Author Topic: Trump Space Policy Directive 1  (Read 51237 times)

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #120 on: 12/19/2017 07:55 pm »
Just to get back to the original topic, I'll highlight the actual impact of Trump's directive on the formal statement of the US government's space policy.  Trump modified Obama's policy of June 2010 (attached) by changing one paragraph on page 11.  Where the old policy read (color added)

Quote from: Obama
Civil Space Guidelines

Space Science, Exploration, and Discovery

The Administrator of NASA shall:

  • Set far-reaching exploration milestones. By 2025, begin crewed missions beyond the moon, including sending humans to an asteroid. By the mid-2030s, send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth;

  • Continue the operation of the International Space Station (ISS), in cooperation with its international partners, likely to 2020 or beyond....

  • Seek partnerships with the private sector....

  • Implement a new space technology development and test program....

  • Conduct research and development in support of next-generation launch systems....

  • Maintain a sustained robotic presence in the solar system....

  • Continue a strong program of space science....

  • Pursue capabilities ... to detect, track, catalog, and characterize near-Earth objects....

the text in red (and only text in red) has been changed to

Quote from: Trump
  • Lead an innovative and sustainable program of exploration with commercial and international partners to enable human expansion across the solar system and to bring back to Earth new knowledge and opportunities. Beginning with missions beyond low-Earth orbit, the United States will lead the return of humans to the Moon for long-term exploration and utilization, followed by human missions to Mars and other destinations;

That's the only change in an 18-page document.  The old policy specifically mentions asteroids and Mars orbit and gives dates, and allows other destinations.  The new policy specifically mentions the moon but not, as others have pointed out, the moon's surface, gives no dates, and allows other destinations, including those in the old policy.

All by itself, this is, as some of the president's allies like to say, a nothing-burger.  If it is followed up by some more concrete policy by the administration, then it may start to mean something.

EDIT: Deleted extraneous semicolon; "something more" -> "some more" in final sentence.
« Last Edit: 12/19/2017 11:11 pm by Proponent »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #121 on: 12/19/2017 08:48 pm »
Just to get back to the original topic, I'll highlight the actual impact of Trump's directive on the formal statement of the US government's space policy.  Trump modified Obama's policy of June 2010 (attached) by changing one paragraph on page 11.  Where the old policy read (color added)

Quote from: Obama
Civil Space Guidelines

Space Science, Exploration, and Discovery

The Administrator of NASA shall:

  • Set far-reaching exploration milestones. By 2025, begin crewed missions beyond the moon, including sending humans to an asteroid. By the mid-2030s, send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth;

  • Continue the operation of the International Space Station (ISS), in cooperation with its international partners, likely to 2020 or beyond....

  • Seek partnerships with the private sector....

  • Implement a new space technology development and test program....

  • Conduct research and development in support of next-generation launch systems....

  • Maintain a sustained robotic presence in the solar system....

  • Continue a strong program of space science....

  • Pursue capabilities ... to detect, track, catalog, and characterize near-Earth objects....

the text in red (and only text in red) has been changed to

Quote from: Trump
  • Lead an innovative and sustainable program of exploration with commercial and international partners to enable human expansion across the solar system and to bring back to Earth new knowledge and opportunities. Beginning with missions beyond low-Earth orbit, the United States will lead the return of humans to the Moon for long-term exploration and utilization, followed by human missions to Mars and other destinations;

That's the only change in an 18-page document.  The old policy specifically mentions asteroids and Mars orbit and gives dates, and allows other destinations.  The new policy specifically mentions the moon but not, as others have pointed out, the moon's surface, gives no dates, and allows other destinations, including those in the old policy.
;
All by itself, this is, as some of the president's allies like to say, a nothing-burger.  If it is followed up by something more concrete policy by the administration, then it may start to mean something.
That's it?

This is underwhelming given the amount of time it's taken to produce.  :(
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Hog

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2846
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 1700
  • Likes Given: 6866
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #122 on: 12/20/2017 12:30 pm »
Your implications only apply to the Shuttle, but you also imply that the U.S. has lost the ability to create 450mT space stations. We have not "lost" that ability, especially since an equivalent design could be built that is optimized to use existing commercial launchers - likely with most of the exact same ISS hardware.
Indeed.

