More on the Past and Future of Manned Spaceflight
In response to Russell's recent posting, "Apollo on Steroids", I mentioned that I have, for various reasons and for ten or fifteen years, been gravely dissatisfied with NASA's approach to manned spaceflight. So I am interested to read that the current administrator of NASA shares some of the views that I hold. (No, he doesn't publicly advocate research into nuclear launch vehicles. :^) Click on the image to read about an interview with Michael Griffin.
Griffin's summary quote is, "Only now is the nation's space program getting back on track." I want to agree. At least things are looking up in terms of real plans announced. Let us hope that today's plans come to fruition.
What do you think of this analysis of NASA's post-Apollo record? Is it too harsh? I'll admit that I don't think so.
posted by Unknown @ 7:16 AM
2 Comments:
At 8:34 AM,
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
At 4:32 PM,
R said…
Well, you're not going to get me to contradict my boss on a public blog!
The lore is, NASA went to Nixon during Apollo, with a 3-part plan to get to Mars by 1984. Part 1 was "Apollo applications," which was essentially the kind of program we are starting on now. Part 2 was a Space Station in low Earth orbit, that would serve as a staging post for building up the (nuclear) Mars vehicle. Part 3 was a reusable Space Transportation System, that consisted of a small, lifting body Shuttle for access to space, and an orbital transfer vehicle that would move stuff around once you got there. Nixon supposedly didn't give a damn about NASA, and said, pick one, and by the way, do it for a lot less than you say you need. At the same time, DoD was pushing a program called "DynaSoar" which was a similar lifting body spaceplane that would have been the next logical step after the X-15. NASA and DoD got together, combined these ideas with a "heavy lift" capability that would supposedly be way cheaper than expendable rockets, and out came the Space Shuttle.
It seems clear to most people that this was not the best way to develop a national space policy. I think even critics of our current plans would have to acknowledge that at the least, we are starting out with a more rationale approach than we had in the 70s.
Post a Comment
<< Home