Category: NASA

[/caption]
NASA is debating whether the new Orion capsule should land in the water, like Apollo, or on land, similar to how the Russian Soyuz capsule returns to Earth. To help them determine the potential for human injuries with each possible landing scenario, NASA has used human cadavers during their tests. At first, this revelation may seem quite morbid or even gruesome. But as Keith Cowing said in his expose article on Space Ref and NASA Watch on this subject, “Given the potentially hazardous nature of the tests required, cadavers must be used in the place of living persons.” Sometimes, crash-test dummies or computer simulations don’t provide the crucial information needed, such as the forces on the spinal cord or internal organs. If NASA doesn’t have that information, they can’t get accurate test results. Living test subjects could possibly be killed during the landing tests. Imagine the headlines if that happened. So they have used cadavers. The cadavers NASA used were donated to science to be used for exactly this type of purpose, and NASA, of course, went through the proper channels to obtain the cadavers and treats them in an ethical manner. So while this may seem a little grisly, NASA is doing the right thing.

Marc Carreau from the Houston Chronicle also wrote an article on this subject, and he interviewed David Steitz, a spokesman for NASA’s medical division. “It’s a socially awkward topic,” Steitz said. “The bodies are all carefully handled through all of the tests. We follow ethical medical procedures with these bodies that have been donated for science.”

Three human bodies were used during testing last year, said NASA seat engineer Dustin Gohmert, to help determine the potential for serious human injury during descent and landing. “The interface between the spacesuit and the seats is relatively complex, much more so than in an automobile, even one from the racing industry,” Gohmert said. “The (forces) we anticipate have never been studied before. We are using this research to help define and refine the suits and the seats.”

Tests using human bodies has been done for previous spacecraft, as well.

Cowing received this statement from NASA on the use of cadavers:

“In limited cases, postmortem human subject tests may be performed when insufficient data are available from simulations that use dummies or from mathematical modeling of the human body responses. This is particularly critical where the dynamic responses of internal organs and soft tissue must be evaluated. Using a combination of test methods, the engineering and scientific teams at NASA are able to enhance astronaut safety by designing landing attenuation systems that will minimize accelerations imparted to the crew and significantly reduce the potential for injuries.”

Personally, I could imagine donating my body for this type of research. Even if I never get to fly to space when I’m alive, I’d be proud to help the rest of the human race get there and return safely by giving my body for tests such as this.

News Sources: NASA Watch, Space Ref, Houston Chronicle

[/caption]
On the heels of news about NASA engineers who feel the Constellation program is using the wrong kind of rockets comes word that efforts to build the spacecraft which will replace the shuttle and return astronauts to the moon is running behind and over-budget. NASA Watch published a leaked internal NASA document showing the Constellation Program has encountered financial and technical problems, and the Associated Press quoted Doug Cooke, NASA’s deputy associate administrator for exploration as saying the first test flights for Orion may be delayed. However, the delay thus far is only of NASA’s internal goal of having the spacecraft ready by 2013. Cooke said they are still on target for NASA’s public commitment of first test flights by 2015, and returning to the moon by 2020. But unless the space agency can receive more funding, further delays may be inevitable.

The 117-page report shows an $80 million cost overrun this year for just one motor and a dozen different technical problems that the space agency put in the top risk zone, meaning the problems are considered severe. The report put the program’s financial performance in that category, as well.

Some experts say it’s too early to be worried, others say NASA’s design is flawed or the space agency is just repeating mistakes made in developing the space shuttle. But almost everyone agrees that NASA isn’t getting enough funding to do what they’ve been asked to do.

Additional funding from Congress is pending, but in an election year, don’t count on it.

News Sources: NASA Watch, Newsweek/AP

There’s a group of NASA engineers who believe NASA is making a mistake with its new Constellation program to replace the shuttle, which will use the new Ares rockets for launches starting in 2014. Constellation is an all new program which requires everything to be built from the ground up. The group of engineers asks, why not use the systems we already have that work reliably? The engineers, who are working clandestinely after hours on their plans have been joined by business people and space enthusiasts, and they call the plan Direct 2.0. They believe this approach could be flying sooner than Ares, reducing the gap in the US’s access to space, and providing a smoother transition for the workforce. Additionally it is more powerful than Ares, has lower risks for the astronauts, adds additional servicing missions to the Hubble Space Telescope, and reduces the cost to orbit by half.

Proponents say the Direct 2.0 approach is more capable than Orion, can lift more mass into Earth orbit and boost more mass out of Earth orbit on to other destinations. The concept is simple: use the same orange external tank and booster rockets as the shuttle, but don’t use the orbiter. Put additional engines on the bottom of the tank, and the cone-shaped Orion capsule on the nose. They call the rocket system Jupiter, and not only would Jupiter have less cost per launch, but it would cost less per kilogram to put things in orbit. They also say the crew abort limits are safer than Ares 1, and would require only minor modifications to the current mobile launch platform.

Instead of having the separate Ares-I Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) and Ares-V Cargo Launch Vehicle (CaLV) they use just one single Jupiter launcher, capable of performing both roles.

On their website, Directlauncher.com, they say “This change to NASA’s architecture completely removes the costs & risks associated with developing and operating a second launcher system, saving NASA $19 Billion in development costs, and a further $16 Billion in operational costs over the next 20 years.”

But recent articles by the Associated Press and the Orlando Sentinel say that NASA is not interested in this concept, and that its nothing more than a concept on the back of a napkin. Additionally, Ares is so far along, with test flights scheduled for next year, that there’s no turning back now.

But the Orlando Sentinel article says that NASA ended a study last fall which showed Direct 2.0 would outperform Ares. The initial results showed Direct 2.0 was superior in cost, overall performance and work-force retention, which is a big issue for Florida.

The engineers who work at NASA say they can’t speak out directly for fear of being fired, but an outside group who supports their efforts are trying to get the word out about the plan.

Check out their website includes a discussion forum, a presentation on their concept and much more. Here’s a video that explains the concept:

In short, they say the Direct 2.0 approach introduces many advantages over the current Ares Launch Vehicles, such as:

Shorter “gap” after the Shuttle retires (3 years vs. 5)
Earlier return to the Moon (2017 vs. 2019)
Deletes all risks and costs associated with a second new launch vehicle
Optimum use of the existing NASA & contractor experience

Original News Sources: AP, Orlando Sentinel, ABC’s Science and Society Blog, Directlauncher.com