Then again, Musk is coming fast with BFR / BFS, the later refueled in LEO can throw large payloads to the lunar surface and build a Moon base at lower cost thanks to complete reusability.
So maybe all the above is moot, and we might get a lunar base within the next 15 years... with NASA buying BFS flights CCDEV, COTS, or Soyuz style. Just like an airline buying 747s. Or a passenger buying a ride aboard a 747. Who knows ?
Emphasis mine.
If and when it NASA goes BFS it will be the latter option.
Ok- the worship and faith in this statement is just extraordinary. And it would be a terrible loss to the legacy of spaceflight research for public space to go that route.
You are going to have to clarify what you are referring to. What you quoted is statements about a possible future using proper conditionals so I don't see how "worship and faith" applies.
I also fail to see how making use of affordable launches to greatly expand the work done in space would be a "terrible loss" to anything. The difference between the 2 routes that were referred to at the end is just who is technically the owner/operator, which wouldn't make much practical difference due to all the other things needed to actually do a launch, though I agree with woods170, the passenger paying for a ride model (similar to CRS/commercial crew) is what would likely happen early on for simplicity.
You speak of NASA as if it was a crucial aspect decreed by the founding fathers. It is not. NASA was formed because a historical need. Eventually that need will go away, and NASA will disappear or morph into something else.
You could say the same thing about SpaceX, Boeing, or any other entity involved in spaceflight today. Sure, organizations change and won't last forever. What is your point?
NASA is not the end-all or be-all of spaceflight in this country.
No one said it was. I believe Nathan is saying that space exploration should not be a totally private endeavor. There is still a vast public interest in space, from scientific knowledge to inspiration to innovation, that requires a public space exploration organization like NASA. How that organization goes about its business is up for debate but I firmly believe it is necessary.
It is "worship and faith" in NASA that needs to be shaken.
While I am sure there are people that put NASA on too high a pedestal I think the opposite opinion (i.e. NASA can't do anything right, end the organization, etc.) is just as wrong. What we should do is respect NASA's great accomplishments and offer respectful criticism when they fall short.
You speak of NASA as if it was a crucial aspect decreed by the founding fathers. It is not. NASA was formed because a historical need. Eventually that need will go away, and NASA will disappear or morph into something else.
You could say the same thing about SpaceX, Boeing, or any other entity involved in spaceflight today. Sure, organizations change and won't last forever. What is your point?
My point was to respond to Okan's outrage about NASA possible not being in the lead (or building the hardware) for a future spaceflight endeavor. (paraphrasing here of course) NASA is a temporary construct. What does SpaceX or Boeing have do to with this?
If you quoted with context it should have been clear.
My point was to respond to Okan's outrage about NASA possible not being in the lead (or building the hardware) for a future spaceflight endeavor. (paraphrasing here of course) NASA is a temporary construct. What does SpaceX or Boeing have do to with this?
I was curious what your point was regarding NASA ceasing to exist at some point. Every organization, government or non-government, changes or ceases to exist. It seemed you were stating a truism.
If you quoted with context it should have been clear.
I try not to overload my posts with excessive quoting when the relevant posts are close by. Too much quoting makes reading more difficult, at least for me. I didn't realize that my post would be on the next page so I figured the context would be obvious. I was not trying to place your remarks out of context.
I'll just leave this here:
'Public space, space belongs to everyone': only dozens of people fly to space in 40 years, selected exclusively among the best, with extensive training; their plan to go to Mars involves landing 4 people every 5 years, starting 20 years from now... maybe; does not care about lowering the costs of spaceflight, SLS has to fly after all, whatever it takes! On the other hand the 'public rockets' have to be made by the same 3-4 main contractors, and have for 50 years.
'Elite space, evil private spaceflight': wants to maximize competition and diversity in the industry, aims to develop the 747 of human spaceflight, allowing millions of people to reach orbit and potentially the moon and Mars; is deeply focused on reducing the cost of reaching orbit, widening availability and trying to bring normal people to space. Opens new markets and launch endeavors that 'wouldn't have been possible if it wasn't for lower launch costs' (referring to Iridium, as an example).
okan and others, you always complain about how wrong people are when they get excited for SpaceX, Blue Origin, RocketLab, and other new space companies.
Don't you ever even wonder that maybe you are wrong? That maybe there's a reason if a lot of people are excited for this, and it's not that people are stupid?
Don't you think it's natural, reasonable and I dare say good, that people cheer for the ones who offer the better perspectives and vision for the future?
My point was to respond to Okan's outrage about NASA possible not being in the lead (or building the hardware) for a future spaceflight endeavor. (paraphrasing here of course) NASA is a temporary construct. What does SpaceX or Boeing have do to with this?
I was curious what your point was regarding NASA ceasing to exist at some point. Every organization, government or non-government, changes or ceases to exist. It seemed you were stating a truism.
Yes, it is a truism for sure. But one that needs to be stated if a person thinks that NASA should always lead spaceflight.
Each of the Lunar Orbital Platform - Gateway modules are expected to mass about 10 tonnes. The Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) used for station keeping is also a 50kW SEP space tug massing 5 to 8 tonnes wet mass, (2.5 tonnes of Xeon) that could push single modules from Earth Orbit to lunar orbit. LEO to EML-1 delta-v of 7.0km/s. Extra propellant can be launched separately. ISP of the 13kW Hall thruster is 3000 seconds, which is the likely ISP of the PPE.
8 tonne + 10 tonne = 18 tonne
There are several launch vehicles that can launch ~20 tonnes to LEO.
A manned vehicle may be needed to dock the modules together.
let's not get into a public vs private slugfest in this thread ok? thanks!
Could the DSP or LOP-G continue without the NASA Orion spacecraft? Of course. The Orion is a general purpose crew vehicle, and it's reasonable to expect that another transportation system could replace it.
The bigger question though is WOULD the DSP or LOP-G continue if the Orion was not available. Because that is a political question, not a hardware question.
I think the DSP/LOP-G doesn't have strong foundations at this point (i.e. business case is shaky), so if the Orion and SLS were not needed to be used, that may reduce the political support for the effort too.
But as others have mentioned, the OMS engine need is still far enough out into the future that I don't see it as a problem right now. So this is not yet a problem...
Then again, Musk is coming fast with BFR / BFS, the later refueled in LEO can throw large payloads to the lunar surface and build a Moon base at lower cost thanks to complete reusability.
So maybe all the above is moot, and we might get a lunar base within the next 15 years... with NASA buying BFS flights CCDEV, COTS, or Soyuz style. Just like an airline buying 747s. Or a passenger buying a ride aboard a 747. Who knows ?
Emphasis mine.
If and when it NASA goes BFS it will be the latter option.
Ok- the worship and faith in this statement is just extraordinary. And it would be a terrible loss to the legacy of spaceflight research for public space to go that route.
I believe that NASA's role/the public role does not have to be in designing rockets -- it is clear with the Constellation and SLS/Orion exercises that NASA's rocketry legacy has retired. The Nation needs a R&D leader in spaceflight -- NASA's primary role by charter. The private sector is taking a share of this role away as NASA burns its budget on old tech... SLS propulsion systems, ocean splashing capsules, tin can space habs, etc. In other words, but default, not decision.
As departing AA Lightfoot said today, NASA has become about process over product. This needs to be reversed.
Lightfoot: when we make mistakes, we usually fix it by adding something to the process. Can end up being vicious cycle. Worry it becomes more about the process than the product.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/986269088669319169