Author Topic: Trump Space Policy Directive 1  (Read 20333 times)

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10322
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2144
  • Likes Given: 681
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #140 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: 3518
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2264
  • Likes Given: 2827
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #141 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: 8162
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2323
  • Likes Given: 5456
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #142 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

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10322
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2144
  • Likes Given: 681
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #143 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 edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12945
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3695
  • Likes Given: 634
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #144 on: 12/24/2017 03:05 PM »
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"?
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.
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).
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.
I'm counting mass delivered to ISS divided by mass delivered to LEO.  Cygnus OA-8 weighed 6.173 tonnes at liftoff.  It delivered 3.229 tonnes of cargo to ISS.
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.
Boeing rounded down.  See the STS-117 press kit, page 44.  S3/S4 weighed 35,678 lbs (16.183 metric tons).
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/169469main_STS-117_Press_Kit_final.pdf
« Last Edit: 12/24/2017 03:08 PM by edkyle99 »

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8162
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2323
  • Likes Given: 5456
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #145 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

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2186
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 325
  • Likes Given: 205
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #146 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: 3518
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2264
  • Likes Given: 2827
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #147 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: 3518
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2264
  • Likes Given: 2827
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #148 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?

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9032
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 5719
  • Likes Given: 3815
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #149 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: 8162
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2323
  • Likes Given: 5456
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #150 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 #151 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: 8465
  • UK
  • Liked: 1377
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #152 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

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12945
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3695
  • Likes Given: 634
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #153 on: 12/26/2017 02:44 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...
We're talking about two different things.  Go back to the beginning, here.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44410.msg1759201#msg1759201
You'll see that I was talking about what is, in response to the discussion about our Vice President suggesting that the U.S. is not currently leading in space.  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
« Last Edit: 12/26/2017 02:47 PM by edkyle99 »

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10322
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2144
  • Likes Given: 681
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #154 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

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5180
  • Liked: 3091
  • Likes Given: 4416
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #155 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: 8272
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3058
  • Likes Given: 739
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #156 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.
Jeff Bezos has billions to spend on rockets and can go at whatever pace he likes! Wow! What pace is he going at? Well... have you heard of Zeno's paradox?

Offline spacetraveler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 571
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 54
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #157 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 »

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10322
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2144
  • Likes Given: 681
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #158 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

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5180
  • Liked: 3091
  • Likes Given: 4416
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #159 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

Tags: