You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
For those interested, I'll add in relevant articles or information I come across related to the national space council. If you are not tracking this, you should if you are interested in looking over the horizon or understanding the direction US Space policy will be taking over the next 4-8 years.
Start here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/scie … pence.html
"The council, a group of senior federal officials that coordinates policy between NASA, the Defense Department and other agencies involved with space, was disbanded in 1993, but President Trump signed an executive order in June to reestablish it.
Council members include Secretary of State Rex Tillerson; Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao; Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross; General H.R. McMaster, the national security adviser; and Mike Mulvaney, director of the Office of Management and Budget."
Offline
Like button can go here
We actually did have a topic for this at VP Pence calls for return to Moon and Boots on Mars
This seems like a very short list of people to create policy and direction with when we are looking at a transportation highway to orbit and beyond. With the chances of it lasting more than a presidentail cycle growing from slim to gone again when the next president can erase it just in the same manner.
Vice President Pence vows US astronauts will return to the moon
There have been two prevailing (and opposing) views when it comes to US endeavors in human spaceflight. One camp maintains that returning to the moon is a mistake. NASA has already been there; it should work hard and set our sights on Mars and beyond. The other feels that Mars is too much of a reach, and that the moon will be easier to achieve in a short time frame. Mars may be a medium-to-long-term goal, but NASA should use the moon as a jumping-off point.
It appears that leveraging the trust from the ISS partners with the Deep Space Gateway is looking to be the expensive way forward and may never see Mars human missions for decades to come.
Unless this group directs Nasa to start looking at lower cost options we may never go any further.
Offline
Like button can go here
NASA is over as a pioneering organisation. Ask what Space X's policy is - that is where the action is. NASA, although it still does good science and technology, is pretty much an irrelevance in terms of what I call pioneering.
For those interested, I'll add in relevant articles or information I come across related to the national space council. If you are not tracking this, you should if you are interested in looking over the horizon or understanding the direction US Space policy will be taking over the next 4-8 years.
Start here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/scie … pence.html
"The council, a group of senior federal officials that coordinates policy between NASA, the Defense Department and other agencies involved with space, was disbanded in 1993, but President Trump signed an executive order in June to reestablish it.
Council members include Secretary of State Rex Tillerson; Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao; Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross; General H.R. McMaster, the national security adviser; and Mike Mulvaney, director of the Office of Management and Budget."
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Like button can go here
Space x and Bigelow are buying technology research that was at the time cutting edge to design and build with from NASA, which on the side of NASA they have not done there own diligence to look at the production side costing of implementation that these other companies have been doing with the information that they purchase.
Offline
Like button can go here
All, please recognize that SpaceX, et al. are *allowed* to launch by the US government. SpaceX, et. al. are almost entirely funded by US largess.
Hate to piss on your daydream of entrepreneur adventurism, but facts are facts.
This means that US Space Policy dictates what SpaceX et. al. will develop and do. Where they will go and when.
Watch the council. US Space policy will tell you where the space companies will be going and what they will be investing in.
Offline
Like button can go here
That's a very old fashioned view. There is an international market for space. Space X will make huge pots of money off orbital and lunar tourism, and possibly long range Earth travel, as well as NASA supply missions. And remember, Space X did not start launching in the USA. Trump's main focus is the US economy - the government will I predict stay friendly with Space X.
All, please recognize that SpaceX, et al. are *allowed* to launch by the US government. SpaceX, et. al. are almost entirely funded by US largess.
Hate to piss on your daydream of entrepreneur adventurism, but facts are facts.
This means that US Space Policy dictates what SpaceX et. al. will develop and do. Where they will go and when.
Watch the council. US Space policy will tell you where the space companies will be going and what they will be investing in.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Like button can go here
starry eyed, i gaze,
moon, mars, sun, glittering stars.
dreams do not make rafts.
