Author Topic: House Space Subcommittee Hearing - Update on the Space Launch System & Orion  (Read 40384 times)

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Anybody else watching to this?

Witnesses are Gerstenmeier and Chaplain (GAO).  NASA's CFO David Radzanowski was invited but didn't show.

Charter and opening statements are here.
« Last Edit: 12/10/2014 02:46 pm by Proponent »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Chairman Palazzo opened with the ritual "Obama is bad.  Everything is Obama's fault."

Rep. Edwards raised the issue of the "road map" and the long-term plan.  Rejects Palazzo's criticism of administration for not funding NASA sufficiently, pointing out that in the past it was Republicans who baulked at higher funding levels.

Palazzo and Smith go on about schedule and funding for Orion and SLS.

Rep. Bridenstine (R-OK) asks Gerstenmeier as to what funding level required for going to Mars.  Gerstenmeier says it can be provided, hedges that it depends on technical factors....

I'm slightly encouraged that Edwards and Bridenstine are asking what it might actually cost to use Orion/SLS for something.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Uh-oh, Rohrabacher is up.  Pointing out, even more bluntly usual, that the costs of going to Mars (in a couple of decades) haven't been thought through.  Describes SLS as a "huge rocket that doesn't even have a mission for 20 years."  Discusses lots of things that could be done instead.  Says "we" erred in starting SLS, shouldn't blame NASA or the administration for it.  Asks Gerstenmeier to refute claim that drastically more money is going to be needed to overcome challenges of reaching Mars.  Gerstenmeier (like Palazzo & Smith) tends to talk about SLS rather than Mars.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Just turned it on...something about a 400Mil risk
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
Wow, Chaplain just mentioned the $3B/yr needed by Constellation! I suspect the legislators will pretend not to hear it.

"It's rare when Congress gives more than what they're asking for."
Gerst "just compensation for inflation would be nice."
Edwards says "It's the dumbest way to do science."
Gerst: "If the partners have a desire to do lunar activity we could easily accomodate it" I assume he is not including human moon landing. ...ARM is justified as development of Mars cargo tug.
Design activity on SLS winding down.

Pallazo: Number one threat is national debt. Congratultions of an outstanding test flight. Adjourned.
Bizarre.
« Last Edit: 12/10/2014 03:33 pm by vulture4 »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Rep. Posey (R-FL) asks for discussion of ground systems ($ in his district).

Rep. Brooks (R-AL) asking what is to be done with Orion/SLS.  Gerstenmeier says *multiple* cis-lunar flights, then, post-2030, going beyond, to a free-range asteroid or Martian moon.  Makes clear no lunar landing, as no budget for a lander.  Brooks is upset that everything takes so long.

Like Palazzo and Smith, Brooks zeroes in on Bolden's previous statement to Congress that boosting SLS's budget won't accelerate its first flight, which is contradicted by GAO.

Rep. Schweikert (R-AZ) asks Chaplain (GAO) what the funding shortfall is.  Chaplain can't answer, because the long-range plan isn't known.  Asks Gerstenmeier what the technical shortfalls are.  Gerstenmeier mentions GCRs Martian EDL (mentioned inflatable heat shields).  Schweikert finishes by saying that a "brutally honest" assessment of what's affordable will be required in the next decade as entitlement spending increases.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
SLS contractor's given warn act warnings

The end was also a warning from Congress about the nations debt.
« Last Edit: 12/10/2014 03:39 pm by Prober »
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Pallazo: Number one threat is national debt. Congratultions of an outstanding test flight. Adjourned.
Bizarre.

Well and truly bizarre, but then I've come to expect that of Palazzo.

I'd summarize the whole thing as --

Palazzo & Smith:  Obama is bad.  More money for SLS NOW!!!

Posey:  Look at all the federal money I'm getting for Florida!

Edwards, Bridenstine & Schweikert:  Guys, um, have we thought about where we're, uh, going with this and, like, how much it's, like, going to cost?

Rohrabacher:  We have gone crazy.  It's not Obama's fault, it's not NASA's fault, it's ours.  This is nothing but a very expensive boondoggle (he was, of course, completely ignored).

(I know I'm leaving out Mo Brooks -- though he spoke, I can't remember that he actually said much of anything.)

I'm very slightly encouraged that more representatives seem to be beginning to talk about the cost of using Orion/SLS for anything worthwhile.  But only slightly.  It's seriously crazy to be this far down the road without having seriously mapped out plans and budgets.

Edit/Lar: fixed quotes . Also... thanks to those that covered this, much appreciated by me personally and others as well I am sure.
« Last Edit: 12/10/2014 04:54 pm by Lar »

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Thanks for the play-by-play.

Sounds like there is at least some movement on shifting things around (blame/cost/destination)


Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3113
  • Likes Given: 3862
I don't think it's the amount of money, but how it's spent.  Orion and constellation are rightfully being questions.  So many billions already spent for 1 test flight and the next one is 4 years away.  Only the F-22 and F-35 can make that pace look good.

Also, the lack of a clear and exciting mission hurts.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
I just got in and missed it... If it is archived someone please post it. Thanks for the coverage... Reading it Gerst didn't get the applause he expected...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Almost all congresspeople opened by congratulating NASA and industry on the success of EFT-1, but other than that they gave Gerst a hard time.  Especially Rohrabacher -- he was harsh even by his standards.  The video will no doubt appear on the House Science Committee's website in 24 hours or so.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Almost all congresspeople opened by congratulating NASA and industry on the success of EFT-1, but other than that they gave Gerst a hard time.  Especially Rohrabacher -- he was harsh even by his standards.  The video will no doubt appear on the House Science Committee's website in 24 hours or so.
Thanks! :)
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
« Last Edit: 12/10/2014 10:18 pm by yg1968 »

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
Not a lot of surprises so far watching the video up to the start of the second round of questions, but it is still surprising sometimes to see the "dancing" done in public around the politics for these two programs.  (Well, except for Mr. Rohrabacher.)

I'd say I'm not watching enough congressional hearings, but...

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Ms. Edwards full funding suggestion is interesting such what is done with the pentagon projects as opposed to every year or even a few months at a time... The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program alone is now around US$150 billion over budget and Palazzo brings up the national debt with relative pocket change NASA increase compared to that...Their surprise at ignoring Augustine funding suggestion would be funny if it wasn’t so sad... :o Chickens have come to roost and they will not fly for four more years... unless they flap their little wings...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
I thought that was a good hearing. The questions were very specific and Gerst did a good job trying to answer them as best he could.

One of the key point that was made by Gerst was that the missions in the 2020s are likely to be all cislunar space missions. Missions in the 2030s could be around Mars, to a moon around Mars or to an asteroid in its native orbit. 

The objective is to have one SLS mission per year starting in 2021. NASA would like to have a Budget that at least matches inflation.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
The objective is to have one SLS mission per year starting in 2021. NASA would like to have a Budget that at least matches inflation.

There is a major disconnect between those two statements - don't support each other.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
I thought that was a good hearing. The questions were very specific and Gerst did a good job trying to answer them as best he could.

One of the key point that was made by Gerst was that the missions in the 2020s are likely to be all cislunar space missions. Missions in the 2030s could be around Mars, to a moon around Mars or to an asteroid in its native orbit. 

The objective is to have one SLS mission per year starting in 2021. NASA would like to have a Budget that at least matches inflation.
There was also that hint that if ESA wants the Moon they might provide a Lander. Perhaps the old ATV based one might get to live...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Strangely (for the harsh way he comes across) is Rohrabacher the only Republican that lives is reality? The others are all waxing wistfully about project Apollo and how did we get to the Moon in only 10 years? I guess they really sucked at math and became politicians because they don’t understand decimal places as a percentage of the budget NASA gets now compared to then... :o
« Last Edit: 12/11/2014 12:21 pm by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
I thought that was a good hearing. The questions were very specific and Gerst did a good job trying to answer them as best he could.


Agreed, and also found several messages sent from Congress to NASA and the administration.

Seemed like many were just about falling over each other, to push cash into the program.  It might be all talk but the concern was there regarding the 400Mil shortfall.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Strangely (for the harsh way he comes across) is Rohrabacher the only Republican that lives is reality? The others are all waxing wistfully about project Apollo and how did we get to the Moon in only 10 years? I guess they really sucked at math and became politicians because they don’t understand decimal places as a percentage of the budget NASA gets now compared to then... :o

More important than percentages of the federal budget is inflation adjusted funding. Also, even with the existing budget we could probably do amazing things quickly if NASA didn't have to satisfy zipcode engineering requirements. Faster, Better, Cheaper, Work Done By the Same Contractors in the Same Zipcodes -- Pick at most two.

~Jon

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Strangely (for the harsh way he comes across) is Rohrabacher the only Republican that lives is reality? The others are all waxing wistfully about project Apollo and how did we get to the Moon in only 10 years? I guess they really sucked at math and became politicians because they don’t understand decimal places as a percentage of the budget NASA gets now compared to then... :o

More important than percentages of the federal budget is inflation adjusted funding. Also, even with the existing budget we could probably do amazing things quickly if NASA didn't have to satisfy zipcode engineering requirements. Faster, Better, Cheaper, Work Done By the Same Contractors in the Same Zipcodes -- Pick at most two.

~Jon
Agreed, without it the budget is actually shrinking and tasked to do more...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
Seemed like many were just about falling over each other, to push cash into the program.  It might be all talk but the concern was there regarding the 400Mil shortfall.

While $400M seems like a lot to us individuals, for NASA that doesn't equate to any large changes.  It's good, but it's not like it's going to greatly accelerate anything or create hardware for new missions.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Strangely (for the harsh way he comes across) is Rohrabacher the only Republican that lives is reality? The others are all waxing wistfully about project Apollo and how did we get to the Moon in only 10 years? I guess they really sucked at math and became politicians because they don’t understand decimal places as a percentage of the budget NASA gets now compared to then... :o

More important than percentages of the federal budget is inflation adjusted funding. Also, even with the existing budget we could probably do amazing things quickly if NASA didn't have to satisfy zipcode engineering requirements. Faster, Better, Cheaper, Work Done By the Same Contractors in the Same Zipcodes -- Pick at most two.

~Jon

I agree with you on that. But I think that NASA is right to focus on cislunar space in the 2020s under the current budget. NASA should focus on getting international and commercial partnerships for cislunar missions in the 2020s. Mars is a bridge too far under the current budget. We need to focus on making cislunar space more affordable first.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Strangely (for the harsh way he comes across) is Rohrabacher the only Republican that lives is reality? The others are all waxing wistfully about project Apollo and how did we get to the Moon in only 10 years? I guess they really sucked at math and became politicians because they don’t understand decimal places as a percentage of the budget NASA gets now compared to then... :o

More important than percentages of the federal budget is inflation adjusted funding. Also, even with the existing budget we could probably do amazing things quickly if NASA didn't have to satisfy zipcode engineering requirements. Faster, Better, Cheaper, Work Done By the Same Contractors in the Same Zipcodes -- Pick at most two.

~Jon

I agree with you on that. But I think that NASA is right to focus on cislunar space in the 2020s under the current budget. NASA should focus on getting international and commercial partnerships for cislunar missions in the 2020s. Mars is a bridge too far under the current budget. We need to focus on making cislunar space more affordable first.

I agree that Mars is a bridge too far at the moment. I even agree that we should focus on cislunar space...I just think we ought to add another moon to the mix (ARM)...

~Jon

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Seemed like many were just about falling over each other, to push cash into the program.  It might be all talk but the concern was there regarding the 400Mil shortfall.

While $400M seems like a lot to us individuals, for NASA that doesn't equate to any large changes.  It's good, but it's not like it's going to greatly accelerate anything or create hardware for new missions.

It's all about context; If you said 400 million was taken from Commercial crew in 2014 you would have pages of outraged NSF readers.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
It's all about context; If you said 400 million was taken from Commercial crew in 2014 you would have pages of outraged NSF readers.
True.

In context what has SLS/Orion (and predecessor CxP) accomplished?
And for how much?

$400m in Commercial Crew could probably put SNC back in the running.
Or have a US (but not NASA owned, controlled or exclusively using) vehicle capable of carrying astronauts to the ISS years earlier.

But then you can probably detect I have a slight bias on the subject.  :(
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
The $400M was entirely added to SLS/Orion, AFAICT. The Administration request for Comemrcial Crew was again cut. And the tiny budget NASA actually provides to do the research and development that is always trotted out as NASA's value to the taxpayer was also cut to feed the gaping maw of SLS/Orion.

