A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Donald Trum Would Probably End the Journey to Mars



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 9th 17, 04:32 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Donald Trum Would Probably End the Journey to Mars

On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 2:09:45 PM UTC+13, JF Mezei wrote:
On 2017-01-05 21:52, William Mook wrote:

Campaigning along Florida’s “Space Coast” near NASA’s Kennedy Space Center, Trump vowed to revitalize the agency through cost-saving partnerships with the burgeoning commercial space industry.



Political time filling meaningless words.


That depends. If Space-X is an example of a burgeoning commercial space industry, and buying a reusable rocket is entering a cost-saving partnership, according to Musk the agency can expect to save a lot of money. Similarly, if NASA enters a cost-saving partnership with someone who is building a network of 4000 telecommunications satellites to blanket the Earth with broadband, then they can dispense with their own telecom satellites and share in substantial cost savings going forward. Ditto for working with companies that plan to settle Mars.

http://spacenews.com/spacex-opening-...nd-satellites/

https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/03/3...or-40-million/

http://www.space.com/34213-spacex-in...in-images.html




In fact, NASA has already done that by going with SpaceX, OrbitalATK,
and to a lesser extent giving Boeing subsidies to develop its CST100.


https://www.nasa.gov/launchschedule/

http://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/

NASA is spending close to $20 billion in 2017 and very little of it is on partnerships that will save the agency money.

Trump has priorities, and NASA isn't one of them.

My guess is that he will deflect to Congress/Senate any stuff that he is
not interested in. And NASA may be one of many such things.

We'll see.



New opportunities for private sector initiatives will arise in the wake of NASA restructuring.

  #2  
Old January 9th 17, 07:09 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Michael Gallagher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 232
Default Donald Trum Would Probably End the Journey to Mars

On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 00:40:10 -0500, JF Mezei
wrote:

....Will Trump defer this to Congress/Senate at which point pork continues
unchanged...


And remember, it's only pork if anyone other than SpaceX gets it.

...or will Trump get involved, at which point, his emotions may
control which state gets jobs, which companies get contracts etc.


Senator Jeff Sessions, from Alabama, has had a large influence on the
landing team overseeing the transition for NASA. Not surprisingly,
although the team has a pro-SpaceX person, the team is also loadedwith
Constellation alumni who favor returning to the Moon before going to
Mars.

And given that Trump already apes Sessions' hardline immigration
stance (
https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/pol...T.nav=top-news
), I wouldn't be surprised if what you have to think about is where
Sessions would want to go. Which is where Marshall Spaceflight Center
wants to go.


  #3  
Old January 9th 17, 12:12 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Donald Trum Would Probably End the Journey to Mars

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 00:40:10 -0500, JF Mezei
wrote:

....Will Trump defer this to Congress/Senate at which point pork continues
unchanged...


And remember, it's only pork if anyone other than SpaceX gets it.


No, it's pork when it is spending on the order of 10x what it would cost
to procure "commercially". Commercial cargo and commercial crew are
proving to be quite cost effective showing just that sort of cost
reduction compared to traditional NASA cost models. Do note that both
programs have winning companies that are not SpaceX fielding spacecraft
to do the job. This is a proven fact, not conjecture.

A commercial HLV program could similarly provide the US with two launch
providers at a cost that would be less than SLS. The contenders for
such a program would include ULA, SpaceX, and Blue Origin (in order of
launch "experience").

...or will Trump get involved, at which point, his emotions may
control which state gets jobs, which companies get contracts etc.


Senator Jeff Sessions, from Alabama, has had a large influence on the
landing team overseeing the transition for NASA. Not surprisingly,
although the team has a pro-SpaceX person, the team is also loadedwith
Constellation alumni who favor returning to the Moon before going to
Mars.


True.

And given that Trump already apes Sessions' hardline immigration
stance (
https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/pol...T.nav=top-news
), I wouldn't be surprised if what you have to think about is where
Sessions would want to go. Which is where Marshall Spaceflight Center
wants to go.


Quite possibly.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #4  
Old January 9th 17, 05:38 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Michael Gallagher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 232
Default Donald Trum Would Probably End the Journey to Mars

On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 06:12:12 -0500, Jeff Findley
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 00:40:10 -0500, JF Mezei
wrote:

....Will Trump defer this to Congress/Senate at which point pork continues
unchanged...


And remember, it's only pork if anyone other than SpaceX gets it.


No, it's pork when it is spending on the order of 10x what it would cost
to procure "commercially". Commercial cargo and commercial crew are
proving to be quite cost effective showing just that sort of cost
reduction compared to traditional NASA cost models. Do note that both
programs have winning companies that are not SpaceX fielding spacecraft
to do the job. This is a proven fact, not conjecture.


Do note that Orbital ATK and Boeing/ULA's involvement in "commercial"
programs is almost forgotten when people advocate "commercial"
approaches, acting as if SpaceX is synomymous with "commercial."
That's been my observation over debating this issues in may forums
over recent years.

Do note that Boeing, which co-owns ULA and therefore both the Atlas V
and Delta IV and is building the CST-100 and has contracts for
building SLS (so why would they propose competing with themselve?) was
on the business end of Trump's tweets regarding the future Air Force
One.

A commercial HLV program could similarly provide the US with two launch
providers at a cost that would be less than SLS. The contenders for
such a program would include ULA...


Which, as noted, is co-owned by Boeing, which has SLS contracts, so
why would they want to bid against themselves?

....SpaceX, and Blue Origin (in order of
launch "experience").

Senator Jeff Sessions, from Alabama, has had a large influence on the
landing team overseeing the transition for NASA. Not surprisingly,
although the team has a pro-SpaceX person, the team is also loadedwith
Constellation alumni who favor returning to the Moon before going to
Mars.


True.

And given that Trump already apes Sessions' hardline immigration
stance (
https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/pol...T.nav=top-news
), I wouldn't be surprised if what you have to think about is where
Sessions would want to go. Which is where Marshall Spaceflight Center
wants to go.


Quite possibly.


So SLS's cancellation is not guaranteed. Furthermore, the last time
the program was record was canceled, in the FY2011 budget,
Congressional pushback lead to the bifurcated mess we have now. Happy
with the situation? What makes you think doing it again will work any
better? Boeing and NASA are actulally building the first SLS now.
scrapping that for a rocket that, at gest, exists in Youtube videos
doesn't sound like a way to speed things up.

As to who will form Trump' space policy, if this artile is
accurate....

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...cabinet-233333

....you may want to pay more attention to his NASA admnstrator than
him.


Jeff

  #5  
Old January 9th 17, 10:56 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Donald Trum Would Probably End the Journey to Mars

Michael Gallagher wrote:


Do note that Orbital ATK and Boeing/ULA's involvement in "commercial"
programs is almost forgotten when people advocate "commercial"
approaches, acting as if SpaceX is synomymous with "commercial."
That's been my observation over debating this issues in may forums
over recent years.

Do note that Boeing, which co-owns ULA and therefore both the Atlas V
and Delta IV and is building the CST-100 and has contracts for
building SLS (so why would they propose competing with themselve?) was
on the business end of Trump's tweets regarding the future Air Force
One.


Do note that Boeing is being paid twice as much to develop CST-100 as
SpaceX is being paid to develop Manned Dragon. These are two
competing systems. Ask yourself why that is.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #6  
Old January 10th 17, 01:15 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Donald Trum Would Probably End the Journey to Mars

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 06:12:12 -0500, Jeff Findley
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 00:40:10 -0500, JF Mezei
wrote:

....Will Trump defer this to Congress/Senate at which point pork continues
unchanged...

And remember, it's only pork if anyone other than SpaceX gets it.


No, it's pork when it is spending on the order of 10x what it would cost
to procure "commercially". Commercial cargo and commercial crew are
proving to be quite cost effective showing just that sort of cost
reduction compared to traditional NASA cost models. Do note that both
programs have winning companies that are not SpaceX fielding spacecraft
to do the job. This is a proven fact, not conjecture.


Do note that Orbital ATK and Boeing/ULA's involvement in "commercial"
programs is almost forgotten when people advocate "commercial"
approaches, acting as if SpaceX is synomymous with "commercial."
That's been my observation over debating this issues in may forums
over recent years.

Do note that Boeing, which co-owns ULA and therefore both the Atlas V
and Delta IV and is building the CST-100 and has contracts for
building SLS (so why would they propose competing with themselve?) was
on the business end of Trump's tweets regarding the future Air Force
One.


I'm not forgetting that at all. There are many problems with SLS but
the biggest is how the SLS program is being run. Single source cost
plus style contracts worth billions per year for a vehicle which will
fly about once per year due to current production limitations is *not* a
good deal for the US taxpayer. To sum it up in as few words as
possible, zero competition plus huge pork.

A commercial HLV program could similarly provide the US with two launch
providers at a cost that would be less than SLS. The contenders for
such a program would include ULA...


Which, as noted, is co-owned by Boeing, which has SLS contracts, so
why would they want to bid against themselves?


They don't! They're quite happy with the status quo and will lobby to
keep it!

....SpaceX, and Blue Origin (in order of
launch "experience").

Senator Jeff Sessions, from Alabama, has had a large influence on the
landing team overseeing the transition for NASA. Not surprisingly,
although the team has a pro-SpaceX person, the team is also loadedwith
Constellation alumni who favor returning to the Moon before going to
Mars.


True.

And given that Trump already apes Sessions' hardline immigration
stance (
https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/pol...T.nav=top-news
), I wouldn't be surprised if what you have to think about is where
Sessions would want to go. Which is where Marshall Spaceflight Center
wants to go.


Quite possibly.


So SLS's cancellation is not guaranteed.


Agreed.

Furthermore, the last time
the program was record was canceled, in the FY2011 budget,
Congressional pushback lead to the bifurcated mess we have now. Happy
with the situation?


Nope.

What makes you think doing it again will work any
better?


Because competition and procurement of launch services will cost about
1/10 of the current SLS program and will almost certainly result in a
far higher flight rate.

Boeing and NASA are actulally building the first SLS now.


I can see the sunk cost fallacy coming...

scrapping that for a rocket that, at gest, exists in Youtube videos
doesn't sound like a way to speed things up.


Yep, sunk cost fallacy. Look, they're *hoping* to get launch costs down
to about $1 billion per year for SLS, but I do not buy that at all given
the money being spent on SLS each year and a once per year projected
flight rate. Take that cost per year and divide by 1 and that's a far
more realistic "cost per flight". It's mind numbingly stupid how much
it's going to cost to fly!

As to who will form Trump' space policy, if this artile is
accurate....

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...cabinet-233333

...you may want to pay more attention to his NASA admnstrator than
him.


He's also got other people on that "team" which will push for more
commercial procurement of services. Odds aren't high SLS will be
canceled soon, but I'm quite sure it will eventually (may take a decade
or so) be canceled because it will be rendered obsolete by reusable
launch vehicle technologies (which are *completely* absent in SLS).

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #7  
Old January 10th 17, 01:18 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Donald Trum Would Probably End the Journey to Mars

In article ,
says...

Michael Gallagher wrote:


Do note that Orbital ATK and Boeing/ULA's involvement in "commercial"
programs is almost forgotten when people advocate "commercial"
approaches, acting as if SpaceX is synomymous with "commercial."
That's been my observation over debating this issues in may forums
over recent years.

Do note that Boeing, which co-owns ULA and therefore both the Atlas V
and Delta IV and is building the CST-100 and has contracts for
building SLS (so why would they propose competing with themselve?) was
on the business end of Trump's tweets regarding the future Air Force
One.


Do note that Boeing is being paid twice as much to develop CST-100 as
SpaceX is being paid to develop Manned Dragon. These are two
competing systems. Ask yourself why that is.


LOL, isn't it obvious? They may have come in with a higher bid than
other (non-winning) bids, but they are the company with a "track
record", which was no doubt part of the decision making process (either
explicitly or implicitly).

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #8  
Old January 10th 17, 01:33 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Donald Trum Would Probably End the Journey to Mars

On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 6:40:12 PM UTC+13, JF Mezei wrote:
On 2017-01-08 22:32, William Mook wrote:

That depends. If Space-X is an example of a burgeoning commercial space industry, and buying a reusable rocket is entering a cost-saving partnership, according to Musk the agency can expect to save a lot of money. Similarly, if NASA enters a cost-saving partnership with someone who is building a network of 4000 telecommunications satellites to blanket the Earth with broadband, then they can dispense with their own telecom satellites and share in substantial cost savings going forward. Ditto for working with companies that plan to settle Mars.


NASA has already partnered with SpaceX. Precedent set.

The big question is whether political subsidies to companies who feel
entitled to space subsidies (Boeing, ATK etc) will continue.

Will Trump defer this to Congress/Senate at which point pork continues
unchanged, or will Trump get involved, at which point, his emotions may
control which state gets jobs, which companies get contracts etc.

He recently dissed Boeing for charging $4b for new 747s and said he'd
cancel the contracts. (contracts have not been signed, only a study on
the config/features has been undertaken).

This may be an indicator once he starts his gig as "Trump: the
apprentice President". How he handles the Air Force One issue once he
gets the facts may point to how he will handle equallly expensive
contracts such as SLS/Orion.

For instance, what if Trump points to SpaceX being far more cost
effective and decides to cancel SLS/Orion and the Boeing CST contracts
with the same logic he used to promise to kill the Air Force 1 (non
existant) contract ?

The problem is that once he goes on Twitter to make a promise (before
learning the acvtual facts and impacts), it becomes much harder for him
to change his opinion wthout losing face.


***IF*** Trump's love affair with Putin is true, could the USA lift
sanctions against Russia and Russia offer competitive seats on Soyuz,
allowing Trump to kill one of the SPaceX of Boeing manned COTS
programmes ? Could it re-enable the use of russian engines on one of
main rockets ?



Trump doesn't love Putin. Trump doesn't think starting World War 3 is beneficial to the USA.

http://edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/201...w-cold-war.cnn

In light of this, the neocon madness in Bosnia was a mistake, Afghanistan was a mistake, Iraq was a mistake, Ukraine was a mistake, Libya was a mistake, Syria is an ongoing mistake, and Iran will be a huge mistake if we invade that country too. Trump thinks the USA needs to back down if it wants to get along in the world.

With respect to funding, Trump doesn't defer to anyone. This scares people.. Trump has shown a willingness to challenge the status quo,. Trump says hes cancelling AF One upgrades, cancelling the F-35 fighter, not taking any salary to serve as President, asking DOE for names of officials that support climate change with a view to firing them;

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...mate-meetings/

Trump is asking NASA to stop funding 'politicised science' and vows to cut spending for such science;

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...hange-research

Trump supports a commercial return to the moon and Mars with permanent human presence there and beyond and feels the long term goal for this century should be permanent human presence throughout the solar system and trips to the nearby stars, "to the stars through Mars" is how one Trump official put it;

http://www.ibtimes.com/trump-nasa-pl...noring-2446414

Trump thinks NASA screwing around in orbit after the Gemini flights was bull****, and a distraction, while larger goals and capabilities were ignored as commercial opportunities sidelined bypassed or opposed. Trump will not oppose commercial development. He views the planets of our solar system, and of other star systems, the way a property developer views raw land. He understand to develop any land you need;

(1) Government policies that support land ownership;
(2) Economic strength that supports land development;
(3) Favourable interest rates to secure the necessary investment in long term infrastructure;
(4) Survey data, Transport and communications that support strong demographics;

Since the founding of NASA our government has not had any sensible policies that reward ownership of off world assets or properties. Our economy has struggled with energy supplies, security, and other fundamental issues that have robbed it of the ability to support development off-world. The financial community has not rewarded or supported investments that seek to develop off world assets infrastructure or property. Scientific data hasn't been reviewed for its economic potential. Transport systems have not been developed in ways that promote commercial deployment off world. Communications systems have not been put into place that promote commercial development off world.

These are the areas Trump will focus on, and he will direct NASA, and the DOD to work together to address them, and leave NASA after his first term as an agency that promotes the business of space for qualified users, while the DOD reduces its focus on stopping missile proliferation and focuses instead on safe and reliable commercial space transport provided by approved commercial carriers.

  #9  
Old January 10th 17, 05:23 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Donald Trum Would Probably End the Journey to Mars

Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

Michael Gallagher wrote:


Do note that Orbital ATK and Boeing/ULA's involvement in "commercial"
programs is almost forgotten when people advocate "commercial"
approaches, acting as if SpaceX is synomymous with "commercial."
That's been my observation over debating this issues in may forums
over recent years.

Do note that Boeing, which co-owns ULA and therefore both the Atlas V
and Delta IV and is building the CST-100 and has contracts for
building SLS (so why would they propose competing with themselve?) was
on the business end of Trump's tweets regarding the future Air Force
One.


Do note that Boeing is being paid twice as much to develop CST-100 as
SpaceX is being paid to develop Manned Dragon. These are two
competing systems. Ask yourself why that is.


LOL, isn't it obvious? They may have come in with a higher bid than
other (non-winning) bids, but they are the company with a "track
record", which was no doubt part of the decision making process (either
explicitly or implicitly).


This is for the development/demonstration part of the program. I
would think "track record" would let you do it cheaper, not cost more.
I would personally suspect that Boeing needs a lot more money because
they'll be launching their test flights (there are 2 required, I
think) on ULA boosters which are significantly more expensive.

Of course, this will likely also be true for an 'operational' system,
so on a system cost the Boeing capsule is going to be significantly
more expensive per seat to fly on.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
  #10  
Old January 10th 17, 10:28 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Rob[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 57
Default Donald Trum Would Probably End the Journey to Mars

Fred J McCall wrote:
Do note that Boeing is being paid twice as much to develop CST-100 as
SpaceX is being paid to develop Manned Dragon. These are two
competing systems. Ask yourself why that is.


LOL, isn't it obvious? They may have come in with a higher bid than
other (non-winning) bids, but they are the company with a "track
record", which was no doubt part of the decision making process (either
explicitly or implicitly).


This is for the development/demonstration part of the program. I
would think "track record" would let you do it cheaper, not cost more.


Sometimes having it done before results in a more realistic view on
total costs beforehand.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
If The Donald get elected .... Hägar Misc 6 January 5th 16 02:39 PM
Donald Sterling has the last laugh ... Hgar Misc 3 June 4th 14 04:31 AM
Donald E Osterbrock [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 0 January 17th 07 03:36 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.