NASA Chief rules out NASA returning to the moon

In article 55789cbd-04c9-458c-9b9f-82e316a54a89
@w21g2000vbp.googlegroups.com, says...

On Apr 10, 1:50*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article e5370032-317a-473f-9866-71e060234f47@
16g2000vbx.googlegroups.com, says...

On Apr 10, 8:27*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article f8178699-4da7-4a5e-8137-
, says...

a lot more could be accomplished if private companies do much of the
work

This statement is so vague that it does not hold true in all instances.
I'm assuming you're talking about SLS and the like. *Note that on the
SLS program, private companies *already* "do much of the work", so your
assertion isn't even true for SLS.

You'll need to be much more specific to pinpoint why some government
programs are cheaper than others. *Specifically, why is SLS so darn
expensive? *After all, it is supposed to be using as much "heritage"
hardware as possible to reduce development costs and risks.

musk designs tend to cut costs by 90%

But do you know *why* SpaceX's costs are lower? *Hint: *It's not just
because they're a "private company".

they are new and cost centered........

Again with the oversimplifications. Why is being "new" a good thing?
What does being "new" bring to the table?

The space shuttle and later EELV's were both supposed to focus on making
access to space cheaper (i.e. "cost centered"), so why did they fail
(miserably) to achieve what appears to an outsider to be the same goal?

but 90 percent savings are wonderful. the remaining 80 percent of the
money can be used for other things

Maths fail you, don't they?

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On Apr 10, 4:42*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 55789cbd-04c9-458c-9b9f-82e316a54a89
@w21g2000vbp.googlegroups.com, says...







On Apr 10, 1:50*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article e5370032-317a-473f-9866-71e060234f47@
16g2000vbx.googlegroups.com, says...

On Apr 10, 8:27*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article f8178699-4da7-4a5e-8137-
, says....

a lot more could be accomplished if private companies do much of the
work

This statement is so vague that it does not hold true in all instances.
I'm assuming you're talking about SLS and the like. *Note that on the
SLS program, private companies *already* "do much of the work", so your
assertion isn't even true for SLS.

You'll need to be much more specific to pinpoint why some government
programs are cheaper than others. *Specifically, why is SLS so darn
expensive? *After all, it is supposed to be using as much "heritage"
hardware as possible to reduce development costs and risks.

musk designs tend to cut costs by 90%

But do you know *why* SpaceX's costs are lower? *Hint: *It's not just
because they're a "private company".

they are new and cost centered........

Again with the oversimplifications. *Why is being "new" a good thing?
What does being "new" bring to the table?

The space shuttle and later EELV's were both supposed to focus on making
access to space cheaper (i.e. "cost centered"), so why did they fail
(miserably) to achieve what appears to an outsider to be the same goal?

but 90 percent savings are wonderful. the remaining 80 percent of the
money can be used for other things

Maths fail you, don't they?

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

new doesnt allow the bloat of a mature program.

if a musk heavy lifter costs just 10% of SLS then if musk builds it
the 90% saved can and should be used for exploring

In article cdaa265c-8b34-48e0-84f6-a522c49dd049
@cm2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, says...

On Apr 10, 4:42*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 55789cbd-04c9-458c-9b9f-82e316a54a89
@w21g2000vbp.googlegroups.com, says...
On Apr 10, 1:50*pm, Jeff Findley
wrote:
In article e5370032-317a-473f-9866-71e060234f47@
16g2000vbx.googlegroups.com, says...
musk designs tend to cut costs by 90%

But do you know *why* SpaceX's costs are lower? *Hint: *It's not just
because they're a "private company".

they are new and cost centered........

Again with the oversimplifications. *Why is being "new" a good thing?
What does being "new" bring to the table?

The space shuttle and later EELV's were both supposed to focus on making
access to space cheaper (i.e. "cost centered"), so why did they fail
(miserably) to achieve what appears to an outsider to be the same goal?

but 90 percent savings are wonderful. the remaining 80 percent of the
money can be used for other things

Maths fail you, don't they?

new doesnt allow the bloat of a mature program.

Well run programs, even if mature, don't have "bloat". Me thinks you're
missing the point.

if a musk heavy lifter costs just 10% of SLS then if musk builds it
the 90% saved can and should be used for exploring

Doubtful. Money "saved" can't be applied to another program without the
approval of Congress. More likely, the "savings" wouldn't go to NASA in
the first place. You're a bit clueless how this politics thing works,
aren't you?

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On Apr 9, 1:09*am, "David E. Powell" wrote:


NASA needs to get back to the moon and on to Mars, that's your job! Private stuff like SpaceX doing the Orbital stuff is cool, and space tourism with Suborbital first, good, but NASA has a purpose and doing the big stuff is it!


Wrong, that is not NASA's job. NASA's main job was to beat the
Soviets. Human exploration of the moon and Mars is not the job of
NASA.

Me gebruikte zijn klavier om te schrijven :
On Apr 9, 1:09*am, "David E. Powell" wrote:


NASA needs to get back to the moon and on to Mars, that's your job! Private
stuff like SpaceX doing the Orbital stuff is cool, and space tourism with
Suborbital first, good, but NASA has a purpose and doing the big stuff is
it!


Wrong, that is not NASA's job. NASA's main job was to beat the
Soviets. Human exploration of the moon and Mars is not the job of
NASA.

Source of this claim??

In article ,
says...

Me gebruikte zijn klavier om te schrijven :
On Apr 9, 1:09*am, "David E. Powell" wrote:


NASA needs to get back to the moon and on to Mars, that's your job! Private
stuff like SpaceX doing the Orbital stuff is cool, and space tourism with
Suborbital first, good, but NASA has a purpose and doing the big stuff is
it!


Wrong, that is not NASA's job. NASA's main job was to beat the
Soviets. Human exploration of the moon and Mars is not the job of
NASA.

Source of this claim??

Unsure, but it's clearly not completely true.

Beating the Soviets was the point of the manned space program (once they
put their cosmonaut into orbit first), up until the mid to late 60's
when it became fairly clear that Apollo/Saturn would (eventually)
succeed, so the cost cutting started. The space race with the Soviets
certainly caused a sense of urgency that simply did not last. Spending
at NASA was never higher than in the 60's.

But NASA's job clearly included much more than simply beating the
Soviets, as the agency persists, just at a lower funding level than the
Space Race provided.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

Jeff Findley heeft ons zojuist aangekondigd :
In article ,
says...

Me gebruikte zijn klavier om te schrijven :
On Apr 9, 1:09*am, "David E. Powell" wrote:

NASA needs to get back to the moon and on to Mars, that's your job!
Private stuff like SpaceX doing the Orbital stuff is cool, and space
tourism with Suborbital first, good, but NASA has a purpose and doing the
big stuff is it!


Wrong, that is not NASA's job. NASA's main job was to beat the
Soviets. Human exploration of the moon and Mars is not the job of
NASA.

Source of this claim??

Unsure, but it's clearly not completely true.

Beating the Soviets was the point of the manned space program (once they
put their cosmonaut into orbit first), up until the mid to late 60's
when it became fairly clear that Apollo/Saturn would (eventually)
succeed, so the cost cutting started. The space race with the Soviets
certainly caused a sense of urgency that simply did not last. Spending
at NASA was never higher than in the 60's.

But NASA's job clearly included much more than simply beating the
Soviets, as the agency persists, just at a lower funding level than the
Space Race provided.

Jeff

So the Skylab and the Space Shuttle program were underfunded?
(I know Skylab is a modified Saturn upper stage)

So the Skylab and the Space Shuttle program were underfunded?
(I know Skylab is a modified Saturn upper stage)

yes both were, for skylab it was cobbled together on a budget, but
worked well. However there was another space ready skylab that never
launched it was cut apart for the NASM in DC. They didnt launch it to
save the money for launching it and the follow up crews and their
launchers.

the money was re directed to the shuttle.

the big problem is over promise and knowlingly underfund

Just look at the JWST......

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley heeft ons zojuist aangekondigd :
Beating the Soviets was the point of the manned space program (once
they
put their cosmonaut into orbit first), up until the mid to late 60's
when it became fairly clear that Apollo/Saturn would (eventually)
succeed, so the cost cutting started. The space race with the Soviets
certainly caused a sense of urgency that simply did not last. Spending
at NASA was never higher than in the 60's.

But NASA's job clearly included much more than simply beating the
Soviets, as the agency persists, just at a lower funding level than the
Space Race provided.

So the Skylab and the Space Shuttle program were underfunded?
(I know Skylab is a modified Saturn upper stage)

Skylab was done on a shoestring budget using hardware mostly leftover
from Apollo/Saturn. There were Saturn IB vehicles leftover from early
Apollo testing (I believe in favor of flying Apollo hardware on early
"all up" tests of Saturn V). Later, a couple of flight worthy Saturn
V's were leftover from canceled lunar landing flights.

Heck, even the airlock door on Skylab was a Gemini door, which looked a
bit funny, but was flight proven hardware.

The space shuttle program was actually 1/3 of an ambitious space
transportation system consisting of the shuttle, an orbital maneuvering
vehicle, and a space station. Note that in the 70's, only the space
shuttle was funded, plus it was the version which minimized development
costs with some sacrifice of reusability.

So I'd say yes, the funding level during the shuttle era was lower than
NASA had originally hoped.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On Apr 12, 7:23*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...











Me gebruikte zijn klavier om te schrijven :
On Apr 9, 1:09 am, "David E. Powell" wrote:

NASA needs to get back to the moon and on to Mars, that's your job! Private
stuff like SpaceX doing the Orbital stuff is cool, and space tourism with
Suborbital first, good, but NASA has a purpose and doing the big stuff is
it!

Wrong, that is not NASA's job. *NASA's main job was to beat the
Soviets. *Human exploration of the moon and Mars is not the job of
NASA.

Source of this claim??

Unsure, but it's clearly not completely true.

Beating the Soviets was the point of the manned space program (once they
put their cosmonaut into orbit first), up until the mid to late 60's
when it became fairly clear that Apollo/Saturn would (eventually)
succeed, so the cost cutting started. *The space race with the Soviets
certainly caused a sense of urgency that simply did not last. *Spending
at NASA was never higher than in the 60's.

But NASA's job clearly included much more than simply beating the
Soviets, as the agency persists, just at a lower funding level than the
Space Race provided.

Jeff


It is very true.