Quote from: Star One on 10/05/2017 07:41 pmAll I can say to this is good, shame it’s about a decade late.While I agree with you generally (the Moon is the only realistic goal, and Mars is a dream for the more distant future), it's way more important to stick to one destination, commit to it for a period longer than a presidential term (that's it, 4-5 years), allocate funds and what's most important, start to work on dedicated hardware.After three administrations switched (Bush-Obama-Trump) it was clear that we should go beyond LEO, but it was never decided where to. To go to the Moon in the Constellation way looked boring (we repeat Apollo again), going to asteroid seemed uninspiring, and Mars (the ultimate goal) - still distant in the future, in 2030 at the earliest. The result of all this is that we have production of SLS hardware, as well as the Orion spaceship. This allow us to go beyond LEO, but there aren't a lot of choices. Perhaps we'll live to see a mission to the orbit of the Moon. Maybe touristic circumlunar voyages. But the entry descend and landing hardware was never developed - either for the Moon or Mars. So if we commit to a lunar landing, it will take some years to develop the lander.
All I can say to this is good, shame it’s about a decade late.
The US should have never switched its attention to Mars, talk about thinking you can run before you’ve even crawled.
So far this year, SpaceX has successfully completed thirteen launches, more than any other nation.
... But the system is also being designed to do earth hops, and those are going to be some of the first tests that you will actually see with the falcon spaceship
... I recall people here saying that COTS originated from Mike Griffin, who was NASA administrator when Constellation was being pursued.
Quote from: Star One on 10/05/2017 08:06 pmThe US should have never switched its attention to Mars, talk about thinking you can run before you’ve even crawled.Everything depends on what the national goal will be, and we don't know what that will yet. And as has been proven many times, just having a goal doesn't mean that Congress will fund the effort.Presidents have been wanting to go to Mars for decades, yet the cost of going there has been too high for Congress to agree to fund. As for returning to the Moon, the Constellation program was cancelled by Congress partially due to it's high cost, and nothing has changed since then.So other than a new Administration being in power, what makes what V.P. Pence proposes more likely to happen than any other BEO plan in the past?
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 10/05/2017 10:48 pmQuote from: Star One on 10/05/2017 08:06 pmThe US should have never switched its attention to Mars, talk about thinking you can run before you’ve even crawled.Everything depends on what the national goal will be, and we don't know what that will yet. And as has been proven many times, just having a goal doesn't mean that Congress will fund the effort.Presidents have been wanting to go to Mars for decades, yet the cost of going there has been too high for Congress to agree to fund. As for returning to the Moon, the Constellation program was cancelled by Congress partially due to it's high cost, and nothing has changed since then.So other than a new Administration being in power, what makes what V.P. Pence proposes more likely to happen than any other BEO plan in the past?Perhaps because the "new space" companies (SpaceX, Blue Origin, ULA, OrbitalATK) are further along than before? There was no Falcon9R at the time of Constellation - what if there had been? What if NewGlenn, Vulcan, Antares, were as near to completion back then as they are today?It seems like there was no talk of reducing launch prices, reusability, etc back in that time. Fortunately, now the conversation has expressly shifted towards the topic of reducing launch costs. Now suddenly that root issue is being attended to, and marketed to the public.Is it Elon Musk who's mainly responsible for that?
The commercial market now looks to be the most effective way to reach the moon and stay there at least for the US.
Quote from: Star One on 10/05/2017 11:02 pmThe commercial market now looks to be the most effective way to reach the moon and stay there at least for the US.That may be so, but that is likely not a fundable program since it would leave out the use of the SLS.
So nobody picked up Griffin wants the military to go back to design and build their own launch vehicle instead of using commercial ones?Is this guy evil or what?
So nobody picked up Griffin wants the military to go back to design and build their own launch vehicle instead of using commercial ones?
Quote from: su27k on 10/06/2017 02:24 amSo nobody picked up Griffin wants the military to go back to design and build their own launch vehicle instead of using commercial ones?Is this guy evil or what?When he said that, it seemed like he wanted the US govt to maintain/operate its own independent fleet. Does this automatically mean rockets of its own separate design? Couldn't the US govt simply buy vehicles from SpaceX, BlueOrigin, etc to operate on their own - particularly when the rockets from these companies represent the state-of-the-art in reusability?Why reinvent the wheel, especially at considerable expense?
Hmm? Blue Origin will make ya a lander, just send money. SpaceX will deliver cargo direct to the surface under a COTS/CRS style deal.
LMOrbitalATK will happily come to that party too.
The usual suspects will put in proposals and maybe one or two will get a few bucks before dropping out. The brave astronauts (wrapped in cotton wool) can still launch on SLS/Orion and recreate Apollo and wrap themselves in the American flag. What's the problem?
The great thing about commercial space getting cheaper is that they don't threaten the pork.
They're still living on scraps but they can do so much more with those scraps.
If you're worried that SLS/Orion don't make any damn sense because you could just ride one of the much cheaper commercial vehicles, just make up something about human rating or NASA insight vs oversight. Throw enough red tape and paperwork at the new providers that they can't move faster than the old providers.
Quote from: su27k on 10/06/2017 02:24 amSo nobody picked up Griffin wants the military to go back to design and build their own launch vehicle instead of using commercial ones?I took it more as keeping ULA around even when they become 10x the price of SpaceX... because national security.
I think you mean NGOrbitalATK (Northrop Grumman is buying Orbital ATK).
The SLS and the Orion have to be fully funded, and only then will money be allocated for commercial capabilities. That won't leave much money.
It's not about me or you, Pence is talking about sending U.S. Government employees to the Moon, and they have to ride on U.S. Government certified transportation systems - and the POR's today are the SLS and Orion.
That's one interpretation, but I'm not getting this vibe, if he wants to save ULA he would emphasize redundancy, at least two providers, etc. But what he said was military has their unique needs, so they need their unique vehicle.