A US Department of Space

SpaceNut · 2016-04-14 18:41:59

that can play a vital role both in the domestic and in the international policy of our nation. Besides helping to build up infrastructure of friendly nations, align the projects and goals of various spacefaring nations, assist in global space projects like space based solar power or building a planetary defense system to thwart potentially hazardous asteroids and comets, creating and running international manned missions to Mars, orbital space debris mitigation and monitoring and tackling various aspects of climate change, a Department of Space would also help to coordinate the activities of private fledging space companies here in America, that have a history of being squashed by NASA trying to protect the agency's own charter and monopoly.

Is it time for Nasa to grow up and be more than an agency?

Global projects are different in mission and scope than national projects. Space projects like planetary defense, space based solar power platforms and orbital debris mitigation impact all people around the globe, and so such projects need a different kind of administration and charter. A world space organization along the lines of other UN agencies may be hard to evolve from the existing charter of the UN Office of Outer Space Affairs(OOSA).
A Department of Space must not be misconstrued as a threat by Congress or the administration as a way to break up NASA or split up its already stretched budget. Nor should it be portrayed as a stealthy effort by the US Department of Defense trying to exert influence globally.

Such a formation would require a revival budget to that of DOD for sure....if it is to do so much....

An USC team project from 2011 had presented a case that the Department of Space should operate at a budget level of some 60B dollars, consistent with other departments, of which NASA should have $20B to build, test and fly daring, leading-edge technology missions into deep space. The remaining $40B is suggested for the Dept. of Space that will then handle all the coordination functions between large global space infrastructure development projects, NASA and other partner nation agencies and the private sector.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-04-15 12:04:11

I thought NASA was already a Department of Space.

SpaceNut · 2016-04-15 16:50:03

From other polital posting

3 Executive branch
3.1 Executive Office of the President
3.2 United States Department of Agriculture
3.3 United States Department of Commerce
3.4 United States Department of Defense
3.5 United States Department of Education
3.6 United States Department of Energy
3.7 United States Department of Health and Human Services
3.8 United States Department of Homeland Security
3.9 United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
3.10 United States Department of the Interior
3.11 United States Department of Justice
3.12 United States Department of Labor
3.13 United States Department of State
3.14 United States Department of Transportation
3.15 United States Department of the Treasury
3.16 United States Department of Veterans Affairs

NASA's administrator is the agency's highest-ranking official and serves as the senior space science adviser to the President of the United States. The agency's administration is located at NASA Headquarters in Washington, DC and provides overall guidance and direction. NASA is not a part of the Department of Defense, nor of any other Cabinet-level department. NASA's administrator reports directly to the White House.

As a federal agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) receives its funding from the annual federal budget passed by the United States Congress. The following charts detail the amount of federal funding allotted to NASA each year over its past fifty-year history (1958–2009) to operate aeronautics research, unmanned and manned space exploration programs.

The term "government agency" or "administrative agency" usually applies to one of the independent agencies of the United States government, which exercise some degree of independence from the President's control. Although the heads of independent agencies are often appointed by the government, they can usually be removed only for cause. The heads of independent agencies work together in groups, such as a commission, board or council.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independe … government

Nasa is hidden under this heading Article I, Section 8, Energy and science agencies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_pol … nistration

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Adva … on_Program

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Departmen … ort_Office

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_b … ed_States)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_f … ted_States

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-04-15 21:34:25

What exactly would a US Department of Space do, that NASA isn't already doing? I don't see much use in creating an additional Agency that duplicates what NASA is doing. As for Defense related stuff, a simple name change would do. The Air Force becomes the Aerospace Force, this military service is in charge of land based nuclear missiles, and space-based ones, and defenses against missiles of enemy nations and defenses against asteroid and comet collisions, the Aerospace force would develop the necessary hardware to detect, deflect, or destroy these objects if they threaten Earth. Also the Aerospace Force would field a service of Aerospace Marines for in-space person to person combat, they would deploy rocket troops which can travel to any part of the World in 45 minutes, and also to guard our bases on the Moon, Mars and in space.

SpaceNut · 2016-04-16 13:56:35

A government agency, often an appointed commission, is a permanent or semi-permanent organization in the machinery of government that is responsible for the oversight and administration of specific functions, such as an intelligence agency.

The Congress and President of the United States delegate specific authority to government agencies to regulate the complex facets of the modern American federal state. That said that is why we have the tug of war going on with Nasa when it comes to budgetting suffiecient funds for its work that they have been directed to do....

Under the Energy and science agencies are the list that follows:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Science Foundation
United States Antarctic Program
United States Arctic Program
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Office of the Federal Coordinator, Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects
Tennessee Valley Authority

louis · 2016-04-16 18:37:11

I have often argued here that a portion of the NASA budget (probably about 25%) should be hived off and used to create a Mars and Moon Settlement Agency. I think it would be better to have it as a separate agency rather than a US dept of state because it would then be easier for the Agency to receive funds from other space agencies around the world to fund Mars and Lunar settlement. NASA as it stands has way too many objectives and this is getting in the way of the crucial objective of creating a new off-Earth human civilisation.

Last edited by louis (2016-04-16 18:38:17)

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-04-16 20:08:47

What if SpaceX did it? Perhaps settling Mars could be a real estate development project.

SpaceNut · 2016-04-17 16:52:50

What are you asking or saying...is it that you would favor Space x, a corporate entity becoming a presidential agency funded by congress and able to be canned if the next president or congress did not like the progress direction that does not produce jobs for the constituents or for there businesses....for that to happen the reigns of control would be pass to a director of the company and I can not see that as happening.....

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-04-17 20:58:31

SpaceNut wrote:

What are you asking or saying...is it that you would favor Space x, a corporate entity becoming a presidential agency funded by congress and able to be canned if the next president or congress did not like the progress direction that does not produce jobs for the constituents or for there businesses....for that to happen the reigns of control would be pass to a director of the company and I can not see that as happening.....

Your still thinking in 20th century terms of a government doing X. What I'm saying is that SpaceX lowers the cost of transport to orbit enough so that it can fund a private Mars colony on its own, and find a way to make a profit while doing so, thus making the venture self-funding, and incidentally beating the Chinese, the Russians and NASA. NASA is busy planning a Manned Mars mission by 2050. NASA is plodding and slow, and its counting on all the other space agencies to be slow as well. We need a disrupter, someone who embarrasses all the government run space agencies,
5112d08b06cac.image.jpg
and plants this corporate logo on the red soil of Mars! We need someone to get to Mars before all the plodding governments do, then SpaceX could really develop this planet rather than let the government build a few "Antarctic Bases" on it for scientists to do their research and write papers. My question is, do scientists and researchers working for the government really make the best colonists?

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2016-04-17 20:59:18)

SpaceNut · 2016-04-18 16:54:24

The trouble is that in order for Space X and or anyother company to do mars would require someone paying for the service that they are providing as it stands the military would not want to be subsidizing the commercial flights to mars since they have no militarily interests but then again Nasa would not want to fund it either so where will the sustaining funds come from when there is only a small starting interest with little chance of increased rates since the gate to mars only opens every 2 years and 7 weeks give or take with regards to the rockets capability.....
As you indicated I would not be in favor of an Antartica style mars....my take on scientists versus colonist is that all must equally work all facets and not just say that I am a scienctist to good to do meanial labor....

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-04-19 13:25:57

SpaceNut wrote:

The trouble is that in order for Space X and or anyother company to do mars would require someone paying for the service that they are providing as it stands the military would not want to be subsidizing the commercial flights to mars since they have no militarily interests but then again Nasa would not want to fund it either so where will the sustaining funds come from when there is only a small starting interest with little chance of increased rates since the gate to mars only opens every 2 years and 7 weeks give or take with regards to the rockets capability.....
As you indicated I would not be in favor of an Antartica style mars....my take on scientists versus colonist is that all must equally work all facets and not just say that I am a scienctist to good to do meanial labor....

If SpaceX can achieve a one hundred fold decrease in launch costs, that would open up a whole new market for space travel. Just to give you a for instance. You have a cell phone don't you? A lot of people don't like that unsightly cell phone tower in their neighborhood, there has been efforts to disguise them as trees, which are laughable. What if we didn't need cell phone towers? What if cellphones could operate off of satellites, anywhere in the world, even Antarctica? What if anyone could make a cellphone call from anywhere, even North Korea for instance! The cellphone providers might not care where the cellphone call is being made from, what can the North Korea government do? As for the military subsidizing commercial flights, haven't you hear that space is the high ground? asteroids are strategic military assets, when you think about what they can do. Imagine if United States companies get heavily involved in asteroid mining, and their are multiple asteroids in various orbits around Earth, all because of lower launch costs, and North Korea has a few nukes, the asteroids that are being mined however are out of its range. Guess what happens if North Korea nukes cities in the United States?

SpaceNut · 2016-04-19 19:18:03

I agree Tom Kalbfus that a "one hundred fold decrease in launch costs, that would open up a whole new market for space travel." to which we are just under $100 million per launch which means that even if I could have a $100,000 a year free money to set aside for such a trip that its still 10 years away from happening and when we look at the length of service for a rocket family we would be hopefully able to go on even a cheaper ride than that....but all that I have done is paid for a cheaper ticket and not to continue into space which is have jobs once going beyond LEO.... Its that last step that needs to happen as well to create jobs in orbit and beyond that makes flights continue to get cheaper...

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-04-19 22:15:38

Well your cost for going into space is not the cost of an entire launch, but a fraction thereof. I dare say, most could not afford to fly an entire 747 across the country with nothing but himself sitting in the center isle of the airplane and paying for the entire cost of the trip all by himself.

