-
#60
by
su27k
on 30 Nov, 2014 02:59
-
Sad. But not surprising. With that budget imagine what could be accomplished if it wasn't OldSpace doing it. Sorry for that tone but it's how I feel.
You mean the 0.5% of the federal budget that NASA gets and the around 0.2% that human spaceflight gets? New Space wouldn't be able to do much of anything with it either.
0.2% of the federal budget is $7 billion, if you add up all the SpaceX contracts with NASA it's about $5 billion, for that amount of money NASA got or will get a new launch vehicle that can compete in the international market, a cargo ship with down mass capability, a manned spaceship that can do vertical landing, 12 resupply flights to ISS, 6 crewed flights to ISS. Yeah, not much of anything indeed.
I was referring to doing anything BEO. SpaceX and others have done some remarkable things over the past couple of years that are worthy of a great deal of praise. I am happy and cheering for them! That is in LEO though. BEO is far more difficult. I also think it is important to note that our LEO program (Commercial Crew + ISS) actually gets more money than our BEO program.
How do you know they wouldn't do equally well in BEO? There's nothing magical about BEO, especially if you're talking about cis-lunar space (which is the limit a single SLS/Orion can go). We went there 45 years ago, someone flew a comm sat around the Moon and it went back fine, so no monsters there.
-
#61
by
clongton
on 30 Nov, 2014 03:06
-
... so no monsters there.
True. There is also tremendous wasted opportunity.
-
#62
by
su27k
on 30 Nov, 2014 03:59
-
Someone else posted a nice summary of what 7B USD buys for SLS vs. what it got from SpaceX. Those numbers pretty much speak for themselves.
No, that is a completely wrong comparison. Typical of nuspace to use such inaccurate comparisons. SLS is not oldspace. SLS is gov't space.
How about this for a nuspace comparison? This is what you get:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35974.0
It would be helpful if you could articulate your point directly, instead of giving out more inaccurate comparisons which will just add to the confusion.
I don't think I'm qualified to put word in your mouth but what do I get to lose: Are you saying the government space program is managed poorly such that no matter which company you put in, they will fail equally? And given the right management/incentive (for example NASA Launch Services Program or Commercial Crew), old space can do just as well as if not better than, new space?
-
#63
by
A_M_Swallow
on 30 Nov, 2014 04:16
-
The asteroid thing has always been a bit dodgy. No amount of canceling programs and raising budgets will change the fact that there are few targets and limited launch windows. Not even Spacex can pull an asteroid mission off if there is no asteroid.
There are no known targets for ARM which can be captured in time for a 2021 mission. It's not an issue of funding or a particular program being behind schedule. It's what nature has provided us to work with.
The first setup of course would be to start looking for a target with ground based telescopes. That is an extremely cheap first step yet it has yet to be proposed and funded by the White House or NASA, the very people who are gung ho about ARM.
There is a natural order to things. Getting funding to find a target for ARM is something that follows getting ARM approved. Although the additional funding request may be an item in the ARM budget request.
-
#64
by
A_M_Swallow
on 30 Nov, 2014 04:28
-
The problem with ground based telescope discoveries is that candidate near Earth asteroids (NEAs) are discovered in passing -- too close to earth for any possibility of a retrieval (or unfortunately any realistic action like getting out of its way). Next time around for a subset of these NEAs is of order ten years. The only likely candidates for retrieval in under ten years are Earth 'trojans' that reside temporarily in the Earth-Sun L4/L5 zones one AU from here. These are at best difficult to find from the ground, but could be spotted by an orbiting telescope of sufficient aperture. There are such rocks identified out there now, and many more waiting to be discovered.
If you want to keep an eye on the Earth-Sun L4 and L5 zones you could always send a satellite to them. If your telescope can fit in a 1U cubesat then something like the CubeSat Ambipolar Thruster can be used to push them there.
The launch costs for a pair of 3U cubsats is under $1 million but you will have to cost building the satellites your self.
-
#65
by
darkenfast
on 30 Nov, 2014 05:57
-
The American demographics are changing. Elections will be largely about "Who can give me more entitlements?", not who has a great vision for the future. There will be no Mars Program led by the U.S. Government. I don't know if Musk will ever get there, but he has a much better chance than anyone who is likely to win an election in America. "I believe we should put a lot more money towards spaceflight!" is a guaranteed FAIL with the food-stamp and welfare crowd.
-
#66
by
notsorandom
on 30 Nov, 2014 06:10
-
The problem with ground based telescope discoveries is that candidate near Earth asteroids (NEAs) are discovered in passing -- too close to earth for any possibility of a retrieval (or unfortunately any realistic action like getting out of its way). Next time around for a subset of these NEAs is of order ten years. The only likely candidates for retrieval in under ten years are Earth 'trojans' that reside temporarily in the Earth-Sun L4/L5 zones one AU from here. These are at best difficult to find from the ground, but could be spotted by an orbiting telescope of sufficient aperture. There are such rocks identified out there now, and many more waiting to be discovered.
An orbiting telescope provides no superior view aside from maybe longer exposure times. These thing really don't need hour long exposures though. Its the same thing with a telescope in an EML point too. A telescope like the one B-612 is proposing which sits closer to the sun and looks out might be some use because it can get more favorable illumination on them. Robotic ground based surveys do pick up NEOs of this size. That is how we know there is a population of them.
However the lack of targets for the ARM mission was my point. When it was proposed there was not any known asteroid which could be retrieved in the quoted time frame. There was only the hope that one might be found. If those who proposed this mission were really interested in it the first thing they would have done is start looking for one they could grab. Compared to any other aspect of this mission or anything in spaceflight really this is a cheap thing to do. Its also something that is of great benefit to other areas too including planetary defense. Congress has in fact mandated these kinds of study for year but without any funding requests being forthcoming. For example of how much this first step might cost the entire array of Pan-STARRS is expected to be only $100 million. Instead of funding these efforts Sliding Spring the only robotic telescope like this in the southern hemisphere is shutting down due to lack of funding.
If we had a rocket sitting on the launch pad right now ready to go we would have no clue where to send it. It doesn't matter who builds that rocket, with what contracting methods, or how big or small it is There is no target now and there is unlikely to be one by 2021. There will certainly be non if we don't start looking.
-
#67
by
mike robel
on 30 Nov, 2014 07:11
-
3. SLS will not survive the next POTUS.
4. Orion will not carry any humans into orbit - unless NASA makes a deal to use Falcon Heavy as a CLV - unlikely.
Fixed these for you:
3. SLS will not survive the next POTUS or Republican Congress.
4. Orion will not carry any humans into orbit - unless NASA makes a deal to use Falcon Heavy or Delta IV Heavy as a CLV - unlikely.4.
-
#68
by
IRobot
on 30 Nov, 2014 08:30
-
An orbiting telescope provides no superior view aside from maybe longer exposure times. These thing really don't need hour long exposures though. Its the same thing with a telescope in an EML point too. A telescope like the one B-612 is proposing which sits closer to the sun and looks out might be some use because it can get more favorable illumination on them. Robotic ground based surveys do pick up NEOs of this size. That is how we know there is a population of them.
Not entirely true, the great benefit of orbiting telescope is avoiding atmospheric turbulence, allowing near diffraction limited imaging.
-
#69
by
clongton
on 30 Nov, 2014 12:56
-
3. SLS will not survive the next POTUS.
4. Orion will not carry any humans into orbit - unless NASA makes a deal to use Falcon Heavy as a CLV - unlikely.
Fixed these for you:
3. SLS will not survive the next POTUS or Republican Congress.
4. Orion will not carry any humans into orbit - unless NASA makes a deal to use Falcon Heavy or Delta IV Heavy as a CLV - unlikely.4.
It was fine the way it was.
-
#70
by
jgoldader
on 30 Nov, 2014 19:03
-
An orbiting telescope provides no superior view aside from maybe longer exposure times. These thing really don't need hour long exposures though. Its the same thing with a telescope in an EML point too. A telescope like the one B-612 is proposing which sits closer to the sun and looks out might be some use because it can get more favorable illumination on them. Robotic ground based surveys do pick up NEOs of this size. That is how we know there is a population of them.
Not entirely true, the great benefit of orbiting telescope is avoiding atmospheric turbulence, allowing near diffraction limited imaging.
Well, sure, getting out of the atmosphere helps imaging quality. But when looking for NEOs, the big benefit is being able to look near the Sun without the pesky bright sky getting in the way. The B-612 telescope uses its orbit to get better lighting conditions, but a well baffled NEO finder would be able to do a first cut from even LEO, by looking interior to Earth's orbit.
-
#71
by
jgoldader
on 30 Nov, 2014 19:26
-
So is there some way to make lemonade from this mess?
Option 1: can the retrieval and dedicate the retrieval launch to general NEO study. Launch a detection telescope to LEO or HEO and a bunch of m^3- sized flyby spacecraft to known NEOs.
(Snip)
I KNOW both of those will cost money, but either seems easier, surely safer, and more productive than the crewed mission as currently envisioned.
Follow-up: B-612 says the Sentinel mission would cost $450M. I presume this includes launch?
http://sentinelmission.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/FAQ-FINAL-5.30.13-1.pdfThe Sentinel would cost less than half an Orion, I believe. Anybody doubt that some enterprising universities can find a way to make a swarm of NEO flyby spacecraft for another $450M? Put the whole lot up there in one SLS launch. Done. Probably less expensive than the asteroid recovery spacecraft itself, surely more useful science.
Doesn't give JSC much to do, of course...
-
#72
by
Endeavour_01
on 30 Nov, 2014 19:45
-
SpaceX is not going to Mars without massive support from NASA. That could happen and I think it should happen. There is nothing wrong with a NASA led public-private partnership. It doesn't have to be all one way or the other.
My read, could be wrong, and I'm a heavy koolaid drinker, to be sure, is that Musk is going. If NASA wants to help, great, but he's going to Mars. You may disagree. It may take longer without NASA but our destiny is to be a multiplanet species. Government won't get us that.
Yes, NASA money helped get SpaceX to where it is at this point in time. But it is not a given that they necessarily would be nonexistant/bankrupt/not making any progress. The money helps but it's not the be-all/end-all.
Just because Musk is saying he is going doesn't mean that he has the resources to. Musk is an amazing guy and someone who should held as a role model for entrepreneurship. That said he is not a space god. He can't just wave his hand and make it so.
Of course government isn't going to colonize the solar system. That is not its job. Throughout history though many of the initial exploratory missions were funded by governments (Columbus, Lewis and Clark). NASA missions are the Lewis and Clark expeditions of space. After that comes the private sector investments that lead to colonization.
SpaceX would still exist without NASA funding. That said they either wouldn't be doing anything HSF related or they would be going at a glacial pace.
You are comparing apples and oranges. BEO is not the same as LEO. That is like saying if I wanted to get from America to Europe and I have a couple million dollars I should buy a couple of RVs vs. a jet. Sure the RV's cost less but they won't get me where I need to go.
There's not THAT much difference between CST-100/DC/Dragon and Orion. My comparision is apt because it focuses on how much you get per dollar, not exactly what it's spent on. I get that Space is Hard but BEO isn't so much harder that it takes 2 orders of magnitude more expenditure. Or even 1. And Orion isn't really all that BEO capable anyway, as other posters have ably demonstrated.
Really? CST-100, DC, and Dragon are LEO taxis. They only have enough life support for a short time period and DC and CST-100 only have LEO return capable heat shields. Dragon is the most capable of the taxis and does have a lunar return capable heat shield but it doesn't have the life support capacity that Orion has or the in space redundancies (although I personally think it could be used in BEO as a cargo hauler to an EML-2 station). They are perfect for LEO and I am looking forward to seeing them fly.
Orion is not perfect but it has the potential to be used to great effect. If a Dragon V3 comes out and is just as good as Orion then we can think about phasing Orion out.
Sad. But not surprising. With that budget imagine what could be accomplished if it wasn't OldSpace doing it. Sorry for that tone but it's how I feel.
You mean the 0.5% of the federal budget that NASA gets and the around 0.2% that human spaceflight gets? New Space wouldn't be able to do much of anything with it either.
0.2% of the federal budget is $7 billion, if you add up all the SpaceX contracts with NASA it's about $5 billion, for that amount of money NASA got or will get a new launch vehicle that can compete in the international market, a cargo ship with down mass capability, a manned spaceship that can do vertical landing, 12 resupply flights to ISS, 6 crewed flights to ISS. Yeah, not much of anything indeed.
I was referring to doing anything BEO. SpaceX and others have done some remarkable things over the past couple of years that are worthy of a great deal of praise. I am happy and cheering for them! That is in LEO though. BEO is far more difficult. I also think it is important to note that our LEO program (Commercial Crew + ISS) actually gets more money than our BEO program.
How do you know they wouldn't do equally well in BEO? There's nothing magical about BEO, especially if you're talking about cis-lunar space (which is the limit a single SLS/Orion can go). We went there 45 years ago, someone flew a comm sat around the Moon and it went back fine, so no monsters there.
I know because of the various spacecraft's capabilities. See above response to Lar.
-
#73
by
laszlo
on 01 Dec, 2014 17:14
-
Since this is a pretty lame mission, I can't say that I'm heartbroken to read this. I'd rather see the money used for something more meaningful, such as the Phobos/Deimos missions mentioned at the beginning of this thread.
In the meantime, for those who really need a bogus asteroid visit mission, try this:
The crew of 3 astronauts leaves NASA headquarters, walks across the Mall to the Smithsonian Natural History Museum, finds the biggest meteor in the collection and takes lots of selfies climbing all over the meteor.
Some may say that it's not the same as a manned visit to an asteroid. Neither is NASA's proposed (delayed) mission.
-
#74
by
Political Hack Wannabe
on 02 Dec, 2014 05:41
-
I am going to say something, that is probably sacrilege for most people here, but I just feel the need to say it
(and I'll caveat it with the stand point - this is my opinion, YMMV)
The best chance we had at going back to the moon before the end of the decade was the FY11 budget. We have the proposed missions we have, because they fit the compromise budget process that we have. People can complain about the President all they want - remind me who make the final budget process? (hint, other end of Penn ave)
And I'll grant, that is unfair to suggest that only Congress has control of the budget process. But if you think NASA should get more money for exploration, why hasn't the appropriation committee not provided more money?
And no, its not actually about entitlements (although some think it is). Its fundamentally about value, and for many people, NASA hasn't delivered value. Its cool, and neat, but NASA and Space (And those aren't the same thing) have not produce value that people actively reach for. If it did, people would be trying to touch space (and touching space doesn't mean you necessarily want to go there - it merely means you are prepared to take action to protect its continued existance).
So, to bring it back, we have rather limited options - we can try and get very creative with mission ideas like either ARM or Mars 2021 flybys (neither of which builds a lasting growth oriented system). We can try and get creative with how we do missions (make it about a goal, like buidling a market, rather than a destination, like going to an asteroid).
This probably won't be a popular post, and may very well get trimmed. Just felt the need to get some of this off my chest
After edits - saw a few items that had bad grammer
-
#75
by
Nilof
on 02 Dec, 2014 14:22
-
Following up on the post right above: NASA's budget should be compared to the total budget allocated by congress to science. The 2014 NASA budget was 17.7 billion dollars, compared to 7.6 billion spent on the National Science Foundation, and 28.4 spent on the DOE.
Of the DOE spending, ~11 billion was strictly necessary spending for safekeeping old nuclear weapons, and removing that portion it has a similar budget to NASA while being politically far more of a heavyweight(research on solving future energy needs is going to be easier to defend politically than HSF).
So at a similar budget to the DOE and 2.5 times the budget of the NSF, I'd say NASA is actually getting a lot more funding than expected. Some NASA programs have competed with non-space programs that were arguably more deserving of funding at the time (for example, the International Space Station vs the Superconducting Super Colider).
The bottom line is that while curiosity is a great motivator, fear, rivalry, greed or an empty stomach are far more potent motivators. The NASA budget is unlikely to be increased as long as it competes with other budget options that have more political weight, unless the political climate changes in such a way that it doesn't get viewed as part of the research budget.
-
#76
by
ThereIWas3
on 02 Dec, 2014 14:40
-
How much of the NASA budget is for JPL and the unmanned probes? It seems to me that the JPL operations do return value for the money.
-
#77
by
Nilof
on 02 Dec, 2014 15:26
-
The JPL missions certainly do return a lot of science per dollar. Sadly, there's going to be a lot fewer of them in this decade. Orion/SLS is swallowing up a very big slice of the Nasa budget.
Imho, a lot of the issues are due to the fact that the Orion is way too big for a reentry vehicle. Splitting the spacecraft into a separate orbital and reentry module like the Soyuz would make a lot more sense for long-duration BLEO spaceflight. A lot of the Orion's weight issues ultimately stem from this. It caused issues for constellation by requiring the Ares I to have a big payload compared to what was workable, and it is creating issues now by requiring a huge stage to send it beyond LEO. And even though it sacrifices weight and makes the reentry harder, it still doesn't provide a long enough mission duration for anything further out than the Moon.
Imho, the best way forward would be to get rid of the Orion entirely, and consider a Dragon expanded with a Cygnus or an MPLM-derived habitat for mission durations that are actually interesting, instead of trying to fight physics to make the Orion reentry work out.
-
#78
by
ncb1397
on 02 Dec, 2014 15:30
-
Imho, a lot of the issues are due to the fact that the Orion is way too big for a reentry vehicle.
If Orion is too big for a reentry vehicle, then what was Shuttle?
-
#79
by
Jim
on 02 Dec, 2014 16:51
-
Imho, a lot of the issues are due to the fact that the Orion is way too big for a reentry vehicle. Splitting the spacecraft into a separate orbital and reentry module like the Soyuz would make a lot more sense for long-duration BLEO spaceflight. A lot of the Orion's weight issues ultimately stem from this.
Wrong, it is not "too"big, nor is it for long duration flights. There is no need to "split"it, and long duration flights will have another module.
