Augustine: “I’m always an optimist,” he said. “But it all boils down to what the Congress and OMB want to put in this in terms of funds. If we shortchange it we’ll be right back where we were. There will be a third commission for somebody to run. But I think I’ll go into retirement on space commissions.”Chiao:“That was a big disappointment to most of us, probably all of us, on the committee. They did exactly what we asked them not to do, which was don’t partially fund it, and say you want to do everything.”
The one argument I have heard that, if it were true, I would buy, is that there are no other ways to explore. I would buy that, but I don’t think it’s true.”
Apparently Elon thinks it's true, or else why would he be messing around with Raptor and all the enormous rocket stuff when he already has a rocket in the pipeline that's twice as big as Delta IV Heavy.
Quote from: Lee Jay on 06/17/2014 11:26 pmApparently Elon thinks it's true, or else why would he be messing around with Raptor and all the enormous rocket stuff when he already has a rocket in the pipeline that's twice as big as Delta IV Heavy.MCT is for colonization, not exploration. It's right there in the name.
Personally I think even that for colonization you'd be better off with high-flight-rate medium-lift vehicles for launch, reusable in-space transportation, and flying in convoys, instead of the speculations I've seen here about MCT.
Quote from: jongoff on 06/17/2014 10:22 pmAugustine: “I’m always an optimist,” he said. “But it all boils down to what the Congress and OMB want to put in this in terms of funds. If we shortchange it we’ll be right back where we were. There will be a third commission for somebody to run. But I think I’ll go into retirement on space commissions.”Chiao:“That was a big disappointment to most of us, probably all of us, on the committee. They did exactly what we asked them not to do, which was don’t partially fund it, and say you want to do everything.”Both ironic comments, in my opinion. The committee was tasked with reviewing human spaceflight plans and making recommendations within the (then) current budget. The report they produced made a big song and dance about not making recommendations, but providing "options". There was talk at the Texas meeting about being realistic about budget and ensuring that Congress doesn't task NASA with doing program A with budget B, and that was the mantra for the remainder of the committee. Later, Norm made the comment that he didn't only want to provide "blue plate" options - meaning those that required a $3B/year plus-up to the human spaceflight budget. They never did. All the options presented in the report required the plus-up.I would have liked to see what they'd come up with if they'd followed their mandate.By the way, if you want a few days of viewing, is still available on youtube.
Quote from: QuantumG on 06/17/2014 10:53 pmQuote from: jongoff on 06/17/2014 10:22 pmAugustine: Im always an optimist, he said. But it all boils down to what the Congress and OMB want to put in this in terms of funds. If we shortchange it well be right back where we were. There will be a third commission for somebody to run. But I think Ill go into retirement on space commissions.Chiao:That was a big disappointment to most of us, probably all of us, on the committee. They did exactly what we asked them not to do, which was dont partially fund it, and say you want to do everything.Both ironic comments, in my opinion. The committee was tasked with reviewing human spaceflight plans and making recommendations within the (then) current budget. The report they produced made a big song and dance about not making recommendations, but providing "options". There was talk at the Texas meeting about being realistic about budget and ensuring that Congress doesn't task NASA with doing program A with budget B, and that was the mantra for the remainder of the committee. Later, Norm made the comment that he didn't only want to provide "blue plate" options - meaning those that required a $3B/year plus-up to the human spaceflight budget. They never did. All the options presented in the report required the plus-up.I would have liked to see what they'd come up with if they'd followed their mandate.By the way, if you want a few days of viewing, is still available on youtube.This is a good point that I had forgotten. We needed the commission to evaluate what's possible with current budget levels and current LVs. At the time I liked that they said so explicitly that any big ambitions (such as those inherent in VSE) would need a major plus-up to even have a chance at success. It seemed like a much needed reality check. But in retrospect, your point is well taken; they should have had strong recommendations for a flat budget profile. Cool stuff (BEO human exploration) can get done with flat budgets, and they should have pointed out their opinion on what that may have been from their point of view.
Quote from: jongoff on 06/17/2014 10:22 pmAugustine: Im always an optimist, he said. But it all boils down to what the Congress and OMB want to put in this in terms of funds. If we shortchange it well be right back where we were. There will be a third commission for somebody to run. But I think Ill go into retirement on space commissions.Chiao:That was a big disappointment to most of us, probably all of us, on the committee. They did exactly what we asked them not to do, which was dont partially fund it, and say you want to do everything.Both ironic comments, in my opinion. The committee was tasked with reviewing human spaceflight plans and making recommendations within the (then) current budget. The report they produced made a big song and dance about not making recommendations, but providing "options". There was talk at the Texas meeting about being realistic about budget and ensuring that Congress doesn't task NASA with doing program A with budget B, and that was the mantra for the remainder of the committee. Later, Norm made the comment that he didn't only want to provide "blue plate" options - meaning those that required a $3B/year plus-up to the human spaceflight budget. They never did. All the options presented in the report required the plus-up.I would have liked to see what they'd come up with if they'd followed their mandate.By the way, if you want a few days of viewing, is still available on youtube.
Augustine: Im always an optimist, he said. But it all boils down to what the Congress and OMB want to put in this in terms of funds. If we shortchange it well be right back where we were. There will be a third commission for somebody to run. But I think Ill go into retirement on space commissions.Chiao:That was a big disappointment to most of us, probably all of us, on the committee. They did exactly what we asked them not to do, which was dont partially fund it, and say you want to do everything.
IMO, all exploration options would have required a plus-up budget. Frankly, there's no way around it: inflation alone will mean reduced capabilities year over year. It required an honest assessment of the situation, and IIRC I believed that same sentiment that many years ago.
Uh huh. Elon is smoking something with that name.
There will be no Mars colony in the lifetimes of any of us.
A colony means hundreds of people and thousands upon thousands of tons delivered to the surface of Mars.
MCT is way, way too small for that.
Quote from: QuantumG on 06/17/2014 11:40 pmQuote from: Lee Jay on 06/17/2014 11:26 pmApparently Elon thinks it's true, or else why would he be messing around with Raptor and all the enormous rocket stuff when he already has a rocket in the pipeline that's twice as big as Delta IV Heavy.MCT is for colonization, not exploration. It's right there in the name.Uh huh. Elon is smoking something with that name.There will be no Mars colony in the lifetimes of any of us. A colony means hundreds of people and thousands upon thousands of tons delivered to the surface of Mars. MCT is way, way too small for that. If it happens, it's just going to be dabbling, and dabbling is exploration, not colonization.
Quote from: Lee Jay on 06/18/2014 02:10 amUh huh. Elon is smoking something with that name.You've heard of Elon Musk, right?
Quote from: Lee JayThere will be no Mars colony in the lifetimes of any of us.He disagrees.Quote from: Lee JayA colony means hundreds of people and thousands upon thousands of tons delivered to the surface of Mars.Yep, and that's what he's talking about.Quote from: Lee JayMCT is way, way too small for that.I was unaware that you had a copy of the specs. Can you share?
Met him, in fact. He said Falcon 9 would launch by the middle of 2009 and that they'd recover them intact by about the fifth flight.
Is it 20,000 tons to LEO? You'll need about one launch like that per colonist.
The problems with SLS are the design(s), and management of the program.They program forgot KISS, and didn't learn from the past mistakes. SLS is designed and managed to fail.
Quote from: Prober on 06/18/2014 12:37 pmThe problems with SLS are the design(s), and management of the program.They program forgot KISS, and didn't learn from the past mistakes. SLS is designed and managed to fail.Don't forget that that also includes political wishes/interference; a key contributor to the direction they are being asked to take.
Quote from: robertross on 06/18/2014 01:25 amIMO, all exploration options would have required a plus-up budget. Frankly, there's no way around it: inflation alone will mean reduced capabilities year over year. It required an honest assessment of the situation, and IIRC I believed that same sentiment that many years ago.No... if you watched the proceedings you would have heard many many options that didn't require a plus-up. The problem was that they didn't want to make any hard decisions, or try anything new. ISS? Keep it. Shuttle? Option 1: Keep it. Option 2: Keep the jobs. Ares V? Option 1: Keep it. Option 2: Keep it but make it look more like shuttle. Technology development? Spend more on it! Destination? Option 1: Mars. Option 2: Moon and Mars. Option 3: Everywhere! Chocolate microscopes? Approved!Hey guys, my car is an old clunker and the last few times I've tried to go on a long trip it's broken down and I've had to cancel. I'm spending a small fortune keeping it going, surely I could buy a nicer car for all this money I'm spending on it. You're pretty smart, can you give me a recommendation of which car I should buy, and maybe teach me about basic maintenance? Why certainly friend, what you want to do is spend twice as much as you're already spending and buy a nice shiny sports car! Uhh.. I think you misunderstood the assignment.The administration came to Augustine with the question: we're spending a heck of a lot on human spaceflight and we don't seem to get getting anything out of it, what should we be doing? The answer the committee gave was: spend more! Is it really any surprise that they didn't?
The ISS and Lunar Exploration, constrained to FY 2010 budget.This option extends the ISS to 2020 and begins a program of lunar exploration using Ares V Lite in the dual launch mode. The option assumes Shuttle fly-out in FY 2011, and it includes a technology development program, a program to develop commercial crew services to low-Earth orbit, and funds for enhanced utilization of the ISS. As shown in Figure 6.3.1-1, the Shuttle retires in FY 2011, and international providers rotate crew to the ISS until U.S. commercial crew services become available in the mid-to-late 2010s. Those providers are used to rotate the ISS crew until the Space Station’s retirement in 2020. This option does not deliver heavy-lift capability with the Ares V Lite plus Orion until the late 2020s and does not have funds to develop the systems needed to land on or explore the Moon. (See Figure 6.2.2-2.)
USG ain't gonna do it anytime soon, either due to incompetence or greed. .
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 06/18/2014 03:19 pmUSG ain't gonna do it anytime soon, either due to incompetence or greed. .Mostly for lack of need or reason.
http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2014/06/five-years-after-augustine-how-does-the-panel-feel-about-nasas-space-launch-system/Quote from: jongoff on 06/17/2014 10:22 pmhttp://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2014/06/five-years-after-augustine-how-does-the-panel-feel-about-nasas-space-launch-system/Eric Berger of the Houston Chronicle interviewed several members of the Augustine Commission about what they thought about NASA's SLS program. He didn't get all of the members of the Commission, but the ones he did were all fairly negative about going with SLS without increasing NASA's budget.Augustine: “I’m always an optimist,” he said. “But it all boils down to what the Congress and OMB want to put in this in terms of funds. If we shortchange it we’ll be right back where we were. There will be a third commission for somebody to run. But I think I’ll go into retirement on space commissions.”Chiao:“That was a big disappointment to most of us, probably all of us, on the committee. They did exactly what we asked them not to do, which was don’t partially fund it, and say you want to do everything.”Greason:“It’s hard for me, I personally haven’t been able to find a scenario in which a government funded and operated launch system, for which the government is the only customer, is a rational approach given the current budgets.“Is that because I’m against big rockets? Of course not. But maintaining rocket production lines is a very expensive proposition. Trying to open another production line for a rocket that has almost no customers is a difficult thing for me to explain. The one argument I have heard that, if it were true, I would buy, is that there are no other ways to explore. I would buy that, but I don’t think it’s true.”It'd be interesting to hear the takes of the other committee members. I'd be surprised if you couldn't find at least one of them with a more optimistic view of things. But I think that the three of them quoted here have it more or less right.~JonChiao:“That was a big disappointment to most of us, probably all of us, on the committee. They did exactly what we asked them not to do, which was don’t partially fund it, and say you want to do everything.”Greason:“It’s hard for me, I personally haven’t been able to find a scenario in which a government funded and operated launch system, for which the government is the only customer, is a rational approach given the current budgets.“Is that because I’m against big rockets? Of course not. But maintaining rocket production lines is a very expensive proposition. Trying to open another production line for a rocket that has almost no ustomers is a difficult thing for me to explain. The one argument I have heard that, if it were true, I would buy, is that there are no other ways to explore. I would buy that, but I don’t think it’s true.”~Jon
http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2014/06/five-years-after-augustine-how-does-the-panel-feel-about-nasas-space-launch-system/Eric Berger of the Houston Chronicle interviewed several members of the Augustine Commission about what they thought about NASA's SLS program. He didn't get all of the members of the Commission, but the ones he did were all fairly negative about going with SLS without increasing NASA's budget.Augustine: “I’m always an optimist,” he said. “But it all boils down to what the Congress and OMB want to put in this in terms of funds. If we shortchange it we’ll be right back where we were. There will be a third commission for somebody to run. But I think I’ll go into retirement on space commissions.”Chiao:“That was a big disappointment to most of us, probably all of us, on the committee. They did exactly what we asked them not to do, which was don’t partially fund it, and say you want to do everything.”Greason:“It’s hard for me, I personally haven’t been able to find a scenario in which a government funded and operated launch system, for which the government is the only customer, is a rational approach given the current budgets.“Is that because I’m against big rockets? Of course not. But maintaining rocket production lines is a very expensive proposition. Trying to open another production line for a rocket that has almost no customers is a difficult thing for me to explain. The one argument I have heard that, if it were true, I would buy, is that there are no other ways to explore. I would buy that, but I don’t think it’s true.”It'd be interesting to hear the takes of the other committee members. I'd be surprised if you couldn't find at least one of them with a more optimistic view of things. But I think that the three of them quoted here have it more or less right.~Jon
Seeing as every cent spent on SLS goes straight into the US exchecker creating millions of jobs cost is only a figure nothing more.
Why is there a problem when Nasa is getting what they have always wanted :A cheap reusable 10 ton launcher that launches many times and a super heavy that lauches rarely .Only problem with SLS is that it costs so much and flight rate is slow .Seeing as every cent spent on SLS goes straight into the US exchecker creating millions of jobs cost is only a figure nothing more.As for flight rate that should increase once the design has time to mature as it is SLS is a high teck prototype .Once SLS is ready Nasa will be able to open the solar system only a matter of time time .If they can open the SLS to other customers it would create a much larger market and bring dollars into the US .
As for flight rate that should increase once the design has time to mature as it is SLS is a high teck prototype .
Once SLS is ready Nasa will be able to open the solar system only a matter of time time .
If they can open the SLS to other customers it would create a much larger market and bring dollars into the US .
SLS will not advance the US's spaceflight capability and be more of an anchor on NASA than the shuttle was. It will be a rocketship to nowhere, where as the shuttle was at least good at servicing the ISS.
The RD 25 are engines that have been evolving since the 1970s the rest of the SLS is state of the art .The ISS was built by the shuttle because that was what they had they could have built a far cheaper station with SLS .Payloads are not a problem once the rocket is flying.As for calling the SLS an anchor I would call it putting NASA back to work not wasting time doing worthless science Like they have been doing for they last 34 years .
Quote from: floss on 06/18/2014 08:21 pmThe RD 25 are engines that have been evolving since the 1970s the rest of the SLS is state of the art .The ISS was built by the shuttle because that was what they had they could have built a far cheaper station with SLS .Payloads are not a problem once the rocket is flying.As for calling the SLS an anchor I would call it putting NASA back to work not wasting time doing worthless science Like they have been doing for they last 34 years .Obviously you have not read their charter; Science and Technology is what NASA is supposed to be about and was before JFK hijacked it.
True he gave them a job without him Nasa would be more like ESA in size and capeability .
Quote from: floss on 06/18/2014 08:41 pmTrue he gave them a job without him Nasa would be more like ESA in size and capeability .And what's wrong with that?
No manned spaceflight and mabey 2 payloads a year.
So, yes, I would argue they did look at the other options, including keeping it within guidance.
There were 2 options offered that followed the FY 2010 budget proposals. Option 1 was keep the program of record, presume FY 2010 budget levels going forward. The results from that should prove sobering. Option 2 was, in many respects, what we ended up with. Quoting the Augustine reportQuoteThe ISS and Lunar Exploration, constrained to FY 2010 budget.This option extends the ISS to 2020 and begins a program of lunar exploration using Ares V Lite in the dual launch mode. The option assumes Shuttle fly-out in FY 2011, and it includes a technology development program, a program to develop commercial crew services to low-Earth orbit, and funds for enhanced utilization of the ISS. As shown in Figure 6.3.1-1, the Shuttle retires in FY 2011, and international providers rotate crew to the ISS until U.S. commercial crew services become available in the mid-to-late 2010s. Those providers are used to rotate the ISS crew until the Space Station’s retirement in 2020. This option does not deliver heavy-lift capability with the Ares V Lite plus Orion until the late 2020s and does not have funds to develop the systems needed to land on or explore the Moon. (See Figure 6.2.2-2.) Now, I will grant they could have considered even more radical notions, and some of those are worth considering, but politically speaking, they are going to require a substantial lift (such as center closures), that was not really within their charter. So, yes, I would argue they did look at the other options, including keeping it within guidance.
Returning to the thread title, SLS, too big? too small? too early? too expensive?
Even if they cancel SLS, which they probably won't, there are no payloads to move to FH.
Quote from: RonM on 06/19/2014 12:07 pmEven if they cancel SLS, which they probably won't, there are no payloads to move to FH.Maybe no current NASA payloads. But you could do a Mars mission with a few FH launchesif you do not insist on doing it the way NASA is currently planning.
Quote from: ThereIWas3 on 06/19/2014 01:37 pmQuote from: RonM on 06/19/2014 12:07 pmEven if they cancel SLS, which they probably won't, there are no payloads to move to FH.Maybe no current NASA payloads. But you could do a Mars mission with a few FH launchesif you do not insist on doing it the way NASA is currently planning.How, exactly? (curious)
Quote from: OpsAnalyst on 06/19/2014 01:43 pmQuote from: ThereIWas3 on 06/19/2014 01:37 pmQuote from: RonM on 06/19/2014 12:07 pmEven if they cancel SLS, which they probably won't, there are no payloads to move to FH.Maybe no current NASA payloads. But you could do a Mars mission with a few FH launchesif you do not insist on doing it the way NASA is currently planning.How, exactly? (curious)One way is by assembling a larger craft in LEO from 2 or 3 launches. ...
Make it four FH launches and downscope the mission to flyby or Phobos landing. That is something that is much more reasonable than trying to figure out how to get to the surface with the current budget outlook. Modest budgets, modest goals.
Quote from: OpsAnalyst on 06/19/2014 01:43 pmQuote from: ThereIWas3 on 06/19/2014 01:37 pmQuote from: RonM on 06/19/2014 12:07 pmEven if they cancel SLS, which they probably won't, there are no payloads to move to FH.Maybe no current NASA payloads. But you could do a Mars mission with a few FH launchesif you do not insist on doing it the way NASA is currently planning.How, exactly? (curious)And now it's time to get out our Lego sets, everybody designing their own space mission. It's fun! It's easy! And everybody can play!
Quote from: Prober on 06/18/2014 12:37 pmThe problems with SLS are the design(s), and management of the program.They program forgot KISS, and didn't learn from the past mistakes. SLS is designed and managed to fail.The thing is once you know that on pretty much any mission outside LEO propellant will be the biggest mass item (and most easy divisible item) and that the with synchronized launches of all 4 major US LV's you could put about 63mt into LEO within 7-10 days right now have to ask "What's it for?" apart from keeping a bunch of people in Utah gainfully employed.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 06/18/2014 01:12 pm Quote from: Prober on 06/18/2014 12:37 pmThe problems with SLS are the design(s), and management of the program.They program forgot KISS, and didn't learn from the past mistakes. SLS is designed and managed to fail.The thing is once you know that on pretty much any mission outside LEO propellant will be the biggest mass item (and most easy divisible item) and that the with synchronized launches of all 4 major US LV's you could put about 63mt into LEO within 7-10 days right now have to ask "What's it for?" apart from keeping a bunch of people in Utah gainfully employed. Even with SLS, every crewed mission will require “assembly” of multiple launches, other than simply sending Orion to high Earth orbit. Per NASA analysis: a lunar mission requires 2 SLS launches; Mars missions will require 6 to 10 SLS launches.
As many have proposed over the past 10 years, why not develop the “assembly” capability now? (As John notes, most of the required launch mass is propellant, so “assembly” could be as simple as fueling the upper stage in LEO). A combination of a Falcon Heavy, Atlas 552 and Delta Heavy can launch the same 100 tons for under $600m or <$6,000/kg.
I'd hate to be the next NASA administrator and left with the "Choices" at the end of Boldens miss-adventures.
Quote from: OpsAnalyst on 06/19/2014 01:43 pmQuote from: ThereIWas3 on 06/19/2014 01:37 pmQuote from: RonM on 06/19/2014 12:07 pmEven if they cancel SLS, which they probably won't, there are no payloads to move to FH.Maybe no current NASA payloads. But you could do a Mars mission with a few FH launchesif you do not insist on doing it the way NASA is currently planning.How, exactly? (curious)One way is by assembling a larger craft in LEO from 2 or 3 launches. Another way is to send some of the equipment,such as the return vehicle, more life support supplies, etc, on ahead as separate unmanned missions. ("Mars surfacerendezvous") Or some combination of these two approaches. Robert Zubrinworked out one possible scenario in his book "The Case for Mars".There are other threads here that go into these techniques in greater detail.
Quote from: CommercialSpaceFan on 06/22/2014 12:53 pmAs many have proposed over the past 10 years, why not develop the “assembly” capability now? (As John notes, most of the required launch mass is propellant, so “assembly” could be as simple as fueling the upper stage in LEO). A combination of a Falcon Heavy, Atlas 552 and Delta Heavy can launch the same 100 tons for under $600m or <$6,000/kg. Can you provide cost estimates for assembly?It's easy to compare these rocket costs: X rocket costs $Y, vs. Q rocket that costs $Z. What you never see is the cost of shifting the burden to assembly. How do you know that this really does save money if you don't know the costs for assembly? How do you know that this hasn't simply shifted the costs elsewhere?
Quote from: Prober on 06/22/2014 05:55 pmI'd hate to be the next NASA administrator and left with the "Choices" at the end of Boldens miss-adventures.Per the NASA HQ website (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codez/strahand/roles.htm), this is what Bolden is supposed to do:- - - - - - - - - -3.2.1 NASA AdministratorThe Administrator is the Agency's highest level decisionmaker, providing clarity to the Agency's vision and serving as the source of internal leadership to achieve NASA's mission. The Administrator aligns the strategic and policy direction of NASA with the interests and requirements of the Agency's stakeholders and constituent groups.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 06/22/2014 06:43 pmQuote from: Prober on 06/22/2014 05:55 pmI'd hate to be the next NASA administrator and left with the "Choices" at the end of Boldens miss-adventures.Per the NASA HQ website (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codez/strahand/roles.htm), this is what Bolden is supposed to do:- - - - - - - - - -3.2.1 NASA AdministratorThe Administrator is the Agency's highest level decisionmaker, providing clarity to the Agency's vision and serving as the source of internal leadership to achieve NASA's mission. The Administrator aligns the strategic and policy direction of NASA with the interests and requirements of the Agency's stakeholders and constituent groups.you don't even need to read the reports to know NASA hasn't a HSF mission. My point stands.
And what about our efforts to create a commercial crew transportation system?
After the events of this weekend, I'm rethinking what I thought I believed about commercial crew.
I'm feeling more certain about other things, such as that I'm even more certain that SLS, Orion, and RD-180 replacement are essential.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 06/22/2014 09:33 pmAnd what about our efforts to create a commercial crew transportation system? After the events of this weekend, I'm rethinking what I thought I believed about commercial crew. I'm feeling more certain about other things, such as that I'm even more certain that SLS, Orion, and RD-180 replacement are essential. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: Blackstar on 06/22/2014 06:22 pmQuote from: CommercialSpaceFan on 06/22/2014 12:53 pmAs many have proposed over the past 10 years, why not develop the “assembly” capability now? (As John notes, most of the required launch mass is propellant, so “assembly” could be as simple as fueling the upper stage in LEO). A combination of a Falcon Heavy, Atlas 552 and Delta Heavy can launch the same 100 tons for under $600m or <$6,000/kg. Can you provide cost estimates for assembly?It's easy to compare these rocket costs: X rocket costs $Y, vs. Q rocket that costs $Z. What you never see is the cost of shifting the burden to assembly. How do you know that this really does save money if you don't know the costs for assembly? How do you know that this hasn't simply shifted the costs elsewhere?That's a valid question, but it's a messy one because in-space assembly replaces larger assembly on Earth, and there are compromises you have to make with large assemblies on Earth that you don't have to make (or at least to a lesser degree) with in-space assembly.For instance, with a larger one-piece assembly the structure has to be strengthened to survive launch, but that weight is not needed in space and becomes parasitic for the life of the structure - more fuel is needed to move it or to keep it in orbit. A positive trade-off would be having a larger pressurized structure, and if that is needed then that could be more mass efficient overall. However an inflatable structure such as Bigelow has proposed could get around that.From a touch labor standpoint let's say it take 100 hours of astronaut time to mate a new assembly to an existing structure and to make all the connections. In the whole scheme of things, is that a lot? If the structure has a limited lifetime of use, then maybe that is excessive, but if the structure will be in service for 20 years then maybe that's not much time at all, especially when compared to touch labor times here on Earth for new buildings.In fact, with Earth being this major gravity well, I would think we'd want to send up the smallest building components possible and do more and more assembly in space to create far more mass-efficient structures in space (even more important with reusable vehicles). That would have to assume that moving humans to space and back is affordable, as well as supplies, but the trend of that is looking more and more positive.Just some thoughts...
Assembly can be complex requiring dozens of flights and thousands of hours of astronaut support such as ISS.Alternatively assembly can be as simple as docking. When Dragon, Cygnus, ATV, HTV and progress dock to ISS very little support is required. This is analogous to the Apollo missions when the capsule performed the 180 degree turn in LEO to dock with the LEM. Similarly, crew could be launched separately from a lunar lander only requiring docking prior to Earth departure. This form of “assembly” doesn’t require additional cost relative to the use of SLS since the equivalent docking will be required in lunar orbit to transfer crew from Orion to the lander.Refueling the upper stage requires at a minimum “soft” docking with a pair of transfer line couplings. With rendezvous already required for Orion, refueling can be had for the cost of automated couplings and a cryo tank.
Quote from: CommercialSpaceFan on 06/22/2014 11:38 pmAssembly can be complex requiring dozens of flights and thousands of hours of astronaut support such as ISS.Alternatively assembly can be as simple as docking. When Dragon, Cygnus, ATV, HTV and progress dock to ISS very little support is required. This is analogous to the Apollo missions when the capsule performed the 180 degree turn in LEO to dock with the LEM. Similarly, crew could be launched separately from a lunar lander only requiring docking prior to Earth departure. This form of “assembly” doesn’t require additional cost relative to the use of SLS since the equivalent docking will be required in lunar orbit to transfer crew from Orion to the lander.Refueling the upper stage requires at a minimum “soft” docking with a pair of transfer line couplings. With rendezvous already required for Orion, refueling can be had for the cost of automated couplings and a cryo tank. Cost estimates. Cost estimates.Again: you base your argument by comparing costs of launch vehicles and decide that one is better than the other. But doing so shifts the burden to assembly. Do you have cost estimates for assembly? If not, how can you make the cost argument with any confidence?
I'm not sure I'm parsing that right, Ed. Do you mean that we need replacements for Orion, SLS, and the RD-180 due to the bad weather at the Cape? Or that due to bad weather, we really need to complete Orion and SLS, and to find a replacement for the RD-180 in order to keep Atlas-V flying?
Quote from: Blackstar on 06/23/2014 12:46 amQuote from: CommercialSpaceFan on 06/22/2014 11:38 pmAssembly can be complex requiring dozens of flights and thousands of hours of astronaut support such as ISS.Alternatively assembly can be as simple as docking. When Dragon, Cygnus, ATV, HTV and progress dock to ISS very little support is required. This is analogous to the Apollo missions when the capsule performed the 180 degree turn in LEO to dock with the LEM. Similarly, crew could be launched separately from a lunar lander only requiring docking prior to Earth departure. This form of “assembly” doesn’t require additional cost relative to the use of SLS since the equivalent docking will be required in lunar orbit to transfer crew from Orion to the lander.Refueling the upper stage requires at a minimum “soft” docking with a pair of transfer line couplings. With rendezvous already required for Orion, refueling can be had for the cost of automated couplings and a cryo tank. Cost estimates. Cost estimates.Again: you base your argument by comparing costs of launch vehicles and decide that one is better than the other. But doing so shifts the burden to assembly. Do you have cost estimates for assembly? If not, how can you make the cost argument with any confidence?Looking at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_International_Space_Station_spacewalks), there were 974 hours of EVA time required to assemble the ISS, and if we want to characterize that in relationship to mass, that would be one hour for each 462kg of mass if we assume the ISS weighs 450mt.As far as "cost", that's likely impossible to tell because each EVA is rehearsed on Earth before being done in space and there are lots of support people during the EVA - it's certainly just not the hourly wage of the astronaut.And what is this information supposed to be compared against? What HLV-sized assembly cost info is there? What HLV-sized assemblies are assumed?This is like comparing different colored unicorns...
Cost estimates. Cost estimates.Again: you base your argument by comparing costs of launch vehicles and decide that one is better than the other. But doing so shifts the burden to assembly. Do you have cost estimates for assembly? If not, how can you make the cost argument with any confidence?
What was the average cost of each (Western) module that was assembled to become the ISS? What was the cost per kg? BTW, you are missing major costs associated with splitting one module into two. Do they both need ECLSS? Of the dozens of other sub-systems, how many need to be duplicated? How much does that cost? How much extra mass does that add? Docking adapters are heavy, and require both modules to have station keeping systems. Berthing requires an arm, or external services to bring them together. How much cost do they add? If not duplicated, how much do services connections between modules (power, cooling, etc, etc) increase risk to life of the crew?Between the two smaller modules, does the volume required to duplicate systems reduce habitable volume so much that a third module needs to be added? Duplicating systems increases complexity (though also redundancy). More complex systems include more bugs. How much risk to crew survival is introduced by that extra complexity?
Quote from: Jim on 04/16/2014 01:09 amSLS will not advance the US's spaceflight capability and be more of an anchor on NASA than the shuttle was. It will be a rocketship to nowhere, where as the shuttle was at least good at servicing the ISS. http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34487.msg1183563#msg1183563
...A combination of a Falcon Heavy, Atlas 552 and Delta Heavy can may be able to launch the same 100 tons for under $600m or <$6,000/kg.
A lot of us don't have any idea what you were thinking before, during or after the weekend, Ed.Share your thoughts?
Quote from: edkyle99 on 06/25/2014 02:41 amQuote from: Sean Lynch on 06/24/2014 05:05 am1) A lot of us don't have any idea what you were thinking before, during or after the weekend, Ed. Before last weekend I had more enthusiasm for the general commercial crew idea than I do now. 3) The Orbcomm campaign has been revealing not for the scrubs - which aren't at all unusual for a new launch system, but for the way SpaceX reacted to the "scrubbed again" headlines by attempting to withdraw from public view. It wasn't just the webcast, it was the almost unprecedented locking out of the media at the launch site. I can't imagine a company with that "bunker mentality" launching NASA astronauts. I wonder if it hints at deeper problems.And SpaceX isn't the only one retreating to the bunkers. SNC beat them there by several months. All of the commercial crew entries have issues, in my view. My sense is that the entire program might be spread too thin. In NASA's history, there are plenty of sobering examples of what can happen to such programs. They either wither, or they have to be rescued (often after failures) at great cost. At least history shows that rescue is possible, but it requires a big shake up.Thanks for sharing your thoughts Ed. ...I'd like to present an alternative hypothesis, only my opinion, for consideration regarding the blackout;---2) We're looking to the point of straining our eyes for the July launch date, hitting refresh onhttp://www.spacelaunchreport.com/ every few seconds. ...Who didn't mention the blackout to at least one friend or family member?3) It is my sense that people who otherwise would care less about about space are suddenly taking an interest. This I find fascinating; the timing of events from the bid protest to the blackout are such that it would seem as if cognitive systems were at work making PR battle plans.I believe SpaceX PR is based upon an understanding of public psychology and the blackout was a strategic move to intensify sensitivity to SpaceX stimulus. SpaceX has now "programmed" public mass media models that use data based on sources such as twitter et al, to follow SpaceX stories more closely.I believe every PR move SpaceX makes is strategic. It always seems to work out well for them in the end.---But back to reality. ... Can SpaceX really do so much for so little, or are they just blowing smoke?Time will tell.Thanks for sharing Ed.
Quote from: Sean Lynch on 06/24/2014 05:05 am1) A lot of us don't have any idea what you were thinking before, during or after the weekend, Ed. Before last weekend I had more enthusiasm for the general commercial crew idea than I do now. 3) The Orbcomm campaign has been revealing not for the scrubs - which aren't at all unusual for a new launch system, but for the way SpaceX reacted to the "scrubbed again" headlines by attempting to withdraw from public view. It wasn't just the webcast, it was the almost unprecedented locking out of the media at the launch site. I can't imagine a company with that "bunker mentality" launching NASA astronauts. I wonder if it hints at deeper problems.And SpaceX isn't the only one retreating to the bunkers. SNC beat them there by several months. All of the commercial crew entries have issues, in my view. My sense is that the entire program might be spread too thin. In NASA's history, there are plenty of sobering examples of what can happen to such programs. They either wither, or they have to be rescued (often after failures) at great cost. At least history shows that rescue is possible, but it requires a big shake up.
1) A lot of us don't have any idea what you were thinking before, during or after the weekend, Ed.
Quote from: CommercialSpaceFan on 06/22/2014 11:38 pmAssembly can be complex requiring dozens of flights and thousands of hours of astronaut support such as ISS. Alternatively assembly can be as simple as docking. When Dragon, Cygnus, ATV, HTV and progress dock to ISS very little support is required. This is analogous to the Apollo missions when the capsule performed the 180 degree turn in LEO to dock with the LEM. Similarly, crew could be launched separately from a lunar lander only requiring docking prior to Earth departure. This form of “assembly” doesn’t require additional cost relative to the use of SLS since the equivalent docking will be required in lunar orbit to transfer crew from Orion to the lander. Refueling the upper stage requires at a minimum “soft” docking with a pair of transfer line couplings. With rendezvous already required for Orion, refueling can be had for the cost of automated couplings and a cryo tank. Cost estimates. Cost estimates. Again: you base your argument by comparing costs of launch vehicles and decide that one is better than the other. But doing so shifts the burden to assembly. Do you have cost estimates for assembly? If not, how can you make the cost argument with any confidence?
Assembly can be complex requiring dozens of flights and thousands of hours of astronaut support such as ISS. Alternatively assembly can be as simple as docking. When Dragon, Cygnus, ATV, HTV and progress dock to ISS very little support is required. This is analogous to the Apollo missions when the capsule performed the 180 degree turn in LEO to dock with the LEM. Similarly, crew could be launched separately from a lunar lander only requiring docking prior to Earth departure. This form of “assembly” doesn’t require additional cost relative to the use of SLS since the equivalent docking will be required in lunar orbit to transfer crew from Orion to the lander. Refueling the upper stage requires at a minimum “soft” docking with a pair of transfer line couplings. With rendezvous already required for Orion, refueling can be had for the cost of automated couplings and a cryo tank.
Indeed it does. The continued lack of any real debate within NASA, on mission, goals, or strategy, is shocking.
Pre ESAS, during the initial round of architecture studies only Orbital suggested using SLS class rockets, the other 6 or so industry teams suggested that exploration would be more affordable using smaller rockets with the increased orbital assembly. Since ESAS, for many reasons, there has not been a NASA sponsored study really looked at alternatives to heavy lift.
Quote from: vulture4 on 07/01/2014 09:57 pmIndeed it does. The continued lack of any real debate within NASA, on mission, goals, or strategy, is shocking. That might be because any missions that includes SLS/Orion (beyond an Apollo 8 type deal) are unaffordable under current budget projections. They may feel kind of hemmed in with what they can talk about; not a comfortable place to be, I can imagine.
Quote from: EE Scott on 07/01/2014 11:15 pmQuote from: vulture4 on 07/01/2014 09:57 pmIndeed it does. The continued lack of any real debate within NASA, on mission, goals, or strategy, is shocking. That might be because any missions that includes SLS/Orion (beyond an Apollo 8 type deal) are unaffordable under current budget projections. They may feel kind of hemmed in with what they can talk about; not a comfortable place to be, I can imagine.Oh, I imagine there is plenty of debate that takes place outside the public eye. EE is likely correct. I imagine many feel like pawns being played by politicians, pawns being used for pork-barrel purposes rather than being allowed to pursue science in the best manner possible, unfettered by the whims and dictates of those who know very little about engineering or science either one. I'm sure they talk to each other on the quiet all the time and that they give their absolute best effort to do what they can. It's just that we are not privy to those thoughts and conversations. My hat is off to these loyal government employees, doing their best to accomplish what they can in spite of their congressional masters.
.....suggestions?
Quote from: EE Scott on 07/01/2014 11:15 pmQuote from: vulture4 on 07/01/2014 09:57 pmIndeed it does. The continued lack of any real debate within NASA, on mission, goals, or strategy, is shocking. That might be because any missions that includes SLS/Orion (beyond an Apollo 8 type deal) are unaffordable under current budget projections. They may feel kind of hemmed in with what they can talk about; not a comfortable place to be, I can imagine.Oh, I imagine there is plenty of debate that takes place outside the public eye. EE is likely correct. I imagine many feel like pawns being played by politicians, pawns being used for pork-barrel purposes ... unfettered by the whims and dictates of those who know very little ... I'm sure they talk to each other on the quiet all the time and that they give their absolute best effort to do what they can. It's just that we are not privy to those thoughts and conversations. ...
Quote from: Sean Lynch on 07/02/2014 04:12 am.....suggestions?If NASA were more independent of congressional micromanagement...
Quote from: Sean Lynch on 07/02/2014 04:12 am.....suggestions?If NASA were more independent of congressional micromanagement
I would call specifying the technologies to be used in new rockets to be "micromanagement".
Quote from: Sean Lynch on 07/02/2014 04:12 am.....suggestions?If NASA were more independent of congressional micromanagement (I believe DARPA has more independence) perhaps they could set their own direction better. OTOH, if that were the case, certain senators would have less interest in keeping the NASA budget at the levels they currently are, so more independence at lower funding or current levels while being micromanaged. It's surely a rock vs hard place situation.
Quote from: ThereIWas3 on 07/02/2014 04:08 pmI would call specifying the technologies to be used in new rockets to be "micromanagement".So would I. However congress only specified the throw weight of the new rocket. Hardly micromanagement.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 07/02/2014 05:25 pmQuote from: ThereIWas3 on 07/02/2014 04:08 pmI would call specifying the technologies to be used in new rockets to be "micromanagement".So would I. However congress only specified the throw weight of the new rocket. Hardly micromanagement.John, several congressmembers are on record as stating that they thought the requirements were set in a way to guarantee contracts to their existing supplier-base. Micromanagement is micromanagement even if you're just gaming the requirements to force a solution.Plus they did specifically state that CxP contracts had to be novated as much as practicable (not practical, practicable--which means if NASA found that novating a contract was possible but stupid, they'd still be required by law to do it). That's definitely micromanaging, and earmarking.~Jon
Quote from: jongoff on 07/02/2014 05:59 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 07/02/2014 05:25 pmQuote from: ThereIWas3 on 07/02/2014 04:08 pmI would call specifying the technologies to be used in new rockets to be "micromanagement".So would I. However congress only specified the throw weight of the new rocket. Hardly micromanagement.John, several congressmembers are on record as stating that they thought the requirements were set in a way to guarantee contracts to their existing supplier-base. Micromanagement is micromanagement even if you're just gaming the requirements to force a solution.Plus they did specifically state that CxP contracts had to be novated as much as practicable (not practical, practicable--which means if NASA found that novating a contract was possible but stupid, they'd still be required by law to do it). That's definitely micromanaging, and earmarking.~JonJon: I'd definitely go along with the characterization of "gaming the requirements" and "earmarking". To me, micromanagement takes place on a day to day basis, and the tem is being misused too much.
