posted 02-25-2016 12:52 AM               

Should Orion and the Space Launch System (SLS) be the focus and can it be utilized for missions such as manned Mars exploration? Do people believe that SLS is a modernization and reinvention of Saturn V?

Should NASA or perhaps private industry or a combination of both develop a shuttle replacement with heavy lift and reusable capabilities? Should a more ambitious goal such as Mars exploration similar to Andy Weir's "The Martian" be the goal or perhaps another goal?

There have been some interesting developments recently especially with reusable rockets, these developments could be useful for future missions but should some method of standardization be introduced so that development costs are reduced?

posted 02-25-2016 09:21 AM               

Just read that an independent safety panel concluded that NASA, in its attempts to reduce costs for future manned space flight programs, has made several decisions that could increase the possibility of lethal accidents...

posted 02-25-2016 09:32 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip
My generation (50+) is still interested in a manned mission to the moon, and we look to the Chinese space program to accomplish this with a first female taikonaut on the Moon!

---

posted 02-25-2016 09:33 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by oly:
...these developments could be useful for future missions but should some method of standardization be introduced so that development costs are reduced?

---

posted 02-25-2016 10:43 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim Behling:
Standardization of what?

---

If NASA has contracted private companies to design, produce, launch and conduct missions, and in turn has provided payment for these services, would it be logical to ensure some kind of standardization is done so that they don't pay five different companies to do five products that all have common operations?

If items such as launch facilities, GSE, launch operations, mission control, launch area security, fuel storage and handling and all similar items can be done under one budget then why should six vendors have budget allocations for these things (NASA plus five)?

If NASA maintains this type of operation for SLS and ULA, SpaceX and anyone else doing similar work or concurrent type of function, then could standardization potentially make the doubled up funds available for other areas?

I am not fully familiar with if/how much this happens now but with all the news recently regarding SLS and Orion flight schedules and NASA leasing its facilities, it may be prudent for the budget to be managed more like a household budget instead of a government budget.

I also agree to an extent regarding NASA getting out of building some of these things. I feel that if there is a requirement to build heavy-lift rockets or a next generation shuttle then these things would be better off being undertaken by private sector companies.

posted 02-26-2016 07:36 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by oly:
...would it be logical to ensure some kind of standardization is done so that they don't pay five different companies to do five products that all have common operations?

---

posted 02-26-2016 08:46 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by oly:
If NASA maintains this type of operation for SLS and ULA, SpaceX and anyone else doing similar work...

---

posted 02-26-2016 08:54 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim Behling:
There is a standard, see EELV class spacecraft.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim Behling:
That is the whole point of commercial launch procurement. It is completely the opposite of what SLS is.

---

posted 02-26-2016 10:48 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by oly:
But EELV doesn't look beyond LEO. It allows a Delta IV Heavy to possibly get Orion to the ISS.

---

quote:

---

It has no vision of future requirements and continues along the expendable launch vehicle path.

---

posted 02-26-2016 12:04 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by carmelo:
But with only two missions for 2020s (and the second, ARM, not still funded) SLS can be sustainable?

---

posted 02-26-2016 03:18 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Past programs were mission-centric; this program is capability-centric.

---

posted 02-26-2016 10:56 PM               

Shuttle CDR Eileen Collins stated,

When asked about how best to prepare for a successful Mars mission, as a crewmember, I certainly would like to see the hardware tested on the moon's surface first. This is part of a test plan's "build up approach". Policy leaders are asking astronauts to risk their lives on space journeys, and it is our experience that testing in similar environments will minimize risk.

Barely a year later, this carefully hewn strategy was in disarray. Human lunar return had been abandoned as a goal toward which we and our partners would work, as was the development by NASA of a crew transportation system to replace the Space Shuttle. Our existing commitments to our partners to supply crew transportation to ISS, in exchange for the laboratory modules and other ISS infrastructure that they had built, would be met for the foreseeable future by telling them to buy rides on the Russian Soyuz. Beyond the ISS, there was no plan save for a nebulous commitment to visit an asteroid sometime in the 2020s. Inasmuch as such a mission was inherently a one-off exercise offering little or no possibility for international involvement, our existing ISS partners rightly felt abandoned, and potential new partners saw little merit in aligning their programs with those of the United States.

In this context, we must understand that if U.S. leadership in space is important to our nation, then it is necessary to have goals which potential partners might wish to embrace. A one-time visit to an asteroid or, worse, visits to a boulder which has been robotically towed into cislunar space from an asteroid, a mission not adequately supported by the budget allocated to it, a mission not even endorsed by the scientific community this does not constitute such a goal. Contrariwise, returning to the Moon did, and does. The same nations that were eager to join us in that enterprise in 2009 still wish to do so; they are simply waiting for us to lead.

posted 02-26-2016 11:10 PM               

In addition, this would be the proving ground for Mars, both in human factors and the technical side. If people would stop using words like "back" and "return" and start using forward looking terms like "frontier", "proving ground", and "new exploration", NASA might have a much more interesting program in the near term, particularly after ISS is decommisioned.

posted 02-27-2016 01:42 AM               

Human lunar return had been abandoned as a goal toward which we and our partners would work...

NASA only had the budget to support the engineering development of Ares I and Orion, and that was after headquarters directed the scaling back of other NASA programs, including the human life science research needed to support crews on the moon (or anywhere else in space).

Our existing commitments to our partners to supply crew transportation to ISS...

There was no commitment by the U.S. to provide continued crew access to the ISS because to pay for Constellation, NASA intended to deorbit the station in 2015.

A one-time visit to an asteroid...

The same nations that were eager to join us in that enterprise in 2009 still wish to do so; they are simply waiting for us to lead.

Nor has NASA ever ruled out being a part of an international lunar program. It just would not be the country leading the effort, as its focus is on Mars.

As for Buzz Aldrin and what he thinks of a return to the moon, here's a quote from his son, Andy, who is now the director of the Buzz Aldrin Space Institute at Florida Tech:

As strange as it may sound, for the 40 years my dad and I have have been talking about space, there has been relatively few times that we have talked about the moon. Been there, done that. The moon seemed a distraction from the real goal — Mars. But over the past several years the moon has come back as a critical element in his thinking. It is the place where the transition from development to exploration takes place. The focus of U.S. policy should be on establishing the transportation, infrastructure and habitation systems around the moon to enable commercial and international development of the moon. The focus of exploration should be on getting to Mars.

posted 02-27-2016 10:20 AM               

The FAA's Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC) unanimously approved a recommendation that the FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation begin discussions with ESA on ways American companies could participate in what's known as "Moon Village."

...the recommendation states that the FAA, "after consulting with the appropriate U.S. agencies, engage directly with ESA in support of the 'Moon Village' concept, with the goal of fostering the participation of U.S.-based commercial entities in the planning and creation of the 'Moon Village.'"

...for now, Europe's lunar exploration plan remains decidedly one of "all hat, no cattle," as ESA's national governments remain silent in the face of the enthusiastic backing of ESA Director-General Johann-Dietrich Woerner of an international lunar exploration effort.

Judging from remarks made Jan. 4 by Jean-Yves Le Gall, president of the French space agency, CNES — ESA's biggest contributor along with Germany — the idea has yet to catch fire.

"The ESA director-general made a presentation in Jerusalem that was remarked on because it was remarkable," Le Gall said, using a French phrase often employed to signify agitations of no consequence."

"Jan Woerner considers it part of his job to put out ideas even when these ideas have not necessarily been discussed with his member states," Le Gall said. "This is not a bad thing, to have a kind of idea factory. I don't know if his Moon Village will be adopted — there are lots of ideas being kicked around on multiple subjects. But it's good to have an open debate."

posted 02-27-2016 10:21 AM               

Conversely a exploration of the moon would be now a on going thing, with semi-permanent outposts, and permanent base.

What does it mean "we have already been on the moon"? This is not a stunt for the Guinness book of records!

posted 02-27-2016 10:32 AM               

The moon can be also settled (though faces different challenges), but it could be done by commercial entities rather than a government program. Multiple companies are developing propulsion systems capable of landing on the moon (e.g. SpaceX, Blue Origin, Masten Space Systems) and at least one has a plan for habitation modules (i.e. Bigelow Aerospace).

posted 02-28-2016 04:43 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim Behling:
Why is there a need for NASA to go to the moon?

