-
#100 by Jim on 27 Jul, 2006 11:40
-
Quote
vt_hokie - 26/7/2006 10:44 PM
You have a point, I suppose! But human spaceflight won't become accessible to the masses until we have RLV's to make that happen.
Whose says the masses need access at this time.? If they want they can find their own way. It not NASA's job. Just like the westward expansion of the US. -
#101 by mong' on 27 Jul, 2006 12:25
-
yes but in the expansion, the settlers only needed horses and that is not high tech, just kidding
I would go even further: human spaceflight won't be accessible to the masses in the foreseeable future, not even an RLV can make that happen. we are limited by the laws of physics, chemistry, materials science, ....
and baring some huge "scientific breakthrough" that allows us to create rocket engines with both massive ISP and thrust that are at least as safe as current airplane's reactors and ecologically friendly, it will not happen.
prices can be lowered but it will never be cheap, right now the quest for such systems is a wild goose chase.
and NASA, in fact, in choosing a destination rather than a vehicle, is creating a market, because once they are on the moon, and they want to set up their base, resupply it, make crew rotation, etc.. they are going to need more affordable space access, they will become a customer with a need, and then successful spaceflight ventures like spaceX (who will be mature enough by 2018) will be able to provide those services, creating more affordable medium to heavy lift capabilities, the same thing will happen for mars, and beyond, each time creating a market and pushing the technology. -
#102 by Gene DiGennaro on 27 Jul, 2006 15:16
-
Quote
simonbp - 26/7/2006 11:51 PM
[
Seguing a bit, that's why I'm not supprised that NASA aero research is being cut; most of it is airliner-focused, which in reality means the only real benefactors are Boeing's shareholders. Government work is good at two things, low-level technology development (something at least 5 years from the marketplace) and not-for-profit operations (like space exploration). If the "alt.space industry" wants to start making a profit, they need to start exploiting that gap more fully; COTS allows this, but it will only work long-term if it is actually competitive...
Simon
I've often thought that aeronautics research should go either to the DoD or the FAA. I know, I know the old NACA boys would be rolling in their grave.
Earth observing sats should be in the realm of NOAA or the USGS or some other agency. This would include any "Mission to Planet Earth" plans that NASA has a hand in. Private contractors could and should be launching these spacecraft.
Unmanned probes would be in the realm of Caltech/JPL or Hopkins/APL. Universities could and should have greater autonomy over probes.
Then NASA could be known as the National Council on Astronautics. In the year 2001, a certain NCA employee named Dr. Heywood Floyd would discover an anomaly on crater Tycho...
-
#103 by dmc6960 on 27 Jul, 2006 15:39
-
Quote
zerm - 26/7/2006 5:50 PM
I sell flying model kits of the Ares I. Reminds me that the future looks pretty cool... errr... provided they put the fins back on that is
I just sprayed the first stage of the my Ares V prototype kit... but I swore I would not put that into production until NASA stops changing the darned thing! Seems like every time they put out a press release these days it looks different. Until this month it was one size from top of the thrust structure to the nosecone- so I had 50 nosecones custom milled in that size- then they scaled down the upper stage! Sheeeesh
Of course if I just wait... they'll change it again.
Just an FYI, it wasn't the upper stage that was scaled down, it was the lower stage that was scaled up.
-Jim -
#104 by Jim on 27 Jul, 2006 16:02
-
Quote
Gene DiGennaro - 27/7/2006 11:03 AM
Earth observing sats should be in the realm of NOAA or the USGS or some other agency. This would include any "Mission to Planet Earth" plans that NASA has a hand in. Private contractors could and should be launching these spacecraft.
Unmanned probes would be in the realm of Caltech/JPL or Hopkins/APL. Universities could and should have greater autonomy over probes.
These two areas are just as much "exploration" as the VSE and equal level in NASA's Charter. NASA is NOT manned spaceflight! And God forbid that it doesn't change. -
#105 by Gene DiGennaro on 27 Jul, 2006 18:42
-
Quote
Jim - 27/7/2006 10:49 AM
QuoteGene DiGennaro - 27/7/2006 11:03 AM
Earth observing sats should be in the realm of NOAA or the USGS or some other agency. This would include any "Mission to Planet Earth" plans that NASA has a hand in. Private contractors could and should be launching these spacecraft.
Unmanned probes would be in the realm of Caltech/JPL or Hopkins/APL. Universities could and should have greater autonomy over probes.
These two areas are just as much "exploration" as the VSE and equal level in NASA's Charter. NASA is NOT manned spaceflight! And God forbid that it doesn't change.
I'll agree with you on the second part. I was a bit premature. I'll revise my plan and allow NASA to be in charge of unmanned vehicles to OTHER planets. Earth observing should be in the realm of other agenices or organizations.
Gene -
#106 by zinfab on 27 Jul, 2006 22:21
-
Quote
vt_hokie - 26/7/2006 10:44 PM
But maglevs are STILL shaped like trains! I demand they add wings! Now THAT would be progress...QuoteJim - 26/7/2006 8:01 PM
The same time trains lose their wheels and use maglev.
So, now in other words? Just because the U.S. is stagnant on maglev doesn't mean other nations are. You can ride a 270 mph maglev train in China, as a matter of fact! 
(Of course, the Chinese merely paid the Germans to build it for them.) -
#107 by Chris Bergin on 28 Jul, 2006 15:09
-
Moved to CEV.
(Of course, the Chinese merely paid the Germans to build it for them.)