Fwd: The X-37B: Exploring expanded capabilities for ISS missions | NASASpaceFlight.com

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Bobby G Martin <bobbygmartin1938@gmail.com>
Date: November 29, 2014 at 12:41:43 PM CST
To: bobbygmartin1938@gmail.com
Subject: The X-37B: Exploring expanded capabilities for ISS missions | NASASpaceFlight.com

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/03/x-37b-expanded-capabilities-iss-missions/


Sent from my iPad

Fwd: American space capabilities in bad shape

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Bobby G Martin <bobbygmartin1938@gmail.com>
Date: November 29, 2014 at 9:17:05 PM CST
To: ontherecord@foxnews.com
Subject: American space capabilities in bad shape

@greta since you feel I am full of it, talk to Cernan, Glenn, Kraft re shuttle capabilities & you will find the USA in bad shape-cots pipe D

Sent from my iPad

Fwd: Panspermia

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Kent Castle <kent.d.castle@hotmail.com>
Date: November 29, 2014 at 4:00:34 PM CST
To: Patterson James <w8ljz@aol.com>, Reason Marilou <loganlou55@yahoo.com>, Astrology Valkyrie <astrogoddess@valkyrieastrology.com>, Bentz Jerry <bentz@sbcglobal.net>, Martin Bobby <bobbygmartin1938@gmail.com>, Baird Darren <darren.t.baird@nasa.gov>, Arnold Jenny <arnoldrj@bellsouth.net>, Grant Berl <berlgrant@frontier.com>, Rice Donna <dmcguirerice@comcast.net>, "drmatula@verizon.net" <drmatula@verizon.net>, Madsen Ron <ronstar@pdq.net>, Chamberlain Sharon <sharon.m.chamberlain@saic.com>, Williams Tom <gtomwill@att.net>, Downham Walter <w9alt0@dishmail.net>, Campbell Spencer <wspencer.campbell@aero.org>, Choban Peter <peter.s.choban@aero.org>, Delwood James <jamesdelwood@clear.net>, Leach Larry <ljleach@tds.net>
Subject: FW: Panspermia

 

---

From:
Subject: Panspermia
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 09:20:11 -0600

 

 

This is interesting:

 

 

 

Panspermia proposed by Sir Fred Hoyle and Dr Chandra Wickramasinghe

Michael Salla

 

In surprising support of an earlier Russian discovery of microbes growing on the surface of the International Space Station (ISS), Swiss scientists have confirmed that DNA samples can survive the extremes of outer space. A November 26 report from Science Daily announced that a team of scientists from the University of Zurich attached DNA samples to the exterior of a TEXUS-49 rocket launched into space from the Esrange Space Center in Kiruna, North Sweden. Upon the rocket's return the DNA was found to be preserved and able to perform vital communication functions. The Swiss scientists' findings were published on 26 November in the scientific journal, Plos One. The Swiss scientific finding supports an August 19, 2014 announcement from Russian scientists who had discovered a form of sea plankton growing on the windows of the ISS. Both sets of scientific findings support the radical theory of Panspermia that microbial extraterrestrial life can exist and travel in the vacuum of space on comets, and radiation pressure.

According to the chief scientist for the Swiss study, Professor Oliver Ullrich from the University of Zurich's Institute of Anatomy:

This study provides experimental evidence that the DNA's genetic information is essentially capable of surviving the extreme conditions of space and the re-entry into Earth's dense atmosphere.

The findings of the Swiss scientific team gives vital support for an August 19, 2014 announcement by Russians scientists of the results of a yearlong study of a strange substance that had been obscuring the windows of the ISS. The substance had been collected by astronauts during a prior spacewalk. Vladimir Solovyev, chief of the Russian ISS orbital mission said:

Results of the experiment are absolutely unique. We have found traces of sea plankton and microscopic particles on the illuminator surface. This should be studied further.

One explanation for the Russian discovery comes from Professor Ulrich who points out from the Swiss study how terrestrial DNA can be accidently carried into outer space and be confused as alien in origin;

The results show that it is by no means unlikely that, despite all the safety precautions, space ships could also carry terrestrial DNA to their landing site. We need to have this under control in the search for extraterrestrial life.

While the Swiss scientific finding provides a possible explanation for the Russian discovery, it does not explain how the sea plankton on the ISS was actually growing, rather than just surviving in the vacuum of space. This suggests that it was a form of plankton indigenous to outer space rather than carried into space from the Earth's surface by wind currents.

Nevertheless, the Swiss scientific discovery, together with the August 19 announcement by Russian scientists, gives critical support to the theory of Panspermia proposed by Sir Fred Hoyle and Dr Chandra Wickramasinghe. In 1974, they proposed and were able to confirm that dust in interstellar space was largely organic, thereby making it possible for life to exist in interstellar space despite the harsh conditions there.

The implications of the Swiss and Russian scientific studies suggest that extraterrestrial life cannot only exist in the extreme conditions of space, but can find ways of thriving there. Importantly, NASA's silence in response to the August announcement by the Russians, is harder to maintain now due to the Swiss discovery. The Swiss and Russian discoveries takes scientists one step closer to eventually concluding that microbial extraterrestrial life has ways of adapting to the extremes of outer space, and can be easily dispersed throughout the universe.

 

Greta: DO You Understand Significance of Control of Earth Orbit?

@Greta do you understand EO's sig. With shuttle we could do lots of stuff-- now we can't even put a man in EO . Be yrs before regain cap 12:10 PM - 29 Nov 2014

Sent from my iPad

EO control !

X37B Boeing proposal

The X-37B: Exploring expanded capabilities for ISS missions March 12, 2013 by Chris Gebhardt As NASA and its new commercial partners continue to push toward the era of realized commercial crew transportation to Low Earth Orbit (LEO), Boeing has released a paper detailing the potentiality of expanding the capabilities of the U.S. Air Force's X-37B reusable space plane for cargo and crewed missions to LEO – a proposal, which for unknown reasons, appears to have been pushed aside by NASA's commercial space division. What could have been – A reusable space plane for the commercial era: As stated a Boeing presentation (acquired by L2), the concept of utilizing the X-37B as part of NASA's COTS and CCDev programs stemmed from the idea that the program would be able to "realize cost savings and acceleration of technology developmental timelines by focusing on the payload. See Also Commercial Space Section L2 Commercial Section Click here to Join L2 "Non- recurring costs [would be] substantially reduced by taking advantage of a mature spacecraft bus with well defined bus-to-payload interfaces and a ground station supported by seasoned mission operations staff using flight validated operational products." Given that this presentation came after the first successful test flight of the X-37B, Boeing also noted that "Several key technologies for reusable spacecraft were successfully demonstrated in the areas of aerodynamics, aerothermodynamics, reusable solar arrays, Thermal Protection Systems (TPS), and autonomous Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC)." Development of a mini-Shuttle – The X-37B comes to life: Birthed from the NASA Future-X (1998-2001) and Space Launch Initiatives (2001-2006) campaigns, the X-37B was developed to help lower the cost of LEO transport for post-Shuttle and replacement EELV (Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle) eras. In addition to testing next generation TPS system materials, the X-37B was envisioned as a platform capable of testing autonomous deorbit, entry, and landing GNC; fault tolerant architecture for autonomous on-orbit and entry flight; GPS and dGPS for landing with minimal airfield infrastructure; electro-mechanical flight actuation and brakes; and Li-Ion (Lithium-Ion) batteries for high cycle life and high current capabilities. Moreover, the X-37B would be able to test reusable, deployable and stowable solar arrays; advanced Gr/BMI composite airframes; complex Carbon-Carbon control surfaces; advanced high temperature wing leading edge tiles; hypersonic aeroheating prediction methods; and integrated systems designed for aircraft-like turnaround operations for post-mission processing. Launched on its first test flight on 22 April 2010 by an Atlas V 501-configured rocket from the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, the first mission of the X-37B spent 224 days in orbit before returning to Earth on 3 December of that year. During entry on 3 December, the X-37B successfully managed its energy, position, altitude, and descent profile using bank angle, pitch angle, and S-turns across a 5,500 nm reentry flight path. More impressively, the craft successfully, and for the first time ever for a spacecraft, "assessed its energy to go and [autonomously] moved the HAC (Heading Alignment Circle) away from the runway threshold to adjust for high altitude tailwinds." As related by the Boeing presentation, "The capability to autonomously adjust for winds and energy by moving the HAC is just one of the guidance algorithm advancements over the Shuttle Orbiter approach and landing methods." Adapting the X-37 design to the age of commercial space endeavours: Noting the reluctance of the American space industry to fly anything in space that isn't in some way connected to the heritage of Shuttle, Atlas, Delta, Ariane, any number of Russian engine technologies, or even the Saturn V, Boeing makes the case that the X-37B is an excellent example of space heritage – while providing the added benefit of incorporating new and evolving space technologies (like solar cell technology for reusable solar arrays) into its design. Specifically, though, the presentation makes note of NASA's burgeoning ISS COTS cargo and CCDev crew transport initiatives, noting a need "to qualify a new generation of autonomous rendezvous, proximity operations, and docking sensors and software." The presentation notes that the X-37B has the capability to perform attitude control maneuvers that are well in-line with NASA baseline standards for ISS and satellite rendezvous operations, and the vehicle's subsystem fault tolerance for automated aborts from Station and satellites is also well within NASA standards. Thus, the X-37B spacecraft design would provide an excellent way to "demonstrate, refine, and validate competing technologies and operational concepts without having to build a unique demonstration spacecraft." Moreover, Boeing notes that the X-37B design would also provide a valuable test platform for "multiple competing technologies [that] can be integrated onto a single OTV (Orbiter Test Vehicle, the official name for the X-37B vehicle) as independent subsystems." The X-37B vehicle would then be able to independently test these "multiple competing technologies" during a single demonstration flight to the ISS or orbiting satellite, thus eliminating the need to conduct separate flights for each independent technology. Making the case for X-37 ISS operations: With the retirement of the Space Shuttle orbiter fleet in 2011 came the elimination of the capability to return sensitive cargo, requiring a soft landing, from the ISS. Enter the X-37, the only vehicle currently in operation that is capable of providing a soft, 1.5g class return landing. Making use of the X-37 design would allow sensitive cargo of the biological and material science variety (the science that forms the core of microgravity research aboard the ISS) to be safely and softly returned to Earth inside the X-37B's payload bay. Following a runway landing, any time sensitive cargo could be safely and quickly removed from the vehicle. Additionally, Boeing states that "At the X-37B's current size, upmass cargo would be carried internally and externally while downmass cargo would be entirely within the payload bay. "The considerable excess launch capability of the EELV class launch vehicles and unused volume within the 5m fairing [would] enable the X-37 to carry several large ISS LRUs (Line Replaceable Units) or other items externally on the service module," notes the Boeing AIAA presentation. Under this proposal, using the X-37B itself with an attached service module, the craft would be launched into a 51.6 degree inclination orbit for rendezvous with the ISS. After arriving at ISS, the X-37B would maneuver itself within the berthing box of the ISS's Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS) arm. The ISS crew would then use the SSRMS to reach out and grapple the X-37B and then attach it (dock it) to one of the Common Berthing Mechanisms (CBMs) on one of the nodes of the Station. During the course of docked operations, the X-37B would require no support from the ISS, less the physical CBM attachment, as all power and electricity would come from the deployed solar array and onboard batteries. The crew of the ISS would then be able to use the SSRMS to remove all external cargo from the outside attachment points on the X-37B itself. Internal cargo for ISS would be stowed within containers in the X-37B's payload bay to make transfer of materials to and from ISS easier for the Station's crew or any robot that might be tasked with moving the internal cargo. All downmass cargo would then be loaded into these containers before the containers would be returned to the X-37B's payload bay. After completion of docked operations, the SSRMS would unberth the X-37B, and the spacecraft would then maneuver itself away from the Station. The service module would be jettisoned prior to the initiation of deorbit, entry, descent, and landing operations. Evolving the X-37B for crew transportation: For the consideration of expanding the X-37B baseline design for the inclusion of crew launch and return capability, the Boeing presentation notes that an increase in size of approximately 160-180 percent would be needed to meet a 5-7 crew-size capability. Under this design, the X-37 would nominally be able to accommodate 5-6 astronauts with enough provisions and space for one injured astronaut requiring a stretcher-like return configuration for reentry and landing. The launch and entry seats for the crew would be aligned along one side of the pressurized volume within the X-37, leaving a clear access path for launch pad climbing and zero-G operations. The crew would enter the spacecraft via a hatch on the top of the X-37. The same hatch would provide emergency launch pad egress capability. For in-flight abort scenarios, a "pusher-style abort system between the Atlas V's Centaur upper stage and the X-37 [would] provide the appropriate acceleration and Delta-V for the required abort scenarios." Completely autonomous, the crewed X-37 would be capable of launching, aborting, rendezvousing, docking, undocking, deorbiting, and landing itself without any input from the crew. Cross-range capabilities of the X-37 design would allow for multiple deorbit opportunities per day to the Kennedy Space Center, FL, White Sands Space Harbor, NM, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA. While the Boeing presentation – created in 2011 for the AIAA – makes a fairly convincing case for the evolving capabilities of the X-37B, there is no indication at this time that pursuit of this option is ongoing or even under the slightest consideration from NASA. (Images: Via Boeing and ULA). (Click here: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/l2/ – to view how you can support NSF and access the best space flight content on the entire internet). Related Articles X-37B lands successfully following 220 days in space Share This Article Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on gmail More Sharing Services

Sent from my iPad

Fwd: X-37B Space Plane Passes 600 Days in Orbit---America's Hope for EO Dominance !!

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

 

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.

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 (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. 

 

---

 

Need shuttle capabilities

And we have a way with x37C to regain some of the shuttle capabilities, but this crazy dumb potus thinks cots is the answer. The USA must have a gov. Control shuttle equivalent system. Commercial is certainly free to develop their own capabilities !

REAL Space Act of 2013

America needs shuttle capabilities now. The space shuttles should NEVER have been retired and put in museums. The shuttles belonged to the American taxpayers. We've been duped by the OBAMA Administration!

Sent from my iPad

Fwd: Proton liftoff delayed by upper stage problem

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Gary Johnson" <gjohnson144@comcast.net>
Date: November 28, 2014 at 11:39:34 AM CST
To: "Gary Johnson" <gjohnson144@comcast.net>
Subject: FW: Proton liftoff delayed by upper stage problem

 

 

Proton liftoff delayed by upper stage problem

November 27, 2014 by Stephen Clark

The Proton rocket with Astra 2G rolled to the launch pad at the Baikonur Cosmodrome earlier this week. It will now be transferred back into an integration building. Credit: Roscosmos

A Proton rocket launch set for Thursday will be delayed until December after Russian technicians discovered a faulty gyroscope on the launcher's Breeze M upper stage, officials announced Wednesday.

The rocket will be removed from its launch pad at the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan and disassembled to replace the suspect gyro unit, according to International Launch Services, the Virginia-based company that is responsible for global commercial sales of the Proton booster.

The mission was set to lift off Thursday on the Proton rocket's 400th launch. The Astra 2G communications satellite owned by SES of Luxembourg is mounted on top of the rocket.

In a statement released Wednesday, ILS blamed the issue on the "off-nominal operation of the Breeze M upper stage gyro unit during planned pre-flight testing."

The rocket rolled out of its assembly building to the launch pad Monday on railroad tracks. The launcher will now be returned to the hangar for troubleshooting of the gyro problem.

The Astra 2G satellite and the Proton/Breeze M launch vehicle are in a safe configuration, ILS said in a statement. No new launch date has been scheduled.

The spacecraft and Breeze M upper stage — already filled with maneuvering propellant — will be taken off the Proton rocket for the repairs, officials said.

The launch delay is the latest setback for the Breeze M upper stage, which is supposed to position satellites in their correct orbits thousands of miles above Earth after deployment from the Proton rocket's core booster.

Built by the Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center based in Moscow, the Breeze M upper stage is designed to fire its rocket engine multiple times per mission.

Investigators blamed the Breeze M for many of the launch failures that have struck Proton rocket missions in recent years.

During an Oct. 22 launch, a Breeze M rocket stage released Russia's Express AM6 telecom satellite into an off-target orbit for reasons never publicly revealed by Russian authorities.

The Russian Federal Space Agency and Khrunichev declared the launch successful despite the slight orbit shortfall.

Officials said rollback and disassembly of the Proton rocket will delay Astra 2G's launch at least a couple of weeks. It was not clear Wednesday whether other upcoming Proton launches would be affected by Astra 2G's delay.

Another Proton rocket was scheduled to launch the Yamal 401 satellite for Gazprom Space Systems on Dec. 12.

 

© 2014 Spaceflight Now Inc.

 

---

 

Space Thanksgiving | Wayne Hale's Blog

http://waynehale.wordpress.com/2014/11/27/space-thanksgiving/


Sent from my iPad

Runway landers---- even though shuttle retired, Aldrin is correct!!

Evolve And Use Shuttle
Posted on December 7, 2011 by Bob
Instead of planning the retirement of the Space Shuttle program, America should be preparing the shuttles for their next step in space: evolving, not shutting them down and laying off thousands of people. You know the very people whose experience we will need in the years ahead. Except if you lay them off now, they won't be around in the next decade. Today's Shuttle operation is made up of five elements. Here's how we can put them all to use in a whole new space program. America, extend and transform the Shuttle, don't end 'em.
Those five elements of a Shuttle extension – the four segment solid booster motors, the big orange External Fuel tank, the trio of liquid Shuttle main engines, the vast existing Shuttle facilities like hangars and launching pads, and above all the skilled and experienced work force that has been operating the Shuttle fleet for nearly 30 years, can be the foundation of a whole new space goal.
We need to start thinking like our friends in the Russian space program. The first launch of the Soyuz rocket that is used today for taxi flights to the International Space Station had its first flight in November 1963 — the same month President Kennedy was assassinated! But while the rocket and capsule look the same as the
one that flew first in 1963, there have been many changes, some subtle and some more obvious. Newer and more powerful engines, a new upper stage, and advanced spaceship controls and systems mark today's Soyuz. In fact, the Soyuz itself is a more advanced version of the R-7 ICBM that Russia developed in the late 1950s and which first lofted spaceman Yuri Gagarin in 1961. Instead of abandoning the system for something entirely new — which is what the U.S. intends to do after the Shuttle — Russia has made incremental improvements to Soyuz, basically building an entire space program around that space-going workhorse.
See any lessons here?
America has invested 30 years in the Shuttle system. Instead of retiring it and beginning with a new "clean sheet of paper" approach
that will take extra time and money, I propose we follow the Russian example and make the basic Shuttle the foundation of a space program that can take us literally to Mars. Use the boosters, engines and big tank as the backbone of a new heavy lift rocket. Fly that rocket from the same facilities as the current Shuttles use. Keep much of the existing workforce working, because the only thing you will change is older designs and engines, making way for a heavy lift launcher derived from the Shuttle basics and capable of carrying large new spacecraft to the station or destinations beyond.
You may ask — how do we get from here to there?
By continuing to fly the existing Shuttles until a commercial crew-carrying cousin comes available after testing, or until the all-cargo ships start flying. On my evolution chart, I see these cargo Shuttles evolving, too, until they become a truly huge heavy lift rocket that can fly elements of an interplanetary spaceship aloft and link them
together, using the space station as the testing ground.
But I also have a place for a space capsule in this plan. An Orion-like capsule can be docked to the interplanetary ship and provide aero braking tests as we advance further and further into the solar system, headed in the direction of Mars.
What's aero braking? That's a way to use the gravity and upper atmosphere of Earth to sling shot a ship out either deeper into space, or slow it down to be "captured" by Earth's gravity. It flies in a series of ever-widening spirals. What's the big deal? Because aero braking doesn't need a heavy and expensive rocket stage to muscle our ships around in space. It's a technique we have used successfully in robotic missions to Mars. If we truly want to make humans on
Mars a national objective without sending the money — printing presses into overtime, that's one way to get us there.
But none of this is possible if we abandon the Space Shuttle, and the many decades of experience in flying a winged craft into space and safely back to a runway. They call 'em a runway lander.
And the story of why we need that instead of a spaceship-turned-boat space capsule as our space taxis is the subject of my next blog. Along with ideas on using that big orange fuel tank so familiar to those who have watched Shuttle launchings in a new role: a spaceship itself. More on those ideas soon.
By Buzz Aldrin

Posted in Space news | Leave a comment | Edit

Sent from my iPad

Fwd: Save our space capabilities --- nasaproblems.com

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Bobby G Martin <bobbygmartin1938@gmail.com>
Date: November 27, 2014 at 10:05:53 AM CST
To: ontherecord@foxnews.com
Subject: Save our space capabilities --- nasaproblems.com

Greta, give it a try--- inform the people of what we had, what we have now & paying Russia.
Inform of x37c Boeing proposal.  Discuss pitfalls in returning to capsules.

We are depending on you!

Bobbygmartin1938@gmail.com



Sent from my iPad

Fwd: Newest Aircraft Carrier

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Gary Johnson" <gjohnson144@comcast.net>
Date: November 26, 2014 at 9:23:52 PM CST
To: "Gary Johnson" <gjohnson144@comcast.net>
Subject: FW: Newest Aircraft Carrier

From: Eddie Jung  
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2014 9:28 AM
To: Eddie Jung
Subject: Newest Aircraft Carrier

 

This our new aircraft carrier. The statistics are absolutely mind boggling. The United States is building its next generation of aircraft carrier, the FORD-class carriers. The U.S. Navy gave us access to photograph construction of the USS Gerald R. Ford . The numbers behind the USS Gerald R. Ford are impressive; 224 million pounds, about 25 stories high, 1,106 feet long, and 250 feet wide. But the sheer enormity of the ship and construction operation is hard to grasp until you're nearly face-to-metal with the massive military beast. 100 years of carrier design is built into every facet of the new ship. The Ford will handle up to 220 takeoffs and landings from its deck every day. Part of that quick turnaround is because, when aircraft like the new F-35 return for maintenance, the plane's network will already have alerted ground crews to what's needed so they can get the aircraft on its way faster than ever before. The new FORD-class aircraft carrier will be the largest, most lethal ship ever when it joins the US fleet in 2016. The scope of the ship's construction is hard to fathom, but that chain is made up of links weighing360-pounds each. It's the weight of the chains that immobilize the 224 million pound carrier. All that weight starts up here in the "Bulbous Bow" that displaces the ship's center of gravity, allowing her to cruise on just the energy required for a much smaller ship. This bow alone is more than three stories tall and weighs 116,000 pounds. It has a nuclear power plant. Using "Big Blue" — the largest crane in the Western Hemisphere — towering 235 feet above the shipyard. Big Blue can lift nearly 2.5 million pounds at a time and is essential for assembling the new class of ship. Ships this big have to be built in dry docks like this; twenty-two-hundred-feet long and 250 feet wide. The Ford is designed to accept technology that won't be seen for decades. Some of those advancements are expected, but most are as far-fetched as the Navy's newest drones were in 1963. Regardless of what the future brings, all of it will require more power, which is why the Ford will generate three times the energy of Nimitz-class carriers. The paint applied to the Ford actually isn't paint, but a "high solids coating" that lasts longer and doesn't break down as quickly. Acres of canvas to cover the hull when it applies the coating. Moving the island house (the control tower) back further on the ship will accommodate an increased launch rate for the 75+ planes that will live aboard the carrier. The Ford will be capable of launching and receiving up to 220 planes a day. That increased rate comes in part from replacing the steam-generated catapult systems like those on the USS Abraham Lincoln shown here, with an electromagnetic system that's more efficient and gentler on the multi-million-dollar jets. Even with the extra fuel and weapons needed to keep that pace, the Ford is equipped to remain at sea without replenishment for months at a time. Now they use 3D design technology. With a pair of these 3D glasses designers are able to see exactly how everything fits together in a virtual environment. The 3D system also allows engineers to assemble the ship in modules. These modules can be exchanged and modified over the carrier's lifetime. Inside a module like S/L3609, the electronic workstation could be removed and relocated along with the interior walls and floors. These were all permanent fixtures on previous carriers. It's lethality comes in many forms — like the weapons aboard the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The Sea Sparrow Missile also factors into lethality with its ability to fly four times the speed of sound, turn on a dime, and intercept anti-ship missiles more than 30 miles out. Ford's lethality is also enhanced by the RIM 116 short-range defensive surface to air missile...... ...... and the radar-guided, rotating 20mm Gatling Gun called the Phalanx CIWS (Sea-Wiz). That lethality aims to help keep sailors safe and the enemy less so.

 

 

Fwd: SpaceX may upset firm's monopoly in launching Air Force satellites

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Gary Johnson" <gjohnson144@comcast.net>
Date: November 26, 2014 at 9:15:04 PM CST
To: "Gary Johnson" <gjohnson144@comcast.net>
Subject: FW: SpaceX may upset firm's monopoly in launching Air Force satellites

SpaceX may upset firm's monopoly in launching Air Force satellites

By Melody Petersen contact the reporter

 

A decision on whether to certify SpaceX for satellite launches is expected next month, Air Force officials say

Boeing and Lockheed have faced no competition for rocket launches since they formed United Launch Alliance

Although rocket launches by a Boeing-Lockheed venture have been expensive, they have also been dependable

Entrepreneur Elon Musk and his upstart company SpaceX are on the verge of upsetting a cozy and pricey military deal that for years has given two aerospace giants the exclusive right to launch the Air Force's most crucial satellites into orbit.

In recent years, those satellite launches have become so expensive under the Air Force's controversial contract with a joint venture owned by Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp. that the missions now rank as the nation's fourth-most-costly weapons program.

Musk has said his company can perform a satellite launch for less than $100 million — a fraction of the price charged by the Boeing-Lockheed joint venture. The average cost for each launch using rockets from Boeing and Lockheed has soared to $420 million, according to a recent analysis by the Government Accountability Office.

This is huge. It would break up a monopoly and has the potential to save the taxpayer an awful lot of money. - Marco Caceres, senior analyst and director of space studies at Teal Group

To get a share of the business, Hawthorne-based SpaceX — short for Space Exploration Technologies Corp. — must prove it can reliably launch the military satellites, which can take years to build and are crucial to national security.

Air Force officials are in the final stages of a years-long, detailed review of the rocket company's launches and operations. A decision on whether to certify SpaceX for the launches, they said, is expected next month.

"This is huge," said Marco Caceres, senior analyst and director of space studies at Teal Group. "It would break up a monopoly and has the potential to save the taxpayer an awful lot of money."

Boeing and Lockheed have faced no competition for the rocket launches since 2006 when they formed a joint venture called United Launch Alliance.

Before that, the two firms had competed against each other for the contracts. After they began working together, the bill for launching satellites skyrocketed, costing taxpayers billions of dollars and leaving less money for other military programs.

