Page 37 of 55 - Previous page

You all might be interested in my review at the Huntsville Times. The editor added a lot of paragraph breaks, but I guess that's what editors are for. Follow the link, or read some of the text below. Aside from all the negative history, the positive point of the book is to help figure out what purpose NASA should serve in a future of mostly private space enterprise (particularly relating to human spaceflight). I certainly hope the new presidential commission takes some of this into account. […]

Klerkx doesn't entirely agree with the NASA-bashers he portrays, pointing out in the chapter “The Belly of the Beast” that there is “no 'NASA'; or rather, there are multiple 'NASAs',” over which even the administrator has little control.

[…] The most sympathetic portrait in the book is probably of Pascal Lee, Klerkx's SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) Institute colleague, who has worked tirelessly with NASA staff and the Mars Society on Devon Island. For most of the rest of the space advocates, entrepreneurs, organizations and bureaucrats described here, one feels like shouting, “can't we all just get along?”

But there are legitimate grievances that trace one way or another to NASA as a self-protecting entity: the demise of Mir, the Industrial Space Facility, DC-X, the waste that was the SLI and X-33, the rise and fall (and rise again now?) of the Alternate Access to Space Station program, the treatment of Dennis Tito.

[…]

Most damning are Klerkx' details on the incestuous relationship between NASA and the two major contractors, Boeing and Lockheed Martin. Current arrangements seem almost guaranteed to suppress innovation, rather than foster it.

Ideally Klerkx sees innovation coming through growth of large numbers of smaller companies, but he also sees a vital role here for NASA as endorser, encourager and provider of technology support. NASA needs to accept a lesser role than the full control of human space flight it has had; the lack of progress described in Klerkx's text leaves one almost depressed for the future.

The X-prize competitors, Kistler and Elon Musk's venture, SpaceHab, and many other small space companies are featured, along with Russian privatization efforts.

[…]

Given the near comprehensive coverage, I was a little surprised Klerkx left out two private organizations that are actually launching hardware: the Planetary Society's Cosmos-1 solar sail and TransOrbital's private lunar mission. Perhaps no single person can be familiar with the entire worldwide range of government, commercial and nonprofit space activities at this start of the 21st century. And things change fast enough that what we thought we knew may no longer apply. The gaps in Klerkx's book are perhaps less significant than the fact that, although Klerkx covers Columbia's loss and the accident report, the book was finished well before the January 2004 presidential vision statement.

Refocusing NASA should address Klerkx's criticism, particularly if it helps change relationships with the private sector. But those working on changing NASA need to review this book if they want to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.

---

Comments

NASA Contract Could Jumpstart Rocket Start Up:

bq.

WASHINGTON – Eager to find new ways to ferry cargo to and from the international space station, NASA plans to pay a U.S. company $227.4 million for the demonstration of a reusable rocket that has been in development since the satellite boom of the 1990s.

NASA announced Feb. 2 that it intends to exercise a 2001 contract with Kirkland, Wash.-based Kistler Aerospace Corp. to buy pre- and post-flight data from demonstrations of the companyÂ’s K-1 reusable launch vehicle. The award, according to NASA, is not for actual launch services to the station, but for the data from a series of flight demonstrations meant to show that a recoverable launcher can reliably approach an orbiting platform such as the space station and safely attach to it.

Hot damn!

---

Comments

Via HobbySpace: NASA Seeks $16.2 Billion; Cuts Shuttle, Station, Next eneration Launch Tech Programs. to me the most interesting part is this: bq. The space station budget request also includes $10 million in new funding for “a flight demonstration initiative to pursue launch services with emerging launch systems.” Industry and government sources said that money is earmarked for start-up firms such as Kistler Aerospace and Space Exploration Technologies.The budget also includes $70 million in funding for robotic lunar missions. According to budget documents, NASA plans to spend $420 million through 2009 on lunar exploration missions.

Clark laments the small amount but I'm much more concerned with whether or not O'Keefe will drive the institutional changes to make that happen. IMHO, some of that should be sent to Andrew Beal as an apology.

---

Comments

Cowing corrects Tumlinson. Then Lindsey corrects Cowing. And then everyone jumps in on the tag team cage match.

