Author Topic: Cislunar station gets thumbs up, new name in President’s budget request  (Read 78499 times)

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1381
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 924
NAC HEO agenda is set for late August,

https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/nac-heoc

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
New article by Ars Technica about a VP Pence visit to NASA and his remarks about what Trump's goals are for the Moon:

How the White House plans a return to the Moon during Trump’s presidency | Ars Technica

Important excerpts:

Quote
Assuming Trump wins a second term (admittedly, we are treading into the theoretical weeds here), NASA would have until the end of 2024 to “return to the Moon.” That is why the following line from Pence’s speech is significant.

Our administration is working tirelessly to put an American crew aboard the lunar orbital platform before the end of 2024,” Pence said Thursday to a capacity audience inside Teague Auditorium on the space center campus.

And:

Quote
In addition to the rocket, NASA must also build the Gateway itself. For now, the Gateway remains a theoretical construct with no hardware yet designed or metal cut. To be ready by 2024, NASA must soon lock in a design for the Gateway elements, including power and propulsion systems, a habitat module, an airlock, and more. NASA is still setting requirements and taking proposals from vendors for these components. With none of this firmed up, NASA would need to move quickly to finalize its requirements, select firms to build the components, complete that work, and ready everything for launch.

Are we seeing anything on the legislative side within Congress that would allocate funding for this effort starting October 1st 2018?
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 Markstark

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 351
  • Liked: 457
  • Likes Given: 83
New article by Ars Technica about a VP Pence visit to NASA and his remarks about what Trump's goals are for the Moon:

How the White House plans a return to the Moon during Trump’s presidency | Ars Technica

Important excerpts:

Quote
Assuming Trump wins a second term (admittedly, we are treading into the theoretical weeds here), NASA would have until the end of 2024 to “return to the Moon.” That is why the following line from Pence’s speech is significant.

Our administration is working tirelessly to put an American crew aboard the lunar orbital platform before the end of 2024,” Pence said Thursday to a capacity audience inside Teague Auditorium on the space center campus.

And:

Quote
In addition to the rocket, NASA must also build the Gateway itself. For now, the Gateway remains a theoretical construct with no hardware yet designed or metal cut. To be ready by 2024, NASA must soon lock in a design for the Gateway elements, including power and propulsion systems, a habitat module, an airlock, and more. NASA is still setting requirements and taking proposals from vendors for these components. With none of this firmed up, NASA would need to move quickly to finalize its requirements, select firms to build the components, complete that work, and ready everything for launch.

Are we seeing anything on the legislative side within Congress that would allocate funding for this effort starting October 1st 2018?
I believe there’s ~$500m for Gateway in the FY19 budget. I’ll check and get back to you.

Offline Markstark

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 351
  • Liked: 457
  • Likes Given: 83
New article by Ars Technica about a VP Pence visit to NASA and his remarks about what Trump's goals are for the Moon:

How the White House plans a return to the Moon during Trump’s presidency | Ars Technica

Important excerpts:

Quote
Assuming Trump wins a second term (admittedly, we are treading into the theoretical weeds here), NASA would have until the end of 2024 to “return to the Moon.” That is why the following line from Pence’s speech is significant.

Our administration is working tirelessly to put an American crew aboard the lunar orbital platform before the end of 2024,” Pence said Thursday to a capacity audience inside Teague Auditorium on the space center campus.

And:

Quote
In addition to the rocket, NASA must also build the Gateway itself. For now, the Gateway remains a theoretical construct with no hardware yet designed or metal cut. To be ready by 2024, NASA must soon lock in a design for the Gateway elements, including power and propulsion systems, a habitat module, an airlock, and more. NASA is still setting requirements and taking proposals from vendors for these components. With none of this firmed up, NASA would need to move quickly to finalize its requirements, select firms to build the components, complete that work, and ready everything for launch.

Are we seeing anything on the legislative side within Congress that would allocate funding for this effort starting October 1st 2018?

Here’s what I remember reading on SpacePolicyOnline a few months ago:
https://spacepolicyonline.com/free-fact-sheets-and-reports/nasas-fy2019-budget-request/

I included some relevant snippets.


Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
New article by Ars Technica about a VP Pence visit to NASA and his remarks about what Trump's goals are for the Moon:

How the White House plans a return to the Moon during Trump’s presidency | Ars Technica

Important excerpts:

Quote
Assuming Trump wins a second term (admittedly, we are treading into the theoretical weeds here), NASA would have until the end of 2024 to “return to the Moon.” That is why the following line from Pence’s speech is significant.

Our administration is working tirelessly to put an American crew aboard the lunar orbital platform before the end of 2024,” Pence said Thursday to a capacity audience inside Teague Auditorium on the space center campus.

Berger's take is that Trump need be re-elected for this to happen, but Pence seems more closely connected with this project than does Trump.  And Pence could conceivably be in office for a while, even if Trump doesn't manage to complete one term (the 22nd Amendment would allow him to run twice even if, as suddenly seems rather possible, he replaces Trump for the last 2 years of Trump's term).
« Last Edit: 08/24/2018 04:54 am by Proponent »

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
Here’s what I remember reading on SpacePolicyOnline a few months ago:
https://spacepolicyonline.com/free-fact-sheets-and-reports/nasas-fy2019-budget-request/

So the relevant part from SpacePolicyOnline.com is:

Quote
Moon/Mars. The committee “fully funds the Moon exploration initiatives requested throughout NASA,” but limits obligation of the funds “until a multi-year plan, with specific goals and funding requirements by fiscal year, is submitted to the Committee.

What has been missing from NASA since the beginning of the SLS and Orion programs has been detailed budget information for the use of the SLS and Orion. I would imagine such a budget request would have to include how much the SLS and Orion portion will cost, and it will also be interesting to see how much the LOP-G will cost despite trying to use proven NASA systems.

But for now, the LOP-G program is not "fully funded", it's been given more of a deposit on the program.
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 Markstark

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 351
  • Liked: 457
  • Likes Given: 83
Here’s what I remember reading on SpacePolicyOnline a few months ago:
https://spacepolicyonline.com/free-fact-sheets-and-reports/nasas-fy2019-budget-request/

So the relevant part from SpacePolicyOnline.com is:

Quote
Moon/Mars. The committee “fully funds the Moon exploration initiatives requested throughout NASA,” but limits obligation of the funds “until a multi-year plan, with specific goals and funding requirements by fiscal year, is submitted to the Committee.

What has been missing from NASA since the beginning of the SLS and Orion programs has been detailed budget information for the use of the SLS and Orion. I would imagine such a budget request would have to include how much the SLS and Orion portion will cost, and it will also be interesting to see how much the LOP-G will cost despite trying to use proven NASA systems.

But for now, the LOP-G program is not "fully funded", it's been given more of a deposit on the program.

I think a non-refundable deposit sounds about right (assuming it makes it on the final appropriations)

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Here’s what I remember reading on SpacePolicyOnline a few months ago:
https://spacepolicyonline.com/free-fact-sheets-and-reports/nasas-fy2019-budget-request/

So the relevant part from SpacePolicyOnline.com is:

Quote
Moon/Mars. The committee “fully funds the Moon exploration initiatives requested throughout NASA,” but limits obligation of the funds “until a multi-year plan, with specific goals and funding requirements by fiscal year, is submitted to the Committee.

What has been missing from NASA since the beginning of the SLS and Orion programs has been detailed budget information for the use of the SLS and Orion. I would imagine such a budget request would have to include how much the SLS and Orion portion will cost, and it will also be interesting to see how much the LOP-G will cost despite trying to use proven NASA systems.

But for now, the LOP-G program is not "fully funded", it's been given more of a deposit on the program.

SLS software used/is trying to use 'proven NASA systems.'  It is more than 2x over budget and years behind its original 'optimistic' (read naive) estimate.  SLS itself is using 'proven NASA systems' -- and that is progressing swimmingly.  If they go for LOP-G with outdated ISS technology, the same result* will be realized.

* Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results

The possibility that we'll finally have an SLS/Exploration program budget is interesting.
« Last Edit: 08/24/2018 01:17 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
The possibility that we'll finally have an SLS/Exploration program budget is interesting.

I think many in Congress and in NASA have been, in some ways, hoping they would never have to publish the costs of using the SLS and Orion. That Congress as a whole would just create an open-ended budget for programs like LOP-G and not have to identify an overall program cost - which is the situation with the SLS and Orion, they never had an overall budget target.

That is why no one is hauling them in front of Congress to justify SLS & Orion program overruns, since they can NEVER run over their never-projected budget targets.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1