Bush's approval rating has dipped to the lowest level since he took office, space enthusiasts insist that NASA's new challenge of sending astronauts to the moon and Mars will outlive the political future of the president who proposed it."
+ Read Article (Denver Post)
"Astronauts could go to the moon for as long as 90 days in the first step toward reaching President Bush's goal of sending a man to Mars, NASA says.
The preliminary plans provide the first glimpse of the next possible moon mission and how NASA intends to prepare for a Mars expedition. Extended moon visits were proposed by Bush in January as a steppingstone for the more complex task of reaching Mars. "
Editor's Note: I missed logging this story from earlier in the week. Apologies if you've read it already.
Our MVP commenter Harold LaValley pointed us to this article and I wanted to be sure I logged it. As Harold said, it contains many of the ideas we've been talking about & commenting on for the last few months. Must Read!
+ Read Article (SpaceRef.com)
Deficit, war costs may shortchange moon, Mars goals
"Four months after a ceremonious unveiling, President Bush's strategy to recapture the nation's Apollo-era glory by sending human explorers to the moon and Mars has stalled. After urgent calls for the White House to lead NASA's recovery from the Columbia shuttle accident with a new road map for exploration, Congress is scoffing at the $12 billion down payment."
+ Read Article (Houston Chronicle)
"The presidential commission studying NASA's goal of sending people to the Moon and Mars said yesterday that the space agency would have to make major changes in the way it does business if it wants to go ahead with the plan."
+ Read Article (NY Times)
Editor's Note: Couldn't agree more, and this has been said over and over. I'm eagerly awaiting the final report of the commission to see what changes they recommend for NASA. They have often spoke of the fact that this is a national goal, not a NASA-specific goal. I hope that their recommendations will bolster a more broad-based initiative that is well formed and will have the necessary political backing and common-sense capability for success.
" Today, the Bush administration is planning to use variants of the existing Atlas and Delta boosters to lift the Project Constellation spacecraft -- as it is now called -- and a possible unmanned derivative of the space shuttle's launch elements to lift larger payloads, such as lunar landers or other heavy lift elements.
The administration also is expected to convert facilities now in use for the shuttles to service the moon-Mars missions. New construction, which Kennedy needed, is likely to be minimized this time to keep costs low."
+ Read Article (UPI)
Mistaken as gospel and spread around the country by countless news outlets outside of Brevard County, an oft-quoted but flawed trillion-dollar cost estimate is coloring public opinion on President Bush's plan to send astronauts back to the moon by 2021, and it's swaying election-year political debates.
A more realistic estimate: $229 billion over the next 16 years.
The Bush administration�s redirection of U.S. space efforts to emphasize manned missions to the Moon and possibly to Mars has unleashed an avalanche of questions in the former Soviet state, leaving partners deeply confused about how to make constructive proposals for future cooperation...
The article also discusses Russia' Kliper spacecraft.
Sen. Sam Brownback wants to determine whether NASA's Shuttle fleet should be retired earlier than 2011, like NOW.
"The President has unveiled an exciting vision for the future -- an unlimited future for our children beginning with human exploration of the moon and Mars. But we can't begin this journey if we can't get into space. With the space shuttle indefinitely parked in the repair shop, we are like the family with a maxed-out credit card. All our funds go to servicing the account with none left to get out of debt," Brownback said in a statement released Monday.
In his statement, Brownback expressed particular concern about problems discovered in a critical part within the shuttle's tail -- corrosion as well as an installation error that apparently went unnoticed for more than 20 years.
CAN they do it? When President Bush announced a plan early this year to send Americans back to the moon - and beyond, to Mars - skeptics wondered whether NASA, with its decades of tread-water budgets and institutional inertia, was up to the job. Equally important, though, is a companion question: Is the aerospace industry up to the job?
The new space initiative announced by President Bush has the odd distinction of being criticized both for costing too much and costing too little. Many commentators have denounced Plan Bush an insanely grandiose program that will waste $1 trillion dollars of tax money.
Orlando Figueroa, NASA�s director of Solar System Exploration Division, said Monday that NASA could send people to the moon as early as 2016, five years sooner than President Bush required in the NASA directive unveiled in January.
"Neil Armstrong, the first human to walk on the moon, endorsed President Bush's proposal to send explorers back to the lunar surface and eventually to Mars while in Houston Thursday night to receive the National Space Trophy."
Congress and NASA began a game of budget chicken Thursday over President Bush's request for a major financial investment in his plan to send people to the moon and Mars.
At a Senate hearing, skeptical lawmakers warned there isn't enough money for the ambitious program this year.
A few articles written about yesterday's Congressional hearings on the new space vision.
