NASA science or just a bunch of political losers?

It would seem that the people at NASA have a backwards approach to new
technology.

Please consider the following:

1) After the shuttle went into service, no one went to work on designing or
developing the shuttle's replacement for when it was too old to continue.

2) After spending billions on developing better and more efficient rocket
motors, NASA finds the best then shelves the plans.

3) NASA has a history of waiting till the last minute to begin work on the
successor to any piece of hardware in its inventory.

All three points make the cost of operations at NASA higher than any other
agency in the Federal Government.

The military immediatly begins development of equipment to replace the
latest technology. Case in point, after the F15 went into service, the F22
project was begun.

Even in the private sector, new technology is always being researched to
replace the existing technology.

It would appear then, the problem at NASA is not the over spending on
projects, but the fact that the NASA administration people have no concept
of continueing development of technology.

Case in point, there are at present jet engines that could take something
the mass of a fully loaded shuttle to the edge of space where rocket engines
could take over to insert the craft into orbit. This vehicle would be the
first true fully reusable space vehicle.

This system would also bypass the massive amounts of stress generated by a
rocket left off as used by the present shuttle.

Composite materials that are lighter and stronger have been developed that
would replace 90% of the metal in such a vehicle. This would almost totally
eliminate the chance of a repeat of the Columbia disaster.

All of this technology was in place in the early '90's which could have
brought about a new space shuttle vehicle by now. The cost of operation
would have been cut dramatically, thus allowing NASA to divert funds to
other projects.

Why is NASA above the same rules the GAO (General Accounting Office) of the
Federal Government enforces on every other agency?

It would seem that NASA is in need of an adminstrative overhaul as well as a
new clear cut mission statement.

nightbat wrote

bacho wrote:

It would seem that the people at NASA have a backwards approach to new
technology.

Please consider the following:

1) After the shuttle went into service, no one went to work on designing or
developing the shuttle's replacement for when it was too old to continue.

2) After spending billions on developing better and more efficient rocket
motors, NASA finds the best then shelves the plans.

3) NASA has a history of waiting till the last minute to begin work on the
successor to any piece of hardware in its inventory.

All three points make the cost of operations at NASA higher than any other
agency in the Federal Government.

The military immediatly begins development of equipment to replace the
latest technology. Case in point, after the F15 went into service, the F22
project was begun.

Even in the private sector, new technology is always being researched to
replace the existing technology.

It would appear then, the problem at NASA is not the over spending on
projects, but the fact that the NASA administration people have no concept
of continueing development of technology.

Case in point, there are at present jet engines that could take something
the mass of a fully loaded shuttle to the edge of space where rocket engines
could take over to insert the craft into orbit. This vehicle would be the
first true fully reusable space vehicle.

This system would also bypass the massive amounts of stress generated by a
rocket left off as used by the present shuttle.

Composite materials that are lighter and stronger have been developed that
would replace 90% of the metal in such a vehicle. This would almost totally
eliminate the chance of a repeat of the Columbia disaster.

All of this technology was in place in the early '90's which could have
brought about a new space shuttle vehicle by now. The cost of operation
would have been cut dramatically, thus allowing NASA to divert funds to
other projects.

Why is NASA above the same rules the GAO (General Accounting Office) of the
Federal Government enforces on every other agency?

It would seem that NASA is in need of an adminstrative overhaul as well as a
new clear cut mission statement.

nightbat

Isn't that what my sickbay Officer Bert has been indicating
including Science Team members for many years?

carry on,
the nightbat

Hi nightbat and Bacho Yes once I saw the shuttle having wings I knew
it was a giant step backwards. Once I saw Nixon get rid of the Apollo
great engineers I knew it was a big step backwards. Than I found out
about billions of bucks disappearing,and things made sense. NASA shuttle
program became a slush fund for big companies,and top politicians. If
they will not spend money for a better tile glue to make the shuttle
safer,that tells you something. To NASA "life is cheap,but a buck is
still a buck". The shuttles are based here in Florida. The
shuttles Mafia Godfather lives in Palm Springs Calif. We owe much to
the 21 honest upright engineers that not only lost high paying jobs,but
literally put their lives on the line.(you don't cross swords with the
Mafia) Did their leaving do any good? No it did not. Did their
protesting the further flying shuttles make the front page. No it did
not. Did the Columbia prove they were right? Yes and six more astronauts
were killed. I know my saying all this for so many years must make
this very boring,but I'm proud to say one of those engineers that quit
was a friend of mine. He is the only close friend still alive,and lives
in Maryland. Trebert