Wake up, America. The US has just slipped to number two in GDP for the first time since the administration of Ulysses S. Grant. What are flags and footprints going to do about that? We need NASA to create new technology, new jobs, new high-tech exports, not as a trivial sideline, but as a primary goal. Hey, that's why NACA was created almost a hundred years ago!

Apollo was a stroke of genius in its time. But times have changed.

It's time to return to our original mission.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
The $400M was entirely added to SLS/Orion, AFAICT. The Administration request for Comemrcial Crew was again cut. And the tiny budget NASA actually provides to do the research and development that is always trotted out as NASA's value to the taxpayer was also cut to feed the gaping maw of SLS/Orion.

Wake up, America. The US has just slipped to number two in GDP for the first time since the administration of Ulysses S. Grant. What are flags and footprints going to do about that? We need NASA to create new technology, new jobs, new high-tech exports, not as a trivial sideline, but as a primary goal. Hey, that's why NACA was created almost a hundred years ago!

Apollo was a stroke of genius in its time. But times have changed.

It's time to return to our original mission.
If you divide that GDP per capita, you will get a different picture...
« Last Edit: 12/12/2014 02:41 pm by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
The $400M was entirely added to SLS/Orion, AFAICT. The Administration request for Comemrcial Crew was again cut. And the tiny budget NASA actually provides to do the research and development that is always trotted out as NASA's value to the taxpayer was also cut to feed the gaping maw of SLS/Orion.

Wake up, America. The US has just slipped to number two in GDP for the first time since the administration of Ulysses S. Grant. What are flags and footprints going to do about that? We need NASA to create new technology, new jobs, new high-tech exports, not as a trivial sideline, but as a primary goal. Hey, that's why NACA was created almost a hundred years ago!

Apollo was a stroke of genius in its time. But times have changed.

It's time to return to our original mission.

Rohrabacher didn't know you had a NSF account ;D
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13999
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Ms. Edwards full funding suggestion is interesting such what is done with the pentagon projects as opposed to every year or even a few months at a time... The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program alone is now around US$150 billion over budget and Palazzo brings up the national debt with relative pocket change NASA increase compared to that...Their surprise at ignoring Augustine funding suggestion would be funny if it wasn’t so sad... :o Chickens have come to roost and they will not fly for four more years... unless they flap their little wings...
The F-35 at least has the chance to make some of its money back & will probably do not too bad longer term financially. Not something that could be said of SLS or Orion.

Offline enkarha

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 151
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 60
The $400M was entirely added to SLS/Orion, AFAICT. The Administration request for Comemrcial Crew was again cut. And the tiny budget NASA actually provides to do the research and development that is always trotted out as NASA's value to the taxpayer was also cut to feed the gaping maw of SLS/Orion.
Relative to last year: $73 M higher science budget. $109 M higher CCrew budget. $100 M higher aeronautics budget. SLS/Orion gains $130 M on the whole. Space Tech gained $20 M, and exploration R & D gained $6 M.

Cut != less than requested. But we can make numbers up if you want.
Let me see what spring is like on Jupiter and Mars ♪

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Seemed like many were just about falling over each other, to push cash into the program.  It might be all talk but the concern was there regarding the 400Mil shortfall.

While $400M seems like a lot to us individuals, for NASA that doesn't equate to any large changes.  It's good, but it's not like it's going to greatly accelerate anything or create hardware for new missions.

It's all about context; If you said 400 million was taken from Commercial crew in 2014 you would have pages of outraged NSF readers.

Because Commercial crew's budget is a lot smaller, and is also accomplishing a lot more for the limited funding it's getting (in results/$) than either SLS or Orion.

~Jon
« Last Edit: 12/12/2014 07:04 pm by jongoff »

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
The $400M was entirely added to SLS/Orion, AFAICT. The Administration request for Comemrcial Crew was again cut. And the tiny budget NASA actually provides to do the research and development that is always trotted out as NASA's value to the taxpayer was also cut to feed the gaping maw of SLS/Orion.
Relative to last year: $73 M higher science budget. $109 M higher CCrew budget. $100 M higher aeronautics budget. SLS/Orion gains $130 M on the whole. Space Tech gained $20 M, and exploration R & D gained $6 M.

Cut != less than requested. But we can make numbers up if you want.

This is a fair point. I think space tech is being underfunded, but at least it isn't getting less than in the past. Not getting enough more to actually start many interesting things, but it could be worse.

~Jon

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25241
  • Likes Given: 12115
The $400M was entirely added to SLS/Orion, AFAICT. The Administration request for Comemrcial Crew was again cut. And the tiny budget NASA actually provides to do the research and development that is always trotted out as NASA's value to the taxpayer was also cut to feed the gaping maw of SLS/Orion.

Wake up, America. The US has just slipped to number two in GDP for the first time since the administration of Ulysses S. Grant. What are flags and footprints going to do about that? We need NASA to create new technology, new jobs, new high-tech exports, not as a trivial sideline, but as a primary goal. Hey, that's why NACA was created almost a hundred years ago!

Apollo was a stroke of genius in its time. But times have changed.

It's time to return to our original mission.
If you divide that GDP per capita, you will get a different picture...
Yeah, you'll get like Lichtenstein or Luxembourg or Qatar or something.

Our birth rate is lower than it used to be. Without first-generation immigrants, our birth rate would be below replacement (and it overall dipped below replacement overall during the recession). A lower population means declining overall GDP and a declining standing in the world. That's why the US has always been built on immigrants. We have plenty of room, here. PLENTY. A nation which shuts its borders to immigrants is a nation that will soon be irrelevant.

But yeah. If we want to compete with China, there are several things we can do. Open doors to immigrants, repair and rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, focus on growing strategic tech markets (not just throwing a bunch of money into defense), become totally energy independent using long-term and/or renewable sources of energy, start rebuilding the middle class through encouraging median income growth (which has been stagnant since about 1980). If we can afford to fight in several countries and try rebuilding their infrastructure, we can certainly do it here. And yeah, NASA can definitely serve as a platform for that. Instead of building SLS which is irrelevant to the market and if anything takes away payloads from domestic launch providers, we can just utilize our existing launch providers and encourage vastly more capable reusable launch vehicles which will catapult the US into absolute dominance of the global launch market, thus also encouraging our domestic satellite manufacturing and operations capability. Then expand this to pioneering of Mars, the Moon, and asteroids.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Online Chris Bergin

So I missed all this, due to busy times with actual launches and stuff. What I have watched is somewhat depressing - such as the lawmaker going on about "but Apollo did things in less years!" To poor Gerst having to bat that stuff off.

