National Strategic Defense Left to Whim of NASA?

Manonthestreet

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2014
Messages
41,171
Reaction score
33,259
Points
3,645
Next, in 2016, NASA will decide whether its new boosters will use liquid fuel, solid propellant, or a mix. If they go all or mostly liquid, that’s a potential death blow for domestic solid fuel manufacturing, and the Trident’s a solid-fuel missile. Even if the Navy could afford to design a replacement, it would still have to use solid propellant, because liquid rocket fuel is simply unsafe in the tight confines of a submarine. Fading Solid Fuel Engine Biz Threatens Navy?s Trident Missile « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary
 
Why is NASA involved in defense technology? I thought they were out of business since the Space Shuttle was grounded and the US deferred it's Space technology to the Cold War nation we just defeated.
 
The Obama nightmare is nearing its end. Hopefully we won't get stuck with a potentially worse Prez in Hillary Clinton. Maybe America will get really lucky and end up with just a normal, sensible President who's mind isn't filled with a bunch of hair-brained, Libtard fantasies and Socialistic ideas and we can get back to some sense of normalcy. Perhaps NASA can get back to what they do best.
 
Shouldnt be in the hands of NASA period.
 
Shouldnt be in the hands of NASA period.

Yeah why the hell is the Navy tied to NASA when it comes to rocket propellant?

Reagan used to speak of "star wars" technology. Who better to employ than NASA? I'm not saying I'm for having nuclear weapons shot from space but it seems very plausible that America's military complex would wish to cozy up to NASA. A scary thought, actually, but if a nation wanted to be the "top dog" militarily speaking then having the ability to fire weapons from space would certainly give them the edge.
 
Back
Top Bottom