Keith's note: Several Three Four NASA Watch readers sent this email to me today. Looks like someone in Sen. Feinstein's office needs to learn how to use their word processing software a little better. Click on image to enlarge.

Two Three of the people who sent me this email said that they never contacted Sen. Feinstein - in any way - about NASA - or anything else. Looks like GoBoldly's fake emails are still echoing around. The annoying thing about this is that the director of GoBoldly admitted to me that this happened but the organization has not publicly apologized.

Fake Emails - Not A Good Sign (update), earlier post.

In all the debate over who has the best plan for NASA, I think something important has been lost.  Right now, I think destinations and architectures aren’t as important as articulating a coherent vision for a space program relevant to America’s needs and values.

Given the shock that has accompanied the pending Shuttle retirement, the continuation of a Space Station that I doubt most Americans know exists, and the proposed cancellation of the Constellation Program (that I think even fewer Americans really knew about), I think it’s clear that we haven’t done that.  Instead, we have people arguing back and forth over what largely amount to platitudes.  I hear friends and colleagues, who are understandably disenchanted with the political process, wishing aloud that the government would just give us the money to go do what we want and leave us alone.

That’s never going to happen, of course.  Whether civil servant or contractor, all of us involved in NASA’s human space flight endeavors are stewards of the taxpayers’ money.  Members of Congress and the President are the duly elected representatives of those same taxpayers.  Between the Executive and Legislative branches of our political triad, policy is crafted, funded, and executed.  Human space flight is inherently tied to the political process and we fail to bridge the technical and policy worlds at our own peril.

There have been many strategies put forth to try to help NASA better navigate the winds of political change.  Most that I’ve seen propose some mechanism to make it more difficult for politicians to change course mid-stream.  The politicians control the purse strings, so that’s never going to happen, either.

I think the most effective strategy for NASA exists at a much more basic level.  It’s something I always kinda knew in the back of my head, but I didn’t really learn how to start explaining it better until I had the opportunity to serve on the Barrier Analysis Team for JSC’s Inclusion and Innovation Council.  Mark Craig, a NASA veteran and senior executive at SAIC, was one of the mentors for our team and I think I learned more from him than anyone else over that period.

If you keep up with OpenNASA, you’ll know that this isn’t the first time I’ve broached the subject.  I think NASA’s best defense is to design and pursue programs and strategies that are relevant because they contribute to solving America’s strategic problems.

On May 5th, I had the opportunity to listen to Mark discuss this topic in more detail.  He was gracious enough to let me share here on OpenNASA what I took away from his talk.

Since it was presented under the auspices of the JSC Storytelling program, Mark opened up by defining what a “story” is, according to his friend and colleague, Bob Rogers.  A story is ” a deeper level of truth by which we explain the world and our place in it to ourselves.”  (Note: Ask yourself how you explain, honestly, the world and your place in it.  How do you relate that story to other people? We’ll come back to that.)

Mark also explained that he sees relevance as having two parts.  There is the “why” and the “value.”  “Why Relevance” explains our reason for being.  It tells us where we go and what we do.  Mark offered the statements of the Augustine Committee and John Marburger, OSTP Director under President Bush, as examples.  The Augustine Committee said we go into space to expand the human presence in the Solar System, while Marburger stated that our goal was “to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program.”

These statements aren’t necessarily contradictory, but they illustrate different perspectives on the “why” that must be taken into account.

“Value relevance” is defined by Mark as a “critical mass” of benefit delivered to a “critical mass” of stakeholders.  This recognizes that you probably can’t please everyone, but you can and should satisfy enough of your stakeholders to press on.  This form of relevance must actually be experienced by the stakeholders, though.  We can’t just go do something that we think is great and, then, try to sell it to everyone else. Value relevance is fostered through a continual process of research (identify what is important to your stakeholders), creation (make something that meets their needs), delivery (make sure they get it), and self-improvement (evaluate how well you did the last iteration).

This is not just a communications problem.  We’ve labored under the assumption for far too long that we don’t do a good enough job “selling” the space program to the public.  Mark rightly points out that this process of creating value relevance must be built into architectures and designs early on.  The research part is key because we have to meet other people where they are to effectively engage them, both on a technical and emotional level.  One commenter in the audience noted that, in the business world she came from, you have to know your audience or you will fail.

Mark also had a few recommendations and “Red Flags” for us to consider.  First, he advocates the creation of an external guidance and accountability function, similar to the Decadal Survey process, for human space flight.  Having an external group of “thought leaders” in science, industry, art, and culture would provide the outside perspective that we in the human space flight community lack.  This would help keep us from drinking our own bathwater.

NASA would also need its own value management system to engage external marketing experts, employ industry best practices in value management, and document the structure in NASA processes.  This gets back to the point about needing to build value relevance into our system early on.

From his experience as a NASA veteran and consultant to museums, Mark also suggested some areas where we could make a real impact.  For example, the movie Apollo 13 was compelling because it showed, in detail, what the people went through.  NASA TV’s view of Mission Control, by comparison, looks like a security camera.  We have experiences and emotions to share with the public.  Why don’t we?

Mark also believes that we could be doing more in the area of medical research for the benefit of people here on Earth.  My personal opinion is that we have a similar opportunity in the area of energy.  American-owned and operated powersats and miniaturized, passively-safe nuclear power could revolutionize both industry and space exploration while giving us avenues to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

Changing our approach to how we build and conduct the space program doesn’t just involve top-down management, though.  Mark also identified what he called “red flags” for us to push back against when we see them.

1. Don’t just assume change is happening.  Ask how programs are being shaped to bring it about.  Who is in charge? What is the funding and where does it come from?
2. Ask how something improves sustainability. Changing a vehicle, destination, or program isn’t enough.
3. In regards to outreach, are we just showing up? Or are we deliberate and thoughtful in our approach so that we listen to what the people we are reaching out to are saying?
4. “We just need to explain it better.”  Be careful.  It’s a trap to convince ourselves our original idea is right.
5. “Congress is our customer.”  Be careful.  It’s a trap to blame our missteps on politics.
6. “The public is our customer.” Be careful.  It’s a trap to abrogate accountability because it’s too nebulous.
7. “Marketing is illegal.” No, it isn’t. Lobbying and advertising are, but those aren’t all there is to marketing.

I agree with Mark’s argument that we can build human space flight into the fabric of society, if we can build relevance and accountability into the human space flight program.  We just have to remember that this is relevance that is researched, understood, and delivered; not just assumed.

So, with that in mind, I ask you to consider the following questions.

What is the compelling story for the human space program?

How can we make it relevant to America’s needs and values?

How you can be a part of changing the narrative?

NASA Presentations on New Space Plans for FY2011, Planetary Defense

"Lori Garver, Ed Weiler, Bobby Braun, and Laurie Leshin (all from NASA) presented at a meeting in Washington, D.C. on 05 May 2010 aspects of the new NASA plan, specifically those elements involved with the new NASA budget. I have posted these docs to the Google Docs library (General) for this site."

2 dead after explosion at Ala. Army base, AP

"Two contract workers died after being injured in an explosion while removing a propellant from rockets at Redstone Arsenal, where the Army conducts missile and weapons research. The public affairs office at the post in Huntsville said the two died Wednesday night after being flown to the burn unit at UAB Hospital in Birmingham. Base officials said Thursday the names of the workers would be released later. Both worked for a Redstone contractor, Amtech Corp., and were injured in an explosion at 8:45 a.m. Wednesday while removing ammonium perchlorate from rockets at a test site. The Army described the chemical as an oxidizer used in solid rocket propellant."

Mars Institute team to complete Arctic sea-ice drive along fabled Northwest Passage to reach "Mars on Earth"

"An international team led by Mars Institute scientist Dr. Pascal Lee will depart the Arctic community of Resolute Bay today aboard the Moon-1 Humvee Rover on a sea-ice crossing expedition. The team is headed for the Haughton-Mars Project Research Station (HMPRS) on Devon Island, High Arctic, a remote outpost dedicated to space exploration on the world's largest uninhabited island. The Moon-1 is an experimental vehicle simulating future pressurized rovers that will one day allow humans to explore long distances on the Moon and Mars. Last year, the scientists completed a record-setting 494 km drive on sea-ice in the Moon-1 along the fabled Northwest Passage between Kugluktuk and Cambridge Bay, Nunavut."

