DOCSLIB.ORG

NSIAD-90-192 Space Transportation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
NSIAD-90-192 Space Transportation .]Ir1lv . 1!)!)(I SPACE TRANSPORTATION. ’ NASA Has No Firm Need for Increasingly Costly Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle -_ dFb llllll141905 II I (;A()/ NSIAI)-!ml!~2 National Security and International Affair6 JMviaion B-239670 July 31,lQQo The Honorable Robert A. Roe Chairman, Committee on Science, Space,and Technology House of Representatives Dear Mr. Chairman: As you requested, we have reviewed the National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration’s (NASA) Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle (OMV) program. Specifically, we evaluated the need to continue the OMVprogram in light of reductions in its capabilities and the reasonsfor changes in OMVprogram costs and schedules. We are sending copies of this report to the Administrator of NASA and appropriate congressionalcommittees. Copies will be made available to other interested parties upon request. This report was prepared under the direction of Mr. Mark E. Gebicke, Director, NASA Issues, who may be reached on (202) 276-6140 if you or your staff have any questions concerning the report. Major contributors to the report are listed in appendix I. Sincerely yours, Frank C. Conahan Assistant Comptroller General l3xecutiveSummary . The Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle (OMV) was conceived in 1986 as a Purpose $406 million multipurpose space tug. However, the estimated cost of the program has grown to $736.6 million. In late 1989, the National Aero- nautics and Space Administration (NASA) reduced or eliminated some of the OMV'S planned capabilities to contain growing program costs. The Chairman, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, asked GAO to determine (1) whether NASA had established a firm need for the OMV and (2) why the program costs have grown so much. The OMV program was initiated as a way of extending the practical reach Background of the space shuttle. It was to transport satellites from the shuttle to other orbits, reboost them when their orbits decayed, retrieve and return them to the shuttle when they malfunctioned, and control their reentry into the atmosphere when their useful lives expired. Subsequent OMV enhancements would enable it to refuel satellites in orbit, perform in-orbit satellite repairs, and rescue out-of-control satellites. The OMV was to operate initially from the shuttle’s cargo bay but would ulti- mately operate from the Space Station Freedom. OMV was designed to be a free-flying, remotely controlled propulsion stage about 15 feet in diameter and 6 feet thick that would be carried into orbit inside the shuttle’s cargo bay. Once separated from the shuttle, the OMV would be remotely controlled by astronauts working at consoles on earth. The OMV'S detailed design and development phase began in fiscal year 1986. The cost-plus-award-fee contract provides for the design, develop- ment, test, verification, and delivery of one OMV flight vehicle and asso- ciated support equipment. Results in Brief A firm requirement for the OMV does not exist. NASA can accomplish the OMV'S scheduled missions of reboosting the Hubble Space Telescope and deploying and reboosting the Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility in other ways that cost less. Other potential missions may or may not materialize, but the OMV would have to be significantly enhanced before NASA could use it on most of these other missions, Since the OMV'S design and development phase began in 1986, estimated OMV program costs have increased by 82 percent, even though the Page 2 GAO/NSIAD99-192 NASA’s Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle vehicle’s capabilities have significantly decreased. The increase is attrib- utable to (1) schedule stretchouts caused by internal NASA budget reduc- tions, (2) program changes, and (3) contract cost growth. Further cost increases appear likely, especially if NASA is to make maximum use of the OMV. Principal Findings OMV Is Not Needed for In late 1989, NASA reduced or eliminated a number of planned OMV per- Scheduled Missions formance capabilities. The OMV is now being designed principally to reboost the Hubble Space Telescope and deploy and reboost the Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility. Several NASA studies show, how- ever, that the shuttle can perform these missions without the OMV. A recent performance assessment shows that the OMV will not be needed to deploy the Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility if advanced solid rocket motors are available on the shuttle. According to the assessment, the shuttle with these motors will be able to deliver this observatory to its desired orbital altitude without the OMV. The first shuttle flight using the advanced motors is scheduled for late 1995-well before the obser- vatory’s April 1997 deployment schedule. Other NASA studies show that the shuttle can maintain the Hubble and the X-ray observatories at acceptable altitudes by reboosting them during regularly scheduled maintenance flights. One or two additional shuttle flights dedicated to reboosting the observatories could be required early in the next century if the OMV is not developed. The cost of the two additional shuttle flights to reboost the observato- ries would be about $277 million. The cost of continued development and operation of the OMV for the two missions would be about $716 mil- lion-more than two and one-half times the cost of the shuttle flights. Future Mission for the Program officials have identified other, longer-term missions that they OMV Uncertain believe the OMV could enhance. For example, an OMV-type vehicle may be needed to help maneuver materials in space if NASA undertakes staffed missions to the moon or to Mars. However, these missions have not yet d been approved, and NASA has not decided what equipment would be needed to perform them. If these missions are approved and the OMV is Page 3 GAO/NSLAD-90-192 NASA’s Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle Executive Summary used, capabilities that were removed from the design in 1989 would have to be restored. These capabilities include the addition of advanced solar arrays to allow for basing at Space Station Freedom. Estimated Costs Continue Since the design and development phase began in fiscal year 1986, esti- to Increase mated OMV program costs have incurred a net increase of $331.6 mil- lion-from $406.0 million to $736.6 million. Schedule stretchouts caused $266.1 million of the increase. Program changes such as shifting respon- sibility for OMV operations from Marshall Space Flight Center to the Johnson Space Center added another $106,9 million. The remaining $123.1 million of the increase was attributed to contract cost growth. NASA reduced the program estimate by $163.6 million by eliminating some of the OMV'S capabilities and reducing cost reserves. NASA requested $86.4 million in its fiscal year 1991 budget. The same factors that caused earlier cost increases could cause future increases. According to the Associate Administrator for Space Flight, the OMV program is not immune to future budget cuts, which could cause additional schedule delays and cost increases, Also, program changes are to be expected as a result of the critical design review scheduled for April 1991 and subsequent hardware fabrication and testing. NASA is also concerned about additional contract cost growth. A number of the subcontracts have not yet been awarded, and firm prices have not been negotiated for other subcontracts. The current estimate includes a cost reserve to cover future changes, but the reserve is about half the amount NASA normally includes in cost estimates of programs at this stage of development. OMV acquisition costs could increase to a cumulative total of $1.3 billion if NASA decided to use the vehicle for other missions, which would involve (1) restoring capabilities eliminated in the 1989 restructuring, (2) purchasing a second vehicle, (3) making the two OMVS compatible with expendable launch vehicles, and (4) purchasing an initial contin- gent of spare parts. However, NASA considered it unlikely that it would do all of these things. Continued development of the OMV is not the most cost-effective Recommendation and approach to accomplishing currently scheduled missions and future mis- sion requirements are uncertain. In its draft report GAO therefore recom- Agency ActionJ mended that the NASA Administrator terminate the OMV program. NASA terminated the OMV program 6 days after receiving GAO'S draft report, Page4 GAO/NSIAD-90.192NASA'sOrbitdManeuverhgVehicle Executive Summary citing budget pressures and the absence of a firm, near-term require- ment for the vehicle. The Congress should deny the $86.4 million requested for OMV develop- Matter for ment in fiscal year 1991, less any amount needed for termination Congressional expenses. According to a preliminary NASA estimate, about $33.2 million Consideration of fiscal year 1991 funding will be needed for termination. Agency Comments GAO incorporated NASA's comments into this report where appropriate. Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-90-192 NASA’s Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle _ _. ._ _ ____.. _ ,.. ._, ,. ,_,,, ., _ , .I.. Contentis Executive Summary Chapter 1 8 Introduction Program History 10 Program Costs 11 Program Management 11 Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 12 Chapter 2 13 NASA Has Not Program Restructuring Reduced OMV’s Capabilities 13 OMV Not Needed for Scheduled Missions 16 Established a Firm Future Mission Requirements Are Uncertain 19 Need for the OMV Chapter 3 21 Estimated OMV Costs Program Costs Have Grown Substantially 21 Further Cost Increases Are Likely 23 Have Continued to OMV Operational Costs 26 Increase Chapter 4 27 Conclusions, Conclusions 27 Recommendation and Agency
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Feasibility Study for Using Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS)
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Masters Theses Graduate School 8-2011 A Feasibility Study for Using Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) Hardware for Meeting NASA’s Need for a Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) to the International Space Station - [COTS]2 Chad Lee Davis University of Tennessee - Knoxville, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes Part of the Aerodynamics and Fluid Mechanics Commons, Other Aerospace Engineering Commons, and the Space Vehicles Commons Recommended Citation Davis, Chad Lee, "A Feasibility Study for Using Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) Hardware for Meeting NASA’s Need for a Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) to the International Space Station - [COTS]2. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 2011. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/965 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Chad Lee Davis entitled "A Feasibility Study for Using Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) Hardware for Meeting NASA’s Need for a Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) to the International Space Station - [COTS]2." I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Master of Science, with a major in Aerospace Engineering.
