Posted on 06/27/2012 11:30:04 AM PDT by NonZeroSum
In December of 1968, America won the moon race.
NASA didn’t actually accomplish JFK’s goal of sending a man to the moon and returning him safely to earth until eight months later with the historic Apollo 11 mission, but on that fateful Christmas Eve, when the Apollo 8 astronauts read from Genesis to an awestruck planet, as they circled our nearest neighbor, the Soviets knew that they weren’t going to win, and they not only quit, but also pretended they’d never been racing.
It was a very risky flight, the first one to send an Apollo capsule beyond earth orbit, and the first manned flight of the Saturn V rocket, after an almost-disastrous first flight in which the vehicle had several premature engine shutdowns and almost shook itself to pieces. There was no second unmanned test flight to see if it had been fixed.
Does anyone imagine that NASA could do that flight today? Not just because they don’t have the hardware to do it. Even if they did, the agency, indeed the nation itself, no longer has the courage to do bold things in space.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
Nor should they.
A government program is still a government program, no matter how noble or inspiring its motives.
Politicians won't base their decisions on practical or econonic feasibilities. They will base their decisions on vote-buying.
Today's civilian NASA is nothing like the semi-military NASA of the 1960's.
Government has demonstrated over and over again...they can't do nonmilitary things properly.
.
It isn’t just the space program. NASA has become risk averse.
Response: The author is wrong NASA' has only two functions to provide jobs and to make sure those jobs are filled in a "Diverse" fashion. This means that the ability of NASA to successfully enter space is deteriorating and will continue to deteriorate. The process of deterioration is slow and can only be measured over years-(5 to 10 years).
To put it another way NASA no longer has the ability, the quality management and personnel that it did in the early space programs. We "ain't got no Von Braun no mo!"
As of today NASA can only show off its "Diverse" staff on TV for the emotional satisfaction of the egalitarian minded public.
NASA was born from an entirely different generation. Today in this generation of Power-Point engineers & scientists coming out of degree-mill universities with low academic standards, you need ask the question: “Can we do it again?”.
With most of the Apollo blue-prints in need of reverse engineering, budget cuts, it is remarkable anything substantial can be accomplished. But it does. There are many competent engineers & scientists up for the opportunities that lay ahead.
Three NASA pillars remain: Up-lookers (extrasolar), Down-lookers (terrestrial) & Education. But NASA is still in a search of a mission statement that will re-vitalize it from it’s previous vision.
Those that think commercialization is the way to go, are guessing that this will be an enabling method. They are partially if not completely incorrect. Corporations can take short term risks, sometimes with billions involved. But unless they can sustain these levels of expenditure, they are doomed to failure.
Commercialization of space can only be accomplished if we can develop a means of going beyond Earth orbit that is significantly cheaper than $20K per pound of payload.
Therefor, if NASA is to progress under a currently dwindling budget, resources & manpower, it is necessary to focus it’s attention more towards “non chemical” propulsion system solutions.
It will be a hard pill to swallow, because of all of the infrastructure already in place. It was proven to Dr. Vonn Braun many years ago that NASA cannot sustain it’s budget indefinitely. Making NASA “Pay for itself” cannot get there if getting beyond Earth’s orbit costs 20K, 10K, or even 1K per pound.
Warp drive is a fantasy. But we need to invest in a practical means of inexpensive propulsion, making space flight cost effective. When an inexpensive means of propulsion is attainable, the private sector will be less at risk and therefor more of an attainable concept.
One of Dr. Von Braun’s memorial quote’s, encapsulates marching orders needed to succeed: “Research is something I do, when I do not know what I’m doing”. Thus we need to invest in research that will enable more of a solution set towards inexpensive space travel, rather than sending balloons to Mars! Easier said than done. NASA’s earlier mantra is in need of further exploration back to it’s Apollo roots: “We do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard...”.
This is my opinion, and not of NASA’s.
Space is a luxury. We have no money.
Corporations will find ways of making it cheaper and ways of making it pay off. That is a totally different motivation than NASA.
The reason you know so much about the solar system and it's planets is because of those billions spent. Otherwise we would still be thinking there were canals on Mars etc. Someone with imagination will find a reason to go to Mars and make it pay. Maybe they will go beyond and mine the asteroid belt and use Mars and it's moons as a mining base/industrial base. The age of big government space projects with all the attendant politics and waste may be over, but there are plenty of ways to use space resources for the free market.
The Shuttle program was crippled back in the 1970s by then-Senators Fritz Mondale and William Promire, who first separated the Shuttle project from the Station project, then killed the totally re-usable design for the Shuttle, and THEN prevented NASA from taking the External Tanks up to orbit and parking them there.
Structures that could handle pressure (i.e. the External Tank) would have been invaluable for building and expanding a permanent space station, and a permanent foothold in orbit. . .
This is short sighted. The space program technological payback was multifold, and the domino-like propagation of this technology to all parts of our lives is phenomenal. Many of the conveniences we take for granted had their beginnings in products or technologies developed through NASA/DARPA. (Yes - you really need to include DARPA - which is REALLY the US premiere technology research agency).
One simple example: electronics miniaturization was driven by the needs of the space program!
In my mind - we can’t afford NOT to invest in the space program.
As for whether a private company can move forward where NASA has stumbled. SpaceX is proof it can. I believe another poster, a NASA engineer, has to much skin in the government game to have an objective view point. He neglects the fact that there are a few people that are as rich as countries that CAN afford this type of effort. Add that to industry’s efficiency and you have a winner. I DO believe that the current idea of NASA helping with seed money is a good expenditure of my tax dollars!
To compare Commercial versus Government development models - let’s look at the F-35 versus the development of the Predator. The F-35 has suffered multiple overruns - both due to technological issues & congressional meddling. The Predator was developed by General Atomics THEN offered up for sale - they had something the US Government could use, and the rest is history. Note that the few times that GA has tried to work as a Government contractor, i.e modify designs to a government specification - it didn’t go so well! Both points should be used as lessons!
The SpaceX involvement with NASA seems to be producing results too. NASA has put out requirements & paid some money - SpaceX has thrown private capital into the mix, with the result being multiple successful launches. NASA has mostly stayed out of their way, and helped expedite some regulatory issues. SpaceX had done in a few years what up until now only the US, USSR & Chinese Governments have managed to do - and they’ve done it in record time for a fraction of the cost.
QED - commercialization of space is the only real way forward, but we need to continue to push the envelope through NASA, etc as well.
“Dig up the original blueprints...”
That’s one problem. They’re gone, either lost or destroyed. We couldn’t build a Saturn V today without re-engineering the whole thing.
btt
Warp drive is a fantasy. But we need to invest in a practical means of inexpensive propulsion, making space flight cost effective. When an inexpensive means of propulsion is attainable, the private sector will be less at risk and therefor more of an attainable concept.
Launch costs aren't high because we need "an inexpensive means of propulsion." SpaceX vehicles have lox/kerosene gas generator engines. Falcon Heavy, which should fly in a couple years, will be a thousand dollars a pound. Falcon 9, which just flew to ISS, is about $2500.
That’s one problem. They’re gone, either lost or destroyed.
That's an urban myth. They're all still available on microfiche.
You're right. We are at the beginning of an exciting new era, yet some people are whining about the good old days when the federal government led the way, and space travel was so expensive and inefficient that only a few could go.
Spacex tested a new engine yesterday that is the most efficient booster engine ever built by anyone, the Merlin 1D.
Yes, there is a lot on microfiche, but not all the technical details that would be required to build it. There is a lot missing, so there would be quite a bit of re-engineering to be done if we wanted to recreate it.
Dan, your assertion is in need of some clarification. Yes, it is true that corporations may find ways of making things more cost effective. But there are areas of technology that overwhelm these same limited corporations. If you remember (from personal memory or from history), it took many hundreds of corporations working together in order to develop the Apollo project. Only a government with sufficient GDP may be capable of sustaining such a venture. Initial innovations are usually managed by a few (people or corporations); But, the first step towards that goal must be met. An unknown, that ultimately may require tremendous financial resources.
The innovation of such a new propulsion technology may require resources greater than what is available in any one or group of corporations. But once that discovery is developed & understood, the innovation steps necessary to improve and make it more cost-effective may kick in. Depends on what scale is required.
Also remember, it took over 60 years from the Wright Flyer to Apollo. The US Government became an enabler to this initial innovation by applying a need for improving the Mail delivery system. Unfortunately it took several World Wars that also aided in the development of this technology by necessity. Again it took many corporations subsidized by the US Government, making this technology flourish.
Some suppose that cheap space flight will enable us to mine the asteroid belt for precious metals & materials that will justify and allow the technology to progress commercially. No one corporation or corporations could progress towards cooperative standards necessary for such an innovation becoming universally practical. Commercial international pilots use the English language as a means of communication during flights. A standard still used today. Standards must be regulated through a common source E.G. Federal Government. It took cooperation on a massive scale. Someone some thing needed to coordinate those enabling standards. Whom do you suppose that was?
First comes the innovation enabler. A sigma innovation step not yet realized. If the innovation may be exploited in such a manor as to make it cost effective, step-wise improvements may be performed (your assumption with respect to corporations making things cheaper). There is a big If. This kind of breakthrough may not be possible in Steve Job’s garage, or by a Bell Labs graduate student, etc... But as will be the case, someone or some group will discover this new technology. Also remember Edison took several thousand experimental attempts before he invented the simple light bulb.
Virgin took the first steps, but it is only a first step, not unlike the first step developing the Wright Flyer. The Wright Flyer proved the concept, but it took several decades before we had anything commercially useful. And it payed for itself by the innovative steps allowing larger payloads being transported, making it cost effective. Virgin still uses a chemical means of propulsion & is still too expensive making it practical.
Your implication: “That is a totally different motivation than NASA” is not completely on target. Because of increasing budgetary constraints, Can assure you that there is a “make do with what you got” mentality. Successful researchers have found the fine art of scrounging necessary. Every research $ is accounted for in an attempt to make thing cost effective. But you can’t put a price on a new technology until it is realized! Yes, there are NASA projects that are over budget; but, if you knew what the Manhattan Project cost in 2012 $’s, NASA’s budget would represent “chump change”. It all boils down to necessity. And these arguments are and will be discussed by Congress, the Executive branch & ultimately by voters.
NASA’s motivation is focusing some of it’s resources towards that inexpensive propulsion goal. But due to it’s current budgetary limitations and current work-load involvements, such research is limited. A bad economy certainly does not help these efforts.
Lastly, your assumption “Corporations will find ways of making it cheaper...” is slightly flawed in that “it” you have implied with respect to a new propulsion technology, is not yet discovered. Chemical propulsion is too expensive regardless of any step-wise corporate improvement to a chemical based propulsion systems making it cheaper. We will need a propulsion system more robust, durable & cost effective not requiring a limited “one time use in flight” chemical reaction.
If by chance you have that “next step” in propulsion innovation, my hat’s off to you! You will become richer than avaricious can imagine. But you may find that such a technology may require resources only available through a Government’s GDP. So an organization such as NASA may ultimately be an enabling focal point after-all.
This is my opinion, and not of NASA’s.
I love this......Crank it up......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnoNITE-CLc&list=PL580518584C03377D&index=30&feature=plpp_video
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.