“The Augustine Commission for Dummies”

(Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4. Part 5. Wrap Up.)

Given the intent of the politicians to fight for the funding their districts currently receive from the Constellation Program (CxP – the current program developing the Ares I and Ares V rockets) as well as go begging for more, and given the budget constraints the NASA faces, it is instructive to see where this course will end up. In the Senate, Richard Shelby has announced his intention to fight for Constellation and will try to increase funding to the Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama. Senator Bill Nelson of Florida is fighting for Kennedy Space Center and all the jobs and funding there. In the House, Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona and Pete Olson of Texas have dug in their heels and reiterated their backing of the Constellation program (See Space News, 21 November 2009).

All this is taking place against the backdrop of the Augustine Commission’s Final Report, which has made it clear that Ares I is over budget and underpowered. As Jeff Greason said at the Committee deliberations, if Santa Clause gave us Ares I and Ares V tomorrow, we would have to scrap them immediately because they would be too expensive to operate.

The Forum at NasaSpaceFlight has been for many years the authoritative site for information on all things NASA. It has been home to the rebel alliance of NASA and industry engineers that have advocated the in-line shuttle derived launch vehicle for the past four years.

The source of this concern was former Administrator Michael Griffin’s decision in 2005 to replace the dual-launch, in-line shuttle derived architecture recommended by NASA engineers, with his personal choice of a small Ares I and a very large Ares V. Instead of building one rocket using existing shuttle components as Congress had directed, he would build two brand new rockets. This decision came just two weeks before the scheduled release of the NASA document on the Constellation program.

Now, four years later in 2009, when the in-line shuttle derived launch vehicle should have been making its first flight, we are five or six years away from Ares I making its first flight. The Shuttle is scheduled for retirement next year and America will have to buy seats on the Russian Soyuz to get to the International Space Station. And the International Space Station is scheduled for de-commissioning in 2015 and would be de-orbited into the Pacific Ocean.

This reality gave birth to the Augustine Commission and its Final Report. We have covered in detail the findings of the Committee. Now we look to consider the possible outcomes.

Philip Metschan (writing as ‘Phoegh’), a long time contributor to the Forum at NasaSpaceFlight, has produced a marvelous interactive series of graphics available at directlauncher.com that illustrate the options identified by the Augustine Commission.

The Budget and Time Line for these options are given in the following table. Included are destinations beyond low Earth orbit (LEO) and the impact of each option on the existing workforce.

We can draw the following conclusions, which are illustrated in the Graphics mentioned earlier and shown below. We start with Option 1, the Program of Record (POR – Constellation) and the funding level provided in FY 2010:

• Option 1 – Ares I crew vehicle is ready a year after the ISS is de-orbited (2015) and Ares V is completed in 2028 with no funds to conduct exploration. There is no Moon in the picture.
• Option 2 – Scrap Ares I and substitute Commercial Crew Access to LEO. The money saved is used to keep the ISS operating until 2020. Ares V is completed in 2028 with no funds to conduct exploration. There is no Moon in the picture.
• Option 3 – Add $3 Billion per year to the existing program. Ares I crew vehicle is ready a year after the ISS is de-orbited (2015) and Ares V is completed in 2019. The Moon is reached in 2025, but no other destinations beyond LEO can be funded.
• Option 4 – Add $3 Billion per year to the existing program. Scrap Ares I and substitute Commercial Crew Access to LEO. The money saved is used to keep the ISS operating until 2020. Ares V is completed in 2023. The Moon is reached in 2030, but no other destinations beyond LEO can be funded.
• Option 4B – Add $3 Billion per year to the existing program. Extend the Shuttle to 2015. Scrap Ares I and substitute Commercial Crew Access to LEO. The money saved is used to keep the ISS operating until 2020. Ares V is completed in 2023. Develop the Propellant Depot by 2026. The Moon is reached in 2030.
• Option 5A – Add $3 Billion per year to the existing program. Scrap Ares I and substitute Commercial Crew Access to LEO. The money saved is used to keep the ISS operating until 2020. Scrap Ares V in favor of a smaller Ares V Lite, which is completed in 2023. Visit EML-1 or EML-2 in 2026. Visit a Near Earth Object (NEO) Sometime in the Future.
• Option 5B – Add $3 Billion per year to the existing program. Scrap Ares I and substitute Commercial Crew Access to LEO. The money saved is used to keep the ISS operating until 2020. Scrap Ares V in favor of a commercial heavy launch capability, which is completed in 2021. Develop the Propellant Depot by 2024. Visit a Near Earth Object (NEO) in 2026 and Phobos in 2028. Return to the Moon in 2029.
• Option 5C – Add $3 Billion per year to the existing program. Scrap Ares I and substitute Commercial Crew Access to LEO. The money saved is used to keep the ISS operating until 2020. Scrap Ares V in favor of a the Direct Team’s Jupiter 241, which is completed in 2022. Visit EML-1 or EML-2 in 2023. Develop the Propellant Depot by 2024. Visit a Near Earth Object (NEO) in 2027 and Phobos in 2029. Return to the Moon in 2030.

Those are the options explored by the Augustine Commission in their Final Report.

Notice, however, that there is one more slide, Option 5D. This is the architecture that was presented to the Augustine Commission during their first public session on 17 June 2009 by the Direct Team. It provides for:

• Add $1 Billion per year to the existing program.
• Extend Shuttle until 2012.
• Scrap Ares I and develop the Jupiter Core (Jupiter 130) for carrying crew on Orion to LEO and ISS by 2014.
• Develop Commercial Crew Access to LEO to replace the Jupiter 130 by 2015. Use Jupiter 130 for ferrying the few large payloads needed by ISS.
• Continue ISS operations until 2020.
• Scrap Ares V in favor of the Upper Stage for the Jupiter Core (Jupiter 241 or Jupiter 246), which is completed in 2017.
• Visit EML-1 or EML-2 in 2018.
• Orbit the Moon in 2019.
• Visit a Near Earth Object (NEO) in 2022.
• Visit Phobos in 2025.
• Develop the Propellant Depot by 2028.

The key here is that the goal of expansion of human civilization into the Solar System is better served, is accomplished sooner, and costs less. Indeed, even without the additional $1 Billion per year, only the extension of the Shuttle operation need be eliminated.

Final Conclusions

• Options 1, 2 and 3, which are favored by the politicians with space flight facilities, get us nowhere and cost far too much.
• Options 4 and 4B get us to the Moon, but neither builds infrastructure for support of future exploration.
• Options 5A, 5B and 5C builds the skills and infrastructure for space exploration, but leave us a crew to LEO gap of five to six years.
• Option 5D builds the skills and infrastructure for space exploration, reduces the crew to LEO gap to one or two years, and gives the international community the ability to descend to the surface of the Moon and Mars.

Time is of the Essence

Finally, this note about the political realities. First, if a decision is delayed for four to six months while the politicians fight for every last bit of funding they want, the infrastructure on which the Jupiter program builds will be dismantled and Options 4B, 5C and 5D will be eliminated.

Second, Congress will likely decide that the Constellation program as currently envisioned is too costly for what will be developed and not worth throwing more money down the drain. Options 1, 2, 3, 4B and 5A will be eliminated.

Thus, only commercial crew and cargo capabilities will be funded. NASA will be reduced to research and contracting for services. The Marshall Space Flight Facility will have little purpose. And the politicians will lose most of the jobs and funding that their districts currently enjoy.

(Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4. Part 5. Wrap Up.)

(Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4. Part 5. Wrap Up.)

In Part 1, we looked at the pieces strewn about our living room floor. In Part 2, we examined the Goals and Destinations in Chapter 3.0. And in Part 3, the three current Human Space Flight programs were reviewed (International Space Station, the Space Shuttle and the Constellation Program). In Part 4, we looked at the launch vehicles examined by The Augustine Commission.

Chapter 6 of the Augustine Commission Final Report deals with Program Options and Evaluation. This is one of the many contentious issues commentators have with the Commission. While they did select five possible exploration programs (Chapter 6), and while they did evaluate various launch vehicles (Chapter 5), the Committee seems to have ignored the possibility that different launch vehicles have greater or lesser ability to cover the five exploration programs. This failure may in the end, prove to be disastrous for human space exploration. As we write, the Space Shuttle infrastructure is being actively dismantled. The end result of failing to evaluate the physical infrastructure and the human infrastructure capable of supporting a Shuttle derived architecture may be that the United States is left with no heavy lift human space flight capability for at least the next several decades. We may have surrendered our space faring capability to Europe, China, Russia, India and Japan.

6.1 Evaluation Criteria

As noted by the Commission:

The Committee did not intend that the evaluation would generate a single numerical score; rather, it would provide a basis for comparison across options, highlighting the opportunities and challenges associated with each. Assigning weights to individual figures of merit is within the purview of the ultimate decision-makers.

Three primary evaluation dimensions were identified:

• Benefits to Stakeholders
• Risk
• Budget Realities

These three dimensions were expanded into 12 criteria for comparing the options.

• Exploration Preparation
• Technology Innovation
• Science Knowledge
• Expanding and Protecting Human Civilization
• Economic Expansion
• Global Partnerships
• Public Engagement
• Schedule and Programmatic Risk
• Mission Safety Challenges
• Workforce Impact
• Programmatic Sustainability
• Life-Cycle Cost

6.2 Key Decisions and Integrated Options

6.2.1 Key Decisions

1. What should be the future of the Space Shuttle?
2. What should be the future of the International Space Station (ISS)?
3. On what should the next heavy-lift launch vehicle be based?
4. How should crews be carried to low-Earth orbit?
5. What is the most practicable strategy for exploration beyond low-Earth orbit?

6.2.2 Integrated Options

The Committee identified five basic options: One based on the Program of Record (POR – Constellation – Ares I and V, Orion and Altair), and four alternatives. Options 2 and 3 were budget compatable alternatives to the POR. Option 4 was a Moon First program (with two variations), and Option 5 was the Flexible Path (avoiding the gravity well of the Moon).

