Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789
Results 161 to 177 of 177

Thread: The United States is OUT OF THE SPACE BUSINESS

  1. #161
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: The United States is OUT OF THE SPACE BUSINESS

    Virgin Galactic SpaceShipTwo Crash: How The First Space Tourism Vehicle Works

    By Alberto Riva @albertoriva on October 31 2014 3:54 PM






    Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo flies over the Mojave Desert in California April 29, 2013 shortly before successfully completing a test flight that broke the sound barrier. Reuters / Gene Blevins





    The crash on Friday of Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShipTwo during a test flight, with the loss of at least one of the two pilots, deals a serious setback to the developing space tourism industry.


    The vehicle that crashed in Southern California’s Mojave Desert was the only one of its kind existing to date; Richard Branson’s space-travel company planned to produce several more, but only one was already airworthy. The craft are designed by Scaled Composites, which also designed its experimental predecessor, Space Ship One.


    Described by Virgin Galactic as “an air launched glider with a rocket motor and a couple of extra systems for spaceflight,” the craft, 60 feet (18.3 meters) long with a wingspan of 27 feet (8.3 meters), is designed to carry six passengers and two crew.


    SpaceShipTwo made its first powered flight in 2013 and was projected to begin commercial service in early 2015 after several delays.


    According to a description on space.com, SpaceShipTwo will carry its passengers past 100 kilometers (328,000 feet) altitude, the point where US rules specify that one can be called an astronaut. Unlike space vehicles launched by conventional rockets, the Virgin vehicle is borne aloft by a carrier airplane that takes off normally, from a runway.


    The WhiteKnightTwo carrier plane, a four-engined jet aircraft specially designed to carry the Space Ship Two, climbs to 50,000 feet (15.5 kilometers), higher than commercial jets, at subsonic speed. It thenreleases the space vehicle, which fires its rocket engine for 70 seconds to accelerate to 2,500 mph (4,000 km/h).


    The engine is then turned off and the vehicle keeps climbing to 361,000 feet (110 km) and giving passengers five minutes of weightlessness. It then returns to Earth as a glider and lands on a runway, like the U.S. space shuttle.





    Illustrated factbox on Virgin Galactic's SpaceshipTwo Reuters


    Virgin Galactic says it has received more than 700 bookings for the seats to space, each of which sells for $250,000 (refundable, the company says.)
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  2. #162
    Super Moderator Malsua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    7,980
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 16 Times in 16 Posts

    Default Re: The United States is OUT OF THE SPACE BUSINESS

    I think I just read that they switched over to a solid fuel from a liquid for this flight. This is a much tougher nut to crack and apparently it sploded on them.
    Last edited by Malsua; October 31st, 2014 at 20:18.
    "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat."
    -- Theodore Roosevelt


  3. #163
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: The United States is OUT OF THE SPACE BUSINESS

    I saw something about the fuel switch too. But, from what I heard they had already tested one solid fuel booster before. On the other hand, the news was coming in slowly and without much background. Remember that's what happened to Challenger. The O-rings had blow-by in the cold air and cooked the outside of the rocket engine. Liquid fuel seems safer most of the time, but the catalysts are usually poisonous chemicals that are very, very easy to oxidize (and thus, 'splode') as well.

    Either way... this is a sad turn of events. One expects there to be dangerous problems in a space program, but not so quickly into a commercial side.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  4. #164
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: The United States is OUT OF THE SPACE BUSINESS

    It is sounding like a mistake, pilot error, on the part of the co-pilot and NOT the engine or the rocket fuel!

    They believe the co-pilot (preliminary investigation thus far) may have issued an incorrect command to the flight body, deploying (or moving) wing surfaces prematurely.

    This is believed to be the cause of the break up - rather than "explosion" of the rocket engine.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  5. #165
    Super Moderator Malsua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    7,980
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 16 Times in 16 Posts

    Default Re: The United States is OUT OF THE SPACE BUSINESS

    One would think that you would prevent these kinds of mistakes on a hard out kind of level...meaning certain combinations of things can't accidentally happen.
    "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat."
    -- Theodore Roosevelt


  6. #166
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: The United States is OUT OF THE SPACE BUSINESS

    I can't imagine using system that doesn't have a manual override, right?

    I mean all airplanes for the most part have some kind of a manual override system for electronic problems.

    I am not sure about the big airbus type planes but what I've seen of the cockpits, they are 100% computerized systems. That means... EMP... they go down. It's going to be damned difficult to land one intact using a bunch of valves and wheels (which I don't even think they have).

    So the shuttle (I've flown the simulator before) has a whole LOT of toggle switches in it, some rheostats and lights, and if I remember had a couple of computer CRT terminal screens (been many years since I did that). Even so, you could do anything with that plane you could flying in space, or in the atmosphere, or just sitting on the ground as long as there was power. I vaguely remember some kind of manual overrides but don't remember the details now.

    All that leads to a space plane on a commercial basis. They are going to want to be able to control every aspect of the machine, and that includes changing the flight surfaces I would think.

    It would be like me taking a sailboat out that was completely computer controlled and the predicted winds changing so that the system couldn't sense the changes and did something I didn't want it to do. I'd want to take the helm and fix it.

    One wonders though if the co-pilot did something deliberate too. I really hope not.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  7. #167
    Super Moderator Malsua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    7,980
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 16 Times in 16 Posts

    Default Re: The United States is OUT OF THE SPACE BUSINESS

    I agree that everything should have a manual override, I'm just suggesting that things that would tend to cause mid-air catastrophes should have several layers of switches that prevent you from making it happen accidentally. I.e. you have to pull up a manual, flip a breaker and toggle a switch to make flight surface XY be greater than it's nominal usage of 9%.
    "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat."
    -- Theodore Roosevelt


  8. #168
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: The United States is OUT OF THE SPACE BUSINESS

    Yeah, true. I think the same thing.

    You mean safety overrides I guess.

    In radios that had lots of voltages we had lock outs. Lock outs were (as you probably are aware in electronics) something that removes the high voltage from places where the tech could stick his fingers (or arm as was the case in things I worked on).

    So you'd have to go and say, pull a breaker on a panel to turn off the transponder (gosh where have we heard this before, over the South China Sea... anyway)

    I can't see that someone who was a good pilot would deliberately do something that could cause catastrophic failure to the flight body.

    I can't see (as you're saying) that it SHOULD have been "easy" to make such a mistake.

    So that leaves us with either 1) a poor design that allowed for catastrophic mistakes or 2) a possible deliberate pilot "error" that caused the break up.

    If that plane had no safety gear in place to prevent such a thing then it HAS to be a mechanical failure or deliberate.....

    The investigators are saying that the preliminary information is that the co-pilot "sent a signal" that caused a problem.

    Here's what I am seeing (one of the articles):

    Investigators: Co-pilot of Virgin Galactic rocket executed slowing maneuver at wrong time

    By Fred Barbash November 3 at 4:50 AM Follow @fbarbash

    Photos appear to show the dramatic midair explosion of the Virgin Galactic passenger spaceship before its deadly crash. (Reuters)

    The co-pilot of the SpaceShipTwo rocket that crashed into the California desert Friday may have executed a braking maneuver at the wrong time and speed, the chief investigator of the accident said Sunday.
    While stressing that they have not determined the cause of the crash, the acting director of the National Transportation Safety Board also suggested that so far there was no sign of an engine failure, fire or explosion. The craft, which was part of entrepreneur Richard Branson’s “Virgin Galactic” dream of ferrying rich people into space, crashed seconds after it was released from the carrier plane that had flown it aloft.
    The fuel tanks and the engine were recovered intact with no signs of burning, said Christopher A. Hart, acting chairman of the NTSB.
    1 of 28



    Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShipTwo explodes

    Nov. 1, 2014


    Oct. 31, 2014







    At least one person is dead after the company’s space tourism craft crashed in the Mojave Desert.
    Nov. 2, 2014 Agents from the National Transportation Safety Board, FBI and local sheriff's office comb through the wreckage of the Virgin Galactic SpaceShipTwo in a desert field north of Mojave, Calif. Sandy Huffaker/Getty Images






    The findings described yesterday, however, at least hint at the possibility of pilot error or a malfunction of the system designed to create drag as the rocket reenters the atmosphere. A braking action, at a lower altitude where the air is dense, could conceivably have jolted or stressed the rocket causing it to break up. The braking system–which relies on the tailfins folding into a “feathered” configuration to create drag–is supposed to be deployed before the plane enters the atmosphere and then retract.
    The SpaceShipTwo, a narrow craft designed to whisk wealthy adventure-seekers into suborbital space, crashed early Friday — just seconds after separating from its carrier plane during a midair launch tens of thousands of feet above the Mojave Desert. It was the first time the engines used a new type of plastic-based fuel, splitting from the rubber-based solid fuel that propelled its predecessor, the SpaceShipOne, and nearly all previous tests.
    The carrier plane is designed to ascend to 50,000 feet and then release SpacShipTwo, which is then supposed to reach a sub-orbital altitude of 328,000 feet before beginning its descent.
    The craft has two tailfins designed to rotate upward and forward to slow the plane on its way down when it hits a speed of Mach 1.4. The effect has been compared with the feathers of a shuttlecock in badminton. In this flight, however, the “feathers” were deployed at Mach 1.0, Hart said, calling the sequence of events an “uncommanded feather.”

    U.S. transportation officials say the co-pilot of the Virgin Galactic space plane that crashed unlocked its wing tip "feathers" early and that pilot error has not been ruled out. (Reuters)

    Two actions are required in succession to deploy the feathers, Hart said. First, a handle must be moved manually from the “locked” to “unlocked” position. And then a second lever deploys the feathers and slows the spacecraft to prevent it from burning up on reentry.
    Hart said that, nine seconds after SpaceShipTwo was released from the carrier plane, the co-pilot did indeed shift the first handle to the unlocked position. The second lever was never pulled, he said. If the system were operating properly, the feathers should not have been deployed.
    But two seconds after the co-pilot shifted the first handle, the feathers were deployed. There’s no data after that point, he said, suggesting that’s when SpaceShipTwo malfunctioned or broke up.
    “There’s much more that we don’t know,” he said when asked if there was pilot error. “I’m not saying this was the cause,” he stressed repeatedly.
    The co-pilot, Michael Alsbury, died in the crash. The pilot, Peter Siebold, survived after being pulled from the wreckage. Hart would not comment on any interviews the investigators have conducted so far with witnesses or those involved in the flight.
    SpaceShipTwo was the industry’s glossiest showpiece, with Virgin Galactic owner Richard Branson saying he wanted to be one of the first passengers when flights began as early as next year. More than 700 celebrities and spacefaring hopefuls have paid up to $250,000 each for flight aboard the rocket plane. They were promised a few minutes of weightlessness at the edge of space.


    Virgin Galactic unveiled the SpaceShipTwo spacecraft at the Mojave Spaceport on Dec. 7, 2009, near Mojave, Calif. (David McNew/Getty Images)
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  9. #169
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: The United States is OUT OF THE SPACE BUSINESS

    Virgin Galactic crash: Copilot who died unlocked lever early, NTSB says


    By Ryan Parker contact the reporter

    National Transportation Safety Board

    Virgin Galactic crash investigation may take as long as a year, officials say
    NTSB has not yet interviewed surviving pilot in Virgin Galactic crash


    The National Transportation Safety Board confirmed Monday night that the copilot who died in the fatal crash of Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo prematurely unlocked the spacecraft's aerodynamic controls.
    After some confusion, acting chairman Christopher Hart clarified that 39-year-old Michael Alsbury, who died in Friday's crash, was in the right seat. He flipped a switch to unlock a lever that may have caused the spacecraft's tail to rise and create drag -- an action known as "feathering."
    That action occurred moments before SpaceShipTwo "disintegrated," according to the NTSB.
    The rocket ship, which was designed to shoot wealthy tourists into space, broke apart over the Mojave Desert during a test flight Friday morning, killing Alsbury and seriously injuring test pilot Peter Siebold.
    Late Sunday, the NTSB said pilot error may have been the main cause of the crash.
    Siebold has yet to be interviewed, Hart said.
    Hart said the agency is wrapping up its on-site investigation over the next few days.
    Parts of SpaceShipTwo were found as far as 35 miles northeast of crash site, the largest piece being the fuselage, Hart said. A "human performance group" was formed Monday to examine the human-machine interface of the crash and what led up to it, Hart said.
    It may take up to a year for the agency to complete its investigation.
    Although tragic, Virgin Galactic officials say the fatal crash will not deter the company from its mission.
    The company released a statement after the crash that read: “Everything we do is to pursue the vision of accessible and democratized space — and to do it safely.”
    In an interview with The Times on Sunday, George Whitesides, chief executive of Mojave-based Virgin Galactic, said work would continue in order to finish a second aircraft by the end of the year.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  10. #170
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: The United States is OUT OF THE SPACE BUSINESS

    http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...und-on-tickets

    I want my money back too. Oh, wait, I wasn't ready yet. LOL

    Some Virgin Galactic seatholders ask for refund on tickets after crash

    Company reveals 3% of customers have cancelled as investigators release analysis of pilots’ actions prior to crash

    Virgin Galactic space plane’s re-entry system activated early, say investigators






    One of the main unknowns behind the accident is what prompted the co-pilot to unlock the plane’s ‘feathering system’ early. Photograph: HO/AFP/Getty Images
    Ian Sample and Juliette Garside









