|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Henry Spencer on canceled NASA space projects
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Henry Spencer on canceled NASA space projects
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Henry Spencer on canceled NASA space projects
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Henry Spencer on canceled NASA space projects
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Henry Spencer on canceled NASA space projects
"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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Henry Spencer on canceled NASA space projects
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Henry Spencer on canceled NASA space projects
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Henry Spencer on canceled NASA space projects
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Henry Spencer on canceled NASA space projects
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Henry Spencer on canceled NASA space projects | Pat Flannery | Policy | 12 | August 28th 09 06:30 AM |
Why NASA should focus on the Moon, not Mars - Henry Spencer | Jeff Findley | Policy | 63 | April 5th 09 06:51 PM |
Where is Henry Spencer? | kT | Policy | 6 | January 10th 08 02:08 AM |
Where is Henry Spencer? | kT | Space Shuttle | 5 | January 10th 08 01:32 AM |
Where is Henry Spencer? | kT | Space Station | 5 | January 10th 08 01:32 AM |