<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Panel Recommends Major Changes in Space Policy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://pjmedia.com/blog/panel-recommends-major-changes-in-space-policy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/panel-recommends-major-changes-in-space-policy/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2012 05:22:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mars trip would exceed NASA&#8217;s radiation limits &#124; world science,encyclopedia of physics formulas</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/panel-recommends-major-changes-in-space-policy/#comment-408189</link>
		<dc:creator>Mars trip would exceed NASA&#8217;s radiation limits &#124; world science,encyclopedia of physics formulas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 11:17:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=64382#comment-408189</guid>
		<description>[...] Damn Interesting &#8226; The Martian Express AstroSpace Update - October 2009 &#124; Tzec Maun Foundation Pajamas Media &#187; Panel Recommends Major Changes in Space Policy In the Dark and the Cold, the Mars Phoenix Lander Begins to Shut Down &#124; 80b.. Life On Mars: Nasa [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Damn Interesting &bull; The Martian Express AstroSpace Update &#8211; October 2009 | Tzec Maun Foundation Pajamas Media &raquo; Panel Recommends Major Changes in Space Policy In the Dark and the Cold, the Mars Phoenix Lander Begins to Shut Down | 80b.. Life On Mars: Nasa [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marcel F. Williams</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/panel-recommends-major-changes-in-space-policy/#comment-386220</link>
		<dc:creator>Marcel F. Williams</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 07:38:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=64382#comment-386220</guid>
		<description>The Federal government should be spending about $30 billion a year (close to the Apollo days in today&#039;s dollars) on the NASA budget instead of $17 billion. There would be no $100 billion a year world wide satellite telecommunications industry without NASA. 

After its creation in 1958, NASA put Americans on the Moon in less than 11 years-- a remarkable accomplishment! If we had allowed NASA to establish a lunar base in the 1970s, we&#039;d probably already have bases on Mars and would probably already be exploiting the stupendous platinum resources of the asteroids for our energy efficiency and synfuel production needs on Earth. 

Trying to be penny wise and pound foolish with our space program over the last 35 years has hurt America&#039;s economy. America would be a much better country if we had self sustaining colonies on the Moon and Mars right now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Federal government should be spending about $30 billion a year (close to the Apollo days in today&#8217;s dollars) on the NASA budget instead of $17 billion. There would be no $100 billion a year world wide satellite telecommunications industry without NASA. </p>
<p>After its creation in 1958, NASA put Americans on the Moon in less than 11 years&#8211; a remarkable accomplishment! If we had allowed NASA to establish a lunar base in the 1970s, we&#8217;d probably already have bases on Mars and would probably already be exploiting the stupendous platinum resources of the asteroids for our energy efficiency and synfuel production needs on Earth. </p>
<p>Trying to be penny wise and pound foolish with our space program over the last 35 years has hurt America&#8217;s economy. America would be a much better country if we had self sustaining colonies on the Moon and Mars right now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: If You Care About Spaceflight &#187; hrrf</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/panel-recommends-major-changes-in-space-policy/#comment-376947</link>
		<dc:creator>If You Care About Spaceflight &#187; hrrf</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 00:37:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=64382#comment-376947</guid>
		<description>[...] I do. It&#8217;s the one thing I wish the government would spend more money on &#8211; since we know they won&#8217;t get completely out of the way for commercial companies to do space exploration. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I do. It&#8217;s the one thing I wish the government would spend more money on &#8211; since we know they won&#8217;t get completely out of the way for commercial companies to do space exploration. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gozer the Carpathian</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/panel-recommends-major-changes-in-space-policy/#comment-376945</link>
		<dc:creator>Gozer the Carpathian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 00:33:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=64382#comment-376945</guid>
		<description>As a current worker in the NASA &quot;arena&quot; I have to admit that NASA is by far the worst way to do this.  I work in Deep Space Communications and we&#039;ve just been given new consoles for our computer systems.  Just two years after getting new consoles.  

Yet we are constantly fixing every single antenna around here!  We&#039;re using stuff that was used for the Apollo program!  O.O! 

So yeah, priorities in this industry are all political.  

Personally I&#039;m more for a cannon instead of a rocket lift system. Unfortunetly we&#039;re in a stupid international treaty preventing &quot;Space Guns.&quot;  So instead of wasting all that fuel to get into orbit by using a mag cannon or something to &quot;Shoot&quot; our fuel and stuff into orbit we&#039;re still having to carry everything with us all the way.  :( 

Oi Oi..</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As a current worker in the NASA &#8220;arena&#8221; I have to admit that NASA is by far the worst way to do this.  I work in Deep Space Communications and we&#8217;ve just been given new consoles for our computer systems.  Just two years after getting new consoles.  </p>
<p>Yet we are constantly fixing every single antenna around here!  We&#8217;re using stuff that was used for the Apollo program!  O.O! </p>
<p>So yeah, priorities in this industry are all political.  </p>
<p>Personally I&#8217;m more for a cannon instead of a rocket lift system. Unfortunetly we&#8217;re in a stupid international treaty preventing &#8220;Space Guns.&#8221;  So instead of wasting all that fuel to get into orbit by using a mag cannon or something to &#8220;Shoot&#8221; our fuel and stuff into orbit we&#8217;re still having to carry everything with us all the way.  <img src='http://pjmedia.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_sad.gif' alt=':(' class='wp-smiley' />  </p>
<p>Oi Oi..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: IcePilot</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/panel-recommends-major-changes-in-space-policy/#comment-376896</link>
		<dc:creator>IcePilot</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 23:14:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=64382#comment-376896</guid>
		<description>2 plus 5B.  Faster, please.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>2 plus 5B.  Faster, please.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rssg</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/panel-recommends-major-changes-in-space-policy/#comment-376730</link>
		<dc:creator>rssg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 19:36:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=64382#comment-376730</guid>
		<description>At the risk of being labled a backwards-looking, xenophobe here&#039;s my two cents:

I think the US needs a more aggressive space program, emphasizing domestic engineering and manufacturing which not only helps the economy but inspires and leads many young Americans into those fields, instead of careers in marketing, law, media and other non-productive, economic rent seeking occupations.

This is called &quot;isolationist&quot; and &quot;xenophobic&quot;  by today&#039;s &quot;one world globalists utopians&quot; of either the liberal or conservative stripe but it&#039;s what I think.    

But we now have a president who is borderline anti-American but he&#039;s also anti-armed forces because he wants, he needs taxpayer dollars to be redirected to his social utopian schemes, that bear witness to the fact that he&#039;s a socialist/statist.  Likewise, we won&#039;t have economic recovery until we have economic growth and we won&#039;t have economic growth until we have capital investment and the goal of making a profit.  But the president does like profit and private enterprise.  We&#039;re kaput.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>At the risk of being labled a backwards-looking, xenophobe here&#8217;s my two cents:</p>
<p>I think the US needs a more aggressive space program, emphasizing domestic engineering and manufacturing which not only helps the economy but inspires and leads many young Americans into those fields, instead of careers in marketing, law, media and other non-productive, economic rent seeking occupations.</p>
<p>This is called &#8220;isolationist&#8221; and &#8220;xenophobic&#8221;  by today&#8217;s &#8220;one world globalists utopians&#8221; of either the liberal or conservative stripe but it&#8217;s what I think.    </p>
<p>But we now have a president who is borderline anti-American but he&#8217;s also anti-armed forces because he wants, he needs taxpayer dollars to be redirected to his social utopian schemes, that bear witness to the fact that he&#8217;s a socialist/statist.  Likewise, we won&#8217;t have economic recovery until we have economic growth and we won&#8217;t have economic growth until we have capital investment and the goal of making a profit.  But the president does like profit and private enterprise.  We&#8217;re kaput.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fairbanks99</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/panel-recommends-major-changes-in-space-policy/#comment-376723</link>
		<dc:creator>Fairbanks99</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 19:13:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=64382#comment-376723</guid>
		<description>Density, on the OTHER other hand, if today you said &quot;GO&quot; and government and private industry began to design and build that extremely rugged cell phone, which one do you think would field a model first?

Of course the government could always contract out the developement of the phone, much like it does its Express Mail overnight handling to Fedex. Hmmmm...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Density, on the OTHER other hand, if today you said &#8220;GO&#8221; and government and private industry began to design and build that extremely rugged cell phone, which one do you think would field a model first?</p>
<p>Of course the government could always contract out the developement of the phone, much like it does its Express Mail overnight handling to Fedex. Hmmmm&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fairbanks99</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/panel-recommends-major-changes-in-space-policy/#comment-376721</link>
		<dc:creator>Fairbanks99</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 19:08:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=64382#comment-376721</guid>
		<description>In one of the most disappointing days in the Cape’s history, the FLTSATCOM-F was launched through heavy cloud cover on 26 March 1987 only to be struck by lightning and destroyed. NASA’s formal mishap investigation concluded that there was “no convincing evidence” that an important criterion-the avoidance of potential electrical hazards-was met by the launch crew. 

Brevard County Florida is either the second highest or highest counties in the nation for lightning strikes. The day they launched that bird, the sky was almost black with cloud with a LOT of visible lightning. That NASA launched a moving lightning rod on that particular day demonstrated to me the same appalling lack of judgement that they displayed the frozen day they launched Challenger. I lost almost all respect for NASA management that day. (The continued employment of global warming shrieker James Hanson took care of the remainder of the respect).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In one of the most disappointing days in the Cape’s history, the FLTSATCOM-F was launched through heavy cloud cover on 26 March 1987 only to be struck by lightning and destroyed. NASA’s formal mishap investigation concluded that there was “no convincing evidence” that an important criterion-the avoidance of potential electrical hazards-was met by the launch crew. </p>
<p>Brevard County Florida is either the second highest or highest counties in the nation for lightning strikes. The day they launched that bird, the sky was almost black with cloud with a LOT of visible lightning. That NASA launched a moving lightning rod on that particular day demonstrated to me the same appalling lack of judgement that they displayed the frozen day they launched Challenger. I lost almost all respect for NASA management that day. (The continued employment of global warming shrieker James Hanson took care of the remainder of the respect).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rand Simberg</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/panel-recommends-major-changes-in-space-policy/#comment-376633</link>
		<dc:creator>Rand Simberg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:38:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=64382#comment-376633</guid>
		<description>&lt;em&gt;Remember that the USAF designed the shuttle to put Big Bird vehicles into orbit on short notice. The fact that it had a NASA sticker on the side (and occasionally launched civvie missions) was an arms-control dodge.&lt;/em&gt;

This is nonsense.  The Air Force provided some basic top-level requirements (thousand mile cross-range, 65,000 lb payload in a fifteen-foot diameter) which were one of the things that drove it to be a failed system, but they didn&#039;t design it, or pay for it, and most Shuttle missions were civil (and pretty much all were after 1986).  It was and is a NASA-designed, NASA-owned, NASA-operated vehicle, that did an occasional military mission.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>Remember that the USAF designed the shuttle to put Big Bird vehicles into orbit on short notice. The fact that it had a NASA sticker on the side (and occasionally launched civvie missions) was an arms-control dodge.</em></p>
<p>This is nonsense.  The Air Force provided some basic top-level requirements (thousand mile cross-range, 65,000 lb payload in a fifteen-foot diameter) which were one of the things that drove it to be a failed system, but they didn&#8217;t design it, or pay for it, and most Shuttle missions were civil (and pretty much all were after 1986).  It was and is a NASA-designed, NASA-owned, NASA-operated vehicle, that did an occasional military mission.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rand Simberg</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/panel-recommends-major-changes-in-space-policy/#comment-376621</link>
		<dc:creator>Rand Simberg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:24:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=64382#comment-376621</guid>
		<description>Hmmmm...

NASA does seem to have been involved.  I had thought that the Air Force took over military launches prior to that, but (if we can believe &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/report/1994/cape/cape3-6.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Global Security&lt;/a&gt;) apparently NASA was still doing it in &#039;87:

&lt;blockquote&gt;Following the FLTSATCOM-E launch on 6 August 1981, there was a lull in military space operations at Complex 36 for about four and one-half years. The Air Force eventually called on NASA to arrange the launch of two more FLTSATCOM spacecraft on General Dynamics&#039; ATLAS G/CENTAUR vehicles in 1986, and the first of those ATLAS Gs arrived at the Skid Strip on 5 March 1986. The booster was destined to launch the FLTSATCOM-G model satellite, which would be redesignated the FLTSATCOM F-7 once it was in orbit. Unfortunately, the mission was delayed several months pending the investigation of the DELTA 178 launch failure, which occurred in May 1986. The FLTSATCOM-G spacecraft finally arrived at the Cape on 29 September 1986. The satellite was checked out at NASA&#039;s Hangar AM, then it was moved to Explosive Safe Area 60 (ESA-60) on October 19th. At ESA-60, the spacecraft was mated to its Apogee Kick Motor (AKM), and it was loaded with attitude control propellant. The payload shroud was attached on November 11th, and the spacecraft and fairing were mated to the launch vehicle on 21 November 1986. Prelaunch preparations were completed, and the countdown endured only one unplanned hold of 25 minutes before the count resumed. The ATLAS G/CENTAUR lifted off Pad 36B at 0230:01Z on 5 December 1986. The launch was highly successful, and the spacecraft was injected into the proper 90 x 19,422-nautical-mile transfer orbit. Approximately 48 hours after the launch, ground controllers fired the spacecraft&#039;s AKM to circularize the FLTSATCOM&#039;s orbit and reduce its inclination to five degrees to the equator. The AKM burn was adjusted to let the FLTSATCOM F-7 &quot;drift&quot; into final position approximately 19,422 miles above the equator.40

The other FLTSATCOM mission involved the FLTSATCOM-F spacecraft, which was a slightly shorter version of the FLTSATCOM-G minus EHF communications. The FLTSATCOM-F spacecraft arrived at the Cape on 13 April 1986, and it was scheduled to be launched on an ATLAS G/CENTAUR in December 1986. Unfortunately, the FLTSATCOM-F went into storage after the DELTA 178 launch failure, and it was bumped in the launch schedule by the FLTSATCOM-G mission. Following the launch of the FLTSATCOM-G on December 5th, the FLTSATCOM-F&#039;s ATLAS G booster arrived at the Cape on December 9th. The booster was erected at Pad 36B on December 10th, and the CENTAUR upper stage was mated on December 11th. Power-up testing for the ATLAS G/CENTAUR began on 19 December 1986. The spacecraft was taken out of storage in early February 1987. Following testing, the satellite was transported to ESA-60 for its AKM installation and fueling operation in early March. The FLTSATCOM-F was transported to the launch pad on March 15th, and it was mated to the launch vehicle shortly thereafter. Prelaunch preparations continued, and the countdown was picked up at 1345Z on March 26th. In one of the most disappointing days in the Cape&#039;s history, the FLTSATCOM-F was launched through heavy cloud cover on 26 March 1987 only to be struck by lightning and destroyed. NASA&#039;s formal mishap investigation concluded that there was &quot;no convincing evidence&quot; that an important criterion-the avoidance of potential electrical hazards-was met by the launch crew. Among the investigation team&#039;s recommendations: all directives should be clarified to ensure that they are not ambiguous concerning the duties and responsibilities of launch team members (e.g., weather officers and launch directors).&lt;/blockquote&gt;

So I stand corrected.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hmmmm&#8230;</p>
<p>NASA does seem to have been involved.  I had thought that the Air Force took over military launches prior to that, but (if we can believe <a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/report/1994/cape/cape3-6.htm" rel="nofollow">Global Security</a>) apparently NASA was still doing it in &#8217;87:</p>
<blockquote><p>Following the FLTSATCOM-E launch on 6 August 1981, there was a lull in military space operations at Complex 36 for about four and one-half years. The Air Force eventually called on NASA to arrange the launch of two more FLTSATCOM spacecraft on General Dynamics&#8217; ATLAS G/CENTAUR vehicles in 1986, and the first of those ATLAS Gs arrived at the Skid Strip on 5 March 1986. The booster was destined to launch the FLTSATCOM-G model satellite, which would be redesignated the FLTSATCOM F-7 once it was in orbit. Unfortunately, the mission was delayed several months pending the investigation of the DELTA 178 launch failure, which occurred in May 1986. The FLTSATCOM-G spacecraft finally arrived at the Cape on 29 September 1986. The satellite was checked out at NASA&#8217;s Hangar AM, then it was moved to Explosive Safe Area 60 (ESA-60) on October 19th. At ESA-60, the spacecraft was mated to its Apogee Kick Motor (AKM), and it was loaded with attitude control propellant. The payload shroud was attached on November 11th, and the spacecraft and fairing were mated to the launch vehicle on 21 November 1986. Prelaunch preparations were completed, and the countdown endured only one unplanned hold of 25 minutes before the count resumed. The ATLAS G/CENTAUR lifted off Pad 36B at 0230:01Z on 5 December 1986. The launch was highly successful, and the spacecraft was injected into the proper 90 x 19,422-nautical-mile transfer orbit. Approximately 48 hours after the launch, ground controllers fired the spacecraft&#8217;s AKM to circularize the FLTSATCOM&#8217;s orbit and reduce its inclination to five degrees to the equator. The AKM burn was adjusted to let the FLTSATCOM F-7 &#8220;drift&#8221; into final position approximately 19,422 miles above the equator.40</p>
<p>The other FLTSATCOM mission involved the FLTSATCOM-F spacecraft, which was a slightly shorter version of the FLTSATCOM-G minus EHF communications. The FLTSATCOM-F spacecraft arrived at the Cape on 13 April 1986, and it was scheduled to be launched on an ATLAS G/CENTAUR in December 1986. Unfortunately, the FLTSATCOM-F went into storage after the DELTA 178 launch failure, and it was bumped in the launch schedule by the FLTSATCOM-G mission. Following the launch of the FLTSATCOM-G on December 5th, the FLTSATCOM-F&#8217;s ATLAS G booster arrived at the Cape on December 9th. The booster was erected at Pad 36B on December 10th, and the CENTAUR upper stage was mated on December 11th. Power-up testing for the ATLAS G/CENTAUR began on 19 December 1986. The spacecraft was taken out of storage in early February 1987. Following testing, the satellite was transported to ESA-60 for its AKM installation and fueling operation in early March. The FLTSATCOM-F was transported to the launch pad on March 15th, and it was mated to the launch vehicle shortly thereafter. Prelaunch preparations continued, and the countdown was picked up at 1345Z on March 26th. In one of the most disappointing days in the Cape&#8217;s history, the FLTSATCOM-F was launched through heavy cloud cover on 26 March 1987 only to be struck by lightning and destroyed. NASA&#8217;s formal mishap investigation concluded that there was &#8220;no convincing evidence&#8221; that an important criterion-the avoidance of potential electrical hazards-was met by the launch crew. Among the investigation team&#8217;s recommendations: all directives should be clarified to ensure that they are not ambiguous concerning the duties and responsibilities of launch team members (e.g., weather officers and launch directors).</p></blockquote>
<p>So I stand corrected.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

