Henry Spencer on canceled NASA space projects

http://www.newscientist.com/gallery/...-nasa-projects
This is very depressing to read.
Weren't they working on the ASRM prior to the loss of Challenger?
I remember reading about a lightweight non-reusable SRB before the
Challenger was lost, possibly using a filament wound casing instead of
steel.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:

http://www.newscientist.com/gallery/...-nasa-projects
This is very depressing to read.

Only if you believe that we (the taxpayer) should continue to throw
money away no matter what.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On Aug 24, 9:23*am, (Derek Lyons) wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:
http://www.newscientist.com/gallery/...-nasa-projects
This is very depressing to read.

Only if you believe that we (the taxpayer) should continue to throw
money away no matter what.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Tossing our hard earned loot away is their status-quo of what they're
really good at.

Also, notice how little of our science pie we the public ever get to
see or review. Apparently tossing us a 0.1% bone now and then is as
good as it gets, that is unless they need more of our loot, in which
case they'll toss us a 1% bone.

~ BG

Derek Lyons wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:

http://www.newscientist.com/gallery/...-nasa-projects
This is very depressing to read.

Only if you believe that we (the taxpayer) should continue to throw
money away no matter what.

D.

No reason to believe, as long as NASA stays NASA,
it won't be business-as-usual....

Dave

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 07:46:48 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:

http://www.newscientist.com/gallery/...-nasa-projects
This is very depressing to read.
Weren't they working on the ASRM prior to the loss of Challenger?

No, ASRM was a post-Challenger program to improve safety by reducing
the number of field joints and eliminating the SSME
throttle-down/throttle-up around Max Q. It would also have increased
performance.

I remember reading about a lightweight non-reusable SRB before the
Challenger was lost, possibly using a filament wound casing instead of
steel.

ASRM and Filament-Wound SRB were two different beasts. FWSRB was the
same as the standard SRB but made of different materials. It, like
Shuttle-Centaur was already suspect before Challenger and abandoned
immediately afterward.

Brian

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
http://www.newscientist.com/gallery/...-nasa-projects
This is very depressing to read.


Why? To hear Henry cry crocodile tears for these programs is
just plain offensive. Most of the programs he laments were canceled
at virtually the same time Bush announced the Vision. They were
canceled to ....make way...for the Vision. Those that created and
supported the Vision, such as Henry, are mostly responsible for these
cancellations. Henry was one of the biggest supporters of the Vision, he
should look into the mirror, not blame the White House for the current
state of NASA..

What hypocrisy!

x-30 (swallowed by the military towards the x-43)
x-33 (canceled in 2001, tech also transferred to the military for x-43
x-34 (canceled in 2001), tech also transferred to the military for x-43
x-38 (canceled in 2002)
SLI (canceled in 2002)

The rest were either pipe-dreams or canceled for spiraling costs.

The manned space program has become a monster destroying
everything in it's path. The manned program should be dismantled
as quickly as possible, and not restarted until a reasonable use
for men in space is put forward. This time the reasons better not
involve flowery words like ...destiny, fate or faith as with the Vision.

Space Solar Power, another program canceled in 2001 by the /very same/
'Vision' crowd, is a goal that uses words like ...solving climate change
ending America's dependence on Middle East oil, providing a new
completely clean energy source that becomes cheaper and more plentiful
over time. And SSP is a goal that could not only make America stronger
as this century plays out, but win the technological and economic race
with the Chinese. Laying the groundwork for world wide democracy.
While creating a new industry to jump start commercial space flight
and bringing energy to places in the third world where it's not possible
normally. Just to list a few, the military applications are another post.
As are the applications of SSP for space travel and colonizing.

The entire world would benefit from SSP almost as much as America would.
Which is why it would have the support needed to succeed, as opposed
to the entirely lame goal of a temporary shelter for six on the Moon.

Now that NASA, it seems, doesn't have any goal at all. Maybe someone
out there might see the logic of coming up with a better one.
And let's see if it can deliver even half of the potential above.

NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAM
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1



Jonathan


s

Brian Thorn wrote:

ASRM and Filament-Wound SRB were two different beasts. FWSRB was the
same as the standard SRB but made of different materials. It, like
Shuttle-Centaur was already suspect before Challenger and abandoned
immediately afterward.

Oh yeah, I remember Shuttle-Centaur... they dropped that thing like a
hot potato the first chance they got.
The aft cargo carrier on the ET was another odd design, although to get
that into orbit would mean accelerating the ET and its cargo all the way
up to orbital velocity, so it would cut into cargo bay payload weight...
which seems a bit pointless unless you are making a ET based space
station; and that was a no-no, as it cut into the potential funding for
Space Station Freedom.
You have to admit...when NASA shoots itself in the foot, it uses a
$10,000 telescopic sight to make sure sure it hits dead-on where it can
do the most damage to its future.
The kind of ET-based space station you could have built with even ten
dedicated Shuttle missions would have been really something to see...
with a crew of around 12, and fully up and running around the year 2000.
You turn the LOX tank into the living quarters, cut the bottom end off
of the LH2 tank and use it as a garage for your space tugs and cargo
storage area.

Pat

On Aug 24, 11:45*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:

Oh yeah, I remember Shuttle-Centaur... they dropped that thing like a
hot potato the first chance they got.

Interestingly enough, Boeing some ten years ago managed to solve the
problems associated with carrying a liquid fuel upper stage in the
shuttle cargo bay. The study was done as part of an effort to look
into privatizing Shuttle. Their solution was to install equipment that
would allow the pumping of of the reserve LOX and H from the ET near
or at MECO once all the aborts were out of the way and the shuttle was
sufficently out of the atmosphere. It wasn't going to happen,
especially since it would mean competing with Boeings very own Delta
IV EELVs, but still a clever enough solution.
-Mike
-Mike

Pat Flannery wrote:
http://www.newscientist.com/gallery/...-nasa-projects
This is very depressing to read.
Weren't they working on the ASRM prior to the loss of Challenger?
I remember reading about a lightweight non-reusable SRB before the
Challenger was lost, possibly using a filament wound casing instead of
steel.

Pat

Perhaps it would help if NASA understood that there's bleeding-edge
research, and there's development. NASA should be doing both - but not
mixing them together.

Quasi-production vehicles should be based on technology that's already
been proven to a fair degree, rather then depend on technology that may
ultimately not work.

Sylvia.

Mike DiCenso wrote:
The study was done as part of an effort to look
into privatizing Shuttle.

I'd like to see who would buy that program in the absence of any
government reimbursements regarding its launch costs.
Oh, wait, there was this Hugo Drax guy who wanted to use it to build
some sort of space station/health resort in LEO...


Pat