This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Congress

Space Station Hearing Today

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
July 10, 2015
Filed under ,
Space Station Hearing Today

Hearing: International Space Station: Addressing Operational Challenges
“The Subcommittee on Space will hold a hearing to examine the current status of the International Space Station (ISS). The Subcommittee will evaluate the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) plans for dealing with operational and maintenance challenges, the status of the ISS partnership, how NASA is utilizing the ISS to enable future deep space exploration, and the Administration’s request to extend ISS operations to 2024.”
Hearing charter
– 9 am EDT Live webcast
Brian Babin (R-Texas), House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Subcommittee Reviews Challenges to International Space Station
Witness Statements:
Bill Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator, Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate, NASA
John Elbon, Vice President and General Manager, Space Exploration, The Boeing Company
Paul K. Martin, Inspector General, NASA
Shelby Oakley, Acting Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management, Government Accountability Office
James A. Pawelczyk, Associate Professor of Physiology and Kinesiology, The Pennsylvania State University

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

7 responses to “Space Station Hearing Today”

  1. numbers_guy101 says:
    0
    0

    It’s surprising that with all the seemingly hard questions about the space station, two really big one’s are still avoided. One is context, the relation to SLS and Mars and all that. Isn’t SLS pretty much devoid of payloads, perhaps even of an upper stage, awaiting an end to the ISS so those funds could be applied to start the development of Mars stuff. Second, if NASA is to support private space stations post-ISS, then wouldn’t only some percent of ISS funding become available in 2024 or 2028 for Mars stuff – and how much might that be?

    The really big questions are still being avoided.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      Oh no! You want logical questions and answers!

      Dude, you were in the wrong hearing.

  2. Daniel Woodard says:
    0
    0

    Most of the GAO report consists of requirements for more “documentation” of “metrics”. Possibly GAO could be persuaded to actually read the technical reports and scientific literature in assessing research. Otherwise even more tax dollars will have to be spent creating documentation that is read only by GAO and does nothing to advance science.

  3. Neal Aldin says:
    0
    0

    I’m not sure what answers you expect. NASA is not in a position to give answers. Despite the NASA hype, Mars
    is still at least another 30 years away and probably more like 50 years considering how NASA has been working.

    Lets take stock of our current situation: We no longer have the capability to put crews or significant payloads into orbit; no capability to return significant payloads, and no work platform other than the station itself to do meaningful work in LEO. And ISS is much more a base than a vehicle.

    Mars is well beyond our current capabilities. We do not know
    for sure what countermeasures are required to protect humans for a 2-3 year mission, and in many instances, like radiation and galactic cosmic rays, there is no program to even try and find the answers. A major question remains whether a journey of the length of a Mars trip should be done at zero-G or in artificial G. ISS is currently making the assumption that the Mars vehicle will be a zero-G vehicle. There is no study to assess artificial G or partial G. NASA cut out the research program that had been planned. NASA has made a bad assumption and is not studying alternatives.

    We do not have systems that could be relied upon to
    sustain life or vehicle viability for the duration of a Mars mission,, beyond those systems on ISS currently, and most of those systems are not being advanced in support of future planetary missions.

    Even the Orion capsule was designed for a Constellation mission and is not Mars capable without serious modifications. Dragon is probably further along in providing a Mars return capsule capability and its systems have more time on them. A real Orion is still several years away from flying.

    We might be able to assume a shorter Mars mission duration that could use ISS-like systems and a zero-G vehicle, if we could speed the trajectory and shorten the flight time, but there is no program to develop the advanced propulsion systems that would be required.

    NASA has no plan and no strategy. They gave up a major piece of their capability and infrastructure when they let Shuttle go with no replacement in hand. The best NASA can do now is hope that private or commercial entrepreneurs step forward to pick up the gauntlet because NASA has not shown itself capable. NASA still has the technical resources, including the technical staff, but the real issue is a lack of leadership. As long as Charlie Bolden hypes the unrealistic 2030 Mars mission, the less realistic a mission in that time period becomes. He is just figuring he will be long gone by the time 15 years roll by.

    Presidents can proclaim and the NASA Administrator can voice his advocacy but they have no plan to make it happen.

    • Panice says:
      0
      0

      It’s not wholly NASA’s fault. NASA put forward a pretty good plan to “pick up the gauntlet” after Constellation was cancelled, but Congress killed almost all of it to fund SLS. The core of the problem is Congress, not NASA. That said, NASA doesn’t help matters by pursuing their 50-year fantasy that someday they will again be given Apollo-style funding.

  4. Saturn1300 says:
    0
    0

    SpaceX will not get the final payment due when the contract is done. Gerst also says that there are NASA, FAA, NTSB on the investigation board and they have to agree with what SpaceX says is the cause of the explosion. Not like what SpaceX says are the cause of the 1st stage crashes. If Gerst had approved Planet Space, Athena -3, all SRM these liquid rocket problems would not happen, since they do not have the systems that failed. Solids are many times less likely to fail. NASA would rather use a system where they expected 2 failures than use 800 year old tech. They created 7000 jobs at SpaceX. Politcs. What engineer like Gerst would want to work on a solid when there is nothing to do and would be the lone engineer with no one to talk to. Sort of like being the engineer in charge of a sewage farm. The solid segments cases are made from steel as is the nozzle. The lowest cost, low tech, easy to work metal there is. Get a big lathe put a chunk of steel in and turn the nozzle which any large machining shop can do. But NASA is a high tech outfit. There is nothing more low tech than a solid.
    Athena III will have a 2 1/2 segment Shuttle-derived reusable solid rocket booster (RSRB) first stage topped by a Castor 120, Castor 30 and OAMS orbit adjust module. Athena III will be capable of placing a 4,600 kg (10,100 lb) satellite in polar orbit from Kodiak or launch a 5,900 kg (13,000 lb) satellite into orbit with a due east launch from the East Coast. (An East Coast launch site has not been selected.) Kodiak was selected over heavily-booked Vandenberg to avoid delays in high-priority rapid-response launches for the U.S. military.[9]From Wiki. Now this is a launcher. I do not know the weight, but NASA should take that satellite that is delayed because of F9 to Alaska and launch it. Athena III will have a 2 1/2 segment Shuttle-derived reusable solid rocket booster (RSRB) first stage topped by a Castor 120, Castor 30 and OAMS orbit adjust module. Athena III will be capable of placing a 4,600 kg (10,100 lb) satellite in polar orbit from Kodiak or launch a 5,900 kg (13,000 lb) satellite into orbit with a due east launch from the East Coast. (An East Coast launch site has not been selected.) Kodiak was selected over heavily-booked Vandenberg to avoid delays in high-priority rapid-response launches for the U.S. military.

    • RocketScientist327 says:
      0
      0

      This post is just crazy. Maybe you do not realize, and most do not, but NASA, FAA, and the NTSB will be closely involved with the investigation. There is not the rift between NASA and SpX that some would like to portray.

      Does congress like SpaceX? Mostly yes – only Team Alabama and Texas have reservations.

      And 7000 jobs? Give me a break.