https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20240000267/downloads/Trent%20MACHETE%20SciTech2024%20Presentation.pdf
https://twitter.com/jenakuns/status/1746143576734793955https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20230017880/downloads/Trent%20MACHETE%20SciTech2024%20Manuscript%20v3.pdfhttps://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20240000267/downloads/Trent%20MACHETE%20SciTech2024%20Presentation.pdf
And that is the head scratcher here - why isn't NASA trying to save the U.S. Taxpayer $Billions?
“It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.”
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
Before NASA (or Congress) abandons SLS, Starship needs to prove itself thoroughly. That means actually reaching orbit, getting reused, and--most important--getting refueled. All of that needs to work. Otherwise, Starship can't do the same things SLS can do.
A slightly less cynical answer is in this quote by Machiavelli:Quote“It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.”Before NASA (or Congress) abandons SLS, Starship needs to prove itself thoroughly. That means actually reaching orbit, getting reused, and--most important--getting refueled. All of that needs to work. Otherwise, Starship can't do the same things SLS can do. You can argue that, at this point, it seems pretty clear that it really is going to work, but then I'd direct you to this Upton Sinclair quote:Quote“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
The "source" QR code in the upper right corner points to https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210022080/downloads/HEOMD-007%20HEO%20SCOPE%20-%2009-28-2021%20NTRS.pdf (52 pages).
Quote from: deltaV on 01/13/2024 10:01 pmThe "source" QR code in the upper right corner points to https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210022080/downloads/HEOMD-007%20HEO%20SCOPE%20-%2009-28-2021%20NTRS.pdf (52 pages).That document proposes NASA eventually having simultaneous programs for LEO, lunar surface (including a moon base), and Mars surface. NASA has often struggled to afford LEO and lunar simultaneously so it seems implausible for them to be able to add Mars too. To do so they'd either need a big budget boost or very effective cost cutting. A big budget boost seems practically impossible unless another country such as China starts embarrassing the US in space. Effective cost cutting is possible in theory but NASA doesn't seem to be planning the needed changes such as canceling SLS.
Quote from: deltaV on 01/17/2024 02:17 amQuote from: deltaV on 01/13/2024 10:01 pmThe "source" QR code in the upper right corner points to https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210022080/downloads/HEOMD-007%20HEO%20SCOPE%20-%2009-28-2021%20NTRS.pdf (52 pages).That document proposes NASA eventually having simultaneous programs for LEO, lunar surface (including a moon base), and Mars surface. NASA has often struggled to afford LEO and lunar simultaneously so it seems implausible for them to be able to add Mars too. To do so they'd either need a big budget boost or very effective cost cutting. A big budget boost seems practically impossible unless another country such as China starts embarrassing the US in space. Effective cost cutting is possible in theory but NASA doesn't seem to be planning the needed changes such as canceling SLS.NASA has ~$11.7B under Exploration and Space Operations account in 2023 budget, subtracting ~$4.8B of SLS/Orion/EGS, they still have ~$7B. Say they put $500M in LEO, $2.5B for the Moon and $4B for Mars, that should be enough for maintaining a LEO presence and building a base on the Moon and Mars, if they bet everything on Starship.
Quote from: thespacecow on 01/18/2024 03:53 amNASA has ~$11.7B under Exploration and Space Operations account in 2023 budget, subtracting ~$4.8B of SLS/Orion/EGS, they still have ~$7B. Say they put $500M in LEO, $2.5B for the Moon and $4B for Mars, that should be enough for maintaining a LEO presence and building a base on the Moon and Mars, if they bet everything on Starship.I think that any significant spending by NASA on things like Mars bases would have to be specifically authorised by Congress.
NASA has ~$11.7B under Exploration and Space Operations account in 2023 budget, subtracting ~$4.8B of SLS/Orion/EGS, they still have ~$7B. Say they put $500M in LEO, $2.5B for the Moon and $4B for Mars, that should be enough for maintaining a LEO presence and building a base on the Moon and Mars, if they bet everything on Starship.