    Virgin Galactic has revealed that about 20 of the 700 customers who have paid up to 」150,000 a head to reserve seats on the space tourism venture’s first flights have asked for their money back.
    After Friday night’s fatal test flight, which killed one pilot and left the other seriously injured in hospital, about 3% of Virgin Galactic’s customers had cancelled, a spokesperson for Sir Richard Branson’s space project confirmed. The company has collected about 」50m in deposits.
    Virgin Galactic declined to disclose which customers had torn up their tickets, but the waiting list includes household names from scientist Stephen Hawking to performers Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber, and Hollywood couple Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie.
    The cancellations came as investigators revealed Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShipTwo plane broke apart only 13 seconds after its rocket engine fired up. They have released the first detailed timeline for the test flight, which ended in disaster when the wings were ripped off the fuselage of SpaceShipTwo seconds after its novel aerobraking system was deployed prematurely.
    The space plane was released from its carrier aircraft about 45,000 feet over the Mojave desert in California at 10.07 and 19 seconds local time. Two seconds later, SpaceShipTwo’s rocket engine ignited. At 10.07 and 29 seconds, the space plane was approaching the sound barrier at Mach 0.94, and had punched through, reaching Mach 1.02 at 10.07 and 31 seconds.
    The space plane was passing through the sound barrier when Michael Alsbury, the co-pilot, who was killed in the accident, unlocked the aerobraking system early.
    In an update on Tuesday , investigators with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) said the braking system should not have been unlocked until the space plane reached the faster speed of Mach 1.4. Even when unlocked, the aerobrake should not have come on until either pilot operated another lever, but one theory is that aerodynamic forces pushed the braking system into position almost immediately.
    At Mach 1.4m the space plane would have been higher and in thinner air, but when the brake deployed, it was lower, down where the air is thicker, and the stresses on the brake would have been more violent.
    At 10.07 and 34 seconds, the plane was torn apart and all contact lost.
    SpaceShipTwo uses a novel “feathering system” to cut its speed and steady itself on re-entry to Earth’s atmosphere. When the brake is operated, twin tailbooms with fins that extend from the back of the space plane in normal flight swing upwards and forwards to increase drag. The move is intended to make the space plane fall like a shuttlecock until it reaches 70,000 feet, when the tailbooms return to normal position and the plane glides the rest of the way down.
    One of the main unknowns behind the accident is what prompted the co-pilot to unlock the feathering system early. The question is one that a newly established NTSB “human performance group” will focus on.
    Christopher Hart, acting chairman of the NTSB, said the group would investigate the “human-system interface”, or the controls, displays, and checklists for actions that pilots depend on to fly the space plane. Their work should establish whether the dials showed the right readings, or whether some other action led the co-pilot to try and deploy the aerobrake early.
    Other investigators will check whether the space plane systems were operating properly at the time of the crash. “We’re beginning a check of the systems in the spacecraft for integrity and to verify normal operations, such as the environmental control system, the pneumatic system, the electrical system, and flight control systems,” Hart said. The investigation will establish all the facts that led to the tragedy and then move into an analysis phase to piece together the probable cause of the accident and make recommendations to avoid future accidents. The whole process could take a year to complete.
    Most of the wreckage from the space plane fell over an 8km stretch of desert, but some smaller and lighter pieces of debris had been found as far as 56km away. The largest piece of the space plane is a fuselage wing piece, which must be cut into smaller pieces before it can be recovered to a hangar for inspection.
    The NTSB has interviewed several eye witnesses, but has yet to gain permission to interview the pilot, Peter Siebold, who managed to parachute from the space plane and is being treated in a local hospital for injuries. “We will work with his medical care and family to arrange that when he’s ready,” Hart said.
    • The headline on this article previously stated dozens of people asked for a refund. This has been corrected.
    A previous version of this article became corrupted due to a technical problem. It has been redirected here. Comments from the original article are not able to be displayed at this time
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  11. #171
    Postman vector7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Where it's quiet, peaceful and everyone owns guns
    Posts
    21,172
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 65 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: The United States is OUT OF THE SPACE BUSINESS

    Obama Administration and Russia agree to build NEW SPACE STATION and work on joint MARS project








    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

    March 28, 2015 - In a landmark decision, Russian space agency Roscosmos and its US counterpart NASA have agreed to build a new space station after the current International Space Station (ISS) expires. The operation of the ISS was prolonged until 2024.



    “We have agreed that Roscosmos and NASA will be working together on the program of a future space station," Roscosmos chief Igor Komarov said during a news conference on Saturday.

    The talks were held at Baikonur cosmodrome in Kazakhstan.

    The two agencies will be unifying their standards and systems of manned space programs, according to Komarov. “This is very important to future missions and stations.”

    The ISS life cycle was to expire in 2020. “Under the ISS program the door will be open to other participants,” Komarov told reporters.

    The next goal for the two agencies is a joint mission to Mars, NASA chief Charles Bolden told journalists.

    Roscosmos and NASA are working with each other and other partners on a global roadmap of space exploration, Bolden said. “Our area of cooperation will be Mars. We are discussing how best to use the resources, the finance, we are setting time frames and distributing efforts in order to avoid duplication.”

    NASA is currently committed to commercializing space activities. “We are consciously moving away from government financing of low-orbit missions,” Bolden said, adding that sometimes NASA “has been criticized” for that.

    At the same time, he stressed that the US has not abandoned its goal of returning to the moon. In the future, NASA is planning “to attract more private developers to our joint exploration projects of the Moon and Mars,” Bolden said.
    US-Russian crew blasts off for record-setting one-year ISS flight http://t.co/cwxoieJvDP #YearInSpace http://t.co/8dy5gBDiTe
    — RT America (@RT_America) March 27, 2015


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


    Nikita Khrushchev: "We will bury you"
    "Your grandchildren will live under communism."
    添ou Americans are so gullible.
    No, you won稚 accept
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    outright, but we値l keep feeding you small doses of
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you値l finally wake up and find you already have communism.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    ."
    We値l so weaken your
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you値l
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    like overripe fruit into our hands."



  12. #172
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    24,463
    Thanks
    46
    Thanked 61 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: The United States is OUT OF THE SPACE BUSINESS


    NASA’s Chief Confirms It: Without Russia, Space Station Lost

    March 4, 2015

    NASA's Administrator Charles Bolden acknowledged Wednesday there is no back-up plan to fly the International Space Station if Russia cuts off U.S. access to space.

    "We would make an orderly evacuation," Bolden said during a U.S. House Appropriations subcommittee hearing. Because both countries are dependent upon one another, the $140 billion station would be lost.

    It was a frank admission from Bolden who, during the last year as U.S. and Russia diplomatic relations have deteriorated, has sought to sidestep the question. Bolden has maintained that NASA and its counterpart agency in Russia, Roscosmos, have a cordial working relationship. So far Russia has, indeed, kept its commitments to NASA.

    Bolden's comments came during a tense 10-minute showdown with the space and science subcommittee's new chairman, John Culberson.

    The Houston Republican, comparing Russia President Vladimir Putin to the country's former dictator, Joseph Stalin, pressed Bolden several times before finally getting a direct answer.

    "You are forcing me into this answer, and I like to give you real answers," Bolden finally said. "I don't want to try and BS anybody."

  13. #173
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: The United States is OUT OF THE SPACE BUSINESS

    Ah, well... we have Space Ship II or something, right?

    Let's turn that thing right over to commercial interests.

    Get the Japanese involved again. Bring in ESA.

    If the United States government can't get their shit together, commercial interests have SHOWN they can.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  14. #174
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: The United States is OUT OF THE SPACE BUSINESS

    It occurs to me that writing letters to Congresscritters is the most useless waste of time and energy ever created by man. Next to watching television. Or fighting the idiots in government.

    The truth is, these companies, SpaceX (Elon Musk) and Virgin Galactic (Richard Branson) are the two up and coming space systems that have the ability and wherewithal to accomplish what two large super powers can't.

    That is to get up there, maintain the space station and put people into space, people onto building ships for Mars, and get us to Mars.

    They have billions of dollars in expendable monies; they have NASA technicians and scientists now; they have proven they are at least as good at putting rockets up as NASA was (if not better). Right now, SpaceX is working diligently to recover their lifting bodies (and are launching shortly another one after a crash a month back or so).

    My thinking is, it would be better to start writing to SpaceX and Virgin Galactic and ask them to work on a take over...
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  15. #175
    Postman vector7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Where it's quiet, peaceful and everyone owns guns
    Posts
    21,172
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 65 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: The United States is OUT OF THE SPACE BUSINESS

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan Ruck View Post

    NASA’s Chief Confirms It: Without Russia, Space Station Lost

    March 4, 2015

    NASA's Administrator Charles Bolden acknowledged Wednesday there is no back-up plan to fly the International Space Station if Russia cuts off U.S. access to space.

    "We would make an orderly evacuation," Bolden said during a U.S. House Appropriations subcommittee hearing. Because both countries are dependent upon one another, the $140 billion station would be lost.

    It was a frank admission from Bolden who, during the last year as U.S. and Russia diplomatic relations have deteriorated, has sought to sidestep the question. Bolden has maintained that NASA and its counterpart agency in Russia, Roscosmos, have a cordial working relationship. So far Russia has, indeed, kept its commitments to NASA.

    Bolden's comments came during a tense 10-minute showdown with the space and science subcommittee's new chairman, John Culberson.

    The Houston Republican, comparing Russia President Vladimir Putin to the country's former dictator, Joseph Stalin, pressed Bolden several times before finally getting a direct answer.

    "You are forcing me into this answer, and I like to give you real answers," Bolden finally said. "I don't want to try and BS anybody."
    No, it was lost with the election of Barack Hussein Obama where he has worked to give others a leading edge over America.


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


    Nikita Khrushchev: "We will bury you"
    "Your grandchildren will live under communism."
    添ou Americans are so gullible.
    No, you won稚 accept
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    outright, but we値l keep feeding you small doses of
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you値l finally wake up and find you already have communism.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    ."
    We値l so weaken your
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you値l
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    like overripe fruit into our hands."



  16. #176
    Postman vector7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Where it's quiet, peaceful and everyone owns guns
    Posts
    21,172
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 65 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: The United States is OUT OF THE SPACE BUSINESS

    Hijacked! How Obama and the Left Killed NASA: The journey from the Moon to radical activism

    / CRC Staff



    Organization Trends, June 2016


    By Art Harman

    Summary
    : American leadership in space exploration helped create and fuel the high-tech boom that led U.S. global competitiveness since the early 1960s. NASA returned to our national prosperity and national security far more than the investments we made in the agency. We beat the Soviets to the Moon and pioneered the way for many commercial ventures. NASA was preparing to take Americans back to the Moon and on to Mars—until President Obama took office and had a very different objective in mind.

    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration used to be on the cutting edge of science, leading the way in space exploration and having an outsized impact on technological progress worldwide in the process. But today NASA is a shadow of its former self. President Obama isn’t interested in anything unless it advances his so-called social justice agenda. For example, left-wingers in general don’t like U.S. soldiers fighting wars; they prefer the armed forces performing social work on humanitarian missions. Sending Americans to Mars or beyond doesn’t move the leftist ball forward.

    So NASA’s costly manned space exploration programs were low-hanging fruit for an administration whose primary interest is in making government bigger and more centralized. The more NASA is cut, the more the Obama administration can spend on welfare programs to buy more votes by expanding the ranks of the government-dependent.

    But instead of baldly stating his objectives, President Obama has simply put NASA on the back burner, turning it increasingly into an agency disseminating left-wing political propaganda for mass consumption.

    Remember NASA’s glorious past

    The world held its collective breath on July 20, 1969 as Neil Armstrong took the first step on the Moon and proclaimed, “That’s one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.” Generations since benefitted from American-led advances in technology, medicine, and manufacturing, as humanity entered the space age. The space program is “American exceptionalism” defined, and NASA has continued to benefit America by carrying out its official mission: “To pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.”

    President Obama subverted this mission to concentrate on global warming extremism, Muslim outreach, missions to nowhere, and a future almost devoid of the giant leaps and planetary probes that rightly awed us for decades and advanced America’s competitiveness in high technology. (For a riveting history of the lunar program and the way it overcame immense technological and managerial challenges, see Apollo by Charles Murray and Catherine Bly Cox.)

    The Hijacking

    Here’s how it went down: In early 2010, Obama cancelled the Constellation program (already a reported $10 billion and seven years in progress) and its Ares I and Ares V rockets, the Orion spacecraft, the Altair lunar lander, and even America’s plans to return to the Moon and go on to Mars.

    With that, space exploration was dead, and it may remain so for a decade or longer.

    To create the appearance that America still has a space program, a project was invented to spend the next 10 to 15 years planning one single mission to a fragment of an asteroid.

    A bipartisan majority in Congress united against Obama’s destruction—partially. While Congress didn’t have the courage to force NASA to restore the plans and hardware required to return to the Moon, lawmakers did save the two most critical elements of the program, the Orion spacecraft and the Ares V rocket, and approved funding for commercial crew launches. The Ares V Moon-Mars rocket was renamed the “Space Launch System” (SLS) and was somewhat improved. Congress’s apparent goal was to proceed with the core elements of the program to allow the next president to restore NASA’s mission of space exploration.

    While this was happening, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, a former astronaut, U.S. Marine Corps flag officer, and test pilot, was making diversionary excuses for the cancellation of manned space exploration and carrying out President Obama’s orders. In July 2010, Bolden explained to Al-Jazeera:

    When I became the NASA administrator, [President Obama] charged me with three things. One, he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math and engineering.

    Michael Griffin, who ran NASA in President George W. Bush’s second term, responded to this astonishing notion by describing the Muslim outreach initiative as a “perversion” of the agency’s mission:

    “NASA was chartered by the 1958 Space Act to develop the arts and sciences of flight in the atmosphere and in space and to go where those technologies will allow us to go,” Griffin said. “That’s what NASA does for the country. It is a perversion of NASA’s purpose to conduct activities in order to make the Muslim world feel good about its contributions to science and mathematics” (Truth Revolt, Feb. 20, 2015, http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/flas...treach-program).

    Nowhere on Bolden’s list was advancing NASA’s mission of space exploration and remaining the world leader in technological innovation.

    From the Moon to Global Warming

    So if NASA isn’t taking Americans to the Moon or Mars, where is NASA headed? Unlike welfare and entitlement programs, NASA’s overall budget has been relatively flat in the Obama years. It was $17.78 billion in 2009 and fell to $16.86 billion in 2013. For the current fiscal year the figure is $19.3 billion, but the total is projected to fall to $18.8 billion in 2017.

    Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) provided numerical proof that NASA’s mission was hijacked to push radical global warming theories, “In the last 6 years…we’ve seen earth sciences increase 41 percent, and we’ve seen exploration and space operations—what should be the core mission, what NASA exists to do—decrease 7.6 percent.” Earth Sciences is the primary NASA department for global warming activities.

    In 2012, 49 former NASA astronauts and distinguished scientists wrote a letter asking Administrator Bolden to stop using NASA to push radical global warming theories. They warned that NASA’s “advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study” puts at risk “the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.”

    Who’s behind this?

    Who’s behind this change of goals for NASA? Certainly President Obama, who promised in 2007 to dramatically cut funds for NASA’s Constellation rockets. That money would have helped finance his proposed $18 billion “Lifetime Success Through Education” plan which included a scary “Pre-School Agenda that Begins at Birth,” and would require “all students in grant recipient districts…to engage in some form of community service”—that is, in forced volunteer work.

    Once elected, Obama kept his campaign promise to cancel long-existing plans to return to the Moon and go on to Mars. This decision may derive from his “post-American world” ideology, which manifested itself when he exhibited a pained reluctance even to say the words, “American exceptionalism.”

    How better to demonstrate that the U.S. is no longer a superpower than to kill American leadership in space, or to give other nations a decade’s head start in space?

    Meet “Dr. Death,” Obama’s Science Advisor, John Holdren

    Dr. John P. Holdren is Obama’s Science Advisor and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Science policy includes space policy, of course.

    Holdren was an odd choice for the post. He is co-author, along with oft-discredited doomsayer Paul Ehrlich, of Human Ecology: Problems & Solutions, a book that looks favorably on reducing Americans to North Korean-style poverty; implementing Chinese-style forced abortion and sterilization laws; and even putting sterilizing poisons in water and food. He argued in the book that a newborn baby is merely a potential human being. Holdren contemplates enforcing his misanthropic proposals with a United Nations-style global army.

    Excerpts from Holdren’s shocking book include:


    • “The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being.”
    • “Human values and institutions have set mankind on a collision course with the laws of nature. Human beings cling jealously to their prerogative to reproduce as they please—and they please to make each new generation larger than the last—yet endless multiplication on a finite planet is impossible. Most humans aspire to greater material prosperity, but the number of people that can be supported on Earth if everyone is rich is even smaller than if everyone is poor.”
    • “A massive campaign must be launched to … de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation. Resources and energy must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries.”
    • “[A] comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources. The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region … the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”
    • “The third approach to population limitation is that of involuntary fertility control. Several coercive proposals deserve discussion.… Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control.”


    So what does a totalitarian global warmist have to do with NASA and the president’s agenda?

    Perhaps everything. Tearing down NASA’s bold plans for American space exploration may fit into both Holdren’s and Obama’s shared anti-American and anti-science ideology, and together the two men have made serious progress towards their apparent goal of hijacking NASA’s mission.

    Poverty, Hunger, World Peace—and China: Lori Garver, NASA’s Deputy Administrator

    Lori Garver was Obama’s space policy advisor on his 2008 campaign and then led the Presidential Transition Agency Review Team for NASA. After the election, she was rewarded with the position of Deputy NASA Administrator.

    While four-time shuttle astronaut Charles Bolden became NASA’s Administrator, many saw Garver as the ideological and policy leader who implemented the president’s extreme global warming and “post-American world” visions at NASA, with Administrator Bolden serving more as the manager and public face of the space agency. Indeed at least one candidate for Administrator reportedly refused the position because the candidate didn’t want to work with Garver.

    Garver revealed NASA’s hijacked destination when she outlined the administration’s vision for NASA’s transformation in a March 2010 speech to the American Astronautical Society. The president’s plans “will enable NASA to align with the priorities of the nation and to more optimally contribute to our Nation’s future. These key national priorities that I am referring to are: Economic development—poverty, hunger, jobs. International leadership/geo-politics—world peace. Education—societal advancement. Environment—future of planet and humanity.”

    In a congressional hearing later the same month, Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas) took Garver’s agenda to task:

    [Garver said that] NASA’s priorities are to ‘fight poverty, promote world peace and societal advancement, and protect the environment’; I’d suggest to you that Ms. Garver has completely lost sight of the core mission of NASA, which is to preserve and protect America’s leadership in manned space, manned and robotic space exploration; to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research.

    Garver left NASA in September 2013, but continued her ideological battle against the space program by attacking the Space Launch System rocket and the next Mars rover. She belittled the rocket program by asking “where is it going to go?” After more than four years at NASA, she knew but perhaps disagreed: SLS will take Americans to the Moon and Mars.

    In a briefing I attended in 2012, Garver spoke dreamily of NASA working closely with China’s military-led space program. Because of Garver’s and Bolden’s initial efforts towards cooperation with China, Congress was forced to outlaw any cooperation to prevent China from plundering our highest technology and using it against us in their military and undercutting American commercial space enterprises like Space X.

    In 2011 Congress approved legislation forbidding NASA from working with Communist China. According to an official summary, Public Law 112-55, Title V, section 539, “prohibits the use of any NASA or [White House Office of Science and Technology Policy] funds to participate in any way in any program with China or any Chinese-owned company, unless specifically authorized by law.”

    “We know that China is an active, aggressive espionage threat,” now-retired Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) has said. “I suspect that this focus on stealing space and flight-based technology explains at least some of the major advances that the Chinese space program has made over the past few years.”

    The ideological war against NASA would resume if Garver were brought back under a new Democrat administration.

    The Anti-Civilization Global Warming “Godfather”—with an Arrest Record

    James Hansen was the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies until 2013. He became known as a taxpayer-funded activist for radical global warming theories and carbon taxes. Rather than use scientific methodology to prove his case, he used alarmist predictions of dramatic and unsubstantiated temperature and sea level increases to try to scare opponents into silence.

    For example, Hansen told the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming in 2008: “CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”

    In an op-ed in the Guardian on Feb. 14, 2009, he ranted that “The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.”

    Hansen used his stature as a NASA scientist to gain media attention by getting arrested at global warming demonstrations, a misuse of his position of trust. He wrote a supportive statement for the book Time’s Up!, saying author Keith Farnish “has it right: time has practically run out, and the ‘system’ is the problem. Governments are under the thumb of fossil fuel special interests—they will not look after our and the planet’s well-being until we force them to do so, and that is going to require enormous effort –Professor James Hansen, GISS, NASA[.]”

    The book Hansen endorsed calls for terrorist-type actions to destroy sea walls and dams, “razing cities to the ground,” and ending civilization. Not just ending the radical Left’s hated “western civilization” or even creating a North Korean-style prison society where only the elite receive the benefits of modern comforts, but ending the entirety of what the author calls “industrial civilization” itself.

    Hansen’s predictions of massive sea-level rises over the next 50 years were too radical even for the notorious Global Warming advocate Michael Mann, who said they were “prone to a very large ‘extrapolation error.’” Mann is the taxpayer-funded so-called climate scientist who invented the discredited “hockey stick” measure of temperature, and who was accused of altering temperature data in the “Climategate” scandal. One propaganda technique employed by global warming activists is to scare people by issuing apocalyptically exaggerated predictions.

    While there are no memos or confessions by these ideological warriors that they intended to hijack NASA for their own radical ideological purposes, the results and budgets speak for themselves.

    Alarmist James Hansen’s replacement, Gavin Schmidt

    Gavin Schmidt is James Hansen’s replacement as head of the Goddard Institute. A self-described “liberal Jewish atheist from New York City,” he shares Hansen’s warming alarmism, though he uses more careful language. For example, he predicts a 3-6 meter sea-level rise in this century, vastly higher than the 7.5 inches per century predicted in the 2014 paper, “Global Sea Level Behavior of the Past Two Centuries,” by Jevrejeva, Moore, Grinsted, Matthews, and Spada.

    In 2009, a commenter on Schmidt’s website, realclimate.org, asked: “Gavin, In your opinion, what percentage of global warming is due to human causes vs. natural causes?”

    The response: “Over the last 40 or so years, natural drivers would have caused cooling, and so the warming there has been (and some) is caused by a combination of human drivers and some degree of internal variability. I would judge the maximum amplitude of the internal variability to be roughly 0.1 deg C over that time period, and so given the warming of ~0.5 deg C, I’d say somewhere between 80 to 120% of the warming. Slightly larger range if you want a large range for the internal stuff. – gavin.” (available at http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=1853)

    Michael Mann lauded the selection of Schmidt to replace Hansen. “Gavin is an ideal successor to James Hansen, one of the few individuals I know who can rightfully fill those shoes. NASA can be confident that in Gavin they have found a director who can lead the Goddard Institute for Space Sciences forward in the years and decades ahead as we continue to grapple with the scientific and societal issue of human-caused climate change.”

    Manned space exploration was indeed halted. Congress saved the rocket, but Obama killed plans to use it for the Moon or Mars. Extreme global warming theories robbed increasing amounts of NASA’s time and budget, and NASA’s focus was further directed away from the advancement of American science, technology, and space exploration.

    Where do your NASA tax dollars go?

    Most would hope and expect they would be invested in rovers on Mars, astronauts on the space station, Hubble Telescope photos, and preparing to send Americans to the Moon and Mars. Due to the efforts of NASA’s global warming extremists like James Hansen, some of NASA’s funds get wasted on false science, such as: “A Minimal Model for Human and Nature Interaction,” which is a 2012 partially NASA-funded study, published in the journal Ecological Economics, that strayed light years beyond space exploration. The anti-free market, pro-class warfare study tried to prove that western society would collapse because of the “elites.”

    The authors admitted the study was a “thought experiment” and acknowledged that “this work was partially funded through NASA/GSFC [Goddard Space Flight Center] grant NNX12AD03A.”

    They pitted against each other “commoners,” “wealth,” “elites,” “nature” and “population.” Then they employed a “Predator-Prey Model” that measured in “Eco $,” to make the case—using only four equations—that “optimal equilibrium [occurs] when Elite population equals zero.” The authors invented a “Human and Nature DYnamical model (HANDY),” which “was inspired by the Predator and Prey model,” and used the model to predict the collapse of Western civilization.
    After the 2012 study was exposed in the media, the authors removed the original study from the Internet and released a more sanitized version. I was able to find a copy of the original.

    The authors’ conclusions are eerily similar to Time’s Up! and Holdren’s book, Global Ecology, both of which advocated ending Western civilization.

    The Left did not miss the significance of the pro-socialist study, which Derrick O’Keefe, a contributor to the “Ecosocialism Canada” website, promoted in a Tweet: “This NASA-funded study makes case that future is socialism or extinction.”

    Part of the “HANDY” theory was that “collapse is difficult to avoid…. Elites grow and consume too much, resulting in a famine among Commoners that eventually causes the collapse of society.”

    This rings bizarrely hollow in today’s world where obesity, not starvation, afflict increasing percentages of the “commoners” around the world. Indeed, famines outside of natural disasters and wars are mostly limited to dictatorships that use food as a weapon and nationalize or regulate to death the production of food. For example, Venezuela is a lush and fertile jungle, yet the Communist regime has destroyed farming to the extent that even bread and beer are all but memories on the empty grocery store shelves. Free enterprise, not eradicating “elites,” is the antidote for famine and societal collapse.

    After a flood of criticism, NASA disavowed the study, yet its theme that society is about to collapse without socialism fits with the anti-civilization beliefs of Holdren and Hansen. Socialism or bust.

    The International Committee of the Fourth International lauded the study on its World Socialist Web Site, which is affiliated with the pro-Communist Socialist Equality Party: “The HANDY model is notable in that it explicitly recognizes the central importance of class differentiation and inequality in social dynamics, and identifies growing inequality as a major destabilizing factor. Indeed, the model examines scenarios in which social inequality alone can lead to catastrophic societal collapse.”

    William “Matt” Briggs, an adjunct professor of statistical science at Cornell University and author of Breaking the Law of Averages: Real Life Probability and Statistics in Plain English, debunked the study in a CNS News report:

    “Using a predator-prey model, the “Human and Nature Dynamics” (HANDY) study “swaps the wolves for human beings and the deer for ‘Nature.’ Since “nothing empirical went into these equations,” the study’s doomsday conclusions “have no applicability whatsoever to humans,” Briggs told CNSNews.com.

    “All of the flaws—when they give interpretations to all of those letters, the x’s, the c’s, the Greek letters that they have sprinkled throughout—those interpretations are just pulled out of the sky, and have nothing to do with any real human society. The problem is, all those symbols, they don’t mean anything. History also shows that socialist societies whose main goal is egalitarianism are actually more likely to collapse than their capitalistic counterparts.”

    The next president must shut down global warming advocacy at NASA, including doling out scarce research money for useless and propagandistic studies like this one.

    How the Left Profits from NASA

    NASA has entered into an almost incestuous relationship with left-wing pro-global-warming organizations—many of them are tax-exempt nonprofits. NASA’s respected name on a report, regardless of its merit, conveys the ‘gold standard’ on even the most alarmist warming report, only because of the high regard the public places in the agency which landed Americans on the Moon and rovers on Mars.

    NASA’s biased global warming studies have therefore become the respectable “go to” source of material for many radical organizations, used to justify and lend credibility to their theories, to cite in papers and conferences, and to use to raise money for their radical agenda.

    NASA produces reports and data by James Hansen and his acolytes, and funds research like the “Socialism or extinction” study, which the nonprofits promote as gospel to justify their radical demands. They give greater exposure to NASA’s studies, which creates more demand for new NASA studies, and the cycle continues.

    For example, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, uses NASA information in its Global Warming 101 primer (available at www.nrdc.org/stories/global-warming-101), and it uses a Hansen op-ed to fight the Keystone XL Pipeline. NRDC even used an alarmist NASA cartoon video (available at www.nrdc.org/onearth/were-hot-water) that predicts catastrophic flooding of cities based on James Hansen’s sea-level rise theories to argue for greater action and to scare kids. The anti-energy activist organization 350.org is yet another 501(c)(3) that promotes Hansen’s papers and data, as well as the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s works based on NASA data.

    The Environmental Defense Fund has 223 pages of NASA information on its website, using America’s space agency to enhance its credibility and fundraising. Greenpeace’s website has 52 pages, and Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project has nine.

    Friends of the Earth has 30 pages of NASA materials on its website and used a quote by Hansen to advocate for a carbon tax: “A price on emissions that cause harm is essential.”

    Skimming the list of other radical environmental groups’ websites, the Earth Island Institute has 60 pages of NASA information, and the Sierra Club boasts 554 pages. Even the prestigious National Geographic Society has promoted Hansen’s overwrought theories on its website, where Hansen wrote that “recent heat waves that have triggered wildfires, droughts, and heat-related deaths in the United States and around the globe almost certainly would not have occurred without global warming—and will become more routine in coming years.”

    The Center for American Progress (CAP) was founded by Obama ally John Podesta and is one of the major left-wing think tanks that provides policy support for the president’s agenda. CAP has supported the transmogrification of NASA. For example, CAP’s lobbying arm, the Center for American Progress Action Fund, promoted an alarmist report by Gavin Schmidt, Hansen’s replacement as Goddard Institute director. Schmidt claimed that “2015 will be a scorcher relative to all other years in the record.”

    NASA Administrator Bolden chose CAP as the venue for an October 2015 speech in which he attacked anyone in the next administration and Congress who may try to restore NASA’s focus back to landing American astronauts on the Moon and Mars: “If we change our minds at any time in the next three or four years, which always is a risk when you go through a government transition, my belief is that we’re doomed. This is not a time that we can start over.” In reality, it was Obama who “started over” by cancelling the plans and rockets to take Americans to the Moon and Mars, and setting an accelerated course towards global warming advocacy.

    NASA data is also used as “proof” in the UN’s IPCC reports which aim to cripple the economies of western democracies but not those of China and the Third World. NASA then returned the favor by promoting IPCC reports that use NASA data.

    In short, NASA’s fanciful global warming theories have been used to bestow unearned legitimacy on left-wing advocacy organizations. Their ability to raise funds is enhanced by simply being able to quote a “NASA scientist” and by filling their websites and perhaps fundraising letters with global warming theories from NASA. When the public reads “NASA scientist,” they think of astronauts and rocket scientists, not radical professors advocating for the end of civilization.

    How do you kill the space program without anyone noticing?

    Use the “Emperor’s New Clothes” strategy.

    If the president proclaims America is on a “Journey to Mars,” but kills the plans to get there, no one in the liberal media would dare shout the obvious: “America has no space program!” To assist in this deception, Obama took the step politicians often take to buy cover for unpopular actions: he established a commission to declare that space exploration was “unsustainable.”

    The “Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans Committee,” or more commonly, the “Augustine Commission,” produced its report in 2010 at a cost of $3,000,000 to taxpayers.

    The report, misleadingly titled, “Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great Nation,” stated that “the U.S. human spaceflight program appears to be on an unsustainable trajectory. It is perpetuating the perilous practice of pursuing goals that do not match allocated resources.” (The report is online at http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main_H...inalReport.pdf.) In this writer’s opinion, the commission should have concluded that space exploration was a national priority and that the U.S. could certainly afford the required 15 percent in additional NASA spending to make it succeed.

    Obama seized upon the conclusion of the commission to cancel programs against the wishes of NASA and astronauts, depriving us of the rockets and spacecraft that would have taken us to the Moon and on to Mars starting about 2020. Unfortunately, many in Congress, the public, and even supporters of the space program were fooled by the Emperor’s New Clothes strategy.

    The report used to kill space exploration exploited the image and words of President John F. Kennedy from his famous 1961 Rice University speech, where he set America on a course for both the Moon and for generations of American leadership in high technology:

    “We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills.”

    Just eight years after President Kennedy’s inspirational speech, NASA landed Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the Moon.

    By contrast, in the nearly eight years of the Obama presidency, all plans and the rockets for exploring the Moon and Mars were scuttled, the space shuttles were grounded before replacements were ready, and American astronauts are still forced to fly to the International Space Station on Russian rockets. NASA was burdened with an essentially impossible-to-accomplish asteroid mission to replace the return-to-the-Moon mission and real plans for Mars. President Kennedy’s legacy was betrayed by President Obama.

    Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) was among many in Congress who blasted Obama for killing space exploration. In February 2010 he said:

    The President’s proposed NASA budget begins the death march for the future of U.S. human space flight. The cancelation of the Constellation program and the end of human space flight does represent change—but it is certainly not the change I believe in. Congress cannot and will not sit back and watch the reckless abandonment of sound principles, a proven track record, a steady path to success, and the destruction of our human space flight program.
    Administrator Bolden repeatedly ruled out any missions to the Moon. Why?

    Perhaps Obama’s worldview is the problem. In 2008, he posed for a photograph holding a book, The Post-American World, by left-wing serial plagiarist Fareed Zakaria. The title sent a signal to America’s enemies and adversaries that as president, Obama would reduce our superpower status and cede power and leadership to the tyrannies.

    By contrast, space exploration is the ultimate confirmation of “American exceptionalism” and superpower accomplishment.

    Bowing to China

    Communist China understands the hard- and soft-power benefits of becoming the leader in space exploration and is taking full advantage of the decade’s head start afforded by Obama’s actions.

    To date, China has launched five manned missions to earth orbit, including two to its mini-space station. Many Americans active in space policy seem lulled to sleep by China’s apparently slow pace and believe the Chinese will continue moving slowly. But this view stems from a failure to understand the brutal totalitarian regime’s strategies of deception and secrecy. Chinese dictators Deng Xiaoping and Jiang Zemin followed such a strategy while quietly building their military strength on the principle of “hide our capacities and bide our time.”

    The People’s Republic is quietly building an Apollo-scale infrastructure and the world’s largest rocket factory. This, coupled with their Moon rocket now in design stage, may allow China to conquer the Moon unless the U.S. can quickly recover from Obama’s damage.

    Chinese officials recently unveiled both a bold timetable to send a rover to Mars by 2021 and also plans for a manned lunar base to mine lunar minerals and Helium-3, a nuclear fusion fuel. If China wants the world to believe it will not lay claim to the Moon, it is setting a poor example by trying to seize the South China Sea, in violation of 400 years of international law and practice.

    If President Obama deliberately wanted to give China a head start of a decade or more, or to allow the Chinese to claim the Moon, it is hard to imagine he would have done anything differently during his administration.

    Divide and conquer

    Beyond killing space exploration, converting NASA into a propaganda agency, and giving our adversaries a decade’s head start, Obama killed something perhaps even more important: Unity.

    As Obama killed the Constellation program, he made a false statement at the Kennedy Space Center on April 15, 2010, calculated to destroy unity among space experts and advocates:

    “I understand that some believe that we should return to the surface of the Moon first, as previously planned, but I just have to say pretty bluntly here, we’ve been there before! There’s a lot more of space to explore and a lot more to learn when we do.”

    The “been there, done that” line is a case of the “big lie.” American astronauts spent only about 12 days on the Moon over three years, so we know essentially nothing about the physiological effects of living in low gravity on Mars for months or years, nor the requirements for conducting life and operations on the surface.

    Ever since Wernher von Braun engineered America’s course to the Moon, the scientist-devised plan was always to use the Moon to learn how to live on another world, before proceeding to Mars. Once Obama torpedoed the Moon-then-Mars agreement as official policy, various minor but competing ideas spread fast: Go to Mars immediately. Go to asteroids for a decade or longer, then look at Mars. Build a space station in deep space, perhaps to support Lunar and Martian expeditions in decades to come. Spend the next decade doing a few short missions in the vicinity of the Moon. Don’t land on Mars but just send astronauts to orbit Mars and run rovers from there.

    Some plans were unworkable, while others would not inspire support from Congress or the public. By killing unity, Obama caused advocates of each different idea to fight each other. This alone could prevent the next president from assembling the unity required to re-start space exploration.

    There are many compelling reasons for von Braun’s Moon-then-Mars “stepping stones” approach. The Moon is far closer and easier to reach. Spacecraft can go to the Moon in 4 days, and be launched or returned at any time. Mars, by comparison is a 6 to 9 month journey and launches can only take place every 26 months. In the event of an emergency on the Moon, astronauts can immediately evacuate and be home in 3 days. This is impossible on Mars because it could be many months until the next launch window allows a return.

