Presidential candidates, as a rule, don’t say much, if anything, about space and other issues on the fringe of a campaign—unless, of course, they’re on the fringe themselves. Case in point: Daniel Imperato, an independent candidate for president, issued a press release decrying plans by China and Russia to cooperate on a robotic Mars mission. So what’s the problem?
This is another sad situation for America because of our lack of dedication to the sciences and space exploration along with political bickering in Washington, D.C. over NASA and budgets. We have allowed ourselves to fall technologically behind other nations, but most importantly, we have turned the collaborative process of space exploration and scientific development into a race of nations. This situation is similar to the space race during the Cold War.
NASA might be surprised to learn that it has fallen victim to “political bickering”, since it’s enjoyed bipartisan support and increasing budgets in a time when many non-defense discretionary agencies have had flat or decreased budgets.
We have allowed ourselves to fall technologically behind other nations, but most importantly, we have turned the collaborative process of space exploration and scientific development into a race of nations.
I’m I reading this correctly? Is he saying that we’re losing the space technological race, but paradoxically shouldn’t treat space exploration as a race?
First off, NASA doesn’t have the budget that it had 5 years ago let alone 10 years ago and 20 years ago. Our committment has waned over the years. Also in regards to the technological race, the cooperative process refers to the fact that all nations should be involved in space exploration. If China and Russia were inclued in our space prgram in the International Space Station (although Russia participates in some ways with our program) we would go a lot further that if the Chinese were to try and top America and do it themselves. The race refers to Chinese seeking to compete with America and our allies and make this a race.
First off, NASA doesn’t have the budget that it had 5 years ago let alone 10 years ago and 20 years ago.
This is correct, but not for the reason you think.
Current-year Constant-year
FY dollars 2007 dollars
1986 $7,403.00 $12,184.56
1996 $13,881.00 $17,326.50
2001 $14,095.00 $16,148.11
2007 req $16,356.00 $16,356.00
NASA’s current budget request is slightly higher than five years ago, and substantially higher than 20 years ago.
There are so many problems with the stick architecture.
1. RSRM Casing.
You can’t use the existing ones because the field joints were never designed to function without the tight coupling with the External Tank. They can’t take the side loads from winds in flight.
2. Thrust Vector Control
The existing TVC system must be completely redesigned as it was never designed for the range of motion that the stick architecture requires.
3. Avionics
What avionics? They have to start from scratch.
4. Systems Engineering
ATK has never lead a systems team for a rocket contract. That is why they are bringing Lockmart in to help them. What you will see is that LM will take over as the systems integrator. When it becomes obvious that the RSRM is useless for the task they can simply slide the uprated EELV under the upper stage. This is the only hope for the effort. Smart move by ATK, smart move by LM. LM gets the stick without fighting the political fight and Boeing gets the shaft.