Appropriators Blocking Mars Mission Move, Aviation Week
“This proposal represents a significant deviation from the robotic exploration program plan as it was approved by Congress in NASA’s fiscal year 2012 appropriations, and the committee believes that so radical a change in policy needs and deserves to be fully considered by a process that is more rigorous and more inclusive than” the reprogramming notification, Wolf writes.”
Rep. Schiff Applauds Decision to Reject NASA Request to Divert Mars Funds
“I want to thank Chairman Wolf for rejecting this reprogramming request by NASA,” said Schiff.”NASA’s effort to mothball the Mars program is a disaster for America’s leadership in planetary science, and I’m glad this first step has been rejected by the committee. Thanks to the brilliant scientists at JPL, we have the unique capability to design, fly and land sophisticated robotic spacecraft on our planetary neighbor, and this is not a talent pool NASA should abandon.”
What a shame that so much good work on Mars is going to be delayed or perhaps lost due to SLS and ISS sucking down billions of dollars every year not to mention the money pit that is JWST. NASA seems to be unable to exercise toughness when it comes to cutting a major program that has gotten away on costs and schedule. Add that to the fact that SLS is being forced on NASA for political reasons (and who really thinks it will ever fly??) and is it any wonder that Space exploration and Aeronautics are suffering so badly? Aeronautics is essentially dead with staff and facilities falling further behind and apart.
Even when aeronautics were “less dead”, NASA seemed to just be managing programs and sub-contractors a lot of the time, rather than actually doing the research itself.
Either way, there are a bunch of US airframe manufacturers that have gone belly up and a few that are just hanging on. If NASA doesn’t wake up and ASK them what they need to compete instead of pontificating about superconducting cables to drive electric motors, we may not have any civil aeronautics industry left.
Here in Florida Piper has had to give up on efforts to build a bizjet due to unaffordable R&D costs. Our civic leaders are crowing about getting a final assembly plant for a (quite capable) airliner that is actually manufactured in Brazil. They don’t seem to be worried about what this is doing to our balance of payments. HELLO NASA! America cannot compete with Brazil in building airliners! Forget the superconducting cables! You are not doing your job!
Since when is it NASA’s job to ask companies what NASA can do to help them compete?
“Since when is it NASA’s job to ask companies what NASA can do to help them compete? “
Since 1915, when this agency was founded to save the nascent US aircraft industry, which was getting crushed by foriegn competitors who had government R&D support. NACA was an instrument of US industrial policy, as significant parts of NIH, NIST, NSF DOE and DOD are today.
Show me one line in the National Aeronautics and Space Act where any part of the NACA mission was to be abandoned. Supporting industry is not just our mission, it is our original mission. If the US loses any more high-tech manufacturing for the commercial market, spaceflight will be irrelevant because we won’t be able to afford it.
Fuel burn is *THE* metric as is reduces operational costs and allows companies to sell aircraft.
Various types of aircraft bodies and engines are being studied by NASA and the industry, including turboelectric and even battery powered to reduce fuel burn.
Increasing the bypass ratio, as has been done over decades, has improved efficiency. Limits however have almost been reached since they only way to increase the ratio is to slow the fan down, but since it is directly coupled to the engine, the engine increases in mass, negating the effect. So what is needed is either a gearbox or an electrical “gearbox”.
Unlike the billions being spent on a heavy lift launch vehicle that is not needed, perhaps a million is being spent to examine the key *components* that would enable turboelectric machines to even be considered for next generation aircraft. These components would have numerous other space and terrestrial applications. Unlike SLS, the work is peer reviewed, and the studies indicate significant fuel burn reduction.
[b][url=http://www.mendeley.com/res…][Weights and Efficiencies of Turboelectric Propulsion[/url][/b]
If you have data or other assessments that indicate otherwise, the aero groups and industry would welcome the feedback.
US civil aviation would probably be better served if NACA was spun off from NASA back into it’s own agency.
NASA seemed to just be managing programs and sub-contractors a lot of the time, rather than actually doing the research itself.
The current budget situation would be much better if this was true.
It is well know within the aerospace community that projects directly undertaken by NASA as the prime contractor can cost up to two or three times what they would if private industry was the prime with NASA doing only the necessary contract management.
But that’s not fun, is it? And why would somebody work for NASA if they can’t have fun?
ISS is an ongoing program and serves as a destination for any country or company that is able to reach orbit. We do not know if human spaceflight can be made productive. It is fantasy to suggest that we can afford human spaceflight to Mars if we cannot afford substantial increases in human spaceflight to LEO. The critical lesson we must learn is not whether humans can survive a single Apollo-like sprint to Mars, but rather how humans can afford to maintain long-term habitation in space.