Posted on by Nancy Atkinson

NASA to Develop GPS-Like System for the Moon

Future astronauts may use GPS-like system. Credit: The Ohio State University

During the second moonwalk of the Apollo 14 mission, Alan Shepard and Edgar Mitchell were hoping to walk to the 300 meter (1,000 feet) wide Cone Crater on the moon, not far from their landing site. However, the two astronauts were not able to find the crater’s rim amid the rolling, repetitive terrain. Later analysis using pictures the two astronauts took determined they had come within 65 feet of the crater. People are used to having certain visual cues to judge distances, such as the size of a building or another car on the horizon, said Ron Li, who has been awarded a $1.2 million grant to develop a navigation system to be used on the moon. Since the moon has no landmarks or cues to help determine distance, getting lost, or misjudging a distant object’s size and location would be easy, and extremely dangerous. New technology like sensors, inertial navigation systems, cameras, computer processors, and image processors will make the next trip to the moon easier for astronauts.

Li, from The Ohio State University, developed software for the Mars rovers Spirit and Opportunity, which has helped him learn a lot about navigation. The navigation system to help future astronauts find their way around moon won’t use satellites; instead the system will rely on signals from a set of sensors including lunar beacons, stereo cameras, and orbital imaging sensors.

Images taken from orbit will be combined with images from the surface to create maps of lunar terrain. Motion sensors on lunar vehicles and on the astronauts themselves will allow computers to calculate their locations. Signals from lunar beacons, the lunar lander, and base stations will give astronauts a picture of their surroundings similar to what drivers see when using a GPS device on Earth. The researchers have named the entire system the Lunar Astronaut Spatial Orientation and Information System (LASOIS).

Astronauts will have a keypad and screen, possibly right on their spacesuits, to view their location and search for new destinations.

Keeping astronauts safe will be a top priority for Li’s team, which includes experts in psychology and human-computer interaction as well as engineering.

“We will help with navigation, but also with astronauts’ health as well,” Li said. “We want them to avoid the stress of getting lost, or getting frustrated with the equipment. Lunar navigation isn’t just a technology problem, it’s also biomedical.”

News Source: The Ohio State University

Posted on by Ian O'Neill

Successful Test Firing of Orion Jettison Motor (Video)

Successful test-firing of Orion's jettison engines (Aerojet)

[/caption]
It looks like the hardware is gradually slotting into place for the development of the Orion capsule in NASA’s Constellation Program. On July 17th, the ultimate “ejection seat” was tested by NASA and rocket contractor Aerojet: The Orion jettison motor. Should there be an emergency during Ares rocket/Orion capsule during launch, the Orion capsule will have the capability to eject (whether it is on the launchpad or travelling through the atmosphere), ensuring the safety of the crew. This is the first safety measure of its kind, so a successful engine test can only help to boost confidence in the technology behind Orion…

Although there are concerns for the Constellation Program funding and technology-wise, there is good news coming from the development of NASA’s new Orion crew module. The first full-scale test firing of the jettison motor was successful, boosting confidence in the new safety system the capsule will have installed. Later this year, a full-scale “Pad Abort-1” test is scheduled in the New Mexico desert, where a mock Orion will be blasted clear of a model launchpad (up to a mile in altitude) to test the effectiveness of the system. Tests are already under way to deduce whether a dry or wet touch-down will be carried out by the Orion capsule using cadavers (human corpses) as crash-test dummies.

The jettison motor was tested at the Astrojet facility in Sacramento, California, which marks the start of a series of developmental tests before the finished article is integrated into the mock Orion module to begin the New Mexico tests. During last weeks test firing, engineers were testing acoustic, vibration and shock effects on the engines. It appears everything ran smoothly, indicating the jettison system is close to system-level demonstration.

View the test-firing on the Constellation Project site »

This is a critical stage in the development of Orion. Since the Columbia disaster in 2003, NASA has felt pressure to ensure the safety of their astronauts. Although strict guidelines are in place, space travel remains a risky business where tough decisions need to be made. Installing an Orion jettison system will be a huge piece of mind for mission controllers and Constellation astronauts should there be launch complications on the pad or as Ares powers through the atmosphere.

Source: NASA

Posted on by Nancy Atkinson

NASA’s Use of Cadavers to Test the Orion Capsule

Orion Crew Capsule. Credit: Howstuffworks.com

[/caption]
NASA is debating whether the new Orion capsule should land in the water, like Apollo, or on land, similar to how the Russian Soyuz capsule returns to Earth. To help them determine the potential for human injuries with each possible landing scenario, NASA has used human cadavers during their tests. At first, this revelation may seem quite morbid or even gruesome. But as Keith Cowing said in his expose article on Space Ref and NASA Watch on this subject, “Given the potentially hazardous nature of the tests required, cadavers must be used in the place of living persons.” Sometimes, crash-test dummies or computer simulations don’t provide the crucial information needed, such as the forces on the spinal cord or internal organs. If NASA doesn’t have that information, they can’t get accurate test results. Living test subjects could possibly be killed during the landing tests. Imagine the headlines if that happened. So they have used cadavers. The cadavers NASA used were donated to science to be used for exactly this type of purpose, and NASA, of course, went through the proper channels to obtain the cadavers and treats them in an ethical manner. So while this may seem a little grisly, NASA is doing the right thing.

Marc Carreau from the Houston Chronicle also wrote an article on this subject, and he interviewed David Steitz, a spokesman for NASA’s medical division. “It’s a socially awkward topic,” Steitz said. “The bodies are all carefully handled through all of the tests. We follow ethical medical procedures with these bodies that have been donated for science.”

Three human bodies were used during testing last year, said NASA seat engineer Dustin Gohmert, to help determine the potential for serious human injury during descent and landing. “The interface between the spacesuit and the seats is relatively complex, much more so than in an automobile, even one from the racing industry,” Gohmert said. “The (forces) we anticipate have never been studied before. We are using this research to help define and refine the suits and the seats.”

Tests using human bodies has been done for previous spacecraft, as well.

Cowing received this statement from NASA on the use of cadavers:

“In limited cases, postmortem human subject tests may be performed when insufficient data are available from simulations that use dummies or from mathematical modeling of the human body responses. This is particularly critical where the dynamic responses of internal organs and soft tissue must be evaluated. Using a combination of test methods, the engineering and scientific teams at NASA are able to enhance astronaut safety by designing landing attenuation systems that will minimize accelerations imparted to the crew and significantly reduce the potential for injuries.”

Personally, I could imagine donating my body for this type of research. Even if I never get to fly to space when I’m alive, I’d be proud to help the rest of the human race get there and return safely by giving my body for tests such as this.

News Sources: NASA Watch, Space Ref, Houston Chronicle

Posted on by Nancy Atkinson

Problems Surface For Constellation Program

NASA's new Ares V & Ares I Rockets. Credit: NASA

[/caption]
On the heels of news about NASA engineers who feel the Constellation program is using the wrong kind of rockets comes word that efforts to build the spacecraft which will replace the shuttle and return astronauts to the moon is running behind and over-budget. NASA Watch published a leaked internal NASA document showing the Constellation Program has encountered financial and technical problems, and the Associated Press quoted Doug Cooke, NASA’s deputy associate administrator for exploration as saying the first test flights for Orion may be delayed. However, the delay thus far is only of NASA’s internal goal of having the spacecraft ready by 2013. Cooke said they are still on target for NASA’s public commitment of first test flights by 2015, and returning to the moon by 2020. But unless the space agency can receive more funding, further delays may be inevitable.

The 117-page report shows an $80 million cost overrun this year for just one motor and a dozen different technical problems that the space agency put in the top risk zone, meaning the problems are considered severe. The report put the program’s financial performance in that category, as well.

Some experts say it’s too early to be worried, others say NASA’s design is flawed or the space agency is just repeating mistakes made in developing the space shuttle. But almost everyone agrees that NASA isn’t getting enough funding to do what they’ve been asked to do.

Additional funding from Congress is pending, but in an election year, don’t count on it.

News Sources: NASA Watch, Newsweek/AP

Posted on by Nancy Atkinson

A Cold War Meeting in Space 33 Years Ago Today

Deke Slayton and Aleksey Leonov meet in space. Credit: NASA

[/caption]
On July 17, 1975, something momentous and unprecedented happened: two Cold War-rivals met in space. The Apollo-Soyuz Test Project saw spacecraft from the United States and the Soviet Union docking together in space, ushering in a new era of cooperative ventures between the two countries that once were rivals in the “space race.” Preparing for the mission, the astronauts and cosmonauts had to visit each other’s countries for training, and the two space agencies had to share classified information with each other in order for the rendezvous and docking to work successfully. A few years ago, Tom Stafford, one of the American astronauts said the Apollo-Soyuz mission “showed the whole world that if the Soviet Union and America could work together in space, they could work together on the Earth.”

We almost take this cooperation for granted now, as for more than a decade, American astronauts and Russian cosmonauts have been regularly living and working together in Earth orbit, first in the Shuttle-Mir program, and now on the International Space Station. But, before the two Cold War-rivals first met in orbit, such a partnership seemed unlikely. Since Sputnik bleeped into orbit in 1957, there had indeed been a Space Race, with the U.S. and then-Soviet Union driven more by competition than cooperation. When President Kennedy called for a manned moon landing in 1961, he spoke of “battle that is now going on around the world between freedom and tyranny” and referred to the “head start obtained by the Soviets with their large rocket engines.”

But by the mid-70s things had changed. The U.S. had “won” the race to the moon, with six Apollo landings between 1969 and 1972. Both nations had launched space stations, the Russian Salyut and American Skylab. With the space shuttle still a few years off and the diplomatic chill thawing, the time was right for a joint mission.

The Apollo-Soyuz Test Project would send NASA astronauts Tom Stafford, Donald K. “Deke” Slayton and Vance Brand in an Apollo Command and Service Module to meet Russian cosmonauts Aleksey Leonov and Valeriy Kubasov in a Soyuz capsule. A jointly designed docking module fulfilled the main technical goal of the mission, demonstrating that two dissimilar craft could dock in orbit. But the human side of the mission went far beyond that.

Original News Source: NASA Image of the Day

Posted on by Nancy Atkinson

Take Up a Collection For NASA

A NASA contractor needs urine. And lots of it, too, about 30 liters (8 gallons) a day, even on weekends. All the details, if you need to know or need to go, of how to collect the specimens are over at SpaceRef, but the quick scoop is that contractor Hamilton Sundstrand is seeking urine from workers at the Johnson Space Center. The company is working on the new Orion space capsule that will replace the shuttle and eventually take astronauts to the moon. This is nothing new. NASA has a long-standing tradition of collecting samples from its workers to help design better space toilets because “you can’t make fake urine,” said John Lewis, NASA’s head of life support systems for Orion.

The contractor is working on how to deal with pee up in space and on the moon. “Urine is a mess because urine is full of solids,” said Lewis. Those solids clog the venting system for dumping pee, so keeping the waste disposal system clear is “really a challenge,” he said.

Here’s an article we did a few months ago about recycling urine on long duration space flights.

An email soliciting urine was sent out to JSC employees, but wasn’t meant to go public, Lewis said. In part the email said:

The Orion Program will be holding a urine collection study starting Monday, July 21 and running through Thursday, July 31, 2008. We are looking for donors as we need to collect a large amount of urine per day for the entire 11 day period. Please contact [deleted] at [deleted]@hs.utc.com to express interest in donating or to get answers to any questions you have regarding the study. We will be hosting an informational meeting with encouraged attendance for potential urine donors from 11-11:30 a.m. Thursday, July 17, 2008 in the first floor conference room. In this meeting we will go over instructions and guidelines for the study and introduce volunteers to the equipment that will be used in the study. If you are unable to attend this meeting due to scheduling conflicts, we can set up another time to clarify the study operations on an individual basis.”

