A good example of republican double talk

[IntLibber]

Space transport should be in private hands. I am not so sure about the science. Space telescopes are not really a profitable enterprise. So I doubt that many private companies would be willing to invest into something like that. So that is one area where I see a good point for NASA.
Another is doing high potential yield- high risk research for space flight enabling tech. This tech should then be licenseable by private companies to build new, better space transport vehicles. With NASA freed from the cost of space flight development and operations, it should have plenty of money left for research like that. Heck, I could see NASA funding something like polywell. IMHO it would be the most suitable government organization for funding something like that (other than the DOE maybe)

As NASA runs them, space telescopes are not really a profitable enterprise, however like everything NASA does, their space telescopes are overpriced and built on cost-plus contracts.

The primary product of space telescopes is intellectual property. Right now its all pretty nebulous as to its value on the market other than licensing for coffee table books or to be used in sci-fi movies and tv shows, but thats just for right now.

If Mach Effect thrusters prove feasible, then the universe opens before us and all astronomical knowledge becomes valuable proprietary information: for mining value of various bodies (fuel depots, structural materials, palladium group monetary metals, etc), for the real estate value of various planets in and outside the solar system.

If/when MET proves out then it becomes commercially feasible to invest in various telescopes, such as interferometers, etc to directly image earth class bodies in other solar systems. Even WISE is of commercial value, if we detect a brown or red dwarf within 1 light year of Earth with it and it has planets orbiting it to start with, but also the sky survey of all NEOs, other asteroids, KBO's etc will help insurance companies better calculate asteroid strike risks for the future.

[KitemanSA]

Space transport should be in private hands. I am not so sure about the science. Space telescopes are not really a profitable enterprise. So I doubt that many private companies would be willing to invest into something like that. So that is one area where I see a good point for NASA.

There is no need for a NASA to get a space telescope. There are other telescope consortia to do that. Indeed, it can be argued that NASA almost ruined the Hubble ST. What the consortia need for a ST is acess to space.

The military was building large launch capability. Indeed, until NASA stuck it's nose in, it was working toward aero-space craft for cheap access. It was working for reusable single stage to orbit until NASA stepped in a messed things up. I think that without NASA, the ST would have still happened.

Another is doing high potential yield- high risk research for space flight enabling tech. This tech should then be licenseable by private companies to build new, better space transport vehicles. With NASA freed from the cost of space flight development and operations, it should have plenty of money left for research like that.

What you are describing is N.A.C.A.

Heck, I could see NASA funding something like polywell. IMHO it would be the most suitable government organization for funding something like that (other than the DOE maybe)

If it did, I would wave Polywell goodby like I had to wave bye-bye to the DC-X (Delta Clipper).

[Skipjack]

There is no need for a NASA to get a space telescope. There are other telescope consortia to do that. Indeed, it can be argued that NASA almost ruined the Hubble ST. What the consortia need for a ST is acess to space.

Well from what I know NASA was at least responsible for the Hubble. I may be wrong now though. Anyway, someone needs to fund these things. They are not cheap.

The military was building large launch capability. Indeed, until NASA stuck it's nose in, it was working toward aero-space craft for cheap access. It was working for reusable single stage to orbit until NASA stepped in a messed things up. I think that without NASA, the ST would have still happened.

If you are referring to the DC-X (my beloved), then you forget that the military stopped funding it, when the SDI programme went away.

What you are describing is N.A.C.A.

Well NASA was born out of the NACA. So whatever.

If it did, I would wave Polywell goodby like I had to wave bye-bye to the DC-X (Delta Clipper).

That depends on the management. If NASA got a really good management and a new agenda, like it should, then it would work.

Btw, the DC- X to X33 debacle is really a prime example of why NASA should not be developing launch vehicles.

[IntLibber]

There is no need for a NASA to get a space telescope. There are other telescope consortia to do that. Indeed, it can be argued that NASA almost ruined the Hubble ST. What the consortia need for a ST is acess to space.

Well from what I know NASA was at least responsible for the Hubble. I may be wrong now though. Anyway, someone needs to fund these things. They are not cheap.

The military was building large launch capability. Indeed, until NASA stuck it's nose in, it was working toward aero-space craft for cheap access. It was working for reusable single stage to orbit until NASA stepped in a messed things up. I think that without NASA, the ST would have still happened.

If you are referring to the DC-X (my beloved), then you forget that the military stopped funding it, when the SDI programme went away.

Once again, you need to hit the history books.

USAF was developing hypersonic winged vehicles through the 50's and 60's, and would have built the Dyna-Soar spaceplane, launched atop a Titan missile. They also were working on developing the Mach 22 speed Project ISINGLASS spyplane to replace the SR-72, and would have been useful for putting payloads in orbit with small upper stage insertion motors. In the 1970's, they had the X-24c program which was to be a mach 8 rocket and scramjet manned vehicle launched from a B-52. In the early 80's they had the Air Launched Sortie Vehicle program, which would have launched our version of MAKS from the back of a 747 equipped with an SSME in the tail of the jet. Then there was Science Dawn, Science Realm, Copper Coast and Copper Canyon programs that led to the NASP program....

What you are describing is N.A.C.A.

Well NASA was born out of the NACA. So whatever.

If it did, I would wave Polywell goodby like I had to wave bye-bye to the DC-X (Delta Clipper).

That depends on the management. If NASA got a really good management and a new agenda, like it should, then it would work.

Btw, the DC- X to X33 debacle is really a prime example of why NASA should not be developing launch vehicles.

Of course, but that has nothing to do with the technology, it is always about the dysfunctional operation of a corrupt and corrupting civil government agency, an agency which needs to be put down like a rabid dog.

[Helius]

Republicans are scum. And I mean that with all sincerity.

As are Democrats. Is it a case of the lesser of two evils, or a case of throw them all out?
J

Both Dems and Repubs work for the same Banking / Energy / Civil Union Oligarchy. If you don't pander to the oligarchy, you don't get elected.

[Skipjack]

USAF was developing hypersonic winged vehicles through the 50's and 60's, and would have built the Dyna-Soar spaceplane, launched atop a Titan missile. They also were working on developing the Mach 22 speed Project ISINGLASS spyplane to replace the SR-72, and would have been useful for putting payloads in orbit with small upper stage insertion motors. In the 1970's, they had the X-24c program which was to be a mach 8 rocket and scramjet manned vehicle launched from a B-52. In the early 80's they had the Air Launched Sortie Vehicle program, which would have launched our version of MAKS from the back of a 747 equipped with an SSME in the tail of the jet. Then there was Science Dawn, Science Realm, Copper Coast and Copper Canyon programs that led to the NASP program....

I knew these programmes, but I was not aware that they had been cancelled by NASA. I thought they were cancelled when congress decided that the US only needed one space agency.

[KitemanSA]

USAF was developing hypersonic winged vehicles through the 50's and 60's, and would have built the Dyna-Soar spaceplane, launched atop a Titan missile. They also were working on developing the Mach 22 speed Project ISINGLASS spyplane to replace the SR-72, and would have been useful for putting payloads in orbit with small upper stage insertion motors. In the 1970's, they had the X-24c program which was to be a mach 8 rocket and scramjet manned vehicle launched from a B-52. In the early 80's they had the Air Launched Sortie Vehicle program, which would have launched our version of MAKS from the back of a 747 equipped with an SSME in the tail of the jet. Then there was Science Dawn, Science Realm, Copper Coast and Copper Canyon programs that led to the NASP program....

I knew these programmes, but I was not aware that they had been cancelled by NASA. I thought they were cancelled when congress decided that the US only needed one space agency.

Here we have a distinction without difference. They were not cancelled BY NASA, they were canceled BECAUSE OF NASA. But the probability is... no NASA, no cancellation. A distinction without difference.

[Skipjack]

They were not cancelled BY NASA, they were canceled BECAUSE OF NASA.

Ok, that was not what I read out of this sentence of yours here:

It was working for reusable single stage to orbit until NASA stepped in a messed things up.

But even then, the Sorie vehicle never went beyond a paper study. A lot of problems were unanswered and the max size and weight of the payload did not make it all that useful. Plus, the airforce did not like the price of 15 million per drop tank.
So I am not quite sure, you can pin the cancellation of this to NASA.
I dont quite know for sure what were the reasons for the other paper studies to cancelled, but I dont think it is all that important.

Fact is that NASA did cancel the DC-X and I am still grumpy about that one.
But unfortunately the military also had lost interest. So it really was not just NASAs fault. It was a fault of politics in general.

[KitemanSA]

They were not cancelled BY NASA, they were canceled BECAUSE OF NASA.

Ok, that was not what I read out of this sentence of yours here:

It was working for reusable single stage to orbit until NASA stepped in a messed things up.

Fact is that NASA did cancel the DC-X and I am still grumpy about that one.
But unfortunately the military also had lost interest. So it really was not just NASAs fault. It was a fault of politics in general.

Indeed , before those earlier programs were mentioned, I had not been discussing them. The second quote was solely about DC-X.

I don't disagree with your final statement at all. Even the military can be handed a political can of worms on occasion (Strategic Defence Initiative for example). However, unlike NASA, the military has a real job to do and is more likely to persevere to a final workable design than NASA which seems TOTALLY politically driven.
As soon as the space station program was announced I said to a friend, "If Ron wants this thing to happen on time and on budget, he should give the project to the Army Corp of Engineers". And you know, if Ron had, a usable station would have been up in a couple years and real science would be happening there still.

The ACE would have put up a station, not spent a godzillian Yen researching how to put up a station. I suspect the station would also have been about 10 times as big and robust and functional as that thing up there now.

Just a personal opinion. And you know what they say about opinions.

[Skipjack]

I do agree with you about NASA not having a good record of getting things going, ever since Apollo and IMHO Apollo only worked because they were able to throw a ton of money at it.
The rest was nothing but bad designs. In case of the shuttle that was not purely NASAs fault though. The shuttle had to fullfill a lot of things (like downrange, e.g.), because of the military applications that it also had to fullfill (blackops). To many compromises in that design were the result. That in turn made it to expensive to fly and operate.
The thing was that the military was not happy with the shuttle anyway (even before Challenger). So it was completely pointless to compromise the design to fullfill their requirements (whether they were all that reasonable is another question).
Anyway, NASA has been sucking at space vehicle design ever since von Braun left. That is the reason why I think that they should leave that to private companies. NASAs job should be to do what private companies dont want to do: Invest into high risk/ high gain research for enabling technologies.
I, e.g. find it very strange that even those parts of the X33 development that were successful, were cancelled when the X33 was (like the metallic TPS and the aerospike engines).
Why? These things could be useful for other space vehicle designs as well, no?
IMHO NASA should do nothing but these things (in addition to pure science missions). Research new engines, new TPS, new propulsion, new materials for tanks, etc. Then, let the private companies license those for their launch vehicles.

[JLawson]

I think the thing that helped most with Apollo was the short time-frame. Yes, throwing buckets of cash helped - but focusing the effort at getting a man on the moon before the end of the decade instead of Kennedy going "By the year 2000, we'll have a man on the moon" forced a lot of thinking and innovation that made do with what was available at the time - and didn't foster a 'Well, let's wait and see what we can do in 10 years, and then figure out what we'll do with the capsule layout.'

Having a short-term (relative) deadline to meet lends a sense of urgency to a project. Without that urgency, the people inside the project have no real need to accomplish anything. How many aerospace engineers would devote their entire professional lives to something that will take 5 years before they even start bending the metal to make a prototype, and 10 years longer before the first test vehicle flies, and another 10 years after THAT before the thing is (God willing and Congress doesn't screw around with funding too much) ready for production? You're asking for near-religious levels of devotion, for no real reward.

Another thing that helped (IMHO) with the Moon shots were the triple-tracking of development. You had Mercury, to find whether man could even function in space or not. You had Gemini, where we learned the procedures for rendevous and docking, and experimented with long-term spaceflight. And then there was Apollo, the big-daddy project, There was a LOT of work going on, lots of milestones, lots of successes, and that kept the momentum and interest going. As opposed to current projects, where there's not much public interest, no real urgency, and no alternative tracks to the same goal. (Plus, there's a record of variable funding. You might be flush with cash today, but there's no guarantee you'll even have a shoestring after the next election.)

So - to have a successful space program you need buckets of money, a relatively short deadline for meeting your goals to give a sense of urgency, and something that'll keep the engineers lively and productive. AND a Congress that doesn't see the buckets of money as something they need more than the space program...

[KitemanSA]

I do agree with you about NASA not having a good record of getting things going, ever since Apollo and IMHO Apollo only worked because they were able to throw a ton of money at it.

Actually, there were two other reasons it worked, first, as JLawson points out was the set, short, HARD line in the sand time frame, and second was that unlike any other NASA program, the Sputnik had scared Americans into a semblance of nationwide agreement to do this. That agreement was waning fast at the end there, so several planned missions were scrubbed. NASA has never had anywhere near that level of support since, much as I may have wished they did.

Currently, NASA seems to be a funnel for pork to a small number of massive "Military-Industrial Complex" mega-corporations. At least when the military does these things, they have a specific need and time frame in mind (EELV comes to mind). Not great, but not the continuous cluster flop that NASA keeps shoveling out.

[Skipjack]

Certainly true, but the money sure did not hurt. What also helped was that with von Braun, NASA had a visionary with excellent engineering skills and the ambition to push his visions through. They are clearly lacking this today.

[KitemanSA]

Certainly true, but the money sure did not hurt.

Which is why I said "two other reasons" not "two reasons".

[IntLibber]

USAF was developing hypersonic winged vehicles through the 50's and 60's, and would have built the Dyna-Soar spaceplane, launched atop a Titan missile. They also were working on developing the Mach 22 speed Project ISINGLASS spyplane to replace the SR-72, and would have been useful for putting payloads in orbit with small upper stage insertion motors. In the 1970's, they had the X-24c program which was to be a mach 8 rocket and scramjet manned vehicle launched from a B-52. In the early 80's they had the Air Launched Sortie Vehicle program, which would have launched our version of MAKS from the back of a 747 equipped with an SSME in the tail of the jet. Then there was Science Dawn, Science Realm, Copper Coast and Copper Canyon programs that led to the NASP program....

I knew these programmes, but I was not aware that they had been cancelled by NASA. I thought they were cancelled when congress decided that the US only needed one space agency.

They were USAF programs that were far far ahead of NASA but got cancelled by Mac the Knife in favor of NASA in the political scuffles in DC. NASA always liked to claim USAF space programs were duplicating "their" work and wasted taxpayer money.

The air force was forced to a supporting role in manned space flight, but managed to hang on to half of Cape Canaveral (the whole cape was originally air force property) and kept the name after the Dems renamed the NASA half "Cape Kennedy". They were forced to ride the shuttle rather than build their own, until NASA proved in 86 that they were incapable of subsuming their political games and management incompetence to national security needs for reliable space launch, thus the USAF EELV program was born and the military has rarely used shuttle since then.

The military also found that the major error NASA made on the TPS which made shuttles turnaround manhours four times projections and cut the sortie rate to 1/8th of original plans, that it was more cost effective for them to us expendable launch vehicles under a pork-bloated cost-plus contract with a "guaranteed profit" clause than to support the Shuttle, even though the whole rationale for the shuttle RLV was it was supposed to be more cost effective than expendable launch vehicles.

Now, the military is using the X-37/X-41 program to finally get their own reusable space program, to develop responsive launch procedures using cost effective launch manpower as an R&D program to support eventual development of a military RLV.

Now that NASA's ability to build launch vehicles has been thoroughly and completely discredited by Constellation, X-33, and Shuttles safety record, the military can now not have to deal with future demands from the white house that they work with NASA.