Author Topic: Trump Space Policy Directive 1  (Read 51222 times)

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #80 on: 12/12/2017 08:17 pm »
The guy you have to blame is named Nixon, not Obama. Nixon is the one that steered the USA away from the Moon, all the way back to LEO. And once the USA was stuck there, courtesy of the space shuttle and the space station sucking the NASA budget dry, there was no real chance of going back into deep space.
LBJ, not Nixon, was President when Apollo/Saturn V and Apollo Applications were cut back.  Future Saturn V production was cut in the months before Nixon was elected, leading to cancellation of Apollos 18-20, etc.. 

But honestly, it wouldn't have mattered who was elected in 1968.  The American people didn't want to spend any more money on lunar landings.  Today's generation will apparently have to rediscover the reason why ...

 - Ed Kyle

Yes, that's the gist of Logsdon's book. He partly blames Nixon for what happenned but he does note that there was no public support for exploring Mars. A lot of people thought that we should stop human space exploration all together. 

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 #81 on: 12/12/2017 08:34 pm »
Absolutely - I still have some Powerpoints and pdfs. It probably was the far better way to go, rather than 'Apollo On Steroids'. Oh, how I cringed when Mike Griffin said that...

https://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/vse.htm

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/hqlibrary/documents/o56554650.pdf

https://www.space.com/778-spiral-stairway-moon.html
Same really that "Apollo got Hemorrhoids" under him...
« Last Edit: 12/12/2017 09:26 pm by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1381
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 924
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #82 on: 12/12/2017 09:03 pm »
Now that NASA has been directed back to the moon, I wanted to find out how much a crewed lunar lander would cost.  Edgar Zapata has published a paper on the value of public/private partnerships (PPP) in regards to spacecraft and landers.  He estimates that a PPP will be about 1/3 the cost of a sole-source contract with a vendor for such a lander (roughly 10 billion vs 30 billion) and this might be the best option towards a sustainable exploration program. This 1/3 number is reasonable - OMB calculated that the Falcon 9 LV was about 1/3 the cost of a Federal funded LV of the same capability.
His paper is:
The Opportunity in Commercial Approaches for
Future NASA Deep Space Exploration Elements, Edgar Zapata, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Kennedy Space Center, FL, 32899.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20170008893 2017-12-12T21:53:05+00:00Z
« Last Edit: 12/12/2017 09:24 pm by BrightLight »

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #83 on: 12/12/2017 09:22 pm »
I think they are going to need the equivalent of a 'lunar Soyuz/Progress', meaning of course a vehicle that can land either crew or cargo, most anywhere on the lunar surface. (cue a spinoff thread) BLOCK 1: Expendable, 2 x person, one week sortie. BLOCK 2: partly or fully reusable. BLOCK 3: 4x person, partly or fully reusable, long surface stay ability.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

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 #84 on: 12/12/2017 09:28 pm »
One thing for certain, we're never short of lander design proposals from over the years...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10350
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13605
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #85 on: 12/12/2017 10:29 pm »
This 1/3 number is reasonable - OMB calculated that the Falcon 9 LV was about 1/3 the cost of a Federal funded LV of the same capability.
IIRC NASA looked at the full bill for SX and found it cost them about $300m to get F9 first flight from startup.
Using industry standard cost models (which is what people use to work out a project should cost) gave the BAU cost at about $2Bn.

More like 6.6x bigger.

That's the cost of doing procurement using Govt rules and the cumulative effects of decades of over budget cost plus aerospace projects on the database.
Quote from: BrightLight
His paper is:
The Opportunity in Commercial Approaches for
Future NASA Deep Space Exploration Elements, Edgar Zapata, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Kennedy Space Center, FL, 32899.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20170008893 2017-12-12T21:53:05+00:00Z
Zapata is an interesting guy. His team work on the root causes of LV systems costs, and what really lowers costs, has made fascinating reading.
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 Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10198
  • Likes Given: 11927
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #86 on: 12/12/2017 10:43 pm »
If Jim Bridenstine is even half the man James Webb was - then NASA and the U.S. space program should prosper.

As someone that thinks NASA and the U.S. space program are doing pretty good right now doing necessary human science in LEO on the ISS, and helping the private sector to get out into space onto it's own, I don't understand why you think we're not prospering right now?

And why would returning to our Moon make us properous? It will certainly add to the U.S. debt, which is the opposite of prospering, so where do you see the U.S. prospering, and when?
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 MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #87 on: 12/13/2017 02:05 am »
It's almost like - if I have to explain it; you wont likely get it anyway. But I know you're far more intelligent than that.

So: 'Prospering' is relative. As much as I'm a big follower of ISS and was of the Shuttle - I crossed the world to see the final launch - being stuck in low Earth orbit for decades is not fully progressive, nor is it frontiering. I want to live long enough to see humans on Mars but I'm starting to think that wont be possible. And I want it far more for the children of Earth to see humans living and working on another world, than I want it for myself. Repetitive science in low Earth orbit is useful, but it should not be an end unto itself. And concern about a national debt is important for it's own reasons. But the U.S. space program didn't make the country debt-ridden. Make yourself a list of all the things that may have caused that and you'll see that space was not and likely never will be the problem. Though, a comment I made earlier in this thread about how the Trump administration may or may not be willing to expend political capital dealing with new space policy comes to mind: will they or wont they? We'll find out soon.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

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 #88 on: 12/13/2017 12:56 pm »
It's almost like - if I have to explain it; you wont likely get it anyway. But I know you're far more intelligent than that.

So: 'Prospering' is relative. As much as I'm a big follower of ISS and was of the Shuttle - I crossed the world to see the final launch - being stuck in low Earth orbit for decades is not fully progressive, nor is it frontiering. I want to live long enough to see humans on Mars but I'm starting to think that wont be possible. And I want it far more for the children of Earth to see humans living and working on another world, than I want it for myself. Repetitive science in low Earth orbit is useful, but it should not be an end unto itself. And concern about a national debt is important for it's own reasons. But the U.S. space program didn't make the country debt-ridden. Make yourself a list of all the things that may have caused that and you'll see that space was not and likely never will be the problem. Though, a comment I made earlier in this thread about how the Trump administration may or may not be willing to expend political capital dealing with new space policy comes to mind: will they or wont they? We'll find out soon.
His "political capital" just took a big hit for the second time in "spaceflight industry rich" Alabama last night....
« Last Edit: 12/13/2017 01:15 pm by Rocket Science »
"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 #89 on: 12/13/2017 01:26 pm »
I live in Alabama.  I did not vote for the dem.  Roy Moore's character was in question, not politics at all.  Jones will only be there two years.  Now, this did not affect Trump's political capital at all.  If Jones is smart he will cross over and vote for things like space with Shelby.  Too much polarization in Washington.  Very little working together.  I don't like SLS, but Shelby does. 

The new administrator needs to have more projects to allow for the lowest bidders designs, not NASA's designs.  It would cut costs.  Hopefully this would get more involvement around the country for more support. 

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 #90 on: 12/13/2017 02:11 pm »
I live in Alabama.  I did not vote for the dem.  Roy Moore's character was in question, not politics at all.  Jones will only be there two years.  Now, this did not affect Trump's political capital at all.  If Jones is smart he will cross over and vote for things like space with Shelby.  Too much polarization in Washington.  Very little working together.  I don't like SLS, but Shelby does. 

The new administrator needs to have more projects to allow for the lowest bidders designs, not NASA's designs.  It would cut costs.  Hopefully this would get more involvement around the country for more support.
Get back to us after the 2018 mid-term elections...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #91 on: 12/13/2017 02:47 pm »
Why would the current president want to burn political capital on space?  Anything's possible, but no president since Kennedy has been willing to do so, and he only did it because he judged it the best way out of an embarrassing geopolitical situation created by the Soviet Union.  I just don't see why a real-estate developer from Queens would wake up one morning and say (or, more likely tweet) "You know, this space thing is really important, and I'm going to do something about it."  I might imagine Al Gore or Dan Quail, had either of those vice presidents become president, do this, but I really don't see Trump doing it.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #92 on: 12/13/2017 09:44 pm »
Pence seems pretty into it.
« Last Edit: 12/13/2017 09:53 pm by QuantumG »
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #93 on: 12/13/2017 11:23 pm »
I'd love to see some "robotic landers". It's sad that NASA has sent four robotic rovers to Mars and none to the Moon. In fact, I'd say that if the only thing we hear about is sending humans then nothing will happen again. Send robots! Prospect for resources, build infrastructure (landing pads, power production, habitats, etc) and when the humans arrive they can get down to business instead of putting up the flag.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #94 on: 12/13/2017 11:46 pm »
...
 
“After 45 years, it is time to return humans to the region of the Moon even as we look toward Mars,” Dr. Dittmar said. “The Coalition is proud to support NASA and to help bring about this exciting future. We congratulate the Trump Administration on its bold vision and commitment to American leadership in space.”
 
...robotic landers, ...

Mary Lynn apparently doesn't think much of landing people on the Moon. 
Pretty striking departure from today's message.  Wonder why?

She knows that we can't afford that with most of the funding going to SLS and Orion.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #95 on: 12/14/2017 12:26 am »
...
 
“After 45 years, it is time to return humans to the region of the Moon even as we look toward Mars,” Dr. Dittmar said. “The Coalition is proud to support NASA and to help bring about this exciting future. We congratulate the Trump Administration on its bold vision and commitment to American leadership in space.”
 
...robotic landers, ...

Mary Lynn apparently doesn't think much of landing people on the Moon. 
Pretty striking departure from today's message.  Wonder why?

She knows that we can't afford that with most of the funding going to SLS and Orion.

Is 'Coalition for Space Exploration' just Orwellian-speak then, meaning athe opposite of what it says at face value?
Or should I put the emphasis on space instead of exploration?  Or is it simply a matter of money going to the right organizations (don't answer, that was rhetorical).

Frankly, I was surprised at this spokesperson essentially coming out against what the president signed and for the status quo of not going anywhere exploration-worthy, instead of challenging him to increase funding, build landers, whatever...  Tooling around the Moon in DRO is not exploration.  Just space.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline SkipMorrow

Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #96 on: 12/14/2017 12:57 am »
Pence seems pretty into it.

Pence has said at least three times something along the lines of "America will once again lead in space". "Once again"??? If America isn't leading the world in space right now, who is?

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/vice-president-pence-delivers-remarks-to-2017-nasa-astronaut-candidates
"Under President Donald Trump, America will lead in space again."

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/10/05/remarks-vice-president-meeting-national-space-council
"And in the absence of American leadership, other nations have seized the opportunity to stake their claim in the infinite frontier. Rather than lead in space, too often, we have chosen to drift. And, as we learned 60 years ago, when we drift, we fall behind."

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/12/11/remarks-president-trump-and-vice-president-pence-signing-ceremony-space
"Mr. President, in signing this space policy directive, you are ensuring that America will lead in space once again."

Will someone let him (and the president) know that we have two rovers driving around on Mars, probes leaving the solar system, flags on the moon, hundreds (???) of satellites, usually two american astronauts on the space station, several private companies that are preparing to launch humans into space, world leaders in weather and climate research, the list goes on. What country is doing even equal to us, let alone more than us? What country are we are hoping to surpass and once again lead in space? Other than in the early 60's, when Russia had launched Sputnik and Yuri Gagarin, I am pretty sure you could ask anyone who is leading the word in space, and the answer would be the US.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #97 on: 12/14/2017 01:03 am »
Those aren't grandiose space stunts that get headlines. No-one cares about super-interesting Mars rocks or astronauts playing guitars in zero-g.

If America isn't leading the world in space right now, who is?

No-one. As far as the headlines are concerned, the US hasn't done anything since the 80s.

Ya didn't think any of this was about actual measurable achievements, did ya?


Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline SkipMorrow

Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #98 on: 12/14/2017 01:08 am »
Ya didn't think any of this was about actual measurable achievements, did ya?

Whoops! My bad :(

*sigh*

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
Re: Trump Space Policy Directive 1
« Reply #99 on: 12/14/2017 01:50 am »
Don't expect anything but more of the same regardless of the rhetoric.

No bucks.  No Buck Rogers.

Congress couldn't agree on a latrine break if it came down to a vote, much less something with as little support as space does with the public.  The parties are torn by both internal strife as well as loathing each other.

Move along.  Nothing to see.

Tags:
 

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