From here, whither?

What a picturesque landing at Edwards Air Force Base by Atlantis. It was a marvelous end to a spectacular mission. There are varied and rich reasons why the operation was so exciting. I’d like to focus in on one in particular that I think is important not only for STS-125 and Hubble, but for manned space flight’s future.

The ability to work in space will determine how successful any manned undertaking is in low earth orbit, on the moon, or Mars, anywhere off the earth’s surface. The servicing missions to the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) were designed to replace modular units referred to as orbital replacement units (ORU). That would make the tasks simple. Unfasten the ORU, slip it out, slide another in and fasten. Done. No task in zero g is simple if one has done them in 1 g all his or her life. However, this planning and design would make the tasks as simple as possible for the astronauts. Since one last mission to HST had been worked into NASA’s schedule, scientists and engineers wanted to do all they could to extend the life as much as possible.

That being the case, there were some elements that needed to be replaced which were not ORUs. They were not modular for the fast out-and-in fix. This presented engineers with the challenge of designing tools and work tasks that the astronauts could do, particularly in their bulky pressurized suits. (If you don’t think the suits make a difference in how one works, take the time to find out more by reading up on astronauts who’ve done EVA.) And then the mission specialists had to test the tools and procedures in suits in neutral buoyancy (as close as one can get to zero g on the ground for any length of time).

The end result is that the HST repair EVAs were not just more of the same thing. Some of their tasks were, but they there were those that had never been intended to be done by ‘nauts in space. Yes, there were snags and slip ups. Come on, how perfect is it on the ground in 1 g with all the tools and extras of everything not far from hand? But if one compares the unexpected with the whole end results, the uh-ohs pale in comparison to the great accomplishments of humans in space. Every task was accomplished, and the last EVA ended ahead of the time line, even with the difficulties involved in the mission.

That speaks volumes for the ability of humans, their adaptability and ability to problem solve. Perhaps we were created to live in 1 g, but this demonstrates that humans have a long range of malleability. Perhaps earth is our cradle, but as Tsiolkovsky said, one cannot stay in the cradle forever.

I think that STS-125 marks a certain point in our travel through space exploration at which humans can point to show we are able to live and work in space, wherever our space program takes us. If we can repair a telescope in orbit, what else can we do? Only the decision makers hold us back.

Hubba Hubble

STS-125 has been an amazing mission, once again for NASA. It shouldn't be a surprise. Challenging EVAs and real-time problem solving with fixed resources is becoming ordinary business for the agency and the astronauts and the EVA support teams on the ground. Rather than seeing snags and difficulties as a bad thing, these have pushed NASA to new heights as the men and women seek solutions rather than giving up and coming home, tailed tucked firmly between legs. This is the side of the story that most of the media and a good deal of people do not see. If a solar array sticks and tears, then it’s a horrible failure that shows how incompetent NASA is, so “they” say. How many times on earth do mechanical things fail…like your car perhaps. Does your inability to start your car mean you are dim or unable to understand how to turn the key and press the gas? If your car has a problem due to normal wear and tear in everyday use, does that mean the people who built it don’t know what they are doing? But that is the reaction to EVAs that do not happen with perfection.

Let us take a new perspective and see just how enterprising, hard working and determined that NASA engineers and scientists can be. They aren’t able to run down to Home Depot or even step next door to borrow a tool. Astronauts must work with what is in the shuttle or the space station. They have a limited tool box and supplies. Remember how amazed so many were when the crew of Apollo 13 built the air canister adapter from flight check list cards, tape and other found things on the space craft? Why have we lost that sense of wonder?

The crew of STS-125 performed five incredible EVAs. They were not flawless, but did anyone really expect them to be? That would be naïve. Not only did they overcome adversity and find fixes for the problems, they made repairs to the Hubble Space Telescope that were never meant to be done in space by suited men and women. And despite the snags, they finished ahead of the timeline. Where’s the wonder over that?

In a day when we need heroes, some of the most able and obvious are being relegated to a rubbish heap of screw ups instead of celebrated for their ingenuity and determination.

Hoorah for the crew of STS-125, the tool makers, the EVA planners, the men and women who get the shuttle ready to fly and the engineers who analyze the vehicle to be certain that it flies safely.

I am rarely impressed with people, being the great cynic that I am. But I am impressed, greatly. This brings back my sense of wonder. And it really makes me miss working on the shuttle, being involved in a current flight program. But it also gives me renewed enthusiasm for the Ares program. With the difficulties we are meeting and the crushing criticism, we need the model and the lesson of determination and ingenuity. The next generation launch vehicle can be as awe inspiring as the shuttle, the station and Hubble.

Saturn's mysteries

Cassini continues to reveal more and more about Saturn. Saturn has an aurora in the polar region, as you can see. It is unique, even for a planet with an aurora. Earth and Jupiter auroras are a ring of auroras. Saturn's covers a large area across the pole. An aurora is caused by charged particles which travel along the lines of the magnetic field of planet into the atmosphere.

Earth's aurora is caused by particles from the sun becoming trapped by the magnetic field. Jupiter's aurora are caused by non-solar particles and is constant in size. Saturn's main aurora changes size dramatically as the solar wind varies, driving the particle flow into the planet's mag field. Since the aurora and its behavior are so unexpected, explanations are non-existent at present.

Learn more and see more pictures at http://www.nasa.gov/cassini

Creative

Who says engineers are dry and nerdy and have no personality?

I was on the third floor of the building I work in when I saw this.



NASA rocket scientist geek nerd turns cubical into a real home away from home...complete with A/C and mailbox. Very cool, creative and hilarious. It certainly brightens cube city up a signifcant degree. No, no, no...no goverment resources were harmed in the making of this cool cube.

Other things rocket scientists do

Our life is but a moment in infinite space.
Time come and passes, gone without a trace.
We will all lose, betting against time in its race.
Time is ahead, we can’t keep up the chase.
Time wins again and we must take last place.
Beaten before we start? Give up the pace?
You may give up, but with me that’s not the case.
Conceited Time marches before and carries the mace,
While I, strolling behind, enjoy Life’s sweet smiling face.

I can't put it better

I give up my space to a more eloquent voice...


From Space News

Putting NASA's Budget in Perspective

By JEFF BROOKS

"I think we should solve our problems here on Earth before we go into space."

This line, or some facsimile of it, probably has been heard countless times by just about every advocate of space exploration. For many people, it seems to sum up the totality of their thinking on the subject. Not a few politicians invoke it on those rare occasions when space exploration comes up in political discourse.

In October 2006, on the 49th anniversary of the launch of Sputnik, CBS News anchor Katie Couric summarized this attitude when she concluded her nightly broadcast by saying: "NASA's requested budget for 2007 is nearly $17 billion. There are some who argue that money would be better spent on solid ground, for medical research, social programs or in finding solutions to poverty, hunger and homelessness ... I can't help but wonder what all that money could do for people right here on planet Earth."

When space advocates hear this argument, it is difficult not to become irritated or even a little angry. When something that one cares about a great deal is treated with such disparagement, getting upset is a natural reaction. However, responding with irritation and anger does not help and, if anything, merely strengthens the other person in his or her belief that space exploration is not something that should be a national priority.

It is important for space advocates to understand that this opinion is held by people not because they are hostile to space exploration, but because they lack sufficient information about it. Thanks to the media, which generally covers space-related stories only when something goes horribly wrong, a general impression has been created that space exploration does nothing more than produce a rather small amount of scientific information, of no practical use to anybody, at enormous cost to the taxpayer. Once people have settled into a comfortable belief about something, getting them to change their opinion is far from an easy task.

It is obvious to those who are knowledgeable about the potential of a robust space program that, far from diverting resources away from efforts to solve Earth's problems, the answers to many of our problems are to be found in space. However, for the purposes of this essay, I shall limit my examination to how the funding for NASA stacks up when compared to the various programs that are often cited as more deserving than the space agency.

According to budget documents obtained from the Government Printing Office, the national budget for 2007 totals about $2.784 trillion. At $16.143 billion, spending on NASA accounts for 0.58 percent of this. Compare this to NASA's allocation during the mid-1960s when, despite the pressures of the war effort in Vietnam and then U.S. President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs, NASA spending made up more than 5 percent of the federal budget.

