5...4...3...2...none

Space Shuttle Endeavor left the Earth this morning under cover of darkness, as the 5th to last NASA Human Space Mission aboard the Shuttles lifted seamlessly toward the International Space Station. Just one week after Obama announced the cancellation of the Constellation program, the veteran shuttle took one of its last journeys into orbit. Endeavor will fly one last mission in July.


Of the three shuttles still in service, the Atlantis will fly one more mission and Discovery will fly two, ending the Space Transportation System in September 2010.


The last time that Americans were left grounded was a 6 year gap from 1975 to 1981 when Apollo/Saturn was fazed out in favor of the Space Shuttle.


The United States does not have a replacement human transportation system. However, by the end of 2010 we may see private industry hiring their own astronaut force in support of private space exploration.

Ahead of SOTU, Obama makes "Giant Leap" to the Right

In what appears to be an historic defeat of Obama's radical leftism, the past few days have been witness to, perhaps, the greatest lurch toward the center from the far reaches of the radical left. Obama, the same President who believes that the Auto industry, Healthcare industry, Banking industry, etc have no place in a capitalist free market has proposed a very radical idea in regards to human space exploration - Give it to the free market.

The White House has decided to begin funding private companies to carry NASA astronauts into space, but the proposal faces major political and budget hurdles, according to people familiar with the matter.
The controversial proposal, expected to be included in the Obama administration's next budget, would open a new chapter in the U.S. space program. The goal is to set up a multiyear, multi-billion-dollar initiative allowing private firms, including some start-ups, to compete to build and operate spacecraft capable of ferrying U.S. astronauts into orbit—and eventually deeper into the solar system.

As a veteran engineer in the aerospace industry, as well as a former employee of the NASA run Orion/Ares programs, I (for the first time since he has taken office) applaud the President. Where the Ares I rocket was nothing more than a money funnel and engineering disaster, private ventures like Space-X have developed and test flown the predecessor to their human rated launcher capable of servicing the ISS for about 1/10 the cost of NASA's Ares. Their Falcons are greener, cheaper, currently in production, and fully reusable. NASA has had one barely successful test of a mock-up Ares concept vehicle which revealed the further nightmare to follow (less about a Billion more dollars a year to fix), which is extremely inefficient, acoustically non-viable for human space flight, and economically impractical. The novel concept of eliminating governmental restrictions on human space flight, opening the frontier to start-ups which promotes innovation in space exploration technologies leaps and bounds above what the old dinosaur (NASA) could possibly conceive, is nothing short of Goldwater style governing.

This idea of privatization has already made heads explode at the "two liberal for Obama" (2L4O) lefties, such as BlueLyon (who can be found in my daily blog recommendations section). The left is up in arms that "The One", with the power of a near super majority and all his grace, has in one short year surrendered to the opposition on the fundamental philosophy of state run EVERYTHING. The very idea of private ventures taking governmental bureaucracies to task on ANYTHING is in direct contradiction to the Marxist values embraced by Obama and his ilk on the left, leading one to wonder - WHY?

Why has Obama endorsed a spending freeze for all federal government agencies except defense? Why has Obama endorsed a tax cut the likes of first term George W. Bush? Why this sudden lurch to the right?

The answer is clear - it is election year and a great number of Alinsky style leftists are positioned to lose their seats, losing power for the left in the final two years of the Obama presidency. Obama's power of persuasion has been met with defeat after defeat on everything from major elections, such as last week's MA Senate Race, to the simplest task of bringing the Olympics to America. He has quickly become the least popular president after his first year in office, setting the stage for being the least popular president in the history of the country. The implementation of a Socialist Empire in America is crumbling... As such, the spending freeze, tax cuts, and budget cuts are being proposed by a man eager to win back the hearts and minds of the independents ahead of the 2010 election with hopes that in two more years he can ram through socialist ideal after socialist ideal.

Is it enough to fool some people? Perhaps. Is it enough of a veil to mask a failed first year? Maybe for some. Is it enough to hid the fact that these proposals are merely a PR mirage to cover up his true agenda? Not likely. Congressional Democrats are going to eat this president alive for abandoning their core values on the public stage, their Alinsky/Marxist values, at a time when they have held more power than any party in history. Their disarray will be clear as the elections move closer, and without the "Blame Bush" message, the Democrats have nothing left to offer other than failed socialist policies... and the people are becoming well aware of this.

In the State of the Union speech tonight I have to wonder, will a teary eyed Democrat stand up and shout down the President with a resounding "You Lie(d)", as the hopes and dreams of the radical left are systematically renounced by the one who would "Fundamentally Change" America?

A Sleeping Star? The Sun Just Wont Wake Up...

"Whatever happens", notes NASA sunspot expert David Hathaway, "the sun is behaving in an interesting way and I believe we're about to learn something new."

NASA is reporting that the current solar minimum is so deep, and reflects a measurable decline in magnetic activity on the sun, reducing solar weather activity.

The sun is in the pits of the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century.
Weeks and sometimes whole months go by without even a single tiny sunspot. The
quiet has dragged out for more than two years, prompting some observers to
wonder, are sunspots disappearing?

The loss of solar spots is a significant concern for modern humanity. As we live in an ever increasing technological world, space radiation and magnetic storms play major roles in security and safety of our electronic infrastructure and public health. Being able to predict solar storms and early detection allow some protection from magnetic storm power grid failures.

What is more of a concern is the global impact of a "sleeping sun".

The sun lives on an eleven year "solar cycle" with peak max and min solar activity measuring about 11 years on average between peaks. A typical solar minimum lasts about 485 days... we are currently at 735 days, with 80% of days in 2009 being "blank sun" days, meaning no sunspots. The last time we were in such a deep minimum was 100 years ago... however, the last time the sun has been this blank was during the Maunder Minimum of the 17th and 18th centuries - a 70 year solar minimum. 200 years earlier the sun spent 90 years in the Sporer Minimum. Since the early 20th century the sun has been in what is referred to as the Modern Maximum, after the previously mentioned lull.


Like the subsequent Maunder Minimum, the Spörer Minimum coincided with a time when Earth's climate was colder than average.

December 6, 2001 - Release No. 01-111
THE SUN'S CHILLY IMPACT ON EARTH
A new NASA computer climate model reinforces the long-standing theory that low solar activity could have changed the atmospheric circulation in the Northern Hemisphere from the 1400's to the 1700's and triggered a "Little Ice Age" in several regions including North America and Europe. Changes in the sun's energy was one of the biggest factors influencing climate change during this period...

During the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, from 1645 to 1715, there is believed to have been a decrease in the total energy output from the sun, as indicated by little or no sunspot activity. Known as the Maunder Minimum, astronomers of the time observed only about 50 sunspots for a 30-year period as opposed to a more typical 40-50,000 spots

Did you catch that?

Historical trends indicate that decreased energy output from the sun results in global temperature minimums, also known as "Little Ice Ages", though global warming supporters indicate that the sun has little to nothing to do with global temperatures - remember, to them global and solar activity are constant.

What is more important than arguing the specifics of global temperature variations is the survival of mankind. Food sustains life. Without food, our population will have to decrease to match the available food output. With warmer temperatures a wider variety of foods can be grown at more extreme locations (i.e. further north or south near the poles). As the globe gets cooler, we lose the ability to grow larger and more varied crops. We lose the ability to feed ourselves. Especially since our society is basing it's existence on "grocery" and less on personal farming, we largely lose the ability to independently sustain our way of life.

Another major factor that will impact humanity is increased cosmic radiation. Solar winds, the product of increased activity on the sun, expands our "heliosphere" - a solar system wide area of influence made by our sun. It is within this "sphere" where the sun is the predominant source of space weather, and galactic winds are largely warded off. You wouldn't know it, but we live within the atmosphere of our sun... and when that atmosphere is weakened, cosmic radiation is allowed to reach the earth's atmosphere with greater energy... allowing more cosmic radiation to reach the surface of the earth, increasing our exposure to harmful high energy radiation.

The global cooling trend, as well as NASA's speculation about the potential for a new solar minimum should strike much more fear into the heart of mankind than "Global Warming". Remember one thing: it is not unlikely that the earth will drastically cool. In fact the "zero point" temperature on which the Global Warmers are basing their data is nowhere near the historical average temperature of the earth... see below: If you think the earth will be in a bad way with a 2 degree Celsius increase, imagine a return to "normal" represented by a global temperature decrease of 6 degrees C. F = (9/5)C + 32

Before we tear our economy apart over a theory of global temperature increase, let us first consider the impact of an inactive sun, an increase of cosmic radiation, and a drastically colder planet earth. Mammoth burgers, anyone?

Rocky Mountain Right may be Wrong about Obama's Space Program

Rocky Mountain Right, a member of the Rocky Mountain Alliance of Bloggers, announced yesterday "So Much For Hope for the Future" in regards to a report that Obama's transition team has requested information from NASA as to the cost of closing out some portions of the new Constellation Program, which consists of Ares I, Ares V, and Orion (two launch vehicles and a crew capsule).

As an insider into the Human Space Flight world (as an employee for Project Orion), I would cheer the cancellation of Ares I, which is what Obama is contemplating doing. Ares I is overweight, underpowered, and poor engineering design. A better alternative would be the Direct 2.0 (Jupiter) launch vehicle, which is an Ares V lite... or perhaps continuing the EELV program, though that would still be more engineering and longer lead time on a launcher...

Currently there has been a schedule slip due to the inability to perfect the Ares I launcher... based on these slips, the first manned launch of the Constellation program is potentially slipping from 2015 to 2017 - that is for the first manned TEST flight... that is 7 years of lag time between the shuttle and this program... Under Direct 2.0, first flights could be as early as 2011 - 2012... as well, it keeps the shuttle infrastructure in place, so we could extend the shuttle a few more flights - and thus there would be no gap in the US' ability for Human Space Flight.

NASA, under Bush, is currently mismanaged. I don't think that Obama can hurt - in fact, at this point, some slight change in direction may actually help expedite the manned space flight program, and eventually Human Mars Missions.

Is NASA wrong on the Moon/Mars Launch Vehicle?

NASA Director, Mike Griffin, is the father of the next moon vehicle. A design concept aimed at piecing apart the US Space Shuttle components into a series of launch vehicles aimed at returning the US to space after the retirement of the shuttle, and eventually back to the moon.

However, Griffin’s focus on the Ares I and Ares V launch vehicles may be the wrong path for the future of US space travel.

The Ares V, when complete, will dwarf the Saturn V in sheer size, yet will not allow for a single launch to aim for the moon. The Ares I will need to launch the crew in the Orion Capsule, which will dock with the Ares V upper stage (complete with lander), and the two will aim toward the moon. A complex ballet in space, made further more complicated by the Ares I development issues – most notably an acoustic envelope that exists in the early part of flight, causing vibrations that would kill the astronauts – a problem that NASA admits is part of dealing with new launch systems. The solution, says NASA, is reverse thrusters firing during launch… kind of the anti-booster. Leave it to the government to proceed with building a new launch vehicle that cannot launch without retro rockets used during launch – like building a new plane that cannot fly without anchors on it’s wings.

Since it’s inception, NASA has spent over $7 Billion on developing this new technology.

But is NASA wrong in scrapping the entire shuttle program? The shuttle itself is flawed, but the launch technology is proven, and perfected since the Columbia disaster. In fact, the changes made to the External Tank have improved flight safety and performance – for a program that has roughly ten flights left – sounds like a government fumble to me.

Enter the Jupiter DIRECT 2.0. When the Constellation Program was being conceived, there were a number of proposals to replace the shuttle. All incorporated shuttle technology, but none more so than the Jupiter Direct. The initial design proposal was questionable, and was cast to the side… however, a rogue group of NASA engineers (some of whom, no doubt, are working on Ares and see the unsolvable problems) may have fixed the issues with the DIRECT launcher.

The design uses the shuttle launch structure, minus the shuttle, placing a small engine pod attached below the tank and placing the payload above the tank. There is no vibration issue, no new configuration issue, and no expensive and time consuming development cost – it is the launch vehicle already in use.

However, NASA officials refuse to take a second look at the cost/schedule saving plan. They simply discredit the idea by citing the shortcomings of the DIRECT 1.0, claiming that there is no possible way that this design could be superior to the design which was chosen… sort of staying the course.