Rohrabacher was actually the most interesting. He's more a UK style politician. Comes across as the troll of the committee, as he's pretty much the odd one out, but I like a bit of passion.

It then got boring again, so turned it off! There's better things to do on a Saturday night ;D
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Tea Party Space Czar

  • President, Tea Party in Space
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 382
  • TEA Party in Space Czar
  • Washington DC
  • Liked: 294
  • Likes Given: 284
Really gets boring when the same, tired arguments keep getting the headlines.

Obama's fault...  Congress' fault... not enough money - yawn.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Really gets boring when the same, tired arguments keep getting the headlines.

Obama's fault...  Congress' fault... not enough money - yawn.

Heck of a way to run a country.

Despite our pathetic government, at least bills get passed.
I feel for all of you in the US.
At least NASA (and DOE Pu238 production) can continue.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Really gets boring when the same, tired arguments keep getting the headlines.

Obama's fault...  Congress' fault... not enough money - yawn.

Heck of a way to run a country.

Despite our pathetic government, at least bills get passed.
I feel for all of you in the US.
At least NASA (and DOE Pu238 production) can continue.

Getting bills passed is not always a good thing. A lot of these bills do more harm than good. However, appropriation bills are important.

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 1
Really gets boring when the same, tired arguments keep getting the headlines.
Obama's fault...  Congress' fault... not enough money - yawn.
Heck of a way to run a country.  Despite our pathetic government, at least bills get passed.
I feel for all of you in the US.  At least NASA (and DOE Pu238 production) can continue.
In space, a new path forward has emerged and is funded, despite all the rhetoric...at the typical government pace...except for those last minute additions to guarantee bailouts for those in higher risk trades.  Congress bans Atlas unless engines already in hand too.  The extra engines however likely are available for crew flights to ISS.

In summary, Congress will spend $6.2B to launch crew to ISS until 2024 and will wait for both of next generation EELVs ( Falcon and the new Atlas with the new DOD liquid engine programs) as no new significant BEO mission funding was provided..

Since Orion and SLS are now developed...and mission hardware is not required until the 2020s, perhaps these folks can be shifted to the 2020 hardware and technology development to speed up BEO missions.  They certainly have the capability.    Time will tell.

Catch the wave.... to Mars and beyond, with a new reuseable, launch vehicle independent architecture  and take part is some .
« Last Edit: 12/23/2014 01:16 pm by muomega0 »

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
I regret my numerical errors on the appropriations bill. I'm impressed that Congress can pass such a massive bill with virtually no debate.

So there is no restriction on use of the RD-180 for launches of the CST-100? Would ULA keep the current Atlas in service for commercial crew?

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Really gets boring when the same, tired arguments keep getting the headlines.

Obama's fault...  Congress' fault... not enough money - yawn.

Heck of a way to run a country.

Despite our pathetic government, at least bills get passed.
I feel for all of you in the US.
At least NASA (and DOE Pu238 production) can continue.

Getting bills passed is not always a good thing. A lot of these bills do more harm than good. However, appropriation bills are important.

I agree.

But on a more 'concerned' side, someone will have to pay the piper sometime.
I'm starting to get worried about all this money being thrown around...
« Last Edit: 12/15/2014 09:58 pm by robertross »

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3113
  • Likes Given: 3862
Really gets boring when the same, tired arguments keep getting the headlines.

Obama's fault...  Congress' fault... not enough money - yawn.

Looking at the Orion and SLS budget I don't think its a matter of not enough money.  It's how it's spent.

Since the Columbia accident how many billions have been spent of Constellation, Orion and SLS?  And so far we have only 2 test flights and 3 more years till the next one.

That's the problem, bad contracting, poor performance from contractors that are sticking it to NASA and apparently no one in the government that sees the problem or wants to fix it.

It's the amount of money but how it's spent.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline spacetraveler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 687
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 165
  • Likes Given: 26
Wake up, America. The US has just slipped to number two in GDP for the first time since the administration of Ulysses S. Grant.

US is still number one in nominal GDP. Will be for another decade or so.

China was always going to pass us once they started becoming more developed due to their substantially larger population.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Really gets boring when the same, tired arguments keep getting the headlines.

Obama's fault...  Congress' fault... not enough money - yawn.

Looking at the Orion and SLS budget I don't think its a matter of not enough money. 1)  It's how it's spent.

Since the Columbia accident how many billions have been spent of Constellation, Orion and SLS?  And so far we have only 2 test flights and 3 more years till the next one.

2) That's the problem, bad contracting, poor performance from contractors that are sticking it to NASA and apparently no one in the government that sees the problem or wants to fix it.

It's the amount of money but how it's spent.

1) You on the point
2) It's not bad contractors they are doing what they bid for.  It's the design and management of the SLS program.  Had "management" gone for direct, or my favorite sidemount, we would have a less expensive program.  Possibly without all the bells and whistles NASA management wants we could be in test phase right now.


2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7829
  • Likes Given: 2
Really gets boring when the same, tired arguments keep getting the headlines.

Obama's fault...  Congress' fault... not enough money - yawn.

Looking at the Orion and SLS budget I don't think its a matter of not enough money. 1)  It's how it's spent.

Since the Columbia accident how many billions have been spent of Constellation, Orion and SLS?  And so far we have only 2 test flights and 3 more years till the next one.

2) That's the problem, bad contracting, poor performance from contractors that are sticking it to NASA and apparently no one in the government that sees the problem or wants to fix it.

It's the amount of money but how it's spent.

1) You on the point
2) It's not bad contractors they are doing what they bid for.  It's the design and management of the SLS program.  Had "management" gone for direct, or my favorite sidemount, we would have a less expensive program.  Possibly without all the bells and whistles NASA management wants we could be in test phase right now.


I'm always impressed by how much expertise exists among people who have never managed multi-billion dollar procurement programs before.

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
I readily admit we are just space enthusiasts, not "experts". If we were actually managing billion dollar programs we probably would not be blogging here. But I think we are each entitled to present our opinions for polite discussion. I've learned quite a bit by listening to people I don't agree with. Just a thought. And in any case the real "program managers" are effectively the members of Congress, and even space enthusiasts know more about building rockets than they do.

My own feeling on this issue is that the sidemount and other proposals were not particularly practical, but if the Shuttle program had been continued a few years, which would have been reasonable, then they could have been implemented at modest cost since the facilities would be operating anyway. However once the decision was made to scrap the Shuttle, designs that used the same infrastructure (including the SDHLV concepts, Sidemount, and the SLS) immediately had to assume the full overhead cost and thus became impractical. That did not stop SLS because of its political support. But in fact the correct decision from the perspective of stewardship of our tax dollars would be to abandon all the Shuttle infrastructure and use the land for new concepts.

To quote Mark Twain,
"Suppose I were a member of Congress...   and suppose I were an idiot...     but, I repeat myself."
« Last Edit: 12/17/2014 04:24 pm by vulture4 »

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729

My own feeling on this issue is that the sidemount and other proposals were not particularly practical, but if the Shuttle program had been continued a few years, which would have been reasonable, then they could have been implemented at modest cost since the facilities would be operating anyway. However once the decision was made to scrap the Shuttle, designs that used the same infrastructure (including the SDHLV concepts, Sidemount, and the SLS) immediately had to assume the full overhead cost and thus became impractical. That did not stop SLS because of its political support. But in fact the correct decision from the perspective of stewardship of our tax dollars would be to abandon all the Shuttle infrastructure and use the land for new concepts.


Have to disagree with you fully on sidemount. 

A quick napkin thinking....... finished shuttle tankage available and paid for, Shuttle engines available. Two launch pads were available.  If you wished to referb one pad you still could be doing test launches on the other.

Think removal of the orbiter and replaced with Atlas V tankage (boilerplate payload module) for testing.  Could have launched some decent payloads in testing (Shuttle less engines).  Could have launched an Orion boilerplate & SM.

« Last Edit: 12/17/2014 08:11 pm by Prober »
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
No, it was a bad idea. Side mount had too many compromises.  It only made sense when the shuttle was flying. 

Atlas tank on it?. Not  a good idea or even feasible.
« Last Edit: 12/17/2014 07:45 pm by Jim »

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
No, it was a bad idea. Side mount had too many compromises.  It only made sense when the shuttle was flying. 

Atlas tank on it?. Not  a good idea or even feasible.

A quick napkin thinking
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
Orion has arrived back at KSC. Repeatedly described by PAO as "NASA's first new manned spacecraft in decades". What about Dragon? Both Dragon and Orion were built by contractors and paid for, at least partly, by NASA to meet NASA requirements. I see no reason Dragon is less of a "NASA spacecraft".

Offline kch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1758
  • Liked: 496
  • Likes Given: 8807
Orion has arrived back at KSC. Repeatedly described by PAO as "NASA's first new manned spacecraft in decades". What about Dragon? Both Dragon and Orion were built by contractors and paid for, at least partly, by NASA to meet NASA requirements. I see no reason Dragon is less of a "NASA spacecraft".

It isn't ... but you left out an important word (bolded above).  ;)

EDIT:  See Jim's post below ('preciate the correction).  The distinction between "manned" and "not-manned"  remains, though.  :)
« Last Edit: 12/18/2014 06:58 pm by kch »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Orion has arrived back at KSC. Repeatedly described by PAO as "NASA's first new manned spacecraft in decades". What about Dragon? Both Dragon and Orion were built by contractors and paid for, at least partly, by NASA to meet NASA requirements. I see no reason Dragon is less of a "NASA spacecraft".

SpaceX owns the IP of Dragon and not NASA and therefore is its a Spacex spacecraft.  No different than Delta or Atlas, which are ULA's and not NASA or USAF.  NASA owns the IP of Orion and SLS and hence those are NASA vehicles.
« Last Edit: 12/18/2014 06:52 pm by Jim »

Offline kch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1758
  • Liked: 496
  • Likes Given: 8807
No, it was a bad idea. Side mount had too many compromises.  It only made sense when the shuttle was flying. 

Atlas tank on it?. Not  a good idea or even feasible.

A quick napkin thinking

It's not the first time (nor likely the last) that a quick napkin has thought such things!  As long as it doesn't start singing "Daisy", we're probably OK.  ;)

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
Orion has arrived back at KSC. Repeatedly described by PAO as "NASA's first new manned spacecraft in decades". What about Dragon? Both Dragon and Orion were built by contractors and paid for, at least partly, by NASA to meet NASA requirements. I see no reason Dragon is less of a "NASA spacecraft".

SpaceX owns the IP of Dragon and not NASA and therefore is its a Spacex spacecraft.  No different than Delta or Atlas, which are ULA's and not NASA or USAF.  NASA owns the IP of Orion and SLS and hence those are NASA vehicles.
And the IP of Orion and SLS would be ...? And the portion that is not retained by the contractors would be ....?
http://www.acquisition.gov/far/html/Subpart%2027_3.html
« Last Edit: 12/19/2014 03:16 am by vulture4 »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25241
  • Likes Given: 12115
No, it was a bad idea. Side mount had too many compromises.  It only made sense when the shuttle was flying. 
...
It made sense if basically your only goals were to fly a NASA HLV (okay, 50mT?) as quick as possible and to use Shuttle parts and infrastructure to do it. Keep the tank identical, boosters identical, flame trench identical, heck keep the engine section and interfaces as close to identical as possible. You're compromising payload, but who cares? You're saving a whole decade of development time and money. You accomplish the goals as quickly as possible. Then, shut 'er down and use EELVs like you're supposed to.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
I'd put it another way.. Sidemount was a humble recognition of the direction the political winds were blowing and the best way to sail them. It would have gotten an HLV flying with the least zipcode reengineering.

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
No, it was a bad idea. Side mount had too many compromises.  It only made sense when the shuttle was flying. 
...
It made sense if basically your only goals were to fly a NASA HLV (okay, 50mT?) as quick as possible and to use Shuttle parts and infrastructure to do it. Keep the tank identical, boosters identical, flame trench identical, heck keep the engine section and interfaces as close to identical as possible. You're compromising payload, but who cares? You're saving a whole decade of development time and money. You accomplish the goals as quickly as possible. Then, shut 'er down and use EELVs like you're supposed to.

The problem is your last line...the EELV's are not NASA launchers.   Would like to have seen close to continued launches even if it was only tests once every 12-18months.   Just to have a operating space program. 
« Last Edit: 12/22/2014 01:14 pm by Prober »
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Orion has arrived back at KSC. Repeatedly described by PAO as "NASA's first new manned spacecraft in decades". What about Dragon? Both Dragon and Orion were built by contractors and paid for, at least partly, by NASA to meet NASA requirements. I see no reason Dragon is less of a "NASA spacecraft".

SpaceX owns the IP of Dragon and not NASA and therefore is its a Spacex spacecraft.  No different than Delta or Atlas, which are ULA's and not NASA or USAF.  NASA owns the IP of Orion and SLS and hence those are NASA vehicles.
And the IP of Orion and SLS would be ...? And the portion that is not retained by the contractors would be ....?
http://www.acquisition.gov/far/html/Subpart%2027_3.html

Strike my last line, it doesn't matter.

Orion and SLS are not being launched and operated LM and Boeing/ATK.   They are providing Orion and SLS to NASA and NASA will operate them. NASA gets the hardware and gets to play with it.  NASA doesn't get to play with Dragon, it just gets its hardware delivered.

The contract )hardware vs service) determines who "owns" the vehicle.
« Last Edit: 12/22/2014 12:32 am by Jim »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25241
  • Likes Given: 12115
No, it was a bad idea. Side mount had too many compromises.  It only made sense when the shuttle was flying. 
...
It made sense if basically your only goals were to fly a NASA HLV (okay, 50mT?) as quick as possible and to use Shuttle parts and infrastructure to do it. Keep the tank identical, boosters identical, flame trench identical, heck keep the engine section and interfaces as close to identical as possible. You're compromising payload, but who cares? You're saving a whole decade of development time and money. You accomplish the goals as quickly as possible. Then, shut 'er down and use EELVs like you're supposed to.

The problem is your last line...the EELV's are not NASA launchers.   Would like to have seen close to continued launches even if it was tests once every 12-18months.   Just to have a operating space program.
a launch vehicle is not a space program. A space program doesn't need it's own launch vehicle if there are several domestic ones available at lower cost. THIS is the biggest problem NASA faces right now.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
No, it was a bad idea. Side mount had too many compromises.  It only made sense when the shuttle was flying. 
...
It made sense if basically your only goals were to fly a NASA HLV (okay, 50mT?) as quick as possible and to use Shuttle parts and infrastructure to do it. Keep the tank identical, boosters identical, flame trench identical, heck keep the engine section and interfaces as close to identical as possible. You're compromising payload, but who cares? You're saving a whole decade of development time and money. You accomplish the goals as quickly as possible. Then, shut 'er down and use EELVs like you're supposed to.

The problem is your last line...the EELV's are not NASA launchers.   Would like to have seen close to continued launches even if it was tests once every 12-18months.   Just to have a operating space program.
a launch vehicle is not a space program. A space program doesn't need it's own launch vehicle if there are several domestic ones available at lower cost. THIS is the biggest problem NASA faces right now.

and lower costs don't automatically translate into cost savings, schedule  or assured access to space.  2014 was a very bad year for "New Space" with VG, SpaceX grasshopper and Orbital events.


2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline chamann

  • Member
  • Posts: 33
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 17
No, it was a bad idea. Side mount had too many compromises.  It only made sense when the shuttle was flying. 
...
It made sense if basically your only goals were to fly a NASA HLV (okay, 50mT?) as quick as possible and to use Shuttle parts and infrastructure to do it. Keep the tank identical, boosters identical, flame trench identical, heck keep the engine section and interfaces as close to identical as possible. You're compromising payload, but who cares? You're saving a whole decade of development time and money. You accomplish the goals as quickly as possible. Then, shut 'er down and use EELVs like you're supposed to.

The problem is your last line...the EELV's are not NASA launchers.   Would like to have seen close to continued launches even if it was tests once every 12-18months.   Just to have a operating space program.
a launch vehicle is not a space program. A space program doesn't need it's own launch vehicle if there are several domestic ones available at lower cost. THIS is the biggest problem NASA faces right now.
If, hypothetically, SLS and Orion were cancelled, the money that it would free up wouldn't necessarily go to NASA.  The money could instead go to some other agency or  toward reducing the deficit.

IMO, only a shared vision, between the Administration and Congress, with a strongly mission-oriented objective (e.g. permanent lunar base, Mars expedition, etc) will drive the necessary funding toward the appropriate NASA programs for the length of time necessary to achieve that objective.  It is, therefore, IMO, that lack of a shared vision that is NASA's biggest problem.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
If, hypothetically, SLS and Orion were cancelled, the money that it would free up wouldn't necessarily go to NASA.  The money could instead go to some other agency or  toward reducing the deficit.

... and that'd be a good thing.

Quote from: chamann
IMO, only a shared vision, between the Administration and Congress, with a strongly mission-oriented objective (e.g. permanent lunar base, Mars expedition, etc)

or perhaps something that's actually in NASA's charter?
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428

IMO, only a shared vision, between the Administration and Congress, with a strongly mission-oriented objective (e.g. permanent lunar base, Mars expedition, etc)

those are not what NASA or the gov't should be doing.  Those are outside of NASA's "vision"
« Last Edit: 12/23/2014 11:21 am by Jim »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7829
  • Likes Given: 2

IMO, only a shared vision, between the Administration and Congress, with a strongly mission-oriented objective (e.g. permanent lunar base, Mars expedition, etc)

those are not what NASA or the gov't should be doing.  Those are outside of NASA's "vision"

?

NASA's vision: To reach for new heights and reveal the unknown so that what we do and learn will benefit all humankind.

http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/what_does_nasa_do.html#.VJlme0CAA

That vision can easily include a lunar or Mars mission. It currently encompasses ISS.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729

IMO, only a shared vision, between the Administration and Congress, with a strongly mission-oriented objective (e.g. permanent lunar base, Mars expedition, etc)

those are not what NASA or the gov't should be doing.  Those are outside of NASA's "vision"

?

NASA's vision: To reach for new heights and reveal the unknown so that what we do and learn will benefit all humankind.

http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/what_does_nasa_do.html#.VJlme0CAA

That vision can easily include a lunar or Mars mission. It currently encompasses ISS.

Blackstar you beat me to the question.....Jim what do you think NASA's vision is?
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
I'm surprised, too.

Expedition to Moon or Mars, even a Base at Moon or Mars seems to me well within NASA territory.

I would draw the line at colonizing. That is why I was surprised about NASA Charles Bolden speaking about "Making Humanity multi plaentary" using Elon Musks headline.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25241
  • Likes Given: 12115
I'm surprised, too.

Expedition to Moon or Mars, even a Base at Moon or Mars seems to me well within NASA territory.

I would draw the line at colonizing. That is why I was surprised about NASA Charles Bolden speaking about "Making Humanity multi plaentary" using Elon Musks headline.
NASA's job isn't to literally build a colony, but it is certainly within the charter to build the technological groundwork for such an endeavor. NASA's job isn't to fly people around in 737s, but they certainly have done a lot of work to improve air travel, even developing a new airspace management system that is a big step up from the inefficient holding patterns and approach trajectories that we use today.

But if NASA isn't a colonization agency, they certainly can help. They have mapped out Mars in detail, high resolution and in 3D. They've mapped the weather systems, built an interplanetary communications system (which they're looking to expand through more commercial systems), they've even done some crude areopositioning system experiments which no doubt will be expanded in the future. And NASA is doing tech development of stuff needed for a colony like ISRU, in situ manufacturing, etc. And NASA will no doubt be an anchor customer for a colony, but NASA certainly won't build it.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
2014 was a very bad year for "New Space" with VG, SpaceX grasshopper and Orbital events.

Er  no... Climb down off that rhetorical tower.

VG - major tragedy but people have been predicting there would be issues. If it gets VG to rethink a lot of things that will be goodness. Not worth a loss of life, and I agree it gives (the media definition of) "NewSpace" a bad name, yes.

Orbital - Rockets blow up. OSC dodged a bullet, no lives were lost, pad damage could have been worse, and nothing irreplaceable was lost. OSC is on track to recover, and ULA gets more business. Seems goodness. But yes, the media latched on to it.

SpaceX - Only a SpaceX hater would characterize loss of F9R Dev1 as anything other than a SUCCESS. The point of testing is to test things, preferably to, and beyond the envelope.  They predicted they'd have some vehicle losses, and were fretting that they hadn't been pushing hard enough. The FTS worked beautifully as well. Major success there. But yes, the media latched on to it.

So basically what you meant to say is that many folk in the media are not that bright and you bought their narrative. Your SpaceX hate-on is almost as tiresome to some folk as my SpaceX fan-boy-ness is to some folk.
« Last Edit: 12/23/2014 04:47 pm by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7829
  • Likes Given: 2
SpaceX - Only a SpaceX hater would characterize loss of F9R Dev1 as anything other than a SUCCESS. The point of testing is to test things, preferably to, and beyond the envelope.  They predicted they'd have some vehicle losses, and were fretting that they hadn't been pushing hard enough. The FTS worked beautifully as well. Major success there. But yes, the media latched on to it.

"Only a SpaceX hater"?

That's ridiculous. A rocket blowing up is a failure no matter how you slice it--the big kaboomb is only a success if that was the intention (like having it blow up on an enemy's bunker). But you have to accept failures as part of any testing program. It's part of the risk, and it's not necessarily a bad thing. But calling it a success is just wrong.

Success is measured by achieving the goals you establish before the flight, not by redefining success after you don't meet those goals.
« Last Edit: 12/24/2014 12:29 am by Blackstar »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7829
  • Likes Given: 2

IMO, only a shared vision, between the Administration and Congress, with a strongly mission-oriented objective (e.g. permanent lunar base, Mars expedition, etc)

those are not what NASA or the gov't should be doing.  Those are outside of NASA's "vision"

?

NASA's vision: To reach for new heights and reveal the unknown so that what we do and learn will benefit all humankind.

http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/what_does_nasa_do.html#.VJlme0CAA

That vision can easily include a lunar or Mars mission. It currently encompasses ISS.

The vision statement that Blackstar has linked to is a vision only within NASA and perhaps not adopted by Congress?  My Google-fu has turned up an original charter from 1958... signed into law by the founder of the military industrial complex, President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

http://history.nasa.gov/spaceact.html

Quote from: National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 ("Unamended")

Sec. 102. (a) The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.
(b) ... military... DoD .... yada yada yada ....
(c) The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives:
(1) The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;
(2) The improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles;
(3) The development and operation of vehicles capable of carrying instruments, equipment, supplies and living organisms through space;
(4) The establishment of long-range studies of the potential benefits to be gained from, the opportunities for, and the problems involved in the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes.
(5) The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science and technology and in the application thereof to the conduct of peaceful activities within and outside the atmosphere.
(6) The making available to agencies directly concerned with national defenses of discoveries that have military value or significance, and the furnishing by such agencies, to the civilian agency established to direct and control nonmilitary aeronautical and space activities, of information as to discoveries which have value or significance to that agency;
(7) Cooperation by the United States with other nations and groups of nations in work done pursuant to this Act and in the peaceful application of the results, thereof; and
( 8 ) The most effective utilization of the scientific and engineering resources of the United States, with close cooperation among all interested agencies of the United States in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, facilities, and equipment.

Somewhere there has been an unofficial amendment to retract from "peace" to benefit all men.  This statement has removed the word peace and has changed "mankind" to all "humankind".  I'm glad that women are now considered humans.

IMO when then there is a tinge of non-peaceful activities... this is acceptable to me.  To me, sanitizing the solar system of bacteria is nice.  I condone this message.

I think the abstract concept of "unnecessary duplication of effort" in Section (c) 8 would be at risk of nonconformance to the law if NASA is told by Congress to adopt an "unnecessary" competitive bid process between Orion, SLS and the Soyuz program to simply go to the ISS.  The thought that we have "unnecessary" duplication among multiple commercial partners seems to also be playing out. 

There are multiple facilities all doing the same thing, we already know this.  It is the concept of duplication of effort that has me spun up right now. 

Section (c) 5 might say that the US dependencies with Russian engines should be curtailed.

NASA's vision cannot legally be dictated by NASA.  It needs to come from Congress (and I say also should be defined by Jim).  So if Jim believes there is an internal committee that drives NASA vision outside of Congress, this would be pretty interesting. 

Edit:  There needs to be an amendment to include benefits to states OUTSIDE of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas and California as part of "all humankind".  NASA's vision that Blackstar is referencing is only stuff in section 102 (c) 1.  THERE IS NOTHING IN NASA's CHARTER ABOUT GOING TO MARS!  Only the atmosphere and space.

Okay, this just got weird. You completely misunderstand all of this stuff.

The National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 chartered the agency and its basic activities, but it doesn't dictate the vision and mission statements of the agency. In fact, the vision and mission statements come from NASA's Strategic Plan, which actually results from the Government Performance and Results Act. Complicating all this, NASA's missions and scope are also determined by the NASA Authorization Act. Congress, because it's been so damned productive lately, failed to produce a NASA Authorization Act this year. But in past years the NASA Authorization Act has defined exploration of the Moon as an agency goal, and more recently it put Mars in there (and in the past, it--or was it the NASA Appropriations Act?--banned NASA from studying the human exploration of Mars). The original charter and the Authorization and Appropriations Acts all define the scope of activities that NASA can undertake. The Vision and Mission statements will be consistent with that scope (i.e. they won't say something that is clearly outside of the scope, like defining NASA's mission as building roads and highways).

Now I suspect that if NASA was going to be given a major new goal like colonization/settlement that would have to be in an amendment to the National Aeronautics and Space Act, because there's a pretty big difference between exploring/studying and settlement/colonization. But nobody in government has ever really embraced the idea of settlement/colonization as a NASA goal, so it's not going to happen unless there's a big cultural shift in the country and the political leadership.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
What exactly is the NAC for besides being ignored?
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/nac/home/#.VJn90caaP8
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
The charter is the vision. The fact that you find it so underwhelming just means that you're starting to discover the reality that most average people already feel about NASA. If NASA's charter was to open the stars to human habitation they'd be free to do a lot more and receive a lot more public support, but it's not.

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7829
  • Likes Given: 2
I previously mentioned the NASA Authorization Act. The 2014 one did not get signed into law, so the 2010 one is still in force:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/649377main_PL_111-267.pdf

The most relevant section is this:

DEC. 301. HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT BEYOND LOW-EARTH ORBIT.
(a) FINDINGS
.—Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The extension of the human presence from low-Earth
orbit to other regions of space beyond low-Earth orbit will
enable missions to the surface of the Moon and missions to
deep space destinations such as near-Earth asteroids and Mars.
(2) The regions of cis-lunar space are accessible to other
national and commercial launch capabilities, and such access
raises a host of national security concerns and economic
implications that international human space endeavors can
help to address.
(3) The ability to support human missions in regions beyond
low-Earth orbit and on the surface of the Moon can also drive
developments in emerging areas of space infrastructure and
technology.
(4) Developments in space infrastructure and technology
can stimulate and enable increased space applications, such
as in-space servicing, propellant resupply and transfer, and
in situ resource utilization, and open opportunities for addi-
tional users of space, whether national, commercial, or inter-
national.
(5) A long term objective for human exploration of space
should be the eventual international exploration of Mars.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7829
  • Likes Given: 2
Agree and believe this is the point.  Believe that there needs to be an amendment of the National Aeronautics and Space Act for NASA to be involved in a Mars mission. 

No. There doesn't.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7829
  • Likes Given: 2
Ok.  Let's say there does not need to be an amendment to the 1958 Space Act.  Everything is fine.

Who specifically in Congress wants to fund an international mission to Mars (plus options for colonization)?  The only person in Congress that seems to want something close to this is Rep. Culbertson from Texas.  But, this congressman claims he needs to also fix NASA.

Quote from: Rep. Culberson
"My job is to say ‘no’ to new spending everywhere, so I can make sure there’s enough funding for scientific research and space exploration" -Culberson

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/nasa/adrift/7/

So what you're implying is... that Culberson may not need to shut down funding everywhere else in order to save NASA.   He also wants a probe to go to Europa before Mars.  But I guess NASA is already fully authorized to go to Mars.  So doing more at NASA is better, but others will have to do with less.

Not seeing how this is possible, really.  If you say so... I guess NASA has enough authorization and resources to execute an international Mars mission right now.   Maybe Putin will pay for it all.  He said this year that Russia was going to go to the moon 'forever'. 

I don't know who the "you" is that you're referring to here. If it's supposed to be me, then you're putting words in my mouth that I didn't say. What I'm saying is that I don't think you understand the political issues at all.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7829
  • Likes Given: 2
Here's one other thing to remember: there's no political support or even public support for planetary settlement (Mars or otherwise). It just doesn't exist. When the NRC human spaceflight committee was gathering data, they asked a lot of people if settlement/colonization should be a NASA goal. They found virtually no support for it, even among people who cared a lot about space. It's only a small group of space enthusiasts who embrace this goal, and they have no power and no influence over the planning process at NASA.

Offline chamann

  • Member
  • Posts: 33
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 17
I created a new topic asking what NASA's charter/vision should be:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36424.msg1307501
« Last Edit: 12/26/2014 08:47 pm by chamann »

Offline ArbitraryConstant

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2014
  • Liked: 628
  • Likes Given: 311
and lower costs don't automatically translate into cost savings, schedule  or assured access to space.  2014 was a very bad year for "New Space" with VG, SpaceX grasshopper and Orbital events.
Couldn't disagree more. 2014 was the best year for newspace since the term was coined and the best year for US spaceflight in decades, maybe even since the 60s.

-SpaceX transitions to a commercially viable launch cadence.
-Without newspace the US propulsion industrial base is moribund, and Russian engines sustain illusions to the contrary. ULA switching tracks means we're finally escaping the consolidation death spiral. Also nice to see established and new space gaining value from each other rather than being purely antagonistic.

Don't see the problem with the grasshopper failure. Tests that are guaranteed to work are rarely very informative.

I think VG and Orbital can justifiably call it a bad year, but if we zoom out and look at which way the needle moved, and which way the trend is going, I think it's a very good year.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Bolden says that NASA should continue on the same path:
http://spacenews.com/bolden-hold-the-line-on-u-s-space-policy/

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2443
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 410
  • Likes Given: 14

Rather than have everything described above play out, I think what the US is doing right now is to 'make it look' like nothing is going on and just get the US heavy lift systems online (SLS, Orion, or some SpaceX thing).  Once these units have been rated/certified for astronauts, then they will go announce a Mars mission if it is feasible.  Otherwise, the US is going nowhere / because they are not able to send XXX billions of US taxpayer dollars to another country to go to Mars.

Makes you wonder why anybody would even want to present a vision right now.

In other words, were NASA to suddenly have a major influx of funds, it's highly likely that one or more of our ISS partners would suddenly start charging WAY more for their current services in regards to serving the interests of the ISS?

In effect, draining OUR Space Program in order to prop up THEIR Space Program.  Which, just so happens, one of our partner's is actually doing now!
« Last Edit: 03/10/2015 06:48 pm by JasonAW3 »
My God!  It's full of universes!

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0