You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
The Trump campaign has released a new policy outline for President Trump's second term, in which the President appears to be proposing manned missions to Mars in addition to a new permanent Moon base.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl … 85096.html
The policy outline linked to by the article:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/media/trum … g-for-you/
With little mention of the space program from Biden, it seems likely President Trump is the candidate most supportive of NASA.
Congress and NASA aren't spending their money on programs that produce results, that space advocates would like them to spend our tax dollars on, and no matter how much space advocates have lobbied Congress we don't win politicians votes or pay for their reelection campaigns, whereas their favored contractors do, thus they will continue to ignore what we want, so let's give them more of our tax dollars and, somehow, that's going to result in Congress redirecting funding to programs that we want them to spend our tax dollars on.
That seems to be your line of argumentation over this issue.
No it isn't. That's a straw-man argument. And I'm not sure I see a point in re-typing my views since you apparently ignored them to begin with and you don't use the quote function of the forum to make it clear which part of my comments you're responding to, which makes it difficult to conduct a constructive discussion.
If it's not readily apparent, I only care about results, not excuses for poor performance. It's not personal, it's just business.
You don't do anything to get results. The space advocacy groups that aim to hold congress accountable for the ways they spend NASA funds aren't supported by you. You indicated as much many times in this thread.
Not only do you not support them, you've denigrated them repeatedly.
The SLS / Orion Program has been in development for about the same amount of time that Saturn V / Apollo Program existed, from letting of first contract to termination of program, if we include the Ares abortions in that development timeline. I can't plausibly explain that except through gross incompetence or wholesale corruption of government and NASA signing off on it
You seem to be blaming NASA for SLS waste, but it's congress who decides to spend money on SLS. Congress writes the budget legislation, not NASA. And in some of their legislation, congress specifically wrote into the law that NASA is required to use SLS for the missions. Why blame NASA for congressional corruption?
Cutting the NASA budget doesn't punish corrupt congressmen who vote to fund SLS, it punishes Americans who care about the space program. Joining a space advocacy group that criticizes SLS and congressmen who fund it does.
Actually, NASA appears to have specifically requested to be able to use a commercial provider to launch some missions instead of SLS, yet congress forced NASA to use SLS:
https://spacenews.com/nasa-inspector-ge … exibility/
And yet you blame NASA. That's not logical.
and no space advocacy groups doing anything effective to stop it.
You're denigrating them in this thread and acting like they're worthless, so what do you expect? Maybe if they had more support they could do something to educate the public about the problems with SLS.
where were our space advocates and what became of that public scrutiny required to stopping the squandering of time and money?
It doesn't really seem reasonable to me that you denigrate space advocacy groups that criticize SLS, then complain about SLS waste. Maybe if more people supported these groups instead of denigrating them there would be less of this corruption.
If Congress and NASA are truly interested in human space exploration, although I contend that they are not, then they need to start making reality-based decisions about what projects their funding is spent on. A quarter of the budget is still entirely sufficient to purchase cheaper commercial launches and still end up with more delivered tonnage than we had during the Saturn / Apollo era.
You always point to corruption/waste as being the reasons NASA is not performing well, and you're ignoring the fact there are two main factors affecting the performance of the agency:
1) The level of funding provided
2) How efficiently that funding is used
I addressed #2 when I admitted that SLS is wasteful and inefficient, and agreed we need constraints on the use of cost-plus contracting at NASA for chemical rockets (the main source of SLS inefficiencies). However, that does not mean that #1 is not also a contributing factor.
You seem to want to focus on #2 and just ignore #1. I favor a comprehensive solution that addresses both problems.
I understand you say NASA could (theoretically) buy as much lift today (or more) as they could during Apollo in their current budget if they used SpaceX launch services instead of SLS. However, I see no reason to limit NASA to the amount of rocket lift they had during Apollo. We could have an even better space program if we addressed problem #1 and problem #2 (both) instead of focusing exclusively on problem #2 as you seem to want to do.
And how best to do that? With space advocacy political action groups that you have been denigrating in much of this thread. The only way to address corruption is with public scrutiny of NASA's decision from space advocacy groups and other watchdogs.
That's done through education and voting for intelligent and principled candidates, not cheerleading.
And who is going to supervise the behavior of congress and NASA and then educate people so they can stop corruption and ensure NASA has the funding they need so the public can have a superb space program? Space advocacy groups.
NASA already has a heavy lift launch vehicle [...] It's called Falcon 9 Heavy.
$1B (at $1B and 140t per launch) in Saturn V era money purchased 140t of lift capability to LEO.
$1B (at $90M and 68t per launch) in Falcon 9 Heavy era money purchases 748t of lift capability to LEO.
