IEEE Spectrum OpEd: Scuttle NASA Now

As an anti-dyspeptic to the "Delay in COTS2/3" thread I offer this op ed piece
in IEEE Spectrum...

http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/inn...ttle-nasa-now/

Spoiler warning: The author is no fan of space fuel depots either...

Dave

Dave

They recommend that NASA become a facilitator of private industry programs.
Seems like they don't know the real history of the space program. NASA did
some very specialized testing and analysis during pprograms like Apollo -
but they were essentially a facilitator of Government programs performed by
industry. NAA designed and build the CSM, Grumman designed and built the LM,
McDonnell designed and built Mercury and Gemini. But NASA grew in size to an
organization that could both fund themselves and their industry partners.
Yet industry had the necessary experience to actually built something that
works.As the budget dwindled - more work was done in house - NASAs area of
expertise was doing studies - so we studied the hell out of potential new
hardware - and built none.

During the startup of Constellation, there were serious discussions of
closing half the NASA centers - Oh NO Not in Nancy's district, Oh NO not in
Glenn's home state. SO we got a new mantra - 10 healthy centers - says
nothing about healthy meaningful programs. Picture a realistic downsizing to
cut duplication and pork projects, the shuttle gone and the ISS gone - and
what's left monitoring the folks out in industry that can make hardware
happen. Picture a world where we drop the paranoid feelings about using a
Nuclear Engine to go to Mars - a lot of money was spend on this by the AF -
and I think you'll find again inappropriate work was pulled back into DOE
facilities. Picture a world where NASA leads projects in exploration. NASA
has shown that LEO operations is feasible, time to salute and walk away. If
LEO is worth anything to anybody but the Air Force - let them have it, and
let them pay for it.

Someone still has to prove that Lunar surface operations are feasible - let
NASA lead that and use the Lunar projects that provide the technical roadmap
to the Mars programs. Then get on with Mars. If they show that Lunar
operations can yield a profit - let the corporations follow - on their dime.
But this also needs a ultimate goal or game plan. Right now NASA seems to be
shriviling on the vine with a president who wishes they would go away and an
administrator that doesn't seem to be providing any leadership.

NASA doesn't have to be reinvented - it just has to return to it's original
function from it's successful days in the 60s.



Val Kraut

Val Kraut wrote:
Someone still has to prove that Lunar surface operations are feasible - let
NASA lead that and use the Lunar projects that provide the technical roadmap
to the Mars programs. Then get on with Mars. If they show that Lunar
operations can yield a profit - let the corporations follow - on their dime.
But this also needs a ultimate goal or game plan. Right now NASA seems to be
shriviling on the vine with a president who wishes they would go away and an
administrator that doesn't seem to be providing any leadership.


That's the real trick isn't it? NASA actually has no history running a surface
program. I suspect this may not be tenable by a government agency because of
the time lines involved. It's been proven with the cancellation of
Constellation that there is no political will for it in the US.

NASA doesn't have to be reinvented - it just has to return to it's original
function from it's successful days in the 60s.


You know to return NASA to its 'original function' means realistically, based
on past experience, that NASA probably can only do a flags and footprints
operation to Mars. In order to keep the mission timelines short enough to
garner political support, it also seems to be a prerequisite that NASA also
get nuclear propulsion back on the front burner. That might not be a bad thing
in and of itself, but once the flags and feet are down you can expect the
funding for that endeavor to vanish just as quickly as it did for Apollo and
US HSF would be really in a fix after that. And the amount of cash burned
through to do it would truly be 'astronomical'.

No, given the current financial situation of the US, I just don't see it.

Dave

"
No, given the current financial situation of the US, I just don't see it.

I don't see it either until the economy vastly improves, and then like with
Eisenhower the expense will hurt the stock market.

My central though was more like someone is saying NASA has to become a race
horse not a cow, and gee it seems to me it once was a race horse, but now
it's pulled producing milk and trimming the grass in house - neither of
which it was designed for, or is particularly skilled at.

Val Kraut

Val Kraut wrote:
I don't see it either until the economy vastly improves, and then like with

There are, and always will be, proponents of cutting NASA and, instead,
spending it on pet program "on earth" (aka in their district). In reality,
all of the money NASA spends is on earth; it's just about sending things into
space.

I never see the government tighten up spending when the economy is weak, and
in the pas few years the argument always seems to be about how the government
should be spending more money to boost the economy.

Glen

On Nov 18, 3:02*pm, Glen Overby wrote:
Val Kraut wrote:
I don't see it either until the economy vastly improves, and then like with

There are, and always will be, proponents of cutting NASA and, instead,
spending it on pet program "on earth" (aka in their district). *In reality,
all of the money NASA spends is on earth; it's just about sending things into
space.

I never see the government tighten up spending when the economy is weak, and
in the pas few years the argument always seems to be about how the government
should be spending more money to boost the economy.

Glen

spending should be on infrastructure, roads bridges, water serer mass
transit fixed assets like people movers.

why burn money on ISS with mo science payback?

"Val Kraut" wrote in message
...

. Then get on with Mars. If they show that Lunar operations can yield a
profit - let the corporations follow - on their dime. But this also needs a
ultimate goal or game plan. Right now NASA seems to be shriviling on the
vine with a president who wishes they would go away and an administrator
that doesn't seem to be providing any leadership.

NASA doesn't have to be reinvented - it just has to return to it's
original function from it's successful days in the 60s.


Exactly the way I feel. NASA's manned propram hasn't been oriented
around profit making accomplishments, but more about national, military
or technological goals. We needed to go to the Moon as much for
political reasons as anything else. So we have some enormously
expensive project having nothing to do with profit making, and later
try to glean some commercial use out of it. Like the ISS, figuring out
what to do with it after it's built. Putting the cart before the horse.

That's why I liked NASA's Space Solar Power program (SERT)
which Pres.George W Bush killed. It would build a few increasingly
larger demonstrators until they had one full scale satellite.
Then the business world would have a way of guaging potential.

Like the government building the first nuclear or fusion power
plant expressly to help start a new commercial industry.
But for NASA to devote it's signature goal to the commercial
industry, the goal needs to be ...Worthy.

Not just a new mouse-trap, but a new future.
Not just new commercial launchers, but a new reason
for having them. The current satellite industry is doing
fine with current launch costs. The costs need to go down
for ..bulk cargo, not specialized small satellites, but
large structures in orbit.

Which is yet another reason I like the idea of Space Solar Power.
What other goal is a better fit for potential 'worth', existing
technology, and global reach than ...Energy?

Unlike any other grandiose goal, SSP has no major hurdles
to climb, the technology is almost entirely well-established.
The construction time isn't dealing with half-century periods
and the current need, and especially for the future is...glaring.

The effects of a new, clean, inexhaustible and (WIRELESS)
energy source would cascade across the planet and time
touching one issue after another. Whether a matter of economic
or social justice issues. Or from a green or military view.
Left, right, rich or poor. All 'sides' could find reasons to
embrace and benefit from a new, cheap and clean
energy source.

I say cheap as in now, since SSP can easily travel to places
no conventional source can travel today. I mean, did AC
power transmission worry at all about competing with DC?

Of course not, their 'ranges' didn't overlap very much.

And as oil prices go up, and technology moves forward, the
idea of SSP gets better and better. Every single day.

SSP is on The Edge of becoming realistic.
NASA is on The Edge of a new reason for being.

It's a marriage made in heaven, in my humble opionion.


Jonathan


s






Val Kraut

Le 17/11/11 20:51, David Spain a écrit :
As an anti-dyspeptic to the "Delay in COTS2/3" thread I offer this op ed
piece in IEEE Spectrum...

http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/inn...ttle-nasa-now/

Spoiler warning: The author is no fan of space fuel depots either...

Dave

Just one paragraph shows how this people operate:

quote
Probably the most exciting private effort is Elon Musk’s Space
Exploration Technologies Corp., or SpaceX. Since its inception, SpaceX
has spent barely $800 million, which covers the costs of development for
a launch vehicle, a spacecraft, and even the costs of building launch
sites. By contrast, NASA spent about $13 billion on the now-canceled
Constellation exploration program.
end quote

Here they compare the development of a rocket to send supplies
to LEO that (after 800 million) has only done a single trip with
no cargo (just cheese), with a rocket that should be used to fly
people to the moon...

On Nov 17, 2:58*pm, jacob navia wrote:
Le 17/11/11 20:51, David Spain a écrit :

As an anti-dyspeptic to the "Delay in COTS2/3" thread I offer this op ed
piece in IEEE Spectrum...

http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/inn...ttle-nasa-now/

Spoiler warning: The author is no fan of space fuel depots either...

Dave

Just one paragraph shows how this people operate:

quote
Probably the most exciting private effort is Elon Musk’s Space
Exploration Technologies Corp., or SpaceX. Since its inception, SpaceX
has spent barely $800 million, which covers the costs of development for
a launch vehicle, a spacecraft, and even the costs of building launch
sites. By contrast, NASA spent about $13 billion on the now-canceled
Constellation exploration program.
end quote

Here they compare the development of a rocket to send supplies
to LEO that (after 800 million) has only done a single trip with
no cargo (just cheese), with a rocket that should be used to fly
people to the moon...


Apples and Oranges: sheez. Facilitator of private programs? That's as
crazy as the Bobbert's ideas for a) mass production of Spirit and
Opportunity-type rovers, and b) holding off on HSF until it's time for
Mars. NO way that proposal would pass Congressional muster-so thank
heaven it's just an op-ed.