Comments on: The new NASA http://www.opennasa.com/2010/02/01/the-new-nasa/ Your NASA, My NASA, OUR NASA Thu, 23 Jun 2011 16:14:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Tweets that mention Open NASA » The new NASA -- Topsy.com http://www.opennasa.com/2010/02/01/the-new-nasa/comment-page-1/#comment-44277 Tweets that mention Open NASA » The new NASA -- Topsy.com Fri, 05 Feb 2010 17:01:44 +0000 http://www.opennasa.com/?p=1539#comment-44277 [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Nicholas Skytland, ali llewellyn, Evadot.com, Willis L.Miller, john darvie and others. john darvie said: "a much needed course correction" right on! RT @SpaceTweeps New openNASA post: The new NASA http://bit.ly/bc6se1 [...] [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Nicholas Skytland, ali llewellyn, Evadot.com, Willis L.Miller, john darvie and others. john darvie said: "a much needed course correction" right on! RT @SpaceTweeps New openNASA post: The new NASA http://bit.ly/bc6se1 [...]

]]> By: Justin http://www.opennasa.com/2010/02/01/the-new-nasa/comment-page-1/#comment-44259 Justin Thu, 04 Feb 2010 23:40:39 +0000 http://www.opennasa.com/?p=1539#comment-44259 Everything I have heard from people in the know leads me to believe that this is about putting NASA on a sustainable human exploration path, not a gambit to shut us down. If the latter was the case, why extend ISS to at least 2020 (and, quite possibly, 2028)? Everything I have heard from people in the know leads me to believe that this is about putting NASA on a sustainable human exploration path, not a gambit to shut us down. If the latter was the case, why extend ISS to at least 2020 (and, quite possibly, 2028)?

]]> By: Becca http://www.opennasa.com/2010/02/01/the-new-nasa/comment-page-1/#comment-44250 Becca Thu, 04 Feb 2010 13:53:32 +0000 http://www.opennasa.com/?p=1539#comment-44250 Justin, maybe I'm just jaded, because it could be that, really it could. Or it could be away to bring the slow political death of manned exploration. E.G. this year NASA has some tim eto think about new technologies, next yaer the administration can say "NASA's not really doing anything, so let's slashed their manned spaceflight budget, these are hard times and all." Justin, maybe I’m just jaded, because it could be that, really it could. Or it could be away to bring the slow political death of manned exploration. E.G. this year NASA has some tim eto think about new technologies, next yaer the administration can say “NASA’s not really doing anything, so let’s slashed their manned spaceflight budget, these are hard times and all.”

]]> By: Justin http://www.opennasa.com/2010/02/01/the-new-nasa/comment-page-1/#comment-44236 Justin Wed, 03 Feb 2010 23:57:39 +0000 http://www.opennasa.com/?p=1539#comment-44236 Perhaps I should have phrased the question better. I understand why those things are important. As you said, they provide context. What I meant to ask is why we have to have those answers right now. It seems clear to me, as I discuss in my most recent post, that we are being chartered to determine simultaneously what breakthrough exploration capabilities we can investigate and the missions those innovations will enable. Perhaps I should have phrased the question better.

I understand why those things are important. As you said, they provide context.

What I meant to ask is why we have to have those answers right now.

It seems clear to me, as I discuss in my most recent post, that we are being chartered to determine simultaneously what breakthrough exploration capabilities we can investigate and the missions those innovations will enable.

]]> By: Becca http://www.opennasa.com/2010/02/01/the-new-nasa/comment-page-1/#comment-44235 Becca Wed, 03 Feb 2010 23:35:33 +0000 http://www.opennasa.com/?p=1539#comment-44235 I struggled with the same question - why is direction, destination and target dates important if we can just do R&D? Because it gives the R&D context. Do I design my closed life support system to support 5 or 20 people? Do I spend 20 years working on a plasma propulsion system taht can get me to Mars in 2 weeks, or is a 10 years design that can accomplis a 4 week transfer time good enough? How big should my lunar rover be - should it be like the rovers in Armageddon or does it need to be confined to 500 lbs? If it needs to be light and small, it might drive me to be innovative in a different way than if it needs to carry 8 astronauts. Does my new thermal protection system design need to survive a lunar skip entry or a Mars entry or an entry from low earth orbit? Those are all different heating environments, where do I focus on? Does my in space fuel depot have to be sized for lunar missions or missions to Moons of Jupiter? Innovation does not come without context. Innovation, by definition, comes to creatively solve problems. Why was Apollo so innovative? Because in the span of 9 years, tons of things had to be accomplished that we had no idea how to do and a time limit in which to accomplish them. Necessity is the mother of invention, right? What do you think wouldv'e happened if JFK's goal had been to "put man on a moon sometime in the next century, you know whenever you guys are ready"? I'm an engineer, I believe in the power of paralysis by analysis. Destinations, targets, goals force invention. Just throwing money at people and telling them to "research cool stuff" probably results in some cool stuff being developed, but of questionable usefulness. I am excited, truly excited about the prospect of commercial crew access to low earth orbit. I am not excited about NASA turning into an R&D and contract monitor firm with no mission. I struggled with the same question – why is direction, destination and target dates important if we can just do R&D? Because it gives the R&D context.

Do I design my closed life support system to support 5 or 20 people? Do I spend 20 years working on a plasma propulsion system taht can get me to Mars in 2 weeks, or is a 10 years design that can accomplis a 4 week transfer time good enough? How big should my lunar rover be – should it be like the rovers in Armageddon or does it need to be confined to 500 lbs? If it needs to be light and small, it might drive me to be innovative in a different way than if it needs to carry 8 astronauts. Does my new thermal protection system design need to survive a lunar skip entry or a Mars entry or an entry from low earth orbit? Those are all different heating environments, where do I focus on? Does my in space fuel depot have to be sized for lunar missions or missions to Moons of Jupiter?

Innovation does not come without context. Innovation, by definition, comes to creatively solve problems. Why was Apollo so innovative? Because in the span of 9 years, tons of things had to be accomplished that we had no idea how to do and a time limit in which to accomplish them. Necessity is the mother of invention, right? What do you think wouldv’e happened if JFK’s goal had been to “put man on a moon sometime in the next century, you know whenever you guys are ready”?

I’m an engineer, I believe in the power of paralysis by analysis. Destinations, targets, goals force invention. Just throwing money at people and telling them to “research cool stuff” probably results in some cool stuff being developed, but of questionable usefulness.

I am excited, truly excited about the prospect of commercial crew access to low earth orbit. I am not excited about NASA turning into an R&D and contract monitor firm with no mission.

]]> By: 62 Mile Club » Additional articles on changes @ NASA http://www.opennasa.com/2010/02/01/the-new-nasa/comment-page-1/#comment-44227 62 Mile Club » Additional articles on changes @ NASA Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:19:39 +0000 http://www.opennasa.com/?p=1539#comment-44227 [...] The New NASA, Open NASA. [...] [...] The New NASA, Open NASA. [...]

]]> By: uberVU - social comments http://www.opennasa.com/2010/02/01/the-new-nasa/comment-page-1/#comment-44224 uberVU - social comments Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:47:44 +0000 http://www.opennasa.com/?p=1539#comment-44224 <strong>Social comments and analytics for this post...</strong> This post was mentioned on Twitter by apoll01: "a much needed course correction" right on! RT @SpaceTweeps New openNASA post: The new NASA http://bit.ly/bc6se1... Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by apoll01: “a much needed course correction” right on! RT @SpaceTweeps New openNASA post: The new NASA http://bit.ly/bc6se1...

]]> By: Justin http://www.opennasa.com/2010/02/01/the-new-nasa/comment-page-1/#comment-44218 Justin Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:54:03 +0000 http://www.opennasa.com/?p=1539#comment-44218 Initially, that is the primary goal of commercialization. We give them a ready destination, a cargo and/or passenger requirement, and tell them to figure out how to do it safely for the cost we're willing to pay. The thinking, though, is that this will free NASA to focus on fundamental research, R&D, and innovation to figure out the most sustainable way to explore the rest of the solar system. It's not like the Ares rockets were actually going to be getting us anywhere any time soon. Initially, that is the primary goal of commercialization. We give them a ready destination, a cargo and/or passenger requirement, and tell them to figure out how to do it safely for the cost we’re willing to pay.

The thinking, though, is that this will free NASA to focus on fundamental research, R&D, and innovation to figure out the most sustainable way to explore the rest of the solar system. It’s not like the Ares rockets were actually going to be getting us anywhere any time soon.

]]> By: BHL http://www.opennasa.com/2010/02/01/the-new-nasa/comment-page-1/#comment-44217 BHL Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:34:32 +0000 http://www.opennasa.com/?p=1539#comment-44217 Justin, I wish I were as optomistic as you. My concern is that commercialization is only good for going up/down to/from ISS. Commercialization advocates like to use the airline industry as an pro-argument, however it's apples and oranges as a plane can ferry the public from A to B. In this case there's no real A to B for the public using the type of commercial vehicle NASA needs to shuttle to ISS. My bigger concern is over the R&D without a lcak of a defined goal. If the economy does an about face and the budget gets under control, then perhaps the public won't mind the R&D for some years. Eventually though, there has to be a goal. And if the economy doesn't turn around.... Ares 1 may have been a poor decision. Fine, kill it that and go back to a liquid fuel HLV and return to the moon and establish an outpost. As it stands now, the future of manned space has become a crap shoot with poor odds. Justin,
I wish I were as optomistic as you. My concern is that commercialization is only good for going up/down to/from ISS. Commercialization advocates like to use the airline industry as an pro-argument, however it’s apples and oranges as a plane can ferry the public from A to B. In this case there’s no real A to B for the public using the type of commercial vehicle NASA needs to shuttle to ISS.

My bigger concern is over the R&D without a lcak of a defined goal. If the economy does an about face and the budget gets under control, then perhaps the public won’t mind the R&D for some years. Eventually though, there has to be a goal. And if the economy doesn’t turn around….

Ares 1 may have been a poor decision. Fine, kill it that and go back to a liquid fuel HLV and return to the moon and establish an outpost. As it stands now, the future of manned space has become a crap shoot with poor odds.

]]> By: Justin http://www.opennasa.com/2010/02/01/the-new-nasa/comment-page-1/#comment-44216 Justin Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:31:05 +0000 http://www.opennasa.com/?p=1539#comment-44216 ISS through 2020 and even later, if feasible. The other destinations will be determined by what capabilities we can build. The commercial space effort is entirely geared towards human crew and cargo to LEO. My understanding is that NASA will spearhead exploration research, in partnership with other entities. I am not aware of Buzz having any commercial interest in this decision, though he has been an ardent critic of the "Apollo on steroids" architecture for some time. ISS through 2020 and even later, if feasible. The other destinations will be determined by what capabilities we can build. The commercial space effort is entirely geared towards human crew and cargo to LEO. My understanding is that NASA will spearhead exploration research, in partnership with other entities. I am not aware of Buzz having any commercial interest in this decision, though he has been an ardent critic of the “Apollo on steroids” architecture for some time.

]]>