TRUMP supporting NASA and SLS

[ColumbiaNX01]

I dont care what your political affiliation is. This is a cool little read. I saw this on yahoo news. IDK how reliable it is. Well short story is NASA was going to do a test with SLS in 2018 using Orion to sling shot around the moon and then in 2021 astronauts will go aboard and go around the moon. Now Trump is wanting NASA to put astronauts in Orion for the 2018 flight around the moon. I got super excited about this. I for one would love to see this. I guess NASA is worried and could still say no. I personally think there is no other choice, we need to do it and Trump is supporting it. This is the first time in a long time that the POTUS to telling NASA to do something. Not since JFK. It is a risk putting man in an untested rocket but it is worth the risk. You ask all the astronauts and I believe all of them would be for it. Just being an astronaut there is an understand risk. I believe they would accept the risk and fly in 2018. If it was me I would say yes. This flight would be the biggest undertaking since Apollo 17.

If the hardware is reliable and all the mathematical calculations are good then I say go for it. I would be proud to know this is where my tax dollars are going. Space is the new sea and we must set sail.



https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-asks-nasa-explore-putting-crew-rockets-debut-195620384.html

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

It's an exciting idea, but the study will determine if it is feasible or beneficial. As I understood it, the test flight in 2018 was mostly to test the SLS rocket. The Orion was not intended to be fully outfitted with life support for astronauts. You'd need to accelerate the Orion development or let the schedule slip. And I'm not sure NASA will want to take on the risk of astronauts aboard a new model of rocket for its very first flight. We will see.

 

[georgegassaway]

SLS test flight would be delayed by years, to allow the Spacecraft to be ready. Not even talking about a short crewed mission into Low Earth Orbit, to say dock with ISS for a test run. To fly it to the moon would mean a commitment to the spacecraft operating properly for at least SIX DAYS (3 days to the moon and 3 days back, no Lunar Module "Lifeboat"). That is a lot to demand and risk of a first test flight and "politically sped-*** spacecraft development program that has been carefully planned out and underway for years.

And that is not even getting into the issues with flying a manned spacecraft on the very first flight of a brand new launch vehicle. Shuttle kind of needed to because of its design. And a Launch Escape system is no guarantee, stuff can still go wrong.

It is notable that despite this "interest in space", there is NO nomination for a new NASA administrator. Cart, with NO HORSE. Very screwed-up priorities, but then par for the course.

If the new NASA administrator was as personally committed to the ideals of NASA, as some of the people chosen for cabinet positions already filled in this administration personally feel about the agencies they are in charge of, I would not be surprised if they chose Bart Sibrel as the new NASA administrator.

A politically-ordered joyride around the moon would serve little purpose. This is 2017, not 1967. Could be understandable if NASA planned for say crewed flight #3 to go to the moon and back as part of a plan for further testing, before committing for longer and farther missions to an asteroid or whatever.

Although the Orion and SLS still make little sense to me, Orion can't go to Mars. I've come to consider the Orion and SLS as a "treading water" program to technically keep NASA manned spaceflight alive. But at a flight rate of one every few YEARS, there's not much it can be doing. Once the commercial crew spacecraft programs (SpaceX Dragon, Boeing CST-100 Starliner) go operational, at least NASA can get astronauts to ISS and do some other limited space missions without the incredibly expensive once every few years SLS. SLS is mostly a rocket without a goal, other than to launch and to exist. Saturn-V was built for a specific purpose and there was national commitment for it to do so.

And oh yeah, BEEN THERE, DONE THAT, with Apollo-8. If we ever want to go to Mars, then LET's GO TO MARS. Not Bread and Circuses with a political Lunar Joyride Stunt.

Anyway, here's a video by "Vintage Space" about why this isn't a good idea and it's not parallel to Apollo-8.

[video=youtube;cdrEzIlecIk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdrEzIlecIk[/video]

 

[Mushtang]

A long time ago I heard someone lay out the plan to Mars, and it still seems like a good long term goal to me if we ever go to Mars on a regular basis. Maybe not so much for the first landing.

First, a space station in orbit around Earth capable of spacecraft construction/assembly. I'm not so sure this is actually necessary if an SLS or Saturn V type rocket could get heavy loads to moon orbit, because these wouldn't need to dock with the Earth station for any reason. Unless the cargo is more than a Saturn V could get to Lunar orbit, and a bigger booster assembled in orbit would help.

Second, a similar station in orbit around the Moon. This station could be more beneficial for refilling liquid fuel stages before the fast break out of the Earth system towards Mars. A multi stage rocket with lots of fuel would definitely shorten the time it takes to get to Mars. Without this stage we'll be leaving Earth much slower and it'll take longer to coast to Mars.

Third, leave Lunar orbit with three stages. Burn one stage to get up to high speed and coast, burn the second one to slow down and get captured in Mars orbit, the third stage could bring you back to Earth.

A station in Mars orbit could be constructed and regular trips to the surface made with landers similar to the LEM.

But none of that should be done unless there's an actual profitable reason to go to Mars regularly. Mining for monetary profit, information profit (what if there's things we discover and we feel we need to find out more about), etc. Doing all that just to do it would not be a good way to spend tax money. In the 60's we were in competition with Communism to get to the Moon first. There doesn't seem to be a good political reason to be the first to Mars.

 

[DavidMcCann]

The trouble with space...is there's no where worth going right now....

 

[dhbarr]

Because it's there, just like Antarctica and the Marianas trench.

 

[markkoelsch]

We should not put folks on the first one. The second we should. The reality is that the Orion is taking way to long. If it were a private development it would be done and ready.

Mars is really a long shot. We should populate the moon. Build a real moon base and get experience living elsewhere. Moonbase Alpha!

9-13-1999.

 

[cerving]

I think Trump is afraid that Elon Musk may get to Mars before the SLS/Orion can get to the moon...

 

[Winston]

TRUMP supporting NASA and SLS. Well, he got one out of two right.

 

[tmacklin]

I think it's only a matter of time until we see an announcement for the first ever Luxury Casino and 18 Hole Golf Course on the Moon. Just image..."Trump's Craters". :rofl:

 

[davdue]

I was 5 years old when Neal Armstrong walked on the moon so I have grown up while NASA went to the moon and developed the Shuttle. I was in college when the Challenger blew up. All that said to say I am as committed to the USA exploring space as anybody. I agree with other posters that this is not a good idea. I believe NASA has sort have lost their way. The need to decide what is the next thing to do and design the rocket(s) to get there and do it. The SLS is cool in the fact that it is one huge solid rocket motor but it's not ready for manned flight next year. I think it is awesome that we have a POTUS that supports space exploration. We haven't had that in at least 8 years.

 

[Mushtang]

We haven't had that in at least 8 years.

I suppose it was important to Obama for NASA to have one of their goals be to improve Muslim relations, but maybe if they're given a bigger budget and different goals we can see some of their rockets launch again in the next 8.

But... I hope it's for a worthwhile reason and not just to be launching rockets and spending (wasting) tax money just because they can.

 

[Steven]

I believe that extraordinary circumstances were in place for the moon landings back in the 60's and 70's. Having culminated in a "space race" against another super power in regards to who would get to the moon first. I'm loosely basing an assumption that it may have to take similar circumstances to give any country/countries impetus to push forward aggressively to achieve the goal of either landing on Mars or the moon again.

 

[boatgeek]

So here's the question: is the engineering done for the manned version of the capsule? If so, there's a chance of launching it in 2018 if enough money is available to accelerate building the capsule. If not, it's going to be a waste of mountains of money and significantly increased chance of failure.

I'm all for launching people to a nearby asteroid or the moon. I'm all for spending more money to get that done. I also know that the American public is really prone to giving up on something because of catastrophe. I'm not saying that's good or bad, just the reality. An Apollo I disaster would cripple the manned space program for a long time. Likewise, massive cost overruns due to designing while building will kill off Congressional interest in manned travel.

 

[Steven]

I've felt the shuttle program was predominantly a waste of time and money for continuing on for as long as it had. Low earth orbit shenanigans only stalled our country from reaching the greater goal of landing man on another celestial body. We really need some meat and potatoes in our space exploration diet (along with some Tang) if we are ever to achieve greatness again. I feel that the moon IS necessary in providing a stepping stone towards Mars as it is only days away travel wise and everything we need to learn about extended stays must be learned and achieved at this level FIRST.
If you can't get it right on the moon, lot's of luck going anywhere else.

 

[J Blatz]

Engineering takes time, especially for man-rated launch systems.

Bluster will not eliminate that.

 

[Incongruent]

I believe that extraordinary circumstances were in place for the moon landings back in the 60's and 70's. Having culminated in a "space race" against another super power in regards to who would get to the moon first. I'm loosely basing an assumption that it may have to take similar circumstances to give any country/countries impetus to push forward aggressively to achieve the goal of either landing on Mars or the moon again.

I agree. There was a speech I listened to and it said something along the lines of "competition drives innovation."

Unfortunately, there are typically drawbacks to having competition.

 

[mpitfield]

I agree. There was a speech I listened to and it said something along the lines of "competition drives innovation."

Unfortunately, there are typically drawbacks to having competition.

And on that note https://www.rocketryforum.com/showt...p-most-recent-missions)&p=1672579#post1672579

 

[ColumbiaNX01]

I look at it this way. They have had 45 years to design hardware. Its time. Its been long enough. If I could go I would go in a heartbeat. We need some real American Heros now morethan ever. Orion has been in the works for the last 10-15 years it needs to be ready now. If they launch with people and something bad happens then at least they tried. The old saying is better to of loved and lost rather then love at all. Its better to attempt and try and fail then never try at all. Thats my 2 cents. I heard once that NASA's budget is half of 1 cent on a tax dollar if that is still so that is not much across the board per individual but alot all together.

 

[ColumbiaNX01]

I think Trump is afraid that Elon Musk may get to Mars before the SLS/Orion can get to the moon...

Thats right. It would be embarrassing for the NASA if a private company like spaceX beat NASA back to the moon or mars.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Thats right. It would be embarrassing for the NASA if a private company like spaceX beat NASA back to the moon or mars.

And that's exactly what it is going to happen. Here's news that SpaceX plans to send a couple of tourists around the moon in 2018: https://www.rocketryforum.com/showt...p-most-recent-missions)&p=1672579#post1672579

 

[cwbullet]

Many years of pessimism have lost your ability to dream and imagine. We need to goal and timeline to develop another space program. Unfortunaely, partisanship had gotten the way.

 

[boatgeek]

I look at it this way. They have had 45 years to design hardware. Its time. Its been long enough. If I could go I would go in a heartbeat. We need some real American Heros now morethan ever. Orion has been in the works for the last 10-15 years it needs to be ready now. If they launch with people and something bad happens then at least they tried. The old saying is better to of loved and lost rather then love at all. Its better to attempt and try and fail then never try at all. Thats my 2 cents. I heard once that NASA's budget is half of 1 cent on a tax dollar if that is still so that is not much across the board per individual but alot all together.

Well, they've had 45 years of rapidly changing priorities. Unfortunately, NASA can't just say what they're going to build, or design something that they like without input from their political masters at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. Since the middle of the Space Shuttle program, US manned space flight has been Space Shuttle (science in LEO, launching satellites, building the ISS), Constellation (2005-2009, goal Moon/Mars), and SLS/Orion (2011-present, goal Moon/asteroid/Mars). While Constellation and SLS have the same general goals, they have pretty different architectures and so needed a lot of re-engineering , not to mention an entirely new first stage engine, just recently tested.

In our office we joke about "instant engineering, just add water" when someone comes in and says they want a boat exactly like this other one, except longer, wider, with 5 more crew, and 50% more horsepower. Usually, they're surprised when we tell them that this is an entirely new boat, so they'll have to pay an entirely new boat design cost.

But by all means, let's load up a bunch of people on a rocket design that's never flown before, on engines that have never flown before, in a capsule that's not really ready for prime time, and see if it works! If it does, well, we've cut a year or two off of the time to get to the Moon. If not, we get to have a moving ceremony at NASA HQ and lay some wreaths. I'm sure everyone will think it was worth it then.

Seriously, if you want to get to the Moon or Mars faster, fund the programs on a long-term basis like you really mean to keep your schedules.

 

[mpitfield]

Like pretty much everything else this functional idiot does, this is a nit-witted publicity stunt.

Trump is a drooling mouth breather and sex pervert who'd be hard-put to pull a C-minus in any decent junior high science class.

He needs to get back to what he's good at: discussing how much he wants to see his daughter naked in a skin mag.

There are some good reasons to go
back to the moon, but rest assured Dumpf and his band of baboons have none of them in mind.

Wow that one is sure on the wrong side. Don't get me wrong I have no skin in the game but I wonder if this post would be ignored if this was a shot at the other side.

 

[markkoelsch]

Engineering takes time, especially for man-rated launch systems.

Bluster will not eliminate that.

That is true. Know one should be on the first SLS.

I still believe that the Orion is the larger hold up than the SLS. I believe that if this were purely a private venture it would already be ready.

Where would Space X be with 10 billion a year or so.

 

[JStarStar]

Thats right. It would be embarrassing for the NASA if a private company like spaceX beat NASA back to the moon or mars.

NASA could have been back on the moon in 90 days in 1972-73-74 if the administration in charge at the time had not pulled the plug and canceled the program. NASA could have been back on the moon in 6-18 months at any time in between had any administration decided to appropriate the money. NASA could have developed safer and more reliable launch vehicles following the 1986 and 2002 shuttle disasters but the administrations in charge decided not to.

NASA has screwed up plenty on its own in 60 years but many if not most of those screwups are the result of conflicting, contradictory and idiotic directives from political stooges. "Private enterprise" won't fix the problems, in fact it'll make some of them worse.

 

[markkoelsch]

I disagree about private enterprise. Let them dictate the mission and get the government the hell out of the way.

 

[tmacklin]

We don't care how you get the money...JUST GET IT!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite...le:US_Federal_Outlay_and_GDP_linear_graph.svg

 

[Sparky]

It was Russia possibly beating us, and a President Kennedy that identified a dream and then backed it that got us to the moon the first time.

 

[Mushtang]

I disagree about private enterprise. Let them dictate the mission and get the government the hell out of the way.

This.

If there's a good enough reason for a return to the moon, or a mission to Mars, private enterprise will make it happen quicker and much more efficiently than government could do. Short of a national security issue or a situation like we had with the space race with the Russians in the 50s and 60s, the government shouldn't decide the course for space ventures.

Same thing with deep water exploration. Does anyone think that the government should be in charge or who is allowed to create a exploring submarine, what they should explore, when they're allowed to go searching, etc? As long as these things are done in ways that don't endanger or hurt others, why not let private enterprise do their best and the government can focus on protecting and running the country.