Space news /comments
- Thread starter Winner
- Start date
It'll go to the various research labs across the country that aren't necessarily working on space-related technology. Jet propulsion labs, aerodynamics research, etc. There'll just be more funding to those areas than before.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
In other words, the money will be spend on hobby projects (jobs for boys) and to keep the big aerospace guys happy (more jobs for boys). Wait, someone said that NASA should, I don't know, do some space exploration as well?
Nonsense! There isn't enough money, you see?
Nonsense! There isn't enough money, you see?
Yeah. Big aero benefits from NASA research a lot, so really slashing the space programs amounts to an increase in R&D spending for the air force.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
From what I heard, the inefficiency of NASA is a structural problem. NASA is oversized and too distributed over the US territory, which leads to a lot of "tribal" infighting and bureaucratic "necessities" of providing "something to do" to all of them. Any serious restructuring is out of question because of politics.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Apollo expansion/evolution concepts
-> A very interesting summary of all the things Apollo could have evolved into had it been continued instead of totally scrapped.
Read it and weep.
-> A very interesting summary of all the things Apollo could have evolved into had it been continued instead of totally scrapped.
Read it and weep.
Winner said:
That's actually not such a big problem, again because many of those labs are doing research that is very valuable. Removing all of those labs wouldn't fix anything; the problem remains a lack of direction and virtually 0 support from the government beyond the budget which, while considerable, is still nothing compared to the budgets of many other government organizations.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
It's related. I was listening to an interview with the designer of Nautilus-X (the NASA "far future" concept for an outer solsys exploration vessel), who is also a NASA veteran who actually remembers the days of Apollo, and he described in detail how any NASA project of this kind has to involve practically all NASA centres. Not because their input is actually needed, but simply to make them busy.
In an environment like this, it is difficult to find focus. But I am not blaming it all on NASA, far from it. The political interference is much worse - if they simply gave NASA the $18 billion and told it "OK, get us to Mars or some other interesting place in 10 years", I am sure we'd see a lot of progress. Unfortunately, these days the politicians (most of them with little to no knowledge of the relevant scientific and engineering issues involved) also tell NASA how to do things, what to spend money on, who has to be awarded contracts, etc. etc. etc.
Even in the unlikely case that the plans of the politicians made sense, there are new politicians in office every 4-8 years scrapping the old plans and making new ones. This is quite deadly for projects that take several years of time to complete.
But letting NASA manage its own funds might not be such a good idea either, as it lacks independent control. Maybe I would establish a grant body (something similar to the NSF) where NASA and other institutes interested in space exploration can apply for funding.
But letting NASA manage its own funds might not be such a good idea either, as it lacks independent control. Maybe I would establish a grant body (something similar to the NSF) where NASA and other institutes interested in space exploration can apply for funding.
This is probably a more salient concern than the worry about the myriad research centers, which are frankly a consequences of the lack of direction and were developed to cope with the constantly changing priorities.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Exactly. In the US, it's often even less - 2 years for members of the House. This can (and often is) quite deadly.
Just make sure it's not dominated by astronomers.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
This is exactly what I was talking about before in connection with the US space programme. ESA is about to terminate the ATV programme, after spending billions of Euros on it. Instead of gradually evolving it, building up on the technologies and experience, they will just throw it away and start again.
Considering how limited the funding for space is in both US and Europe, such decisions are criminal.
ATV production terminated as decision on follow-on nears
Considering how limited the funding for space is in both US and Europe, such decisions are criminal.
ATV production terminated as decision on follow-on nears
Confronted by parts obsolescence and waning political support, the European Space Agency has shut down subsystem production lines for the Automated Transfer Vehicle as member states debate how they will contribute to future international space exploration efforts, according to top spaceflight officials.
The huge cargo freighters, weighing more than 20 tons fully loaded, will stop flying in 2014 when the fifth resupply craft delivers equipment to the International Space Station.
ESA member states decided to discontinue the program after briefly considering redesigning the throwaway cargo craft to return hardware in a hardened re-entry capsule.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
United Launch Alliance says Atlas-V can be man-rated in 3 years
-> In other words, ULA is afraid of losing its monopoly on delivering insanely overpriced rockets to the US government. Of course, even in the best case it wouldn't be able to lift Orion, so I don't really see the point. Delta-IV Heavy could potentially do that, but that rocket is even more insanely overpriced.
-> In other words, ULA is afraid of losing its monopoly on delivering insanely overpriced rockets to the US government. Of course, even in the best case it wouldn't be able to lift Orion, so I don't really see the point. Delta-IV Heavy could potentially do that, but that rocket is even more insanely overpriced.
I thought Orion was scrapped when they killed Constellation? 
Winner
Diverse in Unity
I thought Orion was scrapped when they killed Constellation?
Originally, they planned to "demote" it to an ISS lifeboat. After they absorbed the absolute idiocy of that proposal, they resurrected it as MPCV , so the work on the ship never really stopped. No doubt Lockheed-Martin lobbied hard to save it.
Which is of course quite logical, without Orion, nothing else NASA is doing in terms of human spaceflight would make any sense.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Besides the practical, emotionless way of thinking about space exploration, there are philosophical, poetic ways of understanding it as well:
Link to video.
Link to video.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Time for some updates:
ESA released some nice pictures of cities at night
-> the images were taken by a special "NightPod" camera onboard the ISS. Since the station is moving at 7 km/s at a low altitude (around 400 km), it's apparently pretty hard to take pictures of the surface during the night cycles.
---
Russia has agreed to join ESA's ExoMars exploration programme
-> I am still sceptical about the Russians' ability to provide any significant added benefit to the mission. ESA should man up and fund the whole deal itself, use its own launchers, and develop all technology it needs, even if it meant postponing the launch for two years.
ESA released some nice pictures of cities at night
-> the images were taken by a special "NightPod" camera onboard the ISS. Since the station is moving at 7 km/s at a low altitude (around 400 km), it's apparently pretty hard to take pictures of the surface during the night cycles.
---
Russia has agreed to join ESA's ExoMars exploration programme
-> I am still sceptical about the Russians' ability to provide any significant added benefit to the mission. ESA should man up and fund the whole deal itself, use its own launchers, and develop all technology it needs, even if it meant postponing the launch for two years.
