Author Topic: National Space Council Reestablished  (Read 18659 times)

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10992
  • Liked: 2459
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: National Space Council Reestablished
« Reply #120 on: 10/09/2017 02:45 PM »
Really the only question I have. Is this the moment for Resource Prospector to rise like a Phoenix?

It is a distant stepchild of the last "to the Moon, Alice" proclamation after all, otherwise known as RLEP-2

That would actually be a good initial indicator of seriousness--they could fund the first step, and RP has been studied for years and could be given a development order.

One of the ways that the Bush administration sought to indicate that they were serious about the Vision for Space Exploration was to fund the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (I think that was at least $500 million). Now the administration later lost interest in its own initiative, but they did put some money in up-front. Notably, when the Obama administration announced their asteroid mission, they never actually put real money into it. They were told at several points that they should fund precursor missions, including an asteroid survey mission (essentially JPL's NEOCam), but they didn't do that. This was an indicator that they were not really interested in the mission and were simply talking about it as a smokescreen.

Offline DreamyPickle

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 148
  • Home
  • Liked: 62
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: National Space Council Reestablished
« Reply #121 on: 10/09/2017 02:56 PM »
Commercial sector is close to starting robotic missons to moon with initial missions privately funded. With or without NASA leadership and government money commercial sector is going to moon....

Any day now, for real.
While the private sector is offering better launcher options than in 2010 they're not going to the moon with their own money. Landings are only going to happen if NASA pays for them.

The best move here would be to fund robotic missions to investigate the feasibility of extracting hydrogen from permanently shadowed craters. This needs to proven to the point where lunar ISRU can be incorporated as a baseline assumption in all landing plans, like it is for Mars.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9170
  • Liked: 1178
  • Likes Given: 778
Re: National Space Council Reestablished
« Reply #122 on: 10/13/2017 02:06 AM »
An interesting article on the 45 day report requested by the National Space Council:
http://spacenews.com/nasa-to-leverage-current-planning-for-45-day-exploration-report/

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3893
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: National Space Council Reestablished
« Reply #123 on: 10/13/2017 03:37 AM »
Supposing that some private entity could license the technology for Resource Prospector, just like Bigelow licensed Transhab, and then further develop it for NASA under contract?

It seems like Public-Private Partnership is yielding results that haven't been achieved under purely public or purely private auspices.


Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4480
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 3038
  • Likes Given: 1010
Re: National Space Council Reestablished
« Reply #125 on: 11/04/2017 12:49 PM »
Quote
Vice President Mike Pence met with Elon Musk, source says
By Elizabeth Landers, CNN
Updated 0201 GMT (1001 HKT) November 4, 2017

(CNN)Vice President Mike Pence discussed the National Space Council with entrepreneur and inventor Elon Musk during a trip to California last month, a source familiar with the meeting says.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/03/politics/mike-pence-elon-musk-space-x/index.html

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8723
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 5440
  • Likes Given: 3586
"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 FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4480
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 3038
  • Likes Given: 1010
Re: National Space Council Reestablished
« Reply #127 on: 11/06/2017 12:31 PM »
Quote
Q&A: Plotting U.S. Space Policy with White House Adviser Scott Pace

The executive director of the National Space Council discusses the Trump administration’s plans to “make America great again”—in space

By Lee Billings on November 6, 2017

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/q-a-plotting-u-s-space-policy-with-white-house-adviser-scott-pace/

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8025
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2216
  • Likes Given: 5193
Re: National Space Council Reestablished
« Reply #128 on: 11/06/2017 12:52 PM »
Thanks for posting the link: So everything hinges on reducing entitlement an non-discretionary spending... Easy stuff to pass on the hill. :o Good luck with that. I guess Pace doesn't consider BFR as heavy lift either... ???
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4480
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 3038
  • Likes Given: 1010
Re: National Space Council Reestablished
« Reply #129 on: 11/06/2017 01:20 PM »
I guess Pace doesn't consider BFR as heavy lift either... ???

I think he does consider BFR heavy-lift but doesn't want the government to be 'hostage' to one contractor. Personally, I don't buy that argument (eg even if the govt owned the IP, how practical is it to switch main contractors and get someone different to build it?).

More interesting to me is calling heavy lift rockets 'strategic national assets'. The US hasn't had heavy lift [Edit: I mean Saturn V class or greater] for over 40 years, but apparantly now it's strategic?
« Last Edit: 11/06/2017 01:27 PM by FutureSpaceTourist »

Offline butters

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1672
  • Liked: 310
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: National Space Council Reestablished
« Reply #130 on: 11/06/2017 01:28 PM »
Thanks for posting the link: So everything hinges on reducing entitlement an non-discretionary spending... Easy stuff to pass on the hill. :o Good luck with that. I guess Pace doesn't consider BFR as heavy lift either... ???

I think Scott Pace's "point" was more like: commercial heavy lift would be a monopoly, so the government would have to own the intellectual property to avoid being held hostage by the contractor, presumably SpaceX. I don't see how his premise would be true for any significant period of time if New Glenn is counted as heavy lift. So I suppose he's disregarding New Glenn as a credible alternative to SpaceX BFR. There is a substantial performance difference, to be fair. That's the only way it makes any sense.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8025
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2216
  • Likes Given: 5193
Re: National Space Council Reestablished
« Reply #131 on: 11/06/2017 01:56 PM »
Yes, but how would he explain Boeing and Orbital/ATK when it comes to SLS?
« Last Edit: 11/06/2017 05:51 PM by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5164
  • Liked: 791
  • Likes Given: 550
Re: National Space Council Reestablished
« Reply #132 on: 11/06/2017 03:21 PM »
I think what Pace is saying is that the government owns the intellectual property for the SLS systems that Boeing and Orbital/ATK provide (is that true, by the way?), so if they get uppity, NASA can ask other contractors to bid on manufacturing the same design.

I would be surprised, though, if the government didn't have the power to substantially protect itself from being abused by monopoly supplier of heavy-lift launch services if it really wanted to.  Recall, for example, that at one point during the EELV program, the Air Force used should-cost accounting procedures to establish fair prices for the launch services it was buying.  It seems to have bungled that exercise pretty badly, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be done right.

But the real whopper here is Pace's blithe claim that "heavy-lift rockets are strategic national assets."  Why?  The country has got by without heavy lift since the mid-1970's; the US government has yet to identify a need for heavy lift.  It certainly talks vaguely about doing things for which heavy lift could be used, but it has not even attempted to make the case that SLS-style heavy lift is necessary or even desirable for accomplishing those things.

EDIT:  Boring -> Boeing
« Last Edit: 11/06/2017 03:30 PM by Proponent »

Online RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2150
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 1017
  • Likes Given: 792
Re: National Space Council Reestablished
« Reply #133 on: 11/06/2017 03:29 PM »
Yeah, unless SLS is required for some Air Force black project (heading into tinfoil hat territory with that idea), "heavy-lift rockets are strategic national assets" isn't a thing. Probably an excuse to keep the money flowing to big donors.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8025
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2216
  • Likes Given: 5193
Re: National Space Council Reestablished
« Reply #134 on: 11/06/2017 03:30 PM »
I think what Pace is saying is that the government owns the intellectual property for the SLS systems that Boring and Orbital/ATK provide (is that true, by the way?), so if they get uppity, NASA can ask other contractors to bid on manufacturing the same design.

I would be surprised, though, if the government didn't have the power to substantially protect itself from being abused by monopoly supplier of heavy-lift launch services if it really wanted to.  Recall, for example, that at one point during the EELV program, the Air Force used should-cost accounting procedures to establish fair prices for the launch services it was buying.  It seems to have bungled that exercise pretty badly, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be done right.

But the real whopper here is Pace's blithe claim that "heavy-lift rockets are strategic national assets."  Why?  The country has got by without heavy lift since the mid-1970's; the US government has yet to identify a need for heavy lift.  It certainly talks vaguely about doing things for which heavy lift could be used, but it has not even attempted to make the case that SLS-style heavy lift is necessary or even desirable for accomplishing those things.
In order to add; allow me to quote Mike Griffin from a few years back " We already have heavy lift and it is called the Shuttle"... Perhaps LM might be able to build the tankage but I think Orbital/ATK has a lock on the boosters. So we are always tied to same two-three contractors anyways..
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Online AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2944
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 664
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: National Space Council Reestablished
« Reply #135 on: 11/06/2017 05:39 PM »
I think what Pace is saying is that the government owns the intellectual property for the SLS systems that Boring and Orbital/ATK provide (is that true, by the way?), so if they get uppity, NASA can ask other contractors to bid on manufacturing the same design.

I would be surprised, though, if the government didn't have the power to substantially protect itself from being abused by monopoly supplier of heavy-lift launch services if it really wanted to.  Recall, for example, that at one point during the EELV program, the Air Force used should-cost accounting procedures to establish fair prices for the launch services it was buying.  It seems to have bungled that exercise pretty badly, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be done right.

But the real whopper here is Pace's blithe claim that "heavy-lift rockets are strategic national assets."  Why?  The country has got by without heavy lift since the mid-1970's; the US government has yet to identify a need for heavy lift.  It certainly talks vaguely about doing things for which heavy lift could be used, but it has not even attempted to make the case that SLS-style heavy lift is necessary or even desirable for accomplishing those things.
In order to add; allow me to quote Mike Griffin from a few years back " We already have heavy lift and it is called the Shuttle"... Perhaps LM might be able to build the tankage but I think Orbital/ATK has a lock on the boosters. So we are always tied to same two-three contractors anyways..

As a point of interest, NASA (MSFC) is currently canvassing the aerospace industry (via an RFI) on the production and operations of SLS Flight Set 3 through 6.  This would be concurrent with the completion of EM-1 and EM-2 by Boeing under their present contract.

The aim is to transition from DDT&E (Design, Development, Test, and Evaluation) activities during FS3-FS6 onto "build to print" by the time FS7 is due.

(RFI attached)

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5164
  • Liked: 791
  • Likes Given: 550
Re: National Space Council Reestablished
« Reply #136 on: 11/06/2017 05:59 PM »
On further reflection, a better retort to Pace's worry about monopolistic behavior by a provider of heavy-lift launch services occurs to me.  Suppose NASA did contract with, say, SpaceX for heavy-lift launch services at a time when SpaceX held a monopoly on such.  And suppose SpaceX did try abuse its monopoly.  How much worse could it be than what's already happening with SLS?  I mean, first flight has slipped from about 2015 to, likely, 2020: at $2+ billion a year, that's an overrun of more than $10 billion.  And we haven't even got to the latest problems involving overweight launch platforms.

How much worse could a monopolistic SpaceX or Blue Origin or ULA be?

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10992
  • Liked: 2459
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: National Space Council Reestablished
« Reply #137 on: 11/06/2017 08:07 PM »
There was a ton of other stuff included in the article. Maybe you guys could try discussing that instead of beating the same old SLS/BFR hobby horse?

Offline ncb1397

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 744
  • Liked: 323
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: National Space Council Reestablished
« Reply #138 on: 11/06/2017 08:35 PM »
On further reflection, a better retort to Pace's worry about monopolistic behavior by a provider of heavy-lift launch services occurs to me.  Suppose NASA did contract with, say, SpaceX for heavy-lift launch services at a time when SpaceX held a monopoly on such.  And suppose SpaceX did try abuse its monopoly.  How much worse could it be than what's already happening with SLS?  I mean, first flight has slipped from about 2015 to, likely, 2020: at $2+ billion a year, that's an overrun of more than $10 billion.  And we haven't even got to the latest problems involving overweight launch platforms.

How much worse could a monopolistic SpaceX or Blue Origin or ULA be?

It was never slated for 2015.

Quote
(2) FLEXIBILITY.—The Space Launch System shall be
designed from inception as a fully-integrated vehicle capable
of carrying a total payload of 130 tons or more into low-Earth
orbit in preparation for transit for missions beyond low-Earth
orbit. The Space Launch System shall, to the extent practicable,
incorporate capabilities for evolutionary growth to carry heavier
payloads. Developmental work and testing of the core elements
and the upper stage should proceed in parallel subject to appropriations.
Priority should be placed on the core elements with
the goal for operational capability for the core elements not
later than December 31, 2016.
https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/outreach/nasa_auth_act_2010.pdf

A slip from December 2016 to May 2020 is 3 years and 5 months.
« Last Edit: 11/06/2017 08:36 PM by ncb1397 »

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3458
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2209
  • Likes Given: 2737
Re: National Space Council Reestablished
« Reply #139 on: 11/06/2017 10:10 PM »
I guess Pace doesn't consider BFR as heavy lift either... ???

I think he does consider BFR heavy-lift but doesn't want the government to be 'hostage' to one contractor. Personally, I don't buy that argument (eg even if the govt owned the IP, how practical is it to switch main contractors and get someone different to build it?).

Yeah, that doesn't really hold water if the payloads you want to move are 50mT and less since there will be two American companies that could provide that service.

And in the case of relying on only one provider, the U.S. Government knows how to do that too, and it has done it before in the past - you provide economic incentives. Money does wonders.

Quote
More interesting to me is calling heavy lift rockets 'strategic national assets'. The US hasn't had heavy lift [Edit: I mean Saturn V class or greater] for over 40 years, but apparantly now it's strategic?

Yep. Something can only be a "strategic national asset" is there is a corresponding "strategic national need". And so far there isn't. But they are trying to back into one...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Tags: