I might have this wrong, but it sounded like Gerst was critical to the SLS specifications decision from Congress.
Mike Gold of SSL made a statement that the ISS as a NASA run project would end in 2024 and then the private sector would have to be ready to take over and continue LEO presence.Senator Nelson however later said the ISS should be operated a lot longer, until at least the end of the 20ies. I understand that NASA hopes to end ISS in 2024 and have the budget available to advance Mars plans. So would this delay Mars or could we expect a budget increase to do both?At the very end of the session Senator Cruz mad an interesting suggestion. He said maybe the Senate should be sent to space, on a one way mission.
Not if NASA just goes along with SpaceX. Not that that is a sure thing or anything, but it's at least as realistic as NASA just doing it with SLS.
If NASA is going to Mars in the 2030s - 2040s, ISS has to end operations in 2024.
Quote from: RonM on 07/19/2016 03:00 pmIf NASA is going to Mars in the 2030s - 2040s, ISS has to end operations in 2024.Or be privatized. Which is unlikely...Quote from: Robotbeat on 07/19/2016 03:09 pmNot if NASA just goes along with SpaceX. Not that that is a sure thing or anything, but it's at least as realistic as NASA just doing it with SLS.Far better approach for everyone. Except the pork rollers. Hence, present course and speed.
Mike Gold of SSL made a statement that the ISS as a NASA run project would end in 2024 and then the private sector would have to be ready to take over and continue LEO presence.Senator Nelson however later said the ISS should be operated a lot longer, until at least the end of the 20ies. I understand that NASA hopes to end ISS in 2024 and have the budget available to advance Mars plans. So would this delay Mars or could we expect a budget increase to do both?
An extra point of interest: the hearing includes at least one NSF member! Do you know who?(Their identity on this forum is not confidential.)
...Quote from: Robotbeat on 07/19/2016 03:09 pmNot if NASA just goes along with SpaceX. Not that that is a sure thing or anything, but it's at least as realistic as NASA just doing it with SLS.Far better approach for everyone. Except the pork rollers. Hence, present course and speed.
Quote from: zubenelgenubi on 07/19/2016 06:37 pmAn extra point of interest: the hearing includes at least one NSF member! Do you know who?(Their identity on this forum is not confidential.)I do and I spotted it right away but I don't know that we want 20 posts with guesses.
Not having all the commercial players there was unusual to me... Not saying it was deliberate... But still...
I finally listened to the hearing and found it quite revealing. Consider this statement from NASA's William Gerstenmeier beginning at 0:21:25 (emphasis added):...Wow -- Is Gerstenmeier actually complaining about political interference in engineering matters? It's like he was channeling me. If it was meant as a criticism of Congress for having written SLS's specs into law, it didn't seem to get any reaction from the senators present, not even from Senator-"engineer" Nelson, who was one of SLS's key political "designers". Maybe it went over their heads.
Quote from: Proponent on 07/28/2016 05:52 pmI finally listened to the hearing and found it quite revealing. Consider this statement from NASA's William Gerstenmeier beginning at 0:21:25 (emphasis added):...Wow -- Is Gerstenmeier actually complaining about political interference in engineering matters? It's like he was channeling me. If it was meant as a criticism of Congress for having written SLS's specs into law, it didn't seem to get any reaction from the senators present, not even from Senator-"engineer" Nelson, who was one of SLS's key political "designers". Maybe it went over their heads.That was an excellent find, and I applaud the attempt by Gerstenmeier.However it didn't go over the heads of the Senators, they just chose to ignore what they already knew to be true.It's sad, but in this case the creation of the SLS by the Senate allowed for this level of interference. In a normal program Congress would not have the time or ability to be so prescriptive, and it would be very visible during the competitive bidding phase. But the SLS and the Orion were not "normal" procurement, they were meant to continue jobs that would otherwise have been cancelled with the end of the Constellation program, so it was about maintaining a status quo.But it was good that he got this on the record, so that it can be pointed to in the future if needed...
Not sure where to put this... so I will drop it here.Good stuff from the Chairman.“I am an enthusiastic advocate of competition and allowing the private sector to innovate, and I will continue to work closely with the commercial space industry to ensure that companies like SpaceX have the freedom to thrive.”http://www.kwtx.com/content/news/McGregor--Texas-Sen-Tours-SpaceX-390034281.html
I don't understand this sentiment regarding congressional language dictating SLS. While I believe that SLS costs way more than it is worth, SLS is tremendously better than the NASA defined Ares I and V rockets.
Different NASAs.Ares I and Ares V were defined and pushed by the Griffin regime at NASA under Bush. When Obama came to office, Griffin was out and the new NASA regime tried to kill killed Constellation. SLS was the result of Congress fighting back against the attempt to kill killing of Constellation, saving as much pork as possible of it (Ares V rebranded as SLS a BFR and Orion).So, it's not a matter of NASA versus Congress. It's a matter of Constellation-faction versus anti-Constellation-faction. The former held power in NASA until 2009 and in Congress from then on. They're to blame for Ares I, Ares V, and SLS.
SLS is definitely better than Ares I, though. You can actually make a coherent argument for why SLS makes sense.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 08/15/2016 12:57 amSLS is definitely better than Ares I, though. You can actually make a coherent argument for why SLS makes sense.Well then, do enlighten me because I cannot think of a single good reason as to why SLS would make sense.
Quote from: woods170 on 08/15/2016 11:20 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 08/15/2016 12:57 amSLS is definitely better than Ares I, though. You can actually make a coherent argument for why SLS makes sense.Well then, do enlighten me because I cannot think of a single good reason as to why SLS would make sense.It is an excellent jobs-generator project that will eventually probably launch something useful - even if the price is hilariously high, due to being a result of a jobs generation project that tries to dole out federal money to all the right districts - it does that quite well with large money bags moving around.As a launcher, it makes fairly little sense and has a very good chance of looking seriously obsolete by the time it flies a non-testflight mission.
Quote from: Jarnis on 08/15/2016 01:48 pmQuote from: woods170 on 08/15/2016 11:20 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 08/15/2016 12:57 amSLS is definitely better than Ares I, though. You can actually make a coherent argument for why SLS makes sense.Well then, do enlighten me because I cannot think of a single good reason as to why SLS would make sense.It is an excellent jobs-generator project that will eventually probably launch something useful - even if the price is hilariously high, due to being a result of a jobs generation project that tries to dole out federal money to all the right districts - it does that quite well with large money bags moving around.As a launcher, it makes fairly little sense and has a very good chance of looking seriously obsolete by the time it flies a non-testflight mission. Rockets, IMHO, are for launching things into space, not generate jobs with federal money. But that's just my opinion. With regard to SLS: it is already obsolete right now IMO. Tankage and avionics are state of the art. But the business ends feature propulsion systems based on 1970's technology. Yet the bl**dy thing is still costing tens of billions of US dollars to develop. Given that the US space industry is the best on the planet I really expected them to do better than SLS.
Quote from: CommercialSpaceFan on 08/14/2016 11:46 pmI don't understand this sentiment regarding congressional language dictating SLS. While I believe that SLS costs way more than it is worth, SLS is tremendously better than the NASA defined Ares I and V rockets.Different NASAs.Ares I and Ares V were defined and pushed by the Griffin regime at NASA under Bush. When Obama came to office, Griffin was out and the new NASA regime tried to kill Constellation. SLS was the result of Congress fighting back against the attempt to kill Constellation, saving as much as possible of it (Ares V rebranded as SLS and Orion).So, it's not a matter of NASA versus Congress. It's a matter of Constellation-faction versus anti-Constellation-faction. The former held power in NASA until 2009 and in Congress from then on. They're to blame for Ares I, Ares V, and SLS.
Rockets, IMHO, are for launching things into space, not generate jobs with federal money. But that's just my opinion. With regard to SLS: it is already obsolete right now IMO. Tankage and avionics are state of the art. But the business ends feature propulsion systems based on 1970's technology. Yet the bl**dy thing is still costing tens of billions of US dollars to develop. Given that the US space industry is the best on the planet I really expected them to do better than SLS.
The laws of physics have not changed for rocketry and it is not that SLS is technically obsolete, but bureaucratically and economically obsolete... It is a rocket out of time...
Quote from: Rocket Science on 08/15/2016 04:23 pmThe laws of physics have not changed for rocketry and it is not that SLS is technically obsolete, but bureaucratically and economically obsolete... It is a rocket out of time...An engine that takes years on the assembly line to build is obsolete. It is irrelevant in that context, that once built it still is a top engine.
Rockets, IMHO, are for launching things into space, not generate jobs with federal money.
Additionally, the [BFR] is not going anywhere, it is a jobs program. Not much has changed. It is like the 90's all over again.
Falcon Heavy? New Glenn? NASA chief says he’s not a “big fan”
On Tuesday, during a Q&A session at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics' Space 2016 Conference, Bolden was asked for his opinion on the emerging market for small satellites and launchers. He chose to respond instead with his thoughts on NASA's own rocket, the Space Launch System, and private-sector development of larger launch vehicles."If you talk about launch vehicles, we believe our responsibility to the nation is to take care of things that normal people cannot do, or don’t want to do, like large launch vehicles," Bolden said. "I’m not a big fan of commercial investment in large launch vehicles just yet."
This is the sum total of all that is known about the New Armstrong:"New Glenn is a very important step. It won’t be the last of course. Up next on our drawing board: New Armstrong." -Jeff BezosMusk has been hinting around at his MCT for years only saying a bit more than that about it.We don't even have a power point slide of them! I don't think admonishing Bolden for his skepticism of these ephemeral rockets is warranted. Not until the decision makers know more about them can they make decisions based upon them.
Speaking about NASA's SLS rocket and private developers last year, Garver said, "What we’re working with is more of a socialist plan for space exploration, which is just anathema to what this country should be doing. Don’t try to compete with the private sector. Incentivize them by driving technologies that will be necessary for us as we explore further.”
Quote from: woods170 on 08/15/2016 02:26 pmRockets, IMHO, are for launching things into space, not generate jobs with federal money. But that's just my opinion. With regard to SLS: it is already obsolete right now IMO. Tankage and avionics are state of the art. But the business ends feature propulsion systems based on 1970's technology. Yet the bl**dy thing is still costing tens of billions of US dollars to develop. Given that the US space industry is the best on the planet I really expected them to do better than SLS.In a theoretical ideal world rockets are for launching things into space. We don't live in a theoretical ideal world. If you want people to pay for it you have to provide secondary benefits to the people paying for it and their representatives in Congress. If you build the ideal rocket and it creates lots of well paying jobs for yourself, your family and your neighbors you are more likely to support it. NASA doesn't operate in a bubble. Jobs always will be a big consideration.
Quote from: notsorandom on 09/14/2016 08:58 pmThis is the sum total of all that is known about the New Armstrong:"New Glenn is a very important step. It won’t be the last of course. Up next on our drawing board: New Armstrong." -Jeff BezosMusk has been hinting around at his MCT for years only saying a bit more than that about it.We don't even have a power point slide of them! I don't think admonishing Bolden for his skepticism of these ephemeral rockets is warranted. Not until the decision makers know more about them can they make decisions based upon them.So, what is his basis of not being a fan of commercial (private) investment in large launch vehicles? His words, not mine...
However, dismantling our current programs based on that alone would be grossly irresponsible. Bolden should at least be presented with a real proposal for these rockets before he is derided for not canceling everything in their favor. Besides according to Musk and Bezos this will happen and it won't take huge government checks to make it happen.
Quote from: notsorandom on 09/15/2016 02:31 amHowever, dismantling our current programs based on that alone would be grossly irresponsible. Bolden should at least be presented with a real proposal for these rockets before he is derided for not canceling everything in their favor. Besides according to Musk and Bezos this will happen and it won't take huge government checks to make it happen.This is the important bit. While private industry is great, its folly to rely entirely upon it to the exclusion of all else. Especially right now when we have some private rockets flying, no crew, and lots of dreams on the horizon. I would deeply hope that the NASA administration working with my tax dollars would not push to kill important government programs. Despite the subtext often implied here (Government BAD and can only waste- only private companies should do anything!), I'm very grateful that NASA is operating conservatively.Some will always want to tear it all down, advocate for NASA to be a ground-only research outfit, or disband it entirely. I can't think of a bigger disaster to happen to our space program than privatizing without putting due thought into everything, much less plunging an entire region of the country into recession so that one's favored company can have it all. For once I actually feel grateful for congress not running headlong into something.I know this is unpopular to say here, (at least judging by the content of the posts), but I suppose its important to remember that not everyone follows those values that we see inside this internet bubble.
Falcon Heavy per launch cost? less than 200M, possibly way lessNew Glenn per launch cost? unknown but likely same ballpark
Congress should keep funding SLS and Orion until Musk or Bezos have their rockets operational. There is no guarantee they will succeed. Once NASA has the option to purchase SHLV flights from private industry, then Congress can rethink their plans.
Quote from: RonM on 09/15/2016 03:29 amCongress should keep funding SLS and Orion until Musk or Bezos have their rockets operational. There is no guarantee they will succeed. Once NASA has the option to purchase SHLV flights from private industry, then Congress can rethink their plans.I might conceivably agree if:1. NASA had truly established the need or at least the desirability of an SLS-class launch vehicle (if anyone believes such has already been established, please show me where); and2. ULA had been asked to bid on a such a launch vehicle but SLS was found superior for sound engineering reasons. In the past, ULA has suggested it could build an EELV-based heavy lifter for single-digit billions of dollars, and such a thing would likely be cheaper to operate than SLS because of it commonality with other launch vehicles.Otherwise, with a burn rate of $2+ billion a year, SLS is a ridiculously expensive insurance policy to cover a risk that may not exist.
Since both Musk and Bezos are trying to build large rockets, one can assume they both believe missions built up from smaller modules are not practical.
Quote from: RonM on 09/15/2016 01:53 pmSince both Musk and Bezos are trying to build large rockets, one can assume they both believe missions built up from smaller modules are not practical.SpaceX has said explicitly that Falcon Heavy is adequate for NASA-style Mars missions, i.e., sending a few people per decade to Mars.MCT is for colonizing Mars, something which NASA has no plans to do.Just a Blue Origin's New Shepard is for sending large numbers of tourists on suborbital flights, I would guess that its larger vehicles are intended to handle much larger volumes of traffic than anything NASA dreams of.
Quote from: notsorandom on 06/06/2014 01:58 pmThe consensus is that an HLV of some sort is needed for Mars. Even SpaceX agrees with that.What SpaceX has said, in a press release [just after the first Falcon 9 launch issued at the unveiling of Falcon Heavy, is Falcon Heavy is adequate for anything short of frequent human missions to Mars:Please note that Falcon Heavy should not be confused with the super heavy lift rocket program being debated by the U.S. Congress. That vehicle is authorized to carry between 70-130 metric tons to orbit. SpaceX agrees with the need to develop a vehicle of that class as the best way to conduct a large number of human missions to Mars.I don't think a mission every few years, which seems to be the very best one could possibly hope for in the universe of NASA's SLS-based DRMs, qualifies as "frequent." "a large number." Even more to the point, SpaceX says:Falcon Heavy was designed from the outset to carry humans into space and restores the possibility of flying missions with crew to the Moon or Mars.By the way, I'd be grateful if anybody can find that press release -- I've looked, but I can't find it. I thank forum member libs0n for pointing me toward these quotes.
The consensus is that an HLV of some sort is needed for Mars. Even SpaceX agrees with that.
My take is that he was trashing FH and NG too, not *just* MCT and NA.MCT and NA? Fine. Maybe even NG. But trashing FH is basically saying that you don't think SpaceX is going to do FH even though they are really close (cue up QG pointing out that they've been close for a while now)
NASA Administrator Charles Bolden raised some eyebrows recently when a question was put to him at a public meeting, why is NASA spending a lot of money developing the heavy lift #Space Launch System when SpaceX is also developing heavy lift at far less cost? A great answer involving the capabilities of the Falcon Heavy vs. the SLS exists. Bolden declined to issue this reply, offering instead that the SpaceX Falcon 9 uses “old technology.” The assertion is false on a number of levels.
Quote from: Proponent on 09/15/2016 02:02 pmQuote from: RonM on 09/15/2016 01:53 pmSince both Musk and Bezos are trying to build large rockets, one can assume they both believe missions built up from smaller modules are not practical.SpaceX has said explicitly that Falcon Heavy is adequate for NASA-style Mars missions, i.e., sending a few people per decade to Mars.MCT is for colonizing Mars, something which NASA has no plans to do.Your old post doesn't support "SpaceX has said explicitly that Falcon Heavy is adequate for NASA-style Mars missions."
Quote from: RonM on 09/15/2016 01:53 pmSince both Musk and Bezos are trying to build large rockets, one can assume they both believe missions built up from smaller modules are not practical.SpaceX has said explicitly that Falcon Heavy is adequate for NASA-style Mars missions, i.e., sending a few people per decade to Mars.MCT is for colonizing Mars, something which NASA has no plans to do.
Quote from: RonM on 09/15/2016 02:30 pmQuote from: Proponent on 09/15/2016 02:02 pmQuote from: RonM on 09/15/2016 01:53 pmSince both Musk and Bezos are trying to build large rockets, one can assume they both believe missions built up from smaller modules are not practical.SpaceX has said explicitly that Falcon Heavy is adequate for NASA-style Mars missions, i.e., sending a few people per decade to Mars.MCT is for colonizing Mars, something which NASA has no plans to do.Your old post doesn't support "SpaceX has said explicitly that Falcon Heavy is adequate for NASA-style Mars missions."SpaceX says "Falcon Heavy ... restores the possibility of flying missions with crew to the Moon or Mars." How is that not consistent with NASA's ideas of sending a few people to Mars per decade?
This is the sum total of all that is known about the New Armstrong:"New Glenn is a very important step. It won’t be the last of course. Up next on our drawing board: New Armstrong." -Jeff BezosMusk has been hinting around at his MCT for years only saying a bit more than that about it....
Quote from: Proponent on 09/16/2016 02:14 pmQuote from: RonM on 09/15/2016 02:30 pmQuote from: Proponent on 09/15/2016 02:02 pmQuote from: RonM on 09/15/2016 01:53 pmSince both Musk and Bezos are trying to build large rockets, one can assume they both believe missions built up from smaller modules are not practical.SpaceX has said explicitly that Falcon Heavy is adequate for NASA-style Mars missions, i.e., sending a few people per decade to Mars.MCT is for colonizing Mars, something which NASA has no plans to do.Your old post doesn't support "SpaceX has said explicitly that Falcon Heavy is adequate for NASA-style Mars missions."SpaceX says "Falcon Heavy ... restores the possibility of flying missions with crew to the Moon or Mars." How is that not consistent with NASA's ideas of sending a few people to Mars per decade?Because writing "restores the possibility" is not the same thing as writing "NASA-style Mars missions." You're reading too much into a single sentence.NASA, SpaceX, and Blue Origin are all trying to build very big rockets. None of them are working on manned BEO missions using smaller rockets.Congress mandated NASA build SLS and Orion. Before that NASA was designing the Ares V and Orion. NASA-style Mars missions are not just "sending a few people to Mars per decade," their missions require large payloads and very large rockets to fly those payloads.
Quote from: notsorandom on 09/14/2016 08:58 pmThis is the sum total of all that is known about the New Armstrong:"New Glenn is a very important step. It won’t be the last of course. Up next on our drawing board: New Armstrong." -Jeff BezosMusk has been hinting around at his MCT for years only saying a bit more than that about it....A LOT more has been said about MCT. More than you'd fit in a (properly formatted) Powerpoint slide. Here's a thread that collects just updates on MCT:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37839.msg1392252Also, pieces of the engine for MCT (ICT now?) has been undergoing testing the last few years at Stennis, a NASA facility. Strange for the administrator to come off a little hostile.
Let's get real... It is time for JPL and NASA to write a Truly Evolvable Exploration Campaign that acknowledges the existence of more than a single USG launch asset. The Nation's capability is vastly more than its government-only sacred cows.A campaign starting with Block 1B SLS heavy/large volume cargo lift, adding Falcon Heavy, New Glenn, and Vulcan-ACES capabilities, delivering crew with any one of several assets, and -- dare I say it -- employing on-orbit refueling/depots can get us to the Moon and Mars in 10-15 years at whatever scale we choose. The redundancy of vehicles would provide two-deep coverage of any needed capability. The economies of this joint public-private venture would eliminate the bottleneck (read: fantasy) of single path, expendable-only launch vehicles. Infrastructure put in place would be the beginning of a space architecture that actually could substantiate the 'Evolvable' part of the title.As additional National assets come on line such as the Block 2 SLS, BFR, New Armstrong, and/or Vulcan Heavy, the campaign can expand and evolve. Assets that become redundant can fall away without damaging the overall effort. International cooperation would be a natural out-growth of a program that is actually going somewhere and not just seeking alternate sources of revenue.We should have as a goal, returning to the Moon and going to Mars to establish a permanent presence on both bodies. More than sufficient time exists between now and mid-2020s to prove the technology and build the foundation for the crewed phase of the venture.Time to get some leadership ...
Quote from: AncientU on 09/17/2016 01:02 pmLet's get real... It is time for JPL and NASA to write a Truly Evolvable Exploration Campaign that acknowledges the existence of more than a single USG launch asset. The Nation's capability is vastly more than its government-only sacred cows.A campaign starting with Block 1B SLS heavy/large volume cargo lift, adding Falcon Heavy, New Glenn, and Vulcan-ACES capabilities, delivering crew with any one of several assets, and -- dare I say it -- employing on-orbit refueling/depots can get us to the Moon and Mars in 10-15 years at whatever scale we choose. The redundancy of vehicles would provide two-deep coverage of any needed capability. The economies of this joint public-private venture would eliminate the bottleneck (read: fantasy) of single path, expendable-only launch vehicles. Infrastructure put in place would be the beginning of a space architecture that actually could substantiate the 'Evolvable' part of the title.As additional National assets come on line such as the Block 2 SLS, BFR, New Armstrong, and/or Vulcan Heavy, the campaign can expand and evolve. Assets that become redundant can fall away without damaging the overall effort. International cooperation would be a natural out-growth of a program that is actually going somewhere and not just seeking alternate sources of revenue.We should have as a goal, returning to the Moon and going to Mars to establish a permanent presence on both bodies. More than sufficient time exists between now and mid-2020s to prove the technology and build the foundation for the crewed phase of the venture.Time to get some leadership ...I just see it simply as a lack of public interest...
Quote from: Rocket Science on 09/17/2016 04:50 pmQuote from: AncientU on 09/17/2016 01:02 pmLet's get real... It is time for JPL and NASA to write a Truly Evolvable Exploration Campaign that acknowledges the existence of more than a single USG launch asset. The Nation's capability is vastly more than its government-only sacred cows.A campaign starting with Block 1B SLS heavy/large volume cargo lift, adding Falcon Heavy, New Glenn, and Vulcan-ACES capabilities, delivering crew with any one of several assets, and -- dare I say it -- employing on-orbit refueling/depots can get us to the Moon and Mars in 10-15 years at whatever scale we choose. The redundancy of vehicles would provide two-deep coverage of any needed capability. The economies of this joint public-private venture would eliminate the bottleneck (read: fantasy) of single path, expendable-only launch vehicles. Infrastructure put in place would be the beginning of a space architecture that actually could substantiate the 'Evolvable' part of the title.As additional National assets come on line such as the Block 2 SLS, BFR, New Armstrong, and/or Vulcan Heavy, the campaign can expand and evolve. Assets that become redundant can fall away without damaging the overall effort. International cooperation would be a natural out-growth of a program that is actually going somewhere and not just seeking alternate sources of revenue.We should have as a goal, returning to the Moon and going to Mars to establish a permanent presence on both bodies. More than sufficient time exists between now and mid-2020s to prove the technology and build the foundation for the crewed phase of the venture.Time to get some leadership ...I just see it simply as a lack of public interest...AncientU has it right, that's an evolvable campaign. As for public interest, I think the public are less interested in government flags and footprints spectacles than they were in Apollo days, but are becoming more interested in actual campaigns, with permanency, that can end up making their lives better. Slowly, but I am hopeful they are. Recent PR from Blue and SpaceX helps.
Quote from: RonM on 09/16/2016 03:06 pmQuote from: Proponent on 09/16/2016 02:14 pmQuote from: RonM on 09/15/2016 02:30 pmQuote from: Proponent on 09/15/2016 02:02 pmQuote from: RonM on 09/15/2016 01:53 pmSince both Musk and Bezos are trying to build large rockets, one can assume they both believe missions built up from smaller modules are not practical.SpaceX has said explicitly that Falcon Heavy is adequate for NASA-style Mars missions, i.e., sending a few people per decade to Mars.MCT is for colonizing Mars, something which NASA has no plans to do.Your old post doesn't support "SpaceX has said explicitly that Falcon Heavy is adequate for NASA-style Mars missions."SpaceX says "Falcon Heavy ... restores the possibility of flying missions with crew to the Moon or Mars." How is that not consistent with NASA's ideas of sending a few people to Mars per decade?Because writing "restores the possibility" is not the same thing as writing "NASA-style Mars missions." You're reading too much into a single sentence.NASA, SpaceX, and Blue Origin are all trying to build very big rockets. None of them are working on manned BEO missions using smaller rockets.Congress mandated NASA build SLS and Orion. Before that NASA was designing the Ares V and Orion. NASA-style Mars missions are not just "sending a few people to Mars per decade," their missions require large payloads and very large rockets to fly those payloads.I agree. I think everyone has forgotten where the conversation has shifted. For the last 5 years one of the primary arguments against SLS was that you didn't need a SHLV. Yet, here we are, with 3 SHLV in development and not a single plan uses smaller rockets. That's a big shift that no one is willing to concede
There is no need for the US gov't to have such a vehicle.Blue Origin and Spacex reasons for SHLV are not aligned with the US gov'ts'
No, there is no reason for the US gov't to have such goals. It would provide no real benefits to most of its citizens. Furthermore, it is not JPL's job to do such a thing. They are just lab that does tasks assigned to it by NASA.
Quote from: AncientU on 09/17/2016 01:02 pmLet's get real... It is time for JPL and NASA to write a Truly Evolvable Exploration Campaign that acknowledges the existence of more than a single USG launch asset. The Nation's capability is vastly more than its government-only sacred cows.A campaign starting with Block 1B SLS heavy/large volume cargo lift, adding Falcon Heavy, New Glenn, and Vulcan-ACES capabilities, delivering crew with any one of several assets, and -- dare I say it -- employing on-orbit refueling/depots can get us to the Moon and Mars in 10-15 years at whatever scale we choose. The redundancy of vehicles would provide two-deep coverage of any needed capability. The economies of this joint public-private venture would eliminate the bottleneck (read: fantasy) of single path, expendable-only launch vehicles. Infrastructure put in place would be the beginning of a space architecture that actually could substantiate the 'Evolvable' part of the title.As additional National assets come on line such as the Block 2 SLS, BFR, New Armstrong, and/or Vulcan Heavy, the campaign can expand and evolve. Assets that become redundant can fall away without damaging the overall effort. International cooperation would be a natural out-growth of a program that is actually going somewhere and not just seeking alternate sources of revenue.We should have as a goal, returning to the Moon and going to Mars to establish a permanent presence on both bodies. More than sufficient time exists between now and mid-2020s to prove the technology and build the foundation for the crewed phase of the venture.Time to get some leadership ...No, there is no reason for the US gov't to have such goals. It would provide no real benefits to most of its citizens. Furthermore, it is not JPL's job to do such a thing. They are just lab that does tasks assigned to it by NASA.
1. Why is NASA spending $billions on SLS/Orion and making 'exploration' plans? 2. (This is not about your personal disdain for human exploration.)
Quote from: AncientU on 09/17/2016 07:09 pm1. Why is NASA spending $billions on SLS/Orion and making 'exploration' plans? 2. (This is not about your personal disdain for human exploration.) 1. Jobs and votes2. I have no such disdain. I just don't think it should be gov't funded. I applaud what Blue O and Spacex are doing.
Lar, I would really appreciate if you would articulate how any campaign would make the average citizen's life better as I have never been able to convincingly...
The need for NASA managed HSF has long passed. The cold war is over. It's paradigm is no longer applicable. There is no other govt agency that is run like NASA. Space is no longer special and doesn't need the govt's focus as before.
Quote from: Jim on 09/17/2016 07:47 pmThe need for NASA managed HSF has long passed. The cold war is over. It's paradigm is no longer applicable. There is no other govt agency that is run like NASA. Space is no longer special and doesn't need the govt's focus as before.No major space agency in the world would do this.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/17/2016 01:47 amQuote from: notsorandom on 09/14/2016 08:58 pmThis is the sum total of all that is known about the New Armstrong:"New Glenn is a very important step. It won’t be the last of course. Up next on our drawing board: New Armstrong." -Jeff BezosMusk has been hinting around at his MCT for years only saying a bit more than that about it....A LOT more has been said about MCT. More than you'd fit in a (properly formatted) Powerpoint slide. Here's a thread that collects just updates on MCT:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37839.msg1392252Also, pieces of the engine for MCT (ICT now?) has been undergoing testing the last few years at Stennis, a NASA facility. Strange for the administrator to come off a little hostile.What does the MCT look like? What about a picture of the raptor? There have been some details of the MCT shared. Some of them are contradictory. However the basics, what it looks like, what its performance is, have not. That is the very first slide on any PowerPoint rocket's presentation. ...
For the last 5 years one of the primary arguments against SLS was that you didn't need a SHLV. Yet, here we are, with 3 SHLV in development and not a single plan uses smaller rockets.
Quote from: Proponent on 09/15/2016 08:45 amQuote from: RonM on 09/15/2016 03:29 amCongress should keep funding SLS and Orion until Musk or Bezos have their rockets operational. There is no guarantee they will succeed. Once NASA has the option to purchase SHLV flights from private industry, then Congress can rethink their plans.I might conceivably agree if:1. NASA had truly established the need or at least the desirability of an SLS-class launch vehicle (if anyone believes such has already been established, please show me where); and2. ULA had been asked to bid on a such a launch vehicle but SLS was found superior for sound engineering reasons. In the past, ULA has suggested it could build an EELV-based heavy lifter for single-digit billions of dollars, and such a thing would likely be cheaper to operate than SLS because of it commonality with other launch vehicles.Otherwise, with a burn rate of $2+ billion a year, SLS is a ridiculously expensive insurance policy to cover a risk that may not exist.My understanding is SLS target is $500 Million per launch + Ground Systems for total of $1.5 Billion.
What you are advocating is completely mothballing all of NASA's ground support systems and testing. By doing so, you completely remove NASA's ability to launch its own vehicles. Not a single major space agency in the world would do this.
I agree. I think everyone has forgotten where the conversation has shifted. For the last 5 years one of the primary arguments against SLS was that you didn't need a SHLV. Yet, here we are, with 3 SHLV in development and not a single plan uses smaller rockets. That's a big shift that no one is willing to concede
Quote from: Khadgars on 09/17/2016 06:00 pmQuote from: Proponent on 09/15/2016 08:45 amQuote from: RonM on 09/15/2016 03:29 amCongress should keep funding SLS and Orion until Musk or Bezos have their rockets operational. There is no guarantee they will succeed. Once NASA has the option to purchase SHLV flights from private industry, then Congress can rethink their plans.I might conceivably agree if:1. NASA had truly established the need or at least the desirability of an SLS-class launch vehicle (if anyone believes such has already been established, please show me where); and2. ULA had been asked to bid on a such a launch vehicle but SLS was found superior for sound engineering reasons. In the past, ULA has suggested it could build an EELV-based heavy lifter for single-digit billions of dollars, and such a thing would likely be cheaper to operate than SLS because of it commonality with other launch vehicles.Otherwise, with a burn rate of $2+ billion a year, SLS is a ridiculously expensive insurance policy to cover a risk that may not exist.My understanding is SLS target is $500 Million per launch + Ground Systems for total of $1.5 Billion.SLS is still a very expensive "insurance policy" if annual costs drop to $1.5 billion flat, and there is no prospect of that happening for many years (I was referring to SLS's development budget, which is running over $2 billion per year). The only concrete numbers we've ever seen show the SLS budget increasing as it moves from development to operations. Getting down to $2 billion annually for one launch per year is only a hope, and NASA has never demonstrated much of a knack for controlling costs, even when economics was a major justification for a program (the Shuttle).QuoteWhat you are advocating is completely mothballing all of NASA's ground support systems and testing. By doing so, you completely remove NASA's ability to launch its own vehicles. Not a single major space agency in the world would do this.The US military space program is quite a bit larger than NASA, and it stopped managing its own launch vehicles years ago.
Quote from: Khadgars on 09/17/2016 05:54 pmI agree. I think everyone has forgotten where the conversation has shifted. For the last 5 years one of the primary arguments against SLS was that you didn't need a SHLV. Yet, here we are, with 3 SHLV in development and not a single plan uses smaller rockets. That's a big shift that no one is willing to concede Part of that shift in the size of LV's has to do with re-usability. When you add in re-usability to a LV, a launch system that could put 3-4% of it's launch mass into space goes down to 2% or less. This get's even worse if you want full re-usability of all stages, you might put less than 1% of total vehicle launch mass. You either have to accept a lower payload or accept a increase in vehicle launch mass. Technically a FH is a SHLV, but is a FH every going to put 50+tons in space, probably not. Because once you start adding in penalties for 1st stage booster recovery the payload drops and SpaceX would probably not ever launch a FH and expend all 3 1st stage boosters.
Congress isn't going to change their minds unless lobbyists from SpaceX and Blue Origin can convince Congress to fund commercial plans.
We would be better off if Congress gave NASA a goal and then let NASA figure out how to do it, but that's not how it works.
Quote from: RonM on 09/18/2016 03:47 pmCongress isn't going to change their minds unless lobbyists from SpaceX and Blue Origin can convince Congress to fund commercial plans.The SLS is a government transportation system meant to take care of NASA-specific needs. So the first question that Congress should discuss & debate is what the U.S. Government's needs are in space over the near term that NASA would be responsible for (i.e. non-defense) - and of course the Executive branch will be part of that discussion too. Only after you understand your requirements can you evaluate the resources you need.To me the goals of SpaceX and Blue Origin don't overlap with what I think the U.S. Government goals are, so other than the USG taking advantage of some potential opportunities to ride along (but not be the lead funding partner), I don't foresee our Congress caring what SpaceX and Blue Origin do. And rightly so.
NASA generally feels pretty strongly that in order to do the above, they need a SHLV. The augustine commission came to a similar conclusion and the path NASA is on is very close to what they recommended, although they are making due with less money than the committee thought needed.
There are reasonable arguments that can be made about whether the acquisition process for SLS was optimal, but, nevertheless, it is being built, development is proceeding reasonably well, and should fly reasonably soon. It is also noteworthy that SLS, orion, and all the ground systems stuff is being developed for a budget that is more or less what it cost to operate shuttle. I don't know where the contention is coming from that SLS is going to get MORE expensive to operate than it was/is to develop....
... but i have some insight into the numbers and I expect the annual cost to come down pretty substantially for all three programs post development. There should certainly be some emphasis by NASA execs and policy makers to ensure that this is the case. And if they don't, NASA owns the designs and should re-compete contracts accordingly.
Meanwhile, SpaceX and Blue Origin are working on SHLV's as well. They seem to agree with NASA that such a capability is either required or so highly desirable for deep space exploration that they are investing their own resources in it.
The original post goes back the topic of the hearing and the broader policy context (including but not limited to SLS). After reading through this thread and many like it, I'm struggling with what the argument is here, so I wanted to take a cut at where things seem to be at this point: There seems to pretty broad consensus that NASA should focus it's human exploration program on expanding beyond the orbit of Earth, and good consensus that Mars is an appropriate goal, and that we'll need to do some work in lunar space to be ready to make the Mars trip in a sustainable way.NASA generally feels pretty strongly that in order to do the above, they need a SHLV. The augustine commission came to a similar conclusion and the path NASA is on is very close to what they recommended, although they are making due with less money than the committee thought needed. There are reasonable arguments that can be made about whether the acquisition process for SLS was optimal, but, nevertheless, it is being built, development is proceeding reasonably well, and should fly reasonably soon. It is also noteworthy that SLS, orion, and all the ground systems stuff is being developed for a budget that is more or less what it cost to operate shuttle. I don't know where the contention is coming from that SLS is going to get MORE expensive to operate than it was/is to develop, but i have some insight into the numbers and I expect the annual cost to come down pretty substantially for all three programs post development. There should certainly be some emphasis by NASA execs and policy makers to ensure that this is the case. And if they don't, NASA owns the designs and should re-compete contracts accordingly.Meanwhile, SpaceX and Blue Origin are working on SHLV's as well. They seem to agree with NASA that such a capability is either required or so highly desirable for deep space exploration that they are investing their own resources in it. Perhaps one of the reasons they are doing this is that they know NASA is investing a bunch in SLS and therefore has a clear need for the capability, and perhaps if they can offer similar services for much less than SLS costs to operate there will be plenty of business for them. So it seems like we're in really good shape. NASA is plugging along with SLS on a relatively low risk path. They can count on having a SHLV capability and can plan their exploration program accordingly. If SpaceX and/or Blue Origin bring a similar capability to market, current law states NASA has to use the commercially available systems. The worst case scenario is that the "commercial" SHLV's never materialize but the possibility of them keeps pressure on NASA and the SLS contractors to focus on cost. The best case scenario is they do materialize and are cheap enough that NASA can accelerate their plans or make them more robust. Either way, NASA can count on having a SHLV capability for exploring deep space. That seems far better than the outcome of pausing work on BLEO exploration until we "see what happens" with commercial launch capabilities.
There seems to pretty broad consensus that NASA should focus it's human exploration program on expanding beyond the orbit of Earth, and good consensus that Mars is an appropriate goal, and that we'll need to do some work in lunar space to be ready to make the Mars trip in a sustainable way.
It is also noteworthy that SLS, orion, and all the ground systems stuff is being developed for a budget that is more or less what it cost to operate shuttle.
I don't know where the contention is coming from that SLS is going to get MORE expensive to operate than it was/is to develop, but i have some insight into the numbers and I expect the annual cost to come down pretty substantially for all three programs post development.
Meanwhile, SpaceX and Blue Origin are working on SHLV's as well.
So it seems like we're in really good shape. NASA is plugging along with SLS on a relatively low risk path.
The worst case scenario is that the "commercial" SHLV's never materialize but the possibility of them keeps pressure on NASA and the SLS contractors to focus on cost.
There is no political consensus for sending government employees beyond LEO, including Mars, anytime in the foreseeable future.
QuoteThere is no political consensus for sending government employees beyond LEO, including Mars, anytime in the foreseeable future.This tiresome argument can finally be put to bed with Congress officially placing manned Mars landings into law.
This tiresome argument can finally be put to bed with Congress officially placing manned Mars landings into law.
Quote from: incoming on 09/21/2016 05:11 pmThere seems to pretty broad consensus that NASA should focus it's human exploration program on expanding beyond the orbit of Earth, and good consensus that Mars is an appropriate goal, and that we'll need to do some work in lunar space to be ready to make the Mars trip in a sustainable way.That's like saying the kids in the back of the car have reached a broad consensus to go to Disney World, but unfortunately the adults in control of the money and transportation are only planning to go play mini golf.There is no political consensus for sending government employees beyond LEO, including Mars, anytime in the foreseeable future.
Specifically, however, it is us "kids in the back seat" who, in theory, direct the "adults" who lead the country, since it is only our money being used. In addition, it is our theoretical right to so direct our leaders.
It is probably the case that most American citizens, all else being equal, want there to be a government program to determine medically if mankind and Earth life can colonize the Inner Solar System.
"All else being equal" is a broad category that includes many non-space related issues which have not yet been solved by our leadership. One example alone can stand as proof of my contention: Children and adults in inner city neighborhoods will not support NASA while they are unsafe and undereducated and under employed.
It is possible that enough of the public take it up that the politicians notice.
Quote from: Lar on 09/25/2016 03:34 pmIt is possible that enough of the public take it up that the politicians notice.What are the politicians supposed to do when they finally do take notice?Commit government money and assets to supporting Musk and Bezos? For what public benefit?I can see our government partnering with the private sector to pursue "science & technology" in space, but I don't see our government deciding to be a full partner in expanding humanity out into space - not without some sort of "National Imperative" providing a clear goal.
Quote from: Lar on 09/25/2016 03:34 pmIt is possible that enough of the public take it up that the politicians notice.What are the politicians supposed to do when they finally do take notice?
Except that is exactly whats being put into law. It's not the 1960's all over again, but there is much more than what you're giving credit for.
Quote from: incoming on 09/21/2016 05:11 pm... but i have some insight into the numbers and I expect the annual cost to come down pretty substantially for all three programs post development. There should certainly be some emphasis by NASA execs and policy makers to ensure that this is the case. And if they don't, NASA owns the designs and should re-compete contracts accordingly.To be re-competed, the contracts would had to have been competed in the first place.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 09/21/2016 07:29 pmQuote from: incoming on 09/21/2016 05:11 pmThere seems to pretty broad consensus that NASA should focus it's human exploration program on expanding beyond the orbit of Earth, and good consensus that Mars is an appropriate goal, and that we'll need to do some work in lunar space to be ready to make the Mars trip in a sustainable way.That's like saying the kids in the back of the car have reached a broad consensus to go to Disney World, but unfortunately the adults in control of the money and transportation are only planning to go play mini golf.There is no political consensus for sending government employees beyond LEO, including Mars, anytime in the foreseeable future.I don't know how you can say this. The NASA Authorization of 2010 passed the senate with unanimous support and a huge majority in the house. It states as a finding:" A long term objective for human exploration of spaceshould be the eventual international exploration of Mars. "and establishes in law the following policy:"(a) LONG TERM GOAL.—The long term goal of the human spaceflight and exploration efforts of NASA shall be to expand permanenthuman presence beyond low-Earth orbit and to do so, where practical,in a manner involving international partners. "Again - that passed by unanimous consent in the senate. That's 100 senators. You don't get much better than that in terms of consensus.
Quote from: Proponent on 09/21/2016 06:10 pmQuote from: incoming on 09/21/2016 05:11 pm... but i have some insight into the numbers and I expect the annual cost to come down pretty substantially for all three programs post development. There should certainly be some emphasis by NASA execs and policy makers to ensure that this is the case. And if they don't, NASA owns the designs and should re-compete contracts accordingly.To be re-competed, the contracts would had to have been competed in the first place. This is not true. The contracts have fixed end points. If NASA wanted to sole-source follow on contracts, they would have to re-do their "Justification for Other than Full and Open Competition" commonly referred to as a "JOFOC" for each contract. At that point they'll have a decision to make - they can continue with the current approach and work each element as a separate contract and perhaps attempt to JOFOC certain elements (for example, core stage engines) but not others (there is some expectation that advanced boosters will be competitively awarded). They could also try a different approach where they try to compete or JOFOC the entire capability. But in any case a JOFOC would be subject to heavy scrutiny, especially if there are companies who want to compete and protest. It's also worth noting that under existing law if there are "commercially available" launch services that are just as capable of meeting NASA's mission requirements as SLS, NASA must go the launch services route.
I must admit that NASA's recent RFI's for Orion production (discussed here) and for exploration systems in general (here) show how right and timely you are.