Future restructuring of NASA and aerospace industry jobs

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">A few hundred pound "cubesat" doesn't even approach HST, Cassini, Phoenix, Dawn, GOES, NOAA, MSL, Pathfinder, etc. </font><br /><br />have universities design it, the private industry build it, the government pay for it in the form of grants, contracts etc.<br />Universities should do space science, write proposals, secure grants, just like for any research project. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">Newspace isn't going to be all what it is cracked up to be. After all it is rocket science.</font><br /><br /><br />NASA isn't what it's cracked up to be. After all, the space program they built relied on German hardware and scientists. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"have universities design it,"<br />Most don't have the capabilities to even do this. Nor this "Universities should do space science, write proposals, secure grants, just like for any research projects""<br /><br />Spaceflight is not "any" research project.<br /><br />you have no idea what it takes to run a space mission

 

[jimfromnsf]

What are you trying to say? It doesn't make sense.<br />There is no "space program built by NASA relied on German hardware and scientists" <br />You are wrong and totally offbase. <br />The germans were part of NASA. NASA didn't exist before the germans. NASA is part of their legacy. NASA was formed around the german team<br />

 

[spacefire]

what about NACA then? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

The German team, NRL Viking team, and JPL formed the core of NASA's space program. NACA mostly bought in the aeronautics work. NACA did very little space work before becoming NASA

 

[jimfromnsf]

"NASA isn't what it's cracked up to be. "<br />Let's see:<br />MER rovers - NASA<br />HST- NASA<br />Cassini - NASA<br />MRO - NASA,<br />GOES - NASA<br />Deep Impact - NASA<br />Pluto NH - NASA<br />SIRTF - NASA<br />TERRA, AURA & AQUA - NASA<br /><br />Looks like it is "cracked up" to me<br /><br />

 

[spacefire]

a private corporation with the succcess/ failure rate of NASA would have never survived <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />We learned from 50 years of succcess and failures.<br />Technology has matured and is ready to be put in entrepreneur's hands! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"a private corporation with the succcess/ failure rate of NASA would have never survived"<br /><br />Then the work wouldn't have happened. Any other organization would have had the rates. Actually, NASA has better numbers than the USAF or commercial launch providers<br /><br /><br />"Technology has matured and is ready to be put in entrepreneur's hands!"<br /><br />Doing what?<br /><br />The only money to be made is comsats. And the technology has not matured, far from it

 

[spacefire]

the future will show that there is more than that to be made mone from in LEO and beyond.<br />basically you are advocating no further expansion of the human race into space, by denying entrepreneurs the rights to attempt commercialization of space. Currently the government is not interested in opening LEO to the masses by tackling the cost barrier.<br />Small companies are stepping in and trying to make it there cheaply. They are the future and safeguard of humanity. And they are bound to succeed in colonizing orbit, the Moon, Mars someday, hopefully soon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> the future will show that there is more than that to be made mone from in LEO and beyond.<br />basically you are advocating no further expansion of the human race into space, by denying entrepreneurs the rights to attempt commercialization of space. Currently the government is not interested in opening LEO to the masses by tackling the cost barrier. </i><br /><br />In many ways it is not the government's job to develop cheap access to space. Facilitating the technology, sure - but that has been done again and again. Entrepreneurs are buying NASA spacecraft out of storage (DreamChaser) as we speak (and apprently out of Russia too - see Excalibur Almaz). Jim's stated position is opposition to STS and caution toward new.space, not opposition. If you had a payload to fly on EELV, he'd be happy.<br /><br />Which brings me to what this argument should be about, that is payloads. "Rocket" is a solved problem. Can launch be cheaper? Of course it can but that requires frequent flights in any scenario. We have rockets available now. So, got payload? More importantly, got payload that someone else will pay you for? <br /><br />If you want high-tech aerospace jobs to grow, the only feasible manner is by more companies and entrepreneurs offering new, innovative products. This can be new satelites, rovers, exploration/science kit, ISRU gear, tugs, space suits (Orbital Outfitters has right idea), reentry gear, mining hardware, etc. Scale is whatever you can produce - repackaging standard Earth field-geology tools into Lunar kits or building spacesuits from Home Depot components (it just happened, don't laugh) to running a consortia that assembles Mars flights from other's hardware, there is something for everyone willing to work for it. There is a LOT of work to be done to become spacefaring - the question should be what are you doing to advance things? Even if it's expensive, there is nothing stopping you from building and flying something. <br /><br />CubeSat with launch on Dnepr <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"basically you are advocating no further expansion of the human race into space, by denying entrepreneurs the rights to attempt commercialization of space. "<br /><br />I said no such thing. Only that NASA doesn't need to be disbanded and most universities can't handle the job of managing a space mission. I also said there is few means of making money in space for the near term, since there is no market for any products<br /><br />"Currently the government is not interested in opening LEO to the masses by tackling the cost barrier. "<br /><br />And rightly so. It is not the government' job.<br /><br />"Small companies are stepping in and trying to make it there cheaply"<br /><br />I also said there is nothing wrong with the current aerospace contractors and Newspace will have a tough time. Space launch may never be cheap

 

[Testing]

You want to be in the thick of things? Get an advanced degree and apply to Aerospace Corporation, or go to the the USAF Academy and request Airforce Research Lab, or Johns Hopkins Phisics Lab or Naval Reaserch Lab. There you will get an Education. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nuaetius]

Only problem is I am 30 years old just graduating with a associates.. No matter what I will be a green Bluebeard when I start. Don't think the Military would be interested in say 6 years when I am done with a masters.

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">Newspace isn't going to be all what it is cracked up to be. After all it is rocket science. </font><br /><br />that's what you said. I think compared to NASA/government's approach to 'rocket science' - see cancelled DC-X, X-33,X-38, HL42 etc the 'newspace' entrepreneurs are models of caution, business acumen and sound engineering principles. I think they understand what 'rocket science' really takes much better than NASA ever has.<br /><br />J0SH: The government's job is to do what is in the best interest of its people. Opening up LEO via cheap, safe, reusable launchers is in the best interest not only to the American people but to the human race in general.<br />The decades of the 70s, 80s and 90s were all about that, so back then the government's job definitely WAS about cheap access to space. Unfortunately all that we got was the Shuittle and a bunch of RLV projects that were cancelled for various reasons. Yes, they have failed, but if you look at each failure in detail you will realize that it did not occur because of unsurmontable technological hurdles. Yes you had the composite tanks in the X33, but surely a solution could be found if more funding were directed towards advances in material design.<br />NASA has shamefully failed at the goal of cheap access to space, which became the GOAL and its raison d'etre after the end of the Apollo program and the cold war.<br />What they are doing right now is mere make-work.<br /><br />I believe heavy restructuring of this government agency is in order, and a certainty for the near future. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

naetius: do you have any technical experience? a space program is not made with engineers alone <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> compared to NASA/government's approach to 'rocket science' - see cancelled DC-X, X-33,X-38, HL42 etc the 'newspace' entrepreneurs are models of caution, business acumen and sound engineering principles.</i><br /><br />Both the startups and Big Aero are in business to Make Money (eventually). <br /><br /><i>>The government's job is to do what is in the best interest of its people. Opening up LEO</i><br /><br />"The government" or NASA? AFRL? FAA? It's closest to the FAA's mandate, and their AST (Office of Commercial Space) has consistently supported New.Space. NASA's charter explicitly states that it is to monitor Earth and space, explore and develop all aspects of aerospace technology. There is only so much that government can do. <br /><br />None of that directly mandates Cheap Access To Space - the only thing, absolutely the only thing, that will lead to CATS is high flight rates. Flight rates so high that no government budget would support it (40-60 flights/year). CATS can only occur with a large number of players from all levels in the game. <br /><br />For launch costs to drop, flight rates need to go up. Conversely, payload development and construction costs will need to become more commoditized - some crew hardware can be adopted from existing gear, etc.<br /><br /><i>>The decades of the 70s, 80s and 90s were all about that, so back then the government's job definitely WAS about cheap access to space. ... Yes, they have failed, but if you look at each failure in detail you will realize that it did not occur because of unsurmontable technological hurdles.</i><br /><br />You are trying to have it both ways when the problem is really perpendicular. The technology for CATS is available right now. For launchers the economic case has not yet been closed - all orbital rockets are sponsored in one way or another. CATS doesn't need more technology (though that helps), what enables CATS is frequency of flights. This is regardless of ELV, SpaceX, SSTO RLV, air-dropped s <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>