What IS happening to NASA?

[jschaef5]

That is pretty saddening...<br /><br />I dunno though ever since this bush space plan has been implemented it seems like Griffen has had to gear everything for it or else we won't get anywhere. We can't half ass the development of the CEV specially with so much money going into the shuttle. I guess this means less funding for 'research'. Is there really another choice for him though?<br /><br />It's a horrible thought that we are cutting research for the CEV, but I have hopes that once the shuttle is retired funding will return although congress probably won't follow through with this. I can only hope, especially since i start work at a nasa research center this fall :/ <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[john_316]

All hope is not lost....... At least not yet!!!!<br /><br /><br />I think if they get a concrete CEV design ready and implimented and start cutting METAL then we will see the CEV progress.<br /><br />Like many I am tired of studies that just are not assossiated with the real deal. Some are just pork while others are some kind of assessment that doesnt even fit into the CEV program.<br /><br /><br />I do however wish that once the CEV starts flying and immediately before the BDB or BFG or HLV flies the science in the CEV plan will re-emerge with a good size of dollars and not pesos.<br /><br />VSE? I'm not sure what it is anymore! But at least the Agency still keeps on truckn<br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />

 

[jschaef5]

newsartist, we all know that the money for the CEV is coming from everywhere else though and that things are being cut *cough* scramjet *cough* X-43C *cough* <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[egom]

Anvel: "Radiation and microgravity are deadly to our species. A station in a crater near one of the poles of the Moon goes a long way toward reducing those hazards, and in addition provides resources. There are no natives in the way either. The Old World financed colonies in the New World with fairly paltry ROI outlooks. The same will be eventually true with the Moon and Mars. The goal can compensate for the inherent risk, and the public generally realizes that NASA is better than most areas of the government to fund."<br /><br />My comment: so is cold, please sleep in the naked in winter and see if you ever wake up in the morning. We tamed the cold, we will tame the space. People that did not get clothes to warm themselves are long past extinct. It is called evolution. 500 years ago someone like you would have ended with his head cut. Now all can we do is rave on a forum. Heck, you would have ended dead no more than 60 years ago. Hitler had a small technical advantage and wanted to exterminate like half of the world...<br /><br />EgoM<br /><br />EgoM

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"We are not, any longer, a technology agency to any significant extent. Wishing otherwise is nice, but irrelevant."</font><br /><br />If NASA is not technology agency then what is it?

 

[rfoshaug]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>It was worth losing lives over Apollo but not over the ISS<br /><br />Why?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Because Apollo was a (almost military) program driven by national security interests, while ISS is not. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff9900">----------------------------------</font></p><p><font color="#ff9900">My minds have many opinions</font></p> </div>

 

[vt_hokie]

And unfortunately, with the current leadership in this country, new technology will be driven by the military for the foreseeable future. Peaceful applications of technology aren't too high up on the priority list for these guys.

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">Hitler had a small technical advantage and wanted to exterminate like half of the world... </font><br />it's funny that Hitler's craziness ultimately allowed the US to go to the Moon.<br /><br />History is funny, besides tragic.<br />Our specie lives in a tragicomedy <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Thank you...I never heard about military aspect of that program...<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />That's because it wasn't a military program. Oh, there are connections --the neccesary skills (test piloting, for instance) are rare outside of the military. (But not unheard of; Neil Armstrong was a civilian test pilot before he joined the astronaut corps, exercising and validating aircraft designs before they were sold to the military.)<br /><br />There were <i>political</i> motivations to the program, certainly, and they were of tangential interest to the military. But the Apollo program was actually draining resources from the military manned space program. (It was Shuttle that finally killed the military manned space program, when Congress decided it would be a great idea to save money by having it serve both military and civilian missions, which unfortunately made it ill-suited to both.) The political motivation was to get to the Moon before the Soviets did. Ostensibly, it would allow the US to claim the ultimate high ground -- a definite military tactic -- but the reality is that it was not designed to actually hold any ground. Such a mission would've been beyond the capabilities of the time -- indeed, beyond today's capabilities. But the biggest political and military benefit, with respect to the Cold War, was that it demonstrated the technological prowess of American rocket science, which itself has obvious implications for missile technology.<br /><br />Beyond that, though, it was a purely civilian program. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[askold]

That's all true - but if you look at the big picture it all started with Sputnik. That put the fear into the American people. The Russians were "in outer space" first. There was something very scary about that. We had to top them in order to feel at ease. Going to the moon topped them.

 

[crix]

The NASA of today is concerned with building modern hardware to get people back on the moon. This is a very tangible, physical goal. In that sense I think he means that NASA is no longer a technology agency. We (space enthusiasts) of all people should know that NASA isn't about spin-off technologies... these aren't the things that draw us here. It's because NASA enables us to learn more about our universe. NASA is now focused on paving the road for the government and entrepeneurs to extend our presense into the solar system. New technology will be created along the way... but technology itself is certainly not the objective.

 

[josh_simonson]

>Here's the thing - finishing the ISS is not worth getting killed over.<br /><br />Perhaps not to you, but somehow I don't think you're the spokesman for the astronaut corps. People risk their lives for all sorts of things, alaskan crab fishermen have a higher death rate than astronauts, and they only collect luxury food that we certainly could do without. If you want to save lives, start by banning crab. People choose to endanger their lives all the time, they go skydiving, motorcycle riding and rock climbing. I myself spearfish in murky water prowled by great white sharks.<br /><br />Of any of the reasons to argue against spaceflight, loss of life is the most bogus. The people that have died all chose to take the risks they did, even the guy that was working on the VAB roof a month or so back and fell off. Where's the national day of mourning for that guy? Greta Van Missingprettypeople didn't pick up the story so nobody gives a damn.

 

[askold]

"Perhaps not to you, but somehow I don't think you're the spokesman for the astronaut corps."<br /><br />You are absolutely right. Griffin is driving the bus and he doesn't want to go down in history as the guy who doomed the shuttle, the ISS and NASA by having another accident. The best way to avoid an accident - stay on the ground.

 

[jschaef5]

"You are absolutely right. Griffin is driving the bus and he doesn't want to go down in history as the guy who doomed the shuttle, the ISS and NASA by having another accident. The best way to avoid an accident - stay on the ground."<br /><br />Wow. If you believe that that is Griffin's intention.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

>Wow. If you believe that that is Griffin's intention....<br /><br />He has hinted at such in both public testimony and press events. He wants to implement the VSE's early stages, not babysit an albatross.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[spayss]

"....I think the negativists are correct and the program should be shut down..."<br /><br />Those who want to put the Shuttle to bed aren't negativists but the reverse. They are those who know NASA can do much better and expect excellence and success. They don't accept mediocrity but are optimistic that a much more productive manned exploration agenda should be on the agenda and can be achieved.

 

[vulture2]

Griffin: "We are not, any longer, a technology agency to any significant extent. Wishing otherwise is nice, but irrelevant."<br /><br />Wishing otherwise? How about having the vision and the guts to say otherwise? We have our priorities reversed. NASA's original mission was to advance the technology of flight. New technology that would make human spaceflight practical would be far more valuable than putting boots on the moon with obsolete rockets that will absorb the entire budget for decades to come. <br /><br />And flight includes aeronautics; people flying in aircraft outnumber those in space by a billion to one. There are exciting things going on in both space technology and aeronautics; unfortunately NASA isn't a part of them.

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>They don't accept mediocrity but are optimistic that a much more productive manned exploration agenda should be on the agenda and can be achieved.</i><br /><br />That's exactly why I'm against giving up on ambitious new designs and retreating to simple capsules and porkbarrel programs to keep Thiokol and others making money on antiquated shuttle hardware. And yet, somehow I'm not referred to as an optimist! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[qso1]

The best way to avoid an accident is to stay on the ground...this is true, it also applies to any manned program utilizing existing or near term projected technology. Therefore, no matter who the NASA Admin is, he or she will want to stay on the ground to avoid any manned craft accident going by that logic. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[askold]

Nobody likes an iconoclast ....<br /><br />But take heart - once we get past this shuttle bump in the road (it might take 4 months or 4 years), Griffin may show his true colors and take bold action.

 

[vulture2]

Griffin originally proposed using ATK solid fuel rockets for all planned future manned flight in a report he published through the Planetary Society before even becoming NASA administrator. By "coincidence" the LSAS concluded that the design Griffin originally proposed was the best. It is unlikely he will ever change course. <br /><br />As to whether human flight to the moon will automatically build higher levels of taxpayer support, public interest in Apollo rapidly declined after the initial landing, so I do not see a potential for significant budget increases.<br /><br />

 

[tomnackid]

VT: So you want to wait around another 20 years doing nothing but drawings, computer sims, test flights and redesigns until we can finally build your dream spaceship? What's wrong with exploring using the technology we have ALREADY invested in? Doing useful things in space has to come first. No one is going to invest billions to perfect a RLV if they don't see anything useful in space. No one will see anything useful until people go out there and do things. Lewis and Clark didn't wait around for transcontinental railroads--they went out with birch bark canoes and shoe leather (5000 year old technology?). <br /><br />Build the CLV and and CaLV--our society can afford it. (We throw a couple of CLVs into Iraq every few months!) When there is enough traffic to and from LEO and Luna to make these disintegrating totem poles seem unsatisfactory THEN it will be time to invest in RLVs (or rather mine the data archives for the research the is already there.) In the mean time research on TPSs, scram jets, flyback boosters, etc. goes on out of the limelight. Not having the pressure of producing a workable system in a limited amount of time is the best thing that can happen to this line of research.

 

[ragnorak]

<br />I'm with Griffin. We've had decades now of technology research and it hasn't made NASA anymore popular and there has been a decline in the number of students taking science and engineering. I think they cancelled X-33 way to early but there you go, its time to try and get something work, which we know worked before. Go Griffin, go.

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>...and there has been a decline in the number of students taking science and engineering. I think they cancelled X-33 way to early but there you go...</i><br /><br />As I've said before, X-33 was the first program I was assigned to work on at my first job out of college, and was exactly the type of program that made me want to become an engineer. But my interest died along with it. I have zero interest in and a great deal of disappointment over the glorified Apollo capsule CEV and its antiquated launch system.

 

[ldyaidan]

NASA in many ways, is a reflection of how our society as a whole has become afraid of taking any risks. When I was a kid, we got cuts, scrapes, pinched fingers, splinters...Now our kids have rubber padded playgrounds, and can't sneeze without having to go for a full physical....Griffin is in a tough spot...satisfy the public's need to feel safe, as well as to do his job to get us into space. I don't envy him. Yes, we need to make sure we are not taking any UNNECESSARY risks. But, to explore, to grow, to learn, is always going to have a risk. America used to be a nation of explorers, of risk takers and daredevils. I don't know when this whole problem started, but we have got to stop being such a whiney bunch of wimps (present company excluded, of course), and get back on track. NASA, unfortunately, is at the mercy of government funding, which in turn, is at the mercy of public opinion. For a bunch of rough, tough cowboys and rebels, our nation is in some sad, sad shape. <br /><br />Rae