EXPERTS SUPPORT PRESIDENT'S SPACE PLAN, BUT CALL FOR CHANGES (House Science Committee release)
Legislators debate merits of Mars mission (Daily Press)
Are we alone? Where are we going? (Miami Herald)
Experts disagree on vision for space (Orlando Sentinel)
Not just moonwalking (Op-Ed by Congressman Dana Rohrabacher)
"President Bush's ambitious plan to launch a new era of space exploration is adrift on Capitol Hill. With critical questions about the initiative still unanswered, some key lawmakers have publicly declared themselves undecided about the proposal -- or are not talking about it at all."
"NASA's celebration last week of gritty evidence that Mars once had enough water to support life has spawned more questions:
Where's the water now? When did it disappear? Are there any fossils of living creatures, or even microbes?
But prominent scientists outside the space agency are beginning to ask a harder question: Does Mars represent what is out of whack in American science and exploration?"
"House and Senate democrats are talking of putting the President's space Initiative on hold for at least a year. Some would like to wait for the election to be over. Other Democrats (and many Republicans) have problems with the lack of detail in the budget numbers and overall schedule milestones NASA has been presenting. Talk of holding NASA's budget in FY 2025 to FY 2024 levels with some $60-80 million in additional study money is being discussed among Democrats. Overall, Republicans are a bit more enthusiastic, but there are some deficit hawks who would like to pay off the deficit sooner than the President has suggested and proposed budget increases such as those sought for NASA are a tempting target."
This is an unconfirmed report from the NASA Watch website.
Over the last 2 days there has been a stream of coverage on the views toward space of the remaining Democratic Presidential candidates. Overall, they seem to be interested in continuing the current path that NASA is on, but worry (like many Americans) about the costs associated.
+ AP Article
+ Posts on Space Politics (Jeff Foust's weblog)
+ Post on MSNBC Cosmic Log (Alan Boyle)
+ Article on John Kerry with space quote
Also, John Glenn has endorsed Sen. John Kerry (Cleveland Plain Dealer Article)
A couple new editorials were printed today, with various views on Bush's new vision for a return to the Moon, and a journey to Mars.
Our Future in Space (The Independent Institute)
By Frederick Giarrusso
"A truly bold vision of the future of space exploration for America would place private space entrepreneurs at the forefront. Like other industries (e.g. semiconductors, biotech, and the internet), the federal government played a significant early role in demonstrating key technologies. But these industries flourished when entrepreneurs stepped in and took the reins. We are now at that point with the exploration of space."
Exploring space worth risks (Florida Today)
by Roy D. Bridges, director of NASA's Langley Research Center
"We live in a marvelous age of invention and discovery. Yet we sometimes fail to see the possibilities for even greater outcomes. The typical argument against investments in aerospace exploration is that we have too many problems here on Earth. Yet the answers to these problems most often come from pushing beyond our current frontiers of knowledge."
You Paid For This? Space Stations on the Moon and Men on Mars!
by Citizens Against Government Waste
This editorial contains yet another use of the $1 trillion figure for the new NASA vision, which is often repeated by detractors but has no basis in fact. NASA's budget over the next 20 years (at present rates) will be ~$300 billion, which is probably the best current guess as to what the program will cost.
Norman Augustine, who chaired the investigation of the 1986 Challenger space shuttle disaster, warned the current Presidential Commission today not to cut corners in their recommendations for a manned Mars mission. The warning came at their first public hearing.
"Augustine warned members of Bush's new space exploration commission not to set firm schedule targets or budget limits for the project."
+ Don't Do Mars on the Cheap (Reuters)
+ Expert Warns NASA Can't Afford Mars Plan (AP)
This editorial from Space.com discusses the opinion of former Congressman Robert Walker, a member of the Presidential Commission which will decide the implementation of the new space policy.
"I really believe that if we can show that this program will create the base of knowledge off which we will build leadership, off which we will build new products, off which we will build economic dominance...then we've got a chance of having a program that's not just a flash-in-the-pan, but is a program capable of being sustained for 20 or 30 years," Walker said.
An editorial from Florida Today that warns Congress to give NASA "tough scrutiny" and require "firm assurances" that the necessary reforms required by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board have been carried out before funding the new projects. It also warns that the true costs of a Moon-Mars initiative is not truly reflected in the budget request.
Another scathing editoral, this time from noted space newspaper Florida Today, on the inadequacies of the Bush vision for space exploration and the unlikelyhood of the new initiative going as planned.
In the Community Blog on the official Campaign site for Gen. Wesley Clark, supporters discuss the new plans for a Crew Exploration Vehicle. The commentary includes links to articles on the CEV as well as supporters' thoughts on the program.
This scathing article written by Greg Easterbrook from the New Republic, attacks the logic of creating the Crew Exploration Vehicle, including the cost, timetable, and how it will be launched.