Where will we be in terms of Space exploration in 10 years? (Very Optimistically)

[Hannu2]

OK. I think that we can not achieve agreement. Time will show who are more right.

[KSK]

57 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

In 10 years, ISS will be end of life, and therefore so will the commercial crew and cargo programs.

I don't see how this can ever be cost effective for random space junk. How much are you going to spend to go after something the size of a screwdriver or a bolt? It's easier to make disposal part of the mission profile and to minimize debris by design.

Soyuz/Progress demonstrated that decades ago.

 

If we're being optimistic anyway, lets extend the ISS lifetime. If not, lets put that first point in the past tense and hope that it led to something productive.

Regarding space junk, I agree that minimising debris by design is the most sensible option going forward but that doesn't do much about the stuff up there already. Cost effective is difficult to judge but I agree that Commercial Cleanup is unlikely to be profitable, which is why I made it a government program. The idea being to do something useful whilst providing another objective/stimulus to the developing private space sector.

On the last point - great, that's one thing I can tick off the list. Now lets scale it up and see what else can be done with it!

[fredinno]

11 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Congressional committee says NASA’s Mars mission is in critical need of a plan

9 hours ago, KSK said:

Very optimistically?

Not going to bother doing this year by year but after 10 years, this would be my wishlist. I'm not fussed about which company or agency does what but I think it's fairly obvious who would be involved for some of these.

• Commercial crew and commercial cargo to ISS both well established with at least two competitors in each program. NASA gets to keep any savings to plough back into Cool Space Stuff.
• D-Prize won. Objective - to demonstrate cost effective deorbiting of space junk. Commercial Clean-up established on the same basis as Commercial Crew and Commercial Cargo programs.
• Orbital refueling demonstrated. First propellant depot established in space.
• First privately operated space station completed and continuously occupied by paying customers.
• Lunar Tourist Transporter in operation. Flies free-return trajectories around the Moon (later upgrading to Apollo 8 style lunar orbit flights) before returning to Earth orbit.
• SABRE engine successfully tested. Work begins on testbed spaceplane.
• Prototype solar power satellite launched.

Maybe some of that isn't terribly glamorous but I'm hoping for something to kickstart the development of orbital infrastructure and a more robust spaceflight industry in general. Actually, that's not quite right - a more diversified spaceflight industry would be a better way of putting it. Probably not going to happen but hey - that's why I called it a wishlist.

- Unless ISS somehow is extended far beyond 2028, which is unlikely, that's not happening. The CCrew companies may still stay in the game, but for orbital space tourism, possibly to a small space hotel. In either case, either CST-100 or Dragon has to die, or possibly both, as there really is not enough market,  even optimistically, to support both.

- D-Prize and Commerical clean-up will not happen, since it's not economical. Is it economical to clean up litter by the sidewalk? No, that's usually done by volunteers for a reason.

- But first, you need to make reusable space tugs! (hopefully ION, then they can be used for Orion/SLS too.)

- Lunar tourism will not happen any time soon. Even orbital tourism is only accessible by the richest of the rich, how do you expect them to get to the MOON? (Especially since they will demand a lot of stuff, and can't be placed in a mercury or Gemini-sized capsule.)

- Solar power sats in space will always be a dream. They are not economical in any sense, and by the time they become useful for exporting power, Fusion power will go into the scene, and any company doing orbital solar would be bankrupted by being undercutted.

Edited February 5, 2016 by fredinno

[KSK]

Yes, which is why I included numerous statements to the effect of 'not going to happen but it would be nice if it did.'

Did people miss the 'optimistic' part of this thread title? Or did somebody rename it 'post your optimistic ideas about space flight and have them dumped on from a height' whilst I wasn't looking?

 

 

[Spaceception]

32 minutes ago, KSK said:

Yes, which is why I included numerous statements to the effect of 'not going to happen but it would be nice if it did.'

Did people miss the 'optimistic' part of this thread title? Or did somebody rename it 'post your optimistic ideas about space flight and have them dumped on from a height' whilst I wasn't looking?

Rep to you if I had any.

[tater]

The thread said "very optimistic," not "rediculous," but the very first post was off the rails from line one of the timeline (30 SpaceX launches this year, mostly reused when they are scheduled for 14, none reused (and none likely to be)).

