#4462126 - 02/20/19 01:04 PM
Re: NASA'S Boondoggle
[Re: F4UDash4]
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,712
Dart
Measured in Llamathrusts
|
Measured in Llamathrusts
Lifer
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,712
Alabaster, AL USA
|
I think one has to adjust expectations on what NASA does and can do now versus the heyday of the Mercury-Apollo era.
The Moon program was the right program at the right time, jump starting the technological timeline from tube to transistor technology. The economic rewards from the spin-off technology underwritten by NASA simply can't be understated.
Hell, as a kid in the early 1970's we had a black and white TV that had tubes in the back of it. Yes, it was a bit of a relic, but while rare at that time not exactly shocking to discover. There were still TV repairmen that would make house calls for them.
The Moon program was about making a technological leap, with the fundamental tools for that leap just within grasping range. We had radar; making microwaves a medium for communication rather than location finder was a concept that was understood, but unfunded (for an example). The Moon program did this, and now we have cell phones.
Huge jumps like this are very, very rare in human history. This is a Bessemer refining the way to mass produce steel of high and consistent quality event, one we take for granted.
Still, it's not like NASA has been resting on their laurels. We think nothing of having our portable devices tracking their position down to a few yards thanks to GPS, but 25 years ago this was still a dream. I remember very well standing in the desert in 1990 while the new fangled box sought a third satellite to obtain a location - and this was only available to the military. We didn't even refer to it as GPS...we talked in terms of the name of the receiver.
Both the Europeans and the Russians are struggling today to replicate the US GPS system.
Yes, tons of money are going to be spent on ground systems for the next generation of rockets. One either does this or later laughs at NASA for having 1970's or '80's tech in the control centers. Hell, the Space Shuttle's computers were criminally out of date at the end of the program's life and was subject to much conversation.
If a return to the Moon were the only goal, we could do that in pretty short order. It's not like we've forgotten how to make the Saturn V rocket, after all. Heck, we do maintenance on a big bunches of a variation of the same thing in our ICBM program.
NASA's mandate is a bit broader, and because of it a bit muddier. SpaceX is a single purpose program; the same can't be said of NASA.
The opinions of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events. More dumb stuff at http://www.darts-page.comFrom Laser: "The forum is the place where combat (real time) flight simulator fans come to play turn based strategy combat."
|
|
#4462133 - 02/20/19 02:13 PM
Re: NASA'S Boondoggle
[Re: CyBerkut]
|
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,735
F4UDash4
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,735
SC
|
Go to Mars to stay there, not just visit. Send supplies, etc. ahead of time.
Some ships stay to be support mechanisms, or even a life boat. Other ships return to Earth to be reloaded with people/supplies and sent to Mars again.
People staying on Mars, whether permanently or for some tour of duty, work their butts off to establish habitat(s) and do science.
It's not easy, but it is do-able. There are plenty of people who want to go, and enough of them are probably skilled/suited enough to make it work. Robotics will be a key to making it more feasible. Sounds a lot like SpaceX plans. I fully expect SpaceX to put people on Mars before NASA or anyone else. In my lifetime.
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
|
|
#4462283 - 02/21/19 10:38 AM
Re: NASA'S Boondoggle
[Re: Dart]
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,402
Zamzow
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,402
|
I think one has to adjust expectations on what NASA does and can do now versus the heyday of the Mercury-Apollo era.
The Moon program was the right program at the right time, jump starting the technological timeline from tube to transistor technology. The economic rewards from the spin-off technology underwritten by NASA simply can't be understated.
Hell, as a kid in the early 1970's we had a black and white TV that had tubes in the back of it. Yes, it was a bit of a relic, but while rare at that time not exactly shocking to discover. There were still TV repairmen that would make house calls for them.
The Moon program was about making a technological leap, with the fundamental tools for that leap just within grasping range. We had radar; making microwaves a medium for communication rather than location finder was a concept that was understood, but unfunded (for an example). The Moon program did this, and now we have cell phones.
Huge jumps like this are very, very rare in human history. This is a Bessemer refining the way to mass produce steel of high and consistent quality event, one we take for granted.
Still, it's not like NASA has been resting on their laurels. We think nothing of having our portable devices tracking their position down to a few yards thanks to GPS, but 25 years ago this was still a dream. I remember very well standing in the desert in 1990 while the new fangled box sought a third satellite to obtain a location - and this was only available to the military. We didn't even refer to it as GPS...we talked in terms of the name of the receiver.
Both the Europeans and the Russians are struggling today to replicate the US GPS system.
Yes, tons of money are going to be spent on ground systems for the next generation of rockets. One either does this or later laughs at NASA for having 1970's or '80's tech in the control centers. Hell, the Space Shuttle's computers were criminally out of date at the end of the program's life and was subject to much conversation.
If a return to the Moon were the only goal, we could do that in pretty short order. It's not like we've forgotten how to make the Saturn V rocket, after all. Heck, we do maintenance on a big bunches of a variation of the same thing in our ICBM program.
NASA's mandate is a bit broader, and because of it a bit muddier. SpaceX is a single purpose program; the same can't be said of NASA. BEST POST IN THIS THREAD.
|
|
#4462288 - 02/21/19 11:24 AM
Re: NASA'S Boondoggle
[Re: Dart]
|
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,735
F4UDash4
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,735
SC
|
Yes, tons of money are going to be spent on ground systems for the next generation of rockets.
Yes, way too much. I am rushing to go to work right now, but if you do a bit of Google-foo you'll see what NASA spent on updating one of the Apollo era launch pads. if memory serves is was about $500 million. That's nuts. If a return to the Moon were the only goal, we could do that in pretty short order. It's not like we've forgotten how to make the Saturn V rocket, after all.
We've forgotten how to do anything quickly, efficiently. Is returning to the Moon the goal? I really don't know, and I been following this for decades. The "goal" keeps changing. Mars. Asteroid. Moon. Mars again. "Gateway". Pssstt.... the real goal is to keep the money flowing into the same congressional districts that shuttle did. NASA's mandate is a bit broader, and because of it a bit muddier. SpaceX is a single purpose program; the same can't be said of NASA.
NASA overall does a LOT of things. Aerodynamics, unmanned probes, ISS etc. But when it comes to manned space exploration beyond earths orbit SpaceX has a better defined, and loftier, goals than NASA. NASA can't decide (in part because of chaning White House goals, but not just) where it's going or what 's doing with it's manned program.
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
|
|
#4465119 - 03/12/19 12:44 PM
Re: NASA'S Boondoggle
[Re: F4UDash4]
|
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,735
F4UDash4
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,735
SC
|
Think link below is to a blog post concerning the future of SLS, maybe things are starting to turn around. The comments on the post are "enlightening". http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=72795#comments
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
|
|
#4465502 - 03/14/19 11:23 AM
Re: NASA'S Boondoggle
[Re: F4UDash4]
|
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,735
F4UDash4
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,735
SC
|
NASA'S SUPER-SIZED SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM MIGHT BE DOOMED Switching to a commercial rocket for EM-1 would deliver a major blow to the SLS program, which has been criticized for is massive budget—an estimated $14 billion—and snail-speed development. But with the debut of the Falcon Heavy, its reason for being has become less and less clear. (A Falcon Heavy can deliver nearly 141,000 pounds to low-Earth orbit, while a Delta IV can carry 62,540 pounds and SLS a theoretical 209,000 pounds).
The administration also expressed that NASA’s upcoming mission to Jupiter’s moon Europa, which is slated for 2023, should launch on a commercial rocket—a reversal of a 2015 Congressional mandate that said it must fly on SLS. The budget proposal states that using a commercial rocket would save NASA over $700 million, allowing the agency to fund multiple new activities. (The Obama administration made the same proposal but was denied by Congress.)
With these proposals stripping away much of SLS’s capabilities, the heavy lifter is left with only one mission: launching Orion directly to lunar orbit. But if NASA can launch the necessary Gateway components, including Orion, on commercial rockets, the case for SLS is getting increasingly threadbare.
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
|
|
#4469757 - 04/10/19 11:18 AM
Re: NASA'S Boondoggle
[Re: F4UDash4]
|
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,735
F4UDash4
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,735
SC
|
NASA's $17-billion moon rocket ...eholders are asking if there are "But the orange-and-white rocket has fallen three years behind schedule — and is way over budget. Almost $17 billion has been spent so far on the space vehicle, which was projected to cost $10.6 billion when its construction was approved in 2011. Experts say each SLS flight will cost at least $1 billion, or about 11 times more than SpaceX's Falcon Heavy rocket, which made its debut last year."
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
|
|
#4469796 - 04/10/19 03:26 PM
Re: NASA'S Boondoggle
[Re: F4UDash4]
|
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,735
F4UDash4
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,735
SC
|
Agreed, NASA needs to return to its NACA roots.
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
|
|
#4492994 - 10/15/19 11:47 AM
Re: NASA'S Boondoggle
[Re: F4UDash4]
|
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,735
F4UDash4
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,735
SC
|
After a “corrective action,” Boeing back at work on SLS rocket core stage It is not clear what triggered the need for a corrective action, but one source suggested to Ars that Boeing technicians are having difficulty attaching the large rocket engines in a horizontal configuration rather than a vertical position. NASA and Boeing made a late change to the final assembly process, deciding to mate pieces of the core stage horizontally rather than vertically to save time. However, this source said horizontal mating of the engines has created problems. Read the comments, they are brutal. And rightly so.
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
|
|
#4493023 - 10/15/19 03:59 PM
Re: NASA'S Boondoggle
[Re: F4UDash4]
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,569
Mr_Blastman
Hotshot
|
Hotshot
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,569
Atlanta, GA
|
They better get out the shoehorn and contract to Santa's elves, sounds like a tough job!
But are those elves certified? They might need to file an inspection report in triplicate after requesting a t-99 review and credentialed background check, uniform safety code assessment and hammer and nail augmentation approval.
Last edited by Mr_Blastman; 10/15/19 04:15 PM.
|
|
|
|