Posted on 04/22/2008 8:44:36 PM PDT by B-Chan
Ridden Amtrak lately? If not, why not?
While you ponder the answer to that question, dig this. In a recent Obama campaign document ("Barack Obama's Plan For American Leadership in Space"), the candidate lays out his proposed policy vis-a-vis NASA. The paper states that as president, "Obama will support the development of this vital new platform [the Constellation spacecraft currently in development at NASA] to ensure that the United States' reliance on foreign space capabilities is limited to the minimum possible time period." In other words, he will maintain the Constellation project at a minimum $500 million per year budget until the first Orion flight, currently scheduled for sometime in 2015. However, NASA is also planning to end Shuttle operations in 2010, leaving the U.S. with no manned space transportation system for five years (or more NASA's ability to meet deadlines has suffered greatly since the days of Project Apollo). As a result, it's likely that the space agency will be forced to lay off or give early retirement to the thousands of ground crew that currently rebuild and fly our Shuttle fleet. The effect of all this will be a gradual reduction in NASA size and capabilities; the agency will essentially be left to wither from lack of funding as the years go by.
And I say, "good".
This is one area of Obama policy with which I agree. NASA should be allowed to wither away. The agency is the space-going equivalent of Amtrak expensive, unprofitable, and deathly slow and for the same basic reason: because it is run by a big-government bureaucracy rather than as a profit-making private enterprise. And I don't believe that the government has any more business running a space program than they have running a railroad.
To my mind, transportation = transportation. While the airless, radioactive void of space presents unique challenges to space transportation service providers, space transportation itself is fundamentally no different than any other form of transportation: at its root, it's still nothing more than the movement of people and things from point A to point B by means of vehicles.
And in America, transportation services have always been best provided by private operators. Government's traditional role from the Erie Canal to the Interstate Highway System has been to provide the infrastructure of our nation's various transportation systems. So should it be with space transportation. Just as the federal government funds the construction of air travel infrastructure (airports, navigation systems, air traffic control, etc.) so it should fund the infrastructure of space transportation: launch centers, space communications, aerospace R&D, and so forth. And, as with air travel, actual space transportation services should be provided by privately-owned, for-profit companies.
(For the record: I believe that the federal government should build and maintain a nationwide network of high speed rail infrastructure, and let the railroads provide intercity passenger rail service.)
Don't get me wrong. It's not that I hate NASA. I grew up during the Space Race years, and idolized the steely-eyed missilemen of the space agency, the boys that put Neil and Buzz on the moon. Sadly, however, we no longer have the reformed Nazis, visionary engineers, and selfless program men that ran NASA during its glory years, nor do we today have Congressmen and presidents who see space as the New Frontier. Today, NASA is just another federal agency full of comfortable, well-paid government bureaucrats, supported in Congress by wheedling politicians who see the space program only in terms of juicy contracts for the folks back home.
In my opinion, NASA should be returned to its original purpose the research and development of air and space transportation technologies and should hire contractors to launch satellites, probes, and manned spacecraft. Imagine if, instead of giving NASA $500 million per year to build paper spaceships and conduct endless studies, we were to offer American industry a flat $500 million annual contract to build and operate a moon base and associated space transportation system! I'd be willing to bet the job would get done pronto.
Ridden Amtrak lately? Me either. I'm a train fan myself, but even I stay away from our nation's pitifully inadequate government-run railroad. And, in my opinion, our country no more needs a government-run spaceline than she needs a government-run railroad. The sooner NASA is allowed to quietly shrink back to a useful size, and to do the job it was intended to do, the better for those of us who still hold on to the dream of personally traveling in space.
Astronauts don't fly, they're along for the ride. If they do fly, it isn't anything like a T-38.
“(For the record: I believe that the federal government should build and maintain a nationwide network of high speed rail infrastructure, and let the railroads provide intercity passenger rail service.)”
Of all the things my tax dollars are wasted on, this is one thing I wouldn’t mind.
February 29, 2008 :: News
MissileThreat.com
A video has surfaced of Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama talking on his plans for strategic issues such as nuclear weapons and missile defense.
The full text from the video, as released, reads as follows:
Thanks so much for the Caucus4Priorities, for the great work you've been doing. As president, I will end misguided defense policies and stand with Caucus4Priorities in fighting special interests in Washington.
