Author Topic: Trump Space Policy Directive 1  (Read 24079 times)

Online IanThePineapple

Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #160 on: 01/15/2018 09:47 PM »
A new article:

...

...

Quote
What about the SLS, Orion, and the Deep Space Gateway? None of these programs are needed for the primary goal of returning humans to the lunar surface. All three of these programs should be cancelled. Make no mistake: even though money will be saved if the lunar return program is done the right way with public-private partnerships, it will still be expensive. And its money NASA doesn’t have unless the agency cancels unneeded programs.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3407/1

emphasis mine
Ah yes, cancel the lifter and capsule needed to take humans into deep space, then we can go to the Moon!
« Last Edit: 01/15/2018 09:48 PM by IanThePineapple »
Proud creator of Ian's Paper Model Rocket Collection:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42383.0

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3583
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2328
  • Likes Given: 2948
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #161 on: 01/15/2018 10:09 PM »
A new article:
Quote
What about the SLS, Orion, and the Deep Space Gateway? None of these programs are needed for the primary goal of returning humans to the lunar surface. All three of these programs should be cancelled. Make no mistake: even though money will be saved if the lunar return program is done the right way with public-private partnerships, it will still be expensive. And its money NASA doesn’t have unless the agency cancels unneeded programs.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3407/1

emphasis mine
Ah yes, cancel the lifter and capsule needed to take humans into deep space, then we can go to the Moon!

The SLS and the Orion are not the only way to get to our Moon, but they might be amongst the most expensive ways. Which is important because there is not a perceived "National Imperative" as the inspiration for Trump's desire of returning to the Moon, and there isn't likely to be a commensurate bump in NASA's budget to support such an effort.

The main reason we haven't returned to our Moon in over 45 years is not the lack of desire, but the lack of money. The SLS and the Orion are not the solutions to that problem, they exacerbate it.

If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2222
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 342
  • Likes Given: 215
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #162 on: 01/16/2018 02:43 AM »
Two to three FH launches and we can return to the moon.  Dragon II is supposed to be designed to do re-entry from the moon.  FH is soon to be launched with it's capability of 64 tons to LEO.  An upper stage on one FH, a Dragon II on a F9 or FH with extra fuel, etc, and a lander on another FH.  About $100 million per launch for three launches is $300 million.  SLS is what $1 billion per launch? 

There are other ways to go to the moon.

Also, New Glenn from Blue Origin with about 3 launches could go to the moon the same way.

Vulcan from ULA with a refuelable ACES upper stage can also do the same. 

All three companies can get to the moon cheaper than SLS and Orion.  Much Cheaper. 

Throw in some Bigelow modules for habitats on the moon. 

NASA could contract out all of this and be back on the moon within 4-5 years using SLS money. 

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13052
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3880
  • Likes Given: 659
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #163 on: 01/16/2018 03:49 AM »
Constellation was a terrible design. It deserved to be cancelled. When was the last time a spacecraft was lobotomized over and over to make up for the anemic performance of its intended launcher?
Ares I had margin.  Orion was overweight. It should be clear by now that Orion was the problem, because the thing is still unfinished, 13 years after ESAS.  Ares I would have been flying by now.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 01/16/2018 03:50 AM by edkyle99 »

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4014
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 899
  • Likes Given: 1652
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #164 on: 01/16/2018 04:11 AM »
Orion is just too large - John Young once said so. The original 5.5 meters diameter version was just plain nuts and would have been absurdly heavy. As it is, the 5 meter design Orion Command Module is thousands of pounds heavier than the 4 meter Apollo. Unless I'm mistaken, I think the 4.5 meter Boeing Starliner was a runner up in the Orion contract competition. 4.5 meters would have been plenty big enough for a 4 person Crew Exploration Vehicle, having more internal volume than Apollo. A composite version of the 4.5 meter capsule could have been a relatively light craft.
« Last Edit: 01/16/2018 11:10 AM by MATTBLAK »
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3583
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2328
  • Likes Given: 2948
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #165 on: 01/16/2018 04:18 AM »
Constellation was a terrible design. It deserved to be cancelled. When was the last time a spacecraft was lobotomized over and over to make up for the anemic performance of its intended launcher?
Ares I had margin.  Orion was overweight. It should be clear by now that Orion was the problem, because the thing is still unfinished, 13 years after ESAS.  Ares I would have been flying by now.

Let me look into my crystal ball and see what comments we might see in 2031:

Quote
The SLS had margin.  The lunar lander was overweight. It should be clear by now that the lunar lander was the problem, because the thing is still unfinished, 13 years after the Trump Space Policy Directive 1 was approved.

 - Ed Kyle

A fictional quote from the future of course, but as the old saying goes:

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

The Constellation program did not have bad goals. Maybe not super inspiring (i.e. going back to a place we'd already conquered), but it was a reasonable goal.

However it was the implementation of the goal by Michael Griffin that doomed it, because he chose an exploration architecture that had not been bid by anyone, so Griffin bypassed the normal processes that would have caught issues that ultimately doomed the Constellation program. Unfortunately the SLS and Orion still represent some of the bad choices that Griffin made, so a program that has to rely on them will also have compromises that could affect them.

We'll see if Trump includes a return-to-Moon program in his budget, and if he does then we'll see if NASA is allowed to bid out the entire program or assumes the SLS and Orion must be used. It would be interesting to compare the two cost structures...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4014
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 899
  • Likes Given: 1652
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #166 on: 01/16/2018 04:22 AM »
In response to spacenut; yes. Twinned launches of Vulcan/ACES could send a decent sized lander into lunar orbit to await a crew that came later on another twinned launch. The same thing could also be done with expendable Falcon Heavy and Falcon 9 Block 5 launched in pairs -  Falcon 9 puts a 20+ ton Command Module or Lander in low Earth orbit first, followed by a Falcon Heavy placing it's upper stage into orbit with more than 50 tons of TLI propellant aboard. The Lander or CM docks with the stage and off they go.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5480
  • Liked: 3328
  • Likes Given: 4709
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #167 on: 01/16/2018 04:20 PM »
Start putting out COTS-like solicitations for a Lunar architecture which includes on-orbit refueling, reusable vehicles, etc. and watch the innovation move forward on several fronts simultaneously.  Over the course of next 5-10 years, larger versions of existing launch systems could come on line as well as entirely new and vastly more capable vehicles will be added to the menu...  By 2025, we could be flying FH, Vulcan/Centaur V, and New Glenn, and ready to add BFR/S, New Armstrong, and Vulcan Heavy -- tens of times more capability than the program of record.  This innovation and multi-front development will never happen under existing NASA exploration hardware leadership with cost plus contracting to a few familiar (to the point of being incestuous) industrial partners.

The problem isn't insufficient funding, it is insufficient leadership and inept, outrageously expensive development programs. 
NASA/Congress/USG won't do any 'exploring' with their existing management model. 
« Last Edit: 01/16/2018 04:23 PM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5480
  • Liked: 3328
  • Likes Given: 4709
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #168 on: 01/28/2018 06:58 PM »
Looks like budget proposed for 2019 is finding gobs of new cash for DoD (+$82B) -- maybe his National Space Council will steer some of that cash toward upping the US space activity, based on recent statements that there are significant vulnerabilities in that area.  Trickle-down space policy?  Better than cuts...

Quote
Report: Trump to increase U.S. defense budget to $716B

Quote
Pres. Trump is expected to propose increasing U.S. defense spending to $716B in FY 2019 (beginning October 2018) in his budget request to be released next month, the Washington Post reports.

The proposed budget would be a 13% increase over 2017, when the U.S. spent $634B on defense, and a 7%-plus gain over the $668B in the 2018 budget, which still has not passed through Congress.
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3325889-report-trump-increase-u-s-defense-budget-716b?dr=1#email_link
« Last Edit: 01/28/2018 07:01 PM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9294
  • Liked: 1239
  • Likes Given: 798
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #169 on: 01/31/2018 05:46 PM »

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 994
  • Liked: 307
  • Likes Given: 89
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #170 on: 01/31/2018 06:26 PM »
A composite version of the 4.5 meter capsule could have been a relatively light craft.

As is the Starliner, based to a considerable extent on the original Boeing concept for Orion, even to the point of using the same airgags.

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • CA
  • Liked: 763
  • Likes Given: 242
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #171 on: 02/05/2018 04:29 AM »
With the thread finally moving away from politics and toward technology, a survey of possible architectures might be worth examining. As it is, I see three primary pathways, each with its own set of options.

I. A. SLS Block IB and Orion would likely require two launches. A lander needs to be developed.

I. B. SLS Block II (i.e. Dark Knight boosters) and Orion may be able to perform the same mission in 1 launch. Lander still needed.

I. C. Advanced SLS with 5-6 main engines and/or liquid boosters enables robust program. Lander still needed.

II. A. Disposable FH, with D2. Possible 2 launch architecture. Lander needed. Need either D2 upgrade or small Bigelow hab.

II. B. Reusable FH cores, with D2. Same issues as above. More launches required, but lower launch costs. On orbit refueling possibly required.

II. C. FH (either expendable or reusable) with Orion (possibly upgraded Starliner) as CSM. More launches required due to high mass of Orion. No hab needed and no upgrade of D2 needed. Still need lander.

III. Move toward greater cooperation with SpaceX on BFR/BFS. Test landings on Luna are already a probability. Investing resources in newer cutting edge technology rather than expensive and obsolete legacy hardware may be a better approach. This furthers a technology already in planning stages, requires no new landers, habs, or modification of existing technologies. It may also be capable of attaining the goal before any of the others could. The big obstacle is NASA putting its very regulatory fingers on the architecture and drastically slowing it down. After first Lunar landings, SpaceX sells or leases hardware to NASA and brings new hardware online for Mars.
« Last Edit: 02/05/2018 04:46 AM by TomH »

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5480
  • Liked: 3328
  • Likes Given: 4709
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #172 on: 02/05/2018 10:58 AM »
With the thread finally moving away from politics and toward technology, a survey of possible architectures might be worth examining. As it is, I see three primary pathways, each with its own set of options.

I. A. SLS Block IB and Orion would likely require two launches. A lander needs to be developed.

I. B. SLS Block II (i.e. Dark Knight boosters) and Orion may be able to perform the same mission in 1 launch. Lander still needed.

I. C. Advanced SLS with 5-6 main engines and/or liquid boosters enables robust program. Lander still needed.

II. A. Disposable FH, with D2. Possible 2 launch architecture. Lander needed. Need either D2 upgrade or small Bigelow hab.

II. B. Reusable FH cores, with D2. Same issues as above. More launches required, but lower launch costs. On orbit refueling possibly required.

II. C. FH (either expendable or reusable) with Orion (possibly upgraded Starliner) as CSM. More launches required due to high mass of Orion. No hab needed and no upgrade of D2 needed. Still need lander.

III. Move toward greater cooperation with SpaceX on BFR/BFS. Test landings on Luna are already a probability. Investing resources in newer cutting edge technology rather than expensive and obsolete legacy hardware may be a better approach. This furthers a technology already in planning stages, requires no new landers, habs, or modification of existing technologies. It may also be capable of attaining the goal before any of the others could. The big obstacle is NASA putting its very regulatory fingers on the architecture and drastically slowing it down. After first Lunar landings, SpaceX sells or leases hardware to NASA and brings new hardware online for Mars.

Basing a Lunar effort around the SLS, Orion, and other NASA hardware discussed means the program will not start until the 2030s -- meaning never.

Need to start today with depots and on-orbit refueling as planned for Vulcan ACES and BFR... start developing now.  Same with commercial landers and habitats.  Move forward with the Bigelow/ULA Lunar orbital station or equivalent if a host for the reusable/refuelable landers is needed.  Surface vehicles, mapping and communication satellites, robotics, etc.  All COTS where NASA does not control the design or pace the building efforts.

When the SLS decides to become useful, add it in to the ongoing effort.

See this neighboring thread for discussion.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44860.msg1781837#msg1781837
« Last Edit: 02/05/2018 11:10 AM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Tags: