Author Topic: NASA at Crossroads: July 13 2016 Senate Hearing  (Read 42425 times)

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: NASA at Crossroads: July 13 2016 Senate Hearing
« Reply #60 on: 09/15/2016 05:03 pm »
My take is that he was trashing FH and NG too, not *just* MCT and NA.

MCT and NA? Fine. Maybe even NG. But trashing FH is basically saying that you don't think SpaceX is going to do FH even though they are really close (cue up QG pointing out that they've been close for a while now)

Maybe it because Falcon uses 'old technology'
Quote
NASA Administrator Charles Bolden raised some eyebrows recently when a question was put to him at a public meeting, why is NASA spending a lot of money developing the heavy lift #Space Launch System when SpaceX is also developing heavy lift at far less cost? A great answer involving the capabilities of the Falcon Heavy vs. the SLS exists. Bolden declined to issue this reply, offering instead that the SpaceX Falcon 9 uses “old technology.” The assertion is false on a number of levels.

http://us.blastingnews.com/news/2016/04/nasa-s-charles-bolden-shows-confusion-concerning-rockets-and-old-technology-00895293.html

Seriously, though, even without the BFR/NA, the BEO throw weight issue can be solved by upgrading methlox FH/NG second stages and using  on-orbit refueling... much sooner and more cheaply than the un-refuelable EUS and fully expendable Block 2 will be available.  Throw weight to Cis-Lunar space of a refueled methlox second stage would blow away anything even Block 2 will handle (in the 2030s).  Reusable boosters and core stages make repeated launches affordable.

SLS (apparently not 'old technology') will maintain the strategic advantage of lofting large volume payloads... so it does have a unique and critical role and should remain part of the  mix -- until BFR/NA arrive on the scene.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: NASA at Crossroads: July 13 2016 Senate Hearing
« Reply #61 on: 09/16/2016 02:14 pm »
Since both Musk and Bezos are trying to build large rockets, one can assume they both believe missions built up from smaller modules are not practical.

SpaceX has said explicitly that Falcon Heavy is adequate for NASA-style Mars missions, i.e., sending a few people per decade to Mars.

MCT is for colonizing Mars, something which NASA has no plans to do.

Your old post doesn't support "SpaceX has said explicitly that Falcon Heavy is adequate for NASA-style Mars missions."

SpaceX says "Falcon Heavy ... restores the possibility of flying missions with crew to the Moon or Mars."  How is that not consistent with NASA's ideas of sending a few people to Mars per decade?
« Last Edit: 09/16/2016 02:15 pm by Proponent »

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2231
  • Likes Given: 1584
Re: NASA at Crossroads: July 13 2016 Senate Hearing
« Reply #62 on: 09/16/2016 03:06 pm »
Since both Musk and Bezos are trying to build large rockets, one can assume they both believe missions built up from smaller modules are not practical.

SpaceX has said explicitly that Falcon Heavy is adequate for NASA-style Mars missions, i.e., sending a few people per decade to Mars.

MCT is for colonizing Mars, something which NASA has no plans to do.

Your old post doesn't support "SpaceX has said explicitly that Falcon Heavy is adequate for NASA-style Mars missions."

SpaceX says "Falcon Heavy ... restores the possibility of flying missions with crew to the Moon or Mars."  How is that not consistent with NASA's ideas of sending a few people to Mars per decade?

Because writing "restores the possibility" is not the same thing as writing "NASA-style Mars missions." You're reading too much into a single sentence.

NASA, SpaceX, and Blue Origin are all trying to build very big rockets. None of them are working on manned BEO missions using smaller rockets.

Congress mandated NASA build SLS and Orion. Before that NASA was designing the Ares V and Orion. NASA-style Mars missions are not just "sending a few people to Mars per decade," their missions require large payloads and very large rockets to fly those payloads.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: NASA at Crossroads: July 13 2016 Senate Hearing
« Reply #63 on: 09/17/2016 01:47 am »
This is the sum total of all that is known about the New Armstrong:
"New Glenn is a very important step. It won’t be the last of course. Up next on our drawing board: New Armstrong." -Jeff Bezos

Musk has been hinting around at his MCT for years only saying a bit more than that about it....
A LOT more has been said about MCT. More than you'd fit in a (properly formatted) Powerpoint slide. Here's a thread that collects just updates on MCT:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37839.msg1392252

Also, pieces of the engine for MCT (ICT now?) has been undergoing testing the last few years at Stennis, a NASA facility. Strange for the administrator to come off a little hostile.
« Last Edit: 09/17/2016 01:48 am by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: NASA at Crossroads: July 13 2016 Senate Hearing
« Reply #64 on: 09/17/2016 02:35 am »
Since both Musk and Bezos are trying to build large rockets, one can assume they both believe missions built up from smaller modules are not practical.

SpaceX has said explicitly that Falcon Heavy is adequate for NASA-style Mars missions, i.e., sending a few people per decade to Mars.

MCT is for colonizing Mars, something which NASA has no plans to do.

Your old post doesn't support "SpaceX has said explicitly that Falcon Heavy is adequate for NASA-style Mars missions."

SpaceX says "Falcon Heavy ... restores the possibility of flying missions with crew to the Moon or Mars."  How is that not consistent with NASA's ideas of sending a few people to Mars per decade?

Because writing "restores the possibility" is not the same thing as writing "NASA-style Mars missions." You're reading too much into a single sentence.

NASA, SpaceX, and Blue Origin are all trying to build very big rockets. None of them are working on manned BEO missions using smaller rockets.

Congress mandated NASA build SLS and Orion. Before that NASA was designing the Ares V and Orion. NASA-style Mars missions are not just "sending a few people to Mars per decade," their missions require large payloads and very large rockets to fly those payloads.

JPL's minimal Mars architecture would use 6 SLS launches to send a crew of 4 to Mars orbit, where two would descend to the surface for 24 days.  That's about the most minimal mission imaginable.  SpaceX must have had at least that in mind when it suggested that Falcon Heavy was adequate for Mars missions.

NASA's Evolvable Mars Campaign is more aggressive, a crew of four being sent to the surface for hundreds of days using about 10 SLS launches, depending on the version of the architecture selected (with one mission every four years, thought, that's still just a few people per decade).  If, according to SpaceX, Falcon Heavy is adequate for a mission similar to JPL's 6-SLS proposal, surely it could stretch to a 10-SLS EMC mission.

SpaceX seems to have no interest in small-scale Mars missions of the type that NASA discusses, just as it has no interest in lunar missions.  That hardly means that Falcon Heavy can't perform them.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: NASA at Crossroads: July 13 2016 Senate Hearing
« Reply #65 on: 09/17/2016 01:02 pm »
Let's get real...  It is time for JPL and NASA to write a Truly Evolvable Exploration Campaign that acknowledges the existence of more than a single USG launch asset.  The Nation's capability is vastly more than its government-only sacred cows.

A campaign starting with Block 1B SLS heavy/large volume cargo lift, adding Falcon Heavy, New Glenn, and Vulcan-ACES capabilities, delivering crew with any one of several assets, and -- dare I say it -- employing on-orbit refueling/depots can get us to the Moon and Mars in 10-15 years at whatever scale we choose.  The redundancy of vehicles would provide two-deep coverage of any needed capability.  The economies of this joint public-private venture would eliminate the bottleneck (read: fantasy) of single path, expendable-only launch vehicles.  Infrastructure put in place would be the beginning of a space architecture that actually could substantiate the 'Evolvable' part of the title.

As additional National assets come on line such as the Block 2 SLS, BFR, New Armstrong, and/or Vulcan Heavy, the campaign can expand and evolve.  Assets that become redundant can fall away without damaging the overall effort.  International cooperation would be a natural out-growth of a program that is actually going somewhere and not just seeking alternate sources of revenue.

We should have as a goal, returning to the Moon and going to Mars to establish a permanent presence on both bodies.  More than sufficient time exists between now and mid-2020s to prove the technology and build the foundation for the crewed phase of the venture.

