16 thoughts on “NASA’s Technology Priorities

  1. mike shupp

    No fuel depots, whIch I presume you were lookiing for.

    Also, no solar sailing projects, no In Situ Resource Utilization, no studies of chemical fuel combustion and optimized thrust chamber configurations, no laser beaming power studies, no space elevator, no long term food production

    Okay, it wasn’t to be a grab bag of all the neat ideas for manned space flight, but this wasn’t a real adventuresome list. I’m disappointed.

  2. MfK

    I’m relieved that they are looking at nuclear technology, instead of the much more dangerous nucular technology…

  3. Charles A. Lurio

    They’re probably in “lightweight..etc structures” because the false assumption is being made that we need zero boiloff. Wrong. ULA has wanted for years to test a very workable CRYOTE testbed, but can’t get funds.

    This categorization is just another way to delay discussion of depots and ‘force’ use of the SLS. Wanna guess what folks are behind it?

    1. MfK

      “ULA has wanted for years to test a very workable CRYOTE testbed, but can’t get funds.”

      Wylie would be a good place to test CRYOTE…

  4. KVY

    Can anybody tell me how closely this list matches up with Dallas Bienhoff’s Top Ten list from his SSI presentation last year?

  5. Dr.D

    Apparently only Will McLean and I read it. For the rest of you who are always too quick to criticize NASA read pages 170-179. You’ll find that cryogenic propellant storage and transfer is ranked second only to electric propulsion for in-space propulsion technologies.

    1. Rand Simberg Post author

      Thanks for taking the time. It was more of a criticism of the NRC than NASA, and at this point, the main criticism is that whoever wrote the summary didn’t do a very good job of actually describing the contents.

Comments are closed.