Author Topic: Which presidential candidate would be best for the space program?  (Read 162149 times)

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
I would assume he was referring to that Commercial Crew was always funded below what was requested in the budget to meet the original planned first flight of 2015.

Probably.. consistently vague language supports the position that the separation of powers is somehow a bad thing. Ever get the feeling that maybe this administration is more interested in making Congress look bad than they are in actually flying crew this decade? Once the first flight went beyond their term they lost interest in maintaining the schedule.


Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1488
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 570
  • Likes Given: 539
Less money for commercial every budget cycle.

Huh? It's consistently gone up every budget cycle.

I would assume he was referring to that Commercial Crew was always funded below what was requested in the budget to meet the original planned first flight of 2015.

Yes to less than requested.

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1488
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 570
  • Likes Given: 539
...supports the position that the separation of powers is somehow a bad thing.

To clarify, I do not make that assertion. That convincing Congress is the key to decrease, increase, or stay the course is my point. Not that a President is irrelevant, just that the money comes from Congress.

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1740
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 438
  • Likes Given: 91
The President kicks things off every budget cycle by proposing a funding level. Congress goes from there but doesn't deviate much from what is proposed. They may shift things around to different programs but it has not been typical for them to add or subtract billions. So the President sets the tone of the debate if you will. It would be nice to have a President who requests enough funding for all of NASA's existing projects let alone all the new ones that tend to get tacked on.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
The President kicks things off every budget cycle by proposing a funding level. Congress goes from there but doesn't deviate much from what is proposed.

*cough* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Exploration_Initiative
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
I would assume he was referring to that Commercial Crew was always funded below what was requested in the budget to meet the original planned first flight of 2015.

Probably.. consistently vague language supports the position that the separation of powers is somehow a bad thing. Ever get the feeling that maybe this administration is more interested in making Congress look bad than they are in actually flying crew this decade? Once the first flight went beyond their term they lost interest in maintaining the schedule.

NASA could have kept their schedule if they had actually put cost as their main criteria of selection for CCtCap (not value to the government).

Online rsnellenberger

  • Amateur wood butcher
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 838
  • Harbor Springs, Michigan
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 55
He's already in office, but Xi Jinping might be "best for the space program" if China starts accomplishing some lunar successes...

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
He's already in office, but Xi Jinping might be "best for the space program" if China starts accomplishing some lunar successes...

Ahh, the great China hope.. if you're lucky they might duplicate Apollo in a decade or two. They've got a head start on their 35-years-stuck-in-LEO phase, and have already started evaluating everything in terms of "science return".
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12095
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18197
  • Likes Given: 12158
He's already in office, but Xi Jinping might be "best for the space program" if China starts accomplishing some lunar successes...

Ahh, the great China hope.. if you're lucky they might duplicate Apollo in a decade or two. They've got a head start on their 35-years-stuck-in-LEO phase, and have already started evaluating everything in terms of "science return".
The USA won't be that lucky. Even if China would do an all-out 'Apollo-style' program to land a China-man on the moon, the USA would not react. USA was there first, period. China would just be replicating something the USA did over four decades ago. Save half-a-dozen folks in US Congress most of the US political elite would simply say: "boring" and move on to their day-to-day activity of bringing home the bacon.

The entire manned US space program, or more particularly: the political support for the manned US space program, is all about 'firsts': First man on the moon. First space shuttle system. First long-duration international space station.

Landing on the moon again, is not a first. Therefore, odds are this is never going to happen.
Building another ISS-like space station, is not a first. Therefore, odds are this is never going to happen.
Building another STS-like system, is not a first. Therefore, odds are this is never going to happen.
Building another Saturn-V like launcher, is not a first. Therefore, the US is stuck with SLS in stead.

Putting a man on Mars however, is a first. Obama understood this and deliberately chose to go to Mars in stead of the Moon.
However, unlike putting a man on the moon, putting a man on Mars is completely unaffordable to even the USA. Therefore, odds are it is never going to happen.



« Last Edit: 07/17/2015 09:51 am by woods170 »

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
The entire manned US space program, or more particularly: the political support for the manned US space program, is all about 'firsts': First man on the moon. First space shuttle system. First long-duration international space station.

What if it doesn't have to be. What if spaceflight, yes even human spaceflight, could be about something that actually matters. Which presidential candidate, if any, would be best for that?
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12095
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18197
  • Likes Given: 12158
The entire manned US space program, or more particularly: the political support for the manned US space program, is all about 'firsts': First man on the moon. First space shuttle system. First long-duration international space station.

What if it doesn't have to be. What if spaceflight, yes even human spaceflight, could be about something that actually matters. Which presidential candidate, if any, would be best for that?


Answer: none. Because human spaceflight is, currently, not about something that actually matters.
Forget the BS about spreading humankind over multiple planets to ensure the survival of the species. It would require efforts so massive that no country, and not even humankind in total, could afford to do so.
As long as we have a monetary system and every good and/or service requires payment, mankind will be doomed to remain a single-planet species because of unaffordabilty.
And with that manned spaceflight is pretty much pointless.

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 1
The entire manned US space program, or more particularly: the political support for the manned US space program, is all about 'firsts': First man on the moon. First space shuttle system. First long-duration international space station.

What if it doesn't have to be. What if spaceflight, yes even human spaceflight, could be about something that actually matters. Which presidential candidate, if any, would be best for that?


Answer: none. Because human spaceflight is, currently, not about something that actually matters.
Forget the BS about spreading humankind over multiple planets to ensure the survival of the species. It would require efforts so massive that no country, and not even humankind in total, could afford to do so.
As long as we have a monetary system and every good and/or service requires payment, mankind will be doomed to remain a single-planet species because of unaffordabilty.
And with that manned spaceflight is pretty much pointless.
Unaffordable with the left over Shuttle/Apollo hardware used to narrowly focus on a return to the moon.
Lost in Space indeed.  A huge loss to HSF was abandoning L2 satellite servicing and in space assembly of equipment for this narrowly focused, incredibly expendable architecture.  "There is currently no servicing capability that can be used for missions orbiting L2, and therefore the Webb mission design does not rely upon a servicing option."

Affordability begins with:
- A LEO ZBO Gas Station
- EP tugs to ferry propellant and hardware on more efficient trajectories
- LVs, transfer stages, and all hardware design with the goal of reuse and commonality to reduce costs
- Deep Space Habitats acting as Voyagers
- Missions that avoid gravity wells until long duration space travel is demonstrated.

Stage 70% of the mass in LEO:  Class D propellant.    Stage 30% of the mass at L2:  avoid the weight impacts of LEO MMOD.

A return to the moon did not require Shuttle nor its reassembled components.
A return to the moon did not require an ability to assemble large structures in space,
 nor the ability for long duration space travel beyond 3-20 days,
 nor the ability to service satellites, a flagship mission, at L2, and the rock had to be retrieved for them.

Those 'executive leadership skills' removed a solid, although perhaps not as economical, reason for HSF.

NASA Congress must change the architecture
« Last Edit: 07/18/2015 12:16 pm by muomega0 »

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10198
  • Likes Given: 11927
As long as we have a monetary system and every good and/or service requires payment, mankind will be doomed to remain a single-planet species because of unaffordabilty.
And with that manned spaceflight is pretty much pointless.

I share a good degree of your pessimism, but I don't agree that our current monetary system (and capitalism too by extension) dooms us to remain a single-planet species.  If anything, I think Elon Musk is proof that capitalism will be able to provide the funding engine for our efforts to expand off of Earth.

But will a President or Presidential candidate make having humanity be multi-planetary a formal goal?  Absent some corresponding "National Imperative" I don't see that happening, and could even be a negative against them if they mentioned it - there are too many priorities here on Earth.
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 RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2231
  • Likes Given: 1584
I don't see a "national imperative" for spaceflight. There are so many other issues in the US, such as war (current and potential), terrorism, income inequality, etc.

NASA receives about 0.5% of the federal budget, but most of the budget goes to mandatory spending. NASA receives 1.6% of discretionary spending. That's pretty good considering the other priorities NASA is competing with. As mandatory spending rises, squeezing discretionary spending, it's hard to see the political will to increase NASA funding.

Politicians who say they support the space program probably won't be able to do much for it. It's the reality of the bloated federal budget.

The question really is are there any presidential candidates who are bad for the space program?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
As long as we have a monetary system and every good and/or service requires payment, mankind will be doomed to remain a single-planet species because of unaffordabilty.
And with that manned spaceflight is pretty much pointless.

I share a good degree of your pessimism, but I don't agree that our current monetary system (and capitalism too by extension) dooms us to remain a single-planet species.  If anything, I think Elon Musk is proof that capitalism will be able to provide the funding engine for our efforts to expand off of Earth.

But will a President or Presidential candidate make having humanity be multi-planetary a formal goal?  Absent some corresponding "National Imperative" I don't see that happening, and could even be a negative against them if they mentioned it - there are too many priorities here on Earth.

Actually, capitalism is the only way to make life multi-planetary. The cost of spaceflight has to be drastically reduced and for that to happen, government and private clients will be necessary. 

Offline scienceguy

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 836
  • Lethbridge, Alberta
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 279
Can we agree that if we had new technology to reach LEO that governments would be more inclined to send things into space? The technology I'm thinking of it carbon nanotubes or some such so that a space elevator is possible.
e^(pi*i) = -1

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2231
  • Likes Given: 1584
Can we agree that if we had new technology to reach LEO that governments would be more inclined to send things into space? The technology I'm thinking of it carbon nanotubes or some such so that a space elevator is possible.

Yes. Not that they would spend more money, but they could do more with the money.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10198
  • Likes Given: 11927
Can we agree that if we had new technology to reach LEO that governments would be more inclined to send things into space?

Cost is important, but what is more important is the "Why?"  Why should the government care to pay to send something into space?

Military satellites and science missions have a pretty good justification, although they are obviously funded at far different levels.

For instance, in regards to the Moon, why should the U.S. Government care about sending humans to the Moon?  Previously when we went it was because of the Cold War, so we need a new reason if we expect to go again.  And Mars will need a reason too.

I think we've currently run out of reasons to go beyond LEO, that there is no "National Imperative" driving a need right now.  Maybe that will change soon?  Maybe one of the Presidential candidates will articulate one?  The space community sure doesn't have a unified voice on the matter, so I'm not too hopeful for a politician to be able to convince Congress to fund BEO HSF "because it's the next step, not because it's needed."
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 Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39215
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32735
  • Likes Given: 8178
The entire manned US space program, or more particularly: the political support for the manned US space program, is all about 'firsts': First man on the moon. First space shuttle system. First long-duration international space station.

Landing on the moon again, is not a first. Therefore, odds are this is never going to happen.

What about the first woman on the Moon, the first two week mission on the Moon, the first three person mission on the Moon, the first humans to the Lunar north pole, the first humans to the Lunar south pole, the first humans on the far side, the first mission to occur during a Lunar night,  the first Lunar base, the first humans to explore under the Lunar surface, the first production of Lunar oxygen, etc. There are many more firsts to do on the Moon. If the US sits on their hands, they will likely find these firsts going to another country, most likely China, which is already planning the first soft landing on the Lunar far side.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
No-one cares about those "firsts".. and if they do, let them pay for it.

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Tags:
 

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