As an Aerospace Engineer (and employee of the Orion Program), I have had my doubts with the Ares-I launch vehicle from the beginning, and these problems/solutions are reason enough to build doubt in the success of this vehicle. We will find ourselves with an inefficient launch vehicle with questionable safety, and a price tag nearing $50 Billion and 5 years of development. It was my opinion from the start that the Ares be scrapped in favor of an Atlas V or Delta V launcher, slightly modified for human rating. NASA would not bite, as some components (notably engine parts) are Russian in origin and they demand an all-American design. The Jupiter DIRECT 2.0 solves this problem and has minimal development cost.

Perhaps we, the grassroots activists of the net, take some action on an issue that is less a “limelight” issue, and more a Taxpayer Friendly obligation – write your Congressmen, write NASA, and write the candidates – ask them if NASA is on the right track with Ares. Ask them if it is prudent that we are scrapping the Shuttle launch system in favor of an unproven and unsafe launch system. Ask them if they should consider an alternative that keeps the current manufacturing jobs and processes in place, keeps our launch infrastructure in place, and requires less time and money for development overall. Ask them about Jupiter DIRECT 2.0.

Public Communications Office
NASA Headquarters
Suite 5K39
Washington, DC 20546-0001
(202) 358-0001 (Office)
(202) 358-3469 (Fax)

Space, and the private sector

Following the inaugural flight of Spaceship One, in which Branson's rocket plane officially won the Ansari X-Prize, congress went to work placing restrictions on the public exploration of space. The government controls were touted as public safety measures... because we don't want a crazy astronaut Farmer incident taking place now do we?

But recent events have taken place that cause me to wonder if congress wants a private sector in human space flight, or if the government's idea of human space flight is a series of non-exploration high cost missions. I am left wondering if the government entities that be do not wish for human kind to become a space faring civilization.

One example of this comes from one man's obsession with creating a new and useless lifting vehicle, with little to no advantage over the current lifting technologies. That man is Mike Griffin, head of NASA. His obsession is with the ARES launch vehicles. The development costs are astronomical (pun intended), and the program time for a new complex launch vehicle is on the order of a decade. So why the obsession?

Griffin is a self-proclaimed visionary... He often comes up with his own solutions to problems, and insists that his engineers make them work. A great example outside of the ARES vehicles is the last minute change in the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle's Launch Abort System (LAS). The LAS was having some minor engineering design issues, and instead of counting on the council of his highly skilled NASA engineers, Griffin took out a piece of scratch paper, drew some new design and said "Do this". It has been a hit to cost and schedule... but the army marches forward to his drum.

The Ares launch vehicle Ares I is a 5 segment solid rocket booster, with a small segment of liquid propellant and the Orion CEV aboard it. It is the first of two launch vehicles being designed for the over budget and behind schedule Moon Program. The problem: solid rocket motors vibrate at such an extreme frequency that without damping, Humans cannot survive, let alone the space vehicle riding on top. Once these vibrations were apparent in analysis, it was suggested that the costly ARES program be abandoned for a less costly and already existent Atlas V, from United Launch Alliance (a Boeing and Lockheed Martin joint effort). Little work would be needed to convert the once human rated launch vehicle back to a human launch vehicle... alas, Griffin has refused... opting instead to push forward with his legacy building candlestick.

Focus now on the private sector, where Bigelow Aerospace is planning on all but putting NASA out of business. Bigelow is listening to the reports on the Atlas V, and intend on using the launch vehicle to build their space hotel, and use the vehicle to shuttle space tourists to and from the inflatable space dwelling. Bigelow has survived, in spite of the increased rules and regulation from the US government when it comes to Space and the private sector. Other companies have not been so lucky... see Kistler Aerospace's issues with the K-1, and how they had to make a deal with Australia to launch as the US would not allow them to cost effectively launch in the US.

I give much respect to private space businesses. They are the explorers who are forging humanity onward into the next great frontier, much to the hesitation of the government.

Overregulation has done much to undermine the private sector in everything from plumbing to medicine... and now, before the industry has an opportunity to boom, the government is attempting to regulate the sector to death.

As good conservatives, we should all work together to end overregulation of private business by the government. We should support private space exploration, and demand that the government allow the start-up operations to research, develop, test, and fly without costly intervention by the bureaucracy of Washington. Without a private sector in the space exploration industry, we are left catering to the whims of whomever may be the visionary of NASA on any given day.