a new NACA?

[spacefire]

With NASA cutting back on everything but getting to the Moon, aeronautic research-and into that I also include space planes- has suffered drastic cut-backs.One poignant example is research into lowering the effects of sonic boom, which has been cut back.<br />Private industry obvioulsy has interest in such technologies, applicable in areas like supersonic passenger transport.<br />But now most of them are doing their research in house.<br />Imagine a government agency focused on aeronautic research, funded mainly by companies rather than taxpayers and employing the vast resources of the academic world.<br />I say, let NASA do their Apollo rehash, and let the new NACA focus on high-yield research into aeronautics, aerodynamics, jet propulsion... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[BReif]

Sure, why not split the two focuses into two agencies? Rename NASA, the National Space Exploration Agency (NSEA), and reconstitute NACA. Have NACA organized under the Department of Transportation, or the FAA, and NSEA organized under a space science cabinet level department. Right now, NASA falls under HUD appropriations, which I always felt was a misclassification. Then, space exploration would not have to compete with aviation R&D, which is also needed in the US. It would then be up to Congress to appropriate funding for both agencies, now completely independent and in different departments of the government.

 

[dobbins]

Let's not ignore some facts.<br /><br />If NASA didn't have a horribly expensive space plane as it's only current means of sending men to space and if it had developed a capsule replacement for the shuttle a long time ago instead of spending piles of money on one failed space plane design after another, then there wouldn't be budget crunch right now.<br /><br />Space planes are the reason that NASA is short on funds for Aeronautics and a new NACA would quickly be in the same position if it kept going down that dead end road.<br /><br />Enough is enough! Let George Lucas design the space planes, he seems to be the only person who can get them to work.<br /><br />

 

[chriscdc]

The only piece of aeronautical engineering that nasa should be doing, is hugely improving fuel efficiency. Even the passenger companies are accepting that the cost of fuel is going to make flying more expensive in the near future let alone in a decade or two.<br /><br />Passengers are not going to need/want supersonic aircraft if it costs them several thousand dollars just to go on a subsonic aircraft. Perhaps the message from the accountants has yet to filter through to the researchers, but I would be very surprised to find boeing and co developing any new heavier than air passenger carriers in 5 years time.<br /><br />Hey perhaps we can all fly in blimps in 2030, perhaps nasa could develop the equipment to turn the blimps into the equivalent of comsats.

 

[BReif]

While the cost of fuel is high right now, and over the long term is likely to rise, the oil companies are under alot of scrutiny right now, after making record profits in the wake of the hurricanes. The current hike in fuel costs is inflated and artificial IMO. The US Congress must be thinking along the same lines, since they are requesting the oil companies to appear before the House Judiciary Committee. Oil companies know that they have a pseudo-monopoly and a society that is dependant upon them, and they took advantage of that this past summer and fall, IMO. Now, they are being called on the carpet. I think we will see oil prices fall some in the next few months, translating into falling costs for air travel as well. Then, I think future increases will be a factor of supply/demand, and inflation.

 

[n_kitson]

I am completely in support of separate agencies. One of my issues with the setup of NASA is that science and aeronautical programs have often been raided for money for manned space flight. However, I disagree with lumping space planes into aeronautical research.<br /><br />I'd love to ideally see three agencies: <br />- An agency dedicated to aeronautical research<br />- An agency dedicated to unmanned space science and exploration<br />- An agency dedicated to manned space exploration<br /><br />That will make it difficult for real science programs to be raided for funds when the political environment changes and the finance behind manned programs will be far more transparent than is the current situation.

 

[n_kitson]

Dobbins, I disagree with just about everything you post! However, you're definitely one of the more informed and wise posters in my opinion and you contribute to making the content on these forums richer. So, it's good to see you here again.<br /><br />Welcome back.<br />

 

[dobbins]

"I am completely in support of separate agencies. One of my issues with the setup of NASA is that science and aeronautical programs have often been raided for money for manned space flight."<br /><br />There is a reason for that, it's a publicly financed program and there is far more public support for manned flight than there is for science or aeronautics. Eliminate the manned flight and public support for NASA would go down the tubes and there would be even less funds for science and aeronautics than there is now. Move them to another agency and it will be an agency that doesn't have enough support to get the kind of funding that Science and Aeronautics get from NASA, assuming that it didn't get eliminated altogether.<br /><br />Like it or not these programs are hitchhiking on the back of manned space flight. No Buck Rogers, No Bucks.<br /><br />

 

[craig42]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>- An agency dedicated to manned space exploration <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Change that to <b>exploitation</b> and then I agree 100% with you. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />