Sunday, August 31, 2014

USA must reestablish this capability!

Posted by at No comments:

Ten year vision for NASA

Bobby Martin By 2018---regain shuttle like capabilities , By 2022---establish initial moon base, By 2025---expand moon base
1 min · Like



Posted by at No comments:

American Preeminence depends on regular EO access (Shuttle like capabilities ).

The USA was the envy of the world with the Shuttle capabilities . A well respected engineer who worked in MOD at JSC for many years, stated the truth, NOTHING WRONG With Shuttle, but gross mismanagement. As many have stated, reusable vehicles is the way to go, the SLS/ Orion ISN'T Economically feasible. The x37B can be modified to be our next shuttle, or an improved shuttle configuration as covered in nasaproblems.com , pursuing the capsule approach is nonsensical. 

Going to moon, mars requires a an EO truck to get these modules to EO so we can proceed to the desired destination.  Also, there is considerable EO work the needs to be accomplished, requiring frequent access to EO.   Therefore, a reusable truck is a necessity  for American preeminence.  American preeminence is essential for the survival of the USA  ( re General Shelton 's writings on military in space).

We must get the story out regarding the mismanagement of the US Space effort. The nonsensical shuttle retirement is a national tragedy not only for space capabilities, but for employees/businesses and our technical capabilities. 
THE INFORMATION we must get to the public is contained in the nasaproblems.com. 
The commercialized shuttle approach with an enlarged X37 or modified shuttle is the correct approach. 

The biggest problem is to get the public aware of the tremendous waste that has occurred & will occur if we do not get on the correct approach. We need some major network coverage to get people behind a logical approach. We desperately need a leader of the USA with a vision, someone who feels the USA is the greatest country on the planet. Look at the benefits of American space leadership from national security ( re General Shelton 's comments in X37B post relative to military capabilities in space & the necessity to maintain them ) to the economy. We now have leaders that do not understand that America's survival DEPENDS on American Preeminence in Space Capability. 

We need bloggers, energetic people that will expend whatever effort necessary to get the word out. Please help, our Country needs you!


Posted by at No comments:

The 2015 NASA Budget « AmericaSpace---read comments!

http://www.americaspace.com/?p=54421


Sent from my iPad
Posted by at No comments:

Saturday, August 30, 2014

Regaining Shuttle Like Capabilities

The USA was the envy of the world with the Shuttle capabilities . A well respected engineer who worked in MOD at JSC for many years, stated the truth, NOTHING WRONG With Shuttle, but gross mismanagement. As many have stated, reusable vehicles is the way to go, the SLS/ Orion ISN'T Economically feasible. The x37B can be modified to be our next shuttle, or an improved shuttle configuration as covered in nasaproblems.com , pursuing the capsule approach is nonsensical.

We must get the story out regarding the mismanagement of the US Space effort. The nonsensical shuttle retirement is a national tragedy not only for space capabilities, but for employees/businesses and our technical capabilities.
THE INFORMATION we must get to the public is contained in the nasaproblems.com.
The commercialized shuttle approach with an enlarged X37 or modified shuttle is the correct approach.

The biggest problem is to get the public aware of the tremendous waste that has occurred & will occur if we do not get on the correct approach. We need some major network coverage to get people behind a logical approach. We desperately need a leader of the USA with a vision, someone who feels the USA is the greatest country on the planet. Look at the benefits of American space leadership from national security ( re General Shelton 's comments in X37B post relative to military capabilities in space & the necessity to maintain them ) to the economy. We now have leaders that do not understand that America's survival DEPENDS on American Preeminence in Space Capability.

We need bloggers, energetic people that will expend whatever effort necessary to get the word out. Please help, our Country needs you!
Posted by at No comments:

Posted by at No comments:

The Shuttle is a PERFECTLY Good Vehicle, but GROSSLY Mismanaged!!!!!

Signs of failure were ignored.

Could place modules in orbit to RETURN to MOON!!!!!!!!

 

As a NASA aerospace engineer I was trained to look for warning signs of possible failure. We had indicating signs of failure before the Challenger and Columbia disasters…they were there but we ignored them. Notice I wrote "disasters" not accidents. Both were disasters because they were preventable and even survivable…they were not accidents.  Instead of admitting that the space shuttle disasters were human failures, NASA management concluded that the space shuttle had to be decommissioned and that the shuttle funding be used to develop a safer system for getting humans into space.   However, NASA management is once again ignoring the warning signs that there shuttle replacement is not.

Don Nelson nasaproblems.com

Sent from my iPad
Posted by at No comments:

Fwd: X-37B Space Plane Passes 600 Days in Orbit



Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Gary Johnson" <gjohnson144@comcast.net>
Date: August 30, 2014 1:02:15 PM CDT
To: "Gary Johnson" <gjohnson144@comcast.net>
Subject: FW: X-37B Space Plane Passes 600 Days in Orbit

 

 

US Air Force's Secretive X-37B Space Plane Passes 600 Days in Orbit

By Leonard David, Space.com's Space Insider Columnist   |   August 29, 2014 01:28pm ET

 

Leonard-david

X-37B Space Plane in Orbit

An artist's illustration of the U.S. Air Force's X-37B space plane in orbit. The solar-powered winged spacecraft has spent more than 620 days in orbit as part of the military's secret OTV-3 mission, which launched in December 2012.
Credit: NASA Marshall Space Flight Center View full size image

The U.S. Air Force's mysterious unmanned space plane has winged beyond 600 days in orbit on a classified military mission that seems to have no end.

The X-37B space plane is carrying out the Orbital Test Vehicle-3 (OTV-3) mission, a long-duration cruise that marks the third flight for the unpiloted Air Force spaceflight program.

The Air Force launched the miniature space shuttle into orbit on Dec. 11, 2012 using an expendable Atlas 5 rocket. By the end of Friday (Aug. 29), the space plane had spent 627 days in orbit. That's one year, eight months, 19 days and counting, to be exact.

"The Air Force continues to push the envelope of the solar-powered X-37B capabilities," said Joan Johnson-Freese, a professor of National Security Affairs at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island. [Amateur Skywatcher Spots X-37B Space Plane (Video)] 

A secretive space plane

The reusable X-37B looks like a mini version of NASA's now-retired space shuttle. This space plane is 29 feet (8.8 meters) long and 9.5 feet (2.9 m) tall, and has a wingspan of nearly 15 feet (4.6 m).

The X-37B's payload bay is the size of a pickup truck bed. In contrast, NASA's space shuttle payload bay could fit two X-37B space planes comfortably inside. At liftoff, the X-37B space plane weighs 11,000 lbs. (4,990 kilograms).

The key to the X-37B's longevity in space rests with its ability to use solar panels to generate power., the solar panels extend the craft's longevity. [How the X-37B Space Plane Works (Infographic)]

"While far above the longevity of any other reusable spacecraft, it is far below that of most U.S. satellites, which are built to last for years, even decades," Johnson-Freese told Space.com. "That certainly confirms the broad, officially stated goal of the X-37B as a test bed vehicle."

It's logical to assume that the classified payloads tucked inside the X-37B include new sensors and satellite hardware that will be tested, Johnson-Freese said. If so, then the more time on orbit, the more testing that can be done, she said.

"While the classified nature of the X-37B has raised some concerns about its intended operational purposes, technically, the program must be commended for doing something new … and successfully," Johnson-Freese said.

X-37B in flight: Three missions

The Air Force is believed to have only two X-37B space planes. These space planes have flown at otal of three missions, which are known as OTV-1, OTV-2 and OTV-3. ("OTV" is short for Orbital Test Vehicle.)

The first mission blasted off in April 2010, and the craft circled Earth for 225 days. The second X-37B vehicle launched in March 2011, performing the OTV-2 mission. This spaceflight lasted 469 days, ultimately landing at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California in June 2012. That was the same landing site OTV-1 used after completing its mission.

The current OTV-3 mission is reusing the first X-37B space plane from the OTV-1 flight, showcasing the reusability aspect of the program.

X-37B Space Plane Prepared for Flight

The U.S. Air Force's classified X-37B space plane is prepared for its first spaceflight, OTV-1, in April 2010. The same space plane launched on the third X-37B mission, OTV-2, on Dec. 11, 2012. As of Aug. 29, 2014, the mission has reached 627 days in space and counting.
Credit: NASA

View full size image

What's the mystery mission's secret?

General William Shelton

General William Shelton (retired), former commander of the Air Force Space Command, has been a leader in rallying support for future of U.S. military space capabilities, including the X-37B robotic space plane.
Credit: Credit: U.S. Air Force/Staff Sgt. Christopher Boitz

View full size image

Before retiring from the Air Force this month, Gen. William Shelton, commander of the Air Force Space Command, remained bullish on the X-37B's hush-hush mission. [10 Most Destructive Space Weapon Concepts]

"I'll give you my standard line on X-37," Shelton told Space.com at the National Space Foundation's 30th Space Symposium in May. "X-37 is doing great. I can't tell you what it's doing, but it's doing great."

Meanwhile, Boeing Space & Intelligence Systems, the Air Force's supplier for the X-37B space planes, told Space.com that there was nothing it could share regarding the ongoing mission.

Military interests in space

While the purpose of the X-37B space plane program remains stealthy, the U.S. military space interests are clearly visible.

In July, Shelton spoke at the Atlantic Council on the U.S. future in space, noting that "space forces are foundational to every military operation, from humanitarian to major combat operations. It really doesn't matter — space has to be there … [satellites must be] continuously deployed in place, providing communications, missile warning, navigation, space surveillance and weather services."

Traffic is building in space, as many new entrants have joined the ranks of spacefaring nations and "counter-space" capabilities (technologies to deny a nation's use of space assets) are becoming more concerning, Shelton added.

Shelton said that the U.S. Air Force Space Command is considering several space tracks, such as lowering the cost and complexity of new space capabilities.

"We're watching carefully as other nations significantly increase their investment in counter-space programs," Shelton said. "We absolutely must adjust our approach and response, and the time for those decisions is approaching very rapidly."

Will X-37B land in Florida?

The Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office carries out the clandestine missions for X-37B space planes, the 3rd Space Experimentation Squadron at Schriever Air Force Base in Colorado handles mission control for OTV flights.

The first two OTV missions flew back to Earth on autopilot, each time touching down on a tarmac at the Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. But that could change.

Boeing Space & Intelligence Systems has announced plans to consolidate its space plane operations by using NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida as a landing site for the X-37B. Earlier this year, Boeing announced plans to expand its presence in Florida by adding technology, engineering and support jobs at the space center.

As part of that Boeing plan, investments will be made to convert the former space shuttle facility, Orbiter Processing Facility (OPF-1), to a structure that would enable the U.S. Air Force "to efficiently land, recover, refurbish, and re-launch the X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle (OTV)," according to Boeing representatives.

At the time of the Jan. 3 announcement, this construction was to be completed by the second quarter of 2015, Boeing representatives said.

Leonard David has been reporting on the space industry for more than five decades. He is former director of research for the National Commission on Space and is co-author of Buzz Aldrin's 2013 book "Mission to Mars – My Vision for Space Exploration" published by National Geographic.Follow us @Spacedotcom, Facebook and Google+. Original article on Space.com.

 

Copyright © 2014 TechMediaNetwork.com All rights reserved. 

 

 

Posted by at No comments:

Must have Absolute Preeminence in Space


Military interests in space

While the purpose of the X-37B space plane program remains stealthy, the U.S. military spaceinterests are clearly visible.

In July, Shelton spoke at the Atlantic Council on the U.S. future in space, noting that "space forces are foundational to every military operation, from humanitarian to major combat operations. It really doesn't matter — space has to be there … [satellites must be] continuously deployed in place, providing communications, missile warning, navigation, space surveillance and weather services."

Traffic is building in space, as many new entrants have joined the ranks of spacefaring nations and "counter-space" capabilities (technologies to deny a nation's use of space assets) are becoming more concerning, Shelton added.

Shelton said that the U.S. Air Force Space Command is considering several space tracks, such as lowering the cost and complexity of new space capabilities.

"We're watching carefully as other nations significantly increase their investment in counter-space programs," Shelton said. "We absolutely must adjust our approach and response, and the time for those decisions is approaching very rapidly."


Sent from my iPad
Posted by at No comments:

Fwd: X-37B Space Plane Passes 600 Days in Orbit



Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Gary Johnson" <gjohnson144@comcast.net>
Date: August 30, 2014 1:02:15 PM CDT
To: "Gary Johnson" <gjohnson144@comcast.net>
Subject: FW: X-37B Space Plane Passes 600 Days in Orbit

planes, told Space.com that there was nothing it could share regarding the ongoing mission.

Military interests in space

While the purpose of the X-37B space plane program remains stealthy, the U.S. military space interests are clearly visible.

In July, Shelton spoke at the Atlantic Council on the U.S. future in space, noting that "space forces are foundational to every military operation, from humanitarian to major combat operations. It really doesn't matter — space has to be there … [satellites must be] continuously deployed in place, providing communications, missile warning, navigation, space surveillance and weather services."

