Discussions

« Back 1 [2] 3 4 Next »

This discussion relates to Technology Review's article Why NASA Needs a Better Plan .

• 
  DennisBuller
  

  Posts:
  65

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  02/10/2010 12:37 PM

  NASA at rock Bottom

    No, NASA is not unfocused in the political game, they just got a funding boost.
    No, NASA is not focusing on Climate change....
    NASA has failed in its mandate to get us into space cheaply and safely.
    A great deal of technological change has happened over the last twenty years and NASA is still flying a very old design.
    The new design is over budget and it has a great many internal and external critics. The new design is not breakthrough technology. They have lost the ability to innovate and produce new systems.  
    NASA is not just unfocused. They are failing.
    So Obama’s plan to have them pull back and bring themselves up to speed is a good idea.
    Firing everyone on top and bringing in new people, people with proven track records would be even better.  
    NASA has a thousand small programs looking at new technology to get us into space cheaply.
    But they are going no-where and have been treated like science projects instead of the needed future.
    NASA is a Federal Agency. Like so many Federal agencies it is an inefficient mess.
    Unfortunately, the economy we hope to build in space and many of the social and research benefits we are hoping to achieve are tied to this failing endeavor.   
  
  
  
  

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    Gblaze43
    

    Posts:
    7

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    02/11/2010 01:41 PM

    Re: NASA at rock Bottom

    But as Pace said, Obama's plan is vague and uncertain, sounds much like his promises. Ya we need more money for development. But it isn't certain where that money would be spent right now. He didn't say we need to develop new launch technologies, he said new propulsion methods, which could mean space propulsion for probes. Alot more needs to be defined before we get our hopes up.

    Rate this comment:
• 
  CoastalRon
  

  Posts:
  31

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  02/10/2010 12:45 PM

  Commerical Space

  The author states "...but human spaceflight was a skill set that was uniquely ours, and shared only with the Russians, and recently the Chinese", and he should have also added that India has announced plans to launch 2 people into space by 2015 with their own launcher and spacecraft. Russia is helping both the Chinese and the Indians, and no doubt they would help anyone else that pays good money. Why aren't we doing that?
  
  We need to understand that spaceflight is at a different place than it was 40 years ago. We have a much deeper understanding of what works and what doesn't, and the barriers to entry for someone wanting to send someone into space are now much lower. That goes for everyone worldwide.
  
  In the U.S., well before the current administration came in, there were already two U.S. companies that had stated that they planned to put people into LEO - Bigelow and SpaceX. Both were putting up their own funds to start the incremental process of putting people into space without relying on NASA. They have been leveraging off of technology that was created by our past space programs, and are both creating potential new markets for their services.
  
  NASA building an expedition-class spacecraft, plus a heavy launch vehicle, is not going to help us with any activities in LEO. If we had continued down this path, we would have ceded future LEO commerce to non-U.S. countries, which I think is short-sighted.
  
  In order for the U.S. to stay dominant in space, we need to create a space-based industry that does not rely on NASA doing everything. We don't rely on NASA to launch our satellites, and it's time to move our astronauts into LEO using commercial providers.
  
  Does NASA need to be involved? Absolutely, and I think this new direction is the right one. They should define the standards, work side-by-side to make sure that these companies are doing the right stuff, and pass along the R&D that will make spaceflight better and eventually cheaper. Ares I/V would not have done that.

  Rate this comment:
• 
  penzor
  

  Posts:
  18

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  02/10/2010 01:40 PM

  NASA

  In today's economic environment NASA and the space program are the furthest thing from the American people and Congress's mind.   However NASA's mission statement circa 2002 was “To understand and protect our home planet; to explore the universe and search for life; to inspire the next generation of explorers ... as only NASA can.”  It can not be forgotten that NASA is about the long term outlook in regards to aviation and space based research\communication and space exploration.  
  
  The president plan talked about investing in "critical new game changing technologies".  Critical new technologies are forced to fail and will never happen.  What the congress and the President don't realize that developing game changing technologies with high risk, will always be over budget and behind schedule and can only be done by NASA.  The real question to ask is, What technologies are worth going the extra mile for? The last time NASA made an attempt a for critical new technologies the Single Stage to Orbit program (SSTO) with the X-33, congress killed it. The technologies in the X-33 like the aerospike engine, composite cryogenic fuel tanks, metallic thermal protection system,  autonomous (unmanned) flight control, and lifting body had the potential to at least, half the per pound cost to get into orbit. That's something worth going over budget for. Today the X-33 sits un-finished and un-tested in storage being harvested for parts. Parts sent to the next canceled project.
  
  
         The Obama administration’s plan is a mistake.   If we are to end the Space Shuttle program the United States government must have access to space independent of private industry. We need at least the Ares I to have human access to space and Ares V as heavy lifter from any extended activities in Earth orbit and beyond.   Killing the Constellation program that we spent 9 billion dollars on and will cost 2.5 billion to cancel is short sited and wasteful.  Its not the time for NASA to invest in unproven and higher risk “game changing” technologies or startup aerospace companies.  The Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program is doing well at its current budget.   Should we hand money to SpaceX,  which has no man-rated experience for greater risk than NASA technology?   Our space goals shouldn’t be pawned off to get less value for our money  and decreased safety. 
  
  
  
         There is a very strong strategic justification for Ares I and Ares V.   In the near future we are looking at four new members to the human space flight community.   China, the EU, Japan, and India.  If NASA were absent, the US government would lose the expertise to assist and influence allies and understand where our adversaries intension's lie (peaceful exploration or weapons).  If an international project were planed to the moon or mars, NASA would have little if anything to offer. Without Ares I, Ares V  and Orion, the U.S. will not have the technological edge to lead the world.  The heavy lift ability of both Ares rockets will set NASA apart for next 50 years.   We need a man-rated civilian space agency that is independent from the pentagon and the president and reports to Congress without reservations.  Currently NASA is  the world authority on space and space technology.  How can The United States give away this leadership edge when the price to regain it would be astronomically costly and quite possibly impossible to catch up in a time of crisis?       
  
              
  
         NASA should promote the private/commercial sectors ambitions to send people into space but should not be out of the rocket building business for safety and to protect the space faring public, when the private sector has a catastrophic failure. Similar to the U.S. Coast Guard NASA must have the ability to rescue stranded passengers from private space stations or space hotels.  If commercial launches are suspended due to an accident or safety issue NASA must act. A second safety issue is the regulation of man rated rockets.  With no NASA rocket program, safety and proper regulation cannot be ensured because there will lack of expertise, facilities and R&D infrastructure to know what the right guidelines are.  This is the most complex and risky technology in the world, the private sector can't do it alone.  No company without government money/resources assistance has ventured into space alone.

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    CoastalRon
    

    Posts:
    31

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    02/10/2010 02:25 PM

    Re: NASA

    There are a lot of black & white arguments going on about the level of NASA involvement in the future of spaceflight.  In reality, it is much more gray, and not as dire.
    
    The U.S. already has a huge space-related industrial base.  NASA has not built a launcher in decades, and the real knowledge base for launchers is spread out in the commercial space industry.  Need a satellite put in space?  You don't go to NASA, you go to private industry.
    
    What is missing is a NASA focused on transferring tax-dollar paid knowledge to U.S. companies so they can create U.S. jobs and industry leadership.  This is how the U.S. will stay relevant in space, not by NASA building hugely expensive launchers and spacecraft.
    
    How much will it cost for every Ares I?  Much more than Atlas V or Delta IV heavies, and their reliability is already known, and will continue to get better with their constant non-crew launches.  The safest and cheapest way to space is on a launcher that can be used for any types of cargo - hardware or human.  This is also how you avoid the problem of being stranded when something goes wrong with a launch - and it will, so you better build a U.S. system that has multiple ways to get into space, and doesn't depend on one critical path (like Ares I).

    Rate this comment:
  • 
    Specificimpulse
    

    Posts:
    1

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    02/10/2010 02:47 PM

    Re: NASA

    Your assertions were a bit hyperbolic on X-33 to say the least.  The technology of that machine would have been unable to lift a single pound to orbit.  Much less to a useful orbit.  Single Stage To Orbit vehicles were and still are utterly impractical.  Many of us in the space side of Lockheed  were appalled at the stupidity shown not only by NASA but by LM management- 15 minutes of simple analysis would have shown anyone that the whole thing was preposterous.  It was designed mostly by people who had never done anything remotely like a launch vehicle.  They suffered a fundamental structural design failure that anyone with a background in cryogenics could have predicted- and many did.  Trust me it was a good thing they were put out of their misery.
    
