Author Topic: Trump Space Policy Directive 1  (Read 34178 times)

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6435
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 6083
  • Likes Given: 1782
Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« on: 12/11/2017 05:57 AM »
Quote
TRUMP TO SIGN SPACE POLICY DIRECTIVE TOMORROW
By Marcia Smith | Posted: December 10, 2017 11:04 pm ET | Last Updated: December 10, 2017 11:06 pm ET

President Trump will sign Space Policy Directive 1 at 3:00 pm tomorrow at a White House ceremony.  The directive apparently will make a human return to the lunar surface part of U.S. space policy.

https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/trump-to-sign-space-policy-directive-tomorrow/

Discussion of implications for, and current status of, Bridenstine’s confirmation:
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2017/12/confirming-the.html

Online Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10434
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 7280
  • Likes Given: 5082
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #1 on: 12/11/2017 06:23 AM »
moon mars moon mars asteroid mars moon.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline hektor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Liked: 61
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #2 on: 12/11/2017 08:28 AM »
I think the article jumps to conclusions a bit quickly

The directive text according to the article says : “We shall lead an innovative and sustainable program of exploration with commercial and international partners to enable human expansion across the solar system to bring new knowledge and opportunities. Beginning with missions beyond low Earth orbit, the United States will lead to return humans to the Moon for  long term exploration followed by human missions to Mars and other destinations.”

Nowhere it is said “to the Moon surface” in this alleged text. You can make the case that having extended stays at the Deep Space Gateway is “returning humans to the Moon”.

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4342
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 1132
  • Likes Given: 2149
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #3 on: 12/11/2017 10:14 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...
« Last Edit: 12/11/2017 10:14 AM by MATTBLAK »
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6435
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 6083
  • Likes Given: 1782
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #4 on: 12/11/2017 10:16 AM »
Here's Jeff Foust's write-up:

http://spacenews.com/president-to-sign-space-policy-directive-monday/

He cites a different VP quote from October (my emphasis):

Quote
“We will return American astronauts to the moon, not only to leave behind footprints and flags, but to build the foundation we need to send Americans to Mars and beyond,”

My take is that the current administration will want to be seen to be doing more than has been done before. So I think surface ops on the moon will be an integral part of that.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6435
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 6083
  • Likes Given: 1782
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #5 on: 12/11/2017 10:55 AM »
The usual issue to remember whatever is announced today, in a reply to Jeff Foust's tweet:

Quote
Depending on what this is, probably it's politically toothless. Congress would need to authorize and fund.

https://twitter.com/WordsmithFL/status/940185430477111296

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4342
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 1132
  • Likes Given: 2149
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #6 on: 12/11/2017 10:58 AM »
So; the more things change; the more they... :(
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6217
  • Liked: 4008
  • Likes Given: 5545
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #7 on: 12/11/2017 12:01 PM »
So; the more things change; the more they... :(

Nothing is more a constant than politicians rushing to get out in front of a movement to claim 'leadership' -- except maybe spending other peoples' money in their district to buy influence.  This could be a perfect storm of both base reactions.  Or not.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8386
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 4742
  • Likes Given: 1501
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #8 on: 12/11/2017 12:06 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...
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.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8386
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 4742
  • Likes Given: 1501
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #9 on: 12/11/2017 12:09 PM »
So; the more things change; the more they... :(

...stay the same.

Nothing to see here folks. Move along. And let's shut this thread down to prevent yet another lenghty episode of teeth gnashing (over the USA not going anywhere in space).

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6435
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 6083
  • Likes Given: 1782
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #10 on: 12/11/2017 12:28 PM »
Quote
NASA tells me that -- at the moment at least -- although NASA TV will be at the 3:00 pm ET White House event, the signing is not live, so video won't be available till later. For live coverage, I'm advised that NASA's social medial outlets are the best bet.

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/940210095429910530

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4342
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 1132
  • Likes Given: 2149
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #11 on: 12/11/2017 12:48 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...
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 a whole different beast; and that is established fact. There were several options open to Nixon; continue Apollo Lunar and possibly 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 have been pragmatically altered - not bloody cancelled outright.
« Last Edit: 01/15/2018 09:47 PM by MATTBLAK »
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6217
  • Liked: 4008
  • Likes Given: 5545
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #12 on: 12/11/2017 12:51 PM »
Nowhere it is said “to the Moon surface” in this alleged text. You can make the case that having extended stays at the Deep Space Gateway is “returning humans to the Moon”.

The inside-DC gossip is that the above has been the crux of an argument between the White House and NASA. NASA has been trying to argue that the Deep Space Gateway (which they may be renaming to put "Moon" into the title) answers the policy directive, but people over in the executive branch are saying "No, we mean the surface of the Moon."

I can totally see the NASA perspective on this--administrations come and go, and do they really want to get all worked up on designing a lunar surface architecture when a little over three years from now a different administration could say "Forget that stuff"?

There will always be another administration (hopefully), so why not do nothing?
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6673
  • Liked: 980
  • Likes Given: 139
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #13 on: 12/11/2017 12:54 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.

I agreed with him.  I see no good reason to go back to the moon.  I don't see it as the first step to going to Mars either.  Same with SpaceX's mars plans.

It's all kind of depressing to me.  I want to see people on Mars but I don't think either commercial entity or NASA are on a path to get there in a safe and sustainable fashion.

Online Jeff Lerner

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 424
  • Toronto, Canada
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #14 on: 12/11/2017 01:00 PM »
Anyhoooooo....unless Congress comes up with the funding nothing will change ...like woods170 said, nothing to see here...

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7542
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1152
  • Likes Given: 7714
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #15 on: 12/11/2017 01:46 PM »
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.
Say what you like about 'ol TD but (sadly) he sure did know how to hold a grudge.
BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7542
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1152
  • Likes Given: 7714
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #16 on: 12/11/2017 02:01 PM »
Quote
TRUMP TO SIGN SPACE POLICY DIRECTIVE TOMORROW
By Marcia Smith | Posted: December 10, 2017 11:04 pm ET | Last Updated: December 10, 2017 11:06 pm ET

President Trump will sign Space Policy Directive 1 at 3:00 pm tomorrow at a White House ceremony.  The directive apparently will make a human return to the lunar surface part of U.S. space policy.

https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/trump-to-sign-space-policy-directive-tomorrow/

Discussion of implications for, and current status of, Bridenstine’s confirmation:
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2017/12/confirming-the.html
I started a thread  around the time it was known Trump had won asking if anyone had any idea what his views on space were.

It seems we now have an answer. 

The inside-DC gossip is that the above has been the crux of an argument between the White House and NASA. NASA has been trying to argue that the Deep Space Gateway (which they may be renaming to put "Moon" into the title) answers the policy directive, but people over in the executive branch are saying "No, we mean the surface of the Moon."

I can totally see the NASA perspective on this--administrations come and go, and do they really want to get all worked up on designing a lunar surface architecture when a little over three years from now a different administration could say "Forget that stuff"?
But "Deep Space Gateway" doesn't sound very Moon specific, does it? Now something like "Cis-Lunar Deep Space Gateway" does sound more in keeping.

Except it seems that won't cut it if the WH is really saying "We mean the lunar surface."
I think that's a bit more specific from the White House about space than we've seen for some time.  :(

I admit I'm not really convinced it's worth the effort. Long duration testing could just as easily be done on the ISS, or a "free flyer" near the ISS before going to Mars IMHO and there are a number of issues that it would be better finding out about than going to the Moon (like radiation and zero-g adaptation mitigations for deep space flights in general).

But here's the real question.

When (and how much) money is Congress going to appropriate for these tasks?

Allocation without appropriation is meaningless.  :(

How much are Congress putting on the table for this?
BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Offline hektor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Liked: 61
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #17 on: 12/11/2017 02:53 PM »

The inside-DC gossip is that the above has been the crux of an argument between the White House and NASA. NASA has been trying to argue that the Deep Space Gateway (which they may be renaming to put "Moon" into the title) answers the policy directive, but people over in the executive branch are saying "No, we mean the surface of the Moon."


I can well imagine Gerst making this case. But then, why doesn’t the White House close the discussion by making the policy more explicit, adding the word surface for instance.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8716
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2738
  • Likes Given: 7181
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #18 on: 12/11/2017 03:10 PM »
The usually "fiscally obsessed" Republicans seemed to have lost their way and with a president who doesn't care about debt, it will be interesting how this will pan out in these "unusual times"...
« Last Edit: 12/11/2017 03:50 PM by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Online RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2468
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 1274
  • Likes Given: 965
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #19 on: 12/11/2017 03:27 PM »
The usually "fiscally obsessed" Republicans seemed to have lost their way and with a president who doesn't care about debt, it will be interesting how this will pan out in these unusual times"...

The previous Republican administration dramatically increased the national debt. While some Republicans are still concerned with the debt, the 21st century Republican Party as a whole gave up on being fiscally conservative. They give it lip service and try to cut Democrat favored programs, but they reduce revenue and increase the programs they like.

That said, NASA already has a large budget and I doubt Congress will give them more money.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8716
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2738
  • Likes Given: 7181
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #20 on: 12/11/2017 03:41 PM »
The usually "fiscally obsessed" Republicans seemed to have lost their way and with a president who doesn't care about debt, it will be interesting how this will pan out in these unusual times"...

The previous Republican administration dramatically increased the national debt. While some Republicans are still concerned with the debt, the 21st century Republican Party as a whole gave up on being fiscally conservative. They give it lip service and try to cut Democrat favored programs, but they reduce revenue and increase the programs they like.

That said, NASA already has a large budget and I doubt Congress will give them more money.
Agreed about the debt, but this president is only interested in aggrandizing his term in office with his obsession with his own "Kennedy moment" and legacy building (he already has begun a second term campaign). He may concoct a deal with his Republican colleagues in congress to this end... We'll see...
« Last Edit: 12/11/2017 03:41 PM by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Online clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10547
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2577
  • Likes Given: 954
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #21 on: 12/11/2017 04:47 PM »
I think the article jumps to conclusions a bit quickly

The directive text according to the article says : “We shall lead an innovative and sustainable program of exploration with commercial and international partners to enable human expansion across the solar system to bring new knowledge and opportunities. Beginning with missions beyond low Earth orbit, the United States will lead to return humans to the Moon for  long term exploration followed by human missions to Mars and other destinations.”

Nowhere it is said “to the Moon surface” in this alleged text. You can make the case that having extended stays at the Deep Space Gateway is “returning humans to the Moon”.


Text emphasis mine. Long Term Exploration can only mean the lunar surface. There is nowhere else in the cis-lunar vicinity *to explore*.
Your reasoning would exclude the Martian surface when the sentence continues "followed by human missions to Mars".
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Online Chris Bergin

Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #22 on: 12/11/2017 05:02 PM »
Our long journey to the stars—and the Moon
Forty-five years ago today, NASA’s final Apollo mission landed on the surface of the Moon. No human has walked there since.
This afternoon, President Donald J. Trump will tell the country that it’s time to refocus our vision for American space exploration.
In signing Space Policy Directive 1 today—the first recommendation of the recently reconvened National Space Council—the President will shift NASA’s resources and attention toward the Moon and Mars. Given its relative closeness, the Moon in particular offers humans the best hope for long-term exploration and utilization.
President Ronald Reagan once eloquently captured the sweep of mankind as “his long climb from the swamp to the stars.” With President Trump’s order today, America commits itself once again to writing the next chapter of that story.
Watch the signing ceremony today at 3:00 p.m. EST.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/live/president-trump-participates-signing-ceremony-space-policy-directive-%E2%80%93-1

Online oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3452
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1852
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #23 on: 12/11/2017 05:12 PM »
I would like to point out the recent NASA release of the NextSTEP2 BAA ISRU. That is definitely targeting Moon surface ops of some sort. And not just a flags and footprints either but long term infrastructure buildup. So the recent new RFI's coming out of NASA point to a sustained presence/base on Lunar surface (even if not always occupied by humans) and a methodical buildup of cis-Lunar infrastructure for support of even more ambitious adventures (HSF Mars).
« Last Edit: 12/11/2017 06:16 PM by oldAtlas_Eguy »

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6435
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 6083
  • Likes Given: 1782
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #24 on: 12/11/2017 05:48 PM »

Offline hektor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Liked: 61
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #25 on: 12/11/2017 06:08 PM »

Text emphasis mine. Long Term Exploration can only mean the lunar surface. There is nowhere else in the cis-lunar vicinity *to explore*.
Your reasoning would exclude the Martian surface when the sentence continues "followed by human missions to Mars".

You can do such long term exploration with small robots teleoperated from the Deep Space Gateway.

And yes I can well imagine NASA doing years of orbital operations at Mars without landing a crew.
« Last Edit: 12/11/2017 06:10 PM by hektor »

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22466
  • Liked: 790
  • Likes Given: 292
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #26 on: 12/11/2017 06:48 PM »
So some thoughts:

1. I ended up liking Obama and a lot of his policies, but thought his "No Moon" speech was short sighted. NASA was pretty much left rudderless on the future after his announcement, and Congress moved to fill it quickly with Orion/SLS without so much as a plan. NASA did some sharp planing and came up with its "Evolvable Mars Campaign" which has a flexible long term plan that leads at some point to Mars. Yet it leaves Congress/Executive branch options in the short term for developing capabilities and destinations while gradually building for the end goal.

2. Moon first increases the likely-hood that SLS/Orion ends earlier. They will certainly fly to cislunar space, but with a much closer destination many of the immediate in develop EELV Heavy vehicles (Vulcan/ACES, New Glenn, and Falcon Heavy) would probably at first supplement SLS launches, until eventually the old SRB cases used for SLS deplete requiring a new booster competition. At this point, I could see a push for the commercial HLV alternatives from industry (especially if Blue Origin has a thriving industrial base building boosters/capsules in Florida in addition to engine production in Alabama) instead of a new booster competition.

3. Moon return will cement commercial model for further exploration. There is not enough money for a traditional procurement model for a lunar lander with the current budget. NASA will have to reuse the CCDev or even COTS model.
« Last Edit: 12/11/2017 06:49 PM by Ronsmytheiii »
"Every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it; once realized, it becomes commonplace." - Robert Goddard

Online Chris Bergin

Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #27 on: 12/11/2017 06:55 PM »
It's on NASA TV too:
http://www.ustream.tv/nasahdtv

Online Chris Bergin

Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #28 on: 12/11/2017 06:59 PM »

Online Chris Bergin

Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #29 on: 12/11/2017 07:02 PM »
Returning to the lunar surface. Establishing a base for missions to Mars.

Manages to mention the Stock Market's are rising.

Online Chris Bergin

Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #30 on: 12/11/2017 07:08 PM »
VP Pence says this signing will ensure American leadership in space....once again.

Trump: "This means jobs, jobs. We love jobs too, right?"

Offline hektor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Liked: 61
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #31 on: 12/11/2017 07:11 PM »
Can you provide the exact quote about Lunar surface because I missed it.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6435
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 6083
  • Likes Given: 1782
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #32 on: 12/11/2017 07:13 PM »
Interesting, not the usual need to regain leadership line:

Quote
Trump: we’re the leader and we’re going to stay the leader, and increase it many-fold.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/940311175631462401

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8716
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2738
  • Likes Given: 7181
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #33 on: 12/11/2017 07:27 PM »
Miles O'Brien comment's on CNN: "no bucks, no Buck Rogers"...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6435
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 6083
  • Likes Given: 1782
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #34 on: 12/11/2017 07:40 PM »


Quote
Published on 11 Dec 2017Acting NASA Administrator Robert Lightfoot and National Space Council Executive Secretary Scott Pace comment on Space Policy Directive 1, signed Monday, Dec. 11, 2017, by President Trump at the White House.

The policy calls on NASA to work with international and commercial partners to send humans to the Moon, with a horizon goal of sending astronauts to Mars.

There’s an emphasis on industry leading more and working with international partners.

Offline spacetraveler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 640
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 138
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #35 on: 12/11/2017 07:45 PM »
Wondering what will actually change here.

SLS/Orion could do moon missions, but another system could probably do it cheaper. But is it worth it to start all over again at this point?

Or are we really just talking about a new lander development program that would use the existing HLV development path.

Either way Congress will have to determine where we go from here and I doubt there is funding for a major new lander while keeping all the other things in the current budget.

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3026
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 92
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #36 on: 12/11/2017 07:46 PM »
In terms of immediate change, I don't see anything noteworthy, but if a return not just to cislunar space but also to the lunar surface is truly a priority, when do we see some movement toward development of a lunar lander?  Certainly it doesn't seem like a revival of Altair to go with the ever delayed and overbudget SLS and Orion is in the cards.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8716
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2738
  • Likes Given: 7181
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #37 on: 12/11/2017 07:49 PM »
The good news is he actually remembered to "sign" the directive this time... progress...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4131
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2807
  • Likes Given: 3568
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #38 on: 12/11/2017 07:49 PM »
Two things that were memorable:

1. VP Pence stating that we're returning to our Moon for strategic reasons - national security.

2. Trump stating that his policy is about jobs.

The first one is very scary, since I don't think anyone wants to militarize space. That would just hasten the end of Earth, which means maybe we should be all shoving money at Elon Musk to hurry up and get the Mars colony going.

As for jobs, Trump doesn't know anything more about "space" than he does about the military (i.e. very little), which means Congress can just keep funding NASA for jobs like they like to do, and not much needs to get accomplished. And likely Congress won't increase NASA's funding, which if so would be bad news for the SLS and Orion programs, which currently don't have any funded programs or payloads that they are needed to support. More status quo is bad for them.

So did anything change today? No.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6435
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 6083
  • Likes Given: 1782
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #39 on: 12/11/2017 07:53 PM »
They forgot Buzz ...

Quote
List of attendees (from White House press office) at Trump signing ceremony for Space Policy Directive 1.

https://twitter.com/spcplcyonline/status/940319223162789888

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8716
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2738
  • Likes Given: 7181
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #40 on: 12/11/2017 07:56 PM »
Oh, you mean "that guy" who actually walked on the Moon?? ??? :-[
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6435
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 6083
  • Likes Given: 1782
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #41 on: 12/11/2017 07:59 PM »
Transcript of POTUS and VP remarks:

http://spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=50881

Offline DarkenedOne

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 954
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #42 on: 12/11/2017 08:21 PM »
Two things that were memorable:

1. VP Pence stating that we're returning to our Moon for strategic reasons - national security.

2. Trump stating that his policy is about jobs.

The first one is very scary, since I don't think anyone wants to militarize space. That would just hasten the end of Earth, which means maybe we should be all shoving money at Elon Musk to hurry up and get the Mars colony going.

As for jobs, Trump doesn't know anything more about "space" than he does about the military (i.e. very little), which means Congress can just keep funding NASA for jobs like they like to do, and not much needs to get accomplished. And likely Congress won't increase NASA's funding, which if so would be bad news for the SLS and Orion programs, which currently don't have any funded programs or payloads that they are needed to support. More status quo is bad for them.

So did anything change today? No.

Space has been militarized for a long time.  There is however national security implications for a presence on the moon.  The reasoning starts with the realization that it is far easier to move from the Moon to any Earth orbit than it is to move material from Earth's surface.  If a nation were able to establish a base on the moon that would be supplied by resources on the Moon (ISRU), then that nation would dominate space economically and militarily.  Of course we know that there are many difficulties in establishing a base on the moon and doing ISRU on a significant scale, but I do not think there is anyone who believes it is beyond our technological capability. 

I would like to say that the same is not true for Mars.  As much as I would like to see a Mars mission I have not heard anyone even suggest that Mars would have any influence economically or militarily on Earth.     


Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6435
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 6083
  • Likes Given: 1782
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #43 on: 12/11/2017 08:24 PM »
Eric Berger’s take and what today means and possible paths forward:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/12/president-trump-says-were-going-back-to-the-moon/

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4131
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2807
  • Likes Given: 3568
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #44 on: 12/11/2017 08:59 PM »
Space has been militarized for a long time.

So far passively, and only with non-human systems. A human presence on the Moon for national security purposes goes beyond what we have today.

Quote
There is however national security implications for a presence on the moon.  The reasoning starts with the realization that it is far easier to move from the Moon to any Earth orbit than it is to move material from Earth's surface.  If a nation were able to establish a base on the moon that would be supplied by resources on the Moon (ISRU), then that nation would dominate space economically and militarily.

Anything can be rationalized, but that doesn't mean that the rationalization is correct.

The Arms Race resulted from the fear that one nation was going to have a superiority over another, and thus the one that felt like they were behind rationalized that they needed to build more arms - which included enough nuclear weapons to destroy civilization many times over.

A similar type of military buildup in space could happen, and that would, over time, limit the private sector's ability to expand out into space. In other words, in a slight amount of militarization in space could kill off the efforts of the private sector to find new business models based on activity in space. And no one would likely be immune.

Quote
Of course we know that there are many difficulties in establishing a base on the moon and doing ISRU on a significant scale, but I do not think there is anyone who believes it is beyond our technological capability.

The amount we spend should be in proportion to how badly we need it, and establishing such a capability on our Moon is going to cost a MASSIVE amount of money if the SLS and Orion are used. And no, I don't see Congress deciding to use the private sector to help out - and least not on Trump's watch.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6435
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 6083
  • Likes Given: 1782
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #45 on: 12/11/2017 09:57 PM »
Quote
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release.                             December 11, 2017
Presidential Memorandum on Reinvigorating America's Human Space Exploration Program

MEMORANDUM FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT

THE SECRETARY OF STATE

THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE

THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY

THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE

THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

THE ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS

THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY

THE ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR HOMELAND SECURITY AND COUNTERTERRORISM

THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

SUBJECT:        Reinvigorating America's Human Space Exploration Program

Section 1.  Amendment to Presidential Policy Directive-4.

Presidential Policy Directive-4 of June 28, 2010 (National Space Policy), is amended as follows:

The paragraph beginning "Set far-reaching exploration milestones" is deleted and replaced with the following:

"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;".

Sec. 2.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)  This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(d)  This memorandum shall be published in the Federal Register.

 

DONALD J. TRUMP

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/12/11/presidential-memorandum-reinvigorating-americas-human-space-exploration

Online Chris Bergin

Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #46 on: 12/11/2017 09:59 PM »
I know it's really tempting, but hold back on the urge for political comments. Keep it on the subject.

Meanwhile:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 11, 2017
 
COALITION FOR DEEP SPACE EXPLORATION STATEMENT ON ADMINISTRATION’S COMMITMENT TO EXPLORE DEEP SPACE
 
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Coalition for Deep Space Exploration (Coalition) welcomes Space Policy Directive-1 (SPD-1) signed today by President Trump, formalizing the commitment made by the Administration during the first meeting of the National Space Council to reinvigorate America’s deep space exploration program. The signing ceremony in the White House West Wing was attended by Coalition President and CEO Dr. Mary Lynne Dittmar together with the President, Vice President, members of Congress, NASA Acting Administrator Robert Lightfoot and NASA astronauts – including Dr. Harrison “Jack” Schmitt, who together with the late Captain Eugene Cernan were the last Americans to visit the Moon during Apollo 17 exactly 45 years ago.
 
“After 45 years, it is time to return humans to the region of the Moon even as we look toward Mars,” Dr. Dittmar said. “The Coalition is proud to support NASA and to help bring about this exciting future. We congratulate the Trump Administration on its bold vision and commitment to American leadership in space.”
 
“Human space exploration expands the frontiers of knowledge and experience, and represents the best of humankind,” she continued. “This Presidential Directive affirms U.S. leadership in human space exploration, returning American astronauts to the region of the Moon, while laying the foundation for eventual missions to Mars and beyond. It is fitting that the signing ceremony occurs on the 45th anniversary of landing the last men on the moon – Dr. Schmitt and the late Captain Cernan, who made it his life’s work to ensure that Americans would return to deep space. NASA’s flagship programs for human space exploration – the Orion crew vehicle and the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket – supported by ongoing research on human health and performance conducted on the International Space Station – will take a major step to fulfilling this vision beginning with Exploration Mission 1 targeted for late 2019.”
 
