NASA & ATK Turn Sand to Glass With DM-2 Test

The day before the DM-2 test storm clouds loom over ATK's rocket garden. Photo Credit: Jason Rhian

 

The deserts of Promontory, Utah came alive with fire as NASA and Alliant Techsystems (ATK) tested the Development Motor-2 (DM-2). The five-segment, first-stage of the Ares rocket was activated at 9:27 a.m. MDT on Aug. 31. The still morning air surrendered its silence to the sound of unleashed technological thunder. The surrounding countryside was bathed in the colors of flame as a huge plume of hot exhaust and smoke shot out the back of the solid motor. However, ATK was racking up another successful test – to a system with a future in doubt.

The DM-2 is a test-article for the Ares family of rockets, which as part of the Constellation Program, has been targeted for cancellation. President Obama has worked since the beginning of this year to scrap almost every element of the Constellation Program. These plans to transform the U.S. manned space program have cost him support across the country – and within his own party.

Obama’s new agenda for NASA caused a strong Congressional reaction, with two separate bills drafted countering the White House’s proposal. These bills are attempting to seek a “middle-ground” between the “program of record” (Constellation) and the new Obama plan. Both the House and Senate issued competing (and radically different) bills. As it currently stands, NASA has no clear path forward and is kept in a holding pattern until the future of U.S. manned space flight is determined by lawmakers in Washington D.C. This leaves the fate of the Ares family of rockets up in the air. 

[/caption]

Despite concerns about what ATK’s future may hold – company personnel remained optimistic. They cite the fact that in terms of technical expertise and know-how, few companies can compete with the experience that the Maryland-based rocket manufacturer has. 

“In terms of harnessing this kind of energy, it’s a very challenging engineering task,” said Charlie Precourt, a four-time shuttle astronaut and ATK’s vice president and general manager of Space Launch Systems. “The skills required to complete these engineering tasks is being addressed by the decision-makers, to ensure that the critical skills and the performance capabilities that we have build up over many years endure into the next generation.”

ATK prepares the Development Motor-2 for its test. Image Credit: ATK

ATK meanwhile continues to work on other components of the Ares and Orion systems. The Launch Abort System (LAS), parachute system for the upper Ares upper stage, and Attitude Control Motor (ACM) are all built by ATK and tested by the firm’s technicians and engineers.

The DM-2 test was conducted to gain data on some 53 designs incorporated in this system. Some of the elements tested include the redesigned rocket nozzle, new insulation used in this design and the motor casing’s liner. When activated the DM-2 produced an estimated 3.6 million pounds of thrust – equaling 22 million horsepower.  The motor had 760 instruments incorporated into it these instruments worked to collect vital information regarding the rocket’s performance when it was fired. This makes the test fire of the DM-2 the most heavily-instrumented solid rocket motor test in NASA history. 

Senator Orrin Hatch attended the Aug. 31 test firing of ATK's DM-2 rocket. Photo Credit: Jason Rhian

The horizontal ground test firing is what is known as a “cold motor” test. This is accomplished by chilling the DM-2 down to 40 degrees F. This is done to measure how the motor performs at very low temperatures. The test also was held to prove out design specifications of new materials used in the motor joints.

These new elements will eliminate the need for the joint heaters that are currently used. (these heaters were required in the 4-segment version of the motor’s design). It is hoped that with the addition of these new modifications weight will be dramatically reduced, launch operations will be simplified and the overall system will be far less complex. 

DM-2 is a combination of Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) segments that have flown on 57 shuttle missions total. These segments are recycled after every mission. Once they have been jettisoned from the space shuttle they are recovered out in the Atlantic Ocean by recovery ships (named Freedom Star and Liberty Star). From there, they are shipped back to ATK’s plant where they are broken down into segments again and refurbished for the next mission.

ATK highlighted that most space-faring nations utilize solid rocket motors for their space flight programs. The U.S., Japan and Europe all incorporate solid rocket into their launch vehicles.

“If you look at the physics of putting something in space, you have to get to this magic speed of 17,500 miles-per-hour,” said Michael Bllomfield, three-time shuttle astronaut who now ATK’s vice president of Johnson Space Center (JSC) Operations. “the most efficient launch profile uses a combination of solids and liquids.”

