Which means that if the National Space Council is reconstituted with V.P. Pence at it's head, that we should really be looking to V.P. Pence for indications of where the administration will be pointing NASA. That all we can and should expect from Trump will be platitudes, but no actionable details.
We're not going anywhere unless NASA learns to do more with the NINETEEN BILLION dollars it has available every year. Do you really(!!!) think NASA would actually do anything exploration-wise if its budget was raised 5%, 10%, 20%? This might help SLS/Orion be less behind, but not much else. NASA-philes seem to think doubling the NASA human space flight budget is what is needed to get the current program off the ground.
Ideology, Not Reality, Drives Trump NASA CutsAviation Week & Space TechnologyPresident Donald Trump’s first stab at a federal budget, like all such “top-line” documents over past decades, is dead on arrival. Congress will take it as the notional plan that it is, and begin the laborious, highly complex and usually obscure process of balancing the interests its members represent with the public funds available to support them. What comes out the other end probably will bear faint resemblance to Trump’s initial proposal. The president’s ...
Quote from: AncientU on 03/26/2017 03:48 pmWe're not going anywhere unless NASA learns to do more with the NINETEEN BILLION dollars it has available every year. Do you really(!!!) think NASA would actually do anything exploration-wise if its budget was raised 5%, 10%, 20%? This might help SLS/Orion be less behind, but not much else. NASA-philes seem to think doubling the NASA human space flight budget is what is needed to get the current program off the ground.NASA traditionally has needed large budgets to do the big programs. It doesn't know how to or can't do it cheaper. Cost in 2017 dollars.Gemini $8BApollo $121BSkylab $11BSpace Shuttle $221BISS $167B (to 2015)So, an increase would make a difference. A doubling of the NASA budget means increasing the exploration budget from $3.7B to $23B. It would give NASA sufficient funds to build a Lunar Lander, a Lunar Base, a new Space Station and a Mars Mission. The alternative though is cutting the exploration budget to $2B and giving that to industry in public-private-partnerships ($1B each to two companies, say SpaceX and Blue Origin). It will be interesting to see what happens.
NASA spends 72 cents of every SLS dollar on overhead costs
After President George W. Bush announced a plan to return to the Moon and move on to Mars in 2004, NASA began to consider how best to carry out that vision. Although there were some promising private-sector rockets even then, administrator Michael Griffin set the agency on the course of building its own rockets and spacecraft. Those programs have evolved into the Space Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft.Since then, according to a new report published by the nonpartisan think tank Center for a New American Security, NASA has spent $19 billion on rockets, first on Ares I and V, and now on the SLS. Additionally, the agency has spent $13.9 billion on the Orion spacecraft. The agency hopes to finally fly its first crewed mission with the new vehicles in 2021. If it does so, the report estimates the agency will have spent $43 billion before that first flight, essentially a reprise of the Apollo 8 mission around the Moon.These costs can then be compared to the total cost of the entire Apollo program, which featured six separate human landings on the Moon. According to two separate estimates, the Apollo program cost between $100 billion and $110 billion in 2010 dollars. Thus just the development effort for SLS and Orion, which includes none of the expenses related to in-space activities or landing anywhere, are already nearly half that of the Apollo program.
For Orion, according to the report, approximately 56 percent of the program's cost, has gone to NASA instead of the main contractor, Lockheed Martin, and others. For the SLS rocket and its predecessors, the estimated fraction of NASA-related costs is higher—72 percent. This means that only about $7 billion of the rocket's $19 billion has gone to the private sector companies, Boeing, Orbital ATK, Aeroject Rocketdyne, and others cutting metal.
By comparison the report also estimates NASA's overhead costs for the commercial cargo and crew programs... the NASA overhead costs for these programs is just 14 percent, the report finds.
Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 03/27/2017 08:59 amQuote from: AncientU on 03/26/2017 03:48 pmWe're not going anywhere unless NASA learns to do more with the NINETEEN BILLION dollars it has available every year. Do you really(!!!) think NASA would actually do anything exploration-wise if its budget was raised 5%, 10%, 20%? This might help SLS/Orion be less behind, but not much else. NASA-philes seem to think doubling the NASA human space flight budget is what is needed to get the current program off the ground.NASA traditionally has needed large budgets to do the big programs. It doesn't know how to or can't do it cheaper. Cost in 2017 dollars.Gemini $8BApollo $121BSkylab $11BSpace Shuttle $221BISS $167B (to 2015)So, an increase would make a difference. A doubling of the NASA budget means increasing the exploration budget from $3.7B to $23B. It would give NASA sufficient funds to build a Lunar Lander, a Lunar Base, a new Space Station and a Mars Mission. The alternative though is cutting the exploration budget to $2B and giving that to industry in public-private-partnerships ($1B each to two companies, say SpaceX and Blue Origin). It will be interesting to see what happens.New article:QuoteNASA spends 72 cents of every SLS dollar on overhead costsQuoteAfter President George W. Bush announced a plan to return to the Moon and move on to Mars in 2004, NASA began to consider how best to carry out that vision. Although there were some promising private-sector rockets even then, administrator Michael Griffin set the agency on the course of building its own rockets and spacecraft. Those programs have evolved into the Space Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft.Since then, according to a new report published by the nonpartisan think tank Center for a New American Security, NASA has spent $19 billion on rockets, first on Ares I and V, and now on the SLS. Additionally, the agency has spent $13.9 billion on the Orion spacecraft. The agency hopes to finally fly its first crewed mission with the new vehicles in 2021. If it does so, the report estimates the agency will have spent $43 billion before that first flight, essentially a reprise of the Apollo 8 mission around the Moon.These costs can then be compared to the total cost of the entire Apollo program, which featured six separate human landings on the Moon. According to two separate estimates, the Apollo program cost between $100 billion and $110 billion in 2010 dollars. Thus just the development effort for SLS and Orion, which includes none of the expenses related to in-space activities or landing anywhere, are already nearly half that of the Apollo program.QuoteFor Orion, according to the report, approximately 56 percent of the program's cost, has gone to NASA instead of the main contractor, Lockheed Martin, and others. For the SLS rocket and its predecessors, the estimated fraction of NASA-related costs is higher—72 percent. This means that only about $7 billion of the rocket's $19 billion has gone to the private sector companies, Boeing, Orbital ATK, Aeroject Rocketdyne, and others cutting metal.QuoteBy comparison the report also estimates NASA's overhead costs for the commercial cargo and crew programs... the NASA overhead costs for these programs is just 14 percent, the report finds.https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/new-report-nasa-spends-72-cents-of-every-sls-dollar-on-overhead-costs/NASA needs to learn to do more with the funds it has...(Hint: Cuts to a bloated bureaucracy might be a place to start.)
Spoken like a commercial space 'true believer'. Rather than making a knee jerk response maybe you should stop and consider that a lot of that bureaucracy rather than being a waste is actually carrying out important functions.
Quote from: Star One on 03/27/2017 04:11 pmSpoken like a commercial space 'true believer'. Rather than making a knee jerk response maybe you should stop and consider that a lot of that bureaucracy rather than being a waste is actually carrying out important functions. Who is really making the knee jerk response here? AncientU provided quotes and figures. You provided an insult followed by a non sequitur.We already know that there is plenty of room for NASA to do things a lot more efficiently. Commercial Shuttle (remember those discussions from years ago?) proved it in theory. Commercial Cargo is proving it in practice.
Quote from: Star One on 03/27/2017 10:59 pmBecause it's quoting a think tank report, any such body that claims to be non-partisan you can bet their bottom dollar that they aren't and instead have an angle to sell you.If you dig down deeper, you discover that the person who wrote the report:a-does not actually work for that think tank, he only presented his paper during one of their events (during lunch time, to a small audience, according to the author himself)b-is actually a bloggerc-is in no way "non-partisan"Go look him up. Read his numerous blog posts on political subjects. See if they fit the definition of "non-partisan."
Because it's quoting a think tank report, any such body that claims to be non-partisan you can bet their bottom dollar that they aren't and instead have an angle to sell you.
How about focusing on the contents of the paper rather than on the author. Do the arguments stand up or not?
Read his paper carefully. Does he present coherent arguments? Is it logically sound? Is it supported by facts? Are the arguments comprehensive, or does he ignore significant information that would contradict his claims?I find that I learn more from reading things I disagree with. I try to accept the author's starting point and then see whether I really can make a good case against it. If you reject things on the grounds that "oh, well, he would say that, wouldn't he," you miss an opportunity to learn. Focus on what is said rather than on who is saying it or toward what end.
(non mod view)I think both Proponent and Star One are right. Especially in this day and age, it's hard to trust numbers presented without some independent corroboration. But once you trust the numbers, evaluate the case on merits.... a blending of what they are saying is probably how to look at stuff. Trust but verify? no, wrong order these days, Verify first unless you REALLY trust the source.