What IS happening to NASA?

[vt_hokie]

If you think that a private sector focused on short term profits is going to pick up the long term investment in R&D required for new, groundbreaking technologies, I think that you will be disappointed.

 

[qso1]

Actually, I'd be used to it. Been waiting for P.I. to get access to space for over two decades. In the past, NASA was always blamed for being the obstacle. That argument fell when Rutan showed P.I. could do it without NASA involvement at all.<br /><br />Two decades ago, it was largely believed a shuttle successor was a given for the late 1990s onward. P.I. really had no reason and few CEOs were interested in going into space.<br /><br />That may be changing but since I'm already used to changes normally being slow...I'm not holding my breath. In fact, P.I. providing LEO access on the cheap is IMO, at least a decade away. <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>

 

[qso1]

Seriously now -- What is the most important issue?<br /><br />The above is a thread in freespace that says it all. The very first post are the issues considered important to the person who posted it who believes its what matters to the public as well. See NASA anywhere? In addition, the person who started the thread didn't accidently leave NASA out as evidenced by the following:<br /><br />Hicup:<br />I considered NASA and space exploration, however, in the grand scheme I thought they were not inandofthemselves important enough to influence one persons vote on that single subject..<br /><br />I could be wrong though..<br /><br />Me:<br />His thread is but a reflection of the publics opinion on space as a whole. To most of us here at SDC its important. But to the majority of the public, its not that important. Unless public perception of the past three decades changes, IMO, this is why P.I. needs to take over the quest to gain low cost access to LEO. <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>

 

[tomnackid]

A TSTO RLV is probably well within our capability, but there is probably not worth developing right now. A 200 mph tractor trailer is probably within our capability. I'm sure an amphibious supertanker that can drive out of the water to an inland refinery is within our capability. Are these things worth doing right now? Is the need so great that the development costs could be justified? The reality is that no one (no one with real money that is) is clamoring for an RLV yet--and techo-geek fanboys (I admit to being one) don't count--they have WANTS not NEEDS. NASA has already met private industry more than half way in researching the technology needed for this type of vehicle. The government has invested billions of dollars in defining the capabilities of an RLV and even in developing some of the technology (reusable engines, TPSs, avionics, software, aerodynamic shapes). Its all there open to any American company that wants to take advantage of it--compliments of Uncle Sam.<br /><br />NASA doesn't NEED to wait around for an RLV to explore the moon. It will be nice to have when a practical one finally proves itself, but its not a primary requirement for exploration.

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow">Take the risks on purely experimental projects and prove them, ...or prove they DON'T work. Keep the operational stuff as simple as possible. </font><br /><br />You mean NASA should function more like a DARPA? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

>If you think that a private sector focused on short term profits is going to pick up the long term investment in R&D required for new, groundbreaking technologies, I think that you will be disappointed.<br /><br />Billionaires (and 100millionaires) with the Space Vision don't need to worry about next quarter's balance sheet. Elon Musk, Sir Richard, Mr. Bigelow, Paul Allen, etc are going full-forward on their respective projects. They ARE investing in long-term space projects that move beyond the current paradigm, and have all said they are in it for the long haul. <br /><br />I'm not sure about "groundbreaking" technology, except maybe in Blue Origin's plans. SPaceX rockets are innovative, but it's largely the same old tech. Bigelow's Nautilus is a refinement of TransHab. I've been arguing lately that the tech is already here, it's the applications that are missing. Expensive, yes, but doable even profitable.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>