Just a reminder.  A salvo launch of F9, Atlas V, Delta IV (not DIVH, just the Medium) and Antares 230 could put > 62 tonnes in LEO within little more than a week right now if there was a plan to use it and a desire to do it.  :(
For that 62 tonnes to orbit aimlessly in LEO.
Paul

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #123 on: 12/22/2017 04:36 pm »
We haven't lost the ability to build space hardware, and all of the ISS hardware could be lifted to LEO using existing commercial launchers.
STS carried payloads weighing 17 tonnes or so during ISS assembly missions, not including the orbiter and crew.  No current expendable launch vehicle can do that.  Falcon 9 has managed only 8.6 tonnes to LEO so far.  Atlas 5's heaviest payload weighed 7.5 tonnes.  Delta 4 Heavy may be able to lift 17 tonnes to an ISS orbit, but it does not possess the ability to maneuver that payload over a period of days, nor to dock it to ISS.  Some type of not-yet-existing service module (weighing yet more tonnes) would be needed to complete such a mission.   This is my basis for saying that ISS was built using capabilities the U.S. no longer possesses.

 - Ed Kyle



You are correct, but as Jim has pointed out several times: there was no need to construct the USOS part of ISS in the way it was done.

USOS as we have it today was done this way to justify using the shuttle. It could instead have been done differently. Like how the Russians did Salyut-7 and Mir.

The reason why the USA was stuck in LEO for 3 decades is because a choice was made, during Apollo, to use a system (STS) that was never actually needed to achieve US national space goals. That system was limited to LEO use only.

I don't agree.  STS could have brought pieces up that could have gone anywhere, were it built as a cost-effective space truck.  People couldn't switch out of the Apollo mind-set and see that building infrastructure is the key to a lasting presence BEO. 

The greater problem is that the US didn't have 'space goals.'
The US likes to "talk" about the goals but "demonstrates a lack of will"...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline DarkenedOne

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Liked: 58
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #124 on: 12/23/2017 05:38 am »
We haven't lost the ability to build space hardware, and all of the ISS hardware could be lifted to LEO using existing commercial launchers.
STS carried payloads weighing 17 tonnes or so during ISS assembly missions, not including the orbiter and crew.  No current expendable launch vehicle can do that.  Falcon 9 has managed only 8.6 tonnes to LEO so far.  Atlas 5's heaviest payload weighed 7.5 tonnes.  Delta 4 Heavy may be able to lift 17 tonnes to an ISS orbit, but it does not possess the ability to maneuver that payload over a period of days, nor to dock it to ISS.  Some type of not-yet-existing service module (weighing yet more tonnes) would be needed to complete such a mission.   This is my basis for saying that ISS was built using capabilities the U.S. no longer possesses.

 - Ed Kyle



You are correct, but as Jim has pointed out several times: there was no need to construct the USOS part of ISS in the way it was done.

USOS as we have it today was done this way to justify using the shuttle. It could instead have been done differently. Like how the Russians did Salyut-7 and Mir.

The reason why the USA was stuck in LEO for 3 decades is because a choice was made, during Apollo, to use a system (STS) that was never actually needed to achieve US national space goals. That system was limited to LEO use only.

I don't agree.  STS could have brought pieces up that could have gone anywhere, were it built as a cost-effective space truck.  People couldn't switch out of the Apollo mind-set and see that building infrastructure is the key to a lasting presence BEO. 

The greater problem is that the US didn't have 'space goals.'

Problem is to have space infrastructure you need affordable and reliable space launch systems.  NASA tried to develop just that with the Shuttle, but it was neither that reliable or affordable.  Now personally with commercial launchers like SpaceX I think NASA has that now.  I mean with the Falcon 9 Heavy you have a rocket has 66% of the capacity of the SLS for a fifth of the cost. 

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #125 on: 12/23/2017 02:06 pm »
Problem is to have space infrastructure you need affordable and reliable space launch systems.  NASA tried to develop just that with the Shuttle, but it was neither that reliable or affordable.  Now personally with commercial launchers like SpaceX I think NASA has that now.  I mean with the Falcon 9 Heavy you have a rocket has 66% of the capacity of the SLS for a fifth of the cost. 

I think a fifth might be a little low if you amortize all the program costs rather than just the variable costs.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #126 on: 12/23/2017 02:20 pm »
Newt Gingrich is more than a former Speaker of the House. He is also a Professor of History and hosts a series of programs entitled "What If". It looks at our history and how it would have developed if a different decision had been made at key points in our history. In the attached video he discusses President Nixon and his decision to change the direction of our space program. At first I didn't think this would fit this topic but as he got to the end it became crystal clear how the points he was making fit like a glove to the new Space Council that Vice President Pence oversees, and how President Trump's leadership or lack thereof can affect the direction of our space program. Enjoy.
« Last Edit: 12/23/2017 02:29 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #127 on: 12/23/2017 08:08 pm »
Problem is to have space infrastructure you need affordable and reliable space launch systems.  NASA tried to develop just that with the Shuttle, but it was neither that reliable or affordable.  Now personally with commercial launchers like SpaceX I think NASA has that now.  I mean with the Falcon 9 Heavy you have a rocket has 66% of the capacity of the SLS for a fifth of the cost. 

I think a fifth might be a little low if you amortize all the program costs rather than just the variable costs.
Oh cr*p,  here we go again: the sunk cost fallacy.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #128 on: 12/23/2017 08:27 pm »
Problem is to have space infrastructure you need affordable and reliable space launch systems.  NASA tried to develop just that with the Shuttle, but it was neither that reliable or affordable.  Now personally with commercial launchers like SpaceX I think NASA has that now.  I mean with the Falcon 9 Heavy you have a rocket has 66% of the capacity of the SLS for a fifth of the cost. 

I think a fifth might be a little low if you amortize all the program costs rather than just the variable costs.

Whatever.  FH cost the USG zero dollars... none borrowed, none spent.
It is available next month, not somewhere after 2024, and can be flown monthly or more frequently.

Affordable infrastructure is possible now, if those who feel their ox will be gored are ignored.  The Space Council and the nominated Administrator see this clearly, but may be stonewalled by the Senator Shelbys on the Hill. 

Doesn't really matter, because even Washington DC can recognize the game has changed when BFR/BFS fly -- which will still be before SLS is operable for 'exploration' at one flight per $2B per year.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #129 on: 12/23/2017 08:41 pm »
Problem is to have space infrastructure you need affordable and reliable space launch systems.  NASA tried to develop just that with the Shuttle, but it was neither that reliable or affordable.  Now personally with commercial launchers like SpaceX I think NASA has that now.  I mean with the Falcon 9 Heavy you have a rocket has 66% of the capacity of the SLS for a fifth of the cost. 

I think a fifth might be a little low if you amortize all the program costs rather than just the variable costs.
Oh cr*p,  here we go again: the sunk cost fallacy.
No.

Sunk cost fallacy applies when someone says "we shouldn't change, because of all we have invested...."  wrong, that money is gone, and not coming back.

This isn't about deciding to kill SLS, it's about calculating what each mission costs. It is completely valid to include development costs. SLS fans would rather not because the development costs for SLS are more than an order of magnitude higher than F9+FH+everything else... but it's a legit calculation.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #130 on: 12/23/2017 10:20 pm »
In the attached video he discusses President Nixon and his decision to change the direction of our space program. At first I didn't think this would fit this topic but as he got to the end it became crystal clear how the points he was making fit like a glove to the new Space Council that Vice President Pence oversees, and how President Trump's leadership or lack thereof can affect the direction of our space program. Enjoy.

I watched the whole thing. Normally I would not give Newt Gingrich the time of day because of the damage he has done to our democracy by eliminating moderate politicians and positions, but if Chuck recommends something then I take notice...   :)

I guess it's no surprise that what Trump's space policy attempts to do is to try and capture some sort of emotional element wrt space (an option Newt suggests), and that is not unusual at all in what Trump tries to do for just about anything.

But although Gingrich may be familiar with the politics part of space, he doesn't understand the technical or financial aspects of space. So while he may understand how to get a program approved, he doesn't understand what it will take to make it successful over a long period of time.

Plus he doesn't understand how exciting the Space Shuttle program was, which ran far longer than the Apollo program, and probably had as great, or greater effect, on inspiring people to enter STEM due to the variety of activity it was involved with than Apollo did. Plus what the American economy needed after the end of Apollo was not more Apollo, but more commerce in space - which the Shuttle helped to facilitate (i.e. 40+ payloads on it's manifest when it became operational).

Newt appears to want to stick with the "hearts and minds" approach to space, which is what Apollo was, but we are well past the point of basing our efforts in space on the goal of impressing the world. 15 minutes of fame is not worth $100B in taxpayer money.

If we're going back to the Moon for science we should identify what the goal is for that science, such as better understand how we got the Moon or whether it is older than 3,000 years old (some Republican's don't believe it is). If the goal is to set up a defensive position on the Moon, like Pence has implied, then we should be clear about how that will defend the U.S.

What I think will happen though is that Trump won't ask for more money for NASA, but just tell NASA to "focus on returning to the Moon". Then Trump will forget about NASA until there is something for him to take credit for. And he'll be able to get away with that because nothing big is probably going to happen at NASA until near the end of his term, so he has nothing to lose by taking this path. And if Democrats take control of the House next year, he'll blame them for not funding his Moon program. Win-Win for him!
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #131 on: 12/24/2017 01:42 am »
People want to see results.  The shuttle and ISS is and was nothing spectacular.  Just orbiting the earth.  No one sees the results of the research.  A good leader puts up goals and objectives to reach.  We have had no leadership on space issues since Kennedy.  Bush II gave lip service to returning to the moon and going to Mars, but the NASA leadership couldn't get a rocket designed that was cost effective.  Ares I and V were doomed from the start and I believe SLS will be cancelled eventually due to cost and being expendable.  Don't cut Trump short, he has surprised everyone.  The economy is starting to boom, thus more tax money coming in, even with the tax cuts.  Maybe NASA can get a little more money.  I just think NASA needs to take what we have existing and near future, and design in space systems, spacecraft like Nautilus X, etc, that can be built using existing launch vehicles (including FH, Vulcan, and NG).  Use money for SLS for building the in space equipment that can be launched and assembled using these rockets.  An L1 or L2 station, a NautilusX for going to Mars, a Mars/moon lander, etc.  Or use matching funds for SpaceX or B.O. to develop the equipment.   

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #132 on: 12/24/2017 02:05 am »
Gingrich didn't get rid of the moderates, Clinton did.  I live in Alabama and both Shelby and Sessions were democrats, but switched to the Republican party because of Clinton.  Gingrich also knows how to budget.  He balanced the federal budget during Clinton's administration and Clinton got credit for it.  Gingrich is a history professor and a HUGE fan of space exploration.  Don't cut him short either.  I see Gingrich and pragmatic and practical.

Edit/Lar: The above paragraph is exactly where this thread needs NOT to go. Don't respond. I chose to leave it with this warning rather than just delete.

While we have them on our side, lets go with it and not be so far left to not see we can work together here on space and space policy. 

Great video about what happened and what might have happened. 
« Last Edit: 12/24/2017 04:15 am by Lar »

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #133 on: 12/24/2017 05:00 am »
No current expendable launch vehicle can do that.

ULA's RocketBuilder shows that an Atlas V with a 5m Long fairing is capable of putting 18.8mT to LEO, and SpaceX advertises the Falcon 9 as capable of putting 22.8mT to LEO. So you are obviously wrong.
An undemonstrated capability is just numbers on paper, especially when the gap between claims and reality are so vast, i.e. 18.8 tonne claim versus 7.5 tonne actually accomplished, or 22.8 tonne claim versus 8.6 tonnes performed, etc.  But again, raw mass to LEO is not what is needed to replicate STS performance.  Maneuvered mass in LEO is what matters.  For every kg of "raw" payload sent to LEO, only perhaps 35 to 50-ish% or so can be delivered to ISS as actual cargo when a service module system is used (i.e. ATV or HTV or Cygnus).  STS could deliver a much higher percentage of its payload bay mass to ISS.  STS-117 delivered the 16.2 tonne S3/S4 truss directly to ISS.

 - Ed Kyle

Proton delivered Zayra and Zvezda each 19 MT.  The modules could have been designed to be self propelling or you could have used this idea:

http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Published_Papers/EELV_ISS/AIAASpace2008PaperMarkAFoster.pdf

It was just poltics that created the ISS's dependace on the shuttle. And I dare say that simmilar politics are currently making it much more difficult than it need be to even do the next mission like the deep space gate way by requiring spending on elements not needed for the mission(much of SLS).  It isn't just lack of policy but down right ineffiency that is slowing progress. By spending money/development on things not directly needed(Ares 1 for ISS) BEO spaceflight gets delayed farther and farther into the future.

For instance the deep space gateway could be assembled in LEO or HEO and propel itself to the moon via SEP. Orion could be sent to the gateway via lauching docking with a prepositoned chemical stage and all these elements could be lifted by Delta IV from LEO.  A completed Orion and chemical stage would cost a lot less than SLS has so far and perform the same exact mission.  And perhaps there would be cash left over for the gateway itself.
« Last Edit: 12/24/2017 05:38 am by pathfinder_01 »

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #134 on: 12/24/2017 06:24 am »
In the attached video he discusses President Nixon and his decision to change the direction of our space program. At first I didn't think this would fit this topic but as he got to the end it became crystal clear how the points he was making fit like a glove to the new Space Council that Vice President Pence oversees, and how President Trump's leadership or lack thereof can affect the direction of our space program. Enjoy.

I watched the whole thing. Normally I would not give Newt Gingrich the time of day because of the damage he has done to our democracy by eliminating moderate politicians and positions, but if Chuck recommends something then I take notice...   :)

When I recommend something it doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with it. I recommend it because it sheds light on something that is sometimes overlooked that could affect the path forward for NASA and/or the US HSF program. In this case it explains somewhat the prevailing attitudes during the cancellation of Apollo and the advent of Shuttle and how those attitudes, or some variation of them, may impact NASA's future going forward. In this case Speaker Gingrich, who is a well recognized historian in acadamia, has touched on an alternate path which when compared to the actual history, makes one think about HSF in terms other than just policy. His opinion aside, the intellectual exercise of examining that path does bring our current condition into sharper focus and offers alternative attitudes for consideration that may impact the direction and the future of NASA under this administration. In short, it makes one think.

Thanks Ron for the acknowledgement.
« Last Edit: 12/24/2017 06:35 am by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #135 on: 12/24/2017 06:28 am »
An undemonstrated capability is just numbers on paper, especially when the gap between claims and reality are so vast, i.e. 18.8 tonne claim versus 7.5 tonne actually accomplished, or 22.8 tonne claim versus 8.6 tonnes performed, etc.

So, what you're saying is that ULA and SpaceX are advertising capabilities to potential customers that they know they can't perform? That they plan to do some sort of "bait & switch"?

I'm sorry, but I'll take the word of the professionals over someone on an Internet forum. No disrespect, but Tory Bruno and Elon Musk are not running bait & switch operations.

Quote
But again, raw mass to LEO is not what is needed to replicate STS performance.

A 1:1 replacement is not needed.

Quote
For every kg of "raw" payload sent to LEO, only perhaps 35 to 50-ish% or so can be delivered to ISS as actual cargo when a service module system is used (i.e. ATV or HTV or Cygnus).

To a certain extent the larger the payload, the smaller the percentage the space tug becomes.

As to your percentages, I'm not sure what you are counting. The enhanced Cygnus has a dry mass of 1.8mT, and it can carry up to 3.5mT of internal payload. That means 66% is deliverable payload, not the 35-50% you suggest. Deliverable payload for building a structure in space should be a very high percentage.

Quote
STS could deliver a much higher percentage of its payload bay mass to ISS.

According to you undemonstrated capabilities are just numbers on paper, and the payload the Shuttle ever took to the ISS was 15.9mT. So that is the number for commercial launchers to meet or beat.  ;)

Quote
STS-117 delivered the 16.2 tonne S3/S4 truss directly to ISS.

According to Boeing the P3/P4 segment weighed almost 35,000 pounds, which is just short of 15.9mT.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #136 on: 12/24/2017 11:53 am »
Although I'm not exactly in love with Newt after his zeal to impeach Clinton, I do listen to him when he speaks. I always listen to both sides of the isle in order to take my measure... The issue in this case that him being one that tries to interpret history is exactly that, it's his interpretation" of history that may not apply today directly... He is "rearward looking" and not factoring society today where the average American is approximately 35-37 years old and that what interests and inspires them is exploring the extent of "cyberspace" and not "astrospace"... The world has moved on from the early "space-obsessed" generation from the last mid-century. "What-iffing" is fun but in the end what's the point besides an academic exercise... What if my ancestors in ancient Rome had not allowed the empire to collapse from within and where would I be today? See we can all play this game... ;)
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #137 on: 12/24/2017 02:26 pm »
History is replete with crossroads and roads not taken. It's interesting to think about the what-ifs, especially from someone who actually lived thru the choices made, like the Speaker, precisely because today's generation thinks differently and would be unlikely to consider those points of view that would come from someone from that era. That's what makes it so interesting.

I think we are actually at such a crossroads now. Commercial space can do a lot by itself, because as launch providers their efforts can be self funded by profits. But as far as extending humankind out into the solar system, that will take national efforts, if not international. I am not encouraged at what I see thus far. NASA has lots and lots  and lots of plans, but virtually no funding to actually execute on them. And there is no national will to create the necessary imperative. Unless something happens to change the national imperative I doubt we will see much in the way of human expansion, SpaceX's plans included. It's just too expensive. China is the only exception I see on the horizon, but even those efforts are really not space related; they are aimed at increasing that nation's influence down here on the earth.

We squabble too much, we humans. We expend massive amounts of resources on things that in the long view are inconsequential as if those resources are infinite, to the detriment of the long term benefits to humanity. So long as we remain divided to the degree we are (we will always be somewhat divided) the competition to be top dog at the expense of others will continue to keep our attention averted from the stars. Not until nation states definitively see their national futures inexorability linked to HSF thru the solar system will any real efforts happen towards the human expansion away from our celestial home.

Trump Space Policy: Like it or not The United States is the only nation capable of energizing a humanity-wide expansion into the solar system that can become permanent. The reason is the cost of that expansion; America is the only nation that can afford it. This is why it's so important as President Trump's Space Policy evolves. With his Make America Great Again approach it would be so easy to direct that policy inward to becoming the big dog again instead of lifting all of us BEO. Reestablishing a strong and vibrant national space infrastructure IS really important because that becomes the foundation for building internationally, but unless his policy can leave the way open for other nations to join us in an integrated and meaningful way and bring Congress as the keeper of the purse into the equation as a full partner in international expansion and long term planning, we will end up with another supernova like the Kennedy era which does not survive the changing of administrations, taking any fledgling human expansion with it back into mediocrity. It will become another road not taken. President Trump needs to articulate a vision for human expansion, one that can capture the hearts and minds of people everywhere before such a vision can become reality. Is he, or members of his administration, capable of such visionary thinking? I don't know the answer to that. And yet THAT is the key. This is the moment. We are at the crossroads once again. Which way will become the next road not taken?
« Last Edit: 12/24/2017 05:22 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #138 on: 12/24/2017 03:50 pm »
I keep returning back to the simple phrase that Norm Augustine echoed years back "great nations do great things"... Now it up to the nation to decide what that is and if human expansion into the cosmos is one of them... I probably won't be around to see it but I know if we don't another nation will fill the vacuum and the nation with the resources and will to do that will be China... Communism=1, Democracy=0...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #139 on: 12/24/2017 04:19 pm »
If I am not mistaken, the attach point(s) on the second stage of Falcon 9 is only capable of handling 10-12 tons.  I think it has to be beefed up to handle the 22 ton capability or even heavier capability for FH.  This may be the case for FH when they get it going. 

Tags:
 

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