Military Space Plane vs. Ares 1...which could be operational first?

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
m...
"Jonathan" wrote in message
...


Post 9/11 does anyone here really believe Bush/Cheney gave a
crap about NASA except for what it could do for the military
and national security?

I think Bush gave as much crap about NASA as almost any president. In other
words, very little thought.


The Pentagon stripped NASA of all the cutting edge launch
technology, leaving NASA's manned program with nothing more
than the 'dead-on-arrival' Vision for Space Exploration.
Which is certain to inspire no funding at all from this administration.


What technology? Evidence?




Mum's the Word for NASA's Secret
Space Plane X-37B
Thursday, October 22, 2009

"But in a brief burst of light eking from the new era of government
transparency, I did score this comment from NASA.While the program
is now under the U.S. Air Force, NASA is looking forward to receiving
data from the advanced technology work."

"NASA has a long history of involvement with the X-37 program. We continue
to monitor and share information on technology developments," said Gary Wentz,
chief engineer Science and Missions Systems Office at the NASA Marshall
Space Flight Center. "We are looking forward to a successful first flight and
to receiving data from some advanced technologies of interest to us, such as
thermal protection systems, guidance, navigation and control, and materials
for autonomous re-entry and landing."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,569143,00.html

X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
January 4th, 2006 by Chris Bergin

"Then the hammer blow, as despite the project now appearing to be back
on track, with the move towards testing of the new LH2 tank, the much-
respected former NASA director Ivan Bekey appeared in front of the
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, at
the US House of Representatives. His testimony on April 11, 2001, on
NASA's FY2001 budget request 'Aero-Space Technology Enterprise,'
proved to be the final blow for the X-33 VentureStar.

His address to US lawmakers stressed that the X-33 had to continue
with composite tanks, thus making the project doomed to failure.
X-33 workers were said to be stunned by the comments of Bekey -
No part of the X-33 technology will play a role in NASA's architecture
being developed for the return to the Moon, Each time the Air Force made
requests to take the X-33 project as their own, they found the opportunity
denied at the highest level of US government.

Even when armed with Lacefield's final comments on the X-33, comments
which gave full support to the Al-Li, added to by support from NASA
Stennis on the engines, the Air Force - now trying to have their own
VentureStar flying by 2012 - found the door of the White House firmly
closed shut on any possibility of resurrecting the project.

........X-33 canceled April 2001
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/...ally-happened/


Whatever Happened to NASA's X-34?

"The X-34 was built as a flying testbed to demonstrate technology for future
low-cost reusable launch vehicles. Orbital got as far as captive-carry tests
on the L-1011 before the

..........X-34 was cancelled in ...2001"
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/gr...sas-x34-1.html


NASA Postpones Next Phase of Space Launch Initiative
By Brian Berger
Space News Staff Writer
posted: 10:40 am ET
22 October 2002

"NASA is rethinking whether it wants to continue with the $4.8 billion SLI
program as currently planned. A comprehensive review of NASA's space
transportation needs is underway. At the same time, the space agency is still
pursuing close cooperation with the U.S. Defense Department on reusable
launcher technologies. How that relationship unfolds -- assuming that it does
-- could have a further impact on NASA's plans to develop a new launcher."
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...ne_021022.html


What happened to the X-43?

And how does the X-43 figure in NASA's plan for the future???
Or is the military making use of that research in the X-37b?
http://search.nasa.gov/search/search...x-43&x=39&y=12


"A Failure of National Leadership": Why No Replacement for the Space Shuttle?

John M. Logsdon


"...the NASA FY 2001budget also contained a new Space Launch Initiative.
This effort was to provide some $4.8 billion over five years to conduct studies
and technology development to identify the most promising path to replacing
the Space Shuttle and meeting other launch requirements. The hope was that
this effort could provide the basis for a 2006 decision on what type of Shuttle
replacement to develop, with a target date of 2012 for its initial launch.

The Space Launch Initiative was also short-lived. By the end of 2002, White
House and top-level NASA optimism that it would provide the hoped-for
basis for deciding to develop a second-generation, advanced-technology
replacement for the Space Shuttle had evaporated. In November 2002, NASA
announced that it was terminating the Space Launch Initiative and reallocating
its funding to a new Integrated Space Transportation Plan. According to this
plan, the Shuttle's life would be extended so that it could fly until 2020, and
potentially to 2030.

The Root Causes of the Failure to Develop a Shuttle Replacement

There can be no one explanation for why this complex chain of developments has
taken place. But certainly it is possible to suggest some of the fundamental
reasons forthe lack of a Shuttle replacement more than 30 years after the
original commitment to the Space Shuttle program.

W. D. Kay, in his book Can Democracies Fly in Space, suggests that the "space
program's failures, like its earlier successes, have multiple causes, all of
them ultimately traceable to the way the American political process operates."
Space policy is "a political outcome, a product of the discussion, debates,
competition, and compromises that attend all public issues."

The people of the United States and their government have been willing, over
the past 35 years, to continue a human spaceflight program, but only at a
level of funding that has forced it to constantly operate on the edge of
viability. The lack of a replacement for the Space Shuttle is a symptom
of this larger reality. In this context, the assertion that the lack of a
Shuttle replacement is a "failure of national leadership" is the logical result
of the halfhearted U.S. commitment to human spaceflight. If there is a
"failure," then, it is the failure to reconcile the reality of limited support
with this country's continuing commitment to sending people into space.

Kay ends his book with the question, "Can democracies fly in space?"
His answer to this question is another question: "How badly do they want to?"
What will be argued below is that the answer to this second question is
"not very badly."
http://www.gwu.edu/~spi/assets/docs/...sues_Paper.pdf


Like I've said a hundred times, unless we find a reason for dramatically
increased public support, nothing is going to change. Space Solar Power
ties NASA to perhaps two of the globes greatest future anxieties.
Climate change and fossil fuels. It provides a goal which can transcend
politics, can generate wide public support and give NASA a new reason
for being. Without that, nothing is going to change.

We must STOP letting the budgets determine our space future.

We must START imagining the future we want, and find a way
for NASA to give us that future. Then, the money will flow
like water. As it did for Apollo.

The Goal is the Thing! It must be as perfect, as tested and well
designed as any of the hardware. Else, garbage in, garbage out.
There is no one on this planet that would not benefit from a new
clean and abundant energy source. There is no one on this planet
that wouldn't benefit from a solution to climate change.
Whether the perspective is from environmental concerns, economic
or military reasons.

From patriotism to idealism, it's all there.

Space Solar Power Program
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1


Hearing on the FY2001 NASA Budget Request: Aerospace
Technology Enterprise
Tuesday, April 11, 2:00pm

Testimony of Mr. Ivan Bekey
President, Bekey Designs, Inc.

"I am quite familiar with advanced space transportation, having spent 19 years
at NASA Headquarters from 1978 to 1997, including 6 years as Director of
Advanced Programs in the Office of Space Flight."

"The X-33 program is absolutely critical to development of a 2nd generation RLV,
and reducing launch costs to about 1,000 $/lb. It was the direct result of the
"Access to Space" program's recommendations, which included a ground technology
program and an experimental flight demonstration vehicle whose purpose would be
to test all the new technologies working together in a flight environment."
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=1421