NASA Archives

February 1, 2008December 26, 2015 by Nancy Atkinson

“Across the Universe” Day for NASA and Beatles Fans

NASA will use its Deep Space Network to transmit a song across the universe. And fittingly, the song is “Across the Universe” by the Beatles. On Feb. 4 at 7 pm EST, the song will be beamed towards the North Star, Polaris, located 431 light years away from Earth, and will travel across the universe at 186,000 miles per second.

Former Beatle Paul McCartney thinks this is a great idea. “Send my love to the aliens,” he said in a message to NASA.

If there are any beings near Polaris, they’ll hear the song in about 431 years.

The song’s transmission will commemorate the 40th anniversary of the day The Beatles recorded the song, as well as the 50th anniversary of both NASA’s founding and the beginning days of the Beatles. Two other anniversaries also are being honored: The launch 50 years ago this week of Explorer 1, the first U.S. satellite, and the founding 45 years ago of the Deep Space Network, an international network of antennas that supports missions to explore the universe.

Feb. 4 has been declared “Across The Universe Day” by Beatles fans to commemorate the anniversaries. As part of the celebration, the public around the world has been invited to participate in the event by simultaneously playing the song at the same time as the transmission by NASA.

John Lennon’s widow, Yoko Ono, characterized the song’s transmission as a significant event. “I see that this is the beginning of the new age in which we will communicate with billions of planets across the universe,” she said.

Even though radio and television signals on Earth ‘leak’ out into space all the time, hopefully NASA can use this event to generate enthusiasm and promote awareness of its history, as well as its plans for future missions.

Additionally, this is a chance for the public to learn more about the Deep Space Network, NASA’s incredibly reliable system of radio antennas that is critical in supporting lunar and planetary exploration. The DSN is used for tracking of spacecraft, sending telemetry and commands, and for deep space navigation. Learn more about the DSN here.

Original News Source: NASA Press Release

January 24, 2008December 26, 2015 by Nancy Atkinson

NASA Astronaut Survey: No Launch Day Drinking

A NASA survey of astronauts and flight surgeons released on January 23, 2008 turned up no evidence of launch day drinking by flight crews, contradicting an earlier report by a health care panel that disclosed two instances of drunken astronauts. NASA surveyed 87 of all 98 astronauts as well as all 31 flight surgeons. None reported seeing a crew member heavily drinking alcohol on launch day, or within 12 hours of liftoff.

However, the anonymous survey did find one report of “perceived impairment” in an astronaut during the days preceding launch, which was later was traced to an interaction between prescription medication and alcohol. That astronaut was ultimately cleared for flight and launched into space.

“We really never understood from the beginning exactly what might have led to the comment in the health care report,” said Ellen Ochoa, deputy director of Johnson Space Center and a former shuttle astronaut. “We’ve tried to run it to ground. We haven’t uncovered anything. I don’t know of any issues associated with alcohol before flight.”

The healthcare report was conducted in mid-2007 in the wake of astronaut Lisa Nowak’s arrest. Nowak, who traveled from Houston to Florida to confront another woman about a romantic rivalry involving another astronaut, was arrested for attempted kidnapping and burglary with assault. She has yet to stand trial.

NASA established a panel of aerospace medicine experts, led by U.S. Air Force Col. Richard Bachmann, Jr., to look into astronaut mental health. The panel, citing unidentified sources, reported heavy drinking by two astronauts right before launches; one before a shuttle launch and another prior to the launch of a Russian Soyuz rocket. The panel reported that the flight surgeon’s concerns about the astronauts’ impairment were supposedly overruled by management, which created an atmosphere where both astronauts and flight surgeons were reluctant to report improper conduct.

In the new survey, however, conducted in August-December 2007, astronauts and flight surgeons indicated they were not afraid to raise concerns of flight safety, and they felt there is a healthy relationship between astronauts and doctors. But a small number of respondents acknowledged that some astronauts still feel they could lose out on a space assignment if they expressed concerns.

The astronaut survey was conducted and analyzed using both NASA specialists and external academic experts to ensure the study’s validity. “The response rate of the survey was 91 percent, a rate well above what you would normally expect in a survey,” Ochoa said. “That indicates the seriousness with which astronauts and flight surgeons approached this survey.”

The survey focused four areas: the relationship between astronauts and flight surgeons regarding openness of communication, level of trust, and understanding of safety responsibilities; concerns with raising and responding to issues of flight safety and/or crew suitability for flight; knowledge and implementation of policies and procedures detailing astronaut performance and crew assignment; and determining if there was personal knowledge of a US astronaut presenting a risk to flight safety due to alcohol use on launch day.

The 12-hour ban on drinking, which originally an “unwritten rule” is now standard policy. A new astronaut code of conduct is being written, as well.

Dr. Richard Williams, NASA’s chief health and medical officer said that NASA is in a better position today than it was a year ago to detect serious behavioral health problems facing astronauts, and to intervene before it’s too late.

Original News Source: NASA News Release

January 18, 2008December 26, 2015 by Fraser Cain

NASA’s Planning its Own Version of World of Warcraft

Level 23 shuttle pilot LFG pst. If you play an online role-playing game, you understood that. If you don’t, but you really like space exploration, you might soon enough. In a recent request for information, NASA announced that it’s looking for help in the development of a NASA-inspired massively multiplayer role playing game.

The request for information from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center was published to NASA’s Acquisition Internet Service on January 16th, 2007.

Here’s their goal:

A NASA-based MMO built on a game engine that includes powerful physics capabilities could support accurate in-game experimentation and research. It should simulate real NASA engineering and science missions in a medium that is comfortable and familiar to the majority of students in the United States today. A NASA-based MMO could provide opportunities for students to investigate STEM (note: STEM means science, technology, engineering and mathematics) career paths while participating in engaging game-play. Through a NASA-based MMO, students will gain insight into a wide range of exciting career opportunities and be encouraged to make educational choices that lead them into STEM fields of study and eventually the STEM careers needed to fulfill NASAâ€™s Vision for Space Exploration. Learning Technologies is seeking input on how to accomplish those goals.

In this request for information, NASA is hoping that various game companies can provide information on how they think a NASA-based educational game could be designed, how it would support education efforts, connect to missions, and help publicize space exploration careers.

Oh, and how it might actually be fun. It’s that last part that’s going to be the challenge.

If you’ve ever played a massively multiplayer online game, there’s an awful lot of… killing. There’s also a certain degree of independence that might be hard to place over top of NASA’s governmental structure. And I’d be interested to see how they deal with the scientific reality of spaceflight. You can’t just hop the next rocket to the Moon whenever you like; there are mission plans, years of training, government intervention, greedy contractors and all that paperwork.

If some team can come up with an idea that will make for a compelling game. To be both challenging and entertaining, and yet respect the engineering and scientific reality that currently exists in human spaceflight, I’ll be impressed.

Better yet, I’ll play. I’ll put that level 67 orc warrior on hold, and switch to an astronaut – maybe a Canadian mission specialist.

The closing date is February 15, 2008.

Thanks to NASA Watch for catching this.

Original Source: NASA MMO Site

January 15, 2008December 26, 2015 by Fraser Cain

Get Ready for the Great Moonbuggy Race

You can tell that NASA is really serious about sending astronauts back to the Moon – they’re even working on the moonbuggies (I mean, rovers). In order to get the best designs possible, the agency is opening up the competition to student teams to design the best lunar rovers they can. The 15th annual race is going to be in Huntsville, Alabama on April 4-5, 2008. And who knows, maybe some of their good ideas might make it all the way to the Moon.

More than 40 student teams from the US and other countries have already registered for the 15th annual Great Moonbuggy Race. The students have to design, build and then race their own two-person lunar vehicles across a simulated surface of the Moon.

