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."

---

The report

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 1.9: "European Space Agency - Automatic Transfer Vehicle and the Columbia Laboratory. Japan – Japanese Experimental Module (JEM, also known as Kibo), HII Transfer Vehicle and the Centrifuge Accommodation Module (CAM)."

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"?

---

Section 1.13 "For instance the effort by Bigelow Aerospace to use Space X launch systems to deploy the SpaceHab facility in low earth orbit suggest that the NASA review only considered limited options in reaching its conclusion."

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

---

Tables in Section 3.0

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

---

Section 3.2.1 "Top management action has been taken to establish the Diaz Committee in order to enhance NASA-wide efforts to increase awareness and concerns for safety; the Return-to- Flight program, headed by Admiral Readdy ...."

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

---

Section 3.2.1: "On the other hand, confidential interviews undertaken by the GW study team with former NASA employees and astronauts, academics in the field and others knowledgeable about NASA programs reveal a different story concerning technical and program management."

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.

---

Section 3.2.1: "John Schwartz, a frequent reporter on NASA-related matters at the New York Times, for instance, wrote a newspaper article on July 9, 2004 that reported on secretly obtained internal space agency documents. These internal documents, according to the Schwartz report, apparently concluded that plans to use the International Space Station as a safe haven for a Shuttle crew in the case that their vehicle could not return to earth "would carry a high risk of failure if it were ever tried." Apparently these documents were presented to the independent Space Shuttle review board in June 2004"

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?

---

Section 3.3.7.3: "The AX-5, a hard, all-metal suit, is being developed by the NASA Ames Research Center (ARC) in California."

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

---

Section 3.4.3: "In short, what seems to be missing from the NESC organization structure are people with skills in engineering management, systems and safety engineers and people who would actively go out and "shake the trees" not only within NASA but within contractor plants to find out if "communications problems" exist and to learn where safety concerns may not be fully addressed."

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?

---

Section 3.4.5: "The great emphasis on new initiatives in the proposed NASA budget for 2005-2009 is on robotics and new vehicles (just above $15 billion over the next 5 years), exploration of Mars ($4.5 billion over the next 5 years) and Exploration of the Moon ($1.3 billion over the next 5 years). The NASA budget for Fiscal year 2005-2006 will thus see progress toward the definition and the design of the Crew Exploration Vehicle and this will indeed involve the definition of the critical safety elements as well. The extent to which safety factors such as crew escape capability are built into the system specifications will have a critical impact on future safety performance. This thus appears to be a critical aspect of the specifications for the Crew Exploration Vehicle and all future vehicles designed to carry crew. (Dennis Overbye, New York Times, April 18, 2004)."

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?

---

Section 3.4.5: "The President's Space Vision, as announced in January 2004, was reported by some analysts to have been significantly shaped by representatives from large aerospace companies. Regardless of whether this analysis is correct, most of the recommendations in the Vision do support larger, big project space missions that favor the largest aerospace companies. (Leslie Wayne, "Pentagon Brass and Military Contractors' Gold")"

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

---

Section 4.3.2.1.2: "Propellant can be used by the Progress spaceship or by the Zverda service module to boost the orbit of the ISS..."

Editor's note: That's "Zvezda"

---

Section 4.3.6: "Studies have shown that there is a 50 percent chance the station would be destroyed within a year if there were no crew on board to rectify problems, although there has been ever-increasing knowledge about how to operate the ISS remotely with no crew aboard for short duration EVAs."

Editor's note: References? Whose studies?

---

Section 4.3.6: "Presently the only escape option for the crew of the ISS is to evacuate with the use of the Soyuz lifeboat that has certain limitations. Only if an upgraded Soyuz were ordered from Russia under new Astronaut Space Safety Report March 2005 enabling legislation from Congress could a full crew be accommodated."

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

---

Section 4.3.6 "Finding: It would appear necessary for efforts to be undertaken immediately to be able to procure a viable number of Progress1M/Soyuz vehicles both in terms of a waiver to the Iran non-proliferation..."

Editor's note: That's Progress M1

---

Section 4.4: "Review of potential terrorist threats The possibility of terrorist threat to either the Space Shuttle or the ISS seems remote to most people involved in the U.S. space program since the Space Shuttle facilities are reasonably well protected and that once in space the vehicles are physically remote from any would-be attackers. The nature of possible attacks on the ISS must be broken down into various elements.

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.

---

Section 7.1.3: "Spiral Development Concept for the CEV - The winner of the fly-off in a few years time will, in theory, design the CEV and also take command of follow-on systems via what has been described as longer-term spiral development as follows. ("Crew Exploration Vehicle", www.wikipedia.com):"

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?

---

A NASA Watch reader adds:

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

Editor's note: And I suppose The wealth of technical advice at NASA was simply unavailable to Mr. O'Keefe?

"Mr. O'Keefe countered by ordering high- level NASA officials who were known to be ardent supporters of Hubble to take public stands supporting his decision. The disgusting spectacle of bureaucratic self-humiliation that followed was more reminiscent of a Stalin-era show trial than a technical debate, and appropriately, only excited derision in the press."

Editor's note: "Stalin"? Really Bob - your armwaving has reached a new height - or rather, a new low this time.

"Mr. O'Keefe subsequently announced his resignation, but then, before departing, submitted a NASA budget containing no funds for either SM4 or robotic repair."

Editor's note: Uh, Bob, that was the budget the White House submitted to Congress.

"NASA calculates that if Hubble were to re-enter without direction, there is a 1/10,000 chance that the resulting debris would strike someone. That works out to a probability of one life saved per $3 trillion spent. If life-saving is the mission, $300 million could do a lot more good spent on tsunami relief, body armor for the troops, highway safety barriers, childhood vaccinations, swimming lessons, take your pick."

"Instead of stupidly and heartlessly wasting $300 million to destroy Hubble, we should use $100 million to save and upgrade this gem of science and civilization, and spend the other $200 million to save the lives of tens of thousands of destitute children far more worthy of our charity than the Hubble deorbit program."

Editor's note: Save Hubble for the world's children? Gee, why not lend a helping hand. The billions that you want to be spent on a human mission to Mars could do even greater humanitarian good, eh Bob?

"The damage done to NASA and the new space initiative by Mr. O'Keefe's irrational actions has been substantial, and threatens to become much worse and long lasting if his decision is allowed to stand. Effectively, by choosing the most valuable part of the old space program and selecting it for destruction as collateral damage of implementing the new, the former Administrator has branded the President's vision with the mark of Cain."

Editor's note: Biblical condemnation? Wow. I can wait to see what you hurl at O'Keefe next, Bob.

"Americans committed to a sane, moral, and courageous space policy need to mobilize now to save Hubble. Everyone should call their own Senators and Congressional representatives, ask to speak to their legislative aides, and demand that the SM4 mission to save and upgrade Hubble be reinstated, and that not a penny of the taxpayers' money be spent on the immoral Hubble de-orbit mission."

Editor's note: So those who support the abandonment of Hubble at the end of its mission are immoral Bob?

Once again, Bob, my advice is for you to sit down, and shut up. As was the case with your earlier bout of arm waving, Your latest Hubble rant has nothing to do with Mars and serves only to inflame emotions instead of encouraging rational discussion.

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 competencies and/or functions within JSC.  The positions included were reviewed and approved by organizational and Center Management.  Employees who may be eligible will be notified by their supervisors.  The eligible employees may then volunteer for buyout consideration.  Those who receive final approval must be off the Center's rolls by April 3, 2005."

No LaRC Closure

Aeronautics official: NASA Langley won't close, Daily Press

"Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Chesapeake, asked NASA's top aeronautics official whether the agency planned to close Langley, which next year faces a proposed 17 percent budget cut and hundreds of layoffs. "No," answered Vic Lebacqz, associate administrator for NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate."

Hearings on FY 2006 Defense Authorization Budget Request for Space Activities

Prepared Statements:

- Hon. Peter Teets
- General James Cartwright
- General Lance Lord
- Lieutenant General Larry Dodgen
- Vice Admiral Joseph Sestak

Griffin Moves from Designee to Nominee

Editor's note: NASA Watch has learned that Mike Griffin has now made the transition from NASA Administrator designee to nominee with the transmittal of the formal nomination paper work and notification of the U.S. Senate. It is uncertain whether there will be a formal White House event to announce Griffin's nomination since the White House has already issued a statement and the process is now well underway to have him confirmed. No date has been set yet for his confirmation hearings.

Feedback: What Do You Think Of Mike Griffin's Selection?

Editor's note: What do you think of President Bush's selection of Mike Griffin to be the next NASA Administrator? Send your comments to nasawatch@reston.com - and let us know if you are a NASA civil servant/contractor, general public, etc. If we can use your name/affiliation, please let us know.

Your comments so far:

---

Keith

Reading between the lines in some of Griffin's commentary over the last year, it seems like he might just have the stones to suggest that we drop the ISS into the ocean and use the money it frees up to pay for exploration. Now THAT would be a plan.

Don't use my name. I'm a 20 yr CS at GRC

---

Keith,

I am a NASA GSFC civil servant. Please do not use my name, as my personal email address is very similar to my NASA email. That said:

Mr. Griffin has an  opportunity to tilt NASA's Exploration vision toward science, or away from it. If it is away, NASA should be abolished.

1) There is no plan at all for any other spacecraft to leave the solar system this century. Restore the $23M--this is exploration!;
2) The Centrifuge Facility is the only (in my opinion) science on the ISS that relates to exploration--why is anyone even thinking of killing it?
3) NASA has two As. I think both are important. Killing one for the other is not right, nor in the best interest of the country.

None of the three points above benefits me, or my Center...

Also, I love the Hubble, but let it die. After hearing the presentation by the Dep. Program Manager of the Shuttle, last year at the PM Conf., I am convinced that O'Keefe  made the right decison (this stunned me personally).

---

Keith,

The selection of Mr. Griffin appears to be a good one from all of the commentary, but it is too early to condemn him. He is inheriting a dysfunctional agency, which has failed miserably in virtually all its major programs over the last 15 years, including ISS, X33, X34, SLI, and OSP etc. Although some of these programs have declared success and moved on. It is clear, even to the layman, that the return on investment has been less then desirable.  If one objectively analyzes the common elements one begins to see that many of the people contributing to these failures (many of them are up here right now) are now in place running the current "vision" and committing many of the same mistakes of the past. Mr. Griffin may be nothing more then a new leash on the same old dog. The agency needs a LEADER that gets EVERYONE moving in the same direction toward a common goal. Right now the existing leadership behaves like a  bunch of cats all doing what they want with their own agendas, not only at the agency level but also within ESMD. If he is a LEADER with a clear vision then he may succeed in herding all of these "CATS" if not he will fail, its no more complicated then that. Ask this same question a year after he is confirmed, and see what progress or lack there of has been made.

