“would like to tick off a few items of the future mission” “dev/operation of vehicles that can carry cargo/crew through space” “extend/broaden relationship with military services/space industry” “long-range studies of potential benefits.. peaceful scientific purposes.” “large $ spent on R&D contracts…including DOD services (pads)” “launch vehicles to obtain scientific data & to explore the solar system”
In the past, NASA considered all options forward. Now the constraints have been substantially modified and NASA is ignored in the process.
The Act clearly did not envision the artifact of competition without consolidation, nor allowing ‘private’ competition and at the same time prohibiting ‘good or bad’ ‘public’ competition, nor how prohibiting ‘public’ competition can be used to maintain steam engines (stall and delay).
The development of 2004 Space Policy-keep everything separate: 1) the need for two EELV launch families. Shuttle is no good for national security, nor costs. 2) “The Secretary of Defense … shall fund the annual fixed costs for both launch service providers” until 3) “until certifying to President that a capability that reliably provides assured access to space can be maintained without 2 EELV providers.” 4) “Human exploration will not be part EELV requirements. (App B.)”
“we understand that the DOD and NASA believe that separating human rated space exploration from unmanned payload launch will best achieve reliable and affordable assured access to space while maintaining our industrial base in both liquid and solid propulsion launch systems.” 1. DOD/NASA will utilize EELV for all payloads in the 5 to 20 mT class. Per NSPD-40, new commercially developed launch capacities will be allowed to compete. 2. NASA will development Crew LV derived from Space Shuttle solid boosters 20 to 30 mT class.
Solids create multiple configurations and significantly increase crew Launch Abort Mass that drive costs of certification and operations and stymie LV innovation for decades.
NASA Space Act 1958 (8) The most effective utilization of the scientific and engineering resources of the United States, with close cooperation among all interested agencies of the United States in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, facilities, and equipment;
Actually, I thought it wasn’t that bad. Definitely better than the modern practice of flashy graphic and animations to hide a lack of content. (Not that there aren’t some content-rich presentations with flashy graphics.)
Based on a history of the early years of manned spaceflight, NACA was always pronounced by the letters. I was surprised when I read that, about a year ago. I assume Dr. Glennan simply thought it was natural to pronounce NASA the same way. After all, NASA was an outgrowth of NACA. I’m not sure when people started pronouncing NASA as a word. Ironically, we now have the same thing in reverse: Those of us who grew up hearing NASA as a word simply assume that NACA was pronounced that way as well. Languages are full of weird things like that.
“would like to tick off a few items of the future mission”
“dev/operation of vehicles that can carry cargo/crew through space”
“extend/broaden relationship with military services/space industry”
“long-range studies of potential benefits.. peaceful scientific purposes.”
“large $ spent on R&D contracts…including DOD services (pads)”
“launch vehicles to obtain scientific data & to explore the solar system”
In the past, NASA considered all options forward. Now the constraints have been substantially modified and NASA is ignored in the process.
The Act clearly did not envision the artifact of competition without consolidation, nor allowing ‘private’ competition and at the same time prohibiting ‘good or bad’ ‘public’ competition, nor how prohibiting ‘public’ competition can be used to maintain steam engines (stall and delay).
The development of 2004 Space Policy-keep everything separate:
1) the need for two EELV launch families. Shuttle is no good for national security, nor costs.
2) “The Secretary of Defense … shall fund the annual fixed costs for both launch service providers” until
3) “until certifying to President that a capability that reliably provides assured access to space can be maintained without 2 EELV providers.”
4) “Human exploration will not be part EELV requirements. (App B.)”
“we understand that the DOD and NASA believe that separating human rated space exploration from unmanned payload launch will best achieve reliable and affordable assured access to space while maintaining our industrial base in both liquid and solid propulsion launch systems.”
1. DOD/NASA will utilize EELV for all payloads in the 5 to 20 mT class. Per NSPD-40, new commercially developed launch capacities will be allowed to compete.
2. NASA will development Crew LV derived from Space Shuttle solid boosters 20 to 30 mT class.
Solids create multiple configurations and significantly increase crew Launch Abort Mass that drive costs of certification and operations and stymie LV innovation for decades.
NASA Space Act 1958
(8) The most effective utilization of the scientific and engineering resources of the United States, with close cooperation among all interested agencies of the United States in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, facilities, and equipment;
Its so obvious that this guy is not an aerospace professional – how can he possibly lead this agency? I predict NASA will fail under him!
Actually, I thought it wasn’t that bad. Definitely better than the modern practice of flashy graphic and animations to hide a lack of content. (Not that there aren’t some content-rich presentations with flashy graphics.)
Based on a history of the early years of manned spaceflight, NACA was always pronounced by the letters. I was surprised when I read that, about a year ago. I assume Dr. Glennan simply thought it was natural to pronounce NASA the same way. After all, NASA was an outgrowth of NACA. I’m not sure when people started pronouncing NASA as a word. Ironically, we now have the same thing in reverse: Those of us who grew up hearing NASA as a word simply assume that NACA was pronounced that way as well. Languages are full of weird things like that.