Why do none of *these* people advocate the R&D approach that can make things like CxP not only attainable, but sustainable and evolutionary, as well? They are smart enough to know better!....aren't they?
... could NASA even accomplish the R&D mission (for spaceflight) if so directed? Some on these forums have made the argument that the current generation of NASA at Marshall etc. don't have the actual expertise to design a new rocket (ie Ares) on their own. If that is true, how would NASA do any better in working on a cheap, sustainable access to space (an advanced RLV)?
Quote from: texas_space on 06/11/2008 01:46 pm... could NASA even accomplish the R&D mission (for spaceflight) if so directed? Some on these forums have made the argument that the current generation of NASA at Marshall etc. don't have the actual expertise to design a new rocket (ie Ares) on their own. If that is true, how would NASA do any better in working on a cheap, sustainable access to space (an advanced RLV)?The R&D I'm talking about is well short of "an advanced RLV" -- it's mostly materials, subsystems and systems, and tightly focused X-craft that validate no more than one innovation at a time. When and if the results of those add up to a decent prospect for an advanced RLV, I'm agnostic as to whether that's done by NASA, Big Aerospace, or Sprightly Economical Entrepreneurial NewSpace.
I guess to summarize, working at NASA high positions or even in the space field in general probably requires some suspension of disbelief, a living in fantasy, and it has been like that for decades.It's not a healthy thing.
See, I've never questioned it. I've always been for all die hard science funding. From the Hadron accelerator to NASA, I like science for science sake.
Quote from: meiza on 06/11/2008 09:56 amI guess to summarize, working at NASA high positions or even in the space field in general probably requires some suspension of disbelief, a living in fantasy, and it has been like that for decades.It's not a healthy thing.This is the most wildly mischaracterizing post I've seen on here in a long time. I'm sure many, many members of this forum take exception to it. You're strongly implying that space professionals are by nature of their positions unprofessional.
clongton:I agree that more "advertising" isn't an answer. Improved outreach is a good thing (and outreach/education part of NASAs mission), but it isn't going to bring any dramatic change. If NASA wants a special position compared to other "science for it's own sake" projects, it needs to actually do stuff that is demonstrably more important than those projects. Your suggestion seems like it amounts gerrymandering NASA jobs, which I doubt will change the overall picture much.
It's not "gerrymandering". It's stacking the deck in your own favor to improve your own odds.
Our legislature is supposed to operate in the interests of the country, not by funneling money to their districts to buy votes.In reality, it operates on a complex mix of both, but you seem to be suggesting the latter is perfectly legitimate. I find this quite astonishing.
Welfare for a few hundred thousand engineers is a really rotten reason for a space program.
Quote from: hop on 06/10/2008 07:02 pmWelfare for a few hundred thousand engineers is a really rotten reason for a space program.I agree. Railroads didn't keep steam locomotives around just to keep people employed, and likewise we shouldn't be keeping shuttle hardware around just to preserve jobs. When do we put progress ahead of pork for a change?