The Air Force's deal with the joint venture has been criticized for years on Capitol Hill. In April, Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona demanded an investigation into whether the Air Force's Space Command was retreating from earlier promises by the Pentagon that other companies would be allowed to compete for the lucrative work.

The public denouncements of the deal have put pressure on Space Command officials, who operate from the Los Angeles Air Force Base in El Segundo, to make a decision on whether SpaceX should be certified as a reliable launch provider.

Although the launches by the Boeing-Lockheed venture have been expensive, they have also been dependable.

Tory Bruno, United Launch Alliance's chief executive, said about the firm's launch numbers, "We're now at 89 — a perfect record of mission success."

The risk involved in space missions became clear last month when two rockets crashed within four days of each other. On Oct. 28, an unmanned rocket bound for the International Space Station exploded in a fireball just seconds after liftoff. No one was hurt when the rocket owned by Dulles, Va.-based Orbital Sciences blew up, but 2 tons of supplies, experiments and equipment were destroyed.

Three days later, Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo broke apart just after its rocket engines ignited during a test flight over the Mojave Desert. One of two pilots was killed.

The Air Force's decision on whether to certify SpaceX comes at the same time that Space Command officials are nearing a separate determination of which firm will win a contract to launch a spy satellite for the National Reconnaissance Office. The Pentagon opened that contract to competitive bidding in June — the first true competition for the launches since 1998.

The Air Force said SpaceX was the only company working to be certified for launches, making the competition for the contract between it and United Launch Alliance. Officials said they would award the contract by Dec. 31.

A spokesman for SpaceX said the company does not talk about whether it has bid for a contract before the winner is announced.

Over the last two years, Musk has repeatedly slammed the government's deal with the Boeing-Lockheed venture. He filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims this year, claiming that the Air Force's block purchase of 36 launches from the joint venture last December was illegal. The case is still pending.

United Launch Alliance executives have defended the deal. They say that by purchasing 36 launches in advance, the Air Force got "stability and predictability" needed for national security, while also "saving the taxpayers money."

But in court, Musk's lawyers called the contract "dangerous, fiscally irresponsible, and offensive to American values of open competition and fairness."

SpaceX has been able to keep costs lower by manufacturing its own engines and rocket parts — including the Dragon capsule, which has been used to deliver supplies to the International Space Station for NASA, and the Falcon 9 rocket. Most of the work is done in a sprawling factory near Los Angeles International Airport.

The Boeing-Lockheed venture relies on subcontractors, including to build its rocket engines. It has bought dozens of engines made at a Russian factory — a purchasing decision that has become increasingly contentious with the new tensions between Russian President Vladimir Putin and the West.

The news agency Reuters recently obtained a 2011 audit by the Pentagon's Defense Contract Audit Agency, showing that the joint venture had proposed paying $303 million for a dozen of the Russian engines, known as the RD-180, or about $25 million each.

The auditors said the subcontract for the purchase of the engines was "not acceptable" because it had failed to negotiate "a fair and reasonable price."

Jessica Rye, a spokeswoman for the joint venture, said the Russian engines' price "was thoroughly reviewed and accepted" by the government. She said the engine was "competitively priced" compared with alternatives.

Rye also disputed the GAO's estimated average launch cost of $420 million. She said the company estimates that each launch costs an average of $225 million.

The threat of competition from SpaceX already has spurred executives at United Launch Alliance's Denver headquarters to take action.

Bruno, a former Lockheed executive, was unexpectedly named the joint venture's top leader in August, replacing Michael Gass, who had headed the firm since its creation in 2006.

At a public forum sponsored by the Atlantic Council, a nonprofit think tank, this month, Bruno vowed to slash United Launch Alliance's costs "by half." He said the firm was also making plans to eventually stop using the Russian rocket engines.

"ULA is America's ride to space," Bruno said, "and it will continue."

melody.petersen@latimes.com

 

Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times 

---