Topic: Do you think that NASA has lost its Way?

[Acidrain]

Do you think that NASA has lost its Way? I think that to many people in NASA cant do what they did back in the 60's. Thier ideal and complaining about how they cant do this and cant do that, is a simple comp out. We have the ability i believe that NASA is holding back, as to they say its to dangerous to got o Mars, or a simple fact that we have been back tot he MOON in what? 30 years? Why?  But when China is tlaking the posiblity of coloning the MOON, thier al of sudden tlak of going back? Also they destruction of the Shuttle, and thier problem of supposality they cant make a rocket luanch system to replace the shuttle whish should of been replaced a long time ago!! NASA has become a JOKE and i  feel that we need to leave the old Company behind, because they have lost thier way. So what do you all think??????????

[Scott Allen Abfalter]

It is not NASA that has lost it's way.  It's the American idea of space travel.

Note how badly NASA was grilled after the loss of each space shuttle.  Is it any wonder that they are risk-adverse?

Imagine how the people felt who KNEW each of the astronauts in Apollo 1, Challenger and Columbia.  Or their families.  Is it any wonder they are a bit more careful there?

After Columbia I saw all sorts of commentators, ones in very poor taste, using the event to push their agenda of the removal of manned spaceflight.  

We've lost our will and sense of adventure when it comes to space.  NASA is trying valiantly to push on despite the loss of popular support, and they know that thier inadaquate  thread-bare funding is at risk with every decsion they make.  

It really does make me sick to see how many thing are funded better than NASA.  



 

[hobbesmaster]

Take a look at this stuff: http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/m2k4/six/six.html  

[Stormbringer]

In some ways they have become hidebound and overly cautious. Ironicaly, this caution is not of a sort that makes them any safer. But it does hinder innovation. They still do have some innovative programs, though. But they will likely not be the ones to truly give mankind the final frontier. The X prize is well under way to be claimed by the private sector by the likes of spaceship one and their competitors. Space exploration is about to enter a barnstorming phase like early private aviation.

[Baker]

I agree that recent events certainly hinder further development, but we must also keep in mind that back in the 60s, there was competition from the Soviet Union, and only now is other competing nations  joining the fray, so it'll take some time but NASA will recover and return to the old style. Besides, with the loss of the shuttle fleet, they may also look to other alternatives and if they proceed with this space ladder, then that would make space travel far less costly, thus providing a much needed kick in the backside.

[Stormbringer]

I feel that is true but it will come too late to be something like colonizing the moon. By then it will be almost passe` like shuttle flights. I don't know what would surpass it but they better think of something.  

[Acidrain]

They built the x-33 that was complete shuttle type but excluded the three stage flight version. This was a cost of a payload of being 1,000 dollars a pound to the shuttles 10,000 dollars a pound. But scraped it due to the probs with the fuel tanks blowing up. They spent millions of dollars on this plane that was going to take us in the 21st century. But the geniuous at NASA thought they counldnt fix the prob, and scraped the program, iam not surprised by thier actions any more. We need to get into space we will have to rely on the private sector. Thank god for the X-Prize, perhaps this will open NASA eyes but i have my doubts and any real hope that in my time i will see any real progres. Later Acid


Link to the x-33
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/launch/x33space.htm
 

[Stormbringer]

The scrapping of the delta clipper was a colassal blunder, I agree. I cannot fathom the logic. But there are a lot of thing we blame on NASA that are actually the fault of congress. The three redesigns of the ISS to save money is one example. Each redesign actually added billions to the over all cost and delayed fabrication for years. Congess also scuttled the SCSC just before the final payments were made. In effect it was repossessed. Where is thier ten year credit blemish from that debacle?

[Death_Merchant]

Quote:
The scrapping of the delta clipper was a colassal blunder, I agree. I cannot fathom the logic.  

Sorry Storm, gotta disagree there.
Delta Clipper is scary single-fault-failure stuff. A whole lot must go exactly right for it not to crash and go BOOM.

I agree in general that research into new propulsion technologies is a must. Space will not open up until we can push ourselves with something better than expendable chemical rockets or burning aluminum powder.  

[Stormbringer]

I dunno, -it landed safely after a hydrogen leak exploded and blew a large hole in the skin. Seems fault tolerant to me. i think the included a failsafe parachute in the event of engine failure. Plus it was a scale model. the full sized test article wasn't built if I recall rightly. If so the full scale item would likely had additional safety features.

[IKV Nemesis D7L]

Quote:
Sorry Storm, gotta disagree there.
Delta Clipper is scary single-fault-failure stuff. A whole lot must go exactly right for it not to crash and go BOOM.

What single failure point(s) are you thinking of?  Even when it did crash it did not explode.  

[Death_Merchant]

One of the selling points is that the DC is designed to make do without the huge ground staff and subcontractors the Space Shuttle uses.

Ironically, a mishap in ground operations led to a disconnected helium line which caused a landing strut to fail, destroying the DC-XA. Destroyed as in BOOM.

I guess in this case, single-fault was the buckling of a single landing strut.  

[Stormbringer]

I read about that. weren't the landing struts just rigged articles. Was not the final strut to have been of a different design?

[IKV Nemesis D7L]

Quote:
One of the selling points is that the DC is designed to make do without the huge ground staff and subcontractors the Space Shuttle uses.

Ironically, a mishap in ground operations led to a disconnected helium line which caused a landing strut to fail, destroying the DC-XA. Destroyed as in BOOM.

I guess in this case, single-fault was the buckling of a single landing strut.  

The prototype was quite small and only had 3 legs leaving any single failure as a crash point.  The full scale models would have had 6 or 12, multiple failures in a row would be required for a crash.   With 12 the full scale could have 5 in a row fail and still land safely.  If the failures were evenly spaced 9 of 12 could fail and still allow a safe landing.



Crashed Spaceship One , damage minimal.   Note Spaceship one carries 3 people.  Only the pilot (uninjured) was aboard for the crash.

Paul Allen confirmed as financial backer for Spaceship One.      

[Death_Merchant]

I don't know what the final design (of the DF) was to be (other than manned and bigger).

It was canceled in favor of x-33 mainly because it didn't "push the envelope". It was old tech applied in a new way. It really is just a missile that can land again. It has all the problems of a chemical rocket system (large fuel requirements, volatile fuel).

It is something that could be (and was intended to be) developed for almost as "low" a cost as a new commercial jet. Smells like a commercial opportunity? Problem: No market exists to front the dev costs.  

[Stormbringer]

DM, I'm Shocked. Shocked, I Tell you.

The DC was to have a Cargo to fuel ratio that left the shuttle in the dust and brought the cost per pound down to 1000 initially and less further down the line.

[Death_Merchant]

The shuttle needs to be replaced by something much better. DF is not it.

Shuttle is also overly complex and fault prone. The SSME must be nearly completely refurbished after every launch. I don't remember exactly, but something like 80% of SSME components must be examined carefully or replaced after every launch. And solid boosters have the huge disadvantage of no "off switch". Once you light those candles, there's no going back...

If we are really going to open up space, we need engine/launch tech MUCH better than Shuttle. DF is only an incremental improvement (if that).

IMHO, NASA made the right decision in setting the bar higher.  

[Stormbringer]

I understand your point but fiscal reality says otherwise. I'll explain after a brief diversion here: RE: engines; there was a plan to replace the boosters with hybrid solid propelant liquid oxidant ones that could be shut down and restarted, IIRC. I'm not sure why they decided to drop that upgrade. Likely they had a plan to completely replace the shuttle and decided the upgrade was unnecessary.

Now: recall my point about the ISS redesigns and the SCSC debacle from earlier posts. making the bar higher just adds insurmountable costs rather than reducing them. at some point you must finalize and build; further innovations be damned.  

[Acidrain]

Do you think that NASA has lost its Way? I think that to many people in NASA cant do what they did back in the 60's. Thier ideal and complaining about how they cant do this and cant do that, is a simple comp out. We have the ability i believe that NASA is holding back, as to they say its to dangerous to got o Mars, or a simple fact that we have been back tot he MOON in what? 30 years? Why?  But when China is tlaking the posiblity of coloning the MOON, thier al of sudden tlak of going back? Also they destruction of the Shuttle, and thier problem of supposality they cant make a rocket luanch system to replace the shuttle whish should of been replaced a long time ago!! NASA has become a JOKE and i  feel that we need to leave the old Company behind, because they have lost thier way. So what do you all think??????????

[Scott Allen Abfalter]

It is not NASA that has lost it's way.  It's the American idea of space travel.

Note how badly NASA was grilled after the loss of each space shuttle.  Is it any wonder that they are risk-adverse?

Imagine how the people felt who KNEW each of the astronauts in Apollo 1, Challenger and Columbia.  Or their families.  Is it any wonder they are a bit more careful there?

After Columbia I saw all sorts of commentators, ones in very poor taste, using the event to push their agenda of the removal of manned spaceflight.  

We've lost our will and sense of adventure when it comes to space.  NASA is trying valiantly to push on despite the loss of popular support, and they know that thier inadaquate  thread-bare funding is at risk with every decsion they make.  

It really does make me sick to see how many thing are funded better than NASA.