Again, if you need to know more, see the entire email here.

Don’t we just love to read other people’s mail?

Original News Sources: CNN, NASA Watch

Posted on by Ian O'Neill

Griffin: China Could Beat US in Moon Race

Long March II F rocket carrying Chinas second manned spacecraft Shenzhou VI in 2005 (Xinhua)

More bad news for NASA: even their administrator thinks China could beat the US to the Moon. Speaking with the BBC today, Michael Griffin shared his views about the Chinese space aspirations, pointing out that the super-state could, if they wanted to, send a manned mission to the lunar surface within a decade. NASA’s return mission to the Moon is planned to launch, at the earliest, in 2020, so this news is bound to knock the wind out of the US space agency’s hopes to continue where it left off in 1972…

In the last five years, China has been teetering on the edge of a full-manned space program. In 2003, the nation became only the third country to put a national into space (following the Russia and the USA), blasting Yang Liwei into orbit for 21 hours on the Shenzhou 5 spacecraft. Shenzhou 6 was launched with two astronauts (or “taikonauts”) on board, spending five days orbiting the Earth in 2005. This year, shortly after the Beijing Olympics in October, China is sending another manned mission into orbit, only this time it is hoped a spacewalk will be possible. With this rapid succession of successful manned launches, it comes as no surprise that attention is swinging away from NASA and to China for the next big step into space.

The last time man set foot on the Moon was in 1972 when Eugene Andrew Cernan, last man on the Moon, boarded the Apollo 17 lunar module. That was 36 years ago and space flight has changed significantly since then, now NASA has more competition, as highlighted by Griffin during a visit to London:

“Certainly it is possible that if China wants to put people on the Moon, and if it wishes to do so before the United States, it certainly can. As a matter of technical capability, it absolutely can.” – Dr Michael Griffin

As to whether it actually matters whether China are the next to land on the Moon is open to interpretation. After all, the first nation to set foot on Earth’s natural satellite was the USA, so is a return trip a big psychological “victory” for China? “I’m not a psychologist, so I can’t say if it matters or not. That would just be an opinion and I don’t want to air an opinion in an area that I’m not qualified to discuss,” Griffin added.

Recently, there has been increased cooperation between the US and China when sharing science and information. “We do have some early co-operative initiatives that we are trying to put in place with China, mostly centred around scientific enterprises. I think that’s a great place to start,” he said. Although many will view an early Chinese lunar mission as a NASA failure, both nations appear to be trying to forge close relationships that could possibly lead to joint space missions in the future. After all, even at the peak of the Cold War, the US and Russia began working on a common goal.

“I think we’re always better off if we can find areas where we can collaborate rather than quarrel. I would remind your [audience] that the first US-Soviet human co-operation took place in 1975, virtually at the height of the Cold War. And it led, 18 years later, to discussions about an International Space Station (ISS) programme in which we’re now involved.” – Dr Michael Griffin

Regardless of who gets to the Moon first, Griffin will be feeling the pressure of the “five-year gap” between the Shuttle being retired in 2010 and Constellation completion in 2015, there is still little alternative than relying on Russia and Europe for US access to space. Griffin has tried to increase Constellation funding by $2bn to bring completion forward by a year, but the application was quickly turned down by Congress. Those five long years may be more costly than the US government realizes as NASA loses more footing in manned access to space…

Source: BBC

Posted on by Nancy Atkinson

The “Other” Moon Rocket Some NASA Engineers Believe is Better Than Ares

Jupiter 110 and 232. From Directlauncher.com

There’s a group of NASA engineers who believe NASA is making a mistake with its new Constellation program to replace the shuttle, which will use the new Ares rockets for launches starting in 2014. Constellation is an all new program which requires everything to be built from the ground up. The group of engineers asks, why not use the systems we already have that work reliably? The engineers, who are working clandestinely after hours on their plans have been joined by business people and space enthusiasts, and they call the plan Direct 2.0. They believe this approach could be flying sooner than Ares, reducing the gap in the US’s access to space, and providing a smoother transition for the workforce. Additionally it is more powerful than Ares, has lower risks for the astronauts, adds additional servicing missions to the Hubble Space Telescope, and reduces the cost to orbit by half.

Proponents say the Direct 2.0 approach is more capable than Orion, can lift more mass into Earth orbit and boost more mass out of Earth orbit on to other destinations. The concept is simple: use the same orange external tank and booster rockets as the shuttle, but don’t use the orbiter. Put additional engines on the bottom of the tank, and the cone-shaped Orion capsule on the nose. They call the rocket system Jupiter, and not only would Jupiter have less cost per launch, but it would cost less per kilogram to put things in orbit. They also say the crew abort limits are safer than Ares 1, and would require only minor modifications to the current mobile launch platform.

Instead of having the separate Ares-I Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) and Ares-V Cargo Launch Vehicle (CaLV) they use just one single Jupiter launcher, capable of performing both roles.

On their website, Directlauncher.com, they say “This change to NASA’s architecture completely removes the costs & risks associated with developing and operating a second launcher system, saving NASA $19 Billion in development costs, and a further $16 Billion in operational costs over the next 20 years.”

But recent articles by the Associated Press and the Orlando Sentinel say that NASA is not interested in this concept, and that its nothing more than a concept on the back of a napkin. Additionally, Ares is so far along, with test flights scheduled for next year, that there’s no turning back now.

But the Orlando Sentinel article says that NASA ended a study last fall which showed Direct 2.0 would outperform Ares. The initial results showed Direct 2.0 was superior in cost, overall performance and work-force retention, which is a big issue for Florida.

The engineers who work at NASA say they can’t speak out directly for fear of being fired, but an outside group who supports their efforts are trying to get the word out about the plan.

Check out their website includes a discussion forum, a presentation on their concept and much more. Here’s a video that explains the concept:

In short, they say the Direct 2.0 approach introduces many advantages over the current Ares Launch Vehicles, such as:

Shorter “gap” after the Shuttle retires (3 years vs. 5)
Earlier return to the Moon (2017 vs. 2019)
Deletes all risks and costs associated with a second new launch vehicle
Optimum use of the existing NASA & contractor experience

Original News Sources: AP, Orlando Sentinel, ABC’s Science and Society Blog, Directlauncher.com

Posted on by Nancy Atkinson

Explosive Spacewalk?

Explosive bolts that help detach the Russian Soyuz capsule from the International Space Station may be the source of the problems the spacecraft has encountered during the last two landings. Investigative space journalist and Jim Oberg at MSNBC, who is one of the best experts on the inner workings of the Russian space program recently wrote a very interesting article detailing Russian engineers’ plans to fix the problem: have two Russian cosmonauts conduct a spacewalk on July 10 to remove one of the explosive bolts and bring it inside the space station. The bolts, Oberg says, packs twice the explosive force of an M-80 firecracker when ignited, and the cosmonauts will be handling the bolts directly during what will be a very delicate, if not dramatic, operation.

Oberg reports that Russian space engineers say the bolts at one particular location failed to work properly during each of the two previous Soyuz landings, in October 2007 and then in April 2008. As a result, in each case the landing capsule was twisted out of proper orientation and underwent excess heating on unshielded surfaces before tearing loose from the propulsion module and falling to Earth.

NASA has scheduled a press briefing on July 8 to discuss the spacewalk, but Oberg uncovered details about the spacewalk from status reports and discussions with NASA engineers. The engineers in Houston said that, to their knowledge, no such pyrotechnic device has ever been brought into the space station in its 10-year history.

There are five pairs of explosive bolts that break the connections between the spacecraft’s crew capsule and its propulsion module during descent. Russian experts told NASA at one particular location, position 5, apparently failed to fire during both previous Soyuz descents, preventing a clean separation.

The two cosmonauts, station commander Sergey Volkov and flight engineer Oleg Konenenko will remove the position 5 bolt and place it in a shielded safety canister that was brought to the ISS on the last shuttle mission in May for this spacewalk. So obviously, the plan for this spacewalk has been in the works for quite some time.

Russians engineers assured NASA that the remaining four latches will be adequate to hold the two modules together during any other maneuvers in space.

Check out Jim’s article for more details.

Posted on by Ian O'Neill

Aldrin Warns that NASA will fall Behind Russia and China in Space Exploration

Buzz Aldrin and the US flag during NASAs biggest achievement - man on the Moon (NASA)

The world knows the huge potential China and Russia have for space exploration. Russia is maintaining a strong presence in space with their sturdy Soyuz program and China has set its sights on having their very first “taikonaut” EVA at the end of this year. But where does this leave NASA? The US space agency has spearheaded the exploration of space for the last 50 years, but amongst all the talk about NASA setbacks, overspending and delays, could the glory days be coming to an abrupt end? In May, the legendary astronaut John Glenn spoke out against Shuttle decommissioning and last week, US Senator Bill Nelson called a meeting at Cape Canaveral to raise concerns about announced job cuts in 2010. Now, the most famous NASA ex-employee and second man on the Moon, Buzz Aldrin has voiced warnings that the US could lose its grip on space and begin to be left behind by Russia and China…

On July 20th, 1969, the Apollo 11 Lunar Module Pilot waited for Neil Armstrong to make the first footprint in the lunar dust. Soon after, Buzz Aldrin joined Armstrong on this momentous step and making world history, setting the world alight with optimism that man was just about to embark on the next phase of evolution: leaving Earth and exploring the stars. Unfortunately this dream was only realised for three years (until 1972) after six successful lunar landings (Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17), and to this day the Apollo 17 mission touch-down (December 15th, 1972) remains the last time we landed on the Moon.

Although we may not have revisited our natural satellite for the best part of four decades, we have been busy with our focus on the robotic exploration of the Solar System. But work has started on the Shuttle replacement, the Constellation Program, with the promise of sending man back to the Moon by 2020 and then Mars soon after, can we begin to get excited that NASA is gaining momentum for the next “giant leap for mankind?”

Many prominent figures are now worried that the light is beginning to dim for the future of NASA. NASA prides itself on developing new technologies, spearheading the push into space, but what happens when the funding dries up and other nations pick up where they left off? One voice that cannot be ignored is that of Buzz Aldrin who has voiced his grave concern that NASA, and indeed the USA, risks falling behind China and Russia in the “space race” if efforts were not redoubled by future US governments. With the US presidential elections looming, Aldrin has vowed to lobby both Barack Obama and John McCain to “retain the vision for space exploration,” not only to maintain, but increase NASA funding.

Buzz Aldrin on June 11th 2008

During an interview with the UK’s Sunday Telegraph newspaper he said, “If we turn our backs on the vision again, we’re going to have to live in a secondary position in human space flight for the rest of the century.” And he is not alone with this concern. Both fellow retired astronaut John Glenn and US Senator Bill Nelson have recently spoken out about their concerns for NASA’s future, ensuring the space exploration debate will remain alive over the coming months.

Although Russia has a long and proud history in human space flight, the Chinese are showing their thirst for a big push into space, with a manned mission to the Moon on the cards. “All the Chinese have to do is fly around the Moon and back, and they’ll appear to have won the return to the Moon with humans. They could put one person on the surface of the Moon for one day and he’d be a national hero,” Aldrin added. Plus, Russia’s Soyuz program could be extended for manned missions beyond Earth orbit he pointed out.

There is a real worry in NASA that the US could lose its foothold in the leadership of space exploration, so it is hoped big voices within the ranks of legendary astronauts might begin to get the future government thinking about how important space exploration is to the US.

Source: Telegraph.co.uk