Here are the important rules:

each buggy must be the work of students from a high school or institute of higher learning
it must be human powered
the unassembled vehicle must fit within a 1.2-metre (4-foot) cube
the passengers must be able to carry it 6 metres (20 feet)
the assembled vehicle has to be thinner than 1.2 metres (4 feet)
it has to carry a bunch of simulated rover equipment, like a camera, antenna, and batteries

The total length of the course is about 1,100 metres (.7 miles), and strewn with rocks, craters and other lunar hazards. The team, consisting of a male and female, have to race their rover through the terrain as quickly as possible. Each team gets two runs, and the fastest times are the winners.

The three fastest-finishing buggies in both high school and college categories will win prizes from the race sponsors. There are also awards for the most unique moonbuggy design, best overall design, most improved team, best rookie team and most spirited team

There’s still time to register for the competition – registration ends on February 1st. If you’re interested in the rules and requirements, check out NASA’s website for the Great Moonbuggy Race.

Original Source: NASA News Release

January 8, 2008January 24, 2021 by Fraser Cain

A Snapshot of NASA’s Science Plans

As you’re probably aware, NASA has a lot of robotic explorers out there in space, and even more the works here on Earth. I was actually surprised to learn that they have 53 mission already in operation, and another 41 missions in development. But with the human exploration of the Moon charging forward, the robotic exploration missions are taking a bit of a hit. NASA administrator, Mike Griffin dropped the bad news in a press conference at the American Astronomical Society today. And then Associate Administrator Alan Stern picked up the pieces in a followup town hall meeting, explaining to scientists how they plan to move forward from here.

I won’t go too deeply into Mike Griffin’s presentation. Phil and Pamela captured the essence of the presentation quite nicely. Griffin hit us with the bad news about the deep cuts coming, and begged the community to try and stick together during these tough times.

After Griffin’s presentation, NASA Associate Administrator Alan Stern presented the state of robotic exploration and how the budget cuts will play out.

In opening up his presentation, Stern admitted that the Science Mission Directorate exploration program had suffered many setbacks, most of them self-inflicted through cost overruns. Over the last 5 years, the overruns have amounted to $5.7 billion. If these projects hadn’t gone over budget, the recent budget cuts might not have been necessary at all.

Stern emphasized his focus on holding project managers accountable for their budgets. Speaking to the research scientists in attendance at the town hall meeting, Stern said, “we’re going to get the project managers to toe the line and deliver projects on time and on budget so that we don’t mortgage your future.”

Of course, it’s unrealistic to think that there won’t be cost overruns. Overbudget and project management just go hand-in-hand.

The bulk of Stern’s presentation focused on how they would recover from the budget cuts. How they plan to rearrange the schedule to keep the spacecraft launching. This will be especially difficult with the James Webb Next Generation Telescope the lion’s share of the Science Mission Directorate’s budget.

Since April, though, they were able to get 5 new missions in the pipeline. And in one dramatic slide, Stern showed how the future mission pipeline has been improved. Many missions have been brought forward to launch several years ahead of schedule. Many mission will be launching this year, and the future launch schedule looks pretty decent too.

In responding to questions from the audience, Stern said that they have to deal with the current situation, and can’t hope for budget increases from Congress, “hope is not a strategy. We can hope that the Science Mission Directorate’s budget will be increased, but that’s not a strategy.”

Perhaps one of the most significant cuts in the last few years is the cancelation of the Terrestrial Planet Finder. This future mission would have had the power to observe atmospheres on Earth-sized planets orbiting other stars. Seeing ozone in the atmosphere of a distant planet would be a strong indication that there’s life there.

Although TPF has been scrapped, Stern said that the Science Mission Directorate is still committed to the search for exoplanets. One of these missions, the SIM Planet Finder has been mandated for completion by congress. With all the recent budget cuts, the money to work on SIM has to come from somewhere. And that somewhere is going to be other science missions.

Original Source: SMD Homepage

December 31, 2007December 26, 2015 by Nancy Atkinson

Controversial NASA Aviation Report Released

NASA released the results on Dec. 31 from an $11.3 million federal air safety study. The agency previously withheld the report, and came under fire from Congress and news organizations for doing so. Earlier reports said NASA was concerned the data in the report would upset travelers and hurt airline profits. But today NASA administrator Mike Griffin and the head of NASA’s Office of Safety and Mission Assurance Bryan O’Connor said the release of the report was delayed to protect both pilot confidentiality and classified commercial aviation information.

“We came across instances in looking at the raw data where information was contained that could have compromised one of those two things,” said Administrator Griffin. “We determined that an independent review of that data was necessary in order to prevent such compromise.”

A panel led by O’Connor reviewed the 16,000 page report and data such as pilots’ names and other confidential information was redacted.

Also, Griffin said there are questions as to the validity of the data in the report, which has not been peer-reviewed.

“We consider the study was not properly organized and not properly reviewed, and that makes the results very difficult to interpret and to use,” he said. The study was conducted by the Battelle Memorial Institute for NASA.

An independent review of the data will be done in the future by the National Academy of Sciences.

Griffin said the original press release highlighting the refusal to release the data used “inappropriate language” to explain the rationale for not releasing the report.

NASA’s survey, the National Aviation Operations Monitoring System (NAOMS), interviewed about 8,000 pilots per year from 2001 until the end of 2004. The program was terminated before moving on to interview flight attendants and air traffic controllers, as originally proposed.

Approximately one million dollars a year was put into this study. Griffin said it is a small fraction of NASA’s overall work, and in retrospect, the study did not receive the attention that it should have.

The report can be found on NASA’s website. Its length makes it difficult to wade through the data. Additionally, some portions of the report that have not yet been edited for confidential information have been left out. NASA will release the remainder of the report as soon as possible.

The original plan for the survey never called for NASA to interpret and analyze the data. The study’s purpose was to develop new methodologies for collecting aviation safety data, and then the data would be transitioned to the aviation safety community.

“NASA conducts research, and this was one element of such research,” said Griffin. “NASA extended the research, which was originally to be concluded in 2004 in order to properly fund the transition of the data and its review. We’ve gone the extra mile with this data and we’ve gone well beyond our original intentions, which is why we’ve brought it to an end.”

It remains uncertain whether any data from the report will ever be used by the aviation safety community. Griffin said it was his understanding that the FAA has â€œsimply moved on from NAOMS,â€? and that the FAA has over 150 different programs to provide survey data from individuals involved in all areas of air flight.

While NASA didn’t analyze the data, Griffin offered his opinion of what the report surmises: “What the flying public should understand is that they have approximately the same risk of dying from a lightning strike as they do dying from an air transport accident in the United States, which means to say that this is one of the safest forms of travel that human beings have ever invented, and that no one should think otherwise.”

In testimony to Congress earlier this year, Griffin characterized the data in the report as not as valid as he would prefer to have for a NASA report. Griffin said that he still feels that way, and that his concern is that this research work was not properly peer reviewed and the data that was extracted from the survey was not properly vailidated at its conclusion.

The survey purportedly unearthed approximately four times as many engine failures than the FAA has documentation for. â€œIt calls into question the reporting mechanisms rather than the underlying rate of engine failures, which we believe we understand,â€? Griffin said, adding there are other inconsistencies, as well. â€œThose kinds of inconsistencies, when we looked at the data, gave us pause for thought, and still do.â€?

“The value of this will need to be determined by the larger aviation community, which I remind you, does not reside within NASA,” Griffin continued. “All that we at NASA have said is that this survey was not peer reviewed and the data was not validated at its conclusion. It’s up to others whether or not they believe this research has value.”

Griffin had promised to release the report before the end of 2007, and he did so without compromising confidential information that, by law, NASA is prohibited from releasing.

Griffin said this survey doesn’t cast any doubt in his mind about the safety of aviation in the United States. “I did not, having looked at a snapshot of the data, see anything that the flying public would care about or ought to care about,” he said. “But it’s not for me to prescribe what others may care about. We were asked to release the data and we did that.”

The report can be found on the NASA website.

Original News Source: NASA News Audio

December 19, 2007December 26, 2015 by Nancy Atkinson

Day of Troubleshooting Leads to Clues for Shuttle and ISS

Tuesday, December 18 was a day of major troubleshooting for NASA, as the space agency tries to hunt down the causes of problems plaguing both the shuttle and the International Space Station. While the day ended with few definitive answers, NASA officials said the data they gathered — and even what they didn’t find — will help them make strides towards solving the issues.

A tanking test on the shuttle’s external fuel tank helped narrow down a problem with the engine cutoff sensors to a “pass-through” connector in the system, but shuttle program manager Wayne Hale said the exact problem is not yet known.

“Exactly what we’ve got to do and where in this three-part connector we have to do it is a little bit of work ahead of us,” he said. “I’m just pleased as punch we know it’s in the connector and not some other place in the 100 feet or so of wiring and sensors and electronic boxes so we know what area to concentrate our efforts.”

But how much work the fix will entail, or how the repairs might affect the proposed January 10 launch date is also in question.

“I do not have any information about a launch date today,” Hale said. “Where the troubleshooting and replacement and repair work leads us will determine what the launch date’s going to be. We are not going to be driven by schedule on this one. We need to get to the bottom of this, fix it and make sure it’s fixed once and for all and then we can fly safely through the rest of the program, at least in this area.”

However, Hale said he felt the problems could be turned around in fairly short order.
He said the problem appears to be temperature related, or perhaps related to the tightly sealed, almost vacuum like conditions the connector operates in.

The 1 1/2-by-3 inch connector is called a pass-through connector because it is located both inside and outside the tank. The part that will be difficult to get to is the socket connector on the inside of the tank. Engineers would have to go inside the ET through a “man-hole cover” in the bottom of the tank, and that would entail a longer time to fix the problem.

Engineers are still troubleshooting some issues in bench tests away from the shuttle, and more data will be presented to program managers on Wednesday.

Meanwhile, two ISS astronauts conducted a seven hour spacewalk on Tuesday, inspecting problems with two unrelated mechanisms that allow the station’s solar wings to track the sun for power. It was the 100th EVA in support of station construction and maintenence.

Station commander Peggy Whitson and flight engineer Dan Tani first looked at a malfunctioning beta gimbal assembly that tilts the the starboard solar arrays to face the sun. Engineers thought that perhaps a micrometeoroid hit may have damaged the device, but the astronauts found no evidence of any impacts. The spacewalkers temporarily disconnected cables and a subsequent test found that the motor most likely is the problem. A new motor will be installed during the next shuttle mission.

The issues with the solar array rotary joint, a huge mechanism that also automatically rotates the solar arrays to face the sun, will require more work, contemplation and likely several spacewalks to fix. No “smoking gun” was found as to what is causing the joint to vibrate and display electrical spikes. In addition, metal shavings were found during an earlier inspection of the SARJ. Space station program manager Mike Suffredini said repairs probably won’t begin until next fall after a station crew can be trained to repair the joint. The shuttle crews “to-do” lists are already filled for the remaining shuttle flights in order to finish the construction of the ISS.

Mike Suffredini said the station team is “challenged” by the issues they are facing in the two repairs.

“The fact that it (the SARJ) looked as we expected is an enormous amount of information for us,” said Sufradini. “It would be really nice if something stood out and said ‘hey, I’m the cause of your problem,’ but we didn’t get that.”

Original News Source: NASA TV

December 17, 2007December 26, 2015 by Nancy Atkinson

Heavy Construction on the Moon

Take a look at any construction project or surface mining operation here on Earth and likely there will be bulldozers, loaders, and trucks; all essential in excavating and building structures. But as we look to the future with NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration which calls for a return to the Moon to build bases and habitats, how will heavy construction and excavation be accomplished on the lunar surface?

Caterpillar Inc., a company known for their heavy earth moving machines and the world’s leading manufacturer of construction and mining equipment, is looking to tackle that issue. They’ve partnered with NASA to create technology that could benefit construction and mine workers everywhere in the future, whether they grab a hard-hat or a space helmet on their way to work.

Caterpillar was one of 38 companies awarded seed funds as part of NASA’s Innovative Partnerships Program (IPP). Projects are selected for this program because of their potential to advance key technologies that will help meet NASA’s critical needs for the future.

Caterpillar has proposed a multi-terrain loader for lunar surface development. Currently, they are working with NASA to develop the technology to augment existing earth moving equipment with sensors and on-board processors to provide time-delayed tele-operational control.

The loader would be able to undertake regolith moving such as grading, leveling, trenching, strip-mining, excavating and habitat covering. It also could be used for construction of lunar bases, the deployment or relocation of surface assets, as well as for mobility on the Moon.

Why is a down-to-earth company like Caterpillar interested in the Moon?

“The way we looked it, there are technologies that are needed on both the Earth and the moon,” Michele Blubaugh, Manager of Intelligence Technology Services at Caterpillar, told Universe Today. “We looked at autonomous operations of equipment as being the same type of technology that could be used on the moon as well as in a mining application. We have the same end result as NASA.”

That end result is to remove operators of construction equipment from a dangerous situation, whether it’s a machine operator in a dangerous mine environment or whether the operator is an astronaut on the lunar surface trying to excavate habitat sites.

There are two types of tele-operation. One is remote operation, where control of the machine is done with a remote operating system. There would be either a vision system on board or someone could actually see the machine as its operating. The other is autonomous operation, where the desired work is programmed and offloaded onto the machine and then the machine carries out the work without anyone interfacing with the machine, either remotely or directly. The machine would read the program at the site, positions itself, have avoidance capabilities to avoid rocks or any object that might be in the way, operating on its own to complete the given mission.

Caterpillar is working on both types of operation. “It’s one step to the next,” said Blublaugh. “You need both of those technologies developed, with remote operations first, and then the ultimate is autonomous operations.”

They are also investigating working remotely or autonomously on the Moon from Earth, and dealing with the six second time delay between the earth and the moon.

Currently, there are two multi-terrain loaders, the Caterpillar 287 C Skid Steer loader, outfitted with duplicates of the remote technology. One is located at Caterpillar’s proving grounds near their headquarters in Peoria, Illinois and the other is at the rock yard at Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. “That way we can develop it together,” said Blubaugh. “When we’re doing something, we each have a machine so we know how something reacts.”

The technology is still in the development stage. “We did some initial basic demonstrations when we delivered the machine in May of 2007 at JSC,” Blubaugh said. “A group of us went down, and the people at JSC were taught to use the machine and what the capabilities were, and we discussed the interfaces between the different types of technology.” In the summer of 2008, the group from Caterpillar will return to JSC to do an interim demonstration at a desert site.

Both machines have been undergoing tests. “Within the contract, NASA is responsible for some of the development and Caterpillar is responsible for other portions,” said Blubaugh, “and then there are things that we do jointly to move the technology along faster, so everyone benefits. JSC gets benefits of our facilities and our engineers working on technology, and vice versa, CAT gets benefits from the folks working at JSC and the technology they have and their facilities, so it’s a mutually beneficial relationship between Johnson and CAT.”

Caterpillar has another contract proposal going to JSC shortly that takes the project to the next level.

“We’ll look to do berming, which is building an earthen berm around a site, leveling and sensing the position of the blade,” said Blubaugh. “We take the technology that we have accomplished today and take it to the next level. It’s almost an annual step by step process in the development and our target date for having a signature demo showcasing this type of technology autonomy, being able to load a program into the machine and having it operate all by itself is targeted for 2012.”

Since the 287 C skid loader is extremely heavy and runs on a diesel engine, it couldn’t be used on the moon. A prototype of a lunar loader-type vehicle is being developed by NASA and Caterpillar is assisting with developing the blade. “So, we’ll be involved in the project all the way along as it develops,” said Blubaugh.

The one-year IPP projects involve collaboration between NASA and a company from the private sector, academia or another government laboratory. All IPP companies address technology barriers with cost-shared, joint-development programs.

Other examples of NASA IPP research areas include the pursuit of improved engine performance and reduced emissions for aeronautics research; high-temperature materials for lunar lander engines, optics to lower error rates of future space telescopes, and a glass bubble insulation demonstration for cryogenic tanks.

With a total cost of the Caterpillar project of just under $1,000,000, Caterpillar is estimated to contribute about 45% and NASA 55%. For the entire NASA’s Innovative Partnership Program $9 million in funding comes from NASA’s Technology Transfer Partnerships budget, $13 million is provided by NASA sources in programs, projects, or field centers, and $12 million from external partners for a total combined financial commitment of $34 million.

“A lot of us at Caterpillar grew up in the time of the first space development,” said Blubaugh, “it’s quite exciting for us to be a part of this. Plus, it’s just a good investment in the future.”

December 10, 2007December 26, 2015 by Nancy Atkinson

Water or Land: The Orion Landing Choice

Work is progressing on designing the new Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), the next generation of NASA spacecraft that will take humans to the International Space Station, back to the Moon, and hopefully on to Mars. But one major question about the spacecraft has yet to be answered. On returning to Earth, will the CEV splash down in water, or land on terra firma?

NASA officials discussed various aspects of development that is currently underway for the Constellation program at a media briefing on December 10. The mobile launch platform for the Ares rocket is being built, landing parachutes have been tested and the first capsule structure of the new CEV will be constructed starting in early 2008. Design requirements for the booster rockets have been completed and just ahead are final design definitions for operational capabilities such as ground procedures at Kennedy Space Center, mission control in Houston and other areas such as spacesuit design.

Additionally research on the International Space Station has begun to help prepare for long duration spaceflights such as a measurements of microbe growth, a study of the formation of kidney stones, and a nutritional study to help understand what is “normal” for the human body in space.

But questions from the media focused mainly on the yet unmade decision of whether the CEV will land in the water or on land.

NASA originally explored multiple options for landing in both water and land. After initial studies, the first assessment by NASA and the contractor for the CEV, Lockheed Martin, was that landing on land was preferred in terms of total life cycle costs for the vehicles. But now a splashdown in water seems to be favored.

“There are a couple of aspects that pop out at us,” said Jeff Hanley, Manager for the Constellation Program. “One is the safety and the risks involved in landing. Looking at the landing itself, the event of actually touching down, water comes out to be preferable as less risk. Another aspect is the performance of the Orion vehicle as it is sent to the moon. In looking at what it takes to get a pound of spacecraft to low lunar orbit in terms of the cost, every pound that you send toward the moon is precious. From an efficiency and performance point of view, carrying 1500 lbs of landing bags to the moon and back when we have a perfectly viable mode of landing in the water near a US coastal site didn’t seem like a good trade in performance. We’ve tended toward updating our point of departure concept to now be a nominal US coastal water landing.”

The Constellation program has always considered that for the first few missions, the spacecraft would land in water until the guidance system had been tested thoroughly and proven in actual landings.

But NASA is continuing to look at landing on land as a possibility for future flights. “We want to be able to land on land in a contingency and have the crew be able to get out and walk away. Ther are limitation of what you can do on land but by the time we get done really looking at what the minimal capability of landing on land and having the crew walk away, we’ll see what the design looks like, and if the design is robust enough we could return to having nominal land landings.”

One challenge for the Constellation program has been getting the CEV light enough for the Ares rockets to be able to launch it, and therefore eliminating the 1500 lb airbags for landing has its appeal.

“The predominant design philosophy for Orion and Ares 1 has been that we are designing for lunar missions,” continued Hanley. “We will service the International Space Station within that set of capabilities. From that perspective, designing a lot of mass into the spacecraft just to enable land landings has not traded out to be an effective use of our performance. That’s the major consideration in play. Right behind that are life cycle costs.”

Making the decision of land vs. water is the goal for 2008 for the Constellation program. “We’ve studied and have cost estimates for water landings against the infrastructure costs of having multiple landing sites on land and they are comparable,” said Hanley. Right now, NASA is looking at a single target landing zone off the coast of California with one or two recovery vessels.

But they are keeping their options open for a land landing. “If the Orion team is able to come in at the preliminary design review later this next year with a concept for be able to land on land that is fairly robust but not cost a lot of mass to have to hurl to the moon and back, then it becomes an operational decision,” said Hanley.

There has been much debate about what type of landing would be best. “There’s been a lot of assumptions made that landing on land is going to be better, but there are lot of people in the technical community that do not buy into that,” said Hanley. “There’s been a lot of debate surrounding whether or not land landing truly is better from a life cycle cost perspective and there isn’t a lot of quantitative data to really pull from.”

Hanley feels there are assumptions being made but not a lot of substantive date to clarify what the right answer is. So the next steps are to get the spacecraft to a detailed preliminary design and really interrogate the water vs. land issue. That includes further developing the operational concepts , such as how long does the capsule stay in the water, and what loads does the spacecraft see from landing on water and land. Those are all questions that need to be answered in order to make a final decision on the type of landing that will be used.

Stay tuned, as 2008 should be a year of decision for many details about Constellation and the CEV.

Original News Source: NASA News Audio

December 7, 2007December 26, 2015 by Nancy Atkinson

Shuttle Launch No Earlier Than Saturday

The crew of STS-122 and the Columbus science module will have to wait a little longer for their ride to space. The launch of space shuttle Atlantis has been pushed back to no earlier than Saturday, December 8. After assessing the problem with the engine cutoff sensors that scrubbed Thursdayâ€™s scheduled liftoff, NASAâ€™s Mission Management Team decided they needed more time to look at the problem. But even a Saturday launch is a best-case scenario, and further delays loom as a possibility.

Engineers continue to examine the circuitry and NASA will hold a briefing at 5 pm EST today to announce when another launch will be attempted. A Saturday launch would be at 3:43 pm and Sunday at 3:20 pm EST. The forecast for Saturday calls for a 60 percent chance of good weather, improving to 70 percent on Sunday.

Based on data received during fueling on Thursday, engineers believe the problem may involve an open circuit between the sensors in the hydrogen portion of the external fuel tank and an electronic box in the shuttle main engine compartment. Two of four sensors failed in a test that is routinely done during tanking. The fuel cutoff sensor system is one of several that protect the shuttle’s main engines by triggering their shut down if fuel runs unexpectedly low. Launch Commit Criteria require that three of the four sensor systems function properly before liftoff. The sensors also gave another false reading while the tank was being emptied, but are now currently indicating correctly the tank is dry.

The current launch window closes on December 13. If the shuttle canâ€™t launch before then, the next earliest launch date wouldnâ€™t be until January 2. While NASA officials initially said they would try to launch today, after a five hour meeting the Mission Management Team decided to hold off for another day. â€œWe need more time,â€? said LeRoy Cain, Chairman of the MMT. â€œThis (problem) is a little bit new, so we want to sleep on it. I can almost guarantee you we will have some new thinking after we let this team go home and rest.”

Since engineers think the problem lies in an open circuit, currently, NASA doesnâ€™t believe any major repairs in hardware will need to be done, which would cause a longer delay for the launch.

â€œWe’re still hoping, and have reason to believe, that we’re going to get off in December,” said Doug Lyons, NASA’s shuttle launch director, “and that’s what we’re shooting for.”

Atlantis will carry the crew of STS-122 to the International Space Station to deliver the Columbus Science Module. Columbus is the European Space Agencyâ€™s major contribution the ISS.

Officials from the ESA were disappointed in the delays, but said that safety is most important. “This is perfectly normal,” said Alan Thirkettle, the ESA’s space station program manager, of the launch delay. “We want to launch on time, but we want to launch right.”

Original News Source: NASA TV