Mar 16 2005
From The Space Library
The U.S. House Science Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held a hearing to examine NASA's proposal to reduce spending on aviation research by 20 percent over five years, which would necessitate the closure of some wind tunnels and other centers. Overall, the Bush administration had proposed a 2.4 percent increase in NASA's budget, with most of that increase directed toward funding travel to the Moon and Mars, initiatives requiring NASA to eliminate or reduce its other programs, such as aviation research. NASA's Associate Administrator for Aeronautics Research J. Victor Lebacqz defended the program, remarking that the United States remained a global power in aviation and had developed technologies to improve safety, reduce environmental impact, and increase efficiency of aviation operations. However, Lebacqz stated that NASA needed a clearer vision for the goals of the program. John M. Klineberg, a retired NASA official and industry executive, who had headed a National Research Council (NRC) study group in 2004, testified before the committee. The NRC study group had published a review of NASA's aeronautics programs. Klineberg warned against using the group's recommendations out of context to justify major cuts in programs. He testified that NASA's proposed aviation-research budget was a disaster, putting the program at risk of becoming irrelevant to the future of aeronautics in the United States and throughout the world. In an interview following the hearing, Klineberg emphasized that the study group had suggested consolidating and focusing programs but did not support budgetary cuts eliminating entire areas of research. (Warren E. Leary, “NASA Proposal To Reduce Spending for Aviation Research by 20% Dismays Experts,” New York Times, 17 March 2005; Malia Rulon for Associated Press, “Lawmakers Question Proposed NASA Cuts,” 17 March 2005; U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, The Future of Aeronautics at NASA, 109th Cong., 1st sess., 16 March 2005.)
The U.S. Air Force announced the findings of its investigation into the December 2004 inaugural launch of Boeing's Delta 4 Heavy Rocket, which had failed when engines shut down prematurely. The Air Force and Boeing had intended the launch of the rocket, which was transporting a dummy payload, as a full dress rehearsal. The plan had been to test the newest and largest member of Boeing's next-generation rocket series before critical national security satellites began using it. Boeing had designed the rocket with three Common Booster Cores, each with a cryogenic main engine. The three cores, secured together, formed a craft capable of launching large cargo into space. The investigation had determined that each booster's engines had undergone premature shutdown during the launch, after internal sensors incorrectly determined that the engines had exhausted their liquid-oxygen fuel supply. Investigators had concluded that cavitation~ bubbles in the liquid oxygen plumbing~ had caused the glitch. Major Rodney Houser, the lead investigator for the Air Force, stated that the investigating team would focus on determining the cause of the cavitation within the liquid-oxygen feed system and on implementing corrective measures to prevent the problem's repetition. (Justin Ray, “Delta 4-Heavy Investigation Identifies Rocket's Problem,” Spaceflight Now, 17 March 2005.)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