    [Show full text]
  • Development of the Crew Dragon ECLSS
    ICES-2020-333 Development of the Crew Dragon ECLSS Jason Silverman1, Andrew Irby2, and Theodore Agerton3 Space Exploration Technologies, Hawthorne, California, 90250 SpaceX designed the Crew Dragon spacecraft to be the safest ever flown and to restore the ability of the United States to launch astronauts. One of the key systems required for human flight is the Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS), which was designed to work in concert with the spacesuit and spacecraft. The tight coupling of many subsystems combined with an emphasis on simplicity and fault tolerance created unique challenges and opportunities for the design team. During the development of the crew ECLSS, the Dragon 1 cargo spacecraft flew with a simple ECLSS for animals, providing an opportunity for technology development and the early characterization of system-level behavior. As the ECLSS design matured a series of tests were conducted, including with humans in a prototype capsule in November 2016, the Demo-1 test flight to the ISS in March 2019, and human-in-the-loop ground testing in the Demo-2 capsule in January 2020 before the same vehicle performs a crewed test flight. This paper describes the design and operations of the ECLSS, the development process, and the lessons learned. Nomenclature AC = air conditioning AQM = air quality monitor AVV = active vent valve CCiCap = Commercial Crew Integrated Capability CCtCap = Commercial Crew Transportation Capability CFD = computational fluid dynamics conops = concept of operations COPV = composite overwrapped
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report of the International Space Station Independent Safety
    I Contents Executive Summary........................................................................................ 1 Principal Observations ..................................................................................... 3 Principal Recommendations ............................................................................. 3 1. Introduction..................................................................................................... 5 Charter/Scope ................................................................................................... 5 Approach........................................................................................................... 5 Report Organization ......................................................................................... 5 2. The International Space Station Program.................................................... 7 International Space Station Characteristics..................................................... 8 3. International Space Station Crosscutting Management Functions............ 12 Robust On-Orbit Systems.................................................................................. 12 The Design ........................................................................................................ 12 Verification Requirements ................................................................................ 12 Physical (Fit) Verification ................................................................................ 13 Multi-element Integrated Test..........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Glex-2021 – 6.1.1
    Global Space Exploration Conference (GLEX 2021), St Petersburg, Russian Federation, 14-18 June 2021. Copyright ©2021 by Christophe Bonnal (CNES). All rights reserved. GLEX-2021 – 6.1.1 Human spaceflight from Guiana Space Center Ch. Bonnal1* – J-M. Bahu1 – Ph. Berthe2 – J. Bertrand1 – Ch. Bonhomme1 – M. Caporicci2 J-F. Clervoy3 – N. Costedoat4 – E. Coletti5 – G. Collange5 – G. Debas5 – R. Delage6 – J. Droz5 E. Louaas1 – P. Marx8 – B. Muller6 – S. Perezzan1 – I. Quinquis5 – S. Sandrone7 D. Schmitt2 – V. Taponier1 1 CNES Launcher Directorate, Pairs, France – 2 ESA Human & Robotic Exploration Directorate, ESTEC, Noordwijk, Netherlands – 3 Astronaut Novespace, Paris, France – 4CNES Guiana Space Center, Kourou, France 5ArianeGroup, Les Mureaux, France – 6Airbus Defence & Space, Toulouse, France – 7Airbus Defence & Space, Bremen Germany – 8Consultant, Paris, France * Corresponding Author Abstract The use of Space has drastically evolved these last ten years. Tomorrow will see easier and cheaper access to Space, satellite servicing, in-orbit manufacturing, human private spaceflights to ever increasing number of Orbital Stations, road to the Moon, Asteroids, Mars. It seems fundamental to make sure we can rely on robust, reliable, frequent and affordable access to and from LEO with both automatic systems and human missions; such systems are the bricks with which all the future operations in Space will be built. Independent human access to space from Europe for our astronauts is a key to any future in Space. It has been studied in depth since the 80's with Hermes Spaceplane, then through numerous studies, pre- development activities, and demonstrations such as ARD, X38-CRV or IXV, which now allow Europe to reconsider such an endeavor with a much higher confidence.
    [Show full text]
  • Fachprogramme Raumfahrt
    Fachprogramme Raumfahrt Aktualisierung 2002/2003 Raumfahrtmanagement Herausgeber: Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e.V. Raumfahrtmanagement Königswinterer Str. 522 – 524 53227 Bonn-Oberkassel Fachprogramme Raumfahrt Aktualisierung 2002/2003 Gliederung TEIL 1 - ALLGEMEINE ASPEKTE 1. PROGRAMMRAHMEN UND -UMFELD .................................................................................... 5 2. STRUKTUR UND MITTELEINSATZ ........................................................................................... 6 TEIL 2 - FACHPROGRAMME EINFÜHRUNG................................................................................................................... 11 1. FACHPROGRAMM KOMMUNIKATION .................................................................................... 13 2. FACHPROGRAMM NAVIGATION .......................................................................................... 23 3. FACHPROGRAMM ERDBEOBACHTUNG .................................................................................. 31 4. FACHPROGRAMM ERFORSCHUNG DES WELTRAUMS................................................................. 43 5. FACHPROGRAMM FORSCHUNG UNTER WELTRAUMBEDINGUNGEN............................................... 55 6. FACHPROGRAMM RAUMSTATION ........................................................................................ 69 7. FACHPROGRAMM RAUMTRANSPORT .................................................................................... 79 8. FACHPROGRAMM TECHNIK FÜR RAUMFAHRTSYSTEME.............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of X-38 Crew Return Vehicle Input Control Devices in a Microgravity Environment
    NASA/TM--2000-208925 Evaluation of X-38 Crew Return Vehicle Input Control Devices in a Microgravity Environment Kirsten Welge Alicia Moore Ruth Ann Pope Suzette Shivers Longview High School Longview, Texas December 2(X)0 The NASA STI Program Office ... in Profile Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated 'to * CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. the advancement of aeronautics and space Collected papers from scientific and technical science. The NASA Scientific and Technical conferences, symposia, seminars, or other Information (STI) Program Office plays a key meetings sponsored or co-sponsored by NASA. part in helping NASA maintain this important role. * SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific, technical, or historical information from NASA The NASA STI Program Office is operated by programs, projects, and missions, often Langley Research Center, the lead center for concerned with subjects having substantial NASA's scientific and technical information. The public interest. NASA STI Program Office provides access to the NASA STI Database, the largest collection of * TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. aeronautical and space science STI in the world. English-language translations of foreign The Program Office is also NASA's institutional scientific and technical material pertinent to mechanism for disseminating the results of its NASA's mission. research and development activities. These results are published by NASA in the NASA STI Specialized services that complement the STI Report Series, which includes the following Program Office's diverse offerings include report types: creating custom thesauri, building customized databases, organizing and publishing research * TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports results ... even providing videos. of completed research or a major significant phase of research that present the results of For more information about the NASA STI NASA programs and include extensive data or Program Office, see the following: theoretical analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • The International Space Station: Legal Framework and Current Status, 64 J
    Journal of Air Law and Commerce Volume 64 | Issue 4 Article 3 1999 The nI ternational Space Station: Legal Framework and Current Status Rochus Moenter Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc Recommended Citation Rochus Moenter, The International Space Station: Legal Framework and Current Status, 64 J. Air L. & Com. 1033 (1999) https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol64/iss4/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Air Law and Commerce by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION: LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND CURRENT STATUS ROCHUS MOENTER I. THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION A. BACKGROUND AND CURRENT STATUS HE DEVELOPMENT and construction of an International Space Station (ISS) began with President Reagan's an- nouncement in 1984 that the United States of America intended to build a permanently inhabited civil space station in the earth's orbit, later labeled "Space Station Freedom."' In con- nection with the announcement, President Reagan invited other countries, in particular Canada, Europe and Japan, to partici- pate in the project. This invitation was subsequently accepted by several countries, including the members of the European Space Agency (ESA).2 Some of the countries accepting were Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, the United Kingdom, Canada through the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) and the Govern- ment of Japan (GOJ). Many years of negotiations followed, mainly between NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) and the re- spective national space agencies, regarding the construction, de- velopment and operation of an ISS.
    [Show full text]
  • T-NSIAD-91-26 Questions Remain on the Costs, Uses, and Risks of The
    United States Gkneral Accounting OfRce /f,3 7 7 Testimony llllllllMlll 143776 For Release ' Questions Remain on the Costs, Uses, and Risks on Delivery of the Redesigned Space Station Expected at 9:30 a.m. EST Wednesday, May 1, 1991 Statement of Charles A. Bowsher Comptroller General of the United States Before the Subcommittee on Government Activites and Transportation House Committee on Government Operations GAO/T-NSIAD-91-26 GAO FOG 160w/87) . Madam Chair and Members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee today on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) space station program. My testimony will provide an overview of the space station --one of the most ambitious, costly, and controversial space projects the nation has ever undertaken. I will discuss the station's history, the concerns that led to the 1990 congressional directive to redesign the station, and the recommendations made by the Advisory Committee on the Future of the U.S. Space Program (commonly referred to as the Augustine Committee). In addition, on the basis of preliminary data gathered to date and interviews with leading space scientists, I will address the following critical questions about NASA's redesigned station: -- Have all station-related costs been identified and fully disclosed7 -- Are station program re,serves adequate, and is the station affordable? -- Is the station justified on the basis of its tangible benefits to scientific research7 -- What technical challenges need to be considered before proceeding with the station? RESULTSIN BRIEF In response to congressional direction, NASA recently redesigned the space station.
    [Show full text]
  • ESA's ISS External Payloads
    number 8, march 2002 on station The Newsletter of the Directorate of Manned Spaceflight and Microgravity http://www.esa.int/spaceflight in this issue A Promising Start to 2002 aurora Jörg Feustel-Büechl Aurora: A European Roadmap 4 ESA Director of Manned Spaceflight and Microgravity for Solar System Exploration Rolf Schulze I want to highlight two very important milestones for this year. Firstly, the final integration and test of our Columbus virtual campus laboratory for the International Space Station began at The Erasmus Virtual Campus 6 Astrium GmbH in Bremen (D) following the arrival in Dieter Isakeit September of the Pre-Integrated Columbus Assembly (PICA) from Alenia Spazio in Turin (I). I believe that we have a payloads masterpiece of European engineering here, and I am ESA’s ISS External Payloads 8 delighted with the progress so far.We should be seeing some Steve Feltham & Giacinto Gianfiglio very real advance on Columbus by the end of 2002 and look forward to its status then. xeus Secondly, I had the opportunity on 15 January to review ISS Assembly of XEUS 10 the course of the Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) project at Jens Schiemann Les Mureaux (F), together with our team and the industries involved in the project under prime contractor EADS-LV.The spoe progress is quite remarkable when we remember the SPOE 12 difficulties of last year. All in all, I think that the technical Rolf-Dieter Andresen, Maurizio Nati achievements so far are satisfactory. One important & Chris Taylor demonstration of this progress is the arrival of the ATV Structural Test Model in ESTEC’s Test Centre, where it will research undergo testing during the whole of this year.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Spaceflight Plans of Russia, China and India
    Presentation to the Secure World Foundation November 3, 2011 by Marcia S. Smith Space and Technology Policy Group, LLC and SpacePolicyOnline.com “Civil” Space Activities in Russia “Civil” space activities Soviet Union did not distinguish between “civil” and “military” space programs until 1985 Line between the two can be quite blurry For purposes of this presentation, “civil” means Soviet/Russian activities analogous to NASA and NOAA (though no time to discuss metsats today) Roscosmos is Russian civil space agency. Headed by Army General (Ret.) Vladimir Popovkin Recent reports of $3.5 billion budget, but probably does not include money from US and others 11-03-11 2 Key Points to Take Away Space cooperation takes place in the broad context of U.S.-Russian relations Russia may not be a superpower today, but it is a global power and strategically important to the United States Complex US-Russian relationship, as New START and INKSNA demonstrate Russian space program modest by Soviet standards, but Retains key elements Leverages legacy capabilities for current activities and commercial gain Is a global launch service provider from four launch sites from Arctic to equator Proud history of many space “firsts,” but also tragedies and setbacks U.S.-Soviet/Russian civil space relationship has transitioned from primarily competition to primarily cooperation/interdependence today Cooperation not new, dates back to 1963, but much more intensive today U.S. is dependent on Russia for some things, but they also need us Bold dreams endure as Mars 500 demonstrates 11-03-11 3 Today is 54th Anniversary of First Female in Space 11-03-11 4 Just One of Many “Firsts” First satellite (Sputnik, Oct.
