STS-98 Space Shuttle Atlantis landing at Edwards Air Force Base in California. The view is from the Commander’s Head-Up Display (HUD). Notice the incredibly steep descent angle (~20deg) and the pre-flare maneuver on final approach.

Should the government finance the exploration and settlement of the final frontier? Or should it be left to private individuals and corporations? This question has plagued the aerospace community since before the Apollo program. Here’s my two cents.

I think NASA’s COTS program is a step in the right direction. Governments should, in my opinion, always bear the financial risk inherent in scientific research and the exploration of frontiers. That’s what they’re there for.

Currently, there is no motivation for private industry to finance an extremely risky endeavor such as a Mars mission or colony. And, as the aerospace industry is currently structured, with behemoths like Lockheed and Boeing accustomed to the cost-plus nature of defense contracts, there is also very little incentive for anything to be done quickly or cheaply — especially when the government is footing the bill.

Read more »

This year is the 50th anniversary of Spaceflight. On October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union launched and orbited Sputnik 1, the first artificial satellite, and started what became known as the Space Race. This race effectively ended on July 20, 1969 when Aldrin and Armstrong walked on the Moon.

Since then, NASA has accomplished very little when compared to the advances made in aviation in the years following Charles Lindbergh’s New York to Paris flight. So the question must be asked, “Do we really need NASA?”

by Robert C. Truax, January 1999

Copyright © 2000 Aerospace America.   Reprinted with permission.

The story of turbopump rocket development is an interesting one of trial and error. Many sidelines were explored before the objectives of light weight and high performance were finally attained with the main engines for the Shuttle. Russian rocket development followed a somewhat similar path, and the end result was very similar: a topping cycle with high combustion chamber pressures.

But turbopump engines, whether high pressure or low, were a mistake from the very beginning. They simply are not worth what they cost in time and money. In all the early development efforts, pump-fed systems were preceded by a pressure-fed version. In every case, the mission was accomplished and the program goals met before the development of the pump system was completed. After the X-I broke the sound barrier with its pressure-fed rocket engine, who ever heard of the D-558-2 — powered by a pump-fed engine?

Technically simple two-stage launchers with pressure-fed engines and ocean recovery offer the economical operations that have escaped our high-technology turbopump rockets for more than four decades.

Read more »