The Ugly and Hidden Side of Nasa.

[duranduran]

125 missions in 20 years at a cost of $600 million a shot.

It was designed to launch every week or month at the very least.

To get a better perspective just type "Nasa corruption" in a search engine for numerous articles from MANY DIFFERENT SOURCES and perspectives.

The articles show the vast sums wasted in bribery,corruption,nepotism and using it's as a stepping stone to be employed at the contractors after awarding them the contracts.

Nasa has a very good and very expensive PR agency designed to give it a very good pristine image and to gloss over it's deep seated incompetance.

From this you will see a very ugly nasa staffed and run by very ugly people who have tried to stop others improving space travel.

Or you can go to this if you want a specific viewpoint:-

http://www.spaceprojects.com/

Use the drop down menus to see the real ugly nasa.

 

[Mark de Vries]

^I don't know... I have a hard time taking a website with a layout like that seriously. Call me superficial.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Never judge a book by its cover.

 

[Ariadne]

Space travel is expensive and difficult. We live at the bottom of a gravity well, ffs.

 

[Johnny Rico]

Mark de Vries said:
^I don't know... I have a hard time taking a website with a layout like that seriously. Call me superficial.

Boy you got that right...

That looks like that site was put together by a HS student during lunch break.

 

[Trekker4747]

Johnny Rico said:

Mark de Vries said:
^I don't know... I have a hard time taking a website with a layout like that seriously. Call me superficial.

Boy you got that right...

That looks like that site was put together by a HS student during lunch break.

In 1996.

 

[TerriO]

duranduran, your antagonistic tone aside, let's just clarify something for the sake of whatever discussion might come out of this. Are you talking about the shuttle program, which is just one of the things NASA deals with, or are you talking about NASA itself?

And, guys, you know the drill. Message, not the messenger with the website, please.

 

[Squiggy]

Is the OP blaming the current NASA leadership (who has openly admitted that the shuttle was a bad idea) for the decision of an Administrator from 35 year ago?

 

[Cutter John]

Feh. Its a government run opperation. Of course there's going to be waste and corruption. However, I don't see private enterprise lining up to launch people into space.

So like it or not, NASA or maybe the russians are the only real games in town right now.

 

[PlixTixiplik]

There's also a big difference between what NASA does and the sub-orbital flights that private industry is doing. SpaceShip One was quite an achievement and had some interesting innovations, but it essentially did the same thing that NASA's X-15 plane did in the early 1960s. They were both rocket-powered planes that launched from a larger plane and flew to about 350,000 feet.

Could private concerns like Burt Rutan's group or Virgin come up with some innovative new way of launching payloads into orbit if they were given the larger budgets that NASA projects get? That's possible, but NASA itself has a number of projects looking at alternative launch methods.

I think some people are underestimating the challenges involved in orbital launches. And I don't think that handing the reins over to some private company would magically give us a futuristic spaceplane that could take off from LAX airport and head to space. Private companies are perhaps more able to try more speculative methods (we've seen the flak NASA gets about "wasting money" when they try to develop more futuristic launch methods like spaceplanes), so I do think that more collaboration between NASA and independent private concerns, rather than subcontractors, couldn't hurt.

And I thought the ugly side of NASA was that picture that Squiggy has posted of him humping the giant clock at Cape Canaveral! I guess it's not hidden, though...

-MEC

 

[Mark de Vries]

PlixTixiplik said:
And I thought the ugly side of NASA was that picture that Squiggy has posted of him humping the giant clock at Cape Canaveral! I guess it's not hidden, though...

No, that''s the ugly and public side of NASA.

Seriously, though. Yes, there have been bad ideas sponsored by NASA, there have been cases if fraud, bribes and whatever. But what major branch of government hasn't had those. Do we propose to scrap the military for it? How about foreign relations? Or medical institutions?

The point here is not what happened in the past and how we can cast as much blame as possible, but rather how NASA can do the best job possible with its legacy (including the shuttle) and the funding it gets. It's not about scrutinising past issues, but solving the porblems of today. That does involve flying the shuttle until 2010, because that is a matter of fulfilling past promises and agreements. It also involves awarding contracts to other companies, because NASA doesn't have the money to do all he work itself. And with that, politics are introduced...

 

[Squiggy]

You are welcome!

 

[Trubinator]

The truth is somewhere in between.

 

[Johnny Rico]

Squiggyfm said:
You are welcome!

I could have gone all day without seeing that image.

 

[duranduran]

wait.

 

[Brent]

Cutter John said:
Feh. Its a government run opperation. Of course there's going to be waste and corruption. However, I don't see private enterprise lining up to launch people into space.

So like it or not, NASA or maybe the russians are the only real games in town right now.

That's a really good point

We need the private sector to get involved big time to create competition, right now there is none

 

[duranduran]

Mark de Vries said:

PlixTixiplik said:
And I thought the ugly side of NASA was that picture that Squiggy has posted of him humping the giant clock at Cape Canaveral! I guess it's not hidden, though...

No, that''s the ugly and public side of NASA.

Seriously, though. Yes, there have been bad ideas sponsored by NASA, there have been cases if fraud, bribes and whatever. But what major branch of government hasn't had those. Do we propose to scrap the military for it? How about foreign relations? Or medical institutions?

The point here is not what happened in the past and how we can cast as much blame as possible, but rather how NASA can do the best job possible with its legacy (including the shuttle) and the funding it gets. It's not about scrutinising past issues, but solving the porblems of today. That does involve flying the shuttle until 2010, because that is a matter of fulfilling past promises and agreements. It also involves awarding contracts to other companies, because NASA doesn't have the money to do all he work itself. And with that, politics are introduced...

Quote:
Cutter John said:
Feh. Its a government run opperation. Of course there's going to be waste and corruption. However, I don't see private enterprise lining up to launch people into space.

So like it or not, NASA or maybe the russians are the only real games in town right now.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-33


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC-XA


Nasa wasted $2.5 billion on these propjects.

deliberately.

First they cancelled the X-33 after a few minor difficulties then they cancelled the DC-XA.

They then used each project against other to waste money and to award their cronies at Lockheed vast sums.

Then they discarded all the research.
and then they blocked attempts to revive them.why?

This organization is very corrupt.

As to your comments about the spaceproject website design I feel sorry for you that you cannot understand or read unless it's wrapped in a pretty package for you.

A sign of MTV brainwashing.

"Daddy! Daddy! I cant eat this cake as it only comes in a plain wrapper"!

 

[PlixTixiplik]

duranduran said:

Nasa wasted $2.5 billion on these propjects.

deliberately.

They deliberately spent the money, but it's debatable whether that was a waste or not. I doubt they deliberately decided to waste money. In the case of the X-33 the blame does not lie with NASA's administration, but with Congress and the government. After a few setbacks, people start complaining about a "lack of progress," Congress gets cold feet, and the budget is "reallocated" to pull the funding.

First they cancelled the X-33 after a few minor difficulties then they cancelled the DC-XA.

They then used each project against other to waste money and to award their cronies at Lockheed vast sums.

How did they use the projects against each other when they didn't even run at the same time? The DC-XA was cancelled several years before the X-33 project even started. Plus, I don't think Lockheed was really pleased, as they spent $350 million of their own money on the X-33. Not exactly a smart way to get government money to your cronies.

Then they discarded all the research.
and then they blocked attempts to revive them.why?

This organization is very corrupt.

Why do you say they discarded all of the research, and is there any evidence they are "blocking" attempts to revive them? It seems to me that NASA is continuing to research spaceplanes (the X-43 for example), as are several university groups and private entities.

The simple fact is that spaceplanes like the X-33 are not currently feasible - which is why NASA is returning to a design that will work. NASA could try a spaceplane, but then the project would be cancelled 5 years from now because it wouldn't work, and you'd be complaining how they waste money.

-MEC

 

[TerriO]

duranduran said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-33


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC-XA

Can you please cite a source for all of these accusations that isn't the notoriously unreliable Wikipedia?

Nasa wasted $2.5 billion on these propjects.

deliberately.

First they cancelled the X-33 after a few minor difficulties then they cancelled the DC-XA.

They then used each project against other to waste money and to award their cronies at Lockheed vast sums.

Then they discarded all the research.
and then they blocked attempts to revive them.why?

This organization is very corrupt.

I believe you'll find corruption in most government organizations.

As to your comments about the spaceproject website design I feel sorry for you that you cannot understand or read unless it's wrapped in a pretty package for you.

A sign of MTV brainwashing.

"Daddy! Daddy! I cant eat this cake as it only comes in a plain wrapper"!

And lobbing insults at your fellow posters isn't helping your credibility much.

Now, let's rewind and try this again.

 

[Mark de Vries]

duranduran said:
Nasa wasted $2.5 billion on these propjects.

deliberately.

And the point of that would be...?

First they cancelled the X-33 after a few minor difficulties then they cancelled the DC-XA.

Flight instability and excess weight are not what I call a few minor difficulties. They are essential to any spacecraft's proper functioning. If the designers and engineers working on it can't get the job done, the financier is going to pull the plug, sad as it may be.

As to your comments about the spaceproject website design I feel sorry for you that you cannot understand or read unless it's wrapped in a pretty package for you.

I don't see anything wrong with expecting a certain sense of aesthetics and proper design from my sources. Even Wikipedia understands this.