Posted on 06/29/2005 9:01:13 AM PDT by Magnum44
"It's dead Jim". Sigh.
Say it's not so
I'm on that list, won't say where, and was greatly disappointed in our gov't for cancelling the project. Nothing has changed, except my working life has come and gone.
VaSIMR is still alive!
I didn't know that! :-) Whoohooo
A friend's Dad was working on the Dynasoar project when the rug was pulled out from under it. His Dad just turned 70! 'Just Damn' is right. The whole capsule thing was the right answer to the wrong question. It should have never been "how do we get there the quickest", it should have been "how can we get there the cheapest".
I have seen numerous shows that all say the same thing: "the X-15 paved the way for the Space Shuttle". That's like saying that the Ferrari paved the way for the SUV. Yes; the Space Shuttle is a plane, and yes; it goes into space. Were I a pilot, which one would I rather fly? hehehe... I'll take the single-seater with the million horsepower, to go, please...
Yep. Now THAT's a Fire!
Yikes!
Yikes indeed. I was shaking my head so hard reading about the accident that it was actually hard to read. Nothing really screws up a launch quite like firing the second stage of a two stage rocket while it is still on the pad and a couple hundred folks are standing around arguing about what to do about the leaks, faulty valves, electrical fires, etc. I guess that it's one way to end an argument...
Ah, yes, the "ATK Thiokol/KSC Full Employment" option...
Your list didnt include the full sized MD DCY "Delta Clipper" SSTO project which I would have liked better than many others since in principle it could at least LAND somewhere other than Earth unlike all the 'spacePLANES' but I'm afraid it doesnt matter so much what we build next to fly as long as NASA continues to fly it.
Imo the real problem with manned space exploration is that it has been and continues to be conducted by a National AEROnautics and Space Administration rather than a National ASTRONAUTics and Space AGENCY.
This is not merely a matter of 'a rose by any other name';
1. Imo a National ASTROnautics and Space Agency would put forward a CLEAR unmistakeable signal that the space program is to be about MAN in Space...not about space itself. This might be annoying to the 'let robot probes do PURE science' SAGANITE ilk...but it would be encouraging for those of us interested in space FOR HUMANITY.
2. Imo one of the biggest mistakes the US ever made was in thinking Space exploration should be conceived by AERONAUTICAL engineers.
Aeronautical engineers, perhaps reasonably by their education and experience, but predictably, brought their preexisting AIRFLIGHT bias to their approach instead of realizing that what is needed is manned space travel [not 'flight'; NASAs choice of the terms spaceFLIGHT and spaceCRAFT illustrate their AEROthink bias] and we shouldnt care so much HOW we get out of atmosphere as long as we do it EFFECTIVELY.
Note I said effectively not 'efficiently'.
Meaning with vessels BIG ENOUGH to go worthwhile places and do worthwhile things once we leave Earth behind [which begs the question where do we want to go? If only to orbit to match Sputnik/Gagarin or the Moon to make Kennedy's deadline NASAs aeronautical rocketry approaches were fine...to conquer the Solar system we need something else] preferably vessels that can go anywhere in Sol System at least.
AEROnautic R&D should have been left to the AIRforce...the US should have left building spaceSHIPS to the NAVY; if only NASA had been organized by the USN I suspect we'd have worthy spaceSHIPS that could take us anywhere in the Solar System right now instead of puny spaceCRAFT designs that can barely take us to orbit and no longer even to the Moon.
Afterall NAVAL engineers dont have to make their ships as absolutely LIGHT as mechanically possible which inevitably means REDUCED CAPABILITY...they can design for the capability needed and build the ships as BIG as they need to be to get the job done; WWII Battleships werent designed with 'making weight' or 'efficiency' foremost but rather EFFECTIVENESS.
The ONLY weight/mass we should concern ourselves with is how much we want to take not how little we can take in order to get our light aeronautical-designed rocket spacecraft off the ground.
To do that we need to TOSS ROCKETRY on the ash heap of space History where it belongs and with it the worthless hamstringing Limited Test Ban Treaty and go 'back to the future' to a pulsed nuclear detonation drive along the basic conceptual lines of Freeman Dyson's 50s era PROJECT ORION albeit using more Daedalus-like clean fusion to address modern environmental concerns.
Why put up TINY shuttles [or successors] and build flimsy little space 'stations' in orbit that are near-worthless when instead of WASTING FURTHER DECADES we could build everything we need on Earth employing people in America's steel mills and shipyards etc and easily put up REAL SPACESHIPS larger than aircraft carriers or supertankers each several times more massive than everything heretofore put into space by all Humanity combined...spaceships that could not merely go back to the Moon or on to Mars but take complete PERMANENT COLONY KITS with THOUSANDS of SETTLERS along for the ride to the Lunar South Pole, Mars, or imo preferably, Europa?
3. Imo NASA should be an Agency not an Administration.
Do we 'administer' Central Intelligence?
We need an agency that will ACHIEVE manned Space travel not 'administer' it.
REPLACE the National Aeronautics and Space Administration with a NEW National Astronautics and Space Agency.
TOSS the LTBT.
BUILD ORIONS NOW.
It worked so well on that solar sail launch, too.
--Boris
Fact is there is always some role that the government needs to play in tech innovation because the commercial interest or commitment is not their yet. Its when that interest gets generated that the establishment has a hard time moving on and transitioning that area to the public sector. Seems it is the nature of most organizations to self preserve, no matter what form they come in.
The space 'tourist' business is now in its infancy, but 45 years ago no one would have disputed that large government investment was need to get to orbit, much less the moon.
Many important aspects of space exploration/exploitation still lack viable 'business plans' yet are still important from national security perspectives (tech development, remote sensing, intel and defense needs, etc) as well as from the national image perspective (providing leadership in the field, etc).
Do you happen to work for Thiokol or ATK?
No. Fair enough?
And it is a good thing that NASA isn't trying to do a "Shuttle II", since it would likely have all the same failings.
It is just frustrating that they seem to have no clue that any sort of sustainable space program simply must have a solid foundation of cheap, reliable access to orbit.
It's like they set out to LA from New York on a bicycle because they don't want to waste a bunch of time at the airport.
They know all that. Their direction comes from Congress.
I see little indication that they realize it. I deal with misguided direction on a daily basis. When you are mismanaged or misdirected, you simply must point out the flaw for everyone to see, otherwise failure will merely be blamed on you, and perhaps even rightly so.
NASA has sabotaged too many efforts at lowering launch costs to play the victim card and point the finger at congress.
Yeah, that's a characteristic of a corporation in advanced osteoporosis. NASA has been let sit on its country estate far too long. The people at NASA are capable of much more.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.