NASA launched this space shuttle in 1965. This shuttle consists of two primary spacecraft with a ground-based landing suite and an orbital landing suite. There are two landing pads, a third landing pad, an additional landing pad, and an unshielded runway that allows for the landing of payloads on the ground.
The Mission: to Improve the World’s ImpatienceWith the United States going against the grain of virtually every other developed world, the United States is now forced to choose between military or political solutions. Even on a purely national scale, the United States could make or break a world leadership transition in the coming decades. By creating a country with a strong military and the United States as the guarantor of stability around the world, the US has given itself a huge advantage over the other advanced nations as a deterrent by increasing US military spending. This makes things more difficult for US defense expenditures, particularly to address serious humanitarian crises, and to protect our citizens when necessary.The United States is currently fighting its way into the leadership position with the Pentagon and State Department, as well as President Obama and his Administration, all of whom are concerned with strengthening the global standing of the United States, but at the exact same time they remain committed to maintaining the U.S. global presence in most regions, especially in Central and South America where large, growing numbers of immigrants live. That makes the United States the biggest threat to the global standing of the country. On top of that, while the United States is a permanent foreign power, the only non-military partner we have is the United States of Panama which would also benefit from the continued support from the United Nations. Despite all that, the United States has maintained the U.S. position in the region and remains a strong military power of its own in Latin America, especially Nicaragua.Despite the many issues facing the United States, including Iran and Syria, the U.S. and Panama are the leaders of the world’s most important security organization. And as noted by John Kirby (who is a former vice president and is now chairman of the American Academy of Science and Management), the United States has not only had an important role in providing many assistance for countries involved in the conflict in the Middle East and in Central Asia and the North and South Caucasus in the last 50 years, but we have built a strong, multi-strategic relationship with our two allies in the region. We must not forget that the countries where these conflicts have erupted tend to be not only under armed governments, but also under supported governments of the same group from which they are recruited. The United States is in a position to play a large role in supporting countries in these conflicts in order to give them legitimacy. This role could take some time, however, and it is possible to see how long this could be if a serious humanitarian crisis is averted. However, by the same token, it is crucial that the United States takes the lead when the rest of the world is confronted with a massive threat like Iran’s or Syria’s.
The Mission: to Improve the World’s ImpatienceWith the United States going against the grain of virtually every other developed world, the United States is now forced to choose between military or political solutions. Even on a purely national scale, the United States could make or break a world leadership transition in the coming decades. By creating a country with a strong military and the United States as the guarantor of stability around the world, the US has given itself a huge advantage over the other advanced nations as a deterrent by increasing US military spending. This makes things more difficult for US defense expenditures, particularly to address serious humanitarian crises, and to protect our citizens when necessary.The United States is currently fighting its way into the leadership position with the Pentagon and State Department, as well as President Obama and his Administration, all of whom are concerned with strengthening the global standing of the United States, but at the exact same time they remain committed to maintaining the U.S. global presence in most regions, especially in Central and South America where large, growing numbers of immigrants live. That makes the United States the biggest threat to the global standing of the country. On top of that, while the United States is a permanent foreign power, the only non-military partner we have is the United States of Panama which would also benefit from the continued support from the United Nations. Despite all that, the United States has maintained the U.S. position in the region and remains a strong military power of its own in Latin America, especially Nicaragua.Despite the many issues facing the United States, including Iran and Syria, the U.S. and Panama are the leaders of the world’s most important security organization. And as noted by John Kirby (who is a former vice president and is now chairman of the American Academy of Science and Management), the United States has not only had an important role in providing many assistance for countries involved in the conflict in the Middle East and in Central Asia and the North and South Caucasus in the last 50 years, but we have built a strong, multi-strategic relationship with our two allies in the region. We must not forget that the countries where these conflicts have erupted tend to be not only under armed governments, but also under supported governments of the same group from which they are recruited. The United States is in a position to play a large role in supporting countries in these conflicts in order to give them legitimacy. This role could take some time, however, and it is possible to see how long this could be if a serious humanitarian crisis is averted. However, by the same token, it is crucial that the United States takes the lead when the rest of the world is confronted with a massive threat like Iran’s or Syria’s.
The Mission: to Improve the World’s ImpatienceWith the United States going against the grain of virtually every other developed world, the United States is now forced to choose between military or political solutions. Even on a purely national scale, the United States could make or break a world leadership transition in the coming decades. By creating a country with a strong military and the United States as the guarantor of stability around the world, the US has given itself a huge advantage over the other advanced nations as a deterrent by increasing US military spending. This makes things more difficult for US defense expenditures, particularly to address serious humanitarian crises, and to protect our citizens when necessary.The United States is currently fighting its way into the leadership position with the Pentagon and State Department, as well as President Obama and his Administration, all of whom are concerned with strengthening the global standing of the United States, but at the exact same time they remain committed to maintaining the U.S. global presence in most regions, especially in Central and South America where large, growing numbers of immigrants live. That makes the United States the biggest threat to the global standing of the country. On top of that, while the United States is a permanent foreign power, the only non-military partner we have is the United States of Panama which would also benefit from the continued support from the United Nations. Despite all that, the United States has maintained the U.S. position in the region and remains a strong military power of its own in Latin America, especially Nicaragua.Despite the many issues facing the United States, including Iran and Syria, the U.S. and Panama are the leaders of the world’s most important security organization. And as noted by John Kirby (who is a former vice president and is now chairman of the American Academy of Science and Management), the United States has not only had an important role in providing many assistance for countries involved in the conflict in the Middle East and in Central Asia and the North and South Caucasus in the last 50 years, but we have built a strong, multi-strategic relationship with our two allies in the region. We must not forget that the countries where these conflicts have erupted tend to be not only under armed governments, but also under supported governments of the same group from which they are recruited. The United States is in a position to play a large role in supporting countries in these conflicts in order to give them legitimacy. This role could take some time, however, and it is possible to see how long this could be if a serious humanitarian crisis is averted. However, by the same token, it is crucial that the United States takes the lead when the rest of the world is confronted with a massive threat like Iran’s or Syria’s.
Although research of National Aeronautics and Space Administrations (NASA) government contractors over the last thirty years did not uncover any major allegations of shoddy workmanship or under spec deliverables, it did reveal serious issues with regard to billing fraud and huge bonuses paid out on over budget projects. Over the years there have been numerous allegations of fraud and abuse by NASA contractors. Finally in November 2000 the government was able to win a settlement against the Boeing Company of Seattle and the Houston-based United Space Alliance for a total of $825,000. In addition to the money that was awarded, these two companies agreed to forfeit any rights they have to collect on $1.2 million in unpaid invoices. This settlement was related to allegations that false claims had been submitted for work supposedly performed between 1986 and 1992 under the NASA Space Shuttle and Space Station Freedom programs. Originally, the Rockwell Space Operations Company (RSOC) was the contractor who was hired to manage the two programs. An RSOC sub-contractor, Omniplan Corporation, is accused of being involved in numerous fraudulent billing activities. The result of this fraud was that the United States was overcharged millions of dollars. The Boeing Company acquired RSOC in 1996 and at that time United Space Alliance took over the management of the two space programs. The government tried to sue Omniplan in 1993, but the company went bankrupt. In January 2000 the government then filed suit against RSOC claiming that they had submitted Omniplans false invoices. It is the governments contention that a company is responsible for the billing accuracy of its sub-contractors and RSOC should have been validating that all costs submitted by Omniplan were legitimate. Invoices submitted included personal costs related to private homes, jewelry, and vacations abroad. It was also uncovered that Omniplan was leasing buildings and equipment to itself by setting up phony companies. The outrageousness of the fraud in the programs is only matched by the huge bonuses that have been paid out to contractors for projects that have been grossly over budget. An example would be the Gamma Ray Observatory, which came in at forty million dollars over budget in 1993, and NASA gave them a five million dollar bonus just because it was a “huge technical feat”. Although the space program has many benefits for our society, past history tells us that serious controls need to be put in place to monitor the programs financials. The amount of waste that has occurred and potentially could occur in the future is unacceptable and puts the future of the program in jeopardy.
Publicity surrounding the fraud and waste in the NASA programs has forced the government to step back and revalidate the value of the space program. In 2001 the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2001 established the Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry. Their task was to assess the future of the U.S. aerospace industry and to recommend actions to be taken by the Federal Government to support the ability of the U.S. aerospace industry to remain robust in the future. The Commission was given a broad mandate by the Congress and it contained a number of key items such as “the adequacy of the current acquisition process of federal departments and agencies; the procedures for developing and fielding aerospace systems incorporating new technology in a timely fashion; and the policies, procedures, and methods for the financing and payment of government contracts” (Commission of the Future, 2001). At the time this commission was formed, Vice President Dick Cheney issued the following statement, “The United States aerospace industry plays a major role in our national defense, economic growth, scientific advancement, and quality of life” (Commission of the Future, 2001). This statement mirrors how most Americans feel, but it is imperative that this commission takes steps to eliminate the fraud and waste in the NASA programs.
NASA puts a lot of money into the economy and almost every state in the union receives some benefit from the space programs or from companies that are created for space program research. NASA contributes different percentages of their annual budget to Science, Aeronautics, Exploration, Space Flight Capabilities and Inspector General. It also distributes monies to different companies, nonprofits, universities, and research centers involved in astronomy, aeronautical and astronomical research. NASAs budget has been negatively affected for numerous reasons; one in particular is failure to estimate costs appropriately. An example of NASAs failure to estimate costs is the International Space Station (ISS). In 1993, NASA said the space station would cost $17.4 billion and no more than $2.1 billion per year. NASA has had continual overrun costs, has not estimated costs appropriately, and is almost $5 billion over budget. The General Accounting Office has reported that the financial books are undocumented shambles and that there is not enough information to confirm or refute the financial information, which could lead to the reasons why there were overrun costs. Congress has chastised managers for mismanaging International Space Station Costs. Managers should know how to predict costs. Oâ„-Keefe, Administrator for NASA said a Marshall-developed software could restore public confidence and better determine costs.
Another issue that NASA has to deal with is its aging fleet of space shuttles. With NASAs fleet of four space shuttles well in its thirties, since they were developed in the 1970s and first flown in 1981, they are fast becoming outdated museum pieces. In fact the space shuttle Enterprise is already a museum piece, now the property of the Smithsonian Institute. NASAs latest casualty, the space shuttle Columbia,
