Advertisement

NASA: Restructuring for Deep Space

Abstract

President George W. Bush has challenged the United States to Return to the Moon and go to Mars and beyond through his Exploration Initiative for NASA.1 Fast-forwarding about 30 years from Apollo to the present, where does NASA stand today with respect to conducting major projects in deep space? With President Bush’s election to his first term as President of the United States and before he articulated the new Initiative in January 2004, I volunteered a number of suggestions as to how NASA could be revitalized to potentially undertake Apollo-scale activities once again. Others have echoed these suggestions over the last few years.2 That advice was contained in several e-mails I sent to White House staff and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Slightly edited and annotated (text contained in brackets []) for clarity, those communications are given in Sections 10.1–10.9 below. These submissions provide a snapshot of how NASA appeared to me and many other outside observers at the turn of the twenty-first century, and what was needed for rebuilding and focusing that storied agency. NASA’s newest Administrator, Dr Michael Griffin, has begun to address these concerns.

Keywords

Motion Sickness International Space Station Space Shuttle Deep Space Aeronautical Research 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 1.
    Bush, G. W., 2004, President Bush Delivers Remarks on US Space Policy, NASA Facts, January 14.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Logsdon, J. M., 2005, The road ahead for NASA, Space News, January 17, p. 19.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Covault, C., 2001, Italy to the rescue in station shortfall, Aviation Week, April 23, pp. 35–37; NASA/Italian Space Agency, 2001, International Space Station Habitation Module Project: Framework for Cooperation, April 19.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    NASA Office of Inspector General, 2001, Audit of Acquisition of the Space Station Propulsion Module, May 21.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Graf, E. D., 2001, ESA and the ISS Crew Return Vehicle, on Station, European Space Agency, March; De Selding, P. B., 2001, Europeans agree to bailout Crew Return Vehicle, Space News, September, 10, pp. 1, 20; see also, Smith, B. A., 2001, X-40A paves the way for X-37 testing, Aviation Week, June 11, pp. 60–64.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    “Delta” Flight Readiness Review refers to a review in addition to those performed as part of the normal pre-launch management activities.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report, 1, Government Printing Office, Washington.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carrier, W. D. Jr, 1995, Personal communication.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bliokh, P. V., A. P. Nikolaenko, and Y. F. Filippov, 1980, Schumann Resonances in the Earth-Ionosphere Cavity, Peter Perigrinus, London.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Johnston, R. S. and L. R. Dietlein, 1977, Biomedical Results from Skylab, NASA SP-377, 491 pp.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    NASA, 2003, Space Launch Initiative, Fact sheet FS-2003-02-28-MSFC.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    The author has participated on teams related to these various activities.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    See Wynn, J., T. Laforteza, and A. Denissov, 2005, Cost overruns, schedule delays and performance failures: Lessons learned and recommendations, NASA/AIAA, 1st Space Exploration Conference, 2005–2538.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Charles, J. B., 2005, Bioastronautics Roadmap, February 9, NASA, http://bioastsroroadmap.nasa.gov/index.jsp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Praxis Publishing Ltd. 2006

Personalised recommendations