6.2.3 Methodology for Analyzing the Integrated Options

Two budgets were used. The “Constrained Budget” used the FY 2010 budget, while the “Less Constrained Budget” allowed for an increase by 2014 of $3 Billion per year higher than FY 2010.

6.2.4 Reference Cases of the Entirely Unconstrained Program of Record

The Program of Record was evaluated and found to be a total of $45 Billion over the FY 2010 budget by 2020, wherein it is $5 Billion a year over FY 2010 in 2016 and $7 Billion per year over FY 2010 in 2019.

6.3 Integrated Options Constrained to the FY 2010 Budget

6.3.1 Evaluation of Integrated Options 1 and 2

Option 1 was found to allow for rocket development, but lacked funds for exploration. Option 2 extends the lifetime of the ISS, delays rocket development, and has no funds for exploration.

6.3.2 Examination of alternate budget guidance

The Committee found no alternatives to Options 1 or 2 that were viable under the FY 2010 budget. This conclusion has been disputed.

6.4 Moon First Integrated Options Fit to the Less-Constrained Budget

6.4.1 Evaluation of Integrated Options 3 and 4

Option 3 was to execute the POR under a less constrained budget. The ISS is de-orbited in 2010, and the Shuttle flies the remaining missions into 2011. Human lunar return occurs in the mid 2020s and the lunar base becomes operation late in the decade. An alternate extending ISS to 2020 was found to push these dates out by three to four more years.

Option 4 uses the less constrained budget, scraps Ares I and substitutes commercial crew services by 2016 It extends the ISS to 2020. Ares V is scrapped in favor of a dual-launch Ares V Lite vehicle for lunar missions.

Option 4A retires the Shuttle in 2011, while Option 4B extends the Shuttle to 2015 and develops a Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift vehicle in place of Ares V Lite.

6.4.2 Examination of the key decision on the ISS extension

Given the International Partnerships that have been developed, and the fact that the extension to 2020 would only delay the lunar return by a few years, the Committee found that the extension provides greater value than ending the ISS mission.

6.4.3 Examination of the key decision on Ares V vs. Ares V Lite dual launch

Baseline Ares V has more launch capability than the Saturn V, but current NASA studies show that when used in combination with Ares I, it does not have enough launch capability to robustly deliver the currently planned landing and surface systems to the Moon.

The Committee concluded that Ares V Lite represents less development risk, likely will reduce costs and provides more substantial margin for the lunar mission.

6.4.4 Examination of the key decision on the provision of crew transport to low-Earth orbit

Commercial crew services, based on a high-reliability rocket with a capsule and launch escape system could significantly reduce development costs, as well as lower operating costs.

6.4.5 Examination of the key question on Shuttle extension

The Committee favored early retirement of the Shuttle (2010 or 2011), although they noted several advantages to Shuttle extension to 2015, including up-mass and down-mass capability and workforce retention.

6.5 Flexible Path Integrated Options Fit to the Less-Constrained Budget

6.5.1 Evaluation of Integrated Option 5

Option 5 operates the Shuttle into 2011 and extends the International Space Station mission until 2020. A variety of destinations beyond low earth orbit are possible. The Committee developed three variants of this option.

• Option 5A develops the Ares V Lite, visits the Lagrange points, near Earth objects, on-orbit refueling and achieves a lunar return by the end of the 2020s.
• Option 5B develops commercial heavy lift capability, restructures NASA, and follows a similar mission profile as 5A, but on a slower time line.
• Option 5C scraps Ares V Lite and develops a Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift vehicle. 5C follows a similar mission profile as 5A, but on a slower time line.

6.5.2 Examination of the key question on Ares V family vs. Shuttle-derived heavy launcher

While the Shuttle derived in-line launch vehicle (SDLV) with two four-segment solid rocket motors (SRM) and the 8.4 meter external tank (ET) was the 2005 ESAS candidate for the cargo vehicle, it was forced to evolve into the Ares V due to the problems encountered with the underpowered Ares I. For some reason, the Committee decided that in order to match the capabilities of the Ares V, or the Ares V Lite dual-launch mission, that there had to be three SDLV launches. Therefore, operations would be more costly.

This is a clear Committee miss, as the current planned lunar return missions can be accomplished with good margin by a dual-launch SDLV program, thus costing less than the Ares V Lite. There is no need for the enhanced capabilities of the dual-launch Ares V Lite.

6.5.3 Examination of the key question on NASA heritage vs. EELV-heritage super-heavy vehicles

The Committee considers the EELV-heritage super-heavy vehicle to be a way to significantly reduce the operating cost of the heavy lifter to NASA in the long run. It would be a less-capable vehicle, but probably sufficiently capable for the mission. Reaping the long-term cost benefits would require substantial disruption in NASA, and force the agency to adopt a new way of doing business.

6.6 Comparisons Across Integrated Options

6.6.1 Cross-option comparisons

The Flexible Path program (Option 5A) scores more highly than the Baseline (Option 3) on 9 of the 12 criteria outlined in section 6.1 ( See figure 6.6.1-1). The higher rankings include:

• Exploration Preparation (due to much more capable launch system)
• Technology (due to investment in technology)
• Science (because of more places visited)
• Human Civilization (due to the ISS extension)
• Economic Expansion (because of commercial involvement in space elements and crew transport)
• Global Partnerships (gained by extending the ISS)
• Public Engagement (by visiting more new locations, and doing so each year)
• Schedule (exploring beyond low-Earth orbit sooner)
• Life-Cycle Costs (due to commercial crew services)

6.6.2 Examination of the key question on exploration strategy

Three exploration strategies were examined in Chapter 3. The choice of Mars First was found not to be viable due to technological problems. Two strategies remained:

• Moon First on the Way to Mars, with surface exploration focused on developing capability for Mars.
• Flexible Path to Mars via the inner solar system objects and locations, with no immediate plan for surface exploration, then followed by exploration of the lunar and/or Martian surface.

The Moon first is favorable to lunar science and exploration (although much can be done robotically). The Flexible Path missions explore more of the Solar System, while initially doing less on the Moon. Flexible Path has the advantage of developing infrastructure for deep space exploration, including the moons of Mars and Mars itself. The Committe notes that:

Considering that we have visited and obtained samples from the Moon, but not near-Earth objects or Mars, and also that the Flexible Path develops the ability to service space observatories, the Science Knowledge criterion slightly favors the Flexible Path. Broadly, the more complex the environment, the more astronaut explorers are favored over robotic exploration. In practice, this means that astronauts will offer their greatest value-added in the exploration of the surface of Mars.

Final Scoring

Although the Augustine Commission did not publish a final tally of the scores (for reasons they made clear), the following table does compare and tabulate the scores.

Option 5D: We will have more to say about this proposal in our final segment: “Wrapped Up” or “The Augustine Commission for Dummies”.

(Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4. Part 5. Wrap Up.)

All year long you log hour after hour in front of desk, on the phone, or rushing from one appointment to the next.  Long days, sleepless nights, and endless gallons of coffee never seem to end. Problem is, relentlessly redlining from one work week to the next takes a toll on the body.  Is there any relief in sight?

The answer is a resounding “yes” according to Heather Kading, LMT and owner of Hands-On-Massage & Wellness.  Heather spoke this week at a meeting of the BNI Founders sharing her top ten reasons why massage is an essential ingredient in maintaining good health.  For example, one reason is that experts believe that 90% of stress accounts for 80-90% of illnesses and disease. Massage helps to reduce stress and reverse the damage that stress can cause.

Heather has an experienced staff and they’re able to provide many options to meet your specific needs.  They’ll take the time to get to know you and your medical history to tailor a program that’s right for you.  Her clientele benefits from excellent care and continue to return, “Thanks to Heather’s skill, knowledge and dedication, I am free from chronic pain! Massage therapy and chiropractic care go together like peanut butter and jelly. I would never be without both again!” If you suffer with chronic back pain, chronic neck pain, fibromyalgia, sciatic pain, pregnancy discomfort, or any number of other issues your body will thank for getting the hands of Hands-On-Massage & Wellness on you.

Today, we learned an important theorem in algebra that relates the order of groups with the order of subgroups. We proved Lagrange’s Theorem, which states that if is a finite group and is a subgroup of , then the order of divides the order of . The proof hinged purely on a counting argument where we count the number of cosets. We then investigated some interesting and cool corollaries of this theorem. The most important aspect of the theorem is that it can tell us instantly that a subset is not a subgroup, without doing any work. For instance, if is a group with 125 elements and is a subset with 67 elements, then we can be sure that is not a subgroup since 67 does not divide 125.

Finally, we finished the class by defining the notion of the index of a subgroup in a group. We call the number of cosets of in is the index, and we denote it .

We have seen that cosets can be interesting to play around with, and they lead to Lagrange’s Theorem. We plan on investigating cosets further, and we will try to get a further understanding of cosets. The main goal is to decide when left cosets are the same as the right cosets. If this happens, we will get very nice structure. We have already seen some of this before.

(Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4. Part 5. Wrap Up.)

In Part 1, we looked at the pieces strewn about our living room floor. In Part 2, we examined the Goals and Destinations in Chapter 3.0. And in Part 3, the three current Human Space Flight programs were reviewed (International Space Station, the Space Shuttle and the Constellation Program).

Chapter 5.0 Launch to Low-Earth Orbit and Beyond

In this section, The Augustine Commission examines launch vehicles. We begin with the opening statement, with which we agree:

Launch to low-Earth orbit is the most energy-intensive and dynamic step in human space exploration. No other single propulsive maneuver, including descent to and ascent from the surfaces of the Moon or Mars, demands higher thrust or more energy or has the high aerodynamic pressure forces than a launch from Earth. Launch is a critical area for spaceflight, and two of the five key questions that guide the future plans for U.S. human spaceflight focus on launch to low-Earth orbit: the delivery of heavy masses to low-Earth orbit and beyond; and the delivery of crew to low-Earth orbit.

5.1 Evaluation methodologies for Launch Vehicles

The Commission used “cost, performance and schedule parameters, as well as safety, operability, maturity, human rating, workforce implications, development of commercial space, the consequences to national security space, and the impact on exploration and science missions”. They note that some of these are quantitative and some are qualitative measures. Evaluations of the claim for each launcher was made and adjusted, and the uncertainty was assessed. Historical bounds were employed where appropriate. Some 70 lower-level metrics were used to construct 13 top level metrics.

5.2 Heavy Lift to Low-Earth Orbit and Beyond

The Commission began by reiterating the Constellation plan to loft about 600 metric tons (mt) per year to low Earth orbit (LEO). By comparison, NASA launched 250 mt per year during Apollo and the International Space Station (ISS) has a mass of about 350 mt.

Figure 5.2-1 listed the five candidates and their lift to LEO (see Launch Vehicles for visuals) and Figure 5.2.1-1 gave Trans Lunar Injection (TLI) with no refueling and with in-space refueling:

Launch Vehicle	LEO	TLI no refueling	TLI in-space refueling
EELV Super Heavy	75 mt	26 mt	55 mt
Directly Shuttle Derived	100-110 mt	35 mt	75 mt
Ares V Lite	140 mt	55 mt	120 mt
Ares V	160 mt	63 mt	130 mt
Ares V plus Ares I	185 mt	71 mt	150 mt

Notice that the Commission has brought the potential of in-space refueling front and center, either as propellant transfer from one spacecraft to another (as in a dual launch Ares V Lite or Jupiter 246), or from a true propellant depot, which would be supplied by commercial contract. However, “the Committee found both of these concepts feasible with current technology, but in need of significant further engineering development and in-space demonstration before they could be included in a baseline design”. Thus, the initial set of evaluations would need to examine the mass that an Earth Departure Stage (EDS) could push through TLI without refueling.

A detailed study of launch reliability of multi-launch missions commissioned by the Committee concluded that at most three critical launches be used. Reasonable chances for success required 90+ days of on-orbit life for an EDS or propellant depots.

Subsequent to Shuttle retirement, the need for NASA to launch 400 to 600 mt to LEO each year would consume much if not all of the existing and planned excess EELV capacity. Further, it would be expensive.

Finally, the Commission notes that heavy lift vehicles “would allow large scientific observatories to be launched, potentially enabling them to have optics larger than the current five-meter fairing sizes will allow. More capable deep-space science missions could be mounted, allowing faster or more extensive exploration of the outer solar system”.

All the foregoing was seen as justification for the development of Heavy Lift vehicles. The Commission then reviewed the choices in the chart above.

Ares V: This is the most capable of the proposed rockets. Together with the Ares I, it can launch 185 mt to LEO, 71 mt through TLI and land 14 tons of cargo only on the lunar surface, or 2 mt of cargo plus crew. Ares V requires expansion of the External Tank (ET) to 10 meters, the development of new 5.5 segment solid rocket motors (SRM), development of a regenerative version of the RS-68 engine and the development of the J2-X second stage engine (modified from the Saturn J2 engine).

Ares V Lite: Ares V Lite is a derivative of the Ares V, but with an LEO payload of 140 mt. This rocket would require the completion of the 5 segment SRM under development for Ares I. The remaining new Ares V components would still require development. For lunar missions, the Ares V Lite would be human-rated and used in the “dual mode”. In single launch it can place 14 mt of cargo on the lunar surface, and with a larger Lander than Ares V, it can land 5 mt of cargo plus crew.

SDLV Side-Mount: The side-mount and the in-line SDLV both use the existing Space Shuttle ET, the 4 segment SRM and the Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME). The side-mount replaces the Shuttle with a cargo pod. The Committee combined the side-mount with the in-line variants for purposes of evaluation. They did note, however, that “the side-mount variant is considered an inherently less safe arrangement if crew are to be carried, and is more limited in its growth potential”.

SDLV In-Line The in-line variants are represented by the Jupiter family of rockets, as proposed by the Direct team. The Committee assumed that three Jupiter 241 vehicles would be used for a lunar mission, and that 5 mt of cargo could be landed with crew. No figure was given for a cargo only dual-launch mission, but the report states that more than 20 mt of cargo can be landed by a single Jupiter 241 using in-space refueling. Now, the three launch scenario is peculiar. Perhaps the Commission was trying to replicate the LEO loft mass of a dual Ares V Lite mission (2 x 140 mt). However, that much fuel, lander and crew far exceeds the Constellation Program (CxP) requirements. Furthermore, Ross Tierney, from Direct, has stated that “the right 2-launch Jupiter architecture is actually capable of landing 19mT of useful payload mass on the lunar surface every crew mission…Given that the Ascent Module only consists of about 6.4mT of that, this architecture is actually capable of landing almost the same 14.5mT* cargo modules as CxP are currently planning to land using cargo-only missions”. So we are left with unanswered questions concerning the assumptions and evaluations made by the Commission, not only about SDLV, but the Ares mission architectures.

EELV Super Heavy The Extended Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) is represented by the Atlas 5 Phase 2 Heavy, which consists of the core rocket plus two boosters of the same basic design along with an upgraded common upper stage (to be used by both Atlas and Delta). The common upper stage would use four RL-10 rocket engines, which have a long history of successful flights aboard Titan, Delta and Atlas among others. This configuration is capable of lofting a maximum of 75 mt to LEO. A dual launch configuration with in-space refueling is capable of conducting Flexible Path missions.

Summary of Findings

• Heavy Lift capability is beneficial to human exploration as well as national security and the scientific community.
• In-Space refueling represents a significant benefit to space transportation systems beyond low Earth orbit. It requires development and would not be on the critical path. A prudent approach is to develop Heavy Lift capable of early missions and phase in in-space refueling when it becomes available.
• A new emphasis of sustainable operations is needed. “NASA’s design culture emphasizes maximizing performance at minimum development cost, repeatedly resulting in high operational and lifecycle costs. A shift in NASA design culture toward design for minimum discounted life-cycle cost, accompanied by robustness and adequate margins, will allow NASA programs to be more sustainable”.
• In-Space Propulsion for missions beyond LEO that last for weeks or months require stages using efficient engines with high-reliability restart capabilities.

The Lunar Surface Capabilities of the various systems are compared in the following table:

Launch Vehicle	LEO	Cargo Only	Cargo and Crew
EELV Super Heavy	75 mt	NA mt	NA mt
Directly Shuttle Derived	100-110 mt	14 mt*	5 mt*
Ares V Lite	140 mt	14 mt	5 mt
Ares V plus Ares I	185 mt	14 mt	2 mt

5.3 Crew Launch to Low-Earth Orbit

Crew safety is an overriding issue in human space flight. The safe delivery of crew to LEO and their return is critical. This is the fourth key question (see Part 1) that the Committee examined. The assumed that Orion would be the crew vehicle, and that the launch vehicle would either be government provided and operated, or a commercial service.

Ares I was selected in 2005 as part of the ESAS study, and was expected to be operational in 2012. The Constellation program now projects initial operational capability (IOC) in 2015, and the Committee thinks this will slip further. Both budgetary and design problems have been encountered.

International Transportation was deemed acceptable by the Committee. However, sustained U. S. leadership in space requires domestic crew launch capability.

A human rated EELV was considered by the Commission. An independent study found that the launch of Orion on the Delta IV Heavy was technically feasible, but the long term development and carrying costs offset any savings versus Ares I.

Commercial Transport of crew to LEO is a hot topic. The Committee asked “can a simple capsule with a launch escape system, operating on a high-reliability liquid booster, be made safer than the Shuttle, and comparably as safe as Ares I plus Orion”? A number of factors were considered:

• A strong role for NASA oversight of the development would be required.
• The cost to NASA of underwriting design, development, test, and evaluation (DDT&E).
• The potential non-NASA uses of LEO crew transport

The Committee made several estimates of total costs, and arrived at a preliminary estimate of $5 Billion dollars. Assuming a “less-constrained” NASA budget, a commercial LEO crew transport service could be available by 2016.

Finally, the Committee assessed the risks to the human space flight program associated with commercial crew transport. Such development could distract from the near-term goal of developing commercial cargo capability. The commercial community might fail to deliver a crew transportation system. The fall-back position for NASA would be human rating the Heavy Lift Vehicle. The Committee assumes that the first stage of the HLV will be developed as quickly as possible. We leave the implications of this statement as an exercise for the reader.

5.4 Additional Issues in Launcher Selection

Launch Vehicle Performance and Costing The factors in this section include:

• Evaluation of the claimed cost, schedule and performance of the various launch vehicles.
• The advantage of shifting to commercial purchase of space transportation systems.
• The loss of the workforce and expertise built up within NASA from shifting to commercial sources.
• The health and viability of the solid rocket motor industry from all-liquid fuel launch vehicles.

Launcher Reliability The Committee reviewed the historical reliability of the Shuttle, Saturn, Titan, Delta and Atlas programs. Launchers derived from existing systems have shown greater reliability in early stages of development than newly developed systems.

(Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4. Part 5. Wrap Up.)

(Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4. Part 5. Wrap Up.)

In Part 1, we looked at the pieces strewn about our living room floor. Let’s take a closer look at the Erector Set left behind by the Augustine Commission. The pieces parts are contained in Chapters 3-6.

Chapter 3.0 Goals and Future Destinations for Exploration

Most discussions concerning the Final Report have noted the importance of the having a Goal established in order to define both destinations and architectures to achieve them. Lets start with this extended quote from the Final Report:

3.1 Goals for Exploration

We explore to reach goals, not destinations. It is in the definition of our goals that decision-making for human spaceflight should begin. With goals established, questions about destinations, exploration strategies and transportation architectures can follow in a logical order. While there are certainly some aspects of the transportation system that are common to all exploration missions (e.g. crew access and heavy lift to low-Earth orbit), there is a danger of choosing destinations and architectures first. This runs the risk of getting stuck at a destination without a clear understanding of why it was chosen, which in turn can lead to uncertainty about when it is time to move on.

One can certainly agree with the rationale for starting with Goals. However, the final phrase leads one to pause. Does the expression “when it is time to move on” mean that we abandon destinations along the path toward our Goals? Rather, does it mean that we add what’s next to our collection of destinations when we have gained the required competence and experience from work on the most recent addition to our expanding list of destinations? We shall keep these questions in mind as we work through Chapter 3.

The Commission set “charting a path for human expansion into the solar system” as the Goal. The Commission sees the development of competitive commercial industries and important national capabilities as one reason for setting the Goal they did. It also cited the resulting scientific, technological, engineering and mathematical skills as another reason for choosing this Goal. Finally, the moment when we “first learn to live on another planet” will be a milestone in human history.

3.2 Overview of Destinations and Approach

Destinations can be classified by duration of the mission: the Moon is days away, the Lagrange points weeks, the near-Earth objects months, a Mars fly-by a year, and a Mars landing is the longest—about 900 days for a round trip using the most likely approach. The result of two cycles of analyses collapsed the destinations and associated missions into three candidates:

• Mars First. It is widely accepted that Mars represents the most likely candidate for a permanent expansion of human civilization beyond the Earth. Mars is unquestionably the most complex environment for exploration, and fits Dr. Steve Squyres criteria for deploying human investigators.
• Moon First. Missions to the Moon would enable the development of the operational skills and technology for landing on, launching from and working on a planetary surface.
• Flexible Path. The Commission notes that the Flexible Path option means “we must learn to operate in free space for hundreds of days, beyond the protective radiation belts of the Earth, before we can confidently commit to exploring Mars”.

The Final Report then examines each of these options.

3.3 Mars First

The possible scenarios for Mars First are two, described by the Commission this way:

Two scenarios have been developed to examine the human exploration of Mars. In the first, the surface of Mars would be the initial and only destination, and all resources would be focused on reaching it as soon as possible. In the second, systems would be designed for Mars missions, but would be first verified on several test flights to the Moon. The latter would require some hardware modification, but would test the systems at a planetary body near the Earth before committing to a multi-year mission to Mars. In the end, the Committee decided to use the variant with a brief test flight program of equipment and procedures on the Moon as the reference Mars First option.

The first scenario was analyzed based on the existing 2007 NASA Human Exploration of Mars Design Reference Architecture 5.0 (NASA-SP-2009-566 and NASA-SP-2009-566-ADD). This architecture is shown in Figure 3.3.2-1 (p. 36). Figure 3.3.2-2 shows the architecture of first conducting several missions to the Moon.

The Commission concluded that the technological problems were many, and that a decade of research was required before design work could commence. Further, the costs were significantly higher than for either of the other two options.

Clearly, either of the possible scenarios leaves little or no infrastructure in place, and fails the Goals criteria.

3.4 Moon First

The Commission next examined the Moon First. Here, the possibility of resource utilization for supplying propellant to the space around the Earth-Moon system, as well as the scientific value of exploration based on our incomplete understanding of the Moon drive two possible scenarios. The first is a Lunar Base, where a permanent station is established, most likely at the South Pole where solar energy would be available at all times. The emphasis would be on local exploration and resource utilization for propellant manufacture.

The alternate scenario was Lunar Global, where missions of from 14 to 180 days would be flown to a variety of sites, adjusting the program as discoveries were made.

Either of these programs would be supported by one of three architectures considered by the Committee:

• Constellation “1.5 launch” architecture – one Ares I with Orion, plus one Ares V with the Altair lander. This combination is Integrated Option 3 in Chapter 6.
• Ares V Lite “dual” architecture – two Ares V Lites, one with the Orion, and one with the Altair lander. This combination is Integrated Option 4A in Chapter 6.
• A more directly Shuttle-derived launcher, which requires three launches for a crew mission plus one commercial launch of crew to low-Earth orbit. This combination is Integrated Option 4B in Chapter 6.

One is immediately struck by two contradictions within these architectures. First is the requirement for three launches for the more directly Shuttle-derived launcher, when two launches of the Jupiter 246 exceed the Constellation Program requirements. See this data sheet for the Jupiter 130 Crew and Cargo (60 mt to low earth orbit) and data sheet for the Jupiter 246 Crew and Cargo launcher (96 mt to LEO and 79 mt through TLI).

The second more serious contradiction is allowing Ares V Lite to launch crew, but requiring the Shuttle-derived vehicle to only carry cargo. The problem we face is that Ares V Lite has:

• New Engines
• New External Tank (10 meters)
• New Solid Rocket Boosters (5 segment)

Each of these requires independent rating for human flight. On the other hand, both the side-mount Shuttle-derived launch vehicle and the in-line Shuttle-derived vehicle have:

• Existing SSME (Space Shuttle Main Engines)
• Existing External Tank (8.4 meters)
• Existing 4 segment Solid Rocket Boosters (SRB)

The SSMEs and the 4 segment SRBs are already human flight qualified. The modifications to the ET would require flight testing for qualification of the in-line vehicle, but are minor compare to designing and building a brand new 10 meter tank. While the side-mount Shuttle-derived launch vehicle has disadvantages for launching crew, the in-line Shuttle-derived vehicle has no such drawbacks.

These contradictions place unwarranted obstacles on the Shuttle-derived vehicles, especially the in-line version.

3.5 The Flexible Path to Mars

The Commission states:

“The goal is to take steps toward Mars, learning to live and work in free space and near planets, under the conditions humans will meet on
the way to Mars. We must learn to operate in free space for hundreds of days, beyond the protective radiation belts of the Earth, before we can confidently commit to exploring Mars.

The primary attraction of this option is that we can build increasing confidence, infrastructure and expertise as we move from one destination to the next.

There are multiple destinations. Each one offers the opportunity to build different skills. Especially valuable would be for international partners to take on the challenge of Lunar Surface Exploration while NASA continues the research and development required for the Flexible Path missions. Both commercial enterprises and International Partners could handle the propellant delivery to the depots in LEO, EML-2, and eventually Phobos. All of this is aimed at the eventual establishment of permanent human presence on Mars.

From the perspective of the Goals given by the Commission, the Flexible Path option is the strongest.

3.6 Summary of Strategies for Exploration Beyond Low-Earth Orbit

The Committee concludes as follows:

Mars is the ultimate destination for human exploration of the inner solar system; but it is not the best first destination. Both visiting the Moon First and following the Flexible Path are viable exploration strategies. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive; before traveling to Mars, we might be well served to both extend our presence in free space and gain experience working on the lunar surface.

In the next post, we will look at the existing human space flight programs discussed in Chapter 4.0.

(Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4. Part 5. Wrap Up.)

• Lectures on Differential Geometry of Modules and Rings. (arXiv:0910.1515v1 [math-ph])
• 2-Group Representations for Spin Foams. (arXiv:0910.1542v1 [hep-th])
• Financial Applications of Random Matrix Theory: a short review. (arXiv:0910.1205v1 [q-fin.ST])
• The Pure Spinor Formulation of Superstrings. (arXiv:0910.1195v1 [hep-th])
• A Dialogue on the Nature of Gravity. (arXiv:0910.0839v1 [gr-qc])
• Renormalization group trajectories between two fixed points. (arXiv:0910.1063v1 [math-ph])
• Lagrange-Poincare field equations. (arXiv:0910.0874v1 [nlin.CD])
• Light, Links and Causal Sets. (arXiv:0910.0673v1 [gr-qc])
• Cosmological singularity. (arXiv:0910.0374v1 [gr-qc])
• Non-perturbative Field Theory. (arXiv:0910.0812v1 [hep-th])
• Covariant Star Product for Exterior Differential Forms on Symplectic Manifolds. (arXiv:0910.0459v1 [hep-th])
• Cell processor implementation of a MILC lattice QCD application. (arXiv:0910.0262v1 [hep-lat])
• Lorentzian wormholes generalize thermodynamics still further
• Statistical challenges of high-dimensional data
• Observed universality of phase transitions in high-dimensional geometry, with implications for modern data analysis and signal processing
• Quasiparticles do the twist

• Faheem Hussain — As I Knew Him
• Israel Gelfand, Sept. 2nd 1913 — Oct. 5th 2009
• Israel Gelfand
• Bourbaki Archives
• Science and the arts need not be strangers
• Intellectual Elitism? You get what you give.
• Gen-F Scientists Ignoring Social Networking
• Face it: Being a scientist can really suck
• Sounds Familiar
• Energy savings in black and white
• Pain and rheumatology: an overview of the problem
• The Short View — Financial Times sobre o Brasil
• CeeVee Creates Clean-Looks Resumes for Web or Print [Resume]
• Google Docs Viewer Bookmarklet Makes PDFs Less Freeze-y [Bookmarklet]
• Google Wave 101 [Google Wave]

… na cama

Family sues over confiscation of supplies, computers

A lawsuit brought by an Ohio family whose children were held at SWAT-team gunpoint while their food supplies were confiscated is scheduled to go to trial this week.

John and Jackie Stowers are suing the Ohio Department of Agriculture and the Lorain County General Health District over the raid on their “Manna Storehouse,” an organic food co-op that operated in LaGrange.

The Stowers and their 10 children and grandchildren were detained in one room of their home for six hours while sheriff’s officers confiscated 60 boxes of fresh farm food, computers, phones and records, including USDA-certified meat from the children’s mini-farm, according to lawyers for the plaintiffs.

