Discussion:
wonder what effect trump / republican control will have on nasa?
(too old to reply)
bob haller
2016-11-10 20:32:51 UTC
Permalink
a cut costs without concerns?

big budget boost?

a new partnership with russia for a manned mission to mars?
JF Mezei
2016-11-10 23:48:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob haller
a cut costs without concerns?
big budget boost?
a new partnership with russia for a manned mission to mars?
From his victory speech, it is more likely the money will go to pave
highways and maybe rebuild LGA so his private jet has fewer delays.

I am not sure Trump knows about things like Amtrak or NASA.

But when the time comes for congress to do budget, if Trump insists on
paving roads, they may have to cut from elsewhere.

I think we have to wait for his state of the Union speech in february to
get an idea of what he thinks he will try to do.
bob haller
2016-11-11 01:34:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by JF Mezei
Post by bob haller
a cut costs without concerns?
big budget boost?
a new partnership with russia for a manned mission to mars?
From his victory speech, it is more likely the money will go to pave
highways and maybe rebuild LGA so his private jet has fewer delays.
I am not sure Trump knows about things like Amtrak or NASA.
But when the time comes for congress to do budget, if Trump insists on
paving roads, they may have to cut from elsewhere.
I think we have to wait for his state of the Union speech in february to
get an idea of what he thinks he will try to do.
well zeroing the SLS orion budget would be a great first move:)

let private industry do the grunt work
JF Mezei
2016-11-11 04:49:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob haller
well zeroing the SLS orion budget would be a great first move:)
Is the pork money going to republican areas ? If so, you know it won't
be cut.
Jeff Findley
2016-11-11 11:19:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob haller
a cut costs without concerns?
big budget boost?
a new partnership with russia for a manned mission to mars?
No one knows. Trump just spewed whatever his followers wanted to hear,
so there is no actual policy to back up anything right now.

Installing Trump's Space Policy At NASA
By Keith Cowing on November 9, 2016 5:21 PM.
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2016/11/installing-trum.html

From above:

If you look at the two op eds penned on the Trump campaign's
behalf by Walker this year, you will note that there is no
specific mention of SLS/Orion, NASA's Asteroid Retrieval
Mission, and NASA's #JourneyToMars thing. Nor is there any
interest in climate studies. Does this mean that these
programs are not going to be supported/cancelled - or just
that the Trump team hasn't decided what to do about them?
Stay tuned.


That said, NASA isn't clueless that a new president could bring change.
Orion either needs to get cheaper or it could be replaced with the
commercial crew craft (likely upgraded somewhat). This is more than
just words, it's an RFI.

As Trump takes over, NASA considers alternatives to its Orion spacecraft
In October the space agency quietly solicited ideas from Boeing, SpaceX,
and others.
ERIC BERGER - 11/10/2016, 11:47 AM
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/11/as-trump-takes-over-nasa-
considers-alternatives-to-its-orion-spacecraft/

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.
JF Mezei
2016-11-11 18:20:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Findley
Mission, and NASA's #JourneyToMars thing. Nor is there any
interest in climate studies.
Trump has been very clear on climate issues. They are bogus issues
invented by China. And the republicans generally support oil over
climate. So it is a very steep uphill battle on climate.
Post by Jeff Findley
Orion either needs to get cheaper or it could be replaced with the
commercial crew craft (likely upgraded somewhat). This is more than
just words, it's an RFI.
Is the Orion capsule expensive ? I know the SLS rocket is expensive,
trying to use SSMEs as disposable engines and huge firecrackers strapped
to it.

But wondering whether the capsule itself is significantly more expensive
than Boeing CST100.

Similarly, is the planned service module for Orion significantly more
expensive than what Boeing plans to build for CST100 ?


With regards to transition, I know it is customary for all department
heads to hand in their resignations when there is a change of government
and be re-appointed on temporary terms until their replacement has been
found and approved.

Has NASA traditionally changed heads with govt changes right away, or
has previous heads been kept for more than a few months?
Rick Jones
2016-11-11 19:03:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by JF Mezei
Has NASA traditionally changed heads with govt changes right away,
or has previous heads been kept for more than a few months?
If you do a web search for "list of NASA administrators" I suspect you
will find a list of NASA administrators, along with their dates of
service.

rick jones
--
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
JF Mezei
2016-11-11 20:29:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick Jones
If you do a web search for "list of NASA administrators" I suspect you
will find a list of NASA administrators, along with their dates of
service.
The issue here is whether NASA is on autopilot with no strategic value
to the incoming administration (aka: low priority) or whether Trump and
his ilk already have been advised to make changes to it.

I know that SLS/Orion and its precedessor Ares has been (rightfully)
lambasted. However, it represents significant pork spending.

Trump could just decide to cut this spending alltogeter, and later deal
with backlash from congressman and senators whose areas are seeing the
job losses. (aka: If newbie Trump with 0 experience starts to make
rash decisions, it could cause a lot of stress between him and congress
criters).


When Trump presents his request to Congress to fund his fence and
increase funding to police and immigration to hunt down aliens and send
them back to their planents of origin, Congress may require Trump also
present spending cuts of equal amounts elsewhere.


If the fence is to cost $15b, and Orion/SLS costs $3b/year, then this
could help Trump fund his fence.
David Spain
2016-11-11 19:01:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Findley
No one knows. Trump just spewed whatever his followers wanted to hear,
so there is no actual policy to back up anything right now.
Agreed. Newt Gingrich is helping on the transition team. He may suggest
someone more aligned with the vision of space that he promoted when he
was a presidential candidate in the 2012 election that he was so
brutally parodied for in the MSM.

Today that may not be a return to the moon, but I'm hoping for a more
realistic approach to the Orion/SLS mess. Maybe a major refocus for NASA?

Dave
bob haller
2016-11-15 14:01:39 UTC
Permalink
trump has announced he wants to sell off national assets to pay down debt. theres some cern that can include national parks

i suppose he could gut nasa, and sell off most of its no longer needed assets.......
JF Mezei
2016-11-15 17:03:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob haller
i suppose he could gut nasa, and sell off most of its no longer needed assets.......
Sell to Whom?

NASA is primarily a customer who spends money with Boeing/ULA/SpaceX etc
to get gizmos nobody else wants.

The launch pad property is likely a valuable asset, but doubtful it
coudl generate enough money to be worth it.
bob haller
2016-11-15 22:44:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by JF Mezei
Post by bob haller
i suppose he could gut nasa, and sell off most of its no longer needed assets.......
Sell to Whom?
NASA is primarily a customer who spends money with Boeing/ULA/SpaceX etc
to get gizmos nobody else wants.
The launch pad property is likely a valuable asset, but doubtful it
coudl generate enough money to be worth it.
trump wants to pay down us debt by selling off assets. imagine the grand anyon being sold off. or naming wrighs.......

the grand canyon could be re named as warren buffets canyon....

nasa has property all over.

lets say nasa gets out of manned space entirely.

pads etc could be kept as tourism destinations, meanwhile amusements parks or homes could be developed around them..........

i am not suggesting this is a good idea, but there concern about national park being sold off
Jeff Findley
2016-11-16 02:18:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob haller
trump has announced he wants to sell off national assets to pay down debt. theres some cern that can include national parks
i suppose he could gut nasa, and sell off most of its no longer needed assets.......
Keep the politics out of this sci group!

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.
bob haller
2016-11-16 02:46:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Findley
Post by bob haller
trump has announced he wants to sell off national assets to pay down debt. theres some cern that can include national parks
i suppose he could gut nasa, and sell off most of its no longer needed assets.......
Keep the politics out of this sci group!
Jeff
--
nasa is by its nature a political animal.

and currently nasa life may be on the line........

trump could decide his russian buddy can have the have the lead.

US would still be in the space business for weather satellites, andperhaps GPS
Vaughn Simon
2016-11-16 19:44:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob haller
could decide his russian buddy can have the have the lead.
Have the lead in what exactly? NASA has been doing some good science
over the last few years with its unmanned spacecraft, but here on earth
I haven't seen it produce any great technological advances lately. Our
most advanced space technology is mostly in the hands of private
corporations, where it will stay.
Jeff Findley
2016-11-18 23:29:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob haller
Post by Jeff Findley
Post by bob haller
trump has announced he wants to sell off national assets to pay down debt. theres some cern that can include national parks
i suppose he could gut nasa, and sell off most of its no longer needed assets.......
Keep the politics out of this sci group!
Jeff
--
nasa is by its nature a political animal.
Ok, how about cut the baseless speculation. The space news websites
have far better info than "he could gut nasa, and sell off most of its
no longer needed assets", which is not bloody likely to happen.
Post by bob haller
and currently nasa life may be on the line........
trump could decide his russian buddy can have the have the lead.
US would still be in the space business for weather satellites, andperhaps GPS
Again, cut the baseless speculation and READ a little. It's not hard
when it is all ONLINE these days. Google a bit to find the space news
sites and bookmark their front page. Then visit them a few times a week
and read what they have to say.

It's not like the bad old days when we told you to get your ass to a
library and read the periodicals like Aviation Week and Space
Technology.

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.
JF Mezei
2016-11-18 23:59:40 UTC
Permalink
Different slant to the question:

I read that every "significant" person is expected to hand in their
resignation on Jan 20th, and in cases where no replacement has yet been
found, the resignation placed on hold or refused. (there are aparently
about 4000 politically appointed persons in government organisations).


For NASA, I assume Administrator (Bolden) and maybe Deputy Admin Dava
Newman. (would there be many more below them who get political
appointments ?

Do people get chosen because their agenda is compatible with the new
administration, or are they "vanilla" administrtors who implement
whatever the president or congress tell them ?

For instance, would "kill SLS" come from the new administrator who would
then lobby congress to reallocate the budget ? Or would "kill SLS" come
from Trump or people in Congress with a vested interest to kill it who
would then impose it onto NASA, orrespectove of who the admin is?

As I recall (perhaps wrongly) from the Bush -> Obama change, the former
NASA Admin stayed on for a while because it wasn't a high priority to
find a replacement. And Bush Jr had already set in motion the death of
Shuttle and going for that Ares/Orion thing.

How long after transition to Obama, did NASA kill Ares and move to SLS?
Was this done after the admin was changed or done while NASA was still
with the admin named by previous govt ?
Fred J. McCall
2016-11-19 21:14:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by JF Mezei
I read that every "significant" person is expected to hand in their
resignation on Jan 20th, and in cases where no replacement has yet been
found, the resignation placed on hold or refused. (there are aparently
about 4000 politically appointed persons in government organisations).
Over 7,000, actually.
Post by JF Mezei
For NASA, I assume Administrator (Bolden) and maybe Deputy Admin Dava
Newman. (would there be many more below them who get political
appointments ?
Those two for certain. I would bet there are others, given that NASA
actually has online checklists and advisory data to help them get
started.
Post by JF Mezei
Do people get chosen because their agenda is compatible with the new
administration, or are they "vanilla" administrtors who implement
whatever the president or congress tell them ?
Yes.
Post by JF Mezei
For instance, would "kill SLS" come from the new administrator who would
then lobby congress to reallocate the budget ? Or would "kill SLS" come
from Trump or people in Congress with a vested interest to kill it who
would then impose it onto NASA, orrespectove of who the admin is?
Yes.
Post by JF Mezei
As I recall (perhaps wrongly) from the Bush -> Obama change, the former
NASA Admin stayed on for a while because it wasn't a high priority to
find a replacement. And Bush Jr had already set in motion the death of
Shuttle and going for that Ares/Orion thing.
You recall wrongly. Shuttle died because it was too expensive to meet
the requirements to make and prove them safe when the temporary waiver
expired. SLS was Obama's, not Bush's. Bush started the Constellation
program, which was cancelled by Obama, but it was never supposed to be
a Shuttle replacement. It was intended as a new lunar vehicle. The
Orion capsule came out of the Constellation program.
Post by JF Mezei
How long after transition to Obama, did NASA kill Ares and move to SLS?
Was this done after the admin was changed or done while NASA was still
with the admin named by previous govt ?
A year or so. After. The NASA Administrator left almost immediately
after Obama took office.

Again, you could easily look all this stuff up on your own. Why don't
you try that once in a while?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Jeff Findley
2016-11-19 22:12:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by JF Mezei
As I recall (perhaps wrongly) from the Bush -> Obama change, the former
NASA Admin stayed on for a while because it wasn't a high priority to
find a replacement. And Bush Jr had already set in motion the death of
Shuttle and going for that Ares/Orion thing.
You recall wrongly. Shuttle died because it was too expensive to meet
the requirements to make and prove them safe when the temporary waiver
expired. SLS was Obama's, not Bush's. Bush started the Constellation
program, which was cancelled by Obama, but it was never supposed to be
a Shuttle replacement. It was intended as a new lunar vehicle. The
Orion capsule came out of the Constellation program.
To be crystal clear, Bush did state, in no uncertain terms, in his
announcement of the VSE (Constellation) program that the shuttle program
would end in 2010. And yes, I have a cite:

President Bush Announces New Vision for Space Exploration Program
Press Release From: White House
Posted: Wednesday, January 14, 2004
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=13404

THE PRESIDENT:
...
In 2010, the Space Shuttle -- after nearly 30 years of duty --
will be retired from service.
...

Note that this announcement was made less than a year after the Columbia
tragedy and about six months before the post-Columbia return to flight.

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.
Fred J. McCall
2016-11-19 22:57:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Findley
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by JF Mezei
As I recall (perhaps wrongly) from the Bush -> Obama change, the former
NASA Admin stayed on for a while because it wasn't a high priority to
find a replacement. And Bush Jr had already set in motion the death of
Shuttle and going for that Ares/Orion thing.
You recall wrongly. Shuttle died because it was too expensive to meet
the requirements to make and prove them safe when the temporary waiver
expired. SLS was Obama's, not Bush's. Bush started the Constellation
program, which was cancelled by Obama, but it was never supposed to be
a Shuttle replacement. It was intended as a new lunar vehicle. The
Orion capsule came out of the Constellation program.
To be crystal clear, Bush did state, in no uncertain terms, in his
announcement of the VSE (Constellation) program that the shuttle program
President Bush Announces New Vision for Space Exploration Program
Press Release From: White House
Posted: Wednesday, January 14, 2004
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=13404
...
In 2010, the Space Shuttle -- after nearly 30 years of duty --
will be retired from service.
...
Note that this announcement was made less than a year after the Columbia
tragedy and about six months before the post-Columbia return to flight.
And the statement was made why? See what I said above...
--
"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
JF Mezei
2016-11-20 04:13:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Findley
To be crystal clear, Bush did state, in no uncertain terms, in his
announcement of the VSE (Constellation) program that the shuttle program
The end of Shuttle and start of Constallation was within one presidency.
No no transition involved.

The question pertains to how/when Ares was killed and replaced with SLS.
Mr Findley alluded this was done under Obama and under a new NASA admin.

So the question becomes whether the new NASA admin to be named between
now and likely 2017 will keep SLS or whether he will scale it back,
possibly get ORION to launch on DELTA-4. Could it launch on a Falcon
rocket ? (or a Boeing one since that would mean pork that doesn't go to
California).

What are the odds that Orion will survive onto new launcher ?

or will the whole kit and kaboodle be killed and focus will go towards
funding private enterprise ? ( if SpaceX bought space at Michoud, could
this satisfy pork requirements and let NASA partly fund Musk's dream for
a 100pax ship to Mars ?
bob haller
2016-11-20 04:33:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by JF Mezei
Post by Jeff Findley
To be crystal clear, Bush did state, in no uncertain terms, in his
announcement of the VSE (Constellation) program that the shuttle program
The end of Shuttle and start of Constallation was within one presidency.
No no transition involved.
The question pertains to how/when Ares was killed and replaced with SLS.
Mr Findley alluded this was done under Obama and under a new NASA admin.
So the question becomes whether the new NASA admin to be named between
now and likely 2017 will keep SLS or whether he will scale it back,
possibly get ORION to launch on DELTA-4. Could it launch on a Falcon
rocket ? (or a Boeing one since that would mean pork that doesn't go to
California).
What are the odds that Orion will survive onto new launcher ?
or will the whole kit and kaboodle be killed and focus will go towards
funding private enterprise ? ( if SpaceX bought space at Michoud, could
this satisfy pork requirements and let NASA partly fund Musk's dream for
a 100pax ship to Mars ?
orion is way too heavy to go on a delta or atlas booster. nasa specked it this way to assure a new booster was needed.

SLS orion has cost nasa over 10 billion dollars of wasted money, plus hoever much was wastefully spent on areas....

so nasa could of launced another 10 to 15 shuttles for the money they wasted on programs that should of never been funded at all.

the one orion that launched on a expendable was stripped down heavily so it wouldnt be too heavy.
Jeff Findley
2016-11-20 13:54:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob haller
Post by JF Mezei
Post by Jeff Findley
To be crystal clear, Bush did state, in no uncertain terms, in his
announcement of the VSE (Constellation) program that the shuttle program
The end of Shuttle and start of Constallation was within one presidency.
No no transition involved.
The question pertains to how/when Ares was killed and replaced with SLS.
Mr Findley alluded this was done under Obama and under a new NASA admin.
So the question becomes whether the new NASA admin to be named between
now and likely 2017 will keep SLS or whether he will scale it back,
possibly get ORION to launch on DELTA-4. Could it launch on a Falcon
rocket ? (or a Boeing one since that would mean pork that doesn't go to
California).
What are the odds that Orion will survive onto new launcher ?
or will the whole kit and kaboodle be killed and focus will go towards
funding private enterprise ? ( if SpaceX bought space at Michoud, could
this satisfy pork requirements and let NASA partly fund Musk's dream for
a 100pax ship to Mars ?
orion is way too heavy to go on a delta or atlas booster. nasa specked it this way to assure a new booster was needed.
Delta IV Heavy and Atlas V would be possibilities if you didn't fully
fuel the service module for launch. Also, Falcon Heavy might be a
possibility.
Post by bob haller
SLS orion has cost nasa over 10 billion dollars of wasted money, plus hoever much was wastefully spent on areas....
so nasa could of launced another 10 to 15 shuttles for the money they wasted on programs that should of never been funded at all.
the one orion that launched on a expendable was stripped down heavily so it wouldnt be too heavy.
Yea, it was mostly "dummy" and prototype. No fully fueled service
module there.

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.
Jeff Findley
2016-11-20 13:50:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by JF Mezei
Post by Jeff Findley
To be crystal clear, Bush did state, in no uncertain terms, in his
announcement of the VSE (Constellation) program that the shuttle program
The end of Shuttle and start of Constallation was within one presidency.
No no transition involved.
The question pertains to how/when Ares was killed and replaced with SLS.
Mr Findley alluded this was done under Obama and under a new NASA admin.
So the question becomes whether the new NASA admin to be named between
now and likely 2017 will keep SLS or whether he will scale it back,
possibly get ORION to launch on DELTA-4. Could it launch on a Falcon
rocket ? (or a Boeing one since that would mean pork that doesn't go to
California).
What are the odds that Orion will survive onto new launcher ?
Unknown, but NASA has already sent out RFI's for reducing costs for both
SLS and Orion. They know change is coming, they just don't know what.
They appear to be getting ready to provide the next administration with
options. I'm pretty sure anyone with half a brain realizes NASA can't
do anything "ambitious" beyond LEO with the current/projected SLS/Orion
costs hanging around their neck like an albatross.
Post by JF Mezei
or will the whole kit and kaboodle be killed and focus will go towards
funding private enterprise ? ( if SpaceX bought space at Michoud, could
this satisfy pork requirements and let NASA partly fund Musk's dream for
a 100pax ship to Mars ?
Hard to say. But don't count on any significant budget increases. That
wouldn't be consistent with the plan to slash taxes (with the unwritten
assumption that you have to slash discretionary spending as well to
balance the budget).