NASA HQ Civil Servant who has seen it all before at HQ

please do not show my e-mail address

---

Mr. Griffin has a long road ahead of him. I have been part of our space program for 40 years. I see the present NASA employees with a look of apathy, despair and uncertainty. I have seen that look before. This was the look after the Challenger accident. In my opinion NASA needs an inspirational Leader. The men and women that put Americans on the moon had a shared vision. They have left NASA. The present generation needs a challenge and inspiration to share a new vision. Trust has been broken and Leadership absent. The people are willing to follow a Leader. Mr. Griffin inspire us.

A long time fan of NASA

NAME: CEUS DEV C THANKACHAN
India

---

I applaud the nomination of Dr. Griffin. Perhaps for the first time in NASA's history, a true, full-fledged aero engineer PhD will lead the agency. For too long, the head of NASA has been a political post - and the nation's space programs have suffered. After all, has the National Institutes of Health or the National Science Foundation ever had a non-scientist in charge? Why should NASA be any different?

That said, I would strongly caution that Dr. Griffin not fall victim to "technological hubris". He must become fully aware of budgetary and programmatic realities. His optimistic - and somewhat contradictory - assumptions on costing in a recent Planetary Society report on exploration that he co-led seem to indicate that he needs more homework in this area.

Nevertheless, good luck to him and the new team that he will form (after flushing the system of many NASA staff that may be well intentioned, but completely lack the requisite technological skills and prowess).

Name with-held

---

Keith,

(Yes, I'm a CS, but please don't use my name.)

I knew Mike Griffin when I worked in the Exploration Program Office at JSC in the early 90's. He is a very impressive man. Exceedingly competent, both with the rocket equation as well as budgets and schedules. I've been quietly hoping that he would get his chance as Administrator. I have thought he was the best person for the job since 1993. One caveat, however, he can be an impatient man. Should he ever think that the Bush Administration or the Congress has double-crossed him, he'll be outta there.

Exploration fan at GRC

---

I an independent planetary science reesearcher based in KENYA, EAST AFRICA.
I do beleave that given the support from all members of staff, MIKE will do his best,
best regards,
T. N. MWANGI

---

Keith,

As retired NASA MSFC plus successful career in Aerospace Industry and 10 years as a Volunteer in Academia (UAH Propulsion Research Center), I am glad to endorse Dr. Griffin as NASA Administrator.  Normally, I consider the NASA Administrator as a Political job rather than a technical job.  However, Adm. Steidle has the agency so screwed up it will take someone of Dr. Griffin's caliber to straighten it out.

For instance, Adm. Steidle believes Space Flight is equivalent to building a Mach 3 airplane.  There is a hell of lot difference in Mach 30 and Mack 3.  If I understood President Bush's Space Exploration Initiative correctly, he said for us to return to the Moon and use the Moon as stepping stones to Mars and beyond.  The President said that we have to develop a sustainable program for approximately $16 Billion per year.  This was a great "go do", but the President's "go do" is one leg of a three legged stool.  The second leg is Congressional Support (535 ladies and gentlemen elected to congress).  The third leg of the stool is John Q. Public support.

Adm. Steidle came to town and fixed the schedule dates for the Space Exploration Program.  Now if the funding is fixed, the schedule must be a variable.  The Adm. also did not plan any new ETO Launch Vehicles.  The reliability of the World's some 5,000 historical space launches are 0.95 to date.  To improve this reliability, we must go to Reusable Launch Vehicles to ETO.

At least Dr. Griffin is competent in the areas of Manned Spaceflight and will be able to put some realism into the President's Space Exploration Initiative and get competent technical people who know how to get things done as we did in the "old NASA" in the early days.  I believe the current set of rules and regulations would have stopped the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs.

Jim Sanders
NASA MSFC Retired

---

I think Mr. Griffin has a long road ahead of him. I have been part of our space program for 40 years. I see the present NASA employees with a look of apathy, despair and uncertainty. I have seen that look before. This was the look after the Challenger accident. In my opinion NASA needs an inspirational Leader. The men and women that put Americans on the moon had a shared vision. They have left NASA. The present generation needs a challenge and inspiration to share a new vision. Trust has been broken and Leadership absent. The people are willing to follow a Leader. Mr. Griffin inspire us.

A long time fan of NASA

---

Hi NASA,

I am very pro-Space exploration and not for looking for little green men (and NASA shouldn't be either) but to advance our knowledge of the universe.  I'm employed by a large company that does work for defense; in the air, on land, on and under the sea and in space.  The position of Director/Administrator of NASA needs to be someone who has an advanced degree in science with a good track record and with a good finance head on their shoulders.  When I read that the Hubble was about to be written off I knew that NASA was hurting.   I think that Mike Griffin will be a fresh breeze for the country and for NASA and we can get going back to the Moon and Mars and beyond.  NASA needs a strong voice with a sense of itself for the public and for Congress.  We need a long range plan that is very forward looking.  Let's not repeat the mistake we made after the Apollo program.  I'd like to see the National Academy of Sciences have a bigger hand in NASA.

Richard Cox

---

I first met Mike Griffin when he was the Technical Vice-President  of the American Rocket Company (AMROC), whose intellectual property rights SpaceDev acquired to build the SpaceShipOne hybrid motor.  He is as good as it gets for the job of Administrator.  He has the brains, the education, the widely varied experiences (both inside and outside government) and the intellectual hunger needed for blasting NASA out of low earth orbit. NASA is in for a very interesting ride under his tutelage.  Go, Mike.

Gil Moore, Director, Project Starshine, Monument, CO

---

What is mr. griffin's stand on the hubble? more knowledge and understanding of the universe has been acquired in the years of the hubble than all of the previous years of human existence combined. hire spaceship 0ne for the job ??

phillip lacock
roswell n.m.

---

Reading the Mike Griffin Resume, I consider that President Bush has made an excellent selection. Maybe the most intelligent of his administration. Mike Griffin has the perfect combination of manager and space scientific. As a friend told me, Griffin has the technology "Right Stuff"  I hope that he has the enough politician support in order to modernize NASA and give to the US Program a strong reason to be, specially in the field of the manned flights.  However, the History always has the last world.

Francisco Galué
space columnist and amateur astronomer
Maracaibo, Venezuela

---

Dear Keith,

I've not met Michael Griffin, but his record to date indicates an encouraging mastery of both technology and leadership.  APL has an excellent record of building leading-edge space technology that works.  Griffin's past statements on space policy are hopeful as well.  The President may just have found the right man to tackle a seemingly impossible mission. 

Griffin faces the dual challenge of reinvigorating the space agency while persuading Congress and the American people to think beyond next year's budget and the desire for short-term economic and political returns.  If we wait until we have solved every human problem on Earth to everybody's satisfaction, we will wait forever, and Griffin must articulate this.   While the space entrepreneurs are making important contributions, the history of large-scale exploration shows that governments either led the way or created the right conditions.  NASA cannot do the job alone, but NASA is the catalyst, the agency that must lead the United States and the world into an age of exploration that will inspire our children, demonstrate the greatness that our nation and our people are capable of, and ensure the long-term survival and prosperity of humanity.  The VSE is the last chance to expand our horizons for at least a generation.  It cannot be allowed to fail.  The future is worth fighting for, and Mike Griffin seems well aware of that.

Good luck, Dr. Griffin. 

Matt Bille
Space writer/historian
Colorado Springs

---

It's hard to tell at this point but all indicators point to him being better than O'Keefe or Goldin. At least he has some NASA blood in him. If he can pronounce "library" and "nuclear" correctly then we're off to a good start.

But the real test will be in what he actually does. Will he have the guts to do as Admiral Gehman suggested and get rid of those who have caused such deterioration in the Agency? If not then I will not be impressed. The overhead problem at Langley is the same as all over the Agency. It's more about managers who are more of the problem than the solution than it is about money.

Langley technician - one of a dying breed

---

A good plan, first a NASA Administrator who comes in and cleans up the books (so to speak), clears a bit of the dead wood, resets the path and then a second NASA Administrator who has exploration in his bones. Let's hope for the best!

---

As a bonafide rocket scientist, Mr. Griffin will no doubt bring a complete mastery of boosters, upper stages, propellents, upmass/downmass, habitable volumes, rendezvous/docking, debris/radiation mitigation, long-duration life support and countless other challenges to reaching the Moon and Mars. But will he be able to grapple that harmless little piece of paper, known as a dollar bill, that in sufficient numbers could delay or cripple major program objectives? I'm glad to see his resume includes an MBA, in addition to all his scientifically-oriented credentials.

Eric Fischer
Pittsburgh, pa

---

I am very pleased and impressed by Mike Griffin and look forward to his tenure as NASA Administrator. His experience, education, as well as comments from colleagues who have worked with him lead me to believe he is extremely qualified person to lead the Agency out of what has been a rather tumultuous transformation onto executing our ambitious vision for space exploration. He certainly has my full support and confidence.

I am a civil servant at NASA Ames and my opinions are my own. You may use my name and affiliation.

Greg Dorais, NASA ARC

---

Mike Griffin appears to be a good choice But in reality about anyone would have been a huge improvement, I feel.  Holding back the Shuttles to protect the Astronauts is about as futile a plan as one could have.  No one in the program has any doubt of the danger or risks involved and the last thing anyone involved likely wants is politicians trying to protect them thereby getting us behind in the overall Space race.  Like it or not, it still exists and We Are No Longer Leading, Thank You, Oh Great Protectors.  Many of the People in the program desire the risk and the rush, not to feel sheltered by mis-guided efforts of politically motivated people with whatever interests leading them.  I believe NASA needs a true leader with militant characteristics that will allow people to be heroes when heroes are needed.  No one involved is Not willing to give their life IF it must be that way But let's DO make Every effort to make All the programs the very safest we can possibly put in the air. And that is One radical viewpoint from where else but Oregon.