The state and county are accused of 119 counts, including unlawful search and seizure, illegal use of state police power, taking of private property without compensation, failure to provide due process and equal protection and a multitude of constitutional rights violations, including the right to grow and eat one’s own food and offer it to others.

To read the rest of this article go to: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=112110

Ở bài Mở rộng bậc hai (3), ta say sưa bay từ mở rộng này đến mở rộng khác, phát triển từ cấu trúc nghiệm của phương trình Pell đến định lý Dirichlet về cấu trúc nhóm các đơn vị của một mở rộng đại số tùy ý. Say sưa quá mà quên khuấy đi mất câu hỏi đơn giản nhất là làm thế nào để xây dựng một nghiệm không tầm thường của phương trình Pell .

Để trả lời cho câu hỏi này, chúng ta sẽ đi thăm hỏi một anh bạn có tên là Phân số liên tục. Từ lúc nào, anh đã kín đáo tách mình khỏi luồng chính cuồn cuộn của toán học hiện đại. Nhưng chớ vì vậy mà xem thường anh ta : để anh thể hiện tài giải phương trình Pell cho mà coi.

Mỗi số thực khai triển được thành phân số liên tục như thế này. Lấy là phần nguyên của tức là số nguyên lớn nhất không vượt quá . Giả sử , ta có thể biểu diễn dưới dạng

với bây giờ là một số thực lớn hơn một. Ta có thể tiếp diễn thuật toán này với để có vân vân và vân vy. Nhận thấy từ trở đi, ta có một dãy số nguyên dương , còn thành viên đầu tiên có thể là số nguyên âm.

Thường thì thuật toán này tiếp diễn đến vô cùng. Nhưng có thể xảy ra trường hợp ở bước thứ ta tìm thấy một số nguyên . Trong trường hợp đó ta lấy và thuật toán dừng ở đây. Hiển nhiên trong trường hợp này dễ thấy số tại điểm xuất phát là một số hữu tỉ. Ngược lại, nếu ta xuất phát từ một số hữu tỉ, bạn thử tìm hiểu xem tại sao thuật toán nhất thiết phải dừng sau một số hữu hạn bước. Thử làm với chẳng hạn, nếu tinh ý một chút bạn sẽ nhận ra một thuật toán quen thuộc.

Nếu là một số vô tỉ, thuật toán trên sẽ tiếp diễn đến vô hạn, và chúng ta sẽ viết phân số liên tục dưới dạng

hay dưới dạng tiết kiệm chỗ . Nếu cắt bỏ cái đuôi vô hạn từ trở đi, ta có một phân số . Dãy số hữu tỉ  hội tụ đến số thực  . Điểm mấu chốt của lý thuyết phân số liên tục là ở chỗ các phân số là những xấp xỉ hữu tỉ tốt nhất có thể của số thực , được gọi là các xấp xỉ chính. Tất nhiên cần phải làm cho rõ xem tốt nhất là tốt nhất như thế nào ?

Ta cần hiểu xâp xỉ tốt nhất theo nghĩa như sau. Các xấp xỉ chính thứ chẵn lập thành một dãy tăng dần về . Các xấp xỉ chính thứ lẻ lập thành một dãy giảm dần tvề . Bạn nên hình dung các điểm tọa độ bố trí ngày một sát vào đường thẳng tọa độ . Chính xác hơn, ta có bất đẳng thức

.

Hiểu một cách trực quan là tia sáng tọa đô cắt trục tung gần điểm nguyên hơn tất cả các lần cắt các trục hoành trước đó với . Đây cũng là một tính chất đăc trưng cho các xâp xỉ chính.

Từ đó ta rút ra rằng nếu có bất đẳng thức thì phân số bắt buộc phải là thành viên của dãy các phân số chính.

Trong trường hợp phương trình Pell, chúng ta xuất phát từ số với là một số nguyên dương không chính phương. Nghiệm của phương trình Pell với số nguyên dương thỏa mãn bất đẳng thức cho nên phân số bắt buộc phải là một thành viên của dãy các xấp xỉ chính của . Vì vậy để tìm các nghiệm của phương trình Pell ta chỉ cần khai triển thành phân số liên tục, rồi dò theo các xấp xỉ chính xem đồng chí nào thỏa mãn .

Thực ra chỉ cần tóm cổ được đồng chí đầu tiên. Hắn sẽ là nghiệm cơ bản của phương trình Pell. Các nghiệm khác sinh ra từ nghiệm này bởi cấu trúc nhóm của tập nghiệm.

Nếu bạn chăm chỉ khai triển thành phân số liên tục, bạn sẽ nhận ra dãy số nguyên đến một lúc nào đó sẽ trở nên tuần hoàn. Đây chính là nộ dung của một định lý của Lagrange, một số vô tỉ có khai triển phân số liên tục tuần hòa từ một chỗ nào đó khi và chỉ khi nó có dạng với hữu tỉ.

Các khẳng định trên đều có chứng minh hoàn toàn sơ cấp, nhưng không hoàn toàn hiển nhiên. Nếu tự mầy mò không ra, bạn có thể tìm đọc quyển “Introduction to diophantine approximation” của Lang.

The Augustine Commission identified Galactic Cosmic Radiation, or Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR), as one of the high priority technical challenges facing the Deep Space program.

Synopsis

The GCR problem arises from interstellar atomic nuclei traveling near the speed of light striking the structure of a spacecraft. The resulting shower of secondary particles cause radiation damage. The Earth is protected by the Van Allen belts and a deep atmosphere. Brief journeys such as an Apollo mission does not expose the astronaut to dangerous dosages. However, astronauts on such a journey are at risk from Solar flares (Solar Particle Events – SPE). SPEs can be mitigated with layers of hydrogen rich materials such as polyethylene or water. GCRs, however, require spaceships on long journeys of more than 100 days, or habitats on the Lunar or Martian surface, to be surrounded by tens of meters of water for passive protection, or magnetic shields for active protection. Either solution is extremely heavy and makes space flight prohibitive in terms of propellant requirements.

The following sections discuss each aspect and provide references for further reading about the problem

The Source of GCR

Galactic Cosmic Rays come from outside our Solar System, but from within our galaxy, the Milky Way. They are comprised of atomic nuclei that have been stripped of their electrons. These nuclei can be any element. Common elements are carbon, oxygen, magnesium, silicon, and iron with similar abundances as the Solar System. Lithium, Berylium and Boron are overabundant relative to the Solar System ratios.

• Cal Tech article on Cosmic Rays
• NASA article on Galactic Cosmic Rays

The Shielding Problem

Early on, it was suggested that cosmic rays could penetrate the Apollo spacecraft. From “Biomedical Results of Apollo” section IV, chapter 2, Apollo Light Flash Investigations we have the following account:

Crewmembers of the Apollo 11 mission were the first astronauts to describe an unusual visual phenomenon associated with space flight. During transearth coast, both the Commander and the Lunar Module Pilot reported seeing faint spots or flashes of light when the cabin was dark and they had become dark-adapted. It is believed that these light flashes result from high energy, heavy cosmic rays penetrating the Command Module structure and the crew members’ eyes. These particles are thought to be capable of producing, visual sensations through interaction with the retina, either by direct deposition of ionization energy in the retina or through creation of visible light via the Cerenkov effect.

When Galactic Cosmic Rays collide with another atom, such as those contained in the Aluminum, Stainless Steel or Titanium structures of a spacecraft, they can create a shower of secondary particles, These secondary particles cause radiation damage in living organisms (humans).

The problem is creating sufficiently powerful barriers to these extremely energetic nuclei.

• Compilation of Spacecraft Shielding papers by Simon G. Shepherd at the Dartmouth Thayer School of Engineering.
• Scientific American article on Shielding Space Travelers.

Researching Solutions

• Passive Shielding – At least for solar flares (SPE), some solutions are easier than the GCR problem.
• Active Shielding
• Fast Passage to avoid exposure (VASIMR propelled craft). A proposal for vapor core reactors integrated with VASIMR engines.
• A proposal for studying radiation and other factors associated with long term human occupation of space.
• NASA’s Space Radiation Program in association with the Brookhaven National Laboratories.
• In 2008, the National Academies of Science published Managing Space Radiation Risk in the New Era of Space Exploration, which included chapter 6: Findings and Recommendations
• From the Summary in Radiation Shielding Simulation For Interplanetary Manned Missions
  

  Inflatable Habitat + shielding
  
  • Hadronic interactions are significant, systematics is under control
  • The shielding capabilities of an inflatable habitat are comparable to a conventional rigid structure – Water / polyethylene are equivalent
  • Shielding thickness optimisation involves complex physics effects
  • An additional shielding layer, enclosing a special shelter zone, is effective against SPE

  Moon Habitat
  
  • Regolith shielding limits GCR and SPE exposure effectively
  • Its shielding capabilities against GCR can be better than conventional Al structures as in the ISS

See also the recent article in New Scientist about radiation hazards. A tip of the hat to ParabolicArc.

The House Committee on Science and Technology

Norm Augustine, Michael Griffin and Vice Admiral Joe Dyer USN (Ret.) testified before the House Committee on Science and Technology. And walked into a hornets nest of unenlightened criticism. Typical was the whining from Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of AZ, who released a statement. She wanted the Commission to do a detailed evaluation of the Constellation program, but added “We have a glancing attention to Constellation, even mentioning it in past tense.”

The chairman, Rep. Bart Gordon from Tennessee, as reported by the New York Times, employed the fallacious “sunk costs” argument to defend Ares I:

“I think that good public policy argues for setting the bar pretty high against making significant changes in direction at this point,” said Representative Bart Gordon, Democrat of Tennessee, who is chairman of the Committee on Science and Technology. “There would need to be a compelling reason to scrap what we’ve invested our time and money in over these past four years.”

Former Administrator Michael Griffin defended the Ares program, deflecting Commission concerns about the rocket’s problems with the request for more money. Pay no attention to the rocket behind the curtain. Pay no attention to the thrust oscillation problems that would shake the walls and bring down the curtain. Pay no attention to the underpowered rocket that cannot lift the curtain.

The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

This was a friendlier and much better informed session. Sen. Nelson from Florida and Sen. Hutchison from Texas started with praise for Augustine.

Augustine then noted that the Commission was tasked with options, not recommendations. This had been repeatedly noted by those that have followed the three month deliberations, but needs repeating. He said the next obvious destination is Mars, but that is not possible for safety and financial reason. Then he observed that the Goals and Funding are out of whack. Keeping them as they are would mean:

“If we continued on the path of the existing program, we would have to launch six shuttles in the next 12 months. One could question if that is a safe thing to do.

“No funds for Space Station and Technology. We’d have to deorbit ISS in five years from now after spending 20 years building it. We’d complete Ares I two years after the Space Station was deorbited.

“The Heavy Lift launch capability would be delayed to the mid to late 2020s – and when we got it there would be no upper stage to put on it or Lunar hardware to launch on it. That would be delayed to the 2030s. That is the path we are on.”

That is the dismal state of affairs of the current program.

The remainder of the session explored the various options, returning again and again to the “Flexible Path” or deep space option, with several variations. The emphasis was on commercial crew transportation to low Earth orbit and a return by NASA to exploration. Near Earth Objects (NEO), the Lagrange points and space observatories, building and deploying propellant depots and Phobos as a destination were all explored, as well as the necessity of avoiding deep gravity wells like the Moon and Mars until experience, technology and funding allow.

Political Reality

Behind the scenes and away from the public reassurances to local constituencies by the Senators on the Committee contained in the “questions” to Mr. Augustine, the political realities that shape the space exploration business are working on the new directions.

The Florida workforce and the Kennedy Space Center (KSC), represented by Senator Nelson, will benefit if the Shuttle is extended to 2014 or 2015, as will the Michoud Assembly Facility where the Shuttle External Tank is manufactured. This is the territory of Senator Vitter. And the Johnson Space Center (JSC) will benefit Senator Hutchison.

Senator Shelby from Alabama will ensure continued work for the Marshal Space Flight Center.

ATK (Thiokol) will ensure that solid rocket boosters are used, either with Ares I / V or with the Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicle (SDLV), such as Jupiter.

Boeing and Lockheed Martin (UAL – United Launch Alliance) will press forward with their commercial proposals, and ensuring that the Delta and Atlas rockets are well used.

PWR Rocketdyne will appreciate additional business for its Space Shuttle Main Engine if an SDLV is built. The SDLV is almost a foregone conclusion if the Space Shuttle Program is extended beyond 2011.

While the proponents of Commercial Orbital Transportation Systems (COTS) such as Space-X and Orbital Sciences make their case to the politicians, other groups are also working on the future NASA direction. One of these groups is the Direct team, which has proposed a complete exploration architecture (also here) that knits together the political considerations discussed above.

Possible Outcomes

Given the political background to the conundrum of the NASA mission and budget, one might foresee one of three possible outcomes:

• Abandonment of Human Space Flight beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO). The Space Shuttle would be extended to complete its manifest in 2011. The International Space Station (ISS) would be extended to 2020 (or beyond). Purchase of American astronaut rides to the ISS would be on Russian Soyuz rockets.
• Endorsement of the Commercialization of Space Flight with a reduction in NASA’s role to a procurer of services on bid and contract, and a modest increase in the budget. This would correspond to the UAL proposal discussed here on NSS Phoenix, where many competitors in addition to UAL would compete for the business NASA has up for bids.
• A full blown commitment on the part of the United States to maintaining its historical preeminence in space exploration. LEO operations would be contracted from commercial entities. A Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicle would be contracted out to UAL / ATK / PWR (who already operate the facilities where the Space Shuttle components are built and assembled), and would close the gap to ISS resupply until commercial vehicles came on line. These SDLVs with a Centaur derived upper stage would be capable of NEO missions, Lagrange point (EML-2 and SEL-1 and SEL-2) space observatory missions, and Phobos and Deimos missions. Certainly enough to gather the requisite space faring skills to begin contemplating permanent stations within the deep gravity wells of the Moon and Mars. This third outcome satisfies practically all of the political forces in play.

Post your thoughts on the outcomes in the comments section.

My booth at the LaGrange show, closing out my 2009 season.

I wanted to extend a big “thank you” to all the people involved with the West End Art Festival in LaGrange. I had a terrific time this past weekend.

It was so nice to see so many previous customers come into my booth. I also had a terrific time meeting everyone who may not have been familiar with my work previous to this weekend. The show attendees were so warm, friendly, and supportive. Thank you for making it a great weekend for me…and thank you for closing my 2009 show season with a bang.

I am already looking forward to next season…and to writing the inevitable post that begins, “Wow, I can’t believe the new show season is already here…I feel like the LaGrange show was just a few weeks ago….”

Hanging Around in the Late Afternoon (253/366 09-13-09)

Originally uploaded by CarusoPhoto

At the art fair in LaGrange, a good friend of mine came up to me from her booth and said, “I’ve got a picture for you!” She pointed out this sculpture on the front of a building, and said the shadows were just great. I had to agree. I made a few shots of it and liked this one the best.

Un grupo de científicos de los Estados Unidos están elaborando una “mapa de carreteras interplanetario“, para que las próximas misiones espaciales puedan recorrer el Sistema Solar sin necesidad de utilizar combustible para impulsarse. Estas rutas conectan entre sí diferentes Puntos de Lagrange, postulados hace más de dos siglos, y permitirían aprovechar las fuerzas gravitatorias de los planetas para reducir de forma dramática el costo de los viajes espaciales.

United Launch Alliance (ULA) has released a series of papers to be presented at next week’s American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Space 2009 Conference. The key document from the ULA web site is Affordable Exploration Architecture 2009.

ULA compares its proposed architecture, using common vehicle and engine families, with the current Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS), which “…has lead to the demand for not one but two heavy lift boosters, two large upper stages, a large lunar descent vehicle, another unique Orion service module and a lunar ascent vehicle… These machines share minimal commonality and require multiple propellant combinations and four main engine types. Each requires a separate development program with attendant costs approaching $100 billion followed by a profusion of long term support contracts to support just a couple annual flights of each element”.

ULA Image: Core launch vehicle with Orion on ACES 41 second stage.

The first part of the ULA program is to human rate the Atlas and Delta systems. ULA’s document Human Rating Atlas and Delta IV addresses this issue. ULA states that its Atlas and Delta vehicles should be judged on three categories: Launch Vehicle Reliability Addition of an Emergency Detection System (EDS) Intact Abort Capability With regard to each of these, they state first that “Probably the single most important factor for human spaceflight is demonstrated reliability. Atlas and Delta have used an evolutionary approach to enhancing the capabilities of the systems, and it is evident in a long history of launching successfully.” Second, “Historically, launch systems have incorporated some level of EDS that would monitor critical systems and issue status, warning and abort commands. For Atlas and Delta, the EDS would be common and scalable, and utilize existing sensors within an architecture that used an independent, fault tolerant failure sensing system. Operational systems such as Atlas and Delta offer the advantage of flying the EDS on all missions, in addition to having flight environments that are well known and well characterized”. And third, “Liquid propulsion systems offer the key advantages of minimal catastrophic failures (compared to solid systems) and thrust termination prior to any abort. The resulting benign environment created will maximize the ability of the crewed vehicle to successfully abort and return the crew safely”. ULA concludes their extensive review of redundancy, safety and reliability studies as follows: The Atlas V, with the relatively minor addition of an Emergency Detection System and a dedicated NASA Vertical Integration Facility (VIF) and Mobile Launch Platform (MLP), is ready for commercial human spaceflight and complies with NASA human rating standards. The 3 1/2 year integration span is likely shorter than the development for any new commercial capsule that might fly on it”. “The Delta IV has ample performance to support the existing Orion vehicle, without Black Zones. The Delta IV can support a mid-2014 Crewed IOC, which is superior to Orion launch alternatives. The proposed 37A pad is a look-alike counterpart to the existing 37B pad with low development risk. Human rating the Delta is a relatively modest activity, with the addition of an Emergency Detection System, an array of relatively small redundancy and safety upgrades, both in the vehicle and the engines that are almost trivial compared to the original development of the Delta IV”. The Atlas 400 series could support Commercial Crew Vehicles by late 2013, and the Delta IV could support Orion by mid-2014.

Currently, ULA has three cryogenic upper stages used for a variety of NASA, Commercial and Department of Defense (DoD) missions. ULA proposes to replace this family with a single Advance Common Evolved Stage (ACES). This new upper stage would have a capacity of 41 mT of fuel (LOX and LH2) (ACES 41 – shown at right), and would have the ability to be refueled in orbit. Further, the tank could be stretched for additional capacity. ULA suggests that a 71 mT (ACES 71) capacity would be sufficient to act as both a tanker and one of the building blocks for a Low Earth Orbit (LEO) depot and a depot at the Earth-Moon Lagrange point 2 (EML-2). The depots and tankers would be launched by a combination of Atlas and Delta systems.

ULA Image: Advance Common Evolved Stage

ULA Image: Propellant Depot

At left is the ACES based Depot, comprised of an ACES 41 for Liquid Oxygen (LOX) storage, and an ACES 71 tanker fitted with a sun shade for Liquid Hydrogen (LH2) storage. ULA envisions an ongoing operation of small commercial tankers bringing propellant to the LEO depot, transfer tankers filling up at the LEO depot and transferring propellant to the EML-2 depot. Prior to a manned Lunar mission, Altair cargo transports would be launched using a Delta IV and an ACES 41 second stage. The second stage would be refueled at the LEO depot and burn to EML-2. It would refueled again, and descend to the lunar surface, depositing cargo. When both depots have the required propellant stocks, Orion and Altair vehicles would be launched, refueled at LEO, burn to reach EML-2. There, the Altair vehicle would be refueled, the crew would transfer, and the Altair would descend to the lunar surface. The Altair is capable of delivery more than 40 mT of cargo, vehicles and propellant to the Lunar surface.

