Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday December 12 2017, @09:34PM   Printer-friendly
from the To-the-Moon,-Alice!-To-the-Moon! dept.

No more sending humans to an asteroid. We're going back to the Moon:

The policy calls for the NASA administrator to "lead an innovative and sustainable program of exploration with commercial and international partners to enable human expansion across the solar system and to bring back to Earth new knowledge and opportunities." The effort will more effectively organize government, private industry, and international efforts toward returning humans on the Moon, and will lay the foundation that will eventually enable human exploration of Mars.

"The directive I am signing today will refocus America's space program on human exploration and discovery," said President Trump. "It marks a first step in returning American astronauts to the Moon for the first time since 1972, for long-term exploration and use. This time, we will not only plant our flag and leave our footprints -- we will establish a foundation for an eventual mission to Mars, and perhaps someday, to many worlds beyond."

The policy grew from a unanimous recommendation by the new National Space Council, chaired by Vice President Mike Pence, after its first meeting Oct. 5. In addition to the direction to plan for human return to the Moon, the policy also ends NASA's existing effort to send humans to an asteroid. The president revived the National Space Council in July to advise and help implement his space policy with exploration as a national priority.

President's remarks and White House release.

Presidential Memorandum on Reinvigorating America's Human Space Exploration Program

Also at Reuters and New Scientist.

Previously: Should We Skip Mars for Now and Go to the Moon Again?
How to Get Back to the Moon in 4 Years, Permanently
NASA Eyeing Mini Space Station in Lunar Orbit as Stepping Stone to Mars
NASA and Roscosmos Sign Joint Statement on the Development of a Lunar Space Station
Bigelow and ULA to Put Inflatable Module in Orbit Around the Moon by 2022


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by captain_nifty on Tuesday December 12 2017, @09:52PM (38 children)

    by captain_nifty (4252) on Tuesday December 12 2017, @09:52PM (#608959)

    If congress isn't messing with their funding by earmarking it for their constituents, we have a new executive every 4-8 years giving them new long term plans.

    You can't have effective long term planning, when the plans constantly change in the relative short term.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=4, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @10:00PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @10:00PM (#608966)

    The directive should call for putting a Congressman on the Moon by 2018 elections, and all Congressmen by 2020.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by fustakrakich on Tuesday December 12 2017, @10:38PM (2 children)

      by fustakrakich (6150) on Tuesday December 12 2017, @10:38PM (#608986) Journal

      We can at least put them all out of house... Cheaper and quicker than firing them off into space. Of course we could make it suborbital, with no heat shield. Would that be too cruel [youtube.com]?

      --
      La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @07:07AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @07:07AM (#609120)

        We can at least put them all out of house... Cheaper and quicker than firing them off into space.

        Really? I wouldn't be so sure, it didn't seem to work all that well so far.

        • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:06AM

          by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:06AM (#609150) Journal

          It's a collective effort, but for the individual, the choice is trivial to make. You do one thing, or the other.

          --
          La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @01:41AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @01:41AM (#609050)
      Well, they're mostly a bunch of lunatics in any case. And while we're at it, send the lunatic-in-chief there as well.
  • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday December 12 2017, @10:07PM (1 child)

    by Freeman (732) on Tuesday December 12 2017, @10:07PM (#608968) Journal

    While that is true, the space race was initiated by a president that was only active for 2 years after the pledge. What really motivated the Space Race wasn't Congress or a consistent President. It was the fact that America as a whole was pitted against Russia/USSR as a whole during the entirety of the Space Race. The current "Space Race" is more of a private economic affair. While Mr. Musk has tons of money, he would be burning it, if there wasn't some economic factor that allowed him to do what he has done with SpaceX.

    --
    Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday December 12 2017, @10:34PM

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday December 12 2017, @10:34PM (#608984)

      We had a persistent, steady and formidable opponent.

      Today, we've got Silicon valley startups and Kiwi-tech for competition. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Rocket Lab, but... it hardly inspires middle America to forego a cost-of-living increase in their Social Security checks.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by takyon on Tuesday December 12 2017, @10:21PM (30 children)

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday December 12 2017, @10:21PM (#608972) Journal

    A lot of NASA's cheaper unmanned missions have proceeded as planned (and they were planned over many years). Even expensive boondoggles like the JWST are pretty secure in their funding. Congress does interfere a little bit, such as the mandated mission to Europa, but it's not too bad.

    It's manned spaceflight that has been a mess, and not entirely because our goals are muddled and change from one Administration to another. We had the expensive Space Shuttle and then reliance on the Russians, with years of activity in LEO but not beyond. And maybe it is a good thing for us not to be locked into any particular plan. The Space Launch System is a huge money waster and its maiden flight is likely being delayed until 2020. SpaceX has accomplished a lot using a relatively small amount of funding from NASA. If Falcon Heavy is successful and partially reusable and SpaceX turns its sights towards the Interplanetary Transport System and Mars, we could reach a point where cancelling the in-progress SLS pork project and diverting funds (somewhere in the neighborhood of $10 billion) to SpaceX is a much smarter move. Falcon Heavy will deliver a similar though slightly smaller payload to LEO as SLS Block 1, at less than 20% of the cost.

    I think we could easily see the cost of SLS flights reaching $750 million instead of $500 million, and Falcon Heavy declining to the current cost of a Falcon 9 flight due to reusable stages. In which case, SpaceX could get a Falcon Heavy payload (with the caveat of a lower mass due to reusable mode) at around 8% of the cost of an SLS flight which wastes rocket stages by design.

    Will Congress kill the SLS pork rocket? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on how much success SpaceX and other commercial launchers have in the meantime, and how badly mismanaged the SLS becomes.

    The current official plan of returning to the Moon with some sort of undefined Mars exploration in the mid-late 2030s seems like it can survive subsequent administrations. There's talk of ISS-style cooperation [scmp.com] on a lunar orbital space station [soylentnews.org]. Russia [soylentnews.org], China [soylentnews.org], ESA [soylentnews.org], and JAXA [soylentnews.org] have all expressed a lot of interest in going to the Moon (even [soylentnews.org] India/ISRO [soylentnews.org]).

    It looks like we will see international cooperation on upcoming lunar exploration, partially due to the U.S. already achieving the manned landing there in 1969. And then SpaceX or another private company will make it to Mars first (SpaceX wants to send humans there in 2024, much earlier than any nation is planning to do it). That would stop the Mars race in its tracks. I think this scenario is good for the world.

    The humans-visiting-an-asteroid mission concept was pretty widely criticized. It would have been interesting, but Moon-then-Mars manned exploration is probably a better idea. So that Obama-era idea has been cleared away, but both administrations wanted eventual Mars exploration and I doubt subsequent administrations will veer away from that course.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday December 12 2017, @11:19PM (4 children)

      by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Tuesday December 12 2017, @11:19PM (#609007) Homepage Journal

      that's the keyword right there.

      SLS will NEVER be cancelled.

      --
      Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
      • (Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Wednesday December 13 2017, @12:11AM (2 children)

        by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday December 13 2017, @12:11AM (#609020) Journal

        Newer batches of Congressmen (post-2010?) have been a lot less tolerant of sacred cows and pork spending.

        SLS could be cancelled. But it will require the confluence of incredible SpaceX success (let's see what happens with the Falcon Heavy maiden launch in January), Space Launch System failure (additional delays, failure on the launch pad, etc.), and public pressure to cancel SLS.

        Initially, Falcon Heavy will face off against SLS. But in a nightmare scenario for SLS, launches could be postponed another whole year or two. If SpaceX were to fly the successor to Falcon Heavy around the same time as initial flights of SLS, SLS might be too small to not fail.

        Currently planned:

        Falcon Heavy to LEO: 63,800 kg
        Falcon Heavy to GTO: 26,700 kg
        Falcon Heavy to Trans-Mars injection: 16,800 kg
        Falcon Heavy to Trans-lunar injection: 16,000 kg

        SLS Block 1 to LEO: 70,000 kg
        SLS Block 1A/1B to LEO: 105,000 kg
        SLS Block 1B to Trans-lunar injection: 39,200 kg
        SLS Block 2 to LEO: 130,000 kg

        SpaceX Big "Falcon" Rocket to LEO: 250,000 kg (expendable)
        BFR to LEO: 150,000 kg (reusable)

        Note that BFR is a scaled-down version of the previously planned Interplanetary Transport System. And they are hoping to fly it as soon as 2022, so pretty much concurrent to SLS flights. If the REUSABLE version of BFR offers more massive payloads than SLS Block 2 while SLS Block 1 is still being tested... that's a wrap, regardless of that sweet pork flavor.

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
        • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Wednesday December 13 2017, @04:38PM (1 child)

          by meustrus (4961) on Wednesday December 13 2017, @04:38PM (#609254)

          Ah, "Falcon" is not what I thought the F in BFR stood for. Thanks for clearing that up.

          If we're fine with having One True Launch System, then going all in on the BFR is probably a good idea. But as a congressman recently said (can't remember which one), space launch systems are critical strategic resources like aircraft carriers. Whoever controls them controls the biggest source of military power and authority.

          We cannot allow that power and authority to belong to private corporations whose incentive is short-term profit rather than the long-term survival and prosperity of even a small but significant segment of humanity. So while the BFR is exciting, it's also extremely dangerous for the most advanced launch system to be controlled by an unaccountable, international, for-profit corporation.

          For our own sake, we need to make sure that either a) the US owns a more powerful launch system, even if it's more expensive, or b) nobody else (Russia, China, et al) can use the BFR without our approval.

          One plausible scenario we want to avoid is Chinese companies being compelled to sneak Chinese military assets into space on the BFR. As a private corporation, SpaceX would not have enough red tape to detect and prevent this even if they had the inclination to. The Chinese could leapfrog our military dominance and become the new leading world superpower this way.

          Of course, the reader is welcome to disagree with the premise that the US should remain the leading world superpower. But you can bet that nearly everyone in the US government agrees with it.

          --
          If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
          • (Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday December 13 2017, @05:31PM

            by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday December 13 2017, @05:31PM (#609283) Journal

            Ah, "Falcon" is not what I thought the F in BFR stood for. Thanks for clearing that up.

            It's clearly a way for Daddy Musk to deflect criticism of putting profanity in the name of the rocket, by injecting some ambiguity into the initialism. This is the guy who wants to name his Tesla vehicles Models S, 3, X, Y in that order (here's someone getting triggered by it [theverge.com]). BFR might get renamed to something else closer to launch. Consider Big Falcon Rocket a way to keep the wink-wink-nudge-nudge joke alive until then.

            But as a congressman recently said (can't remember which one), space launch systems are critical strategic resources like aircraft carriers.

            There's really no indication that SpaceX is going to suddenly uproot and become a European or Chinese company. And in fact, it has deep roots here with various space launch facilities and ties to U.S.-based Tesla/etc.

            As I said in some comment somewhere, we can support other companies like the United Launch Alliance, Orbital ATK, Blue Origin, and Rocket Lab at the same time, at least by funding development of new rockets from those players if not necessarily purchasing launches. There will be bids for launches, but some more expensive launchers like ULA's will end up getting used simply for redundancy (since a SpaceX explosion would probably delay launches by a month or more).

            The guy you were thinking of is Scott Pace: Trump Space Adviser: Mars "Too Ambitious" and SLS is a Strategic National Asset [soylentnews.org]

            His perspective is stupid. SLS is a fucking joke. If you axed SLS [nextbigfuture.com] and gave HALF of the future allocated money to SpaceX, you are going to get a much better outcome. Especially if the first SLS flights with payloads (remember that the maiden flight has been delayed [theverge.com], likely to late 2019 or 2020, and won't have a significant payload [wikipedia.org]) are facing off against Falcon Heavy or BFR. So 2022 for Europa Clipper and a manned flight to lunar orbit, if those aren't delayed as well. As planned, BFR would be able to carry payload with more mass than any iteration of SLS... in reusable mode! Expendable mode BFR from SpaceX would have nearly double the payload to LEO as SLS Block 2.

            When is SLS Block 2 planned to launch? 2029-2030. If SLS continues you will pay $4 billion a year for the program every year starting in 2019. Holy shit.

            For our own sake, we need to make sure that either a) the US owns a more powerful launch system, even if it's more expensive, or b) nobody else (Russia, China, et al) can use the BFR without our approval.

            SpaceX and ULA are already set to eliminate our reliance on Russia for manned launches.

            I don't agree that we need exclusivity. But if you wanted to set this up, there's a way to do it: revive Interplanetary Transport System (ITS). SpaceX downgraded from ITS to BFR this year due to economic realities. But if you want your powerful and exclusive launch system, you could give SpaceX 25-50% of the Space Launch System gravy train, and they could agree to give NASA exclusive access to ITS launches for a period of 10 or 20 years. Or give the U.S. government veto power over who gets to ride on it.

            We already established that BFR will peak at around twice the payload to LEO of SLS Block 2. What about the ITS plan from 2016 [wikipedia.org]?

            ITS: 300 tons to LEO in reusable mode, or 550 tons to LEO in expendable mode. Compared to 130 tons to LEO for SLS Block 2, which is always expendable. Fuck my ass.

            Finally, while SpaceX can work with China [arstechnica.com], note that SpaceX is already extremely wary of China, because Musky knows that China steals secrets on reflex:

            ELON MUSK: 'If We Published Patents, It Would Be Farcical' [businessinsider.com] (2012)

            "We have essentially no patents in SpaceX. Our primary long-term competition is in China," said Musk in the interview. "If we published patents, it would be farcical, because the Chinese would just use them as a recipe book."

            And yet... [reddit.com]

            A new SpaceX? China developing system to recover, reuse space rockets [cnbc.com]

            https://cybersecurity.jobs/spacex/careers/?vs=26 [cybersecurity.jobs]

            --
            [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Wednesday December 13 2017, @12:28AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 13 2017, @12:28AM (#609025) Journal
        Constellation got canceled and it even launched once, sort of. This stuff isn't as inevitable as it used to be.
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by stormwyrm on Tuesday December 12 2017, @11:22PM

      by stormwyrm (717) on Tuesday December 12 2017, @11:22PM (#609010) Journal

      It's primarily thanks to Congress that NASA is in such an f-d up state these days. They control the purse strings on this as with everything else in the government, and a lot of the sad state that NASA is in today is thanks to them. What they did with the JWST [scienceblogs.com] is a case in point. It became an expensive boondoggle precisely because it was underfunded:

      In a nutshell, the government did an independent review in 2010, determined what was necessary to finish the job as cheaply and quickly as possible (an extra $1.4 billion, with $250 million extra in each of 2011 and 2012), didn’t do those things, and now lets NASA both take the blame and deal with the fallout as it’s faced with unavoidable cost overruns and delays.

      I imagine similar things might have happened with other NASA projects. NASA's administration has also made its share of mistakes but much of the blame also falls on a miserly US Congress.

      --
      Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday December 12 2017, @11:32PM (14 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday December 12 2017, @11:32PM (#609012) Journal

      There's talk of ISS-style cooperation [scmp.com] on a lunar orbital space station [soylentnews.org]. Russia [soylentnews.org], China [soylentnews.org],

      ISS-style cooperation excludes China [soylentnews.org], thanks to your congresskritters. Based on their mood (and interest), I can't exclude the same faith in relation with Russia - the only reason it doesn't happen immediately is because of Russians' still-needed liftoff capabilities.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday December 12 2017, @11:45PM

        by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday December 12 2017, @11:45PM (#609016) Journal

        The U.S., Russia, European Union, Japan, and Canada are the core ISS participants. Russia and Japan are likely to join the lunar space station project at this point.

        None of the funds made available by this Act may be used for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) or the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to develop, design, plan, promulgate, implement, or execute a bilateral policy, program, order, or contract of any kind to participate, collaborate, or coordinate bilaterally in any way with China

        Bilateral != multilateral, so it's not clear to me that China can't join in.

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 13 2017, @12:43AM (10 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 13 2017, @12:43AM (#609029) Journal

        ISS-style cooperation excludes China, thanks to your congresskritters.

        Thanks also to China's massive espionage program. Sorry, I too don't buy that China would act in good faith with a cooperative space project like the ISS.

        Based on their mood (and interest), I can't exclude the same faith in relation with Russia - the only reason it doesn't happen immediately is because of Russians' still-needed liftoff capabilities.

        Russia also runs a significant part of the ISS. Those sections simply can't be run without them.

        I'm not feeling the good faith effort from them either, but they got in on the ISS. Or NASA for that matter due both to continual Congressional interference with their budgets and some of the peculiar ways of NASA (spare no expense on safety, for example, until the costs compromise the mission or the contracts from the desired vendor, then suddenly no corner is too shallow to cut). Really, the only ones whom I would trust would be ESA and JAXA because they're already very dependent on successful cooperation with others and have demonstrated a reasonable level of trustworthiness and consistent attention to detail. Maybe the ISRO.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Wednesday December 13 2017, @12:57AM (7 children)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 13 2017, @12:57AM (#609034) Journal

          ISS-style cooperation excludes China, thanks to your congresskritters.

          Thanks also to China's massive espionage program. Sorry, I too don't buy that China would act in good faith with a cooperative space project like the ISS.

          Funny how the Europeans don't have these problems [wikipedia.org]. There are a number of explanations possible; among them:
          - the Chinese respect the Europeans more (than US) and don't spy on them; *or*
          - the Europeans really see it as a collaboration rather than a competition, therefore there's no reasons for China to spy on them because the data is freely shared anyway.

          (Good faith, eh? Have you looked on your side as well?)

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @01:24AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @01:24AM (#609046)

            3. Europeans are fools. All their stuff is going to be swiped by the Chinese.

            4. Europeans have less-valuable technology, perhaps because it was already swiped, and they'd like an opportunity to swipe something from the Chinese. (good luck going up against the experts)

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 13 2017, @07:25AM (5 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 13 2017, @07:25AM (#609127) Journal

            Funny how the Europeans don't have these problems.

            Where's the evidence to support your assertion? The link didn't show anything relevant.

            • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday December 13 2017, @07:37AM (4 children)

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 13 2017, @07:37AM (#609130) Journal

              Where's the evidence to support your assertion?

              Terminology: "problems" in this specific context is meant to be understood as "the European aren't bother to sever the collaboration with the Chinese in space R&D for reasons of possible Chinese espionage".

              As in: "I don't have any problems/issues with Chinese espionage, I simply don't care whether they do it or not, not enough to drop the collaboration with them the way US Congress did".

              I hope my comment becomes clearer now.

              --
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 13 2017, @08:02AM (3 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 13 2017, @08:02AM (#609137) Journal

                Terminology: "problems" in this specific context is meant to be understood as "the European aren't bother to sever the collaboration with the Chinese in space R&D for reasons of possible Chinese espionage".

                We'll see if that worked for them or was a stupid idea.

                • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday December 13 2017, @08:31AM (2 children)

                  by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 13 2017, @08:31AM (#609140) Journal

                  In your view, what's the worst that can happen?
                  The Chinese getting the technology and start producing it at lower prices? Cool, better prices for Europeans, less problems with 'Where'd we place the industry in countries with high population density?', a good foundation to discover so

                  --
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday December 13 2017, @08:33AM

                    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 13 2017, @08:33AM (#609142) Journal

                    (shitty virtual keyboard) the message should have continued with 'to discover something else'.

                    --
                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 13 2017, @05:08PM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 13 2017, @05:08PM (#609273) Journal

                    The Chinese getting the technology and start producing it at lower prices?

                    Yes, and the ESA gets to pay for the R&D.

        • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday December 13 2017, @04:03PM (1 child)

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Wednesday December 13 2017, @04:03PM (#609246)

          Really, the only ones whom I would trust would be ESA and JAXA because they're already very dependent on successful cooperation with others and have demonstrated a reasonable level of trustworthiness and consistent attention to detail.

          They should just put JAXA in charge of everything, and other nations only need to contribute money and do work only as directed by JAXA. Just look at the trains in Japan for proof. Everything they do there works almost perfectly, so that when a train leaves 20 seconds early, they apologize profusely [bbc.com]. Only in a fantasy would you see that kind of attention to detail on an American subway system or Amtrak.

          The American train and subways systems are proof that things run by the American government are doomed to failure when things must be done exactly right, as in space travel (don't forget all the bridges that are falling down). And over in Europe, the fact that they can barely keep their union together shows that they can't really be trusted with anything important either. Russia's space program is looking like it's failing these days too, probably as a result of their massive economic problems (it doesn't help that most Russian men are alcoholics), and China can't even figure out how to have escalators which don't grind people up [cnn.com].

      • (Score: 2) by WalksOnDirt on Wednesday December 13 2017, @01:08AM (1 child)

        by WalksOnDirt (5854) on Wednesday December 13 2017, @01:08AM (#609037) Journal
        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday December 13 2017, @01:16AM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 13 2017, @01:16AM (#609039) Journal

          Thanks. Sorry for the typo, was posting while traveling (by train, in case anyone is curious)

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday December 13 2017, @01:45AM (6 children)

      by frojack (1554) on Wednesday December 13 2017, @01:45AM (#609052) Journal

      If Falcon Heavy can be successfully landed and re-used, then why couldn't SLS be modified to do the same?

      If NASA bought that technology from SpaceX, (its not all that secret, and there is more than one such solution in existence), it might be worth the money, and save the design. Its too expensive to fly it as is.

      The whole idea that the final package has to go up on one rocket is just too much 1969 thinking. We built the ISS precisely to gain the experience so as to not need to do "one-rocket-missions" any more. There's no reason people should step foot on the moon without a ready and waiting habitat and return vehicle sitting there waiting for them.

      but Moon-then-Mars manned exploration is probably clearly a better idea.

      FIFY

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday December 13 2017, @02:13AM

        by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday December 13 2017, @02:13AM (#609054) Journal

        NASA should just buy launches from SpaceX, and maybe support ULA, Blue Origin, etc. to prevent a complete monopoly or stagnation (along with supporting smaller launchers like Rocket Lab, which could be launching tomorrow [spaceflightnow.com]).

        ULA's upcoming Vulcan [wikipedia.org] design is only intended to be partially reusable. Clearly, just knowing that reusability is an achievable goal is not enough for fully reusable rockets to be designed.

        Space Launch System is manufactured by Boeing/United Launch Alliance, Orbital ATK, and Aerojet Rocketdyne. Are they the ones that would have to license SpaceX's technology? Will SpaceX sell their secrets to entrenched military industrial complex companies that have opposed [politico.com] and shit [soylentnews.org] talked [floridatoday.com] them [soylentnews.org] every step of the way?

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 13 2017, @07:20AM (1 child)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 13 2017, @07:20AM (#609124) Journal

        If NASA bought that technology from SpaceX, (its not all that secret, and there is more than one such solution in existence), it might be worth the money, and save the design. Its too expensive to fly it as is.

        The problem is reusability only makes sense if you're launching in volume. For the Space Shuttle, that threshold was about 40 launches per year. I think SpaceX expects it to kick in at a somewhat lower launch rate, but still probably higher than today's 18+ launches this year. SLS is planned to launch every one to two years. It's not in the league where it is viable as an expendable vehicle, much less cover the additional overhead of reusability.

        • (Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday December 13 2017, @06:11PM

          by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday December 13 2017, @06:11PM (#609305) Journal

          I'm a little conflicted about this:

          https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=17/11/30/0442222 [soylentnews.org]
          https://archive.fo/vh0Bb [archive.fo]

          After a decade of “What If” hypotheses concerning SpaceX, its European competitors now accept that the company may in fact be able to reduce costs by introducing previously flown Falcon 9 first stages into its business.

          Gerd Gruppe, a member of DLR’s executive board and responsible for DLR’s space program, said the agency has concluded that SpaceX is on the verge of realizing the savings it has promised from reusing first stages.

          “With 20 launches a year the Falcon 9 uses around 200 engines, and while their cost of refurbishment is unknown, we think SpaceX is well on the way to establishing a competitive system based on the reusability” of the rocket’s first stage, Gruppe said here Oct. 24 at the Space Tech Expo conference.

          But it doesn't seem to me that SpaceX has to reuse anywhere near 16-20 rockets to see a cost benefit:

          https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=18744&page=1&cid=486870#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]

          Are the discounts coming because it is experimental and risky for the customer? Or because SpaceX is ready to offer a better value? Either way, it seems like insurance companies are bullish [seattletimes.com] on the reusable rocket concept after seeing so many successfully landed boosters and a handful of commercially reused boosters.

          We could get a better indication of how well reusability is working for SpaceX after they fulfill their goal of reusing a booster within 24 hours (or let's say a week since launches are often delayed by days), and when SpaceX publishes permanently lower prices here [spacex.com] (perhaps indicating that you get a lower price only if you fly using reusable mode).

          --
          [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @02:16PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @02:16PM (#609209)

        Reusability isn't something that can easily be worked in to a design after-the-fact. It's something that really needs to be planned from the start. If they're going to make the SLS reusable, they need to effectively start over (which, granted, would let them fix a lot of the stupid design choices they've made, but since those were more pork-driven than engineering-driven anyway it probably wouldn't help).

        I'm also not sure about the economics of trying to reuse solid fuel rockets (the SLS boosters). I suspect it wouldn't be worth it, leaving only the core stack as a possible cost saver. Better than nothing, but as long as the project is being driven by the pork it's pretty irrelevant.

        • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday December 13 2017, @04:06PM

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Wednesday December 13 2017, @04:06PM (#609248)

          I'm also not sure about the economics of trying to reuse solid fuel rockets (the SLS boosters). I suspect it wouldn't be worth it, leaving only the core stack as a possible cost saver. Better than nothing, but as long as the project is being driven by the pork it's pretty irrelevant.

          I thought they did reuse the solid fuel rockets (SRBs) on the Space Shuttle, and that was decades ago. The SRBs would separate when they ran out of fuel, then deploy parachutes so they could be recovered.

      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday December 13 2017, @04:56PM

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 13 2017, @04:56PM (#609266) Journal

        If Falcon Heavy can be successfully landed and re-used, then why couldn't SLS be modified to do the same?

        The second rule of Government Spending. Why recycle a used item when you can sell them a new one for five times as much?

        The first rule of Government Spending was cited in the movie Contact.

        It's like the opposite of the rules of acquisition?

        --
        People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:40AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @09:40AM (#609159)

      ... and diverting funds (somewhere in the neighborhood of $10 billion) to SpaceX is a much smarter move.

      It is NEVER a good idea to push more money where no additional money is useful. Money is not time (except on a small subset of well-defined endeavors) , and I don't care that you've been told differently. There is equivalent of Amdahl's Law in research activities and it is also one of the causes for diminishing returns. If some research effort cannot be parallelized further, additional funding will get wasted or even hamper the progress by incurring new unnecessary problems. If state at any time happens to have a toxic amount of money surplus, it should just lower its debt thus preventing it from doing damage.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Wednesday December 13 2017, @12:41PM

        by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday December 13 2017, @12:41PM (#609195) Journal

        I didn't pull the $10 billion number out of thin air:

        https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/30/16384096/elon-musk-spacex-bfr-mars-rocket-development-business-demand [theverge.com]

        Musk made one thing very clear: SpaceX’s future is the BFR. The company is no longer going to put resources into improving its current line of Falcon 9 vehicles or its bigger, next-generation Falcon Heavy. Instead, all of the company’s research and development resources will go into creating the new monster rocket. “He can now use those same now-proven people who have built flight hardware to now redesign the spacecraft,” Charles Miller, president of NexGen Space LLC, a space consulting firm, and a former member of the Trump administration’s NASA transition team, tells The Verge.

        The revenue SpaceX currently receives from launching satellites and servicing the International Space Station will also go toward funding the development of the rocket, Musk said. Right now, business does seem to be good: SpaceX has a full manifest of customers, and the company significantly increased its launch frequency to 13 so far this year (up from eight last year). NASA is also paying SpaceX to send cargo, and soon astronauts, to the ISS.

        Whether this is enough to fund the $10 billion development of a new rocket is unclear, though. And we’ll likely never know for sure. “The launch business is notoriously secretive in terms of prices,” Brian Weeden, a space expert at the Secure World Foundation, a nonprofit that specializes in space security, tells The Verge. “Plus, the price of launching a satellite depends on how much you’re willing to pay, where you want to go — it depends on a lot of stuff.”

        It’s possible that SpaceX’s satellite business and NASA contracts are enough to fund the BFR’s development. But it’s likelier that the company will need additional funds — especially if Musk hopes to meet his “aspirational” deadline of sending the vehicle to the Red Planet by 2022. Private investment seems like an option. And another good source of money? The government.

        BFR is a scaled down version of the previous Interplanetary Transport System (ITS) plan. If NASA wanted ITS instead of BFR, we could come up with a different, presumably larger, number for that.

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]