J Gilliland

---

Griffin is the perfect choice to lead NASA in implementing the VSE. As a true believer in space exploration and human settlement in space he has exactly what is needed to return NASA to what once was and should always be its core mission. With his background, education and experience he should satisfy all those who believe that the NASA Administrator should be either an engineer, an accountant or an managerial type as he has done them all. And Keith, your appraisal of him as someone who stands on principal means a lot with me. That is possibly needed as much or more than any of his other qualifications.

I firmly believe Griffin has the potential to be the best Administrator NASA has ever had.

No name please.

---

Michael Griffin appears to have what is needed to take NASA to the next level. He has the technical background and the business acumen to make the right decisions. His challenge is to cut through the !@#$ that the current leaders in NASA will try to present. If he takes a hard look at the agency's vision, streamline the core competencies to what is needed for Space Exploration and disband what is not needed, he will be able to succeed. He probably needs an outside peer review of what the agency is currently saying is needed for Space Exploration. He needs to start the process of reducing the overburdened complement of civil servants and contractors. Then and only then can he accomplish the space exploration mission within the budget identified by the administration.

I am a former NASA employee (ret. 1995) and a current NASA contractor. I do not want my name used.

---

Good morning,

Mr Griffin is an unknown to me so I cannot comment on his fitness to lead NASA. I do know that the last two Administrators have done absolutely nothing to protect and help NASA in it's quest to maintain a technological edge. We have been lead from one social experiment to another without accomplishing much in the way of hard science, and that is a terrible waste of the outstanding scientists we have witnin NASA. I am a believer in exploration; not for what will be ultimately found but rather for the technology that must be developed to achieve deep-space exploration. From those technologies come the spin-offs that benefit all mankind. Please identify me only as an MSFC contractor. Thank you.

---

Great! When does he start kicking butt? (NASA LaRC)

---

Greetings,

I am withholding judgement on the selection of Mike Griffin until he has had sufficient time to demonstrate whether he will work to undo the deterioration in aeronautics research funding that has occurred over the last several years. I am afraid that he will do no such thing, and foolishly continue the obsession with the exploration vision that Mr. O'Keefe began, but I will continue to hope otherwise, unless and until his actions destroy these hopes.

(I am a NASA Civil Servant at Langley Research Center. You may identify me as Michael @ NASA Langley, but please do not use my full name.)

Substantial Cuts Ahead For NASA Space Life Science?

Space Biology Advocates Join Forces in Talks with Capitol Hill, ASGSB/AIAA

"The Centrifuge is a unique variable gravity research device: there is simply no way on the ground to determine the long term risks of Lunar and Mars gravity to living systems. In addition, key questions about the use of artificial gravity as a countermeasure to the detrimental effects of long-term diminished gravity as they apply to human explorers cannot be clearly answered without the Centrifuge."

Bush's Vision for Space Means Big Cuts Elsewhere at NASA, Washington Post

"Also on the block is the space station's Centrifuge Accommodation Module, an eight-foot-diameter device under construction for NASA at Ames by the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency."

ASGSB Governing Board Visits Capitol Hill in March to Share the ASGSB Message, American Society for Gravitational and Space Biology

"Although the President's FY05 budget request for Human Health and Performance of $423M reflected a slight rise from the FY04 budget, the budget request drops in FY06 to $299M and remains low for FY07 through FY10 ($303M, $320M, $328M, $340M). These projections are inconsistent with the critical role that biology plays in space exploration."

Biologists identify chemicals affecting plant growth in response to gravity, University of California Riverside

"A team of biologists from the University of California, Riverside has used chemical genomics to identify novel compounds that affect the ability of plants to alter their direction of growth in response to gravity, a phenomenon known as gravitropism. The team's chemical genomics approach focuses on the use of small molecules to modify or disrupt the functions of specific genes or proteins. NASA supported the research."

Editor's note: This is the sort of research NASA is most likely going to stop funding. Such research could have applications in the design of advanced life support systems for use in microgravity or in reduced gravity locations such as the Moon and Mars. Word on how NASA will alter its life science research program aboard the ISS so as to align it with the VSE will be announced in April. The fate of the Centrifuge Facility which, in many ways, was the Hubble analog for space biologists in its unprecedented ability to provide a range of simulated G loads on research specimens is likely to be eliminated - or delayed so much as to be effectively cancelled. Stay tuned.

ISS CMG2 is Offline

Editor's note: ISS CMG 2 (Control Moment Gyroscope), one of three aboard the ISS, is off-line because a RPCM (Remote Power Controller Module) opened, thus removing power to the CMG.  This is the same RPCM that was installed last year during an EVA to replace another RPCM which had failed, also taking CMG 2 offline.

NASA Space Station On-Orbit Status 16 March 2005

"Early this morning, the external Remote Power Controller switch #17 (RPC-17) tripped open, shutting down CMG-2 (control moment gyroscope #2). Automatic software reconfigured the steering law for the two remaining gyros, CMG-3 & CMG-4. Assessment of the anomaly is underway. [After a similar "Failed Open" trip of RPC-17 on 4/21/2004, CMG-3 & CMG-4 performed nominally for two months, with the Russian ACS (attitude control system) thrusters ready to take over at any moment, until the power switch was replaced on 6/30/04 by Padalka and Fincke on EVA-9B.]"

Aeronautics Hearing

House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics Hearing: The Future of Aeronautics at NASA

- Rep. Udall: Aeronautics Research Key to Nation's Economy, Security, Competitiveness
- Opening Statement by Rep. Mark Udall: Hearing on NASA's Aeronautics Program

- Hearing charter

Prepared Statements:
- J. Victor Lebacqz, NASA
- John M. Klineberg, NAS
- M. J. Benzakein, Ohio State
- Philip S. Anton, RAND Corp
- R. John Hansman, Jr., MIT International Center for Air Transportation
- Rep. Ken Calvert, Subcommittee Chair

"There is a lot of concern that the investment in aeronautics research and development by this Nation has been limping along for several years, and that there is a lack of a national strategy. Over the next five years, NASA is proposing to reduce its aeronautics workforce by approximately 2000 people and to shut down a number of its wind tunnels. The questions that I have are: Are these wise decisions for our Nation? Should NASA develop a national strategy for aeronautics before these valuable assets and skills are lost? If there is such a national strategy, is NASA aligned to support that national strategy? Does NASA have a Human Capital Strategy or are these personnel cuts solely for budget purposes?"

NASA cuts threaten future of US aeronautics, New Scientist

"Philip Anton, director of the non-profit RAND Acquisition and Technology Policy Center in Santa Monica, California, agrees that closing one or more of the main wind tunnels and propulsion test facilities may alleviate short-term budget pressures. But he says the cuts would hurt the industry in the long run. "It often takes a decade to build these kinds of major facilities, and more years to fund them - replacing all of these facilities would cost billions," he told the subcommittee."

NASA Proposal to Reduce Spending for Aviation Research by 20% Dismays Experts, NY Times

"I am generally dismayed by the magnitude and trend of the proposed NASA aeronautics budget," Dr. R. John Hansman Jr. of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said at a hearing of the House Science Committee Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics."

NY Times: Mike is Great - But Why Do This Moon-Mars Stuff?

A Talented Leader for NASA, editorial, NY Times

"Dr. Griffin was no doubt chosen in part because he is a strong advocate of human spaceflight and of the president's plans to return to the Moon and proceed to Mars. But he is no mindless cheerleader for NASA. In testimony last year, he questioned why so little was expected to result from the tens of billions of dollars that would be spent on the Moon-Mars program in coming years. He also suggested that the $60 billion needed to finish the space station would produce nothing of commensurate value."

Has the Texas Gulf coast lifestyle rubbed off on Salizhan?

Official caption: "Cosmonaut Salizhan S. Sharipov, Expedition 10 flight engineer representing Russia's Federal Space Agency, holds the Progress supply vehicle probe-and-cone docking mechanism in the Zvezda Service Module of the International Space Station (ISS).""

Editor's note: Look closely at this image. In the right hand corner is a calendar (in Russian) which features a speed boat. Hmmm ... has the Texas Gulf coast lifestyle rubbed off on Salizhan - and the folks back home?

Challenges for Griffin

Sky-high objectives, Editorial, Orlando Sentinel

"Analysts see Mr. Griffin's biggest challenge as winning support from a skeptical Congress and public for the president's plan to send astronauts back to the moon and eventually to Mars. Indeed, persuading Congress to dedicate the dollars to sustain that worthy mission will be difficult in an era of deep deficits."

VAFB Launch Schedule Page Goes Dark

Vandenberg launch schedule pulled from Web site, KESQM

"Because of security concerns, the Air Force is no longer providing an online schedule for unclassified launches at Vandenberg Air Force Base."

CRS Report on ISS and the Iran Nonproliferation Act

The Iran Nonproliferation Act and the International Space Station: Issues and Options, Congressional Research Service

"According to current plans, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) will become dependent on Russia for certain ISS crew-related services beginning in April 2006 for which NASA must pay. Thus, the INA could significantly affect U.S. utilization of ISS. This report outlines the history of INA, its effect on Russian and Iranian proliferation, its impact on the ISS program, and options for resolving associated issues."

The Economist Ponders America's Future in Space

No plan B for outer space, The Economist

"Here's a wizard idea. Spend $40 billion building a big tin can in orbit round the Earth, in order—at least in part—to keep the rocket scientists of your former enemy from going to work for your current enemies. Then find that a law intended to stop the current enemies getting their hands on such rocket scientists' knowledge means you can no longer use this expensive tin can. Confused? You are not the only one."

Latest ISS/Shuttle Schedule

NASA ISS Flight Program Launch Schedule 3 March 2005, NASA

Editor's note: The following chart shows the updated ISS Flight Program Launch graphic.

This chart addresses the launches to the ISS during the next 20 months per CR 9183 (Reference Assembly Sequence) 10 March 2005 and the OZ Working Launch dates as of 3 March 2005).

Slightly Different Takes on Mike Griffin's Selection

Editor's note: Klyde Morris has some thoughts on Mike Griffin's selection. Of course, if Griffin ever decides to bail out of NASA on short notice, he apparently has another, not widely appreciated, career to fall back on.

Oops

Hopkins Physicist, Engineer Tapped to Head NASA, Washington Post

"The White House issued no statement in announcing the nomination..."

White House Statement on the Nomination of Michael Griffin to be NASA Administrator

"The President intends to nominate Michael D. Griffin, of Virginia, to be Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration."