“The Coalition and its 70 member companies enthusiastically support American leadership back to the Moon, exemplified by Orion, SLS and key exploration capabilities like the Deep Space Gateway. In addition to human exploration, these missions will open opportunities for a wide range of stakeholders in science and commerce, and will strengthen and extend U.S. relationships with our international partners. Together with public private partnerships such as NASA’s NextSTEP program that is developing technologies for deep space habitats, and the Lunar CATALYST program that is advancing robotic landers, these activities will inevitably lead to new achievements in human exploration, lunar and planetary science, and to the growth of the human economic sphere, beginning in Low Earth Orbit and expanding outward to eventually encompass the lunar region and beyond.”
 
 
About the Coalition for Deep Space Exploration
 
The Coalition for Deep Space Exploration is a national organization of more than 70 space industry businesses and advocacy groups focused on ensuring the United States remains a leader in space, science and technology. Based in Washington D.C., the Coalition engages in outreach and education reinforcing the value and benefits of human space exploration and space science with the public and our nation’s leaders, building lasting support for a long-term, sustainable, strategic direction for our nation’s space program.
 

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6435
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 6083
  • Likes Given: 1782
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #47 on: 12/11/2017 10:01 PM »
Quote
CSF Statement on President Trump signing of Space Policy Directive 1
by Jane Kinney on DECEMBER 11, 2017

“CSF applauds President Trump for signing Space Policy Directive 1, which directs NASA to partner with the U.S. commercial space industry to return Americans to the Moon,” said Eric Stallmer, President of CSF. “The U.S. commercial space industry has already invested hundreds of millions of dollars in private capital to develop innovative capabilities for lunar transport, operations, and resource utilization, leading to many lower cost innovative approaches that can benefit this new era of lunar exploration. CSF urges the Administration to direct NASA to leverage these capabilities to generate greater efficiency and quicker solutions, and to partner with industry through flexible, innovative contracting approaches, to accelerate progress towards achieving the goals set out in Space Policy Directive 1.”

http://www.commercialspaceflight.org/2017/12/csf-statement-president-trump-signing-space-policy-directive-1/

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7542
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1152
  • Likes Given: 7714
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #48 on: 12/11/2017 10:40 PM »
Agreed about the debt, but this president is only interested in aggrandizing his term in office with his obsession with his own "Kennedy moment" and legacy building
I think many different people have many different "Kennedy moments" in mind.
Time will tell which one(s) Trump actually manages to re-live.
Quote from: Rocket Science
(he already has begun a second term campaign).
He's already got the the slogan ready
"Keeping America great"   ;)
Quote from: Rocket Science
He may concoct a deal with his Republican colleagues in congress to this end... We'll see...
Isn't that pretty much mandatory if he wants this to go anywhere?
« Last Edit: 12/11/2017 10:41 PM by john smith 19 »
BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8716
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2738
  • Likes Given: 7181
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #49 on: 12/11/2017 11:11 PM »
Agreed about the debt, but this president is only interested in aggrandizing his term in office with his obsession with his own "Kennedy moment" and legacy building
I think many different people have many different "Kennedy moments" in mind.
Time will tell which one(s) Trump actually manages to re-live.
Quote from: Rocket Science
(he already has begun a second term campaign).
He's already got the the slogan ready
"Keeping America great"   ;)
Quote from: Rocket Science
He may concoct a deal with his Republican colleagues in congress to this end... We'll see...
Isn't that pretty much mandatory if he wants this to go anywhere?
There are "space missions" and  then there's "space stunts"... I'm speaking of the latter...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Online clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10547
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2577
  • Likes Given: 954
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #50 on: 12/12/2017 01:18 AM »
Can you provide the exact quote about Lunar surface because I missed it.

"Finally, we're honored to be joined by Apollo astronaut Jack Schmitt. Exactly 45 years ago, almost to the minute, Jack became one of the last Americans to land on the moon. Today, we pledge that he will not be the last."
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline DarkenedOne

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 954
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #51 on: 12/12/2017 02:00 AM »
Quote
There is however national security implications for a presence on the moon.  The reasoning starts with the realization that it is far easier to move from the Moon to any Earth orbit than it is to move material from Earth's surface.  If a nation were able to establish a base on the moon that would be supplied by resources on the Moon (ISRU), then that nation would dominate space economically and militarily.

Anything can be rationalized, but that doesn't mean that the rationalization is correct.

The Arms Race resulted from the fear that one nation was going to have a superiority over another, and thus the one that felt like they were behind rationalized that they needed to build more arms - which included enough nuclear weapons to destroy civilization many times over.

Yes and back then they were constantly considering how one nation could gain a military advantage over another.  The idea of a military moon base was far fetch, but considered well within the realm of possibility.

Quote
A similar type of military buildup in space could happen, and that would, over time, limit the private sector's ability to expand out into space. In other words, in a slight amount of militarization in space could kill off the efforts of the private sector to find new business models based on activity in space. And no one would likely be immune.

Historically military buildups supercharged the industries that were involved.  Look at the airline industry.  There is no doubt that without the massive investments the military made in both large size and engine technology it would of taken longer for us to get where we are today.  The same is true in the space business.  The military is still making massive investments in space technology that eventually becomes available to the private sector. 

Quote
Quote
Of course we know that there are many difficulties in establishing a base on the moon and doing ISRU on a significant scale, but I do not think there is anyone who believes it is beyond our technological capability.

The amount we spend should be in proportion to how badly we need it, and establishing such a capability on our Moon is going to cost a MASSIVE amount of money if the SLS and Orion are used. And no, I don't see Congress deciding to use the private sector to help out - and least not on Trump's watch.

Well it would be substantially less than doing the same on Mars. 

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9619
  • Liked: 362
  • Likes Given: 464
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #52 on: 12/12/2017 02:24 AM »
Budgets are policy.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6217
  • Liked: 4008
  • Likes Given: 5545
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #53 on: 12/12/2017 04:25 AM »
...
 
“After 45 years, it is time to return humans to the region of the Moon even as we look toward Mars,” Dr. Dittmar said. “The Coalition is proud to support NASA and to help bring about this exciting future. We congratulate the Trump Administration on its bold vision and commitment to American leadership in space.”
 
...robotic landers, ...

Mary Lynn apparently doesn't think much of landing people on the Moon. 
Pretty striking departure from today's message.  Wonder why?
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16310
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 5227
  • Likes Given: 653
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #54 on: 12/12/2017 05:24 AM »
I think this is a good first step. If Trump does the following, this may become real.

Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4342
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 1132
  • Likes Given: 2149
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #55 on: 12/12/2017 06:36 AM »
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.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8386
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 4742
  • Likes Given: 1501
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #56 on: 12/12/2017 07:10 AM »
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.
LBJ, not Nixon, was President when Apollo/Saturn V and Apollo Applications were cut back.  Future Saturn V production was cut in the months before Nixon was elected, leading to cancellation of Apollos 18-20, etc.. 

But honestly, it wouldn't have mattered who was elected in 1968.  The American people didn't want to spend any more money on lunar landings.  Today's generation will apparently have to rediscover the reason why ...

 - Ed Kyle
The scale-down of Apollo under LBJ is of no importance in this discussion. The "what next?" decision was made under Nixon. His administration had the choice between continuing BLEO exploration efforts or the space shuttle. Nixon et al. chose the latter. It is IMO that particular decision that killed NASA manned BLEO efforts for 4+ decades.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8386
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 4742
  • Likes Given: 1501
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #57 on: 12/12/2017 07:12 AM »
...
 
“After 45 years, it is time to return humans to the region of the Moon even as we look toward Mars,” Dr. Dittmar said. “The Coalition is proud to support NASA and to help bring about this exciting future. We congratulate the Trump Administration on its bold vision and commitment to American leadership in space.”
 
...robotic landers, ...

Mary Lynn apparently doesn't think much of landing people on the Moon. 
Pretty striking departure from today's message.  Wonder why?
A sense of financial reality.

Simply put: without a significant increase in NASA budget OR a radical departure from traditional government contracting, there is no way that NASA will be able to put humans on the surface on the Moon.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8386
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 4742
  • Likes Given: 1501
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #58 on: 12/12/2017 07:20 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".

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4342
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 1132
  • Likes Given: 2149
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #59 on: 12/12/2017 07:31 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 :(
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline hektor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Liked: 61
  • Likes Given: 3
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: 8716
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2738
  • Likes Given: 7181
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, Vintage auto racer

Offline hektor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1350
  • Liked: 61
  • Likes Given: 3
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: 8716
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2738
  • Likes Given: 7181
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, Vintage auto racer

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7542
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1152
  • Likes Given: 7714
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 »
BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4342
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 1132
  • Likes Given: 2149
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: 7542
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1152
  • Likes Given: 7714
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.
BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8386
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 4742
  • Likes Given: 1501
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: 4342
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 1132
  • Likes Given: 2149
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)

Online spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2389
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 399
  • Likes Given: 234
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: 9619
  • Liked: 362
  • Likes Given: 464
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: 8386
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 4742
  • Likes Given: 1501
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: 8716
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2738
  • Likes Given: 7181
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, Vintage auto racer

Online Eerie

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 775
  • Liked: 124
  • Likes Given: 7
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: 1117
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 345
  • Likes Given: 398
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: 5472
  • Liked: 987
  • Likes Given: 653
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: 4342
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 1132
  • Likes Given: 2149
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: 4342
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 1132
  • Likes Given: 2149
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: 8716
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2738
  • Likes Given: 7181
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, Vintage auto racer

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4342
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 1132
  • Likes Given: 2149
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)

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9669
  • Liked: 1385
  • Likes Given: 875
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #80 on: 12/12/2017 08:17 PM »
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.
LBJ, not Nixon, was President when Apollo/Saturn V and Apollo Applications were cut back.  Future Saturn V production was cut in the months before Nixon was elected, leading to cancellation of Apollos 18-20, etc.. 

But honestly, it wouldn't have mattered who was elected in 1968.  The American people didn't want to spend any more money on lunar landings.  Today's generation will apparently have to rediscover the reason why ...

 - Ed Kyle

Yes, that's the gist of Logsdon's book. He partly blames Nixon for what happenned but he does note that there was no public support for exploring Mars. A lot of people thought that we should stop human space exploration all together. 

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8716
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2738
  • Likes Given: 7181
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #81 on: 12/12/2017 08:34 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
Same really that "Apollo got Hemorrhoids" under him...
« Last Edit: 12/12/2017 09:26 PM by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1341
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 236
  • Likes Given: 339
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #82 on: 12/12/2017 09:03 PM »
Now that NASA has been directed back to the moon, I wanted to find out how much a crewed lunar lander would cost.  Edgar Zapata has published a paper on the value of public/private partnerships (PPP) in regards to spacecraft and landers.  He estimates that a PPP will be about 1/3 the cost of a sole-source contract with a vendor for such a lander (roughly 10 billion vs 30 billion) and this might be the best option towards a sustainable exploration program. This 1/3 number is reasonable - OMB calculated that the Falcon 9 LV was about 1/3 the cost of a Federal funded LV of the same capability.
His paper is:
The Opportunity in Commercial Approaches for
Future NASA Deep Space Exploration Elements, Edgar Zapata, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Kennedy Space Center, FL, 32899.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20170008893 2017-12-12T21:53:05+00:00Z
« Last Edit: 12/12/2017 09:24 PM by BrightLight »

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4342
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 1132
  • Likes Given: 2149
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #83 on: 12/12/2017 09:22 PM »
I think they are going to need the equivalent of a 'lunar Soyuz/Progress', meaning of course a vehicle that can land either crew or cargo, most anywhere on the lunar surface. (cue a spinoff thread) BLOCK 1: Expendable, 2 x person, one week sortie. BLOCK 2: partly or fully reusable. BLOCK 3: 4x person, partly or fully reusable, long surface stay ability.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8716
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2738
  • Likes Given: 7181
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #84 on: 12/12/2017 09:28 PM »
One thing for certain, we're never short of lander design proposals from over the years...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7542
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1152
  • Likes Given: 7714
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #85 on: 12/12/2017 10:29 PM »
This 1/3 number is reasonable - OMB calculated that the Falcon 9 LV was about 1/3 the cost of a Federal funded LV of the same capability.
IIRC NASA looked at the full bill for SX and found it cost them about $300m to get F9 first flight from startup.
Using industry standard cost models (which is what people use to work out a project should cost) gave the BAU cost at about $2Bn.

