Obama withdraws funding for constellation

[rockett]

By ending Shuttle without a contracted crew-carrying replacement, NASA has taken a step off a cliff while hoping that someone builds and delivers a parachute before it hits the ground. Until that "parachute" opens, years from now, the United States will not have a human space flight program, commercial, government, or otherwise.

- Ed Kyle

I agree 100%!!!!
Dragon has not even flown, let alone returned to Earth. Pretty iffy for a commitment on this scale. And if you're thinking Orbital Sciences, they are even further behind because of problems with their RUSSIAN engine supplier!

As for the rest, in an interview Bolden said that he did not expect heavy lift until between 2020 and 2030. We went all the way to the moon and back faster than that!

Finally, there is a question of legality, Congress specifically prohibited cancellation of Constellation without Congressional approval, last year! While I am not a big fan of Constellation, it seems as if this Administration has an attitude that it can do whatever it wants, regardless of Congress. And they want the manned spaceflight program dead. If you can't get to orbit, all the stuff they are spinning is nothing more than HOT AIR.

 

[DarkenedOne]

Commercial crew launch is going to take years to enter service, assuming the effort is successful [1]. During those years, the United States will not have a crew launch capability.

[1] (U.S. aerospace hasn't had a very good record of success on big projects like this in recent years. When they've been able to get the technology to work the costs have ballooned or the schedules have slipped by many years. When they've tried to cut costs, the technology has failed. See Boeing 787 and Lockheed Martin F-35 for examples.)

We are not talking about a very big, innovative project here. When people talk about building cutting edge technology there is the significant chance it will not work.

Commercial crew is not talking about building cutting edge tech with advanced capabilities. They are talking about a reliable and inexpensive workhorse built on technology that has been around for 50 years.

SpaceX is a U.S. company working on a cargo, not crew, hauling contract for NASA. It may or may not bid on the commercial crew launch project. If it bids, it may not win. Dragon has yet to fly, and even when and if it does, it has has not yet been developed to carry crew. No company, SpaceX included, has announced plans to launch humans into orbit on non-NASA missions.

By ending Shuttle without a contracted crew-carrying replacement, NASA has taken a step off a cliff while hoping that someone builds and delivers a parachute before it hits the ground. Until that "parachute" opens, years from now, the United States will not have a human space flight program, commercial, government, or otherwise.

- Ed Kyle

Problem with the shuttle is that is costs 4-5 billion per year. That account to more than half of the NASA budget dedicated to human space flight.

 

[DarkenedOne]

I agree 100%!!!!
Dragon has not even flown, let alone returned to Earth. Pretty iffy for a commitment on this scale. And if you're thinking Orbital Sciences, they are even further behind because of problems with their RUSSIAN engine supplier!

Yet this was the very problem with Orion and Ares.

As for the rest, in an interview Bolden said that he did not expect heavy lift until between 2020 and 2030. We went all the way to the moon and back faster than that!

I kind of agree with you there.

 

[pathfinder_01]

For once I agree with Edkyle99. However the NASA didn’t jump out the window with no parchute. It was pushed out the window by the last administrator. However lets be honest the Obma administration does not have good options.

You could fund constellation and send more money to a rat hole that promises not to advance but set spaceflight back 40 years. It is expensive, over budget and frankly not worth it. It should have been ready by 2012 making an unmanned flight by 2008. It is now more power point than flight ready hardware and at best wont be online till 2015 and more likely 2016 or later! So just think about it, if we fund it we get to go back to short missions, infrequent missions, umbilical EVA, and splashdowns but we might be able to get a few moon rocks for the effort!

You can continue the shuttle. Problem is NASA has been shutting down the shuttle over the last five years. You will need money and time to restart and at the moment there are no projects requiring the shuttle. And the shuttle is in need of replacement. It is 30 years old and there are only 3 left. If you restart the shuttle now it is going to take 2 years to get back to regular flight. In 2 years we might be only a year or three from replacement. In which case you now need to stop everything all over again. Is this worth the money? If you had some missions yes, but at the moment it looks more like make work for KSC.

Not counting do you trust NASA any more? Taking more than ten years to put a man into LEO is not a good thing. Going over budget is not a good thing and if you do you should be much closer to completion. What happened to NASA? Why did they run full speed into the wall? When consetlation was going to be more than 2 years late it was time to push for a shuttle extention, but the last administrator was too busy trying to kill it.

I think NASA lost something more than budget lately. I will bet that if Apollo had the same problems NASA would have taken action to avoid it.

 

[rockett]

I agree 100%!!!!
Dragon has not even flown, let alone returned to Earth. Pretty iffy for a commitment on this scale. And if you're thinking Orbital Sciences, they are even further behind because of problems with their RUSSIAN engine supplier!

Yet this was the very problem with Orion and Ares.

I was referring to the Shuttle. We can keep them flying until we get something else. Not the best option, but better than nothing. Sometimes I've had to spend a lot on maintenance until I could afford a new car. Same principal.

 

[rockett]

Not counting do you trust NASA any more? Taking more than ten years to put a man into LEO is not a good thing. Going over budget is not a good thing and if you do you should be much closer to completion. What happened to NASA? Why did they run full speed into the wall? When consetlation was going to be more than 2 years late it was time to push for a shuttle extention, but the last administrator was too busy trying to kill it.

I think NASA lost something more than budget lately. I will bet that if Apollo had the same problems NASA would have taken action to avoid it.

It has become politicized. Back in the Apollo days, the mission was more important than the politics. Now, the politics determine the mission, or no mission at all, depending.

 

[nimbus]

SpaceX is a U.S. company working on a cargo, not crew, hauling contract for NASA.

Ignores the explicitly stated goal of human transport. "We built with human rating as a goal from the start" or something to that effect.

 

[edkyle99]

Not counting do you trust NASA any more? Taking more than ten years to put a man into LEO is not a good thing. Going over budget is not a good thing and if you do you should be much closer to completion. What happened to NASA? Why did they run full speed into the wall? When consetlation was going to be more than 2 years late it was time to push for a shuttle extention, but the last administrator was too busy trying to kill it.

I think NASA lost something more than budget lately. I will bet that if Apollo had the same problems NASA would have taken action to avoid it.

Apollo ran into a many big problems - and it took more than 10 years from the program's earliest inception (1957-58 when von Braun's crew began working on Saturn C-1) before astronauts rode a capsule to orbit. Saturn's F-1 engines exploded, forcing a year's long, massive trouble-shooting program. The first efforts to build an S-IC tank had to be scrapped due to faulty welding. Saturn's S-II stage suffered all manner of development problems, including bad welds and an accident that destroyed a stage in a test stand. An S-IVB stage exploded in a test stand, destroying the stage and putting the test stand out of commission. The second Saturn V test flight suffered multiple failures and fell short of its planned orbit. And, of course, there was that Apollo capsule fire that killed three astronauts.

NASA solved all of those problems by throwing money at them. That's the difference between Apollo and Constellation. Like Apollo, Constellation would have succeeded if sufficient resources had been devoted to it.

Astronaut Lovell said that the U.S. made it to the Moon simply because it decided it wanted to go. The reason that the U.S. is not going now isn't due to lack of money, or lack of engineering talent, or lack of NASA management ability, etc. The reason is that the U.S., via. its President (Obama), has decided not to go.

- Ed Kyle

 

[rockett]

Apollo ran into a many big problems - and it took more than 10 years from the program's earliest inception (1957-58 when von Braun's crew began working on Saturn C-1) before astronauts rode a capsule to orbit. Saturn's F-1 engines exploded, forcing a year's long, massive trouble-shooting program. The first efforts to build an S-IC tank had to be scrapped due to faulty welding. Saturn's S-II stage suffered all manner of development problems, including bad welds and an accident that destroyed a stage in a test stand. An S-IVB stage exploded in a test stand, destroying the stage and putting the test stand out of commission. The second Saturn V test flight suffered multiple failures and fell short of its planned orbit. And, of course, there was that Apollo capsule fire that killed three astronauts.

NASA solved all of those problems by throwing money at them. That's the difference between Apollo and Constellation. Like Apollo, Constellation would have succeeded if sufficient resources had been devoted to it.

Astronaut Lovell said that the U.S. made it to the Moon simply because it decided it wanted to go. The reason that the U.S. is not going now isn't due to lack of money, or lack of engineering talent, or lack of NASA management ability, etc. The reason is that the U.S., via. its President (Obama), has decided not to go.

- Ed Kyle

Good summation, Ed. I lived through all those setbacks, and I remember.

I have to agree, that it's a matter of deciding to go there., and having the will to do it. What really needs to happen is that our elected officials in both Congress and the White House need to be convinced that their careers are on the line if they don't.

To support your contention that "NASA solved all of those problems by throwing money at them. " all you have to do is look at the percentage of the federal budget devoted to NASA. Starting in 1962 it crossed the 1% mark at 1.4%. Peaking at 5.5% in 1966 (about the time of the development problems you mentioned), it didn't drop below 1% again until 1978. After another brief surge to 1% from 1989 through 1993 (early shuttle era), it progressed more or less steadily down to the Obama budget which is projected at only .52% (it hasn't been that low since 1960 and prior).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget

If you look at that as a rough correlation of where our lawmakers perceive the American people's priorities are, it's pretty sad. I really don't know where the answer is here, but it clearly indicates that the space communiy needs to rally support to let them know their perceptions about what we want, are all wrong.

 

[edkyle99]

SpaceX is a U.S. company working on a cargo, not crew, hauling contract for NASA.

Ignores the explicitly stated goal of human transport. "We built with human rating as a goal from the start" or something to that effect.

It is good to have a goal. Now, all SpaceX needs is someone to pony up the large sums of cash needed to achieve the goal.

- Ed Kyle

 

[neutrino78x]

Commercial crew launch is going to take years to enter service, assuming the effort is successful [1]. During those years, the United States will not have a crew launch capability.

That would be true with or without Constellation, aka WfL or Welfare for Lockheed, aka Moon Someday and Mars Someday Even Later. Under WfL, we might get a shuttle replacement by 2017, until which time we would be paying the Russians. Also under WfL, we still wait until 2015 or 2020 for heavy lift, and even later to go to the Moon. So, what is your point?

At least with Commercial Crew there is competition.

Either way, the "Merchant 7" will still go into orbit, with non-NASA people. Tourism first, perhaps eventual orbital industry. We may as well accelerate their efforts, and use them to launch NASA people. They will likely have people in orbit long before the WfL program would have.

[1] (U.S. aerospace hasn't had a very good record of success on big projects like this in recent years. When they've been able to get the technology to work the costs have ballooned or the schedules have slipped by many years. When they've tried to cut costs, the technology has failed. See Boeing 787 and Lockheed Martin F-35 for examples.)

Those are the big companies. Small companies like Bigelow Aerospace and SpaceX have enjoyed success. Like they said about IBM when Microsoft was becoming a bigger player in the PC industry, "elephants can't dance". Boeing and Lockheed are elephants, SpaceX is the mouse. Elephants are afraid of mice.

(they confirmed that on mythbusters, btw. elephants really are afraid of mice! :-O )

The main problem is that Boeing et al are used to government contracts where they get more and more money for doing less and less. We need fixed contracts: $1 billion to do X by time Y. If mission is not fulfilled, you don't get the money. If you spend more than the budget, it is your private loss. Boeing doesn't like that, but that is how business normally works, and that is how it works with SpaceX.

SpaceX is a U.S. company working on a cargo, not crew, hauling contract for NASA.

