Two NASA climate missions face one year schedule slip
Continue budget problems at NASA: Two climate missions each face a one year schedule slip.
Continue budget problems at NASA: Two climate missions each face a one year schedule slip.
Continue budget problems at NASA: Two climate missions each face a one year schedule slip.
An evening pause:I had played this video as an evening pause back in November, when I thought the last mission of the space shuttle Discovery would be launched. Now that it has finally landed, completing its final mission, I think worthwhile to once again go back in time and watch a film of the shuttle’s maiden flight, launched August 30, 1984, narrated by the astronauts themselves. Note that the female astronaut on this flight is Judith Resnik, who died a little over a year and a half later in the Challenger accident.
Discovery has landed safely, for the last time.
Discovery has undocked from ISS, for the last time.
The new Senate budget proposal for NASA cuts the agency’s budget, though it does so less than the House.
Only a few months ago the Democratically-controlled Senate proposed giving NASA an increase from its 2010 budget. Today, the Senate, still controlled by Democrats, now proposes cutting that budget instead. It is remarkable to watch the impact of an election.
In an unusual move, NASA has issued a statement on the alien fossil paper written by Richard Hoover. Key quote:
While we value the free exchange of ideas, data, and information as part of scientific and technical inquiry, NASA cannot stand behind or support a scientific claim unless it has been peer-reviewed or thoroughly examined by other qualified experts. This paper was submitted in 2007 to the International Journal of Astrobiology. However, the peer review process was not completed for that submission. NASA also was unaware of the recent submission of the paper to the Journal of Cosmology or of the paper’s subsequent publication.
This suggests that Hoover was having trouble getting published in one journal, and did an end-around to get published in a journal more agreeable to his conclusions.
Though this does raise questions about the validity of the research, it is always the research itself that matters. In this case I remain skeptical, but intrigued. I really would like to know why the peer-review process on Hoover’s paper was taking so long at the International Journal of Astrobiology. I would also love to read a critique of Hoover’s papers from scientists in the field.
Progress! The Senate’s science budget proposals are higher than the House’s, but actually do include real cuts.
Alabama lawmakers express desire to protect funding of Huntsville NASA facilities.
Normally I would call this a typical squeal for funds (and we do see so-called conservative Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) squealing a bit) , but the article makes it clear that everyone involved (even the journalist!) has real doubts about the wisdom of funding these programs with the present federal debt.
Clark Lindsey of www.rlvnews.com/ has posted some interesting thoughts in reaction to the successful launch of the Air Force’s second reusable X-37b yesterday and how this relates to NASA’s budget battles in Congress. Key quote for me:
Charles Bolden doesn’t seem prepared to make a forceful case against the clear and obvious dumbness of the HLV/Orion program. Perhaps he in fact wants a make-work project for NASA to sustain the employee base.
As I’ve said before, the program-formerly-called-Constellation is nothing more than pork, and will never get built. Why waste any money on it now?
Very very intriguing: A NASA scientist has claimed in a peer reviewed paper the discovery of alien fossils in several meteorites recovered on Earth. From the paper’s last paragraph:
The absence of nitrogen in the cyanobacterial filaments detected in the CI1 carbonaceous meteorites indicates that the filaments represent the remains of extraterrestrial life forms that grew on the parent bodies of the meteorites when liquid water was present, long before the meteorites entered the Earth’s atmosphere.
The news article describing this discovery is a bit more breathless in style than I would like, and makes me suspicious about these results. Moreover, that NASA held no press release or press conference for a result of this significance gives me pause. (Though NASA might have felt burned from the reactions they got from the arsenic-based-biology press conference and decided therefore to take a low profile here.)
» Read more
Due to the budget situation, it appears that planetary scientists have scaled back their plans for future NASA missions to other planets.
We will know more on Monday, when the planetary community releases its much awaited decadal survey, outlining their recommendations for the next decade.
NASA administrator Charles Bolden revealed at House hearings this week that NASA will announce the future museum homes for the retiring shuttles on April 12.
There is something terribly sad and ironic about having this announcement occur on the 50th anniversary of the first manned flight into space by Yuri Gagarin.
Some thoughts on how a government shutdown would affect NASA.
This is why I call it pork and a waste of money: NASA’s chief technologist admits it will be a decade before Orion and the heavy-lift rocket mandated by Congress flies.
The beginning of the end: The shuttle Discovery docked successfully with the space station, its 13th and final visit to ISS.
Two high-priority climate missions dropped from NASA’s budget by the White House. And what’s most amazing: No one’s squealing!
“Removal of these missions was not what we desired and not what the administration desired, but it was a clear recognition and acknowledgement of the budget issues we face as a nation,” [said Steve Volz, associate director for flight programs at NASA’s Earth Science Division]. “It’s cleaner to be allowed to delete the scope that goes along with the dollars than to have to figure out how to do more with less.”
More problems for the James Webb Space Telescope: The detector arrays for several instruments are deteriorating, even as they sit on the shelf. And remember, the 2014 launch date is probably going to be delayed until 2016. Key quote:
“As you get further and further out with [the launch date], it really raises questions about how far down the [integration and test] process you go for the instruments … and how long you have to store all that before you actually launch,” [Webb program director Rick Howard] told the NASA Advisory Council’s astrophysics subcommittee during a Feb. 16 public meeting here. “And that just makes everybody even more nervous about this problem than anything else.”
So what the shuttle is being retired! Space tourism is poised to blast off in the next two years.
More station news: The shuttle Discovery has lifted off on its last mission.
Want to know whose getting what? The journal Science has put together this nice interactive table showing the various proposed budgets for the various science agencies in the federal government.
Though the magazine is undeniably pro-spending for science, the information is useful, as it shows clearly that even if every Republican cut is approved, the amount of money for most of these agencies will not be, on average, much different than what was spent in 2008. And it seems to me that in 2008 there was plenty of money for science in the federal government. Probably too much.
The space war continues. Obama’s proposed $18.7 billion NASA budget has already drawn fire in Congress.
As I have said before, considering the dire state of the federal debt, I think NASA will be very lucky to survive with even this budget.
The final launch for the space shuttle Discovery has now been set for Thursday, February 24.
According to its manager, the budget troubles of the James Webb Space Telescope will likely keep it on the ground until 2016.
This is terrible news for space-based astrophysics. Until Webb gets launched, NASA will have no money for any other space telescope project. And since all the space telescopes presently in orbit are not expected to be operating at the end of the decade, by 2020 the U.S. space astronomy program will essentially be dead.
Then again, there is the private sector, as Google Lunar X Prize is demonstrating.
The House votes to shift $298 million from NASA to local law enforcement.
What idiocy. I can accept the idea of cutting NASA considering the state of the deficit. However, for Congress to instead spend the money for local police work, something that is definitely not the responsibility of the federal government, is plain foolishness. The need now is to cut, cut, cut, until the budget is under control. Only then can we reasonably consider spending money on these programs.
The war over NASA pork begins: Congressman Bill Posey (R-Florida) condemned Obama’s NASA budget today for not giving the program-formerly-called-Constellation more money.
Concerning Obama’s proposals for NASA’s 2012 budget, a closer look by me since yesterday has caused me to reconsider my earlier post. I think I spoke too soon, before I had time to review the Obama budget proposal entirely.
Though the Obama administration has pulled back somewhat from its initial 2011 budget proposals for commercial space, it does appear that they are not abandoning that effort as I had thought at first. Their 2012 proposal ($850 million per year) is still significantly higher than what Congress had authorized ($500 million), which suggests a willingness to fight for this program.
As for the program-formerly-called-Constellation, however, it does appear that this pork program is going forward. Instead of trying to cancel it like last year, the administration now appears to have become resigned to its existence, and this year includes significant funds for its construction.
Regardless, considering the insane state of the federal deficit, it seems to me both unrealistic and foolish to fund either of these programs at this time. Pork politics unfortunately will probably help keep alive the funding for the program-formerly-called-Constellation, while the lack of a powerful constituency for commercial space leaves these subsidizes very vulnerable to Congressional trimming.
To avoid confusion, I want to clarify why I consider Obama’s commercial space budget proposal today to be a decrease, not an increase, from past budget proposals. The history of this budget goes like this:
It is almost certain that Congress will trim these numbers. Meanwhile, the amount of money to the program-formerly-called-Constellation goes up.