NASA lost a lot of rockets in the first years of their existence.

Even Space Shuttle had a 1.5% overall failure rate.

@ U.S.'76: Your optimism is inspiring…

You also have to remember that many of these employees at Blue Origin, SpaceX, and Orbital Sciences Corp either came from NASA, or one of the big aerospace companies like Boeing or Lockheed Martin.

It's not like these companies are starting their learning curves from square one.

I hope the music doesn't fall out of the cloud.

juliop

Guess all the "for-profit" airlines in the U.S. better fold up their tents, that is according to UnderStates1776

None of those "for-profit" airlines develop and build their own airplanes. It is a sad day for this country that our best efforts for space flight have been turned over to a bunch of rich "hobbyists" in the deserts of the American Southwest.

Terry - Way to miss the point. Private companies build the airplanes. These rich 'hobbyists' are the next generation of space flight. NASA has the unfortunate downside of being given a new direction every 4 - 8 years, which is horrible for long term space flight goals. These private companies won't have to worry about that, are creating a lot of new jobs here in the US, and will be selling their services to multiple large corporations and countries which will bring in more cash for this country.

And take out a few bored billionaire space tourists too, woo hoo!

The National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC is filled from floor to ceiling with artifacts that the wisest people in the industry (at the time) stated "That will never fly ... that will never work" as well as a variety of other negative remarks. Note that they've had to go through several expansions to host exhibits of more things "that will never work".

It is unfortunate, but true that we often learn more from failures than successes. I am far more more gratified that Blue Origin tried, failed, and learned from something that they had never tried before than if they had not tried at all. We are watching, and some of us are fortunate enough to participate in, history being made. It isn't always pretty and certainly not perfect, but the pace is picking up. Condolences on the loss of your hardware, but congratulations on getting as far as you have - I look forward to your next flight Blue Origin.

I doubt if these for profit space companies will ever have as much waste and as NASA

Brokinarrow

Terry - Way to miss the point. Private companies build the airplanes.

Nope, Brokinarrow, I didn't miss the point, I just made one.

Turning our space technology future over to "for profit" companies is not in the best interest of this country. It is like outsourcing the Army or Air Force. Just not a good idea. Would you like "Black Water Security Solutions" handling all our military needs too?

Turning our space technology future over to "for profit" companies is not in the best interest of this country.

Here's a simple question: "why?"

It is no way analogous to national defense.

How would it hurt our country?

Boom, I would never be able to explain to you "why". It would be like trying to explain to an armadillo why he should not play in the road. You could talk to the armadillo until you grew old and died he would still not understand and would still die in the road.

Boom, I would never be able to explain to you "why".

That's because you have no answer. In a sense, I expected this -- that you would have no idea why you believe what you believe.

You could talk to the armadillo until you grew old and died he would still not understand and would still die in the road.

So, since you are incapable of answering you attack my intelligence. That only speaks volumes about yours and your character.

How disappointing.

Emo-Eating Possum

@ U.S.'76: Your optimism is inspiring…

Optimism works great for children, salespeople, executives and motivational speakers for sales people and executives.....but for people who actually accomplish things? Not so much...

Allowing for-profit companies to handle the more mundane aspects of space travel such as satellite launches and re-supply missions will allow the government run administrations such as NASA to commit their shrinking funds solely for science, which is really what they exist for in the first place. It also bears mentioning that this will eventually lead to a new American industry that the entire world will come to for business. Need a satellite launched? Call these guys. And with regards to the crash... Prototype airplanes go down all the time. Ever try to build an orbital rocket? I'm not surprised there was a problem. There will be more. But that's the nature of developing a new technology such as this. We just have to be brave enough to carry on.

atypical.georgian

Allowing for-profit companies to handle the more mundane aspects of space travel

I agree with you. NASA never built the rockets they used in the first place, nor did they build the space shuttles. The shuttles were built by one company and another built the SRB boosters plus there were numerous subcontractors for all the other parts. They were built to NASA specifications and were built by numerous Aerospace companies. NASA just needs to remain in the fore front of the the portions that are crucial to our national security, and insure that we do not become a second tier player.

I'd just like to see NASA get the funding to pursue robotic missions to the moons of Saturn and Jupiter while possibly looking into manned missions to Mars. The orbital stuff is frankly boring, and fails to inspire the public. Oh yay...another supply mission to the ISS.... I'd like to see something a little more ambitious come out of NASA. At least for the time being we have the MSL and New Horizons.

atypical.georgian said:

I'd just like to see NASA get the funding to pursue robotic missions to the moons of Saturn and Jupiter while possibly looking into manned missions to Mars.

As one guy from NASA said in an interview, funding is very political and they expect to have their programs funded again in the future.

I am confident that NASA will continue their grandest projects and recover whatever funding they will need for their projects, eventually.

I believe that Europe will get a mission, but we already have recent missions to both jupiter and Saturn.

As for Mars, I wouldn't want to get involved in that unless there was guaranteed a multiyear commitment that will last beyond a change in presidency or congressional balance. Otherwise the goal will never be achieved.

I wonder sometimes about how far Apollo would have gotten if it wasn't for Kennedy being assassinated. Would the political will in congress be there?

europa rather. :P

There have been very few missions to the moons of Saturn and Jupiter save flybys by deep space probes. I want to see landers. Europa is of prime importance because of its possible liquid ocean, but there are many others out there that we have scarcely more than a picture of. And I agree totally with the belief that we need a multi year commitment to Mars exploration if we decide to pursue it. It shouldn't be like apollo where they land, grab a few rocks, and leave. I am just of the belief that if we were actually to put forth our capabilities we could and would truly surprise ourselves with what we find... And furthering the knowledge of all mankind MUST be the most important and worthwhile thing we could possibly do.

atypical

if you have the cash. though a lander really doesn't do much. That is like saying that I am going to have a lander land on earth in Kabul and say that earth is largely uninhabitable. Orbital in most cases for this really are a better option.

Cash wise, it would be EXTREMELY expensive because each planet would require its own design as the environment is very different between say Io and Europa, etc...

I'm looking for knowledge, not a place to colonize. You can't put a price on that. But lander or orbital is really irrelevant. Save a couple of scant missions, there have been nothing but flybys out there. You wouldn't learn much about Earth by snapping a picture from a million miles away. Same concept applies here.

