No nasa space launches now- partisan fighting and controversies prevent all funding Handberg 7-25
Download 398.94 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- ***Links***
No New NASANo new NASA flights- Atlantis shuttle halt marks end of NASA space age Foust 7-25 (PhD in planetary sciences from MIT, Bachelors in geophysics from Cal Institute of Technology, Editor and Publisher of the Space Review) Jeff Foust, The Space Review July 25, 2011 “Wheels Stop” http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1892/1 The first era of NASA’s human spaceflight efforts came to end at precisely 5:57:54 am Eastern Daylight Time on Thursday, July 21, 2011. Exactly 54 seconds after the wheels of its main landing gear made contact with the runway at the Shuttle Landing Facility at the Kennedy Space Center, the shuttle Atlantis came to a halt, an event known in shuttle lingo as “wheels stop”. Never again would a shuttle orbiter move under its own propulsion: from here on out the shuttles would be towed, trucked, and even flown atop their 747 carrier aircraft until they reach their final destinations, museums in Los Angeles, near Washington, and KSC itself. Claiming that the landing of Atlantis last week represented the end of a first age for the agency’s human spaceflight program may seem a little odd: surely, many would argue, it was at least a second age, after Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo? While the Space Shuttle represented a sharp technological discontinuity from those earlier programs—a shift from expendable rockets and capsules to an all-purpose reusable “space truck”—it benefitted from the broader programmatic and political momentum created by those earlier programs. Understanding this allows for a better appreciation of the agency’s current situation. Human spaceflight activities started in the US at a torrid pace a half century ago, with America locked in a frantic space race with the Soviet Union to demonstrate superiority in space and, by extension, superiority on Earth. While it’s something of a myth that NASA had access to unlimited resources during this time—there were congressional concerns about NASA spending even in the early 1960s—the nation’s purse was open to a far greater degree than it has since then for human spaceflight, enabling a rapid series of advancements capped by Apollo 11’s successful landing on the Moon 42 years ago this month. For the space race, it was mission accomplished. For NASA, the question became, “Now what?” There were bold plans for further exploration—bases on the Moon, missions to Mars—but the national appetite for them was lacking without the impetus of a race for global supremacy, and when NASA had to compete with other national priorities for resources. However, NASA’s human spaceflight efforts had, in effect, built up momentum: while the space infrastructure of Saturn 5 rockets and Apollo capsules were been tossed aside, there was considerable terrestrial infrastructure, in the form of facilities, workforce, and more—a whole industry had sprung up within a decade. Thus, there were very tangible reasons for continuing human spaceflight, to keep that industry in place in at least some form (if not in its glory during the peak of Apollo). There were also intangible reasons, as well: while the US had won the space race, the Cold War raged on; how would it look to the rest of the world if the US gave up even while the Soviet Union soldiered on in low Earth orbit? (See “Negative symbolism, or why America will continue to fly astronauts”, The Space Review, January 16, 2006.) So that momentum built up in the 1960s was transferred to a new program, the Space Shuttle. An examination of the shuttle program is far beyond the scope of this essay: whole volumes have been devoted, and will be in the future, to its accomplishments and shortcomings. At its core was a noble goal: by reducing the cost of accessing space, it would free up money to be spent on doing things in space, be it satellites or space science or even, perhaps, building up the infrastructure to support renewed human exploration beyond LEO. While the Space Shuttle was a tremendous vehicle that accomplished many things, from launching and servicing the Hubble Space Telescope to assembling the International Space Station, it failed at that core goal of reducing the cost of getting into orbit. Maybe that was because the program was starved of funds during its development, forcing design compromises. Or, perhaps, it was simply too great of a technological giant leap ***Links***Launches/ GenericLaunces create space junk-There are over 300,000 items considered to be space junk in outer space Imburgia 11,(Bachelors United States Air Force Academy, J.D.University of Tennessee College of Law LL.M., The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center & School, U.S. Army, Judge Advocate in the United States Air Force, member of the Tennessee and the Supreme Court of the United States bars, member of the Australian and New Zealand Society of International Law. Targeting Officer, United States Strategic Command, Offutt Air Force Base) “ Space Debris and Its Threat to National Security: A Proposal for a Binding International Agreement to Clean Up the Junk”, Fri The phrase “space debris” is generally described as “a blanket term for any man-made artifact discarded, or accidentally produced, in space, either in orbit around a planetary body (when it is also known as orbital debris) or on a trajectory between planetary bodies.”15 Space debris typically consists of fragments of older satellites and rocket boosters resulting from explosions or collisions.16 Space debris, however, also includes “dead satellites, spent rocket stages, a camera, a hand tool and junkyards of whirling debris lefver from chance explosions and destructive tests.”17 In addition to the space debris created during the satellite collision of February 10, 2009,18 some of the newest space debris includes a $100,000 set of grease guns and other tools that Space Shuttle Endeavour astronaut Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper lost during a space walk on November 19, 2008.19 These recent additions to the space debris population intensify a problem that began on October 4, 1957, when the former Soviet Union launched the first satellite, Sputnik 1, into space.20 Since that date, space-faring nations have launched objects into space at a frenetic pace. Those launches have, in turn, created a considerable amount of space debris.21 In October 2010, Air Force Space Command’s (AFSPC) Space Surveillance Network was tracking over 21,000 man-made objects orbiting Earth that were larger than ten centimeters.22 Unfortunately, fewer than 5 percent of those 21,000 man-made objects are operational satellites; the rest are debris.23 Even worse, scientists currently estimate “that there are over 300,000 objects with a diameter larger than one centimeter, and several million that are smaller,” orbiting in space, and a large majority of these objects are man-made space debris.24 All space missions inevitably increase space debris West Et. Al. 11 Jessica West (Manager for Space Security Index) Wade Huntley (PhD in Political Science from Cal Berkeley, Senior Lecturer at the National Security Affairs department at the Naval Postgraduate School, Director of the Simons Centre for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Research) Ram Jakhu (Associate Director of Center of Research in Air and Space Law, Director, Centre for the Study of Regulated Industries, McGill University, Director of the Masters Program of the International Space University) William Marshall (NASA-Ames Research Center, Space Generation Foundation) Andrew Shore (Director of the Global Partnership Program at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade) Space Security 2011 “Space Security 2011” http://www.spacesecurity.org/executive.summary.2011.PDF, Fri This chapter assesses trends and developments related to human activity in the space environment, with an emphasis on space debris and space resource issues such as the registration of orbital slots and the allocation of radio frequencies. Space debris, which is predominantly caused by manmade objects, represents a growing threat to spacecraft. The impact of space debris upon space security is related to a number of key issues examined by this chapter, including the amount of space debris in various orbits, space surveillance capabilities that track space debris to enable collision avoidance, and efforts to reduce new debris and to potentially remove existing space debris in the future. All space missions inevitably create space debris — rocket booster stages are expended and released to drift in space and exhaust products are created. The testing of anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons has also created thousands of long-lasting pieces of space debris, some 300 of which are reportedly still in orbit from USSR ASAT tests in the 1970s and 1980s.1 A growing awareness of the impact of space debris on the security of space assets has encouraged space actors to take steps to mitigate the production of new debris through the development and implementation of national and international debris mitigation guidelines, also examined here. This chapter does not address natural phenomena such as solar flares and near-Earth asteroids, except in cases where technologies and techniques are developed to mitigate their impact. All objects placed into space create fragmentation and microparticulate debris Taylor 7 (USAF B.A., Berry College; J.D., University of Georgia; LL.M. (Air and Space Law), McGill University, is the Chief of the Space and International Law Division at Headquarters United States Air Force Space Command at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, Colorado) Michael Taylor “Trashing the Solar System One Planet at a Time: Earth's Orbital Debris Problem" Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 20 Geo. Int'l Envtl. L. Rev. 1 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3970/ is_200710/ai_n21279526/pg_3/?tag=mantle_skin;content Unintentional collisions, although less common, also create fragmentation debris. Debris of this type may result from collisions between space objects and either natural or artificial orbital debris. The gradual disintegration of satellite surfaces due to exposure to the space environment also creates debris.66 For example, paint can deteriorate quite rapidly and, although each individual paint fleck's orbit decays rapidly, the cumulative effect of many paint flecks creates a significant problem Microparticulate Matter. This final category of debris, as the name implies, is very small and mostly composed of propellant particles and gases that are not completely consumed during the thrusting process.68 Of course, collisions, explosions, and deterioration of larger debris can also create micro particles. Orbital debris experts have categorized the sources of debris, and these categories aid in identifying trends and areas that need improvement. Once the quantity and sources of debris are well understood, one can begin to understand the risk orbital debris poses to operational spacecraft. Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 398.94 Kb. Share with your friends:
|