If started a thread titled "Plausible manned space missions for 2020" and my list included a VASIMR trip to Mars I've just removed "plausible" from my title effectively.

[Jar Jar Jeb]

Elon Musk has not even released his "plans" for mars missions and also mct will not be coming anytime soon we don't even know what it looks like other than it will be a super big mamma rocket with methane however nasa is going to need REAL FREAKING plan if it wants to go to mars before 2050. honestly i think that a moon base would be a much better idea for how to spend the next 10 years in space honestly before we can even think about manned mars missons we need to demonstrate that humans can live on the surface of another rock isolated and relatively self sufficient using chemicals and materials found in situ and using them to sustain the base. why? because you would know that AFTER you land on mars you need to find a way to survive the wait for earth and mars to be in the position for your space ship to return home but we don't have a base on another body in our solar system yet so its hard to say we can have a temporary base on mars. Which is why we should have a moon base first and also a cis lunar space station which nasa wants to have. But if you want nasa to be useful to manned space exploration in the near future increase nasa's budget to atleast 1% and decrease millitary spending because we all know that we can lose a little bit of our defense budget safely and killing other human beings sucks.but anyway spacex will have to start reusing there rockets after working for there clients before im convinced so be i will be weary of the spacex mars in 2020 ridiculous hype.

 

[KSK]

3 hours ago, tater said:

The thread said "very optimistic," not "rediculous," but the very first post was off the rails from line one of the timeline (30 SpaceX launches this year, mostly reused when they are scheduled for 14, none reused (and none likely to be)).

If started a thread titled "Plausible manned space missions for 2020" and my list included a VASIMR trip to Mars I've just removed "plausible" from my title effectively.

Fine. In which case, a friendlier and more productive response (in terms of generating a decent debate) would have been to point that out and then put forward an alternative. Instead I see a lot of point by point shooting down of people's posts and precious little else offered in counter example. 

Anyhow - I'm done with this thread. 

Edited February 6, 2016 by KSK

[fredinno]

46 minutes ago, Jar Jar Jeb said:

Elon Musk has not even released his "plans" for mars missions and also mct will not be coming anytime soon we don't even know what it looks like other than it will be a super big mamma rocket with methane however nasa is going to need REAL FREAKING plan if it wants to go to mars before 2050. honestly i think that a moon base would be a much better idea for how to spend the next 10 years in space honestly before we can even think about manned mars missons we need to demonstrate that humans can live on the surface of another rock isolated and relatively self sufficient using chemicals and materials found in situ and using them to sustain the base. why? because you would know that AFTER you land on mars you need to find a way to survive the wait for earth and mars to be in the position for your space ship to return home but we don't have a base on another body in our solar system yet so its hard to say we can have a temporary base on mars. Which is why we should have a moon base first and also a cis lunar space station which nasa wants to have. But if you want nasa to be useful to manned space exploration in the near future increase nasa's budget to atleast 1% and decrease millitary spending because we all know that we can lose a little bit of our defense budget safely and killing other human beings sucks.but anyway spacex will have to start reusing there rockets after working for there clients before im convinced so be i will be weary of the spacex mars in 2020 ridiculous hype.

 

Killing others is more politically important than space.

[Rakaydos]

2016: SpaceX demonstrates Reliable F9 1st stage recovery. First FH launches, demonstrates booster recovery. Core stage recovery has issues. MCT platform announced.

2017: Reliable FH core stage recovery. First reuse of a returned F9 1st stage.

2018: MCT factory produces it's first Raptor Engine. Use of returned F9/FH stages becomes routine. Broadband internet superconstilations come online as a revenue source for SpaceX.

2019: First MCT launch to LEO and deorbit. MCT first stage RTLS and examined, MCT Supercapsule recovered and examined. Second MCT supercapsule docked to Space Station to test long term habitatability.

2020: First test of MCT(tanker)/MCT(payload) on-orbit refueling. SpaceX uses MCT to deploy a bare bones Kevlar EML1/lunar surface elevator in a single launch, begins charging for F9+elevator rides for lunar access.

2022-23: First manned martian flyby with MCT, configued for 12 months of sub-lightminute teleoperation of martian rovers. Begin sending supplies/ISRU equipment for a future manned landing. Lunar elevator expanded, manned lunar base established.

2025: First manned martian landing, testing habitat design and local resource use.

[Emperor of the Titan Squid]

I have to remind you that oSIRUS-Rex isnt the asteroid redirect mission.I also feel that we should make a lunar orbit space station,which would support deep space and lunar surface ops.The first mars mission being one-way is a bad idea,because there could be unexpected problems.I say that the first mars mission should be a NASA led mission, using a nuclear powered, art-g equipped, SpaceX built craft.We really need a spaceplane,too  

[UmbralRaptor]

Space exploration (not building rockets and sending humans up) in 2026 if things go well?

Curiosity is still operational, though it's unclear if it will break Opportunity's record. In either case, it has been somewhat overshadowed by the 2020 rover, and geological discoveries of InSIGHT.

JWST is still active, having had a substantial warm phase. WFIRST is either already up, or will be soon. Both are coordinating with LSST, resulting in impressive discoveries in terms of comets, KBOs, asteroids, exoplanets, supernova, population III stars, early galaxy formation, and many other things. Relatedly, Planet 9 has been found, and appears to be a super-earth kicked out during solar system formation. Exploration plans are being proposed. Also, exoplanet populations are much better categorized, finally giving us a statistically meaningful understanding of the frequency, orbits, and physical properties of planets down to the mass of Mars and orbits of 3+ years.

Euclid is winding down primary operations, and has substantially improved our understanding of dark energy. (We can now distinguish between a cosmological constant and quintessence models)

Juno provided some big surprise about Jupiter, and helped resolve the water and atmosphere questions that have existed since the Galileo probe and SL-9 impacts.

Asteroid-wise, Hayabusa 2 and OSIRIS-Rex have dramatically improved our models of the smaller ones' history, makeup, etc. A mission to 16 Psyche is in the works (or has already launched!) to help fill in the gaps for terrestrial planet formation.

Venus and Mercury should also be on here, but I simply don't know enough about those missions. Ditto the plans of Japan, China, and India.

Laser comms are increasingly ubiquitous on craft leaving Earth's SOI, with exactly the expected gains in data returns and mass reduction.

The outer planets are not as neglected as feared in 2016.

 

 

More questionable, but closer to the informal topic:

SpaceX's reusability practices have resulted in their prices being half of what they were in 2016. Other launch services have made similar gains, and the market has turned out to be quite elastic. Multiple years in the 2020s have seen >100 launches per year, and breaking that 140ish of 1965 looks plausible. The idea of various large universities and/or foundations operating science instruments on-orbit is quite plausible, and has been done several times in the small scale. (UV telescopes perhaps?)

The ISS is winding down operations, but this is not cause for worry due to there being other (small) stations up. This means that commercial cargo/crew operations will outlive it.

At least one VASIMR engine has demonstrated >1000 hours of continuous operation, and the only thing stopping an operational use by the end of the decade is a lack of missions. But that will soon be solved. Ideally with ice giant orbiter missions powered by nuclear reactors.

Suborbital tourism is now a thriving business (with some elements of an extreme sport), rather than a joke. Similarly, the GLXP ended up with the second place finisher launching only a few months after the first, and both achieved their goals. These have also helped to push the university/foundation science operations forwards.

edit: Though as mentioned upthread, lots of stuff in this section could be recycled from a decade or 2 ago. (Remember when EELVs and the comm sat boom were going to reduce costs? How about the X-33 or Roton? Or when the X-Prize was going to create a whole new industry?)

Edited February 6, 2016 by UmbralRaptor

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, Rakaydos said:

2016: SpaceX demonstrates Reliable F9 1st stage recovery. First FH launches, demonstrates booster recovery. Core stage recovery has issues. MCT platform announced.

2017: Reliable FH core stage recovery. First reuse of a returned F9 1st stage.

2018: MCT factory produces it's first Raptor Engine. Use of returned F9/FH stages becomes routine. Broadband internet superconstilations come online as a revenue source for SpaceX.

2019: First MCT launch to LEO and deorbit. MCT first stage RTLS and examined, MCT Supercapsule recovered and examined. Second MCT supercapsule docked to Space Station to test long term habitatability.

2020: First test of MCT(tanker)/MCT(payload) on-orbit refueling. SpaceX uses MCT to deploy a bare bones Kevlar EML1/lunar surface elevator in a single launch, begins charging for F9+elevator rides for lunar access.

