Provides $17.7 billion in discretionary funding for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), a decrease of 0.3 percent, or about $50 million, below the 2012 enacted level.
Ok, I'll ask the dumb question."Provides $17.7 billion in discretionary funding for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), a decrease of 0.3 percent, or about $50 million, below the 2012 enacted level."That's all good news, right? Where's the panic about NASA getting cut from the Sequester etc?
RELEASE: 13-104NASA ADMINISTRATOR BOLDEN'S STATEMENT ON THE NASA FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST
Quote from: Longhorn John on 04/10/2013 04:16 pmOk, I'll ask the dumb question."Provides $17.7 billion in discretionary funding for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), a decrease of 0.3 percent, or about $50 million, below the 2012 enacted level."That's all good news, right? Where's the panic about NASA getting cut from the Sequester etc?President Obama has only vetoed 2 bills since coming into office, that's less than any President since James Garfield. His budgets don't matter because if the Legislative branch puts something in front of him, he signs it. FYI Franklin Roosevelt vetoed 635 bills.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 04/10/2013 05:14 pmRELEASE: 13-104NASA ADMINISTRATOR BOLDEN'S STATEMENT ON THE NASA FY 2014 BUDGET REQUESTAs usual these releases have a lot of words without actually saying anything concrete.
Breakdownhttp://www.nasa.gov/pdf/740427main_NASAFY2014SummaryBriefFinal.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/news/media/newsaudio/index.html - top of the hour.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 04/10/2013 06:48 pmhttp://www.nasa.gov/news/media/newsaudio/index.html - top of the hour.Do you have a link? That one doesn't currently work.
nice graphic anyhow..
Terrible webcast, can only just make them out.
Kinda sobering to see "$0.0" budgeted for the Space Shuttle, though.
Quote from: Space Pete on 04/10/2013 05:23 pmKinda sobering to see "$0.0" budgeted for the Space Shuttle, though.Just out of interest why is the Shuttle still even listed?
Q) Keith Cowing asking about "Mars in the goal, pound your shoe on the table". Have I missed something? Asks about ISS extension too.Bolden: Our central focus is to lead the world in space exploration. We will sustain ISS with commercial crew and cargo. We'll respond to the President's challenge. And continues our ground breaking...Pretty much read off a script and ended with "thanks very much". Didn't answer the question.
CFO: No discussion with the space mining interests over the asteroid target. Mining has not been first and foremost in our thoughts.
OSTP @whitehouseostp 10mWATCH LIVE at 1:30pm EDT: Administration S&T officials discuss 2014 Federal R&D Budget: http://www.tvworldwide.com/events/aaas/130410/# … #STEM
FY '12 FY '13 FY '14 FY '15 FY '16 FY '17 FY '18MPCV: 1200.0 -- 1026.8 1024.9 1027.1 1027.1 1028.3SLS: 1497.1 -- 1384.9 1356.5 1360.2 1354.4 1345.4Expl gnd sys: 304.5 -- 318.2 408.4 414.2 436.8 445.8Comm crew develop: 392.0 -- 821.4 821.4 821.4 590.0 371.0ISS Crew & Cargo: 1185.7 -- 1503.8 1681.8 1686.7 1819.7 2019.6
Right, I'm going to get something to eat and then spend some hours on that asteroid mission, so keep the thread going - and it can be used for reaction comments.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 04/10/2013 08:25 pmRight, I'm going to get something to eat and then spend some hours on that asteroid mission, so keep the thread going - and it can be used for reaction comments.Thanks Chris.My own 2 cents is that it would seem NASA is to be put on life support, much like the rest of America, just keeping a holding pattern (holding its head above water): all because they can't sort out their priorities in government circles. It's crippling their country & their ability to move forward in any meaningful way.(and as an aside: the infrastructure issue is even more troubling for America)With erosion happening around the outside edges of all these NASA programs, we might just see (more) whole programs get shut down in the coming years.
That is why we made an asteroid our next destination for human exploration three years ago. In addition to funding this asteroid mission planning, our budget funds an initiative to accelerate identification and characterization of asteroids that pose a threat to our planet. We will use existing capabilities including the Orion crew capsule and the SLS rocket, to benefit more fully from our ongoing investments.
Quote from: Ms. GarverThat is why we made an asteroid our next destination for human exploration three years ago. In addition to funding this asteroid mission planning, our budget funds an initiative to accelerate identification and characterization of asteroids that pose a threat to our planet. We will use existing capabilities including the Orion crew capsule and the SLS rocket, to benefit more fully from our ongoing investments.It is a full court press by the Administration. "Leadership" seems to be interpreted as getting your way, winning at all costs.The key factor for the success of this mission, the asteroid bag, which only seems to work on a non-tumbling asteroid, is at a solid TRL of One. Count 'em, One. [Oh-Enn-Eee] This is falsely characterized as an "existing capability".In order to do this, they propose reducing the funding on another "existing capability", SLS.The silver lining of course, is the funding for commercial crew.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 04/15/2013 01:43 pmThe key factor for the success of this mission, the asteroid bag, which only seems to work on a non-tumbling asteroid, is at a solid TRL of One. Count 'em, One. [Oh-Enn-Eee] This is falsely characterized as an "existing capability".In order to do this, they propose reducing the funding on another "existing capability", SLS.1. The Kreck study (http://www.kiss.caltech.edu/study/asteroid/asteroid_final_report.pdf) discusses how they plan to de-tumble tumbling asteroids. What is the source of your claim that the asteroid bag won't work on tumbling asteroids?2. It's now eight years before 2021 and twelve years before 2025. Eight years is the time between the first US manned suborbital spaceflight and Apollo 11. Twelve years is the time between Sputnik and Apollo 11. It was 12 years from the invention of the sky crane concept until MSL's launch and 8 years between the start of the MSL program and its launch (http://www.popsci.com/bown/2012/innovator/mars-curiosity-sky-crane). Why exactly do you think the TRL of the asteroid bag is a show-stopper?
The key factor for the success of this mission, the asteroid bag, which only seems to work on a non-tumbling asteroid, is at a solid TRL of One. Count 'em, One. [Oh-Enn-Eee] This is falsely characterized as an "existing capability".In order to do this, they propose reducing the funding on another "existing capability", SLS.
Although not shown in Fig. 11 it may be necessary to include a "Stewart Platform" in which six linear actuators would allow the ring to be moved in x, y, z, roll, pitch, and yaw.
It's just occurred to me that this asteroid retrieval mission seems like a great candidate for a payment-on-delivery contracting model.
...some of the funding would probably need to be COTS/CCdev style milestone payments with perhaps half the funding payable upon delivery. Putting the money for the prize in a trust fund that's built up over the years before delivery may build confidence that Congress would actually deliver the prize ...
The asteroid bag itself is pretty new...
... but I don't see any reason to doubt it being doable.
1. First, I didn't say it would never work; I said that the bag was at TRL1. Do you have any links that would establish a higher TRL level for the asteroid bag concept?[...]Third, please tell me the source of your apparent acceptance of the claim that the asteroid bag scheme is accurately characterized by Ms. Garver as "existing capability"?
Second, the NASA video, which is the only "source" out there today, shows the bag approaching a non-tumbling asteroid.
You cannot have an implication that this effort is a done deal.
The $2.6B number is dependent on billions of dollars of additional funding for what are euphemistically called "existing capabilities".
My misunderstanding is I assumed you brought up asteroid bag TRL because you think it's relevant to our policy discussions ...
I think the Kreck study is a much better source for details like this than that video is.
I agree that funding is a serious risk, especially if NASA tries developing new thrusters and solar panels instead of using a cluster of existing ones.
NASA leaders must temper the Agency’s culture of optimism by demanding realistic cost and schedule estimates, well-defined and stable requirements, and mature technologies early in development.
TRL 1 means that the underlying physical phenomena have been observed; all of the technology needed for the asteroid heist is well beyond stage.
Capture Mechanism DevelopmentThe capture mechanism must be able to accommodate a massive, irregularly shaped object with significant uncertainty in the physical dimensions and mass prior to launch. An over-sized inflatable structure lined with high-strength bags is the current concept for this mechanism. Development of a prototype capture mechanism based on this approach would significantly reduce risk for a future asteroid capture and return mission.