US Space Budget: Hell-Has-Frozen-Over Edition

[fredinno]

7 minutes ago, cantab said:

I would judge SLS as successful if it launches useful missions that other rockets could not have achieved. The only other thing in its class is Falcon Heavy, but SLS can launch heavier and wider payloads. Cost is less of an issue when there's no alternative.

NASA's own studies actually say 8m diameter fairing is too small for their Manned Mars landers. Imagine how much of a problem it would be for FH's 5m diameter fairings!

Generally all landers need pretty big fairings.

Edited December 18, 2015 by fredinno

[Rune]

 

5 hours ago, Zucal said:

Please prove that.

Well, it's an opinion of course, but Nibb31 did a fine job for me. I don't know how accurate his numbers are (development in particular seems low), but he gets the point across, even with a good payload/launch cost ratio, it'll take a lot of launches to amortize it... just like any launcher.

4 hours ago, fredinno said:

You really think those will be the last missions? You do realize NASA has not really been working on Mars because of the fact they know that the goals will probably change next term. As I said earlier, the missions are supposed to be fully fleshed out once the next administration makes an actual goal for it- since these goals change so much.

You also forgot EM-3, aka ARM.

That could indeed work... if the next administration manages to keep on increasing NASA's budget. If the budget stalls or falls down, something will have to give, and the giant rocket will soon drown NASA with fixed infrastructure costs. You could say the money spent on ISS could sustain it... but only if you deorbit the ISS, and at least that has stuff going up and down, and generates major political points. At least SLS will keep the SSME technology alive and improving, there's that, and I admit that the Block IB is one smexy booster, diameter-wise.

 

Rune. The telescopes that would fit it...

[fredinno]

2 hours ago, Rune said:

 

Well, it's an opinion of course, but Nibb31 did a fine job for me. I don't know how accurate his numbers are (development in particular seems low), but he gets the point across, even with a good payload/launch cost ratio, it'll take a lot of launches to amortize it... just like any launcher.

That could indeed work... if the next administration manages to keep on increasing NASA's budget. If the budget stalls or falls down, something will have to give, and the giant rocket will soon drown NASA with fixed infrastructure costs. You could say the money spent on ISS could sustain it... but only if you deorbit the ISS, and at least that has stuff going up and down, and generates major political points. At least SLS will keep the SSME technology alive and improving, there's that, and I admit that the Block IB is one smexy booster, diameter-wise.

 

Rune. The telescopes that would fit it...

EM-2 is supposed to happen in 2021. Plenty of time to at least build up a basic moon lander+Orion Mission for 2023, for a landing on the near side of the Moon (especially since everything else is completed).

Edited December 19, 2015 by fredinno

[YNM]

On 12/18/2015, 5:11:20, Mrsupersonic8 said:

Not to rain on your parade or anything, but I found out the CISA we tried to kill is in this Omnibus.

It really puts us in a pickle; if we pass it, CISA will exist, but if we don't, NASA doesn't have a budget. This sucks.

Hmm... Surprised that your gov't funding is as "crappy" as ours. I respect the fact that your political parties views are more diverse (like, what did one of your presidential candidates say to a religion ?) - quite surprised it's equally crappy for funding. Hopefully the parties will "fix" that.

Politics aside, does anyone have a latest update on "Supposedly Happening Future US SPAAACE Mission" chart / anything ? Have they really lost the nerves for pulling in iron ore... I mean asteroids to Earth / Moon orbit ? Also, Mars thingy is still too obscure ?

Edited December 19, 2015 by YNM

[Nibb31]

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

EM-2 is supposed to happen in 2021. Plenty of time to at least build up a basic moon lander+Orion Mission for 2023, for a landing on the near side of the Moon (especially since everything else is completed).

Not really, no. It takes pretty much a decade to develop any new major spacecraft, and lander is no exception. That means that I don't see how they could develop a Moon lander any earlier than 2025, which is 4 years after EM-2. A whole other presidential cycle.

One launch every 4 years (or even every 2 years if they manage to fit Europa Clipper in between) is not enough to amortize the infrastructure. With no payloads in the pipe, SLS is a sure candidate for cancellation after EM-2, but probably before that.

[_Augustus_]

10 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Not really, no. It takes pretty much a decade to develop any new major spacecraft, and lander is no exception. That means that I don't see how they could develop a Moon lander any earlier than 2025, which is 4 years after EM-2. A whole other presidential cycle.

