NASA Cancels Nanosat Challenge 35
RocketAcademy writes "NASA has canceled funding for the Nano-Satellite Launch Challenge, a $2-million prize competition that was intended to promote development of a low-cost dedicated launch system for CubeSats and other small satellites. The cancellation is a setback for small satellite developers, many of whom have satellites sitting on the shelf waiting for a launch, and the emerging commercial launch industry. The Nano-Satellite Launch Challenge was being run by NASA and Space Florida as part of NASA's troubled Centennial Challenges program. The sudden cancellation of the Launch Challenge, before the competition even began, is calling NASA's commitment to Centennial Challenges into doubt."
Re:There's an easier answer: terrorists. (Score:4, Informative)
>remember that the other name for an orbital launcher is an ICBM.
I asked someone that worked on the CSXT spaceshot (private rocket that went to 67 miles in 2004 or about then) about such a thing be used as a weapon. His answer was, "don't let your imagination go wild. There are many things [besides rockets] that are dual use technology."
I asked Al Stern at SETIcon II panel on commercial space if there is "conspiracy" in government making spaceflight so difficult to have a high barrier of entry to prevent small countries from acquiring ICBM capability. His answer was "that's BS."
Main argument is programs such as Nanosat challenge that provide entry level are getting cut but money pits (SLS) charge on. And forget this about "They" are going to steal our secrets. There is no need for foreign spies to work in US as we simply export the engineering to other countries. Going back to commercial space, Spacex and others do it cheaper because legacy launch vehicles built by Boeing, LM (no, NASA never built rockets as there is no US Govt Rocket Factory) is because LV such as Atlas, Delta, etc were designed as military rockets where performance is the issue, not the cost.