As for "where is the lander?"... Even if the Subcommittee wants a lander quite badly, they don't have the political capital right now to get one funded, partly because the White House interdicted the moon mission idea for no good reason. And while I'm sure a lot of people at NASA want a moon mission, the top man is a WH appointee and won't go against his boss.I basically said this, and more, in my post above.It was Obama who cancelled Altair, along with Ares and Orion. Congress could only bring back one and a half of them right away, and I think they chose wisely as far as that goes...
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 03/02/2014 05:44 pmQuote from: CNYMike on 03/02/2014 02:25 pmQuote from: CNYMike on 03/02/2014 02:25 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 03/02/2014 06:50 amAnd my "guess" was that NASA would have reached that conclusion after they reassessed their future needs. The Direct group included engineers working at NASA, working on their own time. They thought it was a good idea, so they must have thought the head office would buy it.of thAnd the "head office" stated numerous time publicly that they thought it was a bad idea. Griffin did not want any competitors for Ares V funding.That is not the point. You claimed that if NASA started over with a clean sheet of paper and no rocket and capsule, it would not go with an HLV. My point is that is wrong, that the HLV idea is supported within NASA, and Direct is my evidence.
Quote from: CNYMike on 03/02/2014 02:25 pmQuote from: CNYMike on 03/02/2014 02:25 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 03/02/2014 06:50 amAnd my "guess" was that NASA would have reached that conclusion after they reassessed their future needs. The Direct group included engineers working at NASA, working on their own time. They thought it was a good idea, so they must have thought the head office would buy it.of thAnd the "head office" stated numerous time publicly that they thought it was a bad idea. Griffin did not want any competitors for Ares V funding.That is not the point. You claimed that if NASA started over with a clean sheet of paper and no rocket and capsule, it would not go with an HLV. My point is that is wrong, that the HLV idea is supported within NASA, and Direct is my evidence.
Quote from: CNYMike on 03/02/2014 02:25 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 03/02/2014 06:50 amAnd my "guess" was that NASA would have reached that conclusion after they reassessed their future needs. The Direct group included engineers working at NASA, working on their own time. They thought it was a good idea, so they must have thought the head office would buy it.of thAnd the "head office" stated numerous time publicly that they thought it was a bad idea. Griffin did not want any competitors for Ares V funding.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 03/02/2014 06:50 amAnd my "guess" was that NASA would have reached that conclusion after they reassessed their future needs. The Direct group included engineers working at NASA, working on their own time. They thought it was a good idea, so they must have thought the head office would buy it.
And my "guess" was that NASA would have reached that conclusion after they reassessed their future needs.
Quote from: 93143 on 03/02/2014 10:54 pmAs for "where is the lander?"... Even if the Subcommittee wants a lander quite badly, they don't have the political capital right now to get one funded, partly because the White House interdicted the moon mission idea for no good reason. And while I'm sure a lot of people at NASA want a moon mission, the top man is a WH appointee and won't go against his boss.I basically said this, and more, in my post above.It was Obama who cancelled Altair, along with Ares and Orion. Congress could only bring back one and a half of them right away, and I think they chose wisely as far as that goes...If all that's holding back NASA's top line is Bolden's unwillingness to cross Obama, why is it that under Bush II, Griffin's NASA didn't have the money to fund Altair? Altair is about as live now as it was when Obama entered office.
Quote from: Lar on 03/03/2014 01:48 amEminently sensible to never loft humans with this launch vehicleWHY?QuoteUse the money saved on not manrating it to pay for some payloads worth having.What money? How much is it?
Eminently sensible to never loft humans with this launch vehicle
Use the money saved on not manrating it to pay for some payloads worth having.
If you disagree with the principle that an unmanned rocket, by design, will cost less than a manned rocket, then there is no line of reasoning which will convince you that a cargo SLS would save money, and therefore you will never think it to be "emminently sensible" to never launch humans with SLS.
Quote from: Lars_J on 03/02/2014 11:14 pmQuote from: HappyMartian on 03/02/2014 10:59 pmQuote from: Jim on 03/02/2014 10:46 pmNot really, that is only lip service. Where is the lander? Also, the kludge with the ICPS is not a real mission, just make work.The space law says NASA will do human international cis-lunar missions and cis-lunar is clearly and legally defined to include the surface of the Moon. The law is not "lip service".What "space law" are you speaking of?[/quotePUBLIC LAW 111–267—OCT. 11, 2010 At: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/516655main_PL_111-267.pdf"An Act To authorize the programs of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal years 2011 through 2013, and for other purposes."Page 5 and 6 "SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.In this Act:(1) ADMINISTRATOR.—The term ‘‘Administrator’’ means the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.(2) APPROPRIATE COMMITTEES OF CONGRESS.—The term ‘‘appropriate committees of Congress’’ means—(A) the Committee on Commerce, Science, andTransportation of the Senate; and(B) the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives. (3) CIS-LUNAR SPACE.—The term ‘cis-lunar space’ means the region of space from the Earth out to and including theregion around the surface of the Moon." Page 7, "TITLE II—POLICY, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES FOR HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT AND EXPLORATION" And, "(b) UNITED STATES HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT C APABILITIES.—Congress reaffirms the policy stated in section 501(a) of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005(42 U.S.C. 16761(a)), that the United States shall maintain an uninterrupted capability for human space flight and operations in low-Earth orbit, and beyond, as an essential instrument of national security and of the capacity to ensure continued United States participation and leadership in the exploration and utiliza-tion of space. " And Page 8 "SEC. 202. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES. (a) LONG TERM GOAL.—The long term goal of the human space flight and exploration efforts of NASA shall be to expand permanent human presence beyond low-Earth orbit and to do so, where practical, in a manner involving international partners.(2) to determine if humans can live in an extended manner in space with decreasing reliance on Earth, starting with utilization of low-Earth orbit infrastructure, to identify potential roles that space resources such as energy and materials may play, to meet national and global needs and challenges, suchas potential cataclysmic threats, and to explore the viability of and lay the foundation for sustainable economic activities in space;(3) to maximize the role that human exploration of space can play in advancing overall knowledge of the universe, supporting United States national and economic security and the United States global competitive posture, and inspiring young people in their educational pursuits; and(4) to build upon the cooperative and mutually beneficial framework established by the ISS partnership agreements and experience in developing and undertaking programs and meeting objectives designed to realize the goal of human space flight set forth in subsection (a)."Pages 9 and 10"TITLE III—EXPANSION OF HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT BEYOND THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION AND LOW-EARTH ORBITSEC. 301. HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT BEYOND LOW-EARTH ORBIT.(a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following findings:(1) The extension of the human presence from low-Earth orbit to other regions of space beyond low-Earth orbit will enable missions to the surface of the Moon and missions to deep space destinations such as near-Earth asteroids and Mars.(2) The regions of cis-lunar space are accessible to other national and commercial launch capabilities, and such access raises a host of national security concerns and economic implications that international human space endeavors can help to address.(3) The ability to support human missions in regions beyond low-Earth orbit and on the surface of the Moon can also drive developments in emerging areas of space infrastructure and technology.(4) Developments in space infrastructure and technology can stimulate and enable increased space applications, such as in-space servicing, propellant resupply and transfer, and in situ resource utilization, and open opportunities for additional users of space, whether national, commercial, or international. (5) A long term objective for human exploration of space should be the eventual international exploration of Mars.(6) Future international missions beyond low-Earth orbit should be designed to incorporate capability development and availability, affordability, and international contributions. (7) Human space flight and future exploration beyond low-Earth orbit should be based around a pay-as-you-go approach. Requirements in new launch and crew systems authorized in this Act should be scaled to the minimum necessary to meet the core national mission capability needed to conduct cis-lunar missions. These initial missions, along with the development of new technologies and in-space capabilities can form the foundation for missions to other destinations. These initial missions also should provide operational experience prior to the further human expansion into space." There is a whole lot more to it, but you can get the general direction from the above. Notice the early definition of cis-lunar space has "including the region around the surface of the Moon" and the emphasis on international missions.Has NASA's leadership been implementing the law "based around a pay-as-you-go approach" and "The ability to support human missions in regions beyond low-Earth orbit and on the surface of the Moon can also drive developments in emerging areas of space infrastructure and technology" or has NASA's leadership been "employing indecision to allow for" developing a poorly conceived, partisan, risky, and costly Mars road map that somehow doesn't include putting international astronauts on the Moon? The Red Planet is clearly a long term international goal and the Moon is the short term goal: "A long term objective for human exploration of space should be the eventual international exploration of Mars." Way too many folks, have been belittling and ignoring this law while claiming NASA isn't legally supposed to do international missions on the Moon. It is this space law that has funded and put the SLS and international Orion into development. Those space exploration tools exemplify: "Requirements in new launch and crew systems authorized in this Act should be scaled to the minimum necessary to meet the core national mission capability needed to conduct cis-lunar missions." International cis-lunar human space missions, including human missions to the Moon's surface, would be "supporting United States national and economic security". Mars, at this time, is considered to have minimal international strategic and economic importance. NASA planning for beyond LEO human spaceflight has become irrelevant to the real world where our international space exploration partners and other folks are focused on exploring the Moon for useful resources to help reduce space transportation risks and costs while developing the rest of cis-lunar space.Somehow, for whatever 'reason', partisan Mars fantasies of costly Red Planet missions in the 2040s and 2050s have become far more important and worthy of NASA's planning efforts than is the creation of an affordable bipartisan international plan to develop the Moon's surface and the rest of cis-lunar space during the 2020s and 2030s. The NASA mission planing cart is rolling wildly, bouncing from side to side, and clearly escaping logical control as it proceeds far out in front of the economy and bipartisan Congressional horses that need to be running ahead and pulling hard. The Earth is in the center of cis-lunar space, and America and the rest of the world will benefit in many ways from international missions to develop our neighborhood in space, which unbeknownst to some partisan White House leadership folks, includes the Moon and its ice and other resources.
Quote from: HappyMartian on 03/02/2014 10:59 pmQuote from: Jim on 03/02/2014 10:46 pmNot really, that is only lip service. Where is the lander? Also, the kludge with the ICPS is not a real mission, just make work.The space law says NASA will do human international cis-lunar missions and cis-lunar is clearly and legally defined to include the surface of the Moon. The law is not "lip service".
Quote from: Jim on 03/02/2014 10:46 pmNot really, that is only lip service. Where is the lander? Also, the kludge with the ICPS is not a real mission, just make work.
Not really, that is only lip service. Where is the lander? Also, the kludge with the ICPS is not a real mission, just make work.
AKA Congress's favorite toy, the Unfunded Mandate.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfunded_mandateLike beating your wife for not buying groceries when you spent the last of the money on alcohol."I told you to build that moon base, now I am going to have to teach you a lesson"
Quote from: SpacexULA on 03/03/2014 03:09 pmAKA Congress's favorite toy, the Unfunded Mandate.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfunded_mandateLike beating your wife for not buying groceries when you spent the last of the money on alcohol."I told you to build that moon base, now I am going to have to teach you a lesson"It wasn't really a requirement for a lunar base, it was a really vague direction towards "cislunar space". And SLS and Orion can do "cislunar space", and they're funded.Also, that analogy was way darker than necessary...
Quote from: Lars_J on 03/02/2014 11:14 pmQuote from: HappyMartian on 03/02/2014 10:59 pmQuote from: Jim on 03/02/2014 10:46 pmNot really, that is only lip service. Where is the lander? Also, the kludge with the ICPS is not a real mission, just make work.The space law says NASA will do human international cis-lunar missions and cis-lunar is clearly and legally defined to include the surface of the Moon. The law is not "lip service".What "space law" are you speaking of?PUBLIC LAW 111–267—OCT. 11, 2010 At: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/516655main_PL_111-267.pdf"An Act To authorize the programs of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal years 2011 through 2013, and for other purposes."[MASSIVE SNIP]
Quote from: HappyMartian on 03/02/2014 10:59 pmQuote from: Jim on 03/02/2014 10:46 pmNot really, that is only lip service. Where is the lander? Also, the kludge with the ICPS is not a real mission, just make work.The space law says NASA will do human international cis-lunar missions and cis-lunar is clearly and legally defined to include the surface of the Moon. The law is not "lip service".What "space law" are you speaking of?
Quote from: Jim on 03/02/2014 10:46 pmNot really, that is only lip service. Where is the lander? Also, the kludge with the ICPS is not a real mission, just make work.The space law says NASA will do human international cis-lunar missions and cis-lunar is clearly and legally defined to include the surface of the Moon. The law is not "lip service".
Quote from: HappyMartian on 03/03/2014 12:58 pmQuote from: Lars_J on 03/02/2014 11:14 pmQuote from: HappyMartian on 03/02/2014 10:59 pmQuote from: Jim on 03/02/2014 10:46 pmNot really, that is only lip service. Where is the lander? Also, the kludge with the ICPS is not a real mission, just make work.The space law says NASA will do human international cis-lunar missions and cis-lunar is clearly and legally defined to include the surface of the Moon. The law is not "lip service".What "space law" are you speaking of?PUBLIC LAW 111–267—OCT. 11, 2010 At: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/516655main_PL_111-267.pdf"An Act To authorize the programs of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal years 2011 through 2013, and for other purposes."[MASSIVE SNIP]I love how people quote congressional appropriations and funding laws as if they were natural laws that had any bearing beyond the years they apply to. They don't. The "laws" (in a loose sense) that created Constellation are now not worth the paper they are printed on. And that's just one example.In addition, no Congress can bind the actions of a future Congress.
Quote from: CNYMike on 03/02/2014 07:44 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 03/02/2014 05:44 pmQuote from: CNYMike on 03/02/2014 02:25 pmQuote from: CNYMike on 03/02/2014 02:25 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 03/02/2014 06:50 amAnd my "guess" was that NASA would have reached that conclusion after they reassessed their future needs. The Direct group included engineers working at NASA, working on their own time. They thought it was a good idea, so they must have thought the head office would buy it.of thAnd the "head office" stated numerous time publicly that they thought it was a bad idea. Griffin did not want any competitors for Ares V funding.That is not the point. You claimed that if NASA started over with a clean sheet of paper and no rocket and capsule, it would not go with an HLV. My point is that is wrong, that the HLV idea is supported within NASA, and Direct is my evidence.Some parts of NASA are clearly enthusiastic about HLVs. Other parts are not....
.... Do you think it's a good idea that it was Congress that made the decision? Shouldn't the decision* be made by engineers, as was the Apollo mode decision?
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 03/03/2014 12:11 pmIf you disagree with the principle that an unmanned rocket, by design, will cost less than a manned rocket, then there is no line of reasoning which will convince you that a cargo SLS would save money, and therefore you will never think it to be "emminently sensible" to never launch humans with SLS.We aren't trying to man-rate an Ares V here or something. All of the components for SLS are designed to be man-rated from the start, dropping the man-rating requirement with SLS so far in development would likely save little. At least not enough to pay for a reasonable payload.To HappyMartian: you goofed up your quote. Also, while the law states that NASA should be capable of supporting cis-lunar missions, it nowhere states that the US should land humans on the moon.
PUBLIC LAW 111–267—OCT. 11, 2010 was the last clear Congressional bipartisan legal direction given to NASA.It is available at: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/516655main_PL_111-267.pdf"An Act To authorize the programs of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal years 2011 through 2013, and for other purposes."Note the "other purposes".The law states "Congress reaffirms the policy stated in section 501(a) of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16761(a)), that the United States shall maintain an uninterrupted capability for human space flight and operations in low-Earth orbit, and beyond, as an essential instrument of national security and of the capacity to ensure continued United States participation and leadership in the exploration and utilization of space." Note the words "essential instrument of national security" and "leadership". NASA not making plans on how to lead international missions to the Moon means NASA ....
......BTDT whims of a partisan President .....
Quote from: HappyMartian on 03/03/2014 11:11 pmPUBLIC LAW 111–267—OCT. 11, 2010 was the last clear Congressional bipartisan legal direction given to NASA.It is available at: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/516655main_PL_111-267.pdf"An Act To authorize the programs of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal years 2011 through 2013, and for other purposes."Note the "other purposes".The law states "Congress reaffirms the policy stated in section 501(a) of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16761(a)), that the United States shall maintain an uninterrupted capability for human space flight and operations in low-Earth orbit, and beyond, as an essential instrument of national security and of the capacity to ensure continued United States participation and leadership in the exploration and utilization of space." Note the words "essential instrument of national security" and "leadership". NASA not making plans on how to lead international missions to the Moon means NASA .... Does not run counter to the law. I skimmed it and found that while different sections mention operating on the Moon, it does not explicitly call for a Moon mission.Quote......BTDT whims of a partisan President ..... President Obama was not the first to take the BTDT attitude towards the Moon. During Constellation, critics made the BTDT argment and called for NASA to go to an asteroid and/or Mars instead.makes zip sense. The president just listened to them.That where we go can be a partisan argument is one of the reasons the situation is a mess.
When Presidents make big mistakes, Congress sooner or later simply avoids funding the mistake and quietly funds a substitute plan.
Just ignore HappyMartian. He ignores posts containing points that he cannot counter.
The reason that NASA is vaguely spinning its planning wheels is that the President 'cancelled' the widely accepted and logical beyond low Earth orbit human spaceflight Lunar missions goal...
President Obama was not the first to take the BTDT attitude towards the Moon. During Constellation, critics made the BTDT argment and called for NASA to go to an asteroid and/or Mars instead.makes zip sense. The president just listened to them.
SpaceX's web site does not show them working on anything with the payload range of SLS
ULA is a joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed, both of which have contracts with SLS and Orion. It's unlikely they will undercut themselves
which might explain why the Atlas V/Delta IV product card no longer shows the Saturn V class growth versions of those rockets.
We can tut-tut lunar free return missions or parking at LaGrange points, but when those missions fly and crews are sending back images of Earth from that far away, the general pubic will be awed.
And the Next Big Thing after Shuttle and ISS? An outpost at L2 (or L5 if you want to attract the O'Neill people).
If there is thinking behind SLS/Orion, it's to replicate what kinda sorta worked out with the Shuttle....only a thousand times as far from the Earth as Shuttle went.
Yes, Hubble and the shuttle were intricately tied together. According to Wikipedia, NASA's budget in 1968 was 2.65% of the overall federal budget. If you swing that money for NASA again, I can promise you there will be robust missions for SLS, too. There'd probably be enough to swing science missions like the Ares V report mentioned, maybe even Northrop Grumman's proposals for 10m / 17m / 21m / 24m really large space telescopes. Sigh.
Put it differently: the shuttle at one point had as its purpose to suck up every US launch. It had payloads designed for it because every payload planned to go into space during that time period was targeted for the shuttle. That makes it a poor comparison.
Ah, here's the bait-and-switch. You argue above that the problem with SLS is lack of a mission, but now you are going to substitute your preferred alternative and assume a mission.
If NASA's budget doesn't even stay level in constant dollars as was assumed in the design of SLS/MPCV, then commercial launchers won't be doing much for NASA either at some point. Commercial LVs don't fix declining budgets,
If we're wishing for ponies, I'm going to wish one for SLS too, so it gets an assumed mission. Poof!
they don't fix the lack of clearly defined missions… They don't fix the space community's division, such that moon missions are attacked as dead end or not worth it, asteroid missions are attacked as ho-hum and not worthy, and Mars missions as too far out or too ambitious.
and they don't fix the desire of Congress to have happy constituents… In particular, you need to think how you would pitch this to Senator Shelby (AL), whose constituents include MSFC employees. How do you manage the political fallout for Marshall and for him?... Rep. Palazzo whose constituents include Stennis workers is the House Space Subcommittee Chairman. I don't see how your proposal works for him, either.
Is it unfair if I ask whether you currently work for one of the companies you are fervently arguing we throw billions of dollars toward?