Why is obama mentioning NASA. They have pretty much destroyed that organization. The old NASA put a man on the moon and sent a space craft past the solar system. I don't know what the new NASA does. They should just call it something else really.
I did a VIP tour of Johnson Space Center recently. The guides struggled to explain what the point of it all was. Everything was centered around sustaining the ISS, but to what end? Basically the answer was it exists to conduct science experiments (what happens to X in space) and to find out how being in space impacts human physiology for some future exploration.
I love it that amazon is getting involved. This new space race is really amazing. But SpaceX had already demonstrated a lot of re-usability capability using their "Grasshopper" booster. SpaceX's Grasshopper That was way back in 2012/2013. Blue Origin's (Amazon's) New Shepard is the first to demonstrate re-usability to Space. But that is only because SpaceX's Grasshopper is not allowed to reach Space by FAA. And it is not really that important for a technology development program to develop re-usability. SpaceX's Falcon is the first to demonstrate re-usability to orbit. There are big difference between the two. For this case, the energy difference is about 3 orders of magnitude (800 to 1000 times). But more importantly, SpaceX's Falcon 9 is a fully operational vehicle while Blue Origin's New Shepard is still in development. You can't really compare the two. The design is not fixed yet (that is what the flight tests are for, to find anomalies). The earliest New Shephard can be truly operational is 2018 (in comparison, SpaceX's Falcon 9 was operational by 2010). Blue Origin's design was largely based on NASA's Delta Clipper (1995-1996) (itself was originally from McDonnell Douglas). Amazon hired some of main guys who worked on Delta Clipper. Delta Clipper
The current NASA is a far cry from the NASA of yesteryears. In older times, managers are strictly based on one's engineering capabilities. 70% of managers are assholes, but they all have that "can do" attitude. Nowadays, managers are much nicers. They look at the "big pictures" and the "processes". Managers are multi-disciplinary. Thus, a lot of them don't know much of what the organization they manage do exactly. Whatever was causing the inefficiency of government had eaten away at the core of NASA. But with that said, NASA is still the best the government had to offer. It is probably still better than a lot of private companies. The reason is NASA is still ranked the number 1 job destination for engineer graduates. Every year, we got fresh hot engineering students with 3.8, 3.9, or 4.0 GPA. NASA is still developing amazing technologies. It is developing an engine (VASIMR) using your everyday radio frequency to power the spacecraft. Rather than 1.5 year trip time to Mars, a VASIMR engine can get there by 39 days. There are tons of other researches that are going on in NASA right now. In terms of flag ship program after International Space Station, it will be Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion Spacecraft. Why would the tour guide struggle to say the future direction of NASA? That is because we don't know what are the final destination of SLS and Orion. But that is not a decision NASA can make. NASA had provided multiple proposals. But the President has to make a decision and congress has to fund it.
HAHA BS The level of delusion one must have to say they lead in space exploration is incredible. North Korean level of delusion.
I'm a bit out of my comfort zone with this topic, I think I have an idea of what you're saying but please clarify.
Great. Because NASA largely created them. Going forward, they need each intimately. For companies like SpaceX, Blue Origin (Amazon's spacecraft company), Sierra Nevada, Paragon, and etc., their existence and success largely depends on NASA. Those companies themselves shall take the majority of credit for their accomplishment. But NASA support is absolutely essential. NASA fought hard against Congress to start two programs, Commercial Cargo program and Commercial Crew program. In term, those two programs largely created an brand new space industry (some call this New Space as opposed to the Old Space for companies like Boeing, ULA, etc.). Every year, NASA asked for money to support those programs, and Congress will try to kill them by starving the programs. NASA tried to shove as much knowledge as we can to those companies in how to build rockets and spacecrafts. Big credit has to go to NASA for this. In this case, I am talking about NASA upper management. NASA rank and file have very bi-polar opinions on companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin. For many working level engineers, the better SpaceX and Blue Origin accomplish, the madder they felt. Going forward, NASA and New Space companies (such as SpaceX, Blue Origin, Bigelow, etc.) needs each other to succeed. Those companies still have more to learn from NASA. Most of these New Space companies are doing it for profit motive. They think Space is going to be the future for the next 50 years just like internet was for the last 30 years. When you have re-usability, you could reduce the cost of access to space by a factor of 10 or 100, you create opportunities. Many new industries will be created. When that happens, NASA and those companies will part path. Elon Musk also want to go to Mars, NASA will continue to work with SpaceX.
Just because they aren't sending people to the moon doesn't mean they aren't doing anything. In addition to the SLS, it partakes in many many research missions expanding our knowledge of the universe 100 fold. The Kepler spacecraft was launched in 2009 and discovered more than 1,000 confirmed exoplanets, including 12 that are roughly Earth-massed and in their star’s habitable zone. Overall the satellite has discovered nearly 5,000 candidate exoplanets. It's in danger right now but that's having out lasted the amount of time it was intended. It's currently 75 million miles from Earth and yet NASA can still communicate with it. http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/?type=current http://www.forbes.com/sites/brianko...spacecraft-is-in-emergency-mode/#382eeb0c2901
The rocket to no where? Once ARM is cancelled it will be interesting to hear the reasons they continue to build that POS.
A lot of people called it the Rocket to Nowhere, including some from inside NASA. But it is designed that way. If I have some free time, I can talk about the rationale behind it. Another name for SLS is Senate Launch System. Good luck try to cancel it. You have to convince senators from Alabama, Utah, Florida, Texas, etc.. For the first 2 years of SLS's existence, many NASA engineers would like nothing but to see SLS cancelled. Many within NASA were furious that US Congress would shove a spacecraft design down to NASA's throat. Locally, you have to convince the elected democrat from Houston and elected republican from Fort Bend County to cancel their baby, good luck with that.
No thanks. You think VASIMR is something other than a massive scam. So your opinion on anything space related is something I don't care about. Yes I know it will not be cancel. If you were better at English you would know my post meant it would not be canceled and the justification would be much harder after ARM is canceled.
http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=220169 Casey Bandwagon is totally out of his element on this subject.
Yeah, I remember it was you telling me a rocket with 35 engines is more reliable than the Saturn V right? Something about redundancy which is completely wrong. That was genius.
That wasn't you then? I can't remember so many people on here "knew astronauts as as kid" and therefore are expert. If SpaceX is allowed to go to Mars I'm excited. Marching backward to LEO doesn't do much for me.
