NASA and the Private Sector - Page 138

On September 21 2017 02:40 LegalLord wrote:
Moon water is probably better.

On September 21 2017 04:28 LegalLord wrote:

I mean it's so ubiquitous that it's kind of hard to answer. Why focus on something far away with added logistical difficulties for pretty much no benefit in return? A Moon mission is easier AND more useful and unless you're into spending more money and effort for less gain then there is no reason to do an asteroid. Frankly a lot of the motivation for landing on an asteroid was that Obama had a vendetta against doing more on the Moon, thinking it wasn't interesting when that couldn't have been further from the truth.


Quite the opposite. Both need a landing; you can't just crash into an asteroid, you need to land just the same. At the end of the day they're both dead rocks. But one is closer. Yes it's bigger but not by enough to make it more complex. The Moon is nowhere near as hard as Earth to launch from.


1. We already do that.
2. You wouldn't launch a mission to an asteroid without first surveying it and seeing if it's actually good for your planned idea anyways.
3. While we're on the subject of wasted energy, you waste a lot more launching to an asteroid than you do to the Moon. And chasing an object that doesn't have the gravitational pull to bring you into its orbit is a royal pain in the ass. It takes four days to get to the moon, but on anything but the most advanced version of the Soyuz in operation for only the last few years it takes two days just to catch the ISS. Asteroids are somewhere in the middle but far, far away. Near-Earth ones are bigger than the ISS, just as hard to catch if not harder, and don't provide much of a gravitational pull; big ones are really tough to reach.


Don't recall off the top of my head but I think it's already being done.


A good idea for any space-based infrastructure. Might be worth noting that NASA, ESA, and Roscosmos are all strongly leaning towards cislunar development right now.


1. Long term infrastructure is worth it.
2. How are asteroids better? It's not exactly easier to make asteroids work.


1. Fuel and oxygen from water.
2. The Moon is more reliable for any such purpose. Asteroids you could mine for water are either small or far away.


You seem to see asteroids as easier than the Moon for the same purpose. But it's not really true; launching to the Moon is easy enough for existing rockets (Atlas, Delta, Ariane, Proton, SLS and Angara in short order) and the robotics and manufacturing are much easier there than on a smaller dead rock. Take it in steps and soon it will look quite viable. And as mentioned, there are a lot of groups that think the Moon is worth it.

On September 21 2017 04:04 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I'm not saying take money away, I'm saying, like in the US poli thread, do not increase their funding. They don't need it. Use that for other things.

On September 21 2017 01:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
We could do that if we borrowed some money from the military and gave it to NASA, don't you think?

On September 21 2017 07:45 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:

So, for the military, they were given $80bn they didn't ask for. We argued over what the money could have been used for instead.
I'm kicking education and UHC to the side in this thread and talking specifically about giving that $80bn to NASA. They've been needed an upgrade for a long time and $80bn would be a great boost. I'm not taking money from the military at that point.
If we don't factor in the additional money given to the military, then we could still borrow that money from the military. Announce a reduction of $50bn next year and that money could go to NASA. If things work out, then that money could be given back next budget year.

Does that clear it up a bit more? I'm talking in generalities and not CBO numbers because, frankly, I suck at it. I'm just tossing ideas out.

(things like that cost lives you know)

On September 21 2017 10:26 KwarK wrote:
Micronesia, did you just go with "if the military budget drops below $640b people will die!" Doesn't that seem a little hyperbolic?

I am also very skeptical about whether the additional $80b will significantly increase the US ability to defend vs NK ICBMs.

If I may be cynical, the amount of money the military requests is simply going to be the amount they think will get approved if they ask for it, and nothing more. There isn't a scenario in which they are given so much money that they turn around and say "we can't make you any safer by spending the last few billion so take them back". There is no bottom to the money pit, rather there is a diminishing return curve which approaches but never reaches zero increase in national security for each additional dollar. So, in response to your claim that the NK escalation meant they needed more, I find that extremely far fetched. What I will absolutely believe is that the NK escalation made them think they could get more.

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — A long-awaited solicitation for industry bids on future space launch services will be out “soon,” said Air Force procurement chief Lt. Gen. Arnold Bunch.

Much is at stake for the space industry in how the Air Force proceeds with a “launch services agreement” that has been in the works for months. Bidders already have commented on an earlier draft request for proposals and are now awaiting the final RFP.

“We want to get the real RFP out to industry,” Bunch told reporters Tuesday at the Air Force Association’s Air Space Cyber conference.

Officials have said the plan is to award up to three contracts to develop prototypes of next-generation launch vehicles. The Air Force insists it needs at least two different vehicles to assure access to space.

Bunch said it has not yet been decided whether two or three vehicles will be selected.

The Air Force has come under huge political pressure to strike a favorable deal with suppliers at a time when commercial providers like SpaceX are shaking up the market and dramatically lowering launch costs.

“We have had a lot of dialogue with industry,” Bunch said. “There are still some final things we need to do. We hope to get the RFP out soon.”

With space launch in the spotlight on Capitol Hill, the Air Force also wants to make sure lawmakers are on board with the new contracting strategy. “We need to do more dialogue with the Hill,” Bunch said. “I would hope we get that done within the next month.”

One sticking point in the debate has been Congress’ insistence that the Air Force’s top supplier United Launch Alliance stop buying Russian RD-180 engines for its Atlas 5 rocket. ULA is in the process of developing and testing domestically produced engines for an Atlas 5 follow-on dubbed Vulcan but may need to continue using RD-180s for a few more years.

Bunch insisted there are no plans to ask Congress for approval to buy more Russian engines beyond the 18 that were already agreed to. “We are still marching to the limits that we were given by the Hill,” said Bunch.

Bunch would not discuss ULA’s progress in selecting a new engine, but said the priority for the Air Force is to ensure it can put military satellites into orbit. “We need assured access to space,” he said. “Part of the launch services agreement strategy is having domestically produced engines capable of all national security space missions.”

The upcoming launch services competition will feature a mix of military-focused and commercial companies. Challenging ULA will be Orbital ATK, which is developing a “next generation launch” vehicle, and SpaceX.

Air Force space officials touted SpaceX during a panel discussion at the conference. They praised SpaceX for having disrupted the market and forcing everyone to do business differently, in a more commercial fashion.

Also adding pressure on the Air Force to move forward is the military’s increased focus on space as a future battlefront. Brig. Gen. Wayne Monteith, commander of the 45th Space Wing at Patrick Air Force Base, Florida, said space warriors are busier than they have been in decades. “This fiscal year we have launched 21 space missions,” he said. “That is one-fourth of all space missions in the world,” he noted.

“We have launched more than Russia and more than China.”

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — The emergence of Elon Musk’s SpaceX as a legitimate and competitive player in the space-launch arena has prompted the U.S. Air Force to re-evaluate the way it perceives launch operations, said Brig. Gen. Wayne Monteith, commander, 45th Space Wing.

“SpaceX does not launch on schedule,” Monteith said Sept. 20 during a space warfighting panel at the annual Air Force Association Air Space Cyber Conference. “They launch on readiness.”

This launch-when-we’re-ready-to-go attitude has had an impact on SpaceX operational needs and costs, said Monteith, who also is director of the Air Force Eastern Range, Patrick Air Force Base, Florida.

“They have forced us — and I mean forced us — to get better, infinitely better, at what we do,” he said. “We are adopting commercial business practices and becom[ing] more efficient and more affordable.

“Working with them, we have been able to reduce our main launch footprint by 60 percent and reduce the cost of a single launch by over 50 percent,” he said. “Based on the autonomous flight safety system they developed with us they will help us get to 48 launches a year.”

That number includes launches for all Air Force facilities and right now, he said, the service is conducting about half that launch total annually.

The autonomous flight safety system replaces the ground-based mission flight control personnel and equipment with on-board positioning, navigation and timing sources and decision logic, the Air Force notes. The system is meant to reduce range spacelift cost, increase schedule predictability and availability, operational flexibility, and launch-slot flexibility.

The autonomous system is already fully installed at Vandenberg Air Force Base, officials said, and they want to expand.

“My goal is to make all ranges autonomous,” Gen John “Jay” Raymond, commander, Air Force Space Command, said Sept. 20 at another conference media roundtable briefing on space operations.

SpaceX simply does things differently, Monteith said. “And that’s good. We should not be the barrier between them and success.”

While SpaceX may be the commercial company having the biggest impact on how the Air Force approaches the way it does business, it is not the only company that is making the service look in the mirror.

“We are seeing other companies out there doing the same thing,” Col. Michael Hough, commander, 30th Space Wing and Western Range, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, said during the panel discussion.

“They are out in front of us and we’re catching up,” he said. “We’re listening to them.”

McALLEN, RGV – Eduardo A. Campirano, port director and CEO of the Port of Brownsville, says he would not be surprised to see Elon Musk announce even bigger plans for SpaceX’s rocket-launching site at Boca Chica.

Campirano was asked to give an update on SpaceX’s plans for Boca Chica when chairing a Rio South Texas Economic Council meeting earlier this week.

“I know Elon Musk is expected to speak on the 29th and everyone holds their breath to see what he says. I think he has made some indications that there may be some bigger plans for Boca Chica than initially anticipated,” Campirano said, in response to a question from Mike Willis on the South Texas Manufacturers Association.

“If you recall, at one of them, everyone kind of said he was crazy when he talked about launching rockets to Mars and he will be sending people. I would not be surprised to hear at one of his upcoming forums where he will just say when it is going to occur.”

Campirano hastened to add that is not official. “I don’t know (what he is going to say). He (Musk) is going to be a speaker at a conference on the 29th. It will be interesting to see what he says.”

Musk, founder of SpaceX, is expected to give highly anticipated updates next week about SpaceX’s plans to take humans to Mars. Musk will speak Sept. 29 at the International Astronautical Congress (IAC) in Adelaide, Australia, the same forum where he first revealed SpaceX’s plans for a Martian conquest.

SpaceX will likely be launching rockets from its facility on Boca Chica beach near Brownsville in late 2018, according to Cameron County Judge Eddie Treviño. Interviewed by the Rio Grande Guardian about SpaceX after the RSTEC meeting had wrapped up, Campirano said: `

“They are moving forward with plans for Boca Chica. They have been working on their launch pad, that is going to happen. We have been told they have pushed the rocket launches back a year. So, instead of 2017 it is 2018. It seems to be on schedule. If there are any changes to that it will be potentially be because something else is going on. We are excited to see that (the International Astronautical Congress) going on. And then, of course, the university (UTRGV) is starting to do some of the preliminary work on Stargate (at Boca Chica). All that stuff goes hand in hand.”