One launch every 4 years (or even every 2 years if they manage to fit Europa Clipper in between) is not enough to amortize the infrastructure. With no payloads in the pipe, SLS is a sure candidate for cancellation after EM-2, but probably before that.

No. There's also the Uranus orbiter, the EML2 space station, the interstellar/Sedna probe, and prototype MEMs.

I think that the Mars Excursion Module will be tested by being used for an Aitken or Tsiolkovsky landing.

And why would it be cancelled?

[Nibb31]

None of those payloads are funded or committed to. They are notional concepts at best with no political or financial backing. From the moment Congress gives the kick-off to the moment they are ready for launch, you need to count 10 years.

When you have an infrastructure that costs you $2 billion per year just in maintenance, and you only use it every 2 years, it just doesn't make sense to keep it. At one point, someone is going to notice the money sink and shut it down. 

[fredinno]

5 minutes ago, _Augustus_ said:

No. There's also the Uranus orbiter, the EML2 space station, the interstellar/Sedna probe, and prototype MEMs.

I think that the Mars Excursion Module will be tested by being used for an Aitken or Tsiolkovsky landing.

And why would it be cancelled?

MEMs have not even really reached planning stages.

The Uranus Orbiter has not been funded yet (but you can bet your ass it will be on SLS when it is made), and there is no Interstellar probe under development.

 

Lunar Orbital Space Stations have undergone some planning, and would be the easiest way to make a missions for SLS, but whether it happens depends on politics.

20 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Not really, no. It takes pretty much a decade to develop any new major spacecraft, and lander is no exception. That means that I don't see how they could develop a Moon lander any earlier than 2025, which is 4 years after EM-2. A whole other presidential cycle.

One launch every 4 years (or even every 2 years if they manage to fit Europa Clipper in between) is not enough to amortize the infrastructure. With no payloads in the pipe, SLS is a sure candidate for cancellation after EM-2, but probably before that.

After EM-1, SLS/Orion (At least Block I) is pretty much complete. Congress would likely rather increase NASA's budget to accelerate development of a mission at that point, rather than suffer the political (not to mention contractor and public) distaste of losing a jobs program that is already nearly up and running.

[Streetwind]

Small but important update:

After both senate and house voted in favor of the omnibus bill, the White House just signed it into law. (Source)

[Findthepin1]

I don't get this, we can go to the Moon with 1960s tech, why haven't we? Why do they bother making new things to go to the Moon in?

[insert_name]

7 minutes ago, Findthepin1 said:

I don't get this, we can go to the Moon with 1960s tech, why haven't we? Why do they bother making new things to go to the Moon in?

because we no longer build Saturn V rockets

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, insert_name said:

because we no longer build Saturn V rockets

And new rockets can do more for less- they would also probably be more safe.

Saturn V had serious pogo oscillation problems.

[Nibb31]

On 12/18/2015 at 7:00 PM, fredinno said:

You really think those will be the last missions? You do realize NASA has not really been working on Mars because of the fact they know that the goals will probably change next term. As I said earlier, the missions are supposed to be fully fleshed out once the next administration makes an actual goal for it- since these goals change so much.

You also forgot EM-3, aka ARM.

ARM has not been authorized by the US Congress. There is still no development funding for the mission hardware.

Requesting a new space policy will not be among the first decisions of the next administration. If there are any space policy changes, they won't happen until at least two years into the next mandate.

So there won't be any funding decisions made for any BEO missions for the next couple of years. Add the 10-year lead time that it takes to complete any major aerospace these days, and you'll see that the SLS will be sitting around for years with no payloads.

With no flights, high infrastructure maintenance costs, and no major payloads that are relying on it, it is a prime candidate for cancellation.

11 hours ago, Findthepin1 said:

I don't get this, we can go to the Moon with 1960s tech, why haven't we? Why do they bother making new things to go to the Moon in?

Because there aren't any Apollo rockets left. The lines were shut down, the tooling was scrapped, the suppliers have disappeared. You can't revive 1960's technology because manufacturing processes and materials have changed. You would need to redesign every single part with modern techniques and materials, which would be more expensive and less efficient than redesigning from scratch based on today's technology. Which is basically what they are doing with SLS.

[fredinno]

7 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

There is still no development funding for the mission hardware.

Yes, there is:http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/11/nasa-awards-contracts-deep-space-advanced-propulsion-systems/

Granted, the mission as a whole is still not funded, so it is more prone to cancellation.

7 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

Requesting a new space policy will not be among the first decisions of the next administration. If there are any space policy changes, they won't happen until at least two years into the next mandate.

Obama announced a replacement for Constellation only a year into his presidency- And the year of wait time was for the Augustine committee to justify that decision

 

7 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

So there won't be any funding decisions made for any BEO missions for the next couple of years. Add the 10-year lead time that it takes to complete any major aerospace these days, and you'll see that the SLS will be sitting around for years with no payloads.

It depends on the scale of these projects- how big are the projects you are talking about? Work on modern large lunar landers has already been done with Morpheus- the lessons from that could be scaled up. Not to mention a Lunar Space Station could use leftover ISS hardware.

7 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

With no flights, high infrastructure maintenance costs, and no major payloads that are relying on it, it is a prime candidate for cancellation.

Say that to the Space Shuttle while it was being made.

7 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

revive 1960's technology because manufacturing processes and materials have changed. You would need to redesign every single part with modern techniques and materials, which would be more expensive and less efficient than redesigning from scratch based on today's technology. Which is basically what they are doing with SLS.

No, it's based off Space Shuttle hardware. Constellation was doing it from scratch.

[Nibb31]

3 hours ago, fredinno said:

Yes, there is:http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/11/nasa-awards-contracts-deep-space-advanced-propulsion-systems/

Granted, the mission as a whole is still not funded, so it is more prone to cancellation.

That's still technology development. As you say, there is nothing about ARM that is funded. NASA doesn't have authorization from Congress to proceed with the ARM mission. In fact, nobody seems to even be mentioning it any more... 

Quote

Obama announced a replacement for Constellation only a year into his presidency- And the year of wait time was for the Augustine committee to justify that decision

Yes, and any decision from the next administration will also be preceeded by some sort of committee report (you don't cancel a multi-billion dollar program without spending a few million on an expert commission). Which means that you won't get any decision before at least a year.

Quote

It depends on the scale of these projects- how big are the projects you are talking about? Work on modern large lunar landers has already been done with Morpheus- the lessons from that could be scaled up. Not to mention a Lunar Space Station could use leftover ISS hardware.

BEO payloads for a heavy launch vehicle will have to be large projects, which means that they will have to be expensive, which means that the decisions to start them won't be easy to make. That's why there have been no decisions yet. The more Congress waits, the more SLS is going to sit in a hangar waiting for something to launch. This isn't exactly a problem for them, because what the politicians want is for NASA to pay big juicy development contracts to their constituants. What happens after the development phase ends isn't their problem.

The problem is that every large project takes years to arrive from inception to launch, and NASA doesn't have the money to run several large development projects at the same time, which means that there is no way SLS will ever have a large mission to launch every year, which means that it will always be sitting around wasting money while waiting for payloads. 

Morpheus was a small scale lander, mainly to study landing technology and software. To scale it up as a manned lander would still be major 10-year development project. And there is no leftover hardware from the ISS.

Quote

Say that to the Space Shuttle while it was being made.

STS actually had plenty of payloads and missions lined up while it was being designed. It turned out that many of them were unrealistic, but it was nothing like the emptiness of SLS's manifest.

Quote

No, it's based off Space Shuttle hardware. Constellation was doing it from scratch.

On 12/18/2015 at 7:00 PM, fredinno said:

 

 

Constellation was also based on STS hardware.

Edited December 20, 2015 by Nibb31

[Robotengineer]

21 hours ago, insert_name said:

because we no longer build Saturn V rockets

Not really, it's because we are no longer in a space race. There is also no real point to going to the Moon unless we establish a permanent base, and there isn't a really good reason to establish a base currently. 

[Rune]

On 19/12/2015 at 1:37 AM, fredinno said:

EM-2 is supposed to happen in 2021. Plenty of time to at least build up a basic moon lander+Orion Mission for 2023, for a landing on the near side of the Moon (especially since everything else is completed).

No feaking way. A lander is a 10-year development project, and nothing of the sort will be started next year. Block I won't be powerful enough if it has to launch the fat Orion, and developing block IB takes the money form any lander program. In the meantime, SLS waits in the metaphorical hangar, as Nibb says. And somebody else's reusable launch system keeps stacking up mission numbers.

Maybe, with luck, some form of limited LOS, perhaps married to or as a substitute of ARM. Politicians must know station projects are long-term development pork by now. That could be a way to keep SLS flying, with russian cores and italian-made modules.

 

Rune. It has happened before...

[Aser]

I'm happy for the increased NASA funding and all, but when dealing with the US congress, don't forget to look a gift horse in the mouth. (CISA)