Is NASA dead



The yearly federal budget cycle with no guarantee the project won't be cut next year to fund new social entitlements isn't much better.
jsw
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(PDT) typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

    Yeah. But the original program was an R&D shop and cover for military applications (satellites).     It was also before the Entitlement Mentality set in, which even NASA succumbed to. "Cost plus" contracts to companies in the various important congressional districts.
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
pyotr filipivich wrote:

No, NASA was formed from NACA (National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics) specifically to get to the moon...
"An Act to provide for research into the problems of flight within and outside the Earth's atmosphere, and for other purposes." With this simple preamble, the Congress and the President of the United States created the national Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) on October 1, 1958. NASA's birth was directly related to the pressures of national defense. After World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union were engaged in the Cold War, a broad contest over the ideologies and allegiances of the nonaligned nations. During this period, space exploration emerged as a major area of contest and became known as the space race.
During the late 1940s, the Department of Defense pursued research and rocketry and upper atmospheric sciences as a means of assuring American leadership in technology. A major step forward came when President Dwight D. Eisenhower approved a plan to orbit a scientific satellite as part of the International Geophysical Year (IGY) for the period, July 1, 1957 to December 31, 1958, a cooperative effort to gather scientific data about the Earth. The Soviet Union quickly followed suit, announcing plans to orbit its own satellite.
The Naval Research Laboratory's Project Vanguard was chosen on 9 September 1955 to support the IGY effort, largely because it did not interfere with high-priority ballistic missile development programs. It used the non-military Viking rocket as its basis while an Army proposal to use the Redstone ballistic missile as the launch vehicle waited in the wings. Project Vanguard enjoyed exceptional publicity throughout the second half of 1955, and all of 1956, but the technological demands upon the program were too great and the funding levels too small to ensure success.
A full-scale crisis resulted on October 4, 1957 when the Soviets launched Sputnik 1, the world's first artificial satellite as its IGY entry. This had a "Pearl Harbor" effect on American public opinion, creating an illusion of a technological gap and provided the impetus for increased spending for aerospace endeavors, technical and scientific educational programs, and the chartering of new federal agencies to manage air and space research and development.
More immediately, the United States launched its first Earth satellite on January 31, 1958, when Explorer 1 documented the existence of radiation zones encircling the Earth. Shaped by the Earth's magnetic field, what came to be called the Van Allen Radiation Belt, these zones partially dictate the electrical charges in the atmosphere and the solar radiation that reaches Earth. The U.S. also began a series of scientific missions to the Moon and planets in the latter 1950s and early 1960s. "
--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Stormin Mormon wrote:

Really? Why did Lockheed Martin lease a building from us to manufacture blank PC boards? A few years later it was consolidated with another facility in Texas, when the lease ran out.
--
It's easy to think outside the box, when you have a cutting torch.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

A) If Stormin hadn't posted that, he wouldn't have had the opportunity to use cool words like "Ruskies" and "Chicoms."
B) It wouldn't surprise me to learn that some of our weapons include boards made in China as part of the COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) program.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 06:19:40 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck

The penalties for exporting US space technology (and other stuff on the USML) without a license are pretty extreme. It's a bonanza for European and Asian companies, though, who would otherwise have FAR less market share than they are now achieving. There are still safeguards, of course, but not as extreme as ITAR. Compliance is the only option, of course, but the system is arguably broken.
"Failure to comply with ITAR can result in civil fines as high as $500,000 per violation, while criminal penalties include fines of up to $1,000,000 and 10 years imprisonment per violation. Under EAR, maximum civil fines can reach $250,000 per violation, while criminal penalties can be as high as $1,000,000 and 20 years imprisonment per violation."
-- sp (D.O. for a corporation)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
That is why our former White Water president gave the guidance system from our missiles to the Chinese.
His dictionary defines that as Treason-NOT.
Bubba. Not again.
Martin
On 7/13/2011 8:43 AM, Spehro Pefhany wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What if the Russians decide they won't carry us up there anymore? On the high seas an abandoned vesicle can be claimed, using an extention of sea law, they might just take the space station away from us.
Burt Rutan, please hurry, we need you.
Wes -- "Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

www.spacex.com They'll be flying to the ISS in three years.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

spacex ( http://www.spacex.com ) is more-or-less right down the street from KSC and has a NASA contract to develop astronaut transport capabilities. They expect to be in full operation in three years and at half the cost we are currently paying Russia to ferry our guys to the ISS,
NASA is concentrating on bigger things, and they believe that the LEO stuff should be left to the private sector. I watched the last launch on NASA TV, which had extensive coverage of the astronauts boarding the shuttle and getting hooked up and squared away. I was a bit surprised that out of the seven members of the closeout crew, only two were NASA employees and the others were contractors.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
rangerssuck wrote:

Been that way for years. All the way back to the Apollo era.
--
Steve W.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 07/10/2011 04:21 PM, rangerssuck wrote:

It's certainly time to privatize space travel. It makes sense for government to pioneer it -- particularly in that the biggest reason for the Apollo program was to generate the Best Damn Propaganda Ever. But now that it can be done, I think private industry will find the best balance of risk, money, etc.
Unless it's just private industry latching onto the government tit, for even more inefficiency and bigger payoffs to the suits -- hopefully there'll end up to be at least two providers, and even more hopefully those providers will be doing launches independent of NASA for commercial satellites &c.
--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Wescott wrote:

Spacex has been completely coopted. They also aren't putting the "private industry is more efficient" model on display favorably. When asked to price their replacement for the latest Delta, Spacex were more than a third more expensive and their credibility rating was exactly zero in terms of performance.
Not only that, they are sorely lacking in the ten thousand man years of experience and intellectual property that the real space industry has. Anyone that's seen the film of Spacex HLV hardware will tell you that the damned thing nearly ground loops off the pad. Think about a snap roll and that's without a load. The feature that lowers costs will also just destroy whatever payload they stick on the pointy end. Putting a billion dollar assembly on the end of thier stuff isn't insurable or wise. A man rated vehicle from these guys is laughable.
The big competitors today aren't private, unless you consider Japan, Spain, India and Russia "private".
JPL is on the frontier in terms of science and exploration.
Far from "honoring" the current crop of astronauts, they ought to spend the entire duration of thier lives thanking the American public for spending billions of dollars to satisfy their personal wet dreams.
--
John R. Carroll



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/10/2011 7:18 AM, Karl Townsend wrote:

Now NASA won't be distracted with accomplishments and can harvest a cash crop grown in "Climate Change".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's what scares me: Did Hanson and cronies just get a raise? They're worse than OSHA, if you can believe that.
-- Progress is the product of human agency. Things get better because we make them better. Things go wrong when we get too comfortable, when we fail to take risks or seize opportunities. -- Susan Rice
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/10/2011 10:58 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:

My mom worked for NASA for all of her adult life. She said that grants and other money was their major concern, science was secondary.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.