|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
Donald Trum Would Probably End the Journey to Mars
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
If The Donald get elected .... | Hägar | Misc | 6 | January 5th 16 01:39 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 02:36 PM |