Just curious. Why is NASA building a supersonic jet when their mandate is to explore space?
Why don't they build a replacement for the Space Shuttle?
Here is the article -
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest- … rsonic-jet
I don't know, but I want NASA back, whole. Someone was talking about a return to the Moon by 2020. But that seems a bit ambitious as we don't yet have a replacement for the shuttle. There is talk about a Mars landing during the 2030s. The problem is that there is too much talk, and too little commitment. Where is the JFK style of setting a goal in the pursuit of space objective with the plan to see it through, and everybody committed to making it happen?
We might share the goal of making NASA great again.
Credence2, I am with you on that. I am just questioning why NASA is engaged in some projects that are clearly outside it's mandate...
It seems to be a common theme with many of our federal agencies... For example, the EPA involved with climate change... when NOAA is the primary agency.
Is a supersonic (or more likely a hypersonic) jet the first step in a vehicle to go to space and come back without using giant (and expensive) boosters?
Here is what Senator Cruz comment -
Cruz, March 12: As we begin the process of putting together a roadmap for the future of NASA, there is one vital question that this committee should examine: Should NASA focus primarily inwards, or outwards beyond lower Earth orbit. Since the end of the last administration we have seen a disproportionate increase in the amount of federal funds that have been allocated to the earth science program at the expense of and in comparison to exploration and space operations, planetary science, heliophysics and astrophysics, which I believe are all rooted in exploration and should be central to the core mission of NASA. … I am concerned that NASA in the current environment has lost its full focus on that core mission.
Why don't you just come out and say it?
NASA is government funded, therefore suspect.
NASA has an awful lot of very bright people working for it, therefore suspect
NASA has done more than any other organisation to help the world understand global warming...
Therefore it is evil.
What I am asking is why are some agencies conducting research and business outside their main mandate?
We see more and more projects cross agencies that overlap in their coverage.
Why have individual agencies if they are free to conduct research in other areas?
Is is a duplication of effort, or worst, a dilution of talent...
You want to eliminate NASA? The supersonic plane is part of their main mission and mandate, as I already explained. Duplication is seen in the USAF and private companies, but NASA and USAF work together.
No that is not what I am saying.
I am just questioning there focus?
why are they focusing on supersonic flights when they should be focusing on space flights?
It is a fair question, no?
No it is not. NASA is focused equally on both, with a large contingent of workers/staff and all the people in the Commercial Crew partnerships (hundreds of companies) working on both. Very big. Many in my state.
Why not ask the director of NASA, himself? Mr. Lightfoot, acting director now, will answer you. His email is on the site.
Thanks, I will.
Here is what I saw on their website -
This was not in their mandate initially.
I explained their mandates, you choose to ignore them.
Where is this mandate you speak of?
It was not in the initial creation of NASA...
Can you just make up your own mandate???
The mission statement with the timeline of mandates (Congressional Bills) is not on the website. That's not good for the public. Why hide it, they ask. Ask Mr. Lightfoot about it. See if his answer matches what the USAF and NASA has told us. If not, then a problem probably exists.
You'd have to look through Congressional Bills to find the mandates. I have them, because I write about this for aerospace courses.
Here is one section taken from "What NASA Do" ---
"We're studying Earth right now through current and future spacecraft helping answer critical challenges facing our planet: climate change, sea level rise, freshwater resources and extreme weather events.
NASA's aeronautics team is working with other government organizations, universities, and industry to fundamentally improve the air transportation experience and retain our nation's leadership in global aviation."
The National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (Pub.L. 85–568) is the United States federal statute that created the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The Act, which followed close on the heels of the Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik, was drafted by the United States House Select Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration and on July 29, 1958 was signed by President Eisenhower. Prior to enactment, the responsibility for space exploration was deemed primarily a military venture, in line with the Soviet model that had launched the first orbital satellite. In large measure, the Act was prompted by the lack of response by a US military infrastructure that seemed incapable of keeping up the space race.
The original 1958 act charged the new Agency with conducting the aeronautical and space activities of the United States "so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives:"
The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;
The improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles;
The development and operation of vehicles capable of carrying instruments, equipment, supplies and living organisms through space;
The establishment of long-range studies of the potential benefits to be gained from, the opportunities for, and the problems involved in the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes.
The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science and technology and in the application thereof to the conduct of peaceful activities within and outside the atmosphere.
The making available to agencies directly concerned with national defenses of discoveries that have military value or significance, and the furnishing by such agencies, to the civilian agency established to direct and control nonmilitary aeronautical and space activities, of information as to discoveries which have value or significance to that agency;
Cooperation by the United States with other nations and groups of nations in work done pursuant to this Act and in the peaceful application of the results, thereof; and
The most effective utilization of the scientific and engineering resources of the United States, with close cooperation among all interested agencies of the United States in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, facilities, and equipment.
In 2012, a ninth objective was added: "The preservation of the United States preeminent position in aeronautics and space through research and technology development related to associated manufacturing processes."
The final meeting of the NACA, before being absorbed into NASA.
I have no respect for Wikipedia. I respect the info from USAF and NASA we receive.
If you have any info that contradict what is shown at wikipedia, I'll be happy to reconsider.
There is a term called "mission creep" which applies to many organizations.
They seem to think they have a right to do stuff that may be related to what they were created to do even though they were not equiped to do so, and other agencies may be better at it...
Going back to the Cruz quote. That is the politics of greed.
The oil industry pumps hundreds of millions of dollars into republican super pacs and campaign funds with every electoral cycle.
Cruz is currently chief lobbyist for the industry.
The biggest obstacle to the continued dominance of fossil fuels is the overwhelming evidence that they cause harmful climate change.
NASA supplies much of the evidence through its earth science programs.
Therefore the way forward for Cruz is to cripple NASA's earth science research.
Bottom line: the hundreds of millions of dollars from the oil industry is a political investment aimed at subverting science, perpetuating a dangerous and, soon to be unnecessary, industry in order to make a small number of people very, very rich.
Have you ever consider the oil industry may not be the evil greedy corp. you seem to portray?
The climate change debate is at the root of many fronts...
NASA and the EPA are two examples. They have no business or mandate to study climate change...
It is the job of NOAA.
The claim of climate change as caused by humans is up for debate...
Not all scientists are convinced we are the main cause or that we can affect change in any way...
Just read up on the many issues and debates...
I for one at this moment is a skeptic. I have been to many talks at the Lamont Dogherty observatory.
The science is not clear and the scientists are not sure of many long term effects...
Keep an open mind.
NASA studies the atmosphere as one of its mandates. You ain't going to conquer the cosmos unless you understand the one planetary atmosphere we currently have access to.
As to oil companies being evil...
Most people in the industry realize that they are doing harm and before Trump, oil was preparing for a wind down. Sensible enough.
Now it will be noses in the trough for another a few decades, it seems. Despite being aware of the harm.
From a few months ago:
Rex Tillerson, chief executive, said Exxon backed the push to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and that applying a cost to carbon was the best way of doing it.
Exxon is under investigation in New York on suspicion that it violated US securities laws by withholding information about the risks posed to its business by climate change. On Monday, Exxon asked a federal court in Texas to block subpoenas from New York’s attorney-general for documents related to the probe.
https://www.ft.com/content/30d8dc2e-95f … f38d484582
That case will likely be crushed underfoot as the rush for more plunder gets underway.
How does creating a supersonic jet fall into that category you speak of?
Climate change is a hot topic in recent years. So much so that almost every agency have some sub group working on it. My question is this. Is this the most efficient way to go about it? Are there duplication of efforts?
Why set up agencies to address various problems if they all end up studying the same thing?
That may be a rationale for doing away with agencies and departments.
My USAF group has some contact with NASA. The mandate for NASA includes aeronautics (aviation) research since 1958, 2005, 2008, and 2010, maintained in the mandate changes for 2010. The Mission to Mars Within 25 Years mandate by Congress is in addition to the mandate given in 2010 - 2011. Here's what I know so far, all of it already in the news:
2011 NASA Mission Statement Summary:
Expand human activities across the solar system
Expand scientific understanding of the universe
Produce new space technologies
Advance aeronautics research (like the supersonic plane)
Maintain and expand aeronautics and space activities
Educate the public and encourage citizen participation
SUPERSONIC PLANE: The supersonic plane is developed under the aeronautics mandate by NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate, including The Advanced Air Vehicles Program, the Integrated Aviation Systems Program, and two others.
REPLACEMENT SHUTTLE CRAFT: NASA already hired three companies that are members of its Commercial Crew to build new space craft and these are SpaceX, SierraNevada, and Boeing. I am concerned about the number of crashes SpaceX has had in test flights and cargo missions.
Discussion is now that the moon activities will be delegated to private space companies (my US State has over 1,200 space companies already). In fact, the Google Lunar XPrize project had some lunar landers ready in 2013.
THE REST OF SPACE
The universe outside of Earth and the Moon will be handled by NASA on behalf of USA.
USA and Japan already have a partnership to gather debris in "outer space" above Earth beginning 2018 -2019, but I think it is also a type of law-and-order patrol.
The 2013 class of NASA astronauts is training specifically to fly to Mars. A billionaire plans to send a man and a woman to Mars in 2018, but I think the ship will not be ready on time. The NASA Authorization Act of 2015 - 2016 (H.R. 810) reportedly mandates landing on Mars by 2041; but, I have not yet read the complete bill.
Thanks for the detail info. on NASA. I didn't know that.
Here is what NASA said on their site -
https://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/w … sa_do.html
by Mahaveer Sanglikar 8 years ago
When European Space Agency is planning to send man on Mars and China is ready to take possession of the Moon, don't you think that USA is left behind in Space Race?
by Stacie L 8 years ago
Dead Satellite Will Fall to Earth By September's End, NASA SaysBy Clara Moskowitz, SPACE.com Senior WriterSpace.com | SPACE.com – A defunct satellite poised to fall back to Earth will make its death plunge during the last week of September, NASA officials now say.The spacecraft, an old NASA climate...
by NateSean 8 years ago
Do you think civilian companies should start fnding NASA?NASA is funded by tax payer dollars. So there's always grounds to complain about tax money going towards something that maybe benefits one or two people in a lifetime.But NASA is a civilian organization. And civilian companies like McDonalds...
by Texasbeta 9 years ago
I've just read that NASA checked on a hole in an asteroid that they shot an 800lb bullet into a while back, that made a dent in the asteroid about the size of a football. Does this agency serve a purpose or should they be closed for being ridiculously useless?
by somethgblue 7 years ago
Does anyone truly believe that NASA's latest robot rover 'Curiosity' landed on Mars?If the newest Mars Rover 'Curiosity' truly landed on the surface of Mars how can The Powers That Be prove it? With pictures? Give me a break? Why Mars? We can't even put a base on the Moon or create and maintain a...
by sandra rinck 9 years ago
I just wanted to clear up the garbage that is being put out about people being forced to buy a government health care plan. I know this seems to be the center of controversy over health care. For the record, no one is being forced to buy health care. What you aren't looking for is the...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|