Cube Satellite Keychains

By Aleks Bologna, Small Satellite Space News

Don't ask me why but I started 3D printing Cube Satellite Keychains. For what purpose you might ask? Honestly, I don't know why I started doing it, maybe its the lack of gimmick products that exist in small satellites due to the average intelligence of the someone who even knows what a cube sat is. I actually talked to the head purchaser of NASA's Kennedy Space Center gift shop to see if they would be interested in placing it in their stores. Having done professional consumer products in the past I knew that in a gift shop with "average" people in it, if a 12 year old can't understand and like your product within 3 seconds then most "average" people will have no clue what your product is or if they should like it or not. To test this "12 year old" theory I stopped every little kid I could find while on the way to the purchasing department within the Kennedy Space Center and asked them what they thought of my keychain. The responses were deflating as I heard "milk carton, crate, box for flowers, hipster square and cat toy". This is not what you want to hear when your about to walk into a meeting to pitch your product. In fact, even the head purchaser of the Kennedy Space Center gift shop had never heard of cube satellite despite the fact my tags I placed on the keychains actually had a picture of a cube satellite in space and explained their purpose. He seemed lukewarm to the idea of placing it in the store due to the unrecognizable features of the satellite chassis, but thanked me and said he would "shop it around" the department to see if it had any merit as another gimmick to include in the shop.

I walked out thinking I needed to revisit why I came up with these dumb keychains in the first place. Did I do it for fun? For profit? Maybe I did it because I thought some kid like me would want to have an actual satellite replica on his keychain or bedside stand at the age of 6. I don't know for sure what I was thinking 3 weeks prior, but what I did figure out is that cube satellites despite being "all the rage" in space circles they are still relatively unknown to the rest of the human population. I wondered what kind of publicity these things would be getting in 10 years, or if they would kind of just fade away as a side note in history as some sort of short lived Space Fad.

I think it will come down to how or when these little "milk cartons" as some little girl told me, will end up on the front page of USA Today or mainstream talk media. But for some talking head to explain these things in a 30 soundbite to some unwilling unknowing sucker watching the 5 o'clock news, I have to admit it might be a challenge. How long would it take you to explain these little flying bandits to your mother or daughter?

Case and point, I know this industry of Small Satellites is cool, but when is it going to be cool to everyone else. I keep hoping some girl I flirt with will know what these things are and be impressed by what I'm telling her, but that kind of talk seems to just ensure my bachelor status.

(Below are my failed attempts at making Small Satellites a gift shop consumer product)

New Zealand is about to become a major launch pad for satellites

OLIVIA CHANG JUL 25 2015, 2:02 PM Business Insider

Photo: rocketlabusa.com

New Zealand will soon be a major centre for putting satellites into orbit after Rocket Labsannounced plans to build a launch pad.

The US based company, which also has a subsidiary in New Zealand, aims to remove barriers to commercial space through frequent and cost-efficient launches for the small satellite market.

The company announced plans to build the launch site on Kaitorete Spit in the Canterbury region near Christchurch to launch Rocket Lab’s Electron launch vehicle which is designed to deliver small satellites to Low Earth Orbit.

According to Rocket Lab CEO, Peter Beck, New Zealand was chosen for its “technical, logistical and economic advantages” having previously been used for suborbital flights by NASA.

“New Zealand’s access to high inclination and sun-synchronous orbits are ideal for small satellites,” said Beck. 

“Operational logistics are made easier due to New Zealand’s minimal air and sea traffic which enables a significantly more frequent launch rate and economies of scale.”

With traditional rocket systems face long waiting lists and are neither flexible for small payloads, Rocket Labs opted to build its own launch with plans to make 100 launches a year. 

“At present, the lead-times for satellite launches are years, and small satellite companies cannot reach orbit in timeframes that keep their businesses competitive,” says Beck.

Users of the site will be able to launch imaging and communications satellites for weather monitoring, natural disaster management as well as GPS and internet from space.

“Creating and operating our own launch site is a necessity to meet the demands of our growing customer manifest,” says Beck.

“With the launch frequency possible from this site, Rocket Lab is one major step closer to its goal of making space commercially accessible.”

A payload into orbit is expected to launch before the end of this year.

Clusters of living worlds would hint life came from outer space

By Joshua Sokol, New Scientist

Panspermia would give rise to some lively stellar neighbourhoods (Image: NASA/JPL-Caltech)

Does life spread like an interstellar infection? If we spot it on clusters of planets, that might suggest it doesn’t stay put wherever it evolves.

The theory that life crosses space to reach new worlds, called panspermia, is hard to test. Life on Earth could have been seeded by just one microbe-laden rock, but there are too many rocks to check, even if we had a foolproof test for extraterrestrial life.

“That’s not a very effective strategy of testing whether life came from outer space,” says Henry Lin of Harvard University. He says the answer lies in mapping life across the galaxy.

Future probes like NASA’S James Webb Space Telescope will scrutinise the atmospheres of planets in other solar systems for possible signs of biological activity. If life spreads between planets, inhabited worlds should clump in space like colonies of bacteria on a Petri dish. Otherwise, Lin says, its signature would be seen on just a few, randomly scattered planets.

Radiating life

Lin argues that if we find 25 worlds with life on one side of the sky and 25 lifeless ones on the other, it might mean the sun sits on the edge of a panspermia bubble – a strong sign that life radiated outward. “We would have smoking-gun evidence that panspermia actually happens,” he says.

But panspermia would be harder to confirm from the bubble’s centre. If there are biosignatures all around as far as we can see, for example, we can’t draw conclusions one way or the other. And if we see only scattered life, Lin says, that could suggest either that panspermia doesn’t happen or that it proceeds so slowly as to be rare.

Sara Seager of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, an expert on the hypothetical biosignatures the technique relies on, doubts Lin’s scenarios will come in handy any time soon. “It would be great if there’s a time in which we have so many biosignatures that we see clumps throughout the galaxy. But I don’t know when that time will be,” she says. “Until we find biosignatures we can’t actually proceed with any of this work.”

Whether we manage to detect biosignatures or not, Lin thinks his work might have a second life in the distant future, if humans achieve interstellar travel. The spread of humans and other organisms riding our coat-tails would follow the same growth pattern, he says.

“Even if panspermia doesn’t happen, we might be the ones to bring it about. Maybe this paper will be useful a thousand years from now,” he says.

Journal reference: arxiv.org/abs/1507.05614

Smithsonian raises $550,000 to preserve Neil Armstrong space suit

(CNN)- The 46 years since Neil Armstrong stepped on the moon have not lessened the sense of wonder of that that moment. But the decades have deteriorated Armstrong's iconic space suit, which for years has been locked away in climate-controlled storage. 

Now, a Kickstarter campaign will ensure that this piece of history goes back on display at the National Air and Space Museum to inspire generations.

Donors have pledged more than $550,000 to preserve the suit Armstrong wore on the historic 1969 Apollo 11 mission, surpassing the $500,000 goal set by the Smithsonian Institution.

The Smithsonian now hopes to raise more than $700,000 and preserve the suit worn in 1961 by Alan Shepard, the first American in space.

This crowdfunding effort is part of a new partnership between Kickstarter and the Smithsonian to bankroll a series of projects. 

More than 7,100 backers have contributed to the Reboot the Suit campaign to cover the cost of preserving Armstrong's suit and building a display case for it.

The space suit will headline a special Smithsonian exhibit on lunar exploration for the 50th anniversary of the moon landing in 2019.

National Air and Space Museum spokeswoman Alison Mitchell said the crowdfunding effort allows space buffs to help protect history.

"We're really excited about it because we're able to involve a lot more people at a grass-roots level," she said. 

Private funding and donations from individuals or corporations typically cover the costs of preserving and exhibiting artifacts. The Smithsonian receives federal funding only for its operating and maintenance budget.

Amy Ross, a suit engineer at NASA, said space suits are designed to withstand the requirements of being in space, not to last for decades. Polymers used in the suit's design are unstable and break down over time.

"This isn't a design flaw or an issue of mishandling," she said. "No consideration was given to preserving the suit as an artifact for 50 years after the flight."

The Smithsonian must address the gradual deterioration of all its space suits, which are among "the most fragile artifacts in our collection," Mitchell said.

Donors to the campaign will receive rewards based on their level of contribution, including special mission patches, a replica of a space glove and an invitation to the exhibit's unveiling. Every donor will get exclusive updates on the preservation process.

"We've never been able to lead people through our work in this way before," Mitchell said.

Part of that process involves digitizing the suit to create a 3-D model. Creating digital models of artifacts is an innovative process that is opening doors in sharing history, 3-D program officer Vince Rossi said.

"If you aren't able to come to the Smithsonian when this suit goes on display, you can access it online," he said. "It's another really amazing way to bring the Smithsonian into people's living's rooms."

A medical CT scanner will map the various layers of the suit, while visualization tools used in filmmaking will overlay color onto the 3-D model.

The team has done similar work with other historic artifacts, including the 1903 Wright Flyer and the U.S.S. Philadelphia, a gunboat that fought in the Revolutionary War. 

People around the world can take online tours of the artifacts or produce replicas with a 3-D printer, bringing pieces of history to living rooms and classrooms.

"This technology brings down the 'do not touch' idea of museums," Rossi said.

Report: U.S. Air Force May Need To Guarantee Number of Launches

by Mike Gruss — July 27, 2015

Retired Gen. Larry Welch, a former Air Force chief of staff, led the Broad Area Review 15. Credit: U.S. Air Force, Joseph Pagán

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Air Force may need to guarantee SpaceX and United Launch Alliance a set number of national security launches if the service hopes to have to two financially viable families of rockets available in the future, according to a report completed in April.

The report, formally known as Broad Area Review 15 and led by retired Gen. Larry Welch, a former Air Force chief of staff, raises anew a persistent question about the U.S. national security launch market: Is there enough business for two companies?

The report was commissioned by Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James in January following delays to the Air Force’s certification process for SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket. The process, which had been expected to be completed by the end of December, dragged on until June, when Falcon 9 was cleared to carry military payloads.

Advertisement

A copy of the report was released to SpaceNews in July.

“There is no assurance of a viable business case for two competitive providers,” the report said.

As a result, he said, the Air Force may need to “provide some number of assured launches to one provider to sustain two families” of rockets if it hopes to have competition for both medium- and heavy-class payloads. The report did not include specifics.

Denver-based ULA was created in 2006 by the merger of the government launch services businesses of Boeing and Lockheed Martin, and has enjoyed a monopoly in government market ever since. Previously the companies had been expected to compete for military business, with both relying on a robust commercial market to keep rocket production rates high and prices low. But the commercial market collapsed, leaving the government with sole responsibility for feeding two hungry mouths.

The combination of ULA’s high prices and the introduction of the privately funded Falcon 9 has driven the Air Force to reintroduce competition to the military market. The first of those competitive missions, to launch a GPS 3 satellite, is expected to be awarded later this year.

ULA currently operates the Delta 4 rocket family alongside the workhorse Atlas 5, but plans to phase out all but the heavy variant of the Delta 4 over the next few years due to its high costs. That, coupled with a congressional ban on future military use of the Russian-built engine that powers the Atlas 5, could eventually force ULA out of the market, the report said, a concern that has been voiced by Air Force officials in recent months.

ULA is developing a new rocket called Vulcan powered by a U.S.-built engine that the company hopes will keep it competitive in the future. But Tory Bruno, ULA’s president and chief executive, has repeatedly said the company needs commercial in addition to government business to remain viable, particularly in the next few years when government demand is expected to drop.

In what Welch describes as the most likely scenario, the report envisions a continued Delta 4 monopoly for the biggest national security payloads — there is no Atlas 5 heavy-lift variant — despite the fact that Hawthorne, California-based SpaceX is working on a Falcon Heavy rocket that is expected to make its first flight next year.

The Falcon 9 would have a monopoly for medium-class missions, the report said.

In essence, Welch appears to be warning the service not to repeat the mistake of counting on the commercial market to keep two healthy providers available to serve the government.

To that end, the report calls on the commander of Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center, which buys military space systems, to prepare a contingency plan to ensure that two providers stay in the national security market “in the face of lack of a viable business case for competitive launch services.”

Meanwhile, the report also suggests that the Air Force’s mission assurance requirements for launch have become too stringent, to the point of being unreasonable.

“There was not an expectation of the 100% launch success rate for [national security] payloads over the past decade,” the report says. “Nonetheless, this has become the standard.”

The report suggests that the Air Force follow a certification standard closer to NASA’s, which requires “significantly fewer resources, accepting more flexibility in processes, relying more on provider engineering processes, and conducting less independent testing.”

- See more at: http://spacenews.com

Report Says Commercial Partnerships Can Slash Costs of Human Lunar Missions

by Jeff Foust — July 24, 2015

Artist's concept of lunar base. Credit: Alliance for Space Development

WASHINGTON — A new report concludes that public-private partnerships, like those NASA has used in its commercial cargo and crew programs, could return humans to the moon for as little as $10 billion and within seven years.

The 100-page study, funded by NASA, concluded that an “evolvable lunar architecture” could eventually lead to a permanent human base at the lunar poles to convert water ice there for propellant that could be sold to NASA or other customers. However, those involved in the study acknowledge that the biggest obstacle to this approach may be convincing policymakers of the plan’s effectiveness.

“We basically say in this study that, in a step-by-step incremental fashion, leveraging commercial partnerships, you can return to the moon. It’s technically feasible,” said Charles Miller, president of NextGen Space, at a July 20 press conference here to unveil the report. 

Miller was lead author of the study, supported by a $100,000 contract from the Emerging Space Office of NASA’s Office of the Chief Technologist. Miller prepared the report with a team of veteran NASA officials, and it was reviewed by a 21-person independent review team chaired by former NASA executive Joe Rothenberg.

The report offers a three-phase approach for establishing a permanent human base on the moon. In the first phase, short-term “sortie” crewed missions would land in the moon’s equatorial regions, while robotic spacecraft scouted for sites at the lunar poles most likely to have accessible water ice.

Those sortie missions could be carried out primarily with launch vehicles and spacecraft existing or under development today. The concept described in the report uses SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch vehicles, Dragon spacecraft and a new lunar lander. An alternative approach, using United Launch Alliance’s Vulcan launch vehicle and Boeing’s CST-100 spacecraft, “is projected to be price competitive” with SpaceX, the report states, but was not studied in detail.

In the architecture’s second phase, human sortie missions would go to the lunar poles, testing technology for extracting ice and converting it into liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellants. The third phase creates a four-person permanent base to oversee production of 200 metric tons of propellant per year.

The report argues the best approach for at least phase one is a public-private partnership similar to what NASA used in for developing commercial cargo and crew transportation systems. Those efforts made use of funded Space Act Agreements rather than conventional contracts, and required companies to contribute funding.

Charles Miller, president of NextGen Space. Credit: National Press Club

“It’s technically feasible to leverage commercial systems to return to the moon five to seven years from authority to proceed,” Miller said. The estimated cost of achieveing that is $10 billion using two providers, which he said was important to maintain competition and reduce costs. The full cost through completion of the lunar base is about about $40 billion.

Members of the independent review team said they saw no major flaws with the study. “I think it’s very good,” said Christopher Kraft, former director of NASA’s Johnson Space Center, in a pre-recorded video shown at the press conference. He said the study’s projection of a first human landing on the moon within seven years is “very optimistic, but that’s not a bad thing at this point in time.”

“Our group, looking at the economic viability of the plan, found absolutely no showstoppers,” said Hoyt Davidson, managing partner of Near Earth LLC and another member of the review panel. “There are certainly more things that need to be studied, more issues that need to be addressed, but the bottom line is that we saw this as a doable business plan.”

The concept also got a conditional endorsement from Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin, who was not involved in the study. He supported its conclusions, but cautioned about taking too many resources from what he believes is the ultimate goal of establishing a human settlement on Mars. “I don’t think we want to get caught in the gravity well of the moon except for commercial activities,” he said, participating in the press conference by phone.

The next step for this concept is unclear, however. Miller said that while NASA is a “tremendous supporter” of the study, any decision to implement its recommendations rests outside the agency.

“It’s the elected leaders of our nation who decide what’s next,” he said. “If the White House and Congress would like NASA to look at taking the next step, I think NASA would be quite responsive.”

The key message of the study, Miller concluded, is that a human return to the moon could cost a fraction of the Apollo program. “We want to want to kill the idea that it has to cost hundreds of billions of dollars to go back to moon,” he said.

- See more at: http://spacenews.com

Lets go to prison......at the Kennedy Space Center

Last week after driving up North Merritt Island to the Kennedy Space Center, which if you have ever spoken to anyone who has visited it is in the middle of  nowhere. I was on my way for a standard visit for business related reasons, which means I have a security badge to enter and leave the visiting center by just showing it briefly at the gate.
But on this particular day I happened to not have it in my car, in fact my wallet decided to take a lunch break and hop out of the car as well. So looking back on it now, my unwitting self was driving into a Hurricane. Now I usually go around the back gate (which has more lax security guards) as I have even talked my way in without a badge or any identification before because, you know, its the back gate. But this fine morning near the ass crack of dawn I thought I might act more like a professional and go in through the front gate. Pulling in I handed "Rick" who's name will be excluded in this story to protect the innocent, "Rick" asked for my badge or identification. Looking desperately throughout my car in vain I looked at "Rick" and was about to tell him I didn't have it, which would have actually not have been a big deal at all. He would have just told me to go home (45 minute drive) and come back when I had it. Instead of doing that I remembered I had my old expired drivers license from a million years back when your mom took you to the DMV against your will and your picture looked like a prison photo, if you don't have one of these you are most likely not legally able to drive yet. So "Rick" takes my I.D, looks at it and says "Ok, you need to wait a second for me, just pull over to the side". This is immediately weird to me as normally they will just waive you thru if everything is fine, I conclude that my I.D must be the cause for concern while I'm waiting at the gate shoulder. After 20 minutes of fidgeting with the air conditioner and radio in the 100' degree heat I see a Kennedy Space Center Police Cruiser pull up to the gate and start talking to "Rick". He points my way half heatedly as if to make sure I didn't notice his pointing me out. Don't worry Rick, I saw you do it! He waives the Officer into the parking lot then waives me over and says "you need to speak with the Officer". I asked him what was wrong, but he said he "didn't know" and I pulled into the parking lot and drove slowly next to the Officer who was waiving me down into the parking spot next to him.
Now I'm getting nervous, but who wouldn't be right? I've broken no "serious" laws in the past month, I don't have any warrants out for my arrest, what the hell could this guy want? Lets just call this Officer "Don" as he sported a full on body armor suit and sunglasses that resembled something you wear after getting your eyes dilated at the eye doctor. "Don" motions me to open my window and jokingly asks me "Are you boy from Mexico?", I said in confusion "excuse me?". He replied "Are you a Donald Trump voter? Habla Ingleis?". I started laughing because I thought the guy was pulling my leg, he then gives me this stare where I thought he was going to pull his taser gun out and start poking me with the electrical end of it. He said "you try and sneak into a Federal Secure Facility with a fake, expired I.D? And now your laughing?". I said "No sir, its not fake, but it might be expired as I don't have my wallet or badge with me and I handed Rick the I.D. Why would you say its fake?". For those of you that don't know my full name is Aleksander Martin Bologna pronounced (Ba-Lone-Ya), but to normal Americans you can say I'm related to the Oscar Meyer Family. The cop "Don" got pissed "There ain't nobody named Aleks Bologna, you might as well say your name is McLovin". For those that don't know that's a movie reference to Superbad when a delinquent who tries to buy alcohol illegally with a Hawaii I.D with his full first and last name being "McLovin". I told "Don" I was not an illegal, or McLovin but held off on saying if I was a Trump voter or not. "Don" shook his head and walked back to his car and started to talk into his radio about my I.D. Another 10 minutes of back and forth and I heard the words from the radio operator "Aleks Bologna I.D number XXX-XX-XXXX". "Don" looked like he had just been struck by lightning. Slowly handing me the I.D back without saying a word he then gave me the loving parting words of "Get the fuck outta here" in his good ole' boy accent. I drove to the back gate and hid in fear for my life for the rest of the day.