You think Gallileo and Cassini were just flyby's?

I'm just saying. Jupiter has 64 confirmed moons. Saturn has 62. It just seems to me that to not pursue exploration of these worlds when we have the resources is completely shameful. And Galileo dropped a probe into Jupiter's atmosphere. With regards to the moons, yes. It was a flyby. Cassini barely scratched the surface of what there is to know. These were the scant missions I referred to in my previous post.

And the reason why it has that number of confirmed moons is because of the probes we have sent to those planets. Now the other part is that a lot of those moons are extremely small, essentially boulders. They are of very little interest to anyone.

There are a few "rocks" out there, sure. But there are "worlds" too. Worlds that we know little to nothing about. Throughout history curiosity has been a fundamental part of human nature. I just hate being part of the generation that sees it die. There isn't really much else to say. You have your opinion, and I have mine.

Ebay has better rockets.

Yeah, they do. But the shipping will kill ya.

"The government should have a share in the profits."

Um, they do, Antone. It's called...taxes.

(Of the Corporate Income variety. They make money, they render a piece of it unto the IRS. Where have you been?)

Blue Origins was awarded $3.7 million (not "billions") in funding from NASA under the Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) program for development of a 'pusher' launch abort system (LAS), which is completely unrelated to this vehicle.

Good catch, thanks for the clarification Alan. I always enjoy your articles btw.

Without knowing many details about the configuration of this vehicle, other than being an RP-1 / H2O2 system single stage VTOL, you can see the potential for similar systems being shared among their pusher LAS or even a future lander.

Another important thing to note on that 22 million - Blue Origin has not been given that money yet. They have a series of milestones to accomplish. If they succeed and provide satisfactory results to NASA, for each milestone there is a certain dollar amount given. If they fail, they do not get paid. It's the way government procurement SHOULD be done - fixed dollar amounts for fixed goals - if costs run over the company eats the bill, so they are incentivized to keeps costs under control.

Blue Origin is a privately owned company, it's their money, so who are we to object?

As far as NASA heavy lift development goes, NASA wouldn't have to change directions so often if congress would actually fund the projects they mandate to the point where they could actually get done in the timeframe and to the specifications that congress requires. Obama cut Constellation because it was either cancel it or fund it adequately... and spending increases are kinda hard to come by these days.

Yeah, actually the private space companies are a lot more efficient on money. And seeing as this is the first mishap this company has had, not that big of a deal. Space X is also doing extremely well with a planned rendezvous of it's Dragon capsule with the ISS in late November.

cjsks

That was sort of my point. While I understand that spending increases are hard to get in these days; it was a waste of money that was already spent to just cancel the program. It might have been money well spent to fund it. Now we are starting over again and if history repeats itself we will get part way and spend billions and then cancel another program. If we had stayed the course, overall we most likely would have spent less.

As to the point of being private companies and it being their money, you are right....who are we to object...its not our money (unless you invested in it).

Orion (MPCV), J-2X, and the 5-seg SRB are being continued/retained from Constellation, so it's not as if we are actually starting all over. Ares-I would not have flown crew until 2017-2019 and Ares-V had become little more than a pipe dream.

SLS was the right way to go, however I have issues with the 130mt requirement as I've explained in other comments.

now we just need to actually have a payload for SLS. Nothing is on the drawing board, and considering the timeline to develop these payloads, that just means that SLS is just going to sit on the shelf, probably to the point of it not being useful at all (no launches means no supply chain to keep active).

This isn't an 'if you build it they will come' situation. First they need to identify some payloads, not necessarily enough to financially justify the rocket development, but at least something. Haven't seen that yet.

Pippo, NASA won't fly me into space at any price. Take a look around, there are plenty of other high-end products and services out there that only a handful of us can afford...but they employ plenty of not wealthy people, and at least have the possibility of becoming cheaper over time.

"Think: They want to develope rocket powered space vehicles that will carry people. Hasn't NASA been doing that for more than half a century?"

Yes. And I refer you back to my first sentence. NASA isn't, and indeed should not be a commercial entity. I don't expect the USAF to fly me anywhere, either.

Pippo, it's free enterprise. Private companies are free to develop these vehicles as they wish (in accordance with whatever legal guidelines). It is not for us to question. I for one am grateful for anyone helping to push space exploration technology forward.

ugh, pleeease do some research before you let your mouth fly. Most of these private companies are not in this for space tourism. Space X, Blue Origin, and Bigelow Aerospace are all companies that are aiming to provide access to Lower Earth Orbit (and possibly Greater Earth Orbit later) to other countries and large corporations for research purposes. This will both create a lot of jobs here in the US and draw a lot of cash in from outside the country.

Note also that they will be gaining unprecedented flight time in a region of the atmosphere that in the last 100+ years of aviation and space exploration, we have spent very little time. This will be crucial in future vehicle development, environmental studies, strategic defense, and could lead to other commercial opportunities.

cjsks, It may be free enterprise, but I have a right to question anything that is funded with taxpayer money regardless of return or benefit.

pitot,

I have a right to question anything that is funded with taxpayer money regardless of return or benefit.

Moot point, because the New Shepard is not funded with taxpayer money. Bezos started Blue Origin in 2000, but they have only just begun recieving some funding from NASA in 2010 specifically for a LAS not directly related to this vehicle.

NASA's investment into Blue Origin absolutely pales in comparison to what Blue Origin has invested in itself.

Also, see post #3.5 above: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/02/7577771-amazoncoms-jeff-bezos-reports-crash-of-blue-origin-rocket-ship?threadId=3213990&commentId=57719150#c57675941

if we are to remain a great nation worthy of the adulation of future generations.

Yup, it's all about the adulation

"I wish Jeff Bezos, and all of these private space companies, well in their very difficult endeavor to duplicate what NASA has been doing in LEO for the last 50 years."

Don't confuse 'duplicate' with 'building on.' High-risk aerospace R&D for military and commercial use is one of the things that NASA is for.

Well, Doug, it sure beats the reproach of future generations. Greatness or oblivion - it is our choice. I say go for greatness. A thousand years from now virtually none of our descendants will remember anything about 9/11, our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or our current economic recession but every school child will remember the names of Christopher Columbus, Yuri Gagarin, Neil Armstrong, and the name of the first person to set foot on the surface of Mars. They will remember, and take inspiration to go on and do even greater things, even as we have been inspired by the exploits of those who came before us.

Thank you Frank Glover, I stand corrected.

Stan, I am with you for the most part. However I do not buy into the notion that SLS needs to be a 130mt behemoth. I believe it was Augustine's commission that determined the sweet spot for cost vs. capability is likely somewhere in the neighborhood of 75mt.

The 130mt figure was determined by a few key members in the Senate who were "informed" by their space industry constituents/lobbyists that it would basically ensure certain components would be needed, such as the J-2X and ATK's 5-segment SRB. Keeping the fat cats fat.

I'm all for a NASA developing a sustainable core heavy lift vehicle for years to come (like DIRECT's J-130 at 70mt and J-246 at 110mt), but I fear that the 130mt to LEO requirement will be a self-defeating. Hope for the best but expect the worst.

I just wish one of these companies would figure out a way other than rockets to get us into space. Even after these companies get up and running and competition and technological innovation drive down launch costs, rockets are STILL way out of the average persons price range. If we can get the launch costs down to even $100 per pound we can start getting some serious infrastructure built up there.

Yes, we can achieve $100 per pound in launch costs by going to the type of nuclear thermal rocket engines that were already successfully developed by Westinghouse Electric and Aerojet General under the NERVA program between 1955 and 1973. The much higher energy density of NTR delivers both high thrust and high specific impulse in the range of 850-1000 seconds. We already spent $145 billion on the technology at that time (equivalent to $4.5 billion today). It is already there and waiting whenever we choose to go forward with it again. Using a NASA mission architecture designed by Wernher von Braun, NASA was planning the first human Mars mission targeted to fly way back in 1981 but President Nixon canceled the program in 1973, one year after canceling the additional planned Apollo lunar missions.

Even without NTR, however, using existing chemical rocket technology the reason I advocate 130 metric tons to LEO capability is because it is the minimum lift capability required to enable a Mars Direct mission architecture such as that advocated so eloquently by Dr. Robert Zubrin in his book "The Case for Mars, The Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why we Must." This book exhibits clear thinking, a focused mission and a plan having low annual costs that are roughly equivalent to those recently spent on Space Shuttle operations in LEO. We can do this guys. It does not require any new technologies not yet invented. There are no insurmountable engineering challenges. It is not too expensive to afford amid our current economic challenges. There is only a lack of political will. That is the greatest challenge before us. It is up to us to decide whether we are up to that challenge.

Stan, I think there must be something missing from your formula, which identifies only 'political will' as the limiting factor.

I saw Neil deGrasse Tyson on the Stewart or Colbert show, saying that he would readily volunteer for a suicide mission to be the first, or among the first persons, to walk on Mars. I'm sure such a mission could be accomplished - possibly rather easily, from a technical standpoint - but to me, the idea indicates a kind of rift in the mind of whomever conceives of it: if you can't bring all of your humanity along for the ride, including your desire to live, then you're simply leaving too much behind. Perhaps the 'mass psyche' of the human race isn't ready for this, until the success of a round-trip can be guaranteed with about as much probability as it was with Apollo.

I don't think your word 'adulation' was chosen by mistake, but I think being the hero or heroes is less a factor in these explorations than that word implies. Going to the moon (or going to Mars) is, or would be, a point of pride for the entire species, not just for those who actually perform the feat.

I agree with your point that this is not about individual accomplishment but about our accomplishments as an entire species, and which nation within that species leads the way. I am not in favor of one-way missions to Mars. There is no need for that. If Christopher Columbus had made a one way trip to America no one would even have known about it. It was the transAtlantic trade that his voyage enabled that changed the course of history. It is absolutely essential to develop a vigorous strategy for moving humans back and forth between the two planets from the very beginning. It is the essence of Dr. Robert Zubrin's "Mars Direct" mission architecture that I strongly support.

And yes, it is political will. When the Chinese emperor called his vast treasure fleet home from the Indian Ocean during the Ming Dynasty, declaring there was nothing of value to be obtained or learned from the outside world, he initiated a period of prolonged isolationism. That political failure to pursue the opportunities before him in his own time doomed his heirs to fall under the domination of the European colonial empires that reached Asia in the 16th century. Though the Chinese had invented gunpowder, by the 19th Century the Chinese lay prostrate before the British gunboats that battered them into submission and dismembered their once great empire into various "spheres of influence" during the First and Second Opium Wars in the 1830s and 1850s and triggered the series events that ultimately ended their once great empire in 1911.

Well, everyone who's honest would agree that walking on Mars, and returning to Earth, would be an amazing achievement in and of itself, and very desirable to accomplish. I would think that an Apollo 8 type adventure (to Mars) would go a long way toward getting people excited about it, and getting them believing the whole thing is doable.

StanUlam.

You do realize that the facility that tested NERVA is still off limits (similar to the restrictions placed around the Chernobyl reactor) because of high radioactivity?

The NERVA rocket was NEVER intended to be used to launch a payload into orbit, but was instead intended to be used as an upper stage, to be used once a payload was in orbit.

There is no way under any circumstances should a nuclear powered rocket ever be ignited within the earths atmosphere, hence it will never bring the costs of launching a rocket down to the 100/pound range.

The other part of that, in my mind bogus, figure is what year's dollars should that be quoted in. People talk about the space shuttle costing too much, but they are quoting the estimate in 1971 dollars (the initial NASA estimates were based on FY1971 dollars), and not correcting them for inflation in current dollars.

Doug

The orbital mechanics for such a mission would be fairly complicated because by the time that the vehicle arrived at mars, the earth would no longer be in a position for a return flight. That would require the crew to stay at mars for a long time, or be in flight for a very long time. If you are going to spend the time in mars' orbit, you might as well land and do some science rather than sit in mars' orbit or float on a long return journey.

It just isn't the moon, the logistics are completely different.

Waaaah, waaah, yo dude, how about you DOING something and not just crying?

When a commercial airliner flier non-stop from NYC to Paris, is it merely 'duplicating' what Lindbergh did?

Or could there be a slight difference in the intent and capability of their respective airplanes...?

acehighstr,

now a scientists can say at a party " I know where we came from." we spent trillions of dollars to know that.

Hey Ace (my dog's name!) - Just to address a common misconception in your post, NASA has spent roughly $413 billion in ALL of it's existence (from 1958 - present day). That's much less than what our military spends in a single year.

I am grateful for what they have done for our country (far more than just putting a few footprints on the Moon). Many of the technologies we enjoy today were enabled by NASA, as well as most of what we know about the universe, and for all of the Earth and Solar monitoring services that they provide everyday.

Get'im cj!!

cjsks -

I think if you really dig deep, you'll find that the real cost of the space shuttle alone was more like one TRILLION dollars. While I'm not adverse to this country's investment in space (hey, look at all the great things it's brought us, like teenage girls using their cell phones to drive distracted and killing people, or filling up the space around the planet with tons of weather satellite-destroying debris), what I'd really like to see is our tax money invested in a humanly-useful project, like say, some mass people mover that doesn't involve people frequently ending up as tiny charred bits of debris in smoldering holes in the ground. I was just down at the last launch of the space shuttle and the NASA PR guy was all aglow with talk about going to Mars. Great. Give me one good reason why. So billionaires will have some place to escape to (if they can get past the space debris field) after they've trashed this planet?

How about we use the money to grow food, clean the water, heal the sick, develop cheap, clean energy, you know, USEFULL stuff, here on earth!

tjm - your ignorance is astounding. Here are just a few of the USEFUL stuff here on Earth that came about because of NASA:

A water filtration system providing safe, affordable drinking water throughout the world is the result of work done by Marshall Space Flight Center engineers who are creating the Regenerative Environmental Control and Life Support System

A bacterial spore-detection system developed at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory for cleaning Mars-bound spacecraft is now employed by Universal Detection Technology of Beverly Hills, California, as an anthrax detection system.

Langley Research Center engineers developed a low-cost device that creates electrical energy out of mechanical energy. It is now in widespread use as a wireless light switch and contributing to renovation and reconstruction efforts in areas affected by Hurricane Katrina.

Advances in space suit design by ILC Dover Inc., of Frederica, Delaware, have resulted in such widespread applications as therapeutic cooling and heating suits; safe, efficient pharmaceutical manufacturing; new, simple-to-use, life-saving gas and chemical masks; and lighter-than-air (LTA) vehicles.

A environmentally friendly remediation solution developed at Kennedy Space Center to restore grounds contaminated by chemical compounds used during rocket launches in the early days of the Space Program is now cleaning up areas around the United States that have been impacted by high concentrations of harmful chlorinated solvents

Tiny light-emitting diode (LED) chips used to grow plants on the space shuttle and the International Space Station are lighting the way for wound healing and chronic pain alleviation on Earth.

A Goddard Space Flight Center researcher developed cable-compliant mechanisms for use in sounding rocket assemblies and robotics which have now been implemented into an adjustable patient harness system used to treat patients recovering from traumatic brain injury, stroke, spinal cord injury, and hip or knee replacement, as well as aid U.S. service personnel with spinal cord or traumatic brain injuries at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C.

I could go on here, but how about you go educate yourself for a change? Here is the top 20 list I pulled these from, there are hundreds more:

http://ipp.nasa.gov/pdf/spinoff_top_20a.pdf

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/

Brokenarrow -

Your arrogance is astounding - I didn't see one item on your list that probably wasn't being worked on at some university research facility or private company somewhere in the country, at some cost a lot less than what NASA spent in the process. For instance, I know for a fact that the gyroscopes that put the men on the moon weren't developed by NASA, they were developed by a private firm that had to consider the bottom line, for an already wider market in the industry. The knowledge gained from that process went on to create even better gyros by the same firm that are being used in practically everything that flies now. NASA was just one small customer.

And most of your list has limited (for now, anyway) implementation. What about the mass application, like transportation? Look up NASA's directives and read up on the AERONAUTICS portion of their name. Where's OUR bullet train, eh? Honestly, I flew so much in the military I pretty well figure I'm a fugitive now from the law of statistics. I hate flying. It was so nice when I was stationed in Europe to be able to just get on a tram and then a train and go anywhere in Europe. It was so great to not be a victim of the tyranny of the private automobile. And we rebuilt that system for them under the Marshall Plan! Why can't we do that in America? Because we pissed all that money away on now-obsolete technology getting to the moon. And now they want to squander what money we have left going to MARS?! FOR WHAT?! You'll still have to take out a mortgage to buy a car! Do you like coughing up the majority of your paycheck just to fill your gas tank in your car so you can go out and get stuck in traffic every day until you finally become a victim of some texting teenager? I just heard that we spend a TRILLION dollars A YEAR just on road maintenance - FOR WHAT? Just so Gov't. Motors and EXXON can meet their stockholder payouts?

Give me an f'n break, education boy. You want to put A LOT of people to work? Build a national people mover system like Rohr Industries in San Diego claimed they could do - IN THE 1970's!!

I'm a space junkie myself, I probably have a most unique set of "space program" experiences. But I also have to live in this world and the eggheads and daredevils at NASA are whizzing on my parade. Trust me, you can live without a cell phone or anti-gravity turnip twaddler or whatever - I did it for over 40 years!

Dude, those were seven examples out of thousands of spin off technologies. SEVEN! You want proof that these things create jobs and bring in money? There have been studies done on this very subject:

Also: "Relative Impact of NASA Expenditure on the Economy.", March 18, 1975) and backed by the 1989 Chapman Research report, which examined 259 non-space applications of NASA technology during an eight year period (1976–1984) and found more than:

— $21.6 billion in sales and benefits;

— 352,000 (mostly skilled) jobs created or saved,and;

— $355 million in federal corporate income taxes

According to the "Nature" article, these 259 applications represent ". . .only 1% of an estimated 25,000 to 30,000 Space program spin-offs."

In 2002, the aerospace industry accounted for $95 billion of economic activity in the United States, including $23.5 billion in employee earnings dispersed among some 576,000 employees (source: Federal Aviation Administration, March 2004).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA

But ok, you want some tech made by NASA that has a larger application? Here are a few:

CAT & MRI Technologies

The entire purpose of the early Apollo missions was to choose a suitable landing ground for the first man on the moon. To do this, they needed technology that could photograph the moon's surface. NASA created this technology, and from it scientists developed Computer-Aided Topography (CAT) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) technologies. Today, CAT scanners and MRIs are used in hospitals world-wide.

Cordless Power Tools

While on the moon and working in deep space, the astronauts would need to perform many tasks to gather scientific data concerning the surface of the moon. Often in these tasks, they needed mechanical help. Neither traditional tools nor power tools of that era would work. Traditional tools would not provide enough assistance, and power tools could not be used due to their cord restrictions. Thus, NASA developed a way for power tools to be used without cords. Today, cordless power tools are everywhere. Uses for these tools have proved extremely versatile and beneficial to society. People use them to construct homes and conduct other projects, such as making repairs.

Aircraft anti-icing systems

NASA funding under the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program and work with NASA scientists advanced the development of a thermoelectric deicing system called Thermawing, a DC-powered air conditioner for single-engine aircraft called Thermacool, and high-output alternators to run them both. Thermawing allows pilots to safely fly through ice encounters and provides pilots of single-engine aircraft the heated wing technology usually reserved for larger, jet-powered craft. Thermacool, an electric air conditioning system, uses a new compressor whose rotary pump design runs off an energy-efficient, brushless DC motor and allows pilots to use the air conditioner before the engine starts.

Solar energy

Homes across the country are now being outfitted with high-performance single crystal silicon solar power cells that allow them to reduce their traditional energy expenditures and reduce pollution. The advanced technology behind these solar devices—which provide up to 50% more power than conventional solar cells—originated with the efforts of a NASA-sponsored 28-member coalition forming the Environmental Research Aircraft and Sensor Technology (ERAST) Alliance. ERAST’s goal was to develop remotely piloted aircraft, intended to fly unmanned at high altitudes for days at a time and requiring advanced solar power sources that did not add weight. As a result, SunPower Corporation created advanced silicon-based cells for terrestrial or airborne applications.

Whether or not we actually NEED these things is irrelevant. The fact is that these things are widely used in our every day lives. Just because you're old and don't like cell phones doesn't mean they aren't extremely useful devices that make up a multi-billion dollar industry, stimulating economies world wide. If you REALLY want to reduce spending, let's bring our troops home and stop fighting wars we can't pay for. You know the pre 9/11 defense budget was around $398 billion? The budget for 2012 is just over $1 trillion. Stopping our wars would go a LOT further to solving budget issues than downsizing NASA. But no, let's save money by cutting the budget of an agency that receives less than 1% of the Fed's money, right? I'll say it again: Go educate yourself before you spout off. Age does not equal intelligence.

Also, it isn't NASA's fault that we don't have bullet trains, take that up with your government representatives.

"I think if you really dig deep, you'll find that the real cost of the space shuttle alone was more like one TRILLION dollars."

(sigh) tjm, if you actually go and look, you'll find that the total of NASA's annual budget allocations, since the agency began in 1957, has yet to come to one trillion dollars...

No, the Space Transportation System was not nearly as economical to operate as originally sold, but let's be real, here. Only the entire US government deals in 'trillions' of dollars, and even at the peak of Apollo, was never more than three percent of the budget. Today, it's about .6%, (that's six-tenths of one percent) and has been for quite some time...

Brokenarrow & Frank Glover -

Being young and hip on all this technology might make you think you know more about this subject, but one thing you don't have is the experience and perspective of someone who's LIVED thru all this.

If there is one thing that I KNOW is certain about the gov't., it's that you will never see the REAL cost of one of their agency programs published because there would be such a public uproar. It's called creative accounting. I didn't come up with that Trillion dollar figure, that was speculation put out in the recent news during the runup to the last launch in reports on the shuttle program by the insiders involved. The acknowledged 200 or so billion is close enough for me to think a trillion might be possible, because I couldn't find right off hand any reference that says NASA took into the total account of the program the actual cost of the investigations, litigations, reengineering & replacement costs of the 2 shuttle disasters.

As far as spin-off technology from NASA, A) Alot of this science was already being done in other places previously. Certainly, solar power WASN'T created by NASA. B) Why does this technology always seem to end up in the hands of some billionaire or other country, and WE THE PEOPLE end up paying for it twice? Right now, the US isn't even the top producer of solar power. And your responses really haven't addressed the real question of why hasn't NASA really done something on a national scale to help the US other than to produce very expensive psychedelic pictures of outer space objects that for all we really know were generated in a computer to dazzle & amaze us with NASA'a particular brand of "soma" (you guys did read about that in high school, right? If not, I'm sure you can google it on your cell phone. Don't do it while you're driving tho, 'cause you'll kill me).

And as far as contacting our representatives in Congress about WE THE PEOPLE's concerns, are you guys rookies or what?! NOBODY gets in to see the wizard, not nobody, not nohow, unless of course you're a special interest with deep pockets, like BEZO boy. Or Boeing. Or McDonnell/Douglas. Or (fill in your favorite NASA contractor), etc.

And as far as cell phones go, BROKENARROW, there is still much of the country where you can't get service. But there is still lndlines everywhere. And there seems to be Satellite TV in most of the country so WE THE SHEEP can watch our favorite soma. You want scientific progress? When I first learned to drive, I could buy gas at 17 CENTS a gallon. A high school kid could work part time enough to buy a new car after graduation with cash. Nowadays, you need to take out a loan for what it used to cost to buy a house back then, only now you have to pay that "home loan" back in 6 years instead of 20. That car could get better than 20 miles to the gallon back then. Now, a new car might get 20 miles to the gallon - now there's progress! Only now, gas is $4 bucks a gallon! Has the minimum wage gone up the over 23x that gas has since the $1.50 minimum it was back then? The Eisenhower Freeway System is widely acknowledged to have been obsolete before it came off the drawing board. But that was back then when there wasn't NEAR as many vehicles on the road as there is today clogging up the freeways! I guess you guys have never known any better driving conditions. Ever driven on the AutoBahn? Or the LA freeways? I have - BIG difference between the two!

This country is truly and deeply screwed, and one of the reasons is because we have poured a good part of our national wealth down the bottomless rathole that NASA became. And now they want to go to MARS at a billion dollars a shot! TERRIFIC! And what have we gotten in exchange, besides the certain knowledge that we will never get off this planet en masse that we are destroying more rapidly everyday in the process of building more solar-powered turnip twaddlers every day? Hell, we can't even afford to go to work! It really doesn't matter how many jobs NASA creates when a good portion of the jobseekers can't afford/can't get the transportation it takes to GET TO WORK because there is no viable national mass transit! Just ask yourself - How much of a national transport system could 200 billion BUY? Too bad we ripped up most of our light rail systems in anticipation of of our soon-to-come-along "hovercars", right NASA? Would have been even cheaper!

tjm-797207,

I think if you really dig deep, you'll find that the real cost of the space shuttle alone was more like one TRILLION dollars.

Again, between 1958 and 2011, NASA has spent a total of $413 billion. Those are OMB's figures. So, you are free to think whatever you want. But know that my numbers are official .gov references, and your's are pure speculation.

cjsks -

Yeah, and you didn't work in government accounting like I did. Fortunately for you & everyone else, I wasn't one of the typical pogo-stick drivers that do that work.

Brokenarrow -

Yeah, talk to me about wars - I've got campaign ribbons from 2 wars and 2 operations, but I'm sure if you promise Mr. Neanderthal Caveman with an AK-47 Islamic Terrorist that we won't come over to his country and sack it for all the mineral/oil wealth THEY own so we can build our positronic turnip twaddlers and ask him nicely not to attack our country, we can stop being in the war business. Or not.

tjm

Neither shuttle was technically replaced. While Endeavour was in essence a replacement, it was largely already built as the set of spares that were part of the original shuttle program, so the costs were far lower than if a new orbiter were built. Either way, by the time of Endeavours assembly, most of the infrastructure to build the shuttle was disassembled (in other words, if it wasn't for the spares, no replacement could have been built).

As for your comment about spin-offs, well first off, the gyroscopes themselves were I believe built by Sperry, who have been making gyro's for a very long time. Mind you NASA actually builds very little, everything is subcontracted. What NASA does do however is to try to push the boundaries of what we can do now. That is part of its mandate. In general however, you can make the argument that everything could have been done elsewhere, it just needed another driver to accomplish it. In this case, NASA was the driver.

As for your highways comment, considering NASA's budget levels, along with the fact that the US Air Force's space budget is almost double what NASA's is, and NASA isn't all space activity, I think that the devotion towards the military in this country has much more of an impact on the infrastructure than NASA. You seriously think that the US military budget of approximately half the entire worlds (and more than half if you consider all the military foreign aid that the US gives to other countries) doesn't impact the ability for the country to fund infrastructure?

Now a mars mission would be far more than a billion dollars a shot, which is oddly enough pocket change in US government levels of spending.

The gyros were built by Honeywell Aerospace in Columbia Heights, MN. Much of the original concept & design work had come out of MIT, not NASA.

Going to MARS is an OPTION. Defense of his country is NOT. I won't argue defense strategy with you. But I will say that war is and always has been the mother of invention. Do you know that it was the military's drive towards miniturization that provided our capability in our space program? And that's one of the reasons why we are now depending on the Russian's rocket program to resupply the ISS?

And a billion is not "pocket change" anywhere. It only takes 1000 billions to make a trillion. Congress is all worried about the 13 trillion dollar debt, and yet they throw around billions like confetti. How many billion dollar projects does the US have going out there right now, much less in the past? And none of them seem to be really providing the relief that this country needs. I wonder how many Texan ranchers & farmers would be up for a large water pipeline right now from all that Missouri River water traveling out to the sea from just NW of St. Louis MO. the approx. 450 miles into TX, which would be shorter than the Alaskan oil pipeline, much less difficult to build and certainly less potential for pollution? The Roman Empire lasted as long as it did by building roads and viaducts. Apparently they had their priorities straight, unlike the US.

Correction: make that Kansas City MO., not St. Louis, MO.

tjm, from your posts I can see that you are all for building a 21st century infrastructure, which I agree would be money very well spent. But I find it odd that you would faithfully defend of our extremely bloated military budget and meanwhile villanize NASA despite all the positive impact that is has had on our society.

"War is the mother of invention"?? I believe the saying goes that necessity is the mother of invention. Self defense may be a necessity, but US foreign policy has gone well beyond self-defense historically, and our military budget goes further still. We're talking between $700 billion - $1 trillion annually, much of which cannot even be publicly accounted for.

...and yes, that is more than NASA has spent in it's entire existence. If you insist that OMB's numbers are inaccurate on that matter, then it is incumbent upon you to provide evidence to the contrary. Citing your experience as a government accountant alone, does not make your speculation anything other than what it is, speculation.

Now this is just what I've been talking about - wars, and winning them really is the biggest "necessity", right? And the government accounting process for both the military process and NASA should never be looked at as accurate, and you can pretty much bet the house that the public numbers will be lowballed. I would have thought there wouldn't have been anyone left in the country by now that believes what the gov't. claims it spends after seeing the abuses that have come to light in the past half century+. Like I said before, with age comes perspective. And now Obi-wannabe is talking about throwing around another 200 BILLION (1/5 of a TRILLION) to make up jobs, when this country is crying out for infrastructure rebuild already in place.

What bothers me is just how long these wars have gone on. I was born during a war, and it's really just been one big, long war since then. And no doubt the defense contractors love it, and I just wonder if they don't promote it behind closed doors. When you look at how we (w/ our allies)crushed the faschists in WWII in only a few years... granted, fighting irregular insurgents is relatively tougher, but come on - if we gave it a politically incorrect maximum effort (screw Karzai & the UN), we could get the hell out of there alot sooner. But that's liberals for ya, do everything aff-assed.

I just wish the NASA braintrust could do SOMETHING on a positive plane to help stop them. I'm sure that the Air Farce has it's own spy satellites. But I keep wondering where in the hell the cavemen in Afghanistan keep getting the weapons re-supply? I realize it's mountainous country with bad weather, but couldn't NASA, like, train the Hubble or infra-red spot-o-meter or SOMETHING on it and see if they can't spot a camel train or 2 loaded with ammo crates?! Unless the Russkies left the world's supply of small arms there, that stuff is made elsewhere with raw materials and them shipped from factories. How hard can that be now? I mean if we'd a had the NASA capability to track stuff from space during Vietnam that they have now, I'm thinking we could have made the Ho Chi Minh trail even more of an unusable grave yard of the NVA.

