SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

RobertDyck · 2017-02-10 21:11:24

Yea, things can go wrong.

The big "however" is bulking up a 4-crew mission to 7-crew. Doubling the size more than doubles launch mass. And doubling launch mass more than doubles cost. Increasing cost kills the mission. You worry about emergencies, but you create the ultimate emergency. You ensure the mission is killed before it even happens.

Oldfart1939 · 2017-02-10 22:14:38

Robert-

What we want MOST of all is for a SUCCESSFUL mission. What we're doing here is brainstorming all the options and trying to poke holes into the weak points of the ideas. It's just like the folks at NASA wringing their hands about exposure to Galactic Cosmic Radiation! Sure, we can go with a 4 man mission, but that's the minimum. A 3 man mission is getting pretty "lean" w/r to science goals which can realistically be accomplished. If we're trying to hold things down for weight allowances, but with adequate internal backup, then try for a crew of 5 instead of 4. With a 4 person crew, physical and mental exhaustion will become a factor, too.

GW Johnson · 2017-02-11 11:47:00

Smallish one-way probes are launched direct to interplanetary trajectories from Canaveral. Nothing big was ever done that way, not even Apollo. It launched to LEO, then departed from LEO for the moon, to divorce launch window restrictions from departure window restrictions. Larger vehicles require more propellant to make course corrections. Simple as that.

So I think it is fair to say that any manned mission beyond the moon will actually depart from LEO the same way as Apollo did, to make the trajectory more precise and thereby reduce the course correction propellant budget. So if you are going to stop in LEO anyway, there is no fundamental objection to doing assembly in LEO, now that we know how to design modules that dock together (which is exactly how we built ISS).

So the big objection to a large crew has actually evaporated: with orbital assembly, you don't need the Godzilla-sized rockets any more. They could reduce price somewhat, if they already exist commercially (some won't: SLS). But launch costs are the only real effect of a larger vs smaller rocket, if you do orbital assembly. Those launch costs ought to be on the order of 25% of an otherwise well-run program.

What I'm talking about here is how the world has changed since the ideas of Mars Direct were first dreamed up. We are doing things now that were undreamed of circa 1980. Why limit yourself to only ideas from that time?

The capabilities we have now make the old 1950's big-mission ideas feasible. We should take advantage of that. Musk did, in his own way, with his giant rocket/spaceship concept. I proposed it in a different way with "Mars 2016" posted over at "exrocketman", by updating the 1950's von Braun/Ernst Stuhlinger ideas.

Neither looks anything at all like Mars Direct, both look more like 1940-1950's science fiction. Yet we really can do those things now. They may even be cheaper, especially if we give up Apollo-style all-throwaway design approaches.

Sometimes, you just have to make a break with the past, or you never do anything new.

GW

Oldfart1939 · 2017-02-11 12:45:19

GW-

I'm liking the way you're thinking about the topic. If we CAN do orbital assembly, launching modules easily hooked together in LEO would seem to be the way of the future. Even the crew-rated Dragon 2, which is being designed for a crew of 7 to the ISS, would be an integral segment of the system.

As you stated, the original Mars Direct was conceived with 1980s hardware and capabilities. Maybe a revised, expanded, and updated model could be developed?

SpaceNut · 2017-02-11 15:05:57

No matter how you assemble a long skinny 3.7 m core its still only a 3.7 meter diameter and not 10 which we know we are wanting.....

GW Johnson · 2017-02-11 16:38:52

If you make the payload resistant to air loads and heating on ascent, it can ride "naked" on the booster. No shroud necessary. Tougher is also more reusable, by the way.

That almost but not quite takes off a payload diameter constraint, pending wind tunnel work to verify a more extreme hammerhead configuration, plus dynamical analyses to verify directional control capability.

It's just a guess, but I'd expect a 5 m dia payload might possibly ride "naked" this way on a Falcon-9 or Falcon-Heavy. Tain't 10 m, but it's bigger than 3.7 m.

If you dock 4 5-m-dia modules together, each with the same length as a 10 m dia module, you have the same volume. There's nothing "sacred" about 10 m dia, except that it can ride SLS, but no other launcher. Yet.

Don't fall prey to artificial restrictions that preclude this supplier and favor that other one. That's a long-established but highly-unethical practice in government contracting for defense and for space.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2017-02-11 16:41:46)

Oldfart1939 · 2017-02-12 09:49:25

GW-

The concept of Orbital Assembly has some additional merits, especially if done in the vicinity of the ISS. That would placate the ISS supporters at NASA, and get them on board with going to Mars just because their pet project would now seem to be "essential." This way a number of pre-fueled stages could be placed into LEO and simply assembled by docking them together with the Mars spacecraft. This would seemingly complicate the Mars Direct concept, but maybe it was a bit too simplistic as we move forward. Yes, the original concept would still work, but regarding these embellishments as evolutionary rather than revolutionary seems to make sense.

RobertDyck · 2017-02-12 23:31:43

GW Johnson wrote:

It's just a guess, but I'd expect a 5 m dia payload might possibly ride "naked" this way on a Falcon-9 or Falcon-Heavy. Tain't 10 m, but it's bigger than 3.7 m.
If you dock 4 5-m-dia modules together, each with the same length as a 10 m dia module, you have the same volume. There's nothing "sacred" about 10 m dia, except that it can ride SLS, but no other launcher. Yet.

The Ares launch vehicle designed by Robert Zubrin and his partner David Baker in 1990 used 8.4 metre diameter core stage, the same as the Shuttle external tank. Ares V under the Constellation program was given a similar name, but it had 10 metre diameter core stage, same as the first stage of Saturn V. SLS was Constellation revived, but using the same 8.4 metre diameter as Shuttle.

The Mars Direct habitat was designed with an 8.4 metre outside diameter, same as the core stage. Inside diameter was to be 8.0 metre.

Falcon 9 standard payload fairing is 5.2 metre outside diameter, 4.6 metre inside diameter. That means it could launch a module "naked" that is also 5.2 metre. The problem is then configuring a habitat module to be effective with only 5 metre diameter. On another forum they discussed modifying Falcon 9 for wider payload. It could launch with 8.4 metre payload if first stage engine gimbals are modified for ±15°.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2017-02-13 11:40:19)

Oldfart1939 · 2017-02-13 10:24:04

When brainstorming, we should regard NOTHING as "set in stone," and be looking at alternative pathways to the same result. If, with the existing hardware (Falcon Heavy) we are limited to the payload fairing Diameter of 5 meters, do a redesign based on those parameters. The other one being 53 metric tons to LEO. Moving forward from these limitations shouldn't be insurmountable. As size increases, the tether concept increases in scope, too.

I've been conceptualizing something based on the existing components and several which could be constructed in a reasonable time frame. My design encompasses having several functional modules constructed specifically for in orbit mutual docking/assembly.

Component (1) would be an expanded and uprated Dragon 2--maybe called a Dragon 2+, with a base diameter of 5 meters. It would be capable of docking at the ISS through the docking adapter already designed. It would have a removable heat shield which will not be needed any longer , but was in place to protect the vehicle and crew in event of a launch failure. In place of the unpressurized cargo trunk, a separately launched crew quarters and supplies module, module (2) would be joined and bolted to the crew capsule. To this, a 3rd module--Mars landing module (3) would be attached, containing the engines and fuel/oxidizer components (I'm suggesting MMH and NTO for long term storability). It would be equipped with landing legs in a manner similar to the Dragon 9 v.1.2+ currently made. Finally, an Earth departure stage powered by cryogenics--a methylox combination using the new raptor engines. This would be flown to orbit immediately prior to ED. I'd err on the plus side by building 2 of these vehicles and having them both depart at the same time, then accomplish an in-flight maneuver to join together with tethers for production of artificial gravity at 0.5 Earth, just in order to maintain some extra strength at Martian 0.38 g. At Mars arrival, they would de-spin, cut the tethers and aerobrake into mars orbit. They would land sequentially several hours apart. Each vessel could in principle carry a crew of 7, but would use the capacity to carry 4 or 5. At Mars, that would give us 2-3 Triads and a mission commander at a total of 8 or 9--or 10 if a backup member is thought warranted. All of this would be preceded by sending the supply, nuclear reactor, and habitat structures, in addition to an ERV.

This is just my first "draft" of a proposed mission. The ERV would definitely be ISPP powered, and the large combined crew size would allow for some to stay on Mars for a longer time frame--an additional 18 months for the next Hohmann transfer window to open.

Yes, this mission architecture is not the minimalist model, but could be accomplished with 4 Falcon Heavy and a couple Falcon 9 v.1.2+ flights. Since all are to LEO, re-landing the booster stages at Canaveral should be possible. It also allows for this to be done over several months for all the in-orbit assembly to take place. Some of the cost could be offset by carrying some supplies to the ISS, as well.

Just a note: The affordability of this concept is made possible through reuse of recovered booster stages, and my estimate of overall cost is under $500,000,000. Or a Half Billion. Call it the cost of a single SLS?

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2017-02-13 10:40:33)

GW Johnson · 2017-02-13 11:21:27

RobertDyck -

"10 m" was just something Spacenut mentioned above. You know more about the design specifics of these various Ares vehicles than I do, most certainly. My only point was that a payload width constraint is no longer a constraint if you do orbital assembly.

And if you stop in LEO anyway to get a precision departure burn and timing, you might as well do orbital assembly, since we learned how to do that to build ISS.

Oldfart1939 -

I'm just guessing, but based on our lack of experience doing tethered craft, you'll have to overspin the cluster before you extend the cables. Momentum conservation will slow it down as the separation increases to design length.

I really, really doubt that you can do course corrections while spinning, because you cannot push on a string. Yo'll have to spin-down / spin-up for each course correction.

And since you cannot push on a string, and because you have conventional capsules and stages, you'll be using thrusters, not flywheels, to spin-up and spin-down. Sooner or later, the weight of all the thruster propellant will exceed the weight of a flywheel system. But I do not know where that tradeoff is.

GW

Oldfart1939 · 2017-02-13 12:26:53

GW & Robert

I'm just now wondering how many mid-course corrections will be needed, and at what times? It could very well mean that we utilize artificial gravity for only part of the mission. The other thing my architecture allows is keeping the mass of the EDS (Earth Departure Stage) along with a supply of compressed gasses or additional MMH and NTO for this exact purpose, and having the ability to "top off" the landers with same.

We could also simply provide the artificial gravity after say... 3 weeks into the flight after some initial course corrections are made/ Then terminate the AG about a week or 2 before entering into Mars orbit? The bulk of the flight would be with AG, minimizing the effects of prolonged exposure to zero g conditions? Having a bigger EDS booster to give a bigger delta V at the beginning and shorten the flight for gravitational diseases?

I'm just "shooting from the hip" with these ideas trying to stimulate an updated Mars direct model using "what's available now or near time frame."

Another option--transfer development of the SLS to SpaceX for conversion to a landable configuration? I can hear the screaming from Denver and Seattle now! The ballpark low estimate of $400 Million per SLS vehicle launch is probably going to "expand" up to $2 Billion a shot...

RobertDyck · 2017-02-13 12:32:34

GW: Course corrections are the only technology we need to develop to use a tether for artificial gravity. We know everything else already. We can use the same cable used for Spirit/Opportunity or Curiosity. We could debate whether to use braided Kevlar, Zylon, Vectran, or something similar. But course correction is done by timing. That is when you want thrusters to push your spacecraft in one direction, wait until the spacecraft is in that direction vs centre of rotation. Then fire thrusters to "pull" the counterweight. Always time to pull, because you can't push on a string.

I could link YouTube videos about conservation of angular momentum. Circus performers, figure skaters, and other performers use this all the time. When they spin with arms out, they spin slowly. When they pull their arms in, they spin much faster. Considering the length of an artificial gravity tether, I don't think you can pre-spin the spacecraft enough. You will have to apply thrust to increase spin as the tether extends.

As Robert Zubrin suggested, don't de-spin the system at Mars. Instead cut the cable, let the spent upper stage that you used as counterweight just fly off into space. That leaves the habitat with much less angular momentum, so much less to de-spin. And you never reel-in the tether. And never de-spin while the tether is deployed.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2017-02-13 12:34:03)

Oldfart1939 · 2017-02-13 12:59:58

What I was suggesting we do--wait to attach the tethers until after the initial course corrections have been made, possibly 2-3 weeks into the coasting stage of the mission--2 spacecraft "flying in formation" until that point.