More like 6.6x bigger.

That's the cost of doing procurement using Govt rules and the cumulative effects of decades of over budget cost plus aerospace projects on the database.
Quote from: BrightLight
His paper is:
The Opportunity in Commercial Approaches for
Future NASA Deep Space Exploration Elements, Edgar Zapata, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Kennedy Space Center, FL, 32899.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20170008893 2017-12-12T21:53:05+00:00Z
Zapata is an interesting guy. His team work on the root causes of LV systems costs, and what really lowers costs, has made fascinating reading.
BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4131
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2807
  • Likes Given: 3568
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #86 on: 12/12/2017 10:43 PM »
If Jim Bridenstine is even half the man James Webb was - then NASA and the U.S. space program should prosper.

As someone that thinks NASA and the U.S. space program are doing pretty good right now doing necessary human science in LEO on the ISS, and helping the private sector to get out into space onto it's own, I don't understand why you think we're not prospering right now?

And why would returning to our Moon make us properous? It will certainly add to the U.S. debt, which is the opposite of prospering, so where do you see the U.S. prospering, and when?
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: 4342
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 1132
  • Likes Given: 2149
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #87 on: 12/13/2017 02:05 AM »
It's almost like - if I have to explain it; you wont likely get it anyway. But I know you're far more intelligent than that.

So: 'Prospering' is relative. As much as I'm a big follower of ISS and was of the Shuttle - I crossed the world to see the final launch - being stuck in low Earth orbit for decades is not fully progressive, nor is it frontiering. I want to live long enough to see humans on Mars but I'm starting to think that wont be possible. And I want it far more for the children of Earth to see humans living and working on another world, than I want it for myself. Repetitive science in low Earth orbit is useful, but it should not be an end unto itself. And concern about a national debt is important for it's own reasons. But the U.S. space program didn't make the country debt-ridden. Make yourself a list of all the things that may have caused that and you'll see that space was not and likely never will be the problem. Though, a comment I made earlier in this thread about how the Trump administration may or may not be willing to expend political capital dealing with new space policy comes to mind: will they or wont they? We'll find out soon.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8716
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2738
  • Likes Given: 7181
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #88 on: 12/13/2017 12:56 PM »
It's almost like - if I have to explain it; you wont likely get it anyway. But I know you're far more intelligent than that.

So: 'Prospering' is relative. As much as I'm a big follower of ISS and was of the Shuttle - I crossed the world to see the final launch - being stuck in low Earth orbit for decades is not fully progressive, nor is it frontiering. I want to live long enough to see humans on Mars but I'm starting to think that wont be possible. And I want it far more for the children of Earth to see humans living and working on another world, than I want it for myself. Repetitive science in low Earth orbit is useful, but it should not be an end unto itself. And concern about a national debt is important for it's own reasons. But the U.S. space program didn't make the country debt-ridden. Make yourself a list of all the things that may have caused that and you'll see that space was not and likely never will be the problem. Though, a comment I made earlier in this thread about how the Trump administration may or may not be willing to expend political capital dealing with new space policy comes to mind: will they or wont they? We'll find out soon.
His "political capital" just took a big hit for the second time in "spaceflight industry rich" Alabama last night....
« Last Edit: 12/13/2017 01:15 PM by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Online spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2389
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 399
  • Likes Given: 234
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #89 on: 12/13/2017 01:26 PM »
I live in Alabama.  I did not vote for the dem.  Roy Moore's character was in question, not politics at all.  Jones will only be there two years.  Now, this did not affect Trump's political capital at all.  If Jones is smart he will cross over and vote for things like space with Shelby.  Too much polarization in Washington.  Very little working together.  I don't like SLS, but Shelby does. 

The new administrator needs to have more projects to allow for the lowest bidders designs, not NASA's designs.  It would cut costs.  Hopefully this would get more involvement around the country for more support. 

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8716
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2738
  • Likes Given: 7181
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #90 on: 12/13/2017 02:11 PM »
I live in Alabama.  I did not vote for the dem.  Roy Moore's character was in question, not politics at all.  Jones will only be there two years.  Now, this did not affect Trump's political capital at all.  If Jones is smart he will cross over and vote for things like space with Shelby.  Too much polarization in Washington.  Very little working together.  I don't like SLS, but Shelby does. 

The new administrator needs to have more projects to allow for the lowest bidders designs, not NASA's designs.  It would cut costs.  Hopefully this would get more involvement around the country for more support.
Get back to us after the 2018 mid-term elections...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5472
  • Liked: 987
  • Likes Given: 653
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #91 on: 12/13/2017 02:47 PM »
Why would the current president want to burn political capital on space?  Anything's possible, but no president since Kennedy has been willing to do so, and he only did it because he judged it the best way out of an embarrassing geopolitical situation created by the Soviet Union.  I just don't see why a real-estate developer from Queens would wake up one morning and say (or, more likely tweet) "You know, this space thing is really important, and I'm going to do something about it."  I might imagine Al Gore or Dan Quail, had either of those vice presidents become president, do this, but I really don't see Trump doing it.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8631
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3539
  • Likes Given: 839
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #92 on: 12/13/2017 09:44 PM »
Pence seems pretty into it.
« Last Edit: 12/13/2017 09:53 PM by QuantumG »
I hear those things are awfully loud. It glides as softly as a cloud. What's it called? Monowhale!

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8631
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3539
  • Likes Given: 839
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #93 on: 12/13/2017 11:23 PM »
I'd love to see some "robotic landers". It's sad that NASA has sent four robotic rovers to Mars and none to the Moon. In fact, I'd say that if the only thing we hear about is sending humans then nothing will happen again. Send robots! Prospect for resources, build infrastructure (landing pads, power production, habitats, etc) and when the humans arrive they can get down to business instead of putting up the flag.
I hear those things are awfully loud. It glides as softly as a cloud. What's it called? Monowhale!

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9669
  • Liked: 1385
  • Likes Given: 875
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #94 on: 12/13/2017 11:46 PM »
...
 
“After 45 years, it is time to return humans to the region of the Moon even as we look toward Mars,” Dr. Dittmar said. “The Coalition is proud to support NASA and to help bring about this exciting future. We congratulate the Trump Administration on its bold vision and commitment to American leadership in space.”
 
...robotic landers, ...

Mary Lynn apparently doesn't think much of landing people on the Moon. 
Pretty striking departure from today's message.  Wonder why?

She knows that we can't afford that with most of the funding going to SLS and Orion.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6217
  • Liked: 4008
  • Likes Given: 5545
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #95 on: 12/14/2017 12:26 AM »
...
 
“After 45 years, it is time to return humans to the region of the Moon even as we look toward Mars,” Dr. Dittmar said. “The Coalition is proud to support NASA and to help bring about this exciting future. We congratulate the Trump Administration on its bold vision and commitment to American leadership in space.”
 
...robotic landers, ...

Mary Lynn apparently doesn't think much of landing people on the Moon. 
Pretty striking departure from today's message.  Wonder why?

She knows that we can't afford that with most of the funding going to SLS and Orion.

Is 'Coalition for Space Exploration' just Orwellian-speak then, meaning athe opposite of what it says at face value?
Or should I put the emphasis on space instead of exploration?  Or is it simply a matter of money going to the right organizations (don't answer, that was rhetorical).

Frankly, I was surprised at this spokesperson essentially coming out against what the president signed and for the status quo of not going anywhere exploration-worthy, instead of challenging him to increase funding, build landers, whatever...  Tooling around the Moon in DRO is not exploration.  Just space.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Online SkipMorrow

Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #96 on: 12/14/2017 12:57 AM »
Pence seems pretty into it.

Pence has said at least three times something along the lines of "America will once again lead in space". "Once again"??? If America isn't leading the world in space right now, who is?

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/vice-president-pence-delivers-remarks-to-2017-nasa-astronaut-candidates
"Under President Donald Trump, America will lead in space again."

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/10/05/remarks-vice-president-meeting-national-space-council
"And in the absence of American leadership, other nations have seized the opportunity to stake their claim in the infinite frontier. Rather than lead in space, too often, we have chosen to drift. And, as we learned 60 years ago, when we drift, we fall behind."

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/12/11/remarks-president-trump-and-vice-president-pence-signing-ceremony-space
"Mr. President, in signing this space policy directive, you are ensuring that America will lead in space once again."

Will someone let him (and the president) know that we have two rovers driving around on Mars, probes leaving the solar system, flags on the moon, hundreds (???) of satellites, usually two american astronauts on the space station, several private companies that are preparing to launch humans into space, world leaders in weather and climate research, the list goes on. What country is doing even equal to us, let alone more than us? What country are we are hoping to surpass and once again lead in space? Other than in the early 60's, when Russia had launched Sputnik and Yuri Gagarin, I am pretty sure you could ask anyone who is leading the word in space, and the answer would be the US.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8631
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3539
  • Likes Given: 839
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #97 on: 12/14/2017 01:03 AM »
Those aren't grandiose space stunts that get headlines. No-one cares about super-interesting Mars rocks or astronauts playing guitars in zero-g.

If America isn't leading the world in space right now, who is?

No-one. As far as the headlines are concerned, the US hasn't done anything since the 80s.

Ya didn't think any of this was about actual measurable achievements, did ya?


I hear those things are awfully loud. It glides as softly as a cloud. What's it called? Monowhale!

Online SkipMorrow

Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #98 on: 12/14/2017 01:08 AM »
Ya didn't think any of this was about actual measurable achievements, did ya?

Whoops! My bad :(

*sigh*

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2172
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 229
  • Likes Given: 42
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #99 on: 12/14/2017 01:50 AM »
Don't expect anything but more of the same regardless of the rhetoric.

No bucks.  No Buck Rogers.

Congress couldn't agree on a latrine break if it came down to a vote, much less something with as little support as space does with the public.  The parties are torn by both internal strife as well as loathing each other.

Move along.  Nothing to see.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8631
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3539
  • Likes Given: 839
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #100 on: 12/14/2017 02:12 AM »
No bucks.  No Buck Rogers.

Dunno if you know this, but NASA spends about $4 billion a year on "exploration". There's plenty of bucks. The question is, does anyone wanna watch Buck Rogers? *shudder*
I hear those things are awfully loud. It glides as softly as a cloud. What's it called? Monowhale!

Offline zubenelgenubi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1646
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Commonwealth of Virginia
  • Liked: 420
  • Likes Given: 1253
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #101 on: 12/14/2017 05:13 AM »
<snip>

If Humphrey had been elected, the result would have been the same, if not even more austere.  The majority of U.S. citizens were done with the Moon program and space exploration, all of it, and didn't want to spend the money. 

 - Ed Kyle

And Humphrey, as VP, was head of the Space Council (the same job that Johnson had as VP)!

I assume that as the cost of the Great Society social programs kicked in, plus the cost of escalation into direct, massive involvement of US forces in the Vietnam War (simultaneously), that any enthusiasm, or political capital, that Johnson had for post-Apollo programs, evaporated.

I wonder what manned exploration feats NASA could have pursued if Johnson had proposed a less precipitous decline in NASA funding post-FY 1966 (FY 67, 68, and 69).  Say, an extra $500 million/year over actual funding?  Either deficit-neutral, or added to the deficit?

Certainly Apollo 18, 19, and 20.  A concurrent AAP/dry-workshop Skylab, if an "extra" Saturn V were authorized and funded?  And/or?

What if Johnson had chosen to fight a little harder for NASA?

(Mods: Please feel free to splinter-thread to History forum if you feel appropriate.)
Support your local planetarium!

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8631
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3539
  • Likes Given: 839
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #102 on: 12/14/2017 05:22 AM »
Moderators aren't faceless emotionless beings,

Not all of them anyway... ;)
I hear those things are awfully loud. It glides as softly as a cloud. What's it called? Monowhale!

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8716
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2738
  • Likes Given: 7181
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #103 on: 12/14/2017 09:06 AM »
<snip>

If Humphrey had been elected, the result would have been the same, if not even more austere.  The majority of U.S. citizens were done with the Moon program and space exploration, all of it, and didn't want to spend the money. 

 - Ed Kyle

And Humphrey, as VP, was head of the Space Council (the same job that Johnson had as VP)!

I assume that as the cost of the Great Society social programs kicked in, plus the cost of escalation into direct, massive involvement of US forces in the Vietnam War (simultaneously), that any enthusiasm, or political capital, that Johnson had for post-Apollo programs, evaporated.

I wonder what manned exploration feats NASA could have pursued if Johnson had proposed a less precipitous decline in NASA funding post-FY 1966 (FY 67, 68, and 69).  Say, an extra $500 million/year over actual funding?  Either deficit-neutral, or added to the deficit?

Certainly Apollo 18, 19, and 20.  A concurrent AAP/dry-workshop Skylab, if an "extra" Saturn V were authorized and funded?  And/or?

What if Johnson had chosen to fight a little harder for NASA?

(Mods: Please feel free to splinter-thread to History forum if you feel appropriate.)
If it was not for Johnson we would not have the "Johnson Space Center" in Houston and all the costs of maintaining an addition center. It was a great way to get some votes in Texas for Democrats. Mission control could have stayed at Cape Canaveral and been expanded with training facilities. President Johnson was up to his ears with strife from race riots, draft protests, assassinations and the unwanted costs of the war in Vietnam in both blood and treasure... This is what I lived through and registered for the draft to go and fight upon turning 18 with the Selective Service... Things were so bad for him that he chose not to seek re-election or nomination...YMMV



« Last Edit: 12/14/2017 02:03 PM by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8386
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 4742
  • Likes Given: 1501
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #104 on: 12/14/2017 12:08 PM »
No bucks.  No Buck Rogers.

Dunno if you know this, but NASA spends about $4 billion a year on "exploration". There's plenty of bucks. The question is, does anyone wanna watch Buck Rogers? *shudder*

The US DoD currently spends $530 billion a year on defense & warfighting. There's plenty of bucks. The question is, does anyone wanna watch yet another war? *shudder*


Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8716
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2738
  • Likes Given: 7181
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #105 on: 12/14/2017 01:29 PM »
No bucks.  No Buck Rogers.

Dunno if you know this, but NASA spends about $4 billion a year on "exploration". There's plenty of bucks. The question is, does anyone wanna watch Buck Rogers? *shudder*

The US DoD currently spends $530 billion a year on defense & warfighting. There's plenty of bucks. The question is, does anyone wanna watch yet another war? *shudder*
It is well over 600B currently and that only include procurement, bases and force readiness. The true cost fighting a specific war in addition to that and now you get to 1T... Truly a staggering amount that rarely gets reported... This all from the non-entitlement portion of the budget that a meager cost of a Lunar lander pales in comparison...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9167
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 620
  • Likes Given: 324
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #106 on: 12/14/2017 02:02 PM »
Broadly speaking, I think the Trump administration is proposing a good space policy.

I predict that they will follow the lunar strategy that I have put forth:

1) Provide a teleoperated concentrated solar power electricity generating facility at one of the lunar poles in one launch, sited so as to maximize power generating potential over time.  Because the facility in its evolved configuration, will cast a long shadow, precluding many other locations, the site must be chosen to maximize solar exposure.

2) Provide, with one launch, placeholder facilities [PF] in line of site communication with the main facility, in a roughly 200m grid, spanning about 1609m, in order to define the limits of the power generation facility and establish compliance with current OST requirements.

NASA has suggested roughly 200m:

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/09/protecting-apollo-sites-future-visiting-vehicles-nasa-evaluation/

3) Provide a teleoperated electrically powered rover near the initial facility [IF], with the rover's design to include the capability to recharge at the IF.  The rover would be as massive as possible in one launch and include at least a dozer blade on the front, and a standardized hitch on the back.  The rover would begin constructing roads to connect the PF's with the IF.

4) Provide, with one launch, an orbiting probe [OP] to assay the permanently shadowed craters to determine the content and character of the volatile materials in the craters.  The probe orbit would be described as a narrow cone with the focal point at the lunar/probe barycenter, at some selected distance above the lunar surface.  The OP would be designed to land near the IF when its propellant ran out, allowing for it to be refueled when that capability became available.

5) Continue expanding the IF; establish roads to the craters of interest with an eye towards mining the volatiles; lay power transmission lines to those craters; develop and provide the technology to crack the volatiles into LOX and LH2; work out empirically the challenges of operating this teleoperated infrastructure; determine where the human tended lunar base will be placed.

6) Provide the pieces of a lunar base to be assembled on site.  Include provisions for a hotel suite for two for commercial paying customers.  The photovoltaic electricity is already available on site.  The capability of propellant manufacture needs to be discovered and implemented.

7) Launch humans to the base.  Withdraw the US from the OST.  Private investors may own significant parts of the provided infrastructure, and will be bound by US law.  Launch private, paying customers to the base.  Finish what JFK started.

*************************************



« Last Edit: 12/14/2017 04:46 PM by Chris Bergin »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4131
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2807
  • Likes Given: 3568
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #107 on: 12/14/2017 03:16 PM »
Pence has said at least three times something along the lines of "America will once again lead in space". "Once again"??? If America isn't leading the world in space right now, who is?
The U.S. hasn't launched its own astronauts since 2011, so there's that.

That is about transportation TO space, not activity IN SPACE. They are not the same.

Quote
Until 2015, Russia led the world almost every year in number of launches, mass to orbit, etc.  The U.S. hasn't led in those numbers recently until just this year, after trailing China last year in launch attempts if not successes.

You are confusing the commercial launch market with government activities in space. They are not the same, and I have not heard Trump utter a word about the commercial launch market.

Quote
Much is on the horizon, but the recent and present launch pad reality is probably what Pence is discussing.

Not at all. The Earth-to-space transportation sector is not what VP Pence is talking about, it's U.S. Government activity IN SPACE is what he is talking about. If it was about Earth-to-space transportation then Trump would just claim credit for what SpaceX is doing and move onto something else.

What VP Pence is talking about is related to human destinations in space, and specifically returning to our Moon since that is what this policy is about. The Trump Administration wants to give the impression that the U.S. has no presence in space today and that Trump is going to fix that - and MAGA!!!

In reality the U.S. has a MASSIVE presence in space. The 450mT International Space Station, of which the U.S. is the majority owner. America has occupied space - continuously - for over 17 years on the ISS. But Trump can't talk about that because it detracts from his meme that the U.S. is a loser on everything and that only he can fix that. So going returning to the Moon at some indeterminate point in the future, in Trump's mind, fixes our losing in space today.
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 AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6217
  • Liked: 4008
  • Likes Given: 5545
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #108 on: 12/14/2017 05:23 PM »
Pence has said at least three times something along the lines of "America will once again lead in space". "Once again"??? If America isn't leading the world in space right now, who is?
The U.S. hasn't launched its own astronauts since 2011, so there's that.  But there's more.

Until 2015, Russia led the world almost every year in number of launches, mass to orbit, etc.  The U.S. hasn't led in those numbers recently until just this year, after trailing China last year in launch attempts if not successes.

This year, the U.S. leads in launch totals, but SpaceX alone accounts for all but 10 of the 26 launches (based on where the first stage was manufactured).  The second-place U.S. launcher (Atlas 5, with six launches) uses a Russian main engine.  No other U.S. rocket flew more than once this year. 

Much is on the horizon, but the recent and present launch pad reality is probably what Pence is discussing.

 - Ed Kyle

There is also plenty evidence that the USG has lost it's ability to design, manufacture, and launch its own viable fleet of rockets.  Constellation followed by SLS/Orion shows how far we've fallen from Saturn/Shuttle days in that category.  Russia, China, Europe, India, Japan all have thriving programs (kinda) in this category.  USA overall hasn't lost that capability and has, in fact, regained a leadership role.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4131
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2807
  • Likes Given: 3568
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #109 on: 12/14/2017 06:26 PM »
The U.S. hasn't launched its own astronauts since 2011, so there's that.
That is about transportation TO space, not activity IN SPACE. They are not the same.
OK, let's look at the U.S. civilian government space efforts of 2017.  There were seven launches this year with NASA payloads.  Five of those carried ISS cargo.  One was a TDRS-M communications satellite for the Agency and others.  One was JPSS 1 (NOAA 20).*

You still seem to conflate launches from Earth-to-space as "activity in space". They are not the same.

And VP Pence has not talked about the need to increase the number of launches to space from U.S. soil, with or without the SLS. And certainly the SLS is not intended to solve the perceived problem you think we have with the number of launches made from U.S. soil.

Quote
So, when it came to civilian activity in space this year, the U.S. mostly hauled stuff to, and disposed of garbage from, ISS.  Russia did all of the other ISS heavy lifting.  Leadership?

Without logistics capabilities no one can do much in space, so though you diss hauling "stuff", it is important.

Transporting crew is important too, and the Russians have been a reliable partner - especially since the U.S. has relied on Russia to keep crew at the ISS for 17 years, not just the 6 years you imply, since the Shuttle could not stay in space longer than 2 weeks, meaning it could not act as a lifeboat for crews stationed on the ISS.

Quote
The ISS of which you speak...

I had to look up the phraseology you used, and it's a common internet trope to, and I'm quoting, "to express a sarcastic dismissal of a concept that another person takes for granted". I just wanted to point out that you apparently don't think much of the ISS, which may explain why you ignore it as something significant that America is doing in space - something you have in common with Trump...   ;)

Quote
...an admirable achievement no doubt, was built using capabilities the U.S. no longer possesses.

Not sure why you think that. 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.

You may be trying to imply, in the most roundabout ways, that we no longer have the use of the Shuttle, but that does not limit what we can do in space. All it means is that the first element to be launched into space would be a construction shack to act as a seed for the next space station - not unlike what NASA is proposing with the Deep Space Gateway (DSG).

So what is it that you see that blocks our ability to build more large space stations?
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 Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4131
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2807
  • Likes Given: 3568
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #110 on: 12/14/2017 07:51 PM »
It's almost like - if I have to explain it; you wont likely get it anyway. But I know you're far more intelligent than that.

So: 'Prospering' is relative. As much as I'm a big follower of ISS and was of the Shuttle - I crossed the world to see the final launch - being stuck in low Earth orbit for decades is not fully progressive, nor is it frontiering.

OK, let's examine this. One of the definitions for "frontier" is: "The extreme limit of settled land beyond which lies wilderness"

To me, the permanently inhabited ISS in Low Earth Orbit is on the frontier of space, because there are no other humans inhabiting beyond LEO. Sure, some have taken short trips beyond LEO, but LEO is our frontier today.

As to the "being stuck in low Earth orbit..." comment, you apparently think that humans have had the ability to inhabit places beyond LEO for decades. I think everyone at NASA medical would disagree. I would disagree also, not just from a medical standpoint, but also from a preparedness standpoint - we have not perfected the technology and techniques needed to move the human frontier beyond LEO.

In fact, we really haven't perfected the economic model that would allow for the human frontier to move beyond LEO, since we're barely able to justify the expense of supporting human activity in LEO.

So where you see that there is an active group of people on Earth that are deliberately keeping humans from going beyond LEO, I see it as that humans have not yet figured out what we need to permanently move beyond LEO.

Quote
I want to live long enough to see humans on Mars but I'm starting to think that wont be possible.

To be honest, no country is spending money on space to satisfy space cadets like all of us on NSF, so your "wants" are meaningless. Mine too of course, which means if we want something to happen in space we should use the Elon Musk model - MAKE IT HAPPEN OURSELVES!

Quote
Repetitive science in low Earth orbit is useful, but it should not be an end unto itself.

You are implying that repetitive science is what is being done on the ISS, and I disagree. New experiments are being done constantly to expand our knowledge and verify discoveries.

Quote
And concern about a national debt is important for it's own reasons.

Countries that invest in science will lead, those that don't will fall behind. National debt is not related.

Quote
Though, a comment I made earlier in this thread about how the Trump administration may or may not be willing to expend political capital dealing with new space policy comes to mind: will they or wont they? We'll find out soon.

I doubt it, but we'll know better when Trump releases his FY2019 Budget request next month.
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: 4342
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 1132
  • Likes Given: 2149
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #111 on: 12/14/2017 08:02 PM »
You've selectively quoted me - hopefully not disingenuously - because I did say I wanted it more for the children of the future than I wanted it for myself. Old 'space cadets' like me can be and often have been 'voices in the wilderness'... With all the power/impotence that implies :(
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Online pathfinder_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1915
  • Liked: 68
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #112 on: 12/14/2017 11:12 PM »
Pence has said at least three times something along the lines of "America will once again lead in space". "Once again"??? If America isn't leading the world in space right now, who is?
The U.S. hasn't launched its own astronauts since 2011, so there's that.  But there's more.

Until 2015, Russia led the world almost every year in number of launches, mass to orbit, etc.  The U.S. hasn't led in those numbers recently until just this year, after trailing China last year in launch attempts if not successes.

This year, the U.S. leads in launch totals, but SpaceX alone accounts for all but 10 of the 26 launches (based on where the first stage was manufactured).  The second-place U.S. launcher (Atlas 5, with six launches) uses a Russian main engine.  No other U.S. rocket flew more than once this year. 

Much is on the horizon, but the recent and present launch pad reality is probably what Pence is discussing.

 - Ed Kyle

There is also plenty evidence that the USG has lost it's ability to design, manufacture, and launch its own viable fleet of rockets.  Constellation followed by SLS/Orion shows how far we've fallen from Saturn/Shuttle days in that category.  Russia, China, Europe, India, Japan all have thriving programs (kinda) in this category.  USA overall hasn't lost that capability and has, in fact, regained a leadership role.

Not quite. Atlas II, Atlas III, Atlas V as well as Delta II, Delta III and Delta IV are all post Shuttle. As well as Pegasus and Minotaur. Not to mention Falcon 1 and 9. The expertise to design manufacture and launch was passed to private industry.

 What was most needed post Columbia was a spacecraft to go to the ISS for crew and cargo NASA did not have the budget to get to the moon but dumping STS infrastructure was a political no go.

What should have occurred is that NASA should have put said spacecraft on top of an EELV and perhaps worked on an separate HLV(that almost certainly would have been canceled). Instead it spun it's wheels with Ares 1 when a Delta or an Altas was capable of meeting Bush's first goal of ISS needs. 

IMHO the moon is and was one heck of a distraction that is in part to blame for the state NASA is in now. The lack of budget to fund it caused it to seek to end the ISS shortly after being assembled.

Trump's plans are likely going to be unfunded and lets hope we don't get another administrator that has his sights on the moon and nothing else such as commercialization and robotic exploration as well as LEO.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8386
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 4742
  • Likes Given: 1501
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #113 on: 12/15/2017 06:13 AM »
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.
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



You 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.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7542
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1152
  • Likes Given: 7714
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #114 on: 12/16/2017 10:48 PM »
No bucks.  No Buck Rogers.
That is exactly that what it's about.
Quote from: mike robel
Congress couldn't agree on a latrine break if it came down to a vote, much less something with as little support as space does with the public.  The parties are torn by both internal strife as well as loathing each other.
This is here a really good NASA Administrator comes in.

If Bridenstine does go for the role he would seem to have good enough political connections to sustain a consensus and keep a project both running and funded.
BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6217
  • Liked: 4008
  • Likes Given: 5545
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #115 on: 12/18/2017 10:16 PM »
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.
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



You 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.'
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4131
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2807
  • Likes Given: 3568
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #116 on: 12/18/2017 10:48 PM »
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.
STS carried payloads weighing 17 tonnes or so during ISS assembly missions...

15.9mT was the single largest mass the Shuttle flew to the ISS

Quote
No 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.

Quote
Falcon 9 has managed only 8.6 tonnes to LEO so far.

You are quite the wordsmith. The correct statement would be "Falcon 9 has only been asked to put 8.6mT to LEO so far". It is capable of far more if a customer has the need.

Quote
Atlas 5's heaviest payload weighed 7.5 tonnes.

Again you are confusing history with capabilities. I choose to believe ULA.

Quote
Some type of not-yet-existing service module (weighing yet more tonnes) would be needed to complete such a mission.

You mean like the Cygnus Service Module? Which does indeed exist, and has delivered payloads to the ISS?

You know, Google is your friend, and these are easy answers

Quote
This is my basis for saying that ISS was built using capabilities the U.S. no longer possesses.

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.
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 john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7542
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1152
  • Likes Given: 7714
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #117 on: 12/18/2017 11:48 PM »
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.
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.  :(
« Last Edit: 12/19/2017 08:25 AM by john smith 19 »
BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Online pathfinder_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1915
  • Liked: 68
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #118 on: 12/19/2017 06:57 AM »

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.'

There were some goals but they were not always for BEO. The X-30 and X-33 were too advanced for the technology of the time.  The orbital space plane project and the HL20 went nowhere due to no need while the shuttle was operational and the fact that they would be launched by ELV(i.e. Politics). The Space Exploration Intuitive was deemed far too expensive. Constellation had funding problems and technical issues.
 

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5472
  • Liked: 987
  • Likes Given: 653
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #119 on: 12/19/2017 07:19 PM »
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.
LBJ, not Nixon, was President when Apollo/Saturn V and Apollo Applications were cut back.  Future Saturn V production was cut in the months before Nixon was elected, leading to cancellation of Apollos 18-20, etc..

Cut back from what?  It was during Johnson's administration that AAP was first funded by Congress.  What was funded was much smaller than NASA's earlier pipe dreams (e.g., the 1966 plan that featured multiple dozens of flights), but it actually got started under Johnson.

Jim Webb decided to terminate contracts for long-lead-time items for SA-516 and -517 in August 1968.  That was the beginning of the end of the supply chain, but I don't think you state a precise time of death for the Saturn V.  NASA paid for the mothballing of production hardware until about June 1972.

The death of Apollo 20 might be said to have begun with Webb's August 1968 decision, but there were other major factors.  It was in the spring of 1969 that NASA decided on a dry workshop for AAP.  Assuming no restart of Saturn V production, that necessitated the cancellation of Apollo 20.  But NASA was still hoping for more Saturn Vs and did not formally cancel Apollo 20 until January 1970.

Apollos 18 and 19 were on the books until September 1970.  Logsdon's book makes pretty clear that Nixon's fear of losing a crew had a lot to do with this. 

Quote
But honestly, it wouldn't have mattered who was elected in 1968.  The American people didn't want to spend any more money on lunar landings.

Yup.  Had more Saturn V's been produced, the result would only have been more very expensive lawn ornaments.  Maybe a few could have been made into bus shelters or something similarly prosaic to back up NASA's focus at the time on space spin-offs :).
« Last Edit: 12/19/2017 07:57 PM by Proponent »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5472
  • Liked: 987
  • Likes Given: 653
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #120 on: 12/19/2017 07:55 PM »
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: Obama
Civil Space Guidelines

Space Science, Exploration, and Discovery

The 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 to

Quote 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 some more concrete policy by the administration, then it may start to mean something.

EDIT: Deleted extraneous semicolon; "something more" -> "some more" in final sentence.
« Last Edit: 12/19/2017 11:11 PM by Proponent »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7542
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1152
  • Likes Given: 7714
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #121 on: 12/19/2017 08:48 PM »
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: Obama
Civil Space Guidelines

Space Science, Exploration, and Discovery

The 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 to

Quote 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.
That's it?

This is underwhelming given the amount of time it's taken to produce.  :(
BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Offline Hog

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1245
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 323
  • Likes Given: 962
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #122 on: 12/20/2017 12:30 PM »
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.
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.  :(
For that 62 tonnes to orbit aimlessly in LEO.
Paul

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8716
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2738
  • Likes Given: 7181
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #123 on: 12/22/2017 04:36 PM »
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.
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



You 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.'
The US likes to "talk" about the goals but "demonstrates a lack of will"...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline DarkenedOne

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 954
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #124 on: 12/23/2017 05:38 AM »
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.
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



You 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.'

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. 

Online Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10434
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 7280
  • Likes Given: 5082
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #125 on: 12/23/2017 02:06 PM »
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. 

I think a fifth might be a little low if you amortize all the program costs rather than just the variable costs.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Online clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10547
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2577
  • Likes Given: 954
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #126 on: 12/23/2017 02:20 PM »
Newt Gingrich is more than a former Speaker of the House. He is also a Professor of History and hosts a series of programs entitled "What If". It looks at our history and how it would have developed if a different decision had been made at key points in our history. 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.
« Last Edit: 12/23/2017 02:29 PM by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8386
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 4742
  • Likes Given: 1501
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #127 on: 12/23/2017 08:08 PM »
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. 

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.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6217
  • Liked: 4008
  • Likes Given: 5545
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #128 on: 12/23/2017 08:27 PM »
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. 

I think a fifth might be a little low if you amortize all the program costs rather than just the variable costs.

Whatever.  FH cost the USG zero dollars... none borrowed, none spent.
It is available next month, not somewhere after 2024, and can be flown monthly or more frequently.

Affordable infrastructure is possible now, if those who feel their ox will be gored are ignored.  The Space Council and the nominated Administrator see this clearly, but may be stonewalled by the Senator Shelbys on the Hill. 

Doesn't really matter, because even Washington DC can recognize the game has changed when BFR/BFS fly -- which will still be before SLS is operable for 'exploration' at one flight per $2B per year.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Online Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10434
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 7280
  • Likes Given: 5082
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #129 on: 12/23/2017 08:41 PM »
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. 

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.
No.

Sunk cost fallacy applies when someone says "we shouldn't change, because of all we have invested...."  wrong, that money is gone, and not coming back.

This isn't about deciding to kill SLS, it's about calculating what each mission costs. It is completely valid to include development costs. SLS fans would rather not because the development costs for SLS are more than an order of magnitude higher than F9+FH+everything else... but it's a legit calculation.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4131
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2807
  • Likes Given: 3568
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #130 on: 12/23/2017 10:20 PM »
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.

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...   :)

I guess it's no surprise that what Trump's space policy attempts to do is to try and capture some sort of emotional element wrt space (an option Newt suggests), and that is not unusual at all in what Trump tries to do for just about anything.

But although Gingrich may be familiar with the politics part of space, he doesn't understand the technical or financial aspects of space. So while he may understand how to get a program approved, he doesn't understand what it will take to make it successful over a long period of time.

Plus he doesn't understand how exciting the Space Shuttle program was, which ran far longer than the Apollo program, and probably had as great, or greater effect, on inspiring people to enter STEM due to the variety of activity it was involved with than Apollo did. Plus what the American economy needed after the end of Apollo was not more Apollo, but more commerce in space - which the Shuttle helped to facilitate (i.e. 40+ payloads on it's manifest when it became operational).

Newt appears to want to stick with the "hearts and minds" approach to space, which is what Apollo was, but we are well past the point of basing our efforts in space on the goal of impressing the world. 15 minutes of fame is not worth $100B in taxpayer money.

If we're going back to the Moon for science we should identify what the goal is for that science, such as better understand how we got the Moon or whether it is older than 3,000 years old (some Republican's don't believe it is). If the goal is to set up a defensive position on the Moon, like Pence has implied, then we should be clear about how that will defend the U.S.

What I think will happen though is that Trump won't ask for more money for NASA, but just tell NASA to "focus on returning to the Moon". Then Trump will forget about NASA until there is something for him to take credit for. And he'll be able to get away with that because nothing big is probably going to happen at NASA until near the end of his term, so he has nothing to lose by taking this path. And if Democrats take control of the House next year, he'll blame them for not funding his Moon program. Win-Win for him!
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Online spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2389
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 399
  • Likes Given: 234
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #131 on: 12/24/2017 01:42 AM »
People want to see results.  The shuttle and ISS is and was nothing spectacular.  Just orbiting the earth.  No one sees the results of the research.  A good leader puts up goals and objectives to reach.  We have had no leadership on space issues since Kennedy.  Bush II gave lip service to returning to the moon and going to Mars, but the NASA leadership couldn't get a rocket designed that was cost effective.  Ares I and V were doomed from the start and I believe SLS will be cancelled eventually due to cost and being expendable.  Don't cut Trump short, he has surprised everyone.  The economy is starting to boom, thus more tax money coming in, even with the tax cuts.  Maybe NASA can get a little more money.  I just think NASA needs to take what we have existing and near future, and design in space systems, spacecraft like Nautilus X, etc, that can be built using existing launch vehicles (including FH, Vulcan, and NG).  Use money for SLS for building the in space equipment that can be launched and assembled using these rockets.  An L1 or L2 station, a NautilusX for going to Mars, a Mars/moon lander, etc.  Or use matching funds for SpaceX or B.O. to develop the equipment.   

Online spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2389
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 399
  • Likes Given: 234
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #132 on: 12/24/2017 02:05 AM »
Gingrich didn't get rid of the moderates, Clinton did.  I live in Alabama and both Shelby and Sessions were democrats, but switched to the Republican party because of Clinton.  Gingrich also knows how to budget.  He balanced the federal budget during Clinton's administration and Clinton got credit for it.  Gingrich is a history professor and a HUGE fan of space exploration.  Don't cut him short either.  I see Gingrich and pragmatic and practical.

Edit/Lar: The above paragraph is exactly where this thread needs NOT to go. Don't respond. I chose to leave it with this warning rather than just delete.

While we have them on our side, lets go with it and not be so far left to not see we can work together here on space and space policy. 

Great video about what happened and what might have happened. 
« Last Edit: 12/24/2017 04:15 AM by Lar »

Online pathfinder_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1915
  • Liked: 68
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #133 on: 12/24/2017 05:00 AM »
No 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

Proton delivered Zayra and Zvezda each 19 MT.  The modules could have been designed to be self propelling or you could have used this idea:

http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Published_Papers/EELV_ISS/AIAASpace2008PaperMarkAFoster.pdf

It was just poltics that created the ISS's dependace on the shuttle. And I dare say that simmilar politics are currently making it much more difficult than it need be to even do the next mission like the deep space gate way by requiring spending on elements not needed for the mission(much of SLS).  It isn't just lack of policy but down right ineffiency that is slowing progress. By spending money/development on things not directly needed(Ares 1 for ISS) BEO spaceflight gets delayed farther and farther into the future.

For instance the deep space gateway could be assembled in LEO or HEO and propel itself to the moon via SEP. Orion could be sent to the gateway via lauching docking with a prepositoned chemical stage and all these elements could be lifted by Delta IV from LEO.  A completed Orion and chemical stage would cost a lot less than SLS has so far and perform the same exact mission.  And perhaps there would be cash left over for the gateway itself.
« Last Edit: 12/24/2017 05:38 AM by pathfinder_01 »

Online clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10547
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2577
  • Likes Given: 954
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #134 on: 12/24/2017 06:24 AM »
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.

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...   :)

When I recommend something it doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with it. I recommend it because it sheds light on something that is sometimes overlooked that could affect the path forward for NASA and/or the US HSF program. In this case it explains somewhat the prevailing attitudes during the cancellation of Apollo and the advent of Shuttle and how those attitudes, or some variation of them, may impact NASA's future going forward. In this case Speaker Gingrich, who is a well recognized historian in acadamia, has touched on an alternate path which when compared to the actual history, makes one think about HSF in terms other than just policy. His opinion aside, the intellectual exercise of examining that path does bring our current condition into sharper focus and offers alternative attitudes for consideration that may impact the direction and the future of NASA under this administration. In short, it makes one think.

Thanks Ron for the acknowledgement.
« Last Edit: 12/24/2017 06:35 AM by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4131
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2807
  • Likes Given: 3568
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #135 on: 12/24/2017 06:28 AM »
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.

So, what you're saying is that ULA and SpaceX are advertising capabilities to potential customers that they know they can't perform? That they plan to do some sort of "bait & switch"?

I'm sorry, but I'll take the word of the professionals over someone on an Internet forum. No disrespect, but Tory Bruno and Elon Musk are not running bait & switch operations.

Quote
But again, raw mass to LEO is not what is needed to replicate STS performance.

A 1:1 replacement is not needed.

Quote
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).

To a certain extent the larger the payload, the smaller the percentage the space tug becomes.

As to your percentages, I'm not sure what you are counting. The enhanced Cygnus has a dry mass of 1.8mT, and it can carry up to 3.5mT of internal payload. That means 66% is deliverable payload, not the 35-50% you suggest. Deliverable payload for building a structure in space should be a very high percentage.

Quote
STS could deliver a much higher percentage of its payload bay mass to ISS.

According to you undemonstrated capabilities are just numbers on paper, and the payload the Shuttle ever took to the ISS was 15.9mT. So that is the number for commercial launchers to meet or beat.  ;)

Quote
STS-117 delivered the 16.2 tonne S3/S4 truss directly to ISS.

According to Boeing the P3/P4 segment weighed almost 35,000 pounds, which is just short of 15.9mT.
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 Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8716
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2738
  • Likes Given: 7181
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #136 on: 12/24/2017 11:53 AM »
Although I'm not exactly in love with Newt after his zeal to impeach Clinton, I do listen to him when he speaks. I always listen to both sides of the isle in order to take my measure... The issue in this case that him being one that tries to interpret history is exactly that, it's his interpretation" of history that may not apply today directly... He is "rearward looking" and not factoring society today where the average American is approximately 35-37 years old and that what interests and inspires them is exploring the extent of "cyberspace" and not "astrospace"... The world has moved on from the early "space-obsessed" generation from the last mid-century. "What-iffing" is fun but in the end what's the point besides an academic exercise... What if my ancestors in ancient Rome had not allowed the empire to collapse from within and where would I be today? See we can all play this game... ;)
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Online clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10547
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2577
  • Likes Given: 954
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #137 on: 12/24/2017 02:26 PM »
History is replete with crossroads and roads not taken. It's interesting to think about the what-ifs, especially from someone who actually lived thru the choices made, like the Speaker, precisely because today's generation thinks differently and would be unlikely to consider those points of view that would come from someone from that era. That's what makes it so interesting.

I think we are actually at such a crossroads now. Commercial space can do a lot by itself, because as launch providers their efforts can be self funded by profits. But as far as extending humankind out into the solar system, that will take national efforts, if not international. I am not encouraged at what I see thus far. NASA has lots and lots  and lots of plans, but virtually no funding to actually execute on them. And there is no national will to create the necessary imperative. Unless something happens to change the national imperative I doubt we will see much in the way of human expansion, SpaceX's plans included. It's just too expensive. China is the only exception I see on the horizon, but even those efforts are really not space related; they are aimed at increasing that nation's influence down here on the earth.

We squabble too much, we humans. We expend massive amounts of resources on things that in the long view are inconsequential as if those resources are infinite, to the detriment of the long term benefits to humanity. So long as we remain divided to the degree we are (we will always be somewhat divided) the competition to be top dog at the expense of others will continue to keep our attention averted from the stars. Not until nation states definitively see their national futures inexorability linked to HSF thru the solar system will any real efforts happen towards the human expansion away from our celestial home.

Trump Space Policy: Like it or not The United States is the only nation capable of energizing a humanity-wide expansion into the solar system that can become permanent. The reason is the cost of that expansion; America is the only nation that can afford it. This is why it's so important as President Trump's Space Policy evolves. With his Make America Great Again approach it would be so easy to direct that policy inward to becoming the big dog again instead of lifting all of us BEO. Reestablishing a strong and vibrant national space infrastructure IS really important because that becomes the foundation for building internationally, but unless his policy can leave the way open for other nations to join us in an integrated and meaningful way and bring Congress as the keeper of the purse into the equation as a full partner in international expansion and long term planning, we will end up with another supernova like the Kennedy era which does not survive the changing of administrations, taking any fledgling human expansion with it back into mediocrity. It will become another road not taken. President Trump needs to articulate a vision for human expansion, one that can capture the hearts and minds of people everywhere before such a vision can become reality. Is he, or members of his administration, capable of such visionary thinking? I don't know the answer to that. And yet THAT is the key. This is the moment. We are at the crossroads once again. Which way will become the next road not taken?
« Last Edit: 12/24/2017 05:22 PM by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8716
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2738
  • Likes Given: 7181
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #138 on: 12/24/2017 03:50 PM »
I keep returning back to the simple phrase that Norm Augustine echoed years back "great nations do great things"... Now it up to the nation to decide what that is and if human expansion into the cosmos is one of them... I probably won't be around to see it but I know if we don't another nation will fill the vacuum and the nation with the resources and will to do that will be China... Communism=1, Democracy=0...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Online spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2389
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 399
  • Likes Given: 234
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #139 on: 12/24/2017 04:19 PM »
If I am not mistaken, the attach point(s) on the second stage of Falcon 9 is only capable of handling 10-12 tons.  I think it has to be beefed up to handle the 22 ton capability or even heavier capability for FH.  This may be the case for FH when they get it going. 

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4131
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2807
  • Likes Given: 3568
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #140 on: 12/24/2017 09:20 PM »
No.  What I'm saying is that the capability has not been demonstrated.  There is evidence (users guides, etc.) that the current hardware would require modifications (stronger payload adapters, detailed engineering, etc) to handle heavier payloads.  Thus, the claimed capability exists only on paper at present.

So using that logic we should assume that any undemonstrated capability is not possible, even though it is advertised and engineered to be capable.

Also using that logic we should just shut down the SLS program then, since obviously NASA cannot assume the SLS is capable of any of it's designed abilities. And customers worldwide should not attempt to use a new launcher since it has not been demonstrated that they can carry their own products.

Luckily real people don't think that way. I have no doubt that the SLS will be able to lift the amount Boeing and NASA say it will, and I'm sure SpaceX customers are confident that Falcon 9 will be able to lift the amount they advertise it can lift if so needed (additional changes they may have to make are immaterial). Even Blue Origin is selling launch services for a rocket they haven't built yet.

So if the U.S. Government or a commercial entity wanted to build a new 450mT space station in LEO, and base it on existing and proven ISS modules, we have the ability to do that. And if we use commercial launchers the final assembly should only cost a fraction of what it took using the Shuttle (and the Shuttle was a very inefficient cargo carrier).

Even with the Shuttle gone humanity can still expand out into space. We are not limited by our capabilities, only by the cost of the expansion itself.
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 Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4131
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2807
  • Likes Given: 3568
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #141 on: 12/24/2017 09:34 PM »
I keep returning back to the simple phrase that Norm Augustine echoed years back "great nations do great things"...

Aren't we doing great things in space today?

Quote
Now it up to the nation to decide what that is and if human expansion into the cosmos is one of them...

Actually it's not up to "the nation". Citizens vote for politicians, and politicians are the ones that make the decisions. Which is why it's so important to elect the right people.

By the way, has anyone done a survey to find out how many people have told their Representative and Senator their wishes for what the U.S. Government should do in space? I haven't, and I'm curious how many people outside of NASA-heavy areas bother...

Quote
I probably won't be around to see it but I know if we don't another nation will fill the vacuum and the nation with the resources and will to do that will be China... Communism=1, Democracy=0...

If China finally rustles up enough money to get a colony on our Moon it will be because they have financially dominated Earth, so I'd be more concerned with the first part than the latter. As of today though they are on a VERY slow course to getting anywhere in space.

But it is curious how people like to think in terms of a "race". Of course we won the race to the Moon, and NASA has been oriented towards Mars for the past couple of decades (as is Elon Musk), so would it matter if China lands on the Moon?

What is to be fearful of if a country other than the U.S. goes somewhere in space without us?
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Online Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10434
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 7280
  • Likes Given: 5082
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #142 on: 12/24/2017 11:12 PM »
Whether China is communist or crony-capitalist isn't a debatable topic here. Whether America is a democratic republic also isn't a debatable topic here. Stay narrowly focused. If that's not possible, then this topic has run its course.

(a post going on about the above was removed)
« Last Edit: 12/24/2017 11:13 PM by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8716
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2738
  • Likes Given: 7181
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #143 on: 12/25/2017 06:20 PM »
I keep returning back to the simple phrase that Norm Augustine echoed years back "great nations do great things"...

Aren't we doing great things in space today?

Quote
Now it up to the nation to decide what that is and if human expansion into the cosmos is one of them...

Actually it's not up to "the nation". Citizens vote for politicians, and politicians are the ones that make the decisions. Which is why it's so important to elect the right people.

By the way, has anyone done a survey to find out how many people have told their Representative and Senator their wishes for what the U.S. Government should do in space? I haven't, and I'm curious how many people outside of NASA-heavy areas bother...

Quote
I probably won't be around to see it but I know if we don't another nation will fill the vacuum and the nation with the resources and will to do that will be China... Communism=1, Democracy=0...

If China finally rustles up enough money to get a colony on our Moon it will be because they have financially dominated Earth, so I'd be more concerned with the first part than the latter. As of today though they are on a VERY slow course to getting anywhere in space.

But it is curious how people like to think in terms of a "race". Of course we won the race to the Moon, and NASA has been oriented towards Mars for the past couple of decades (as is Elon Musk), so would it matter if China lands on the Moon?

What is to be fearful of if a country other than the U.S. goes somewhere in space without us?
Well I guess we'll have to ask Norm as he said it... ;) You should remember it in the context and when he made the statement years back. The Shuttle program was ending, ISS was going to be splashed, SpaceX was just getting on it feet and the nation's POR was/is a rudderless yacht... Future space endeavors just don't come into action immediately and require long lead times and stable funding... It's all about the next big step or to quote Niel, "a giant leap for mankind"...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #144 on: 12/25/2017 08:11 PM »
If China finally rustles up enough money to get a colony on our Moon it will be because they have financially dominated Earth, so I'd be more concerned with the first part than the latter. As of today though they are on a VERY slow course to getting anywhere in space.

But it is curious how people like to think in terms of a "race". Of course we won the race to the Moon, and NASA has been oriented towards Mars for the past couple of decades (as is Elon Musk), so would it matter if China lands on the Moon?

What is to be fearful of if a country other than the U.S. goes somewhere in space without us?

The space race was driven by two things; a desire to one up the USSR, and “Kennedy’s Dream”. The USSR fell behind, so as soon as we had accomplished Kennedy’s goal we stopped. If the Soviets had landed on the Moon in 1970, I think we would’ve flown by Venus before 75. So by the same logic I believe that we’ll be on the Moon for long durations stays in less than 5 years if China lands a man.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9550
  • UK
  • Liked: 1757
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #145 on: 12/26/2017 10:10 AM »
It’s rare to see a UK newspaper comment these days on US space policy in any meaningful way.

To infinity and beyond: Trump has big plans for Nasa – but is it just a fantasy?

Quote
The world is not enough for Donald Trump: he has declared space “the next great American frontier” and mused to Congress that “American footprints on distant worlds are not too big a dream”.

Earlier this month, the president ordered the agency to head back to the moon. “This time we will not only plant our flag and leave our footprint, we will establish a foundation for an eventual mission to Mars, and perhaps someday to many other worlds beyond,” he said, before signing the new policy for Nasa.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/dec/26/trump-nasa-moon-space-travel

Online clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10547
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2577
  • Likes Given: 954
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #146 on: 12/26/2017 09:47 PM »
...  You are talking about what might be or could be in the near or distant future after someone allocates funding and resources to make it happen, or after any one of several ongoing programs (Commercial Crew, Falcon Heavy, etc.) complete their developments. 

 - Ed Kyle


Emphasis mine.
Ed I understand what you're saying but in this case, with respect, I think you went a little too far.

1. Falcon 9 is an operational vehicle.
2. SpaceX publicly advertises its payload capabilities as:
.....22,800 kg to LEO
.......8,300 kg to GTO
.......4,020 kg to Mars
3. No operating company is going to publicly advertise operational capabilities it does not already possess.
4. Therefore SpaceX does not need someone [to] allocate funding and resources to make it happen
5. Because it already possesses that capability, demonstrated or not.

Falcon Heavy has not yet flown so it does remain to be seen how close that vehicle comes to its advertised payload targets (not advertised capabilities).
« Last Edit: 12/26/2017 09:51 PM by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6217
  • Liked: 4008
  • Likes Given: 5545
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #147 on: 12/27/2017 03:37 PM »
In light of the Policy Directive 1, NASA could put out a RFP for propellant depots and the fuels needed to make them useful.  Something like COTS could unleash the market's creativity, where NASA only pays for the tankage and the fuel/oxidizer delivered.  Such a solicitation would fully flesh out the capabilities of existing launchers and would provide market for new vehicle development.

Similar solicitations could be for equivalent infrastructure at EML-1/2, reusable landers, surface habs, etc.  Pay for performance is the only way NASA will afford exploration on its current budget.  And the process could begin this year.

Want to see how much FH can lift to LEO?  Offer to pay $3-5M/tonne for propellant delivered... (but be careful to cap the quantities or BFR will show up with 200tonnes and ask, "Where do you want it?")
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8631
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3539
  • Likes Given: 839
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #148 on: 12/27/2017 08:04 PM »
Want to see how much FH can lift to LEO?  Offer to pay $3-5M/tonne for propellant delivered... (but be careful to cap the quantities or BFR will show up with 200tonnes and ask, "Where do you want it?")

More to the point, NASA will put out an RFP and SpaceX will only offer BFR. If you want FH you'd have to specify that you're only accepting bids for tanker payloads for existing launch vehicles - and then you're basically guaranteed to get a worse price than if you just offered to pay for propellant on-orbit, however they get it there.
I hear those things are awfully loud. It glides as softly as a cloud. What's it called? Monowhale!

Offline spacetraveler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 640
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 138
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #149 on: 12/29/2017 01:36 AM »
Constellation could have been pragmatically altered - not bloody cancelled outright.

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?

And that was just Ares I. Let's not even mention the other monstrosity.
« Last Edit: 12/29/2017 01:38 AM by spacetraveler »

Online clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10547
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2577
  • Likes Given: 954
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #150 on: 12/29/2017 07:55 AM »
Constellation could have been pragmatically altered - not bloody cancelled outright.

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?

And that was just Ares I. Let's not even mention the other monstrosity.

The "other monstrosity"? I assume you mean Ares-V? It is alive and well. Today it's called SLS.
Very few people had a beef with Ares-V. It was Ares-I that was the downfall of the entire program, causing Ares-V to take up more and more of the load, becoming over time an unsustainable monster. Today's SLS is very similar to Ares-V as it was originally envisioned and is very nearly DIRECT's Jupiter 244 Heavy.
« Last Edit: 12/29/2017 07:58 AM by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6217
  • Liked: 4008
  • Likes Given: 5545
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #151 on: 01/15/2018 09:27 PM »
A new article:
Quote
NASA has too much on its plate to return to the Moon

Quote
In September 2009, the Augustine Committee issued its report reviewing the United States human spaceflight plans. The main finding of this report was that NASA had too much on its plate. In 2009 NASA had the Constellation program, whose primary goal was to return humans to the Moon by 2020. However, the funding to carry out this program was woefully inadequate.

What was true then is more so today. NASA has been actively pursuing three programs for human spaceflight beyond low Earth orbit: the Space Launch System (SLS), the Orion spacecraft, and, more recently, the Deep Space Gateway. But progress on these three programs has been slow in large part due to inadequate funding.

Quote
Several studies, such as the Evolvable Lunar Architecture study from 2015, have shown that human presence on the Moon is affordable if done in the right way. That is, a lunar program should be set up as a public private partnership like the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program used to supply cargo to the International Space Station.

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
« Last Edit: 01/15/2018 09:27 PM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Online IanThePineapple

Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #152 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 »

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4131
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2807
  • Likes Given: 3568
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #153 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?

Online spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2389
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 399
  • Likes Given: 234
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #154 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 MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4342
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 1132
  • Likes Given: 2149
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #155 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)

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4131
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2807
  • Likes Given: 3568
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #156 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: 4342
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 1132
  • Likes Given: 2149
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #157 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)

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6217
  • Liked: 4008
  • Likes Given: 5545
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #158 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

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6217
  • Liked: 4008
  • Likes Given: 5545
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #159 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: 9669
  • Liked: 1385
  • Likes Given: 875
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #160 on: 01/31/2018 05:46 PM »

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1001
  • Liked: 309
  • Likes Given: 90
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #161 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: 2199
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 309
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #162 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 »

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6217
  • Liked: 4008
  • Likes Given: 5545
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #163 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

Online RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2468
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 1274
  • Likes Given: 965
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #164 on: 03/08/2018 04:23 PM »
I was watching the news and they went to President Trump live in the White House at a cabinet meeting. After he finished talking about tax cuts and jobs, Trump started talking about commercial spaceflight and billionaires liking rockets (better they spend the money than us). He seemed impressed by SpaceX's FH and other commercial rockets. Trump was very impressed at the FH boosters landing. He said positive things about NASA, but did comment on how commercial rockets were far cheaper than government projects.

Online rory

Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #165 on: 03/08/2018 04:40 PM »
I was watching the news and they went to President Trump live in the White House at a cabinet meeting. After he finished talking about tax cuts and jobs, Trump started talking about commercial spaceflight and billionaires liking rockets (better they spend the money than us). He seemed impressed by SpaceX's FH and other commercial rockets. Trump was very impressed at the FH boosters landing. He said positive things about NASA, but did comment on how commercial rockets were far cheaper than government projects.

Video: https://twitter.com/CNBC/status/971794899904417792

Online RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2468
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 1274
  • Likes Given: 965
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #166 on: 03/08/2018 05:23 PM »
I was watching the news and they went to President Trump live in the White House at a cabinet meeting. After he finished talking about tax cuts and jobs, Trump started talking about commercial spaceflight and billionaires liking rockets (better they spend the money than us). He seemed impressed by SpaceX's FH and other commercial rockets. Trump was very impressed at the FH boosters landing. He said positive things about NASA, but did comment on how commercial rockets were far cheaper than government projects.

Video: https://twitter.com/CNBC/status/971794899904417792

Yes, that's part of it.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6217
  • Liked: 4008
  • Likes Given: 5545
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #167 on: 03/08/2018 05:33 PM »
New article:
Quote
President Trump amazed by the Falcon Heavy landing—and its low cost
Quote
"If the government did it, the same thing would have cost probably 40 or 50 times."
Quote
NASA has not, in fact, set a price for flying the SLS rocket. But Ars has previously estimated that, including the billions of dollars in development cost, the per-flight fees for the SLS rocket will probably be close to $3 billion. Indeed, the development costs of SLS and its ground systems between now and its first flight could purchase 86 launches of the privately developed Falcon Heavy rocket. So President Trump's estimate of NASA's costs compared to private industry does not appear to be wildly off the mark.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/president-trump-amazed-by-the-falcon-heavy-landing-and-its-low-cost/
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Tags: