Quote from: Coastal Ron on 06/24/2017 06:31 amJust because the U.S. Government may not want to send U.S. Government employees back to our Moon doesn't mean we are "ceding" our Moon to anyone. Just like we didn't "own" our Moon after landing on it, neither will anyone else.So you thing the USG with a bigger space budget than the rest of the world will just sit this one out?
Just because the U.S. Government may not want to send U.S. Government employees back to our Moon doesn't mean we are "ceding" our Moon to anyone. Just like we didn't "own" our Moon after landing on it, neither will anyone else.
But as we see with the current Trump Administration proposed budget, Trump does not think we need MORE government-funded science, but LESS. So if the only goal for the DSG/DST are "science", then that is shaky ground to build a program on...
Space science, which includes missions to study Earth, other planets in the solar system, astrophysics, solar physics and space weather, would receive $5.7 billion under the Trump administration’s budget request, about $53 million less than in the enacted FY ’17 budget.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 06/25/2017 07:54 pmBut as we see with the current Trump Administration proposed budget, Trump does not think we need MORE government-funded science, but LESS. So if the only goal for the DSG/DST are "science", then that is shaky ground to build a program on...You are making a mountain out of a molehill.
The Obama administrations FY 2017 budget request had a notional 2018 spending amount of 5408.5 million. So, this is almost $300 million more than Obama's notional out year funding profile submitted over a year ago.
But in order for the DSG and DST to happen within the next decade there needs to be not only a commitment to the effort from Trump, but Congress has to increase NASA's budget substantially in order to get the program going.That has to happen soon (i.e. FY2019) since the Deep Space Gateway is a major program, not only because it is supposed to be an international program (i.e. Secretary of State has to be involved) with multiple new human-rated hardware elements (reusing elements is good, but they are being used in new ways), but also because it requires the start of serial production for the SLS and Orion.
SLS and Orion already are producing as if it was serial production. They plan to start building serial number 3 hydrogen tank for instance.
There is no reason to think their budget needs to increase for serial production. It could actually decrease.
I believe that Orion/CEV funding peaked around 2009/2010 for instance.
Obviously, serial production is expensive, but development is also expensive as well. Which is more so? My educated guess is that for 1 flight/year, it is development that is more expensive than serial production.
And there are other significant pieces of NASA's budget that are in transition period where it is not optimized and efficient. For instance, 3 providers are being paid for LEO crew rotation, but only 1 is currently delivering that service. So, I really think that DSG/DST doesn't require any actual increase to NASA's budget beyond annual inflation adjustment.
The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) has ambitious plans to put an astronaut on the moon sometime around 2030, according to new proposals from the space agency.This is the first time JAXA has publicly explored sending astronauts anywhere beyond the International Space Station, a JAXA spokeswoman said Friday.The idea is to first join a NASA-led mission in 2025 to build a space station in the moon’s orbit — part of a longer-term effort by NASA to reach Mars.Tokyo hopes that contributing to the multinational mission and sharing Japanese technology will land it a coveted spot at the station, from which it could eventually put an astronaut on the moon, the spokeswoman said.
An ESA-JAXA co-operation would be a very nice start to a "Moon renaissance".
Quote from: calapine on 07/03/2017 12:43 pmAn ESA-JAXA co-operation would be a very nice start to a "Moon renaissance". I agree, except it all starts with NASA DSG including SLS/Orion which we all know how everyone on here feels about.
Crusan: "for the first time ever, we have refueling baselined in our human space flight architecture." Finally. Whoo hoo!! #leag2017
Jason Crusan asked how DSG is fueled. His answer: "I do not care where the fuel comes from" for Deep Space gateway. #LEAG2017
A couple of notes on DSG:QuoteCrusan: "for the first time ever, we have refueling baselined in our human space flight architecture." Finally. Whoo hoo!! #leag2017https://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/917744545340764161QuoteJason Crusan asked how DSG is fueled. His answer: "I do not care where the fuel comes from" for Deep Space gateway. #LEAG2017 https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/917743640730132480
Once in place the next step from DSG to moon is not so big or expensive.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 07/04/2017 12:47 amOnce in place the next step from DSG to moon is not so big or expensive. How do you figure that, especially if just keeping the DSG going is draining, say, $3 billion per year from the budget? How does the DSG help get to the surface of the moon?
The whole idea if DSG is avoid ISS huge support costs of $3B. Spares holding alone is a nightmare, as an example there are 140 different models of fans on ISS. DSG is lot smaller and simpler than ISS, will be unmanned for 90% of time. Annual SLS/Orion launch is biggest cost and that may come out of separate budget.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 10/13/2017 04:53 pmThe whole idea if DSG is avoid ISS huge support costs of $3B. Spares holding alone is a nightmare, as an example there are 140 different models of fans on ISS. DSG is lot smaller and simpler than ISS, will be unmanned for 90% of time. Annual SLS/Orion launch is biggest cost and that may come out of separate budget.But just sending one Orion/SLS a year to DSG probably costs about $3 billion. What's the point of maintaining DSG if what you really want to do is go to the moon?EDIT: I do get your point about DSG being much smaller and presumably much cheaper to maintain than ISS. The problem is that reaching DSG is far more expensive than reaching ISS.
But just sending one Orion/SLS a year to DSG probably costs about $3 billion. What's the point of maintaining DSG if what you really want to do is go to the moon?