Money Saved By Canceling Missions Usually Just Disappears
NASA’s Extended Science Missions in Peril, Paul Spudis, Air & Space
“We do not yet know how the Senior Review will turn out. NASA is famous for wanting to “move on” to the next thing and often abandons working spacecraft. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush but as things currently stand, there isn’t much in the mission pipeline to move on to. Planetary Science has taken several massive budgetary hits in the past few years, with more on the way. The termination of LRO and MER will not help move new missions off the drawing board. Money not spent on these extended missions will probably slide into SMD’s Black Hole of Funding (the James Webb Space Telescope) or be dissipated on new paperwork, committee meetings and concept studies. It would be both fiscally prudent and programmatically responsible for NASA to fund and retain these working and still productive extended missions.”
I believe it is urgent to develop new technologies. If there is money left over, it should be spent. Studies of new propulsion concepts, energy production, for the health of astronauts … I believe it is still absurd to spend money on developing new rockets. Rocket is something prehistoric. I do not know if I’m crazy, or if I have a very advanced view, but I think these rockets, breathing fire by the tail, something really prehistoric. Has been useful, but it is very inefficient if you really want to explore great distances. We need a fast, safe and economical spaceship. Only search solves. Equal to the best science fictions. Orion is a step backwards from the Shuttle. There are only increasing capacity, nothing new. Disappointing.
what would you suggest to use to get to orbit?
I sent a proposal to NASA to a centrifugal inertial propeller, rotor … But it’s been five years since I expect a response. Works perfectly. It is strong, non-polluting, and theoretically inexhaustible, and is reusable …
sounds like the Rotary Rocket, which didn’t do too well…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik…
Seems, but it is not … It’s actually a propeller, which propels the space. The whole drawing is from a helicopter to fly here on Earth and in space. A “Spacehelicopter”. Able to reach unimaginable speeds. Very good, very good, very good. I’ve tried, but I have no “budget” to move forward. And I chose to search for NASA, but I was disappointed because they were not able to answer. I thought I’d look Chinese, but I do not want to do this yet. Generates no air displacement, does not hold in the air, does not pollute, do not waste fuel (can be electric) among other huge advantages … I’d show you the design, if it was not mess up, my negotiations …
a helicopter would not work in space, there’s no air to push around.
My friend, but it is precisely this differential propeller. It is inertial. Far from being a common propeller. It is a propeller, which does not require atmosphere air. You will soon learn, as NASA disclose. I’m giving only an appetizer to stir curiosity.
propellers have to push something. in vacuum there is nothing to push against. sorry, your idea is not physically possible, and therefore has no merit whatsoever, and this is why you have not heard anything back from anyone.
Wow, you give a sentence like that without doing a deep scan? It seems to me that you are one of those who say to the Wright Brothers is impossible a machine heavier than air flying … I hope that these comments are saved forever, for you to carry the weight of having said shit. If you do not know, an inertial propeller does not need air to push. Live and see …
the description you gave of your device is of something which is physically impossible to work.
…a propeller would just spin in space. it would not move a spacecraft. there’s nothing for the blades of the propeller to push against.
Whoever said that has blades?
you did. “centrifugal inertial propeller, rotor”
propellers have blades.
I sent over fifty proposals for NASA. For this reason they are slow to respond.
LOL, you are a kook who keeps harassing them. no wonder they decided not to respond to you.
I think it might be related to this.
http://www.google.com/paten…
for the life of me though, I couldn’t figure out how such a contraption could ‘fly’.
nice find. and you’re right, it wouldn’t work. Inertia can’t be used to “move” something. by definition, it is the tendency of an already-moving object to keep moving, unless an outside force acts on it. inertia is not an outside force!
also… “It will be possible in the future to create propellers which operate in accordance with the above mentioned principles, when the technological level will allow to make rotors rotations having both speed about speed of light and a mass about about a milligram.”
yeah… it’s gotta be this thing. it’s the same level of nuttiness as this guy.
crazy!!
It’s very different …
Works perfectly. It is strong, non-polluting, and theoretically inexhaustible, and is reusable …
Did any of the other ideas you sent to NASA involve tin-foil hats?
I think you’ll need …
Victor, I hope you are just fooling around and that you don’t really think you have something that will work…lol
OMG, what did I start, this is the funniest thing I have ever read on this forum, I’m on the floor laughing so hard I’m crying.
I think Victor is one of the YouTube antigravity crowd inventors.
Opportunity and other spacecraft can not be transferred to the private sector, such as universities and companies?
That’s not a bad idea.