Fwd: THE MYSTERY FLIGHT OF APRIL 23

-----Original Message-----
From: rrdd3939@aol.com
To: rrdd3939@aol.com
Sent: Tue, May 25, 2010 9:47 pm
Subject: Fwd: THE MYSTERY FLIGHT OF APRIL 23

ORIGINAL PROPOSALS.

COMPANION PIECE: YouTube: Rickaddsite "A VISION OF AMERICA'S NASA'S

FUTURE" (Please check out: "NICK...." too).

-----Original Message-----
From: rrdd3939@aol.com
To: rrdd3939@aol.com
Sent: Tue, May 25, 2010 9:14 pm
Subject: THE MYSTERY FLIGHT OF APRIL 23

                                 Subtitle: WE GOT A PLAN

                                     by Richard DePersio                                                             "Cosmic Trinity": groups.google.com/group/rickcosmos-eclectic plus NASA_Ares 

(Facebook), nasa-ares, rickaddsite-nasa-ares-nasa-ares-facebook-link (official NASA-                    Associate), YouTube: Rickaddsite (mosly, NASA-related material)         

Fact: NASA and Boeing were working on X-37B a mini-drone (controlled from ground;

unmanned) space shuttle in 1993 to carry supplies, equipment, experiments to

ISS (International Space Station; our station, we paid most of the cost, as usual -

worth it but to think that we might be denied access to it by the president who

travels the world putting down America and who  learned science from Al Gore!;

we also pay the bulk of the cost of the useless U.N. and the cold-war relic - NATO...

is my A.D.D. showing again!?!) and return materials to the earth. There were those

who complained that NASA was behind schedule  in completing

station - that wouldn't have been the case if it had the X-37B. It lost it due to

budget cuts and was taken over by the military which always wanted a military

space plane...don't ask them...they'll deny it. It was the X-37B which was tested

on April 23 (This reporter saw it 'live' on Fox News - the only network which isn't

liberal-biased and gives all points-of-view) and the 'secret' launch was televised!

All the military would say was that it would A) Carry new technology for testing

purposes before possibly being used in future satellites and B) lift components

and subsystems into orbit (presumably, for assembly). They denied that it was in

response to last year's Chinese missile knocking out one of it's own satellites -

China claimed that the 'faulty' satellite had to be terminated because it might crash

in a populated area - - many foreign observers, including, American suspected

that China was signalling that it would have no compunction militarizing space if

it so choose (think about comsats and weather sats, especially, GPS during a

war). The Air Force (did you know that it's only the Air Force and CIA that have U.S.

missile programs!) has been developing it since '94; how many tests have they

had?; is it nearly operational? Speculation has it that the X-37B which is about

one- third the size of the shuttle could be expanded to carry 2 or 4 'military'

astronauts (we never had those). The military gives that question a BIG "No 

Comment."

                                           PROPOSAL:

1) Most Shuttle, Space Station and CONSTELLATION scientists, engineers and

    technicians, as well as, many members of congress want the Space Shuttle

    extended for two years (the green president wants it cancelled).( NASA is a

    unique government component - you actually get a return on your investment!

    It is estimated the for every  dollar invested in NASA - which receives about

    1/2 of 1% of the federal budget that we get approximatively $7 back in pure

    science and technology - applications and sin-offs: NASA in you phone,

    pacemaker, microwave, T.V., car, office, farm, factory, hospital. It is 

    imperative that we cut federal spending in real terms in certain areas and

    we reduce the growth of spending in others, including, so-called entitlement

    programs. We must freeze and, in some cases, grow spending in departments,

    agencies and programs having to do with national and domestic security.

    NASA must be the exception. It only receives a pittance compared to it's

    hay days back in the '60s. It is our main scientific/technological engine of

    our economy but it must be BIGGER again...tangent?..I'm A.D.D.ing again!).

    The danger factor as regards the aging shuttle fleet.All Mercury, Gemini, Apollo,

    Skylab astronauts (commanders and pilots) were former test pilots as are

    shuttle astronauts (although, some might be a notch below: fighter pilots) and                             

    all have the "RIGHT STUFF." Exceptions: one Apollo astronaut was a

    scientist-astronaut as were a couple in Skylab; there are - unless, we do

    something, probably were - many in the the shuttle and the name has been

    changed to mission specialist and a new breed known as payload specialist

     usually an engineer dedicated to  one activity or experiment. Spaceflight

    is dangerous business. Talk of it becoming routine back in the '8'0's was

    premature to say the least. Commercial spaceflights like airliners can

    potentially become routine by 2020 or sooner. Due to delays with respect to

    R & D, the space shuttle no longer represented cutting edge technology when it

    first flew in the early '80's...I'll get back to the mission specialists...I caught

    myself...I'm wasn't implying that they necessarily didn't have the "RIGHT 

    STUFF...Unlike other areas of NASA due to budget cuts causing R & D

    problems, it was predicated on '60's and '70's technology. All shuttles enjoyed

    '80's-level technology in virtually all of their systems and subsystems by the

    mid-'90's. Today, they're pretty much up-to-date. We must expend the lifespan of

    the shuttle for two years during which time, we continue to upgrade it and, if,

    possible, have it test Orion command and service components, after all, your

    president said that he would 'tolerate' a mini-lifeboat version of Orion - not that

    Ruskkies would hold our astronauts hostage even in the event of war; they                         

    always have one at the ready- which also doubles as a cargo vessel. We extend

    longevity of shuttle, would astronauts fly it? I'm confident that 95% of commanders

    and pilots would...I told you that I would get back to it, people don't have

    enough confidence in me...and 50% of mission specialists. No problem. We are

    only talking about 7 to 10 flights over two years - we must evaluate feasibility

    and budgetary constraints. Your president extends life of space station from

    2015 to 2020 to humiliate U.S. Americans have flown aboard Soyuz and Russians

    aboard shuttle - no problem. This president like progressive Wilson doesn't have

    deep love of country - yes, I'm questioning level of patriotism, Obama hasn't to

    he best of my knowledge  instituted sedition yet like Wilson - nor a profound

    interest in American history and Constitutional Law. FDR wanted to reinvent

    America, damaged it severely, but I think loved it and respected what it had been.

    Obama is the first president to travel the world for the purpose of knocking U.S.

    Human beings - and they were American - walking on a heavenly celestial body

    for the first time - - we won the space race and dramatically demonstrated to

    the world the superiority of our space technology and indirectly our military

    technology - for the two technologies are related. We will have to beg Russia

    (whom we beat) to fly us to our space station (international, my foot, we footed

    most of the cost) and they've made it clear that they will charge an astronomical

    price. What if they refuse to fly us or fly us when we need to be flown, Do you

    think that this president - bowing: how low can he go - will have the Bs to tell

    Russia to keep their putin hands off of our station - he's no Bush. Worse yet,

    riding our banker's Shenizhou! Obama wants the private sector to carry tourists

    and astronauts to and from space station. Unlike Obama, this reporter is a

    capitalist and not a Marxist and he is also realistic. The private sector would

    have to do R & D with NASA for at least 4 years to develop a vehicle followed

    by at least 2 years of tests flights. It will become operational and relatively

    independent but not completely of NASA and transporting our astronauts and 

    cargo to and from space station in 2015 or 16  or 17 after 6 years of humiliation. And,

    further, there is no guarantee that national and international commitment to

    station will last until 2020. You're right, sometimes, the writer wears science

    hat and, sometimes, political hat.

2) We made the case for extending the space shuttle. And, now for a proposal that

    we haven't heard elsewhere: what about the X-37B. The Air Force has been

    secretly working on it since '94. Allowing launch to be televised would serve to

    indicate hat components had been tested on the ground followed by sub-orbital

    flights followed by orbital ones. They showed confidence in it via T.V. could a

    modified version - modified for security reasons - be employed by NASA within

    a year to ship materials to and from station? Would it surprise anyone if the

    Air Force had blueprints for, and more then that has a mock-up of a 2- or 4-

    manned version? And, further, that it is prepared to conduct a suborbital flight.

    Mercury, Gemini and Apollo had unmanned suborbital tests prior to human

    occupancy. The shuttle was the exception. The military will have to come-up

    with a cover story. Telemetry: Russia, China and other countries would know that

    men were aboard. It's being developed to repair military satellites? Russia, China

    and U.S. have military sats and sats that are used for military purposes and it hasn't

    been considered a violation of the international treaty on the militarization of space.

    Pleasant surprise: have NASA astronauts fly it and hen thumb our nose at Russia

    and China. NASA should go with less expensive 2-manned version. Green

    president wants to shift focus of NASA from space science to 'hockey stick.'

    We can't afford to be too pushy. Outlandish? This reporter contends that

    speculation has been plausible and reasonable.

3) Don't cancel "Constellation" Program. The Ares V heavy-lift rocket was suppose                                                                      n  to be operational by 2015 and Americans were suppose to return to the moon as part                                                           

    of an international team with the EU or EO and Russia. Forget about it! We will do

    it with our real friends: England, Canada, Australia and Isreal (?), Georgia, Check

    Republic and Poland and our semi friends: Quirter and UAE (because they have

    green stuff. We would pay 50% of the cost, Quitar and UEA - 27%, England and

    Canada - 18%, Isreal, Georgia, Check Republic and Poland - 5%. $s would determine

    where facilities wouuld be built and how many, level of responsibility, number of seats

     and backup seats per country. We wold get the most, of course. We would be

    in charge, of course. We would develop certain technology separately from the

    so that are private sector can eventually benefit from it! Obama plan wouldn't

    put us in charge, he is diminishing us in prestige. Israel might very well be our

    best friend in the world. Although, president with Muslim roots is jeopardizing

    that relationship. Every president from Truman to Bush has claimed a balanced

   approach as regards Middle East while in reality learning slightly in Israel's favor.

   He's leaning the other direction. Or, we can say to Muslims: "Play ball if you want                                                    n to be on the winning team!" The other being the EUU or the EU and Russia. China,                                 n India and Japan are question marks. It might help peace process. Buzz Aldrin likes                     n Obama's plan and is in minority,

   as far as, former astronauts, including, even BIGGER WORLD-HERO ARMSTRONG.

   We hate to say this but he seems to have lost it. Recently, we saw clip of him

   on wresting show (He did suffer a nervous breakdown after his return to earth).

   About a month ago, he wrote an about Russia's Soyuz and A2 rocket which they

   have been sing since late '60's - it has been modernized and upgraded a number

   of times put never with cutting-edge technology, otherwise, it might necessitate

   a name or number change. He praised this approach and indicated that it would

   be good for us. We've been there. Gemini was 90% based on Mercury and Apollo

   25% based on Gemini. Mercury was atop Atlas and Gemini - Titan. Slight 

   modifications were made to Titan from what we learned from Atlas. Saturn 1B

   and Saturn V were rockets in truest sense. They weren't modified missiles like

   Atlas and Titan. Our first space station, Skylab, consisted of the Apollo command

   and services modules, the lunar lander and a Saturn V third stage outfitted with

   equipment and experiments instead of containing fuel. The shuttle was brand-new.

   What's wrong with building on it? In another article, Buzz states that "Constellation"

   is based on Apollo and Shuttle. We need brand-new cutting edge technology. Buzz

   is a rocket scientist, this writer has a lot of nerve disagreeing with Buzz but while

   about 75% of Program takes Apollo and Shuttle technology up a few notches which

  is good from a safety perspective, it also involves cutting edge technological

   development in areas like solar energy-generation (that should please hockey

  pucks), nuclear energy-generation, ion propulsion, medical equipment, space suits,

   construction and more - much of which will find applications on Terra fer-ma.

4)Let's be practical - money! We should forgo years building and using a moon base.

  We're not talking abandoning moon.For technical and budgetary reasons, we                                    pole and artic circle and the moon's backside at the antartic circle with a satellite in

  orbit high above moon so that astronauts can keep in touch with home for 5 weeks.

  Up to 5 follow-up missions will take place if NASA can justify returning to a particular

  site one or more times or returning to more then one site. The EU and Russia have

  made it clear that they are bypassing moon. China and Japan are competing for

  moon ehile India is an unknown. Will these counties join EU or EU/Russia for Mars?

  Russia and EU have also made it clear that they will test technology on the ground

  in earth orbit (how many times?) and in Martian orbit (how many times?). Similar

  to approach we took in Apollo. Under Bush plan: tests on ground, in earth and lunar

  orbits and at moon bas. He wanted a moon base for two reasons: scientific and

  technological (developing new technologies, including, technologies for Mars mission.

  No test missions in Martian orbit prior to a landing.

5)Orion Version One was to replace shuttle. We will leave that to commercial sector.

  Orion Version 2 with 4 astronauts for moon and Version 3 carrying 6 for Mars. 

  MISSION 1: Ion propulsion - round trip - - 3 months; landing site - equator - - length

  of stay - - - 1 & 1/2 to 3 months. Mission 2: Same as MISSION 1 except landing

  site between Martian north pole and arctic circle. MISSION 3: Same as 2 except

  south. MISSION 4 or 4 and 5 (depending on budget constraints): Round trip 6 months;

  length of stay 1 & 1/2 to 2 years. Where? Missions 1, 2 and 3 will dictate that.

  Bush and Obama called for a Martian mission in 2035. Due to big savings on moon

  base, we can up that to between 2030 and 2033. We might decide to begin building

  a moon base in 2035 and a Mars base in 2033 or 2037. Obama calls for a

  manned landing on an asteroid in 2025. Why not? We can consider landing on

  a comet and a moon of Jupiter after 2040. At this point a majority, not a large

  majority, but a majority, nonetheless, speculate that using suspended animation or

  ion propulsion or a combination of both or by using matter/antimatter propulsion

  that we could visit one or more of Jupiter's and Saturn's moons and visit the nearest

  star by 2050 or sooner! And, why not, en route, land on a Plutoid (a large Kuiper-iod) or            nOort comet to boot!

                                           SUPPLEMENT:

HOUSE BUDGET COMMITTEE: Chairman: (www.-?) Sprant.house.com/public/

                                                Ranking Member: Ryan

SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE: Chairman: Conrad.senate.com/public/

                                                Ranking Member: Greg

House: 202-226-7200                                                         Senate: 202-224-3121

Contact your two senators and one congress. You need not know their but you must

know the state in which you live!

Two BIG NASA proponents: Senators Shelby of Alabama and Nelson of Florida.

Recommendation: Send an email to each of them every month. Tell them to save

"Constellation" and give one good reason. According to law, the budget is suppose to

be completed by Oct. 1 but never is! In September, send an email and speak to

staff member. You might have to do same thing in early December or early January.

Request: Visit: groups.google.com/group/rickcosmos-eclectic oremail rickcosmos-eclectic@googlegroups.com I would prefer that you visit so that you learn about sites

Please become a member of NASA_ares at Facebook and nasa-ares rickaddsite-nasa-

ares, rickaddsite-nasa-ares-official and nasa-ares-facebook-link. Thank you.

                                      SUPPLEMENT TWO:

Armstrong, Lovell, Cernan, " For the U.S., the leading space-faring nation for

nearly half of a century, to be without carriage to leave earth orbit, with no

human exploration capability to go beyond earth orbit for indeterminate time in to the 

future destines our nation to become one of second or even third-rate stature."

Open letter from astronauts, flight instructors and other NASA emploeeys posted

on MSNBC (what did the choose the news network in last place?!): "NASA

must continue at the frontiers of human space exploration in order to develop the

technology and set the standards of excellence that will enable commercial space

ventures to eventually succeed. Canceling NASA's space operations after 50 years

of unparallelled achievement makes that objective impossible."

Tom Foreman, CNN, commentator (second place in the ratings): "Even folks who

don't care about space exploration...will care if the first person to plant a flag on

Mars is Chinese if we except second or  third place in the space race behind

China and India for example...we may as well go ahead and except that the sun

has set on a part of the U.S. that has made us great."