Slashdot Mirror


Ex-Astronaut Developing Plasma Rocket To Revitalize NASA

TechReviewAl writes "Former astronaut Franklin Chang Diaz believes that the private sector can revitalize NASA, and his company is developing a plasma rocket to back up that claim. Chang Diaz argues that private industry can be used to develop much of the basic technology needed for space exploration, allowing NASA to focus on more sophisticated and critical components. His company, Ad Astra, is developing a variable specific impulse magnetoplasma rocket (VASIMR) that will be used to reposition the International Space Station. Last week, the rocket passed an important milestone in testing — reaching 200 kilowatts (enough to move the ISS). A video of the rocket can be seen on Ad Astra's site."

14 of 277 comments (clear)

  1. They've been working on this for a while now by TheKidWho · · Score: 3, Insightful

    AFAIK they have been working on VASIMR for over a decade now... This isn't exactly "news"

    1. Re:They've been working on this for a while now by MozeeToby · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A non-chemical rocket that can produce that level of thrust is absolutely news, it has the potential to open up the solar system. Personally, I'd rather see research and developement into ground to orbit launch technologies, but this is a big part of moving things quickly from one part of the system to another.

      To be fair, the title is what is wrong, it should be "VASIMR Tested at Full Power" not "VASIMR under developement".

    2. Re:They've been working on this for a while now by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When I was 20, fusion was 20 years away, and it seemed likely we'd see space-baced fusion drives in my lifetime. Now I'm 40, and fusion is 20 years away ...

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  2. Get out of the way, NASA by ForexCoder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    NASA really needs to move to a research and incubation role, similar to what it does in the aeronautical world. Given the constant changes in direction each new administration brings, and the whims of budgeting each new congress brings, NASA can't continue to be the primary source for launch vehicles.

    They should license out the Ares technology, promote competitions among the multiple private rocket vendors and focus on scientific and development missions using private vendors to provide the launch capacity.

    1. Re:Get out of the way, NASA by dferrantino · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's exactly what they've been doing lately. SpaceX is in the process of becoming the primary provider of resupply missions to the ISS for when the shuttle program ends.

  3. Re:Another ex-NASA type trying to cash in by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A cynical view I know. But the US Gov pays through the nose to train these guys who then just retire and try to cash in on the Washington gravy train. Just like the rest of the high level military, political and bureaucratic employees that leave gov employment in order to cash in. Typical and sad.

    Why is that "sad"? Would you keep working for the Government if you had a skillset that was going to enable you to make a lot more money in the private sector? Does it also bother you when someone gets an entry level IT job and then leaves for greener pastures once they acquire sufficient work experience?

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  4. Re:Another ex-NASA type trying to cash in by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or maybe, just maybe, the guy got a doctorate in plasma physics, and flew 7 Space Shuttle missions (which isn't exactly safe), directed the NASA Advanced Space Propulsion Laboratory, and is investing in plasma rocket research after his NASA tenure because he's interested in plasma physics, rocket science, and the possibilities of space flight.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  5. "200Kw, which is enough to move the ISS" by alrudd1287 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Can't any amount of power move the ISS just at a slower rate?

    1. Re:"200Kw, which is enough to move the ISS" by samkass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This may be a stupid question, but if there is no perceived gravity in a "perfect" orbit, but the ISS orbit is decaying, wouldn't that mean that the decay is being caused by acceleration, causing it to be less than a perfect microgravity environment. If you, on the other hand, had a tiny thruster operating 100% of the time that kept the ISS in its perfect orbit, wouldn't that mean a BETTER microgravity environment, not a worse one? In other words, by constantly counteracting the drag of the atmosphere instead of letting it build up then using significant thrust, wouldn't you go from microgravity 99% of the time to even better microgravity 100% of the time?

      --
      E pluribus unum
  6. Re:Another ex-NASA type trying to cash in by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But the US Gov pays through the nose to train these guys who then just retire and try to cash in on the Washington gravy train.

    Yeah he retired after "just" twenty five years. He really screwed NASA on that one!

    And what, after he retires, he's not supposed to do the most obvious things related to his education and experience? He was working on plasma rockets before he made it to NASA. So is it worse that he's planning to work on plasma rockets to sell to NASA after working for them for a quarter century, rather than going into private industry straight out of college? Why? Because it vaguely fits a stereotype of ex-government employees leaving to work for contractors?

    A cynical view I know.

    Yeah... What's the word where cynicism is used as a replacement for understanding? Kinda like "blind optimism", but the opposite? Blind cynicism doesn't sound right. As a cynic, I've always liked the expression "cynicism is realism plus experience". But you're not being realistic. So... what is it that you're doing?

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  7. Sense of reality = fail by TheMeuge · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is the same kind of math used by proponents of President Obama's healthcare socialization package. If you will, it's also the same math used to justify the Soviet command economy.

    On paper, eliminating profits saves money for the hypothetical society. In reality, however, eliminating profit also eliminates self-interest, which very effectively stagnates or degrades the enterprise... be it at the level of a single supermarket, or the economy of the wealthiest country on Earth.

    The reason why this doesn't work, is because you need several things to get something accomplished. You need the WILL to start it... the RESPONSIBILITY to see it through, and the MEANS to get it done. Socialism helps with the means... but not the will. Capitalism helps with the will, by accepting man as the egotistical bastard he is, and appealing to the basest of desires: greed.

    But nothing helps with responsibility. For as long as clerks with 1-inch fingernails will 1-finger-type endless requisition forms to get anything done in large organizations (which includes companies as well as governments) with zero interest or concern for what they are doing, waste will reign supreme. At least in private enterprise, this is somewhat moderated by the need for more profit. A government bureaucracy, on the other hand, is like entropy. It spontaneously expands, and this can only be reversed locally, at an even greater cost to the entire system.

  8. Re:Another ex-NASA type trying to cash in by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So we've got a _really smart_ guy we've paid to educate, paid for many years to perform exactly 7 times... I'm not about to give him a free pass just because he's got a doctorate and a handful of mission patches.

    Given your flippant tone, I'm sure you'll be surprised to hear that 7 space shuttle flights is as many as anyone has ever done. Only one other astronaut has as many missions under their belt. This is because space flight is a Big Deal. Astronauts often train for years for a single specific mission.

    By the way...how do you amass enough cash to personally invest significantly in this kind of endeavor, considering otherwise "normal" governmental salaries in the 70-130k/year range?Or is he primarily a front man - a very smart one - who is helping to get money from others (perhaps old colleagues with strings to government funds?) to pursue this research.

    Front-man... inventor of the technology the company makes... Yeah, same thing.

    I'm not saying he's not doing interesting, and possibly valuable, research, but I'm not about to give him a free pass just because he's got a doctorate and a handful of mission patches.

    What does that even mean? A "pass" from what? What horrible sin has he allegedly committed? Leaving NASA after a mere twenty five years and a record number of shuttle missions? Turning his research into plasma propulsion into a real invention? Throw me a bone here!

    Now, if he's made a bunch of money doing other things (dot com bubble investor?), and is pursuing this as a purely speculative path, then good for him.

    Oh I see. So if he'd managed to fund this venture without having done anything productive rather than inventing a new propulsion system, then you'd be cool with it.

    WTF is with these comments?

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  9. Re:Another ex-NASA type trying to cash in by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So if Mr. Astronaut became a lobbyist instead that'd be okay too? Or a Medal of Honor winner who pimps his heroism out to lobby for munitions makers seeking gov contracts? Guns and bombs is what he knows right?

    But that's not what he's doing, now is it? He's starting a private company, with private investment, and creating what he hopes are practical solutions for other private industries and NASA.

    This is exactly what I'm talking about -- "cynicism" is not saying "this will end badly" without concern for the specifics of what "this" is. You have to look at the actual reality and distinguish based on that. "So if he [did something else] that'd be okay too?", implying no distinction based on the actual activity or its outcome, is the opposite of realism.

    For a self described cynic (as in always asking "who benefits?") you sure do have a idealistic outlook which goes against the weight of the evidence about who lobbys and for what.

    He is going to benefit, obviously so, because he's the CEO of the company. What's the problem again? He's going to get a nice NASA contract, become Yet Another Defense Contractor, and lobby congress to give NASA more funds? Oh noes!

    You don't sound like a cynic to me. You sound like a betrayed idealist, with a rosy-eyed view of how things "should" be, and constantly finding that not to be the case. So you say things will end badly in some vague way, without regard to what's actually happening because it doesn't matter.

    Personally, seeing someone trying to use the 'best of both worlds' of private enterprise and government contracts to drag NASA kicking and screaming out of the 60s warms my cynical heart.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  10. Re:Perspective by BarefootClown · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You're kidding, right?

    Right now, the chances of dying on a Space Shuttle trip are a bit over one percent. That said, I'll bet if you were to offer rides to the public--knowing full-well that the odds of dying in a fiery hell of hydrazine and liquid oxygen are about two in one-fifty--I'll bet the line would be around the block before the last words were out of your mouth.

    And I'd be at the front of that line.

    Do you really think there's any shortage of people who wouldn't love to go to space, to explore something new? Even without any reward--hell, even if you didn't pay a salary for their service--you'd have no trouble finding volunteers. Lined up around the block, probably more than a few fist-fighting for one space closer to the head of the line.

    And I'd make sure I won that fight.

    In fact, you could probably make it a one-way mission--we'll send you to Mars, you'll help us with experiments, and you'll plant a flag with your name at the base, but we can't bring you home--and the volunteers would come.

    Oh, yes, they'd come. Just for the chance to touch the soil of a foreign planet. The chance to travel to the great unknown, to be the first to do something truly majestic. Oh, yes, they'd come.

    --

    "Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
    --Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca