On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 10:57:59 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

On 4/13/2010 1:43 AM, Matt wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 18:34:10 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

On 4/11/2010 3:21 PM, Matt wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 14:57:00 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

On 4/11/2010 1:59 PM, Matt wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 10:28:48 -0700 (PDT), hcobb wrote:

On Apr 10, 8:29 am, Robert wrote:
Note also that use of the rocket thrust from the X-33 would also allow
you to reach higher speeds say Mach 3+ before release. This would
allow greater payload, since less delta-V would need to be supplied by
the X-33 after release. The extra rocket propellant for the X-33
required for firing during the linked portion of the trip would be
carried in the carrier craft fuselage.

Bob Clark

Since you need to reach Mach 25+ to orbit this saves you only 12% of
the speed requirement while imposing a requirement for an airframe
that can at least sustain that ground velocity while climbing.

A much better result can be had from a balloon-assisted launch system
where the objective is to start the rocket with as much altitude as
possible rather than speed.

http://academy.grc.nasa.gov/y2008/gr...-launch-system

This is a proposal from 2008. Was it approved?

That's not a "proposal", it's a student exercise. Google "Glenn Academy".

http://academy.grc.nasa.gov/y2007/re...oject-proposal
Goals in Project Choice
+ Useful to NASA

It would appear that NASA approved the choice of the project topic.

Just as any teacher approves the choice of the topic of term papers and
other student projects.

I don't know about you, but it wasn't a requirement for my senior
project that it be "useful to the university."


Did the "proposal" not receive some level of review within NASA?

The same review that any educational project gets.

Else it was simply a time-wasting exercise.

By that logic all education is "a time wasting exercise". The purpose
of education is not to come up with wonderful new ways of doing things,
it's to teach students what we already know.

All of education isn't geared toward evaluating technology for
potential application.

So what? We aren't talking about "all education", we are talking about
one specific exercise.

Actually, we were talking about a concept. Someone put a "proposal"
label on it. You seem convinced that it was merely an exercise. I
think the program is poorly conceived if that's all it was.


Does research assistance done by university
students *never* help "to come up with wonderful new ways of doing
things?"

Whether it helps or not, its purpose is to teach the student.

Can a task not have more than one purpose?


Did you do intern work in college? If so, did the company you worked
for not want results they could use?

When one does "intern work" one is working for an employer, one is not
engaging in a training exercise.

In my experience, it was both.


You don't seem to grasp the concept of "exercise".

I understand what an exercise is. I also know what it is to enter
fully-charged from college into a not-as-advertised intern
environment. It can be demoralizing to a college student.


Perhaps consistent with the
environment, but that's another issue.

The environment is a summer training program for college students.

It's an elite program. Students who achieve entry deserve better than
to be taught how to spin their wheels on a project that no one cares
about.

So what should they do, be put right to work as engineers on something
that will kill people when it crashes?

Isn't that what an apprentice aircraft mechanic does?

Why *when* it crashes? Give the students some credit. They actually do
know a thing or two. Do you assume that they are incapable of
designing something that works?


If no one cared about it, then "proposal" was just so much NASA-speak.
If some one did care about it, then it received some level of
consideration beyond what was given to my senior project.

It was an exercise in proposal-writing. Geez.

Is that NASA's product? Proposals?

Or maybe it was more.
http://academy.grc.nasa.gov/archives/535
The high altitude launch of their group project (a balloon assisted
launch system) is scheduled for August 30, 2008 with StratoStar LLC in
Indiana.

If it was only an exercise in writing proposals, why did they plan to
launch anything?


http://academy.grc.nasa.gov/main/mission-statement
Its primary objectives are to:
1. Provide upper level undergraduate/first-second year graduate
students cutting-edge research opportunities with NASA scientists,
engineers, and educators.

"The vision of the Academy as described by its founder, Dr. Gerald
Soffen is 'To give possible leaders a view into how NASA, the
university community, and the private sector function, set their
priorities, and contribute to the success of the aerospace program.'"

I merely asked what happened to a "proposal" cited as a reference for
a "better" way to launch objects. It got a "Duh!" response from you.
Perhaps that was amiss.