Space Technology Industry Forum

But we still really have no idea what we are going to be doing next year. The president's plan is up in the air and various congressmen are introducing legislation to continue on various other courses. It does appear shuttle is going to end but even that appears questionable. I just got notice that another version of the senate budget proposal authorizes ET-94 to be refurbished. And I just wonder what the congress overall thinks about all this other than the space state folk? I would like to see these new technologies developed and yet without some better defined goal wonder how effective they will be. This is a painful morass and there still is no real direction. Out here at KSC there are so many return to the moon people but I truly believe they don't rationalize that with the cost. We simply do not have the money and won't for a long time to come if ever again. So a space program that is based on the reality of the spending is the first requirement. And that has to be folded into the entire budget, something so many space dreamers have to realize.

What I've seen of this on NASA TV thus far has not impressed me, except perhaps in a negative way. It has the vibe of Amateur Hour in both its content and presentation.

This is the future? How sad.

> What I've seen of this on NASA TV thus far has not impressed me, except perhaps in a negative way. It has the vibe of Amateur Hour in both its content and presentation.

I disagree. I've been reading through the presentations and listening to some of the webcast, and found it quite exciting.

Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks.

What I've seen at this meeting so far is actually impressive. Especially for an effort that has been going on for just a few months. The Galveston workshop was, in many respects, a kickoff for the effort, and this workshop shows considerable progress beyond that. I'm impressed at how the OCT tech development effort is carefully distinguished from mission-specific efforts in the directorates, and is squarely aimed at the mid-TRL needs, which has historically been a huge problem. The layout of the new NIAC was nice to hear about, and although they are on a pretty miniscule scale, the emphasis on centennial challenges was a good new thrust.

Looking at the audience, it looks like the right people are there, and are taking it seriously. With regard to tech development opportunities, this is a very rich plan. The only problem is that it is sort of low-hanging fruit when the agency runs into funding problems.

Aside from the vulnerability to easy cancellation of so many different projects (versus one coherent goal-oriented program), I wonder if consolidation of the effort at HQ is another serious risk to the intent of the entire thing. Cutting down on duplication is a worthwhile goal in the academic sense, but sometimes two different parties both seeking the same objective come up with completely different solutions, thereby increasing, not decreasing, the utility of the effort and thereby making the 'duplication cost' worth it.

And, even more important, independence from 'centralized onerous management' provides its own advantages. Consider the early lifting-body work done at Dryden; HQ didn't even know money was being spent on it as they were perfecting basic control laws, etc. Once under the thumb of HQ (to exaggerate the stereotype), such innovators might not innovate as efficiently as they might when only under local authority.

A challenging balance to strike, it is. Hope they find it.