TRUMP TO SIGN SPACE POLICY DIRECTIVE TOMORROWBy Marcia Smith | Posted: December 10, 2017 11:04 pm ET | Last Updated: December 10, 2017 11:06 pm ETPresident Trump will sign Space Policy Directive 1 at 3:00 pm tomorrow at a White House ceremony. The directive apparently will make a human return to the lunar surface part of U.S. space policy.
“We will return American astronauts to the moon, not only to leave behind footprints and flags, but to build the foundation we need to send Americans to Mars and beyond,”
Depending on what this is, probably it's politically toothless. Congress would need to authorize and fund.
So; the more things change; the more they...
Constellation or no Constellation: I believe it was very wrong to redirect America away from the Moon after Obama made his - essentially - 'been there; done that' statements. It's one of the few things I wont forgive him for. But since I'm not an American voter; I'm fully aware that my annoyance for that is impotent It is what it is. People like me are 'Space Cadets'. Even if intended to be pejorative - I'd still wear that label with pride...
NASA tells me that -- at the moment at least -- although NASA TV will be at the 3:00 pm ET White House event, the signing is not live, so video won't be available till later. For live coverage, I'm advised that NASA's social medial outlets are the best bet.
Quote from: MATTBLAK on 12/11/2017 10:14 amConstellation or no Constellation: I believe it was very wrong to redirect America away from the Moon after Obama made his - essentially - 'been there; done that' statements. It's one of the few things I wont forgive him for. But since I'm not an American voter; I'm fully aware that my annoyance for that is impotent It is what it is. People like me are 'Space Cadets'. Even if intended to be pejorative - I'd still wear that label with pride...Wrong. The guy you have to blame is named Nixon, not Obama. Nixon is the one that steered the USA away from the Moon, all the way back to LEO. And once the USA was stuck there, courtesy of the space shuttle and the space station sucking the NASA budget dry, there was no real chance of going back into deep space.
Quote from: hektor on 12/11/2017 08:28 amNowhere it is said “to the Moon surface” in this alleged text. You can make the case that having extended stays at the Deep Space Gateway is “returning humans to the Moon”.The inside-DC gossip is that the above has been the crux of an argument between the White House and NASA. NASA has been trying to argue that the Deep Space Gateway (which they may be renaming to put "Moon" into the title) answers the policy directive, but people over in the executive branch are saying "No, we mean the surface of the Moon."I can totally see the NASA perspective on this--administrations come and go, and do they really want to get all worked up on designing a lunar surface architecture when a little over three years from now a different administration could say "Forget that stuff"?
Nowhere it is said “to the Moon surface” in this alleged text. You can make the case that having extended stays at the Deep Space Gateway is “returning humans to the Moon”.
Constellation or no Constellation: I believe it was very wrong to redirect America away from the Moon after Obama made his - essentially - 'been there; done that' statements. It's one of the few things I wont forgive him for.
Wrong. The guy you have to blame is named Nixon, not Obama. Nixon is the one that steered the USA away from the Moon, all the way back to LEO. And once the USA was stuck there, courtesy of the space shuttle and the space station sucking the NASA budget dry, there was no real chance of going back into deep space.
QuoteTRUMP TO SIGN SPACE POLICY DIRECTIVE TOMORROWBy Marcia Smith | Posted: December 10, 2017 11:04 pm ET | Last Updated: December 10, 2017 11:06 pm ETPresident Trump will sign Space Policy Directive 1 at 3:00 pm tomorrow at a White House ceremony. The directive apparently will make a human return to the lunar surface part of U.S. space policy.https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/trump-to-sign-space-policy-directive-tomorrow/Discussion of implications for, and current status of, Bridenstine’s confirmation:http://nasawatch.com/archives/2017/12/confirming-the.html
The inside-DC gossip is that the above has been the crux of an argument between the White House and NASA. NASA has been trying to argue that the Deep Space Gateway (which they may be renaming to put "Moon" into the title) answers the policy directive, but people over in the executive branch are saying "No, we mean the surface of the Moon."I can totally see the NASA perspective on this--administrations come and go, and do they really want to get all worked up on designing a lunar surface architecture when a little over three years from now a different administration could say "Forget that stuff"?
The inside-DC gossip is that the above has been the crux of an argument between the White House and NASA. NASA has been trying to argue that the Deep Space Gateway (which they may be renaming to put "Moon" into the title) answers the policy directive, but people over in the executive branch are saying "No, we mean the surface of the Moon."
The usually "fiscally obsessed" Republicans seemed to have lost their way and with a president who doesn't care about debt, it will be interesting how this will pan out in these unusual times"...
Quote from: Rocket Science on 12/11/2017 03:10 pmThe usually "fiscally obsessed" Republicans seemed to have lost their way and with a president who doesn't care about debt, it will be interesting how this will pan out in these unusual times"...The previous Republican administration dramatically increased the national debt. While some Republicans are still concerned with the debt, the 21st century Republican Party as a whole gave up on being fiscally conservative. They give it lip service and try to cut Democrat favored programs, but they reduce revenue and increase the programs they like.That said, NASA already has a large budget and I doubt Congress will give them more money.
I think the article jumps to conclusions a bit quicklyThe directive text according to the article says : “We shall lead an innovative and sustainable program of exploration with commercial and international partners to enable human expansion across the solar system to bring new knowledge and opportunities. Beginning with missions beyond low Earth orbit, the United States will lead to return humans to the Moon for long term exploration followed by human missions to Mars and other destinations.”Nowhere it is said “to the Moon surface” in this alleged text. You can make the case that having extended stays at the Deep Space Gateway is “returning humans to the Moon”.
Text emphasis mine. Long Term Exploration can only mean the lunar surface. There is nowhere else in the cis-lunar vicinity *to explore*.Your reasoning would exclude the Martian surface when the sentence continues "followed by human missions to Mars".
Trump: we’re the leader and we’re going to stay the leader, and increase it many-fold.
Published on 11 Dec 2017Acting NASA Administrator Robert Lightfoot and National Space Council Executive Secretary Scott Pace comment on Space Policy Directive 1, signed Monday, Dec. 11, 2017, by President Trump at the White House. The policy calls on NASA to work with international and commercial partners to send humans to the Moon, with a horizon goal of sending astronauts to Mars.
List of attendees (from White House press office) at Trump signing ceremony for Space Policy Directive 1.
Two things that were memorable:1. VP Pence stating that we're returning to our Moon for strategic reasons - national security.2. Trump stating that his policy is about jobs.The first one is very scary, since I don't think anyone wants to militarize space. That would just hasten the end of Earth, which means maybe we should be all shoving money at Elon Musk to hurry up and get the Mars colony going.As for jobs, Trump doesn't know anything more about "space" than he does about the military (i.e. very little), which means Congress can just keep funding NASA for jobs like they like to do, and not much needs to get accomplished. And likely Congress won't increase NASA's funding, which if so would be bad news for the SLS and Orion programs, which currently don't have any funded programs or payloads that they are needed to support. More status quo is bad for them.So did anything change today? No.
Space has been militarized for a long time.
There is however national security implications for a presence on the moon. The reasoning starts with the realization that it is far easier to move from the Moon to any Earth orbit than it is to move material from Earth's surface. If a nation were able to establish a base on the moon that would be supplied by resources on the Moon (ISRU), then that nation would dominate space economically and militarily.
Of course we know that there are many difficulties in establishing a base on the moon and doing ISRU on a significant scale, but I do not think there is anyone who believes it is beyond our technological capability.
The White HouseOffice of the Press SecretaryFor Immediate Release. December 11, 2017Presidential Memorandum on Reinvigorating America's Human Space Exploration ProgramMEMORANDUM FOR THE VICE PRESIDENTTHE SECRETARY OF STATETHE SECRETARY OF DEFENSETHE SECRETARY OF COMMERCETHE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATIONTHE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITYTHE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGETTHE ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRSTHE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATIONTHE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICYTHE ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR HOMELAND SECURITY AND COUNTERTERRORISMTHE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFFSUBJECT: Reinvigorating America's Human Space Exploration ProgramSection 1. Amendment to Presidential Policy Directive-4.Presidential Policy Directive-4 of June 28, 2010 (National Space Policy), is amended as follows:The paragraph beginning "Set far-reaching exploration milestones" is deleted and replaced with the following:"Lead an innovative and sustainable program of exploration with commercial and international partners to enable human expansion across the solar system and to bring back to Earth new knowledge and opportunities. Beginning with missions beyond low-Earth orbit, the United States will lead the return of humans to the Moon for long-term exploration and utilization, followed by human missions to Mars and other destinations;".Sec. 2. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.(c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.(d) This memorandum shall be published in the Federal Register. DONALD J. TRUMP
CSF Statement on President Trump signing of Space Policy Directive 1by Jane Kinney on DECEMBER 11, 2017“CSF applauds President Trump for signing Space Policy Directive 1, which directs NASA to partner with the U.S. commercial space industry to return Americans to the Moon,” said Eric Stallmer, President of CSF. “The U.S. commercial space industry has already invested hundreds of millions of dollars in private capital to develop innovative capabilities for lunar transport, operations, and resource utilization, leading to many lower cost innovative approaches that can benefit this new era of lunar exploration. CSF urges the Administration to direct NASA to leverage these capabilities to generate greater efficiency and quicker solutions, and to partner with industry through flexible, innovative contracting approaches, to accelerate progress towards achieving the goals set out in Space Policy Directive 1.”
Agreed about the debt, but this president is only interested in aggrandizing his term in office with his obsession with his own "Kennedy moment" and legacy building
(he already has begun a second term campaign).
He may concoct a deal with his Republican colleagues in congress to this end... We'll see...
Quote from: Rocket Science on 12/11/2017 03:41 pmAgreed about the debt, but this president is only interested in aggrandizing his term in office with his obsession with his own "Kennedy moment" and legacy building I think many different people have many different "Kennedy moments" in mind. Time will tell which one(s) Trump actually manages to re-live.Quote from: Rocket Science(he already has begun a second term campaign). He's already got the the slogan ready"Keeping America great" Quote from: Rocket ScienceHe may concoct a deal with his Republican colleagues in congress to this end... We'll see...Isn't that pretty much mandatory if he wants this to go anywhere?
Can you provide the exact quote about Lunar surface because I missed it.
QuoteThere is however national security implications for a presence on the moon. The reasoning starts with the realization that it is far easier to move from the Moon to any Earth orbit than it is to move material from Earth's surface. If a nation were able to establish a base on the moon that would be supplied by resources on the Moon (ISRU), then that nation would dominate space economically and militarily.Anything can be rationalized, but that doesn't mean that the rationalization is correct.The Arms Race resulted from the fear that one nation was going to have a superiority over another, and thus the one that felt like they were behind rationalized that they needed to build more arms - which included enough nuclear weapons to destroy civilization many times over.
A similar type of military buildup in space could happen, and that would, over time, limit the private sector's ability to expand out into space. In other words, in a slight amount of militarization in space could kill off the efforts of the private sector to find new business models based on activity in space. And no one would likely be immune.
QuoteOf course we know that there are many difficulties in establishing a base on the moon and doing ISRU on a significant scale, but I do not think there is anyone who believes it is beyond our technological capability.The amount we spend should be in proportion to how badly we need it, and establishing such a capability on our Moon is going to cost a MASSIVE amount of money if the SLS and Orion are used. And no, I don't see Congress deciding to use the private sector to help out - and least not on Trump's watch.
... “After 45 years, it is time to return humans to the region of the Moon even as we look toward Mars,” Dr. Dittmar said. “The Coalition is proud to support NASA and to help bring about this exciting future. We congratulate the Trump Administration on its bold vision and commitment to American leadership in space.” ...robotic landers, ...
Quote from: woods170 on 12/11/2017 12:06 pmThe guy you have to blame is named Nixon, not Obama. Nixon is the one that steered the USA away from the Moon, all the way back to LEO. And once the USA was stuck there, courtesy of the space shuttle and the space station sucking the NASA budget dry, there was no real chance of going back into deep space.LBJ, not Nixon, was President when Apollo/Saturn V and Apollo Applications were cut back. Future Saturn V production was cut in the months before Nixon was elected, leading to cancellation of Apollos 18-20, etc.. But honestly, it wouldn't have mattered who was elected in 1968. The American people didn't want to spend any more money on lunar landings. Today's generation will apparently have to rediscover the reason why ... - Ed Kyle
The guy you have to blame is named Nixon, not Obama. Nixon is the one that steered the USA away from the Moon, all the way back to LEO. And once the USA was stuck there, courtesy of the space shuttle and the space station sucking the NASA budget dry, there was no real chance of going back into deep space.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 12/11/2017 09:59 pm... “After 45 years, it is time to return humans to the region of the Moon even as we look toward Mars,” Dr. Dittmar said. “The Coalition is proud to support NASA and to help bring about this exciting future. We congratulate the Trump Administration on its bold vision and commitment to American leadership in space.” ...robotic landers, ...Mary Lynn apparently doesn't think much of landing people on the Moon. Pretty striking departure from today's message. Wonder why?
Quote from: woods170 on 12/11/2017 12:06 pmQuote from: MATTBLAK on 12/11/2017 10:14 amConstellation or no Constellation: I believe it was very wrong to redirect America away from the Moon after Obama made his - essentially - 'been there; done that' statements. It's one of the few things I wont forgive him for. But since I'm not an American voter; I'm fully aware that my annoyance for that is impotent It is what it is. People like me are 'Space Cadets'. Even if intended to be pejorative - I'd still wear that label with pride...Wrong. The guy you have to blame is named Nixon, not Obama. Nixon is the one that steered the USA away from the Moon, all the way back to LEO. And once the USA was stuck there, courtesy of the space shuttle and the space station sucking the NASA budget dry, there was no real chance of going back into deep space.Most of us are well aware of the Nixon era history and it's context - but I was not speaking about that era - at all. The GW Bush and Obama years are whole different beast; and that is established fact. There were several options open to him; continue Apollo Lunar and possible expand it, go with the Shuttle and the Space Station and LEO, or go with the third option - Shuttle alone. And that's what we got. The GW Bush and Obama era was a chance to erase that mistake and the errors after Challenger & Columbia But some errors continued onwards, regardless. Constellation could ave been pragmatically altered - not bloody cancelled outright.
Quote from: MATTBLAK on 12/11/2017 12:48 pmQuote from: woods170 on 12/11/2017 12:06 pmQuote from: MATTBLAK on 12/11/2017 10:14 amConstellation or no Constellation: I believe it was very wrong to redirect America away from the Moon after Obama made his - essentially - 'been there; done that' statements. It's one of the few things I wont forgive him for. But since I'm not an American voter; I'm fully aware that my annoyance for that is impotent It is what it is. People like me are 'Space Cadets'. Even if intended to be pejorative - I'd still wear that label with pride...Wrong. The guy you have to blame is named Nixon, not Obama. Nixon is the one that steered the USA away from the Moon, all the way back to LEO. And once the USA was stuck there, courtesy of the space shuttle and the space station sucking the NASA budget dry, there was no real chance of going back into deep space.Most of us are well aware of the Nixon era history and it's context - but I was not speaking about that era - at all. The GW Bush and Obama years are whole different beast; and that is established fact. There were several options open to him; continue Apollo Lunar and possible expand it, go with the Shuttle and the Space Station and LEO, or go with the third option - Shuttle alone. And that's what we got. The GW Bush and Obama era was a chance to erase that mistake and the errors after Challenger & Columbia But some errors continued onwards, regardless. Constellation could ave been pragmatically altered - not bloody cancelled outright.You do realize that changing course is what Democrats and Republicans do when they take over from each other?- Bush sr.: Moon first, Mars later- Clinton: Forget the Moon. Mars eventually.- Bush jr.: Moon first, Mars later- Obama: Forget the Moon. Asteroids, and Mars eventually- Trump: Moon first, Mars laterIs see a pattern here.Once Trump is replaced by a Democrat president the focus will shift, once again. Simply because space policy is not set along "what is good for the country" but along "what is good for the party-in-charge".
Quote from: woods170 on 12/12/2017 07:20 amQuote from: MATTBLAK on 12/11/2017 12:48 pmQuote from: woods170 on 12/11/2017 12:06 pmQuote from: MATTBLAK on 12/11/2017 10:14 amConstellation or no Constellation: I believe it was very wrong to redirect America away from the Moon after Obama made his - essentially - 'been there; done that' statements. It's one of the few things I wont forgive him for. But since I'm not an American voter; I'm fully aware that my annoyance for that is impotent It is what it is. People like me are 'Space Cadets'. Even if intended to be pejorative - I'd still wear that label with pride...Wrong. The guy you have to blame is named Nixon, not Obama. Nixon is the one that steered the USA away from the Moon, all the way back to LEO. And once the USA was stuck there, courtesy of the space shuttle and the space station sucking the NASA budget dry, there was no real chance of going back into deep space.Most of us are well aware of the Nixon era history and it's context - but I was not speaking about that era - at all. The GW Bush and Obama years are whole different beast; and that is established fact. There were several options open to him; continue Apollo Lunar and possible expand it, go with the Shuttle and the Space Station and LEO, or go with the third option - Shuttle alone. And that's what we got. The GW Bush and Obama era was a chance to erase that mistake and the errors after Challenger & Columbia But some errors continued onwards, regardless. Constellation could ave been pragmatically altered - not bloody cancelled outright.You do realize that changing course is what Democrats and Republicans do when they take over from each other?- Bush sr.: Moon first, Mars later- Clinton: Forget the Moon. Mars eventually.- Bush jr.: Moon first, Mars later- Obama: Forget the Moon. Asteroids, and Mars eventually- Trump: Moon first, Mars laterIs see a pattern here.Once Trump is replaced by a Democrat president the focus will shift, once again. Simply because space policy is not set along "what is good for the country" but along "what is good for the party-in-charge".Obviously, the two need not be mutually exclusive. I would think - at least I interpret it thus - that what is 'best' for a country's space program is to be progressive over time; building on the achievements of the past; even if it has to have a new Administrations' 'spin' on what progress is. My opinion - for what it's worth as a non-U.S. citizen and taxpayer - is that the Moon should not have been abandoned during the Obama era. We've had nigh on a decade of a great deal of money spent, but arguably little progress and nowhere went to
There are "space missions" and then there's "space stunts"... I'm speaking of the latter...
Budgets are policy.
Obviously, the two need not be mutually exclusive. I would think - at least I interpret it thus - that what is 'best' for a country's space program is to be progressive over time
With all due respect; Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Snr, Clinton, GW Bush and Obama didn't have 'Kennedy Moments' and I doubt anyone else will, either. The Trump Administration is having 'speed wobbles' over a number of things. If a partisan Congress and Senate don't get behind this initiative then we may have another 'Constellation' on our hands. But I would be delighted to be wrong.
If Jim Bridenstine is even half the man James Webb was - then NASA and the U.S. space program should prosper.
Quote from: woods170 on 12/12/2017 07:20 amQuote from: MATTBLAK on 12/11/2017 12:48 pmMost of us are well aware of the Nixon era history and it's context - but I was not speaking about that era - at all. The GW Bush and Obama years are whole different beast; and that is established fact. There were several options open to him; continue Apollo Lunar and possible expand it, go with the Shuttle and the Space Station and LEO, or go with the third option - Shuttle alone. And that's what we got. The GW Bush and Obama era was a chance to erase that mistake and the errors after Challenger & Columbia But some errors continued onwards, regardless. Constellation could ave been pragmatically altered - not bloody cancelled outright.You do realize that changing course is what Democrats and Republicans do when they take over from each other?- Bush sr.: Moon first, Mars later- Clinton: Forget the Moon. Mars eventually.- Bush jr.: Moon first, Mars later- Obama: Forget the Moon. Asteroids, and Mars eventually- Trump: Moon first, Mars laterIs see a pattern here.Once Trump is replaced by a Democrat president the focus will shift, once again. Simply because space policy is not set along "what is good for the country" but along "what is good for the party-in-charge".Obviously, the two need not be mutually exclusive. I would think - at least I interpret it thus - that what is 'best' for a country's space program is to be progressive over time; building on the achievements of the past; even if it has to have a new Administrations' 'spin' on what progress is. My opinion - for what it's worth as a non-U.S. citizen and taxpayer - is that the Moon should not have been abandoned during the Obama era. We've had nigh on a decade of a great deal of money spent, but arguably little progress and nowhere went to
Quote from: MATTBLAK on 12/11/2017 12:48 pmMost of us are well aware of the Nixon era history and it's context - but I was not speaking about that era - at all. The GW Bush and Obama years are whole different beast; and that is established fact. There were several options open to him; continue Apollo Lunar and possible expand it, go with the Shuttle and the Space Station and LEO, or go with the third option - Shuttle alone. And that's what we got. The GW Bush and Obama era was a chance to erase that mistake and the errors after Challenger & Columbia But some errors continued onwards, regardless. Constellation could ave been pragmatically altered - not bloody cancelled outright.You do realize that changing course is what Democrats and Republicans do when they take over from each other?- Bush sr.: Moon first, Mars later- Clinton: Forget the Moon. Mars eventually.- Bush jr.: Moon first, Mars later- Obama: Forget the Moon. Asteroids, and Mars eventually- Trump: Moon first, Mars laterIs see a pattern here.Once Trump is replaced by a Democrat president the focus will shift, once again. Simply because space policy is not set along "what is good for the country" but along "what is good for the party-in-charge".
Most of us are well aware of the Nixon era history and it's context - but I was not speaking about that era - at all. The GW Bush and Obama years are whole different beast; and that is established fact. There were several options open to him; continue Apollo Lunar and possible expand it, go with the Shuttle and the Space Station and LEO, or go with the third option - Shuttle alone. And that's what we got. The GW Bush and Obama era was a chance to erase that mistake and the errors after Challenger & Columbia But some errors continued onwards, regardless. Constellation could ave been pragmatically altered - not bloody cancelled outright.
The question is: what will NASA do differently in 2018, based on this directive?
It was directed to the Moon in the first place - I remember all the talk, lectures, videos and Powerpoints. But I also remember, as you just pointed out, that there was no serious funding allocated to a Lander. Virtually none at all other than notional studies. The Ares design choices 'ate NASA's lunch' and sucked up billions. I remember the folk advocating modified EELVs (my preference) Side Mount Shuttle Derived (my second choice) and of course; the Direct launcher. Direct was a pragmatic compromise that might have saved billions - and the first options I mentioned, billions more. I believe the slow and expensive Ares path was what helped kill Constellation. Blame all the personalities involved, if we must - but I wont take time to list them here.
Absolutely - I still have some Powerpoints and pdfs. It probably was the far better way to go, rather than 'Apollo On Steroids'. Oh, how I cringed when Mike Griffin said that...https://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/vse.htmhttps://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/hqlibrary/documents/o56554650.pdfhttps://www.space.com/778-spiral-stairway-moon.html
This 1/3 number is reasonable - OMB calculated that the Falcon 9 LV was about 1/3 the cost of a Federal funded LV of the same capability.
His paper is:The Opportunity in Commercial Approaches forFuture NASA Deep Space Exploration Elements, Edgar Zapata, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Kennedy Space Center, FL, 32899.https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20170008893 2017-12-12T21:53:05+00:00Z
It's almost like - if I have to explain it; you wont likely get it anyway. But I know you're far more intelligent than that. So: 'Prospering' is relative. As much as I'm a big follower of ISS and was of the Shuttle - I crossed the world to see the final launch - being stuck in low Earth orbit for decades is not fully progressive, nor is it frontiering. I want to live long enough to see humans on Mars but I'm starting to think that wont be possible. And I want it far more for the children of Earth to see humans living and working on another world, than I want it for myself. Repetitive science in low Earth orbit is useful, but it should not be an end unto itself. And concern about a national debt is important for it's own reasons. But the U.S. space program didn't make the country debt-ridden. Make yourself a list of all the things that may have caused that and you'll see that space was not and likely never will be the problem. Though, a comment I made earlier in this thread about how the Trump administration may or may not be willing to expend political capital dealing with new space policy comes to mind: will they or wont they? We'll find out soon.
I live in Alabama. I did not vote for the dem. Roy Moore's character was in question, not politics at all. Jones will only be there two years. Now, this did not affect Trump's political capital at all. If Jones is smart he will cross over and vote for things like space with Shelby. Too much polarization in Washington. Very little working together. I don't like SLS, but Shelby does. The new administrator needs to have more projects to allow for the lowest bidders designs, not NASA's designs. It would cut costs. Hopefully this would get more involvement around the country for more support.
Quote from: AncientU on 12/12/2017 04:25 amQuote from: Chris Bergin on 12/11/2017 09:59 pm... “After 45 years, it is time to return humans to the region of the Moon even as we look toward Mars,” Dr. Dittmar said. “The Coalition is proud to support NASA and to help bring about this exciting future. We congratulate the Trump Administration on its bold vision and commitment to American leadership in space.” ...robotic landers, ...Mary Lynn apparently doesn't think much of landing people on the Moon. Pretty striking departure from today's message. Wonder why?She knows that we can't afford that with most of the funding going to SLS and Orion.
Pence seems pretty into it.
If America isn't leading the world in space right now, who is?
Ya didn't think any of this was about actual measurable achievements, did ya?
No bucks. No Buck Rogers.
<snip>If Humphrey had been elected, the result would have been the same, if not even more austere. The majority of U.S. citizens were done with the Moon program and space exploration, all of it, and didn't want to spend the money. - Ed Kyle
Moderators aren't faceless emotionless beings,
Quote from: edkyle99 on 12/12/2017 02:41 pm<snip>If Humphrey had been elected, the result would have been the same, if not even more austere. The majority of U.S. citizens were done with the Moon program and space exploration, all of it, and didn't want to spend the money. - Ed KyleAnd Humphrey, as VP, was head of the Space Council (the same job that Johnson had as VP)!I assume that as the cost of the Great Society social programs kicked in, plus the cost of escalation into direct, massive involvement of US forces in the Vietnam War (simultaneously), that any enthusiasm, or political capital, that Johnson had for post-Apollo programs, evaporated.I wonder what manned exploration feats NASA could have pursued if Johnson had proposed a less precipitous decline in NASA funding post-FY 1966 (FY 67, 68, and 69). Say, an extra $500 million/year over actual funding? Either deficit-neutral, or added to the deficit?Certainly Apollo 18, 19, and 20. A concurrent AAP/dry-workshop Skylab, if an "extra" Saturn V were authorized and funded? And/or?What if Johnson had chosen to fight a little harder for NASA?(Mods: Please feel free to splinter-thread to History forum if you feel appropriate.)
Quote from: mike robel on 12/14/2017 01:50 amNo bucks. No Buck Rogers.Dunno if you know this, but NASA spends about $4 billion a year on "exploration". There's plenty of bucks. The question is, does anyone wanna watch Buck Rogers? *shudder*
Quote from: QuantumG on 12/14/2017 02:12 amQuote from: mike robel on 12/14/2017 01:50 amNo bucks. No Buck Rogers.Dunno if you know this, but NASA spends about $4 billion a year on "exploration". There's plenty of bucks. The question is, does anyone wanna watch Buck Rogers? *shudder*The US DoD currently spends $530 billion a year on defense & warfighting. There's plenty of bucks. The question is, does anyone wanna watch yet another war? *shudder*
Quote from: SkipMorrow on 12/14/2017 12:57 amPence has said at least three times something along the lines of "America will once again lead in space". "Once again" If America isn't leading the world in space right now, who is?The U.S. hasn't launched its own astronauts since 2011, so there's that.
Pence has said at least three times something along the lines of "America will once again lead in space". "Once again" If America isn't leading the world in space right now, who is?
Until 2015, Russia led the world almost every year in number of launches, mass to orbit, etc. The U.S. hasn't led in those numbers recently until just this year, after trailing China last year in launch attempts if not successes.
Much is on the horizon, but the recent and present launch pad reality is probably what Pence is discussing.
Quote from: SkipMorrow on 12/14/2017 12:57 amPence has said at least three times something along the lines of "America will once again lead in space". "Once again" If America isn't leading the world in space right now, who is?The U.S. hasn't launched its own astronauts since 2011, so there's that. But there's more.Until 2015, Russia led the world almost every year in number of launches, mass to orbit, etc. The U.S. hasn't led in those numbers recently until just this year, after trailing China last year in launch attempts if not successes. This year, the U.S. leads in launch totals, but SpaceX alone accounts for all but 10 of the 26 launches (based on where the first stage was manufactured). The second-place U.S. launcher (Atlas 5, with six launches) uses a Russian main engine. No other U.S. rocket flew more than once this year. Much is on the horizon, but the recent and present launch pad reality is probably what Pence is discussing. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 12/14/2017 03:16 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 12/14/2017 02:06 pmThe U.S. hasn't launched its own astronauts since 2011, so there's that.That is about transportation TO space, not activity IN SPACE. They are not the same.OK, let's look at the U.S. civilian government space efforts of 2017. There were seven launches this year with NASA payloads. Five of those carried ISS cargo. One was a TDRS-M communications satellite for the Agency and others. One was JPSS 1 (NOAA 20).*
Quote from: edkyle99 on 12/14/2017 02:06 pmThe U.S. hasn't launched its own astronauts since 2011, so there's that.That is about transportation TO space, not activity IN SPACE. They are not the same.
The U.S. hasn't launched its own astronauts since 2011, so there's that.
So, when it came to civilian activity in space this year, the U.S. mostly hauled stuff to, and disposed of garbage from, ISS. Russia did all of the other ISS heavy lifting. Leadership?
The ISS of which you speak...
...an admirable achievement no doubt, was built using capabilities the U.S. no longer possesses.
It's almost like - if I have to explain it; you wont likely get it anyway. But I know you're far more intelligent than that. So: 'Prospering' is relative. As much as I'm a big follower of ISS and was of the Shuttle - I crossed the world to see the final launch - being stuck in low Earth orbit for decades is not fully progressive, nor is it frontiering.
I want to live long enough to see humans on Mars but I'm starting to think that wont be possible.
Repetitive science in low Earth orbit is useful, but it should not be an end unto itself.
And concern about a national debt is important for it's own reasons.
Though, a comment I made earlier in this thread about how the Trump administration may or may not be willing to expend political capital dealing with new space policy comes to mind: will they or wont they? We'll find out soon.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 12/14/2017 02:06 pmQuote from: SkipMorrow on 12/14/2017 12:57 amPence has said at least three times something along the lines of "America will once again lead in space". "Once again" If America isn't leading the world in space right now, who is?The U.S. hasn't launched its own astronauts since 2011, so there's that. But there's more.Until 2015, Russia led the world almost every year in number of launches, mass to orbit, etc. The U.S. hasn't led in those numbers recently until just this year, after trailing China last year in launch attempts if not successes. This year, the U.S. leads in launch totals, but SpaceX alone accounts for all but 10 of the 26 launches (based on where the first stage was manufactured). The second-place U.S. launcher (Atlas 5, with six launches) uses a Russian main engine. No other U.S. rocket flew more than once this year. Much is on the horizon, but the recent and present launch pad reality is probably what Pence is discussing. - Ed KyleThere is also plenty evidence that the USG has lost it's ability to design, manufacture, and launch its own viable fleet of rockets. Constellation followed by SLS/Orion shows how far we've fallen from Saturn/Shuttle days in that category. Russia, China, Europe, India, Japan all have thriving programs (kinda) in this category. USA overall hasn't lost that capability and has, in fact, regained a leadership role.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 12/14/2017 06:26 pmWe haven't lost the ability to build space hardware, and all of the ISS hardware could be lifted to LEO using existing commercial launchers.STS carried payloads weighing 17 tonnes or so during ISS assembly missions, not including the orbiter and crew. No current expendable launch vehicle can do that. Falcon 9 has managed only 8.6 tonnes to LEO so far. Atlas 5's heaviest payload weighed 7.5 tonnes. Delta 4 Heavy may be able to lift 17 tonnes to an ISS orbit, but it does not possess the ability to maneuver that payload over a period of days, nor to dock it to ISS. Some type of not-yet-existing service module (weighing yet more tonnes) would be needed to complete such a mission. This is my basis for saying that ISS was built using capabilities the U.S. no longer possesses. - Ed Kyle
We haven't lost the ability to build space hardware, and all of the ISS hardware could be lifted to LEO using existing commercial launchers.
Congress couldn't agree on a latrine break if it came down to a vote, much less something with as little support as space does with the public. The parties are torn by both internal strife as well as loathing each other.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 12/15/2017 03:54 amQuote from: Coastal Ron on 12/14/2017 06:26 pmWe haven't lost the ability to build space hardware, and all of the ISS hardware could be lifted to LEO using existing commercial launchers.STS carried payloads weighing 17 tonnes or so during ISS assembly missions, not including the orbiter and crew. No current expendable launch vehicle can do that. Falcon 9 has managed only 8.6 tonnes to LEO so far. Atlas 5's heaviest payload weighed 7.5 tonnes. Delta 4 Heavy may be able to lift 17 tonnes to an ISS orbit, but it does not possess the ability to maneuver that payload over a period of days, nor to dock it to ISS. Some type of not-yet-existing service module (weighing yet more tonnes) would be needed to complete such a mission. This is my basis for saying that ISS was built using capabilities the U.S. no longer possesses. - Ed KyleYou are correct, but as Jim has pointed out several times: there was no need to construct the USOS part of ISS in the way it was done. USOS as we have it today was done this way to justify using the shuttle. It could instead have been done differently. Like how the Russians did Salyut-7 and Mir.The reason why the USA was stuck in LEO for 3 decades is because a choice was made, during Apollo, to use a system (STS) that was never actually needed to achieve US national space goals. That system was limited to LEO use only.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 12/14/2017 06:26 pmWe haven't lost the ability to build space hardware, and all of the ISS hardware could be lifted to LEO using existing commercial launchers.STS carried payloads weighing 17 tonnes or so during ISS assembly missions...
No current expendable launch vehicle can do that.
Falcon 9 has managed only 8.6 tonnes to LEO so far.
Atlas 5's heaviest payload weighed 7.5 tonnes.
Some type of not-yet-existing service module (weighing yet more tonnes) would be needed to complete such a mission.
This is my basis for saying that ISS was built using capabilities the U.S. no longer possesses.
Your implications only apply to the Shuttle, but you also imply that the U.S. has lost the ability to create 450mT space stations. We have not "lost" that ability, especially since an equivalent design could be built that is optimized to use existing commercial launchers - likely with most of the exact same ISS hardware.
I don't agree. STS could have brought pieces up that could have gone anywhere, were it built as a cost-effective space truck. People couldn't switch out of the Apollo mind-set and see that building infrastructure is the key to a lasting presence BEO. The greater problem is that the US didn't have 'space goals.'
Quote from: woods170 on 12/11/2017 12:06 pmThe guy you have to blame is named Nixon, not Obama. Nixon is the one that steered the USA away from the Moon, all the way back to LEO. And once the USA was stuck there, courtesy of the space shuttle and the space station sucking the NASA budget dry, there was no real chance of going back into deep space.LBJ, not Nixon, was President when Apollo/Saturn V and Apollo Applications were cut back. Future Saturn V production was cut in the months before Nixon was elected, leading to cancellation of Apollos 18-20, etc..
But honestly, it wouldn't have mattered who was elected in 1968. The American people didn't want to spend any more money on lunar landings.
Civil Space GuidelinesSpace Science, Exploration, and DiscoveryThe Administrator of NASA shall: • Set far-reaching exploration milestones. By 2025, begin crewed missions beyond the moon, including sending humans to an asteroid. By the mid-2030s, send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth; • Continue the operation of the International Space Station (ISS), in cooperation with its international partners, likely to 2020 or beyond.... • Seek partnerships with the private sector.... • Implement a new space technology development and test program.... • Conduct research and development in support of next-generation launch systems.... • Maintain a sustained robotic presence in the solar system.... • Continue a strong program of space science.... • Pursue capabilities ... to detect, track, catalog, and characterize near-Earth objects....
• Lead an innovative and sustainable program of exploration with commercial and international partners to enable human expansion across the solar system and to bring back to Earth new knowledge and opportunities. Beginning with missions beyond low-Earth orbit, the United States will lead the return of humans to the Moon for long-term exploration and utilization, followed by human missions to Mars and other destinations;
Just to get back to the original topic, I'll highlight the actual impact of Trump's directive on the formal statement of the US government's space policy. Trump modified Obama's policy of June 2010 (attached) by changing one paragraph on page 11. Where the old policy read (color added)Quote from: ObamaCivil Space GuidelinesSpace Science, Exploration, and DiscoveryThe Administrator of NASA shall: • Set far-reaching exploration milestones. By 2025, begin crewed missions beyond the moon, including sending humans to an asteroid. By the mid-2030s, send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth; • Continue the operation of the International Space Station (ISS), in cooperation with its international partners, likely to 2020 or beyond.... • Seek partnerships with the private sector.... • Implement a new space technology development and test program.... • Conduct research and development in support of next-generation launch systems.... • Maintain a sustained robotic presence in the solar system.... • Continue a strong program of space science.... • Pursue capabilities ... to detect, track, catalog, and characterize near-Earth objects....the text in red (and only text in red) has been changed toQuote from: Trump • Lead an innovative and sustainable program of exploration with commercial and international partners to enable human expansion across the solar system and to bring back to Earth new knowledge and opportunities. Beginning with missions beyond low-Earth orbit, the United States will lead the return of humans to the Moon for long-term exploration and utilization, followed by human missions to Mars and other destinations;That's the only change in an 18-page document. The old policy specifically mentions asteroids and Mars orbit and gives dates, and allows other destinations. The new policy specifically mentions the moon but not, as others have pointed out, the moon's surface, gives no dates, and allows other destinations, including those in the old policy.;All by itself, this is, as some of the president's allies like to say, a nothing-burger. If it is followed up by something more concrete policy by the administration, then it may start to mean something.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 12/18/2017 10:48 pmYour implications only apply to the Shuttle, but you also imply that the U.S. has lost the ability to create 450mT space stations. We have not "lost" that ability, especially since an equivalent design could be built that is optimized to use existing commercial launchers - likely with most of the exact same ISS hardware.Indeed.Just a reminder. A salvo launch of F9, Atlas V, Delta IV (not DIVH, just the Medium) and Antares 230 could put > 62 tonnes in LEO within little more than a week right now if there was a plan to use it and a desire to do it.
Quote from: woods170 on 12/15/2017 06:13 amQuote from: edkyle99 on 12/15/2017 03:54 amQuote from: Coastal Ron on 12/14/2017 06:26 pmWe haven't lost the ability to build space hardware, and all of the ISS hardware could be lifted to LEO using existing commercial launchers.STS carried payloads weighing 17 tonnes or so during ISS assembly missions, not including the orbiter and crew. No current expendable launch vehicle can do that. Falcon 9 has managed only 8.6 tonnes to LEO so far. Atlas 5's heaviest payload weighed 7.5 tonnes. Delta 4 Heavy may be able to lift 17 tonnes to an ISS orbit, but it does not possess the ability to maneuver that payload over a period of days, nor to dock it to ISS. Some type of not-yet-existing service module (weighing yet more tonnes) would be needed to complete such a mission. This is my basis for saying that ISS was built using capabilities the U.S. no longer possesses. - Ed KyleYou are correct, but as Jim has pointed out several times: there was no need to construct the USOS part of ISS in the way it was done. USOS as we have it today was done this way to justify using the shuttle. It could instead have been done differently. Like how the Russians did Salyut-7 and Mir.The reason why the USA was stuck in LEO for 3 decades is because a choice was made, during Apollo, to use a system (STS) that was never actually needed to achieve US national space goals. That system was limited to LEO use only.I don't agree. STS could have brought pieces up that could have gone anywhere, were it built as a cost-effective space truck. People couldn't switch out of the Apollo mind-set and see that building infrastructure is the key to a lasting presence BEO. The greater problem is that the US didn't have 'space goals.'
Problem is to have space infrastructure you need affordable and reliable space launch systems. NASA tried to develop just that with the Shuttle, but it was neither that reliable or affordable. Now personally with commercial launchers like SpaceX I think NASA has that now. I mean with the Falcon 9 Heavy you have a rocket has 66% of the capacity of the SLS for a fifth of the cost.
Quote from: DarkenedOne on 12/23/2017 05:38 amProblem is to have space infrastructure you need affordable and reliable space launch systems. NASA tried to develop just that with the Shuttle, but it was neither that reliable or affordable. Now personally with commercial launchers like SpaceX I think NASA has that now. I mean with the Falcon 9 Heavy you have a rocket has 66% of the capacity of the SLS for a fifth of the cost. I think a fifth might be a little low if you amortize all the program costs rather than just the variable costs.
Quote from: Lar on 12/23/2017 02:06 pmQuote from: DarkenedOne on 12/23/2017 05:38 amProblem is to have space infrastructure you need affordable and reliable space launch systems. NASA tried to develop just that with the Shuttle, but it was neither that reliable or affordable. Now personally with commercial launchers like SpaceX I think NASA has that now. I mean with the Falcon 9 Heavy you have a rocket has 66% of the capacity of the SLS for a fifth of the cost. I think a fifth might be a little low if you amortize all the program costs rather than just the variable costs.Oh cr*p, here we go again: the sunk cost fallacy.
In the attached video he discusses President Nixon and his decision to change the direction of our space program. At first I didn't think this would fit this topic but as he got to the end it became crystal clear how the points he was making fit like a glove to the new Space Council that Vice President Pence oversees, and how President Trump's leadership or lack thereof can affect the direction of our space program. Enjoy.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 12/18/2017 10:48 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 12/15/2017 03:54 amNo current expendable launch vehicle can do that.ULA's RocketBuilder shows that an Atlas V with a 5m Long fairing is capable of putting 18.8mT to LEO, and SpaceX advertises the Falcon 9 as capable of putting 22.8mT to LEO. So you are obviously wrong.An undemonstrated capability is just numbers on paper, especially when the gap between claims and reality are so vast, i.e. 18.8 tonne claim versus 7.5 tonne actually accomplished, or 22.8 tonne claim versus 8.6 tonnes performed, etc. But again, raw mass to LEO is not what is needed to replicate STS performance. Maneuvered mass in LEO is what matters. For every kg of "raw" payload sent to LEO, only perhaps 35 to 50-ish% or so can be delivered to ISS as actual cargo when a service module system is used (i.e. ATV or HTV or Cygnus). STS could deliver a much higher percentage of its payload bay mass to ISS. STS-117 delivered the 16.2 tonne S3/S4 truss directly to ISS. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 12/15/2017 03:54 amNo current expendable launch vehicle can do that.ULA's RocketBuilder shows that an Atlas V with a 5m Long fairing is capable of putting 18.8mT to LEO, and SpaceX advertises the Falcon 9 as capable of putting 22.8mT to LEO. So you are obviously wrong.
Quote from: clongton on 12/23/2017 02:20 pmIn the attached video he discusses President Nixon and his decision to change the direction of our space program. At first I didn't think this would fit this topic but as he got to the end it became crystal clear how the points he was making fit like a glove to the new Space Council that Vice President Pence oversees, and how President Trump's leadership or lack thereof can affect the direction of our space program. Enjoy.I watched the whole thing. Normally I would not give Newt Gingrich the time of day because of the damage he has done to our democracy by eliminating moderate politicians and positions, but if Chuck recommends something then I take notice...
An undemonstrated capability is just numbers on paper, especially when the gap between claims and reality are so vast, i.e. 18.8 tonne claim versus 7.5 tonne actually accomplished, or 22.8 tonne claim versus 8.6 tonnes performed, etc.
But again, raw mass to LEO is not what is needed to replicate STS performance.
For every kg of "raw" payload sent to LEO, only perhaps 35 to 50-ish% or so can be delivered to ISS as actual cargo when a service module system is used (i.e. ATV or HTV or Cygnus).
STS could deliver a much higher percentage of its payload bay mass to ISS.
STS-117 delivered the 16.2 tonne S3/S4 truss directly to ISS.
No. What I'm saying is that the capability has not been demonstrated. There is evidence (users guides, etc.) that the current hardware would require modifications (stronger payload adapters, detailed engineering, etc) to handle heavier payloads. Thus, the claimed capability exists only on paper at present.
I keep returning back to the simple phrase that Norm Augustine echoed years back "great nations do great things"...
Now it up to the nation to decide what that is and if human expansion into the cosmos is one of them...
I probably won't be around to see it but I know if we don't another nation will fill the vacuum and the nation with the resources and will to do that will be China... Communism=1, Democracy=0...
Quote from: Rocket Science on 12/24/2017 03:50 pmI keep returning back to the simple phrase that Norm Augustine echoed years back "great nations do great things"...Aren't we doing great things in space today?QuoteNow it up to the nation to decide what that is and if human expansion into the cosmos is one of them...Actually it's not up to "the nation". Citizens vote for politicians, and politicians are the ones that make the decisions. Which is why it's so important to elect the right people.By the way, has anyone done a survey to find out how many people have told their Representative and Senator their wishes for what the U.S. Government should do in space? I haven't, and I'm curious how many people outside of NASA-heavy areas bother...QuoteI probably won't be around to see it but I know if we don't another nation will fill the vacuum and the nation with the resources and will to do that will be China... Communism=1, Democracy=0...If China finally rustles up enough money to get a colony on our Moon it will be because they have financially dominated Earth, so I'd be more concerned with the first part than the latter. As of today though they are on a VERY slow course to getting anywhere in space.But it is curious how people like to think in terms of a "race". Of course we won the race to the Moon, and NASA has been oriented towards Mars for the past couple of decades (as is Elon Musk), so would it matter if China lands on the Moon?What is to be fearful of if a country other than the U.S. goes somewhere in space without us?
If China finally rustles up enough money to get a colony on our Moon it will be because they have financially dominated Earth, so I'd be more concerned with the first part than the latter. As of today though they are on a VERY slow course to getting anywhere in space.But it is curious how people like to think in terms of a "race". Of course we won the race to the Moon, and NASA has been oriented towards Mars for the past couple of decades (as is Elon Musk), so would it matter if China lands on the Moon?What is to be fearful of if a country other than the U.S. goes somewhere in space without us?
The world is not enough for Donald Trump: he has declared space “the next great American frontier” and mused to Congress that “American footprints on distant worlds are not too big a dream”.Earlier this month, the president ordered the agency to head back to the moon. “This time we will not only plant our flag and leave our footprint, we will establish a foundation for an eventual mission to Mars, and perhaps someday to many other worlds beyond,” he said, before signing the new policy for Nasa.
... You are talking about what might be or could be in the near or distant future after someone allocates funding and resources to make it happen, or after any one of several ongoing programs (Commercial Crew, Falcon Heavy, etc.) complete their developments. - Ed Kyle
Want to see how much FH can lift to LEO? Offer to pay $3-5M/tonne for propellant delivered... (but be careful to cap the quantities or BFR will show up with 200tonnes and ask, "Where do you want it?")
Constellation could have been pragmatically altered - not bloody cancelled outright.
Quote from: MATTBLAK on 12/11/2017 12:48 pm Constellation could have been pragmatically altered - not bloody cancelled outright.Constellation was a terrible design. It deserved to be cancelled. When was the last time a spacecraft was lobotomized over and over to make up for the anemic performance of its intended launcher?And that was just Ares I. Let's not even mention the other monstrosity.
NASA has too much on its plate to return to the Moon
In September 2009, the Augustine Committee issued its report reviewing the United States human spaceflight plans. The main finding of this report was that NASA had too much on its plate. In 2009 NASA had the Constellation program, whose primary goal was to return humans to the Moon by 2020. However, the funding to carry out this program was woefully inadequate.What was true then is more so today. NASA has been actively pursuing three programs for human spaceflight beyond low Earth orbit: the Space Launch System (SLS), the Orion spacecraft, and, more recently, the Deep Space Gateway. But progress on these three programs has been slow in large part due to inadequate funding.
Several studies, such as the Evolvable Lunar Architecture study from 2015, have shown that human presence on the Moon is affordable if done in the right way. That is, a lunar program should be set up as a public private partnership like the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program used to supply cargo to the International Space Station.
What about the SLS, Orion, and the Deep Space Gateway? None of these programs are needed for the primary goal of returning humans to the lunar surface. All three of these programs should be cancelled. Make no mistake: even though money will be saved if the lunar return program is done the right way with public-private partnerships, it will still be expensive. And its money NASA doesn’t have unless the agency cancels unneeded programs.
A new article:......QuoteWhat about the SLS, Orion, and the Deep Space Gateway? None of these programs are needed for the primary goal of returning humans to the lunar surface. All three of these programs should be cancelled. Make no mistake: even though money will be saved if the lunar return program is done the right way with public-private partnerships, it will still be expensive. And its money NASA doesn’t have unless the agency cancels unneeded programs. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3407/1
Quote from: AncientU on 01/15/2018 09:27 pmA new article:QuoteWhat about the SLS, Orion, and the Deep Space Gateway? None of these programs are needed for the primary goal of returning humans to the lunar surface. All three of these programs should be cancelled. Make no mistake: even though money will be saved if the lunar return program is done the right way with public-private partnerships, it will still be expensive. And its money NASA doesn’t have unless the agency cancels unneeded programs. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3407/1emphasis mineAh yes, cancel the lifter and capsule needed to take humans into deep space, then we can go to the Moon!
A new article:QuoteWhat about the SLS, Orion, and the Deep Space Gateway? None of these programs are needed for the primary goal of returning humans to the lunar surface. All three of these programs should be cancelled. Make no mistake: even though money will be saved if the lunar return program is done the right way with public-private partnerships, it will still be expensive. And its money NASA doesn’t have unless the agency cancels unneeded programs. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3407/1
Quote from: spacetraveler on 12/29/2017 01:36 amConstellation was a terrible design. It deserved to be cancelled. When was the last time a spacecraft was lobotomized over and over to make up for the anemic performance of its intended launcher?Ares I had margin. Orion was overweight. It should be clear by now that Orion was the problem, because the thing is still unfinished, 13 years after ESAS. Ares I would have been flying by now.
Constellation was a terrible design. It deserved to be cancelled. When was the last time a spacecraft was lobotomized over and over to make up for the anemic performance of its intended launcher?
The SLS had margin. The lunar lander was overweight. It should be clear by now that the lunar lander was the problem, because the thing is still unfinished, 13 years after the Trump Space Policy Directive 1 was approved. - Ed Kyle
Report: Trump to increase U.S. defense budget to $716B
Pres. Trump is expected to propose increasing U.S. defense spending to $716B in FY 2019 (beginning October 2018) in his budget request to be released next month, the Washington Post reports.The proposed budget would be a 13% increase over 2017, when the U.S. spent $634B on defense, and a 7%-plus gain over the $668B in the 2018 budget, which still has not passed through Congress.
A composite version of the 4.5 meter capsule could have been a relatively light craft.
With the thread finally moving away from politics and toward technology, a survey of possible architectures might be worth examining. As it is, I see three primary pathways, each with its own set of options.I. A. SLS Block IB and Orion would likely require two launches. A lander needs to be developed.I. B. SLS Block II (i.e. Dark Knight boosters) and Orion may be able to perform the same mission in 1 launch. Lander still needed.I. C. Advanced SLS with 5-6 main engines and/or liquid boosters enables robust program. Lander still needed.II. A. Disposable FH, with D2. Possible 2 launch architecture. Lander needed. Need either D2 upgrade or small Bigelow hab.II. B. Reusable FH cores, with D2. Same issues as above. More launches required, but lower launch costs. On orbit refueling possibly required.II. C. FH (either expendable or reusable) with Orion (possibly upgraded Starliner) as CSM. More launches required due to high mass of Orion. No hab needed and no upgrade of D2 needed. Still need lander.III. Move toward greater cooperation with SpaceX on BFR/BFS. Test landings on Luna are already a probability. Investing resources in newer cutting edge technology rather than expensive and obsolete legacy hardware may be a better approach. This furthers a technology already in planning stages, requires no new landers, habs, or modification of existing technologies. It may also be capable of attaining the goal before any of the others could. The big obstacle is NASA putting its very regulatory fingers on the architecture and drastically slowing it down. After first Lunar landings, SpaceX sells or leases hardware to NASA and brings new hardware online for Mars.
I was watching the news and they went to President Trump live in the White House at a cabinet meeting. After he finished talking about tax cuts and jobs, Trump started talking about commercial spaceflight and billionaires liking rockets (better they spend the money than us). He seemed impressed by SpaceX's FH and other commercial rockets. Trump was very impressed at the FH boosters landing. He said positive things about NASA, but did comment on how commercial rockets were far cheaper than government projects.
Quote from: RonM on 03/08/2018 04:23 pmI was watching the news and they went to President Trump live in the White House at a cabinet meeting. After he finished talking about tax cuts and jobs, Trump started talking about commercial spaceflight and billionaires liking rockets (better they spend the money than us). He seemed impressed by SpaceX's FH and other commercial rockets. Trump was very impressed at the FH boosters landing. He said positive things about NASA, but did comment on how commercial rockets were far cheaper than government projects.Video: https://twitter.com/CNBC/status/971794899904417792
President Trump amazed by the Falcon Heavy landing—and its low cost
"If the government did it, the same thing would have cost probably 40 or 50 times."
NASA has not, in fact, set a price for flying the SLS rocket. But Ars has previously estimated that, including the billions of dollars in development cost, the per-flight fees for the SLS rocket will probably be close to $3 billion. Indeed, the development costs of SLS and its ground systems between now and its first flight could purchase 86 launches of the privately developed Falcon Heavy rocket. So President Trump's estimate of NASA's costs compared to private industry does not appear to be wildly off the mark.