Author Topic: Trump Space Policy Directive 1  (Read 35623 times)

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4320
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2949
  • Likes Given: 3892
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: 4320
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2949
  • Likes Given: 3892
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: 10807
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 7724
  • Likes Given: 5600
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: 9129
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 3001
  • Likes Given: 8017
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: 9820
  • UK
  • Liked: 1892
  • 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

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10629
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2789
  • Likes Given: 1068
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: 6249
  • Liked: 4105
  • Likes Given: 5619
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: 8718
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3655
  • Likes Given: 859
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.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline spacetraveler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 641
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 139
  • 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 »

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10629
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2789
  • Likes Given: 1068
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: 6249
  • Liked: 4105
  • Likes Given: 5619
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: 4320
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2949
  • Likes Given: 3892
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?

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2457
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 423
  • Likes Given: 241
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. 

Online MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4485
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 1230
  • Likes Given: 2374
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: 4320
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2949
  • Likes Given: 3892
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?

Online MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4485
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 1230
  • Likes Given: 2374
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: 6249
  • Liked: 4105
  • Likes Given: 5619
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: 6249
  • Liked: 4105
  • Likes Given: 5619
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

Tags: