Should be conducting operations in Earth Orbit AND in Moon bases. FEAR of CHINA!!

So here we are, can't get cargo to ISS, no manned capabilities, have to use Russian engines for some of our critical launches. Have a administrator who flew shuttle 3 times, but will not support lifting body/ runway lander, & will not EVEN fund our inferior capsule approach which will not be successfully manned for another decade, if we are lucky!
As Jeffs of RI stated, will take FEAR of China to get our capabilities back-----
HOPE IT IS NOT TOO LATE!!!!

Sent from my iPad

Do you really think we will be a leading space faring Nation with the " on the cheap" commercial approach?

Below is a summary by a friend at nasa that sums up the "space on the cheap approach".

.... unfortunately unlike any of our past programs where we still had a say on how the vehicle is to be built plus a degree of oversight, we ( nasa) are now basically cut off from these COTS vehicles. The quality of work ranges from excellent to down right horrible! Some like Boeing have vast experience, follows much the same processes that they have been using with us and even comes up with quite a bit of product (and process) innovation and improvements of their own. Others just hires people (like Draper labs) who knows what they are doing. Finally we got the ones who hires fresh out college kids, pays them low wages and promises them dreams and uses threats to build their vehicles. We get what we pay for ....

The Shuttle Capabilities are many & Clearly ARE Far SUPERIOR to anything we are working on today!

Read The Case to Save the Shuttle by Al Richardson. It is incomprehensible that our congress people & nasa personnel & the public are not shouting from the street corner, GET the Shuttle Flying.!!!!
Re nasaproblems.com
Keeptheshuttleflyingc.blogspot.com


Sent from my iPad

IF you flew on shuttle THREE Times--- think YOU would APPRECIATE its Capabilities as compared to NON RUNWAY Landers with zero payload bay, no airlock, no RMS ?

THE USA need capability to EXPLORE & CONDUCT EARTH ORBIT Operations ( large payload bay, RMS, Airlock, MMU can do both--- EXPLORE & EO Operations)

Can't do with SLS & with capsule approach--- MUST have large payload bay & runway lander

Well, most all the former pm's were believers of reuseable runway landers. Abbey, Kraft, Krantz, aldrin, Cernan, Armstrong . Crippen, young, SNC, Steve Lindsey, plus Jeffs, Brandenstein, DeCastro, plus many more.  

Don Nelson of nasaproblems.com suggested bolden should resign. I feel likewise. Obvious , this adm does not want a preeminent American SPACE PROGRAM!!! 

Re nasa plan puts America at risk 
The case to save shuttle 
Early retirement of shuttle 
Nonsensical shuttle retirement 
Myth vs. Reality 
Shuttle retirement places ISS in danger --- Kraft & astronauts 
All these articles strongly support reuseable lifting bodies. All on keeptheshuttleflyingc.blogspot.com 

So we have overwhelming consensus that shuttle concept is the only way to go--- WHY, WHY , WHY are we very, very, very, slowly going to manned capsules with limited funding WHILE we continue to Bankroll the Russia space program???? 
At present rate , it may be 2020 or later until we have a manned program. THIS IS NOT RIGHT FOR A SUPER POWER!! 

THIS DOES NOT SMELL Right!

Don't tell me Bolden & Michael Griffin CANT FIGURE this out!!

THE USA need capability to EXPLORE & CONDUCT EARTH ORBIT Operations ( large payload bay, RMS, Airlock, MMU can do both--- EXPLORE & EO Operations)

Can't do with SLS & with capsule approach--- MUST have large payload bay & runway lander

Well, most all the former pm's were believers of reuseable runway landers. Abbey, Kraft, Krantz, aldrin, Cernan, Armstrong . Crippen, young, SNC, Steve Lindsey, plus Jeffs, Brandenstein, DeCastro, plus many more.  

Don Nelson of nasaproblems.com suggested bolden should resign. I feel likewise. Obvious , this adm does not want a preeminent American SPACE PROGRAM!!! 

Re nasa plan puts America at risk 
The case to save shuttle 
Early retirement of shuttle 
Nonsensical shuttle retirement 
Myth vs. Reality 
Shuttle retirement places ISS in danger --- Kraft & astronauts 
All these articles strongly support reuseable lifting bodies. All on keeptheshuttleflyingc.blogspot.com 

So we have overwhelming consensus that shuttle concept is the only way to go--- WHY, WHY , WHY are we very, very, very, slowly going to manned capsules with limited funding WHILE we continue to Bankroll the Russia space program???? 
At present rate , it may be 2020 or later until we have a manned program. THIS IS NOT RIGHT FOR A SUPER POWER!! 

THIS DOES NOT SMELL RIGHT!!!! 



Sent from my iPad

Sent from my iPad

Sent from my iPad

THE USA need capability to EXPLORE & CONDUCT EARTH ORBIT Operations ( large payload bay, RMS, Airlock, MMU can do both--- EXPLORE & EO Operations)

Can't do with SLS & with capsule approach--- MUST have large payload bay & runway lander

Well, most all the former pm's were believers of reuseable runway landers. Abbey, Kraft, Krantz, aldrin, Cernan, Armstrong . Crippen, young, SNC, Steve Lindsey, plus Jeffs, Brandenstein, DeCastro, plus many more.  

Don Nelson of nasaproblems.com suggested bolden should resign. I feel likewise. Obvious , this adm does not want a preeminent American SPACE PROGRAM!!! 

Re nasa plan puts America at risk 
The case to save shuttle 
Early retirement of shuttle 
Nonsensical shuttle retirement 
Myth vs. Reality 
Shuttle retirement places ISS in danger --- Kraft & astronauts 
All these articles strongly support reuseable lifting bodies. All on keeptheshuttleflyingc.blogspot.com 

So we have overwhelming consensus that shuttle concept is the only way to go--- WHY, WHY , WHY are we very, very, very, slowly going to manned capsules with limited funding WHILE we continue to Bankroll the Russia space program???? 
At present rate , it may be 2020 or later until we have a manned program. THIS IS NOT RIGHT FOR A SUPER POWER!! 

THIS DOES NOT SMELL RIGHT!!!! 



Sent from my iPad

Sent from my iPad

SO DO You think Bolden understood these Advantages--- he flew on shuttle three times ( Cmdr on one!!!)

Additional major losses

Land at most runways around world.   Ocean landings & Siberia landings are obviously not ideal!!!

LOST HUGE Payload Capability Critical to USA due to DC Idiots

The capability to launch Huge payloads has been Lost Thursday, June 6, 2013 The capability to launch Huge payloads has been Lost AmericaSpace For a nation that explores April 15th, 2012 Next Generation Spacecraft No Comparison To Shuttle By Jason Rhian None of the various spacecraft currently being developed to return U.S. astronauts to orbit have all the capabilities and capacities that NASA's decommissioned orbiters had. Photo Credit: Alan Walters / awaltersphoto.com The crop of space capsules that are currently being developed to return U.S. astronauts to orbit have all-too-often been dubbed "replacements" for the winged spacecraft that ferried crews to orbit for the past thirty years. But how similar is the shuttle to any of these new spacecraft? With few exceptions – there are virtually no similarities. Under the Obama White House and his appointed officials, NASA has been directed to encourage the commercial space industry to produce spacecraft and launch vehicles to carry cargo and crew to low-Earth-orbit (LEO). It is hoped this will free up the space agency to focus on sending astronauts beyond LEO. The spacecraft that have emerged in CGI imagery, PowerPoint presentations and occasionally real life all vary in their appearance and capabilities. To highlight the differences between the shuttles, now on their way to museums and tourist attractions across the nation, and these emerging spacecraft – specific elements of each are detailed below. Although NASA's next spacecraft, Orion, and the commercial spacecraft that are currently being developed are touted as being "replacements" for the shuttle – none of them compare to the robust suite of capabilities that the space shuttle had. Photo Credit: Jason Rhian The Shuttles – Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour. Each of these winged spacecraft has a payload bay some 60 feet in length – which is designed to carry a wide range of payloads in a variety of different configurations. The shuttles also have a remote manipulator system (RMS – the shuttle's robotic arm) which allows for both cargo and crew to be moved around in the vacuum of space. An airlock that allows crew members to perform extra-vehicular activities. Length – 122 Feet Width – 78 Feet Payload Bay – 60 Feet long by 15 Feet wide. Remote Manipulator System Reusable The Orion spacecraft, built by Lockheed-Martin, has been often dubbed as the shuttle's replacement – but how many of the shuttle's capabilities are incorporated into the capsule-shaped spacecraft? It turns out, very few. Image Credit: NASA Lockheed-Martin's Orion spacecraft. This vehicle is not a part of NASA's new commercial efforts per-se; however it is commonly referred to as the orbiter's successor. There are virtually no similarities between NASA's fleet of decommissioned orbiters and this new spacecraft. Orion is capable of being re-used six times at most. Orion has no payload bay, no robot arm and if crews wish to conduct EVAs – the capsule will have to be depressurized, requiring the entire crew (Orion has the capacity of carrying up to six astronauts) to don their space suits. In fact, if the service module section of the spacecraft was two feet less in diameter – it could fit inside of the shuttle's payload bay. When Constellation was NASA's program-of-record, there was an effort by Canada (the developers of many of the robotic arms NASA uses) to build a robot arm to be used on Orion. Length – 26 Feet Diameter – 16.5 Feet Payload Bay – NA Remote Manipulator System – None Partially Reusable Boeing's CST-100 has been called a "space-taxi" and can either ferry astronauts or cargo (or some combination of the two). Image Credit: The Boeing Company The Boeing Company's CST-100 Space Taxi. This spacecraft is in some ways a simpler version of the Orion spacecraft. It can carry a crew of six, cargo (the amount of cargo would vary depending on the number of astronauts on board. That is about all this vehicle is capable of. It is designed to ferry humans and materials to orbit – and back, it is not reusable and has no EVA capabilities. Although the exact size of the spacecraft is unavailable it is estimated to be larger than the Apollo spacecraft but smaller than Orion. Length – Unknown Width – Unknown Remote Manipulator System – None Partially Reusable Of all the capsule-based systems that are under development, SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft is the most-similar to the space shuttle. However, the differences in scale, are dramatic. Image Credit: SpaceX / NASA SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft. In terms of basic abilities by the capsule-based systems – Dragon actually comes the closest to the shuttle in terms of capabilities. It is in terms of scale that the chasm of differences - appear. The dimensions of the payload segments work out to provide approximately 350 cubic feet of pressurized payload capacity. In terms of the spacecraft's unpressurized elements, Dragon has about 4 cubic feet of recoverable and 490 cubic feet of non- recoverable payload capabilities. The Dragon is designed to carry up to seven astronauts. Height – 9.5 Feet Diameter – 11.5 Feet Payload Capacity – Pressurized – 350 cubic feet – Unpressurized – 490 cubic feet Remote Manipulator System – None Reusable In a break from what many commercial companies are producing (capsule-based spacecraft) – Sierra Nevada Corporation has opted for a space plane design. Like NASA's decommissioned orbiters, this space plane is reusable. Unlike NASA's retired fleet of shuttles however, the thermal protection system is ablative and will need to be replaced after ten flights. Image Credit: SNC Sierra Nevada Corporation's Dream Chaser spacecraft. Physically the most similar of the space taxis to NASA's space shuttle, the Dream Chaser space plane is reusable and is based off of one of test articles that was used to design the space capacity is. Unlike the shuttle, Dream Chaser will utilize an ablative thermal protection system that would require replacement after several flights. The Dream Chaser is not quite 30 feet in length compared the space shuttle's 122 feet. Length – 29.5 Feet Width – 22.90 Feet Remote Manipulator System – NA Reusable The one spacecraft that comes closest to emulating the space shuttle, Dream Chaser, is not even a quarter the length of NASA's retired fleet of orbiters. It has no robotic arm and lacks the EVA capabilities present on the space shuttle. Given that most of these vehicles could actually fit into the orbiter's payload bays – the capacity to launch huge payloads such as the Hubble Space Telescope and whole segments of the International Space Station – has been lost. It is unknown how long these multiple capabilities the U.S. will have to do without. Space shuttle Discovery will be retired to the Smithsonian's Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center in Washington. Atlantis will take a short road trip to the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex in Florida and Endeavour will be sent to the California Science Center located in Los Angeles, California. The shuttle test article, Enterprise, will be moved to the Intrepid Sea, Air and Space Museum located in New York (Discovery will take Enterprise's place in the Smithsonian).  Copyright © 2012 AmericaSpace – All Rights Reserved =============================================================== Sent from my iPad Posted by keeptheshuttleflying.com at 1:08 PM  Email This BlogThis! Share to Twitter Share to Facebook No comments: Post a Comment Sent from my iPad Posted by keeptheshuttleflying.com at 8:58 PM Email This BlogThis! Share to Twitter Share to Facebook

6 July 2011—For 30 years, the space shuttle fleet—Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavour—strutted its stuff in low-Earth orbit. The spacecraft's missions included simple payload deployments, science module sorties, and the delicate assembly and servicing of the International Space Station. They were also used for in-flight repairs to themselves and to other satellites, hyperprecision orbits for radar mapping, tethered experiments, and gentle close-in maneuvering with smaller spacecraft. Those capabilities were originally unimagined by their designers, and they firmly refute the old maxim that "form follows function." Indeed, the shuttles performed functions beyond the dreams of their builders.