    The real situation is that NASA has nearly no expertise in the design, fabrication, testing and routine flight of expendable launch vehicles.  They gave that up around 1983.  That skillset now lives with commercial companies- specifically United Launch Alliance.  Under the EELV program two entire fleets of launchers and their attendant factories, launch facilities etc were completed for less than $5B.  These rockets can ALREADY lift what the ARES I was supposed to and have been flying for years with billion-dollar payloads. Payloads that are life-critical to a lot of people who don't wear astronaut suits. 
    
    Which brings up the notion of man-rating.  Let's be clear: there ain't no such animal.  It is a fiction that is made up to frighten people.  The existing Atlas and Delta vehicles have systems margins and redundancy that is as good or better than what was proposed for Constellation elements.  Better than that they have actually flown a lot.  It is not the safety/reliability numbers on paper that matter- Columbia and Challenger should inform you there of how weak those analyses really are- it is the direct experience that is crucial.  We only trust machines and people with hours and hours of experience to keep us safe.  We know that a 200 hour pilot is nothing compared to a 6000 hour pilot.  That is what the Delta and Atlas bring to the table.  Hundreds of flights, honed teams, real world no-bullshit experience. 
    
    So really stop worrying about the US losing its technical edge.  We have state of the art launch systems that are the envy of the world.  TWO OF THEM!  It is just that NASA had nothing to do with them. SpaceX gets all the press because they are noisy.  And with their track record there is plenty of cause for concern.  Who knows if they will succeed.  It is not important.  The real solution to space access already exists and is flight proven.  THAT is what Obama is hanging his hat on.
    
    Having a super big rocket does not make you advanced if it sends you into the poorhouse.  The ARES V had nothing on it that was in the least advanced.  They deliberately froze technology development as a management decree for heaven's sake.  It would have been a white elephant. 
    
    Advanced spaceflight is not about who makes the biggest flames it is about who has the best transport system that can support all customers and actually make some money.  Without that you are just a hobby.  There are numerous studies that confirm that the use of orbital propellant depots and vehicles that use propellant transfer can accomplish far more than any conceivable heavy lifter. I urge you to educate yourself.  Go here for starts:
    
    http://unitedlaunchalliance.com/index_published.html
    
    Existing rockets can do more than Constellation ever could and do it at a cost we can afford. Choosing that path shows attention to detail, clear thinking and personal integrity. Obama deserves our thanks for steering us away from the icebergs despite the yammering of the ignorant about how pretty they are.

    Rate this comment:
    • 
      CoastalRon
      

      Posts:
      31

      Avg Rating:
      

      

      Reply

      02/10/2010 03:18 PM

      Re: NASA

      I think we're both on the same page regarding non-NASA launchers, and I think Atlas & Delta are great starting points for getting crew into space.
      
      I would not be so rah-rah on ULA regarding their cost structure though, since the parent companies (Boeing & LockMart) are not known for their low-cost access to anything.  They build wonderfully complex systems, but they also have very large overhead cost structures.
      
      I do like the startups like Orbital and SpaceX.  They are starting from a much lower overhead basis, which is going to keep ULA from charging too much for their services.  Competition is good.
      
      Also, and this is just a minor point, SpaceX is not as inexperienced as some make them out to be.  They are standing on the shoulders of the giants of our space past, so they don't need to create 100% unproven systems - they are able to utilize the current state-of-art from the space industry.
      
      Everyone seems to forget that the first Falcon I launches were test launches, and that they were fully expecting things would go wrong (and they did).  But they learned from those mistakes, and now Falcon 1 has joined the ranks of commercial launch systems.  Due to the modular way they built the Falcon family, those lessons are applied to Falcon 9.  Will the first Falcon 9 test vehicle have a perfect launch?  Who knows, but SpaceX will do the same thing they did with Falcon I, which is learn, fix and retry.  Which, if memory serves me right, is what Delta & Atlas have had to do a number of times... ;-)

      Rate this comment:
      • 
        Airrocket
        

        Posts:
        1

        Avg Rating:
        

        

        Reply

        02/11/2010 01:08 AM

        Re: NASA

        "That skill set now lives with commercial companies- specifically United Launch Alliance".
        
        Right-On!
        
        Space-X keeps ULA cost real...Right-on!
        
        We agree Commercial has the potential all it needs is some seed funding to foster maturity and the opportunity to fly its hardware and to develop infrastructure and markets. But still one very important element is sadly lacking. And that is a program to focus and guide the development along a clear concise path and goal. A program to pull the technology forward. That program is not FLEX. FLEX is too vague, random and lacking of an inspirational goal. FLEX comes up short. Commercial deserves better than FLEX. VSE has the path the inspiration and the goal. ULA has shown they already know the way to execute VSE with Delta, Atlas and other commercial launchers. No HLV needed, No Apollo style program needed.
        
        http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/publications/AffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf
        
        Still new space and commercial pundits rally around FLEX. Looking a what ULA has put forth it seems to deliver on everything and moves our space program outward driven by VSE while developing low-cost LEO and infrastructure...what more could one want??????? The more I read and hear about FLEX the more random and dead-ended it sounds. As an engineer FLEX sounds like the dream project, no accountability, no deadlines, and no defined goals, just take some funds and go play. And it never ends one could make a life long career out one project. But as an engineer I know this will not work. What we will get is random KAOS and years of wasted unfocused efforts going everywhere yet getting nowhere. VSE is still valid and accountability and a concise plan are required to build the infrastructure and develop a market. Once markets are developed then FLEX works because the markets will naturally drive progress forward. Until we have developed the infrastructure and the markets VSE is needed. And going to the moon provides the opportunity for those markets to develop.

        Rate this comment:
    • 
      penzor
      

      Posts:
      18

      Avg Rating:
      

      

      Reply

      02/11/2010 02:39 PM

      Re: NASA

         I am not saying that the commercial companies are not ready to put humans in space, they are and will.  However, its not just about that.  There are strategic, safety, and technical reasons for NASA to maintain its own abilities.  If the human space industry is to succeeded government will require over site, like it or not.   NASA has a lot of expertise in all existing rocket technology and the world envies it. NASA will be forced to play a role as a leader or at least something like the FAA or NTSB.
        I want NASA to be a leader at minimum they need Orion (don't care how its launched) and Ares V or beyond LEO is dead.  No Company will invest in a rocket a big as Ares V only China
      
      The United "star fleet" Launch Alliance is a management company they do ground services and help sell rockets for Boeing and Lockheed Martin. They have no expertise if a major technical problem occurs.  They have never build or designed anything.  Companies like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, SpaceX and orbital have a lot of expertise but it doesn't exceed NASA's
      
      By the way Specificimpulse who ever you are to dismiss the X-33 out right is not how scientific research is done.  The aerospike engine have only been tested once on the ground and no one really knows how they would perform in real tests. After the X-33 tank failure on the first attempt at something never done before.  Cryogenic fuel tanks for liquid hydrogen and oxygen have been build and tested. I urge you to educate yourself.  Go here for starts:
      http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=63264
      http://www.xcor.com/products/cryo_compatable_composites.html
      The biggest problem with the X-33 program was taking on to much at once.

      Rate this comment:
• 
  Mapou
  

  Posts:
  211

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  02/11/2010 02:27 AM

  NASA Will Do Just Fine and So Will Everyone Else

  A time is coming soon when everybody and their uncle will have a space program. Space propulsion will be so cheap and so fast that NASA will be able to focus on what type of big outer-space experiments to conduct, not on how to move payload A to orbit B. Heck, propulsion science will be so advanced that orbits will not matter anymore. We'll be able to park any payload anywhere above the surface of the earth or in outer space. Free!
  
  Alright. I know it all sounds like crackpot nonsense but it is based on a solid new motion hypothesis. Soon, science will learn the truth about the causality of motion and the immense lattice of energetic particles in which we move as a result. Rocket propulsion will become obsolete overnight because our vehicles will be capable of moving at enormous speeds and negotiate right angle turns without slowing down and without incurring any damage due to inertial effects. And they'll do it without carrying any fuel/energy on board. How can that be? It's because we're swimming in clean energy, lots and lots of it. We just need to learn how to tap into it. And to do that, we'll need to figure out the properties of the lattice.
  
  Physics: The Problem With Motion

  Rate this comment:

« Back 1 [2] 3 4 Next »