Author Topic: Trump Space Policy Directive 1  (Read 51236 times)

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #160 on: 01/31/2018 05:46 pm »

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #161 on: 01/31/2018 06:26 pm »
A composite version of the 4.5 meter capsule could have been a relatively light craft.

As is the Starliner, based to a considerable extent on the original Boeing concept for Orion, even to the point of using the same airgags.

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #162 on: 02/05/2018 04:29 am »
With the thread finally moving away from politics and toward technology, a survey of possible architectures might be worth examining. As it is, I see three primary pathways, each with its own set of options.

I. A. SLS Block IB and Orion would likely require two launches. A lander needs to be developed.

I. B. SLS Block II (i.e. Dark Knight boosters) and Orion may be able to perform the same mission in 1 launch. Lander still needed.

I. C. Advanced SLS with 5-6 main engines and/or liquid boosters enables robust program. Lander still needed.

II. A. Disposable FH, with D2. Possible 2 launch architecture. Lander needed. Need either D2 upgrade or small Bigelow hab.

II. B. Reusable FH cores, with D2. Same issues as above. More launches required, but lower launch costs. On orbit refueling possibly required.

II. C. FH (either expendable or reusable) with Orion (possibly upgraded Starliner) as CSM. More launches required due to high mass of Orion. No hab needed and no upgrade of D2 needed. Still need lander.

III. Move toward greater cooperation with SpaceX on BFR/BFS. Test landings on Luna are already a probability. Investing resources in newer cutting edge technology rather than expensive and obsolete legacy hardware may be a better approach. This furthers a technology already in planning stages, requires no new landers, habs, or modification of existing technologies. It may also be capable of attaining the goal before any of the others could. The big obstacle is NASA putting its very regulatory fingers on the architecture and drastically slowing it down. After first Lunar landings, SpaceX sells or leases hardware to NASA and brings new hardware online for Mars.
« Last Edit: 02/05/2018 04:46 am by TomH »

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #163 on: 02/05/2018 10:58 am »
With the thread finally moving away from politics and toward technology, a survey of possible architectures might be worth examining. As it is, I see three primary pathways, each with its own set of options.

I. A. SLS Block IB and Orion would likely require two launches. A lander needs to be developed.

I. B. SLS Block II (i.e. Dark Knight boosters) and Orion may be able to perform the same mission in 1 launch. Lander still needed.

I. C. Advanced SLS with 5-6 main engines and/or liquid boosters enables robust program. Lander still needed.

II. A. Disposable FH, with D2. Possible 2 launch architecture. Lander needed. Need either D2 upgrade or small Bigelow hab.

II. B. Reusable FH cores, with D2. Same issues as above. More launches required, but lower launch costs. On orbit refueling possibly required.

II. C. FH (either expendable or reusable) with Orion (possibly upgraded Starliner) as CSM. More launches required due to high mass of Orion. No hab needed and no upgrade of D2 needed. Still need lander.

III. Move toward greater cooperation with SpaceX on BFR/BFS. Test landings on Luna are already a probability. Investing resources in newer cutting edge technology rather than expensive and obsolete legacy hardware may be a better approach. This furthers a technology already in planning stages, requires no new landers, habs, or modification of existing technologies. It may also be capable of attaining the goal before any of the others could. The big obstacle is NASA putting its very regulatory fingers on the architecture and drastically slowing it down. After first Lunar landings, SpaceX sells or leases hardware to NASA and brings new hardware online for Mars.

Basing a Lunar effort around the SLS, Orion, and other NASA hardware discussed means the program will not start until the 2030s -- meaning never.

Need to start today with depots and on-orbit refueling as planned for Vulcan ACES and BFR... start developing now.  Same with commercial landers and habitats.  Move forward with the Bigelow/ULA Lunar orbital station or equivalent if a host for the reusable/refuelable landers is needed.  Surface vehicles, mapping and communication satellites, robotics, etc.  All COTS where NASA does not control the design or pace the building efforts.

When the SLS decides to become useful, add it in to the ongoing effort.

See this neighboring thread for discussion.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44860.msg1781837#msg1781837
« Last Edit: 02/05/2018 11:10 am by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2231
  • Likes Given: 1584
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #164 on: 03/08/2018 04:23 pm »
I was watching the news and they went to President Trump live in the White House at a cabinet meeting. After he finished talking about tax cuts and jobs, Trump started talking about commercial spaceflight and billionaires liking rockets (better they spend the money than us). He seemed impressed by SpaceX's FH and other commercial rockets. Trump was very impressed at the FH boosters landing. He said positive things about NASA, but did comment on how commercial rockets were far cheaper than government projects.

Offline rory

Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #165 on: 03/08/2018 04:40 pm »
I was watching the news and they went to President Trump live in the White House at a cabinet meeting. After he finished talking about tax cuts and jobs, Trump started talking about commercial spaceflight and billionaires liking rockets (better they spend the money than us). He seemed impressed by SpaceX's FH and other commercial rockets. Trump was very impressed at the FH boosters landing. He said positive things about NASA, but did comment on how commercial rockets were far cheaper than government projects.

Video: https://twitter.com/CNBC/status/971794899904417792

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2231
  • Likes Given: 1584
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #166 on: 03/08/2018 05:23 pm »
I was watching the news and they went to President Trump live in the White House at a cabinet meeting. After he finished talking about tax cuts and jobs, Trump started talking about commercial spaceflight and billionaires liking rockets (better they spend the money than us). He seemed impressed by SpaceX's FH and other commercial rockets. Trump was very impressed at the FH boosters landing. He said positive things about NASA, but did comment on how commercial rockets were far cheaper than government projects.

Video: https://twitter.com/CNBC/status/971794899904417792

Yes, that's part of it.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #167 on: 03/08/2018 05:33 pm »
New article:
Quote
President Trump amazed by the Falcon Heavy landing—and its low cost
Quote
"If the government did it, the same thing would have cost probably 40 or 50 times."
Quote
NASA has not, in fact, set a price for flying the SLS rocket. But Ars has previously estimated that, including the billions of dollars in development cost, the per-flight fees for the SLS rocket will probably be close to $3 billion. Indeed, the development costs of SLS and its ground systems between now and its first flight could purchase 86 launches of the privately developed Falcon Heavy rocket. So President Trump's estimate of NASA's costs compared to private industry does not appear to be wildly off the mark.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/president-trump-amazed-by-the-falcon-heavy-landing-and-its-low-cost/
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0