The Altair vehicle is comprised of an ACES 41 mated to either a cargo or crew module. At left is the Altair crew module shown as the Ascent Stage begins its return to EML-2 for rendezvous with the Orion spacecraft and return to Earth. Since cargo is prepositioned on the Moon, ULA notes that “from a safety and reliability standpoint the entire Altair function will have been demonstrated multiple times before a crew flies on one. Confidence in the Altair will be the best that can be attained”. The proposed Altair design is strikingly different from the current NASA concept, which entails a taller and more narrow lander, reminiscent of the Apollo Lunar Excursion Module (LEM). However, fans of the TV show Space: 1999 will recognize the vehicle.

ULA Image: Altair Ascent Launch

The ULA presentations ends with the following summary:

The proposed lunar architecture illuminates how the powerful leveraging effects of simple orbital depots can enable small expendable launch vehicles, compatible with existing DoD and commercial payload needs, to establish, support and expand a lunar base with a continuous human presence. The costs and protracted schedule associated with the development of extremely large boosters and multiple in-space stages can be eliminated and the resources applied to the lunar lander, propellant tankers and depots built around a common in-space stage. The simplicity of the architecture enables development that actually fits within projected budgets which is in sharp contrast to the present approach. The door to lunar exploration is presently shut due being simply unaffordable with the present architecture. The proposed architecture reopens that door.

By separating out propellant delivery the architecture not only encourages economic production rates for multiple launch suppliers but provides a commodity task that fosters innovation for new launch suppliers, enables contributions from foreign sources and truly effective international cooperation. In many ways it is the functional equivalent of the establishment of airmail as a commodity activity for the fledgling aircraft and airline industries of the early 20th century.

The architecture simulates in nearly every respect what is required for Mars exploration and enables the maturation of key technologies that will be required on Mars. It can directly support all planetary missions and opens the door for the very high mass spacecraft required for serious exploration of the solar system. It effectively builds a road to the sky that will be built upon by coming generations to meet needs that can now only be guessed at.

In short this architecture concept suggests a new path that has a greater utility, lower cost, foreshortened schedule, the best possible safety and reliability and the greatest engagement of industry and government- the ingredients for a successful and permanent lunar presence and ultimately the exploration of our solar
system.

Policy wonks can read an extensive review of ULA’s proposals by Chris Bergen at NasaSpaceFlight

.

Resumo

Quem não estiver a fim de ver o post inteiro, veja este resumo: Os astronômos estão estudando a possibilidade do envio de astronautas e satélites para pontos de Lagrange, que sõa pontos onde a gravidade de dois astros se anulam. Estes pontos existem entre a Terra e o Sol, Terra e a Lua, entre dois planetas, entre qualquer planeta e alguma de seu satélite natural, etc. Nesse ponto sem nenhuma força gravitacional, estações podem ser posicionadas de forma que o gasto de combustível será praticamente nulo. Também é estudada a utilização de Rodovias espaciais, que se trata da formação de rotas entre diversos pontos de Lagrange, de forma que naves poderam trafegar pelo sistema Solar com baixo consumo de combustível e mais rapidamente.

Pontos de Lagrange envolvendo a Terra

Matéria completa

Apesar de Marte, da Lua e asteroides serem os lugares que todos costumam a estimar mais,  as próximas etapas da exploração humana do espaço continuam como uma incógnita. Tudo começou quando o presidente Barack Obama encomendou uma revisão dos planos da NASA – E o rumo da exploração espacial depende muito das decisões dos EUA perante seus investimentos.

Porém, uma viagem tripulada à Marte ainda é algo não muito próximo, uma vez que robôs ainda têm muito que examinar por lá, e a tecnologia humana ainda tem que achar um jeito de armazenar mantimêntos sulficientes para manter uma tripulação que poderá ir pra Marte.

Buraco gravitacional

Ilustração do ponto de Lagrange L2, que fica 4 vezes mais distante da Terra que a Lua

A comissão da Casa Branca responsável pelo estudo dessas alternativas está considerando mais uma possibilidade: mandar astronautas para um “buraco gravitacional,” um lugar absolutamente vazio, onde não existe nenhum corpo celeste onde se possa pousar, e uma força de gravidade absolutamente nula e que fica quatro vezes mais distante do que a Lua, a mais de 1 milhão de quilômetros da Terra.

Primeira vista, pode parecer meio sem sentido. Porém, esse buraco gravitacional é chamado Ponto de Lagrange, um ponto no espaço onde a aceleração da gravidade da Terra e do Sol são exatamente iguais. Uma vez que a lei da Física Inércia, diz que um corpo tende a ficar estacionado a não ser que uma força atue sobre ele (no caso, a gravidade), e se esse corpo estiver em movimento retilíneo uniforme, ele continuará executando o mesmo movimento até que uma força o desvie. Logo, os objetos nesse ponto podem permanecer lá indefinidamente com um gasto quase nulo de combustível.

Super Rodovia espacial

Ilustração artística de uma Super Rodovia Espacial

Os pontos de Lagrange não são exclusividade da Terra e do Sol. Eles existem em qualquer lugar onde a gravidade é nula, devido ao equilíbrio da força gravitacional de dois astros. Assim, existem pontos de Lagrange entre a Terra e a Lua, entre os planetas e o Sol, entre dois planetas vizinhos, entre um planetas e suas luas, etc.

Teoricamente, uma nave poderia se movimentar pelo Sistema Solar mais rapidamente, e com pouco consumo de combustível, se usasse as rotas entre os diversos pontos de Lagrange, criando uma espécie de Super Rodovia Interplanetária.

Muitos dos satélite novos, que ainda estão em construção, serão lançados em diversos pontos de Lagrange, principalmente o L2. Neste ponto já está instalado desde 2001 o satélite de WMAP. Astrônomos também consideram o envio de astronautas para esses pontos como um treinamento para missões interplanetárias.

How can it be? Is it possible? Truly, I feel as if it’s only been a couple of weeks since I made a post saying, “I’m thrilled that the new show season is upon us.”

But that was four months ago (well, one day shy to be exact). And now I write, “I’m sorry to say that the show season comes to an end this weekend.”

Yup. This weekend is my final show of the year. I wanted to thank all of you who made this a successful season in spite of the fact that we’ve had odd weather and even odder economic times. It’s been a great summer, and I’ve been thrilled to see old friends while making new ones. I’ve enjoyed returning to some great shows and I’ve enjoyed trying the new ones. I am happy to be ending on a high note with one of my favorite shows of the year, the LaGrange West End Arts Festival.

You can also continue to peruse this blog for any and all up-to-date information and to learn about, among other things, my quest to make (at least one) photograph a day, every day, for the year 2009–my Project 365. If you would like, please take a moment to check out  my post from December 30, 2008 appropriately titled, “Project 365” as well as my 50 day update, similarly appropriately titled, “50 Days? Already?” my more cryptically titled 100 day update, “Day 100…or The Last-Call, Whiskey-Soaked Plan That Didn’t Die,” and the rather pedestrian-titled half-year update, “And in a Blink, a Half a Year is Gone….”

As always, if you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me at John@CarusoPhoto.com.

I look forward to seeing you very soon!

Cheers,

John

The Augustine Commission released their Summary Report today, 8 September 2009.

The essence is very similar to the 12 August Meeting discussions and the conclusions reached with Sally Ride Budget charts.

The Commission ends the Introduction to the Summary Report as follows:

Key Questions to Guide the Plan for Human Spaceflight. The Committee identified the following questions that, if answered, would form the basis of a plan for U.S. human spaceflight:

• 1. What should be the future of the Space Shuttle?
• 2. What should be the future of the International Space Station (ISS)?
• 3. On what should the next heavy-lift launch vehicle be based?
• 4. How should crews be carried to low-Earth orbit?
• 5. What is the most practicable strategy for exploration beyond low-Earth orbit?

The Committee considers the framing and answering of these questions individually, and in a consistent way, to be at least as important as their combinations in the integrated options for a human spaceflight program.

They then review the Current Program in Section 1:

• The Space Shuttle
• The International Space Station
• The Constellation Program

Following this review, Section 2 is devoted to the capability of launch to Low Earth Orbit and exploration beyond LEO. The Heavy Lift requirements and capabilities of the various programs available are summarized in this chart from the report:

Heavy Lift Chart

The Summary then reviews the crew to low Earth orbit possibilities. The conclusion, although the Commission has explicitly stated they will only present options, is that crew access to LEO is best served by commercial launch services provided by the private sector.

Section 2 concludes with considerations about lowering costs of space exploration. The following quotes are indicative of their thinking:

The Committee concludes that an architecture for exploration employing a similar policy
of guaranteed contracts has the potential to stimulate a vigorous and competitive commercial space
industry.

The Committee strongly believes it is time for NASA to reassume its crucial role of
developing new technologies for space. Today, the alternatives available for exploration systems
are severely limited because of the lack of a strategic investment in technology development in past
decades. NASA now has an opportunity to develop a technology roadmap that is aligned with an
exploration mission that will last for decades. If appropriately funded, a technology development
program would re-engage the minds at American universities, in industry and within NASA. The
investments should be designed to increase the capabilities and reduce the costs of future
exploration. This will benefit human and robotic exploration, the commercial space community,
and other U.S. government users.

Section 3 presents the options for Future Destinations for Exploration. There are three:

• Mars first, with a Mars landing, perhaps after a brief test of equipment and procedures on
  the Moon.
• Moon first, with lunar surface exploration focused on developing the capability to
  explore Mars.
• Flexible path to inner solar system locations, such as lunar orbit, Lagrange points, near-
  Earth objects and the moons of Mars, followed by exploration of the lunar surface and/or
  Martian surface.