I don't know why this story is so entertaining to me, maybe its the fact that I almost got arrested by NASA for not having a valid drivers license to show to a Rent a Cop security man, thanks "Rick". But the real bugger out of this is that a normal person doesn't think my name is real. I am a McLovin' of the working world. I dress up to look professional and play big boy pretend job with a fake, expired drivers license. 

I think "Don" is right, I need to quit the crap and move back to Mexico.

Icy Pluto Reignites Debate about NASA Planetary Funding

by Jonathan Charlton — July 29, 2015

John Grunsfeld speaking at a July 24 conference about recent Pluto discoveries. Credit: NASA

WASHINGTON — Two weeks after New Horizons’ Pluto flyby, NASA planetary science funding took center stage during a July 28 House Science Committee hearing.

New Horizons Principal Investigator Alan Stern testified before the committee along with other planetary scientists and senior NASA leaders. The witnesses discussed the agency’s achievements in planetary science and its goals for future missions.

Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas), chairman of the space subcommittee, applauded NASA’s efforts and criticized the White House for reducing planetary science funding, a decision that he says would limit future scientific missions beyond low Earth orbit. “Unfortunately,” Babin said, “year after year, the Obama administration has consistently cut funding and deprioritized NASA’s space exploration and planetary science.”

The Obama administration is asking Congress for $1.36 billion for planetary science for fiscal year 2016, which begins Oct. 1. While that is $80 million more than the $1.28 billion the administration requested for 2015, it is nearly $77 million less than the $1.44 billion Congress ultimately provided. Under the 5-year budget plan the White House sent Congress in February, planetary science spending would steadily grow to $1.53 billion by 2020.

But that’s not fast enough for the GOP-controlled House Science Committee, which pushed a two-year NASA authorization bill through the House in June that calls for giving NASA’s Planetary Science Division $1.5 billion in 2016 and 2017. The bill, H.R. 2039, would cover these increases in part by reducing NASA’s request for its Earth science and space technology.

House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said H.R. 2039 restores “crucial funds to science and exploration accounts.”

House appropriators took a similar view in drafting the 2016 Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations bill this spring. That bill, which passed the full House in early June, included $1.557 billion for planetary science — a $120 million increase over this year’s budget.

The Senate, meanwhile, hasn’t been as generous towards NASA or its Planetary Science Division. The Senate Appropriations Committee passed its own Commerce, Justice, Science spending bill in June that would provide just $1.32 billion for planetary science — $236 million below what the House wants and $40 million below what the White House says NASA needs.

The House and Senate also remain far apart of total NASA funding. The House has approved $18.529 billion — the same as the White House requested — while the Senate bill includes $18.29 billion, or roughly $239 million less.

Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.), the space subcommittee’s ranking Democrat, said that the United States is making great strides to explore the solar system. “However,” she said, “that progress has been made possible in large part by the investments in technology development that our predecessors had the foresight to fund.”

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden has criticized the House’s proposal to cut Earth science spending. “Decimating Earth science and saying that we’re going to Mars is not the right way to do it,” he said in May.

Asked what NASA could do with the House’s allocation of $1.5 billion for planetary science, John Grunsfeld, NASA’s associate administrator for science, told the House Science Committee July 28 that it would use the additional funds to keep the competitively selected Discovery and New Frontiers line of planetary missions on track and possibly increase their cadence. NASA generally launches Discovery-class missions every two to four years and New Frontiers missions every five years.

Alan Stern testifying before the House Science Committee July 28. (House Science Committee screen grab)

Stern testified that the public is largely supportive of planetary science missions. As proof, he cited the “viral” online presence of the New Horizons mission as well as the hundreds of media outlets that gave special attention to the Pluto flyby, putting Pluto’s picture on the front pages of newspapers and devoting airtime to hour-long TV specials.

Of particular interest to lawmakers was a future flagship-class mission Europa, which Grunsfeld says is scheduled to launch an orbiter to Jupiter sometime in the mid-to-late 2020s. Jupiter’s moon Europa is an attractive destination because the oceans beneath its icy crust could harbor life. “The goal will be to conduct detailed reconnaissance of Europa,” Grunsfeld said, “and to answer the big question, ‘Is Europa habitable?’”

Robert Pappalardo, a Europa mission project scientist with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, told lawmakers that NASA had finished the first major review of the mission. Now NASA will work through 2016 to iron out more details, he said, which includes identifying science requirements, estimating costs and calculating a timeline.

House lawmakers want NASA to spend $140 million on Europa-related work in 2016, or about five times more than NASA says the project needs at this stage.

NASA Says Commercial Crew Milestone Changes Don’t Affect Budget Request

by Jeff Foust — July 29, 2015

NASA astronauts Reid Wiseman and Barry “Butch” Wilmore met with senior leaders of the SpaceX during a June 24 visit to SpaceX’s Washington offices. (NASA/Joel Kowsky)

WASHINGTON — While acknowledging delays in interim milestones for its two commercial crew contracts, NASA officials said July 28 they still require the full funding requested for 2016 to avoid delays in the overall program.

In a presentation to the human exploration and operations committee of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC) meeting at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, agency officials said they risk having to issue stop-work orders to Boeing and SpaceX and renegotiate their contracts if Congress provides less than the $1.243 billion NASA requested in its original 2016 budget proposal.

“Near term, if there is a CR, we’re going to have really work hard to make sure we don’t slow the partners down.” — NASA’s Phil McAlister

“We still need $1.2 billion,” William Gerstenmaier, NASA associate administrator for human exploration and operations, said at the meeting. “We’re going to work hard to try to justify to the appropriations folks why we need that.”

Neither the House nor the Senate versions of appropriations bills provides full funding for the program. A bill the House passed June 3 provides $1 billion for commercial crew, while the Senate version, approved by the appropriations committee June 11, offers $900 million.

The report accompanying the Senate’s spending bill suggested one reason for the reduced amount was the perception that the program was running behind schedule. “To date, milestones intended to show progress in the development of the ISS Crew capability have already begun to be delayed,” the report stated.

At the NAC committee meeting, Phil McAlister, NASA’s director of commercial spaceflight development, said that NASA had agreed with the companies to move or otherwise change some contract milestones. Those changes include splitting some milestones in both contracts into two or more parts, he said, where it made sense to move some of the technical content of the original milestone into a later phase of development.

Despite changes to those interim milestones, the final milestone — a certification review where NASA approves the commercial crew system for transporting astronauts to and from the International Space Station — remains scheduled for September 2017 for both Boeing and SpaceX. “Both partners are making good progress,” McAlister said.

NASA astronauts Reid Wiseman, front left, and Barry “Butch” Wilmore thanked senior leaders from Boeing for continued work on the Boeing CST-100 spacecraft during a June 2 ,visit to Boeing offices in Arlington, Virginia. NASA plans to use spacecraft privately developed and operated by Boeing and SpaceX to carry as many as four astronauts per mission to the ISS. (NASA/Joel Kowsky)

Delaying interim milestones, and the payments associated with them, does not affect the budget request since the funds for each milestone are typically obligated months in advance. “Even though some milestones have moved around, and we’ve split a couple, the amount of money we need is essentially the same,” McAlister said. “If one moved a year later, it might affect it, but we haven’t seen any of that.”

“There’s no question about ’16,” Gerstenmaier said of the milestones and funding requirements for the program. “We can even move them three months further beyond where they currently are in the current schedule and we can still justify the same budget need for 2016.”

McAlister said that NASA was looking at how to keep the program going should the 2016 fiscal year start under a continuing resolution (CR) that would fund agency programs at 2015 levels, which for commercial crew is $805 million. “Near term, if there is a CR, we’re going to have really work hard to make sure we don’t slow the partners down,” he said. “I’m not sure how it’s going to happen, but we are looking at every possible avenue to make sure we can keep them going.”

Gerstenmaier added that NASA’s current planning anticipated operating under a CR when the fiscal year begins Oct. 1 through December. If a longer CR, including one that lasts all year, becomes likely, he said NASA might request an “anomaly” to the CR so that commercial crew could be funded above its 2015 level.

If funding for 2016 falls short of the original request, McAlister said NASA could be forced to issue a stop-work order to the companies and renegotiate the contracts to accommodate the lower funding levels. “The contractors are going to have to stop work,” he said. “That’s almost certainly going to extend the time that we’re reliant solely on the Russian Soyuz to meet our crew transportation needs.” He also noted that downselecting to a single company was not an option they were considering.

Gerstenmaier said he continues to discuss with congressional appropriators why the program requires the full amount of funding. “To be fair, this is a negotiation process,” he said. “We probably were not as clear as we could have been at the beginning when the [appropriations] marks came out. We’re pretty clear now in the way we’re presenting the need for the funding.”

'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours

The British designed EM Drive actually works and would dramatically speed up space travel, scientists have confirmed

By Sarah Knapton, Science Editor, video source 

EnvisionNation

6:09PM BST 28 Jul 2015

Interplanetary travel could be a step closer after scientists confirmed that an electromagnetic propulsion drive, which is fast enough to get to the Moon in four hours, actually works. 

The EM Drive was developed by the British inventor Roger Shawyer nearly 15 years ago but was ridiculed at the time as being scientifically impossible. 

It produces thrust by using solar power to generate multiple microwaves that move back and forth in an enclosed chamber. This means that until something fails or wears down, theoretically the engine could keep running forever without the need for rocket fuel. 

• NASA gets set for commercial supersonic flight

The drive, which has been likened to Star Trek’s Impulse Drive, has left scientists scratching their heads because it defies one of the fundamental concepts of physics – the conservation of momentum – which states that if something is propelled forward, something must be pushed in the opposite direction. So the forces inside the chamber should cancel each other out. 

Watch full interview by EnvisionNation

• Mankind to return to the moon in 2018 

However in recent years Nasa has confirmed that they believe it works and this week Martin Tajmar, a professor and chair for Space Systems at Dresden University of Technology in Germany also showed that it produces thrust. 

The drive is capable of producing thrust several thousand times greater than even a photon rocket and could get to Mars within 70 days or Pluto within 18 months. A trip to Alpha Centauri, which would take tens of thousands of years to reach right now, could be reached in just 100 years. 

"Our test campaign cannot confirm or refute the claims of the EM Drive but intends to independently assess possible side-effects in the measurements methods used so far," said Prof Tajmar. 

"Nevertheless, we do observe thrust close to the actual predictions after eliminating many possible error sources that should warrant further investigation into the phenomena." 

^{The EM Drive} 

"Our measurements reveal thrusts as expected from previous claims after carefully studying thermal and electromagnetic interferences. 

"If true, this could certainly revolutionise space travel."