6 ms·

This is a very optimistic view of the president's space exploration legacy. Cancelling George W. Bush's 'Vision for Space Exploration' may have been a wise pol

by nickff 10y ago

This is a very optimistic view of the president's space exploration legacy. Cancelling George W. Bush's 'Vision for Space Exploration' may have been a wise political move, but doing so delayed the project by 8 years, with relatively little technical gain. We are now looking at spending 25 billion dollars for development, and 2 billion more per additional launch, with the aim of reaching an asteroid in the mid-2020s, and Mars in ~2040. I will be shocked if the Space Launch System (A.K.A. SLS, Senate Launch System) takes humans to the moon, and I will be dumbstruck if anyone uses it to go to Mars. The system is simply too expensive, and the projected launch rate is too low for it to be useful. In addition, the system is too politically vulnerable, as the program would have to survive more than 20 years for someone to use it to go to Mars. Much like the current president cancelled his predecessor's plan, a future president will cancel this one.

chriskanan 10y ago
Congress is trying to make it harder for new administrations to change NASA's direction. See this article from about 20 days ago: http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/senate-commerce-and-house-ss-t-committees-approve-space-related-legislation http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/senate-commerce-and-ho... The most relevant quote: The bill officially establishes in law that human exploration of Mars, including potential human habitation on the surface of Mars, is a NASA objective. It lauds the progress made by the SLS and Orion programs and requires NASA to submit a critical decision plan and strategic framework laying out the details of how it will achieve the goal of landing humans on Mars. Here are a couple related articles: https://www.inverse.com/article/21129-a-new-senate-bill-could-safeguard-nasa-s-mars-mission-from-a-trump-presidency https://www.inverse.com/article/21129-a-new-senate-bill-coul... http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/09/21/senate-panel-authorizes-money-mars-mission-shuttle-replacement/90793160/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/09/21/senat...
- jessriedel 10y ago
  What makes you think this is more than just words? I get that this formally tweaks NASA's mandate, but it's not clear this would have any affect. After all, the Constellation program was not just an executive order by Bush; according to Wikipedia, > NASA Authorization Act of 2005...directed NASA to "develop a sustained human presence on the Moon, including a robust precursor program to promote exploration, science, commerce and US preeminence in space, and as a stepping stone to future exploration of Mars and other destinations." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_program Indeed, your second article says > It’s not a legally binding bill. Future presidents or lawmakers, or even NASA’s own administrators would still be able to modify plans at their own discretion — and that’s inevitable given the development of new technologies and fluctuations in funding over the next couple of decades. > Nevertheless, by using explicit language never before used in federal legislation related to NASA authorization measures, the bill would make it tougher for future administrations to cut funding for the Mars mission or scrap the mission altogether. I'm not impressed by the "explicit language never before used in federal legislation" when comparing it to what's come (and gone) before.
marze 10y ago
SLS: a worthwhile project to spend billions on? Or, a tremendous waste of time and money, existing only to keep govt. dollars flowing to the same contractors who profited from Shuttle? The reason it exists at all is because average voters pay no attention at all.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  There isn't a reliable non governmental launch system currently in production. Space X has a long long way to go and they play a completely different game to ULA/NASA. The SLS is expensive but it's not only needed its long overdue.
  - marze 10y ago
    True, they are different. The biggest difference is this: SpaceX target cost per person to Mars: $0.2M Govt target: $10000M (estimated) While SpaceX may not reach their target, one can't help but notice factor of 50000 difference.
    - dogma1138 10y ago
      How about SpaceX becoming certified for human transport with it's current and next generation rocket before we talk about 500000 factor difference with it's 3rd (or Nth gen rocket)? SpaceX's reusability is brilliant but it's currently not considerably cheaper than ULA, if you count the fact that the a lower end Atlas V rocket launch costs about 100M and it's currently a more reliable system than the Dragon. http://breakingdefense.com/2014/05/ula-fires-back-at-spacex-at-space-symposium-details-launch-costs/ http://breakingdefense.com/2014/05/ula-fires-back-at-spacex-...
      - marze 10y ago
        SpaceX has years to work before they miss their first person on Mars timeframe estimate. I wouldn't be surprised if they are late, or over budget. But I'd be very surprised if they are 10000 times over budget. But I'd be even more surprised if the govt program was 20% under budget. Or if it ever made it to Mars, actually.
gedmark 10y ago
Strongly disagree. Under the previous plan, Ares I was NASA's vehicle for taking astronauts to low Earth orbit. Ares I was over budget by 10's of billions of dollars, leaving no money left over for commercial crew services. (Which was seen under Bush's NASA as a nice to have, not a must have.) Because Obama cancelled Ares I and re-directed that money to commercial crew contracts, SpaceX has been able to accelerate/do a lot more than they would have done otherwise. And the technical gains by SpaceX alone have been... non-trivial.
- shasheene 10y ago
  To clarify the history: SpaceX only entered the Commercial Crew Development [1] program by winning funding as part of CCDev 2 funding in April 2011, allowing it to develop the Dragon 2 launch abort system. They later won funding form both phases of CCiCap (Commercial Crew integrated Capability) funding in December 2012. (I believe that's in-flight abort testing etc). The technical gains (especially reusable rockets) was moved along more by the help funding Falcon 9 initially through the commercial cargo development (COTS) and International Space Station resupply (CRS) contracts (which ensured the survival of SpaceX for a few more years). [2] Commercial Cargo was actually a George W. Bush era policy - part of his 2004 plan [3], and the CRS contract was awarded before Obama was even inaugurated! So far, Bush's Space Shuttle cancellation did more for SpaceX than Obama's Constellation Program cancellation (though that may changes once MCT/ICT is up and running and causes SLS to be potentially cancelled) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Crew_Development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Crew_Development [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Orbital_Transportation_Services#Awards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Orbital_Transportat... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_for_Space_Exploration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_for_Space_Exploration
  - will_hughes 10y ago
    Spacex were pretty clear that they can't fund the full development/deployment of ITS (MCT) on their own. That's what the whole "stealing underpants / kickstarter" joke slide was about in the presentation. They need public and/or private organisations to pre-purchase a lot of tickets to Mars before they can outright build it themselves, or they'd need to partner with the likes of NASA.
mathattack 10y ago
I disagree on the first point. Don't we learn more about technology in general the longer we wait? The price/performance of technology goes down while we gain more technical options, and we learn more about the trip. There may be other reasons that it's an issue (orbit locations?) above and beyond the valid one that you listed - these grand projects exist at the whim of the president's successor.
sbuttgereit 10y ago
I would be surprised if the USA, as a nation-state, actually returns humans to low earth orbit on a vehicle it developed "the old fashioned way"; I told friends that when the shuttle retired... an easy claim, but I did... no really. The private sector may well do something here and perhaps NASA will hitch rides from those private actors rather than the Russians (how much longer will that be a viable option anyway?) At the end of the day, you probably get probes sent out, but U.S. Government sponsored human spaceflight is on its last legs in my opinion... unless a direct military need comes to the fore, and even then robotic seems more likely. Note that I say all of this without any regard about my personal feelings about should NASA be involved in human spaceflight or not: those thoughts are not relevant to my observations/judgements on the state of affairs of such endeavor.
abysmallyideal 10y ago
Our best bet would be what SpaceX envisions. Instead of having a massive rocket, use the same platform to deliver the cargoes multiple times into space (LEO), then have it assemble in space to journey to Mars, and maybe the Moon.

by nickff 10y ago

chriskanan 10y ago

Congress is trying to make it harder for new administrations to change NASA's direction. See this article from about 20 days ago: http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/senate-commerce-and-house-ss-t-committees-approve-space-related-legislation http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/senate-commerce-and-ho... The most relevant quote: The bill officially establishes in law that human exploration of Mars, including potential human habitation on the surface of Mars, is a NASA objective. It lauds the progress made by the SLS and Orion programs and requires NASA to submit a critical decision plan and strategic framework laying out the details of how it will achieve the goal of landing humans on Mars. Here are a couple related articles: https://www.inverse.com/article/21129-a-new-senate-bill-could-safeguard-nasa-s-mars-mission-from-a-trump-presidency https://www.inverse.com/article/21129-a-new-senate-bill-coul... http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/09/21/senate-panel-authorizes-money-mars-mission-shuttle-replacement/90793160/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/09/21/senat...

jessriedel 10y ago
What makes you think this is more than just words? I get that this formally tweaks NASA's mandate, but it's not clear this would have any affect. After all, the Constellation program was not just an executive order by Bush; according to Wikipedia, > NASA Authorization Act of 2005...directed NASA to "develop a sustained human presence on the Moon, including a robust precursor program to promote exploration, science, commerce and US preeminence in space, and as a stepping stone to future exploration of Mars and other destinations." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_program Indeed, your second article says > It’s not a legally binding bill. Future presidents or lawmakers, or even NASA’s own administrators would still be able to modify plans at their own discretion — and that’s inevitable given the development of new technologies and fluctuations in funding over the next couple of decades. > Nevertheless, by using explicit language never before used in federal legislation related to NASA authorization measures, the bill would make it tougher for future administrations to cut funding for the Mars mission or scrap the mission altogether. I'm not impressed by the "explicit language never before used in federal legislation" when comparing it to what's come (and gone) before.

marze 10y ago

SLS: a worthwhile project to spend billions on? Or, a tremendous waste of time and money, existing only to keep govt. dollars flowing to the same contractors who profited from Shuttle? The reason it exists at all is because average voters pay no attention at all.

dogma1138 10y ago
There isn't a reliable non governmental launch system currently in production. Space X has a long long way to go and they play a completely different game to ULA/NASA. The SLS is expensive but it's not only needed its long overdue.
- marze 10y ago
  True, they are different. The biggest difference is this: SpaceX target cost per person to Mars: $0.2M Govt target: $10000M (estimated) While SpaceX may not reach their target, one can't help but notice factor of 50000 difference.
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    How about SpaceX becoming certified for human transport with it's current and next generation rocket before we talk about 500000 factor difference with it's 3rd (or Nth gen rocket)? SpaceX's reusability is brilliant but it's currently not considerably cheaper than ULA, if you count the fact that the a lower end Atlas V rocket launch costs about 100M and it's currently a more reliable system than the Dragon. http://breakingdefense.com/2014/05/ula-fires-back-at-spacex-at-space-symposium-details-launch-costs/ http://breakingdefense.com/2014/05/ula-fires-back-at-spacex-...
    - marze 10y ago
      SpaceX has years to work before they miss their first person on Mars timeframe estimate. I wouldn't be surprised if they are late, or over budget. But I'd be very surprised if they are 10000 times over budget. But I'd be even more surprised if the govt program was 20% under budget. Or if it ever made it to Mars, actually.

gedmark 10y ago

Strongly disagree. Under the previous plan, Ares I was NASA's vehicle for taking astronauts to low Earth orbit. Ares I was over budget by 10's of billions of dollars, leaving no money left over for commercial crew services. (Which was seen under Bush's NASA as a nice to have, not a must have.) Because Obama cancelled Ares I and re-directed that money to commercial crew contracts, SpaceX has been able to accelerate/do a lot more than they would have done otherwise. And the technical gains by SpaceX alone have been... non-trivial.

shasheene 10y ago
To clarify the history: SpaceX only entered the Commercial Crew Development [1] program by winning funding as part of CCDev 2 funding in April 2011, allowing it to develop the Dragon 2 launch abort system. They later won funding form both phases of CCiCap (Commercial Crew integrated Capability) funding in December 2012. (I believe that's in-flight abort testing etc). The technical gains (especially reusable rockets) was moved along more by the help funding Falcon 9 initially through the commercial cargo development (COTS) and International Space Station resupply (CRS) contracts (which ensured the survival of SpaceX for a few more years). [2] Commercial Cargo was actually a George W. Bush era policy - part of his 2004 plan [3], and the CRS contract was awarded before Obama was even inaugurated! So far, Bush's Space Shuttle cancellation did more for SpaceX than Obama's Constellation Program cancellation (though that may changes once MCT/ICT is up and running and causes SLS to be potentially cancelled) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Crew_Development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Crew_Development [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Orbital_Transportation_Services#Awards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Orbital_Transportat... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_for_Space_Exploration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_for_Space_Exploration
- will_hughes 10y ago
  Spacex were pretty clear that they can't fund the full development/deployment of ITS (MCT) on their own. That's what the whole "stealing underpants / kickstarter" joke slide was about in the presentation. They need public and/or private organisations to pre-purchase a lot of tickets to Mars before they can outright build it themselves, or they'd need to partner with the likes of NASA.

mathattack 10y ago

I disagree on the first point. Don't we learn more about technology in general the longer we wait? The price/performance of technology goes down while we gain more technical options, and we learn more about the trip. There may be other reasons that it's an issue (orbit locations?) above and beyond the valid one that you listed - these grand projects exist at the whim of the president's successor.

sbuttgereit 10y ago

I would be surprised if the USA, as a nation-state, actually returns humans to low earth orbit on a vehicle it developed "the old fashioned way"; I told friends that when the shuttle retired... an easy claim, but I did... no really. The private sector may well do something here and perhaps NASA will hitch rides from those private actors rather than the Russians (how much longer will that be a viable option anyway?) At the end of the day, you probably get probes sent out, but U.S. Government sponsored human spaceflight is on its last legs in my opinion... unless a direct military need comes to the fore, and even then robotic seems more likely. Note that I say all of this without any regard about my personal feelings about should NASA be involved in human spaceflight or not: those thoughts are not relevant to my observations/judgements on the state of affairs of such endeavor.

abysmallyideal 10y ago

Our best bet would be what SpaceX envisions. Instead of having a massive rocket, use the same platform to deliver the cargoes multiple times into space (LEO), then have it assemble in space to journey to Mars, and maybe the Moon.