What is going happen to the US space program now

[vulture4]

The NASA budget is unchanged, maye even increased. There's no money for Shuttle because George W. Bush and Mike Griffin took all the money to start "Apollo on Steroids". There wasn't any discussion as to whether it made any sense at all to eliminate our only outpost in space and our only working system for human spaceflight. It was their decision, and it was a bad decision, one of the worst in the history of NASA, not least because they never considered whether approximately 30 manned landings on the moon are worth about $150 billion, not to mention the loss of both Shuttle and Station.

"Armstrong touted the moon as a test bed for longer trips, a scientific destination in its own right, and a potential resource for exotic materials such as helium-3 fusion fuel and palladium-group metals. When Rep. Ralph Hall, R-Texas, asked whether returning to the moon was "a nice-to-have or a need-to-have," Armstrong answered, "It's both, sir.""

Think about this. We don't have controlled fusion of any kind. If we did, D-T fusion is much easier than aneutronic fusion. If we really need aneutronic fusion, there is no clear advantage of helium-3 fusion over the reaction of a proton with boron-11, which is common on earth. And in the extremely unlikely event that we really needed helium-3, it is already produced on earth by allowing tritium to decay. If bars of platium were lying on the moon, would it be economical to bring them to earth? That would depend on the mission cost. Palladium-group metals? Platinum is worth about $14,000 per pound. Quite a bit for a metal, but a half ton of platinum is still only $14 million. One mission to the moon with expendable rockets costs over $1 billion. That's not even counting shipping the mining and refining equipment. Didn't any of the erudite congresspersons even think of pointing that out to Armstrong? That this kind of loose thinking prevails even among the leadership and continues to force billions to be spent on Constellation for more years to come, while reusable systems are abandoned, is astonishing. We are still in the "let's think of something cool and spend billions of taxpayer dollars on it" mode, while at the same time we demand more tax cuts for ourselves because we oppose "big government".

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to go to the moon. But the obstacle is not weightlessness or radiation, it's the cost of getting even to LEO, which must be reduced by at least a factor of ten before any lunar flight and indeed any LEO flight is feasible beyond a handful of government-financed flights for astronauts for national prestige purposes and one or two tourist flights per year for billionaires.

 

[Wenderro]

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to go to the moon. But the obstacle is not weightlessness or radiation, it's the cost of getting to LEO, which must be reduced by at least a factor of ten before any lunar flight becomes feasible.

Exactly!

Bring back research projects that were slated because of the high cost Moon program using old tech.
R&D let's say 10years(wild guess) until new propulsion tech is available and THEN go to Moon, asteroid, Mars etc at a fraction of the cost making such mission really sustainable(tbh if anyone expect that a colony on Moon can be sustained at today's cost I'm sorry to say but you are naive)

Also I wouldn't mind if NASA would pay more attention to things like launch loop, while the costs are high it's totally worth ed(same thing like above, I would rather see all NASA 20 years budged be directed to build a launch loop than return to the Moon, take pictures etc, and then you realize you are EXACTLY on the same situation like in '70).Ofc assuming launch loop is feasible, used it here like an example.

 

[Wenderro]

Being realistic, building a Constellation type project or huge investment in space R&D will never happen, first because of high costs that most of citizens won't agree to pay and second because in case of R&D the benefits are on long term and politicians are thinking on much shorter ones(4 years at max). That is why imo helping commercial space evolve is the best idea since it's the only one that can be sustained on long term especially now that there are companys willing to do it (Boeing, SpaceX, Bigelow, etc. even Virgin Galactic although atm they are going just for sub-orbital but if it's profitable pretty sure they will go for orbital vehicles).

The idea is to choose the optimal solution given the circumstances.