They have the option to do crew transport once they are proven on cargo.

It may or may not bid on the commercial crew launch project. If it bids, it may not win.

I don't know why they wouldn't bid on it. If they don't win it, someone else will, who also makes their products in the USA, with American workers. Thus, regardless of who wins said contract, it will still be a US space program.

No company, SpaceX included, has announced plans to launch humans into orbit on non-NASA missions.

Bigelow Aerospace comes to mind. Virgin Galactic also (eventually).

By ending Shuttle without a contracted crew-carrying replacement, NASA

I do not see a better idea from your camp. Your idea is to do Moon Someday, Mars Someday Even Later, which would take until 2017 to have a US crew launch. The Merchant 7 will have commercial crew long before then.

--Brian

 

[neutrino78x]

I really don't know where the answer is here, but it clearly indicates that the space communiy needs to rally support to let them know their perceptions about what we want, are all wrong.

Perhaps, but not all space enthusiasts agree with you on what the goal should be. Based on what you have said so far, you want no one to ever go into space unless they are a NASA astronaut.

Among we space enthusiasts under 50 years old, many of us want the majority of launches, and the majority of people in space, to not be NASA astronauts.

To us, commercial activity is preferred. We want to see non-NASA people going into space every day. We want hundreds of non-NASA people living in space. We want space to be allowed to be treated like the vast ocean it is. Most ships are not US Navy vessels, and most space ships should not be NASA. You don't get to that future by doing all this stuff with NASA rockets only.

You say SpaceX is unproven, but my opinion is, the only thing NASA has proven is that they cannot accomplish something in a given time in a given budget. Perhaps the time has come for NASA to be the FAA of space. The FAA doesn't fly airplanes, they regulate private enterprise.

NASA should be man-rating as many different rockets as possible. This process needs to be as fast as possible. A company should be able to invent a rocket and have NASA man-rate it within 2 years or so. If not that, then NASA should define the process for man-rating, and let the company man-rate their own rocket, proving that they have gone through the procedure.

The EELVs are not man rated yet. Why would that be???? It should have been done long ago.

Obama's plan is conservative.

--Brian

 

[edkyle99]

By ending Shuttle without a contracted crew-carrying replacement, NASA

I do not see a better idea from your camp. Your idea is to do Moon Someday, Mars Someday Even Later, which would take until 2017 to have a US crew launch. The Merchant 7 will have commercial crew long before then.
--Brian

I'm not sure what you mean by "your camp". I haven't been camping in years. Too many mosquitoes.

I would like to see a crewed lunar exploration program underway right now, not "someday". If money isn't available for Constellation, I would like to see a lunar exploration program designed to start *right now* based on the realities of funding, which means using existing rockets, LEO rendezvous, propellant transfer, and flying far less frequent, scaled down missions compared to Constellation.

If commercial crew launch is the path forward, so be it, but the commercials aren't going to be ready any faster than Orion would have been. Face it, they haven't even started and we're halfway to FY 2011.

This comparison to when Orion would have started flying is pointless, BTW, because Orion was being designed to go into deep space. Crew Taxis are going to be much smaller, much lighter, much less capable LEO animals.

- Ed Kyle

 

[DarkenedOne]

I agree 100%!!!!
Dragon has not even flown, let alone returned to Earth. Pretty iffy for a commitment on this scale. And if you're thinking Orbital Sciences, they are even further behind because of problems with their RUSSIAN engine supplier!

Yet this was the very problem with Orion and Ares.

I was referring to the Shuttle. We can keep them flying until we get something else. Not the best option, but better than nothing. Sometimes I've had to spend a lot on maintenance until I could afford a new car. Same principal.

The space shuttle costs 4-5 billion a year. Its been winding down lately, but it still costs 3 billion per year. In previous years it has accounted for almost half of the manned space budget. By comparison the ISS only costs a little over 2 billion dollars to maintain. After the shuttle NASA expects to be able to maintain the ISS at full capacity and deliver crew to it with the Russians for only $4 billion dollars.

That saves us about $2-3 billion per year to develop our own commercial crew, but also heavy lift launch systems and spacecraft that will take us beyond.

That is why we must get rid of the shuttle. The sooner we get rid of it the sooner we get to do something more.

 

[DarkenedOne]

I'm not sure what you mean by "your camp". I haven't been camping in years. Too many mosquitoes.

I would like to see a crewed lunar exploration program underway right now, not "someday". If money isn't available for Constellation, I would like to see a lunar exploration program designed to start *right now* based on the realities of funding, which means using existing rockets, LEO rendezvous, propellant transfer, and flying far less frequent, scaled down missions compared to Constellation.

If commercial crew launch is the path forward, so be it, but the commercials aren't going to be ready any faster than Orion would have been. Face it, they haven't even started and we're halfway to FY 2011.

This comparison to when Orion would have started flying is pointless, BTW, because Orion was being designed to go into deep space. Crew Taxis are going to be much smaller, much lighter, much less capable LEO animals.

- Ed Kyle

The problem with Orion was not the delay, but the cost. It was too expensive.

 

[rockett]

Perhaps, but not all space enthusiasts agree with you on what the goal should be. Based on what you have said so far, you want no one to ever go into space unless they are a NASA astronaut.

Hardly. However, I am a realist. When you are talking about thousands of dollars, per pound to launch even to LEO, not even considering the higher costs of a man-rated launch vehicle, it's just a pipe dream in the immediate future.
Just for hardware: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=301
Don't just come back with that old, old, argument of launch frequency making it cheaper. It just doesn't hold water with expendables.

Among we space enthusiasts under 50 years old, many of us want the majority of launches, and the majority of people in space, to not be NASA astronauts.

Classic, cocky mistake, confusing age with alzheimers.

To us, commercial activity is preferred. We want to see non-NASA people going into space every day. We want hundreds of non-NASA people living in space. We want space to be allowed to be treated like the vast ocean it is. Most ships are not US Navy vessels, and most space ships should not be NASA. You don't get to that future by doing all this stuff with NASA rockets only.

Logic is faulty, the two are nowhere near equivalent.

You say SpaceX is unproven, but my opinion is, the only thing NASA has proven is that they cannot accomplish something in a given time in a given budget. Perhaps the time has come for NASA to be the FAA of space. The FAA doesn't fly airplanes, they regulate private enterprise.

Yes, NASA is fettered by politics and bureaucracy, and that's the real problem, as a whole, they are very capable, solid engineers, their masters just aren't. At any rate, I believe what I see, NASA has built successful manned spacecraft, SpaceX has only proven that they have real good PR and Powerpoints as of this time. I think eventually the reality will set in that there is no discount LEO ride, based on current technology. This will become evident when the delays and cost overruns start happening. To make matters worse, SpaceX has to make a profit, NASA doesn't.

NASA should be man-rating as many different rockets as possible. This process needs to be as fast as possible. A company should be able to invent a rocket and have NASA man-rate it within 2 years or so. If not that, then NASA should define the process for man-rating, and let the company man-rate their own rocket, proving that they have gone through the procedure.

I can see that you have no experience with FAA certification of a new aircraft, let alone a spacecraft. Take a look at the procedures, how long it takes, even for a kit built plane (not a kite with a lawnmower engine, a real plane). When they settle on a process, you can bet it will be more rigorous.

The EELVs are not man rated yet. Why would that be???? It should have been done long ago.

Wrong again, do your research Brian, Delta IV is very near completion...

 

[rockett]

The space shuttle costs 4-5 billion a year. Its been winding down lately, but it still costs 3 billion per year. In previous years it has accounted for almost half of the manned space budget. By comparison the ISS only costs a little over 2 billion dollars to maintain. After the shuttle NASA expects to be able to maintain the ISS at full capacity and deliver crew to it with the Russians for only $4 billion dollars.

That saves us about $2-3 billion per year to develop our own commercial crew, but also heavy lift launch systems and spacecraft that will take us beyond.

That is why we must get rid of the shuttle. The sooner we get rid of it the sooner we get to do something more.

The problem with that logic is, when the Russians are the only game in town for launch to LEO, it becomes a seller's market, and we are hostage to whatever they want to charge. They have been very good students of supply and demand, and free enterprise as well, since the Soviet Union's collapse. You seem to assume we are all "one big happy family", and unfortunately, when we are totally dependent on them for LEO capability, all it will take is any minor geopolitical misstep to change that radically. They can in practice hijack the ISS at that point, for any excuse they can come up with.

 

[EarthlingX]

Problem is, USA has fallen far behind since 2000, got to the third place in launches (less launches in 2000-10 time than in 1990-99), cut NASA budget to the half percentage of federal budget it had before (0.9 to 0.5), closed everything HSF which was not Constellation, or at least most of it, including all advanced programs, which were not able to escape like VASIMR and SpaceHab, perhaps a couple more.

Shuttle was finished 4 years ago, or so, and it is a craftsman's art, not an industrial product, not to mention designed by politics, not engineers. What can be seen now, is picking up the pieces, and it doesn't make me happy. If they started with the SDLV instead of the firecracker, there would be no problem.

For a honest capitalist, there shouldn't be a difference, where something is bought, if it's cheaper, while giving the same performance. Protecting home industry doesn't exactly have a shining history, as can be seen in USA space market. Time to learn from Russians, they are exporting their rockets to anyone with the money, more or less - i'm not sure if anyone is interested in American rockets, if they could be bought, of course, they are rather expensive.

 

[edkyle99]

This comparison to when Orion would have started flying is pointless, BTW, because Orion was being designed to go into deep space. Crew Taxis are going to be much smaller, much lighter, much less capable LEO animals.

- Ed Kyle

The problem with Orion was not the delay, but the cost. It was too expensive.

Compared to what? Orion was going to have capabilities provided by no other spacecraft, existing or planned.

- Ed Kyle

 

[neutrino78x]

Hardly. However, I am a realist. When you are talking about thousands of dollars, per pound to launch even to LEO, not even considering the higher costs of a man-rated launch vehicle, it's just a pipe dream in the immediate future.

SpaceX is in the process of man-rating the Falcon 9 as we speak. I don't know if it can really be done in 2 years, but if it takes longer, that means NASA needs to streamline the process. The government should make it easier to do this, not harder. SpaceX can build the rocket relatively quickly; there is one sitting on the pad at Cape Canaveral right now. The question is, how easy is NASA going to make it to get these things certified so they can be used for NASA astronauts?

The EELVs are not man rated yet. Why would that be???? It should have been done long ago.

Wrong again, do your research Brian, Delta IV is very near completion...

Well, make up your mind, is man-rating impossible, or is it "very near completion"? You seem to change your position on this to whichever is most convenient to your argument at the time. If man rating the Delta IV is "very near completion", then let's use that. Whatever can be "man rated" first should be used, instead of Ares I. There are nine different rockets available right now, none of which are man rated yet. NASA needs to get on the ball and get that process accelerated.

--Brian

 

[neutrino78x]

The problem with that logic is, when the Russians are the only game in town for launch to LEO, it becomes a seller's market, and we are hostage to whatever they want to charge.

Well, there you go, right. We need to man rate as many commercial rockets as possible. It is quicker to certify a rocket which already exists, then try to create your own. With all those different US commercial rockets, there is no reason we would have to rely on the Russians. If NASA wants to just get people to LEO and/or the Space Station -- which is all the Ares I would be doing right now, if it were flying -- there are lots of rockets which could do it, if only they were "man rated".

--Brian

 

[EarthlingX]

Compared to what? Orion was going to have capabilities provided by no other spacecraft, existing or planned.
- Ed Kyle

And those capabilities would be needed for ?

It's like crapping something useful with a horde of gadgets which nobody needs - like a child in a toy store, causing minus on a card - redesign of a booster, which was a very bad idea to start with in first place.

And since we are talking about capabilities - which exactly ? Airlock ? Robotic arm ? I saw windows, true, and a lot of tech from previously scrapped programs survived there, and, i guess, some of it will be used in the future programs - nothing new. I wonder, what exactly were they doing, since most of the technology was from before anyway ?

Please don't say it could fly to Mars, because it is not worth a reply.

At least LM will be able to sell a light version, which should've been the starting option.

Bigger is not better, just bigger.

 

[edkyle99]

Compared to what? Orion was going to have capabilities provided by no other spacecraft, existing or planned.
- Ed Kyle

And those capabilities would be needed for ?

It's like crapping something useful with a horde of gadgets which nobody needs - like a child in a toy store, causing minus on a card - redesign of a booster, which was a very bad idea to start with in first place.

And since we are talking about capabilities - which exactly ? Airlock ? Robotic arm ? I saw windows, true, and a lot of tech from previously scrapped programs survived there, and, i guess, some of it will be used in the future programs - nothing new. I wonder, what exactly were they doing, since most of the technology was from before anyway ?

Please don't say it could fly to Mars, because it is not worth a reply.

At least LM will be able to sell a light version, which should've been the starting option.

Bigger is not better, just bigger.

For beyond Earth orbit, bigger (as in heavier) is absolutely necessary. It isn't about "gadgets". The extra mass is largely propellant needed to provide the extra necessary delta-v for BEO missions. Some of the mass is for the heavier heat shield needed for higher reentry velocities. Some is for radiation shielding. The extra delta-v provides the ability to leave the Moon and return to Earth, for example, something that no "space taxi" will be able to do.

- Ed Kyle

 

[EarthlingX]

For beyond Earth orbit, bigger (as in heavier) is absolutely necessary.

Why ? To feed egos ?

It isn't about "gadgets". The extra mass is largely propellant needed to provide the extra necessary delta-v for BEO missions. Some of the mass is for the heavier heat shield needed for higher reentry velocities. Some is for radiation shielding. The extra delta-v provides the ability to leave the Moon and return to Earth, for example, something that no "space taxi" will be able to do.
- Ed Kyle

And it made it too expensive for LEO, currently the only destination. Where is logic in that ? Oh yea, drop that useless 100 G $ orbital lab, problem solved - we can now go BEO, with a bit of luck, every 3rd year in space, awesome footage from the 1 week stay on the Moon, that's enough prestige. (i hope you understand cynicism)

Extra dV could be brought up for 3 000 $/kg, not 50 000 $/kg, if that would be enough, with projected launch costs over 1 G $.

 

[edkyle99]

For beyond Earth orbit, bigger (as in heavier) is absolutely necessary.

Why ? To feed egos ?

It isn't about "gadgets". The extra mass is largely propellant needed to provide the extra necessary delta-v for BEO missions. Some of the mass is for the heavier heat shield needed for higher reentry velocities. Some is for radiation shielding. The extra delta-v provides the ability to leave the Moon and return to Earth, for example, something that no "space taxi" will be able to do.
- Ed Kyle

And it made it too expensive for LEO, currently the only destination. Where is logic in that ? Oh yea, drop that useless 100 G $ orbital lab, problem solved - we can now go BEO, with a bit of luck, every 3rd year in space, awesome footage from the 1 week stay on the Moon, that's enough prestige. (i hope you understand cynicism)

Extra dV could be brought up for 3 000 $/kg, not 50 000 $/kg, if that would be enough, with projected launch costs over 1 G $.

If stuck in LEO is good enough for you, that's O.K.. Reasonable people differ. It isn't good enough for me.

- Ed kyle