Time to get some leadership ...
« Last Edit: 09/17/2016 01:13 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1740
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 438
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: NASA at Crossroads: July 13 2016 Senate Hearing
« Reply #66 on: 09/17/2016 04:33 pm »
This is the sum total of all that is known about the New Armstrong:
"New Glenn is a very important step. It won’t be the last of course. Up next on our drawing board: New Armstrong." -Jeff Bezos

Musk has been hinting around at his MCT for years only saying a bit more than that about it....
A LOT more has been said about MCT. More than you'd fit in a (properly formatted) Powerpoint slide. Here's a thread that collects just updates on MCT:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37839.msg1392252

Also, pieces of the engine for MCT (ICT now?) has been undergoing testing the last few years at Stennis, a NASA facility. Strange for the administrator to come off a little hostile.
What does the MCT look like? What about a picture of the raptor? There have been some details of the MCT shared. Some of them are contradictory. However the basics, what it looks like, what its performance is, have not. That is the very first slide on any PowerPoint rocket's presentation. At the very least if we are to entertain that Bolden is acting irresponsibly in not supporting these super heavy lift rockets then need to wait for him to have a reasonable idea of what they are.

SpaceX and Blue will need to show their systems as a credible alternative to the POR before any change in policy happens. Elon's talk next week will be interesting. At the very least lets wait till then to ask Bolden what he thinks. At leats then we can all know what we are debating about.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: NASA at Crossroads: July 13 2016 Senate Hearing
« Reply #67 on: 09/17/2016 04:50 pm »
Let's get real...  It is time for JPL and NASA to write a Truly Evolvable Exploration Campaign that acknowledges the existence of more than a single USG launch asset.  The Nation's capability is vastly more than its government-only sacred cows.

A campaign starting with Block 1B SLS heavy/large volume cargo lift, adding Falcon Heavy, New Glenn, and Vulcan-ACES capabilities, delivering crew with any one of several assets, and -- dare I say it -- employing on-orbit refueling/depots can get us to the Moon and Mars in 10-15 years at whatever scale we choose.  The redundancy of vehicles would provide two-deep coverage of any needed capability.  The economies of this joint public-private venture would eliminate the bottleneck (read: fantasy) of single path, expendable-only launch vehicles.  Infrastructure put in place would be the beginning of a space architecture that actually could substantiate the 'Evolvable' part of the title.

As additional National assets come on line such as the Block 2 SLS, BFR, New Armstrong, and/or Vulcan Heavy, the campaign can expand and evolve.  Assets that become redundant can fall away without damaging the overall effort.  International cooperation would be a natural out-growth of a program that is actually going somewhere and not just seeking alternate sources of revenue.

We should have as a goal, returning to the Moon and going to Mars to establish a permanent presence on both bodies.  More than sufficient time exists between now and mid-2020s to prove the technology and build the foundation for the crewed phase of the venture.

Time to get some leadership ...
I just see it simply as a lack of public interest...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: NASA at Crossroads: July 13 2016 Senate Hearing
« Reply #68 on: 09/17/2016 05:40 pm »
Let's get real...  It is time for JPL and NASA to write a Truly Evolvable Exploration Campaign that acknowledges the existence of more than a single USG launch asset.  The Nation's capability is vastly more than its government-only sacred cows.

A campaign starting with Block 1B SLS heavy/large volume cargo lift, adding Falcon Heavy, New Glenn, and Vulcan-ACES capabilities, delivering crew with any one of several assets, and -- dare I say it -- employing on-orbit refueling/depots can get us to the Moon and Mars in 10-15 years at whatever scale we choose.  The redundancy of vehicles would provide two-deep coverage of any needed capability.  The economies of this joint public-private venture would eliminate the bottleneck (read: fantasy) of single path, expendable-only launch vehicles.  Infrastructure put in place would be the beginning of a space architecture that actually could substantiate the 'Evolvable' part of the title.

As additional National assets come on line such as the Block 2 SLS, BFR, New Armstrong, and/or Vulcan Heavy, the campaign can expand and evolve.  Assets that become redundant can fall away without damaging the overall effort.  International cooperation would be a natural out-growth of a program that is actually going somewhere and not just seeking alternate sources of revenue.

We should have as a goal, returning to the Moon and going to Mars to establish a permanent presence on both bodies.  More than sufficient time exists between now and mid-2020s to prove the technology and build the foundation for the crewed phase of the venture.

Time to get some leadership ...
I just see it simply as a lack of public interest...

AncientU has it right, that's an evolvable campaign. As for public interest, I think the public are less interested in government flags and footprints spectacles than they were in Apollo days, but are becoming more interested in actual campaigns, with permanency, that can end up making their lives better. Slowly, but I am hopeful they are. Recent PR from Blue and SpaceX helps.
« Last Edit: 09/17/2016 05:41 pm by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Khadgars

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1750
  • Orange County, California
  • Liked: 1132
  • Likes Given: 3156
Re: NASA at Crossroads: July 13 2016 Senate Hearing
« Reply #69 on: 09/17/2016 05:54 pm »
Since both Musk and Bezos are trying to build large rockets, one can assume they both believe missions built up from smaller modules are not practical.

SpaceX has said explicitly that Falcon Heavy is adequate for NASA-style Mars missions, i.e., sending a few people per decade to Mars.

MCT is for colonizing Mars, something which NASA has no plans to do.

Your old post doesn't support "SpaceX has said explicitly that Falcon Heavy is adequate for NASA-style Mars missions."

SpaceX says "Falcon Heavy ... restores the possibility of flying missions with crew to the Moon or Mars."  How is that not consistent with NASA's ideas of sending a few people to Mars per decade?

Because writing "restores the possibility" is not the same thing as writing "NASA-style Mars missions." You're reading too much into a single sentence.

NASA, SpaceX, and Blue Origin are all trying to build very big rockets. None of them are working on manned BEO missions using smaller rockets.

Congress mandated NASA build SLS and Orion. Before that NASA was designing the Ares V and Orion. NASA-style Mars missions are not just "sending a few people to Mars per decade," their missions require large payloads and very large rockets to fly those payloads.

I agree.  I think everyone has forgotten where the conversation has shifted.  For the last 5 years one of the primary arguments against SLS was that you didn't need a SHLV.  Yet, here we are, with 3 SHLV in development and not a single plan uses smaller rockets.  That's a big shift that no one is willing to concede  ;)
Evil triumphs when good men do nothing - Thomas Jefferson

Offline Khadgars

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1750
  • Orange County, California
  • Liked: 1132
  • Likes Given: 3156
Re: NASA at Crossroads: July 13 2016 Senate Hearing
« Reply #70 on: 09/17/2016 06:00 pm »
Congress should keep funding SLS and Orion until Musk or Bezos have their rockets operational. There is no guarantee they will succeed. Once NASA has the option to purchase SHLV flights from private industry, then Congress can rethink their plans.

I might conceivably agree if:

  • 1. NASA had truly established the need or at least the desirability of an SLS-class launch vehicle (if anyone believes such has already been established, please show me where); and
  • 2. ULA had been asked to bid on a such a launch vehicle but SLS was found superior for sound engineering reasons.  In the past, ULA has suggested it could build an EELV-based heavy lifter for single-digit billions of dollars, and such a thing would likely be cheaper to operate than SLS because of it commonality with other launch vehicles.

  • Otherwise, with a burn rate of $2+ billion a year, SLS is a ridiculously expensive insurance policy to cover a risk that may not exist.

    My understanding is SLS target is $500 Million per launch + Ground Systems for total of $1.5 Billion.  What you are advocating is completely mothballing all of NASA's ground support systems and testing.  By doing so, you completely remove NASA's ability to launch its own vehicles.  Not a single major space agency in the world would do this.
    Evil triumphs when good men do nothing - Thomas Jefferson

    Offline Rocket Science

    • Senior Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10586
    • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
    • Liked: 4548
    • Likes Given: 13523
    Re: NASA at Crossroads: July 13 2016 Senate Hearing
    « Reply #71 on: 09/17/2016 06:30 pm »
    Let's get real...  It is time for JPL and NASA to write a Truly Evolvable Exploration Campaign that acknowledges the existence of more than a single USG launch asset.  The Nation's capability is vastly more than its government-only sacred cows.

    A campaign starting with Block 1B SLS heavy/large volume cargo lift, adding Falcon Heavy, New Glenn, and Vulcan-ACES capabilities, delivering crew with any one of several assets, and -- dare I say it -- employing on-orbit refueling/depots can get us to the Moon and Mars in 10-15 years at whatever scale we choose.  The redundancy of vehicles would provide two-deep coverage of any needed capability.  The economies of this joint public-private venture would eliminate the bottleneck (read: fantasy) of single path, expendable-only launch vehicles.  Infrastructure put in place would be the beginning of a space architecture that actually could substantiate the 'Evolvable' part of the title.

    As additional National assets come on line such as the Block 2 SLS, BFR, New Armstrong, and/or Vulcan Heavy, the campaign can expand and evolve.  Assets that become redundant can fall away without damaging the overall effort.  International cooperation would be a natural out-growth of a program that is actually going somewhere and not just seeking alternate sources of revenue.

    We should have as a goal, returning to the Moon and going to Mars to establish a permanent presence on both bodies.  More than sufficient time exists between now and mid-2020s to prove the technology and build the foundation for the crewed phase of the venture.

    Time to get some leadership ...
    I just see it simply as a lack of public interest...

    AncientU has it right, that's an evolvable campaign. As for public interest, I think the public are less interested in government flags and footprints spectacles than they were in Apollo days, but are becoming more interested in actual campaigns, with permanency, that can end up making their lives better. Slowly, but I am hopeful they are. Recent PR from Blue and SpaceX helps.
    Lar, I would really appreciate if you would articulate how any campaign would make the average citizen's life better as I have never been able to convincingly...
    "The laws of physics are unforgiving"
    ~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

    Offline Jim

    • Night Gator
    • Senior Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 37440
    • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
    • Liked: 21450
    • Likes Given: 428
    Re: NASA at Crossroads: July 13 2016 Senate Hearing
    « Reply #72 on: 09/17/2016 06:35 pm »
    Since both Musk and Bezos are trying to build large rockets, one can assume they both believe missions built up from smaller modules are not practical.

    SpaceX has said explicitly that Falcon Heavy is adequate for NASA-style Mars missions, i.e., sending a few people per decade to Mars.

    MCT is for colonizing Mars, something which NASA has no plans to do.

    Your old post doesn't support "SpaceX has said explicitly that Falcon Heavy is adequate for NASA-style Mars missions."

    SpaceX says "Falcon Heavy ... restores the possibility of flying missions with crew to the Moon or Mars."  How is that not consistent with NASA's ideas of sending a few people to Mars per decade?

    Because writing "restores the possibility" is not the same thing as writing "NASA-style Mars missions." You're reading too much into a single sentence.

    NASA, SpaceX, and Blue Origin are all trying to build very big rockets. None of them are working on manned BEO missions using smaller rockets.

    Congress mandated NASA build SLS and Orion. Before that NASA was designing the Ares V and Orion. NASA-style Mars missions are not just "sending a few people to Mars per decade," their missions require large payloads and very large rockets to fly those payloads.

    I agree.  I think everyone has forgotten where the conversation has shifted.  For the last 5 years one of the primary arguments against SLS was that you didn't need a SHLV.  Yet, here we are, with 3 SHLV in development and not a single plan uses smaller rockets.  That's a big shift that no one is willing to concede  ;)

    There is no need for the US gov't to have such a vehicle.
    Blue Origin and Spacex reasons for SHLV are not aligned with the US gov'ts'

    Offline Jim

    • Night Gator
    • Senior Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 37440
    • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
    • Liked: 21450
    • Likes Given: 428
    Re: NASA at Crossroads: July 13 2016 Senate Hearing
    « Reply #73 on: 09/17/2016 06:39 pm »
    Let's get real...  It is time for JPL and NASA to write a Truly Evolvable Exploration Campaign that acknowledges the existence of more than a single USG launch asset.  The Nation's capability is vastly more than its government-only sacred cows.

    A campaign starting with Block 1B SLS heavy/large volume cargo lift, adding Falcon Heavy, New Glenn, and Vulcan-ACES capabilities, delivering crew with any one of several assets, and -- dare I say it -- employing on-orbit refueling/depots can get us to the Moon and Mars in 10-15 years at whatever scale we choose.  The redundancy of vehicles would provide two-deep coverage of any needed capability.  The economies of this joint public-private venture would eliminate the bottleneck (read: fantasy) of single path, expendable-only launch vehicles.  Infrastructure put in place would be the beginning of a space architecture that actually could substantiate the 'Evolvable' part of the title.

    As additional National assets come on line such as the Block 2 SLS, BFR, New Armstrong, and/or Vulcan Heavy, the campaign can expand and evolve.  Assets that become redundant can fall away without damaging the overall effort.  International cooperation would be a natural out-growth of a program that is actually going somewhere and not just seeking alternate sources of revenue.

    We should have as a goal, returning to the Moon and going to Mars to establish a permanent presence on both bodies.  More than sufficient time exists between now and mid-2020s to prove the technology and build the foundation for the crewed phase of the venture.

    Time to get some leadership ...

    No, there is no reason for the US gov't to have such goals.  It would provide no real benefits to most of its citizens.

    Furthermore, it is not JPL's job to do such a thing. They are just lab that does tasks assigned to it by NASA.
    « Last Edit: 09/17/2016 06:39 pm by Jim »

    Offline RonM

    • Senior Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 3340
    • Atlanta, Georgia USA
    • Liked: 2231
    • Likes Given: 1584
    Re: NASA at Crossroads: July 13 2016 Senate Hearing
    « Reply #74 on: 09/17/2016 07:08 pm »
    There is no need for the US gov't to have such a vehicle.
    Blue Origin and Spacex reasons for SHLV are not aligned with the US gov'ts'

    No, there is no reason for the US gov't to have such goals.  It would provide no real benefits to most of its citizens.

    Furthermore, it is not JPL's job to do such a thing. They are just lab that does tasks assigned to it by NASA.

    Once again good points from Jim. Good thing Blue Origins and SpaceX have their own plans.

    Still, Congress went with SLS and Orion. I personally think they should stick with them until a commercial SHLV is available. Maybe the tooling for SLS can be put to good use for NASA DSH launched on commercial SHLV. Possibly launch Orion from a commercial rocket. I'd like to get something for my tax dollars other than scrap metal.

    Offline AncientU

    • Senior Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6257
    • Liked: 4164
    • Likes Given: 6078
    Re: NASA at Crossroads: July 13 2016 Senate Hearing
    « Reply #75 on: 09/17/2016 07:09 pm »
    Let's get real...  It is time for JPL and NASA to write a Truly Evolvable Exploration Campaign that acknowledges the existence of more than a single USG launch asset.  The Nation's capability is vastly more than its government-only sacred cows.

    A campaign starting with Block 1B SLS heavy/large volume cargo lift, adding Falcon Heavy, New Glenn, and Vulcan-ACES capabilities, delivering crew with any one of several assets, and -- dare I say it -- employing on-orbit refueling/depots can get us to the Moon and Mars in 10-15 years at whatever scale we choose.  The redundancy of vehicles would provide two-deep coverage of any needed capability.  The economies of this joint public-private venture would eliminate the bottleneck (read: fantasy) of single path, expendable-only launch vehicles.  Infrastructure put in place would be the beginning of a space architecture that actually could substantiate the 'Evolvable' part of the title.

    As additional National assets come on line such as the Block 2 SLS, BFR, New Armstrong, and/or Vulcan Heavy, the campaign can expand and evolve.  Assets that become redundant can fall away without damaging the overall effort.  International cooperation would be a natural out-growth of a program that is actually going somewhere and not just seeking alternate sources of revenue.

    We should have as a goal, returning to the Moon and going to Mars to establish a permanent presence on both bodies.  More than sufficient time exists between now and mid-2020s to prove the technology and build the foundation for the crewed phase of the venture.

    Time to get some leadership ...

    No, there is no reason for the US gov't to have such goals.  It would provide no real benefits to most of its citizens.

    Furthermore, it is not JPL's job to do such a thing. They are just lab that does tasks assigned to it by NASA.

    Why is NASA spending $billions on SLS/Orion and making 'exploration' plans?
    (This is not about your personal disdain for human exploration.)
    "If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
    -- SpaceX friend of mlindner

    Offline Jim

    • Night Gator
    • Senior Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 37440
    • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
    • Liked: 21450
    • Likes Given: 428
    Re: NASA at Crossroads: July 13 2016 Senate Hearing
    « Reply #76 on: 09/17/2016 07:14 pm »

    1.  Why is NASA spending $billions on SLS/Orion and making 'exploration' plans?

    2.  (This is not about your personal disdain for human exploration.)


    1.  Jobs and votes

    2.  I have no such disdain.  I just don't think it should be gov't funded.  I applaud what Blue O and Spacex are doing.

    Offline Khadgars

    • Full Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 1750
    • Orange County, California
    • Liked: 1132
    • Likes Given: 3156
    Re: NASA at Crossroads: July 13 2016 Senate Hearing
    « Reply #77 on: 09/17/2016 07:34 pm »

    1.  Why is NASA spending $billions on SLS/Orion and making 'exploration' plans?

    2.  (This is not about your personal disdain for human exploration.)


    1.  Jobs and votes

    2.  I have no such disdain.  I just don't think it should be gov't funded.  I applaud what Blue O and Spacex are doing.

    Who doesn't applaud what the private sector is doing?  And why shouldn't the government fund its own goals?  This argument can literally be applied to every government run program and is beyond the scope of NASA.

    Evil triumphs when good men do nothing - Thomas Jefferson

    Offline Jim

    • Night Gator
    • Senior Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 37440
    • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
    • Liked: 21450
    • Likes Given: 428
    Re: NASA at Crossroads: July 13 2016 Senate Hearing
    « Reply #78 on: 09/17/2016 07:47 pm »
    The need for NASA managed HSF has long passed.  The cold war is over.   It's  paradigm is no longer applicable. There is no other govt agency that is run like NASA.  Space is no longer special and doesn't need the govt's focus as before.
    « Last Edit: 09/17/2016 07:52 pm by Jim »

    Offline Lar

    • Fan boy at large
    • Global Moderator
    • Senior Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 13463
    • Saw Gemini live on TV
    • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
    • Liked: 11864
    • Likes Given: 11086
    Re: NASA at Crossroads: July 13 2016 Senate Hearing
    « Reply #79 on: 09/17/2016 08:09 pm »
    Lar, I would really appreciate if you would articulate how any campaign would make the average citizen's life better as I have never been able to convincingly...
    I can't point to concrete examples of future products and services, since I don't know what future products and services will be on offer. I will say that technical advances always benefit the general population, with extremely rare exceptions. In this case I think moving dirty manufacturing off-earth (the end goal here is to have most people living and working in space, after all, which implies a steady flow of stuff back and forth) is hugely beneficial.

    Earth built and launched satellites have already changed our life for the better, a lot[1]. Imagine how much better things will be with much larger capability, not constrained to being earth built or earth launched.

    The need for NASA managed HSF has long passed.  The cold war is over.   It's  paradigm is no longer applicable. There is no other govt agency that is run like NASA.  Space is no longer special and doesn't need the govt's focus as before.

    Exactly. When space is just another job (not just working at launchsites but working IN space), the revolution will have succeeded. NASA should do science and TRL advancement, not build launchers. 

    1 - I can't imagine getting along without GPS and weather sats, even though I don't watch a lot of TV.
    « Last Edit: 09/17/2016 08:10 pm by Lar »
    "I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
    "We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

    Tags:
     

    Advertisement NovaTech
    Advertisement Northrop Grumman
    Advertisement
    Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
    Advertisement Brady Kenniston
    Advertisement NextSpaceflight
    Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
    1