Space Shuttle Tribute Bike

Space Shuttle Tribute Bike: "The Space Shuttle is one of the most impressive technological achievements in human history. Join a grassroots project to pay tribute to the men and women who make it happen and the American spirit that makes it possible. The non-profit Space Shuttle Tribute Bike committee, a group of your fellow NASA team members, is partnering with the Discovery Channel's American Chopper show and Orange County Choppers to build a bike that honors the spirit of the space program."

AGU Rallies The Troops

AGU Space Physics & Aeronomy Section Memo: Subject: Action Needed - Future of Science at NASA

"The upcoming confirmation hearings of Michael Griffin, President Bush's nominee to become the new NASA administrator, present a tremendous opportunity for us to raise important questions about the future of science at NASA."

90% of LaRC Buyouts Go Untaken

About 30 NASA Langley workers take buyout offer, Virginia Pilot

"The center could have paid for as many as 300 buyouts, said Leah M. Meisel, director of Langley's Office of Human Capital Management. "While we had hoped for bigger numbers, we are pleased that we were able to give so many of our employees the opportunity to take a buyout," she said in an e-mail."

Notes from the NASA Integrated Space Operations Summit 2005

Editor's note: NASA is planning to fly no more than 28 Space Shuttle Flights between now and 2010 at a rate of roughly 5 per year. This will lead to some tough decisions - some of them coming rather soon.

Mike Kostelnik, Deputy Associate Administrator for International Space Station and Space Shuttle Program: "If we did not have the ISS on orbit today we would not be returning [the Space Shuttle fleet] to flight but rather dedicating resources to next generation of exploration".

Others: Since NASA will not need any more Al-Li to build External Tanks (they have enough for 28 flights), that contract will be shut down. Since NASA no longer needs SRB canisters (they have enough for 28 flights) that contract will be shut down as well. By 2008, NASA will have enough Aluminum perchlorate for SRB fuel (again for the remaining number of flights) - so that contract will come to and end - possibly driving up the cost for DoD users.

Editor's note: Of course, if NASA decides to pursue a Shuttle-derived heavy launch system (mentioned more than once at this meeting), this might change. NASA PAO has also pointed out that no one specifically stated at this meeting that these specific contracts would be cancelled. However, the tone of the overall presentation was about things NASA would cancel, shut down, descope, delay, sell off, abandon in place, rethink, transform, etc. If NASA has no further need for a product or a service - be it for the shuttle or any other program (as was clearly discussed) it follows that such contracts would eventually be modified or cancelled - right?

More to follow.

NASA MSFC Memo: Let the Grass Grow Tall

Nasa to weed command: you have permission to boldly grow, The Guardian

"It put a man on the moon and gave the world the non-stick saucepan, but faced with an impending budget crisis, Nasa has been forced to cancel a more down to earth project: gardening."

Marshall won't mow as much; McDaniel says move looks bad, Huntsville Times

"[NASA Advisory Council member Mark] McDaniel said he's concerned how the lawn-care cutbacks would make Marshall and Redstone Arsenal appear if the Base Realignment and Closure Commission visits Redstone in the next few months. The commission is due to make its recommendations to President Bush by the end of summer."

Reader comment: "What next? Will we be shredding our own documents in the parking lot because the "mulch" truck is no longer funded?  Sigh..."

A JSC Reader suggests: "Maybe JSC could loan them some cattle and donkeys and they could acquire  goats. Or institute a mandatory physical fitness program whereby all  CS go out and maintain the grounds. They would then have a charge number and coverage."

Editor's note: "... the grass in other than high visibility areas will be allowed to reach a height of 8 to 12 inches and there will be no more special work requests accepted." Yikes! I hope they don't have any mountain lions (cougars) at MSFC like ARC has! They could hide in the tall grass and pose a danger to employees.

From: MSFC_Activity_Notice
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 9:41 AM
To: MSFC Activity Notice
Subject: Landscaping/Grounds Maintenance Scope Reduction

Landscaping/Grounds Maintenance Scope Reduction

The Landscaping and Grounds Maintenance contracts have been de-scoped due to funding limitations.  There will be no new flowers planted, weeds will not be removed from plant beds, parking areas and sidewalks, edging will only be performed along sidewalks and only in high visibility areas, the lawns will not be watered or fertilized, the grass in other than high visibility areas will be allowed to reach a height of 8 to 12 inches and there will be no more special work requests accepted.  Please accept the fact that the Center grounds are not going to be kept in a manner that we are accustomed to and do not blame the Grounds and Landscaping Contractors.  We will assure they meet the requirements of their de-scoped contracts.  We will make every effort to adjust scope upward in FY06 once funding levels are re-evaluated.

For detailed information in your area, contact John Nebrig at 544-6934 or May Wales at 544-5552.

Big Changes to Research Opportunities in Space and Earth Sciences (ROSES) 2005

Amendment No. 5 to the NASA Research Announcement (NRA) entitled "Research Opportunities in Space and Earth Sciences (ROSES) 2005," NNH05ZDA001N, Released January 28, 2005

- This amendment cancels the solicitation for the Virtual Observatories for Solar and Space Physics Data program described in Appendix A.22.
- This amendment cancels the solicitation for the Astrophysics Data Analysis program described in Appendix C.2.
- This amendment cancels the solicitation for the Long Term Space Astrophysics program described in Appendix C.3

Final Stafford/Covey Recommendations Delayed

Editor's note: The Stafford/Covey RTF Task Force is not going to be releasing its final recommendations tomorrow as had been planned. The fact finding that needs to go into the formulation of final decisions and recommendations has not been completed. More to follow.

Update: Return to Flight Task Group Postpones March 31 Meeting, NASA HQ

Don't Tear Down Those Wind Tunnels

Stay order, Opinion, Daily Press

"Virginia's congressional delegation must move aggressively to try to stop NASA from demolishing that infrastructure. Advocating for aeronautics is a battle that must be fought on many fronts - one defending budgets, one protecting facilities."

Hoyer Urges Hubble Fix

Lawmaker Urges NASA on Hubble Mission, AP

"This is a very important mission for us to continue and complete," [Hoyer] said during a tour of the Hubble lab, which holds the robotic arm that could be used to fix the telescope. But Al Diaz, NASA's Associate Administrator for Science who was on the same tour, said the agency has no plans to send a mission, manned or robotic, to repair Hubble. "We don't intend on servicing it, that's where we are," Diaz said."

NAC Aeronautics Meeting Date Changed

NAC Aeronautics Research Advisory Committee Meeting, Federal Register

"Previously Announced Dates and Addresses of Meeting: Wednesday, March 23, 2005, 8:30 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.; National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 300 E Street, SW., Room 6H46, Washington, DC 20546. Changes in the Meeting: Date changed to May 3, 2005, 8:30 a.m. to 5:15 p.m."

Editor's note: I find it curious how NASA HQ waited a week (29 March) after the original meeting date (23 March) - a meeting which obviously did not happen as planned - to announce a new meeting date more than a month away (3 May). Could it be last minute jitters on NASA's part - and that no one is quite ready to talk about what is happening to aeronautics at NASA? Stay tuned.

New Incentive to Take A Buyout Emerges at ARC

Unconfirmed Mountain Lion Sighting on NASA ARC

"On March 23, 2005 at 12:45 a.m., there was an unconfirmed sighting of mountain lions on the east side of the Ames Research Center near the golf course. In recent years there have been confirmed sightings of mountain lions in the Palo Alto area. Although the likelihood of a mountain lion attack is less than being struck by lightening, it is wise to be prepared for such an encounter."

Editor's note: This, of course, reminds me of a classic humor item posted on NASA Watch a decade ago: "Secretary of the Interior Babbit Announces Hstoric Cooperative Agreement Between NASA and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service"

"This agreement with the Fish and Wildlife Service will introduce ecologically sound management practices that will replace the 'business as usual' approach to personnel issues at NASA. Federal agency work forces are no different than overpopulated herds of deer or elk in our country today. We, too, need to thin the herds," said Goldin."