How does NASA's budget compare with the amount of money the federal government spends on social programs? In the 2007 budget, the funding for social programs (calculated here as the budgets for the departments of Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Veterans Affairs, Social Security, Agriculture and Labor) adds up to a whopping $1.581 trillion. For every $1 the federal government spends on NASA, it spends $98 on social programs. In other words, if we cut spending on social programs by a mere 1 percent, we could very nearly double NASA's budget.

The naysayers often speak as if the country's social problems would be solved if only we took the money given to NASA and devoted it to social programs. Does anyone seriously believe that increasing spending on social programs from $1.581 trillion to $1.597 trillion would make any appreciable difference? Note also that we are only talking about federal spending here. Not included in these estimates are the vast amounts of money that state and local governments spend on social programs. Needless to say, state and local government funding of space exploration is negligible.

The idea of NASA money being diverted away from social programs is the most common proposal by those who would divert NASA's funding. But how does NASA compare to other big government expenditures? Compare, for example, the NASA budget with the U.S. defense budget.

The 2007 budget allocates roughly $609 billion to defense, not including the budget for the Department of Homeland Security. This is nearly 38 times the amount of money spent on NASA. If you include funding for the Department of Homeland Security, defense spending adds up to $652.5 billion, which is more than 40 times NASA's budget. While few question the need to maintain a strong military in an uncertain age, some might consider it excessive for the United States to spend more on its military than the next 15 biggest defense spenders put together, especially as most of them are U.S. allies. Furthermore, there certainly are a great number of military programs of questionable value, as well as many sound military programs whose price tags nevertheless raise eyebrows.

For example, consider that each B-2 stealth bomber costs the U.S. taxpayer roughly $2.2 billion. Then consider that the New Horizons robotic mission to Pluto, which will answer fundamental questions about the solar system, was nearly canceled for lack of funds. The total cost of the New Horizons mission, including the launch vehicle, added up to $650 million. In other words, the New Horizons mission to Pluto cost less than a third the cost of a single B-2 bomber.

Then there is the matter of paying the interest on the national debt. As I write this essay, according to the U.S. Treasury office, the United States is in debt to the tune of $8,835,268,597,181.95. Merely paying the interest on this massive load of debt every year costs a fair amount of money. In 2006, the federal government had to allocate about $400 billion to this task, which adds up to more than 23.5 times the amount of NASA's 2007 allocation. As the debt is continually increasing, these interest payments will only continue to grow.

One can argue forever over the merits of government social programs, how much we should be spending on our military, or how much the government should rely on borrowed money. What one can not argue about, however, is that space exploration gets a very, very small slice of the pie. Compared to the behemoths of government spending, NASA is a pigmy. That it achieves so much with such a small share of the federal budget is astonishing.

When you look at the numbers, the notion that we should "solve our problems on Earth before we go into space" is revealed as a blatant non sequitur. Even when assuming that the solving of social or geopolitical problems was merely a matter of allocating sufficient money to those problems - a notion which is highly questionable in itself - it is clear that diverting NASA money to other programs would make little if any difference.

When it comes to funding space exploration, it is time for space advocates to stop playing defense and start playing offense. While not slackening our efforts to protect the funding of critical NASA projects, we also must begin to push for increases in funding for space exploration. We must begin to reframe and recast the entire debate in Washington on this issue, so that the politicians start thinking in terms of "how much can we spend" for space exploration, rather than "how much can we cut" from space exploration.

To conclude with a final observation, recall that NASA spending made up more than 5 percent of the federal budget during the heady days of the Apollo program. If it received 5 percent of the federal budget today, its annual funding level would be $139.2 billion. Imagine what the space agency could do if it had that level of support.

Let's make it happen.


Jeff Brooks is a political activist and advocate for space exploration who resides in Austin, Texas. In addition to space advocacy he has worked on a variety of consumer, environmental and government reform issues. He also writes the blog "Movement for a New Renaissance." This article first appeared in the July 2 issue of "The Space Review."

In time for Halloween

The Witch Head Nebula, whose name goes without explanation. The nebula is associated with the star Rigel. in the constellation Orion. In the official catalog, the nebula is IC 2118. The blue glow comes from the reflected light of Rigel and from the fact that the dust grains in the nebula reflect blue light more efficiently than red light. This is similar to the timeless question of why our sky is blue...