Believe it or not, I am a harsh critic of the military spending, particularly the Navy's carrier building program. We now outnumber the next navy with the largest amount of carriers by about 20 to 1. And no one else has a "super carrier". Besides, we have redundent capability in the other branches. Cut our proposed carrier building in half and you have the first 100 billion of that "jobs program" and we still have the largest carrier force by 10-1. Make any mission to Mars unmanned, and you have the other 100 billion. Miniaturized robotics (remember what I said above about our lead in miniaturization?) is where it's at, and talk about spinoff technology that has "real world" application. Send our "replicants" with their atomic turnip twaddlers to Mars, not people.

"...he should be putting people to work replacing the Russian and Chinese space-chauffeurs..."

(sigh) Google CCDev. Blue origin is part of doing just that.

Oh, and BTW, the Chinese aren't giving rides to anyone else yet. (their mission rate currently is so low, they barely even fly themselves) Look up that fact first, too.

lots of ignorant people on this article.

john

It is a compromise. A 'fatter' rocket has less of a cg shift during flight if you are not staging which makes controllability easier to manage, with the trade-off being higher drag.

one of the BEST posts I've read here.

: applause:

Thanks for the kind words! :)

Doing everything in a shroud of secrecy is fine with me, but after pondering it for a while from the perspective that I like Jeff Bezos and his dream--which is the reality here in the sound isolation studio--I started wondering what I would do if Jeff hired me to get everyone fully on the program . . .

And after looking at the the current spaceship design, which bears a strong resemblance to an anal suppository, I like the idea of doing exactly what I alluded to doing in my previous post, which specifically is to roll back the clock to the early-1940s and to build an updated German rocket but instead of calling it the "V-2", I would call it the "BZ-2", which has so many stellar Freudian nuances that it is a bit mind-boggling . . .

The only problem I anticipate is the range of the BZ-2, since it obviously will fly successfully, so the concern is whether it has too great a range, but then one reasonably might presume that there are plans and procedures for actually being successful, and I suppose it could fly directly upward and then make a parachute landing, although with a few more smarts it could make a gentle landing . . .

I like the idea of an early-1940s rocket design, because it has stellar fins and looks great, and I certainly would have the outer metal chromed, as well as adding some portholes . . .

The current shroud of secrecy can be worked advantageously from an entertainment perspective, and done correctly a combination documentary and science fiction theme has great potential for a fascinating motion picture, as well as a series of ongoing reality shows, which in turn can generate some stellar funding for the project . . .

[NOTE: There is more to the entertainment perspective, since one of the key aspects of doing this type of project successfully is visibility, which specifically maps to establishing the rule that finding and correcting mistakes before they cause problems not only is encouraged but also is rewarded, where one way to summarize it is to observe that a tiny mistake is quite likely to cause someone--typically an astronaut--to die, and not only do you not want to be the person who made the tiny mistake but also you do not want anyone around you to be the one who made a tiny mistake, so what happens when everyone thinks this way is that the person who finds your mistakes before they cause a problem becomes your new best friend, especially if you are able to return the favor and find their mistakes. It is like being a writer and having a really good editor, because while it can be a bit annoying at first to have someone find your mistakes and bring them to your attention, ultimately a good editor makes you look good when the words are printed and there are no mistakes, and especially in the aerospace industry, (a) people who find and correct mistakes are worth their weight in diamonds and (b) so long as mistakes are found and corrected in time, nobody gets punished, because sooner or later everyone makes a mistake, so the focus is on finding and correcting mistakes and doing everything possible to avoid creating problems in the first place, which is where being gracious in a focused way tends to be the best strategy . . . ]

After the requisite number of successful test flights, I like the idea of sending a pair of monkey astronauts named "Adolf" and "Eva" on a short hop and then upgrading the design to the new, larger, and vastly improved BZ-3, which after yet another round of development and verification can begin human flight testing . . .

In other words, start with something that you know will work and then build on it by updating and improving the design . . .

It is not an odd coincidence that airplanes and rocket ships are pointy, and there are good reasons for having fins, wings, and tails . . .

One of the most useful rules for designing is that "form follows function", which basically maps to the general fact that things which work well also tend to look good in one way or another, which is an aspect of the golden ratio and all that stuff, with the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird being a stellar example . . .

And when I suggest "rolling the clock back to the early-1940s", I am being very literal with respect to the way the buildings, uniforms, and so forth are designed and outfitted . . .

Of course, the technology will be state of the art, but the early-1940s "look and feel" of the environment and people will make it fascinating, as well as a bit surreal, and it is the surreal aspect combined with the scientific reality that has the ability to create a Super Gestalt which encourages successful innovation at an accelerated pace . . .

The Super Gestalt aspect is something folks who lived and worked in a "space city" during the 1960s fully understand, because it was patently surreal in many ways and there was an ever present mysterious electric buzz to everything, because "space city" was not like anywhere else on the planet . . .

Sometimes late at night, even in the dead of winter, if you were outside gazing at the moon you would hear a buzzing sound like a swarm of locusts and then everything would get very quiet for a few seconds, followed by a bright light almost like high noon on a hot summer day appearing in the distance on the other side of "space town" where the rocket engines were designed, built, and tested, and the ground would rumble for 30 to 45 seconds after which the bright light would fade into a huge cloud of fog and smoke, and then everything would be the way it was, but always just a tiny bit different, since you knew without being told that the rocket engines were getting better at doing something important . . .

Everything was top secret, so nobody actually said much of anything about whatever was happening or was going to happen, but if you were observant there were subtle clues, where for example there might be rumors of a new metal alloy or a different way to shape nozzles . . .

When you first arrived at "space city", it was pretty strange, but after a while the strangeness changed to a surreal flavor of normal, because this is the way reality happens in "space city" . . .

Most of the time you did the same things that normal people do, and you watched the Beatles on the Ed Sullivan Show just like everyone else did, but the ever present mysterious electric buzz always was there, along with the strange things that happened every once in a while just after midnight on the other side of "space city", and sooner or later the idea that astronauts were going to travel to the moon and walk around for a while became as logical and routine as knowing that McDonald's made great French fries and sold over one billion hamburgers . . .

Done correctly, I think the entertainment aspects can generate a lot of interest and funding, and I like the idea, which is fabulous . . .

Fabulous! :)

very few people will benefit from blasting up into space to cut down travel time to europe. i am not one of those privileged that can afford it or need it or want it. as far as the innovations you mentioned, i can only wonder how edison and einstein accomplished their goals without nasa. the space program did give rise to many innovations but these things are possible without nasa. what you don't see is that these people who created these innovations all relied on government money. my argument is that these things can be accomplished within the private sector. the reason why the private sector won't is because nobody wants to invest their money on a gamble. that is why everyone waits for government money. the rich who invest in new ideas don't want to risk their money. they will wait for programs like nasa to create then the rich build on free ideas much like the japanese did with cars. i'm glad so much good stuff comes out of nasa. but in reality not much of it is doing us any good. if you don't have the education or at least a job, how can you afford all these new innovations. as i said before, let's concentrate on feeding the one in five children that are starving in THIS COUNTRY. how about bringing our schools back up their original greatness. you can keep all that crap you listed above. it will all sit there until someone can afford it. read the news. economists say things are not going to change for at least five years. i have been out of work for two years now.
hey, maybe one of those electric cars can find me a job or maybe i'll take a super sonic flight to europe and back while i'm waiting for work.

Want to feed the children...don't rely on the gov't to do it...grow a vegetable garden and give the food away. That's what I do. You can hand it out by putting it in a stand on the side of the road, or take it to a shelter, or take it to your local food pantry, or take it to a church (or religious institution of your choosing). There are many ways each of us can do - that if we all did - to help feed not just the kids, but all the people who face hunger. But you have to stop making excuses, stop relying on someone else to do it, get over your personal pity-party and do something about it yourself.

As for work, well I too was out of work (for six months), but I did something that few people are prepared or willing to do - give up my unemployment check to work at a job that pays about a third of what I used to make, and less than my unemployment check was for. But hey, as long as that check keeps coming and it's more than what you'll make working, then stay unemployed. The down side of that thought process is that future employment will become harder and harder to get, 'cause employers these days are more prone to hire you if you already have a job. And believe it or not there are jobs out there if your willing to work them. The company I work constantly has ads out and you know what...no ones come calling for one of the many positions they have available. Why? 'Cause the pay ain't great.

All that aside, if you can't see how the inventions above have contributed to the quality of life of people, have created jobs, have enabled the quality and availability of more effective medical treatments, have helped to further education and the methods of which education is taught, not to mention that I don't suppose your typing on a computer right now? Was that your cell phone I heard ringing a minute ago? And what was that you just took out of the microwave? Did you get lost the last time you took a drive to somewhere you'd never been to before or did you use your GPS? And how many gallons are you getting to the mile?

As I said, you need to broaden your view. Reducing the amount of time it takes to get from one place to another may begin with being only affordable for the wealthy - of that you might be correct - but what about when it becomes the normal mode of travel? How many jets are in the air at one time? How many flights are there per day? How much time is spent and wasted on flying? I traveled for 4 years on business - every week for 4 years - and I can tell you personally I wasted a lot of time doing so. 5 hours coast to coast, make that 15 or 20 minutes, and a whole lot more business can be done wit the 4+ hours saved sitting on a plane - no matter how many devices you have with you. See, you have to start somewhere - like with what these privateers are doing. And contrary to what you believe, not all inventors don't invent until the government comes across with the dough - some actually do it 'cause they have a vision. Something you are apparently lacking in. Sorry, not picking on you personally, 'cause there are an awful lot of people thinking the same way you do. Just try to think of progress in years and decades, and not in "now".

I can't believe the job comment. Actually space flight like this takes very few people down the pipeline and the jobs really aren't there because the industry in the US is DEAD. I am surprised that you posted this. I am more on the side of OMG they did this. It is one step taking us closer to space flight. This type of spaceflight would only do one thing. Make it easier to keep NASA. They would be the space flight equivalent of our current air traffic controllers. Which would not exist if this type of flight was available for cheap. It never will never be in my lifetime. But by god I would pay a pretty penny to fly from BWI to Japan in an hour if I needed to. Not to mention I could float. The only problem becomes reentry where do you do this. A ton of planes fly WAY overhead everyday. Are capsules going to be flying down like shooting stars at night? Better not get near my house. An ocean landing is stupid so thus they have a ton to figure out with this.

Not sure which part about the jobs comment you don't believe. They're out there, you just have to be willing to work crappy hours 6- 7 days a week, and be willing to cry when you open up your paycheck. Not to mention toss your education and career out the window. The US turned, and continues to turn to a service and trades economy. That started in the 80's and is now in full swing. There are some industries thriving, such as biomed, however there are few whom are qualified, whether through degree or experience to fill that field.

If it is the space industry, NASA me be near death, but the privateers are and will continue to soak up the people from their cuts. But, if your talking about jobs created through the years due to innovations developed through the space program, be it invention through necessity, or inventions related to experiments only able to be performed through near zero-gravity, then your talking millions of jobs that were (in the past) created. Take a look at the list I posted and then think of all the jobs related to bringing those inventions to market.

As far as how and where re-entry of sub-orbital craft will happen and where they will land, then I would simply say the face of the airport today will change drastically. And it may not be in your or my lifetime, but that's no reason not to begin it now. When I was I kid I was fascinated, thrilled really, watching a jet take off. Now I'd like to see flight turned to the next level. And frankly, while a "rocket" landing next to my house could and would certainly be aggravating...it sure as heck would be neat.

Sure, Acehigh is a typical whiner, don't waste your energy on those types, sitting behind a keyboard blaming others for social ills is all they DO. Actually helping is beyond their scope...

But which three would you choose? Right now Lockheed, Boeing and SpaceX have the best track record but what about a year or two years from now? It is way too early in the game to pick winners. Further, if it is the government picking the winners, can it really be called commercial space at all? Perhaps the old paradigm of having the government first develop a specific goal on a specific timeline, such as "humans to Mars within a decade" and hiring private contractors to each do their part to accomplish that overall mission wasn't really such a bad system after all?

It would help if they got the $800 million they asked for, and not the $300 million they were actually given for this.

And that's not much money as these things go (especially compared to SLS, which NASA doesn't even want), because it shouldn't take much, compared to what has been typical manned spacecraft development. The definition of 'too thin' isn't the same as we're used to.

But they do need that much.

K. Kammeyer.

You are missing Orbital Sciences who have experience as well.