    [Show full text]
  • International Space Station Crew Return Vehicle: X-38
    Educational Product National Aeronautics and Educators Grades 5–8 Space Administration EB-1998-11-127-HQ Educational Brief International Space Station Crew Return Vehicle: X-38 The International Space Station (ISS) will provide the world with an orbiting laboratory that will have long-duration micro- gravity experimentation capability. The crew size for this facility will depend upon the crew return capability. The first crews will consist of three astronauts from Russia and the United States. The crew is limited to three because the Russian Soyuz vehicle that will remain docked to the ISS can only hold three people. It is imperative that the crew members be able to return to Earth if there is a medical emergency or if other complications arise. In development at this time is a Crew Return Vehicle that will be able to hold up to seven crew members. This will allow the full complement of seven astronauts to live and work onboard the ISS. The Crew Return Vehicle, or X-38, uses a lifting body concept originally developed by the U.S. Air Force in the mid-1960s. These wingless lifting bodies attain aerodynamic stability and lift from the shape of the aircraft. Lift results from more air pressure on the bottom of the body than on the top. Following the jettison of a deorbit engine, the X-38 will glide from orbit and use a steerable, parafoil parachute for its final descent to landing. The high speeds at which lifting body aircraft operate make it dangerous to land. The parafoil is used to slow the vehicle down and make it safer.
    [Show full text]
  • Space Stations
    Order Code IB93017 CRS Issue Brief for Congress Received through the CRS Web Space Stations Updated November 17, 2005 Marcia S. Smith Resources, Science, and Industry Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress CONTENTS SUMMARY MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS Introduction The Space Station Program: 1984-1993 Space Station Freedom 1993 Redesign — the Clinton Administration Restructuring The International Space Station (ISS): 1993-Present ISS Design, Cost, Schedule, and Lifetime September 1993-January 2001: The Clinton Administration 2001-Present: The George W. Bush Administration Reviews of NASA’s Cost Estimates and Adding Funds for ISS Congressional Action FY2005 FY2006 International Partners The Original Partners: Europe, Canada, and Japan Russia Risks and Benefits of Russian Participation ISS and U.S. Nonproliferation Objectives, Including the Iran Nonproliferation Act (INA) Key Issues For Congress Maintaining ISS Operations While the Shuttle Is Grounded Ensuring U.S. Astronaut Participation in Long-Duration Missions Impact of President Bush’s Vision for Space Exploration, Including a Potential Gap in U.S. Human Access to Space LEGISLATION IB93017 11-17-05 Space Stations SUMMARY Congress continues to debate NASA’s “Moon/Mars” Vision instead of the broadly- International Space Station (ISS), a perma- based program that was planned. nently occupied facility in Earth orbit where astronauts live and conduct research. Canada, Japan, and several European Congress appropriated approximately $35 countries became partners with NASA in billion for the program from FY1985-2005. building the space station in 1988; Russia The initial FY2006 ISS request was $2.180 joined in 1993. Except for money paid to billion: $1.857 billion for construction and Russia, there is no exchange of funds among operations and $324 million for research to be the partners.
    [Show full text]