Vote on NASA Bill Appears Unlikely Before September, Space News

"With little time remaining in the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30, House Science and Technology Committee Chairman Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.) sought to bring the measure to the House floor under suspension of the rules -- a move that prevents amendments to a bill and requires a two-thirds majority vote to pass. But Gordon encountered resistance from House members hoping to weigh in on the measure during floor debate. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and other House Democrats met with Gordon early July 29 to address concerns with key elements of the legislation."

NASA bill stays grounded, Politico

"Despite the best attempts of Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), chairman of the House Science and Technology Committee, to bring the three-year funding plan to a vote this week, a coalition of members frustrated by his haste protested to the majority leader, ultimately forcing the chamber to punt until September."

IFPTE/AFGE Letter on NASA Authorization Act

"The International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), and the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) are writing to inform you that this bill is far from non-controversial. In this regard, IFPTE and AFGE urge you to oppose HR 5781 if it comes before you in its current form."

Vote on NASA Bill Appears Unlikely Before September, Space News

"The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers said in a July 29 statement that the organization supports the House version of the NASA authorization."

This isn't rocket science, Houston Chronicle

"Since leaving her position at NASA, [April Jean] Evans has devoted much of her time to building support for an international treaty that would ban primate experiments for the purpose of space exploration. Already the European Space Agency has adopted such a position, with Director Jean-Jacques Dordain stating in an April 1 letter that ESA's formal position is: "there is absolutely no research interest or planning for experiments with primates." Such is Evans' aspiration that all space agencies would adopt a similar position. But there's also the real-world issue of no longer having a regular income. Since leaving NASA, Evans has moved into her brother's spare room. She's also falling into debt."

Keith's note: PeTA tells me that April Jean Evans is supposed to be on CNN Headline News Channel on "Issues With Jane Velez-Mitchell" at 7 pm EDT tonight to talk about this. If you are going to comment on NASAWatch, then stay on topic and don't try and post stupid stuff anonymously - it won't appear online.

Ex-NASA Engineer on HLN Tonight, PeTA

Kepler Mission - Errare Humanum Est, Natalie Batalha Kepler Co-Investigator, Beyond The Cradle

"Should NASA screen everything that the team plans to say in public? Should we, the Kepler team, screen everything our colleagues plan to say in public? I think that the best we can do is ask our colleagues for advice to make sure that we are understood. Perhaps that would have helped Dimitar. There are articles out there that say he shouldn't be allowed to speak in public. Yes, you heard me correctly -- that he shouldn't be allowed to speak. Rubbish. I can only say that I will take this PR blunder any day of the week over a work environment that does not give me academic freedom to speak within the reasonable agreements that I have with my colleagues. Any day."

Keith's note: Let me be clear, does Ditimar Sasselov have the right to speak his mind in public about his research? Of course he does. Does Sasselov have a professional responsibility as the Co-Investigator on an enormously expensive, taxpayer-funded NASA mission to get his facts straight before he speaks? Of course he does. Does he (and the rest of his team) need to be internally and externally consistent when it comes to the rationale for what they do or do not want to release, how they release it, and where they release it? Of course they do.

Perhaps most importantly, do the people who are chosen to speak publicly (and those who decide to speak publicly on their own) about these enormously important research projects need to understand how to communicate their jargon-filled, complex ideas to the public at large? Of course they do. Bad communication is often worse than no communication at all.

Millions of people stopped what they were doing to read these stories about "Earth-like planets" circling other suns. Such words have meaning. 99.999% of humans don't dwell on the nature of planetary cores and the other excuses offered in support of the use of the term "Earth-like" in this lecture. We live on Earth. This guy said there are worlds out there "like Earth". Lots of them. When most people hear the words "Earth-like" they look out the window at Earth. They don't run to grab a textbook or Google some planetary geology website.

This is paradigm shifting stuff. Its about confirmation of centuries of speculation and dreaming as to the nature of our world's uniqueness and/or commonness with regard to the universe around us. Now the Kepler team is fumbling its way through clarification of what was said and was not said, implied and miscommunicated.

Instead of channeling the eventual (and apparently inevitable if the statistics are to be believed) incredible news in a way that could really show the world what is waiting out there for us, back peddling and PR spinning is now what we hear. We should be cheering in the streets. As far as small little rocky worlds go, we are not alone. How profound is that !? Alas, when the news is eventually released, as everyone seems to think it will be, there will be a caveat tossed in - people will wonder if this is the real thing or yet another false alarm. Leave it to NASA scientists to screw up a good thing like this.

If you are going to go out and talk about things with such an epochal potential for all humans to think about, you owe it to everyone involved (in other words everyone, everywhere) to make damn sure you know how to convey this information. If not, then find someone who can do it.

We could certainly use Carl Sagan right now.

NASA Opens Online Voting For Next Desert RATS Exploration Site

NASA is inviting the public to choose an area in northern Arizona where explorers will conduct part of the annual Desert Research and Technology Studies, known as Desert RATS. "Desert RATS is an annual test where NASA takes equipment and crews into the field to simulate future planetary exploration missions," said Joe Kosmo, Desert RATS manager at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston. "We want the public to be a part of this."

Challenger Center Is Ready To Return to NASA Desert RATS

"In 2009, Challenger Center, in partnership with Green Trail Energy, Inc., brought a large solar and wind power system to Desert RATS. Formally known as the GSW-7000, this device is a self-contained portable trailer that is capable of generating up to 4.4 kilowatts of power from the sun and 2.4 kilowatts of power from wind energy. As was the case last year, the GSW-7000 will be used to power education and public outreach activities that the Challenger Center will conduct at Desert RATS under its educational Space Act Agreement with NASA. Last year, the GSW-7000 was used on a trial basis to recharge batteries on several of NASA's robotic vehicles. That activity will continue this year as well."

Space Center future will be bright - eventually, its director says, Orlando Sentinel

"I see a great future for KSC," center director Robert Cabana told several hundred community boosters, elected officials, union members and industry executives gathered at the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex for the annual "Community Leaders Briefing." But short-term challenges - including mass layoffs - are looming, he added. Unlike previous briefings, this year's gathering resembled a pep rally for a high school football team after a losing season rather than the traditional "state of Kennedy Space Center" update."

Commercial Space Advocates Rally To Stall NASA Authorization Bill, SpaceNews

"House sources said July 28 that a floor vote on the NASA authorization could come as early as July 29, but opponents of the bill -- primarily commercial space advocates -- were successful in stalling the measure, which now is unlikely to be considered before July 30, sources said. Gordon is seeking to bring the measure to the House floor under suspension of the rules, a procedural tactic that prevents amendments to a bill during limited floor debate and which requires a two-thirds majority vote to pass."

Showdown over space policy, MSNBC

"H.R. 5781, the House's version of the $19 billion NASA authorization bill for fiscal 2011, lops off most of $6 billion being sought by the Obama administration for boosting the development of commercial spaceships capable of bringing astronauts to the International Space Station over the next five years. Instead, it would put more money into the internal NASA rocket development program - although not as much as previously budgeted under a plan that an independent panel said was "not viable."

Competing NASA bills on collision course in Congress, SpaceflightNow

"The House bill only calls for $150 million in direct funding for commercial crew projects through 2013. NASA would provide another $100 million per year under the pending legislation, summing an investment of $450 million spread over three years. Those figures are significantly lower than the budget proposed in the Senate's authorization act and the Senate's spending bill, which offer $1.3 billion in commercial crew funding over the same time period."

Your Help Urgently Needed to Save the Future of Human Spaceflight, SpaceX

"If you care about the future of American space exploration, your urgent help is necessary. The only hope for the average citizen to one day travel to space is in danger due to the actions of certain members of Congress. SpaceX does not have the enormous lobbying power of the big government contractors to stop them, however with your help the day can still be saved.

NASA's Authorization bill (H.R. 5781) will be debated on the floor of the US House of Representatives tomorrow. Despite the imminent retirement of the Space Shuttle, H.R. 5781 authorizes over five times as many taxpayer dollars to fly NASA astronauts on the Russian Soyuz than it invests in developing an American commercial alternative, moreover at a time when jobs are sorely needed in the United States. Quite simply, this bill represents the sort of senseless pork politics that has driven our national debt to the point where our economy can barely service it.

The bill is expected to be brought to the House floor this Friday under a special "suspension of the rules," which is a procedure that limits debate and amendments.

Telephone your Congressional representative right away via the House Switchboard at (202) 225-3121 and ask them to vote NO on H.R. 5781, and instead support the bill unanimously agreed to in the Senate last week.

Your five minutes will make a critical difference, ensuring an exciting and inspiring future in space travel! SpaceX rarely asks you to take action, so you know it really matters when we do.

--Elon--

Look up your representative here."

Video from a Google NexusOne smartphone with specially programmed Android apps, installed aboard James Dougherty's Intimidator-5 on a CTI N4100 load. Launch from Black Rock Playa on 24-July-2010 thanks to Maverick Civilian Space Foundation.

Keith's note: I feel compelled to feature this masterful video by Karen Lau and David Sanders at least once a year. This was done when Craig Steidle ran ESMD. For a brief moment, they "got it".

So folks, drop the petty internal and external politics, and think big picture - just for a moment.

I don't see this sort of thinking at NASA any more. NASA will go nowhere unless it finds its mojo again.

"We're going to carve out some time for people to give some Ignite talks at SpaceUp DC this year. Ignite is a great format. You provide 20 slides that will auto advance every 15 seconds. If you could tell the world anything about space in 5 minutes what would it be? We double dog dare you to give it a try. Here's an example of a VERY popular Ignite talk from the first SpaceUp in San Diego in Febuary. This should make your blood boil."

GAO: NASA Constellation Program and Appropriations Restrictions, Part II B-320091, July 23, 2010

"Congressional Requesters: In a letter dated March 12, 2010, you requested information and our views on whether the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) complied with the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and with restrictions in the fiscal year 2010 Exploration appropriation when NASA took certain actions pertaining to the Constellation program. ... CONCLUSION: NASA's actions to date with regard to the Constellation program have not violated either the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 or the provision in the fiscal year 2010 Exploration appropriation that bars NASA from terminating or eliminating any PPAs of the architecture for the Constellation program."

Data Leak: Galaxy Rich in Earth-Like Planets, Science

"NASA didn't plan it this way, but earlier this month a co-investigator on the Kepler satellite mission in the hunt for other Earth-like planets announced to a conference in Oxford, England, that "planets like our own Earth are out there. Our Milky Way galaxy is rich in this kind of planet." The announcement--which wasn't getting out until conference organizers posted a video online last week--was especially striking because it was largely based on Kepler data that team members had been allowed to keep to themselves for further analysis until next February. So, traditionally, such data would be released formally with all involved scientists onboard."

Claims of 100 Earth-Like Planets Not True, Space.com

"What Dimitar presented was 'candidates,'" said David Koch, the mission's deputy principal investigator at NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif. "These have the apparent signature we are looking for, but then we must perform extensive follow-up observations to eliminate false positives, such as background eclipsing binaries. This requires substantial amounts of ground-based observing which is done primarily in the summer observing season."

Kepler Scientist: 'Galaxy is Rich in Earth-Like Planets', Discovery News

"There's a bittersweet feeling to this announcement. Although the news is groundbreaking, it's a shame that it was leaked during a TED talk rather than being released via official channels from the whole Kepler team. Keith Cowing, of NASAWatch.com, goes one step further, pointing out that it's wrong for this news to be announced in the U.K., only for the news to finally break weeks later."

Keith's note: Ok, I am confused. The charts that Sasselov showed are not what you show when you are unsure of what your data is telling you. Indeed, one chart proclaims "Kepler space telescope - the first 700 planet candidates: The Galaxy is rich in small, Earth-like planets". There is no hesitation or equivocation, this is a declarative statement that comes across as a fact i.e. "the Galaxy *IS* rich in small, Earth-like planets". You certainly would need a lot of confirmed "candidates" in order to make such a bold claim in public.

Listen again to Sasselov's words: "You can see here [Chart] - small planets dominate the picture. The planets which are marked "like Earth" - definitely more than any of the other planets that we see. Now for the first time we can say that. There is a lot more work we need to do with this. Most of these are candidates and in the next few years - we will confirm them - but the statistical result is loud and clear - and the statistical result is that planets like our own Earth are out there." He says that the "statistical result is loud and clear" in other words he has data to back up his claims.

Is the Kepler team hiding something? Why is Sasselov talking about data that the Kepler team said that they did not want to discuss yet? Does Sasselov not understand what he is talking about? Or is this an issue with a scientist with a tendency to exagerate combined with less than perfect English skills? This was a public presentation by a key Kepler scientist speaking in that capacity. Did NASA PAO screen these materials before the presentation?

The Kepler folks seem to want to have things both ways. On one hand they want to tantalize us (and select audiences) with what they have found but yet at the same time they do not want to put their reputations on the line when people start taking their comments as fact. This project clearly needs to put some PR strategy in place.

More Than 1,300 Space Shuttle Workers Get Layoff Notices, Space.com

"More than 1,300 space shuttle workers received layoff notices this week from United Space Alliance - a NASA contractor that is cutting 15 percent of its 8,100-person workforce ahead of the shuttle fleet's retirement next year. Layoff notices were issued to 1,394 USA employees in all, company spokesperson Kari Fluegel told SPACE.com. The layoffs take effect Oct. 1 and were announced earlier this month by USA officials."

Shuttle contractor to lay off more than 400 TX workers, KTRK

"In all, 1,397 employees will be laid off effective October 1. That includes 478 employees in Texas, 14 in Alabama and 905 in Florida. All employees will receive severance and job training for other fields."

NASA Opens Online Voting For Next Desert RATS Exploration Site

NASA is inviting the public to choose an area in northern Arizona where explorers will conduct part of the annual Desert Research and Technology Studies, known as Desert RATS. "Desert RATS is an annual test where NASA takes equipment and crews into the field to simulate future planetary exploration missions," said Joe Kosmo, Desert RATS manager at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston. "We want the public to be a part of this."

CSF Welcomes New Members

"The Commercial Spaceflight Federation is pleased to announce that Andrews Space, Inc., DCI Services and Consulting, MEI Technologies, Special Aerospace Services, and SRA International have joined the Federation as Associate Members. The Commercial Spaceflight Federation now includes over 30 leading aerospace companies."

Keith's 6:28 pm EDT note: This was just posted on the Kepler website and at NASA.gov: "Earth-size is not Earth-like: the TED Talk by Dimitar Sasselov: Two weeks ago, I gave a talk at TED Global 2010 which was very well received, but caused confusion. I talked about Earth-like planets, which many people would equate to Earth-size and "habitable." Earth-size and Earth-like is certainly not the same. Take the example of Venus, an Earth-size planet whose surface will melt lead. I understand that the term "Earth-like" was misleading to most of the media coverage. The Kepler mission is designed to discover Earth-size planets but it has not yet discovered any; at this time we have found only planet candidates. The June 2010 Kepler data release with 306 candidates is an encouraging first step along the road to Kepler's ultimate goals, and specifically - the goal to determine the frequency of Earth-size planets in and near the habitable zone. However, these are candidates, not systems that have been verified sufficiently to be considered true planets. It will take more years of hard work to get to our goal, but we can do it."

That's all that Sasselov (NASA) as to say? It took two days to generate this? Dimitar Sasselov's Kepler statement puts the blame on other people (media are people too) misunderstanding him - not on what he clearly said. He clearly said "The Galaxy is rich in small, Earth-like planets" and "the statistical result is that planets like our own Earth are out there". These are rather bold statements for mere "candidate" planets. Moreover these words clearly evoke specific concepts in one's mind i.e. worlds - like - Earth.

If Dimitar Sasselov is going to formally represent the mission to the public then he needs vastly improve his speaking skills beyond what he currently possesses. Moreover, he needs to be reminded that this is a project funded to the tune of hundreds of millions of tax dollars. His audience is not some little club of elites but rather everyone, everywhere. Lastly, he needs to understand that 99.9% of humanity is not versed in the nuances, subtleties, and jargon that he and his fellow science majors use every day. He used the phrase "Earth-like" and he needs to admit that he made the error. For his audience to get the impression that they got is perfectly understandable given the words that he used.

This should be an object lesson to the Kepler team - and to NASA - as to how NOT to take a tantalizing topic and present it to the public. Sasselov bungled the delivery such that the world could not clearly understand what is - and is not proven as fact - yet.

Keith's 8:58 pm EDT update: Update: there is now a lengthier post by Sasselov here. I only learned about it from an alert reader. NASA PAO has not bothered to tell the media and no mention is made on any Kepler website. So I guess you have to stumble across it or just happen to see it flash by on Twitter. The essense of my complaint is the same - Sasselov claims that this was all a misunderstanding by the media - not poor choice of words and lack of through explanation on his part such that non-astronomers (i.e. virtually everyone) can understand. Fess up Dimitar, you said what you said.

- Kepler Team Needs To Take PR 101, earlier post
- Kepler Co-Investigator Spills The Beans: Lots of Earth-like Planets, earlier post

Our galaxy is rich in Earth-sized planets, CNN

"Since the time of Nicolaus Copernicus five centuries ago, people have wondered whether there are other planets like Earth in the universe. Today scientists are closer than ever to an answer -- and it appears to be that the Milky Way galaxy is rich in Earth-sized planets, according to astronomer Dimitar Sasselov. Drawing on new findings from a NASA telescope, he told the TED Global conference in Oxford, England earlier this month that nearly 150 Earth-sized planets have been detected so far. He estimated that the overall number of planets in the galaxy with "similar conditions to the conditions that we experience here on Earth is pretty staggering. It's about 100 million such planets."

Millions of Earths? Talk causes a stir, Alan Boyle's Cosmiclog, MSNBC

"NASA Watch's Keith Cowing said he was confused by Sasselov's seemingly significant non-news: "The Kepler folks seem to want to have things both ways," he wrote. "On one hand they want to tantalize us (and select audiences) with what they have found but yet at the same time they do not want to put their reputations on the line when people start taking their comments as fact. This project clearly needs to put some PR strategy in place." My efforts to get comments from Sasselov or other members of the Kepler team today were unsuccessful, but NASA spokesman Michael Mewhinney did tell me that the scientists are preparing a fresh response and would provide further clarification on Tuesday. So check back here for updates as they become available."

Keith's 2:28 pm EDT note: My reaction to this news is not unlike my reaction to the opening scene of the early Star Trek Enterprise episode "Strange New World" - and the crew's reaction to seeing an M-Class planet unexpectedly fill the view out a window. As Crewman Novakovich comments to Crewman Cutler, "You'd think that the Captain would make an announcement or something". The discussion between Captain Archer and T'Pol about Archer's impatience to see and explore the new world is equally appropriate to the current Kepler story.

ARC PAO's Michael Mewhinney and his cohorts have had several days to come up with a response. While the world is buzzing about this astonishing news we've heard nothing from the Kepler team. Someone needs to light a fire under Mewhinney et al The fact that NASA can't get its act together to address this news is baffling. Trully baffling. I can understand dragging their feet when there is bad news, but when paradigm-shifting, awe-inspiring news like this starts to circulate around our planet, the agency's inability to address it makes me wonder if the agency trully understands what it is doing - and the impact it can have on they way we view the universe.

Keith's 4:52 pm EDT update: Finally - a response from the Kepler folks - via Twitter here: "@KeithCowing We're working on it! New Kepler blog contribution from Dimitar is on its way. Will tweet the moment it's ready." and here: "@NASAWatch Kepler blog contribution from Dimitar Sasselov is expected to be out today."

- Kepler Team Needs To Take PR 101, earlier post
- Kepler Co-Investigator Spills The Beans: Lots of Earth-like Planets, earlier post

Conrad Foundation & ManSat Limited Expand the Spirit and Innovation Awards program on International Stage

"Officials with The Conrad Foundation today announced ManSat Limited, a global commercial space corporation headquartered on the Isle of Man , has joined with the Conrad Foundation to expand the 2010-2011 Spirit of Innovation Awards program on the international stage. ManSat will sponsor a national competition on the Isle of Man from which one finalist team will participate in the annual awards competition, which gives high school students the opportunity to design, develop and commercialize innovative products that help solve challenges of the 21st century."

Frank Sietzen, Jr.: Seemingly lost among the noise following last week's actions of the House Commerce and Science Committee and the Senate Appropriations Committee on marking up a NASA budget is the issue of the agency's proposed new technology programs. Both the House and Senate sharply cut the Obama Administration's original request.

As of this writing no dissent has been heard from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, so the cuts might stick. It might be useful to review what the Obama Administration originally asked for - and why.

From the Administration's original FY2011 budget submission:

"The transformational technologies highlighted in this budget for development and demonstration address critical capabilities for sending crews to a variety of exciting destinations beyond low Earth orbit. By allowing for flight demonstrations, some at a flagship caliber, this ESMD budget resolves the achievement gap between lab demonstration and flight testing that might otherwise prevent NASA from implementing exciting new technologies. Prior to base lining them for crewed missions, these demonstrations will validate new technologies that are not yet fully developed, but are essential for mission success, such as automated and autonomous rendezvous and docking, in situ resource utilization, aero capture, large mass entry descent and landing, highly efficient in-space propulsion, precision landing and hazard avoidance, cryogenics storage and transfer, lightweight/inflatable modules, and others. And before sending humans on extended missions beyond low Earth orbit, accelerated biomedical research will help us to ensure crew health and safety."

The whole thing was to be run by ESMD - again, from the budget detail release:

"Activities within ESMD's Technology Demonstration Program will be aimed at advancing technologies needed to expand our human exploration opportunities, reduce mission costs, and contribute NASA innovation to broader national challenges and applications. This will be accomplished through investment in demonstration of flagship technology projects, as well as enabling technology development and demonstration. NASA will provide an assessment of the highest leverage technologies and demonstrations.

Flagship Technology Demonstrations: Projects selected as in-space, flagship demonstrations will be significant in scale, and offer high potential to demonstrate new capability and reduce the cost of future exploration missions. These missions will demonstrate such critical technologies as in-orbit propellant transfer and storage, inflatable modules, automated/autonomous rendezvous and docking, closed-loop life support systems, and other next generation capabilities key to sustainably exploring deep space.

In FY 2011, NASA will initiate several Flagship Technology Demonstrators, each with an expected lifecycle cost in the $400 million to $1 billion range, over a lifetime of five years or less, with the first flying no later than 2014. In pursuit of these goals, international, commercial, and other government agency partners will be actively pursued as integrated team members where appropriate. NASA will not give responsibility for all demonstrations to any single NASA center but rather looks forward to engaging with the expertise of various centers to accomplish these objectives. Specific architecture and approach for missions to demonstrate key capabilities will be developed for initiation in FY2011. Technologies targeted for demonstration will likely include:

In-Orbit Propellant Transfer and Storage: The capability to transfer and store propellant--particularly cryogenic propellants--in orbit can significantly increase the Nation's ability to conduct complex and extended exploration missions beyond Earth's orbit. It could also potentially be used to extend the lifetime of future government and commercial spacecraft in Earth orbit. This technology demonstration, building on previous ESMD technology investments and prior demonstrations such as Orbital Express, could test technologies and processes such as long-term storage of cryogenic propellant, automated physical connections between fuel lines in orbit, and verification of fuel acquisition, fuel withdrawal, and fuel transfer.

Lightweight/Inflatable Modules: Inflatable modules can be larger, lighter, and potentially less expensive for future use than the rigid modules currently used by the International Space Station (ISS). Working closely with industry and international partners who have already demonstrated a number of capabilities and interest in this arena, and building on previous ESMD investments, NASA will pursue a demonstration of lightweight/inflatable modules for eventual in-space habitation, transportation, or even surface habitation needs. The demonstration could involve tests of a variety of systems, including closed-loop life support, radiation shielding, thermal control, communications, and interfaces between the module and external systems. Use of the ISS as the testbed for this technology is an option being considered to potentially benefit both programs.

Automated/Autonomous Rendezvous and Docking: The ability of two spacecraft to rendezvous, operating independently from human controllers and without other back-up, requires advances in sensors, software, and real-time on-orbit positioning and flight control, among other challenges. This technology is critical to the ultimate success of capabilities such as in-orbit propellant storage and refueling, complex operations in assembling mission components for challenging destinations, in-space construction, and exploration operations far from Earth where the communications delay does not allow for effective human involvement.

NASA will also begin work in 2011 on an additional Flagship Technology Demonstrator mission to be selected within the Agency, and map out a sequence of Flagship missions to be initiated in 2012 and later. Potential candidates include but are not limited to:

Closed-loop life support system demonstration at the ISS: This would validate the feasibility of human survival beyond Earth based on recycled materials with minimal logistics supply. A follow-on demonstration could involve an integrated inflatable module/closed-loop life support system demonstration.

Aerocapture, and/or entry, descent and landing (EDL) technology: This could involve the development and demonstration of systems technologies for: precision landing of payloads on "high-g" and "low-g" planetary bodies; returning humans or collected samples to Earth; and enabling orbital insertion in various atmospheric conditions. Demonstrations could be ground-based or flight experiments."

Then there were propulsion-related demos:

"A major thrust of this research and development activity will be related to space launch propulsion technologies. This effort will include first stage engine development, in-space engine demonstrations, and foundational propulsion research in areas such as new or largely untested propellants that can result in more capable and less expensive future rockets, including heavy-lift rockets. In addition, NASA will provide $25 million annually to fund commercial, university, and other non-governmental research organizations to conduct foundational propulsion research."

Both the House and Senate budget bills have deeply cut the technology programs, although the program itself still stands. They have also mandated NASA to develop a heavy lift launch vehicle by 2016. Given the short horizon and budget this almost certainly means some form of SD HLV. While humans to Mars remains the national goal, here's my question to posters here on NASA Watch:

1. 1. How would you reprioritize the technology program to support manned deep space missions; and
2. 2. How would you spend funds for advanced propulsion work given the smaller budgets?

As far as launch systems are concerned, could history repeat itself?

In the late 1950s the Army, the Air Force and DARPA had large launch vehicles and new liquid rocket engines under design or test - many without a specific mission or payload in mind.

The Army actually had serious discussions underway about building a lunar surface facility or space troop transport, all for which their Huntsville team led by Von Braun thought of using the Saturns - the Saturn 1 that is. The Air Force was developing the F-1, M-1 and J-2 engines for some at the time unknown missions.

When the new President, John Kennedy, came along in 1961 and suddenly faced an ascendant Soviet space program, he had these technologies from which to choose to support a new expansive space goal. We all know how that movie ended.

Today, American Presidents routinely propose new space goals -think George W. Bush and Barack Obama-without strong defense of their rationales or budget needs (at least in the case of Obama, thus far). A manned mission to an asteroid has been proposed, but the budget to develop the launch vehicle to send the ship there, according to press reports of senior NASA officials is inadequate to actually field the launch vehicle itself for another decade.

If these technology cuts stand, what will stand between us and an asteroid investigation is a SD HLV (Shuttle-derived Heavy Launch Vehicle) and a capsule alone - since no deep space module is mandated or funded in the same time frame. While Mars is supposed to be the destination, will these technology programs be sufficient to advance the propulsion systems (VASIMR?) or life support systems (radiation hardened) to produce progress in getting there?

The problem with all this, folks, is we don't know what we don't know-and what new space discoveries, such as life on Mars or an errant asteroid, that might be cause for jump starting the space program. In the words of writer Frank Rich, none of us, then or now, can see around the corner and know what history will bring.