SPACE POLICY AND THE CONSTITUTION #6

SPACE POLICY AND THE CONSTITUTION

America’s eroding geopolitical stature, highlighted by the July 21, 2011, end to flights of the United States Space Shuttle, has reached crisis proportions. Obama Administration officials now spin the nebulous thought of Astronauts flying many months to an undetermined asteroid in 2025 as an actual “National Space Policy”. On the other hand, Republican candidates for President have not yet recognized the importance of international civil space competition in the federal government’s constitutional function to provide for the nation’s “common defence”. Candidates appear to be uninterested in having the United States lead deep space exploration, including the establishment of American settlements on the Moon; or may actually consider Obama’s unfocused proposals as being credible rather than realizing that those proposals would transfer geopolitical dominance to China and control of American space transport to Russia.

Although the Bush Administration and Congress did not follow through with adequate funding, at least the 2004 Vision for Space Exploration put forth by President Bush and approved by Congress was a legitimate formulation of a National Space Policy. It implicitly recognized that America’s best security interests would not be served by being dependent on Russia for access to space or by ceding to China both deep space exploration and access to space resources. Unfortunately, with the acquiescence of Congress in 2010, President Obama cancelled what had become known as NASA’s Constellation Program – a program designed to maintain and expand America’s hard-won position as the world’s leading space-faring nation. Meanwhile, China is building a major new deep space launch facility in Hainan and developing new rockets and spacecraft to take over the exploration of the Moon from the United States and the free world.

A properly funded Constellation Program, would have returned Americans and their partners to the Moon, begun creation of the infrastructure and operational capabilities to settle there and go to Mars and beyond, and provided a timely replacement for the aging Space Shuttle. Assuming that the Obama Administration actually requests authorization and budget authority to implement a human mission to a near-Earth asteroid (NEO), including the required heavy lift rockets, specialized spacecraft, operational infrastructure, and hiring authority, how would such a mission stack up relative to returning to the Moon?

For the rest of the article, click on the blue link above.

Russians to get New Moon Rocket!

News from Russian Space web about several things, one of which is that Russian space officials are about to select a winning proposal for a new rocket that is intended to carry cosmonauts to the moon and back.

For the first time since 1964, the Russian space program is making the Moon its main objective.  And it will only be the second time since the collapse of the Soviet Union that the Russian government has endorsed the development of a new space launch vehicle/booster.

Expected test flight for the new booster will be by 2015.  Roscosmos (the Russian Space Agency) set out several objectives for the designers.  First objective would for the rocket to be able to boost 3 times heavier the load than the current Soyuz spacecraft (between 20 to 23 tons to low-earth orbit) - including twice the number of crew. Currently, the Soyuz carries 7 tons to low-earth orbit.  To use more environmentally friendly propellants. The new rocket be developed with the replacement for the Soyuz.  First manned flight of the new rocket should take place by 2018. This coincides with NASA's planned returned to manned spaceflight with its Constellation Program.

In other news, the Russian government has committed itelf to moving its main space launch site from Baikonur in Kazakhatan to Vostochny in Russia's Far East.  

The head of Roscosmos, Alexander Chulkov, told the BBC News that the agency is planning on picking a winner by March 25th.

The designers must employ non-toxic propellants such as kerosene or liquid hydrogen on all stages of the vehicle.  

The Russians are also thinking about a lunar space station for their craft to dock at before decending down to the lunar surface.  Artwork is similar to Salyut or Mir in appearance.  When the lunar ascent vehile returns to the station, they leave the ascent stage on a unused docking port to expand the size of the station on every mission.  

____

Ref. Russian Space Web (http://www.russianspaceweb.com/)

Russian Lunar Station ( http://www.russianspaceweb.com/los.html ).

New Russian space booster ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7946689.stm ).

Project Orion – KISS It!

There are a lot of things that I find vis-vie the Orion/Ares I program (officially known as the “Constellation Program”), that I don't care for very much. Namely, about shutting down the space shuttle program and wait until Orion is declared operational. The next item is going back to the Apollo Program and slap a new coat of paint on the hull and inflate the size of the capsule a bit and call it the future. KISS = Keep It Simple Stupid! What has happened to that concept and why is it not in our space program anymore?

What brings on this latest rant is a letter to the editor by one Greg DeSantis of Florida who's letter to Aviation Week & Space Technology September 1, 2008 issue was published therein (page 8 under 'Correspondence'). He was responding to an article in AW&ST (Aug 18, 2008, p.42 “The Fix Is In”). That article dealt with the oscillation problem they are finding out about with the Ares I booster. You see, something similar happened with the Gemini/Titan booster system. The vibration in the first 30 seconds of flight was so severe that the astronauts could not view the instrument panel.

Mr. DeSantis wrote: “The solution didn't take months of meetings and vu-graphs, and it didn't require adding 6,500 lbs of extra weight to the Titan. NASA simply sent astronaut Ed White to Ames to find a solution. We bolted a Gemini seat into the five-degree-of-freedom centrifuge, programmed the analog computers to simulate the vibration, and set about designing a damper to attach to the seat. The whole task from Ed's arrival to finished design took less than three weeks. White flew our design on Gemini 4.”

After reading DeSantis letter, I thought about how ironic it would be if some engineer with some brass ones just went down to the local auto parts place and picked up some shock absorbers and fitted it the test article in a chamber somewhere and NASA recreated this vibration exercise in the centrifuge. Oh wait... everything is done digitally in computers now. No one has the brains to think up something like this! Maybe if they go on line to get the specs for auto shock absorbers and program them into the Orion capsule attached to the seats and then run the launch program to see the effects then. It would still require a boldness that NASA no longer has.

I want to quote the remaining paragraph of Mr. DeSantis letter to AW&ST. “We did have a number of advantages though: No contractors or 'bean counters' were involved; we used 20-in. Slide rules and K&E drafting equipment; a Mark's Handbook; the best machine shop and machinists in the government; and a couple of young engineers who believed that working for NASA was the best job in the world. Look to the simplest solution.”

Amen brother.