Civil Space GuidelinesSpace Science, Exploration, and DiscoveryThe Administrator of NASA shall: Set far-reaching exploration milestones. By 2025, begin crewed missions beyond the moon, including sending humans to an asteroid. By the mid-2030s, send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth; Continue the operation of the International Space Station (ISS), in cooperation with its international partners, likely to 2020 or beyond.... Seek partnerships with the private sector.... Implement a new space technology development and test program.... Conduct research and development in support of next-generation launch systems.... Maintain a sustained robotic presence in the solar system.... Continue a strong program of space science.... Pursue capabilities ... to detect, track, catalog, and characterize near-Earth objects....
Lead an innovative and sustainable program of exploration with commercial and international partners to enable human expansion across the solar system and to bring back to Earth new knowledge and opportunities. Beginning with missions beyond low-Earth orbit, the United States will lead the return of humans to the Moon for long-term exploration and utilization, followed by human missions to Mars and other destinations;
Just to get back to the original topic, I'll highlight the actual impact of Trump's directive on the formal statement of the US government's space policy. Trump modified Obama's policy of June 2010 (attached) by changing one paragraph on page 11. Where the old policy read (color added)Quote from: ObamaCivil Space GuidelinesSpace Science, Exploration, and DiscoveryThe Administrator of NASA shall: Set far-reaching exploration milestones. By 2025, begin crewed missions beyond the moon, including sending humans to an asteroid. By the mid-2030s, send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth; Continue the operation of the International Space Station (ISS), in cooperation with its international partners, likely to 2020 or beyond.... Seek partnerships with the private sector.... Implement a new space technology development and test program.... Conduct research and development in support of next-generation launch systems.... Maintain a sustained robotic presence in the solar system.... Continue a strong program of space science.... Pursue capabilities ... to detect, track, catalog, and characterize near-Earth objects....the text in red (and only text in red) has been changed toQuote from: Trump Lead an innovative and sustainable program of exploration with commercial and international partners to enable human expansion across the solar system and to bring back to Earth new knowledge and opportunities. Beginning with missions beyond low-Earth orbit, the United States will lead the return of humans to the Moon for long-term exploration and utilization, followed by human missions to Mars and other destinations;That's the only change in an 18-page document. The old policy specifically mentions asteroids and Mars orbit and gives dates, and allows other destinations. The new policy specifically mentions the moon but not, as others have pointed out, the moon's surface, gives no dates, and allows other destinations, including those in the old policy.;All by itself, this is, as some of the president's allies like to say, a nothing-burger. If it is followed up by something more concrete policy by the administration, then it may start to mean something.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 12/18/2017 10:48 pmYour implications only apply to the Shuttle, but you also imply that the U.S. has lost the ability to create 450mT space stations. We have not "lost" that ability, especially since an equivalent design could be built that is optimized to use existing commercial launchers - likely with most of the exact same ISS hardware.Indeed.Just a reminder. A salvo launch of F9, Atlas V, Delta IV (not DIVH, just the Medium) and Antares 230 could put > 62 tonnes in LEO within little more than a week right now if there was a plan to use it and a desire to do it.
Your implications only apply to the Shuttle, but you also imply that the U.S. has lost the ability to create 450mT space stations. We have not "lost" that ability, especially since an equivalent design could be built that is optimized to use existing commercial launchers - likely with most of the exact same ISS hardware.
Quote from: woods170 on 12/15/2017 06:13 amQuote from: edkyle99 on 12/15/2017 03:54 amQuote from: Coastal Ron on 12/14/2017 06:26 pmWe haven't lost the ability to build space hardware, and all of the ISS hardware could be lifted to LEO using existing commercial launchers.STS carried payloads weighing 17 tonnes or so during ISS assembly missions, not including the orbiter and crew. No current expendable launch vehicle can do that. Falcon 9 has managed only 8.6 tonnes to LEO so far. Atlas 5's heaviest payload weighed 7.5 tonnes. Delta 4 Heavy may be able to lift 17 tonnes to an ISS orbit, but it does not possess the ability to maneuver that payload over a period of days, nor to dock it to ISS. Some type of not-yet-existing service module (weighing yet more tonnes) would be needed to complete such a mission. This is my basis for saying that ISS was built using capabilities the U.S. no longer possesses. - Ed KyleYou are correct, but as Jim has pointed out several times: there was no need to construct the USOS part of ISS in the way it was done. USOS as we have it today was done this way to justify using the shuttle. It could instead have been done differently. Like how the Russians did Salyut-7 and Mir.The reason why the USA was stuck in LEO for 3 decades is because a choice was made, during Apollo, to use a system (STS) that was never actually needed to achieve US national space goals. That system was limited to LEO use only.I don't agree. STS could have brought pieces up that could have gone anywhere, were it built as a cost-effective space truck. People couldn't switch out of the Apollo mind-set and see that building infrastructure is the key to a lasting presence BEO. The greater problem is that the US didn't have 'space goals.'
Quote from: edkyle99 on 12/15/2017 03:54 amQuote from: Coastal Ron on 12/14/2017 06:26 pmWe haven't lost the ability to build space hardware, and all of the ISS hardware could be lifted to LEO using existing commercial launchers.STS carried payloads weighing 17 tonnes or so during ISS assembly missions, not including the orbiter and crew. No current expendable launch vehicle can do that. Falcon 9 has managed only 8.6 tonnes to LEO so far. Atlas 5's heaviest payload weighed 7.5 tonnes. Delta 4 Heavy may be able to lift 17 tonnes to an ISS orbit, but it does not possess the ability to maneuver that payload over a period of days, nor to dock it to ISS. Some type of not-yet-existing service module (weighing yet more tonnes) would be needed to complete such a mission. This is my basis for saying that ISS was built using capabilities the U.S. no longer possesses. - Ed KyleYou are correct, but as Jim has pointed out several times: there was no need to construct the USOS part of ISS in the way it was done. USOS as we have it today was done this way to justify using the shuttle. It could instead have been done differently. Like how the Russians did Salyut-7 and Mir.The reason why the USA was stuck in LEO for 3 decades is because a choice was made, during Apollo, to use a system (STS) that was never actually needed to achieve US national space goals. That system was limited to LEO use only.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 12/14/2017 06:26 pmWe haven't lost the ability to build space hardware, and all of the ISS hardware could be lifted to LEO using existing commercial launchers.STS carried payloads weighing 17 tonnes or so during ISS assembly missions, not including the orbiter and crew. No current expendable launch vehicle can do that. Falcon 9 has managed only 8.6 tonnes to LEO so far. Atlas 5's heaviest payload weighed 7.5 tonnes. Delta 4 Heavy may be able to lift 17 tonnes to an ISS orbit, but it does not possess the ability to maneuver that payload over a period of days, nor to dock it to ISS. Some type of not-yet-existing service module (weighing yet more tonnes) would be needed to complete such a mission. This is my basis for saying that ISS was built using capabilities the U.S. no longer possesses. - Ed Kyle
We haven't lost the ability to build space hardware, and all of the ISS hardware could be lifted to LEO using existing commercial launchers.
Problem is to have space infrastructure you need affordable and reliable space launch systems. NASA tried to develop just that with the Shuttle, but it was neither that reliable or affordable. Now personally with commercial launchers like SpaceX I think NASA has that now. I mean with the Falcon 9 Heavy you have a rocket has 66% of the capacity of the SLS for a fifth of the cost.
Quote from: DarkenedOne on 12/23/2017 05:38 amProblem is to have space infrastructure you need affordable and reliable space launch systems. NASA tried to develop just that with the Shuttle, but it was neither that reliable or affordable. Now personally with commercial launchers like SpaceX I think NASA has that now. I mean with the Falcon 9 Heavy you have a rocket has 66% of the capacity of the SLS for a fifth of the cost. I think a fifth might be a little low if you amortize all the program costs rather than just the variable costs.
Quote from: Lar on 12/23/2017 02:06 pmQuote from: DarkenedOne on 12/23/2017 05:38 amProblem is to have space infrastructure you need affordable and reliable space launch systems. NASA tried to develop just that with the Shuttle, but it was neither that reliable or affordable. Now personally with commercial launchers like SpaceX I think NASA has that now. I mean with the Falcon 9 Heavy you have a rocket has 66% of the capacity of the SLS for a fifth of the cost. I think a fifth might be a little low if you amortize all the program costs rather than just the variable costs.Oh cr*p, here we go again: the sunk cost fallacy.
In the attached video he discusses President Nixon and his decision to change the direction of our space program. At first I didn't think this would fit this topic but as he got to the end it became crystal clear how the points he was making fit like a glove to the new Space Council that Vice President Pence oversees, and how President Trump's leadership or lack thereof can affect the direction of our space program. Enjoy.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 12/18/2017 10:48 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 12/15/2017 03:54 amNo current expendable launch vehicle can do that.ULA's RocketBuilder shows that an Atlas V with a 5m Long fairing is capable of putting 18.8mT to LEO, and SpaceX advertises the Falcon 9 as capable of putting 22.8mT to LEO. So you are obviously wrong.An undemonstrated capability is just numbers on paper, especially when the gap between claims and reality are so vast, i.e. 18.8 tonne claim versus 7.5 tonne actually accomplished, or 22.8 tonne claim versus 8.6 tonnes performed, etc. But again, raw mass to LEO is not what is needed to replicate STS performance. Maneuvered mass in LEO is what matters. For every kg of "raw" payload sent to LEO, only perhaps 35 to 50-ish% or so can be delivered to ISS as actual cargo when a service module system is used (i.e. ATV or HTV or Cygnus). STS could deliver a much higher percentage of its payload bay mass to ISS. STS-117 delivered the 16.2 tonne S3/S4 truss directly to ISS. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 12/15/2017 03:54 amNo current expendable launch vehicle can do that.ULA's RocketBuilder shows that an Atlas V with a 5m Long fairing is capable of putting 18.8mT to LEO, and SpaceX advertises the Falcon 9 as capable of putting 22.8mT to LEO. So you are obviously wrong.
No current expendable launch vehicle can do that.
Quote from: clongton on 12/23/2017 02:20 pmIn the attached video he discusses President Nixon and his decision to change the direction of our space program. At first I didn't think this would fit this topic but as he got to the end it became crystal clear how the points he was making fit like a glove to the new Space Council that Vice President Pence oversees, and how President Trump's leadership or lack thereof can affect the direction of our space program. Enjoy.I watched the whole thing. Normally I would not give Newt Gingrich the time of day because of the damage he has done to our democracy by eliminating moderate politicians and positions, but if Chuck recommends something then I take notice...
An undemonstrated capability is just numbers on paper, especially when the gap between claims and reality are so vast, i.e. 18.8 tonne claim versus 7.5 tonne actually accomplished, or 22.8 tonne claim versus 8.6 tonnes performed, etc.
But again, raw mass to LEO is not what is needed to replicate STS performance.
For every kg of "raw" payload sent to LEO, only perhaps 35 to 50-ish% or so can be delivered to ISS as actual cargo when a service module system is used (i.e. ATV or HTV or Cygnus).
STS could deliver a much higher percentage of its payload bay mass to ISS.
STS-117 delivered the 16.2 tonne S3/S4 truss directly to ISS.