Quote from: hopalong on 06/15/2018 03:41 pmI am wondering if a lot of the industry, especially the 'old timers' just cannot see the BFR and / or New Armstrong coming. It is an OCP to them How much should one trust the BRF and NA projects when Musk and Bezos deliberately withhold as much information as possible about them? In order to replace SLS with either of them there needs to be a high level of confidence that the projects will succeed as promised.
I am wondering if a lot of the industry, especially the 'old timers' just cannot see the BFR and / or New Armstrong coming. It is an OCP to them
But if NASA actually needs an SLS-sized rocket -- and that has never been established (if you think it has, please identify the study in which NASA reached this conclusion), then it should compare SLS with the alternative of buying equivalent launch services from American industry (that's never been done either; again, if you disagree, please show us the study). If NASA concluded that buying launch services was preferable, then it could sign a legally binding contract with a suitable company. There would be no need to "trust" and hope that that the company would deliver on its marketing hype.
Mr. Schmitt also argued almost the opposite to Eric Berger a few years ago:
I think if you read the quotes that AncientU posted it seems that Schmitt wasn't arguing against SLS itself. He was arguing against the then current policy of not using it for a specific purpose. The strategy at that time was, "we'll build the rocket and then figure out what to do with it since we can't go back to the Moon cause we have been there before."
"Apollo was sustained because Congress and the country agreed that we ought to do it. It’s not quite so clear now, at least in the Congress, that the motivation is anything more than jobs.”
The situation today is different. The moon is no longer verboten and SLS has a specific role to play with the LOP-G going forward.
Remember though that it was Congress who mandated the SLS, not Obama. So it was Congress who was, according to Schmitt, just building the SLS as a jobs program:
Deciding that the next goal of the United States was to go to Mars is not the same as saying we could never return to our Moon.
In the meantime Congress has not funded a return-to-the-Moon program, only funded looking into it. Which isn't much different than what was going on during Obama's administration...
Quote from: notsorandom on 06/15/2018 04:45 pmQuote from: hopalong on 06/15/2018 03:41 pmI am wondering if a lot of the industry, especially the 'old timers' just cannot see the BFR and / or New Armstrong coming. It is an OCP to them How much should one trust the BRF and NA projects when Musk and Bezos deliberately withhold as much information as possible about them? In order to replace SLS with either of them there needs to be a high level of confidence that the projects will succeed as promised.I agree completely that it would be a mistake for NASA to cross its fingers and base its plans on the hope that BFR or NA will arrive on schedule and with the advertised capabilities....
It is painfully obvious to me that Jack Schmitt has created a PR document for NASA/SLS without sufficient regard for what is real and what is not. There are too many things he stated that are simply wrong. There are too many cases where he ignores an alternative that invalidates his statements. And most glaring of all is that he bases his argument on the use of a commercial rocket that was never designed for nor intended to go the moon. Neither SLS nor BFR actually exist as an operational vehicle yet. While SLS is further along in development than BFR, the way SLS development is going BFR will likely fly before SLS. THAT should have been the comparison vehicle, not Falcon Heavy, a vehicle that was designed for earth orbit medium lift, not lunar heavy lift. For all I know this entire thing was authored by NASA PR and handed to Jack Schmitt for him to sign and deliver because that sure is what this looks like.
Now we live in a time where we have lowered our sights or perhaps don't have a target at all, the only sacrifice most people are asked to make is to go shopping more, we pass tax cuts and then promptly spend more money, we are waging a 30 - 100 years war, and we think we will gain security by putting a wall up when every other similar wall failed to keep people out and the latest failed and it was meant to keep people in.So, we get the space program we deserve.
Sure, but the initial Obama plan (at least on the deep space side) was even worse than that. There were zero plans for manned spaceflight in deep space aside from spending money on nebulous "game changing technologies". A flawed plan to move forward was better than no plan at all.
1. Technology demonstration program, $7.8 billion over five years.Funds the development and demonstration of technologies that reduce the cost and expand the capabilities of future exploration activities, including in-orbit refueling and storage.
Re-read your history. The President said we weren't going back to the Moon because we had "been there before". The Obama administration was clear that the moon was no longer a target for NASA.
Actually they have funded the LOP-G to the tune of $500 Million.
That is in addition to the funds allocated to SLS/Orion.
This current direction is more solid than the Journey to Mars ever was.