China's secretive space program threatens NASA's dominance

a reply to: choos

The tax payers are not there to ensure that companies come up with better ideas to dominate the industry.

If there is a crossover tech that will do that, let's get it on, but let's not have large groups of people working at nasa only on a jet engine for a decade or more.

If this is OK, lets add another deduction to all our checks right under social security, jet engines for boeing and deduct 1%. It would be a very unpopular tax. But as it stands the invisible tax it hidden behind the flag and bygone moon missions.

a reply to: seasonal

One of the reasons it is "super-duper safe" is because of NASA and the work they've done and continue to do. They're part of the reason for lower ticket prices too. By helping develop technologies that went into developing engines that are 25% more efficient, or more, they reduced the amount of money needed for an aircraft to break even. That led to a reduction in ticket prices, because they suddenly didn't need to sell as many tickets. Their operating and maintenance costs dropped significantly. There are engines that benefited from NASA technology and techniques that have hung on a wing for approaching 20 years.

What do you think that that will do for future NASA programs? They're not developing this out of the goodness of their hearts. Almost all the techniques that they've developed for commercial aircraft are finding their way into future space plans.

That composite board, will eventually work on an all composite aircraft, that will use one of those new hybrid electric motors they're working on to build and power a high altitude aircraft that will fly around Venus for possibly months taking samples of the upper atmosphere.

That new super efficient intake will eventually make its way onto an aircraft that will be used as a carrier for rockets. It will be able to fly as high as the U-2, using a conventional high bypass turbofan, instead of having to be a powered glider, and act as the first stage of a rocket that gets launched into orbit.

Technology development doesn't happen in a vacuum. By working with commercial companies both sides benefit in the long run.

a reply to: seasonal

you are right the tax payers arent there to ensure companies get better ideas to dominate the industry.

but NASA is in the aerospace field..
it has the expertise, it is only reasonable for them to be responsible for pushing cleaner technology in their field of industry.

a reply to: seasonal

You're not understanding what is being said. NASA isn't developing the engine for anyone. They're developing technologies that can be used in that engine, both for private companies and for their use. Those technologies will reduce emissions, among other things, and benefit us while also helping NASA with future technologies they need. They're not actually sitting around designing an engine, then saying "here you go" and handing it over to GE or Pratt&Whitney. Just as they're not designing an aircraft and handing it over to Boeing and Airbus.

a reply to: Zaphod58

And it does work, I am not saying that nasa can't get it done, and of course living in a representative form of govt, my vote made all this tech free to the companies that exploit it to make their bottom line look better. I get it.

I still think that working over a decade on the jet engine seems somehow wrong. And it's OK you are good with it, I will enjoy the low fairs and safe rides, Boeing will enjoy the subsided tech they get and NASA will enjoy employing the people to make the tech possible.

In the long run, it is a small amount of $, but we have 20,000,000,000,000$ and those payments will come due.


There should be three sides, NASA, Boeing, and the tax payer.

Technology development doesn't happen in a vacuum. By working with commercial companies both sides benefit in the long run

a reply to: seasonal

any reason why you are focused on Boeing??

its supposed to be the industry that is benefiting not just Boeing alone. and also the Engine is not being developed solely for Boeing. I dont even think Boeing make engines.

a reply to: seasonal

And so you think that space program technology doesn't come back to us? You really should look at all the things that have so far.

You don't develop a new technology in a couple of years. The GE9X uses a most of the design, and the fan section of the GE90-115B and took four years to go from being announced to first ground run. It will be 6 years before it makes its first flight. That's for an engine that is based off an existing engine and has parts commonality. To develop a new intake design takes a long time between design, wind tunnel, and eventually getting someone to build it.

a reply to: choos

They don't. They source them to one of the big manufacturers. It's actually up to the customer what engine they hang.

a reply to: choos

Just a biggie in the US, of course there is air bus and a Canadian out fit that would benefit from the generous Americans.

a reply to: Zaphod58

And it is very very expensive, hence that is why the companies depend on govt subsidies to develop/assist in the protos.

a reply to: seasonal

Which has nothing to do with NASA. Government subsidies are completely separate from NASA.

a reply to: seasonal

They both use engines built in the US as well as parts of the aircraft built here, which means that they get the benefits as well. As well as government subsidies.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Its all tax payer money shifted from one pocket to another. Nasa is taxpayer funded in the same way as the engine in the same way the airlines free R+D. It is just the level of $ they get and how directly it arrives.

The system works, and we may get another couple years out of it. But sooner or later the shell game is going to be up. And the piper will demand payment.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: seasonal

NASA has a budget of $19 billion.

I don't think we have to worry about China outspending us.

But China is hungry. They are more willing to take risks in order to master space the way we have in a faster way.

The US has been very risk averse when it comes to space exploration. It's an attitude that I think needs to change.

I'm not sure i would call the US space endeavours, 'space mastery' mate...considering your guys are still standing on Russian launch pads with your thumbs in the air...space hitchikers perhaps, but masters...nah.

Russia...first satellite / space vehicle.
Russia...first living creature in space.
Russia...first Human being in space.
Russia...first space walk.
Russia...first permanent space station.
Russia...first lunar rover, and again and again and again.
Russia...first lander on Mars

USA...first to put a HUman on the Moon...(still in hot dispute)

So really, the space masters appear to be the Russians mate.

a reply to: MysterX

Very good point, I think that NASA's main goal is to create and perfect systems for the military.

I wonder if there was a small box on to donate $ to Nasa for mars mission on the US tax filing docs how much $ would roll in. Especially if there was a little bit of public service announcements to explain the reasons to donate.

Russia is very good at putting stuff in orbit, the US is/was the best at sending men to different heavenly bodies. Which one sounds better? Sounds better is what counts, not to every one, just the public.

originally posted by: MysterX
USA...first to put a HUman on the Moon...(still in hot dispute)

Correction: Luke Warm, I left my coffee out and got distracted so it went cold, so let me throw it in the microwave to make it hot again with a regurgitated prior proven debunked conspiracy theory on why it's a hoax again while that gets debunked so I'll let it simmer down and go cold again while waiting for it to heat up again.

originally posted by: RedDragon
I think China will dominate space. They don't have to worry about political correctness.

We could have been doing manned landings on Saturn's moons by 1980 but nooooooo they had to be politically correct and cancel the Orion Project. Stupid concerns about radiation and such that China won't be held back by.

Now we cant even send men into orbit lol.

Of course, most aviation and space enthusiasts on ATS ignore the topics of alien UFOs in our midst and the ample evidence of the black triangles being a domestic (US) product. The latter areoperational via black budget money outside of NASA's fund (for the most part). Unless the US fails on its face as did Russia a couple of decades ago, the Chinese, nor any other nation, will never compete with the US. The work of NASA combined with the abilities of the triangles must be reasonably assumed to be space capable equipment with their unique brand of field-altering locomotion. This whole deal is about the militarization of space and not pure scientific exploration...if it ever was.

You can't be serious about the plain logic about the cancelling of the Orion Project. The world could not survive if you were to be sending massive ship after ship into orbit by exploding hydrogen bombs at their behinds every couple of seconds. That is a mad scientist's dream best let lay.

But what the Hell, the research on the motive powers of the UFOs have given us massless-powers developed and undoubtedly long-proven by highly advanced beings. Defy what you are told to believe by the government about UFOs and black triangles and extrapolate from there about what we have really been doing in space. In short, the triangles are the replacement for the next generation shuttle. --You don't really think that little "space plane" parked up there in a "showplace" orbit is America's solution to an active, energetic space race do you?

a reply to: seasonal

You really need to read and comprehend what is being said. NASA is not doing R&D for anyone. They're improving what's there and making it more efficient. The company building it does the R&D. NASA isn't doing work on the next Boeing aircraft, or GE engine. Boeing spent upwards of $32B to develop and build the 787. None of which came from subsidies or NASA.

You do know what NASA stands for, right? National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Part of their mission is dealing with aircraft. How exactly do you propose they do that if they don't actually do anything with aircraft?

a reply to: MysterX

Russia may be ahead of NASA but not ahead of the american space program....which is not NASA. ..but elsewhere. That space prpgram is leaps and bounds ahead of china or russia.

a reply to: seasonal

And as far as subsidies go, Boeing gets them in terms of tax breaks from the state, not direct payments from the government. There's been a long drawn out battle in the WTO over both subsidies.