First, I'll stop spending $9 billion a month in Iraq. I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president I will end it.[i.e. not win it]
Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending.
I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.
I will not weaponize space.
I will slow our development of future combat systems.
And I will institute an independent "Defense Priorities Board" to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.
Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.
You know where I stand. I've fought for open, ethical and accountable government my entire public life. I don't switch positions or make promises that can't be kept. I don't posture on defense policy and I don't take money from federal lobbyists for powerful defense contractors. As president, my sole priority for defense spending will be protecting the American people. Thanks so much.
Article: Obama Pledges Cuts in Missile Defense, Space, and Nuclear Weapons Programs:
http://missilethreat.com/archives/id.7086/detail.asp
MissileThreat.com is a project of The Claremont Institute devoted to understanding and promoting the requirements for the strategic defense of the United States.
_____________________________
**Note: the video missilethreat.com has is the ORIGINAL youtube video of Senator Obama discussing his plans to cripple the US militarily. It comes from the Obama camp itself. There is another, titled, "In 52 seconds why Obama can never win the general election". However, though it is being circulated far more widely (millions of hits vs thousands), it is a poor quality, therefore suspicious to some, COPY someone made from this one. The original is titled "Obama-Caucus4Priorities":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o84PE871BE
You can also find the original, and many other authenic Obama camp releases, at this site through a search for "Obama-Caucus4Priorities" (use the lower search feature):
http://www.youtube.com/user/BarackObamadotcom
"I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems."--Barack Obama
"unproven" missile defense systems???
Hey Barack, check THIS out!
(U.S. Dept of Defense video of shootdown of US spy satellite)
2007 Chinese anti-satellite missile test:
The 2007 Chinese anti-satellite missile test was conducted by China on January 11, 2007. A Chinese weather satellite the FY-1C polar orbit satellite of the Fengyun series, at an altitude of 865 kilometres (537 mi), with a mass of 750 kg[1] was destroyed by a kinetic kill vehicle traveling with a speed of 8 km/s in the opposite direction[2] (see Head-on engagement). It was launched with a multistage solid-fuel missile from Xichang Satellite Launch Center or nearby.
--wikipedia: see "2007 Chinese anti-satellite missile test"
From "45 Communist Goals":
Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963:
1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
'Goals' 4-45 can be found here or at many other sites through a web search for "45 goals":
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm
New Pentagon Report: China's Growing Military Space Power
By Leonard David
Special Correspondent, SPACE.com
March 6, 2008
GOLDEN, Colorado A just-released Pentagon report spotlights a growing U.S. military concern that China is developing a multi- dimensional program to limit or prevent the use of space-based assets by its potential adversaries during times of crisis or conflict.
Furthermore, last year's successful test by China of a direct-ascent, anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon to destroy its own defunct weather satellite, the report adds, underscores that country's expansion from the land, air, and sea dimensions of the traditional battlefield into the space and cyber-space domains.
Although China's commercial space program has utility for non- military research, that capability demonstrates space launch and control know-how that have direct military application. Even the Chang'e 1 the Chinese lunar probe now circling the Moon is flagged in the report as showcasing China's ability "to conduct complicated space maneuvers a capability which has broad implications for military counterspace operations."
To read the entire publication [29.67MB/pdf], go to (U.S. Dept of Defense) :
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/China_Military_Report_08.pdf
From the Sino-Russian Joint Statement of April 23, 1997:
"The two sides [China and Russia] shall, in the spirit of partnership, strive to promote the multipolarization of the world and the establishment of a new international order." http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HI29Ag01.html
From the Russian News and Information Agency:
"'I am determined to expand relations with Russia,' Chavez, known as an outspoken critic of what he calls the United States' unilateralism, told the Russian leader, adding that his determination stemmed from their shared vision of the global order.":
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060727/51913498.html
From National Public Radio (NPR):
"Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has been visiting countries such as China, Iran and Russia as part of an effort to build a 'strategic alliance' of interests not beholden to the United States. He considers the United States his arch enemy.":
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5729764
"Russia has objected strenuously to the antimissile system, calling it a threat to Russian security despite American assurances. President Vladimir V. Putin has threatened to point missiles at Eastern Europe if the system is built. Mr. Gates said that while the United States would not grant Russia a veto over missile defense sites in Europe, the Bush administration was willing to guarantee that neither the radar proposed for the Czech Republic nor the 10 missile interceptors proposed for Poland would be turned on until Iran had proven it had a missile that could reach Europe."
New York Times, Monday, March 17, 2008:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/washington/17gates.html?ref=world
"I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems."
"I will not weaponize space."
"I will slow our development of future combat systems."
Article: Obama Pledges Cuts in Missile Defense, Space, and Nuclear Weapons Programs:
http://missilethreat.com/archives/id.7086/detail.asp
"the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century" -Russian leader Vladimir Putin on the collapse of the Soviet Union...
"World democratic opinion has yet to realize the alarming implications of President Vladimir Putin's State of the Union speech on April 25, 2005, in which he said that the collapse of the Soviet Union represented the 'greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.'
http://www.hooverdigest.org/053/beichman.html
Russia, China flex muscles in joint war games
Reuters: Aug 17, 2007
CHEBARKUL, Russia (Reuters) - Russia and China staged their biggest joint exercises on Friday but denied this show of military prowess could lead to the formation of a counterweight to NATO.
"Today's exercises are another step towards strengthening the relations between our countries, a step towards strengthening international peace and security, and first and foremost, the security of our peoples," Putin said.
Fighter jets swooped overhead, commandos jumped from helicopters on to rooftops and the boom of artillery shells shook the firing range in Russia's Ural mountains as two of the largest armies in the world were put through their paces.
The exercises take place against a backdrop of mounting rivalry between the West, and Russia and China for influence over Central Asia, a strategic region that has huge oil, gas and mineral resources.
Russia's growing assertiveness is also causing jitters in the West. Putin announced at the firing range that Russia was resuming Soviet-era sorties by its strategic bomber aircraft near NATO airspace.
http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-29030120070817?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
U.S. Navy Intercepts Russian Bombers Flying Near Ships
Monday, February 11, 2008
WASHINGTON (Associated Press) U.S. fighter planes intercepted two Russian bombers flying unusually close to an American aircraft carrier in the western Pacific during the weekend, The Associated Press has learned.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330362,00.html
Putin warns Kosovo will 'come back to knock' the West, as NATO envoy lashes out
MOSCOW: President Vladimir Putin on Friday issued a sharp warning to the West about the consequences of recognizing Kosovo's independence, saying the decision would "come back to knock them on the head."
The comments, made during an informal meeting of leaders from ex-Soviet republics, were the strongest by the Russian leader since Sunday when Kosovo made its declaration of independence from Serbia.
They followed statements made earlier Friday by Russia's envoy to NATO, who warned the alliance against overstepping its mandate in Kosovo and said Moscow might be forced to use "brute military force" to maintain respect on the world scene.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/02/22/europe/EU-GEN-Russia-Kosovo.php
__________________________________________________
I suggest you forward that thought to Neil Armstrong. Eagle was off course and running out of fuel when he landed in the Sea of Tranquility.
I submit to you that some airline pilots have less to do (or worry about) than United States spacecraft commanders.
Once we put a man on the moon, I couldn’t think of another reason to put men in space. I really think that money would be better spent trying to save the oceans. This is much more important than CO2.
A LEM is nothing at all like a T-38, and thats my pet peeve.
Grooming 100+ astronauts to be jet-jocks for the remaining fleet of *three* shuttles they'll be riding in.
Please reply to my post # 6.
If they're Mission Specialists, I'll give you that.
Obama Pledges Cuts in Missile Defense, Space, and Nuclear Weapons Programs
MissileThreat.com | February 29, 2008
Posted on 04/21/2008 5:37:37 PM PDT by Eye On The Left
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2004990/posts
The shuttle from launch to touchdown can be entirely automated. At any rate a T-38 is a poor trainer for a shuttle.
NASA's use of T-38 trainers is a tradition going back at least to the early Apollo days. One Apollo astronaut trainee resigned over of the jet-jock requirement.
Its a very expensive tradition to maintain, each astronaut gets 4 hours of flight time per week x 100 is at least 400 hours. An expensive extravagance.
A case can be made for the tanker aircraft modified to handle like a shuttle, that is a true shuttle simulator.
But astronauts (for the most part) are passengers aboard spacecraft, and spacecraft aren't remotely similar to aircraft.