As always, the worker bees in industry and bureacracy are, by and large, not the problem. They would lose their jobs were they to voice anything other than complete agreement with the policies and stragegies that they must undertake
Quote from: TomH on 07/02/2014 07:03 amQuote from: Sean Lynch on 07/02/2014 04:12 am.....suggestions?If NASA were more independent of congressional micromanagementNASA policy is set by the president and that policy is executed by the Administrator. NASA does not set its own policy. Congress establishes the budget for the agency. Requiring periodic reports on how that budget is expended is called fiduciary responsibility, not micromanagement.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 07/02/2014 01:40 pmAs always, the worker bees in industry and bureacracy are, by and large, not the problem. They would lose their jobs were they to voice anything other than complete agreement with the policies and stragegies that they must undertakeTo quote Ronald Reagan, There you go again. We had this same conversation just days ago and you wound up apologizing for your knee jerk reaction (your words). ... I am not referring to the worker bees, something you seem to have a fixation with; I am referring to the managers.And if you insist on semantics, I will happily substitute gaming the system and earmarking for micromanagement.
Quote from: clongton on 07/02/2014 03:32 pmQuote from: TomH on 07/02/2014 07:03 amQuote from: Sean Lynch on 07/02/2014 04:12 am.....suggestions?If NASA were more independent of congressional micromanagementNASA policy is set by the president and that policy is executed by the Administrator. NASA does not set its own policy. Congress establishes the budget for the agency. Requiring periodic reports on how that budget is expended is called fiduciary responsibility, not micromanagement.The way I remember it, President Obama tried to set the policy, but was significantly rebuffed. He tried to cancel the HLV and Orion, and channel those funds into exploration technology projects. No dice. So I would say that in practice, Congress gets to set the policy right along side the Executive. Maybe in a difference circumstance the president gets to set the policy, but in this case at least it did not happen.
At the risk of entering wild west territory, may I simply say that the power brokers in THIS congress have much bigger gonads than the current president. I disagree with this president's policy but it was his choice to back down and run away. He abrogated his responsibility.
Quote from: clongton on 07/03/2014 11:26 amAt the risk of entering wild west territory, may I simply say that the power brokers in THIS congress have much bigger gonads than the current president. I disagree with this president's policy but it was his choice to back down and run away. He abrogated his responsibility.No he didn't, he stated the direction he feels NASA should go and attempted to implement it. Congress overrode him and he did not feel the issue was worth a protracted fight compared to his other priorities. Like most in congress space is low man on the totem pole.
Quote from: JBF on 07/03/2014 12:02 pmQuote from: clongton on 07/03/2014 11:26 amAt the risk of entering wild west territory, may I simply say that the power brokers in THIS congress have much bigger gonads than the current president. I disagree with this president's policy but it was his choice to back down and run away. He abrogated his responsibility.No he didn't, he stated the direction he feels NASA should go and attempted to implement it. Congress overrode him and he did not feel the issue was worth a protracted fight compared to his other priorities. Like most in congress space is low man on the totem pole.Mr. Obama "did not feel the issue was worth a protracted fight compared to his other priorities", and therefore, he backed away and abrogated his responsibility. Mr. Bush did the same thing with VSE, setting the precedent for Mr. Obama, who continues to implement Bush policies.
As an aside, I'm a mite squeamish about Chuck's biology lesson, and tend to avert my eyes.
If Obama was to have responsibility of all issues of US national interest, in equal amount, the USA would probably need a dozen presidents.
It's time to return to our original mission. Not the mission we abandoned when the Moon Race ended, but rather the mission we abandoned when the Moon Race began.
Quote from: vulture4 on 07/03/2014 03:09 pmIt's time to return to our original mission. Not the mission we abandoned when the Moon Race ended, but rather the mission we abandoned when the Moon Race began.Before JFK decided to go to the Moon, NASA's exploration mission consisted of a few tiny Explorer and Pioneer and precursor weather and communication satellites launched on a handful of small, failure-prone rockets, along with Project Mercury which had achieved a grand total of one manned suborbital flight. That's the NASA you want to see again? - Ed Kyle
Neither of these Presidents have come close to giving HSF its proper and appropriately considered leadership.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 07/03/2014 02:22 pmNeither of these Presidents have come close to giving HSF its proper and appropriately considered leadership. Who in your opinion ever has?
No US President is going to give NASA a blank check to explore space. ...
Quote from: vulture4 on 07/03/2014 03:09 pmNo US President is going to give NASA a blank check to explore space. ...Scanned the thread again. Didn't see anybody calling for this.
I would like to see funding for NASA projects and priorities based upon peer reviewed technical and scientific merit.Similar to how the National Labs, DARPA or NSF fund grants.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 07/03/2014 04:19 pmQuote from: vulture4 on 07/03/2014 03:09 pmNo US President is going to give NASA a blank check to explore space. ...Scanned the thread again. Didn't see anybody calling for this.Well, no, not in this thread. But there is that "$500 Billion Budget for NASA" thread lurking around here somewhere.Some might consider $500B a pretty blank check.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 07/03/2014 03:51 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 07/03/2014 02:22 pmNeither of these Presidents have come close to giving HSF its proper and appropriately considered leadership. Who in your opinion ever has?JFK was tho only prez to have had the chance to lead in this area of endeavor.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 07/03/2014 04:19 pmJFK was tho only prez to have had the chance to lead in this area of endeavor.1) And he did it for geo-political reasons, not because he was primarily interested in space exploration.2) So absent any other candidates, it appears that Bush43 and Obama represent the norm with regards to supporting space exploration. ...3) So what to do? I don't know of any way to unify the space community today - I wish someone did though, but I'm not holding my breath. ...4) In the meantime I plan to continue to support those various private industry and government endeavors ...
JFK was tho only prez to have had the chance to lead in this area of endeavor.
Bush the elder also made a one time speech for a renewed space program.Not sure about Reagan, but I think he championed Space Station Freedom.Maybe Clinton and the ISS>
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 07/03/2014 07:26 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 07/03/2014 04:19 pmJFK was tho only prez to have had the chance to lead in this area of endeavor.1) And he did it for geo-political reasons, not because he was primarily interested in space exploration.2) So absent any other candidates, it appears that Bush43 and Obama represent the norm with regards to supporting space exploration. ...3) So what to do? I don't know of any way to unify the space community today - I wish someone did though, but I'm not holding my breath. ...4) In the meantime I plan to continue to support those various private industry and government endeavors ...1) Which sounds like a disqualification of leadership on his behalf, particularly in the beating of swords into plowshares.
2) These pitiful excuses for leaders are not acceptable as the norm.
3) Well, I've gotta win-win plan...4) ...which I'd like to think you'd support.
Not sure you understand how Apollo helped us over the USSR. Ultimately we caused them to over-spend, and Apollo was part of that effort to get them to over-spend.
Not sure you understand how Apollo helped us over the USSR.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 07/03/2014 11:31 pmNot sure you understand how Apollo helped us over the USSR. Ultimately we caused them to over-spend, and Apollo was part of that effort to get them to over-spend.Apollo was a "hearts and minds" public relations exercise directed at the undecided countries...
The cold war was ended by simple economic decay.
I'm sure I could come up with an analogy between the SLS and the Soviet economy, but I'll restrain myself...
Quote from: edkyle99 on 07/03/2014 03:29 pmQuote from: vulture4 on 07/03/2014 03:09 pmIt's time to return to our original mission. Not the mission we abandoned when the Moon Race ended, but rather the mission we abandoned when the Moon Race began.Before JFK decided to go to the Moon, NASA's exploration mission consisted of a few tiny Explorer and Pioneer and precursor weather and communication satellites launched on a handful of small, failure-prone rockets, along with Project Mercury which had achieved a grand total of one manned suborbital flight. That's the NASA you want to see again? - Ed KyleWhat we now call NASA was originally created, as the NACA, in 1915, only a dozen years after the Wright Brothers' first flight. Its accomplishments ranged from the first efficient radial engine cowling to the X-15, the world's first (by more than half a century) fully reusable manned spacecraft. http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4305/contents.htm With the help of the NACA, America's civil aerospace industry, hopelessly behind in 1915, came to lead the world. NACA listened to industrial leaders and helped them with technological innovation. There were no geopolitical stunts. NACA flew only when it needed to to test new engineering concepts. There was no mission to excite the public. Every project, whether theoretical or applied, was intended to be of practical value to industry and the Nation. That's the NASA we need today.
The NASA you dream of would not have put Curiosity, or any robotic spacecraft, on Mars. It would never have launched a Surveyor or a Lunar Orbiter or a Mariner, Viking, or Voyager. It wouldn't have orbited Hubble. It wouldn't have given us this.
The NASA you dream of would not have put Curiosity, or any robotic spacecraft, on Mars.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 07/03/2014 07:26 pm1) And he did it for geo-political reasons, not because he was primarily interested in space exploration.2) So absent any other candidates, it appears that Bush43 and Obama represent the norm with regards to supporting space exploration. ...3) So what to do? I don't know of any way to unify the space community today - I wish someone did though, but I'm not holding my breath. ...4) In the meantime I plan to continue to support those various private industry and government endeavors ...1) Which sounds like a disqualification of leadership on his behalf, particularly in the beating of swords into plowshares.2) These pitiful excuses for leaders are not acceptable as the norm. 3) Well, I've gotta win-win plan...4) ...which I'd like to think you'd support.Oh well.
1) And he did it for geo-political reasons, not because he was primarily interested in space exploration.2) So absent any other candidates, it appears that Bush43 and Obama represent the norm with regards to supporting space exploration. ...3) So what to do? I don't know of any way to unify the space community today - I wish someone did though, but I'm not holding my breath. ...4) In the meantime I plan to continue to support those various private industry and government endeavors ...
Reagan introduced the National Aerospace Plane (scramjet to near-orbit) and the Space Station with great fanfare, then failed to fund either one. Station became bogged down in paperwork.
Bush 41 initiated the Space Exploration Initiative. He asked what it would cost to send a few people to Mars with the technology of the day (essentially SLS/Orion level). NASA gave him an honest answer; $400B. He dropped the idea like a hot potato. Congress and NASA learned their lesson regarding cost. Don't ask, don't tell. The fact that this is a sure path to failure is irrelevant.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 07/04/2014 12:26 amI'm sure I could come up with an analogy between the SLS and the Soviet economy, but I'll restrain myself... That cracked me up Coastal Ron
1) In case you had not noticed: Kennedy failed miserably in the part of beating swords into plowshares. The worst in Vietnam was yet to come as a result of Kennedy's authorization to expend US military involvement in Vietnam. Another disqualification of Kennedy's leadership abilities was the Bay of Pigs-incident.2) They may not be acceptable as the norm to you, but fact is that they ARE the norm.3) In stead of suggesting you have something better, reveal it. Put up or sh*t up.
If space exploration was some sort of "right", blah, blah, blah
Quote from: edkyle99 on 07/04/2014 03:59 amThe NASA you dream of would not have put Curiosity, or any robotic spacecraft, on Mars. It would never have launched a Surveyor or a Lunar Orbiter or a Mariner, Viking, or Voyager. It wouldn't have orbited Hubble. It wouldn't have given us this.All of that could have happened the same way every other sort of science funding happens, and even more could have been done because there would actually be a competitive industry to do those things instead of pork politics.
Those things cost so much because they're bespoke exotica built by an immature industry. If you had commissioned the Wright brothers to build you a jumbo jet in the 1920s you would have gotten something just as expensive and makeshift. The aircraft industry we have today is the result of a pragmatic focus on research and development, much of which was done by NACA. The same could have been done for launch vehicles and spacecraft, instead of handing out sweetheart deals for the last 50 years.
Quote from: QuantumG on 07/04/2014 04:10 amQuote from: edkyle99 on 07/04/2014 03:59 amThe NASA you dream of would not have put Curiosity, or any robotic spacecraft, on Mars. It would never have launched a Surveyor or a Lunar Orbiter or a Mariner, Viking, or Voyager. It wouldn't have orbited Hubble. It wouldn't have given us this.All of that could have happened the same way every other sort of science funding happens, and even more could have been done because there would actually be a competitive industry to do those things instead of pork politics.Not if vulture-4's dream of a reborn NACA that does no exploration, only practical science useful to industry, took place. There is no industrial utility in photos of the Moon or Mars.Space Shuttle cost $200 billion. ISS cost $100 billion. SLS/Orion is small potatoes by comparison.
Bumping up the budget over a period of time to get back to Shuttle era funding levels could put U.S. astronauts on Mars.
Those who call for less are calling for shrinking NASA, in vogue on Internet forums, but Internet forums had they existed would have complained bitterly about the costs of Apollo, the Interstate Highway System, the Panama Canal, and Lewis & Clark.
Quote from: QuantumG on 07/06/2014 04:01 amThose things cost so much because they're bespoke exotica built by an immature industry. If you had commissioned the Wright brothers to build you a jumbo jet in the 1920s you would have gotten something just as expensive and makeshift. The aircraft industry we have today is the result of a pragmatic focus on research and development, much of which was done by NACA. The same could have been done for launch vehicles and spacecraft, instead of handing out sweetheart deals for the last 50 years.Indeed, but where's the big time pork in that? Sure you could ladle out researcn to all the current centers and more., but it's just not as sexy as huge manufacturing facilities...
Quote from: QuantumG on 07/04/2014 04:10 amQuote from: edkyle99 on 07/04/2014 03:59 amThe NASA you dream of would not have put Curiosity, or any robotic spacecraft, on Mars. It would never have launched ...All of that could have happened the same way every other sort of science funding happens, and ... there would actually be a competitive industry to do those things instead of pork politics.Not if vulture-4's dream of a reborn NACA that does no exploration, only practical science useful to industry, took place. There is no industrial utility in photos of the Moon or Mars.Space Shuttle cost $200 billion. ISS cost $100 billion. SLS/Orion is small potatoes by comparison. Bumping up the budget over a period of time to get back to Shuttle era funding levels could put U.S. astronauts on Mars. ...
Quote from: edkyle99 on 07/04/2014 03:59 amThe NASA you dream of would not have put Curiosity, or any robotic spacecraft, on Mars. It would never have launched ...All of that could have happened the same way every other sort of science funding happens, and ... there would actually be a competitive industry to do those things instead of pork politics.
The NASA you dream of would not have put Curiosity, or any robotic spacecraft, on Mars. It would never have launched ...
Quote from: edkyle99 on 07/06/2014 03:46 amQuote from: QuantumG on 07/04/2014 04:10 amQuote from: edkyle99 on 07/04/2014 03:59 amThe NASA you dream of would not have put Curiosity, or any robotic spacecraft, on Mars. It would never have launched ...All of that could have happened the same way every other sort of science funding happens, and ... there would actually be a competitive industry to do those things instead of pork politics.Not if vulture-4's dream of a reborn NACA that does no exploration, only practical science useful to industry, took place. There is no industrial utility in photos of the Moon or Mars.Space Shuttle cost $200 billion. ISS cost $100 billion. SLS/Orion is small potatoes by comparison. Bumping up the budget over a period of time to get back to Shuttle era funding levels could put U.S. astronauts on Mars. ...I don't think Vulture-4 thought out his musings all that thoroughly, and he could certainly clarify and expand on his thoughts if he so chose.I don't think Ed has thoroughly outlined his thoughts either. Certainly, there's no "industrial utility in photos". But that's what we're getting from Curiosity, is it not? Plus, where's the "practical science useful to industry" in the ability of Curiosity to drill holes in martian rocks?True, on the face of it, that SLS is projected to cost far less than shuttle or ISS. But what is the proper characterization of the costs of the several failed launch vehicle programs between shuttle and SLS. Waste?What about the idea that shuttle era funding could put astros on Mars? I thought shuttle era funding only featured the capability to orbit Earth. Additionally, with the aerospace inflation rate virtually mandated as twenty percent or so, we can only do less with more for the foreseeble future.Finally, there's the question that, if Mars is so affordable thanks to SLS, how come Luna is completely impossible with the same launch vehicle?Inquiring minds want to know.
Finally, there's the question that, if Mars is so affordable thanks to SLS, how come Luna is completely impossible with the same launch vehicle?Inquiring minds want to know.
Bumping up the budget over a period of time to get back to Shuttle era funding levels could put U.S. astronauts on Mars. - Ed Kyle
True, on the face of it, that SLS is projected to cost far less than shuttle or ISS.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 07/06/2014 02:10 pmFinally, there's the question that, if Mars is so affordable thanks to SLS, how come Luna is completely impossible with the same launch vehicle?Inquiring minds want to know.Who said it is? There may be some difficulties but Elon Musk once said they may go to the moon just to demonstrate they can.
Not if vulture-4's dream of a reborn NACA that does no exploration, only practical science useful to industry, took place. There is no industrial utility in photos of the Moon or Mars.
Space Shuttle cost $200 billion. ISS cost $100 billion. SLS/Orion is small potatoes by comparison.
...but Internet forums had they existed would have complained bitterly about the costs of Apollo, the Interstate Highway System, the Panama Canal, and Lewis & Clark.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 07/06/2014 02:10 pmFinally, there's the question that, if Mars is so affordable thanks to SLS, how come Luna is completely impossible with the same launch vehicle?Who said it is?
Finally, there's the question that, if Mars is so affordable thanks to SLS, how come Luna is completely impossible with the same launch vehicle?
There may be some difficulties but Elon Musk once said they may go to the moon just to demonstrate they can.
Human flight to Mars has been portrayed as an existential goal, something worth any price. If this were the case, going to the Moon would indeed be irrelevant. But I think it is more accurate to regard human flight to either the Moon or Mars as a luxury good; something with considerable, but finite, value. It makes sense to go to the Moon or to Mars if the value of going there exceeds the cost. Right now neither trip is worth making. If technology can be advanced that reduces the cost, either or both trips may become practical, depending in each case upon both cost and value..
Quote from: vulture4 on 07/07/2014 08:31 pmHuman flight to Mars has been portrayed as an existential goal, something worth any price. If this were the case, going to the Moon would indeed be irrelevant. But I think it is more accurate to regard human flight to either the Moon or Mars as a luxury good; something with considerable, but finite, value. It makes sense to go to the Moon or to Mars if the value of going there exceeds the cost. Right now neither trip is worth making. If technology can be advanced that reduces the cost, either or both trips may become practical, depending in each case upon both cost and value.. Define "value"....
Well, Gen. Bolden said it at least three times during the House space subcommittee's hearing on NASA's FY 2014 budget on 24 April 2013. At about 0:32, he tells Rep. Lamar Smith, chairman of the science committee. At 0:54 he tells Rep. Stewart, and at 1:07 he tells Rep. Posey. By the way, he also mentions at 1:02 that NASA can't afford to visit a free-range asteroid either.
Quote from: OpsAnalyst on 07/09/2014 03:12 amQuote from: vulture4 on 07/07/2014 08:31 pmHuman flight to Mars has been portrayed as an existential goal, something worth any price. If this were the case, going to the Moon would indeed be irrelevant. But I think it is more accurate to regard human flight to either the Moon or Mars as a luxury good; something with considerable, but finite, value. It makes sense to go to the Moon or to Mars if the value of going there exceeds the cost. Right now neither trip is worth making. If technology can be advanced that reduces the cost, either or both trips may become practical, depending in each case upon both cost and value.. Define "value"....In the luxury goods & services market it is whatever people have a desire to pay for. Virgin Galactic is the most relevant example, with people prepared to pay $200,000 to take a ride to a place few others have visited. And the Space Adventures offer to take people to the orbit of the Moon.The challenge though is whether there is enough of a market to create a sustainable business model. At least for the two companies I cited, I don't think we know that yet.
Quote from: Proponent on 07/07/2014 05:24 pmWell, Gen. Bolden said it at least three times during the House space subcommittee's hearing on NASA's FY 2014 budget on 24 April 2013. At about 0:32, he tells Rep. Lamar Smith, chairman of the science committee. At 0:54 he tells Rep. Stewart, and at 1:07 he tells Rep. Posey. By the way, he also mentions at 1:02 that NASA can't afford to visit a free-range asteroid either. He said all that in just over a minute? Dang. How come these hearings drag on so?Ohhhhhh....I did check out Bolden's commentary around the 32 minute mark. As is well known, nobody can define "value". But if somebody wants a primer on how to define waffling, it would be Mr. Bolden's rambling few minutes of testimony shortly before 32:50.
If technology can be advanced that reduces the cost, either or both trips may become practical, depending in each case upon both cost and value.
There is simply no pragmatic value to the asteroid mission. By their own telling, it is a mission whose proximate cause is only to showcase hardware for an impressive technical capability. There is no ultimate cause for such a capability. There is no ultimate value for the mission; it is only bread and circuses for the political machine.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 07/10/2014 12:13 pmThere is simply no pragmatic value to the asteroid mission. ... There is no ultimate value for the mission; it is only bread and circuses for the political machine.If the plan was to push and return the DSH to L2, one leg of the ARM so to speak, then this demonstrates engineering value...If crew health issues are resolved, then these ARM missions are simply stepping stones to Mars and beyond and would clearly be of value as long as they fit the overall architecture and steps to certify the hardware for the destinations. If crew health and mass issues are not resolved, at least part of the technical challenges are being address with a DSH, and not being stuck under the ARM of SLS/Orion.
There is simply no pragmatic value to the asteroid mission. ... There is no ultimate value for the mission; it is only bread and circuses for the political machine.
While ARM gives the ability for SLS/Orion to do some thing, anything, with minimal payload development costs there is still some science to be gained from asteroid sampling depending on it's type, carbonaceous, silicon. or metallic.A serious question:What other science could be done with SLS/Orion without a funded payload and limited life support the ESA SM affords?
Quote from: Sean Lynch on 07/11/2014 02:41 pmWhile ARM gives the ability for SLS/Orion to do some thing, anything, with minimal payload development costs there is still some science to be gained from asteroid sampling depending on it's type, carbonaceous, silicon. or metallic.A serious question:What other science could be done with SLS/Orion without a funded payload and limited life support the ESA SM affords? I'm not aware of any that could not be done on ISS.AFAIK, the Obama administration tried to cancel Constellation, was forced to accept SLS/Orion, was not given any increase in the overall NASA budget for landers/payloads/hab modules for actual lunar or Mars landings, and was told to come up with a mission for SLS/Orion. They chose "flexible path" because it was the only one not requiring a lander. Then, when it became apparent they did not have the misison duration needed for a flight to even a NEO, they offered to move the asteroid to lunar orbit.If an ARM mission were planned for maximum science return the asteroid would simply be returned to the ISS where it could be studied intensively for years, in a shirtsleeve environment, by personnel already on the station. The SLS/Orion eliminates almost all the science and adds billions to the cost.The real obstacle to Mars flight is not radiation, weightlessness, or our lack of experience with operations in high lunar orbit. It's cost of getting to LEO and the need for much higher energy propulsion beyond LEO. The SEP planned for the ARM can help with the latter, although at some point NEP will also be needed.
Or they may not. In any case what Elon Musk wants or doesn't want to do has nothing to do with NASA.The main question for NASA is what can it do within the current budget profile?Just in recent memory the Constellation program would have required a large budget bump in order to afford to develop and build hardware needed for going to the Moon, but even with that increased budget the Augustine Commission didn't think NASA would get to the Moon before the mid-2030's.Of course NASA never got that extra money, and has actually seen it's budget cut in a very bipartisan way in Congress.So NASA is not being funded anywhere close to the amount needed to start a routine launch schedule for the SLS, which is why so many of us continue to point out the futility of building an HLV if there is no money to use it.And Mars?If anything the talk about Mars is just justification for spending money to do studies, and those studies have no chance of changing anything.With shrinking budgets and huge mismatches between political mandates and funding for the mandates, there is a reset coming soon for NASA. It won't be pretty, but the big question is whether NASA will come out of it leaner and more prepared for the future, or just more bogged down in political intervention...
I would think vulture that it would still be examined in a glove box for safety and sample contamination....
Quote from: muomega0 on 07/10/2014 01:18 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 07/10/2014 12:13 pmThere is simply no pragmatic value to the asteroid mission. ... There is no ultimate value for the mission; it is only bread and circuses for the political machine.If the plan was to push and return the DSH to L2, one leg of the ARM so to speak, then this demonstrates engineering value...If crew health issues are resolved, then these ARM missions are simply stepping stones to Mars and beyond and would clearly be of value as long as they fit the overall architecture and steps to certify the hardware for the destinations. If crew health and mass issues are not resolved, at least part of the technical challenges are being address with a DSH, and not being stuck under the ARM of SLS/Orion.I'm perfectly willing to accept your blurry idea of the term 'value'. There is no other way that we could converse on this exotic speculation about the distant, virtually completely unsure future. In general, the health issues of zero gee and radiation and sheer ECLSS capability, among a great many other things, need to be solved before colonizing Mars. You do realize that the short list of "ifs" that you raise do not "clearly" indicate future value, because the "ifs" are not all on the verge of being turned into "whens".The ARM, hastily drawn up, is being falsely presented as a "stepping stone", when there is no overall strategy for NASA programs to survive political cycles and to actually strive towards an attempt at martian colonization.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 07/10/2014 03:56 pmQuote from: muomega0 on 07/10/2014 01:18 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 07/10/2014 12:13 pmThere is simply no pragmatic value to the asteroid mission. ... There is no ultimate value for the mission [either]; it is only bread and circuses for the political machine.If the plan was to push and return the DSH to L2, one leg of the ARM so to speak, then this demonstrates engineering value...If crew health issues are resolved, then these ARM missions are simply stepping stones to Mars and beyond and would clearly be of value as long as they fit the overall architecture ...I'm perfectly willing to accept your blurry idea of the term 'value'. ... In general, the health issues of zero gee and radiation and sheer ECLSS capability, among a great many other things, need to be solved ... because the "ifs" are not all on the verge of being turned into "whens".The ARM, hastily drawn up, is being falsely presented as a "stepping stone", when there is no overall strategy ...yes, it was an attempt to give SLS/Orion a mission without developing any other hardware.
Quote from: muomega0 on 07/10/2014 01:18 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 07/10/2014 12:13 pmThere is simply no pragmatic value to the asteroid mission. ... There is no ultimate value for the mission [either]; it is only bread and circuses for the political machine.If the plan was to push and return the DSH to L2, one leg of the ARM so to speak, then this demonstrates engineering value...If crew health issues are resolved, then these ARM missions are simply stepping stones to Mars and beyond and would clearly be of value as long as they fit the overall architecture ...I'm perfectly willing to accept your blurry idea of the term 'value'. ... In general, the health issues of zero gee and radiation and sheer ECLSS capability, among a great many other things, need to be solved ... because the "ifs" are not all on the verge of being turned into "whens".The ARM, hastily drawn up, is being falsely presented as a "stepping stone", when there is no overall strategy ...
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 07/10/2014 12:13 pmThere is simply no pragmatic value to the asteroid mission. ... There is no ultimate value for the mission [either]; it is only bread and circuses for the political machine.If the plan was to push and return the DSH to L2, one leg of the ARM so to speak, then this demonstrates engineering value...If crew health issues are resolved, then these ARM missions are simply stepping stones to Mars and beyond and would clearly be of value as long as they fit the overall architecture ...
There is simply no pragmatic value to the asteroid mission. ... There is no ultimate value for the mission [either]; it is only bread and circuses for the political machine.
Reduce the need for a human crew...
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 07/10/2014 03:56 pmQuote from: muomega0 on 07/10/2014 01:18 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 07/10/2014 12:13 pmThere is simply no pragmatic value to the asteroid mission. ... There is no ultimate value for the mission; it is only bread and circuses for the political machine.If the plan was to push and return the DSH to L2, one leg of the ARM so to speak, then this demonstrates engineering value...If crew health issues are resolved, then these ARM missions are simply stepping stones to Mars and beyond and would clearly be of value as long as they fit the overall architecture and steps to certify the hardware for the destinations. If crew health and mass issues are not resolved, at least part of the technical challenges are being address with a DSH, and not being stuck under the ARM of SLS/Orion.I'm perfectly willing to accept your blurry idea of the term 'value'. There is no other way that we could converse on this exotic speculation about the distant, virtually completely unsure future. In general, the health issues of zero gee and radiation and sheer ECLSS capability, among a great many other things, need to be solved before colonizing Mars. You do realize that the short list of "ifs" that you raise do not "clearly" indicate future value, because the "ifs" are not all on the verge of being turned into "whens".The ARM, hastily drawn up, is being falsely presented as a "stepping stone", when there is no overall strategy for NASA programs to survive political cycles and to actually strive towards an attempt at martian colonization.yes, it was an attempt to give SLS/Orion a mission without developing any other hardware. It seems to be a common practice to take the advantage of a different concept and simply state it as their own!
Quote from: vulture4 on 07/14/2014 09:45 pmReduce the need for a human crew...Hopefully, you and I agree that this approach would not support HSF at all.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 07/15/2014 01:05 pmQuote from: vulture4 on 07/14/2014 09:45 pmReduce the need for a human crew...Hopefully, you and I agree that this approach would not support HSF at all.I agree, but perhaps I should have said AI may reduce the need for a biologically human crew. At some point AI may decide that they are people too.
Quote from: muomega0 on 07/14/2014 09:12 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 07/10/2014 03:56 pmQuote from: muomega0 on 07/10/2014 01:18 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 07/10/2014 12:13 pmThere is simply no pragmatic value to the asteroid mission. ... There is no ultimate value for the mission; it is only bread and circuses for the political machine.If the plan was to push and return the DSH to L2, one leg of the ARM so to speak, then this demonstrates engineering value...If crew health issues are resolved, then these ARM missions are simply stepping stones to Mars and beyond and would clearly be of value as long as they fit the overall architecture and steps to certify the hardware for the destinations. If crew health and mass issues are not resolved, at least part of the technical challenges are being address with a DSH, and not being stuck under the ARM of SLS/Orion.I'm perfectly willing to accept your blurry idea of the term 'value'. There is no other way that we could converse on this exotic speculation about the distant, virtually completely unsure future. In general, the health issues of zero gee and radiation and sheer ECLSS capability, among a great many other things, need to be solved before colonizing Mars. You do realize that the short list of "ifs" that you raise do not "clearly" indicate future value, because the "ifs" are not all on the verge of being turned into "whens".The ARM, hastily drawn up, is being falsely presented as a "stepping stone", when there is no overall strategy for NASA programs to survive political cycles and to actually strive towards an attempt at martian colonization.yes, it was an attempt to give SLS/Orion a mission without developing any other hardware. It seems to be a common practice to take the advantage of a different concept and simply state it as their own! No, it wasn't. And no, they didn't.
Could you elaborate, please?
Quote from: JFThe ARM, hastily drawn up, is being falsely presented as a "stepping stone", when there is no overall strategy for NASA programs to survive political cycles and to actually strive towards an attempt at martian colonization.Yes, it was an attempt to give SLS/Orion a mission without developing any other hardware. It seems to be a common practice to take the advantage of a different concept and simply state it as their own!
The ARM, hastily drawn up, is being falsely presented as a "stepping stone", when there is no overall strategy for NASA programs to survive political cycles and to actually strive towards an attempt at martian colonization.
As to your comment about the "common practice", I'm not quite sure what you mean.
Hey Vulture: I think your quotes are a bit off. Did you mean to say, "Not to speak for JF MuOmega, but I've heard there are three stages to an idea at NASA..." ? 'Cause it was he who observed:"It seems to be a common practice to take the advantage of a different concept and simply state it as their own!"
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 07/18/2014 01:41 pmHey Vulture: I think your quotes are a bit off. Did you mean to say, "Not to speak for JF MuOmega, but I've heard there are three stages to an idea at NASA..." ? 'Cause it was he who observed:"It seems to be a common practice to take the advantage of a different concept and simply state it as their own!"Sorry, previous post corrected. It was kind of stupid but I misread the nested quotes. Anyway, when I read the original asteroid retrieval proposal I was surprised at how much detail had been worked out regarding trajectories and flight paths, and the lack of any publicity on it. And then the ARMCM proposal appears with the SLS/Orion, and does not even mention the prior work or suggest that there might be an alternative to sending people all the way out to high lunar orbit to study an asteroid brought all the way back to Earth. The ISS alternative saves over a billion dollars and gets between 10 and 100 times the data. What's not to like? Oh- I forgot, no need for SLS/Orion.
How about bringing it all the way back to Washington DC...
Quote from: AncientU on 07/18/2014 04:51 pmHow about bringing it all the way back to Washington DC...What teminal velocity did you have in mind?
I was kinda going for reductio ad absurdum, not reductio to rubble ad caementa.
No, it wasn't. And no, they didn't.
At all future milestones on the road to Mars, direct the Agency to focus narrowly on activities that clearly serve the goal of landing humans on Mars, operating there, and returning them safely to Earth
Anyway, when I read the original asteroid retrieval proposal I was surprised at how much detail had been worked out regarding trajectories and flight paths, and the lack of any publicity on it. And then the ARMCM proposal appears with the SLS/Orion, and does not even mention the prior work or suggest that there might be an alternative to sending people all the way out to high lunar orbit to study an asteroid brought all the way back to Earth. The ISS alternative saves over a billion dollars and gets between 10 and 100 times the data.
Quote"It seems to be a common practice to take the advantageS of a different concept and simply state itthem as their own!"QuoteAs to your comment about the "common practice", I'm not quite sure what you mean.Not to speak for MuOmega but I've heard there are three stages to an idea at NASA, 1) it will never work, 2) we don't need it, and 3) it was our idea all along. In the case of ARM there was a previous study of retrieving a small asteroid and bringing it directly to the ISS without any mention of SLS or Orion.
"It seems to be a common practice to take the advantageS of a different concept and simply state itthem as their own!"
the lack of IP and 'commercial' participants.
You pointed out a good example of the conflict with the single mission focus with ARM where a return to earth may be of more value than a visit in deep space. However if the asteroid was to be used for propellant, not so clear.
Will the same logic prevail when the warp drive folks cannot get resources because the technology is not Falcon or 'commercial' derived. Inconceivable?
I'd like to just wait and see.We need to see exactly how bipartisan the SLS is.After the election a new administrator will be selected and a new president might want to shake things up.Once SLS is far enough along the requirements need to be relaxed or it's never going to have a mission because the missions will just be to meet the requirements which costs time and money.
I cannot see any new president putting political capital into preserving SLS, but unless it's someone with real understanding of the situation it's hard to see why they would put political capital into cancelling it.
Quote from: vulture4 on 09/08/2014 02:02 amI cannot see any new president putting political capital into preserving SLS, but unless it's someone with real understanding of the situation it's hard to see why they would put political capital into cancelling it....which ended-up costing the White House what little leadership it held in space while essentially maintaining most of the very programs the Administration wanted canceled.
A new president in 2017 is going to face a Congress that has been effectively running space policy for the last 7 years, one unlikely to surrender that role. More than likely, he or she will conclude that, if Congress wants its rocket that is about to have its first test-flight, then fine.
Congress created the SLS and Orion programs in direct opposition to the Obama Administration, subpoenaed and nearly indicted NASA, and in particular the then-Deputy Administrator, over efforts to prevent the SLS program from starting, and has subsequently and consistently made clear in both NASA's appropriated budgets and in the accompanying budget statements strong bipartisan support for both the SLS and Orion programs. Since 2010, Congress has annually appropriated $1B - $1.2B for Orion and $1.4B-$1.6B for SLS, not including infrastructure upgrades. For FY15, the SLS and Orion numbers will be higher. Naturally, the Obama Administration, especially OMB's Branch Chief for Science and Space Paul Shawcross, has worked tirelessly to decrease funding for both Orion and SLS, fortunately to no avail.
"NASA is the most accomplished space organization in the world. Its human spaceflight activities are nonetheless at a tipping point, primarily due to a mismatch of goals and resources. Either additional funds need to be made avail- able or a far more modest program involving little or no exploration needs to be adopted."
At least, and at last, they are building a launch vehicle, and it is up to NASA to do this on time and on schedule. Then it will be up to congress to determine if there will ever be anything launched other than ballast.I agree with you that our next president will keep her hands off of the issue of HSF policy. As she would say, "What does it matter?"
Quote from: Augustine"NASA is the most accomplished space organization in the world. Its human spaceflight activities are nonetheless at a tipping point, primarily due to a mismatch of goals and resources. Either additional funds need to be made avail- able or a far more modest program involving little or no exploration needs to be adopted."The "mismatch of goals and resources" is directly the result of deliberate mis-prioritization, which is a totally understandable consequence of the factional fiefdom system, and its decades old culture of gamed "optimism".At least, and at last, they are building a launch vehicle, and it is up to NASA to do this on time and on schedule. Then it will be up to congress to determine if there will ever be anything launched other than ballast.I agree with you that our next president will keep her hands off of the issue of HSF policy. As she would say, "What does it matter?"
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 09/08/2014 01:44 pmAt least, and at last, they are building a launch vehicle, and it is up to NASA to do this on time and on schedule. Then it will be up to congress to determine if there will ever be anything launched other than ballast.Then, it will be time to do an honest comparison of what NASA has produced with its political arms tied behind its back and what the USA (private sector lead, but publicly competed/funded) using can produce without such constraints. The decision will be that NASA, in its current form/function, is finished as a builder of launch vehicles.
At least, and at last, they are building a launch vehicle, and it is up to NASA to do this on time and on schedule. Then it will be up to congress to determine if there will ever be anything launched other than ballast.
Or restore to NASA/the Nation the authority to set long-term spaceflight goals and get them funded as planned...
The President should work with congressional leadership on creating a plan to establish a permanent human outpost on Mars, by using Luna and L1 as a testing ground for the necessary equipment and techniques needed.
QuoteThe President should work with congressional leadership on creating a plan to establish a permanent human outpost on Mars, by using Luna and L1 as a testing ground for the necessary equipment and techniques needed.I'm curious who in the congressional leadership has shown support for this, particularly at the $5B/yr level.
Fixed annual budget, with a use it or save it approach.
With demonstrated success, and effective communication to the voters, successive NASA budgets would likely increase, and private efforts would secure more investment dollars.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 09/10/2014 01:02 amFixed annual budget, with a use it or save it approach.1) A good idea, but this would require a major change in laws. There are a few exceptions but generally federal regulations prohibit saving money past the end of a funding period. The rationale is that if you didn't spend it you didn't need it and shouldn't have asked for it.Quote With demonstrated success, and effective communication to the voters, successive NASA budgets would likely increase, and private efforts would secure more investment dollars.2) This would also be nice, but I'm not sure the record supports your hypothesis. Even after the Moon landing NASA's budget was slashed, and other R&D agencies like NIH which are quite productive are losing ground even now.
1) Quite aware of the law and the fiscal "traditions" there. The rationale is blatantly false as any conversation around the water cooler will reveal. Still, it persists.You know how science does not yet have an explanation for where inertia comes from? Ernst Mach offered an interpretation that inertia is more or less an embodiement of force at a distance. It's not a widely held view, and I bet you're wondering where I'm going with this.The "status quo" is very much like inertia, obviously pertaining to human affairs, not so much interstellar bodies. The political status quo obviously benefits certain parties who actively work to sustain the status quo. But it is also habitual; this is the way "it's always been done"; it's a hard habit for government to break.But it is being broken in some ways, with the "rainy day" funds that certain states set up to take care of tax income fluctuations. Consider leadership* for a moment. NASA has been a leader in workplace diversity for years. With a carefully guided cultural change, NASA could demonstrate leadership in fiscal policy. Yeah, it would be a different approach to the problem of the status quo.Backing up to habit and inertia. C.S Peirce suggests that the "constants" of the universe resemble habits more than constants and that they do change over time. Just an OT aside regarding a different approach to the problem of inertia.
Not that I see it happening either, but I note that "disruptive change" is good except when it's bad, according to the whims of one poster or another.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 09/10/2014 06:30 pmNot that I see it happening either, but I note that "disruptive change" is good except when it's bad, according to the whims of one poster or another.I'd be glad to see it, but don't hold your breath.
I'm actually banging my head against the wall! I couldn't find the right emoticon.