Bud Cramer Doesn't Waste Any Time

Cramer has ear of NASA top man, Huntsville Times

"Cramer said he took the quick call from Griffin as a sign that the new administrator knows he needs to be consulted. "He seemed to be aware by the nature of his call that I was becoming a problem for NASA headquarters," Cramer said."

ARC Pursues Alternate Models of Organization and Cutting Costs

NASA ARC Internal Memo: Message from the Director - Cost Reductions and Efficiencies

"We need to take immediate actions to maintain competitive overhead rates and control the cost of doing business. In implementing full cost management, we must also be mindful that individual Programs may have specific needs for hiring or purchases. However, project implementation is the responsibility of the Center and as such we must ask the Program Managers to accommodate any near term disruption. In the long run, lower costs help all programs."

NASA ARC Memo: Message from the Director - Alternative Models of Organization

"... the NASA Organization Model and Evaluation Team (NOMET) that was created as a result of the President's Commission also recommended several models for the Centers to evaluate for organizing to meet the Vision for Space Exploration. Specifically related to Ames, the NOMET team concluded that the University Affiliated Research Center (UARC) was potentially a good first step toward an operating model, and that other models may also be applicable for a NASA R&D Center and should continue to be explored."

Reaction to Griffin Nomination

Congratulations to Dr. Michael Griffin, AIAA
- DeLay: President's Choice for NASA the Right One; Dr. Griffin Will Implement Bold New Vision for Space Exploration
- Mike Griffin: A Superb Choice for NASA Administrator, Mars Society
- Science Committee Democrats Welcome NASA Administrator Nominee
- Boehlert, Calvert Praise Nomination of Mike Griffin as NASA Administrator
- Space Foundation comments on nomination of Mike Griffin To be NASA administrator
- Griffin Good for Space Exploration, Says Planetary Society
- The Right Person at the Right Time - NSS applauds choice of Dr. Michael Griffin for NASA Administrator
- Rep. Weldon Statement on President Bush's Nomination of Michael Griffin for NASA Administrator
- Sen. Hutchison statement on NASA Administrator nomine
- Rep. Calvert Applaudes Nomination of Griffin as New NASA Administrator

Mike Griffin on the Future of Shuttle and ISS

Bush picks exploration advocate as new NASA head, Orlando Sentinel

"Griffin was the co-leader of a 2004 study by a space advocacy group that recommended accelerating the shuttle's planned 2010 retirement to speed up work on a new manned ship. He questioned the wisdom of spending tens of billions of additional dollars on the international space station during congressional testimony last year."

Extending Human Presence into the Solar System, PDF, Planetary Society

"Given the unique capabilities of the Shuttle (delivery and berthing of large payloads, robotic and EVA capabilities, large down-mass capacity), its return to flight is imperative for rapid completion of the ISS. The tailoring of most completed ISS hardware for Shuttle launch argues for keeping the Shuttle operational until delivery of international partner modules. However, most ISS logistical needs might well be met using partner assets like the Russian Progress and the ESA’s Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV)."

Editor's personal note: Of course, this report is the product of a number people - not just Griffin.

Statement By Michael D. Griffin - House Science Committee Hearing: "Perspectives on the President's Vision for Space Exploration"

"NASA should initiate development of a heavy lift launch vehicle having a payload capacity of at least 100 metric tons to low Earth orbit (LEO). Such a vehicle is the single most important physical asset enabling human exploration of the solar system. The use of shuttle-derived systems offers what is quite likely to be the most costeffective near-term approach."

"But the more important question is whether the return to be obtained from the use of ISS to support exploration objectives is worth the money yet to be invested in its completion. The nation, through the NASA budget, plans to allocate $32 B to ISS (including ISS transport) through 2016, and another $28 B to shuttle operations through 2011. This total of $60 B is significantly higher than NASA's current allocation for human lunar return. It is beyond reason to believe that ISS can help to fulfill any objective, or set of objectives, for space exploration that would be worth the $60 B remaining to be invested in the program."

Mike Fincke Serves Short Tour of Duty on a Starship

Production Report: Final Enterprise Episode Wraps

"There were other special guests in the cast of this episode. Playing an NX-01 Engineer in one scene was NASA astronaut Mike Fincke. Fincke made news on STARTREK.COM in December when he and Russian cosmonaut Gennady Padalka received a "Starfleet Award" after their return from a six-month mission on the International Space Station (related story). During his stay in orbit, Fincke had an opportunity to speak with Scott Bakula using a very-long-distance phone connection; now he was able to chat with him in person!"

NASA To Shut Down Two Interstellar Probes

NASA Plans to Turn Off Several Satellites, Science (subscription)

"NASA intends to stop operating more than a half-dozen existing science probes at the end of this year, including the famed Voyager 1 and 2 spacecraft now racing toward the edge of the solar system. Although space agency officials say no final decisions have been made, the agency's 2006 budget request includes no money for a host of solar and space physics projects that currently cost a total of $23 million annually."

Editor's note: This is certainly shortsighted on NASA's part: humanity shuts down two interstellar probes for want of a trivial amount of money in the overall scheme of things. Perhaps the Drake equation - you know, the one that is used by some to estimate the prevalence and lifespan of technological civilizations in the cosmos - should have a new variable added: budget.

Mike Griffin - On The Record

10 March 2004: Statement By Michael D. Griffin - House Science Committee Hearing: "Perspectives on the President's Vision for Space Exploration"

"With regard to the moon, I believe the experience to be gained by living on and exploring another planetary surface only a few days away from home will be invaluable to the successful conduct of a future Mars expedition. Certainly such experience is not essential; one can readily envision a Mars expedition architecture which does not employ any further lunar experience as a stepping stone. But because it can be envisioned does not make it wise. I personally consider it an act of technological hubris to proceed directly to Mars, with no human experience beyond Earth orbit having been incurred since 1972. It can be done, and it will be cheaper, but the risk to both the mission goals and to human life will be significantly higher."

7 April 2004: Testimony of Michael Griffin, Senate Science, Technology, and Space Hearing: Near Earth Objects

6 October 2003: Prepared Statement of Dr. Michael D. Griffin: "The Future of Human Space Flight"

8 May 2003: Testimony of Michael D. Griffin Hearing on the NASA Orbital Space Plane Program

27 October 1999: Testimony of Michael Griffin before the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, House Committee on Science

Its Mike Griffin

White House Statement on the Nomination of Michael Griffin to be NASA Administrator

NASA personnel will be briefed by Fred Gregory at 3:30 PM EST this afternoon.

Editor's personal note: In 1993, during the redesign of Space Station Freedom, many of us felt that the books had been cooked by NASA HQ such that the SS Freedom configuration (Option B) was deliberately handicapped and that the other two options A (MSFC) and C (JSC) were given an unfair advantage. Hardly an apples to apples review. Mike Griffin, who led the Option B effort (headquartered at LaRC) wrote a letter for the record at one point, standing squarely on principle and pointing out the discrepancies and inequities in that review process. That letter received wide circulation - and Mike's NASA career suffered as a result. He was promoted to some pointless job by Dan Goldin and eventually left the agency. I can say from personal experience, that Mike Griffin has demonstrated personal integrity - and did so in a public way that was rather career adverse. I expect he will bring that same integrity to the job of NASA Administrator. As such, yes, at this point, I am biased in this regard.

PeTe's in Houston is Closing

Update: From someone@jsc.nasa.gov: "Just back from PeTe's. Les said that they will likely re-open (I assume under different ownership) soon. There weren't any signs saying they were closing, but he did confirm today is their last day at least for a while. There was a nice smattering of regulars, but in general a smaller crowd than a typical Friday."

Editor's note:From someone@nasa.gov via someone.not@nasa.gov: "Their last day is tomorrow, Friday 11th March.  PeTe's has been around forever and aside from having great BBQ it's also an historic 'space' landmark here in Houston.  A bunch of us are meeting there for an extended lunch tomorrow.  All and any are welcome.  No real time set, just turn up and weep with the rest of us.  Houston just won't be the same without PeTe's!"

Details Of Personnel Changes Emerge - Slowly

Shift to moon-Mars focus affects 2,680 NASA jobs, Government Executive

"About 15 percent of NASA's civil service workforce will be transferred or paid to leave by the end of fiscal 2006 as the agency focuses on President Bush's vision for exploring the moon and Mars."

NASA Plans Cuts By Summer '06, Washington Post

"NASA said yesterday that it plans to cut its full-time workforce by as much as 15.3 percent by the summer of 2006, putting 2,680 jobs at risk as the agency refocuses its activities toward President Bush's exploration initiative to the moon and Mars."

NASA Langley offers another buyout, Daily Press

"In a continuing effort to reduce its work force, NASA Langley Research Center started on Thursday its third and most expansive buyout offer of the fiscal year."

NASA juggles work force as it shifts focus to Mars, Houston Chronicle

"About one of every seven NASA workers nationwide will be transferred or paid to leave in the next 1 1/2 years as the space agency focuses on President Bush's moon-Mars exploration plan, officials said Thursday."

Expect buyouts at NASA Glenn, Crains Cleveland

"The NASA Glenn Research Center can expect another round of employee buyouts in the next few months as the agency looks to slash the center’s work force by 700 jobs, said NASA associate deputy administrator James Jennings."

NASA sees task as job 'reshaping', Hunsville Times

"By fiscal 2007, NASA hopes to trim or find new projects - and money - for the equivalent of 2,680 full-time jobs agencywide, perhaps avoiding layoffs, he said. Details about how many jobs might be affected at Marshall Space Flight Center - or any other center - were not available. "We haven't worked through that," Jennings said."

Final NAS Rpeort on Hubble Servicing Options

Assessment of Options for Extending the Life of the Hubble Space Telescope: Final Report, NAS

"This situation resulted in an unprecedented outcry from scientists and the public. As a result, NASA began to explore and develop a robotic servicing mission;Congress directed NASA to request a study from the National Research Council (NRC) of the robotic and shuttle servicing options for extending the life of Hubble. This report presents an assessment of those two options."

Exploration Systems Docking Tech Meeting

NASA Notice of Exploration Mission Docking Systems Forum

"NASA's Advanced Docking Berthing System (ADBS) Project within the Exploration Systems Research and Technology, Technology Maturation Program, in the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate is issuing a notice for a technical interchange meeting (TIM) to be held in the mid-April 2005 time frame."

Overhead Issues at LaRC

Center Director Message to NASA LaRC Employees: Cost Efficiencies Critical to Our Competitive Future

"We can either feel victimized by these types of changes or decide to take action to help. I have decided that I can actually do a lot to help. First, I can accept the fact that we need to cut substantial dollars and not complain about the lost services, unless a proposed cut interferes with safety, health, or the delivery of a funded product. Second, I am personally nominating a few items to add to the list, and I hope that you will survey your situation and recommend things to your supervisor as well."

Jim Jennings Clarifies a few "Numbers"

Editor's note:This was provided to NASA Watch by NASA PAO - per Rick Keegan of Jim Jennings office:

"FY 2005 there are 2425 employees eligible for retirement.
FY 2006 there will be 2927 employees

NOTE: The 2006 number is the current 2005 PLUS an additional newly eligible group. It assumes no one retires this year. This accounting is based on the fact that many employees who are eligible do not always retire. Thus these numbers represent the "maximum" number used for planning purposes.

No firm numbers are available on how many people are going to be offered/eligible for a buyout since the buyout plans for all the centers have yet to be approved. These numbers were provided to the reporter from the FEDERAL TIMES who asked the question."

Ohio Goes for the Jugular

Alliance turns proposed NASA cuts into airline-safety debate, Cleveland Plain Dealer

"The fight to save NASA Glenn Research Center has become a battle about the future of the U.S. airline industry. Twice in the past decade, Northeast Ohioans scurried to save the federal space lab next to Cleveland Hopkins International Airport and the millions of dollars and thousands of jobs it brings the region."

tSpace Wimps Out

Paperwork stops space privateers building lunar lander, New Scientist

"NASA wants 40 to 50 monthly reports on what you're doing," David Gump, president of the Transformational Space consortium told New Scientist on Monday. And while "we could build a great Crew Exploration Vehicle", Gump says, the consortium cannot comply with the reports and studies NASA stipulates to monitor the project."

Editor's note: Yawn. When the going gets tough, blame it all on paperwork.

NASA's Stealth Buyout Plans? (Update)

Editor's note: In comments by Jim Jennings today, 10 March, during an agency-wide televised briefing, Jennings sought to dismiss workforce numbers that were circulating around the agency: "There are some numbers floating around." "The truth of the matter is that we do not know what it is going to take to implement the VSE." "All of our employees are funded through FY 2006." "It is important to bring folks into the workforce - they will carry the workforce for the next 30-40 years." "My committment is that I will give the facts to you when I know them." "I've seen a lot of charts floating around where the numbers were not accurate."

Editor's note:This is rather confusing. It is important to note that the numbers Mr. Jennings now seeks to dismiss were contained in a briefing authored by him which he circulated around the agency. Indeed, during the agency-wide Q&A today four NASA employees asked him questions about his 14 February 2005 presentation and the numbers contained therein.

If there is any confusion, especially with regard to numbers that are clearly in this presentation, it is clearly due to the way that Mr. Jennings (mis)presented the information in the first place. It is rather lazy and less than forthcoming for Mr. Jennings to stumble through answering questions about his numbers by dismissing these numbers as if they were not official when indeed they ARE official!

Through out all these discussions, the contractor workforce is not mentioned at all. In a press briefing following the employees briefing, Jennings admitted that he does not have numbers reflecting the contractor workforce or how it would be affected by these changes.

When asked by a reporter what the 2,680 or so people NASA seeks to have depart the agency are doing right now - since there is not enough work for everyone to go around, Jennings said "they are working on strategic things, on bids and proposals. They are gainfully employed. I do not have a lot of specifics on what they are working on."

When asked by reporters for a breakdown by center as to what sorts of positions need to be eliminated because they are not matched against specific projects, Jennings repeatedly declined the request saying that he did not have that information. Yet curiously, at the same time Jennings does not know this information, the field centers all know how many buyouts they need to offer and are already offering them to employees.

Summary: 13 months into the implementation of the VSE, NASA in general, and Mr. Jennings in particular, still do not know what sort of workforce NASA does or does not need. As a result, NASA HQ is punting for a year or so until someone does know. In the mean time, the more people who leave the agency, the better.

Editor's (earlier) note: Go to this presentation, NASA Workforce/Institutional Transformation Status as of 14 February 2005. Download it, and then look at the last two slides. You are in for a surprise. Click on them - they are embedded Excel spreadsheets. One of the more interesting tabs "After Two Buyouts" seems to show a plan (below) whereby thousands of people (7,992) would exit the agency between FY 2006 and FY 2010 as the result of buyouts. If these charts are to be believed then there will be virtually no civil servants left at ARC, DFRC, GRC or LaRC.

Editor's note: Since this item was first posted on NASAWatch and SpaceRef last Friday I've added a response from NASA PAO plus another chart (from the same presentation) which details internal NASA deliberations as to how layoffs, reassignments - and possibly (as a last resort) RIFs would be handled.

	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010		Total all FY
ARC	71	322	289	324	368	414		1788
DFRC	-16	16	100	93	92	101		386
GRC	26	370	570	556	547	551		2620
LaRC	72	340	609	614	570	566		2771
MSFC	129	474	555	480	477	467		2582
GSFC	-61	-138	-139	-140	-140	-141		-759
JSC	-54	-115	-116	-116	-116	-116		-633
KSC	-32	-73	-74	-74	-74	-74		-401
SSC	-2	-5	-5	-5	-5	-5		-27
HQ	-30	-61	-61	-61	-61	-61		-335
Total	103	1130	1728	1671	1658	1702		7992

Editor's note: Response from Glenn Mahone, Assistant Administrator for Public Affairs.:

"The chart used in your story 'NASA's Stealth Buyout Plans' is a preliminary internal working document. It depicts one scenario among many generated to bound and manage NASA's FY07 work-force planning uncertainty. The data presents one hypothetical situation at a given point, after two of many human-capital management tools under consideration (buyouts and internal transfers) have been applied and results estimated.

"Given this is an internal working paper, we will not discuss the specific numbers, except to correct the following error. The number 7,992 is the result of an addition formula erroneously left embedded in this preliminary worksheet. The data in the rows is not cumulative.

"The chart has no meaningful interpretation outside the particular set of assumptions examined within it. We have produced and will continue to produce many such worksheets including many different scenarios, sets of assumptions and results to date, over the next several months. We will not be responding to specific questions on numbers used in this process of tracking our progress on work force planning and developing options as a result of that progress."

Editor's note: This chart was also included in the original presentation - but was not part of this article when Mahone issued his comments:

Actions To Enable Transformation	Discussion	Will this help in the near term?	Will this help in the long term?	Potential Risks	Risk Mitigation	Lead For Action Implementation
Buyouts	Centers have requested more flexibility in how we conduct buyouts -- don't limit areas for buyouts, instead identify buyout threshholds in needed skill areas	Yes	Yes	High Performers leave	Retention Bonuses	OIM
Job Fairs	Centers needing civil servants actively pursue civil servants at other centers who need work	Yes	Yes	Job Fairs, and timing of them, may send the wrong signals to the workforce and to key external stakeholders	Consider Agency-wide Job Fair, with careful crafting of the "before, during and after" messages sent to both internal and external stakeholders	OIM, with Center Directors
Brokered Transfers	This could include AA's working together to identify where work might be moved from one Center to another, or Center Directors working together to propose to AA's where work could be moved from one Center to another.	Potentially	Probably Not	This near term solution may send the wrong signals to the workforce and to key external stakeholders, and it may result in implementation inefficiencies	Expect to use this tool on a limited basis, and clearly define up front the conditions of transfers --what work, for how long, etc.	Mission Directorates, with Center Directors
Pursue RPMA "low hanging fruit"	Actively pursue proposed closures and/or consolidations identified by the Phase 1 RPMA	To a limited extent	To a greater extent	Many of the areas identified will take time to implement. Many of the areas identified may cause external stakeholder concern	Continue to pursue, while maintaining an open dialogue with external stakeholders. Factor into the decision making process overall cost/benefit considerations. Consider options to offset stakeholder concerns.	OIM
Pursue new legislation	Actively and aggressivly pursue	To a limited extent	Yes	Stronger internal coordination required; potential exists to rely too heavily on this as a solution, only to find that it either doesn't pan out, or takes too long to enact	Implement more active internal management and tracking; Clearly understand extent to which our assumptions depend on legislation being enacted, develop contingency plans consistent with assumptions being made	Legislative Affairs. With OIM
Involuntary inter-Center reassignments	Determine needed skills vs. available skills, implement involuntary reassignments to place skills where they are needed	Yes	Yes	May impact workforce morale, will likely cause external stakeholder concerns; will require funds to support PCS's	Pursue on a limited basis, clearly communicate process and results to internal and external stakeholders. Consider options to offset stakeholder concerns.	OIM, with Center Directors
Coordinated RPMA/NOMET Phase 2 efforts	Aggressively pursue alternative management organization options, aggressively pursue facility closure/transfer options. Work the two efforts in concert. Assure that a full range of options is considered.	No	Yes	Will impact workforce morale, will cause stakeholoder concerns, will take time to implement	Maintain open and active dialogue with internal and external stakeholders; fully engage Center Directors so that they "own" the solutions	OIM
Review of Existing Contracted Work	Evaluate existing contracted work to determine if any of it could appropriately be implemented by civil servants.	Yes and No	Yes and No	While this may address the concern for the civil servant workforce, doing so will likely create concerns among the contractor workforce, which may result in contractor morale problems and/or protests, and external stakeholder concerns. Could result in hi	Implement on a limited basis, coordinating closely with legal and procurement to assure appropriateness of actions taken. Carefully evaluate costs/benefits in making decisions to pull work in.	OCFO/Procurement, with Center Directors
Review of Projected, Uncommitted Work	Evaluate projected work which is currently not committed contractually. Understand the timing for planned selection decisions, and how that may serve to mitigate current workforce issues. Work to minimize the gaps between when decisions are planned vs.	Potentially	Potentially	While this may address near-term concerns for the civil servant workforce, some options taken to bridge the gaps may send negative signals to the external community, which may result in external stakeholder concerns. Options to bridge the gap may provide	Will require concerted and coordinated effort on part of Mission Directorate AA's, OCFO and OIM. If gap-bridging options are identified, they must be carefully implemented with decision gates and options that allow us to stay on a course that is, over th	OCFO/Procurement, with Mission Directorates
Core Competency Health Assessment	Come to closure on agreed upon NASA Core Competencies, and proceed immediately with health assessment, so as to inform reviews of existing contracted work, and projected uncommitted work.	To a limited extent	Yes	Centers may turn to this as their "panacea," and thereby not pursue other tools as aggressively as they could. Objectively determining what consitutes a "critical mass" of work will be challenging. External stakeholders may not agree with NASA as to wha	Assure that all tools are being aggressively pursued. Appropriately vette approaches for determining critical mass. Use roadmaps/advisory structure to validate Core Competency decisions, making adjustments where warranted.	ADA/SI, with Mission Directorates and OIM
Update Personnel Files	Proceed with preparations for updating personnel files -- recognizing that, if we have to use involuntary workforce reductions as a measure of last resort, this action must be complete.	No	To a limited extent	The fact that we are updating personnel files sends the unintended and inaccurate signal that involuntary reductions are a foregone conclusion.	Careful attention is needed in communicating to both internal and external stakeholders the work associated with preparing for the potential of implementing this tool of last resort.	OIM
Manage Tactical Program/Project decisions	Actively manage program/project decisions which, while serving the immediate needs of allowing a program/project to get through FYO6 (taking work out of Centers that have artificially high G&A's), may exacerbate a Center's ability to compete over the long	Yes	No	Will impact programs/projects that conduct work at the Centers currently facing significant workforce transitions.	Mission Directorates will need to factor this into their implementation plans.	Mission Directorates
Areas highlighted in gray indicate actions that are "new" and/or which have greater clarity on who is assigned as the lead.

LaRC Opportunity

NASA LaRC Buyout Opportunity

"The Agency has received authority to offer buyouts at most of the Centers. Even though Langley has offered buyout opportunities twice this fiscal year, we also wanted to participate in the Agency effort, since it expands the eligible pool to positions not included in prior buyouts. Approximately 2,040 positions at the Center are included in this buyout pool. That essentially covers all employees who are General Schedule and employees who are not AST employees in the NASA Engineering and Safety Center."

U.S. Satellites on Ukranian Rockets?

Ukranian Rockets to Orbit US Satellites, RIA Novosti

"Ukraine's National Space Agency and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) are preparing to sign an agreement in April that would allow Ukrainian rockets to be used for launching US satellites into lunar orbits."

Things Are Looking Good For Orbital

Defense Funds Boost Orbital's Fortunes, Washington Post

"Last week, the 23-year-old firm, which also has operations in Prince George's and Howard counties and in Arizona, California, Alabama and Indiana, reported a profit of $200 million on revenue of $675.9 million in 2004, compared with earnings of $20.2 million on revenue of $581.5 million a year earlier."

NASA-wide Discussion with Jim Jennings on Workforce Issues

NASA HQ Workforce Transformation Discussion

"Thursday, March 10, 1 p.m., auditorium. Join Associate Administrator for Institutions and Management James Jennings for an important discussion regarding the agency's work force Thursday, March 10, at 1 p.m. in the auditorium. "Work Force Transformation" will be an open and direct discussion about the personnel issues facing NASA today and in the future."

AAS Issues Hubble Servicing Statement

AAS Calls Servicing Hubble Important for Astronomy, Urges NASA to Stick with the Decade Plan

"In releasing the statement, President Robert Kirshner stated, "I am personally very disappointed with NASA's current plan not to service HST. You can be sure we will work with them to help realize the goals of astronomers as carefully worked out through our decade plan. We know that NASA is committed to doing the world's best astronomy and servicing Hubble with the Shuttle is part of the best program."

Buyout Update at ARC

With layoffs looming, NASA/Ames offers buyouts, SJ Mercury News

"NASA/Ames is set to offer buyouts this week to all but 70 of its 1,400 federal employees as part of one of the most dramatic makeovers the research center has undergone in two decades."

Further Insight Into NASA Personnel Contingency Planning

NASA LaRC Internal File: Human Capital Instructional

"The last activity, if necessary, will be reductions-in-force with the goal of having all the unfunded capacity off the rolls by August 6, FY 2006. Employees separated under reductions-in-force will receive not only a lump payment for their annual leave but may also receive severance pay which may be substantial depending on the age and length of service of the separated employee."

Fred Gregory Profile

Backed by History, Looking Ahead - NASA Leader Took Chances, Seeks Opportunities for Others, Washington Post

"In mid-February, Gregory moved up from his job as NASA's deputy administrator to interim administrator -- a job he will hold until President Bush names a permanent replacement for administrator Sean O'Keefe, who left the agency to become chancellor of Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge."

Those Pesky IFMP Action Items

Audit of the Implementation of Integrated Financial Management (IFMP) Audit Recommendations, NASA OIG

"As of January 3, 2005 NASA had 26 out of 44 (59 percent) audit recommendations related to IFMP that were still open and for which corrective action had not been completed. Some of those recommendations were more than 1 year old."

Look Who Did NOT Sign House Science Committee Views and Estimates

House Science Committee Views and Estimates, House Science Committee

House Science Committee Bi-Partisan 'Views and Estimates' Budget Submission Highlights Inadequacy of Administration's R&D Budget Request

"Today, the Science Committee submitted bipartisan Views and Estimates to the Budget Committee.  In the past, the Democrats have written and submitted separate Views and Estimates as a critique.  However, the Administration's FY2006 research and development budget request elicited such universal concern that Democrats could comfortably support the Republican-drafted document."

Editor's note: It is rather interesting to note who did NOT sign on to support this (otherwise) bipartisan document: among them: Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Chair Chair Ken Calvert (R-CA), House Science Committee Ranking Majority Member Ralph Hall (R-TX), former Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Chair Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), and No. 2 House Science Committee Ranking Majority Member Lamar Smith (R-TX).

It Sure Took Long Enough

Coalition Supports Vision for Space Exploration's FY2006 Budget

"CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (March 7, 2005) - The Coalition for Space Exploration strongly endorses NASA's FY 2006 budget request of $16.5 billion. The budget is fully aligned with the Vision for Space Exploration and advances the nation's agenda for science and discovery."

Editor's note: Gee, the FY 2006 budget was released more than a month ago. You'd think that a slightly more prompt statement could have been issued by a coalition dedicated to the furtherance of the President's space policy initiatives.

OK, Keith: You Said We'd Hear Something 'Very, Very soon'

Bush to Nominate Bolton as U.N. Ambassador, AP

Bush Selects Steve Johnson to Head EPA, AP

Editor's note: One of the procedural roadblocks to naming a new NASA Administrator was the fact that other senior positions, some whose filling was viewed as being more pressing than the number one slot at NASA, needed to be filled. One such post was EPA. Another was UN Ambassador. Now that these slots have been filled, it is expected that the White House can focus on other empty positions - including that of NASA Administrator. Several weeks ago, just as Sean O'Keefe was saying farewell, there was a flurry of interest among senior Administration circles that the announcing of a name was imminent - hence my posting here that there would be an announcement "very, very soon". Well, that bubble of informed speculation burst shortly thereafter. None the less, name(s) continue to be vetted at the White House. Given the prospect of no anticipated problems at NASA in the next few months, there is no pressing urgency to accelerate the selection process. Yet if they can get it of their to do list, they will.

As such, whether an announcement is imminent - perhaps Wednesday or (more likely) Thursday of this week - or weeks away - remains to be seen. Rest assured, contrary to those who suggest that the Administration is not paying attention to this issue, someone, somewhere in the White House is working on it. Stay tuned.

Congressional Delegations Fight Aeronautics Cuts

Ohio Leaders Plan to Fight NASA Budget Cuts, NPR

"Morning Edition, March 7, 2005 NASA is one of a handful of federal agencies targeted for a slight increase in the proposed 2006 budget. But at research labs around the country, aeronautics budgets are slated to be slashed by 1/3 over the next two years. In Ohio, where major job cuts are planned, local Congressional delegations are fighting back."

Space Biology Cuts Continue at NASA

NASA Science Funding Cut In FY 2006 Proposal, US Medicine Information Central

"We used to be the Office of Biological and Physical Research," [Terri Lomax, PhD, acting deputy associate administrator for research within Exploration Systems] said in an interview with U.S. MEDICINE. "We were doing the very best biology that you could do in space and the very best physics you could do in space. But now, we realize that we have products that we need out of our research in order to enable this ambitious exploration agenda."

Boeing Ousts Stonecipher

Boeing Forces Out CEO Over Relationship, AP

"Boeing Co. abruptly forced out its president and chief executive officer, Harry Stonecipher, for what the company said Monday was a violation of the company's code of business conduct stemming from a relationship the married, 68-year-old Stonecipher had with a female Boeing executive."

A Bleak Future for LaRC?

NASA Langley tests the air, Daily Press

"If wind tunnels won the debate decades ago, it seems odd - at least at first glance - that NASA Headquarters circulated a memo last month stating that all the major wind tunnels at Langley would likely close because they weren't needed for the agency's future aeronautics projects. Government unions and aeronautics supporters decried the announcement as a potential deathblow for Langley. But Langley Center Director Roy Bridges said the memo was an attempt to get a response from the Department of Defense and private industry."

Hampton group sees way to help Langley, Daily Press

"As layoffs, budget cuts and wind tunnel closures cast a shadow over NASA Langley Research Center, a neighboring institute in Hampton enjoys a growing work force and budget. Robert Lindberg, executive director of the National Institute of Aerospace, said his organization can help transform NASA Langley."

NASA Langley is running out of wind, Daily Press

"Government unions and aeronautics supporters wonder how much Langley can transform before it ceases to exist. A scary question lingers on the minds of local politicians, flight researchers and Langley employees: Is NASA Langley heading toward closure?"

NASA is surviving a culture shift, again, Daily Press

"Budget cuts, wind tunnel closures and layoffs are forcing NASA Langley Research Center to go through the most painful transformation in its 88-year history. But the center has shown remarkable flexibility in the past, said Wilson Lundy, director of Langley operations."

Space Reporter Veteran Dies

Longtime NASA Reporter William M. Hines, 88, Dies, Washington Post

"William M. Hines, 88, a former Washington Star and Chicago Sun-Times reporter who was considered the godfather of NASA space reporting, died Feb. 28 of complications from treatment for pneumonia at Frederick Memorial Hospital. He lived in Washington before moving to Lovettsville in 1987."

NASA Administrator Selection Process Revealed

Here.

Martian Mix-up

Twin Mars rovers in instrument mix-up, New Scientist

"NASA's Mars rovers Opportunity and Spirit are identical twins - so alike that they even fooled NASA. Researchers have discovered that they sent the robots to Mars with an instrument meant for Opportunity inside Spirit and vice versa."

LaRC Personnel Update

Internal NASA LaRC Memo: Summary of SLT Retreat

"We will focus on reducing the over-capacity work force by the start of FY07.  No involuntary personnel actions are planned in FY05 beyond the small number of positions affected by the A-76 competition as previously announced.  Involuntary personnel actions are likely in FY06, although a Reduction in Force (RIF) will be a last resort."

DoD Has Some Good News For Boeing

Air Force lifts Boeing suspension, USAF

"Air Force officials removed the suspension of three Boeing Co. units associated with its rocket business March 4. The company's Launch Systems, Boeing Launch Services and Delta Program business units were suspended July 24, 2003, for serious violations of federal law, officials said. The 20-month suspension has been the longest for a major defense contractor."

Air Force to Lift Boeing Ban: Officials, Reuters

"The U.S. Air Force is set to lift an order that suspended Boeing Co. from getting satellite launch contracts since mid-2003, defense officials said on Thursday. The announcement could come as early as Friday after the close of trading in financial markets, said the officials, who declined to be named."

Walt Anderson's Woes Continue

Tax Case Defendant Says Money Was to Do Good, Washington Post

"Anderson was one of the driving forces behind MirCorp, which sought to privatize Russia's decrepit Mir space station and arranged for an American financier to take an excursion in space. MirCorp's ambitions were dashed with the station's demise. But Anderson has remained passionate about space. "I want to build my own space station since we lost the Mir," he said. "I want to have a moon base."

Billionaire tax dodger craved space haven, Sydney Morning Herald

Reclusive mogul on trial accused of being largest tax dodger in history, The Independent

Approps Changes Continue in Congress

Shelby at helm of key NASA panel, Huntsville Times

"Alabama's senior senator in Washington has taken the reins of a key NASA spending committee. U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Tuscaloosa, has been named the chairman of the newly formed Senate Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations Subcommittee."

Senate appropriations reorganization could come this week, Government Executive

"The C-J-S panel would absorb science agencies from the old VA-HUD bill, including NASA. Shelby, an ardent NASA supporter, would be a natural ally of likely Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations Subcommittee ranking member Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., in preserving increases for the space program. Both have major NASA facilities in their states, as does House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, who was a driving force behind the appropriations reorganization process in the House."

Approps Reshuffle Is Good for U.S. in Space and Science, OpEd, Robert Walker, Roll Call (subscription required)

"In a recent Roll Call Guest Observer Scott Lilly made a wonderful case for institutional geriatrics in the House appropriations process (Jan. 27, "Does Rearranging Appropriations Panels Make Sense?"). His argument, essentially, was that old is better than new. The essence of the piece was an attack on House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) for supporting both space exploration and modernization of the House. In particular, Lilly's argument suggested that the nation is on the wrong track with the "Vision for Space Exploration," which lays out a "go as you pay" stepping-stone approach to future human and robotic space exploration. Lilly related how this contention fared when laid at the feet of 35 local graduate students. One has to question a group of graduate students who reject human destiny in our universe. But, more importantly, they are dead wrong when it comes to public support for the Vision for Space Exploration. Indeed, a recent Gallup poll found that 68 percent of those surveyed supported the Vision's plan, including a majority of both Republicans (79 percent) and Democrats (60 percent)."

Boeing's Roselee Roberts Moves to the Hill

Roselee Roberts Joins House Science Committee Staff

"Ms. Roberts has worked for Boeing for the past 17 years and has been involved with such programs as the International Space Station, the Space Shuttle, launch vehicles and satellites, and aeronautical research."

Rep. Calvert Appoints Designee to House Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee

"Before working in the private sector, Roberts spent nine years on Capitol Hill, serving as the legislative director and appropriations staffer for two congressmen.  During that tenure, she was also the Staff Director to Cong. Bill Nelson (D-FL) when he was Chairman of the House Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee."

ESMD Changes Agenda for Industry Day

NASA Exploration Systems Directorate Industry Day

"You are notified that the following changes are made: The focus areas for the Industry Day have been revised to provide industry with information on the following two subjects: 1. Overview of the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) Request for Proposal (RFP); and 2. Overview of the draft Systems Engineering & Integration (SE&I) Request for Proposal (RFP)." 

Pushing the Envelope - *WITH* a Shy NASA

Here's looking at you Steve!

"The taxi test was the perfect occasion to try out NASA equipment that will enable a live video of Steve to be seen during the attempt. While Steve took to the runway on February 23 to familiarise himself with take-off procedures, a small camera was transmitting a video of the cockpit. Using a satellite transmitter receiver (transceiver), a real-time video is sent through the NASA satellite system to provide global coverage."

Editor's note: Am I missing something? NASA is providing this support to Steve Fossett's flight - and a big NASA logo is on the side of his plane - yet I have found ZERO ouput from NASA PAO about this. Why is NASA so shy about this?

Editor's note: Steve Fossett has landed in Salina, Kansas becoming the first person to fly around the world without stopping or refueling - alone.

NASA Technology Supports Virgin Atlantic GlobalFlyer, NASA

"NASA technology contributed to the safety and success of the mission by enhancing communications between pilot Steve Fossett and his ground control team. NASA's real-time video hookup allowed enthusiasts around the globe to follow the flight."

Editor's note:NASA finally issued a press release - after Fossett landed - not before - or during - his 60 hour flight.

Hubble: Mikulski Lays Down the Law

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."

Space Entrepreneurs Continue to Flex Their Wallets

Investors in space flight industry contribute $3,000,000 to TrekUnited - Money pledged to fund a fifth season of Star Trek: Enterprise

"We think Star Trek and especially its latest incarnation, "Enterprise" is the kind of TV that should be aired more often. The people responsible at Paramount think this is just a show and we want to tell them, it is not. We are in the commercial space flight industry and would like to testify that at least one out of two of all the actual entrepreneurs involved in this industry has been inspired by Star Trek; and we are not only good at watching TV sci-fi , we are also good at writing checks, big checks."

This Belongs in a Museum

Canton Park District receives gift from Nagel, Canton Daily Ledger

"Former Canton resident, retired Air Force Colonel, and former NASA Astronaut Steve Nagel has secured a shuttle spacecraft tire for display by the Canton Park District the board learned at its Feb. 28 meeting. The tire has been fitted with a glass top and is being used as a table at the Ingersoll Airport office building. Michelin Aircraft Tire Company manufactured the tire and donated it to the park district."

Editor's note: That's more like it!

NASA Sale of Surplus Property: Sale of Flown Shuttle Tires, Main Landing Gear

"Bid opening is March 15, 2005, at 2:00 pm local time. A copy of the Invitation for Bid may be obtained from the Internet at: http://surplus.ksc.nasa.gov or call 321-867-2287 and ask for Sale Number 804200-2005-0008."

Editor's note: I have to think that there is a museum - perhaps a small one - somewhere in the United States where such a piece of space flown hardware would receive a special place of honor. Selling this item as surplus runs the risk that it might end up inside a plastic bag in some collector's garage.

Update:NASA Modification to a Previous Presolicitation Notice: Sale of Flown Shuttle Tires, Main Landing Gear

"THIS SALE IS CANCELLED DUE TO WITHDRAWAL OF PROPERTY BY NASA HEADQUARTERS FOR FUTURE EXHIBITS"

Editor's note: NASA Public Affairs was not aware of this pending tire auction and asked that these tires (around 60 total) be pulled from the auction block. Plans are now being developed whereby these tires would be used for a variety of agency public outreach and educational activities.

China to Propose Shenzhou for ISS Duty

China Will Propose That NASA Use Shenzhou for International Space Station Duty, SpaceRef

"Mengxin Sun, First Secretary for Science and Technology at the Chinese embassy in Washington, DC has said that he intends to brief the new NASA Administrator (as soon as that announcement is made) about a proposal for U.S. use of China's Shenzhou spacecraft series as a crew/cargo carrier for the ISS program."

The China Card: U.S. now agreeable to space cooperation with China, Aviation Week

"In a major shift of U. S. policy, the Bush Administration is ready to open more formal discussions with China on space cooperation, according to outgoing NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe."

Editor's note: A clarification on this story as reported yesterday. Sun was unable to answer any space-related questions asked of him at presentation he gave at the National Academy of Sciences yesterday and designated his assistant/interpreter to respond for him. Noting his lack of space expertise, Sun responded several times to the audience "I am not a space man."

Questions About NASA's Performance-Based System

Complaints About NASA Raises Follow Switch to Performance-Based System, Washington Post

"Concerns about the new pay system have recently emerged at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, providing a glimpse of the challenges involved in winning acceptance of performance-based systems."

A NASA Astrobiologist Bids Farewell to Antarctica

Kevin Hand's Antarctic Journal 1 March 2005

"Ok, well, this is it folks, one last email and then I'm on a plane back to LA. I've been in New Zealand for a bit and I've finally had a chance to type up my notes for this final update about our work in Antarctica. Here we go... So the last update gave you a sense of the research we're doing. Now let me give you a sense of life in the field and what it's like to live, work, and eat in the middle of nowhere in Antarctica."

FAA Public Meeting on Commercial Space Launch Regulations

FAA: Licensing and Safety Requirements for Launch: Availability of draft regulatory language - Notice of public meeting

"The FAA is making available a draft of changes to the commercial space transportation regulations governing licensing and safety requirements for launch. We intend the changes to identify, codify, and maintain the successful safety measures that have been implemented at the federal launch ranges belonging to the Department of Defense and NASA."

NASA Issues CEV RFP

NASA Issues Solicitation for Crew Exploration Vehicle

"NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate today issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV). The CEV is the spacecraft that will carry astronauts beyond low-Earth orbit and to the moon by 2020. The contract to build the CEV is a full and open competition. The anticipated period of performance is September, 2005 through December, 2008. The CEV acquisition will use a phased approach that anticipates a maximum of two contractors. The CEV proposals are due no later than 2 p.m. EST, May 2, 2005. A selection will be made in September, 2005."

Weather Forecast? Just Call the ISS Crew

Russian spacecraft carries snails, photo eqt, food to ISS, ITAR/TASS

"Telling about promising space technologies, Solovyov said, "FCC specialists seek to bring space research technologies closer to users down here on Earth. If a subscriber to some mobile communications network wants to know a weather forecast for the Ural Mountains area, for example, he may contact the ISS crew by mobile phone."

Editor's note: Is this a Russian|English translation issue - or is this guy just confused about what can - and cannot be done on board ISS?

Pushing the Envelope - Without NASA

Round-the-world record bid under way, The Guardian

"Millionaire adventurer Steve Fossett's GlobalFlyer plane took off into the clear Kansas skies today, setting in motion a world record bid described by his backer and friend Sir Richard Branson as the last great aviation record - flying nonstop and solo around the world."

Virgin Atlantic Global Flyer, Mission Website

Editor's note: With all the current arm waving (a lot of it, perhaps, justified) going on about the "other A" in NASA, why is it that the most exciting stuff - the pushing of aeronautic envelopes - is now being done by the private sector? I don't think it is necessarily because NASA isn't doing this sort of thing but rather, because these people can do it without NASA. A message, perhaps, from the private sector?

Editor's note: I stand corrected - see This link about NASA KSC participation. This notwithstanding, the vast majority of the hardware, operations, and financing - to say nothing of the inspiration for this project - came from the private sector.

Send your comments to nasawatch@reston.com. Your comments thus far:

---

Exciting?  Of course - it's a publicity stunt!  Useful?  Not even in the same league as the Aeronautics Research done by NASA; the last time I checked there was no commercial use for a flying gas tank, which means no jobs will be created to build flying gas tanks.  Sure, there may be good lessons learned regarding fuel efficiency and the reliability of the CFD models used to design the airframe, but NASA is working on those same things right now.  In fact, if you investigated this thoroughly, you would almost certainly find that the GlobalFlyer was designed and built using numerous technologies that were developed and/or improved to the current state-of-the-art by NASA.

It has been obvious for years that you are a space guy, so why don't you leave the commentary on aeronautics research to those who understand it.  Aero research at NASA is supposed to benefit the taxpayer, and that is best done NOT by being exciting, but by improving commercial air travel, by ensuring the superiority of our military aircraft, and by creating jobs.  It doesn't hurt to be exciting AND beneficial, but that combination is rare, and being beneficial is far more important.

Godspeed to Steve Fossett - I wish him nothing but success and a safe return home with a planeload of world records.

---

NASA's Vehicle Systems Program has a goal to develop new vehicle concepts and supporting technologies we aren't allowed to build prototypes. The program is being shredded in every budget cycle. NASA isn't allowed to do what the private sector is doing in aviation - this first A is almost gone not because we cann't do it but because Congress doesn't want us to do it.

---

Keith,

Like many other NASA employees, I am following the GlobalFlyer adventure quite closely. I admire Steve Fossett for his daring and enthusiasm, as well as his long list of accomplishments.  Your question: "why is it that the most exciting stuff - the pushing of aeronautic envelopes - is now being done by the private sector?" was answered by Fossett himself in an interview on Sunday.

From:http://www.virginatlanticglobalflyer.com/News/Reveal.jsp  last paragraph:

When asked what the long-term practical significance of this flight is, Steve responded 'none' and caused laughter among those present. But Richard quickly added: "From Virgin Atlantic's point-of -view, we would love designers who make planes to make more composite-based planes. This is almost a complete composite-based plane - very, very light and very fuel-efficient. He then went on to say that design breakthroughs are often a result of some world records and could possibly make commercial aviation cheaper, more affordable, more fuel efficient and more environmentally friendly. 

If asked the same question by Congress, OMB, the press or others, no NASA project manager could ever honestly answer "none" and expect to keep the project alive.

---

[Power for Global Flyer is supplied by a single 2,300 lb thrust Williams FJ44-3 ATW turbofan engine.]

From the Scaled Composites web site:

"Last fall under a competitive procurement program among jet engine companies, NASA selected Williams International to join NASA in a $100 million cooperative effort to revitalize the once-flourishing light aircraft industry in the United States through small turbofan engine technology. Under the program, Williams and its industry team members, which include Williams suppliers and future aircraft company customers, provide 60 percent of the resources and NASA provides 40 percent for the initial engine demonstration phase."

From the EclipseAviation web site:

"When NASA chose Williams in 1996 for cost-sharing development of a small turbofan, designate the FJX-2, under the General Aviation Propulsion (GAP) program, the engine was set to fly in 2000 in the V-Jet II experimental light aircraft designed by Williams and Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites. The EJ22 is the first commercial derivative of the FJX-2, which was first ground-tested in late 1998.

NASA says the GAP program objectives were achieved last June when the FJX-2 surpassed 700lb sea level static thrust in ground testing. The prototype engine weighed 85lb, resulting in a thrust-to-weight ratio of greater than 8.2 – higher than any other commercial turbofan, NASA says."

From the DesignNews web site:

"When adventurer Steve Fossett sets off later this year on his solo non-stop round-the-world attempt in the Burt Rutan-designed GlobalFlyer, he will be relying on Chelton Flight Systems (Stand A735) for safe navigation through wind, rain and dark of night. The revolutionary aircraft is fitted with Chelton's FlightLogic synthetic-vision electronic flight information system (EFIS).

Bringing together GPS satellite navigation, information from aircraft sensors and the global terrain database already used by airlines for ground-proximity warning, the system presents the pilot with a computerised view of the outside world, with a safe 'tunnel in the sky' superimposed along with basic head-up display information.

The pilot can either hand-fly the aircraft through the succession of rectangular 'gates' that mark the tunnel, or set up the aircraft's autopilot to do so – a capability that will be of vital importance on Fossett's 80h flight.

NASA evaluated the FlightLogic combination of HUD symbology and synthetic vision over a total of 945 flights and found that the pilots using it averaged 85% fewer errors in guiding the aircraft along its intended flightpath by comparison with those relying on a conventional instrument scan."

The point is, GlobalFlyer wasn't designed, equipped, and built in a vacuum. The above doesn't diminish the accomplishments of Rutan and his highly motivated and capable team, but would GlobalFlyer be exactly the same aircraft absent the historical existence of NACA and the ongoing contributions of NASA? I doubt it.

---

It would be very easy to agree with your statement above. However, I have a nagging suspicion that there is a heritage for the hardware and the design that may have had some roots in research done initially by NACA, and/or NASA. Perhaps the software used to design the craft is an improved commercial version of one that was pioneered by NASA. I'm sure that it would be tedious to trace the various aerodynamic, propulsion, flight control, etc. technologies to specific NACA/NASA origins, but my hunch is that if you could analyze the "DNA" of many aircraft in the air today - including Rutan's - there would be the signature that "NACA/NASA was there" to one degree or another. Indeed, in aerospace engineering textbooks today there are still references to NACA/NASA technical reports.

---

Regarding your recent observation/question: "why is it that the most exciting stuff - the pushing of aeronautic envelopes - is now being done by the private sector?"

The answer is easy  - Starting in the early 1990s the NASA aeronautical engineers and scientists have been prohibited from doing the "right stuff" to move aeronautics forward.  We spend months planning, planning and planning again to ensure that everyone on the "team" "feels good" about the $20K they hope to spend in the next FY.

So how did the first "A" in NASA get to where it is today.   We have been "managed" by our "leadership" into our present state of irrelevance.    And now the NASA aeronautical engineers and scientists must sit back and wait to be rescued by the same "leaders" and "managers".

---

On your Editor's note below:

You've singled out as "pushing of aeronautical envelopes" the around-the-world flight of a millionaire financed by a billionaire.  NASA could not try anything like that since taxpayers would be outraged if their money were used by the Agency to simply set some kind of record.  NASA cannot do something unless there is a clear pay-off for our space program or our economy or our security.  Congress and the Administration do not want NASA to grandstand.  To answer your question of whether "these people" in the private sector "can do it without NASA"---that is, push aeronautic envelopes in commercial and military aviation safety, economy, etc.---I suggest you ask Boeing, Lockheed, Sikorsky, etc.  The Europeans are beginning to kick our butts because their governments lavishly support AIRBUS---in contrast to the anemic NASA aeronautics funding to help the USA's aviation industry---and when the day comes that Boeing throws in the towel and AIRBUS becomes a monopoly, watch the travel prices skyrocket.  I will re e-mail you this note as a reminder when that happens.  Rather than sending people to the moon and Mars, my first priority is sending them to Chicago, to San Francisco, to Singapore, etc.---safely, economically, quietly, on American-built commercial planes.  Second priority is space for me.  You and the Bush Administration apparently agree on reverse priorities.  In 20 years we will look back and decide who was correct!

Space Entrepreneur Walt Anderson Arrested for Tax Evasion

Telecommunications Entrepreneur Walter Anderson Indicted and Arrested in $200 million Tax Evasion Case, DOJ

"The Justice Department, the Internal Revenue Service and the District of Columbia's Office of Tax and Revenue, jointly announced the indictment and arrest of Walter Anderson, a local telecommunications entrepreneur, on tax evasion and related charges."

Telecom Mogul Held in Tax Case, Washington Post

"The article said his apartment had a painting based on a Smashing Pumpkins lyric, "I'm still just a rat in a cage." The story said Anderson viewed the Earth as his cage and that, as a child, he dreamed of leaving it."

Entrepreneur accused of biggest-ever tax scam, NBC

"The Justice Department today filed its biggest personal tax evasion case ever, accusing the man who once tried to rescue the Russian space station Mir, Walter Anderson, of failing to pay more than $200 million in personal income taxes by stashing income in offshore bank accounts."

Telecom Executive Accused of Evading $210 Million in Taxes, NY Times

"Mr. Anderson was arrested at Dulles International Airport in Virginia on Saturday afternoon after a flight from Europe, Kenneth L. Wainstein, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, said at a news briefing today."

Anxious in Ohio

NASA layoffs discussed at event, Akron Beacon Journal

Congressman says delegation united to save NASA jobs, WKYC

"Democrat Dennis Kucinich, who ran for president last year on an anti-war platform, says NASA Glenn employees are counting on help from Republican leaders, including Governor Bob Taft and Senators Mike DeWine and George Voinovich."

Job Loss Update from NASA MSFC

Marshall payroll projections moving target; union uneasy, Huntsville Times

"Marshall Space Flight Center is in line to lose jobs if the fiscal 2006 NASA budget passes Congress in its current version, while space centers in Texas and Florida may see slight job gains. According to NASA budget documents, Marshall's federal employment will shrink by 148 jobs in fiscal 2006 from its current 2,657 employees. Johnson Space Center, near Houston, would gain 36 jobs, and Kennedy Space Center in Florida would add 19 jobs under the proposed budget."