    Mars has a deadly naturally occurring poison in its soil. Perchlorates make up about 1 percent of the soil in measured areas. If “Mark Watney,” the stranded astronaut in last year’s movie, The Martian, had used perchlorate-laden soil to grow his potatoes, they would have made him very sick or killed him. These factors don’t mean that Mars is uninhabitable, just that we have a lot to learn before sending anyone there, and making the leap to the red planet without an intermediate step would be too great a “giant leap.”

    Far better to develop and validate all the technology, habitats, and human factors on the Moon, rather than set course for an un-tested 1,000-day mission to Mars—with no early return possibility. Deaths on early missions to Mars could cause humanity to shun Mars for generations. Do it right and America can build a research base on the Moon in the 2020s, and with lessons learned, successfully land on Mars in the 2030s.

    Space is a Conservative Priority

    America’s space program serves the nation in a number of ways. These include supporting national security and the projection of soft power, building international respect, and advancing high technology and basic research fundamental to long-term, worldwide economic competitiveness. Medical inventions derived from space research help people live longer, and your cellular telephone has its roots in the drive to miniaturize electronics for space.

    Abandoning space to the tyrannies would endanger U.S. commercial and military satellites, and space so dominated would be hostile to commercial space ventures such as Space X—imagine U.N. restrictions on commercial space, forced profit-sharing with foreign governments, and outright threats such as China currently issues in the South China Sea. Spending on NASA yields far more in technology and inventions for the economy, and it may be the only federal agency that produces a large net benefit to the economy.

    Conclusion

    President Obama, John Holdren, Lori Garver, and James Hansen have succeeded in their apparent mission to convert NASA’s bold exploration and scientific mission into yet another left-wing propaganda-spewing agency. As House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) observed at a 2014 hearing, “there are 13 other agencies involved in climate-change research, but only one that is responsible for space exploration.”

    The next president must halt the ideological war at NASA and work with Congress to provide the funding to unleash the engineers and astronauts who will rebuild America’s leadership in space and high technology for the next generation. The goal should be an “American exceptionalism”-style space program that would truly earn the name given in the Augustine Commission’s report: “a human spaceflight program worthy of a great nation.”

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


    Nikita Khrushchev: "We will bury you"
    "Your grandchildren will live under communism."
    添ou Americans are so gullible.
    No, you won稚 accept
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    outright, but we値l keep feeding you small doses of
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you値l finally wake up and find you already have communism.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    ."
    We値l so weaken your
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you値l
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    like overripe fruit into our hands."



  17. #177
    Postman vector7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Where it's quiet, peaceful and everyone owns guns
    Posts
    21,172
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 65 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: The United States is OUT OF THE SPACE BUSINESS

    Quote Originally Posted by vector7 View Post
    In 2011, China launched more rockets into orbit than the U.S.葉he first time ever, according to Gizmodo. Though the U.S. retains advantages in funding, the Chinese launched 19 rockets last year, while the U.S. launched 18; both were eclipsed by Russia, which sent 31 rockets into space.


    When asked for advice Tuesday by a WUSA9 reporter, former Discovery astronaut Dr. Anna Fisher told a boy watching the shuttle, 鉄tudy Russian.


    Now that Obama has more flexibility maybe he can openly turn it over to the Russians.


    Why did a Russian airline buy a spaceport in California?

    October 6, 2016 Victoria Zavyalova, RBTH

    In a major surprise for the aerospace industry, Russia's S7 airline announced that it bought the floating Sea Launch spaceport based in California. While the spaceport has massive debt, S7's general director says it's his "ticket to the stars."


    The deal took industry insiders by surprise because it's not clear why a successful airline needs a problematic and debt-ridden acquisition. Photo: The floating 'Sea Launch' spaceport based in California, U.S. Source: Press photo

    During the International Astronautical Congress in Guadalajara at the end of September, Moscow-based S7 Group signed an agreement to buy the floating Sea Launch spaceport from Russian state-owned Energia Rocket and Space Corporation. With an investment of over $150 million, S7 is the first private Russian company to invest in the space industry.

    The deal took industry insiders by surprise because it's not clear why a successful airline needs a problematic and debt-ridden acquisition. Experts joked that S7's general director, Vladislav Filev, was tortured into making the deal. But he insists that Sea Launch is his ticket to the stars, and he is certain it will be successful.

    For the spaceport to be fully operational, however, the new owner must first obtain a license, and S7 doesn't have one. Despite the Russian company's ownership rights, Sea Launch is still under U.S. jurisdiction, based in the Port of Long Beach, California. Filev wants to take it back to Russia, but first he needs the U.S. State Department's permission.

    Russia's Elon Musk?


    In Russia the media calls Filev "the Russian Elon Musk." Indeed, he is very ambitious. "My company won't be No. 1 in aviation and can't outdo Aeroflot, but we can be No. 1 in space," said Filev. Over the next 15 years, starting in 2018, S7 expects about 70 commercial launches from the floating spaceport.


    Six hours on Mars: Surviving the Red Planet


    The company is already holding talks with potential clients, a source from the Russian Space Agency told RBTH. Filev added that S7 is primarily counting on cooperation with private companies that launch satellites.

    Ivan Moiseev, director of the Institute of Space Politics, is concerned that S7's spaceport won't find much business. He thinks the market is already saturated and it will be difficult for a new player. However, Vladimir Solntsev, Energia's CEO, believes that S7 can flourish if it offers better prices. The appearance of a new player on the space services market may in itself lead to significant price reduction, said Solntsev.

    Getting into orbit

    Mikhail Kokorich, founder of Dauria Aerospace, told RBTH that he is closely following the developments with Sea Launch, and his company is ready to use the platform to launch its small ATOM telecommunication satellites, which each weigh one ton.


    Roskosmos to develop space tourism in 2 years

    "We are ready to launch them from the spaceport if S7 offers reliability and a competitive price," said Kororich. "We could use the spaceport to launch our satellites into geostationary orbit and geostationary transfer orbit. The launch price must not be more than $960,000 and the reliability at least 97 percent.

    Kokorich added that all international telecommunication satellite operators are Sea Launch's potential clients.

    Fateful year

    Sea Launch was launched in 1995 by an international consortium whose biggest shareholders were Boeing (40 percent) and Russia's Energia (25 percent). The ambitious project, however, was unprofitable. It had only 36 launches, much less than expected, and maintenance costs were high. In 2009, the company filed for bankruptcy.

    As a result, 95 percent of Sea Launch shares went to Energia. Boeing returned the money to all its creditors, having paid off the debts of the other shareholders. Later, Boeing demanded the return of $330 million in debt from Energia.

    The year 2014 was a fateful moment in Sea Launch's future. Citing tensions with Russia, Ukraine refused to supply the Zenit rockets for which all of the spaceport's equipment had been assembled.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


    Nikita Khrushchev: "We will bury you"
    "Your grandchildren will live under communism."
    添ou Americans are so gullible.
    No, you won稚 accept
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    outright, but we値l keep feeding you small doses of
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you値l finally wake up and find you already have communism.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    ."
    We値l so weaken your
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you値l
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    like overripe fruit into our hands."



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •