Octopus Overlords

Max Peck wrote:Pushing NASA to make the very first test flight of the SLS+Orion hardware into manned mission seemed iffy to me at first, but then I remembered that go fever has never proven to be problematic for them in the past.

Isgrimnur wrote:

Max Peck wrote:Pushing NASA to make the very first test flight of the SLS+Orion hardware into manned mission seemed iffy to me at first, but then I remembered that go fever has never proven to be problematic for them in the past.

Ad astra per aspera

Defiant wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:00 pm Trump wants to send U.S. astronauts back to moon, someday Mars

Holman wrote:Mars and the Moon are money pits of no use to us right now. We ought to re-engineer NASA towards an Apollo program to address climate change and a full-scale clean-power economy.

Space travel can wait until we stabilize our tottering foundations. It will be much grander after we have workable fusion anyway.

Pyperkub wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:14 pm

Defiant wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:00 pm Trump wants to send U.S. astronauts back to moon, someday Mars

Is Trump going to get Mexico to pay for it?
No ongoing revenue commitment = no real policy.

NASA would face a $500 million cut in the coming budget year under a proposal released Monday by President Donald Trump's administration -- but NASA officials say the budget still is strong.

"This is a really good budget for NASA," Mark Geyer, director of NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, said Monday. "We're blessed with this budget."
...
The most notable cuts come to the Space Launch System rocket, which is being built to carry the Orion spacecraft to the moon. Orion will carry humans back to the moon for the first time since 1972.

Trump's budget request postpones funding for upgrades to the rocket that would increase its performance, instead focusing on completing the initial version.
...
While Trump's budget calls for fully funding James Webb, it's successor, the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST), wouldn't receive any money. It also eliminates funding for the Office of Science, Technology Engineering and Mathematics Engagement, previously known as the Office of Education, and two Earth science missions, although which missions would be cut is unclear.

The Trump administration attempted to cut the Office of Education in 2018 and 2018, but the idea faced significant backlash in Congress.

Kraken wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2019 12:14 am I reacted prematurely to this pulled quote: "The most notable cuts come to the Space Launch System rocket, which is being built to carry the Orion spacecraft to the moon."

In fact, the proposed SLS cuts would delay the evolved Block 1B heavy-lift version, with that money directed instead to Gateway and its associated transfer and landing vehicles. That's actually a good idea if they can't do both. Delaying the already locked-in configuration, as I thought that quote meant, would have been a mistake, but that's not what the budget does.

Congress still won't cut NASA's funding, and SLS is still of questionable value, so I'm not backing out of the whole post.

raydude wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:36 am

Kraken wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2019 12:14 am I reacted prematurely to this pulled quote: "The most notable cuts come to the Space Launch System rocket, which is being built to carry the Orion spacecraft to the moon."

In fact, the proposed SLS cuts would delay the evolved Block 1B heavy-lift version, with that money directed instead to Gateway and its associated transfer and landing vehicles. That's actually a good idea if they can't do both. Delaying the already locked-in configuration, as I thought that quote meant, would have been a mistake, but that's not what the budget does.

Congress still won't cut NASA's funding, and SLS is still of questionable value, so I'm not backing out of the whole post.

SLS Block 1 is the primary launch vehicle for Europa Clipper, since it allows us to fly a direct trajectory and get to Europa in less than 3 years. So there is that. But I agree that NASA should get out of the space taxi business. It's not their strong suit and frankly, not as exciting as building spacecraft to explore the unexplored and answer the unanswered questions.

Kraken wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:51 am Do you think SLS will launch once or twice a year to establish lunar operations? Is there anything about Gateway that BFR can't handle?

Bridenstine argued that NASA needs to stick to its commitment of sending the Orion crew capsule around the Moon by next year. One way to do that would be using a rocket other than the SLS. “We need to consider, as an agency, all options to accomplish that objective,” Bridenstine said during the hearing. “Some of those options would include launching the Orion crew capsule... on a commercial rocket.”

Switching to a commercial rocket for EM-1 would serve as another big blow to the SLS, which has been heavily criticized for being over budget and slow to develop. It’s estimated that NASA has spent $14 billion on developing the vehicle. And while it will be a powerful rocket, it won’t be that much more capable than other vehicles that are currently on the market. For instance, the Falcon Heavy is capable of putting up to 140,700 pounds (63.8 metric tons) into low Earth orbit, while the SLS will be able to put 209,000 pounds (95 metric tons) into the same region of space.

Additionally, the future of the SLS became even more uncertain this week with the release of the president’s budget request. In the request, the administration called for stopping development on the second version of the SLS that NASA was planning to build, one that would make the vehicle even more powerful. By canceling that upgrade, the SLS will no longer be able to boast the incredible strength that NASA has long been touting. The power of the SLS is perhaps the biggest asset the vehicle had.

Where does this stand politically

In his quest to institute these changes, Bridenstine will have to fight on multiple fronts. Large aerospace firms, with their influential lobbies, will want to protect existing contracts. NASA field centers will fiercely protect their turf. The White House Office of Management and Budget will be reticent to sign on to new, long-term costly programs. And there is simply the inertia of a large bureaucracy like NASA and managers who will resist change to their programs.

However, Bridenstine's biggest hurdle will be Congress. In addition to the aforementioned Alabama delegation, elected officials from other big SLS and Orion states will want assurances. And then there are also Democrats to contend with.

Although Bridenstine has strived to portray this as a bipartisan effort—and since becoming administrator, he has won plaudits from some Democrats for becoming an inclusive and enthusiastic leader of NASA—at the end of the day this is a Trump-led initiative in a highly polarized political environment.

...

Is this a politically motivated date?

On one hand, of course it is. Although space is far from a priority for most voters, the Trump administration wants to demonstrate that its commitment to a lunar return is serious. This is one reason why the agency has prioritized the first launch of the SLS rocket and flying an uncrewed Orion mission around the Moon in 2020. This would show progress.

Though 2024 is another election year, it has importance beyond symbolism. Previous efforts for the Moon and Mars set distant goals. For example, when the Constellation program was developed in the mid-2000s during the presidency of George W. Bush, it targeted 2020 for a lunar landing. This spanned so many presidential administrations that it was bound to eventually lose support.

By putting down a marker for 2024, Pence is avoiding this historical trap. He’s saying we can do this during this administration, and therefore it won’t be subject to cancellation. However, the schedule is so aggressive it will require an enormous effort by the White House, both financially and by convincing Congress to go along.

NASA is calling India's destruction of a satellite last week a "terrible, terrible thing" and says the space debris created by the explosion should be considered a threat to the International Space Station and the astronauts on board.

India intentionally destroyed one of its satellites with a missile last week, a move Prime Minister Narendra Modi welcomed as one that established India "as a space power."

He said the satellite shattered into pieces, many of them large enough to pose a danger to the space station but not large enough to track. It is unclear how many pieces of debris were created.

Defiant wrote: Thu May 16, 2019 12:09 am Ted Cruz says we need a Space Force to protect against Space Pirates.



Don't forget Reavers.

A top NASA executive hired in April to guide strategy for returning astronauts to the moon by 2024 has resigned, the space agency said on Thursday, the culmination of internal strife and dwindling congressional support for the lunar initiative.

Mark Sirangelo, named six weeks ago as special assistant to NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine, left the agency as NASA abandoned a reorganization plan due to a chilly reception on Capitol Hill, Bridenstine said in a statement.

“It does have the capability to go into an Earth orbit, launch and separate in Earth orbit, and then transfer itself into a trans-lunar orbit and put itself into an NRHO (Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit),” Tadros said. “That’s the nominal scenario, but depending on the ultimate configuration, that Earth orbit that we separate in could be a variety of apogees and perigees. So that has not been specified or decided yet. The vehicle has a tremendous amount of capability, as any tug would, to be able to transfer from Earth orbit to lunar orbit.”

“We’re investing in the future of human spaceflight," the president said, prefacing his off-the-cuff remarks on spaceflight. "And some day soon American astronauts will plant the stars and stripes on the surface of Mars."

Trump never mentioned the Moon, or his administration's lunar program, during this comment or in any of his subsequent remarks Thursday night. This is notable, because the signature human spaceflight initiative of his administration is the Artemis Program, an attempt to accelerate a human return to the Moon by 2024. The closest Trump came to acknowledging the Moon program was saying, "NASA has some of the greatest plans we’ve ever had. These are great people, great scientists."
...
On Thursday night, however, the president spent most of his time praising the private sector efforts to reuse rockets. (This is likely another difficult conversation between the NASA administrator and the president, as Bridenstine must justify spending in excess of $2 billion a year to develop the Space Launch System rocket, which is not reusable, while private entrepreneurs are building their large, reusable rockets largely without public money).

"So I see Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, they’re putting rockets up. I think it’s great," Trump said. "The one which recently went up and you see the engines coming back down, there’s no wings or nothing. It’s almost like, what are we watching? Is this fiction?"