Obama's NASA plans in peril?, Orlando Sentinel

"NASA itself also appears to be hedging its bets that the president's vision might not pass muster with Congress. KSC officials and contractors, under direction from Johnson Space Center and NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden, are pressing ahead with plans for test flights of a multibillion-dollar Ares I rocket that Obama wants to cancel. Meanwhile, big aerospace contractors are trying to sell members of Congress on a new $8 billion rocket that could be fashioned from pieces of the space shuttle, which is supposed to be retired later this year. Last week, a group of contractors led by aerospace giant Boeing Co. met Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., to push the new rocket idea. Nelson previously has backed more Ares test flights."

Unanimous Support by Florida Legislature Facilitates Competitive Space Industry in Florida

"Florida's space industry remained a forefront issue for legislators throughout the 2010 legislative session, which concluded on April 30. Faced with the impending Shuttle retirement (expected to result in 23,000 direct and indirect job losses, contributing to significant economic impact across the state), the legislature voted to unanimously support critical legislation designed to stimulate economic development and promote aerospace industry jobs."

"NASA successfully tested the pad abort system for the Launch Abort System developed for the Orion crew exploration vehicle at 9 a.m. EDT. The 97-second flight test is called the Pad Abort 1 test, or PA1. It is the first fully integrated test of the Launch Abort System developed for Orion. The test took place at the U.S. Army's White Sands Missile Range near Las Cruces, N.M."

In my last entry, I made what I believe is the fundamental case for space exploration – the fact that the survival of our species ultimately depends on it.  Perhaps the world’s most reknowned cosmologist, Stephen Hawking shares this view and, with the help of computer graphics, illustrated it on the Discovery Channel with tonight’s episode of “Into the Universe” – The Story of Everything.

Not only do we have external and internal threats to our continued existence, we have a final time limit of about one billion years.  The Sun is in its “middle age,” but it will eventually expand – in about five billion years – into what is called a red giant star.  At this point, it will have stopped fusing hydrogen in its core and will only be burning in the outer shells.

These regions where fusion is still taking place will expand out from the core and, eventually, engulf the Earth itself.  Long before its physical destruction, though, the planet will be rendered uninhabitable by the increased radiation as the Sun continues to age.  Even before the transition to a red giant, the Sun’s output will be so strong in a billion years that the oceans will boil off and the hydrogen lost to space.

Red Giant Sun
Video of the Sun expanding in its red giant phase

There are no “ifs, ands, or buts” about it.  We will not be able to call Earth our home forever.  By that time, we must have learned how to live on other worlds and, eventually, even how to cross the vast distances between the stars.  Though we may be able to live on Mars or terraformed moons of the outer planets for a time, the Sun’s expansion is likely to eject Mars and the outer planets into deep space.

Even if we figure out a way to stay in the solar system on entirely artificial habitats, the Sun will eventually die.  The outer layers will be cast off into a nebula of gas and dust.  Fusion will cease completely.  All that will remain is an extremely dense white dwarf, cooling away until it no longer even emits heat.

Yes, a billion years is a very long time from now.  The fact that we can even conceptualize such a problem, though, is a credit to our species.  We will have to solve it, eventually.  With today’s space programs, we are taking the first steps.  Russian rocket pioneer Konstantin Tsiolkovsky said that Earth is the cradle of humanity, but that we cannot stay in the cradle forever.

Artist’s concept of a lunar base (NASA)

So, what role should the government have in all this?  Why should we even have a NASA?

First, I look to the Constitution itself.  At the very beginning, the Preamble says that our government was created, in part, to “provide for the common defence” and to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

Given the potential near-term threats from space hazards to life, liberty, and property and the long-term necessity of space travel for our continued survival, I’d say we’re pretty well covered there.  A just government exists to protect the rights of its citizens through reasonable measures and in accordance with the rule of law.  Thus, a just government has an inherent interest in protecting its citizens against space-based threats and developing the means to do so.

The Constitution grants Congress the power to pay for such a capability and the President the authority to direct both the armed forces and any other agency established by Congress to execute that capability.  Some also argue that the Constitution grants Congress the ability to promote science and “the useful Arts,” but I think that is an overly generous interpretation of the clause granting Congress power to establish patents and copyrights.

If we agree that the US government has a just role in protecting its citizens and American property (including assets in space) from threats beyond our atmosphere, you still might ask why we don’t just let the military handle it all.  Until the Space Act of 1958, that’s precisely what the case was.

President Eisenhower and Congress agreed that the United States should have separate, but parallel, military and civilian space programs, unlike the centralized military system in the Soviet Union.  NASA was created to coordinate all non-military activity in space, as the commercial and civilian benefits of space applications were recognized early on.  This had the added benefit of initiating multiple development paths for American rocketry in its race with the Soviet Union for space supremacy.

Sputnik
Sputnik – The first artificial satellite and the beginning of the Space Race

However, we won the Space Race.  We beat the Soviets to the Moon.  Since then, our government has largely taken the position that what NASA does best is inspire the nation through its pursuit of science in space.  We’ve spent the past forty years trying to either figure out “what’s next?” or get back to where Apollo left off.

While basic science research is more important than ever, especially with the closing of private research institutions like the venerable Bell Labs, and is a vital component of ensuring NASA has the knowledge it needs, I don’t think that is necessarily the best attitude to have about NASA as an agency.  I think NASA has an obligation to be directly relevant to the country’s vital interests, beyond nebulous claims of our importance to prestige and technology research.

The Space Act itself says that “the general welfare and security” of our country require that NASA seek and encourage the “fullest” commercial use of space.  It also requires NASA have a watch program for Near-Earth Objects to “provide warning and mitigation of the potential hazard,” I might add.

Space exploration for its own sake is enough to get me out of bed in the morning, go for my run, shower, and head down to Clear Lake.  However, it has become clear to me that isn’t enough to justify the cost to the American taxpayer, as much as many of my colleagues wish the politicians would just give us the money and leave us alone.

In the process of carrying out its Congressionally-designated mission to protect the Earth from space-based threats and increase our understanding of the planet and space phenomena, NASA can and must undertake initiatives that help solve America’s strategic problems.  By thoughtful selection of NASA’s programs, we can all get the best of both worlds.

For example, rare-earth metals are resources both vital to modern technology and largely supplied by foreign countries, like China.  There is serious concern that China may restrict the supply of these materials to feed their own domestic needs.  Preliminary surveys of some Near-Earth Objects suggest that they might have more usable metals, including rare-earth elements, than has ever been mined in the history of civilization.

NASA technology developed to study, track, and deflect threatening asteroids could possibly be commercialized to provide the United States with vital commodities that we lack in abundance within our borders, if it can be done economically and safely.

Artist’s concept of an asteroid mining operation (NASA)

Perhaps that’s a bit too much of a stretch, though.  After all, it might turn out to be cheaper to cut some kind of deal with a country that has the resources we need, but lacks the capability to extract them on their own.

Let’s consider energy independence, then.  Solar power is often criticized because it doesn’t work when the weather is bad or at night.  The Sun is always shining in space, though.  The fundamental technology already exists where we could collect solar power in space and beam it to the ground on a frequency largely transparent to the atmosphere.

It just hasn’t been demonstrated on a large enough scale to be useful – yet.  The National Space Security Office has done studies showing how space-based solar power could allow the military to provide clean, safe, on-demand power to forward-deployed bases.  In some places, the cost per kilowatt-hour for the military today is 20 times what we pay stateside.  Space-based solar would also eliminate costly and dangerous powerplant fuel convoys.

The European Space Agency sponsored a study that showed a powersat system could pay back its energy costs of being established within its first year of operation.  However, the problem is that the cost of launch to orbit is still very high, so much so that the commercial space industry tends to be very conservative.  It would be hard to get a powersat initiative going without a large first customer.

Advances in technology are reducing the size and increasing the efficiency of solar panels, though.  New designs currently in development could provide as much power as all eight arrays on the International Space Station on a single array a fraction the size.  Such high-density production will also be useful for electric propulsion systems that are orders of magnitude more efficient than chemical propulsion in space.

Artist’s concept of a powersat (NASA)

Author Ben Bova laid out a possible roadmap to a powersat future, though, in 2008.  The United States built its giant hydroelectric dams through public-private partnerships where private investors were backed by low-interest, long-term loans guaranteed by the government.

A similar program where NASA demonstrates the technology for in-space applications and turns over mass production to private industry for such customers as the military could be just the thing to spur the creation of this new industry – an inherently high-tech field with direct security and economic benefits to the country.

If you’re still skeptical about solar, though, there is always nuclear power to consider.  To minimize crew exposure to cosmic radiation and dramatically reduce transit times (perhaps to intercept an asteroid or comet), nuclear-based propulsion in space may be required.  This will require the development of safe, simple, but highly-productive nuclear reactors suitable for launching into orbit and propelling spacecraft.  Such advanced nuclear power would certainly be useful for terrestrial applications, as well.

In partnership with the Department of Energy and private industry, NASA could play a key role in developing lightweight, but safe, nuclear reactors that would reduce our dependence on fossil fuels for energy production.

NASA has published its successfully commercialized technology since 1976.  However, Tang and Velcro remain – incorrectly, I might add – the “spinoffs” captured in the public psyche.  I think this is because we have not been successful as a community at designing our leading programs and missions to simultaneously contribute to solving America’s most pressing issues.  Once we do that, I don’t think there will be any question of NASA’s relevance.

Just as President Jefferson sent Lewis and Clark out into the frontiers of America to see what opportunities awaited us, NASA is the Congressionally-empowered civil agent of the government to explore our opportunities in “the High Frontier”, gather the knowledge and develop the technology we need to protect ourselves and our investments, and foster America’s best utilization of space resources.

Artist’s concept of an aerobraking Orbital Transfer Vehicle (NASA)

Cross-posted at A World With No Boundaries

There is a strong sentiment held by some these days that America doesn’t necessarily need to explore space or that, if it does, we should leave it entirely to the private sector.  I’d like to discuss why I think space exploration is important and the role I see for government in that endeavor.  For this first post, I’ll talk about the “why”.

The fundamental reason I think we should explore space at all is pretty straightforward, actually.  We are almost certain that we know what killed the dinosaurs.  Sixty-five million years ago, an object 10-15 kilometers in size impacted the Earth near the present-day town of Chicxulub on the Yucatan Peninsula.  For a sense of perspective, this asteroid or comet was almost as big around as the Inner Loop/610.

The Chicxulub collision was more powerful than one billion Hiroshima bombs and left a crater more than 100 miles in diameter, now mostly covered by the Gulf of Mexico.

Artist’s rendition of the Chicxulub impact (NASA)

While there are a variety of collolary theories regarding other environmental stresses that led up to or followed the impact, the scientific consensus to-date is that this was what triggered the mass extinction that ended the reign of the dinosaurs.  Sedimentation layers around the world that correspond to the time of the impact have much higher concentrations than normal of iridium, an element that is rare in the Earth’s crust and relatively abundant in asteroids and comets.

The impact itself would have generated dust clouds and sulfuric aerosols that blocked the Sun’s light and devastated plant life.  This triggered a catastrophic collapse in the food chain.  We have also found evidence for the tsunamis generated when the asteroid hit the water, such as marine sand in places where there were no seas, at the time.  The heat pulse from the impact and the re-entry of debris cast out into space would have also ignited firestorms across the planet, dumping pollutants into the atmosphere.

Even if there were multiple impacts that triggered other calamities, as some scientists suggest, the Cretatious-Tertiary extinction event stands as a lesson for us in the fundamental value of having both knowledge and understanding of the workings of our solar system.  As one science fiction author once astutely put it, the dinosaurs died because they didn’t have a space program.

A study of Earth’s geological record will show the evidence of past impacts, some perhaps even larger than that which killed the dinosaurs.  An asteroid or comet impact is believed by some scientists to have played a role in the immense Permian-Triassic extinction event 250 million years ago, though we are much less certain about its causes.

However, we do know that 96% of all marine species and 70% of land-based vertebrates were wiped out.  The Permian extinction is also the only known mass extinction of insect species.

In more recent times, we have actually observed dramatic collisions between asteroids and comets and other planets in our solar system.  Perhaps the most notable example is from July 1994, when Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 was seen striking Jupiter after having been broken up by the planet’s immense gravitational influence.

The actual impacts occurred on a side of Jupiter pointed away from Earth at the time.  The Galileo probe, though, was already en route to Jupiter for its planetary science mission and observed the collision as it happened.  The first impact created a fireball of nearly 43,000 degrees Fahrenheit and with a plume nearly 2000 miles high.  The Hubble Space Telescope even saw the fireball plume rise over the edge of Jupiter’s visible disc.

Hubble Space Telescope imagery of the fireball (NASA)

Twenty-one impacts were observed over six days.  The largest created a dark spot in Jupiter’s clouds approximately the diameter of the Earth and released energy equivalent to 600 times all of the nuclear weapons on the planet – combined.