2022-23: First manned martian flyby with MCT, configued for 12 months of sub-lightminute teleoperation of martian rovers. Begin sending supplies/ISRU equipment for a future manned landing. Lunar elevator expanded, manned lunar base established.

2025: First manned martian landing, testing habitat design and local resource use.

You will need a lot more time to build MCT, TBH...

[fredinno]

9 minutes ago, UmbralRaptor said:

Venus and Mercury should also be on here, but I simply don't know enough about those missions. Ditto the plans of Japan, China, and India

-VERITAS is at Venus.

-BepiColombo has made several new discoveries about Mercury since going there a few years ago.

-Venera-D is planned to go to Venus in 5 years' time.

-India's Venus Orbiter deorbited.

- Chang'e Chinese Lunar program completed, as Chang'e 4-6 ended their missions. The Chinese are now sending missions to other bodies from the lessons from the Lunar Program.

-Astrobiotic sending 4th commericial Lunar Lander Mission, financed by NASA. A Orbiter is now being developed- these landers are made in support of the Lunar Program, testing things like ISRU before manned missions are launched.

-Luna-Glob is being launched to the Moon.

14 minutes ago, UmbralRaptor said:

The outer planets are not as neglected as feared in 2016.

-JUICE and Europa Clipper have launched on SLSs and are in transit (direct transit) to Jupiter.

-Trojan Tour and Rendevous Mission in transit to Jupiter Trojans.

15 minutes ago, UmbralRaptor said:

 

SpaceX's reusability practices have resulted in their prices being half of what they were in 2016. Other launch services have made similar gains, and the market has turned out to be quite elastic. Multiple years in the 2020s have seen >100 launches per year, and breaking that 140ish of 1965 looks plausible. The idea of various large universities and/or foundations operating science instruments on-orbit is quite plausible, and has been done several times in the small scale. (UV telescopes perhaps?)

I would say 75% cost reduction and >120 launches myself, but hey.

15 minutes ago, UmbralRaptor said:

 

At least one VASIMR engine has demonstrated >1000 hours of continuous operation, and the only thing stopping an operational use by the end of the decade is a lack of missions. But that will soon be solved. Ideally with ice giant orbiter missions powered by nuclear reactors.

Robotic VASMIR is likely never happening. It's only really worth it for manned missions, and space tugs, and outer solar system probes need nuclear reactors. Good luck getting those in operation.

 

Other things I'd add:
- SLS Lunar Orbital Station has been built.

- SLS/Orion Reusable Lunar Lander undergoing testing, and will launch next year to the Lunar space station. The lander has been made by ESA.

- Comet Nucleus Sample Return undergoing planning for launch in 5 years.

-H III, Ariane 6, Vulcan, Soyuz V, OrbitalATK EELV etc. all in use. Next-next-gen rockets being planned for partial reuse.

-Solar sails now well-understood and in use.

-Mars continues to be investigated in lots of scrutiny

-The Discovery Program has been extended to 2 missions selected every 2 years.

-Chinese Space station complete.

-Russian Space station finally launching node module. The space station will be built off entirely new components, as the ISS modules planned for both stations were never launched.

[PB666]

On 2/3/2016 at 5:34 PM, tater said:

A dark age of spaceflight would be LESS likely if SLS was cancelled.

Oh boy here we go again, its a free world but . . . . . . .

[tater]

9 hours ago, PB666 said:

Oh boy here we go again, its a free world but . . . . . . .

NASA is having trouble coming up with a single launch per year using SLS, and half or more of what they are proposing to do with it is fitting a mission to the booster, which is exactly the wrong way to do things. NASA would be better off, and accomplish more minus Ares V... sorry, SLS, and Orion.

Apollo mission pacing (of the Saturn V) was 14 flights (11 manned) in just over 4 years. If NASA had a plan that needed that kind of pacing (or anything remotely close) SLS would make sense. They don't, and it doesn't.

[fredinno]

8 hours ago, tater said:

NASA is having trouble coming up with a single launch per year using SLS, and half or more of what they are proposing to do with it is fitting a mission to the booster, which is exactly the wrong way to do things. NASA would be better off, and accomplish more minus Ares V... sorry, SLS, and Orion.

Apollo mission pacing (of the Saturn V) was 14 flights (11 manned) in just over 4 years. If NASA had a plan that needed that kind of pacing (or anything remotely close) SLS would make sense. They don't, and it doesn't.