Traffic is building in space, as many new entrants have joined the ranks of spacefaring nations and "counter-space" capabilities (technologies to deny a nation's use of space assets) are becoming more concerning, Shelton added.

Shelton said that the U.S. Air Force Space Command is considering several space tracks, such as lowering the cost and complexity of new space capabilities.

"We're watching carefully as other nations significantly increase their investment in counter-space programs," Shelton said. "We absolutely must adjust our approach and response, and the time for those decisions is approaching very rapidly."

Posted by at No comments:

Fwd: SpaceX blames rocket explosion on bad sensor



Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Gary Johnson" <gjohnson144@comcast.net>
Date: August 29, 2014 10:03:00 AM CDT
To: "Gary Johnson" <gjohnson144@comcast.net>
Subject: FW: SpaceX blames rocket explosion on bad sensor

 

 

 

SpaceX blames rocket explosion on bad sensor
BY STEPHEN CLARK
SPACEFLIGHT NOW
August 28, 2014

A faulty sensor aboard a prototype rocket likely led to its destruction last week during a flight at SpaceX's test facility in Central Texas, company officials said.

#spaceX rocket blew up :( pic.twitter.com/u41286gstr

— Mandy (@EthansMommy17) August 22, 2014

The rocket testbed, powered by a modified first stage from the Falcon 9 booster with three engines, flew off of its prescribed trajectory during an Aug. 22 vertical takeoff and landing test flight. The rocket's on-board safety system recognized the problem and issued a self-destruct command.

A video of the incident showed a fireball envelop the rocket, then debris raining down on SpaceX's test site in McGregor, Texas.

The Falcon 9R Dev 1 was designed to demonstrate reusable rocket technologies for SpaceX's operational launchers. SpaceX aims to return a Falcon 9 first stage to a precise vertical touchdown on land or an ocean platform by the end of the year.

SpaceX founder and CEO Elon Musk said in a statement Tuesday that the cause of the prototype rocket's demise was a "blocked sensor port."

Garrett Reisman, who heads SpaceX's effort to develop a private space taxi for NASA astronauts, said Wednesday that the investigation into the loss of the rocket testbed is not yet complete.

"I can tell you that it certainly looks like it was basically a single-point failure that existed on that test article that does not exist on the Falcon 9," Reisman said. "We think it was a failure of a single sensor, and Falcon 9 has multiple sensors in its algorithm that it uses. So if the same failure occurred on the Falcon 9 it would not affect the mission in any way."

The sensor failure in one of the three Merlin 1D engines on the Falcon 9R caused the vehicle to stray from its intended flight path, triggering an automatic self-destruct command to ensure it did not threaten nearby people and property.

Reisman said an operational Falcon 9 flight, which uses nine first stage engines, could overcome the loss of an engine. On the three-engine Falcon 9R, such redundancy does not exist.


File photo of a previous Falcon 9R test flight. Credit: SpaceX
 
"We've been taking a lot of risks with the [Falcon 9R], so we're flying this thing in flight regimes and ConOps (concept of operations) that it was not designed for, all in an effort to learn," Reisman said. "One of the risks bit us last week, and one of the single-point failures failed, which we knew was a possibility."

The Falcon 9R Dev 1 vehicle was the second in a series of vertical takeoff and landing rocket testbeds built by SpaceX. It followed the Grasshopper, a smaller single-engine rocket.

Fitted with landing legs around the base of the rocket, the Falcon 9R Dev 1 was designed to take off from a concrete pad, fly to a predetermined altitude, then descend under rocket power to a precise touchdown.

The sensor failure led the rocket astray on the Aug. 22 flight.

"We set a certain bound, and if we exceed that bound either vertically or laterally, then the flight computer initiates the sequence that occurred," Reisman said.

SpaceX plans to transfer future flights like the mission lost Aug. 22 to New Mexico, which offers a more remote environment for higher-altitude tests.

Engineers found no link between the Falcon 9R mishap and operational flights of the Falcon 9, but SpaceX postponed this week's planned launch of the commercial AsiaSat 6 telecommunications satellite as a precaution.

"Had the same blocked sensor port problem occurred with an operational Falcon 9, it would have been outvoted by several other sensors," Musk said in a statement. "That voting system was not present on the test vehicle."  

 

© 2014 Spaceflight Now Inc.

 

 

Posted by at No comments:

Posted by at No comments:

Excellent points------I agree!!!

Comment by a shuttle supporter

The Space Shuttle has long been one of America's greatest achievements both in space and beyond. Our nation deserves to keep the Space Shuttle program alive and well as handing the reigns of space travel and exploration over to the Russians would be a catastrophic crime after everything we as Americans have accomplished. The US Space Program has long been our beacon of hope and prosperity ever since putting a man on the moon. We did not become the world's leader in space only to bow down now and PAY the Russians to take us into space from here on out! To think we would have to pay $55.8 million per ride to space to the Russians each and every time we wanted to go to space is absurd not to mention a gross negligence of our money, our jobs here at home and our national security! NO way should we be making the Russians richer, while jeopardizing our own jobs, engineering, manufacturing, etc. here at home! It is a matter of national security and economic stabilty, not to mention a matter of principle! My father was a mechanical engineer who worked on the Space Shuttle program back when this country still produced and manufactured everything here at home in the US. I grew up with the Space Shuttle ever since its maiden voyage in the 70's and beyond. We grew up knowing about the wonders of space, engineering, science and technology and the great achievement the Space Shuttle represented for America. It is as great today as it was in the beginning....Please SAVE the SPACE SHUTTLE PROGRAM and save our national heritage, our national economy and our national security!!!

Sent from my iPad
Posted by at No comments:

Commercialized Shuttle Operations re nasaproblems.com


NASA plan puts America at RISK

NASA Plans Put America At Risk
 
Unassessed Uncertainty Involved For the Future of American Human Spaceflight.
NASA now likely has much more risk to the long term sustainability and safety of its premier human spaceflight program (ISS) than the normally risk averse Agency would desire or admit to.  Flight crew access to and from the ISS for the next 5 or more years is dependent on a single flight system (Soyuz), until one of the commercially developed American low earth orbit transportation systems demonstrates sufficient reliability to take on that responsibility.  The widespread euphoria over the recent successes of SpaceX and the highly optimistic expectations for COTS operational readiness somewhat contrasts with the reality of the history of past rocket development programs.  The cost, schedule, and program management difficulties and technical development issues associated with NASA's own Constellation program and the James Webb Space Telescope program most recently have validated that history.      
 
After the Columbia accident, NASA was extremely fortunate that the Soyuz system could sustain the ISS until the Orbiter returned to flight status.  There is no planned backup available for the Soyuz after retirement of the Space Shuttle flight system for five or perhaps even several more years.  
 
There is a non-zero probability that a random event or a scenario comprised of a series of seemingly unconnected events could prevent the Soyuz or a reliable COTS alternate capability from being available for transporting crews safely to and from the ISS for a significant length of time perhaps resulting in abandonment of the Station.  Reliance on the Soyuz for this extended timeframe is very unpopular with many Americans of all stripes for a variety of reasons.  If this capability becomes unreliable or perhaps utilized as some form of political leverage, NASA now has no other options available to sustain its planned ISS operations program for perhaps a long period of time.
 
We know that there is tangible uncertainty and risk involved in the current strategy to rely on a single human transportation system for long term access to the ISS that is provided by a foreign entity.  What is the likelihood that a random event or a here-to-fore unconsidered scenario might occur that could cause a significant impact to the ISS Program?  Second, are the impacts of the potential consequences acceptable to America; and what are the best mitigation strategies to address this risk?   What does NASA and the Government need to do to characterize the risks involved to provide useable information for use by the decision makers who accountable for this policy, and to provide transparency and confidence to the affected stakeholders?
 
What are some of these non-zero probability events that could present major risk?
1. Spacecraft systems failures/deficiencies (hardware/software) or supply chain interruptions.
2. Ground support system failures, aging institutions and facilities.
3. Political Instability or irresolvable policy differences affecting the continuity of planned arrangements
4. Fire that disrupts and disables key manufacturing, utilities, or operations capabilities.
5. Terrorist attacks to key capabilities, physical, cyber, etc.
6. Major weather disaster that impacts key manufacturing or operations capabilities, Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant as an example. .
7. Human error that initiates a scenario comprised of events which renders the Soyuz system unavailable for a lengthy period.
8. The uncertainty in performance of the potential COTS providers being able to provide a safe and reliable human transportation system to support the ISS in a reasonable time frame.  In comparison, the development of the Orion led by NASA, also a capsule flight system with significant legacy utilization, was taking NASA greater than 10 years to realize a LEO capability to support the ISS.
 
This is a partial listing of potential causes and is not intended to be a complete list of scenarios that might result in the Soyuz and/or the COTS capability being unavailable for human access to the ISS.  
 
