Quote from: OV-106 on 02/17/2011 12:00 amThat's because SLS is not meant to be R&D. It is DDT&E. At some point you have to take what you know and make something out of it. As I have said multiple times, it is about finding the right balance and have an overall strategy to pay accordingly for the "real R&D" in a progressive manner based on when you think you may need some of the benefits assuming they materialize. Right on. The ones who want NASA grounded doing nothing but R&D will end up with the scene out of Independence Day where they have been cooked up in an underground bunker spending money on nothing applicable or of interest to the public.As the Congress and Senate said, we don't need five years of "R&D" to work out what HLV to use. That was defeated, time for some people to get over it.
That's because SLS is not meant to be R&D. It is DDT&E. At some point you have to take what you know and make something out of it. As I have said multiple times, it is about finding the right balance and have an overall strategy to pay accordingly for the "real R&D" in a progressive manner based on when you think you may need some of the benefits assuming they materialize.
Quote from: Jason Sole on 02/17/2011 02:14 amQuote from: OV-106 on 02/17/2011 12:00 amThat's because SLS is not meant to be R&D. It is DDT&E. At some point you have to take what you know and make something out of it. As I have said multiple times, it is about finding the right balance and have an overall strategy to pay accordingly for the "real R&D" in a progressive manner based on when you think you may need some of the benefits assuming they materialize. Right on. The ones who want NASA grounded doing nothing but R&D will end up with the scene out of Independence Day where they have been cooked up in an underground bunker spending money on nothing applicable or of interest to the public.As the Congress and Senate said, we don't need five years of "R&D" to work out what HLV to use. That was defeated, time for some people to get over it. That's a nice soundbite, but actually, the Obama FY2011 budget proposal suggested spending a few years -- beginning immediately -- developing a million-lbf-class kerolox engine, probably staged combustion, thereby catching the United States up with the USSR circa 1985. You can belittle that as "R&D" if you like. (It's also what the DOD apparently believes they need.) With such an engine in hand, either ULA or SpaceX could clearly build a 5-6m core vehicle derived from many of their existing processes and infrastructure, probably fairly quickly. Alternatively, the 8.4m Michoud tanking (or even 10m, if you want it) could be used for larger monolithic designs. The performance and flexibility of such vehicle families is well known. Augustine observed that the BEO vehicle -- booster + upper stage -- comes online slightly faster for kerolox than for SDHLV. -Alexedit: grammar typo
Quote from: telomerase99 on 02/17/2011 01:44 amAmen to that JonGoff, I am headed to cape canaveral March 12-13 if anyone wants to get a drink, watch a launch?STS-133 is launching Feb 24 or 25..........oh right, you hate shuttle
Amen to that JonGoff, I am headed to cape canaveral March 12-13 if anyone wants to get a drink, watch a launch?
Quote from: jongoff on 02/17/2011 01:36 amThe problem is that most posters here and most congressmen as well act like they have no clue about the difference between the two. They act like all spending on stuff at NASA is R&D, when in reality only a small fraction of NASA's budget is involved in actual R&D. I do agree that R&D has to be converted into an end product (preferably a wide range of end products with multiple users) in order to be useful to anyone.Personally, I think the balance at NASA for a long time has been way to much on operations and DDT&E and too little on R&D, and I'm glad that Obama isn't giving up easily on trying to restore a better balance.~JonI agree with your second point, but not the first. It would be nice to convert research into something tangible, but research can lead to new discoveries which have no direct tangible benefit, but are clearly important. A new technique is not a product, and yet I have seen a few techniques developed through the reading of technical papers on the technical server, that are of benefit to everyone.And for something like closed loop recycling techniques, the greatest benefit is exploration for NASA, not the commercial market per-se. Yes, it has terrestrial applications, but not to the level NASA is seeking its use for.Now back OT...(sorry for the stray)
The problem is that most posters here and most congressmen as well act like they have no clue about the difference between the two. They act like all spending on stuff at NASA is R&D, when in reality only a small fraction of NASA's budget is involved in actual R&D. I do agree that R&D has to be converted into an end product (preferably a wide range of end products with multiple users) in order to be useful to anyone.Personally, I think the balance at NASA for a long time has been way to much on operations and DDT&E and too little on R&D, and I'm glad that Obama isn't giving up easily on trying to restore a better balance.~Jon
But I think that's kind of the point. Everything doesn't need to be supposedly cutting-edge technology for it to work efficiently. Politicians and others can call it what they want, I personally really don't think it matters in the grand scheme. Where it does matter is generally in the cost. If we scrap everything, start over to replace it with supposedly cutting-edge technology, there is a learning curve there. That learning curve usually shows up in DDT&E and initial ops costs until that learning curve doesn't have such a steep slope. I think everyone is aware of the budget issues we face. I truly believe it is time to start building what we can now, with what we know now, and let the limited dollars that are available for this type thing be used for what we will eventually need and do not have significant experience with now.
Quote from: OV-106 on 02/17/2011 04:11 pmBut I think that's kind of the point. Everything doesn't need to be supposedly cutting-edge technology for it to work efficiently. Politicians and others can call it what they want, I personally really don't think it matters in the grand scheme. Where it does matter is generally in the cost. If we scrap everything, start over to replace it with supposedly cutting-edge technology, there is a learning curve there. That learning curve usually shows up in DDT&E and initial ops costs until that learning curve doesn't have such a steep slope. I think everyone is aware of the budget issues we face. I truly believe it is time to start building what we can now, with what we know now, and let the limited dollars that are available for this type thing be used for what we will eventually need and do not have significant experience with now. We don't need rocket technology R&D, we have solid, reliable lift. We need BEO technology.
We also have the ability to go beyond LEO. Let's not pretend otherwise.
I think the context of the sentence ["We also have the ability to go beyond LEO"] can speak for itself and I'm sure you are smart enough to figure it out based on the current reality.
And no, it does not need Apollo-level funding.
Among the amendments that have not yet been taken up on the floor of the House is one by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) that would, in effect, defund NASA’s exploration program: Amendment No. 96: At the end of the bill, after the short title, insert the following new section: Sec. 4002. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used for “National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Exploration”.
What it would do is compel the shut-down of all the robot probes like Cassini, New Horizons, Mercury Messenger and the MERs as well as cancelling Juno and MSL.
I suspect that Rep DeFazio thought that he was being very clever. What he has instead shown is that he has no clue how NASA actually works.
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 02/18/2011 01:50 pmWhat it would do is compel the shut-down of all the robot probes like Cassini, New Horizons, Mercury Messenger and the MERs as well as cancelling Juno and MSL.Those would fall under the Science Mission Directorate, not Exploration.Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 02/18/2011 01:50 pmI suspect that Rep DeFazio thought that he was being very clever. What he has instead shown is that he has no clue how NASA actually works.I'm skeptical that Representative DeFazio is that naïve about the impact of what he's proposing.
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 02/18/2011 01:50 pmWhat it would do is compel the shut-down of all the robot probes like Cassini, New Horizons, Mercury Messenger and the MERs as well as cancelling Juno and MSL.Those would fall under the Science Mission Directorate, not Exploration.
Forgive me if this was already answered in the myriad of posts, but what happens if this congress is shut down, as something that is being thrown around now (that I'm now hearing on CNN)? Apparently it was done by the Republicans a number of years ago.With no CR past March 4th, where do things stand for NASA (let alone the rest of government)?