Quote:

---

Obama Clashes With NASA Moon Program



The space agency's transition to an Obama presidency is not going smoothly, and the future of the moon program is uncertain.

NASA Administrator Michael Griffin is not playing nice with the Obama transition team, according to a post by Robert Block of the Orlando Sentinel. He reports that Griffin is resisting efforts by former NASA associate administrator Lori Garver, who heads Obama's space transition team, to "look under the hood" of the space program. Griffin has also reportedly instructed aerospace industry representatives to say only good things about NASA's plans for returning humans to the moon.

The current program calls for retiring the space shuttle in 2010 and sending the yet-to-be-built Ares I rocket and Orion capsule to the moon by 2020. But as Block reports elsewhere in the Sentinel, Ares is in serious trouble. It may not be powerful enough to boost Orion into orbit, and engineers are concerned that the rocket may crash into its support tower during liftoff.

Some engineers are recommending that Ares be canceled, and Garver's team has inquired about how much money could be saved by doing so. Even if the Obama administration chooses to stay the course on Ares, there is little doubt that change is coming to NASA.

www.popsci.com/military-aviation-amp-space/article/2008-12/chicago-we-
have-problem



NASA moon rocket may shake too much

Issue not expected to delay goal of returning astronauts to moon by 2020.

NASA is wrestling with a potentially dangerous problem in a spacecraft, this time in a moon rocket that hasn't even been built yet.

Engineers are concerned that the new rocket meant to replace the space shuttle and send astronauts on their way to the moon could shake violently during the first few minutes of flight, possibly destroying the entire vehicle.

"They know it's a real problem," said Carnegie Mellon University engineering professor Paul Fischbeck, who has consulted on risk issues with NASA in the past. "This thing is going to shake apart the whole structure, and they've got to solve it."

Senior managers were told of the findings last fall, but NASA did not talk about them publicly until the AP filed a Freedom of Information Act request earlier this month and the watchdog Web site NASA Watch submitted detailed engineering-oriented questions.

The response to those questions, given to both NASA Watch and AP, were shared with outside experts, who judged it a serious problem.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22735324/

---

Quote:

---

TRANSCRIPT OF THE CHALLENGER CREW COMMENTS FROM THE OPERATIONAL RECORDER

(NASA: Throttle up to 104% after maximum dynamic pressure.)

T+58..............PLT..... Throttle up.

T+59..............CDR..... Roger.

T+60..............PLT..... Feel that mother go.

T+60............ Woooohoooo.

T+1:02............PLT..... Thirty-five thousand going through one point five

(NASA: Altitude and velocity report, 35,000 ft., 1.5 Mach).

T+1:05............CDR..... Reading four eighty six on mine.

(NASA: Routine airspeed indicator check.)

T+1:07............PLT..... Yep, that's what I've got, too.

T+1:10............CDR..... Roger, go at throttle up.

(NASA: SSME at 104 percent.)

T+1:13............PLT..... Uhoh.



T+1:15 (M) What happened? What happened? Oh God, no - no!

T+1:17 (F) Oh dear God.

T+1:18 (M) Turn on your air pack. Turn on your air...

T+1:20 (M) Can't breathe... choking...

T+1:21 (M) Lift up your visor!

T+1:22 (F) ...hot. (Sobs.) I can't. Don't tell me... (M) God! Do it...

T+1:24 (M) I told them... I told them... Dammit! Resnik don't...

T+1:27 (M) Take it easy! Move (unintelligible)...

T+1:28 (F) (unintelligible) ...die like this. Not now. Not here...

T+1:31 (M) Your arm... no... I (extended garble, static)

T+1:36 (F) I'm... passing... out...

T+1:37 (M) (unintelligible) ...not dead yet.

T+1:40 (M) If you ever wanted... (unintelligible) ...me a miracle...

(unintelligible)...(screams)

T+1:41 (M) She's... she's... (garble) ... damn!

T+1:50 (M) Can't breathe...

T+1:51 (M/F) Jesus Christ! No!

T+1:54 (M) She's out.

T+1:55 (M) Lucky... (unintelligible).

T+1:56 (M) God. The water... we're dead! (screams)

T+2:00 (F) Goodbye (sobs)... (unintelligible)..

T+2:03 (M) Loosen up... loosen up...

T+2:07 (M) It'll just be like a ditch landing...

T+2:09 (M) That's right, think positive.

T+2:11 (M) Ditch procedure...

T+2:14 (M) No way!

T+2:17 (M) Give me your hand...

T+2:19 (M) You awake in there? I... I...

T+2:29 (M) Our Father... (unintelligible)...

T+2:42 (M) ...hallowed be Thy name... (unintelligible).

T+2:57 (M) You...over there?

T+2:58 (M) The Lord is my shepherd, I shall... not want. He maketh me to lie down...
in green pastures... though I walk through the valley... (unintelligible) shadow of death,
(unintelligible)... I will dwell in the house...

T+3:15 Static

www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/transcript.html
www.blurofinsanity.com/challenger.html

Cause and time of death

During vehicle breakup, the crew cabin detached in one piece and slowly tumbled. NASA estimated separation forces at about 12 to 20 times the force of gravity (g) very briefly; however, within two seconds, the forces on the cabin had already dropped to below 4 g, and within ten seconds the cabin was in free fall. These forces were likely insufficient to cause major injury. At least some of the astronauts were likely alive and briefly conscious after the breakup, because three of the four Personal Egress Air Packs (PEAPs) on the flight deck were found to have been activated. Investigators found their remaining unused air supply roughly consistent with the expected consumption during the 2 minute 45 second post-breakup trajectory. Whether the astronauts remained conscious long after the breakup is unknown, and largely depends on whether the detached crew cabin maintained pressure integrity. If it did not, time of useful consciousness at that altitude is just a few seconds; the PEAPs supplied only unpressurized air, and hence would not have helped the crew to retain consciousness. The crew cabin hit the ocean surface at roughly 334 km/h (208 mph), causing an instantaneous deceleration of over 200 g, far beyond the structural limits of the crew compartment or crew survivability levels.[

During powered flight of the space shuttle, crew escape was not possible. While launch escape systems were considered several times during shuttle development, NASA's conclusion was that the shuttle's expected high reliability would preclude the need for one. Modified SR-71 Blackbird ejection seats and full pressure suits were used on the first four shuttle orbital missions, which were considered test flights, but they were removed for the operational missions that followed. Providing a launch escape system for larger crews was considered undesirable due to "limited utility, technical complexity and excessive cost in dollars, weight or schedule delays."

After the loss of Challenger the question was re-opened, and NASA considered several different options, including ejector seats, tractor rockets and bailing out through the bottom of the orbiter. However, NASA once again concluded that all of the launch escape systems considered would be impractical due to the sweeping vehicle modifications that would have been necessary and the resultant limitations on crew size.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by out2theblack:
There IS A Better Way :

Besides being a simpler, more powerful system, backers say, the Jupiter rockets would save NASA $19 billion in development costs and another $16 billion in operating costs over two decades.

The Government Accountability Office last year raised questions about the cost of NASA's current plan for returning to the moon, which a report estimated at $230 billion over 20 years. NASA said it already has spent about $7 billion on Ares.

Steve Metschan, an engineer and former NASA contractor who supports the Jupiter team, said the upcoming presidential election could change NASA's plan. He accused NASA of suppressing information that shows Jupiter would perform better than Ares.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by out2theblack:
There IS A Better Way :

'The Jupiter design would also require two separate launches to get to the moon, but its rockets would both rely on a shuttle external tank at their center. Some of the design concepts go back to proposals floated at Marshall in the early 1980s. Others date to the early '90s, when Marshall worked on a new rocket system that never flew.

Besides being a simpler, more powerful system, backers say, the Jupiter rockets would save NASA $19 billion in development costs and another $16 billion in operating costs over two decades.

The Government Accountability Office last year raised questions about the cost of NASA's current plan for returning to the moon, which a report estimated at $230 billion over 20 years. NASA said it already has spent about $7 billion on Ares.

Steve Metschan, an engineer and former NASA contractor who supports the Jupiter team, said the upcoming presidential election could change NASA's plan. He accused NASA of suppressing information that shows Jupiter would perform better than Ares.

"Our concern is that by the time everyone figures this out, we will have destroyed our heavy-lift system," said Metschan, of Seattle. "At the end of the day, all we're asking for is an independent review of all this stuff."'

http://www.space.com/news/ap-080714-alternative-moon-rocket.html

http://www.directlauncher.com/ 'Safer , Simpler , Sooner'

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I thought the official name of NASA had been changed to mean Need Another Seven Astronauts

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by piratenews:



Sounds like the Jupiter too is lost in space.

Not 2 bad if lost in space with Lacy Chabert.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JaynezTown:

Lawmakers Slash $670 Million From NASA Budget Request

http://www.space.com/news/090608-nasa-budget.html

---

Quote:

---

Nasa experts scale back moon and Mars plans in face of Obama funding cut fears

Forty years after astronauts first walked on the moon, Nasa, the US space agency, is officially committed to a $35 billion (£22 billion) plan instituted by President George W. Bush to build the first of a new generation of manned rockets that can return to the planet by 2020.

However, the new president has appointed an independent panel to review America's costly manned space programme, called Constellation, and make recommendations by the end of August.

With Nasa engineers now floating cut-rate rocket alternatives, some politicians and former astronauts fear that the 2020 deadline will be foiled by financial constraints.

Noting a space exploration budget of six billion dollars in 2009, Senator Bill Nelson of Florida said: "Nasa simply can't do the job it's been given - the president's goal of being on the moon by 2020."

Mr Nelson, a former astronaut, bemoaned the fact that, between 2010 and 2015, the US will have no way of transporting its astronauts to the International Space Station except aboard Russian Soyuz spacecraft.