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.
Fred J. McCall
2016-11-20 15:54:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by JF Mezei
Post by Jeff Findley
To be crystal clear, Bush did state, in no uncertain terms, in his
announcement of the VSE (Constellation) program that the shuttle program
The end of Shuttle and start of Constallation was within one presidency.
No no transition involved.
The Shuttle actually ended under Obama.
Post by JF Mezei
The question pertains to how/when Ares was killed and replaced with SLS.
Mr Findley alluded this was done under Obama and under a new NASA admin.
No. Mr McCall flat out told you that was the case and gave you the
timeline.
Post by JF Mezei
So the question becomes whether the new NASA admin to be named between
now and likely 2017 will keep SLS or whether he will scale it back,
possibly get ORION to launch on DELTA-4. Could it launch on a Falcon
rocket ? (or a Boeing one since that would mean pork that doesn't go to
California).
Orion weighs over 10 tonnes. The Service module adds another 15+
tonnes. That gives a total weight of just under 26 tonnes. Delta IV
Heavy has a GTO payload of around 14 tonnes. It can barely get Orion
to LEO. SLS has an initial payload around 2.5 times that of Delta IV
and the 'heavy' version doubles that.
Post by JF Mezei
What are the odds that Orion will survive onto new launcher ?
No, unless you move it to something a lot bigger than Delta IV Heavy,
since if you're not going beyond LEO you don't need that capsule.
Falcon has the same problem as Delta IV, by the way. It can lift
around 50% more payload to GTO, but it's still not enough for a full
up Orion plus Service Module.
Post by JF Mezei
or will the whole kit and kaboodle be killed and focus will go towards
funding private enterprise ? ( if SpaceX bought space at Michoud, could
this satisfy pork requirements and let NASA partly fund Musk's dream for
a 100pax ship to Mars ?
There are already commercial capsules being developed for LEO work. If
you do away with the rocket that can get Orion beyond LEO, there is no
need for Orion.

You seem to be assuming that SLS will be killed. That's hardly a
given.
--
"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
bob haller
2016-11-20 17:51:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by JF Mezei
Post by Jeff Findley
To be crystal clear, Bush did state, in no uncertain terms, in his
announcement of the VSE (Constellation) program that the shuttle program
The end of Shuttle and start of Constallation was within one presidency.
No no transition involved.
The Shuttle actually ended under Obama.
Post by JF Mezei
The question pertains to how/when Ares was killed and replaced with SLS.
Mr Findley alluded this was done under Obama and under a new NASA admin.
No. Mr McCall flat out told you that was the case and gave you the
timeline.
Post by JF Mezei
So the question becomes whether the new NASA admin to be named between
now and likely 2017 will keep SLS or whether he will scale it back,
possibly get ORION to launch on DELTA-4. Could it launch on a Falcon
rocket ? (or a Boeing one since that would mean pork that doesn't go to
California).
Orion weighs over 10 tonnes. The Service module adds another 15+
tonnes. That gives a total weight of just under 26 tonnes. Delta IV
Heavy has a GTO payload of around 14 tonnes. It can barely get Orion
to LEO. SLS has an initial payload around 2.5 times that of Delta IV
and the 'heavy' version doubles that.
Post by JF Mezei
What are the odds that Orion will survive onto new launcher ?
No, unless you move it to something a lot bigger than Delta IV Heavy,
since if you're not going beyond LEO you don't need that capsule.
Falcon has the same problem as Delta IV, by the way. It can lift
around 50% more payload to GTO, but it's still not enough for a full
up Orion plus Service Module.
Post by JF Mezei
or will the whole kit and kaboodle be killed and focus will go towards
funding private enterprise ? ( if SpaceX bought space at Michoud, could
this satisfy pork requirements and let NASA partly fund Musk's dream for
a 100pax ship to Mars ?
There are already commercial capsules being developed for LEO work. If
you do away with the rocket that can get Orion beyond LEO, there is no
need for Orion.
You seem to be assuming that SLS will be killed. That's hardly a
given.
--
"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
since trumps plan is moon of jupiter SLS is dead, and so is orion........

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2016/11/-europa-bound-trumps-space-policy-to-refocus-nasa-away-from-mars-to-explore-jupiters-moon-with-its-v.html
Fred J. McCall
2016-11-20 22:22:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob haller
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by JF Mezei
Post by Jeff Findley
To be crystal clear, Bush did state, in no uncertain terms, in his
announcement of the VSE (Constellation) program that the shuttle program
The end of Shuttle and start of Constallation was within one presidency.
No no transition involved.
The Shuttle actually ended under Obama.
Post by JF Mezei
The question pertains to how/when Ares was killed and replaced with SLS.
Mr Findley alluded this was done under Obama and under a new NASA admin.
No. Mr McCall flat out told you that was the case and gave you the
timeline.
Post by JF Mezei
So the question becomes whether the new NASA admin to be named between
now and likely 2017 will keep SLS or whether he will scale it back,
possibly get ORION to launch on DELTA-4. Could it launch on a Falcon
rocket ? (or a Boeing one since that would mean pork that doesn't go to
California).
Orion weighs over 10 tonnes. The Service module adds another 15+
tonnes. That gives a total weight of just under 26 tonnes. Delta IV
Heavy has a GTO payload of around 14 tonnes. It can barely get Orion
to LEO. SLS has an initial payload around 2.5 times that of Delta IV
and the 'heavy' version doubles that.
Post by JF Mezei
What are the odds that Orion will survive onto new launcher ?
No, unless you move it to something a lot bigger than Delta IV Heavy,
since if you're not going beyond LEO you don't need that capsule.
Falcon has the same problem as Delta IV, by the way. It can lift
around 50% more payload to GTO, but it's still not enough for a full
up Orion plus Service Module.
Post by JF Mezei
or will the whole kit and kaboodle be killed and focus will go towards
funding private enterprise ? ( if SpaceX bought space at Michoud, could
this satisfy pork requirements and let NASA partly fund Musk's dream for
a 100pax ship to Mars ?
There are already commercial capsules being developed for LEO work. If
you do away with the rocket that can get Orion beyond LEO, there is no
need for Orion.
You seem to be assuming that SLS will be killed. That's hardly a
given.
since trumps plan is moon of jupiter SLS is dead, and so is orion........
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2016/11/-europa-bound-trumps-space-policy-to-refocus-nasa-away-from-mars-to-explore-jupiters-moon-with-its-v.html
You really should read your own cites. It wasn't heavily mentioned in
the story, but you appear to have missed the whole "asteroid mining"
thing. The story also doesn't specify whether we're talking about
people or rovers for Europa.

It's also only one article. When you look for more definitive
articles, you find these, which seem to indicate a focus on manned
exploration beyond LEO while turning LEO operations over to commercial
entities.

http://spacenews.com/what-a-trump-administration-means-for-space/
--
"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
JF Mezei
2016-11-21 03:28:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
You seem to be assuming that SLS will be killed. That's hardly a
given.
Number of SSME engines limits SLS to a couple of flights. There may be
limited R&D budget to study possible improvements, but no budget to
actually start production of new SSMEs (and until resultr of R&D, not
known if production costs can be lowered to make SSMEs viable in a
single use engine category).


Secondly, while NASA keeps on bragging a capsule is enough to get to
Mars, everyone knows that Orion is nowhere near able to support a crew
to mars and back. Certanitly not "back" if they land.

So that leaves very expensive, limited production SLS to haul loads that
can't be hauled by others. And with SpaceX pushing the boundaries to
lower costs, unless something absolutely needs to be launched in one
piece, multiple launches and LEO assembly becomes far mroe affordable
with SpaceX than with SLS.

So the question becomes which comanies benefit from the Orion/SLS pork,
and could the same amount be sent to the same companies to provide
something more productive?
Fred J. McCall
2016-11-21 12:09:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by JF Mezei
Post by Fred J. McCall
You seem to be assuming that SLS will be killed. That's hardly a
given.
Number of SSME engines limits SLS to a couple of flights. There may be
limited R&D budget to study possible improvements, but no budget to
actually start production of new SSMEs (and until resultr of R&D, not
known if production costs can be lowered to make SSMEs viable in a
single use engine category).
I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion already. Write it down this
time. NASA has restarted production of the engine. With a contract
value of over one billion dollars, that's a lot more than some engine
R&D. They have enough engines in stock for the first four flights
(not a couple), which are scheduled to start in 2018. New engines
will start being delivered around 2021.
Post by JF Mezei
Secondly, while NASA keeps on bragging a capsule is enough to get to
Mars, everyone knows that Orion is nowhere near able to support a crew
to mars and back. Certanitly not "back" if they land.
Cite for your claim, above?
Post by JF Mezei
So that leaves very expensive, limited production SLS to haul loads that
can't be hauled by others. And with SpaceX pushing the boundaries to
lower costs, unless something absolutely needs to be launched in one
piece, multiple launches and LEO assembly becomes far mroe affordable
with SpaceX than with SLS.
Have you read any of the Reference Architectures (or any other
credible Mars plans)?
Post by JF Mezei
So the question becomes which comanies benefit from the Orion/SLS pork,
and could the same amount be sent to the same companies to provide
something more productive?
'More productive' is in the eye of the beholder, as is 'pork'.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
bob haller
2016-11-21 15:49:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by JF Mezei
Post by Fred J. McCall
You seem to be assuming that SLS will be killed. That's hardly a
given.
Number of SSME engines limits SLS to a couple of flights. There may be
limited R&D budget to study possible improvements, but no budget to
actually start production of new SSMEs (and until resultr of R&D, not
known if production costs can be lowered to make SSMEs viable in a
single use engine category).
I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion already. Write it down this
time. NASA has restarted production of the engine. With a contract
value of over one billion dollars, that's a lot more than some engine
R&D. They have enough engines in stock for the first four flights
(not a couple), which are scheduled to start in 2018. New engines
will start being delivered around 2021.
Post by JF Mezei
Secondly, while NASA keeps on bragging a capsule is enough to get to
Mars, everyone knows that Orion is nowhere near able to support a crew
to mars and back. Certanitly not "back" if they land.
Cite for your claim, above?
Post by JF Mezei
So that leaves very expensive, limited production SLS to haul loads that
can't be hauled by others. And with SpaceX pushing the boundaries to
lower costs, unless something absolutely needs to be launched in one
piece, multiple launches and LEO assembly becomes far mroe affordable
with SpaceX than with SLS.
Have you read any of the Reference Architectures (or any other
credible Mars plans)?
Post by JF Mezei
So the question becomes which comanies benefit from the Orion/SLS pork,
and could the same amount be sent to the same companies to provide
something more productive?
'More productive' is in the eye of the beholder, as is 'pork'.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
a capsule orion sized woudnt be large enough for just the exercise equiptement needed for a long flight, let alone 6 months or a years consumables like water oxygen clothing etc.

orion capsule is for earth launch and perhaps earth return.

on the asteroid on its way toend life on earth.

you dont need a super sized rocket,

just a small unmanned vehicle that would land while the planet killer is far away, and give it a gentle nudge to change its path..........

ares, sle, orion IS NOW A FAILED EXAMPLE OF NASA WANTING A NEW PORK PIGGIE PROJECT

very sad wasted over 10 billion
William Mook
2016-11-20 00:23:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob haller
a cut costs without concerns?
big budget boost?
a new partnership with russia for a manned mission to mars?
Budgets depend on money, and money depends on bankers and stockbrokers and people with money.

I was in New York, staying at the Waldorf Astoria the week surrounding election day in the United States. I was working on a business deal, but had time to meet with some old friends of mine in the business and government fields. Madeline Albright was staying at the Waldorf, (she's not a friend, but I did say hi to her!) and was very surprised by the election outcome! All the Clinton democrats were!

One thing that is of interest is that both Hillary and Donald agreed on the need for a Tobin Tax on stock trades! The media didn't cover this, but both candidates so the logic of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobin_tax

Now the US equities markets alone trade $6.8 trillion per day every day.

http://www.bats.com/us/equities/market_share/

That's $2.48 quadrillion per year. To collect say $4 trillion in Tobin Taxes each year requires 0.162% transaction tax. This allows the elimination of ALL OTHER TAXES and an increase in collections by $1 trillion per year!

That's because we collect $3 trillion per year currently and spend $3.5 trillion per year!

It makes sense too. An agrarian economy taxes land. An industrial economy taxes production. A consumer economy taxes income. What does a knowledge economy tax? Stock transactions. The USA is the world's largest and most powerful knowledge economy. It makes sense to preserve our land, industry and retailers by reducing taxes on them, and to tax fairly predictably and profitably, stock transactions.

Can we afford it?

Yes, as long as it is predictable and cannot increase or decrease over long time periods. (>10 years)

How can you say that?

Because stockbrokers charge FAR MORE than this per trade, and because insurers charge FAR MORE than this to cover FRAUD - which is greater than 1%.

A predictable and minor addition to transaction costs, is input into the models, and trading takes place carrying this added cost. If properly structured it also corrects some issues with respect to high frequency trading, but that's a nuance compared to the central achievement!

Any President that ended the direct collection of taxes from wages and business income and from inheritance taxes and property taxes and so forth, and ended deficit spending in the bargain, could be assured of re-election and of an economic boom! The boom increases stock values which more than compensate for the added tax - and increase the revenue as well.

Another thing both candidates looked at seriously was having the Treasury charge a fixed interest on money it printed to fund the Federal Reserve. This is how the founders set up our system of taxation. A system so subtle and indirect that people weren't aware of how our government was funded before the IRS.

At present the Federal Reserve gets money given it at no interest by the Treasury, and the Federal Reserve member banks then loan that money back to the government and to all other borrowers of US Federal Reserve notes. How crazy is that?

The most far reaching proposal I saw involved the government issuing bonds to buy out the Federal Reserve's $4.4 trillion in 'hot money' paying 1% per year over a 100 year term. This is $69.8 billion per year, a vast reduction to the over $128 billion now paid by the Feds for interest on their own money! The Federal Reserve still exists in this scenario, and the banks are paid more than they're paid now for the deposits they have made to the Reserve. The $19.8 trillion in public debt is paid off at a rate of $1 trillion per year, at zero interest, and this is added to the Reserve. The Reserve currently has $71 out for each dollar in Reserve. That's $321 trillion. Over $180 trillion is to the private sector, businesses, homes, furnishings, credit cards and so forth. The balance is money the banks loan each other to do credit default swaps! That is, they've arranged things so that if all hell breaks lose, they end up owning everything, and they're using Treasury money to pay for it. The trick is to peel away that machinations the banks have put in place to protect themselves from risk, without killing the real economy where people go to work every day. This is complex, but it basically involves reintroducing the Glass Steagal Act which was removed from the books at the end of the last Clinton Administration. This would make writing new credit default swaps illegal, and set aside the current ones, with the Feds buying them out. This is a little complex, but its doable with added revenue drawn appropriately from the wealthiest and most productive sectors of the economy. We existed from 1933 to 1999 without Credit Default Swaps, and we will exist well without them post 2016. The cost is $0.25 trillion per year - for this - which is enough to keep the European and Asian markets from imploding - and if they follow suit in Japan, Germany, Britain, with similar approaches, this can even be reduced as they get their houses in order.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Glass–Steagall_Act

So, with an extra 30% in your pocket at the end of each pay period, and an extra 45% in your pocket at the end of each quarter for your business, and with commercial interest rates tied to 1% to 1.5% base rate of cost of money issue by the Treasury, without being kicked around by quadrillions of dollars in CDS trades, significant money can flow into infrastructure projects of all types, including spending $200 billion or so a year on a programme of space development - along the lines of rail development, highway development, and aviation development throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.

Another $500 billion per year for infrastructure development, rebuilding our highways, bridges, water ways, water works, supplying water and power at very low cost, and reduces unemployment to a minimum.

Finally, the UN has pointed to Denmark as being the happiest nation on Earth and pointed to the balance they have between public and private spending - the USA being a global super power has challenges Denmark does not, but with an extra $1 trillion per year, and no income taxes social security taxes or medicare taxes, we can tap our most powerful economic engine to lift us into the Denmark realm of public works!

Loading Image...

Just as only Nixon could open to Communist China, so too, only Trump can open to businesses (after elimination of all business taxes, including sales taxes) and establish a $20 minimum wage, and a four day 32 hour work week from today's 48 hour work week with six days.

Average wage goes from $21 per hour to $30 per hour. Minimum wage rises to $20 per hour. The work week falls from 47 hours to 32 hours. Without income or sales taxes, businesses productivity gains balance wage increases.

This eliminates unemployment, and achieving the same efficiencies in US agencies as are achieved by Danish agencies, we actually spend less than we now spend on Social Security, Education, Medicare, Medicaid - before Obama care.

Minimum wage of $20 per hour along with the elimination of income and sales taxes, simultaneously increases profits and wages, ends social division, whilst a shorter work week ends unemployment.

Free health care, child care and college education, improves labour relations and makes everyone more productive.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/04/why-danish-students-are-paid-to-go-to-college/

Free college education, free health care, free child care, on the Denmark model would cost less than present methods used in the USA, and with an extra $1 trillion per year to spend following reorganisation of our antiquated taxation and banking systems, we have the following break down;

Child Care:
USD$488 per child/month through age three - 10.1 million - $59.1 billion per year
USD$284 per child/month aged three to five - 10.1 million - $34.4 billion per year

Health Care:
USD$3,512 per person - 308.8 million - $1,084.5 million per year.

College Education:
USD$900 per person/month - direct payment to students - 21.5 million - $232.2 billion per year
USD$1411 per person/month - tuition/books/labs - 21.5 million - $364.0 billion per year.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/02/for-pensioners-something-is-spot-on-in-the-state-of-denmark

Elder Care:
USD$1,002 per person per month - direct payment to elders - 40.3 million - $484.6 billion

Medicare is $951.6 B mandatory expenditure and $55.0 B discretionary expenditure. This is $1,006.6 B sufficient to fund a Danish style health care system - with only $80 billion in costs. There were 928 million patient visits to healthcare professionals last year. 3 visits per person in the USA. An $85 co-pay for all office visits would make up the difference. However, Danish people visit their doctors once a month! So, if we are to follower the Danish model, we can expect the number of office visits to rise four fold - and the cost of co-pay per office visit would drop to $21.25 per visit.

Social Security is $1,244.4 B mandatory expenditure and $66.0 B discretionary expenditure. This is $1,310.4 B total, more than enough to fund Danish style college education, child care and elder care.


Space Projects include;

Interplanetary Internet - landers and orbiters around every planet moon and major dwarf planet in the solar system. 181 known Moons, 8 known planets, over 300 dwarf planets - Setting aside $500 billion over 20 years for unmanned drones to establish their presence on all these places, providing a wide range of reports, and sustaining a solar system wide network of broadband communications - including world wide wireless broadband. Once established, these channels are auctioned off to commercial carriers who provide broadband services throughout the solar system.

Interplanetary Power Grid - solar pumped lasers provide beamed power on demand throughout the solar system. In addition to direct $1,000 billion support for R&D over 20 years, this also comes with a mechanism to provide commercial entities with a means to match power providers with power users, and spin off bonds against notional production to make use of the infrastructure developed.

Defence Commercialisation Act - here we review the secrets of the defence agencies with a view to commercialising them for off-world development. Research is sanitised and made available to qualified US users. We also provide direct subsidy with this act along with the ability to underwrite bonds between qualified providers and consumers of services.

Off World Development Act - to license and develop resources off world.

Space Transport Commercialisation Act - similar to the other acts above, focused primarily on improved propulsion and safe human transport.
bob haller
2016-11-20 15:43:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob haller
a cut costs without concerns?
big budget boost?
a new partnership with russia for a manned mission to mars?
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2016/11/-europa-bound-trumps-space-policy-to-refocus-nasa-away-from-mars-to-explore-jupiters-moon-with-its-v.html

look like it will be unmanned..
JF Mezei
2016-11-21 03:42:12 UTC
Permalink
Different slant to question (pardon my imagination here).

Say NASA had found some years ago that some big rock was headed for
Earth in the next 20 years. (Armageddon style).

Could they hide the astrroid killer under the guise of Orion/SLS (design
Orion to force creation of some super powerful rocket whose real purpose
is to reach that big rock) and pretend this is all for a mission to Mars ?

This would explain why SLS/Orion to Mars is not credible, would explain
the need for an SLS class of rocket even if they have limited number of
engines. And the wasted costs of producing Orion would simply the cost
of hiding the true purpose of the project.

Not saying the abive is real, but if it were real, wouldn't what is
being done with SLS be a perfect way to conceal the real goal of this
project?

I know, pork is by far the simplest explanation, but what if ?
JF Mezei
2016-12-06 23:44:16 UTC
Permalink
Today, Trump said he would cancel the Boeing order for 2 new "Air Force
One" 747s, claiming they costed 4 billion bucks. But also revealed that
he had sold all his Boeing stock before making public his desire to kill
the order.

If Trump has no problem exagerating contract values to justify
cancelling "pork", I have to wonder if he will do the same with
Orion/SLS without consideration for jobs.


So the Air Force One story may be a harbinger of things to come for
Nasa. We'll see how this pans out and if the military manages to talk
some sense into Trump.
bob haller
2016-12-07 01:23:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by JF Mezei
Today, Trump said he would cancel the Boeing order for 2 new "Air Force
One" 747s, claiming they costed 4 billion bucks. But also revealed that
he had sold all his Boeing stock before making public his desire to kill
the order.
If Trump has no problem exagerating contract values to justify
cancelling "pork", I have to wonder if he will do the same with
Orion/SLS without consideration for jobs.
So the Air Force One story may be a harbinger of things to come for
Nasa. We'll see how this pans out and if the military manages to talk
some sense into Trump.
SLS should of been canceled when it was still naamed ARES.

the shuttle replacement should of been a apollo like capsule..lunched on a expendable, delta or atlas heavy......
Fred J. McCall
2016-12-07 02:57:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob haller
Post by JF Mezei
Today, Trump said he would cancel the Boeing order for 2 new "Air Force
One" 747s, claiming they costed 4 billion bucks. But also revealed that
he had sold all his Boeing stock before making public his desire to kill
the order.
If Trump has no problem exagerating contract values to justify
cancelling "pork", I have to wonder if he will do the same with
Orion/SLS without consideration for jobs.
So the Air Force One story may be a harbinger of things to come for
Nasa. We'll see how this pans out and if the military manages to talk
some sense into Trump.
SLS should of been canceled when it was still naamed ARES.
Uh, it was. SLS and Ares are not the same rocket, although they share
some technology (but then most rockets do).
Post by bob haller
the shuttle replacement should of been a apollo like capsule..lunched on a expendable, delta or atlas heavy......
Uh, it is. See Boeing's capsule.

SLS and Orion are not intended to 'replace the Shuttle'. They're
intended for deep space missions that Shuttle couldn't do. If you
want to argue that they're a bad investment (and I think they are),
you need to argue in those terms.
--
"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
bob haller
2016-12-07 03:52:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by bob haller
Post by JF Mezei
Today, Trump said he would cancel the Boeing order for 2 new "Air Force
One" 747s, claiming they costed 4 billion bucks. But also revealed that
he had sold all his Boeing stock before making public his desire to kill
the order.
If Trump has no problem exagerating contract values to justify
cancelling "pork", I have to wonder if he will do the same with
Orion/SLS without consideration for jobs.
So the Air Force One story may be a harbinger of things to come for
Nasa. We'll see how this pans out and if the military manages to talk
some sense into Trump.
SLS should of been canceled when it was still naamed ARES.
Uh, it was. SLS and Ares are not the same rocket, although they share
some technology (but then most rockets do).
Post by bob haller
the shuttle replacement should of been a apollo like capsule..lunched on a expendable, delta or atlas heavy......
Uh, it is. See Boeing's capsule.
SLS and Orion are not intended to 'replace the Shuttle'. They're
intended for deep space missions that Shuttle couldn't do. If you
want to argue that they're a bad investment (and I think they are),
you need to argue in those terms.
--
"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
sls is just a jobs program for congress selected areas.

orion capsule isnt necessary for deep space, since a habitat will be needed no matter what...

sls is too big, too expensive, will only have at most one launch every 2 years, but the pad workers need to be kept together
Fred J. McCall
2016-12-07 13:53:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob haller
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by bob haller
Post by JF Mezei
Today, Trump said he would cancel the Boeing order for 2 new "Air Force
One" 747s, claiming they costed 4 billion bucks. But also revealed that
he had sold all his Boeing stock before making public his desire to kill
the order.
If Trump has no problem exagerating contract values to justify
cancelling "pork", I have to wonder if he will do the same with
Orion/SLS without consideration for jobs.
So the Air Force One story may be a harbinger of things to come for
Nasa. We'll see how this pans out and if the military manages to talk
some sense into Trump.
SLS should of been canceled when it was still naamed ARES.
Uh, it was. SLS and Ares are not the same rocket, although they share
some technology (but then most rockets do).
Post by bob haller
the shuttle replacement should of been a apollo like capsule..lunched on a expendable, delta or atlas heavy......
Uh, it is. See Boeing's capsule.
SLS and Orion are not intended to 'replace the Shuttle'. They're
intended for deep space missions that Shuttle couldn't do. If you
want to argue that they're a bad investment (and I think they are),
you need to argue in those terms.
sls is just a jobs program for congress selected areas.
Opinion. Your contention is undemonstrated.
Post by bob haller
orion capsule isnt necessary for deep space, since a habitat will be needed no matter what...
Depends on how 'deep' your deep space mission is, but generally true
that a habitat will be needed for long duration missions. But that's
all part of an overall system that includes Orion, so Orion is indeed
necessary.
Post by bob haller
sls is too big, too expensive, will only have at most one launch every 2 years, but the pad workers need to be kept together
OK, you actually finally start to make an argument here. We can
speculate about launch rates. You think they're going to have a whole
set of launch pad people JUST for SLS/Orion? I don't think so. You're
trying to get to the Shuttle 'standing army' problem, but that really
doesn't apply here since the only reusable part of the system is the
Orion capsule itself.
--
"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
William Mook
2016-12-21 04:50:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by JF Mezei
Today, Trump said he would cancel the Boeing order for 2 new "Air Force
One" 747s, claiming they costed 4 billion bucks. But also revealed that
he had sold all his Boeing stock before making public his desire to kill
the order.
If Trump has no problem exagerating contract values to justify
cancelling "pork", I have to wonder if he will do the same with
Orion/SLS without consideration for jobs.
So the Air Force One story may be a harbinger of things to come for
Nasa. We'll see how this pans out and if the military manages to talk
some sense into Trump.
Trump will cancel all non-essential spending and Congress will likely support him. Simultaneously, he will open up to commercialisation of previously strictly government activities.

https://blackamericaweb.com/2016/12/14/hall-of-famer-jim-brown-reveals-details-of-donald-trump-meeting/

His appointment of Ben Carson as HUD secretary means he will cut back government subsidies, however, at the same time, he expects to expand opportunities in the black community for home ownership, business expansion, and grow the entrepreneurial population in those communities from people already living there.

Its clear based on Trump's policy statements regarding space that he believes space travel makes America great. And if Trump is to make America great again, that means restoring its capacity to travel to the moon and beyond. However, blind expansion of existing government programs will not be the vehicle Trump uses to make that happen. It will entail, simplification of qualified aerospace vendors to compete in a space marketplace, access to qualified users of currently classified data, procedures and processes, privatisation of NASA and DOE and DOD labs that can benefit qualified private producers of space services and developers of off world resources.

There is $43 trillion in liquid assets world wide. Attracting a portion of this to America to take over and make profitable assets that have been funded by the American people, is a way to eliminate US debt and put that capital to work delivering on the promise of space exploration. We have GPS satellites, we also have telecom satellites. We should have rocket package delivery and ballistic transport that surpasses the ability of SST. Reagan spoke briefly about this before his assassination attempt - as part of his SDI program. There is no reason we cannot attract a critical mass of risk capital to these and other goals going forward in the right regulatory and economic environment.
William Mook
2016-11-21 22:52:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob haller
a cut costs without concerns?
big budget boost?
a new partnership with russia for a manned mission to mars?
Donald Trump is all over the place on NASA and space exploration. “It is very sad to see what @BarackObama has done with NASA. He has gutted the program and made us dependent on the Russians,” he tweeted back in 2012 but has also states that he “loves what it represents.”

More recently, though, Trump’s comments on NASA suggest that he has no plans to prioritize its funding. “Right now, we have bigger problems — you understand that? We’ve got to fix our potholes,” Trump told a 10-year-old boy who asked about NASA during a town hall last year.

Trump also seems excited about the privatization of space exploration, saying during the town hall that he “likes that maybe even better” than a public space program. He also suggested that a manned mission to Mars is a lower priority than infrastructure. “Honestly, I think it’s wonderful; I want to rebuild our infrastructure first, ok? I think it’s wonderful.”

As Trump’s campaign continued to gain legitimacy with its growing delegate count, Aerospace America asked both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump 10 questions about space exploration. While Sanders was much more detailed, Trump did give some insight into what he thinks about NASA. When questioned on NASA’s budget, for example, Trump said “our first priority is to restore a strong economic base to this country. Then, we can have a discussion about spending.”

October 25th - Rally in Sanford, Florida

"I will free NASA from the restriction of serving primarily as a logistics agency for low-Earth orbit activity—big deal. Instead, we will refocus its mission on space exploration. Under a Trump Administration, Florida and America will lead the way into the stars."

"A cornerstone of my policy is we will substantially expand public private partnerships to maximize the amount of investment and funding that is available for space exploration and development. This means launching and operating major space assets, right here, that employ thousands and spur innovation and fuel economic growth."

October 20th - Senior Policy Advisers for the Trump Campaign writing in SpaceNews

"NASA should be focused primarily on deep space activities rather than Earth-centric work that is better handled by other agencies. Human exploration of our entire solar system by the end of this century should be NASA’s focus and goal. Developing the technologies to meet that goal would severely challenge our present knowledge base, but that should be a reason for exploration and science."

"It makes little sense for numerous launch vehicles to be developed at taxpayer cost, all with essentially the same technology and payload capacity. Coordinated policy would end such duplication of effort and quickly determine where there are private sector solutions that do not necessarily require government investment."

October 10th - Written answers to questions posed by SpaceNews

"My administration will examine spending priorities and will make adjustments as necessary. However, as a businessman, I am mindful of the many benefits, inventions and scientific breakthroughs that would not have been possible without the space program, and that has to be thrown into the calculus, as well."

"Our civilian space program should reflect the scientific priorities and aspirations of our society. Congress will be a full partner in shaping those priorities as the people’s representatives."

On the Mars goal for human spaceflight: "After taking office, we will have a comprehensive review of our plans for space, and will work with Congress to set both priorities and mission."

September 20th - Written answer to a question posed by ScienceDebate

"Space exploration has given so much to America, including tremendous pride in our scientific and engineering prowess. A strong space program will encourage our children to seek STEM educational outcomes and will bring millions of jobs and trillions of dollars in investment to this country. The cascading effects of a vibrant space program are legion and can have a positive, constructive impact on the pride and direction of this country. Observation from space and exploring beyond our own space neighborhood should be priorities. We should also seek global partners, because space is not the sole property of America. All humankind benefits from reaching into the stars."

August 3rd, 2016 - Rally in Daytona Beach, Florida

"Look at your space program. Look at what’s going on there. Somebody just asked me back stage, ‘Mr. Trump, will you get involved in the space program?' Look what’s happened with your employment. Look what’s happened with our whole history of space and leadership. Look what’s going on folks. We’re like a third-world nation."

July 28th, 2016 - Reddit "Ask Me Anything" Response

Q: "What role should NASA play in helping to Make America Great Again?"

A: "Honestly I think NASA is wonderful! America has always led the world in space exploration."

July 20th, 2016 - Official Facebook Post

"47 years ago our nation did something that NOBODY thought we could do - we were the first to put a man on the moon. It is time to be number one, again! Believe me, as President, we will once again, Make America First Again!"

May 2016 - Aerospace America Questionnaire

"NASA has been one of the most important agencies in the United States government for most of my lifetime. It should remain so. NASA should focus on stretching the envelope of space exploration for we have so much to discover and to date we have only scratched the surface."

On whether Mars should be the goal for NASA: "A lot of what my administration would recommend depends on our economic state. If we are growing with all of our people employed and our military readiness back to acceptable levels, then we can take a look at the timeline for sending more people into space."

Feb 28th, 2016 - Campaign rally in Alabama

Donald Trump, speaking at a rally now near Huntsville, Ala., says he’ll keep the space program “going” as president.

— Jeff Foust (@jeff_foust) February 28, 2016
Trump suggests he would make budget cuts in other areas, but not the space program. He did not elaborate (so far) in his speech.

— Jeff Foust (@jeff_foust) February 28, 2016
Nov 11, 2015 - Washington Post

"In the old days, it [NASA] was great. Right now, we have bigger problems, you understand that. We have to fix our potholes. We don't exactly have a lot of money."

"You know, space is actually being taken over privately, which is great. It's being taken over, a lot of private companies going up into space. I like that maybe even better."

Aug 15, 2015 - Space Policy Online

[On sending humans to Mars] "Honestly, I think it's wonderful. I want to rebuild our infrastructure first. OK? I think it's wonderful." video source

August 27, 2012 - Twitter

It is very sad to see what @BarackObama has done with NASA. He has gutted the program and made us dependent on the Russians.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 27, 2012
William Mook
2016-11-24 02:12:35 UTC
Permalink
Project for the New American Century favors the development of "global missile defenses," and the control of "space and cyberspace," including the creation of a new military service with the mission of "space control." To help achieve these aims, Rebuilding America's Defenses advocated a gradual increase in military and defense spending "to a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually.

https://web.archive.org/web/20130817122719/http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
bob haller
2016-12-07 01:29:21 UTC
Permalink
air force one ppair of aircraft are the only remaining flying planes still flying.

donald trump will find replacing the aircraft will be cheaper than upgrading the existing ones, plus the contract caancellation fees......

d rump isnt qualified to be president
Fred J. McCall
2016-12-07 03:10:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob haller
air force one ppair of aircraft are the only remaining flying planes still flying.
Uh, say what? That statement doesn't seem to make any sense. And
there is no 'pair of Air Force Ones'. There is only ever one and it
is only that when the President is aboard. Otherwise they are
VC-25As.
Post by bob haller
donald trump will find replacing the aircraft will be cheaper than upgrading the existing ones, plus the contract caancellation fees......
Why do the existing ones need to be 'upgraded'? They're not being
replaced because they need 'upgrades'. They're being replaced because
they're old and that has opened the door for preposterous costs as
everyone wants to jam in 'new' equipment and capabilities.

What contract cancellation fees? The only contract in place right now
is a $170 million requirements definition contract. There are a lot
of different ways to 'manage' that. We could cancel it and pay
whatever cancellation fees there are, if any (and cancellation fees on
that contract don't make much sense, since there is no procurement at
all involved in it). We could let it run to completion, take the
study and shelve it. We could let it run to completion, hand it to a
different contractor (although Boeing is pretty much the only bidder),
and have them do the work. We could buy a couple of aircraft straight
off the commercial lines (and these are commercial aircraft) and then
pay someone else to do all the modifications for special equipment.
Post by bob haller
d rump isnt qualified to be president
Well, you don't seem qualified to be a voter, so that seems to work
out.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...