The current stable of heavy-launch vehicles can carry deployable satellites and rocket stages as big as or bigger than any that the shuttles have ever launched. With replacement vehicles already being designed for specific manned missions, such as Earth-to-orbit taxi services or for beyond-low-Earth-orbit sorties, the biggest engineering questions must be these: What operational capabilities are we giving up by retiring the shuttles? And are we sure we can dispense with them? Because if the answers are "Too many" and "No!" we need to start planning how to regain them with new vehicles.

Here's what we're losing.

Lost capability No. 1: Gentle delivery of large modules for attachment to existing complexes. Compared with other means, the shuttle provides an environment in its payload bay with relatively minimal acceleration, vibration, and noise, and that means very large components can be built a lot less expensively. The savings comes from several sources. The shuttle's own hardware delivers cargo close to its destination, after whichrobot manipulators can install it carefully. Without this capability, the items would have to be built with structural enhancements to survive the attendant stresses, making them significantly heavier. What's worse, without the shuttle, the module might need its own maneuvering capability—resulting in significant mechanical stress as the add-on connects to the existing structure. Such stress leads to design headaches: For example, the size of any connecting pressurized tunnels must be restricted. Furthermore, in the event of a mishap, the shuttle design is supposed to allow for intact retrieval of the payload for relaunch, mitigating the need to build expensive backup hardware. 

Lost capability No. 2: Bringing cargo down gently. The shuttle payload bay can carry specialized laboratory modules into orbit and then back to Earth for reuse. It can also retrieve and return large spacecraft and their components for repair or redeployment. Entry stresses do not exceed 1.5 g's, and to demonstrate that, several astronauts have remained standing throughout most of the descent. Without the shuttle, the scale of returnable objects is greatly limited, and the stress and shock of descent is severe. To replace this large-scale capability, NASA might have to develop inflatable heat shields that could be scaled up in size as needed—but even with such shields, cargo would still be subject to significant entry and landing stresses.

Photo: Nikolai Budarin/Russian Space Research Institute/NASA

Lost capability No. 3: Safe "proximity operations." The length of the shuttle allowed use of nose- and tail-mounted thrusters to provide extremely gentle maneuvering, bringing the craft right up to such small targets as "round-trip" satellites and orbital instruments in need of repair. Once such objects were over the payload bay, the shuttle switched to a control mode called z axis. In this mode, the target object was mostly out of the way of the forward and aft thruster plumes, allowing the shuttle to maneuver without pushing the target around or contaminating it with propellant. An even gentler mode called low-z-axis worked by firing counterbalanced forward-pointing nose thrusters and aft-pointing tail thrusters that are slightly canted above the horizontal. Though this maneuver looked bizarre, low-z-axis mode was one of those lucky accidents of the original shuttle design that proved really useful. No other vehicle ever built or designed had this specialized "gentle approach" capability, which was critical to a number of satellite retrievals and repairs, including the Hubble Space Telescope missions. Any other vehicle would have seriously damaged such rendezvous targets.

Lost capability No. 4: Temporary deployment of a workbench in orbit for experiments, repairs, and other assembly. The boxcar-size shuttle payload bay has been the stage for delicate repairs to satellites such as Hubble. It has also been used in the following capacities: for attaching new rocket stages to stranded satellites, for test deployments of solar panels and girders (which were later upgraded to become the backbone of the space station), as a base for deployment of payloads with 20-kilometer-long tethers, and for special-purpose space station assembly and maintenance. Repeated two-person (or once, even three-person) spacewalks gave extended "hands-on" capabilities and allowed components to be readily transferred from exterior to interior work areas and back. The shuttle's size provided flexibility in the complement of tools and spare parts you could carry into orbit, and it provided external utility power and communications that no Apollo-, Orion-, or Soyuz-class manned vehicle could ever dream of.

Lost capability No. 5: High-precision research orbits with specialized instrumentation. Several special-purpose shuttle missions required "threading the needle" in space with observational equipment that mandated incredibly accurate physical positioning. For instance, ground-mapping radar missions needed to be navigated so precisely that data from multiple missions could be overlaid as if they had been acquired by several shuttles flying simultaneously in formation. Trajectory disturbances of all types had to be counterbalanced by continual course corrections using very gentle thruster firings. 

Lost capability No. 6: Flexibility of crew composition. Carrying six or seven (or once, even eight) people into orbit allows three or four career astronauts to host visits from real scientists active in their fields. Some professional astronauts are former scientists, but they must spend up to 10 years away from their labs to prepare to fly. Smaller past and future vehicles are limited to highly specialized professional crew members who, though very talented, are frankly often out of touch with advanced research or other specialized skills. A seven-person crew could even have room for occasional VIPs—politicians, teachers, or even journalists.

Many of these capabilities were expensive, and the whole program wound up costing a lot more than had been projected. Worse, when operated carelessly, the machine killed two crews. But the shuttle's capabilities were often far more valuable than expected, with many surprising uses that only became clear over the years.

That last point leads to perhaps the greatest lesson of the shuttle for future spaceship designers and space exploration theorists: If you build a spacecraft, or any other machine, with a predetermined and limited set of capabilities (as NASA is now doing), you will usually get just those predictable capabilities and little more. You will not, as happened with the shuttle, learn to use it more and more efficiently and keep discovering new ways to do new things not even imagined when the vehicle was first conceived. These capabilities, in the case of the shuttle, turned out to be the only way to respond to many unexpected problems. And nobody should be surprised that the unexpected awaits us in outer space.

Space vehicles with these next-generation designs are sure to face both unanticipated challenges and opportunities. Until we realize that some out-of-the-blue, unplanned need cannot be satisfied, we won't even know what we're missing with these new designs. As for the shuttle, we are just starting to recognize the full extent of the capabilities we gained and are now going to lose—and we'd better start thinking of how to replace them. If we do that, we can wisely build future spacecraft that will allow us to be ready when we are inevitably caught by surprise out there in space.

Sent from my iPad

Shuttle like vehicle & the NASA Administrator

ˌUNBELIEVABLE , incredible, beyond belief, inconceivable, unthinkable

We have a decorated Marine pilot, Shuttle CMDR ( flew shuttle three times) as NASA Administrator who has gone along with the adm's cancellation of Shuttle, go back to capsules at a very slow pace ( partially due to congress) & has an opportunity to return to a shuttle like vehicle ( Dream Chaser) but continues down the capsule path. After hundreds of experts have advised " do not return to capsules", and with his lifting body / runway lander experience, it is beyond belief that he continues down the capsule path.
One can only conclude, he is following the direction of the potus & does not have the best interest of the American Space program at heart.
Why doesn't he resign & speak up re advantages of the lifting body approach?

Sent from my iPad

So we can spend big money on illegals, Iran, AGW , but we can't maintain A Preeminent Manned Space Program!!!

This is pure unadulterated BS. We must maintain a multi faceted space program with reuseable lifting body runway landers. Don't kid your self, bolden understands the significance of the space shuttle capabilities, but potus told him how high to jump--- he likes his job--- that is it, so much for a man who has the best interest of the USA at heart!!!

Sent from my iPad

Preeminent Manned Space Program

John Glenn went to BHO & ask him to keep the Shuttle flying, Bho told him we can't afford it!!
When Bolden was ask about flying a few more missions, he said " time to move on" !!

This decision was one of the most important to the USA in the last 100 years! And Bolden had to know the importance & the capabilities of the shuttle to the space capabilities of the USA. After all the USA 's capabilities are all dependent on shuttle, Bolden flew three times on it!!!! Dyer's ASAP said it was " not safe but not unsafe"!!
What a bunch of crap, we can afford it, it is not time to move on & it is safe!

Bolden FLEW on Shuttle THREE times & is a decorated Marine pilot. He HAS to know the importance of shuttle capabilities & the lack of capability of capsules!!!
This smells bad, look at all those experts who have stated " DON'T GO BACK to CAPSULES " !!!!!

Now, NASA Commercial will not use Dream Chaser or X37 C, both lifting bodies / runway landers.

Face it, as with many other anti American decisions that have been made by this adm, the premature shuttle retirement & ignoring of DC & X37C IS ONE. I can only conclude that this adm, & Congress do not have the best interest of the USA at heart. WE should MAKE every possible effort to fly a reuseable lifting body like Dream Chaser & X37C.
2011 was last shuttle flight, Congress will not even fund the capsules adequately & it will likely be 2020 or later until we have a USA manned program. Meanwhile, our capabilities decline & we continue to bankroll the Russian program!!

This great country , a super power, must have a Preeminent Manned Space program!!
Please write your representatives & senators.

Sent from my iPad

In the USA 's best interest!!!

John Glenn went to BHO & ask him to keep the Shuttle flying, Bho told him we can't afford it!!
When Bolden was ask about flying a few more missions, he said " time to move on" !!

This decision was one of the most important to the USA in the last 100 years! And Bolden had to know the importance & the capabilities of the shuttle to the space capabilities of the USA. After all the USA 's capabilities are all dependent on shuttle, Bolden flew three times on it!!!! Dyer's ASAP said it was " not safe but not unsafe"!!
What a bunch of crap, we can afford it, it is not time to move on & it is safe!

Now, NASA Commercial will not use Dream Chaser or X37 C, both lifting bodies / runway landers.

Face it, as with many other anti American decisions that have been made by this adm, the premature shuttle retirement & ignoring of DC & X37C IS ONE. I can only conclude that this adm, & Congress do not have the best interest of the USA at heart. WE should MAKE every possible effort to fly a reuseable lifting body like Dream Chaser & X37C.
2011 was last shuttle flight, Congress will not even fund the capsules adequately & it will likely be 2020 or later until we have a USA manned program. Meanwhile, our capabilities decline & we continue to bankroll the Russian program!!

This great country , a super power, must have a Preeminent Manned Space program!!
Please write your representatives & senators.

Sent from my iPad

WE have an Administrator of NASA who flew on Shuttle as CMDR & one or two other times as a plain Astronaut--- BUT does not appreciate the UNIQUE Capabilities of the shuttle & feels it is time to move on!!!

I know it is hard to believe, while most of the experts at nasa & in industry feel lifting bodies/ runway landers is the best approach, our adm, feels it is time to move on , BACK to Capsules with FAR less capabilities than the shuttle like approach.
why do you think Boeing proposed the X37C? Why did SNC propose & build Dream Chaser?

It is as obvious as anything can be , we need to get a shuttle like replacement for the shuttle ASAP for the security of the USA & we need to get it operational since we are now falling BEHIND. Congress & the NASA leadership are both responsible for the USA being out of manned spaceflight from 2011 to 2020 or 2025 and to flying in inferior vehicles--- namely Capsules.
WAKE UP America!!!

Sent from my iPad

So how does a former shuttle commander NOT believe Runway landers ARE best APPROACH? THIS DOES NOT SMELL RIGHT!!!

Well, most all the former pm's were believers of reuseable runway landers. Abbey, Kraft, Krantz, aldrin, Cernan, Armstrong . Crippen, young, SNC, Steve Lindsey, plus Jeffs, Brandenstein, DeCastro, plus many more.

Don Nelson of nasaproblems.com suggested bolden should resign. I feel likewise. Obvious , this adm does not want a preeminent American SPACE PROGRAM!!!

Re nasa plan puts America at risk
The case to save shuttle
Early retirement of shuttle
Nonsensical shuttle retirement
Myth vs. Reality
Shuttle retirement places ISS in danger --- Kraft & astronauts
All these articles strongly support reuseable lifting bodies. All on keeptheshuttleflyingc.blogspot.com

So we have overwhelming consensus that shuttle concept is the only way to go--- WHY, WHY , WHY are we very, very, very, slowly going to manned capsules with limited funding WHILE we continue to Bankroll the Russia space program????
At present rate , it may be 2020 or later until we have a manned program. THIS IS NOT RIGHT FOR A SUPER POWER!!

THIS DOES NOT SMELL RIGHT!!!!



Sent from my iPad

Insider Interview: From Shuttle to Shuttle an interview with Steve Lindsey - Part 1 - SpaceFlight Insider

http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/missions/human-spaceflight/insider-interview-from-shuttle-to-shuttle-an-interview-with-steve-lindsey-part-1/


Sent from my iPad

People s/b Very angry re SUCH WASTE-- Shuttle s/b operational today!

People should be mad about putting shuttle in a museum!

What I don't get is the shuttle capabilities used in fixing Hubble , and  many other repairs , releases & returns ARE SO OBVIOUSLY UNIQUE and outstanding, HOW could anyone not speak against " leaders"  who would essentially throw it away , based on its capability alone not even considering the waste of money & unique irreplaceable workforce?  Also, since cots not funded properly, the USA will experience a ten to fifteen hiatus in manned space operations--- not a good situation for American competence in manned operations.

Kraft, Abbey, Thompson, Shannon, Krantz, Buzzard, Cernan, Aldrin, Armstrong, Jeffs, Decrasto, Crippen, Young, plus many others all TOLD administration ( potus, Bolden, Garver) to keep shuttle flying until a replacement is available.

They did not listen, even if commercial flys manned missions tomorrow ( which likely will be 4 more years) we will not be CLOSE to shuttle capabilities! Essentially ten years with no manned capabilities--- who knows how long before we get shuttle capabilities BACK!!!
Face it, our capabilities that we spent all significant amount of money & time ARE gone!!!
This will impact the security of this country!

Sent from my iPad

Retiring astronaut envies future astronauts - Orlando Sentinel

Retiring astronaut envies future astronauts - Orlando Sentinel
BETTER read/study nasaproblems.com--- cots/ Orion are inadequate (cots), Orion ( unaffordable). Space x won't be manned until 2020-- meanwhile we bankroll Russia program!

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-american-astronaut-nicole-stott-20150614-story.html?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+news%2Fspace%2Fspace_blog+%28Space+Blog+The+Write+Stuff%29

Sent from my iPad

Destruction of Space Capabilities

Buck
Please speak out re the destruction of our space capabilities.
Krantz, Kraft, Abbey all plus others strongly recommended not to retire shuttle without a replacement.
The new commercial generation is insufficient for the USA needs. Also, we aren't even trying to get space x manned in timely manner but no one concerned about continuing to pay the Russians for access to ISS. Note Kraft plus a number of astronauts wrote letter to bolden , nasa adm, pointing out danger to ISS without shuttle operational.
This great nation need a strong space capabilities re AF sec. James recent speech.
Media will not cover this very significant issue.


Sent from my iPad

Next Generation Spacecraft No Comparison To Shuttle « AmericaSpace

http://www.americaspace.com/?p=16959


Sent from my iPad

The Space Review: How military space programs need to deal with change

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2767/1


Sent from my iPad

Statement by Gene Kranz - Senate Hearing on Reauthorizing the Vision for Space Exploration | SpaceRef - Your Space Reference

It is time for our country and our nation's leaders to tune in to these facts and back off of their naive views of "space on the cheap" - other countries are making the necessary resource investments; and it's time to do the same before the option to respond is no longer an option.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=27922

Sent from my iPad

From Giant Leaps to Baby Steps - NYTimes.com

There are many nations that wish to surpass us in space. Does the "quit now" crowd really believe that abandoning the shuttle and International Space Station is the way to keep America the pre-eminent space-faring nation? Do they really believe that a new spacecraft will come without an engineering challenge or a human toll? The path the naysayers suggest is so out of touch with the American character of perseverance, hard work and discovery that they don't even realize the danger in which they are putting future astronauts -- not to mention our nation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/03/opinion/from-giant-leaps-to-baby-steps.html


Sent from my iPad

Irish Space Blog: Space Shuttle: The Greatest Flying Machine Ever Built?

le

For NASA Flight Director Gene Kranz, "The space shuttle is the greatest flying machine that NASA has ever built". Now this is a man who has worked with the space agency since Project Mercury, and has no doubt witnessed some great air and spacecraft in his time, and he thinks that the space shuttle is the greatest flying machine man has ever built? I have to agree with him on this one.
http://irishspaceblog.blogspot.com/2013/05/space-shuttle-greatest-flying-machine.html

Sent from my iPad

James delivered the keynote address at the Center for American Progress at an event marking the 50th anniversary of Air Force Maj. Ed White leaving his Gemini 4 spacecraft to become the first American to walk in space. “Space-based capabilities and effects are vital today to U.S. warfighting, homeland security and, indeed, to our way of life,” James said. “Space provides us with position, navigation and timing … [and] helps us with communications used in international banking, global commerce and remote sensing to deter against nuclear war.” And space is not only an enabler for other domains, the secretary said, but also directly affects the calculus of national security. Though for many years people largely perceived the space environment as peaceful, James warned that is no longer necessarily so. BUT OUR unmatched capability rests in museum--- per her words--- space capabilities critical to survival!!

USA needs a runway lander!

Fwd: NASA marks 50 years since first U.S. spacewalk

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Gary Johnson" <gjohnson144@comcast.net>
Date: June 4, 2015 at 2:43:10 PM CDT
To: "Gary Johnson" <gjohnson144@comcast.net>
Subject: FW: NASA marks 50 years since first U.S. spacewalk

 

 

 

By William Harwood

CBS News

June 3, 2015, 10:53 AM

NASA marks 50 years since first U.S. spacewalk

41 Photos

NASA is marking 50 years of spacewalks. In this photo, mission specialist Piers J. Sellers participates in a 7-hour, 11-minute spacewalk at the International Space Station on July 13, 2006. NASA/Getty Images

Two-and-a-half months after cosmonaut Alexey Leonov became the first human to walk in space, NASA astronaut Ed White floated out of his cramped Gemini 4 capsule 50 years ago Wednesday to become the first free-flying American in orbit.

In the five decades since then, astronauts and cosmonauts have chalked up 413 spacewalks, including 187 totaling a combined 49 days to build and maintain the International Space Station and 23 covering nearly seven days to service the Hubble Space Telescope.

While spacewalks have become a relatively common part of modern spaceflight, working in the vacuum of space while moving at five miles per second and experiencing 500-degree temperature swings passing into and out of Earth's shadow will never be routine.

"Every time we send our astronauts outside the International Space Station, we're doing risk trades to make sure they're going to be safe and accomplish the tasks they need to accomplish," astronaut Mike Foreman, veteran of five spacewalks, or EVAs, said in an interview. "Spacewalking will probably never get routine, at least not in the foreseeable future."

Ed White, floating outside the Gemini 4 capsule on June 3, 1965, during the first U.S. spacewalk. White was the second man to walk in space after cosmonaut Alexey Leonov, who ventured outside his Voskhod 2 spacecraft the previous March.

NASA

And it certainly wasn't routine for Leonov, a 30-year-old cosmonaut who became history's first spacewalker on March 18, 1965. Leaving crewmate Pavel Belyayev behind inside the Voskhod 2 spacecraft, Leonov spent about 12 minutes floating outside, marveling at the view, before heading back to a makeshift airlock.

"The ability to see the whole Earth as a globe, pretty much, is something that was extremely attractive," he said in a recent NASA interview. "And I could easily recognize the Black See, the Crimea, Romania, Bulgaria, Italy, (the) Baltic Sea, and it was all within minutes, if not seconds."

Equally impressive: the "enormous, unbelievable silence."

"I heard how my heart was pounding," he recalled. "I could hear myself breathe. I remember Arthur Clark and Stanley Kubrick who, while doing 'Space Odyssey,' they worked a lot on the sound track, and the way the crew members used to breathe during this movie was very impressive."

And the stars, he said, "were very bright, there were a lot of them. What was interesting is they were everywhere, they were above and they were beneath. On the ground, we can only see stars up in the sky. In space, they are everywhere."

The thrill quickly turned into drama on the high frontier. Because of the stiffness of his pressurized suit, and because his fingers had worked their way out of place in the suit's gloves, he could not get into the airlock feet first as planned. Sweating with exertion, he eventually had to partially deflate his suit before managing to pull himself in head first and then struggling to turn around and secure the outer airlock cover.

"I knew I might be risking oxygen starvation, but I had no choice," he wrote in an article for the Smithsonian Institution's Air and Space magazine. "If I did not re-enter the craft, within the next 40 minutes my life support would be spent anyway.

"The only solution was to reduce the pressure in my suit by opening the pressure valve and letting out a little oxygen at a time as I tried to inch inside the airlock. At first I thought of reporting what I planned to do to mission control. But I decided against it. I did not want to create nervousness on the ground. And anyway, I was the only one who could bring the situation under control."

Finally, he managed to pull himself inside and "curl my body around in order to close the airlock," he wrote. "Once Pasha (Belyayev) was sure the hatch was closed and the pressure had equalized, he triggered the inner hatch open and I scrambled back into the spacecraft, drenched with sweat, my heart racing."

40 Photos

50 years of stunning spacewalks

 

White's spacewalk came on June 3, 1965, during NASA's Gemini 4 mission with crewmate James McDivitt. In a NASA oral history, McDivitt recalled the crew had problems closing the Gemini hatch during a vacuum chamber test before launch. During the flight, the hatch mechanism refused to open, but McDivitt and White, familiar with the mechanism, finally coaxed internal gears to engage and White floated outside.

"When Ed went to open up the hatch, it wouldn't open," McDivitt recalled in a NASA oral history. "I said, 'Oh my God,' you know, 'it's not opening!" And so, we chatted about that for a minute or two. And I said, 'Well, I think I can get it closed if it won't close.' But I wasn't too sure about it. I thought I could. ... So anyway, we elected to go ahead and open it up."

The crew did not tell mission control about the glitch. "I mean, there was nothing they could do," McDivitt said. "They would've said, 'No,' I'm sure. Anyway, we went ahead and opened it up; and Ed went out and did his thing."

During a 23-minute EVA marred by spotty communications, White tested a compressed-gas maneuvering gun, gained experience moving about in weightlessness and posed for iconic photographs by McDivitt. Finally, approaching the terminator and orbital darkness, he was told to get back inside the Gemini capsule.

White was reluctant to end the excursion.

"It's no sweat," White radioed. "Actually, I'm trying to get a better picture."

"No, come on in," McDivitt replied.

"I'm trying to get a picture of the spacecraft now," White said.

"Ed, come on in here!"

"All right," White agreed. "Let me fold the camera and put the gun up."

Handing a camera in to McDivitt, along with his maneuvering gun, White managed to work his way into the cramped capsule feet first. But when they attempted to close and lock the hatch, the mechanism did not engage.

"It wouldn't lock," McDivitt said. "And so, in the dark I was trying to fiddle around over on the side where I couldn't see anything, trying to get my glove down in this little slot to push the gears together. And finally, we got that done and got it latched."

A NASA history describing the scene said "White sat back, physically exhausted, sweat streaming into his eyes and fogging his faceplate. McDivitt also felt tired, so they rested before extending a radio antenna to find a ground-based voice and tell Earth all was well. ... The crew of Gemini IV had almost circled the globe in an unpressurized spacecraft."

Leonov, now 81, went on to make a second trip into space in 1975, participating in the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project. White was in training for the first piloted Apollo test flight when he and two crewmates -- Virgil "Gus" Grissom and Roger Chaffee -- were killed in a launch pad fire on Jan. 27, 1967.

Foreman praised both men for their courage, saying "comparing the risks those guys took back in the day to what we take now is just night and day."

"They were really hanging it out there," he said. "Slipping outside and then trying to force your way back inside the space vehicle with that pressurized suit and trying to get the hatch closed (was difficult). Of course, you're pretty motivated to get back inside and get that hatch closed! But still, they were hanging it out there."

© 2015 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.                      

​

 

© 2015 William Harwood/CBS News

 

---

 

 

 

Five Floating Facts for the 50th Anniversary of the 1st American Spacewalk

by Robert Z. Pearlman, collectSPACE.com Editor   |   June 03, 2015 10:22am ET

 

Astronaut Edward H. White II performed the first American spacewalk during the Gemini 4 mission on June 3, 1965. Credit: NASA View full size image

Ed White may not have been the first man to walk in space, but his extravehicular activity, or EVA, 50 years ago Wednesday (June 3) was no less historic.

The first U.S. astronaut to exit a spacecraft while in orbit, White spent more than 20 minutes floating in the vacuum of space, protected only by a spacesuit. He moved about using a "zip gun," a hand-held maneuvering unit, while still attached to Gemini 4 by a tether and umbilical.

"I feel like a million dollars!" White exclaimed to his crewmate James McDivitt, who was snapping photos from his seat on the spacecraft. That excitement lasted until White was ordered back inside by Mission Control. [The 1st American Spacewalk in Photos]

"I'm coming back in... and it's the saddest moment of my life," White radioed.

Paired with his predecessor, Soviet-era cosmonaut Alexei Leonov, the two were written into the history books as the world's first spacewalkers. But there was more to White's walk than the floating feat alone. 

During the EVA (spacewalk), astronaut Ed White was connected to the Gemini 4 capsule by a 25-foot-long umbilical and a 23-foot-long tether.
Credit: NASA

View full size image

Paving the way for Apollo's missions to the moon, the Gemini program provided much-needed experience for astronauts in space. See how NASA's Gemini spacecraft worked in our full infographic.
Credit: By Karl Tate, Infographics Artist

View full size image

"Gemini 4, Houston"

Half a century later, mention of "Mission Control," usually brings to mind Houston. But it wasn't always that way. For all of NASA's Mercury missions and its first Gemini flight, the ground controllers were located near the launch site at Cape Canaveral in Florida.

"The Gemini 4 mission marks the first time that mission control will be exercised at the Manned Spacecraft Center, Houston," NASA's 1965 press kit for the Gemini 4 mission stated, referring to the center that eight years later would be renamed the Johnson Space Center.

With flight director Christopher C. Kraft leading the room, it fell to Gemini 3 commander and original Mercury astronaut Virgil "Gus" Grissom to deliver the first words spoken from Houston to a manned spacecraft.

"Gemini 4, Houston Cap Com," Grissom, as the mission's capsule communicator, radioed 2 minutes and 10 seconds into the flight. At the time, the Titan rocket that was lofting Gemini 4 into space was ready for first stage separation. [Video: NASA Astronaut Recounts 50 Years of Spacewalks]

Patriotic patch

Visit any NASA center or museum gift shop and you will likely find a red and white embroidered patch depicting an astronaut on an EVA and the words "Gemini 4 First Space Walk." Neither McDivitt nor White had anything to do with this souvenir design.

NASA's first crew-created mission patch came on the next mission, Gemini 5. The Gemini 4 crew set a different first.

"Ed White and I used the American flag on our shoulders as our patch," McDivitt said, according to Dick Lattimer in the book, "All We Did Was Fly to the Moon."

Gemini 4 marked the first time that the U.S. flag had been worn on a spacesuit, a tradition continued ever since, said McDivitt. Later flags were embroidered; the Gemini 4 flags were made of nylon.

"The flags we had sewn on we purchased ourselves," the Gemini 4 commander recalled. "Later on, of course, NASA made this an integral part of the pressure suit."

A more traditional Gemini 4 patch, based on the design of the crew's American eagle-adorned medallions, was made with McDivitt's endorsement decades later. (White died in 1967 in the Apollo 1 pad fire.)

Seedy souvenir

Both McDivitt and White had small pouches packed with mementos on Gemini 4. The two flew silver medallions (of the aforementioned American eagle design) and state and international flags, among other trinkets, to gift to friends, family and supporters after the mission was over. 

All of the souvenirs remained inside the capsule, with the exception of a small stash of seeds.

As he was walking in space, White carried mustard seeds in his spacesuit's pocket. The seeds were a symbol of his religion, in reference to the New Testament's description of Jesus using the mustard seed as a model of the growth of the Kingdom of God, from an extremely tiny seed to the largest of all garden plants. They were also an example of the tiny amount of faith needed to accomplish much.

"You don't need to take a mustard seed with you as a symbol of your faith," minister and author Norman Vincent Peale wrote to White prior to the flight. "You have the faith itself, and the inner sturdiness that will carry you through this tremendous and rewarding experience."

"There goes your glove ..."

One artifact that did not return to Earth with White was his right comfort glove. [The Evolution of the Spacesuit in Photos]

"Oops, there goes your glove," McDivitt stated as he saw the optional over-glove float out the hatch while White was already out on his spacewalk.

White wore the matching glove pulled over the pressure gauntlet on his spacesuit, to help keep his hand warm.

"I had one thermal glove on the one hand, my left hand," he said after returning to Earth. "I always wanted my right hand to be free to operate that [zip] gun and the camera."

The right thermal glove seemed to take on a mission of its own.

"It floated out over my right shoulder and out," described White during a technical review. "It looked like it was on a definite trajectory going somewhere. I don't know where it was going."

"It floated very smartly out of the spacecraft and out into space," he said.

Mission Control in Houston as seen staffed for the Gemini 4 mission when it became active for the first time in NASA's histo
Credit: NASA

View full size image

Go for EVA

Since Alexei Leonov and Ed White completed the first two spacewalks, more than 375 have followed, with some 260 of them by American astronauts.

The "go" for the first American spacewalk came only about a week before Gemini 4 was ready to launch. The mission plan originally called for White to only stand up on his seat and pop his head out the hatch, while McDivitt held onto him — or perhaps vice versa.

"Ed White will probably be the standee and I probably will hold onto him," McDivitt told the media at their pre-launch press conference.

"Yes, I'm the standee and he is the holdee," White added.

The move to go full EVA was made in direct response to Leonov's spacewalk on March 18, 1965. It still took NASA more than two months to decide White would float out of the capsule.

"We only had one final week of training when word came down from headquarters: 'We're go for EVA,'" flight director Gene Kranz recalled.

And the rest, as they say, is history.

Click through to collectSPACE to see photos of Ed White's mustard seeds, lost comfort glove and "patriotic patch."

 

 

© 1999-2015 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.

 

---

 

The Shameful End of the Space Shuttle Program - Conservatives4Palin

http://conservatives4palin.com/2011/07/the-shameful-end-of-the-space-shuttle-program.html


Sent from my iPad

Sls/Orion unaffordable-- re nasaproblems.com

SLS/ Orion is unaffordable--- similar to Apollo,--- why we went to reuseable vehicle which needed to evolve---- but leaders at the time wanted to return to Apollo type system & now we have zero--- commercial is capsule with minimum capabilities & has yet to get through the expensive manning process!!

Krantz, Kraft, Abbey were correct , use & evolve shuttle like vehicle--- re X37B.

Sent from my iPad

The last attempt at a strategy was George Mueller’s shuttle, the concept for which originated with Noordung in WWII, but which Mueller started talking about in 1968; virtually all of the great 60s leaders in manned space flight, by 1968 or 69, were in agreement that a flyback vehicle which could be reused in order to save on manufacturing costs was a necessity. It was a necesity because they needed something to replace Saturn and Apollo, which were unaffordable,

Kranz: NASA's greatest risk is to give in to timidity in space - Houston Chronicle

http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Kranz-NASA-s-greatest-risk-is-to-give-in-to-1941104.php


Sent from my iPad

Keep the shuttle flying: Krantz on shuttle

http://keeptheshuttleflyingc.blogspot.com/2015/06/krantz-on-shuttle.html


Sent from my iPad

Shuttle Risks Are Worth It -- Gene Kranz - The Questioning Christian

http://www.questioningchristian.com/2005/08/shuttle_risks_a.html


Sent from my iPad

Fwd: US announces tender to replace Russia’s RD-180 space rocket engines

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Gary Johnson" <gjohnson144@comcast.net>
Date: June 3, 2015 at 7:24:01 PM CDT
To: "Gary Johnson" <gjohnson144@comcast.net>
Subject: FW: US announces tender to replace Russia's RD-180 space rocket engines

 

US announces tender to replace Russia's RD-180 space rocket engines

 

June 03, 8:23 UTC+3
The US Congress has allocated funds and adopted a bill under which the new US engine has to be developed by 2019

 

RD-180 engine at the manufacturing site (archive)

© ITAR-TASS/Yuri Mashkov

 

WASHINGTON, June 3. /TASS/. The Pentagon has formally kicked off a competition to develop an engine to replace Russia's RD-180 mounted on Atlas-5 rockets.

Lieutenant General Samuel Greaves, who heads the Air Force's Space and Missiles Systems Center, told reporters on Tuesday that the companies that will win the contest are to receive $160 million. The results will be announced in September.

Last year, the United States said it decided to not to use the RD-180 engines during the launches of its military and intelligence satellites citing national security reasons and the escalation of relations with Russia amid the Ukrainian crisis.

The US Congress has allocated funds to this aim and adopted a bill under which the new US engine has to be developed by 2019. Until that time, the United Launch Alliance created by the Lockheed Martin and Boeing companies will continue using Atlas-5 with the Russian engine manufactured by the Energomash plant.

© 2015 TASS

 

---

The greatest most powerful country should regain shuttle capabilities with the boeing x37b by modifying it as required. America must remain preeminent in space & in other areas. NASA leadership & potus do not want the USA to be preeminent in space or in other areas. Preeminence is critical to the survival of this great nation! Wake up America, get the word out!

 

 

US Air Force's Secretive X-37B Space Plane Passes 600 Days in Orbit

By Leonard David, Space.com's Space Insider Columnist   |   August 29, 2014 01:28pm ET 

 

An artist's illustration of the U.S. Air Force's X-37B space plane in orbit. The solar-powered winged spacecraft has spent more than 620 days in orbit as part of the military's secret OTV-3 mission, which launched in December 2012. Credit: NASA Marshall Space Flight Center View full size image

The U.S. Air Force's mysterious unmanned space plane has winged beyond 600 days in orbit on a classified military mission that seems to have no end.

The X-37B space plane is carrying out the Orbital Test Vehicle-3 (OTV-3) mission, a long-duration cruise that marks the third flight for the unpiloted Air Force spaceflight program.

The Air Force launched the miniature space shuttle into orbit on Dec. 11, 2012 using an expendable Atlas 5 rocket. By the end of Friday (Aug. 29), the space plane had spent 627 days in orbit. That's one year, eight months, 19 days and counting, to be exact. 

"The Air Force continues to push the envelope of the solar-powered X-37B capabilities," said Joan Johnson-Freese, a professor of National Security Affairs at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island. [Amateur Skywatcher Spots X-37B Space Plane (Video)] 

A secretive space plane

The reusable X-37B looks like a mini version of NASA's now-retired space shuttle. This space plane is 29 feet (8.8 meters) long and 9.5 feet (2.9 m) tall, and has a wingspan of nearly 15 feet (4.6 m).

The X-37B's payload bay is the size of a pickup truck bed. In contrast, NASA's space shuttle payload bay could fit two X-37B space planes comfortably inside. At liftoff, the X-37B space plane weighs 11,000 lbs. (4,990 kilograms).

The key to the X-37B's longevity in space rests with its ability to use solar panels to generate power., the solar panels extend the craft's longevity. [How the X-37B Space Plane Works (Infographic)]

"While far above the longevity of any other reusable spacecraft, it is far below that of most U.S. satellites, which are built to last for years, even decades," Johnson-Freese told Space.com. "That certainly confirms the broad, officially stated goal of the X-37B as a test bed vehicle."

It's logical to assume that the classified payloads tucked inside the X-37B include new sensors and satellite hardware that will be tested, Johnson-Freese said. If so, then the more time on orbit, the more testing that can be done, she said.

"While the classified nature of the X-37B has raised some concerns about its intended operational purposes, technically, the program must be commended for doing something new … and successfully," Johnson-Freese said.

X-37B in flight: Three missions

The Air Force is believed to have only two X-37B space planes. These space planes have flown at otal of three missions, which are known as OTV-1, OTV-2 and OTV-3. ("OTV" is short for Orbital Test Vehicle.)

The first mission blasted off in April 2010, and the craft circled Earth for 225 days. The second X-37B vehicle launched in March 2011, performing the OTV-2 mission. This spaceflight lasted 469 days, ultimately landing at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California in June 2012. That was the same landing site OTV-1 used after completing its mission.

The current OTV-3 mission is reusing the first X-37B space plane from the OTV-1 flight, showcasing the reusability aspect of the program.

The U.S. Air Force's classified X-37B space plane is prepared for its first spaceflight, OTV-1, in April 2010. The same space plane launched on the third X-37B mission, OTV-2, on Dec. 11, 2012. As of Aug. 29, 2014, the mission has reached 627 days in space and counting. 
Credit: NASA

View full size image

What's the mystery mission's secret?

General William Shelton (retired), former commander of the Air Force Space Command, has been a leader in rallying support for future of U.S. military space capabilities, including the X-37B robotic space plane.
Credit: Credit: U.S. Air Force/Staff Sgt. Christopher Boitz

View full size image

Before retiring from the Air Force this month, Gen. William Shelton, commander of the Air Force Space Command, remained bullish on the X-37B's hush-hush mission. [10 Most Destructive Space Weapon Concepts]

"I'll give you my standard line on X-37," Shelton told Space.com at the National Space Foundation's 30th Space Symposium in May. "X-37 is doing great. I can't tell you what it's doing, but it's doing great."

Meanwhile, Boeing Space & Intelligence Systems, the Air Force's supplier for the X-37B space planes, told Space.com that there was nothing it could share regarding the ongoing mission.

Military interests in space

While the purpose of the X-37B space plane program remains stealthy, the U.S. military spaceinterests are clearly visible.

In July, Shelton spoke at the Atlantic Council on the U.S. future in space, noting that "space forces are foundational to every military operation, from humanitarian to major combat operations. It really doesn't matter — space has to be there … [satellites must be] continuously deployed in place, providing communications, missile warning, navigation, space surveillance and weather services."

Traffic is building in space, as many new entrants have joined the ranks of spacefaring nations and "counter-space" capabilities (technologies to deny a nation's use of space assets) are becoming more concerning, Shelton added.

Shelton said that the U.S. Air Force Space Command is considering several space tracks, such as lowering the cost and complexity of new space capabilities.

"We're watching carefully as other nations significantly increase their investment in counter-space programs," Shelton said. "We absolutely must adjust our approach and response, and the time for those decisions is approaching very rapidly."

Will X-37B land in Florida?

The Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office carries out the clandestine missions for X-37B space planes, the 3rd Space Experimentation Squadron at Schriever Air Force Base in Colorado handles mission control for OTV flights.

The first two OTV missions flew back to Earth on autopilot, each time touching down on a tarmac at the Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. But that could change.

Boeing Space & Intelligence Systems has announced plans to consolidate its space plane operations by using NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida as a landing site for the X-37B. Earlier this year, Boeing announced plans to expand its presence in Florida by adding technology, engineering and support jobs at the space center.

As part of that Boeing plan, investments will be made to convert the former space shuttle facility, Orbiter Processing Facility (OPF-1), to a structure that would enable the U.S. Air Force "to efficiently land, recover, refurbish, and re-launch the X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle (OTV)," according to Boeing representatives.

At the time of the Jan. 3 announcement, this construction was to be completed by the second quarter of 2015, Boeing representatives said.

Leonard David has been reporting on the space industry for more than five decades. He is former director of research for the National Commission on Space and is co-author of Buzz Aldrin's 2013 book "Mission to Mars – My Vision for Space Exploration" published by National Geographic.Follow us @Spacedotcom, Facebook and Google+. Original article on Space.com.

 

Copyright © 2014 TechMediaNetwork.com All rights reserved. 

 

---

 

Sent from my iPad