Quote from: su27k on 07/13/2019 03:36 amQuoteHe acknowledged the $20–30 billion cost estimate, but suggested international and commercial partnerships could help reduce those costs. “What we’re learning is that there are other people that want to contribute to this,” he said. “They want to invest their own money. Why? Because they want customers that are not NASA. If they have customers that are not NASA, it drives down our costs.”“It’s very realistic that it could come in well under the $20 billion when I gave that original range,” he said, which he said assumed NASA alone would pay for the cost of the program.Does anyone have any ideas as to what he's referring to here?Personally, I find it exceptionally difficult to imagine any company investing a significant amount of money for Lunar access capability to sell to a customer base with commercial Lunar plans.What possible customers would these be?
QuoteHe acknowledged the $20–30 billion cost estimate, but suggested international and commercial partnerships could help reduce those costs. “What we’re learning is that there are other people that want to contribute to this,” he said. “They want to invest their own money. Why? Because they want customers that are not NASA. If they have customers that are not NASA, it drives down our costs.”“It’s very realistic that it could come in well under the $20 billion when I gave that original range,” he said, which he said assumed NASA alone would pay for the cost of the program.
He acknowledged the $20–30 billion cost estimate, but suggested international and commercial partnerships could help reduce those costs. “What we’re learning is that there are other people that want to contribute to this,” he said. “They want to invest their own money. Why? Because they want customers that are not NASA. If they have customers that are not NASA, it drives down our costs.”“It’s very realistic that it could come in well under the $20 billion when I gave that original range,” he said, which he said assumed NASA alone would pay for the cost of the program.
There are plenty of companies that will gladly be contractors for the Artemis program, which is a risk on its own. I don't know of any that would be interested in a Public/Private Partnerships that requires them to pony up significant amounts of money in order to participate. I certainly don't see public companies like Boeing or Lockheed Martin doing that, nor SpaceX or Blue Origin. Who else would have the resources for what Bridenstine is suggesting?
SpaceX, Blue, Orbital ATK, and SNC all put in their own money for COTS/CRS. Getting them to do the same for Artemis logistics (and perhaps more) should be reasonably easy as long NASA can convince them that this is a long term program like ISS and there will be enough contracts available to eventually pay back their investment.Of course, since Congress isn't enthused about financing the program, and there is minimal international partnership so far, convincing private companies that this is a long-term effort by NASA (and is not just another in the long series of human exploration bait and switch programs) is going to be exceedingly difficult.
Wicker: what happens if we start FY2020 on a continuing resolution?Bridenstine: it would be devastating. Want to work with industry on lunar lander development; if we end up in a CR, that lander doesn’t continue to get developed.
Bridenstine: working with administration on FY21 budget proposal, which will include out-years projections for Artemis through 2024. [But that budget won’t be released until next Feb.]
Bridenstine, as he did in Monday’s call with reporters, says he’s not ruling out a 2033 human Mars mission. He says a small team looking at options, including “orbital physics” not previously studied.
Bridenstine says some companies are willing to invest 30% or more into development of commercial landers. Want to select three such landers for initial development, then downselect to two.
Markey: what’s schedule for developing spacesuits for 2024 lunar landing?Bridenstine: it’s a challenge; want a “flexible” suit architecture that can be used in LEO and on the Moon.
This is so backwards. Bridenstine is saying that NASA's objective is to develop a transportation system with the capability to access any part of the lunar surface, and that he hopes that somebody else is interested in funding missions which might utilize this capability.How about we try reversing those roles? Wouldn't it make more sense to have government-funded missions to the lunar surface so that "somebody else" can invest in the transportation system?
Quote from: butters on 07/13/2019 09:38 pmThis is so backwards. Bridenstine is saying that NASA's objective is to develop a transportation system with the capability to access any part of the lunar surface, and that he hopes that somebody else is interested in funding missions which might utilize this capability.How about we try reversing those roles? Wouldn't it make more sense to have government-funded missions to the lunar surface so that "somebody else" can invest in the transportation system?Possibly, but remember that the Trans-Continental railroad was built first, then "somebody else" invested in all the real estate along the way.
Astronaut Andy Thomas is not happy with the new plan. ...As NASA continues to push forward with an ambition to return to the moon by 2024, Australian astronaut Dr Andy Thomas has raised concerns about the risks to life and resources.https://www.spaceconnectonline.com.au/operations/3564-concerns-about-moon-mission-timeline-dr-andy-thomas
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 07/18/2019 01:51 pmQuote from: butters on 07/13/2019 09:38 pmThis is so backwards. Bridenstine is saying that NASA's objective is to develop a transportation system with the capability to access any part of the lunar surface, and that he hopes that somebody else is interested in funding missions which might utilize this capability.How about we try reversing those roles? Wouldn't it make more sense to have government-funded missions to the lunar surface so that "somebody else" can invest in the transportation system?Possibly, but remember that the Trans-Continental railroad was built first, then "somebody else" invested in all the real estate along the way.No, the railroad companies were granted the land beside the line by the federal government as part of their compensation for building it, and these analogies are silly even when they're factual.
New OP-Ed on the Artemis program by none other than Lori Garver:Forget new crewed missions in space. NASA should focus on saving Earth.Suffice to say, she's not a fan. Though she goes a lot farther in opposing it than I expected. Not like this kind of argument is anything new, though.
Forget new crewed missions in space. NASA should focus on saving Earth.Our emissions are all created by generation of energy by fossils. One green solution that can meet most of our energy demands is space based solar power, unlike fusion there are no major technology break throughs required, just lots of engineering problems. ...
The fact that Bridenstine cannot show a spacesuit for use on the moon is enough evidence for me to say the whole HSF program should be cancelled. There are no materials I know of that will be flexible/seal correctly at the extreme cold temperatures at the permanently shadowed craters on the moon.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 07/19/2019 01:52 amForget new crewed missions in space. NASA should focus on saving Earth.Our emissions are all created by generation of energy by fossils. One green solution that can meet most of our energy demands is space based solar power, unlike fusion there are no major technology break throughs required, just lots of engineering problems. ...Yeah. Engineering problems such as adding even more heat from the Sun into the Earth's eco-system. Right? Because the waste product of all this solar power is heat? So we're gonna make the planed cooler by warming it?
Obviously she is still pursuing her perennial objective of being the NASA Administrator of a democrat Administration.And she is assuming a Green New Deal or something of the kind will be in the order of the day.