What this model is suggesting is polishing up the manned EDS of the mission. Much of the original Mars Direct/mars Semi-Direct remains. Just modelling the details in order to use "what we already have." What we have is a figure of 54 ,400 kg to LEO using Falcon Heavy, and according to Spaceflight 101, the upgraded Falcon 9 FT or Falcon 9.v.1.2 can boost 22,800 kg to LEO. I'm not sure whether these numbers reflect just payload or the total mass including the remainder of the launch vehicle?

RobertDyck · 2017-02-13 13:25:53

Be careful. Published lift capacity is absolute maximum. That means without the launch vehicle being reusable. And launching to 185km orbit. ISS orbits between 390 and 410km altitude. They push it up, then because it's in LEO, which means there's still a tiny wisp of atmosphere so it gradually falls. Then they push it back up again. And published capacity is at an inclination that equals launch site latitude. KSC is 28° for launch site 39A where Falcon Heavy will launch, or 28.5° where Falcon 9 launches. ISS is at 51.6° inclination. Changing all that will dramatically reduce lift capacity. We don't know how much Falcon Heavy will lift to ISS.

::EDIT:: Estimate
Dragon CRS (Cargo Resupply Ship) can deliver 3,300kg to ISS. It's dry mass is 4,200kg plus 1,290kg propellant. Total launch mass = 8,790kg.
Falcon 9 can launch Dragon CRS to ISS or 22,800kg to LEO. Again, that's non-reusable, 185km orbit @ 28.5° inclination.
Assuming the ratio is the same, then Falcon Heavy should be able to deliver 20,972.6kg to ISS. Round off to 20,900kg. With recovered/reusable core stages. But that cargo mass includes rendezvous and berthing mechanisms, manoeuvring thrusters and propellant.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2017-02-13 13:36:23)

Oldfart1939 · 2017-02-13 13:56:02

We still don't know what the next iteration of Falcon 9 will do--the so-called "Block 5" Falcon 9.
The numbers I quoted were of the Full Thrust Falcon 9, which is now a higher rating than the earlier figures you've quoted for delivered payload. The Block 5 is supposedly enhanced for delivery of heavier payloads to orbit while retaining adequate fuel for RTB.

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2017-02-13 13:56:58)

SpaceNut · 2017-02-13 16:37:53

Block 5 capability is fully expendable with a 5.5 metric tons, going to about 40,000 kilometers from the surface of the Earth will require pretty much all of the lift capacity of SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket.

From reading the upgrade to engines and changes to fuel density have achieve a 30% boost in payload capacity.

RobertDyck · 2017-02-13 17:04:14

Updating the estimate. Dragon CRS could deliver 3,310kg at a time when Falcon 9 could deliver 13,150kg to LEO. That's a different ratio. Applying that ratio to current published figures for Falcon Heavy, that means it should deliver 36,400kg to ISS. But again that mass includes rendezvous and berthing hardware, manoeuvring thrusters and propellant.

kbd512 · 2017-02-13 17:24:39

If the Mars Transit Vehicle is assembled at ISS and an upper stage from Falcon Heavy or Vulcan Heavy is later mated to it to perform TMI, then what's the maximum payload we can send through TMI? Obviously we can always launch more rockets to deliver more upper stages or more fuel, but even Falcon Heavy costs a pretty penny at $100M per launch.

The most substantial issue not yet overcome is how to do EDL without retro-propulsion. We still haven't figured out how to do that and we're not even trying. Whether it's a giant helium filled balloon or an electric lift fan, there has to be some way to get to the surface of Mars without expending massive quantities of incredibly expensive propellants.

Oldfart1939 · 2017-02-13 19:24:52

There are too many variables involved regards the weight actually launched to Mars. What transit time is acceptable, how many crew, how much and what equipment, etc. Then there's always the estimates of dry weight w/o propellants to consider. I just ran a few weight estimates for an upgraded Dragon 2 spacecraft, crewed at the max with 7 crew, supplies, O2, H2O, propellants, landing stage, etc, at roughly 92,000 kg. This is the mass that would be launched into trans-Mars flight. That should allow the engineers among us to come up with (1) thrust required, (2) delta V, and finally, (3) how much fuel needed to accomplish such. In my model, I have a fuel allowance of ~ 42,000 kg of MMH and NTO. A "landed weight" is thereby ~ 50,000 kg. My fuel allowance is just a WAG. So--maybe need a little more or maybe a whole lot less? This is the fuel onboard the Mars landing vehicle, not that needed for TMI.

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2017-02-13 19:29:32)

RobertDyck · 2017-02-13 21:43:37

A couple years ago I wrote this: Light weight nuclear reactor, updating Mars Direct
I tried to come up with weight estimates. Assuming the Mars Direct mission architecture: 4 crew, SAFE-400 instead of SP-100, same life support equipment as ISS, same hull mass. Robert Zubrin assumed lithium-aluminum alloy. Use Curiosity rover mobility stuff to move the reactor, instead of developing a new robotic truck. And use a Dragon capsule instead of developing a new one for the ERV. LH2/LOX for transit to Mars, ISPP with LCH4/LOX for return.

Of course the mission architecture I prefer is: Yet another Mars architecture

Oldfart1939 · 2017-02-13 22:57:45

After re-reading the words of the master, he comes to a conclusion of a 25 metric ton system landing on the Red Planet. Based on a 180 day manned flight, which requires a delta V of 5.08 km/second from LEO. Zubrin makes a great case for the 4 man mission, especially in the early pioneering flights. My reasoning for a larger crew/larger ship and a second ship is based on what needs to be accomplished versus the eventual physical and mental exhaustion of the individuals involved in this enterprise. Yes, it's possible for a solo mission, a 2 man, or 4 man crew to "do" the mission, but they would be in pretty bad shape by the end of it, both physically AND mentally/emotionally..

Of course, my mission architecture includes prepositioned nuclear reactor, food, equipment, water and vehicle caches. In addition to components for erecting a habitat--a Bigelow version of a Yurt, need be. The ISPP plant should be producing both components of the methylox fuel-oxidizer couple for the prepositioned ERV.

My bottom line: If we are going to Mars, go there in sufficient force to show that we're there TO STAY. My second words of wisdom: remember that Murphy was an optimist.

My mission architecture is based on an upgrade to a 5 meter diameter Dragon 2+, or a Dragon 3--whatever. That and building components that would be mission specific. Still using the Falcon Heavy and Falcon Block 5 for ferrying loads to orbit.

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2017-02-13 23:19:15)

SpaceNut · 2017-02-18 17:37:28

Actual article for the topic One huge step: Trump’s plans to privatize ‘low Earth orbit’ and send NASA into deep space

So, how does Trump intend to do that?
Former Congressman Robert Walker, R-Pa., who was tapped to draft Trump’s space policy during the campaign, spoke to Yahoo News about the administration’s plan to place “low Earth orbit” missions predominantly in the hands of the private sector, with exceptions for military and intelligence satellites.
The government would not compete with commercial interests in this region of space; instead, NASA would concentrate on deep-space exploration with the long-term goal of having humans explore the entire solar system by the 22nd century.
A number of private entities, such as Axiom Space and Bigelow Aerospace, are interested in creating commercial space stations and have technologies under development — such as constellations of satellites for Earth observation or new communications tools — that they believe can be profitable in low Earth orbit, the region of space up to an altitude of about 1,200 miles.

So who's footing the bill to create the illusion....when the destination is a Nasa asset....That said until they foot the bill for space stations then there is no commercial market beyond the current status quo. All this means is a doubling of Nasa's current budget so as to pay for it as they are service providers and not a commercial market as Nasa is the biggest of all customers.

Robert Lightfoot, the acting administrator for NASA, said in an agency update that the transition under the Trump administration is going smoothly. He also asked NASA’s human exploration and operations mission directorate to look into the feasibility of adding astronauts to Exploration Mission 1 (EM-1), the first planned flight of the new Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and second flight of the Orion spacecraft, accelerating human exploration in deep space. With EM-1, NASA is developing the technologies that would be needed for a journey to Mars.

Looking at the numbers for the delay to mission is 10 billion of funds for porkware....not that Nasa can pull it off.

EM-1 test flight is set to spend three weeks in space, with several days orbiting the moon but the current upper stage and SM for orion I do not think is capable of pulling this off so lets send up a Dragon truck to mate to the capsule for safety....

Void · 2017-02-18 19:05:11

Slightly different slant:
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/d … war-234829

The Trump administration is considering a bold and controversial vision for the U.S. space program that calls for a "rapid and affordable" return to the moon by 2020, the construction of privately operated space stations and the redirection of NASA's mission to "the large-scale economic development of space," according to internal documents obtained by POLITICO.
The proposed strategy, whose potential for igniting a new industry appeals to Trump’s business background and job-creation pledges, is influencing the White House’s search for leaders to run the space agency. And it is setting off a struggle for supremacy between traditional aerospace contractors and the tech billionaires who have put big money into private space ventures.

The early indications are that private rocket firms like Elon Musk's SpaceX and Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin and their supporters have a clear upper hand in what Trump's transition advisers portrayed as a race between "Old Space" and "New Space," according to emails among key players inside the administration. Trump has met with Bezos and Musk, while tech investor Peter Thiel, a close confidant, has lobbied the president to look at using NASA to help grow the private space industry.

I am not sure what they mean by "To the Moon, by 2020".

Last edited by Void (2017-02-18 19:07:42)

SpaceNut · 2017-02-18 19:39:46

Space Launch System (SLS) rocket with an Orion capsule on top in late 2018, a mission known as EM-1

“What I hear being discussed is the potential for sometime within the first Trump term being able to go and do an Apollo 8 mission" -- meaning a lunar orbit mission like the one performed by Apollo 8 in December 1968.
Walker did not say such a mission would necessarily have to use NASA's SLS rocket and Orion capsule.
Entrepreneurial space companies, including Elon Musk's SpaceX and Jeffrey P. Bezos's Blue Origin, are planning their own heavy-lift rockets.
“Done properly we can be on the moon in President Trump's first term and orbiting Mars by the end of his second term.”

The EM-2 was to be the manned crew attempt on the old time line of Nasa with EM-1 being uncrewed and holding true to form for cutting budgets moving the timeline accomplishes the same effect of making the contractors work for there money on a new timeline.

Its roughly 3.5 billion a years for SLS projects and its now 7 billion for the EM-1 launch and another 2 plus years for the EM-2 would be another 7 plus billion on this collapsed time line.

RobertDyck · 2017-02-18 20:03:11

NASA already has a plan to launch its new, jumbo Space Launch System (SLS) rocket with an Orion capsule on top in late 2018, a mission known as EM-1.

I said if they delay the first test launch of SLS from November of this year to December 11 of this year, then the time from announcement to first launch will have been as long as Saturn V. And if you take the cost to develop Saturn V, apply inflation from those years to today, the cost of SLS is even higher. Now they want to delay to November 2018!?!?!?!
(insert string of expletives here)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2017-02-10 21:11:24

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#52 2017-02-10 22:14:38

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#53 2017-02-11 11:47:00

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#54 2017-02-11 12:45:19

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#55 2017-02-11 15:05:57

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#56 2017-02-11 16:38:52

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#57 2017-02-12 09:49:25

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#58 2017-02-12 23:31:43

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#59 2017-02-13 10:24:04

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#60 2017-02-13 11:21:27

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#61 2017-02-13 12:26:53

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#62 2017-02-13 12:32:34

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#63 2017-02-13 12:59:58

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#64 2017-02-13 13:25:53

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#65 2017-02-13 13:56:02

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#66 2017-02-13 16:37:53

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#67 2017-02-13 17:04:14

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#68 2017-02-13 17:24:39

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#69 2017-02-13 19:24:52

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#70 2017-02-13 21:43:37

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#71 2017-02-13 22:57:45

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#72 2017-02-18 17:37:28

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#73 2017-02-18 19:05:11

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#74 2017-02-18 19:39:46

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#75 2017-02-18 20:03:11

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

Board footer