Closer to home, the Tunguska event of 1908 is believed to be an airburst of an asteroid or comet fragment a few miles above the surface of the Earth.  The blast was likely equivalent to the most powerful thermonuclear weapons ever built – between 10 and 30 megatons of TNT – and destroyed over 800 square miles of Siberian forest.  Such an impact could easily devastate a metropolitan area.

Asteroids and comets, of which over 1000 are classified as “Potentially Hazardous Objects,” are not our only worry, though.  The Ordovician extinction, approximately 440 million years ago, is theorized by some scientists to have been caused by a gamma ray burst from a relatively nearby supernova.

In such an event, one study showed that a 10-second gamma ray beam could destroy half of the Earth’s ozone and expose life on the surface to intense prompt UV radiation.  Following the event, the Earth would be vulnerable to increased absorption of solar radiation, as well.  This could have catatrophic effects on the food chain, because of mass die-offs of plants and plankton, and lead to widespread disruption of the biosphere.

Artist’s rendition of a gamma-ray burst (NASA)

Put simply, there are things out there in space that can kill us and our only defense is to go out there, study and understand those threats, and develop strategies for mitigation.

Human beings tend to cluster in groups for mutual benefit and survival.  It is an evolutionary strategy that usually works well for us.  However, there are always a few who break out on their own to explore new areas and establish new groups.  Most do not succeed.  However, those that do ensure the continued survival of our species and introduce tremendous growth.

If fact, I would argue that the United States itself is a perfect example of that.  Our nation was founded by people who left the Old World behind to start anew and make something special for themselves.  That is how the original Thirteen Colonies were started.  That is how “the West was won.”  As a nation, we have been at our best when we are out on the frontiers.

Now, we live in a world with a globalized economy.  The leadership of the United States is in question.  History is starting to repeat itself.  Like many great nations before us, we are becoming fat and complacent, more concerned with entertainment than accomplishment.  However, we still have advantages in resources and ingenuity.

Artist’s rendition of an exploration mission to an asteroid (NASA)

I can think of no more fitting legacy for the United States than to lead the way in what Gerard K. O’Neill, physicist and space advocate, called “the High Frontier.”  The problems of space travel, asteroid and comet deflection, and the colonization of other worlds are immense.  We are, quite literally, just scratching at the surface.

The balance here on Earth is tenuous, though.  Every human being that has ever lived and died has done so here on this planet.  All of our proverbial eggs are in one basket.  There are many threats to that balance from within, such as global climate change, natural disasters, and our own propensity for violent political and economic struggle.  We cannot assume that our fortune at living in a time relatively conducive to human civilization will continue indefinitely.

Just as the United States escaped the majority of the devastation of World War II to become the world’s technological and economic powerhouse, I think it likely that our descendants on other worlds will one day be called to do the same by avoiding calamity here on Earth.

So, what role is there for the government in all of this?  That will be the subject of Part II.

Cross-posted at A World With No Boundaries.

NASA Chief Draws Fire for Rich Benefits Plan, WS Journal

"In last week's statement, NASA said Mr. Bolden was responding to recommendations first made several years ago by various NASA officials and reiterated recently by the agency's top medical officer. Currently, only about 70% of former astronauts are part of NASA's long-term health project. NASA says the legislation aims to increase that level of participation by offering former astronauts more incentives to provide data and giving the agency more opportunities to directly monitor health changes. "If enacted, the legislative proposal would apply to [Mr. Bolden] and his family," according to NASA. "The office of the general counsel has reviewed [the matter] and did not identify ethical or conflict-of-interest issues," NASA said."

Launch could be first test of rocket and Obama space plan, USA Today

"For company founder Elon Musk, it's showtime. "We're super excited to be launching from Cape Canaveral," Musk said. "It's like opening on Broadway." For others, the flight will be a measure of President Obama's plan to kill NASA's moon program, dubbed Project Constellation, and instead invest in developing commercial "space taxis" for astronauts traveling to and from low Earth orbit. The plan has encountered opposition in Congress. The odds of success on the first launch of any new rocket are about 50-50. "I hope people don't use us as a bellwether for commercial space," Musk said."

Bolden, Griffin Display Space Policy Differences, Aviation Week

"It has become much to fashion lately to compare Constellation to Apollo, with the thought of course that we don't want to do anything that might look at all like Apollo," said Griffin. "I wonder about that sometimes because Apollo made me pretty proud to be an American. That drive has sustained a couple of generations of space professionals. So, today we have a space policy choice confronting us. Do we want to do innovative, game-changing technologies? Or, do we want to do something that might look a little bit like Apollo?'