What are the potential adverse consequences that might result from failure of the Soyuz system to be able to fly crews to and from the ISS for an extended period of time?
1. Loss of life.
2. Major asset loss.  The U.S. has approximately $100 B invested in the ISS that is at risk for loss.  Other nations have varying significant investments as well.
3. Loss of prestige for America due to failure to be able to sustain the ISS.
4. Uncontrolled decay and entry of the ISS
5. Acceleration of the wide spread perceived decline and/or actual decline of America's current world leadership in human spaceflight technology and operations.  
6. Loss of confidence in NASA, its leadership; and perhaps future support for initiating new future programs.
7. Loss of momentum in the ISS based science programs including loss of the accrued sunk investments in dollars and human capital.
8. Accelerated erosion of the skills and capabilities required to move the human exploration of space forward.
9. Loss of interest in space science and space exploration by the young people who are contemplating a science or aerospace engineering career resulting in further decline in America's capability to initiate and carry out challenging spaceflight and technological programs.  (This is already happening – just talk to some science and engineering majors now in college.)
Again, a partial listing.  
 
 
 
Who are the stakeholders and policy makers that are potentially impacted by this undefined risk level?
1. The American taxpayers who are committed to American leadership in space and depend on NASA leadership and the Government to make reliable decisions for the betterment of the Nation.
2. The governing Administration.
3. The Congress who appear to be legislating the way forward for human spaceflight by their actions (e.g. Orion & SLS).
4. NASA leadership and its people who have committed their lives and careers to the continued development of human spaceflight..
5. NASA's Contractors that make up much of the skilled experience base necessary to conceive, develop, manufacture, and operate the systems that are required for space exploration..
6. The Commercial Space Transportation investors.
Again, a partial listing, but the stakeholder community is much larger than NASA alone.
 
How should NASA proceed?
NASA should follow its own policy and procedural directives imposed on its own programs and conduct a detailed risk assessment of its plans in order to understand the risk level associated with the decision to rely solely on the Soyuz flight system for human access and return to the ISS for the next five + years.  Since the risks involved are so significant to the future of America, the risk analysis and assessment should be accomplished by an organization independent of the NASA decision makers who are involved in the planning and implementation of current the policy of long term reliance on a flight system provided by a foreign nation to sustain the ISS.  In order to avoid a conflict of interest, the use of NASA's current contractors should not be utilized for such an assessment.  Perhaps the risk assessment should be overseen and peer reviewed by an organization like the National Science Foundation or a select blue ribbon committee.  
 
Based on the history of spaceflight systems development including NASA's own programs performance in meeting planned operational schedules; it would be prudent to look at the risk interval for a longer period than just the currently planned 5 years, perhaps 10 years.  While there seems to be anticipation that the COTS providers will find a way to circumvent the technical, cost and schedule problems that NASA and its contractors have faced for recent development programs that hoped for result is yet to be demonstrated.  NASA's heritage for its development programs and projects has relied on a benevolent Congress to supplement its budget when the inevitable cost increases come along as a result of development problems.  Receiving increased appropriations to solve project development issues looks increasingly unlikely based on what is happening to the Webb Telescope Project and the National budget deficit.  The potential COTS providers will similarly face a reluctant group of investors if their costs and problems escalate.  
 
 
 
How could this risk mitigated?
 
The most obvious way to control the risks associated with current NASA planning is to retain the Space Shuttle capability in some form until there is demonstrated American provided capability to transport humans and cargo to and from the ISS.  Retention of the Space Shuttle would provide all of the capability to protect the integrity of the Space Station and its science programs.  The issue as always is cost; however, the cost model could be significantly moderated by commercializing the Space Shuttle Program.  Estimates are that a commercial venture could operate the Space Shuttle for a couple flights per year at perhaps 1/3 of its current cost.  The critical skills are still available at this time.  This would enable America to continue the same capability to support the ISS, and even conduct other priority earth orbit missions such as American controlled human access to space to support a critical unforeseen national security need.
 
By establishing commercialized Space Shuttle operations, NASA can take a known and reliable flight system and use it to develop and transition the governance and oversight processes needed for the COTS era operations.  In addition to mitigating the risks and uncertainties associated with current NASA plans, America would retain its prominence as a leading participant in human space flight. A professionally done peer reviewed risk assessment will define the risks with their associated uncertainties and highlight where mitigations must be taken.  To do otherwise places reliance on hope over experience.
 
 
7/20/2011
  
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Sent from my iPad
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)