Sep 23 2003
From The Space Library
RobertG (Talk | contribs)
(New page: The National Academies' National Research Council and Transportation Research Board released a report addressing the need to overhaul the air transportation system to meet an ever-increasi...)
Newer edit →
Revision as of 01:42, 17 March 2010
The National Academies' National Research Council and Transportation Research Board released a report addressing the need to overhaul the air transportation system to meet an ever-increasing demand for air travel. NASA and the FAA had sponsored the report, Securing the Future of U.S. Air Transportation: a System in Peril, which representatives of industry, academia, and government had written. The Board had found that aircraft and air traffic- management systems were not improving to meet growing demand; noise and air pollution were increasing as air traffic increased; passengers were dissatisfied with travel costs and with uncomfortable conditions in airplanes; and security continued to be a major concern to travelers and to the industry. In comparing the U.S. air transportation system to that of Europe, the report stated that Europe considered the satisfaction of consumer needs a priority, whereas the United States did not address the issue. Among its goals, Europe hoped to achieve the primacy of the European aeronautics industry, to develop a supersonic aircraft carrying 1,200 passengers, and to build an air traffic system that would set the global standard for efficiency, whereas the United States had no similar strategy. Therefore, the report recommended that the federal government make air transportation a national priority with strong, focused leadership. (The National Academies, “Overhaul of Air Transportation System Needed To Meet Ever-Increasing Demand,” publication announcement, 23 September 2003, http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem. aspx?RecordID= 10815 (accessed 4 February 2009); National Research Council, Securing the Future of U.S. Air Transportation: A System in Peril (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2003); Associated Press, “Report: US Aviation Needs Major Changes,” New York Times, 24 September 2003.
NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe accepted the resignation of all members and staff of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP), which the U.S. Congress had first chartered in 1967 following the Apollo 1 fire. ASAP's function was to provide an independent body to advise NASA's Administrator about the safety of NASA's operations, facilities, and personnel. In her resignation letter, ASAP Chairperson Shirley C. McCarty stated that the panel had decided to resign so that the NASA's Administrator and Congress would have an opportunity to revitalize ASAP and to reshape its charter and mission. The panel also noted its frustration that, over the years, legislation had weakened its authority and that the CAIB final report had described the ASAP as “often not very influential.” Experts had noted that NASA had often ignored warnings that the safety panel issued and that ASAP had possessed no authority to enforce its recommendations. In accepting the ASAP members' resignations, O'Keefe pledged to strengthen the panel by studying its original concept and determining how to help its successor panel best meet the needs of NASA.(NASA, “NASA Administrator Accepts Aerospace Safety Panel Resignation,” news release 03-301, 23 September 2003, http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2003/sep/HQ_03301_asap_resign.html (accessed 28 January 2009); Paul Recer for Associated Press, “Nine NASA Safety Panel Members Resign,” 24 September 2003.
NASA announced the successful completion of the systems-requirement review for the OSP program, evaluating the contractor teams' concept designs for providing crew rescue and transfer for the ISS according to Level 1 requirements. The Boeing Company, Lockheed Martin, and a team composed of members from Orbital Sciences Corporation and Northrop Grumman had conducted systems analysis, trade studies, and concept feasibility in preparation for the review. The review had also set Level 2 requirements, addressing guidelines for safety, launch, emergency-return and crew-transfer missions, mission frequency, on-orbit mission duration, contingency cargo requirements, and docking and interfacing with the ISS. (NASA, “NASA Completes Orbital Space Plane Design Review,” news release 03-299, 23 September 2003, http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2003/sep/HQ_03299_orbital_plane.html (accessed 28 January 2009)"
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