Field Center Budget Cut Update

Other Voices: Aviation depends on NASA, opinion, Rep. Jo Ann Davis, Daily Press

"I have suggested to the Science Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics that perhaps aeronautics funding, which is currently included in overall NASA funding, should get a separate section in the budget. This would help protect aeronautics funding from larger NASA visions such as a trip to Mars. Aeronautics funding is a matter of national security, and last time I checked, the planet Mars was not an emerging threat to United States security."

NASA shrinks Ames Research Center, FCW

"NASA officials announced the week of March 7 that they would offer IT workers buyout packages with a federally mandated cap of $25,000. Ames officials told employees that at least 400 civil servants and 400 contractors would be laid off if they do not accept the offers, union officials said."

Consider technology gains before cutting NASA funds, editorial, Decatur Daily

"If anyone questions the benefits of NASA and space experimentation, remind them that devices such as the cellular telephone might not be as advanced or even invented without NASA's need to make things smaller."

All Space Shuttles Look Alike

Editor's note: If you go to this Florida Today story you see an image identified as being Space Shuttle Endeavour located in the Florida Space Authority's Reusable Launch Vehicle hangar. If you go to this Florida Today story , you see the exact same image identified as being Space Shuttle Discovery. A check with KSC's photo archive confirms that this is indeed an image of Endeavour. Endeavour is in the RLV hangar. Discovery has been in Orbiter Processing Facility - Bay 3. Shuttles are prepared for launch in the OPF - not the RLV hangar. Yes, they are hard to tell apart. That's why they have their names painted in big, easy to see letters on each side.

Update: They have corrected their error.

NASA Works Towards Establishing an Identity for Itself

NASA Internal Briefing: "Why This Important" - NASA Communication Material Review Process

"summary of key findings

- People want to believe in NASA. And the window of opportunity is now.
- NASA's 'brand' is extremely strong. The problem is lack of effective communications.
- There is strong desire to know what NASA does. But today that knowledge is very thin.
- The public looks to NASA for a vision of exploration. Between Columbia and the CAIB report, 2,250 articles were written about NASA and vision, most calling for NASA to develop a vision.
- There is no blame associated with Columbia: The public understands the risks and is supportive."

And Today's Needlessly Complicated Web Address Is ...

Students Invited to Learn How to Engineer Spaceships at NASA JSC

"Visit the Web for more information and directions to Space Center Houston at: http://education.jsc.nasa.gov/details.cfm?id=F7665F18-AC33-430C-A15249BB3EC6A091"

Editor's note: Wow. This reminds me of the serial number you have to enter more than once slowly when you install a Microsoft product. Why not use a more human-friendly URL such as http://education.jsc.nasa.gov/directions ? I wonder if goofy and needlessly complicated web addresses are covered in the new NASA Communication Material Review Process? Nah. They are more concerned with specifying fonts and convoluted approval processes, it would seem.

Space Artifacts News

prise culot electrique Ariane 5 Vol 501 (electric catch base ARIANE 5 Flight 501), eBay

Editor's note: Only 1.000,00 EUR (1,288.84 USD)

Psst - Wanna Buy a Slightly Used Soviet Space Suit?, Wired

"Driving the Russian space trade is a slippery supply chain of quasi-government operatives, ex-KGB officers, and Russian mafiosi. Artifacts enter the pipeline after they're filched from Star City - or purchased directly from former cosmonauts - and trickle down to flea markets, galleries, online dealers, and ultimately collectors."

NASA's New Communication Material Review Process: You Will Comply

NASA Internal Memo: Agency Messages, Tagline and Visual Design Guide Roll-out, NASA HQ

NASA Internal Memo: New Communication Material Review Process (plus charts), NASA HQ

"Everyone who creates material intended for communicating key messages or strategy for NASA, including education and outreach materials, should plan to participate in the new process. The web-based process is relatively simple to use and is available to anyone with access to the NASA network. As with any review process, sufficient time should be allowed to incorporate the process into your development schedule."

Editor's note: So far only complaints have been circulating around the agency about this process which seems to make the process of getting NASA information out more - rather than less - burdensome. Stay tuned. This is a work in progress.

Attention NASA Aliens: Don't Work Late

NASA work rules trip scientists, Huntsville Times

"For working late at Marshall Space Flight Center, Dr. Alexander A. Chernov has been punished. Chernov, a microgravity researcher, was banned from working at the center earlier this month because of what he terms as an obscure, forgotten agreement to restrict foreign scientist work to traditional Monday-Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. working hours."

ISS Crew Completes EVA

NASA Space Station Status Report 28 March 2005

"The residents of the International Space Station ventured outside today for a 4-hour, 30-minute spacewalk to install communications equipment on the exterior of the Zvezda Service Module and deploy a small satellite experiment."

More Entrepreneurs in Cleveland

NASA to nurture biz launch-pad, Crain's Cleveland Business

"NASA Glenn Research Center in Brook Park hasn't been a breeding ground for entrepreneurs. That situation could change, however, with a new program to help NASA Glenn employees launch businesses about to come into place at a time when hundreds of jobs at the research center are on the chopping block."

Alabama Delegation Flexes Its Muscles

Delegation's new clout on space budget could help Marshall, WHNT

"And Cramer says they've made some enemies, and now more than ever they need to put Humpty Dumpty back together. He says it must be made clear this is a partnership and not something they can just dictate and get their way. Cramer says he is prepared to take drastic actions if NASA's leaders aren't more forthcoming to the delegation."

How to Waste $300,000 (Substantially Updated and Expanded)

Editor's note: If you visit Astronaut Space Safety 2005 you'll see that the report "SPACE SAFETY REPORT: Vulnerabilities and Risk Reduction In U.S. Human Space Flight Programs", written by the Space & Advanced Research Institute at George Washington University, is now online. This report was written with $300,000 from the mysterious non-profit Space Shuttle Children's Trust Fund. This organization's website does not list any corporate donors or board of directors/advisors - just a media contact - and an address where to send money. Nor does it specify what programs it has established which have helped 'children' in connection with the Columbia accident.

If you check the registration of the domain spaceshuttlekidsfund.org you can see that it is registered to Claire Boger at the Credo Group in Princeton, NJ. The Credo Group's website says that The Credo Group is "the nation’s first digital insurance agency with a core mission to build alternative distribution channels for the insurance industry." Looking at the domain servers for both thecredogroup.com and spaceshuttlekidsfund.org it seems that both sites are managed at the same location.

Searching with this database shows that the Space Shuttle Children's Trust Fund is registered in Baltimore Maryland and that it has assets listed as $2,362,855 and income listed as $630,677. The two prime activities listed are "Emergency or disaster aid fund" and "Care and housing of children (orphanage, etc)" No date is given as to when this information was entered into this database. Additional information can be found here.

Utilizing the resources at the Foundation Center, a look at the Trust Fund's fiscal year 2003 990-PF form filed with the IRS shows net assets of $2,362,855 and some payments to several Columbia and Challenger crew families. These two large payments are listed as well: "Arthur C Clarke Foundation of the United States - Supplementary Research on Manned Space Safety - $79,368" and "George Washington University Research and Technology - Grant for Space Safety Research - $287,500" for a total of $366,868. Among the members of the Clarke Foundation Board are Joseph Pelton, Vice Chairman (who led the safety study at George Washington University) and Brian Chase (Space Foundation).

Looking at the 2003 filing as well as the 2002 and 2001 filings shows small payments to several Challenger crew families - but no large expenditures. For these three years no donations are shown - all of the Trust Fund's income is listed as being from investments.

For 2003 (and 2002 and 2001) no officers are listed, no one was paid any salaries, and no contractors were paid for services. When asked to "list the foundation's four largest direct charitable activities during the tax year - include relevant statistical information such as the number of organizations and othe rbeneficiaries served, conferences convened, research papers produced, etc." The fund wrote "NONE". The same entry as made for 2002 and 2001.

According to this page at Pipeline Productions: "The Board of Trustees is composed of Delbert D. Smith, Jones Day, Chairman; Ursula H. Meese; Stephen Todd Walker, Senior Vice President - Morgan Stanley; William G. Tull; Arlene Millican, Bank of America; and William Judson Ready, Bank of America. For additional information about the Space Shuttle Children's Trust Fund please contact the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Fund, Delbert D. Smith at (202) 879-7600."

According to this Spring 2003 article about Delbert Smith's firm, Jones Day and its participation in the Trust Fund: "To date, the Fund has received donations from individuals, corporations, and student groups, all of whom have expressed genuine interest in providing assistance to the children. One hundred percent of all donations received, without any administrative costs or fees, will be used directly for the benefit of the children."

Sections:

- Report Summary (Executive)
- Sections 1 and 2
- Section 3
- Sections 4 and 5
- Section 6, 7 and 8

An earlier, much sloppier review draft version of this report circulated around Washington last Fall (see Draft Paper Provides Insight Into NASA Space Policy Options, SpaceRef).

The final report, while better presented than the review draft, is still rather lacking. I am not certain what they spent $300,000 on. For a document that purports to "our comprehensive review and analysis of the management, technical and operational aspects of all NASA astronaut-related programs" this report is anecdotal and lacking in firm technical references. The report makes heavy reliance upon newspaper and trade publication articles. Indeed, with the exception of several GAO reports, there are no technical references whatsoever upon which the report arrives at its findings and recommendations. None the less, the report describes many technical issues, and makes findings and recommendations on these technical issues. One has to wonder what process was used to arrive at these findings and recommendations (interviews with unnamed people are cited in various places) and the veracity of the conclusions reached.

A small sample of this lack of traceability with regard to the report's content follows:

"Currently the greatest concern with regard to the ECLSS, beyond the oxygen generators, involves the environmental monitoring devices. These units measure contaminants in the air and water supplies and filters and environmental generators that are not working on the station. NASA medical specialists, according to press reports, expressed their concerns prior to the launch of Expedition 8 about the air and water quality and also other environmental concerns. However NASA managers concluded the station was sufficiently safe to proceed."

Where are the references to the technical reports wherein these concerns were raised? All this report does is cite "('NASA Rejects ISS Safety Fears', www.cnn.com)".

Perhaps these are the reports they are referring to:

- NASA JSC: Action Item Response "Reclama VOA and TOCA at VCB on May 19th" - VOA and TOCA POP Review Action Item Response
- NASA JSC: Response to VCB Action Item AI 2392 Regarding Environmental
- NASA JSC: Mission and Project Management Office SLSD 7 Soyuz SORR/FRR Increment 8 Readiness Review and Overview 9 Sep 2003
- NASA JSC: SLSD SORR SD Checklist Report, Flight 7S ISS Expedition 8, Surgeon/BME 9 Sep 2003

Then there is this passage:

"Finally there is the problem reported in the press of the long term very slow leak of the atmosphere on the ISS. This reported leak of atmosphere is sufficiently slow that there is no risk to the astronauts. Nevertheless, the fact that the source of these leaks has not been found after months of trying to detect their source is a potential source of concern."

Reference? If this was in reference to the slow leak due to a window in the Lab module, that was fixed - in 2004.

Two pages later:

"The 38 nickel-hydrogen batteries are stored in an enclosure called an Orbital Replacement Unit that is designed for simple removal and replacement of the battery cells. These batteries are recharged during the sunlit phase of each orbit and have a life expectation of 5 to 6 years in orbit. Replacement of these battery cells well before their projected end of life is clearly a major safety concern now that the reliability of the Shuttle service missions have been questioned and the Shuttle grounded for 25 months."

Says who? Reference?

Then there's this bit of urban space legend:

"The ISS was designed with the idea that the Shuttle would be the workhorse to ferry the key elements of this $100-billion facility in space."

Where did this cost estimate come from? GAO? CBO? OMB? Is this number supposed to be the cost of the ISS alone - or does it include shuttle flights and ISS operations? No explanation, no references.

This is just a quick list. I could go on.

In Section 1.1 of the report, the authors state: "We recognize that an effort by the George Washington University team that comprised a total of 1.25 person years of effort over the past 15 months is modest in comparison to NASA resources and we recognize that the Report thus may have missed key elements in our review both in terms of safety concerns and program actions that may have been taken by NASA subsequent to our analysis."

That caveat not withstanding, this report is mediocre - at best - and is full of unsubstantiated - or weakly referenced statements, findings, recommendations, and conclusions. I really do not know what value it has. Memos circulated from Joe Pelton last year spoke of a conference of some sort in late 2004. It never happened. Perhaps they'll have one in 2005 and explain all of these outstanding questions.

There is, of course, the lingering question as to why the Space Shuttle Children's Trust Fund is paying for a report like this in the first place.

In searching the text of this entire report the only time the word "children" appears (5 times) is in specific reference to the Space Shuttle Children's Trust Fund. No rationale is given as to why a charitable trust established to see to the welfare of the children of astronauts who died during shuttle missions would spend money on a report like this. To be certain, safer spacecraft would result in fewer children with lost parents, but you would think that there would be some overt reason given as to why the monetary equivalent of 3 or 4 college educations is being spent on such a report - and a mediocre one at best. Again, no reason is given.

Additional Comments Regarding GWU/Space Shuttle Children's Trust Fund Report

With regard to Astronaut Space Safety 2005:

Section 1.1: "We would have preferred to base this study on more primary sources, but these were not always available to us since this research effort was commissioned as an "independent" review. Indeed one of our prime findings is that efforts be made to obtain prime source reports from NASA on the areas of launch safety that we have identified as being of possible concern."

Editor's note: Then shouldn't you have worked harder to get access to those materials - or waited to release your report until such time as you had accurate and reliable information where upon to base your report? Isn't this supposed to be a scholarly document?

Section 6.2: "European Space Agency - Automatic Transfer Vehicle and the Columbia Laboratory Japan - Japan Experimental Module (known as Kibo),"

Section 6.2.1.1: "Japanese Engineering Module (Known as Kibo) The Japanese Experiment Module (JEM), called Kibo, 6.5 shows an illustration of the completed JEM."

Section 6.2.3: "European Space Programs in Support of the ISS The European Space Agency (ESA) has been a crucial partner in the International Space Agency and has assisted the project in many different ways. The two prime contributions are the Autonomous Transfer Vehicle and the Columbus Laboratory."

Section 6.2.3.1 "European Autonomous Transfer Vehicle (ATV) - The Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) is an automatic, unmanned transport vehicle"

Editor's note: The actual names of these ISS elements are

- Automated Transfer Vehicle
- Columbus Laboratory
- Japanese Experiment Module

And just what is the "International Space Agency"?

Editor's note: SpaceHab is a Space Shuttle-launched facility.

Editor's note: Criteria or methodology for numerical evaluation "Seriousness of problem" are not given. References are not cited.

Editor's note: Bill Readdy is not an Admiral.

Editor's note: The Individuals surveyed are not identified. The questionnaires used are not included. The means of evaluating and scoring data from these questionnaires are not included.

Editor's note: Did GWU obtain these NASA documents? What are their titles and sources? Or is GUW simply relying upon The characterization by the New York Times?

Editor's note: Development of this suit was cancelled more than a decade ago.

Editor's note: Did GWU have access to a summary of the workforce skills of the entire NESC organization in order to make such an assessment?

Editor's note: Did GUW examine the voluminous amount of material released regarding the CEV procurement activity in late 2004/early 2005 or are they just relying upon this assessment from a NY Times article?

Editor's note: Is this one article the source for this rather profound statement?

Editor's note: That's "Zvezda"

Editor's note: References? Whose studies?

Editor's note: Why would you need an upgraded Soyuz? You'd just need two of them to accommodate a 6-person crew.

Editor's note: That's Progress M1

As far as physical attack on the ISS is concerned there are, in fact, several possibilities. It might be possible for an explosive or more likely a poisonous gas canister to somehow be smuggled onto a resupply mission coming either from the U.S. or Russia with a timer or remote triggering of such a device. Although this seems unlikely, protection against such possibilities from either a U.S. or Russian launch site (or in the future European or even Japanese launch sites) should be undertaken.

Finding: It would be desirable for NASA to undertake a systematic screening and tracking of all elements that are launched on ISS missions or re-supply craft using the latest state of the art technology. This process would be at all launch sites around the world with cargo or crew going to the ISS and would be carried out from a terrorist security perspective rather than simple inventory control."

Editor's note: Comment on this same passage in an earlier, draft version of this report: "To be certain, in a post 9-11 world, many things we once though improbable or impossible have happened. Yet given the inordinate procedures that go into testing and certifying payloads in both the U.S. and Russian (and other programs) human space flight programs, anyone who would even suggest such a scenario has clearly never spent any time in the very process they suggest might have flaws. They also evidence a certain level of professional ignorance by suggesting the addition of tracking systems that have already long been in place."

I would add that re-reading this passage has me convinced that the author(s) of this report have spent far too much time reading 2nd rate conspiracy thrillers and direct-to-video cheesy SciFi movies. It is quite clear that they did not bother to seek advice from anyone with any expertise in this are whatsoever. This is hardly the hallmark of a scholarly endeavor.

Editor's note: This entry on the CEV in the Wikipedia, as is the case with virtually all information on this volunteer-developed website is anonymous. How did the GWU authors verify its accuracy?

If you look at: Spacesafety.org

It says: "The Web-site is supported by the Space & Advanced Research Institute (SACRI) at George Washington University"

Then if you go to: http://www.sacri.seas.gwu.edu/IASR/

It says the correct name is: "Space and Advanced Communications Research Institute (SACRI)"

So Spacecesafety.org does not even seem to have the name right.

Moving on to: http://www.sacri.seas.gwu.edu/IASR/

"SACRI is dedicated to providing GWU with a center for research and development in the field of space communications."

And space communications and astronaut safety may overlap, but are hardly the same field of expertise.

Comments from Jeff Bingham on GWU/Space Shuttle Children's Trust Fund Report

Keith, I have to say I couldn't agree more with your observations of the "Space Safety 2005" Report done by GW/SACRI for the Space Shuttle Children's Fund. I'm afraid it presents a REAL disincentive for anyone to contribute to the SSCF, which, as you also indicate, is an organization of some questionable status, anyway. I'm also more than a little surprised at the lack of quality control by GWU in allowing their name to be associated with a "report" that, at least as far as I've read so far, not only offers nothing new, but suffers the lack of focus and substantiation you offer examples of.

I first printed the summary, and found it so incredibly disjointed and lacking that I had to download the rest and print it out (a dubious use of good paper and ink, but I just have to look this over in more detail to try to figure out what it's really trying to say!)

I already noted some outright errors of fact and logical non-sequiturs along the lines of those you pointed out. Here's an example: they cite the Paine Commission as having recommended almost immediate replacement of the Shuttle, citing its "obsolescence" as arriving as early as 2001. I took another look at The National Commission on Space report, and I cannot find that it made any such specific "recommendation."  Rather, it suggested that by 2001 the shuttle...and virtually every other then-available launch or space vehicle would LIKELY be replaced by advancing technology...assuming the sort of continually-expanding level of funding for US space programs and consistent national leadership commitment that was urged and assumed in outlining the Commission's  "idealized" view of space exploration over a fifty-year period.

But what is especially troubling about this report's use of the Paine Commission report is that its authors not only couch their references as if that report were done in response to Challenger in their Summary, they actually SAY that in the body of the report itself! In Section 1, part 1.3.2 (if I'm understanding their numbering system correctly, since their page numbering is sporadic), they say:

"The blue ribbon Paine Commission that was tasked with setting new space goals, in the wake of the Challenger accident, noted in their report in June 1986...." (My emphasis).

Then again under section 1.11 - "Key Issues," they say:

"President Ronald Reagan, in the wake of the Challenger failure, established a Blue Ribbon "National Commission on Space" to define a future space policy for the United States for the 21st Century." (My emphasis)

Then they follow that with this statement:

"Although the panel was first appointed by President Reagan it was then formally given a specific charge by the US Congress to examine not only the aftermath of the Challenger disaster but also to look to the future." (My emphasis)

All of this is patently incorrect!!!  They appear to be confusing the Paine Commission with the Rogers Commission, for one thing. It was the Rogers Commission that was established to review the Challenger accident.  The Paine Commission was created almost a year BEFORE the Challenger accident, pursuant to an act of Congress passed even earlier, in 1984! The Paine Commission spent most of 1985 conducting public hearings around the country, soliciting input and ideas on the future of America's space program. Their final report was literally at the printers when the Challenger accident happened. They pulled it back, made a few minor changes to acknowledge the 51-L tragedy and dedicate the report to the Challenger crew, and added a few references here and there to the accident, and then issued their report in May of 1986, without making substantive changes in the document.

The Paine Commission report was, of course, largely ignored in the wake of Challenger and with the intense coverage and attention given the Rogers Commission deliberations on the accident and that Commission's subsequent June report. The only real attention paid to the Paine Commission by anyone after its timid and unheralded release in May, 1986, was in the so-called "Ride Report," ("NASA Leadership and America's Future in Space") in which Sally Ride and others were tasked by Jim Fletcher, in mid-1987, to review the Paine Commission Report in the context of the Challenger accident and aftermath and recommend what aspects of the report would still be relevant in that context.

With such a blatant and obvious misunderstanding of the very identity and history of one of their very few "references," it is difficult to attribute a lot of credibility to their "findings."  (If they can't successfully "find," read or comprehend the title pages to major reference works, what CAN they be expected to "find."?)

And all of this is to say nothing of what they infer as the meaning of the things they attribute to the Paine Commission, and believe me, there is a LOT to be said about that!

I'm quite sure I will come across a veritable host of similar issues as I continue to plow through the nearly 230 remaining pages of the "Study," looking for something of redeeming value, but thought I would just echo your sentiments with another screaming example of the inadequacies of a "study" which, to me, has the appearance of an inadequately supervised grad-student project that consumed far more monetary resources than can possibly be justified by the end product, which somehow got itself released with the imprimatur of a major educational institution.

Otherwise, I have no strong feelings on the subject.

Thanks for bringing it to your readers' attention.

- Jeff Bingham

Editor's note: Over the course of his career, Jeff Bingham served in a variety of capcities at NASA including Associate Administrator for Legislative Affairs. He no longer works for NASA.

LaRC Employee Survey Results

Employee Survey Results after the 28 February 2005 NASA LaRC Town Hall Meeting

"Stop wasting your time on Coffee/Canteen issues. If 30% of CS workforce is eliminated, does that not also include 30% of the Strategic Leadership Council? NO.1: Figure out how reduce cost of 380K/FTE or get somebody who can. Until this happens, we will never be competitive. BTW, nobody appreciates the Vehicle Systems planning group having a "retreat" in Phoenix, AZ during these lean times."

"The discussion of a "possible" CS workforce RIF is entertaining, considering that most of those folks that will be affected in the future have ample time to plan, and make their decisions. The contractors on the otherhand are being released on a moments notice, with little to no warning. It is both morally and ethically wrong not to specifically forwarn the contract positions that will be descoped in the near furture. You should provide these folks with ample time to find a new position, rather than treating them like tempoarary labor. You should be ashamed of yourselves."

NASA LaRC Strategic Leadership Council Responds

NASA LaRC Strategic Leadership Council Response to Employee Survey

"Following the February 28 Town Meeting that shared the outcome of the senior leadership retreat, a survey was posted asking employees to comment on the event. Over 100 comments, questions and recommendations were received. This is the Strategic Leadership Council (SLC) response to that input."

Service Module Cooling Loop Fails

NASA Space Station On-Orbit Status 26 March 2005

"In a late change to their schedule, Sharipov and Chiao today replaced the #1 pump panel (4SPN1) of the Service Module (SM)'s internal cooling loop 2 (KOV-2). The panel failed early yesterday morning, causing a switchover to pump panel #2. Rather than isolating the failed pump, the entire 4SPN1 panel was replaced, to mitigate any contingencies from the thermal loop during EVA-13."

NASA Space Station Status Report 25 March 2005

"Early today, a thermal control loop panel in Zvezda that provides cooling to the Pirs airlock failed, and its backup system was activated to provide the necessary cooling. There are two circulating pumps associated with each panel. Both pump panels are needed to provide adequate backup capability for the spacewalk. The crew will troubleshoot the pump panel early Saturday, and replace one or both of the pumps in the degraded panel."

Walt Anderson's Woes Continue

Telecom Mogul's Lofty Dreams Plummet, Washington Post

"The "mysterious Mr. Zzylch" boarded the posh Gulfstream executive jet for his Russian business trip accompanied by a few friends, a pizza somebody grabbed along the way and the board game Risk, just for laughs. Zzylch, as millionaire Washington telecom mogul Walter C. Anderson once jokingly called himself, was in negotiations with Russian officials to lease their moribund orbiting spacecraft, Mir. They needed money. He had plenty."

Disconnects in NASA's Mars Exploration Policies

NASA Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group (MEPAG) #13 Chairman's Report

"Concerns were voiced regarding the apparent absence of scientific oversight of the Mars program. While there are no specific complaints or major concerns about the program, it is seen as a problem that there is no independent oversight of the Mars program along the lines that the SSES provides for the broader solar-system program."

"In addition to strengthening ties between the Mars program and the rest of solar-system exploration, there would be real value in strengthening ties between the robotic and human programs. At present, there is confusion about the relationship between the Science Mission Directorate and the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate and where Mars fits into this relationship given the compelling interests of each."

Outsiders Not Welcome at MEPAG Meeting

Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group (MEPAG) Meeting

"Who should attend? Participation is open to all scientists/engineers involved in Mars exploration, including international colleagues. Since this is a 'working' meeting, it is not open to members of the press, however, if there is interest we can make people available for interviews afterwards."

Editor's note: Curiously, they have a presentation on the agenda titled "Mars Outreach" yet they don't want the media there. I guess taxpayers aren't welcome either.

NASA Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group (MEPAG) #13 Chairman's Report

"According to our attendance records, 166 people attended the meeting, including scientists and representatives from many of NASA's field centers, from NASA HQ, from major research universities, from the aerospace industry, and from private research organizations around the country."

Editor's note: Everyone was indeed welcome - except the media and the general public.

The Baltimore Sun Is One Space Disaster Behind

First Hubble, then Mars, opinion, Baltimore Sun

"Fixing Hubble would mean shuttling people to the telescope one last time, as has been done four times previously. While it's understandable that space officials are skittish after the Challenger disaster..."

Editor's note: I don't think the Challenger accident had too much of an effect on the SM-4 mission decision process.

Burnt Wiring at SpaceX Test Stand

Minor Damage to SpaceX Engine Test Stand, SpaceRef

"SpaceX was running a Merlin engine acceptance test earlier this week at their test site in Texas. At one point some hot gas blowback burned test stand pressure sensor wiring."

Space-Related Prize on "The Apprentice"

Editor's note: According to a source familiar with the NBC program "The Apprentice": "Please check out this Thursday night's episode of "The Apprentice."  They'll have an "out-of-this-world" reward for the winning team. Make sure not to miss it whether you're a space buff or not!".

Editor's note: The prize was a ride on Zero-G Corp's jet.

GAO Issues Report on Shuttle Workforce

GAO Report: Space Shuttle: Actions Needed to Better Position NASA to Sustain Its Workforce through Retirement

"GAO is recommending that NASA take steps aimed at better positioning the agency to sustain a critically skilled space shuttle workforce through retirement. In particular, we are recommending that the Space Shuttle Program begin identifying its future workforce needs based upon various future scenarios the program could face. In commenting on a draft of this report, NASA concurred with our recommendation."

First Centennial Challenges Announced

NASA Announces First Centennial Challenges Prizes

"NASA and its partner, the Spaceward Foundation, today announced prizes totaling $400,000 for four prize competitions, the first under the agency's Centennial Challenges program. The first two competitions will focus on the development of lightweight yet strong tether materials (Tether Challenge) and wireless power transmission technologies (Beam Power Challenge)."

ARC PAO Foot Dragging

NASA Scientists to Discuss Risks of Moon Dust, NASA ARC

"During a workshop entitled "Biological Effects of Lunar Dust," scheduled March 29-31, 2005, at the Radisson Inn, Sunnyvale, Calif., leading scientists and physicians will review current knowledge about lunar dust and its medical risks, and recommend strategies to obtain new information needed for medical and engineering experts to manage the particulate risk for lunar exploration."

Editor's note: Sounds like fun. Too bad ARC PAO goes out of their way not to let people know about this event. They are shooting themselves in the foot by waiting until the last minute (6 days - 2 of which are over a weekend) to alert reporters and possible attendees - thus diminishing possible attendance. Indeed, If you go to the website listed in this 23 March press release you'll see that the hotel/meeting registration deadline is (was) 21 March. As such, anyone reading this announcement it can't go. So why send it out?

What Bryan O'Connor Did and Did Not Say

Editor's note: I guess I shouldn't rely on news reports to find out what someone actually said in a news conference - my fault, I could have participated - but I was busy. According to someone who actually participated in the telecon yesterday, O'Connor spoke very specifically about factors - flight rules etc. - which would now be put formally into place so as to guide the decision making process as to when to deorbit - and where to land - procedures which specifically take public safety into account. Up until now, landing decisions had to do with conditions at one landing site or another. As such, this would be the 'first time' that such factors would be formally incorporated into shuttle mission flight rules.

Earlier posts/rants on this topic ....

Editor's note: Looks like I owe the Washington Post and Guy Gugliotta a big apology. The first thing I read in the morning is my paper copy of the Washington Post. In checking through the other stories resulting from yesterday's telecon with NASA officials (which I did not participate in) I now see multiple quotes - all citing Bryan O'Connor who was suggesting that this was the "first time" that public safety was factored into how a shuttle mission is conducted. NASA's new plans may now have additional procedures in place to enhance public safety, but NASA has always had procedures in place with public safety in mind during launches and landings - many stretching back to the 1950's. Indeed I can recall being at the STS-2 launch when NASA issued an advisory to people near the launch site to bring sheets of plastic out of concern for small acid droplets from the SRBs. I can also recall a rather thick document when I worked at NASA which listed all of the contigency landing sites (airports) around the world and the procedures that went along with the use of these sites. Its not as if no one at NASA ever gave thought to public safety - quite the contrary. Indeed there are even plans for a contingency Soyuz landing in place!

Whatever possessed Bryan O'Connor to make such a silly statement utterly escapes me.

Again, my apologies to Guy and the Post. I guess I simply did not imagine that someone in Bryan O'Connor's position would utter such words. What amazes me. however, is the fact that none of the articles I have seen emanating from that telecon even question such a statement from O'Connor.

NASA Revamps Shuttle Landing Plan, Discovery News

"For the first time, NASA will take into account public safety when it makes a decision about where and when to land a space shuttle, program managers said Tuesday."

Public safety issues inform shuttle landing plans, New Scientist

"For the first time, public safety will now be one of those factors," says Bryan O'Connor, NASA's safety and mission assurance chief."

NASA instituting crowd control on shuttle, AP

"O'Connor said that when Discovery lifts off on the first post-Columbia flight, as early as mid-May, it will be the first shuttle mission in which public safety is factored into deciding where to bring the spacecraft home."

Public Safety During Shuttle Launches to Be Weighed, Washington Post

"For the first time in its history, NASA plans to consider the safety of the public during launches and landings of the space shuttle."

Original Editor's note: This statement is just goofy. It also flies in the face of common sense and the simplest recollection of how launches are conducted. NASA has had public safety procedures in place since the earliest launches at the Cape and other launch sites i.e. for decades. Similarly, there are long-standing restrictions in place at Edwards AFB. Did you ever wonder why you need to stay beyond a certain perimeter from a launch pad during a launch - or why there are designated public viewing areas, and airspace closures? I wonder if this reporter actually asked someone at NASA - or, for that matter, anyone from the general public who has seen a launch in person - about this topic before writing this story.

GAO Prometheus Review Released

GAO Report: NASA'S SPACE VISION: Business Case for Prometheus 1 Needed to Ensure Requirements Match Available Resources

"NASA's current policy does not require projects to develop knowledge-based business cases that match requirements to available resources and include controls to ensure that sufficient knowledge has been attained. Therefore, the agency had not planned to develop such a business case for Prometheus 1."

LaRC Buyout Is a Flop

NASA gets few takers on buyout offers to workers, Daily Press

"The latest buyout, eligible to 2,040 civil servants, received only 29 takers by Monday's deadline, according to Keith Henry, Langley spokesman. Employees are supposed to agree to leave the workforce by April 3, although 14 of the applicants requested a time extension."

GRC All Hands Cancelled

From a NASA Watch Reader: "The All Hands Meeting that was scheduled today at 10:45 has been cancelled due to a mechanical difficulty. It will be rescheduled at a later date. This is due to aircraft problems. How ironic :-) "

A Quasi-useful Procurement Notice

Notice of Intent to Release a Solicitation for NASA LWS Geospace Radiation Belt Storm Probes Investigations, NASA HQ

"The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) intends to release an Announcement of Opportunity (AO) for Radiation Belt Storm Probes (RBSP) Investigations in June 2005."

Among the highlights:

"Estimated Total Program Funding: not available; Expected Number of Awards: not available; Ceiling Amount: none; Floor Amount: none"

"Point of Contact: Name: Dr. Barbara L Giles; Title: Discipline Scientist; Phone: (000) 000-0000
Fax: (000) 000-0000; Email: Barbara.Giles@nasa.gov"

"NOTE: Potential proposers should be aware that the Announcement of Opportunity to be released in June 2005 could vary substantially from what is projected in this Notice."

Editor's note: I certainly hope so!

NASA Workforce Competency Dictionary: Preparation for a RIF?

NASA Workforce Competency Dictionary

"PURPOSE: The NASA Competency Management System (CMS) is a collection of business processes and tools that are used to measure and monitor the Agency's corporate knowledge base. A competency is a conceptual representation of a body of knowledge. The competencies are used to categorize the capabilities of an employee, identify the knowledge requirements of a job position, forecast the workforce requirements for a project, and stimulate the interaction and sharing of knowledge across the Agency."

Editor's note: I tried to read this document, but I got a headache. I felt like I was reading the same words over and over again. Instead of simple, precise statements, this thing is laden with government phraseology designed to obscure - rather than clearly define ideas and job descriptions. Indeed, many of the jobs sound exactly the same despite different titles. I guess this document does serve one purpose: it perfectly encapsulates the Byzantine management morass NASA current finds itself burdened with.

But wait ... there's more ... (a stealth RIF prelude?)

NASA Watch Reader Comment: "There is more than a suspicion about the CMS being used as a RIF tool. People at LaRC are all beefing up their descriptions, etc. to try and make themselves as RIF proof as possible. Management is also helping people get into areas that likely will be more insulated from a RIF even though this is not supposed to be possible."

NASA Watch Reader Comment:"The NASA Competency Management System is located at http://cmstool.nasa.gov, but is visible only to employees.

Although it is purported to be an innocent management tool, there are suspicions that it is intended to be used as a mechanism to categorize employees for subsequent targeting for directed transfers and reductions in force.

The three attached screen shots show in numerical order what an employee sees within the NASA Competency Management System. The images have been slightly edited to remove identifying information."

Centennial Challenges Announcement

NASA Announces First Two Centennial Challenges

"The first two Centennial Challenges competitions will be released by NASA and its partner, the Spaceward Foundation, on Wednesday, March 23 at 7:45 p.m. EST at Flight School '05, Fairmont Scottsdale Princess Hotel, Scottsdale, Ariz."

Smoke 'em if you got 'em

"Celebrate in the tradition of the Flight Directors as NASA returns the Space Shuttle to flight.  Mark this historic event with a Corona Gorda RTF CIGAR!"

Editor's note: You guessed, it - for sale on eBay. Of course I don't endorse these things in any way since smoking is stupid, causes cancer, and leads to early death. But, that cheerful caveat aside, smoke 'em if you got 'em! [Thanks to Jim Banke for spotting this]

LockMart's SBRIS: $4 - then $10 - now $12 Billion?

Lockheed US satellite program could reach $12 bln

"A Lockheed Martin Corp. satellite system to provide early warning of enemy missile attacks could eventually cost around $12 billion, up from recent estimates of around $10 billion, Acting Air Force Secretary Peter Teets said on Tuesday. Teets, who retires on Friday, called the Space-Based Infrared System (SBRIS) High program "a huge national priority" and said he saw little alternative to restructuring and adding funds to a program initially expected to cost $4 billion."

Editor's note: Ouch. I guess its a little easier to break this kind of news when you're headed out the door....

Another Advance in Extrasolar Planet Detection

NASA'S Spitzer Marks Beginning of New Age of Planetary Science

"In the new studies, Spitzer has directly observed the warm infrared glows of two previously detected "hot Jupiter" planets, designated HD 209458b and TrES-1. Hot Jupiters are extrasolar gas giants that zip closely around their parent stars."

Detection of Thermal Emission from an Extrasolar Planet, arXiv.org e-Print archive

A new Search for Carbon Monoxide Absorption in the Transmission Spectrum of the Extrasolar Planet HD 209458b, arXiv.org e-Print archive

TrES-1: The Transiting Planet of a Bright K0V Star, arXiv.org e-Print archive

"We report the detection of a transiting Jupiter-sized planet orbiting a relatively bright (V=11.79) K0V star. We designate the planet TrES-1; its inferred mass is 0.75 +/- 0.07 Jupiter masses, its radius is 1.08 (+0.18/-0.04) Jupiter radii, and its orbital period is 3.030065 +/- 0.000008 days."

NASA Denies Life on Mars Claim (update)

Scientist at center of Mars flap speaks out, MSNBC

"... What happened next is up for debate. Stoker says neither she nor Lemke ever implied that her work could be extrapolated to suggest present life on Mars. She certainly never told anyone that a paper to that effect was about to be published in the journal Nature, she says. Several people at the party, however, later told a journalist that they had said that. The subsequent Space News article set off a brief media frenzy in mid-February that eventually led to a rare official denial from NASA."

NASA Statement on False Claim of Evidence of Life on Mars

"NASA does not have any observational data from any current Mars missions that supports this claim. The work by the scientists mentioned in the reports cannot be used to directly infer anything about life on Mars, but may help formulate the strategy for how to search for martian life. Their research concerns extreme environments on Earth as analogs of possible environments on Mars. No research paper has been submitted by them to any scientific journal asserting martian life."

Evidence of current life on Mars, BadAstronomy.com (scroll down)

"Dr. Carol Stoker wrote: A story has appeared in Space.com which quotes us inaccurately and without permission. The story is based on hearsay and is factually incorrect."

Exclusive: NASA Researchers Claim Evidence of Present Life on Mars, Space.com

"The scientists, Carol Stoker and Larry Lemke of NASA’s Ames Research Center in Silicon Valley, told the group that they have submitted their findings to the journal Nature for publication in May, and their paper currently is being peer reviewed."

NASA: Researchers' Work May Influence Search for Mars Life, But No Evidence Yet, Space.com

"All attendees interviewed gave consistent accounts of Stoker and Lemke’s presentation to the group. Some attendees later had conflicting recollections about what exactly Stoker said about her plans to publish her research. While some said Stoker claimed she had submitted a paper to the journal Nature for publication in May, others said Stoker only mentioned that she was preparing a paper for submission to Nature."

Editor's note:OK Brian: you wrote a story based on what other people told you - and that was good enough for you and your editor to go with waving "exclusive" and then basking in all the media afterglow for having a scoop. Yet, when your story turns out to be incorrect - and NASA takes the rather unprecedented step of issuing a press release to that effect - you try and put the blame upon your hearsay sources which are now, suddenly, not as reliable as you originally thought they were. It would seem that the error lies with your reporting. Yet there is no indication or admission that anyone at Space News/Space.com made any errors in judgement. Curious.

Characterization of a Subsurface Biosphere in a Massive Sulfide Deposit at Rio Tinto, Spain: Implications for Extant Life on Mars (abstract - PDF), Lunar and Planetary Science XXXVI (2005)

C.R. Stoker, T. Stevens, R. Amils, J. Gómez-Elvira, N. Rodríguez, F. Gómez, E. González-Toril, A. Aguilera, D. Fernández-Remolar, S. Dunagan6, L. Lemke, J. Zavaleta, J.L. Sanz

"The results are important since a similar type of environment may have existed on early Mars at the surface at Sinus Merdiani. Sulfide minerals could feasibly be found in the Martian subsurface today, left as a relict of ancient hydrothermalism or even actively produced by current hydrothermal activity. Borehole organisms and chemical processes involved with the interaction of groundwater and pyrite ores are producing hydrogen and methane in significant quantities. A similar subsurface chemoautotrophic biosphere could be living on Mars today and producing methane that, when released to the atmosphere, could potentially be a source for methane that has been observed in the Martian atmosphere by the Mars Express mission."

A whiff of life on the Red Planet, New Scientist

"A leading European Space Agency scientist says he has found a gas in the Martian atmosphere that he believes can only be explained by the presence of life. But the few researchers who have been privy to the facts say that such a conclusion is premature."

Editor's note:the New Scientist article does not reference the claims made in the space.com article by Stoker and Lemke - but does put the Mars Express methane discoveries into perspective. In the space.com story, Stoker and Lemke are purported to have based their conclusions, in part, on the Mars Express methane data. In addition, the New Scientist article disucsses the new detection of formaldehyde by Mars Express.

Plans for Hubble's End Commence

Wrangle over Hubble's future could grow, New Scientist

"NASA has begun a week-long meeting to discuss the possibility of using robots to extend the life of the Hubble Space Telescope. But agency officials say the meeting will focus mainly on ways to simply de-orbit Hubble by guiding it into the atmosphere, crashing it safely into the ocean."

Letter from Sen. Mikulski to Acting NASA Administrator Fred Gregory regarding Hubble servicing mission work

"The funding that I included in the Omnibus Appropriations Act is to ensure that the workforce at Goddard, the Space Telescope Science Institute and their associated contractors remain fully engaged in all aspects of a servicing mission. Any attempt to cancel, terminate or suspend servicing activity would be a violation of the law unless it has the approval of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees."

Senators Weigh in on NASA Aeronautics and Center Cuts

NASA Glenn in 'tougher fight' to survive Bush budget cuts, Cleveland Plain Dealer

"The battle to save NASA Glenn Research Center, slated to lose 700 workers and $120 million by next year, will be tougher than previous threats to the federal space lab's survival, U.S. Sen. Mike DeWine said Monday. "I will be candid. I think this is going to be a tougher fight," said DeWine, in town to meet with center Director Julian Earls and employees..."

Other Voices: NASA is important to us all, Op ed, Sen. George Allen, Daily Press

"I realize that aeronautics funding is an extremely important issue for the Hampton Roads community and, more specifically, those who work at NASA Langley. I'm committed to advancing aeronautics because I believe it benefits America's national security and future competitiveness. As governor and now as a U.S. senator, I will continue to fight hard to bring and keep good-paying jobs in Virginia."

USA Today's Doomsday Scenario

The mission NASA hopes won't happen, USA Today

"Such a mercy mission would be dramatic, the most daring trip in the history of space exploration, but it could also force NASA to break its own safety rules. And it would end the USA's ability to send astronauts into orbit for years, even decades."

Editor's note: How do you arrive at this conclusion, Traci?

First of all - no cause for such a future accident has been put forth - it could well be one beyond NASA's control. Second, there would still be two orbiters left - certainly not the best of situations, but not a total lack of launch capability. Third - no astronauts in orbit for "decades"? Where did you get that? The process of developing the CEV is underway. Flight of the CEV will begin toward the end of this decade. Congress might intervene - but they might well push NASA to retire the Shuttle even sooner and accelerate CEV development as well.

"Any rescue flight also would likely doom the half-built International Space Station, because the station can only be finished through an active shuttle program."

Huh? Soyuz and Progress spacecraft can sill reach it, resupply it, reboost it. Russian ELVs launched some of its main components. To be certain lofting larger pieces would take some work, but to say that the ISS would be doomed is just arm waving on your part. Even if nothing else was not added, it works just fine - and can continue to do so for years. That is hardly the definition of being "doomed".

Further, you criticize NASA for not mounting a rescue mission during the STS-107 mission noting "But independent investigators soon dispelled any beliefs that a rescue would not have succeeded" - a rescue mission that would have had to have been developed in real time and cut many safety corners, yet you are critical of a well- planned rescue mission (STS-300) which "could also force NASA to break its own safety rules." You can't have both both ways. Rescue missions involve risk. You only do them because you have no choice.

Chris Shank is Moving On - But Not Far

Editor's note: Chris Shank is leaving the staff of the House Science Committee. No specific landing site - yet - but he'll be landing somewhere in the DC aerospace community.

There Is a Great Disturbance in the Force ...

Editor's note: Dan Goldin has been consulting for Randy Brinkley at Kistler for the past several months. [Audio 1]

Hutchison wants to put NASA back on course, Houston Chronicle

"She has a real understanding of what NASA ought to be," said George W.S. Abbey, a senior fellow in space policy at Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy and former director of the Johnson Space Center. "She has a picture of what's right for the country as well."

Editor's note: He's ba-ack .... [Audio 1] [Audio 2]

NASA still working to reshape attitudes, USA Today

"Wetherbee says he left out of disappointment at NASA's lack of change and out of hope that he could do some good if he no longer worked there. "It became clear to me ... that upper-level managers did not want to change," he says. "I realized I was ineffective on the inside, so maybe I'll be able to speak out and be more effective on the outside."

NASA's culture still poses danger, ex-astronauts say, USA Today

"Wetherbee, 52, says he left his job on the safety staff at the Johnson Space Center in Houston out of frustration at the slow pace of progress. He still consults for NASA and is writing a book about his time there."

Editor's note: Hmmm.... pangs of guilt from Jim Weatherbee, one of George Abbey's chief henchmen?

Hampton Has Been Through This Before

Aeronautic innovations are at risk as NASA's focus turns to space, Virginia Pilot

"In 1997, Goldin suggested closing wind tunnels and possibly a center. Those close to Langley feared that the Hampton center would be the one. Mayors of Hampton and Newport News and community representatives formed the NASA Aeronautics Support Team to save the center and its jobs. The wind tunnels – and the center – survived. But Langley’s budget has not seen significant increases since."

A Note from the Man Behind Getaway Special Canister Number One

Remarks at the funeral of NASA's Get Away Special Program - An open letter to Dr. Michael Griffin

"But what is the educational community supposed to do...just forget about the space program? Are only the physical and intellectual elite to have access to space, once again? ... Does NASA have a plan to provide an alternative avenue for students to do their own enthusiastic, creative and unfettered experiments with their own space hardware, as they have done for the past twenty years in the SSIP, GAS and Hitchhiker programs?"

Bob Zubrin Resumes His Hubble Rants

Mike Griffin: Hubble Savior or ...?

Nominee Wins Quick Praise for His Technical Expertise, Science

"A test of that position will come soon enough, given O'Keefe's decision not to send the shuttle again to service the telescope. The same day that the White House announced Griffin's nomination, the National Academies released its final report on Hubble calling for a shuttle flight to upgrade the instruments."

Bush's nominee to be NASA administrator faces the challenge of exploring space in an era of tax cuts and runaway deficits, Houston Chronicle

"Griffin, almost certain to be confirmed by the Senate, has an important advantage over his predecessor, Sean O'Keefe. Griffin knows how to explore space. Even if Congress cuts NASA's budget, Griffin would be able to reverse O'Keefe's decision to let the Hubble Space Telescope deteriorate rather than undergo any risk to space shuttle astronauts."

Editor's note: This would of course, be very interesting to watch since Mike Griffin will work for the very same White House which endorsed Sean O'Keefe's decisions regarding Hubble - and adjusted the agency's budget profiles accordingly - two fiscal years in a row. Such a reversal would be a change in Bush Administration policy - and we don't really see a lot of that, now do we?

Elektron Fails (Again) And Is Still Offline

"Elektron is currently off. After it shut down again on Thursday evening (4:55pm EST), the crew attempted to restart it on Friday (3/18) without success."

MOD Rallies The Troops

NASA MOD Internal Memo - Subject: Message to our partners

"As many of you are aware, over the course of the last several months we have taken steps to refresh the symbols or our operations culture. Specifically, both ISS and Space Shuttle are now represented on our MOD emblem, and we have recently completed an important amendment to the "Foundations of Mission Operations", adding 'Vigilance' to our set of core values we embrace both as individuals and as a team.

In hand with rolling out these improvements, we have drafted separate but similar memos to our CB and program partners that communicates what we have done and what it means not only to us but to them as well.

We would like the as much of the MOD family to be signatories to this as we can manage, with the goal of formally transmitting these notes by the end of March."

- Memo to Astronaut Corps - Subject: Vigilance
- Memo to Space Shuttle and ISS Programs - Subject: Vigilance
- Foundations of Mission Operations

Is the Ukraine Following in Russia's Footsteps?

NASA, Ukraine prepare flights to moon, UPI

"NASA and the Ukrainian space agency are preparing unmanned flights to the moon under a joint project, the Interfax-Ukraine news agency reported."

Ukraine recognised that it delivered cruise missiles to Iran and China, Itar-Tass

"Ukraine has recognised that it delivered 12 cruise missiles to Iran and six to China, The Financial Times said on Friday, quoting Ukrainian Prosecutor-General Svyatoslav Piskun."

Teets is Leaving USAF/NRO

Peter B. Teets Announces Departure

"The Hon. Peter B. Teets announced his resignation today as Acting Secretary of the Air Force and director, National Reconnaissance Office effective March 25. Teets came to the Air Force in December 2001 from private industry."

Why Does JPL Take So long to Make Note of Amazing Saturn Images?

20 February 2005: NASA Cassini Image: Dione and Titan, SpaceRef

"This image was taken on February 18, 2005 and received on Earth February 19, 2005. The camera was pointing toward DIONE at approximately 1,267,945 kilometers away..."

17 March 2005: Art and Science, NASA JPL

"The image was taken in visible green light with the Cassini spacecraft narrow-angle camera on Feb. 18, 2005, at a distance of approximately 1.3 million kilometers (808,000 miles) from Dione ..."

Editor's note: Here we go again: Why does it take JPL so long to get around to making note of all of these amazing images arriving from Saturn? Well, if you don't want to wait weeks for JPL to post them, just check out Saturn Today. We check daily for new images - and then make note of them - daily.

3 March 2005 NASA Watch Entry

NASA Cassini Image: Dione Eclipses Tethys as Seen From Cassini (posted on SpaceRef 22 February 2005)

"This image was taken on February 20, 2005 and received on Earth February 21, 2005. The camera was pointing toward Dione [with Tethys behind Dione] at approximately 1,497,164 kilometers away."

Cassini's Private Eclipse (posted by JPL on 3 March 2005)

Editor's note: Why does it take JPL so long to get around to making note of all of these amazing images arriving from Saturn? Well, if you don't want to wait weeks for JPL to post them, just check out Saturn Today. We check daily for new images - and then make note of them - daily.

Farewell to Getaway Specials

[Notice: 05-045] RIN 2700-AC39: NASA Final Rule: Small Self-Contained Payloads (SSCPs)

"Consistent with this new direction and the lack of future flight opportunities, NASA has determined that the SSCP program cannot be sustained as a viable activity, and the program has been terminated. Therefore, NASA has determined that 14 CFR Ch. V 1214.9 is no longer applicable and should be removed."

According to this page: "The SSCP Program, was governed by Code of Federal Regulation, 14 CFR 1214.9 . The CFR is being revoked and NASA is working with all customers to close their individual GAS reservations. Any questions regarding the closing of the GAS Program or an individual GAS reservation, should be directed to the GAS Mission Manager, Barbara Justis at Barbara.J.Justis@nasa.gov."

They Ain't Buying NASA's Assurances in Hampton

Jump and shout - Tell Congress you care about aeronautics and NASA Langley (anonymous opinion), Daily Press

"A lot of the reassurances that come out of Washington aren't very reassuring. So Vic Lebacqz will surely understand that his reassurance that NASA doesn't plan to close Langley Research Center in Hampton would be a lot more reassuring if it were accompanied by bigger budgets and a growing work force at the center. Instead, the trend is all in the other direction."

Other Voices: The threat to NASA Langley, (opinion), Daily Press

"Many fear that if the cuts in the president's current budget are not reversed, it could be the beginning of the end for NASA Langley. Let's hope they're wrong - in terms of this community's well being and, most importantly, in terms of this country's future economic, military and scientific leadership."

Making Spares - On-orbit?

New machines could turn homes into small factories, University of Bath

"A revolutionary machine which can make everything from a cup to a clarinet quickly and cheaply could be in all our homes in the next few years. Research by engineers at the University of Bath could transform the manufacture of almost all everyday household objects by allowing people to produce them in their own homes at the cost of a few pounds. The new system is based upon rapid prototype machines, which are now used to produce plastic components for industry such as vehicle parts."

Editor's note: Now if only you could get this thing to work in microgravity.

Editor's update: A NASA Watch reader informed me that NASA has indeed been looking at how to do this in space. Check out this In Situ Fabrication and Repair page at NASA MSFC. Another reader informed me that LaRC is also working on this technology (see this page) Indeed, they have a portable system that will be flying on a C-9 microgravity aircraft in August. Cool stuff.

Delta IV Heavy Demo Mission Problem Identified

Root Cause Declared for Delta IV Heavy Demo Mission, USAF

"The Boeing Company and the Air Force, supported by The Aerospace Corporation, as part of their on-going investigation, have identified the root cause for the premature Main Engine Cut-Off (MECO) on the Delta IV Heavy Lift Vehicle (HLV) demonstration mission that was launched Dec. 21, 2004."

JSC Buyout Info

NASA JSC Internal Memo: Limited Buyout/Early-Out At JSC

"Our buyout/early-out plan has been approved by NASA Headquarters.  In accordance with NASA Headquarters guidelines, this plan is very limited and targeted to specific excess co