The day prior to the test ominous storm clouds had encircled ATK’s test site. The rain and lightning that followed seem to underscore the condition in which the solid rocket manufacturer now finds itself. The following day they went about their duties despite the uncertainty that they currently face. With the shuttle program coming to an end and the future use of solid rockets placed in doubt, only time will tell if the company that provided the U.S. space program with its heavy lift capabilities for the past 30 years can weather the storm.

NASA and ATK Test Fire DM-2

Is There Life On Other Planets

Temperature of Mars
What is the Temperature of Mars? Image credit: NASA/JPL

[/caption]

Is there life on other planets? That has been a question raised from the early beginnings of science fiction. The notion was scoffed at as pure mind play for dreamers and the occasional grifter selling rides to the Moon. At least it was until we were able to reach into space and discover new facts and gather new intel.

The possibility of life on Mars(outside sci-fi books) had been proposed as early as the 1950’s, but there was no real way to prove or disprove the theory until the launch of Mariner 4 in 1965. The spacecraft was able to return the first photographs of the planet’s surface. The news was all bad for those who had hoped for signs of life on the planet. The surface was too extreme and desolate for any type of known life form. The Voyager probes found radiolabeled carbon dioxide, but no organic molecules. Those results give mixed signals and are inconclusive at best. The results have been used to support the possibility of a microorganism named Gillevinia straata.

The Phoenix lander touched down on the Martian surface in May of 2008. The lander dug a trench on the area of the northern pole. No bacteria was found but the samples did contain bound water and carbon dioxide. The most positive evidence of life in the Martian past are meteorites from the planet. 34 exist and 3 show signs of microscopic fossilized bacteria.

Another viable possibility for life on other planets would be those similar to Gliese 581c. These planets are within the habitable zone(for human life) of their main sequence star. These planets appear to have a temperature that would allow liquid water and atmosphere’s that seem spectroscopically close to Earth’s. The information that is needed would detail the greenhouse effect on these planets. If that was available, we would be able to determine suitability for human life.

All of our efforts to answer the question ‘Is there life on other planets?’ are based on finding life that is similar to that on Earth. That is a typically arrogant line of research. Where is it written that the Earth type of life form is pervasive?

We have written many articles about the possibility of life on other planets for Universe Today. Here’s an article about the life on other planets, and here’s an article about life on Mars.

If you’d like more info on the search for life on other planets, check out the NASA Astrobiology Institute Homepage, and here’s a link to NASA Planet Quest: Finding Life.

We’ve also recorded an entire episode of Astronomy Cast all about the Future of Astronomy. Listen here, Episode 188: The Future of Astronomy.

James Cameron and ‘Avatar’ Help Promote NASA’s Exploration

Can’t get enough of “Avatar?” Now, you can see James Cameron and scenes from the 3-D epic on NASA TV and elsewhere, promoting the many contributions of NASA’s Earth science program that helps enable exploration of our home planet, as well as making the public more environmentally aware. NASA has 14 science satellites in orbit making cutting-edge global observations of the entire global system including the atmosphere, oceans, land surface, snow and ice.

“When NASA ventures into space, it remembers to keep a steady eye on home,” Cameron said. “Its fleet of Earth-orbiting satellites constantly reveals our whole planet: its remotest places, its mysteries and the powerful influence of humans.”

The movie “Avatar,” depicts the fictional planet of Pandora and is coming back to theaters this week. The story centers on a beautiful planet threatened by forces that want to exploit its natural resources.

NASA Decision Afoot in Congress?

SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket at Cape Canaveral. Credit: SpaceX

[/caption]

The US House of Representatives are preparing to vote on H.R. 5781, their version of NASA’s $19 billion budget authorization for fiscal year 2011, and several groups are calling for a “no” vote, or at the very least, a delay in the vote, currently scheduled for Friday, July 30. The House version would cut much of the proposed money for commercial space development and game-changing technology development, while putting more money towards a NASA-built rocket. There’s a lot being written about this …

Here are some great articles/resources to check out:

Space Politics by Jeff Foust shares an email from SpaceX founder Elon Musk asking for US citizens to contact their representatives to vote no. (There are instructions there on how to contact your representative, as well).

The Planetary Society put out a press release asking for a delay in the vote until there’s been more discussion and debate.

Alan Boyle at MSNBC writes about the “Showdown Over Space Policy”

More on the inside stuff going on in Washington regarding NASA from Space News.

If you are undecided, take a look at this comparison of the House and Senate versions of the bill from The Space Foundation.

Rand Simberg from Popular Mechanics asks, “Is NASA being set up to fail again?”

Irene Klotz at Discovery Space uncovered some stealth funding for Constellation hidden in a bill regarding the war in Afghanistan.

The people behind the DIRECT launcher call for support of the Senate version of the bill, not the House’s.

ADDED on 7/30/2010:

Space News now reports that a vote on the NASA bill appears unlikely until September.

Here’s a pdf letter from two unions, the International Federation of Professional & Technical Employees (IFPTE) and the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) who both oppose the House NASA Reauthorization bill, HR 5781.

Is the Moon Really a ‘Been There Done That’ World?

Moon
Moon

[/caption]

If there’s only one thing we’ve learned from all the highly successful recent Moon missions – the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, LCROSS, Chandrayaan-1 and Kaguya — it’s that the Moon is perplexingly different from our perceptions of the past 40 years. The discovery of water and volatiles across the surface and in the permanently shadowed regions at the poles changes so many of the notions we’ve had about Earth’s constant companion. Basically, just within the past year we’ve realized the Moon is not a dry, barren, boring place, but a wetter, richer and more interesting destination than we ever imagined. And so, the proposal for NASA to effectively turn away from any human missions to the Moon, as well as Administrator Charlie Bolden’s ‘been there, done that’ comments is quite perplexing – especially for the lunar scientists who have been making these discoveries.

“It’s been quite a year for the Moon,” said Clive Neal, a lunar geologist from Notre Dame, speaking last week at the NASA Lunar Science Institute’s annual Lunar Forum at Ames Research Center. “And things got quite depressing around February 2010.”

That’s when President Obama proposed a new budget that effectively would end the Constellation program and a return to the Moon.

At the Forum, lunar scientists shared their most recent findings – as well as their attempts to model and comprehend all the data that is not yet understood. But they saved any discussion of NASA’s future until the final presentation of the meeting.

“Hopefully this talk will stop you from running out of here ready to hang yourself or slit your wrists,” quipped Neal, who led the final session.

The week began, however, with keynote speaker Andrew Chaikin – author of the Apollo ‘bible,’ “A Man on the Moon,” and several other space-related books — saying, “We have to erase that horrendous ‘been there done that’ notion.” Chaikin also shared a famous Peanuts cartoon showing Lucy pulling the football out from under from Charlie Brown. No caption was needed for everyone to understand to what Chaikin was referring.

“With all of these new discoveries, we should have ample reason to believe that humans will follow,” said Chaikin. But right now, he added, the man in the Moon looks a little like Rodney Dangerfield. “The Moon wants – and deserves – respect.”

“It appears NASA’s focus might be shifting to Near Earth Objects,” said Neal, “but the Moon is the nearest Near Earth Object. It’s quicker, safer and cheaper to get humans there, and the important thing to recognized that there’s a lot left to explore, and a lot to do on the Moon.”

Only 5% of the Moon’s surface has been explored by humans, and Neal showed scaled maps of the Apollo landing sites overlaid on maps of Africa, Europe and the US, revealing just how small a portion of the Moon has been explored directly by humans. The map below shows the Apollo 11 crew’s movement on the Moon can fit within the size of a soccer (football) field.

Apollo 11 VS. a soccer (football) field. Credit: NASA History website. Click for larger version.

Additionally, the latest data reveal that the Apollo sites were in no way representative of the entire Moon.
In light of the proposed plan to give up on the Moon, Neal said there probably is a lot of misperceptions by the American public, as well as in other countries that there’s nothing to do or learn at the Moon. But he believes nothing could be further from the truth.

“What we’ve heard over the last couple of days are fantastic talks and seen wonderful posters in regard to the vibrancy of lunar exploration and science, and seen that exploration enables science and that science enables exploration. The Moon is a Rosetta Stone for solar system exploration and science. The recognition of a possible lunar magma ocean has resulted in terrestrial and Martian magma oceans being proposed. This could be the way terrestrial planets evolve and the Moon is begging us to go back and explore to figure that out.”

There’s also the studies of preserved impacts on the lunar surface which represents a look back in time where we can figure out how to do date planetary surfaces, test cataclysm hypotheses, and study how airless bodies undergo space weathering, which has a direct application to NEO research. Studying cold trap deposits has direct applicability to learning more about the planet Mercury, and lunar regolith contains information about the history of our Sun.

There are proposals for doing radio astronomy from the lunar farside, which will probe the dark ages of the Universe and look back to when the first stars turned on. “So the Moon is a gateway to the Universe,” Neal said. “You can do so much more with the moon — its not just the moon, it’s the solar system and beyond.”

In addition there are many unresolved scientific questions about the Moon. What are the locations and origins of shallow Moon quakes, and large lunar seismic events? How does the lunar regolith affect transmission of seismic energy? What is the nature of the lunar volatiles in the permanently shadowed regions at the lunar poles? What is the mechanism for the adsorption of water, hydroxyl and other minerals recently found on the Moon’s surface? What is nature of lunar core?

When Constellation was proposed, returning to the Moon was said to be a testbed for going on to Mars. It would be a safe and more economical way to test out systems and technology needed for going to the Red Planet. So, what has changed?

Primarily the budget. There weren’t enough funds in Constellation’s coffers to go to the Moon and then Mars. It primarily became a Moon-only program, which many said, didn’t bring us to the “real” destination that everyone really wants: Mars.

And money is still the real issue for not returning to the Moon in the new proposals of going to NEO’s and then Mars. If money weren’t an object, we’d do it all.

But the Moon offers a great local to test out human missions to Mars. “The Moon offers one-sixth of Earth’s gravity,” Neal said,” and we do not know what happens to the human body over time in that gravity, and we can only extrapolate what happens there and on Mars’ one-third gravity. We could test out life support, the growth of crops, the radiation environment and more. The ‘feed forward’ there is quite important where you can simulate a Mars mission on Moon. To develop and test your radiation shielding in the real environment on the Moon is more of a test than flying on the space station.”

Both Neal and Chaikin said they could go on and on about the benefits of returning to the Moon, and they also book-ended the Lunar Forum by saying it is up to the lunar scientists and Moon enthusiasts to educate the public, other scientists and even NASA about the importance of the Moon.

“We have to do a better job of educating the public – even dealing with the conspiracy theorists,” Neal said. “We need to get into schools and educate about what NASA has done, and what they are doing now. We all take responsibility for that.”

“The Moon is not going to get the respect it deserves unless people are out there talking about it,” said Chaikin.

Senate’s New NASA Plan: Heavy Lift, Extra Shuttle Mission, Less Commericial and Tech Development

NASA's 'meatball' logo.

The U.S. Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation today unanimously approved legislation that would add a shuttle mission and jump start work on a heavy-lift rocket next year. The NASA Reauthorization Act effectively cancels the Constellation program, but directs NASA to begin work immediately on a new heavy-lift vehicle to be ready by 2016, along with a crew vehicle. The new legislation takes money away, however, from two main focuses on Obama’s proposed budget: commercial space development and funding for innovation and breakthrough technologies.

Commercial space ventures would only get $1.6 billion for development in the next three years, as opposed to Obama’s plan for $3.3 billion on commercial rocket companies between 2011 and 2013.

Obama had proposed $6 billion over five years for technology development whereas the new Senate bill funds advanced technologies at about $950 million over three years.

Both of these components are a big disappointment for those looking towards the future and not necessarily honing in on the short-term of the next few years.

The plan, mainly spearheaded by Florida Senator Bill Nelson is said to be a compromise between Obama’s plan and those in Congress who opposed it.

“The goal was to preserve U.S. leadership in space exploration and keep as much of the rocket-industry talent as possible employed,” said Nelson, following Thursday’s unanimous approval of the authorization bill.

Nelson said extending the space shuttle into 2011 keeps much of the KSC workforce in place and advances heavy-lift rocket development, with an eye toward manned flights nearly a decade earlier than 2025, as had been proposed by the White House. It also provides the money for operating the International Space Station through 2020.

Some, including business and space advocates on the Space Coast, were critical of the draft bill because it scaled back President Obama’s proposed funding for that program and for technology development, both of which could create jobs.

The heavy lift development would be started now instead of 2015, as proposed by Obama.

But is creating a heavy-lift vehicle by 2016 doable, or is it basically asking NASA to do too much with too little – to which Constellation fell victim?

Although Nelson said the bill would support an overall growth in science, aeronautics, and space technology and define a long-term goal for human space flight to expand a permanent human presence beyond low-Earth orbit, no particular destination was cited.

The ISS would remain funded until 2020.

Here are they key differences between Obama’s budget plan and the Senate’s Reauthorization Act:

Space Shuttle
Obama: end in February, 2011
Senate: end in late summer, 2011

Commercial Space:
Obama: $3.3 billion for 2011-2013
Senate: $1.6 billion during the same time period

Constellation Program
Obama: Cancel, but continue with a “lite” version of the Orion space capsule
Senate: Cancel but accelerate development of a heavy-lift rocket that can also carry astronauts to low-earth orbit and continue development of an Orion-like space capsule

Technology Development
Obama: Fund Flagship Technologies program at $6 billion over five years
Senate: Fund advanced technologies at about $950 million over three years

For education the new bill would support new education initiatives, such as teacher training programs, to reinforce NASA’s role in developing a workforce with strong science, technology, engineering, and mathematics skills.

The bill would require NASA to look at alternative management models for NASA’s workforce, centers, and capabilities, while enforcing short-term prohibitions on major center displacements and reductions-in-force until a job study is completed.

Weigh in on your opinions below. What’s next? The White House will probably respond with another compromise, and those who work at NASA will remain in limbo while another compromise is worked on.

Further reading:
Nelson Press Release of NASA 2010 Reauthorization Act
Orlando Sentinel: Better Course on Space
Houston Chronicle: (Sci Guy) White House May be Inclined to Support Senate Bill
Letter from former astronauts supporting Commercial Crew Transport
Letter from former astronauts against Obama plan (MSNBC)

Your Chance to Weigh in on NASA’s Future Destinations

NASA's 'meatball' logo.

Where do you think NASA’s next destination should be in space? Asteroid? The Moon? Mars? The Planetary Society is hosting an interactive Ustream chat where you can put in your 2 cents.

“Tell us where you want to go in space!” said Bill Nye (the Science Guy) who will soon become the Planetary Society’s new executive director. Nye and Louis Friedman, the Society’s current executive director, will host the live chat – titled “The New NASA Plan – Destinations” — on Wednesday, July 14, 2010 at 2:00 pm U.S. Pacific Time (5:00 pm EDT, 21:00 GMT).
“We want a lively debate!” said Friedman, who urges anyone to join the discussion.

The Planetary Society has been actively encouraging discussion of the new plan proposed for NASA, a plan that would entail a major shift in NASA’s human spaceflight program. The Society leadership feels that it is vital that public interest be represented in discussing issues that will change the course of the US space program for decades to come.

The new NASA plan for human spaceflight focuses on technologies and milestones that will advance human space flight out of Earth orbit and into the solar system. Mars may be the ultimate goal, but the path for humans to set foot on the Red Planet is flexible, to be determined step-by-step.

The Planetary Society plans to continue to hold webcasts on topics such as the deep space rocket, use of commercial launch vehicles, and robotic precursor missions.

Those wishing to participate in the Ustream chat room or to ask questions will need to set up a free account with Ustream prior to the start of the event. The New NASA Plan — Destinations will also be archived on Ustream for later viewing.

John Glenn: Keep the Space Shuttles Flying

John Glenn
John Glenn flew on the space shuttle in 1998. Credit: NASA

[/caption]

US spaceflight legend John Glenn has weighed in on the current human spaceflight debate, releasing an 8-page paper outlining his feelings and a potential plan to allow US astronauts to keep launching on US vehicles. While Glenn supports President Barack Obama’s plan to extend operations of the International Space Station and to forego returning to the Moon for the time being, he thinks retiring the space shuttles at this point is a mistake.

“The world’s only heavy lift spacecraft and the U.S.’s only access to space should stay in operation until suitably replaced by a new and well tested heavy lift vehicle,” Glenn wrote. “The Shuttle system is working extremely well, has had systems upgrades through the years, and has had “the bugs” worked out of it through many years of use. The Shuttle is probably the most complex vehicle ever assembled and flies in the harshest of environments. Why terminate a perfectly good system that has been made more safe and reliable through many years of development?”

But Glenn said the US also needs to develop heavy lift capability, and do it sooner rather than later. And while he supports the plan for NASA to contract with commercial companies to ferry astronauts and some cargo to and from the ISS, he also said NASA can’t rely solely on commercial space vehicles, which at present are unproven in their reliability.

Keeping the space shuttle program going would cost about $1 Billion a year. “That is a very small price to pay for maximizing the benefits from a $100 Billion national investment, and may even be cheaper than the final bill from the Russians,” Glenn said.

He blames NASA’s current predicament on Congress for not adequately funding the Constellation program.

He erred, however, in his statement that the “U.S. for the first time since the beginning of the Space Age will have no way to launch anyone into space – starting next January.” NASA did not launch humans into space from July 1975 to April 1981 – the end of Apollo and Skylab until the beginning of the shuttle era, as well as when spacecraft were grounded following the Apollo 1 fire in 1967, the Challenger accident in 1986 and the Columbia accident in 2003.

Glenn is the latest former astronaut to join the debate on NASA’s future and while some ex-astronauts are staunchly against cutting the Constellation program to return to the Moon, and others wholly endorse the plan, Glenn seemingly takes a middle ground.

Here are his suggested objectives:

Short Term
Extend the Shuttle. It is key to ISS ready access. Phase-in new space access providers only as they become experienced and have proven reliability.

Maximize research on the ISS – plan with the science community.

Use the ISS for long term Mars mission training.

Develop a fully tested replacement heavy-lift capability.

Long Term

Robotic exploration of Mars and other destinations such as asteroids.

Continue ISS research as long as it is making substantial contributions.

Increase preparation and planning for a Mars mission.

Determine – earth-to-Mars, or assembled-in-earth-orbit – to Mars.

Set a firm schedule –Go for Mars.

You can read Glenn’s full statement here.

This is not the first time Glenn has proposed to keep the shuttles flying. In 2008, he said “The shuttles may be old, but they’re still the most complex vehicles ever put together by people, and they’re still working very well,” he said after a Capitol Hill ceremony marking NASA’s 50th anniversary.

Needed: Plutonium-238

Space Probes
Cassini orbiting Saturn. Credit: NASA

[/caption]

Sometimes people ask what they, as a regular citizen can do to help NASA. Emily Lakdawalla at the Planetary Society Blog posted this today, and this is definitely something to write to members of Congress about. NASA is running out of plutonium-238, which is used to power deep space probes, but it’s unclear whether Congress will provide the $30 million that has been requested for the Department of Energy to start new production.

Plutonium-238 has powered dozens of spacecraft, including the Voyager probes, the Galileo mission to Jupiter, and the Cassini spacecraft that is currently sending back such amazing images of Saturn’s rings and moons. Because of spacecraft powered by plutonium-238, we now know — among other things — that there are volcanoes on Jupiter’s moon Io and geysers on Saturn’s moon Enceladus.

Plutonium-238 was a by-product of Cold War activities, and the U.S. has not made any new supplies since the 1980s. Since 1993, all of the plutonium-238 the US has used in space probes has been purchased from Russia. It’s not the same as plutonium-239, which is used in nuclear weapons; a small marshmallow-sized pellet of plutonium-238 gives off heat, which is used to power spacecraft that can’t rely solely on energy from solar panels. Without this energy source, future missions could be canceled.

Emily posted this letter from the chair of the Division of Planetary Sciences of the American Astronomical Society Candy Hansen:

Members of the DPS Federal Relations Subcommittee and the DPS committee carried out our annual “Hill” visits May 13 to key members of Congress. We had two messages – restart domestic production of plutonium-238, and our concerns about R&A carry-over language. With regards to the production of plutonium-238, we are not out of the woods. We still need to convince the members of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water that this is a critical need right now – that NASA is already curtailing missions to the outer solar system, and anywhere else plutonium-238 is required (the New Frontiers 3 Announcement of Opportunity ruled out missions which require plutonium-238).

In particular we need constituents of the following states to write letters:

Senate Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development:
Dorgan (ND)
Byrd (WV)
Feinstein (CA)
Bennett (UT)
Hutchison (TX)
Murray (WA)
Bond (MO)
Alexander (TN)
Shelby (AL)

Also, Johnson (SD), Cochran (MS), Harkin (IA), Landrieu (LA), Lautenberg (NJ), McConnell (KY), Reed (RI), Tester (MT), Voinovich (OH).

If these are your representatives we need you to write:

House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development:
Visclosky (IN)
Frelinghuysen (NJ)
Edwards (MD)
Pastor (AZ)
Davis (TN)

Or you live in these districts: IN-01, TX-17, AR-01, PA-02, NY-02, OH-17, MA-01, TN-04, CO-03, NJ-11, TN-03, ID-02, MT, CA-44 and LA-05.

We have a handout that you may wish to send with your letter.

For more background and a letter template, see this page.

Thanks for your efforts!

Candy Hansen