---

posted 02-29-2016 08:14 AM               

With 8 years of the ISS remaining and no plan for Orion manned flights to the ISS this would indicate their plans may have changed somewhat but that by design NASA are working towards one of these goals.

I would like to think that more long duration flights will be conducted on ISS.

posted 02-29-2016 08:25 AM               

It was earlier space station proposals, such as Freedom, that had been planned for a more amenable inclination to support missions leaving Earth orbit.

posted 02-29-2016 09:12 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
The moon's surface as a goal was already being curtailed before the current administration took office.

---

All that matters now is what is ahead. SLS was born out of the ashes of Constellation, and there was plenty of politics at play there as well. I have no doubt that this very hearing about "the continuity of space policy" was probably formulated to ensure SLS survives this election cycle.

Griffin himself stated during his testimony that no one should misinterpret his words as a defense of Constellation. I'm glad that he is still an active voice in the conversation, as he understands the history of all of this that I mentioned in another post.

I didn't see any controversy about any of Eileen Collins' testimony, and she offered the same opinion as to what the next goal should be.

Commercial crew should have been much further along than it currently is. The funding shortfalls don't make economic sense to a fifth grader, let alone Congress. Why that money has been allowed to flow to Russia for so many years is inexcusable.

Let's see... asteroids. I think you are referring to robotic explorations. That's great. Commercial asteroid mining? Great, nothing stopping those companies from going to do that. But the initial plan proposed under this Administration made it sound as if an asteroid lay right in the straight line path between Earth and Mars, and it would simply be good place to stop to prove our technology out.

Then it turned into the "bag and drag" concept, and now has become a "land and grab a rock and drag it back to cislunar space" plan. The good folks at NASA are working diligently to make that mission work, but it has failed to gain any momentum or interest. It's DOA come January. Too bad so many resources have been dumped into it for the past several years. Maybe some of it will pay some dividends to the commercial guys, if they ever go.

Russia's lunar plans, or lack thereof, are theirs alone. As we saw with ISS, putting critical hardware in the path to any space goal in Russia's hands is a recipe for delay and spiraling cost. Time and again, they propose grand projects, and fail to deliver.

The new Vostochny Cosmodrome has been mired in delays, cost overruns, worker strikes, and embarrassing design and construction errors.

Russia will not be leading a successful lunar program anytime soon. ESA, Japan, and Canada certainly will not. That leaves China and the U.S. I have a favorite in that race.

Buzz has related the story of his ride with Obama several times publicly. I realize that at the time he would not have offered support for a new lunar program, but he was never even given the opportunity to offer any opinion. The testimony of Griffin and Collins offer some more insight into how those decisions were made by the Administration, and are worth reading.

I hope Aldrin's son is accurate in his relating of Dad's shift in thinking. He's a strong voice too.

The other intangible thing at play here is that these folks, like most of us, want to get behind a program that can happen in their lifetimes, not a continuously sliding 30 year point down the road. I think most politicians think in those terms as well, but who knows?

posted 03-01-2016 01:51 PM               

Ok, today are troubles with Russia, and is possible that is not feasible involve China. But relations with Russia can (and must) be improved, a pact can be reached.

Is not more logical, economical, sustainable combine efforts for build around to Orion/SLS a architecture for edify a outpost in cislunar space and a base on moon?

posted 03-04-2016 05:49 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by carmelo:
After the ISS (International Space Station) the ILB (International Lunar Base). Why not?

---

posted 03-04-2016 08:58 AM               

All the planets around our sun that have been identified have now been visited by spacecraft from Earth. The latest pictures from Pluto have been spectacular and have given the public and media some great focus of their attention, as has Kelly's ISS mission with photos, social media and flying gorilla. But if the public and media don't have these distractions to sooth their space need there is every chance when the question of what's next is asked, as happens on these forums, that the answers may be lacking.

For the general public, missions to repair or service Hubble may have been more interesting than the images Hubble actually captures. While Hubble is a fantastic instrument, its life is limited. Without shuttle, such capture, repair and service missions can't be done. With Orion mission schedule so sparse enthusiasm for space missions needs to be promoted.

posted 03-04-2016 09:50 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
...it remains the position of the government that "expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space" and the "preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science and technology" are of benefit to the "general welfare and security of the United States."

---