What if NASA was merged with the USAF?

[J.Random]

I don't really think so, USAF outsources to others to launch too, like the EELV program.

And I wouldn't like to think that Mr. Musk would start hiring military retirees like, you know, Boeing or Lockheed Martin (or, I suppose, as any other large military contractor) do.

Edited October 21, 2015 by J.Random

[KerikBalm]

The whole point of the Shuttle was to replace all current expendable launch vehicles, and to do that it needed to do the air force and other DoD missions. A Shuttle without AF participation is a shuttle with even less viability through less missions and a lower flight rate.

Not to turn this into another shuttle debate... but points like this just make it clear that the shuttle was ill conceived... which is why I used the shuttle as an example of why it seems dubious for NASA and the USAF to cooperate:

"They can cooperate to develop launch vehicles... but even that is dubious... that got us the space shuttle :/"

We certainly wouldn't have those cool pictures of Pluto if NASA and the USAF merged.

Then if they didn't even cooperate, we wouldn't have had the shuttle.. we'd have had more saturn Vs... something like the SLS sooner... who knows... but it would probably have been a better outcome.

I think the limit of what makes sense for NASA and the airforce, is to develop common systems... like rocket engines, RCS thrusters, etc...

NASA and the USAF had divergent needs for the shuttle, and would probably have divergent needs for many launch vehicles.

If the USAF and the Navy can cooperate at times (F-4 Phantom... JSF... but that example may also be dubious), but remain seperate - then that's have its relationship with NASA should be...

When their goals align, cooperate... but keep them seperate.

[fredinno]

And I wouldn't like to think that Mr. Musk would start hiring military retirees like, you know, Boeing or Lockheed Martin (or, I suppose, as any other large military contractor) do.

I don't get it.

[PB666]

I don't get it.

By hiring ex-military, particularly high level administrators and procurment people they get a shoe in the door for future contracts. Its a waste of salary, but you have to grease the wheels. If privately funded space company should not need to hire ex-military or ex-NASA...........HOWEVER, if they want to get the scoop on future nasa missions and bid on a launch platform or long range sat carry they might want to have some one close enough to NASA to say, 'hey these are the missions we can do and, by the way, at a lower price than your plan so you might want to bump this project up'.

If you are planning a suicide manned mission to Mars ex-gov types would prolly get in the way.

[Mazon Del]

I feel it should be asked what you are referring to when you say "a suicide manned mission to Mars"? Colonizing Mars with proper supplies and tech, if that is what you are referring to, can not be considered any more suicidal than choosing to set out for an untamed wilderness months from any help. Sure there were times that went poorly, but we wouldn't be where we are today if at least SOME of them had gone well.

[PB666]

I feel it should be asked what you are referring to when you say "a suicide manned mission to Mars"? Colonizing Mars with proper supplies and tech, if that is what you are referring to, can not be considered any more suicidal than choosing to set out for an untamed wilderness months from any help. Sure there were times that went poorly, but we wouldn't be where we are today if at least SOME of them had gone well.

Any manned mission that is currently planned qualifies, until the technologies are proven for return home, its pretty much the case. Colonizing mars in the current geopolitical climate is not going to happen, the supply line needs to have a 10 fold more investment globally in the space program to sustain, and with very little benefit from the investment other than multiplier effect in home economies (still a good reason, but the strategy is best directed elsewhere).

The difference between a mars versus mars satellite or roid mission is that the largest hurdle is dV for landing requires at least some fuel as well as dV for ascent. With a roid or small satellite dV problems can be overcome by a combination of thrusters and ion-drives that are much more efficient, once the payload is orbiting the gravity well you have time to figure out how to get them back, including a (manned/unmanned station) its simply a matter of keeping them alive. You can throw resources at a shallow gravity well and expect to get a result. You may throw alot of resources at a deep gravity well and still have insufficient resources to achieve the goal.

Sure mars may be easier to get to (excepting its satellites) but you don't have time with regards to descent dV or ascent dV, these thrusts are needed promptly. In space you have all the time you desire and so any means of getting dV will do, if you have a modest supply line.

[fredinno]

Any manned mission that is currently planned qualifies, until the technologies are proven for return home, its pretty much the case. Colonizing mars in the current geopolitical climate is not going to happen, the supply line needs to have a 10 fold more investment globally in the space program to sustain, and with very little benefit from the investment other than multiplier effect in home economies (still a good reason, but the strategy is best directed elsewhere).

The difference between a mars versus mars satellite or roid mission is that the largest hurdle is dV for landing requires at least some fuel as well as dV for ascent. With a roid or small satellite dV problems can be overcome by a combination of thrusters and ion-drives that are much more efficient, once the payload is orbiting the gravity well you have time to figure out how to get them back, including a (manned/unmanned station) its simply a matter of keeping them alive. You can throw resources at a shallow gravity well and expect to get a result. You may throw alot of resources at a deep gravity well and still have insufficient resources to achieve the goal.

Sure mars may be easier to get to (excepting its satellites) but you don't have time with regards to descent dV or ascent dV, these thrusts are needed promptly. In space you have all the time you desire and so any means of getting dV will do, if you have a modest supply line.

You can use ISRU