Topic: Do you think that NASA has lost its Way? (Read 10293 times)

Baker · « **Reply #40 on:** December 19, 2003, 04:55:35 pm »

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 · « **Reply #41 on:** December 19, 2003, 04:58:13 pm »

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 · « **Reply #42 on:** December 19, 2003, 05:22:19 pm »

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 · « **Reply #43 on:** December 19, 2003, 05:27:12 pm »

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 · « **Reply #44 on:** December 19, 2003, 06:31:56 pm »

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 · « **Reply #45 on:** December 19, 2003, 06:37:15 pm »

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.

Death_Merchant · « **Reply #47 on:** December 19, 2003, 06:55:18 pm »

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 · « **Reply #48 on:** December 19, 2003, 06:59:02 pm »

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

Death_Merchant · « **Reply #50 on:** December 19, 2003, 07:30:44 pm »

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 · « **Reply #51 on:** December 20, 2003, 07:57:29 am »

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 · « **Reply #52 on:** December 20, 2003, 04:45:15 pm »

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 · « **Reply #53 on:** December 20, 2003, 04:54:24 pm »

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.

IKV Nemesis D7L

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

IKV Nemesis D7L

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

News: