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)
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.
Quote from: Proponent on 09/15/2016 02:02 pmQuote from: RonM on 09/15/2016 01:53 pmSince 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."
Quote from: RonM on 09/15/2016 01:53 pmSince 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.
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.
Quote from: RonM on 09/15/2016 02:30 pmQuote from: Proponent on 09/15/2016 02:02 pmQuote from: RonM on 09/15/2016 01:53 pmSince 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?
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 BezosMusk has been hinting around at his MCT for years only saying a bit more than that about it....
Quote from: Proponent on 09/16/2016 02:14 pmQuote from: RonM on 09/15/2016 02:30 pmQuote from: Proponent on 09/15/2016 02:02 pmQuote from: RonM on 09/15/2016 01:53 pmSince 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.
Quote from: notsorandom on 09/14/2016 08:58 pmThis 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 BezosMusk 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.msg1392252Also, 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.
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 ...
Quote from: AncientU on 09/17/2016 01:02 pmLet'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...
Quote from: RonM on 09/15/2016 03:29 amCongress 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); and2. 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.
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.
Quote from: Rocket Science on 09/17/2016 04:50 pmQuote from: AncientU on 09/17/2016 01:02 pmLet'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.
Quote from: RonM on 09/16/2016 03:06 pmQuote from: Proponent on 09/16/2016 02:14 pmQuote from: RonM on 09/15/2016 02:30 pmQuote from: Proponent on 09/15/2016 02:02 pmQuote from: RonM on 09/15/2016 01:53 pmSince 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'
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.
Quote from: AncientU on 09/17/2016 01:02 pmLet'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.
1. Why is NASA spending $billions on SLS/Orion and making 'exploration' plans? 2. (This is not about your personal disdain for human exploration.)
Quote from: AncientU on 09/17/2016 07:09 pm1. 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 votes2. 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.
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 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.