30 years from now what you say *may* be true. Till then, US Space policy is driving us. Sub-orbital tourism does not exist, let alone orbital. Lunar is just make believe at this point, just as it was 20, 30 and 40 years ago.
SpaceX makes its money from the US. Check their books.
Offline
Like button can go here
Yes I know that. But the US is not going to say "Let's stop putting satellites into orbit."
starry eyed, i gaze,
moon, mars, sun, glittering stars.
dreams do not make rafts.30 years from now what you say *may* be true. Till then, US Space policy is driving us. Sub-orbital tourism does not exist, let alone orbital. Lunar is just make believe at this point, just as it was 20, 30 and 40 years ago.
SpaceX makes its money from the US. Check their books.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Like button can go here
Spacex is the oddball here. It is privately held, and so does what its owner wants. He wants to go to Mars.
On the other hand, Musk has to finance his activities, just as he does with Tesla in the commercial car business. That means winning government business, since that is still the dominant factor in the entire space industry.
Note: Spacex has broken into the most-restrictive "good old boys club" that there is in the space business, that being launch of satellites for US DOD. He did it against the odds, too. His big money helped.
Commercial launch prices came down, but not so much because of "commercial competition", there not yet being enough players in the business to constitute real competition, and the bulk of the entries still subsidized by their respective governments.
Prices came down because Musk could so drastically undercut his government-welfare competition, and still profit as a business. Which shows you just how UNCOMPETITIVE that business was, and to some extent still is.
Musk CANNOT colonize Mars by himself. That project is just too large for one entity. And the other entities don't yet agree to do it. So don't hold your breath for a Mars colony. Not yet.
He is working on a transport system to enable such colonization. And in other threads on these forums, I have indicated the painfully obvious: the first missions probably should NOT be sent via Musk's giant cargo container ship. But, they should not be min-thrown-mass minimalist ideas either.
The ideas of the 1950's are probably best for that first trip, then after that, Musk's ideas for a giant ship make great sense, but not before.
Meanwhile, I see precisely ZERO evidence that NASA-as-an-organization is willing to send a crew to Mars. Musk will beat them there, if he can pull it off. I have no doubt of that.
GW
Last edited by GW Johnson (2017-10-17 16:47:15)
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Like button can go here
I was a mini minimalist myself once! - but I think we are past that now and in the age of the BFR.
There's a lot to be done but I think Space X can do it. When you look at footage of the designers working on Apollo in the 60s and see them at their drawing boards, you are reminded how much easier it is now to design - we even have 3D printers for making test parts easily.
It seems to me a lot of the basic design work on the BFR has been done: and the propellant tank appears well advanced and I understand the Raptor engine is quite well down the road on testing. And we know he's perfected propulsive landing on Earth. He's got 5 years to get the cargo ready...knowing Musk, he hasn't just started thinking about the problems. I suspect there is an as yet unseen detailed mission plan. Bigelow have already been working with Space X. I presume that work is continuing. They probably have already identified a favoured landing location. They may be in discussion with commercial sponsors. Lots could be happening that we aren't seeing yet.
Spacex is the oddball here. It is privately held, and so does what its owner wants. He wants to go to Mars.
On the other hand, Musk has to finance his activities, just as he does with Tesla in the commercial car business. That means winning government business, since that is still the dominant factor in the entire space industry.
Note: Spacex has broken into the most-restrictive "good old boys club" that there is in the space business, that being launch of satellites for US DOD. He did it against the odds, too. His big money helped.
Commercial launch prices came down, but not so much because of "commercial competition", there not yet being enough players in the business to constitute real competition, and the bulk of the entries still subsidized by their respective governments.
Prices came down because Musk could so drastically undercut his government-welfare competition, and still profit as a business. Which shows you just how UNCOMPETITIVE that business was, and to some extent still is.
Musk CANNOT colonize Mars by himself. That project is just too large for one entity. And the other entities don't yet agree to do it. So don't hold your breath for a Mars colony. Not yet.
He is working on a transport system to enable such colonization. And in other threads on these forums, I have indicated the painfully obvious: the first missions probably should NOT be sent via Musk's giant cargo container ship. But, they should not be min-thrown-mass minimalist ideas either.
The ideas of the 1950's are probably best for that first trip, then after that, Musk's ideas for a giant ship make great sense, but not before.
Meanwhile, I see precisely ZERO evidence that NASA-as-an-organization is willing to send a crew to Mars. Musk will beat them there, if he can pull it off. I have no doubt of that.
GW
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Like button can go here
Sure semi deep pockets can go along way but its the means to make the next generation of rockets bigger and capable at low costs that they will find difficult as scaling things up does not always work and s meantioned there is only a few customers that want it.
The National Space Council's purpose is to reign in Nasa work, to give it direction without congressional mediling for the likes of another ISS, or SLS but to get Nasa out of the billion dollar rut that it seems to be in for the cutting edge developement to implimentation for what the government wants it to do.
Offline
Like button can go here
It was a good day for commercial space. It will be nice to have a mechanism in place to circumvent the 495 beltway mafia.
Offline
Like button can go here
The revived National Space Council consists of the following members:
Vice President of the United States, chair
Secretary of State
Secretary of Defense
Secretary of Commerce
Secretary of Transportation
Secretary of Homeland Security
Director of National Intelligence
Director of the Office of Budget and Management
National Security Advisor
Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Homeland Security Advisor
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Oct. 5, 2017 First Meeting of the National Space Council
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-of … ce-council
The Council shall meet at least annually. The Council shall advise and assist the President regarding national space policy and strategy, and perform such other duties as the President may, from time to time, prescribe.
In particular, the Council is directed to:
(i) review United States Government space policy, including long-range goals, and develop a strategy for national space activities;
(ii) develop recommendations for the President on space policy and space-related issues;
(iii) monitor and coordinate implementation of the objectives of the President's national space policy and strategy;
(iv) foster close coordination, cooperation, and technology and information exchange among the civil, national security, and commercial space sectors;
(v) advise on participation in international space activities conducted by the United States Government; and
(vi) facilitate the resolution of differences concerning major space and space-related policy matters.
Offline
Like button can go here
President Signs Space Policy Directive - 2
Space Policy Directive-2 (Full Text)
President Donald J. Trump is Reforming and Modernizing American Commercial Space Policy
"REFORMING SPACE POLICY: President Trump's Space Policy Directive - 2 reforms America's commercial space regulatory framework, ensuring our place as a leader in space commerce.
UPDATING AND REFOCUSING: President Trump is committed to reforming our out-of-date space policies and has already taken significant steps to refocus United States space strategy."
Statement from Vice President Mike Pence on the President's Signing of Space Policy Directive-2
"This directive will encourage American leadership in space commerce by creating more certainty for investors and private industry, while focusing on protecting our national security and public-safety. As President Trump says, "We're a nation of pioneers, and the next great American frontier is space."
NASA Administrator Statement on Space Policy Directive-2
"SPD-2 provides yet another way for the members of the National Space Council to provide much-needed direction for the many different aspects of our nation's activity in space, providing communication and coordination on these complex enterprises for the benefit of our nation and the world."
Offline
Like button can go here
Offline
Like button can go here
Russian anti-satellite test was a 'pressing threat'
Offline
Like button can go here
Vice President Harris’ visit with South Korean President Yoon
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/20 … sa-goddard
Kamala Harris visits NASA's Goddard Space Center in Greenbelt
Harris tours NASA flight center in Md. with South Korean leader, kicking off state visit
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 … -md-south/
VP Kamala Harris, South Korea president announce plans for expanded space partnerships
https://www.thebaltimorebanner.com/
The United States and South Korea have signed an agreement to cooperate on space exploration
Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2023-04-29 06:25:27)
Offline
Like button can go here
Pages: 1