...what Congress gets to see.
I think the two questions that need answering are:1. is Mitt Romney going to change policy away from the current compromise of SLS+Orion and ISS+CRS+Commercial Crew (simplified)?2. is Mitt Romney going to request in his budgets enough money to implement those policies?
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 06/02/2012 01:31 pm...what Congress gets to see. Pretty much agree, with this itty bitty quibble. Congress "gets" to see as much detail as it wants. The problem is what Congress "wants" to see.
Quote from: MikeAtkinson on 06/02/2012 06:46 pmRomney's budget includes huge spending cuts for discretionary programs and agencies like NASA, although he does not specify which programs and agencies within the discretionary budget are to be cut.
1. is Mitt Romney going to change policy away from the current compromise of SLS+Orion and ISS+CRS+Commercial Crew (simplified)?2. is Mitt Romney going to request in his budgets enough money to implement those policies?
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 06/02/2012 03:05 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 06/02/2012 01:31 pm...what Congress gets to see. Pretty much agree, with this itty bitty quibble. Congress "gets" to see as much detail as it wants. The problem is what Congress "wants" to see.No they don't. They get to request information from NASA and then have NASA fail to deliver that information for months and months.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/22/mitt-romney-budget-cuts_n_1443743.html
Without getting into a conversation about politics in general, I believe that Romney's own statement about cutting discretionary spending by 5% answers the question about his plans for NASA.
Quote from: notsorandom on 06/01/2012 10:23 pmAndrew, You are posting in the politics section so I take it you can see L2, and therefore the latest on SLS. If that is somehow not the case then I apologize. It has not yet been made public so we can obviously not discuss it much here but we know what we are going to do with SLS. Its all on L2. SLS is not a rocket to nowhere. NASA always comes up with fanciful plans, often multiple conflicting ones at the same time, which Congress consistently shoots down - wasting thousands of man hours in the process. What's your point?
Andrew, You are posting in the politics section so I take it you can see L2, and therefore the latest on SLS. If that is somehow not the case then I apologize. It has not yet been made public so we can obviously not discuss it much here but we know what we are going to do with SLS. Its all on L2. SLS is not a rocket to nowhere.
A few corrections:NASA Congress always comes up with fanciful, conflicting plans, writes them into law, then most blame NASA for wasting thousands of manhours
Quote from: muomega0 on 06/04/2012 11:54 pmA few corrections:NASA Congress always comes up with fanciful, conflicting plans, writes them into law, then most blame NASA for wasting thousands of manhoursYou're wrong. Congress doesn't come up with any plans.. just demands.
NASA shall build a 70 to 130 metric tonne launch vehicle that is shuttle derived.I just used your word plans rather than demands.....whatever
SLS is not economical. Simply take 2 lunars missions a year, which is 240,000 kg and divide by 10: the LV size should be around 25,000 kg in order to spread the fixed costs over as many flights as possible to reduce the $/kg. NOw assume that two LVs accomplish the same metric tonnes per year or include the International Partners and size the LV. Then consider the largest piece of hardware needed. Its more complex than this, but it gets you in the ballpark.