It's really too freaking late at this point, you know. SLS is having its first flight in 2 years, and cancellation of this project puts NASA back to square one with its HSF projects, and wastes 8 years of work so far.

And Saturn V only ever launched a max of 7 times in 4 years. SLS really lacks missions right now because of the failure of the administration to get a reasonable near-term goal for the agency-

[tater]

21 minutes ago, fredinno said:

It's really too freaking late at this point, you know. SLS is having its first flight in 2 years, and cancellation of this project puts NASA back to square one with its HSF projects, and wastes 8 years of work so far.

I realize it's too late Congress has ruined things pretty well. In a fantasy world where anything is possible, however, canceling SLS doesn't hurt. If they were smart, they'd have dumped Orion in favor of an OTV (they called such a critter the EDS for Constellation, earlier it was the space tug) and maybe a lunar lander, and use commercial crew as the taxi to get crews to and from orbit.

Of course Congress is pathologically against orbital refueling for reasons that escape anyone with a brain comprised of more than 2 neurons held together with a spirochete,  so space tug is DOA.

 

Quote

And Saturn V only ever launched a max of 7 times in 4 years. SLS really lacks missions right now because of the failure of the administration to get a reasonable near-term goal for the agency- 

The 11 manned flights (moon program) all happened between 11 October, 1968, and 7 December 1972. That's 4 years and 2 months. If you want to be strict about it, 10 manned flights in 4 years. I have no idea where you are getting 7 launches in 4 years.

You can add 3 more manned missions (Skylab) for a total of 14 manned missions in 5 years, 1 month (obviously the last 3 being IB, not a V).

Saturn I did 10 launches in 4 years. There were 4 unmanned IB launches in 2 years, and 2 unmanned V launches in 2 and a half months. If we look at the calendar years 1968 to 1972, we have 13 Saturn V launches in those 5 years (2 unmanned).

 

Edited February 7, 2016 by tater

[fredinno]

18 minutes ago, tater said:

 

Of course Congress is pathologically against orbital refueling for reasons that escape anyone with a brain comprised of more than 2 neurons held together with a spirochete,  so space tug is DOA.

Orbital refueling is actually kind of a pain due to boil-off. Also, it was even more of a pain 8 years ago, when we didn't have IVF to simplify upper stages, removing the need of a pressurant.

If they wanted to take that path they would- a 50T to LEO LV using a 8m diameter core stretched down and 3 seg SRBs could probably do the trick. Either that, or a 5m diameter h2 o2 core powered by 1 RS68 + Ares 1 upper stage + 2 5-seg SRBs could probably do the trick.

There's really no reason they can't, TBH. Contracts are just contracts, they aren't tied to a single rocket design.

 

[tater]

The technical issues are obviously not going away (boil off), they are engineering issues that can only be dealt with to the extent possible. The political side is is the near-term issue. You can predict what the votes are based on the district. FL/TX/etc think that SLS is a jobs program vs craft that are either current, or incremental upgrades of current vehicles lofting smaller payloads to LEO, and perhaps propellants in secondary launches (refueling). Since they want the shuttle-level jobs program (a huge fraction of costs is labor), SLS.

It's the reality of spending other people's money---Congress decides. Sadly they are not about maximizing bang for the buck, they are about maximizing pork to their districts.

 

[tater]

Note that the cost for SLS per year is about the same as the cost of the Space Shuttle. For that expense we will get 1 launch per year vs 4.5 launches per year. Within the STS 4.5 launches per year we got service to ISS, which with SLS will be an additional expense (luckily far cheaper because of commercial crew).

[DerekL1963]

10 hours ago, fredinno said:

It's really too freaking late at this point, you know. SLS is having its first flight in 2 years, and cancellation of this project puts NASA back to square one with its HSF projects, and wastes 8 years of work so far.

And Saturn V only ever launched a max of 7 times in 4 years. SLS really lacks missions right now because of the failure of the administration to get a reasonable near-term goal for the agency-

*sigh*  SLS lacks missions for two reasons, a) it wasn't designed to fulfill any mission in the first place other than channeling pork to key Congressional Districts, and b) it's not worth flying the thing unless you're flying huge multi-billion dollar battlestar class missions of the type we stopped doing back in the 90's.

