NASA's GRAND vision ???

[radarredux]

UPI is running an "exclusive" article about returning to the moon:<br /><br />Exclusive: NASA begins moon return effort<br />By Frank Sietzen<br />http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040728-124356-2684r<br /><br />I have to admit, I was fairly underwhelmed. By 2020 NASA hopes to be able to land a small crew on the Moon for a few days to up to a week, and they will do this only once a year.<br /><br />In 16 years from now we will be able to repeat what we could do 35 years ago.<br /><br />Sigh...

 

[planet_z]

"In 16 years from now we will be able to repeat what we could do 35 years ago."<br /><br />Woohoo! We have so much to look forward to. Luckily though we have Burt Rutan and the X-Prize to give us hope. It may take a while but eventually I believe that people in the private sector will over take NASA. They have a plan to make it so normal people can go into space. It will be nice if one day NASA puts a man on Mars but image being able to one day buy a ticket to an orbiting hotel around the Earth.

 

[orzek]

The way things are going it will take till the next century before we do something significant. NASA are useless maybe the chinese might one day show them how to do it.

 

[wvbraun]

It's better than nothing. If Bush had not given NASA a new plan we would still be in LEO by 2020. NASA would still try to build a Shuttle successor and axe one project after another without ever flying a prototype.

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">In 16 years from now we will be able to repeat what we could do 35 years ago. </font><br /><br />Exactly. That's why these designs will likely find the dustbin of history, with the significant exception of possibly serving as precursors for the winning designs from entrepreneurs. Certain of the concepts will be sound, and certain ones will not. There are cost savings to be had by applying the discipline of the marketplace.<br /><br />In other words, NASA will find itself left in the dust of private space pioneers if they don't change even faster than they are. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">It's better than nothing. If Bush had not given NASA a new plan we would still be in LEO by 2020.</font>/i><br /><br />I was thinking about this effort which is essentially sole-sourced to NASA, how groups like the Planetary Society and Zubrin have developed their own plans recently or in the past, and the X Prize approach and thought maybe the blueprint could be done as a prize.<br /><br />Over the next 6-9 months hold a contest. Groups submit their plans, but to limit it somewhat to serious efforts each submission has to be accompanied by an entry fee (maybe $2,000-$10,000). Furthermore each submission must have an abstract (200 words), 1-2 page executive summary, and a technical plan less than 50 pages.<br /><br />Each of the submissions are available online. An online discussion board (like SDC) and voting system is provided, but this Internet popularity vote only carries a limited weight. A group of judges select the top 5 proposals, and those groups are each given $1 million to flesh out the details for a second round of reports.<br /><br />The second round of reports goes through a similar voting scheme, with the winner receiving a $10 million dollar reward. The winning plan then becomes the blueprint for "the vision".<br /><br />I could envision groups from the Mars Society to Boeing to Rutan to engineering societies at Universities across the country participating.<br /><br />Any thoughts?</i>

 

[vgar]

NASA's GRand Vision,? To continue to pour millions into projects then cancel them just before they are completed. It's a good welfare program for Aerospace companies to get money without actually producing anything.<br /><br /> Most of my predictions about NASa have come true. They gave up on the ISS just like I thought they would. I have my doubts the shuttle will ever fly again, and if it does, will have more problems. Problem is, evrytime we get a new president, he just cancels the projects he former president started. <br /> It's all a big waste of time, effort and money.<br /><br />At least you can tell your grandkids of the days when Men went to the moon, we had a space station and there were supersonic passenger jets.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">The Shuttle will fly this spring.</font>/i><br /><br />Somehow I don't think shuttle_guy has an unbiased opinion on the shuttle <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />. However, AW&ST and other trade magazines have provided similar lines (see "Shuttle Recovery : Thousands of power-on tests underway on rebuilt Discovery" in the Aug 2nd issue).<br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">NASA has not given up on the ISS. Funding is shown as far out as 2012.</font>/i><br /><br />A lot of it is an issue of interpretation. On one hand budget estimates show funding for about a dozen more years (last I saw was through FY 2015 (the infamous "sand chart"), which indicates commitment. On the other hand, given that America has been trying to build a space station since 1984, spending 26 years to try to complete a station and then walking away after only 5 years of full operational use sounds more like an exit strategy than excitement that this endeavor requiring a quarter century to build is finally complete.</i></i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">They gave up on the ISS just like I thought they would.</font>/i><br /><br />Ran across a military presentation that noted that programs that take nearly 10 years to complete have a mortality rate of almost 40%. You can see this in relatively recent high profile programs like the Crusader artillary system and Comanche helicopter.<br /><br />I would like to see NASA scale back hardware plans to 3-5 year horizons.</i>

 

[crossovermaniac]

<font color="yellow">In 16 years from now we will be able to repeat what we could do 35 years ago.<br /><br />Sigh...</font><br /><br />What do expect when NASA set out to burn their bridges.

 

[halman]

RadarRedux,<br /><br />I was not aware that NASA has the power to set its own budget! All these years I was thinking that CONGRESS was the culprit behind the lack of progress in space! I guess that the folks at NASA just don't have any vision, and that is why they only set aside about four billion for manned space operations each year.<br /><br />Now, if they had the nerve to decide to spend 50 billion a year on manned space projects, I would be willing to critisize a lack of progress. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>