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

[Robotengineer]

That's good news, but of course it's right before the 2016 election so when the next group of politicians come to Washington in 2017 they may reverse everything and mess it all up. For now it is good news though. NASA's budget shouldn't be a year to year thing, it should be closer to a 5-10 year budget plan. 

[Hysterrics]

19 minutes ago, Robotengineer said:

That's good news, but of course it's right before the 2016 election so when the next group of politicians come to Washington in 2017 they may reverse everything and mess it all up. For now it is good news though. NASA's budget shouldn't be a year to year thing, it should be closer to a 5-10 year budget plan. 

It's always a shame when I hear that space travel is useless, considering a field in space travel(not astronaut) is my desired study in the future. Even worse when you hear the leaders of your country say it's less important than [insert other political issue here]. Regardless, I'm not trying to turn this into a political debate, just me complaining that people hate space.

[PB666]

2 minutes ago, Sequinox said:

It's always a shame when I hear that space travel is useless, considering a field in space travel(not astronaut) is my desired study in the future. Even worse when you hear the leaders of your country say it's less important than [insert other political issue here]. Regardless, I'm not trying to turn this into a political debate, just me complaining that people hate space.

The most important weapon to an army is legistical support. You have to feed, educate, and employ people before you can engage in higher ventures. Having siad that the most important point for the current congress is how much taxes they can reduce for their higher contribution constituents. Your future career is like a restaurant at the end of time to them. 

[Kerbol Macrosystems]

17 hours ago, ChrisSpace said:

Perhaps China and SpaceX are our only hopes now

Help us Elon Muskenobi, you're our only hope!

 

Maybe Ted Cruz (current chairman of the subcommittee of science and space) started playing KSP, then realized space is awesome and the only way to do it is with more funds.

[hieywiey]

Can we please have a Titan rover? 

Mars is overrated! 

[fredinno]

28 minutes ago, hieywiey said:

Can we please have a Titan rover? 

Mars is overrated! 

Discovery program is more important.

[cantab]

It's gotta actually be passed by Congress first.

There's obvious pork going on too. NASA banned from human-rating the ICPS? The only reason I can see to do that is to make sure the EUS builders get their moolah.

[_Augustus_]

A Europa LANDER?

Hell yeah!

[Spaceception]

2 minutes ago, cantab said:

It's gotta actually be passed by Congress first.

There's obvious pork going on too. NASA banned from human-rating the ICPS? The only reason I can see to do that is to make sure the EUS builders get their moolah.

So far it's a "So far, so good" thing right now, I REALLY hope it passes!

[fredinno]

4 minutes ago, cantab said:

It's gotta actually be passed by Congress first.

There's obvious pork going on too. NASA banned from human-rating the ICPS? The only reason I can see to do that is to make sure the EUS builders get their moolah.

No, it's because NASA literally plans no missions for Orion launched on Block I after EM-1, as Block IB is supposed to be the SLS powerhouse (not to mention SLS Block I can't send Orion to a Low Lunar Orbit). Pork would be funding a human-rated SLS Block I. Actually, Block I is pork- all missions are using Block IB or Block II as baselines, and Block I's only purpose , aside from launching Europa Clipper and Uranus Orbiter (which I showed could launch on a modified Expendable Falcon Heavy w/o using any flybys) is so that SLS can be tested earlier.

8 minutes ago, _Augustus_ said:

A Europa LANDER?

Hell yeah!

Where? Russia planned (not anymore) a Ganymede lander, which was moved from Europa due to intense radiation. Europa Clipper is a Europa Flyby probe with at least 40 flybys or so of Europa,depending on its lifespan.

[CaelumEtAstra]

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.

[JedTech]

On 12/16/2015, 11:30:50, Spaceception said:

"All these worlds are yours except Europa, attempt no landing there" Yeah right, Europa, prepare to get a taste of Democracy, Nexter style!!!

This Europa mission is worth its price if it can stop people from continually quoting this line every time Europa is mentioned.

[Frida Space]

2 hours ago, fredinno said:

Where? Russia planned (not anymore) a Ganymede lander, which was moved from Europa due to intense radiation. Europa Clipper is a Europa Flyby probe with at least 40 flybys or so of Europa,depending on its lifespan.

Indeed NASA was studying a flyby mission, however this Omnibus bill gives extra money to NASA on the agreement that they study an orbiter + lander mission instead.

Edited December 17, 2015 by Frida Space

[tg626]

I'd imagine this was partly due to the Russian declaration that they were going to put a female crew on the moon.  In which case, good.  Let Moon Race MkII commence!

[fredinno]

11 minutes ago, tg626 said:

I'd imagine this was partly due to the Russian declaration that they were going to put a female crew on the moon.  In which case, good.  Let Moon Race MkII commence!

Russia no longer has the budget, Rocosmos got their budget cut by half.

15 minutes ago, Frida Space said:

Indeed NASA was studying a flyby mission, however this Omnibus bill gives extra money to NASA on the agreement that they study an orbiter + lander mission instead.

A small, short-lived powered lander might be possible (Europa's horizon reduces radiation by half), but would increase the cost. Are impactors that are designed to survive Europa impact (allowing study of Europa under some ice, giving it more radiation shielding) considered landers? Those would probably last for longer, as long as it has RTGs, not to mention it can do some underground studies from that vantage point.

 

Also, "Orbiter" from all the news sites I found, implies a Jupiter Orbiter, doing mutiple flybys of Europa. So, they are now just placing a lander on the original concept of Europa Clipper.

Edited December 17, 2015 by fredinno

[okan170]

6 hours ago, 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.

Fortunately, the NASA budget part of this bill is not one of the contested items.  If it were vetoed and sent back, the NASA budget would likely be transferred intact to the next version since nobody is fighting over it (except maybe the tangentially-related RD-180 ban).

[Robotengineer]

On December 17, 2015 at 0:36 PM, Kerbol Macrosystems said:

Help us Elon Muskenobi, you're our only hope!

 

Maybe Ted Cruz (current chairman of the subcommittee of science and space) started playing KSP, then realized space is awesome and the only way to do it is with more funds.

Cruz thinks space is awesome, in this way:

He doesn't care about science, or at least not science that disagree with his beliefs. 

Edited December 22, 2015 by Robotengineer
Figured out image insertion in new editor. :face palm:

[More Boosters]

That's why riders should be out completely.

[Rune]

18 hours ago, cantab said:

It's gotta actually be passed by Congress first.

There's obvious pork going on too. NASA banned from human-rating the ICPS? The only reason I can see to do that is to make sure the EUS builders get their moolah.

 

Yup, if you look at it closely, the lion's share of the increase goes towards CaLV Ares V SLS, A.K.A. the four amigos. Still, the fact that those programs stopped dragging down the rest of the agency, is a good thing. Now the only thing left to do, as K. Cowing put it, is to "see if they can stop moving the timelines to the left".

 

21 hours ago, Streetwind said:

Well, the SLS is the big jobs program. Of course it'll get pushed, as usual.

But! That's basically what the Europa mission budget is about. NASA asked for for 30m to start planning a flyby mission, and they got 175m for an orbiter/lander pair instead... with one caveat: it must launch on the SLS. Which is not all that bad an idea anyway, since an orbiter/lander pair requires more spacecraft mass than a flyby probe.

It's also a boon for us, since that gives Congress a real reason to commit to keeping the mission funded in the years to come. SLS needs a payload, and here's one; better not cancel it!

 

Yeah, and after the Europa mission is on its way? SLS can only be considered "successful" if it amortizes the humongous development cost already sunk into it.That means dozens if not hundreds of launches. Where will this Congress' words be when the Europa mission has launched?

 

Rune. And launching it once a year is not enough either, then fixed costs get you.

[Zucal]

Quote

That means dozens if not hundreds of launches.

Please prove that.

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, Rune said:

 

Yup, if you look at it closely, the lion's share of the increase goes towards CaLV Ares V SLS, A.K.A. the four amigos. Still, the fact that those programs stopped dragging down the rest of the agency, is a good thing. Now the only thing left to do, as K. Cowing put it, is to "see if they can stop moving the timelines to the left".

 

Yeah, and after the Europa mission is on its way? SLS can only be considered "successful" if it amortizes the humongous development cost already sunk into it.That means dozens if not hundreds of launches. Where will this Congress' words be when the Europa mission has launched?

 

Rune. And launching it once a year is not enough either, then fixed costs get you.

SLS was done so far in a way it would allow the next president to decide what mission it will undertake, as SLS will make its first flights under his/her term (by then, it would be too far to be canned, barring economic failure, like the Soviet Union and Energia-Buran.

[Nibb31]

SLS development costs $10 billion. Pad infrastructure upgrades are $2 billion. Then, the unit cost for each launch is $500 000 (low estimate).

If you only launch it a dozen times, then each launch will have cost the taxpayer $1.5 billion, which is 6 times the cost of a Delta IV Heavy and 15 times the cost of a F9H.

However, there are only 3 launches planned: EM-1, EM-2, and maybe the Europa Clipper. Anything beyond that is speculation at this point.

 

[fredinno]

48 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

SLS development costs $10 billion. Pad infrastructure upgrades are $2 billion. Then, the unit cost for each launch is $500 000 (low estimate).

If you only launch it a dozen times, then each launch will have cost the taxpayer $1.5 billion, which is 6 times the cost of a Delta IV Heavy and 15 times the cost of a F9H.

However, there are only 3 launches planned: EM-1, EM-2, and maybe the Europa Clipper. Anything beyond that is speculation at this point.

 

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.

[GeneCash]

On 12/16/2015, 9:39:19, KerbonautInTraining said:

Side note: SpaceX return to flight is aiming to launch this Saturday. Am I the only one who is underwhelmed by the amount of hype?

Yes, but apparently the supercooled LOX to eke out a few more ISP is giving them big headaches, so they're wanting to stay under the media radar as much as possible. Musk says -340F, lowest ever, and "it worked in Texas" (AKA "it worked in sandbox mode"  )

[cantab]

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.