And frankly, anyone that thinks any Administration is going to do anything different is living in cloud cuckoo land.    Space is nobodies priority other than the employees of a few government pork processors.   It's not this Administration or that Administration, it's just the way the world works.

[fredinno]

On 2/7/2016 at 10:01 AM, tater said:

The technical issues are obviously not going away (boil off), they are engineering issues that can only be dealt with to the extent possible. The political side is is the near-term issue. You can predict what the votes are based on the district. FL/TX/etc think that SLS is a jobs program vs craft that are either current, or incremental upgrades of current vehicles lofting smaller payloads to LEO, and perhaps propellants in secondary launches (refueling). Since they want the shuttle-level jobs program (a huge fraction of costs is labor), SLS.

It's the reality of spending other people's money---Congress decides. Sadly they are not about maximizing bang for the buck, they are about maximizing pork to their districts.

 

 

21 hours ago, tater said:

Note that the cost for SLS per year is about the same as the cost of the Space Shuttle. For that expense we will get 1 launch per year vs 4.5 launches per year. Within the STS 4.5 launches per year we got service to ISS, which with SLS will be an additional expense (luckily far cheaper because of commercial crew).

SLS Block I is supposed to cost 500 million per launch, 50 million higher than Shuttle- and with 4 Shuttle launches per year on average, I see no reason why we can't have 2-3 SLSs per year once we get the payloads rolling. Which is a BIG when.

15 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

*sigh*  SLS lacks missions for two reasons, a) it wasn't designed to fulfill any mission in the first place other than channeling pork to key Congressional Districts, and b) it's not worth flying the thing unless you're flying huge multi-billion dollar battlestar class missions of the type we stopped doing back in the 90's.

And frankly, anyone that thinks any Administration is going to do anything different is living in cloud cuckoo land.    Space is nobodies priority other than the employees of a few government pork processors.   It's not this Administration or that Administration, it's just the way the world works.

I meant that there will actually be a near-term goal. No, it's not really a huge priority, but Bush Jr. did this with the Vision for Space Exploration. And even if that doesn't happen, Congress is starting to act rationally to the SLS and demanding actual goals to it and established timelines and payloads. So SLS will get something to do around that time- whoever does it. http://spacenews.com/congress-seeks-more-details-on-nasas-mars-plans-as-presidential-transition-looms/

[tater]

39 minutes ago, fredinno said:

 

SLS Block I is supposed to cost 500 million per launch, 50 million higher than Shuttle- and with 4 Shuttle launches per year on average, I see no reason why we can't have 2-3 SLSs per year once we get the payloads rolling. Which is a BIG when.

I meant that there will actually be a near-term goal. No, it's not really a huge priority, but Bush Jr. did this with the Vision for Space Exploration. And even if that doesn't happen, Congress is starting to act rationally to the SLS and demanding actual goals to it and established timelines and payloads. So SLS will get something to do around that time- whoever does it. http://spacenews.com/congress-seeks-more-details-on-nasas-mars-plans-as-presidential-transition-looms/

Shuttle didn't cost 450 M$ per launch, it cost closer to 1.5 B$ each (cost of program/135 launches) at an average of 4.5 launches per year (135/30).

SLS/Orion will not cost 500 M$ per launch, either. The two are slated for ~4 billion this year. Shuttle averaged 6.96 B$/yr (209 B$/30 years). If their claim of 35B$ total to 2025 is correct, and they launch in 2018, the 1 per year, that's 8 launches. So the cost will be 4.475 B$ per launch. If the nominal cost to have the program in service, plus 1 launch a year is 500 M$ (it isn't), then even at 100 launches the dev cost is still 350 M$ per launch in addition to that. There is no possible way to do the math so that SLS makes sense.

Edited February 8, 2016 by tater

[DerekL1963]

10 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Congress is starting to act rationally to the SLS and demanding actual goals to it and established timelines and payloads. So SLS will get something to do around that time- whoever does it.

That's like your boss insisting you do 'x', but gives you no time to do 'x' and actually acts overtly to prevent you from doing 'x' - and then reaming you a new one for not having a plan for accomplishing 'x'.

The Senate Launch System is a jobs-and-pork program, and these 'demands' are nothing more than a pair of Texas congresscritters (both of whom are up for re-election this year) grandstanding for the cameras.  Note especially the Party the first Congresscritter, the one acting as though the Administration is at fault, belongs to.