It can be fully automated but for several reasons it is not...
this is a question asked of the astronauts on NASA’s Spaceflight Now webpage
Eric Gibson of Frederick, Maryland asked the following question of Pilot Scott Horowitz
Question: Upon re-entry, do you actually fly the shuttle at any point, or do the MCC computers do the landing?
Answer: The onboard computers on the shuttle are normally in the automatic mode, controlling the space shuttle as we do most of the re-entry. As we approach Mach 1 and the shuttle slows down we get ready to take over manually, and at about .95 Mach the commander Ken Bowersox will take over the controls of the space shuttle and manually fly it to the landing.
Howard Leeming from Poulsbo, Wash., age: 37 asked the following question of Commander Kenneth Cockrell
Question: Why switch to manual control of the shuttle on descent for the landing? Why not use the computers to handle the task? It is done on commercial airliners and military planes, and it removes any chance of human error.
Answer: We get asked this question quite often. There is quite a bit difference between a space shuttle landing and that of an airplane, whether it’s commercial or military. Airplanes have the ability for the pilot to take over, and make a misapproach if anything goes wrong or if they see any equipment malfunctions on the autoland systems. In fact I have flown quite a few automatic landings to aircraft carriers and it is true the automatic landing systems usually make very precise landings. However it is also true that sometimes they don’t. Some little thing may go wrong or some sensor may provide an input to the system that gives you a little bit of a scary ride. And it is nice to be able to take over disconnect the autopilot portion, add power and go around. That is something that we can’t do on the shuttle. In fact during testing of the autoland system using our shuttle airplanes which model the behavior of the shuttle, we found that there are some fairly large dispersions between the planned touch down air speed and the touch down air speed the autoland actually accomplishes and because we are landing very close to the limit speed for our main gear tires we really can’t handle those kinds of dispersions. So, over the years the program has come to the decision that it’s best to let the pilots actually make the landing for two reasons. One is we can’t make a go around if there is a system problem with the autoland. And the second one being that we actually can do a slightly better job at controlling the touch down air speed, which is important for the main tires. So for the foreseeable future or at least with the current autoland system we plan to land it manually. That happens to be good news for the pilots because we enjoy doing that.
And the plane that’s modified to fly like the shuttle is not a tanker aircraft, it’s a Gulfstream II corporate jet...
from nasaexplores.com
Space Shuttle commanders have to be very confident about their landing skills before they try it the first time. That’s where the Shuttle Training Aircraft (STA) comes in. These specially modified airplanes give astronauts a feel for what it’s like to land the Shuttle.
Several modifications were made to Gulfstream II corporate jets to turn them into the STA.
So as I said I believe that in the case of an emergency (computer failure, personel incapacited, etc) every one on board needs to be able to fly.
I’d also like to ask you where you get the “4 hours a week” from? From what I’ve been able to find on NASA’s ISS page...
T-38 flight training is one type of requirement. Flight training maintains and improves their comprehensive ability to accomplish their mission on orbit by training them in conditions similar to those on board the Space Shuttle or International Space Station.
More than a hundred hours a year of T-38 flight training is mandatory for mission specialists.
not quite the 208 hours you’re complaining about
I did find that astronaut pilots are required to fly 15 hours a month but not the mission specialis...
(from NASA’s spaceflight.nasa.gov)
Pilot astronauts maintain flying proficiency by flying 15 hours per month in NASA’s fleet of 2-seat T-38 jets; they build up jet aircraft hours and also practice Orbiter landings in the Shuttle Training Aircraft, a modified corporate jet aircraft. Mission specialist astronauts fly a minimum of 4 hours per month.
I’m not picking on you I just enjoy research.
What part of the T-38 experience carries over to spaceflight?
- during launch?
- during re-entry?
- during the mission?
- during rendezvous/docking?
- during lunar landing/liftoff?
The answer is none of these. Only during the final moments of the flight. The astronaut corps could be trained in simulators or the Gulfstream aircraft you mentioned. NASA doesn't want to because of tradition.
When slimming down NASA, the wasteful T-38 trainer program is a good place to start.
I don’t know the answers to all your questions. But I believe they made a case for it in the second paragraph of my reply #16. I’m sure you know everything that they will experience during the stages of flight that you ask about but I don’t, who knows maybe NASA doesn’t know as much as you. But I answered your original question and gave justification from documented sources. I’m not here to argue the petty details. Have a nice day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.