Comments on: Congressional town hall meeting at JPL

By: Harold LaValley

Harold LaValley — Sun, 30 May 2004 02:52:36 +0000

2004 Workshop
JUNE 15-16, WASHINGTON HILTON, WASHINGTON, DC

To kickoff Centennial Challenges, NASA’s new program of prize contests, NASA will host a workshop on June 15-16 in Washington, DC. The purpose of the workshop is to:

Gather ideas for Challenges,

Develop rules for specific Challenges and gauge competitor interest in various potential Challenges, and Promote competitor teaming.

This workshop will be a key input into Centennial Challenges planning, helping to determine what specific Challenge competitions NASA announces in 2004 and 2005 and the rules of those competitions. All potential Centennial Challenge competitors, including interested members of industry, academia, students, and the general public, are invited to attend.

http://centennialchallenges.nasa.gov/workshop.htm

By: Kevin Parkin

Kevin Parkin — Fri, 28 May 2004 09:07:57 +0000

Harold, The aforementioned propulsion system is more akin to a nuclear thermal rocket in the way it works. I was considering writing a more widely accessible article in the summer, but in the meantime the papers are here: http://monolith.caltech.edu/html/Publications.html As I alluded to earlier, securing funding is my #1 priority. At the moment I don't own enough of my own time to do research or write papers and articles on rockets, propulsion, or on-orbit assembly. This is the state of university funding in space research today.

By: Harold LaValley

Harold LaValley — Fri, 28 May 2004 01:22:32 +0000

I would love to here more about these items though I have nothing to do with Nasa they sound very interesting “Microwave Thermal Rocket, the Microwave Thermal Thruster, and a new of very simple approach to on-orbit assembly using nylon.”

I am assuming the microwave thermal thuster is some what like a ION drive engine but with less over head/ wieght.

By: Kevin Parkin

Kevin Parkin — Fri, 28 May 2004 00:23:33 +0000

Yes, I have personal experience with the “not invented here” and a number of other maladaptive mentalities at NASA. In March I had the misfortune of encountering most of them together in a single code T representative.

The remarks of this particular individual were so inflammatory and sensitive that I dare not give an account publicly until I’ve consulted a lawyer.

Suffice it to say I failed to secure NASA funding for the Microwave Thermal Rocket, the Microwave Thermal Thruster, and a new of very simple approach to on-orbit assembly using nylon – a concept I hope to write more about in the summer, if I can find funding to keep me going.

The latter concept the representative didn’t even want to hear about. So, this diabolical individual I regard as my canary: I will know NASA reforms are for real when this person no longer has a job, or is put in a role where he can no longer strangle innovation.

By: Harold LaValley

Harold LaValley — Thu, 27 May 2004 21:03:22 +0000

Good for private enterprise but Nasa will still need to deal with the not invented here mentality for it to have a lasting effect on the space programs and of exploration.

By: Phil Smith

Phil Smith — Thu, 27 May 2004 20:37:38 +0000

I would agree with that statement. The Centennial Challenge is a major step forward, and I hope it remains a long-running program open to new ideas. It represents the essence of innovation, inspiration, and freedom, ideals NASA should follow whole-heartedly.

By: Centennial Challenges

Centennial Challenges — Thu, 27 May 2004 02:31:24 +0000

The federally funded inducement prize is a good compromise between government and private industry. The government does what it does best–raise capital–and private industry does what it does best–compete.

By: Perry Noriega

Perry Noriega — Wed, 26 May 2004 19:27:00 +0000

At the meeting at JPL concerning how to implement President Bush’s vision for space to the general public outside the space community, and to those members of the space community who are skeptical to prejudicially rejective of any change in space policy and programs that might affect their money trough, well, I have news for you, things have changed, and are changing, so get used to it. The Columbia accident and the investigation into its causes in NASA, the utterly ignominious infighting and ineffectiveness displayed at the World Space Congress in the fall of 2002, and the US Aerospace Commission’s findings all point to the need for either change in how we conduct space in the US, or declare what we’ve done a flat failure, and cede leadership to the Chinese, Russians, Europeans, or others who have more discipline, include everyone in deciding what to do in such a way as to change our ways, and just go out and do it.
I would like to see the space community become a lot more activist for space, in every sense of the word. Instead of having NASA’s Jim Garvin state he is “not political”, let him take a stand, and be way more activist and militant for space. And I mean converged, metadisciplinary, cooperative between robots and human beings activist, and hit the wimpy,”well-I just don’t know whether or not space is really worth it” wimps right between the eyes, like they deserve, like they’ve deserved for too many years to count, and take a stand for space that does not shift with the political winds.
Too many space activists of either major political party need to get some huevos, and take a stand that is firm, and trump politics as it is, instead of allowing party to trump space as it has been till now. One of the ways to be a leader is to do things others are afraid to do, and that involves going where no one has gone before, including taking a stand for converged space. This would demonstrate once and for all that space development/settlement is bigger than politics as we have practiced it till now, space can stand on its own and win battles for hearts and minds out in the general public, and those that favor space taking its rightful place amongst the issues discussed and decided on these latter days aren’t going to wimp out, back down, and take no for an answer to doing anything in space any more. This applies to Bush’s vision for space and going to Mars, back to the Moon, or anywhere else. Space needs activists, militants, showmen, hustlers, like any other successful movement has done for three decades or more, and we as a converged, diverse, activist space community won’t settle for second place in the scheme of things anymore.
By the way, for you Kevin Parkin, going into finance might be the best thing you could do for the future of space, as our past ways of getting money for space via conventional methods are as dead as Joseph Stalin’s grandmother, or treasury department surpluses, it is dead. We need new thinking concerning how to raise the huge sums of capital for space that also involves the common man and woman in doing as much as possible in space, and most of all, settling the property rights and inclusive problems space development /settlement has been crippled by for decades, and just do it. Go into finance Kevin, and show us how we can raise money for space outside conventional means, which don’t work, and find or invent new ways to fund it that do work.

By: Phil Smith

Phil Smith — Wed, 26 May 2004 16:53:04 +0000

Thanks, Kevin, for the details. As I suspected would be the case, I didn’t miss anything.

As for the Jesus freak and her comments, all I can say is that for complicated reasons, space somehow attracts both the eccentric and the dull, but not the average citizen (not in a sustained, meanigful way, in any event). What we need is a reasoned approach to the exploration and exploitation of space, something I have not seen during my lifetime.

By: Harold LaValley

Harold LaValley — Wed, 26 May 2004 12:57:35 +0000

I would like to say thank you Kevin, on the excellent and well written minutes to this meeting. I myself wanted to watch but was not able to due to the time of broadcast.