 

[Valcan]

Being realistic, building a Constellation type project or huge investment in space R&D will never happen, first because of high costs that most of citizens won't agree to pay and second because in case of R&D the benefits are on long term and politicians are thinking on much shorter ones(4 years at max). That is why imo helping commercial space evolve is the best idea since it's the only one that can be sustained on long term especially now that there are companys willing to do it (Boeing, SpaceX, Bigelow, etc. even Virgin Galactic although atm they are going just for sub-orbital but if it's profitable pretty sure they will go for orbital vehicles).

The idea is to choose the optimal solution given the circumstances.

They didnt want to pay out 800 billion dollars in bailouts and jobs programs either but they did. Of course the government cant even acount for billions of it :roll:

I think the government will take a role in more ambious projects. If you look at todays present LEO groups its readily apparent that government isn't really needed like it was to develope the way into LEO all those years ago.

So do i believe the government is just in the way? No, but i think its future role is in support, R&D, and to aim higher, faster and farther than before.

 

[vulture4]

No one launches people into space without government money, even in LEO. Apollo notwithstanding, it would be useless for NASA to send people beyond earth orbit until we can get people to low earth orbit at reasonable cost. The first step to BEO is to solidify our beachhead in LEO.

 

[rockett]

No one launches people into space without government money, even in LEO. Apollo notwithstanding, it would be useless for NASA to send people beyond earth orbit until we can get people to low earth orbit at reasonable cost. The first step to BEO is to solidify our beachhead in LEO.

True, and the Air Force seems to realize that with their Pathfinder program. I would say that they don't put a lot of stock in commercial space either. Maybe we should just forget NASA and look to the military for future development.

 

[Ruri]

NASA should be put in jail for phasing out the shuttle with out a replacement.You just do not go and phase out the only way of getting up into space with out a replacement.

What was NASA thinking .No replacement. And by the time a replacement comes out it be 10 or 15 years before a replacement.

GWB gave them a mission to repeat Apollo but did not give them Apollo level funding or even half that kind of budget.
Combine that with Scotty and Griffin not wanting to change their architecture when Ares I was found to be an impractical design failure was bound to happen.
Ares I should have been dropped when the air start SSME did not work out as the stick depended on the SSME's combination of high thrust and high ISP to work.
Ares V also had issues the ablative RS-68A can't be used with SRBs as the heat input from the outside would be very bad for the ablative inserts in the nozzles you need a regen engine.

 

[rockett]

GWB gave them a mission to repeat Apollo but did not give them Apollo level funding or even half that kind of budget.

True, at it's peak, looking at it as a percentage of the Federal budget, it was funded at more than 3X what Constellation was when Apollo touched down.

Combine that with Scotty and Griffin not wanting to change their architecture when Ares I was found to be an impractical design failure was bound to happen. Ares I should have been dropped when the air start SSME did not work out as the stick depended on the SSME's combination of high thrust and high ISP to work.

Never understood that one, when we have equivalent boosters that could be man-rated at a fraction of the cost. Delta IV and Atlas V come immediately to mind. And converting an SSME to air start never made any sense at all, especially since we have off the shelf engines that could do the job, clustered if need be.

Ares V also had issues the ablative RS-68A can't be used with SRBs as the heat input from the outside would be very bad for the ablative inserts in the nozzles you need a regen engine.

Now THAT'S INTERESTING! Have not heard that before! But when you think about it from an engineering perspective, they should have seen that early on.

 

[Valcan]

GWB gave them a mission to repeat Apollo but did not give them Apollo level funding or even half that kind of budget.

True, at it's peak, looking at it as a percentage of the Federal budget, it was funded at more than 3X what Constellation was when Apollo touched down.

Combine that with Scotty and Griffin not wanting to change their architecture when Ares I was found to be an impractical design failure was bound to happen. Ares I should have been dropped when the air start SSME did not work out as the stick depended on the SSME's combination of high thrust and high ISP to work.

Never understood that one, when we have equivalent boosters that could be man-rated at a fraction of the cost. Delta IV and Atlas V come immediately to mind. And converting an SSME to air start never made any sense at all, especially since we have off the shelf engines that could do the job, clustered if need be.

Ares V also had issues the ablative RS-68A can't be used with SRBs as the heat input from the outside would be very bad for the ablative inserts in the nozzles you need a regen engine.

Now THAT'S INTERESTING! Have not heard that before! But when you think about it from an engineering perspective, they should have seen that early on.

Never saw why we stuck with the Ares design. The only thing worth it on the whole vehicle was Ares V. Thats it.

 

[EarthlingX]

Never saw why we stuck with the Ares design. The only thing worth it on the whole vehicle was Ares V. Thats it.

Without 5-seg SRBs, which would never happened, just wasting money, and causing trouble with infrastructure.

 

[Valcan]

Never saw why we stuck with the Ares design. The only thing worth it on the whole vehicle was Ares V. Thats it.

Without 5-seg SRBs, which would never happened, just wasting money, and causing trouble with infrastructure.

I liked Ares V simply for its lift capacity not for its design. If we can get an american company with the same or near the same lift capacity in there lancher as A-V then im all for it as long as its not stupidly expensive and over priced.

And it doesnt need to be man capable. Stop that insanity.

 

[nec208]

There's no money for Shuttle because George W. Bush and Mike Griffin took all the money to start "Apollo on Steroids". There wasn't any discussion as to whether it made any sense at all to eliminate our only outpost in space and our only working system for human spaceflight. It was their decision, and it was a bad decision, one of the worst in the history of NASA, not least because they never considered whether approximately 30 manned landings on the moon are worth about $150 billion, not to mention the loss of both Shuttle and Station.

The problem is it be 10 or 15 years for a replacement!!!That means 10 or 15 years the US will have to go to China or Russia to get up in space.That is very long time.

 

[neutrino78x]

That is why imo helping commercial space evolve is the best idea since it's the only one that can be sustained on long term especially now that there are companys willing to do it (Boeing, SpaceX, Bigelow, etc. even Virgin Galactic although atm they are going just for sub-orbital but if it's profitable pretty sure they will go for orbital vehicles).

Yep, I agree. It isn't 1969 anymore, private space is clearly the future. North America was settled by private actors, not His Majesty's Royal Navy.

My question for those of you who insist that if NASA is not sending people into space with its own vehicles, there is no US space program, would be this: what is your definition of a mission for NASA that requires humans? Certainly not science missions. Colonization requires humans, but most of the colonists would be private actors.

No, I think the President is exactly right on this. It is ironic that some of you who are demanding that everything be done by NASA, and are close to saying that private actors shouldn't even be allowed to launch rockets, are the same people who scream about "small government". I also need to remind you that, while many astronauts are active duty military, NASA itself is not part of the military, so this is not "support the troops".

--Brian

 

[nec208]

That is why imo helping commercial space evolve is the best idea since it's the only one that can be sustained on long term especially now that there are companys willing to do it (Boeing, SpaceX, Bigelow, etc. even Virgin Galactic although atm they are going just for sub-orbital but if it's profitable pretty sure they will go for orbital vehicles).

Yep, I agree. It isn't 1969 anymore, private space is clearly the future. North America was settled by private actors, not His Majesty's Royal Navy.

My question for those of you who insist that if NASA is not sending people into space with its own vehicles, there is no US space program, would be this: what is your definition of a mission for NASA that requires humans? Certainly not science missions. Colonization requires humans, but most of the colonists would be private actors.

No, I think the President is exactly right on this. It is ironic that some of you who are demanding that everything be done by NASA, and are close to saying that private actors shouldn't even be allowed to launch rockets, are the same people who scream about "small government". I also need to remind you that, while many astronauts are active duty military, NASA itself is not part of the military, so this is not "support the troops".

--Brian

The point is if NASA makes new replacement shuttle or get a private sector to do it well it take 10 or 15 years for a replacement that is the problem.Such a very long time.


If in 2002 was saying yap we need a new replacement we will have one by now or in 4 years from now.

 

[sftommy]

NY times is reporting a Senate deal on NASA budget funding for 2011;

1.) Adds one more shuttle flight to next years manifest
2.) Start Heavy Lift Development beginning next year
3.) Fund fully-capable Orion Capsule
4.) Require proof of capability for commercial contractors-slowing down investment there.

Senate negotiators working out the deal included;
Senators David Vitter, R-LA,
John Rockefeller, D-WV,
Kay Bailey Hitchinson, R-TX,
Bill Nelson, D-FL

Apparently no NASA leadership involved/invited in negotiating the deal
No word on $$$ distribution and the House version is not yet begun.

 

[rcsplinters]

NY times is reporting a Senate deal on NASA budget funding for 2011;

1.) Adds one more shuttle flight to next years manifest
2.) Start Heavy Lift Development beginning next year
3.) Fund fully-capable Orion Capsule
4.) Require proof of capability for commercial contractors-slowing down investment there.

Senate negotiators working out the deal included;
Senators David Vitter, R-LA,
John Rockefeller, D-WV,
Kay Bailey Hitchinson, R-TX,
Bill Nelson, D-FL

Apparently no NASA leadership involved/invited in negotiating the deal
No word on $$$ distribution and the House version is not yet begun.

I also noticed the marked absence of NASA leadership. Not surprising I suppose given that they have no leadership with an interest in manned space flight. I suppose the HLV will be man-rated as Orion has got to have a ride.

The big question in this is funding and getting it through the house. The leadership there will lament the children claiming that any additional NASA funding will doom them all to starvation (She's suggested she'll fight any funding lift). Given the tight funding, I'm beginning to suspect we have an SD HLV series of boosters in our future. Not Ares V, but workable and immeasurably better than the administration's plan to hitchhike to the stars.

 

[ZiraldoAerospace]

What we need to do is to establish an infrastructure and a base of operations in orbit from which to launch future missions. We are going to need fuel depots, and orbital construction yards for missions to asteroids, Mars, Ceres and wherever else. Also we will need to establish a Moon base and have routine unmanned supply vehicles bringing food, water, more test equipment, etc. Going on one time use rockets to plant a flag on an asteroid or wherever else isn't going to accomplish anything.

 

[rockett]

What we need to do is to establish an infrastructure and a base of operations in orbit from which to launch future missions.

Already have one. It's called the ISS.

We are going to need fuel depots

On the menu, one of the few Obama plan features I like.

and orbital construction yards for missions to asteroids, Mars, Ceres and wherever else.

See ISS above. It can easily be expanded and added on to for that purpose.

Also we will need to establish a Moon base and have routine unmanned supply vehicles bringing food, water, more test equipment, etc.

I would put this one before any "missions to asteroids, Mars, Ceres and wherever else". It would be nice to haul water up from a shallower gravity well, and use the downhill assist from Earth's gravity. Much cheaper than boosting from 1 G.

Going on one time use rockets to plant a flag on an asteroid or wherever else isn't going to accomplish anything.

I think some people in Washington are starting to finally figure that out. Now if they will just see the rest of what's required for a sustainable presence off Earth. They still seem to be missing pieces...

 

[rockett]

Given the tight funding, I'm beginning to suspect we have an SD HLV series of boosters in our future. Not Ares V, but workable and immeasurably better than the administration's plan to hitchhike to the stars.

Seems that's a very likely possibility 'splinters:

...it would accelerate development of a shuttle-derived heavy-lift vehicle that could serve as a government back-up if commercial launchers failed to offer crew taxi services in a safe and timely manner.
http://flametrench.flatoday.net/2010/07/nelson-compromise-nasa-authorization.html

 

[mj1]

NY times is reporting a Senate deal on NASA budget funding for 2011;

1.) Adds one more shuttle flight to next years manifest
2.) Start Heavy Lift Development beginning next year
3.) Fund fully-capable Orion Capsule
4.) Require proof of capability for commercial contractors-slowing down investment there.

Senate negotiators working out the deal included;
Senators David Vitter, R-LA,
John Rockefeller, D-WV,
Kay Bailey Hitchinson, R-TX,
Bill Nelson, D-FL

Apparently no NASA leadership involved/invited in negotiating the deal
No word on $$$ distribution and the House version is not yet begun.

I also noticed the marked absence of NASA leadership. Not surprising I suppose given that they have no leadership with an interest in manned space flight. I suppose the HLV will be man-rated as Orion has got to have a ride.

The big question in this is funding and getting it through the house. The leadership there will lament the children claiming that any additional NASA funding will doom them all to starvation (She's suggested she'll fight any funding lift). Given the tight funding, I'm beginning to suspect we have an SD HLV series of boosters in our future. Not Ares V, but workable and immeasurably better than the administration's plan to hitchhike to the stars.

Any fool can see what is going on here. This is NOT about what is best for manned space flight, it's about how to spend the most taxpayer money in these politician's districts. We CANNOT afford to spend billions and billions more on stuff like Orion capsules and NASA developed heavy lift boosters, when private industry is bringing much cheaper solutions to the table. Let NASA work on deep space exploration, something that it can do best. The private companies can more than handle the LEO taxi and freight delivery functions, so let them do that. I could stomach this if they had required NASA to work in tandem with private rocket companies to develop a heavy lift booster, which they are already doing anyway. It will take them at least twice as long and be 10 times as expensive as someone like SpaceX to do this development alone. They are also not fooling anyone with point number 4. I believe that was specifically put in there to slow the progress of SpaceX. These asses are so out of touch that the successful launch of the first Falcon 9 totally caught them by surprise. And to have it be such a success on the first try? They CANNOT have that. If they don't slow the progress of SpaceX, Dragon capsules will be servicing the ISS and eventually ferrying astronauts up there before they can waste more taxpayer money elsewhere. We should be doing all we can to help companies like SpaceX, not choke them to death with red tape like this plan is proposing. Sen. Hutchinson should be ashamed of herself with all of the money and jobs SpaceX is already bringing her state. I guess Elon Musk needs to start padding her pockets like the military-industrial complex already does. If this plan is approved, it will be MUCH longer and MUCH more expensive to get US manned expeditions out to deep space. At least with the Obama approach, we could see significant manned exploration of deep space exploration in our lifetimes. NASA needs to be planning trips to Mars and to the asteroid belt, not the moon (unless it's just to put a refueling depot there). With this backwards looking approach, we will be lucky to see an Apollo redux back to the moon in 20-30 years, with BILLIONS and BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars foolishly spent, at best. Instead of trying to kill the commercial space industry, they should look to partner with them. There are lessons that NASA could learn from a company like Space, like how to quickly reset a scrubbed launch and still get the rocket off the ground in the same launch window, for example. There are also things that SpaceX could learn from NASA's years of experience too. A smart politician who really cared about this would look to develop synergy between government space and private space, not just look to spend money for money's sake.

 

[sftommy]

I would remind Senator Nelson, and perhaps a Space.com reporter will remind him, that several months ago he pledged his ability to secure an additional $700M in budgetary funding over and above President Obama's request, for one additional shuttle flight.

If he is apparently going to get it, I think he should be held to that pledge such that no other NASA program suffers as a result.

 

[rockett]

Any fool can see what is going on here. This is NOT about what is best for manned space flight, it's about how to spend the most taxpayer money in these politician's districts.

You obviously need to study Washington a bit more, seeming a bit naive about what is business as usual there. Here's a site that might be and eye opener for you: http://www.spacepolitics.com/ That's what all politicians do, in case you haven't noticed, Obama included. It's also why we vote for them, to bring home the bacon.

We CANNOT afford to spend billions and billions more on stuff like Orion capsules and NASA developed heavy lift boosters, when private industry is bringing much cheaper solutions to the table.

Let NASA work on deep space exploration, something that it can do best. The private companies can more than handle the LEO taxi and freight delivery functions, so let them do that. I could stomach this if they had required NASA to work in tandem with private rocket companies to develop a heavy lift booster, which they are already doing anyway. It will take them at least twice as long and be 10 times as expensive as someone like SpaceX to do this development alone. They are also not fooling anyone with point number 4. I believe that was specifically put in there to slow the progress of SpaceX. These asses are so out of touch that the successful launch of the first Falcon 9 totally caught them by surprise. And to have it be such a success on the first try? They CANNOT have that. If they don't slow the progress of SpaceX, Dragon capsules will be servicing the ISS and eventually ferrying astronauts up there before they can waste more taxpayer money elsewhere. We should be doing all we can to help companies like SpaceX, not choke them to death with red tape like this plan is proposing. Sen. Hutchinson should be ashamed of herself with all of the money and jobs SpaceX is already bringing her state. I guess Elon Musk needs to start padding her pockets like the military-industrial complex already does. If this plan is approved, it will be MUCH longer and MUCH more expensive to get US manned expeditions out to deep space. At least with the Obama approach, we could see significant manned exploration of deep space exploration in our lifetimes. NASA needs to be planning trips to Mars and to the asteroid belt, not the moon (unless it's just to put a refueling depot there). With this backwards looking approach, we will be lucky to see an Apollo redux back to the moon in 20-30 years, with BILLIONS and BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars foolishly spent, at best. Instead of trying to kill the commercial space industry, they should look to partner with them. There are lessons that NASA could learn from a company like Space, like how to quickly reset a scrubbed launch and still get the rocket off the ground in the same launch window, for example. There are also things that SpaceX could learn from NASA's years of experience too. A smart politician who really cared about this would look to develop synergy between government space and private space, not just look to spend money for money's sake.

You also appear to need an education about the specifics of Obama's proposed budget, rather than the popular media spin (here it is): http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/420990main_FY_201_ Budget_Overview_1_Feb_2010.pdf When you look at the breakdown, it's very interesting.

Here's a couple of examples:

Heavy-Lift and Propulsion R&D (page 7)
(in millions)
2011 $559
2012 $594
2013 $597
2014 $598
2015 $754
Way short of serious development, at a federal level.
Even the HLV SpaceX has under development is not even in the same league with what NASA needs:
Falcon 9 Heavy: 32,000 kg to LEO
Ares V (for comparison): 160,000 kg to LEO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_heavy_lift_launch_systems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_super_heavy_lift_launch_systems

Commercial Crew and Cargo (page 10)
(in millions)
2011
Commercial Crew $500
Commercial Cargo $312
(remaining years are only for commercial crew)
2012 $1 400
2013 $1 400
2014 $1 300
2015 $1 200
That is not really serious support, just a bone tossed their way.

Orion IS primarily designed for beyond LEO operations, therefore, using your criteria, a bona fide choice for NASA. Using it as a lifeboat is a waste.

And finally, it's not about red tape, it's about human rating. Caution is important after the two shuttles we lost. Requiring commercial to take their new designs and launch cargo to work out the bugs is not the least unreasonable, nor is it "strangling" development.

 

[kelvinzero]

Isn't this pretty much a repeat of a previous post?

Im pretty sure I made a point by point reply to everything in here already. When I gave you the link to that document in fact.

160 tons to orbit HLV is not NASA's needs. We could have done the moon on existing launches using fuel Depots. Even current proponents of HLV seem to be fighting for something more in the 75 ton range, ie as low as possible while just above what existing launchers could comfortably be adapted to.

500-ish million for Heavy lift and propulsion R&D. That is not bad for R&D. IMO the point is to delay actually building an HLV, with its massive fixed yearly costs even while not having a use for it, until fuel depots are demonstrated in 2005. The point is how to avoid our next HLV becoming the albatross around our necks that the Saturn 5 and the Shuttle did?

Commercial transport (2011->2015) of
$812m,
$1.4b,
$1.4b,
$1.3b,
$1.2b
is not just a bone tossed their way, though the $50m mentioned in the 'compromise' by HLV proponents certainly is an insult.
http://hobbyspace.com/nucleus/?itemid=21372

 

[rcsplinters]

NY times is reporting a Senate deal on NASA budget funding for 2011;

1.) Adds one more shuttle flight to next years manifest
2.) Start Heavy Lift Development beginning next year
3.) Fund fully-capable Orion Capsule
4.) Require proof of capability for commercial contractors-slowing down investment there.

Senate negotiators working out the deal included;
Senators David Vitter, R-LA,
John Rockefeller, D-WV,
Kay Bailey Hitchinson, R-TX,
Bill Nelson, D-FL

Apparently no NASA leadership involved/invited in negotiating the deal
No word on $$$ distribution and the House version is not yet begun.

I also noticed the marked absence of NASA leadership. Not surprising I suppose given that they have no leadership with an interest in manned space flight. I suppose the HLV will be man-rated as Orion has got to have a ride.

The big question in this is funding and getting it through the house. The leadership there will lament the children claiming that any additional NASA funding will doom them all to starvation (She's suggested she'll fight any funding lift). Given the tight funding, I'm beginning to suspect we have an SD HLV series of boosters in our future. Not Ares V, but workable and immeasurably better than the administration's plan to hitchhike to the stars.

Any fool can see what is going on here. This is NOT about what is best for manned space flight, it's about how to spend the most taxpayer money in these politician's districts. We CANNOT afford to spend billions and billions more on stuff like Orion capsules and NASA developed heavy lift boosters, when private industry is bringing much cheaper solutions to the table. Let NASA work on deep space exploration, something that it can do best. The private companies can more than handle the LEO taxi and freight delivery functions, so let them do that. I could stomach this if they had required NASA to work in tandem with private rocket companies to develop a heavy lift booster, which they are already doing anyway. It will take them at least twice as long and be 10 times as expensive as someone like SpaceX to do this development alone. They are also not fooling anyone with point number 4. I believe that was specifically put in there to slow the progress of SpaceX. These asses are so out of touch that the successful launch of the first Falcon 9 totally caught them by surprise. And to have it be such a success on the first try? They CANNOT have that. If they don't slow the progress of SpaceX, Dragon capsules will be servicing the ISS and eventually ferrying astronauts up there before they can waste more taxpayer money elsewhere. We should be doing all we can to help companies like SpaceX, not choke them to death with red tape like this plan is proposing. Sen. Hutchinson should be ashamed of herself with all of the money and jobs SpaceX is already bringing her state. I guess Elon Musk needs to start padding her pockets like the military-industrial complex already does. If this plan is approved, it will be MUCH longer and MUCH more expensive to get US manned expeditions out to deep space. At least with the Obama approach, we could see significant manned exploration of deep space exploration in our lifetimes. NASA needs to be planning trips to Mars and to the asteroid belt, not the moon (unless it's just to put a refueling depot there). With this backwards looking approach, we will be lucky to see an Apollo redux back to the moon in 20-30 years, with BILLIONS and BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars foolishly spent, at best. Instead of trying to kill the commercial space industry, they should look to partner with them. There are lessons that NASA could learn from a company like Space, like how to quickly reset a scrubbed launch and still get the rocket off the ground in the same launch window, for example. There are also things that SpaceX could learn from NASA's years of experience too. A smart politician who really cared about this would look to develop synergy between government space and private space, not just look to spend money for money's sake.

MJ, I think to some degree it boils down to what you want and believe as a US citizen. For myself, I look at manned spaceflight as an investment with the primary payback being technology spinoffs. I also believe that the country should aggressively pursue missions beyond LEO and I know only one organization in history has ever succeeded in that mission. I think NASA understands that mission better than anyone else and I've never seen a plan they've proposed which doesn't anticipate high lift. As a country, its something we have to do. To some degree, its who we are.

We've seen some modest success from commercial enterprises in their efforts to stake out a marketplace in LEO. None of them have a manned capsule on the drawing board that can withstand the radiation or the mission duration which will be required for manned missions beyond LEO. None of them have that 100 ton to LEO booster on the table which it seems a majority of mission planners indicate will be necessary. Further, i think its a bit unfair to a fledgling commercial manned space flight industry, which I might add has NEVER suceeded in that mission, to take us to Mars, Moon or even a couple of laps around a rock. They need to be allowed to cut their teeth without that sort of pressure.

I guess I could summarize this rather rambling post simply this way. As a citizen, I believe in the goal - Mars. I believe it'll cost half a trillion or maybe even a bit more to get there, no matter who does it. I also think we have to start now and we have to stay the course. I'm perfectly fine with all of this as a US citizen. If the commercial industry can assist with ferrying astronaunts to LEO, fine. If they can help us get 1200 tons or so to LEO, fine, but we don't wait and hold our breath for them to grow up.

If one is not committed to the goal or if one expects to do it on a shoestring budget, I can see where a bill like the one floating in the senate would be troublesome. To those such as myself, I see that bill as action where the administration seems bent on sloth. There's no commercial calvary coming over that hill to do this at a 100th or 10th of the budget. Let's let them get a man in orbit several dozen times and perfect their solution, then ask them to come play.

Also, if a few good jobs come out of this which pay smart hardworking people a good wage and provide then exciting work, I say good! If kids get excited about the program and decide their future starts in math and science class, I say excellent. Kennedy once said (paraphrased) 'we do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard'. I believe this is going to be bitter hard and incredibly expensive. I also think we have to do it and we have to start now. And it sorta comes down to just that, what we as a country want to commit to for decades.

 

[rockett]

Isn't this pretty much a repeat of a previous post?

This was for mj1 anyways. It was on a different thread, same numbers, cause they don't lie, and they apply to his rant.

160 tons to orbit HLV is not NASA's needs. We could have done the moon on existing launches using fuel Depots. Even current proponents of HLV seem to be fighting for something more in the 75 ton range, ie as low as possible while just above what existing launchers could comfortably be adapted to.

If you are talking about 75 metric tons, that is more than double the best commercial launchers. It would still have to be a "clean slate" design from scratch for that kind of increase. For structural reasons if nothing else. You can't just keep adding strap-ons to that level without a penalty.

Best we have (kg to LEO):
Falcon 9 Heavy 32,000
Atlas V HLV 29,420
Space Shuttle (STS) 24,400
Delta IV Heavy 22,950
Titan IVB 21,682

500-ish million for Heavy lift and propulsion R&D. That is not bad for R&D. IMO the point is to delay actually building an HLV, with its massive fixed yearly costs even while not having a use for it, until fuel depots are demonstrated in 2005. The point is how to avoid our next HLV becoming the albatross around our necks that the Saturn 5 and the Shuttle did?

500 mil won't even get things started for a super-heavy (which is what is being discussed). You really need that kind of capability if you are going to loft large structures for fuel depots, reactors, interplanetary/translunar expedition pieces. If you don't, it will drag out across many years like the ISS did.

Commercial transport (2011->2015) of
$812m,
$1.4b,
$1.4b,
$1.3b,
$1.2b
is not just a bone tossed their way, though the $50m mentioned in the 'compromise' by HLV proponents certainly is an insult.

It is a bone when you spread it around 5 different companies. Also remember, that is for launch services too. That means R&D, capsule (manned or unmanned) infrastruture, transport, launch facilities, fuel, etc. To break it down (assuming evenly, which it isn't):

(in millions)
$162.40
$280.00
$280.00
$260.00
$240.00
...per company (at SpaceX cost, only 4 launches per year)

If you're going fully commercial, fine. Then fund it accordingly, don't starve it to the point of not being viable.

As for the $50 m, that is just to fuel Commercial Crew Development. It has nothing to do with regular cargo launches to prove reliability for man-rating. However I will concede even that is disappointingly low.