Author Topic: Trump Space Policy Directive 1  (Read 51232 times)

Offline hektor

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2706
  • Liked: 1193
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #60 on: 12/12/2017 07:53 am »
Once again I think the jury is still out to know if this is a real directive to go to the Moon surface or if the mandate of this directive can be fulfilled by settling "in the Moon domain" with a facility such as the Deep Space Gateway (the Look don't Touch approach).

Also, if really the idea is to go to the Moon surface, will it wait for Deep Space Gateway assembly complete ? That would put these Moon landings in the second half of next decade then. So it is still a long time... and two more presidential terms away.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #61 on: 12/12/2017 07:54 am »
Constellation or no Constellation: I believe it was very wrong to redirect America away from the Moon after Obama made his - essentially - 'been there; done that' statements. It's one of the few things I wont forgive him for. But since I'm not an American voter; I'm fully aware that my annoyance for that is impotent :'(

It is what it is. People like me are 'Space Cadets'. Even if intended to be pejorative - I'd still wear that label with pride...
Wrong. The guy you have to blame is named Nixon, not Obama. Nixon is the one that steered the USA away from the Moon, all the way back to LEO. And once the USA was stuck there, courtesy of the space shuttle and the space station sucking the NASA budget dry, there was no real chance of going back into deep space.
Most of us are well aware of the Nixon era history and it's context - but I was not speaking about that era - at all. The GW Bush and Obama years are whole different beast; and that is established fact. There were several options open to him; continue Apollo Lunar and possible expand it, go with the Shuttle and the Space Station and LEO, or go with the third option - Shuttle alone. And that's what we got. The GW Bush and Obama era was a chance to erase that mistake and the errors after Challenger & Columbia But some errors continued onwards, regardless. Constellation could ave been pragmatically altered - not bloody cancelled outright.
You do realize that changing course is what Democrats and Republicans do when they take over from each other?

- Bush sr.: Moon first, Mars later
- Clinton: Forget the Moon. Mars eventually.
- Bush jr.: Moon first, Mars later
- Obama: Forget the Moon. Asteroids, and Mars eventually
- Trump: Moon first, Mars later

Is see a pattern here.
Once Trump is replaced by a Democrat president the focus will shift, once again. Simply because space policy is not set along "what is good for the country" but along "what is good for the party-in-charge".
Obviously, the two need not be mutually exclusive. I would think - at least I interpret it thus - that what is 'best' for a country's space program is to be progressive over time; building on the achievements of the past; even if it has to have a new Administrations' 'spin' on what progress is. My opinion - for what it's worth as a non-U.S. citizen and taxpayer - is that the Moon should not have been abandoned during the Obama era. We've had nigh on a decade of a great deal of money spent, but arguably little progress and nowhere went to :(
President Obama's gripe with the POR at the time was the "money-pit" that was CxP which began before he came into office and handed to him. He being a "practical man by nature" seeing that the "need" to service ISS with Commercial Crew rather than some "want" to re-live the glory days of Apollo during the worst economic downturn since the depression of 1929.  Folks (not you) seem to forget the required bailing out the banks to the tune of 800B, Chrysler and GM, two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, people losing their jobs, businesses, houses, pensions and 401Ks handed to him by George W. Bush...
« Last Edit: 12/12/2017 12:35 pm by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline hektor

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2706
  • Liked: 1193
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #62 on: 12/12/2017 07:59 am »
For the cycle of directions between Republicans and Democrats I think one of the reasons is that Mars is the favorite direction of the guys who are against human spaceflight, because they consider it so much downstream that it is harmless. So there is a kind of "unholy alliance" of people who are proponents of human spaceflight and really believe that we should go to Mars and of people who really think human spaceflight is a total waste. This was the Obama - or Clinton - paradigm.