The Four Flavors of Lunar Water, Paul Spudis, Air & Space

"New studies of lunar samples, along with results from several missions in recent years, have given us a revolutionary new picture of water on the Moon. Study of volcanic glass from the Apollo 15 landing site in 2008 demonstrated that tiny amounts of water (about 50 parts per million) are present in the interiors of these glasses, suggesting that the lunar mantle (whence they came) contains about ten times this amount. This was a startling result, considering the extreme dryness of other lunar samples."

Scientists Say Ice Lurks in Asteroid's Cold Heart, NASA

"Scientists using a NASA funded telescope have detected water-ice and carbon-based organic compounds on the surface of an asteroid. The cold hard facts of the discovery of the frosty mixture on one of the asteroid belt's largest occupants, suggests that some asteroids, along with their celestial brethren, comets, were the water carriers for a primordial Earth."

Pitching for NASA, Hutchison back in the game, Houston Chronicle

"Legislation crafted by Hutchison in the Senate and Rep. Suzanne Kosmas, a Florida Democrat in the House, would require NASA to identify and make specific delivery arrangements for supplies and equipment needed by the orbiting space laboratory before steps are taken to end shuttle operations this year."

Prepared Remarks by Charles Bolden at NASA JSC 28 April 2010

"For my friends in the media - and I think you all know that I mean that in all sincerity - our NASA team cannot be successful in telling our incredible story without your cooperation and assistance. I will always attempt to be responsive to your requests for access, within reason. But you are not a friend of the space program when you misrepresent the statements or actions of our dedicated, loyal workforce for the sake of a headline-winning story. Again, please don't take this as an attempt to blame the messenger for NASA's problems. That is not the case nor my intent. Rather, please realize that this is a major change in trajectory for our Nation's space program, and that such change is bound to be turbulent in the formative stages. I know that this Nation's aerospace enterprise is capable of coming together and moving forward as one."

Keith's note: If NASA management were to stop thinking of the media in terms of "friends" or its implied counterpart (enemies) and focused instead upon being responsive to the media when the agency is legitimately questioning NASA's problems (things NASA would prefer to to talk about), then the adversarial relationship would improve. Thinking in "us vs them" terms, as is evidenced in Bolden's remarks, simply perpetuates the problem.

Charlie Bolden's stand on NASA, Constellation and Ares I tests, Orlando Sentinel

"Bolden: Who? Jeff Hanley? I talk to Jeff quite a bit. As far as I am concerned, Jeff does exactly what I asked him to do, to be quite honest. And Jeff and NASA, we are in a tough situation in that we have to comply with the 2010 provision in law that says we cannot terminate [Constellation], we cannot do this.  Everybody knows that the language is and yet we have to be responsive to my desire to move forward. You know my challenge for you is to work with Congress and get them to understand that the vision that we have is good for the nation and is the right way to get us beyond low Earth orbit. So we are constantly walking this tightrope of not offending anyone or breaking the law and yet being very responsive to what the president wants us to do and aggressively going forward."

Jeff Hanley Openly Defies White House Policy, earlier post

Other Jeff Hanley news

Administrator Bolden Announces Key Leadership Changes

"Administrator Charlie Bolden on Friday announced two changes in his leadership team at Headquarters in Washington. David Radzanowski was selected as the agency's new chief of staff, and James Stofan was named as the acting associate administrator for Education. Radzanowski, who was NASA's deputy associate administrator for Program Integration in the Space Operations Mission Directorate, succeeds George Whitesides, who is returning to private industry. Dr. Joyce Winterton will move to the Suborbital and Special Orbital Projects Directorate as a senior advisor developing student flight programs and other education initiatives."

Meeting of Space Organizations, 5 May 2010

"This meeting will enable private organizations and associations with a stake in the outcome of this discussion to better understand the current NASA program and its implications for science and technology, and to exchange views on the value of establishing an ongoing coalition of space related organizations."

Challenges and Opportunities at the Dawn of a New Decade, 18 May 2010

"Conference attendees will have the opportunity to network with industry leaders and participate in educational sessions including "The Vital Role of Aerospace Assets in National Security," "The Future of Human Space Flight," and "Air Transportation Modernization."

Keith's note: Given the immense interest in NASA's new policy directions, and the tens of thousands of jobs directly (and adversely) affected, one would hope that these discussions would be streamed live. All it takes to do this is a laptop and a USTREAM.TV account. Otherwise, the only folks who'll be participating (or benefiting) from these discussions will be the usual suspects and space policy wonks known to frequent Washington, DC

In the mid-90’s, I recall a conversation with German Space Agency liaison, Gerhart Brauer – both a colleague and good friend to me. I struggled with a painful chapter in my life, and Gerhart offered this one simple phrase that made all the difference at the time. And even today.

Every ending is a new beginning.

Sometimes, though, this concept can be hard to accept. Personally and professionally. Take the end of our beloved Space Shuttle program, for example. Only three flights left. EVER!

My sister Aimee recently reminded me how she and Daddy watched Columbia lift off on April 12, 1981. She remembers him marveling that we could actually launch a rocket from Earth and fly it back to the planet like an airplane. The concept was so unbelievable at the time.

We take it for granted today.

I don’t recall the launch at all. But, I remember the STS-1 landing two days later. I worked at the University of Texas Ex-Students’ Association in Austin. We gathered around the conference table to watch Columbia land. I remember how cool it was to meet STS-1 John Young and Bob Crippin for the first time a few years later. They were the first humans to put their lives on the line and strap themselves onto the Shuttle stack for launch.

But then again, every astronaut who has ever flown on a rocket ship takes a leap of faith — each time we ignite the engines.

Yes, the fleet of amazing reusable winged vehicles served us well over the last two decades (with the exception of our tragic loss of the Challenger and Columbia crew and vehicles on two missions: STS-51-L and STS-107). We don’t relish mothballing the remaining three vehicles: Atlantis, Discovery andEndeavour. But think about the exorbitant cost of upgrades. Cost alone makes the close-out decision for NASA managers so much easier than for those on the outside looking in.

Let’s face it, many of us are mourning the end of the program. And that’s ok. Grief is a reasonable human response. We love to watch our winged vehicles soar into the air, breaking gravity’s grasp on humanity. Those of us fortunate enough to witness a Shuttle launch live, love to feel the ground-shaking rumble and the roar of the engines. Some have even seen the night-sky turn to day as the vehicle propels to the heavens above.

It’s a bird! It’s a plane! No, it’s a Space Shuttle!!!

(Sorry Superman. We’ve got the real thing. You’re only fiction.)

So what happens next? What follows the Space Shuttle program? Many ask. Many are angry and confused. I don’t have the answers. Just know that NASA folks are furiously working to fill in the blanks. (We’ll fly on Soyuz spacecraft to Station in the meantime.) Beyond that, stay tuned. No comfort for thousands of workers who made house payments, put food on the table, and paid school expenses off Shuttle-related paychecks. I get it. This post-Shuttle “new beginning” must feel like a black hole, where everything they know is disappearing into a powerful vortex outside their control. NASA has been planning this for years, but it doesn’t make the end of the program any easier.

We humans don’t like change, do we?

It’s uncomfortable. Messy, at times. We often prefer the certainty of misery over the misery of uncertainty. That’s why we stay in dead-end jobs or in joyless relationships. We’re funny like that. When change comes, we fight it, dig in our heels, complain to anyone who will listen. Does that sound at all familiar?

But with every new beginning, comes new hope for a better tomorrow.

If we can only let go of those things we cling tightly to, we might have two arms free to embrace this scary, unknown new thing — sometimes called a fresh start.

Here are a few ways to face change head on. Our Goal: Influence Change!

1. Think creatively.
2. Use the same tools in new ways.
3. Find new tools to make old ways new.
4. Look at a problem upside down and right side up.
5. Deconstruct to reconstruct.
6. Make change your own.
7. Sculpt your world into something better than ever existed before.

Who knows, you might like tomorrow better than today! Really, it could happen.

BTW: The next launch, STS-132, is scheduled for May 14. We’ll be having our second Shuttle Launch tweetup at the Kennedy Space Center and a mission tweetup at the Johnson Space Center. Stay-tuned for stories about the launch, mission, and space tweeps.

If you have stories to share about where you were and how you felt with the first Space Shuttle left Earth (IF you were born), feel free to post them as comments.

Crosspost on Bethbeck’s blog.