Former NASA Administrator Mike Griffin invokes Mark Twain's walking, quacking duck to call out the Obama administration for grounding America's manned space flight program. Griffin, speaking at a symposium in Huntsville, AL, flatly declares that the current administration "does not want NASA" to have a human spaceflight program.
I've disagreed with some of Griffin's positions in the past. But this time, he's right--and a standing ovation to him for calling things as they are.
Here's one radically logical suggestion to keep the International Space Station staffed as the Russians sort out their space vehicle problems. There's an eager, well-trained corps of space workers still available to support such a mission. Let's use them and their talents before layoffs disperse them to the four winds.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Space Station Solution at Hand: Political Courage Required
Surprise, surprise, folks. President Obama's "tear it down and rip it up" approach to our aerospace and science programs led to the downing of America's successful space shuttle program without a new program on the horizon.
Instead, Obama's government decided, let's abandon the proven NASA value of "redundancy" --having at least one backup for any component or requirement--and let's put all our eggs, and taxpayers' money, into the Russian basket. Great idea, that, all the syncophants lined up to intone as they genuflected.
Not a great idea, as the August 24 loss of the Soyuz rocket promptly proved. In the wake of the loss of the space station Progress resupply ship, Russia's launch calendar for manned space station flights is on the skids.
Now NASA officials are talking about the possibility that the space station will have to be abandoned. After continuous occupation since 2000, the space station, begun in 1988, might become a ghost facility, managed from the ground.
And that, my friends, is ridiculous. The International Space Station is the towering achievement of our space era, and it, as well as taxpayers, deserves more than a rolling over to Russian problems.
However, we've long since lost any command of our own space destiny. Why did we accept that? Future historians will, no doubt, have a field day discussing how and why the world's most successful space-faring nation folded its cards and slipped away from the manned space exploration table.
There is a short-term solution to save the space station as a viable, operational facility. Just stop deactivating one of the shuttles--all of which are now museum-bound--and reactivate it.
Then put a commander and pilot onboard; fly to the space station. Plan to leave those folks onboard until they can hitch a ride home via a Russian vehicle.
NASA has assured us there's adequate supplies up there until sometime in 2012. There's room up there for two more astronauts.
Give the Russians a chance to get flying again. In the meantime, there'll be another option to get the astronauts and cosmonauts home: the old, reliable space shuttle.
Should flights via the Russian vehicles resume, NASA could leave the shuttle parked at the space station in case of emergency. If needed, there's a ride home waiting right outside the door.
It would be much better to leave a shuttle at the ready at the space station than just plonk its dead body into a museum. It would provide safety redundancy for crews at the station, and, logically, would make sense.
President Obama, why not? Show some political courage, and some support for America's space achievements, and provide the direction to put one shuttle back into flight status.
Instead, Obama's government decided, let's abandon the proven NASA value of "redundancy" --having at least one backup for any component or requirement--and let's put all our eggs, and taxpayers' money, into the Russian basket. Great idea, that, all the syncophants lined up to intone as they genuflected.
Not a great idea, as the August 24 loss of the Soyuz rocket promptly proved. In the wake of the loss of the space station Progress resupply ship, Russia's launch calendar for manned space station flights is on the skids.
Now NASA officials are talking about the possibility that the space station will have to be abandoned. After continuous occupation since 2000, the space station, begun in 1988, might become a ghost facility, managed from the ground.
And that, my friends, is ridiculous. The International Space Station is the towering achievement of our space era, and it, as well as taxpayers, deserves more than a rolling over to Russian problems.
However, we've long since lost any command of our own space destiny. Why did we accept that? Future historians will, no doubt, have a field day discussing how and why the world's most successful space-faring nation folded its cards and slipped away from the manned space exploration table.
There is a short-term solution to save the space station as a viable, operational facility. Just stop deactivating one of the shuttles--all of which are now museum-bound--and reactivate it.
Then put a commander and pilot onboard; fly to the space station. Plan to leave those folks onboard until they can hitch a ride home via a Russian vehicle.
NASA has assured us there's adequate supplies up there until sometime in 2012. There's room up there for two more astronauts.
Give the Russians a chance to get flying again. In the meantime, there'll be another option to get the astronauts and cosmonauts home: the old, reliable space shuttle.
Should flights via the Russian vehicles resume, NASA could leave the shuttle parked at the space station in case of emergency. If needed, there's a ride home waiting right outside the door.
It would be much better to leave a shuttle at the ready at the space station than just plonk its dead body into a museum. It would provide safety redundancy for crews at the station, and, logically, would make sense.
President Obama, why not? Show some political courage, and some support for America's space achievements, and provide the direction to put one shuttle back into flight status.
Friday, August 26, 2011
Peru Meteor Just a Contrail?
The video of a suspected meteor crashing to Earth near Cusco, Peru is flaming its way across the internet. Some say the video isn't what it seems. To brief you, here it is:
CBS News, the BBC and other sources reported on this phenomena. Early reports cited officials saying that the fireball may have ignited forest fires in the drought-stricken region.
Not so fast, says Daniel Fischer, AKA @cosmos4u, who quickly corrected me on Twitter. He's a pretty savvy guy, and when queried, he quickly tweeted:
"This mistake happens again and again and ... see http://www.astro.uni-bonn.de/~dfischer/news/760.html#753 for the 'classic' from 2003 - lessons not learned, though ..."
Unfortunately, I don't speak (or read) German, so Daniel's link didn't help me much. But here's the key thing: when is seeing believing?
What establishes proof? Take a good look at the video. What do you see?
A meteor or a contrail?
BTW, you can read Daniel's blog at Cosmos4u. His lead for today is a supernova in galaxy Messier 101.
CBS News, the BBC and other sources reported on this phenomena. Early reports cited officials saying that the fireball may have ignited forest fires in the drought-stricken region.
Not so fast, says Daniel Fischer, AKA @cosmos4u, who quickly corrected me on Twitter. He's a pretty savvy guy, and when queried, he quickly tweeted:
"This mistake happens again and again and ... see http://www.astro.uni-bonn.de/~dfischer/news/760.html#753 for the 'classic' from 2003 - lessons not learned, though ..."
Unfortunately, I don't speak (or read) German, so Daniel's link didn't help me much. But here's the key thing: when is seeing believing?
What establishes proof? Take a good look at the video. What do you see?
A meteor or a contrail?
BTW, you can read Daniel's blog at Cosmos4u. His lead for today is a supernova in galaxy Messier 101.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