Also this makes the Mars constituency broader than the Moon one, because it has a wider appeal. Nobody against human spaceflight will advocate the Moon.
« Last Edit: 12/12/2017 08:01 am by hektor »

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #63 on: 12/12/2017 08:10 am »
For those that are curious to my reference for Trump seeking "a Kennedy moment" is his reference for a return to the Moon as told to Presidential Historian Prof. Douglas Brinkley in 2016:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-very-interested-in-a-man-going-to-the-moon-says-historian/article/2610491
« Last Edit: 12/12/2017 08:13 am by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #64 on: 12/12/2017 10:26 am »
There are "space missions" and  then there's "space stunts"... I'm speaking of the latter...
Got it.   ;) I'm with you now.

Budgets are policy.
Brilliant  :)

And by the inverse a policy without budget is merely idle waffle.
The key facts in 3 words.
Obviously, the two need not be mutually exclusive. I would think - at least I interpret it thus - that what is 'best' for a country's space program is to be progressive over time
And that would go for any country.

The reason why this seems extraordinarily difficult to put into practice within the US system is a thread topic in itself.
With all due respect; Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Snr, Clinton, GW Bush and Obama didn't have 'Kennedy Moments' and I doubt anyone else will, either. The Trump Administration is having 'speed wobbles' over a number of things. If a partisan Congress and Senate don't get behind this initiative then we may have another 'Constellation' on our hands. But I would be delighted to be wrong.
Kennedy had 2 very useful helpers for Saturn/Apollo

James Webb as Administrator and Von Braun as Chief Designer/Head Technical Fixer/Artillery Meister

Webb was no techie. He was however a formidable political operator who was very well connected in DC. He kept the project running through 2 changes of President. So much for promoting from within the Agency and having technical knowledge, eh? Of course he did have a budget 9x bigger than the present NASA budget (as a proportion of the then Federal Budget) to work with.

I'm not up to speed on the personalities within NASA at present. Does anyone here see their equivalents in the new NASA Administrator and whoever's I/C of the relevant NASA Directorate today?
[EDIT because without a "Webb" and a "Von Braun" this is going to be a very hard job to implement  :(

IOW America needs Webb 2.0  :)  ]
« Last Edit: 12/12/2017 10:47 am by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #65 on: 12/12/2017 10:48 am »
If Jim Bridenstine is even half the man James Webb was - then NASA and the U.S. space program should prosper.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #66 on: 12/12/2017 11:18 am »
If Jim Bridenstine is even half the man James Webb was - then NASA and the U.S. space program should prosper.
And that's the $64 million (billion?) question.

Does he measure up? Ultimately only time will tell.

This won't happen without adequate funding. But nor will it happen without key people being up to the challenge.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #67 on: 12/12/2017 11:22 am »
Most of us are well aware of the Nixon era history and it's context - but I was not speaking about that era - at all. The GW Bush and Obama years are whole different beast; and that is established fact. There were several options open to him; continue Apollo Lunar and possible expand it, go with the Shuttle and the Space Station and LEO, or go with the third option - Shuttle alone. And that's what we got. The GW Bush and Obama era was a chance to erase that mistake and the errors after Challenger & Columbia But some errors continued onwards, regardless. Constellation could ave been pragmatically altered - not bloody cancelled outright.
You do realize that changing course is what Democrats and Republicans do when they take over from each other?

- Bush sr.: Moon first, Mars later
- Clinton: Forget the Moon. Mars eventually.
- Bush jr.: Moon first, Mars later
- Obama: Forget the Moon. Asteroids, and Mars eventually
- Trump: Moon first, Mars later

Is see a pattern here.
Once Trump is replaced by a Democrat president the focus will shift, once again. Simply because space policy is not set along "what is good for the country" but along "what is good for the party-in-charge".
Obviously, the two need not be mutually exclusive. I would think - at least I interpret it thus - that what is 'best' for a country's space program is to be progressive over time; building on the achievements of the past; even if it has to have a new Administrations' 'spin' on what progress is. My opinion - for what it's worth as a non-U.S. citizen and taxpayer - is that the Moon should not have been abandoned during the Obama era. We've had nigh on a decade of a great deal of money spent, but arguably little progress and nowhere went to :(

Something to think about: The NASA budget remained pretty much the same in the post-Constellation era. Now please remember that Altair (the intended CxP lunar lander) was de-funded during Constellation because NASA couldn't afford it on the then-available budget. Also remember that Ares V pretty much went the same way.

Ares I and Orion sucked the then-available budget dry.

The only thing that has changed since then is that Ares I is replaced with SLS. Other than that, NASA still doesn't have the money to develop a lunar lander.

IMO even if Obama hadn't changed course NASA would still be a long way from starting serious DDT&E efforts on Altair, given the need to fly Ares V SLS and Orion first.

It is the very same reason why DSG is nothing but Powerpoint and mock-ups right now: no money to construct the real deal.
« Last Edit: 12/12/2017 11:24 am by woods170 »

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #68 on: 12/12/2017 11:48 am »
NASA will need a budget increase to even think about developing a Lander. But Altair was going to be a 40 ton behemoth, fueled by LOX/LH2 in the Descent Stage and having a crew of 4. Four people on the lunar surface for a week is way beyond what the Apollo LM is capable of. So I would suggest sizing it halfway between the 16 ton Apollo LM and the 40 ton Altair and using hypergolics. Say; 25 metric tons to get 2x Astronauts onto the lunar surface for sortie missions lasting at least a week. Later models could be upgraded to 4x crew to stay for at least a month for a 4x crew Outpost.

So that was a broad-brush outline. But that vehicle is too big to travel co-manifested on a SLS/Orion. So maybe it has to be dispatched separately to wait in lunar orbit for the Orion to ship the crew out to it? Will the lander wait at the 'Deep Space Gateway' for crew and fuel to be brought out to it? Will it be partially reusable or fully expendable? Will it be a totally U.S. made product - built by the big Aerospace companies or a new Commercial provider? Or will the lander be a product of International co-operation, like several of the ISS modules were? Could the Lander be a co-production of ESA and JAXA; with some NASA money and technology mixed in? Will there be crew bartering opportunities to ensure ESA and JAXA Astronauts get to be on every manned lunar mission? These are some of the concepts and questions that will be answered over the coming few years. If this whole darn thing ever gets of the ground, that is... Deja-vu, all over again.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #69 on: 12/12/2017 12:01 pm »
I think another public-private cooperation like COTS would go a long way to develop a lander, and the lander being able to actually land cargo for a moon base. 

I also think a manned station/fuel depot at L1 or even L2 would be the first thing needed for both moon and Mars.  Moon landers could ferry men and supplies between this station and the moon, while any craft going to Mars might be able to stop by and refuel on its trip.  This would allow everyone to be in the game, public, private, and foreign partners.  We are on the verge of having 40 ton launchers in FH and New Glenn, as well as a maxed out Vulcan for an initial 30 tons to LEO.  NASA could design a modular station and moon base that not only uses SLS but supplements it with these other launchers to lower costs and get more done.  Hope the Trump space policy uses all players, not just expensive SLS.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #70 on: 12/12/2017 12:27 pm »
The question is: what will NASA do differently in 2018, based on this directive?

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #71 on: 12/12/2017 12:39 pm »
The question is: what will NASA do differently in 2018, based on this directive?
Not a d*mn thing given that the first two EM missions were headed for the Moon anyway.
This directive from Trump boils down to one thing: stay the course for the next decade (Mars efforts were planned for the 2030's at the earliest)

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #72 on: 12/12/2017 12:59 pm »
The question is: what will NASA do differently in 2018, based on this directive?
A lot will depend on the 2018 mid-term elections and if the Democrats regain control of the House... Stay tuned...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Eerie

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 858
  • Liked: 208
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #73 on: 12/12/2017 02:30 pm »
Constellation or no Constellation: I believe it was very wrong to redirect America away from the Moon after Obama made his - essentially - 'been there; done that' statements. It's one of the few things I wont forgive him for. But since I'm not an American voter; I'm fully aware that my annoyance for that is impotent :'(

It is what it is. People like me are 'Space Cadets'. Even if intended to be pejorative - I'd still wear that label with pride...

Wasn't what actually happened is: Constellation was unfeasible at it's budget, Obama canceled it completely, then the Congress brought it back under the name of SLS with a slightly different rocket and without pretense of building a lander?

If Obama instead tried to double Constellation's budget, I don't think Congress would go for it, too.

So, in a sense, Constellation never really went away.
« Last Edit: 12/12/2017 02:30 pm by Eerie »

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1488
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 570
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #74 on: 12/12/2017 03:59 pm »
My viewpoint is that Kennedy made NASA a priority as an extension of foreign policy. Soft Power (Space Race) vs Hard Power (War).

Nixon simply reduce NASA's priority to domestic policy and it hasn't changed since.

Trump's position may be NASA should be a Soft Power priority and the additional funding that would support that position.

But, as stated before in this and other threads, "Show me the money!".

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #75 on: 12/12/2017 04:48 pm »
Constellation or no Constellation: I believe it was very wrong to redirect America away from the Moon after Obama made his - essentially - 'been there; done that' statements. It's one of the few things I wont forgive him for. But since I'm not an American voter; I'm fully aware that my annoyance for that is impotent :'(

It is what it is. People like me are 'Space Cadets'. Even if intended to be pejorative - I'd still wear that label with pride...

It seems to me that Obama did not redirect America away from the moon for the simple reason that it was not directed toward the moon in the first place.  Under the Constellation Program, NASA was spending a lot of money to develop the Ares rockets and Orion.  There was no significant funding of a lunar lander.  There was talk of doing so in future, but the out-year budget projections were fantastic.

After Obama, NASA is spending lots of money to build SLS and Orion.  What's really changed, except that, since the rocket is a little smaller now, it's slightly less impossible that NASA will someday have the budget for a lunar lander.

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #76 on: 12/12/2017 07:58 pm »
It was directed to the Moon in the first place - I remember all the talk, lectures, videos and Powerpoints. But I also remember, as you just pointed out, that there was no serious funding allocated to a Lander. Virtually none at all other than notional studies. The Ares design choices 'ate NASA's lunch' and sucked up billions. I remember the folk advocating modified EELVs (my preference) Side Mount Shuttle Derived (my second choice) and of course; the Direct launcher. Direct was a pragmatic compromise that might have saved billions - and the first options I mentioned, billions more. I believe the slow and expensive Ares path was what helped kill Constellation. Blame all the personalities involved, if we must - but I wont take time to list them here.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #77 on: 12/12/2017 08:05 pm »
(forcing myself to get back to the core subject)

It remains to be seen what consensus the Trump team can get together to move forward with this (tentative) plan. Can the Trump team build bi-partisan support, as there mostly was in the wake of 'Columbia'? Can the team convince law makers and budget purse string holders to give NASA a little more money? How much more, and how much is 'a little'? Are they willing to expend actual, political capital (short in supply) to redirect American resources to the nearest interplanetary body - the Moon - when it has apparently been in the 'too hard basket' for more than 40 years? Are they looking to expand international cooperation or contract it? Can James Bridenstine pull off a minor miracle? Because I don't think we can expect any major ones :(
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #78 on: 12/12/2017 08:08 pm »
It was directed to the Moon in the first place - I remember all the talk, lectures, videos and Powerpoints. But I also remember, as you just pointed out, that there was no serious funding allocated to a Lander. Virtually none at all other than notional studies. The Ares design choices 'ate NASA's lunch' and sucked up billions. I remember the folk advocating modified EELVs (my preference) Side Mount Shuttle Derived (my second choice) and of course; the Direct launcher. Direct was a pragmatic compromise that might have saved billions - and the first options I mentioned, billions more. I believe the slow and expensive Ares path was what helped kill Constellation. Blame all the personalities involved, if we must - but I wont take time to list them here.
Remember Admiral Steidle's "spiral development"?
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #79 on: 12/12/2017 08:12 pm »
Absolutely - I still have some Powerpoints and pdfs. It probably was the far better way to go, rather than 'Apollo On Steroids'. Oh, how I cringed when Mike Griffin said that...

https://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/vse.htm

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/hqlibrary/documents/o56554650.pdf

https://www.space.com/778-spiral-stairway-moon.html


« Last Edit: 02/11/2018 04:00 am by MATTBLAK »
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Tags:
 

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