Author Topic: NASA does not have the funds for a crewed Mars mission  (Read 11127 times)

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2323
  • Liked: 1008
  • Likes Given: 675
Re: NASA does not have the funds for a crewed Mars mission
« Reply #80 on: 07/20/2017 10:16 PM »
To FinalFrontiers question, could the same contractors be switched to the habitat, exploration ship, etc. and use Michoud as an assembly point, and thus keep the jobs in the states affected?  Then support of Congress easier to accomplish.

I know a lot of things wouldn't translate, but a lot of them could.

And why would we want to keep the same contractors?

Maybe the two failed attempts (Constellation/SLS) are a message*...

* Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Falcon 1 and red Dragon
Just pointing out how idiotic you statement is.
Constellation/SLS issues are not contractor related

Yes, those 2 huge boondoggles had a combined cost to the taxpayer of what, $5 or $10 million?

If Congress was interested in results or efficiency they wouldn't be making NASA spend tens of billions on a CxP redo. Same contractors or otherwise. But switching contractors would be but a band-aid. The actual problems are much higher up.

Offline jtrame

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 290
  • W4FJT
  • Knoxville, TN
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 298
Re: NASA does not have the funds for a crewed Mars mission
« Reply #81 on: 07/20/2017 10:46 PM »
Well I was just thinking out loud, but why would you use the same contractors? Self explanatory, to keep the Congressman happy, keep the money flowing and also because  these contractors not only have experience, the workforce, and public support, it's just possible they aren't the bad guys some want to make them out to be. Yes, just  throwing an idea out there, unrealistic as it is.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4551
  • Liked: 2676
  • Likes Given: 3772
Re: NASA does not have the funds for a crewed Mars mission
« Reply #82 on: 07/21/2017 12:24 PM »
To FinalFrontiers question, could the same contractors be switched to the habitat, exploration ship, etc. and use Michoud as an assembly point, and thus keep the jobs in the states affected?  Then support of Congress easier to accomplish.

I know a lot of things wouldn't translate, but a lot of them could.

And why would we want to keep the same contractors?

Maybe the two failed attempts (Constellation/SLS) are a message*...

* Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Falcon 1 and red Dragon
Just pointing out how idiotic you statement is.
Constellation/SLS issues are not contractor related

The issues with Constellation were with both the strategic and technical design.
The issues with SLS are basically limited to the strategic design.

No problems with the technical implementation?
Seems a 1970s-1980s technology rocket with proven engines, boosters, capsule form/function should be readily implemented by a competent contractor team -- that has been doing this since the 1960s... 
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31147
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9397
  • Likes Given: 297
Re: NASA does not have the funds for a crewed Mars mission
« Reply #83 on: 07/21/2017 12:33 PM »
To FinalFrontiers question, could the same contractors be switched to the habitat, exploration ship, etc. and use Michoud as an assembly point, and thus keep the jobs in the states affected?  Then support of Congress easier to accomplish.

I know a lot of things wouldn't translate, but a lot of them could.

And why would we want to keep the same contractors?

Maybe the two failed attempts (Constellation/SLS) are a message*...

* Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Falcon 1 and red Dragon
Just pointing out how idiotic you statement is.
Constellation/SLS issues are not contractor related

The issues with Constellation were with both the strategic and technical design.
The issues with SLS are basically limited to the strategic design.

No problems with the technical implementation?
Seems a 1970s-1980s technology rocket with proven engines, boosters, capsule form/function should be readily implemented by a competent contractor team -- that has been doing this since the 1960s...

Just stop with the nonsense.

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3674
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 1236
Re: NASA does not have the funds for a crewed Mars mission
« Reply #84 on: 07/21/2017 01:31 PM »
spacetraveler: I'm forced to agree with Jim - they are not building a direct analogue for a 1960s, 1970s or '80s rocket with proven engines, boosters, capsule etc. If they were building the Side-Mount, closely Shuttle-derived vehicle and a spacecraft that closely resembled Apollo or Soyuz - then your contentions would hold more water. In fact; they are also not using exactly the same mix of personnel and facilities, with their old, inherent 'chemistry' and competency. Nor are they doing it with anything like a really generous and healthy development budget; where money is virtually no object and political support is solid.

Many of those old personnel and 'game players' were laid off or retired. The SLS/Orion effort, despite some surplus Shuttle engines and booster segments, and an Apollo shape is much closer to a clean-sheet design than some sort of 'resurrection'. And the path they are on is steadily proving to not be the optimal way to do things. Oh sure - if they throw enough money at the whole shebang; they might end up with something functional and useful, after a fashion. But in the end, all they may be doing is repeating all the virtues and flaws of Apollo and Shuttle - all rolled into one huge, chimaera package.

Heh - I know that Jim is a man of much fewer words than me. But I hope I just put across the same intent as he - just less bluntly...
« Last Edit: 07/21/2017 01:32 PM by MATTBLAK »
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10259
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2020
  • Likes Given: 620
Re: NASA does not have the funds for a crewed Mars mission
« Reply #85 on: 07/25/2017 12:36 AM »
Lots of useful ideas but unfortunately none will ever see the light of day so long as NASA continues to be sole-funded by the Congress. NASA is not allowed to innovate in terms of what it does. Congress tells NASA what to work on and funds that and nothing else. And as I indicated up-thread the appropriations are done in such a way so as to benefit jobs back in the voting districts, not space programs. So far as the Congress is concerned NASA exists for the sole purpose of funneling money back home, not exploring space. That's why I no longer have any faith in NASA. It used to be great. Now it's just a Congressional pawn. If anything great actually happens it will be by coincidence.

The problem isn't NASA. It's the brain-dead Congress. And NASA has no options and no way out. It's a forever hostage. Very, very sad.
« Last Edit: 07/25/2017 12:38 AM by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Tags: