Quote from: su27k on 07/05/2018 05:00 pmQuote from: mike robel on 07/05/2018 02:31 pmThe National HSF Mission is ill-defined and the commercial ones mostly support the owners goals and not any national objective. Thus there is no main effort and no unity of command/purpose.The national HSF mission is very clearly defined as: "Lead an innovative and sustainable program of exploration with commercial and international partners to enable human expansion across the solar system and to bring back to Earth new knowledge and opportunities. Beginning with missions beyond low-Earth orbit, the United States will lead the return of humans to the Moon for long-term exploration and utilization, followed by human missions to Mars and other destinations;". Among the 3 major commercial players, two are always aiming for the Moon, the third is also willing and eager to provide transport to the Moon. So there is no divide between national goal and commercial players' goals, they are very well aligned.The problem is USG is ignoring their own strategic goal, instead they just want job program for NASA centers and big defense contractors. This is may sound semantical, but what you call a mission above is a goal and you properly reference it in your final comment.A mission specifies who, what, when, and where and sometimes why, for example: "First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth."
Quote from: mike robel on 07/05/2018 02:31 pmThe National HSF Mission is ill-defined and the commercial ones mostly support the owners goals and not any national objective. Thus there is no main effort and no unity of command/purpose.The national HSF mission is very clearly defined as: "Lead an innovative and sustainable program of exploration with commercial and international partners to enable human expansion across the solar system and to bring back to Earth new knowledge and opportunities. Beginning with missions beyond low-Earth orbit, the United States will lead the return of humans to the Moon for long-term exploration and utilization, followed by human missions to Mars and other destinations;". Among the 3 major commercial players, two are always aiming for the Moon, the third is also willing and eager to provide transport to the Moon. So there is no divide between national goal and commercial players' goals, they are very well aligned.The problem is USG is ignoring their own strategic goal, instead they just want job program for NASA centers and big defense contractors.
The National HSF Mission is ill-defined and the commercial ones mostly support the owners goals and not any national objective. Thus there is no main effort and no unity of command/purpose.
SLS and Orion I would contend are not part of this goal, they are a mission with no purpose. What you have is funding for a few initial flights, with years of gap between them, that frankly do absolutely nothing of value. All they do is expend a huge amount of years and time and money to fly an empty spacecraft to points in space we have already been and then return it under autonomous control. These are missions without a goal.
Quote from: FinalFrontier on 07/07/2018 05:46 amSLS and Orion I would contend are not part of this goal, they are a mission with no purpose. What you have is funding for a few initial flights, with years of gap between them, that frankly do absolutely nothing of value. All they do is expend a huge amount of years and time and money to fly an empty spacecraft to points in space we have already been and then return it under autonomous control. These are missions without a goal.I think you've articulated their goals quite clearly.
In my view, SLS and Orion are not missions. They are programs (possibly failing) to provide tools to assist in mission accomplishment. The problem is, we have no mission.
The issue that needs addressing really is the lack of a clear goal.
It is not simply an issue of unfunded mandates IE unfunded goals, the issue is that really even though certain people say what the goals are they aren't actually the goals.
More to the point many policy makers and NASA managers have consistently been saying since VSE that the goal is Mars.
But nothing is ever done to move in meaningful way toward this goal, and even the 2010-2011 space act does not do much toward this goal. We don't ever get any results just wasted years and wasted money.
NASA has fed, or is feeding, something beyond $10 billion to Hawthorne.
The SLS program mission is to develop a booster capable of placing a manned spacecraft into LEO to be used for Low Earth Orbit and cislunar space, to deliver unmanned spacecraft to destinations in interplanetary space, and support manned operations to mars.The Orion Program mission is to develop a manned spacecraft capable of operating in LEO or in cislunar space for periods of approximately 25 days, provide crew rotation to the ISS or interplanetary manned spacecraft, and serve as an earth return capsule or lifeboat for lunar and interplanetary missions.
We should ask what NASA intends for Commercial Crew capabilities after ISS ends only a few years from now. The plan as near as I can tell could be to shut it all down in favor of SLS/Orion, the launch vehicle and spacecraft designed for "Deep Space".
Quote from: edkyle99 on 07/07/2018 10:01 pmWe should ask what NASA intends for Commercial Crew capabilities after ISS ends only a few years from now. The plan as near as I can tell could be to shut it all down in favor of SLS/Orion, the launch vehicle and spacecraft designed for "Deep Space".Come on, by now you should know Boeing and SpaceX own their own crew transportation systems, so there is nothing to "shut down". NASA either buys crew transportation services or it doesn't.And both Boeing and SpaceX are free to provide transportation services to non-NASA customers anytime during or after their NASA ISS contracts - in fact the U.S. Government is hoping they would have other customers.So NASA could not "shut down" commercial crew transportation services even if they wanted to - because they don't control it, they are only a customer.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 07/07/2018 11:00 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 07/07/2018 10:01 pmWe should ask what NASA intends for Commercial Crew capabilities after ISS ends only a few years from now. The plan as near as I can tell could be to shut it all down in favor of SLS/Orion, the launch vehicle and spacecraft designed for "Deep Space".Come on, by now you should know Boeing and SpaceX own their own crew transportation systems, so there is nothing to "shut down". NASA either buys crew transportation services or it doesn't.And both Boeing and SpaceX are free to provide transportation services to non-NASA customers anytime during or after their NASA ISS contracts - in fact the U.S. Government is hoping they would have other customers.So NASA could not "shut down" commercial crew transportation services even if they wanted to - because they don't control it, they are only a customer.Who are these non-NASA customers, who would be willing to spend, what is it, something like $500-700 million dollars or more per flight? And where will they go? Where will their non-NASA owned launch facilities be located? NASA will use Commercial Crew only as long as it is needed, which is to say only as long as ISS remains in orbit unless some other NASA LEO destination is created. After that I do believe it will be shuttered because a program like that can't survive on a couple of billionaire joy rides. It needs steady annual funding.The reason, as this thread is meant to discuss, is that NASA's post-ISS goals and missions are not in LEO. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: mike robel on 07/07/2018 11:06 amIn my view, SLS and Orion are not missions. They are programs (possibly failing) to provide tools to assist in mission accomplishment. The problem is, we have no mission.SLS/Orion have a mission. It is Exploration Mission 1. It is the "first in a series of increasingly complex missions that will enable human deep space exploration to the Moon and beyond". EM-2 had been slated to repeat EM-1, except with astronauts, but the details have likely changed. A third Block 1 SLS is going to launch Europa Clipper. Then NASA will be done with Block 1 because ULA will soon have to scrap the ICPS tooling with the end of Delta 4. I figure the larger "deep space exploration" mission will continue at that point, one way or another, whether with Block 1B or something else. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 07/07/2018 11:00 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 07/07/2018 10:01 pmWe should ask what NASA intends for Commercial Crew capabilities after ISS ends only a few years from now. The plan as near as I can tell could be to shut it all down in favor of SLS/Orion, the launch vehicle and spacecraft designed for "Deep Space".Come on, by now you should know Boeing and SpaceX own their own crew transportation systems, so there is nothing to "shut down". NASA either buys crew transportation services or it doesn't.And both Boeing and SpaceX are free to provide transportation services to non-NASA customers anytime during or after their NASA ISS contracts - in fact the U.S. Government is hoping they would have other customers.So NASA could not "shut down" commercial crew transportation services even if they wanted to - because they don't control it, they are only a customer.Who are these non-NASA customers, who would be willing to spend, what is it, something like $500-700 million dollars or more per flight? And where will they go? Where will their non-NASA owned launch facilities be located?
It's OK to have unfunded and even unrealistic goals. Goals are targets and intentions, which can provide direction and inspiration before actually acting on them.
I want to focus on this point, because I think I lot of people get the wrong idea about things that NASA employees say.NASA employees do NOT define goals in our form of government. They are just employees. There can be personal goal, department goals, and even agency goals, but they are really just a form of marketing, since NASA works for the President and is funded by Congress. So without the President and Congress, what is said about goals within NASA is just aspirational.
NASA is planing on using commercial space stations after ISS. They even said they would be the anchor tenant.Congress, the current administration, and the past administration support NASA helping establish commercial use of space. NASA isn't going to "shut it all down" to support NASA programs.
I've got a question for you Ed: Why are you seemingly under the impression that only government agencies are allowed to do human spaceflight?
Quote from: RonM on 07/08/2018 03:31 pmNASA is planing on using commercial space stations after ISS. They even said they would be the anchor tenant.Congress, the current administration, and the past administration support NASA helping establish commercial use of space. NASA isn't going to "shut it all down" to support NASA programs.Who are these companies planning to orbit a commercial space station?