Has NASA Lost Focus?

In the last 2 weeks I've seen several, well exotic is the polite word,
proposals from NASA. They include:

1) Grabbing an asteroid robotically and parking it in lunar orbit for
eventual manned visit

2) Starting nuclear rocket programs, maybe more than one.

3) Skylab II

4) Director Bolden talking about Warp Drive and beyond Mars

5) an EM-L2 visit (trip to nowhere)

Plus the existing things already in work like SLS & Orion.

Is this just the "run it up the flag pole and see who salutes" thing?
Different centers competing? Lack of direction from Headquarters?

Is there any consideration of the budget in any of these wild ideas?

It just doesn't seem to be a properly run organization with a focus on
worthy manned space activities.

On Apr 5, 9:29*pm, Robert Love wrote:
In the last 2 weeks I've seen several, well exotic is the polite word,
proposals from NASA. *They include:

1) Grabbing an asteroid robotically and parking it in lunar orbit for
eventual manned visit

2) Starting nuclear rocket programs, maybe more than one.

3) Skylab II

4) Director Bolden talking about Warp Drive and beyond Mars

5) an EM-L2 visit (trip to nowhere)

Plus *the existing things already in work like SLS & Orion.

Is this just the "run it up the flag pole and see who salutes" thing?
Different centers competing? *Lack of direction from Headquarters?

Is there any consideration of the budget in any of these wild ideas?

It just doesn't seem to be a properly run organization with a focus on
worthy manned space activities.

they are struggling to find a job, and more specifically a big pork
piggie project.

nasa knows SLS isnt competive with private industry, so attempt to
justify it or find something else to spend boatloads of money on

Robert Love used his keyboard to write :
In the last 2 weeks I've seen several, well exotic is the polite word,
proposals from NASA. They include:

1) Grabbing an asteroid robotically and parking it in lunar orbit for
eventual manned visit

2) Starting nuclear rocket programs, maybe more than one.

3) Skylab II

4) Director Bolden talking about Warp Drive and beyond Mars

5) an EM-L2 visit (trip to nowhere)

Plus the existing things already in work like SLS & Orion.

Is this just the "run it up the flag pole and see who salutes" thing?
Different centers competing? Lack of direction from Headquarters?

Is there any consideration of the budget in any of these wild ideas?

It just doesn't seem to be a properly run organization with a focus on worthy
manned space activities.

An organization without more ideas than it can take on will fade away.
And I think it's been a long time since NASA thought of things
(equipment, missions, etc) without also thinking of the budget.

Ultimately, NASA has to sell its ideas to Congress; this may a case of
pulling together a list of doable things and seeing how they will be to
sell.

/dps

--
But happiness cannot be pursued; it must ensue. One must have a reason
to 'be happy.'"
Viktor Frankl

On Friday, April 5, 2013 6:29:55 PM UTC-7, Robert Love wrote:
In the last 2 weeks I've seen several, well exotic is the polite word,

proposals from NASA. They include:



1) Grabbing an asteroid robotically and parking it in lunar orbit for

eventual manned visit



2) Starting nuclear rocket programs, maybe more than one.



3) Skylab II



4) Director Bolden talking about Warp Drive and beyond Mars



5) an EM-L2 visit (trip to nowhere)



Plus the existing things already in work like SLS & Orion.



Is this just the "run it up the flag pole and see who salutes" thing?

Different centers competing? Lack of direction from Headquarters?



Is there any consideration of the budget in any of these wild ideas?



It just doesn't seem to be a properly run organization with a focus on

worthy manned space activities.

It sound like they've taken a page for the Russians playbook. Propose,
then propose and propose again.

islam is an insult....................Trig

Robert Love wrote:
In the last 2 weeks I've seen several, well exotic is the polite word,
proposals from NASA. They include:

1) Grabbing an asteroid robotically and parking it in lunar orbit for
eventual manned visit

2) Starting nuclear rocket programs, maybe more than one.

3) Skylab II

4) Director Bolden talking about Warp Drive and beyond Mars

5) an EM-L2 visit (trip to nowhere)

Plus the existing things already in work like SLS & Orion.

Is this just the "run it up the flag pole and see who salutes" thing?
Different centers competing? Lack of direction from Headquarters?

Is there any consideration of the budget in any of these wild ideas?

It just doesn't seem to be a properly run organization with a focus on
worthy manned space activities.
... Moon&Mars are out of range for NASA;-) It's true.
Regards
Adam Przybyla

In article 2013040520295581924-rblove@airmailnet,
says...

In the last 2 weeks I've seen several, well exotic is the polite word,
proposals from NASA. They include:

1) Grabbing an asteroid robotically and parking it in lunar orbit for
eventual manned visit

2) Starting nuclear rocket programs, maybe more than one.

3) Skylab II

4) Director Bolden talking about Warp Drive and beyond Mars

5) an EM-L2 visit (trip to nowhere)

Plus the existing things already in work like SLS & Orion.

Is this just the "run it up the flag pole and see who salutes" thing?
Different centers competing? Lack of direction from Headquarters?

Yes, yes, and yes.

Also, note that NASA centers are at least somewhat autonomous. They
quite often have their own projects which gain funding. Once something
is funded (specific projects spelled out in appropriations bills by
Congress), it can take on a life of its own since "headquarters" does
not have the authority to cancel something that Congress has funded.

Is there any consideration of the budget in any of these wild ideas?

NASA funds studies "all the time", giving them a relatively small amount
of funding to study the proposed mission. Some of these studies can
take years. That does not mean that any of these proposals will ever
fly.

It just doesn't seem to be a properly run organization with a focus on
worthy manned space activities.

That's because Congress has funded SLS without funding any payloads or
missions (beyond Orion, which is just a vehicle without a mission).

Politics.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article 931c9fa5-3ddd-43ef-be7a-48ade46b1fd8
@w21g2000vbp.googlegroups.com, says...

they are struggling to find a job, and more specifically a big pork
piggie project.

Wrong. They have their "pork project": SLS and Orion. What they lack
is a mission for the things. Unfortunately, ambitious missions require
more hardware that is *not* currently funded. So, all we're left with
are studies and proposals for missions that are not yet funded.

nasa knows SLS isnt competive with private industry, so attempt to
justify it or find something else to spend boatloads of money on

B.S. SLS doesn't have to "compete" with anyone. Congress has funded
it, so there is nothing more to debate. It's a done deal. As long as
money is being spent on SLS, their constituents are happy.

What no one knows is what the heck SLS will be used for... But at this
point in time, Congress truly doesn't care.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article , says...

... Moon&Mars are out of range for NASA;-) It's true.

Only because neither is funded. Of course, they're not going to be
funded because they're far too expensive, at least when NASA is
designing and running the missions.

This is the space shuttle all over again. Look at how long it took NASA
to build an actual destination for the shuttle (i.e. ISS).

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer