wumpus Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 11 minutes ago, tater said: Your point was somehow that SpaceX has 75% the the budget of NASA, and had somehow done more. Wrong on both counts. NASA has a budget of 19.5 Billion (mentioned up thread as well). They have sent 3 SRS ships up this year. They are paid to develop other things, but I don't suspect that adds up to anything like CRS. They get somewhere between .5 and 1 Billion, so certainly no more than 5% (NASA + DoD is likely above 1 billion. They send up a lot and the US government doesn't make it easy to reduce costs). I *do* suspect that SpaceX puts up 75% of the tonnage for the US government in space. The SpaceX partnership has certainly paid off well for NASA, certainly better than any other high profile deal since Apollo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 I'm certainly a SX fan, and I think that the paradigm of the subject of THIS thread, SLS/Orion/DSG is entirely wrong. The SX boosterism shown in terms of "what-ifs" don't make the cut, however, since that's simply not how the sausage is made. No NASA, no SpaceX. There might be a point where SpaceX and Blue Origin pressure NASA to change procurement or focus, but it will still need to be done in a way that is politically plausible. The specifics of the politics might be forbidden on this forum, but the reality of their existence should be acceptable, since it's just reality. If NASA gets taxpayer money for a specific goal---say a Moon base---then they will spread that money around to secure votes, or it won't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekL1963 Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 8 minutes ago, tater said: No NASA, no SpaceX. It's not 100% certain this is true, an angel might have come forward... But what is certain is that without NASA money, Musk was within hours of having to choose whether Tesla or SpaceX would be thrown overboard.https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-elon-musk-spacex/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 ^^^ Fair enough, counterfactuals are always fraught. Bottom line is that in the context of this SLS thread, the craft in question would be Crew Dragon as a tourist vessel vs Orion's EM-1, sans crew. One, I don't see it (round the Moon tourist flight) happening in that timeframe, and 2, D2 is as much a NASA craft as the Apollo CSM (or the CST-100). NASA has very specific requirements, and contractors build to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 Even though the moon tourism probably won't happen in 2018, it will certainly happen before 2023. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 I’ll believe the moon flight when it’s on the manifest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insert_name Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 1 hour ago, tater said: I’ll believe the moon flight when it’s on the manifest. at least its closer to being a reality than EM-2, the rocket needed is in the process of being integrated right now, whereas many sls parts are nowhere near ready for launch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 True. The one thing about SLS that is most baffling is the ICPS, and the resultant mess to the mobile launcher and VAB, incurring time (and money) penalties. No all-up test until EM-2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Phil Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 8 minutes ago, tater said: True. The one thing about SLS that is most baffling is the ICPS, and the resultant mess to the mobile launcher and VAB, incurring time (and money) penalties. No all-up test until EM-2. I've heard from some guys at MSFC that ICPS will be used for Europa Clipper. Not sure about that though. But even EM-2 isn't an all up test. SLS is intended to be an evolvable vehicle. Block 1 => Block 1B => Block 2. And Block 2 may never fly. And according to Wikipedia, EM-2 and Europa-Clipper will both fly in 2022... NASA could launch 2 per year if they had enough payloads to fill in that schedule and a sufficiently sized budget to do so. But that's as unlikely as... well, NASA getting more funding... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 The plan is to alter the mobile launcher and VAB for the EUS, which takes 33 months. EM-2 and Europa Clipper could not possibly fly the same year, the latter would have to fly right after EM-1, because once they change the launcher and VAB infrastructure, it's done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightside Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 8 minutes ago, tater said: Europa Clipper Europa will fly on SLS in 2022; it’s the law! http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2017/20171128-clipper-slipper.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canopus Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 From all i‘ve seen, Europa Clipper should fly on Block 1b with an EUS. So it may be possible to fly both in the same year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Baron Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 12 hours ago, DAL59 said: Which is my point Nasa's inefficiency is a systemic thing in all of the institutions driven by the public hand. That is not really news. Nevertheless these institutions usually can take a lot more money in hand than most private companies ever could dream of. Subject to slight changes only every legislative period ... period. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 14 hours ago, DAL59 said: Many of SpaceX's payloads are non-Nasa though. But not enough to handle entry in the market, likely. NASA’s Commercial Crew provided a valuable cash infusion and an achievable goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canopus Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 http://spacenews.com/deep-space-gateway-key-part-of-updated-exploration-roadmap/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Baron Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 The idea of a station around the moon sounds like the logical next step to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canopus Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 The only problem i have is that they already want to focus on Mars in the 30s. I‘d rather see them focusing on manned Polar or Farside Landings. I just don‘t get the whole rush to get to mars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSEP Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 1 minute ago, Canopus said: The only problem i have is that they already want to focus on Mars in the 30s. I‘d rather see them focusing on manned Polar or Farside Landings. I just don‘t get the whole rush to get to mars. Agreed. I think its sort of over the top to get straight for Mars. I think we should go and build a Science Base on Luna so we can learn about the effects of radiation and low gravity during long periods of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Baron Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 Collecting exactly that data is probably the main reasons for such a station, at least for the early phases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 2 hours ago, Green Baron said: The idea of a station around the moon sounds like the logical next step to me. Except that the only orbit Orion can do is pretty much useless for exploring the Moon. It's just more ISS stuff, but in a worse radiation environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canopus Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 (edited) 9 minutes ago, tater said: Except that the only orbit Orion can do is pretty much useless for exploring the Moon. It's just more ISS stuff, but in a worse radiation environment. NRHO seems better than L2 and both are better than being stuck in LEO when it comes to exploring the moon. Edit: Boeing had a proposal for a Semi reusable lander stationed at the Exploration Gateway Platform at L2. The same concept should work at the DSG. Edited December 1, 2017 by Canopus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 1 minute ago, Canopus said: NRHO seems better than L2 and both are better than being stuck in LEO when it comes to exploring the moon. Except that they have nothing to get from there to the Moon itself, and the dv from there to LLO is high enough to make any lander huge. It's make-work for Orion. The whole thing is bizarre. They designed Orion originally (Constellation) to do everything (ISS transport, etc, since the competing capsule was CST-100), but since the SM was weak, Altair had to do the heavy lifting. Seems like a commercial crew vehicle with an orbital module would be more useful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canopus Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 6 minutes ago, tater said: Except that they have nothing to get from there to the Moon itself, and the dv from there to LLO is high enough to make any lander huge. It's make-work for Orion. The whole thing is bizarre. They designed Orion originally (Constellation) to do everything (ISS transport, etc, since the competing capsule was CST-100), but since the SM was weak, Altair had to do the heavy lifting. Seems like a commercial crew vehicle with an orbital module would be more useful. The idea was to send an additional stage including spare propellant for the lander alongside an Orion, meet the lander at L2, refuel it and mate it with the stage. Then you use that additional stage to translate to LLO and perform most of the Landing. An interesting concept and i think one worth reinvestigating. Especially since something like the ACES could very well fill the place of that additional stage while giving the private sector something to do. As for Altair, i guess the idea was that it could perform missions without the Orion in order to place cargo on the moon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 (edited) Crazy idea, but what if you attach Orion's SM to a crew Dragon? It would probably have enough dv to land from LLO, since it's much lighter than Orion. Edited December 1, 2017 by sh1pman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Augustus_ Posted December 1, 2017 Author Share Posted December 1, 2017 (edited) NASA has decided that they need to come up with real payloads for SLS, not all of them DSG http://spacenews.com/deep-space-gateway-key-part-of-updated-exploration-roadmap/ I think these comments really sum it up: Quote Since NASA’s first flight of its heavy-lift Space Launch System with an Orion capsule is scheduled for as soon as late 2019, it’s time to decide “what we are going to do with these vehicles,” Kathy Laurini, NASA senior adviser for exploration and space operations, said... I'd like to say something witty here, but the fact that any NASA employee can say something like this with a straight face just fills me with incredible sadness. Quote Yeah, it's pretty sad. By the time the Shuttle became operational it had something like 40 payloads on it's manifest. The SLS only has one, and that was taken from Atlas V. And any HSF hardware is going to take some years to design, build, and test before launch, so I think they are being very optimistic with their timelines. Let's remember that it will have taken 18 years for NASA to build an upsized version of the Apollo capsule, so I don't see how any HSF hardware would be ready before 2030 - especially if it doesn't get funded in FY2019. Quote Exploration? Rubbish. Expensive trips to Nowhere in the excuse of Doing Something? Oh, yes! Most assuredly! Also, an interesting op-ed: http://spacenews.com/op-ed-a-house-divided-or-in-this-case-a-rocket/ Edited December 1, 2017 by _Augustus_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts