No. What I'm saying is that the capability has not been demonstrated. There is evidence (users guides, etc.) that the current hardware would require modifications (stronger payload adapters, detailed engineering, etc) to handle heavier payloads. Thus, the claimed capability exists only on paper at present.
I keep returning back to the simple phrase that Norm Augustine echoed years back "great nations do great things"...
Now it up to the nation to decide what that is and if human expansion into the cosmos is one of them...
I probably won't be around to see it but I know if we don't another nation will fill the vacuum and the nation with the resources and will to do that will be China... Communism=1, Democracy=0...
Quote from: Rocket Science on 12/24/2017 03:50 pmI keep returning back to the simple phrase that Norm Augustine echoed years back "great nations do great things"...Aren't we doing great things in space today?QuoteNow it up to the nation to decide what that is and if human expansion into the cosmos is one of them...Actually it's not up to "the nation". Citizens vote for politicians, and politicians are the ones that make the decisions. Which is why it's so important to elect the right people.By the way, has anyone done a survey to find out how many people have told their Representative and Senator their wishes for what the U.S. Government should do in space? I haven't, and I'm curious how many people outside of NASA-heavy areas bother...QuoteI probably won't be around to see it but I know if we don't another nation will fill the vacuum and the nation with the resources and will to do that will be China... Communism=1, Democracy=0...If China finally rustles up enough money to get a colony on our Moon it will be because they have financially dominated Earth, so I'd be more concerned with the first part than the latter. As of today though they are on a VERY slow course to getting anywhere in space.But it is curious how people like to think in terms of a "race". Of course we won the race to the Moon, and NASA has been oriented towards Mars for the past couple of decades (as is Elon Musk), so would it matter if China lands on the Moon?What is to be fearful of if a country other than the U.S. goes somewhere in space without us?
If China finally rustles up enough money to get a colony on our Moon it will be because they have financially dominated Earth, so I'd be more concerned with the first part than the latter. As of today though they are on a VERY slow course to getting anywhere in space.But it is curious how people like to think in terms of a "race". Of course we won the race to the Moon, and NASA has been oriented towards Mars for the past couple of decades (as is Elon Musk), so would it matter if China lands on the Moon?What is to be fearful of if a country other than the U.S. goes somewhere in space without us?
The world is not enough for Donald Trump: he has declared space “the next great American frontier” and mused to Congress that “American footprints on distant worlds are not too big a dream”.Earlier this month, the president ordered the agency to head back to the moon. “This time we will not only plant our flag and leave our footprint, we will establish a foundation for an eventual mission to Mars, and perhaps someday to many other worlds beyond,” he said, before signing the new policy for Nasa.
... You are talking about what might be or could be in the near or distant future after someone allocates funding and resources to make it happen, or after any one of several ongoing programs (Commercial Crew, Falcon Heavy, etc.) complete their developments. - Ed Kyle
Want to see how much FH can lift to LEO? Offer to pay $3-5M/tonne for propellant delivered... (but be careful to cap the quantities or BFR will show up with 200tonnes and ask, "Where do you want it?")
Constellation could have been pragmatically altered - not bloody cancelled outright.
Quote from: MATTBLAK on 12/11/2017 12:48 pm Constellation could have been pragmatically altered - not bloody cancelled outright.Constellation was a terrible design. It deserved to be cancelled. When was the last time a spacecraft was lobotomized over and over to make up for the anemic performance of its intended launcher?And that was just Ares I. Let's not even mention the other monstrosity.
NASA has too much on its plate to return to the Moon
In September 2009, the Augustine Committee issued its report reviewing the United States human spaceflight plans. The main finding of this report was that NASA had too much on its plate. In 2009 NASA had the Constellation program, whose primary goal was to return humans to the Moon by 2020. However, the funding to carry out this program was woefully inadequate.What was true then is more so today. NASA has been actively pursuing three programs for human spaceflight beyond low Earth orbit: the Space Launch System (SLS), the Orion spacecraft, and, more recently, the Deep Space Gateway. But progress on these three programs has been slow in large part due to inadequate funding.
Several studies, such as the Evolvable Lunar Architecture study from 2015, have shown that human presence on the Moon is affordable if done in the right way. That is, a lunar program should be set up as a public private partnership like the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program used to supply cargo to the International Space Station.
What about the SLS, Orion, and the Deep Space Gateway? None of these programs are needed for the primary goal of returning humans to the lunar surface. All three of these programs should be cancelled. Make no mistake: even though money will be saved if the lunar return program is done the right way with public-private partnerships, it will still be expensive. And its money NASA doesn’t have unless the agency cancels unneeded programs.
A new article:......QuoteWhat about the SLS, Orion, and the Deep Space Gateway? None of these programs are needed for the primary goal of returning humans to the lunar surface. All three of these programs should be cancelled. Make no mistake: even though money will be saved if the lunar return program is done the right way with public-private partnerships, it will still be expensive. And its money NASA doesn’t have unless the agency cancels unneeded programs. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3407/1
Quote from: AncientU on 01/15/2018 09:27 pmA new article:QuoteWhat about the SLS, Orion, and the Deep Space Gateway? None of these programs are needed for the primary goal of returning humans to the lunar surface. All three of these programs should be cancelled. Make no mistake: even though money will be saved if the lunar return program is done the right way with public-private partnerships, it will still be expensive. And its money NASA doesn’t have unless the agency cancels unneeded programs. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3407/1emphasis mineAh yes, cancel the lifter and capsule needed to take humans into deep space, then we can go to the Moon!
A new article:QuoteWhat about the SLS, Orion, and the Deep Space Gateway? None of these programs are needed for the primary goal of returning humans to the lunar surface. All three of these programs should be cancelled. Make no mistake: even though money will be saved if the lunar return program is done the right way with public-private partnerships, it will still be expensive. And its money NASA doesn’t have unless the agency cancels unneeded programs. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3407/1
Quote from: spacetraveler on 12/29/2017 01:36 amConstellation was a terrible design. It deserved to be cancelled. When was the last time a spacecraft was lobotomized over and over to make up for the anemic performance of its intended launcher?Ares I had margin. Orion was overweight. It should be clear by now that Orion was the problem, because the thing is still unfinished, 13 years after ESAS. Ares I would have been flying by now.
Constellation was a terrible design. It deserved to be cancelled. When was the last time a spacecraft was lobotomized over and over to make up for the anemic performance of its intended launcher?
The SLS had margin. The lunar lander was overweight. It should be clear by now that the lunar lander was the problem, because the thing is still unfinished, 13 years after the Trump Space Policy Directive 1 was approved. - Ed Kyle
Report: Trump to increase U.S. defense budget to $716B
Pres. Trump is expected to propose increasing U.S. defense spending to $716B in FY 2019 (beginning October 2018) in his budget request to be released next month, the Washington Post reports.The proposed budget would be a 13% increase over 2017, when the U.S. spent $634B on defense, and a 7%-plus gain over the $668B in the 2018 budget, which still has not passed through Congress.