Feb01
NASA’s Technology Priorities
on February 1, 2012 at 2:15 pmPosted In: Space, Technology and Society
The National Research Council has come out with a list of sixteen. Does anyone else see something conspicuous by its absence? Hint: it’s necessary for orbital refueling.
[Late afternoon update]
Here’s the full report.
[Bumped]
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.
it’s necessary for orbital refueling.
No, it’s not. We still want it though.
Nothing about better spacesuits?
Seeing as NRC couldn’t bother to provide a link to the report, I’m not surprised.
I’m relieved that they are looking at nuclear technology, instead of the much more dangerous nucular technology…
Apparently, depots are included. They’re lumped in with “Lightweight and Multifunctional Materials and Structures.”
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?
“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…
Can anybody tell me how closely this list matches up with Dallas Bienhoff’s Top Ten list from his SSI presentation last year?
Is there a priority for actually putting a man into outer space?
Amazing that ISRU did not even make the list.
In the report itself, cryogenic storage and transfer rates very high in the propulsion category, ahead of nuclear thermal.
I don’t see actually getting into orbit with high flight rate or lower cost on the list.
On page s-11 of the summary, they specifically recommend orbital flight testing and demonstration of cryogenic storage and handling.
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.
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.