$1.00 in 1968 money is equivalent to $7.48 in 2020 money. In simple terms, a billion dollars can purchase lift capability that significantly exceeds what was achievable in 1968, per dollar spent.
If NASA was willing to devote $1B to launch costs, out of its $21B budget, towards launches for our human space exploration program, then it has more than 5 times the lift capability that it had during the Saturn V / Apollo era for the same impact to the agency's budget.
[...] There is no actual economics-based reason as to why we can't return to the moon
But that assumes NASA uses SpaceX for launching things to their destinations instead of SLS or other launch systems that are more expensive. To my understanding, NASA won't do that because SLS is very popular in congress, despite its inefficiency and high expenses. (And yes, perhaps corruption).
You're also assuming NASA devotes an equal portion of its budget to human space exploration/colonization in 2020 as it did in 1968, which may or may not be the case. Upon checking, it appears that only about a quarter of the NASA budget goes toward exploration as of 2019 and 2020:
https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/ … 020-budget
They appear to be spending a lot of money on many other things as well like JWST, WFIRST, Astrophysics, Aeronautics, Planetary Science, Earth Science, etc. I'm not sure it would be a good idea to cut all of those things and focus exclusively on human space exploration, even if it means we can have another Apollo-like program.
It makes a lot more sense to me to just double the NASA budget so we can have all of the above, as well as a larger human spaceflight budget (while also cutting SLS, because I agree with you that it's wasteful spending).
And also none of this supports your arguments that space advocacy is unhelpful to achieving these goals and that engineering is the only thing that matters. If anything, your points about government corruption only serve to illustrate that we should have more space advocacy groups and political activists out there to ensure congress directs NASA to spend its money appropriately on cost-efficient space access systems like we see with SpaceX instead of on inefficient systems like SLS.
Most want the cost for the space programs to get realistic as they are not seeing benefits within and how it effects daily life.
NASA is about 0.5% of the Federal budget in the USA. That's hardly anything. If anything, we are spending far too little on NASA. It should be at least doubled.
Even if it was doubled, that's still only a penny per tax dollar going to NASA.
I agree with you that cost-plus rocket programs for ordinary chemical rockets are inefficient though... but politics is the art of compromise and SLS has big support in congress.
President Trump calls for 12% boost in NASA funding for Moon & Mars missions (and future annual funding increases planned as well):
https://www.space.com/nasa-2021-budget- … -mars.html
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-budg … m-funding/
Democrats in the House of Representatives block proposed NASA funding increase:
https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/7/21315 … ill-budget
I know many will argue the Moon program being proposed is flawed because it uses the inefficient and widely criticized SLS for a portion of the program instead of a more cost-effective option from SpaceX, but I think it's worth pointing out that the Artemis Program is including funding for the CLPS (Commercial Lunar Payloads Services) program that will be using companies like SpaceX.
Isn't a flawed program on an accelerated schedule that includes several great things like CLPS a lot better than vague promises of a Mars mission in the late 2030's that seems to be repeatedly delayed decades and decades with each new administration? And, unless I'm mistaken, I don't think this Moon program is delaying those promised Mars missions much (if at all).
Democrats in the articles complain that the 2024 deadline is for political reasons, but without such a deadline for NASA, isn't it unlikely the program will be completed since a new administration may take office in 2025 and decide to change course if the Moon program deadline was in 2028 or 2030 (much like we saw happen with Constellation)? Aiming to complete the program by 2024 seems to make it much more likely the program will be completed without cancellation.
Additionally, when we look at the history of NASA, firm deadlines and focused goals (such as Kennedy's pledge to go to Moon in under a decade) seem to have been very successful in speeding up the space program and ensuring its the pursued programs are actually completed. So the "political deadlines" of 2024 that Democrats are complaining about may be a very good thing for NASA, particularly when those deadlines and mandates are paired with the funding required to make it happen. And Trump is providing the funding.
President Trump appears to be the candidate most willing to provide the funding required for an exciting (but perhaps flawed) space program on an accelerated schedule.
The only reason there are robots roving around on other planets and telescopes that can image other galaxies is because engineers made that happen.
Engineers don't make things like that happen unless NASA pays for it to happen. And the only way to get larger NASA budgets is via some form of collective political action (joining some group similar to the Mars Society, the National Space Society, calling your congressional representative, emailing your congressman, etc).
Our little clique of like-minded individuals is not evidence of general public support, either. We are not the general public.
The NRA isn't the general public either, and often takes positions on issues that are overwhelmingly unpopular among the American public. And politicians often do what the NRA wants instead of what the majority wants because politicians know the NRA's members care about their issue and that NRA candidate endorsements can tip the scales in election polling. (Not to suggest the NRA is wrong). There's no reason the minority of people who want a NASA-funded Mars mission could not do the same thing for their issue, even if such a policy is not supported by the majority of voters.
NASA has been funded to Apollo Program levels for more than a decade now.
False. The following table shows NASA budgets over the years (adjusted for inflation). JFK gave his famous Moon speech in 1963. As you can see from the table, there was a dramatic rise in funding provided to NASA over the next several years following 1963 that preceded the Moon landings. And in particular, I'll point out that in 1966 the NASA budget was more than double the NASA budget of 2020 if you adjust for inflation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of … ual_budget
So it appears accurate to say that one of the reasons NASA has not made such enormous accomplishments like that more recently is simply because they haven't been provided with an appropriate level of funding to make bold Moon/Mars missions happen, particularly when their attention is split between doing that and taking care of all the other things they are funding (SLS, ISS, various space telescopes, Mars rovers, etc).
Have you ever voted for a politician because they supported space exploration?
I don't decide my vote based entirely on any single issue, but I can think of a case where a candidate's unusually strong support for NASA has motivated me to support them just off the top of my head. Yes.
President Trump has signed legislation into law that provides more money to NASA than they've ever received from any past President, and appointed an administrator who is at least willing to consider private sector alternatives to government programs that are cheaper, such as SpaceX, but even here, we're still "Orange Man bad", 24/7/365.
If you are arguing that the space enthusiast community should consider supporting Donald Trump because of that, I would probably agree. However, the matter might not be entirely clear to them like the 2nd Amendment issue is to NRA members, for example, because many space advocacy organizations such as the Planetary Society don't provide official candidate endorsements like the NRA does.
So an individual space advocate is left to sift through news stories about what is going on with the annual NASA budget, how their congressman voted on different NASA budget proposals, etc. And a lot of people probably aren't going to spend the time to do that even if they care enough about the issue (in theory) to change their voting behavior based on it, especially given that the changes made from one NASA budget to another are often not particularly huge or obvious.
So I think there is a fair criticism to be made of space advocacy groups there that they don't always give political activists the tools they need to easily and effectively make a difference on the issue like other organizations such as the NRA does for their particular issue.
JMartin,
As far as giving money to NSS or other space exploration and colonization advocacy groups, well, that's a personal call. Tell me how many of these groups have succeeded in getting anything or anyone to another planet, or influencing someone who can. I'd wager that that number is near-zero.
Which of those groups succeeded in getting anything to another planet? For purposes of this particular comment, I am going to assume some or all of them did by means of having their members influence the US congress to support NASA with more funding in the past, and in some cases they got it. And that's probably why there are robotic rovers exploring Mars right now, various space telescopes in orbit delivering information about exoplanets, etc..
The people who have the know-how already work at the places that enable them to accomplish their goals / dreams. Talking about problems without follow-up action doesn't solve anything. It's great fun to discuss possibilities with people who share our interests, but engineering is where the rubber meets the road, so to speak, and practical and reliable engineering associated with such a complex human endeavor is prohibitively expensive.
You seem to have no understanding of the power of collective political action and the capability to use that to get what you want out of the government. It is very much do-able. Look at how effective the NRA is at blocking or rolling back gun laws, for example. I don't see why there couldn't be a similar political advocacy group that helps space exploration advocates influence the congress through the same political process to get more funding for NASA to make Mars missions possible.
If everyone in society just did engineering and nobody spent the time writing letters to congress, there would be less government funding available for missions to the Moon, Mars, etc. Without any political pressure to fund NASA, congress would probably cut the NASA budget and waste the money on some other program, and the end result for society would probably be much worse. Having more engineers available to work on getting humans to Mars doesn't accomplish much if the government doesn't fund it.
And Mars missions are not prohibitively expensive either. The US government budget is a few trillion dollars a year. The Mars Direct proposal advocated for by some people in the Mars Society has an estimated cost ranging from $8 billion to $30 billion. That is not "prohibitively expensive" for the US government.
I was reading about the history of the National Space Society, and while they seem to have some good people there, I strongly question why they decided to make Lori Garver their executive director at one point, and what this says about the organization and its motives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lori_Garver
For those who don't know, Lori Garver (Deputy NASA administrator appointed by Obama) wrote an article (linked below) for the Washington Post titled: "Forget new crewed missions in space. NASA should focus on saving Earth" in which she advocated NASA shift funding away from human spaceflight programs toward climate change research. In the article, in support of cutting funding for human spaceflight, she points out that President Trump's proposed program for human spaceflight to the Moon and Mars is "a decree without a value proposition that has never inspired broad public support."
I can understand why many space enthusiasts would not be entirely happy with the Artemis Program supported by the President (since it uses the wasteful SLS rocket for at least part of the program), but there are very positive aspects of it such as the Commercial Lunar Payload Services program (CLPS) that provide revenue for innovative companies like SpaceX to improve upon their already very efficient and rapidly developing space travel capabilities and innovate even more.
And even if you could somehow justify cutting Artemis because it uses the SLS for a portion of the program, the proper use of money saved from that cut would be to reinvest it in a better human spaceflight program that goes to the Moon/Mars in an even bigger and faster way using innovative companies like SpaceX to get the job done better with private sector efficiencies, not to abandon the Moon/Mars goal entirely and focus on Earth climate monitoring.
Garver went on to write: "the public doesn’t understand the purpose of spending massive amounts of money to send a few astronauts to the moon or Mars. Are we in another race, and if so, is this the most valuable display of our scientific and technological leadership? If science is the rationale, we can send robots for pennies on the dollar. [...] The public is right about this."
If the public doesn't support manned missions to the Moon and Mars, the proper response should be to find a leader and an organization who can articulate why these missions are of value, and the value of making progress toward becoming a multiplanetary species and accessing the resources of space, not to abandon the program and give in to a public that is so ignorant of its value.
Why would an organization like NSS make Lori Garver their leader, and why should I donate to them now that I see they did that?
For JMartin re #1
The questions you have posed are worth while, so I hope you will invest some time and energy in answering them.
I don't see why me asking people what their opinions are about a topic implies that I haven't spent any time or energy investigating this topic.
It is ** so ** easy to ask others to do work.
Nobody asked you (or anyone else) to do work. I posed some questions in my initial post for discussion. If you don't want to answer them because you think doing so is "work" -- go ahead and ignore my thread. I'm not interested in getting advice from a person who resents providing it.
I don't consider writing an opinion about political groups people participate in as a hobby or personal interest activity on an internet forum to be "work."
Whew... that was a long read. Can't say I read every word of it, but I read a lot and skimmed over much of it... and I have to say after reading through much of the thread on this topic, I think it's noteworthy that I didn't see a single supporter of SLS in this thread. Apparently the only people who think the SLS is a good idea are SLS employees, corrupt politicians, and the contractors profiting from the program.
That said, I think the real problem with SLS is the way the contracts are handled. SLS is produced using something called "cost-plus" contracts, which basically means the government pays the contractor producing the rocket or rocket parts for the full cost of production, plus extra for the company's profit. When you think about the incentives involved in that type of business arrangement, it seems obvious that the company has little incentive to produce the rocket or rocket components efficiently. On the contrary, if the contractor drives up the cost and delays delivery of the product (which further drives up costs), the profit the contracting company gets may even grow if it is a percentage of the total cost of production.
To promote innovation, we need contracts where the government provides technical specifications for the rockets they want to several different rocket producing companies, then the companies bid to produce the product for the lowest cost in a competitive manner. And this way, if the company finds a way to build the rocket for a lower cost than what they're being paid by the government to produce it, the company keeps the extra money as profit... which encourages the company to innovate, lower costs, and increase efficiency.
Most importantly, for rocket launch services to orbit (and to the Moon, Mars, etc), we need to get rid of cost-plus contracts at NASA. The only time I can think of when cost-plus contracts can make sense is if the government is worried nobody in the private sector is capable of providing the government the product they need in the absence of cost-plus contracts, which obviously is not the case with the market for rocket launch services because we have companies like SpaceX now for that.
I skimmed over Bill Nelson's comments about Bridenstein, and a lot of it seems to have little relevance to the space program. Bridenstein's personal opinions on social issues like LGBT issues seem like they have no relationship with the space program, so I don't really see why Bill Nelson thinks that's a reason to oppose Bridenstein's confirmation.
Elon Musk and SpaceX seem like they're doing a lot more to get humanity out into space than the astronomers, and SpaceX needs funding from Starlink to make the Mars mission more likely.
I like astronomy, I think it's worthwhile, and I support it... but making humanity multiplanetary should be a higher priority right now. In the long term, astronomy itself would be better served by humanity being multiplanetary. Imagine the benefits to astronomy from having a colony on Mars or on the Moon that could construct space telescopes and launch them into space more cheaply than we could on Earth because of the lower gravity...
Instead of complaining about SpaceX, the astronomers should be advocating for more NASA funding or something to address their problems.
I notice there are several space advocacy organizations (the National Space Society, the Planetary Society, the Mars Society...).
What are the differences between each of these?
Which do you think is best, and why?
Which is the worst, and why?
Do they all advocate for increases in the NASA budget to achieve their objectives? Or do these space advocacy groups often end up competing for a NASA budget that is (essentially) fixed in size? (For example... debating whether resources should go to manned exploration vs robotic exploration, Moon programs vs Mars programs, etc).
Pages: 1