Everyone makes good points. Even Keith, bad example not withstanding. So even if there are times when an REI biner isn't appropriate, I'm willing to bet that there are simpler solutions than this. Heck, just teach your astronauts how to tie good sailing nots and just tie the teather to an external hitch.

---

Comments

Via SpaceRev: Appointments to the Presidential Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy:

bq.

Carly Fiorina, chairman and chief executive of Hewlett-Packard (this one I just don't get)

Michael P. Jackson of Virginia.

Laurie Ann Leshin, a planetary geochemist at Arizona State University. (not much known here. The only reference I can find is something called the Solar System Exploration Subcommittee from NASA)

Retired Air Force Gen. Lester Lyles.

Paul Spudis, a visiting scientist with the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston. (You can find Paul on the Space Frontier Foundation's Return To The Moon Board)

Neil deGrasse Tyson of the Rose Center for Earth and Space at the American Museum of Natural History in New York.

Former Rep. Robert S. Walker, R-Pa.

Mars scientist Maria Zuber of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Some of these I simply don't understand. Especially Carly. I can't see how she'd have any time to spare for this considering how much work HP needs. I'd hate to have to chair this group of very disparate view points.

Update: According to this article its because she moved her yacht?

---

Comments

Thanks to a note from Arthur, I found this: Fly My Stuff to the Moon: Private Mission Slated for Fall Launch. Which is uber cool since I payed to put my business card on Trailblazer.

To anyone who reads Rocketforge: if you even remotely agree with the stuff I put here, then you should be buying a slot on Trailblazer.

---

Comments

Sciscoop has a two-fer for today: Boosting The American Space Program. Its an article by someone asking about the future US heavy lift capability if NASA isn't the one developing that heavy lift capability.

---

Comments

As some of you may have noticed, I've started carrying a self-developed line of merchandise over on the right and side of the page. I'm mostly sticking to items that are specific to particular industries or academic disciplines and which only members of that community will get. For example, this coffee mug has the standard Rocket Equation on it. Another is a bumper sticker that reads: “My other car is in a Hohmann transfer orbit”.

I'm also taking requests. If anyone has any suggestions, send me email and I'll get right on it!

---

Comments

Arthur Smith has a nice overview of the President's plans and the recent history.

---

Comments

The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a hearing this morning on National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationÂ’s (NASA) Future Space Mission. The witnesses and their testimony were:

bq.

Sean O'Keefe, NASA: testimony

Dr. Louis Friedman Executive Director, The Planetary Society: testimony

The Honorable Neal Lane, Ph. D.: testimony

Dr. Howard McCurdy: testimony

Mr. Richard Tumlinson President, Space Frontier Foundation: testimony (this includes some interesting policy shifts for Richard)

Overall there's nothing really new here. Even Rick's testimony was largely a cut and paste from his previous commiteee appearance. He is dropping his idea of the Space Station Authority (but his alternative still sounds like the same thing). As was expected, Dr. Friedman kept to his “its all about science, right?” meme that I find emmensely uninspiring. He was the representative for the “Mars! Ra! Ra! Sis boom ba!” community. Dr. Lane pretty much said the same thing except that he focused on orbiting observatories. Dr. McMurdy went into NASA's management issues and was somewhat interesting, but not new.

The most interesting was O'Keefe's remarks since it had some tantalizing details. In his introduction he does include this:

bq.

· Promote international and commercial participation in exploration to further U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests.

as one of four 'planks' that support the overall goal. The most interesting paragraph was this one:

bq.

As we begin the process of retiring the Space Shuttle from service, NASA will separate to the maximum practical extent crew and cargo transportation for both ISS and exploration missions. NASA will acquire ISS crew transport as required and cargo transportation as soon as practical and affordable. NASA envisions that commercial and/or foreign capabilities will provide these services. The CEV may supplement these ISS capabilities, but its design will be driven by exploration requirements.

The way I read that is that we will use Russia for as long as we have to. The first instant there is a usable American alternative we will use that. And that includes CEV capabilities if no one else can provide the service by the time we'd like to be using it. Which to my mind means that our launch startups have a limited window in which to produce an alternative launcher. I suspect this jives with Elon's more aggresive time frames for his heavy launch capability.

Nothing much beyond that though…. If I find a transcript (the questions are often far more interesting) I'll post it here.

---

Comments

Next page