Michael Griffin, a former Nasa chief who championed the Constellation programme, warned that America had concentrated for too long on space shuttles – which are being retired - while rivals, such as China, were emerging with more ambitious goals.

"I think we must return to the moon because it's the next step. It's a few days from home. Mars is only a few months from Earth," he said.

Developers of Ares I, the first rocket in the Constellation project, reject claims that costs have spiralled out of control.

However, Constellation has been projected to cost around $150 billion, including the development of the Orion capsule and the Ares launchers needed to put it into orbit.

Sceptics believe that Nasa is worried that its moon plan may prove too expensive for Washington.

They point out that John Shannon, Nasa's shuttle programme manager, has now proposed a cheaper, $6.6 billion alternative that would use the old shuttle propulsion system.

But the Shannon plan, dubbed the Shuttled-Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle, would only be able to carry two astronauts at a time. According to its creator, this might limit the size of any base on the moon.

Meanwhile, a group of rebel Nasa engineers have put forward their own rival family of rockets called Jupiter.

Jupiter would, at an estimated $14 billion, also be substantially cheaper than the NASA project and would also use existing shuttle technology.

Norman Augustine, a former Lockheed Martin chief executive who chairs the panel reviewing the programme's cost, admitted it all comes down to money.

"With a few exceptions, we have the technology or the knowledge that we could go to Mars if we wanted with humans. We could put a telescope on the moon if we wanted," he said.

www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/space/5760285/Nasa-ex
perts-scale-back-moon-and-Mars-plans-in-face-of-Obama-funding-cut-fears.html

---

Quote:

---

The Obama administration's fiscal 2010 NASA budget request includes $630 million in additional near-term funding for development of follow-on rockets and spacecraft needed for the agency's post-shuttle moon program, officials said Thursday. But most of the increase is from the administration's economic stimulus package, and projections through 2013 show a $3.1 billion reduction in overall funding for the program compared with 2009 projections.

Unveiling NASA's $18.7 billion 2010 budget on Thursday, acting Administrator Chris Scolese said the Obama administration had ordered an independent review of NASA's plans to replace the space shuttle with a combination of manned and unmanned Ares rockets, Apollo-style Orion capsules, and lunar landers needed to establish research stations on the moon by the early 2020s. The new rockets are the central elements of what NASA calls the Constellation program.

The review is expected to be completed by August. In the meantime, NASA will continue work on the Ares 1 rocket and Orion capsules the agency hopes to begin flying in March 2015. But contracts needed for initial development of the unmanned Ares 5 heavy lift booster needed for NASA's planned return to the moon are on hold pending the results of the review.

Former NASA Administrator Mike Griffin said in a recent speech the projected funding shortfalls threaten America's leadership in [faking] manned space flight.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-10236147-239.html

---

Quote:

---

Note use of lowercase "moon" when proper English requires uppercase "Moon", as used in all other satelites in the Solar System.

---

Quote:

---

Lowercase denotes a movie set on Earth.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Note use of lowercase "moon" when proper English requires uppercase "Moon", as used in all other satelites in the Solar System.

---

Actually, "proper English" DOESN'T demand that. I can speak all day long about the moons of Mars, the moons of Jupiter, or our lone moon. When doing so, I am speaking of "moons" in general, a generic term for a planet's companion satellite. When I refer to THE moon, it's assumed that I'm speaking of OUR moon, our lone orbiting companion. Seems it should have a proper name. Seems like "Luna" is one I've heard.

Quote:

---

Lowercase denotes a movie set on Earth.

---

Oh, is THAT what that denotes? So when we speak of Phobos, one of the moons of Mars, if I call it Phobos, I'm speaking of the actual place, but if I say "a moon of Mars", I'm speaking of the movie set on Earth, huh?

What if I use a lower-case "e" on Earth? What if I refer to the movie set on earth? Am I speaking of a movie set build on the ground, or one build on the movie set?

You have some funny, funny grammatical rules, PN. Or should I call you "pn", and refer to the fake you that inhabits the 'net?

---

Quote:

---

Entemology: For thousands of years nobody knew...

---

Quote:

---

"If we had actually landed on the Moon in 1969, we'd now have International House of Pancakes on the Moon. We'd have Walmarts on the Moon by now. Instead NASA said, 'Been there done that. Poof, no need to go back...'"
-Capt Joyce Riley USAF, The Power Hour Radio Show, 20 July 2009
http://thepowerhour.com

---

Quote:

---

Kosher Geraldo says moon landing was faked and 9.11

---

Quote:

---

expand human presence and activity beyond Earth orbit into the solar system.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:
Elon Musk claims Biden is turning a blind eye to soaring immigration in hopes of creating new surge of Democrat voters who'll keep his party in power forever

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13042699/Elon-Musk-claims-Bid
en-turning-blind-eye-soaring-immigration-hopes-creating-new-surge-Democrat-voters-wholl-party-power-forever.html

---