Section 4 brings the previous sections together in an Integrated Program Options chart:

Integrated Program Options

Section 5 discusses Organizational and Programmatic Issues. Two critical elements are:

• NASA should be given the maximum flexibility possible under the law to establish and
  manage its systems.
• Finally, significant space achievements require continuity of support over many years.

Section 6 presents a summary of key findings

As noted at the outset, there is nothing appreciably new in this Summary Report. The interesting and controversial information is buried in the internal documents and analyses. We await those choice morsels.

a howa howa howa howa!!

Goodbye…until you find another reason to contact me. I don’t need to get to you. You already know you’re an ignoble, contemptible, vulgar excuse for a human being. I know you don’t know what that means so I’ll translate-you’re common gutter trash.

Have a nice life and whomever your boyfriend is, I hope he was worth it!

From: Mrs. Jackson
Date: Aug 2, 2009 3:04 PM

I find it interesting that your self worth is held in the space between your legs and the fact that a man felt enough compassion for your meager situation to try to help you. Wow, a man helps you and you act like you won the lottery. You really must be used to trash.

I also find it intereting that you like to talk about what you and Terr used to do. My question-what the hell does that have to do with me? I know that you’re a common piece of gutter trash becaue of how you acted toward me after you lied about who the father of your kid was. I wonder if your boyfriend, whoever the he is, knows that or are you putting kids on him too? Maybe you can add months to your kids age to get him to help you with some bills. Why don’t you talk about something more meaningful? You can’t.

Why don’t you talk about the fact that you tried to pop an attitude by myspace message but you won’t dare pick up the phone to say anything to me, “Seth?” Why don’t you talk about the fact that you did not have the common decency to use that little pea brain of yours to realize that your account is private, that I have no way of knowing who the fuck your boyfriend is, or that he may have gotten a request from me since we have friends in common? Or did you consider that I have a career so I often send out requests to people? Instead of you asking like the an adult with some common sense, you get an attitude.

Nasty is how you act; it’s how you’re carrying yourself. You’re a good mother? Right, you can’t even be a decent human being.

As stated before, when you gave your half assed, half baked apology, we can go on like this forever. You already know what I’m capable of and frankly, I’d love to see how far I can take it. That’s the beauty of having money and freedom; you get creative. So let’s go…I think other people will love our banter…and I can only pray that you and I end up in the same space at the same time…

—————– Original Message —————–
From: ☼>♥One & Only♥<☼
To: Mrs. Jackson
Date: Aug 2, 2009 4:59 AM
Subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: y?

Haha u r so dumb mrs jackson… if im all that u say I am then y would terrence wanna b with me!!! Lol hilarious I kno!! N he deleted ur bitch ass as soon as I told him 2!!! N if ur happily married y u adding niggas on myspace!!! N my boys r well takin care of! N terrence knows im a good mother he used 2 tell me that all the time!!! But yea imma nasty trashy stripper and terr was with me for a yr!! Payin a car payment for 2 yrs! Sent me a necklace and money!! And fucked me good!! And even left his truck with me for 3 months!!! But ok im nasty!!! Lol bitch u have no idea im cleaner then ur pussy when u get out the shower! So take them shoes off ur teeth n stop runnin ur mouth…… I jus asked a simple question of y u requested my bf…. n u had 2 go into all this… n ur rite stop wastin ur time! Cuz I don’t have anything else 2 say…..

—————– Original Message —————–
From: Mrs. Jackson
Date: Aug 2, 2009 7:06 AM

Wow Della. You have got to be the biggest waste of flesh that I have ever met.

Here are the facts:

-You are still a stripper
-You are still a liar
-You still cocked your legs open and got two children that you cannot afford
-You are still a loser with little more than a high school education
-You still lied about who the father of your child was
-You can only talk shit by text, email, or myspace message
-You had to have your fat, trashy mother handle your business for you
-You apologized to me because you know you were wrong
-You pretended to be a guy named “Seth” to prove your self worth to me
-You don’t have Terrence
-I am Mrs. Jackson
-You are still trying to find a man
-You are a whiny, self gratifying, useless, nigger that would best benefit this world if you dropped dead and stopped wasting air

I hate that your sons have to grow up with you as a mother. You have two beautiful children that should be the focal point of your life yet you are worried about picking a fight with a woman that is in the place that you lied to be in. I feel sorry for those boys for having a mother that only thinks of herself.

Get a life. Grow up. When you get a college degree, a home, a good husband, a career, some nuts, and some common sense, find me. Until then this is a battle of wits and you are losing.

Ashanti Jackson

P.S. I still don’t know who your boyfriend is!

—————– Original Message —————–
From: ☼>♥One & Only♥<☼
To: Mrs. Jackson
Date: Aug 2, 2009 12:59 AM
Subject: Re: RE: y?

U da bitch!! Haha don’t get mad cuz ur husband fucked me and ate my pussy!!! Mmmmmm that shit was good 2!! So whatever bitch y the fuck u write back then…. he did say I was the best he ever had and the pretiest girl he ever had n still am!!! I still got the letters he would write me!! U got what I left!! Don’t write me back either!! LMAO!!

—————– Original Message —————–
From: Mrs. Jackson
Date: Aug 2, 2009 2:10 AM

You stupid bitch! How the fuck am I supposed to know who the fuck your boyfriend is? And why the fuck do you think that your ignorant, stripping, trashy ass is that important for me to continue communication with? I told your ass 8 months ago and again 5 months ago that I am sick of dealing with your shit. You are the ass that continues this.

I have never nor will I ever hide behind anything like you, little liar. I don’t need to send autonomous messages or send text messages talking shit only to hide later and have other people handle my shit for me. Anything that I have to say to you, I will say to you and you will know it that is directed at you.

When you last called me, I told you something that snapped you back to reality. I really want you to remember that because the promise still stands.

Get a life, a job, and grow the hell up little girl. You are beneath me and not worth the time that you are wasting.

—————– Original Message —————–
From: ☼>♥One & Only♥<☼
To: Mrs. Jackson
Date: Jul 21, 2009 4:26 AM
Subject: y?

Y u send my boyfriend a friend request??? U jus can’t leave me alone can u…. stop botherin me!! Meanin don’t try 2 contact him or send a friend request 2 c his profile! WOW!! Goodbye

You know if you stop harrassing me and my family, stop getting your ignorant friends to contact me via myspace, stop talking smack when you can’t back it up, then we’re done. But if you continue with your childish crap, everyone who sees this will know exactly how messed up you are. And I have plenty more messages from you that I can add, including you stealing a car…but we’ll come back to that…

The meeting of the Augustine Commission on 30 July 2009 in Cocoa Beach focused on the options for “Exploration beyond LEO”. Dr Ed Crawley chairs this sub-group, and the complete power point presentation can be found here – Exploration Beyond LEO.  The destinations considered were: The Earth’s Moon Near Earth Objects (NEOs) Earth-Moon and Sun-Earth Lagrange Points (EML1, EML2, SEL1 SEL2) Venus Mars and it’s moons (Phobos and Deimos)

By the time of this meeting, the sub-group had narrowed the options to the five shown in the slide at the right. Associated with these options were a number of findings that the committee used in devising the options: There are some cases where astronauts enable science at a pace that rapidly eclipses what robotic missions can achieve: field geology, especially on Mars and Moon (& probably NEOs) Impressive disparity in cost between robotic and human missions Astronomy that, 4 decades ago, made sense to do from the Moon, is often now best done from free-flying platforms in space, often at Lagrange points. Astronauts vs. robotic servicing of astronomy missions being studied at GSFC; results still a year out Given current knowledge of galactic cosmic rays, current lifetime radiation limits, and strong limitations on physical shielding vs. GCRs (as opposed to solar events, say), human Mars missions cannot now be flown. Research on understanding these effects, reducing associated uncertainties, and examining (biological and physical) mitigation should be prioritized Research in understanding radiation, zero- or low-g, and other crew-oriented effects book-kept elsewhere. Criterion: Significantly and appropriately addresses at-least-some/some/many important established priorities of the scientific community (includes astrophysics, planetary and lunar science, solar science, and Earth science)

As discussed in our previous post on the Augustine Commission, Propellant Depots were a big topic. The slide on the right features Werner von Braun’s comment concerning “Tanking Mode” for space exploration. The two slides below accompany von Braun’s comments from 1962 with the latest assessments of the opportunities and challenges posed by Propellant Depots.

The following slides constitute Chris Chyba’s closing summary:

Advanced Technology Changes the Game
New Business Models
Luanch to LeO
On-Orbit Fueling
Technology
Commercial Engagement
International Engagement
Why We Explore and What It Means
Our Ultimate Objective

Chyba’s conclusion was clear: “Destinations are Not Goals”. Rather, our overarching goal is to expand human civilization into the Solar System.

You can find all of the commission’s published documentation on their web site.

Paternity Fraud is a serious crime yet it continues to occur. Women, both married and single, knowingly lie about the true identity of their children’s father. Of the 900,000 paternity test conducted in the U.S. every year, 30% of those prove that the man tested is not the father of the child. 30,000 is too high and epidemic. This is an issue that we must tackle…

This woman’s name is Della Longsworth. She is a stripper who hails from Lagrange, GA but currently lives in Idaho. She is 22 and has two sons, both under the age of ten who have different fathers. On December 2007 until December 2008, she committed paternity fraud by adding 3 months to her youngest son’s age to place paternity on a man she knew was not the father. Only after the pursuits of a private detective and being threatened with a suit did she admit that her claim was false.

Even worse is that her mother knew of her fraud and excused her behavior. These actions are inexcusable and must end. I am interested in hearing the experiences of others…Please share.