Also cheaper access to space would allow us to develop extra terrestrial resources which can help support humans once there, that way we'd be paying only to lift the humans, and they things to support the humans would come from places other than Earth.

SpaceNut · 2016-04-20 16:56:32

Well that is what we are hoping for but that does not make it so as the purchaser of the ticket is at the mercy of the vendor....
There are lots of things that I would not pay the asking price on so going on a rocket may not be all that different until the vendor decides to cut prices to garner a market share.....they real trick is to get the seat count up per flight from a lowly 3 to 7 typical to something closer to 30 or 50....that makes it possible to lower the price if the flight rate is steady and does not drop due to the large passenger manifest that would be possible....

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-04-21 10:16:08

SpaceNut wrote:

Well that is what we are hoping for but that does not make it so as the purchaser of the ticket is at the mercy of the vendor....
There are lots of things that I would not pay the asking price on so going on a rocket may not be all that different until the vendor decides to cut prices to garner a market share.....they real trick is to get the seat count up per flight from a lowly 3 to 7 typical to something closer to 30 or 50....that makes it possible to lower the price if the flight rate is steady and does not drop due to the large passenger manifest that would be possible....

If a rocket can lift 100 tons to orbit, each ton is about 10 human beings, 100 passengers would weigh 10 tons, and the rest of the 90 tons would go towards luggage and life support equipment.

SpaceNut · 2016-04-21 18:55:05

And yet what do we continue to build.....

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-04-22 07:59:16

SpaceNut wrote:

And yet what do we continue to build.....

The market for lifting human passengers into orbit is limited, Travel is too expensive to specialize in human passengers into orbit just now. If costs can be brought down, then that may change.

SpaceNut · 2016-04-22 17:23:25

Look at it this way does a company profit more from seat limiting each flight or by reducing flights with more seats....

The White House submits budget requests to the Congress. They show what the administration's priorities are and what funding levels are recommended to Congress. The budget request has no legal authority.

The House and Senate pass their versions of the budget and then get together to iron out differences (since according to the Constitution the same bill has to pass both the House and Senate). Then it gets sent to the President, who can either veto it or let it become law.

The system was designed to prevent consolidation of power in one entity (Congress, President etc.) and force people of differing viewpoints to talk to one another to gain consensus.

In theory all appropriations bills are supposed to originate in the House. There is nothing in the Constitution to suggest that similar but not identical bills should be created simultaneously in both House and Senate. This has become the practice because it confers extraordinary power on those appointed to the House-Senate "conference committees" to make deals in smoke-filled rooms out of public view but easily accessible to lobbyists.

Appropriations bills have to start in the House (and technically they still do today). Even if there were not simultaneous efforts there would still have to be conferences between the House and the Senate since the Senate would likely amend the House bill.

Then there is the congressional wishes such as the SLS that gets tagged into such a bill which was passed to get the commercial market going....

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-04-24 05:28:53

The SLS is too expensive to directly compete with the Falcon and Falcon heavy. The only people who would be using the SLS, once it is complete would be the US government. The US Government is paying to build and launch the thing, and no doubt it is also paying the contractors to spread the jobs around to all the congressional districts and states if interested parties in Congress. SpaceX doesn't have to do that, it builds its rockets at its own expense and sells the launch services to make a profit. The up side is, NASA and the US government can only afford to build and launch so many SLSs, and that limits its ability to compete with SpaceX, so SpaceX will be selling launch services while the government is launching its purposely build monster rocket for its own purposes. SpaceX will be driving down the cost of a launch by landing and reusing its rocket stages while the government will be launching and throwing away the stages of its SLS.

SpaceNut · 2018-06-18 20:13:46

Well the force is with USA as Trump directs creation of 'space force' as sixth branch of military

President Donald Trump announced Monday that he has ordered the creation of a new military branch, adding the "Space Force" to the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, and Coast Guard. "It is not enough to merely have an American presence in space, we must have American dominance in space. Very importantly I'm hereby directing the Department of Defense and Pentagon to immediately begin the process necessary to establish a space force as the sixth branch of the armed forces, that is a big statement," Trump said at a meeting of the National Space Council on Monday. "We are going to have the Air Force and we are going to have the space force, separate but equal, it is going to be something."

Will we see leadership from the National Space Council or is it not going to control what will be done in space....

Terraformer · 2018-06-19 02:50:54

Does this mean the Marines will finally be getting the point-to-point suborbital spacecraft they've asked for, but they'll have to transfer to the Space Force to fly in them?

SpaceNut · 2018-06-19 17:08:31

Congress still has a say on whether this happens or not as much as do the forces to which are under the commander and chief use but not total control.
Trump directs Pentagon to create military Space Force to ensure American dominance on the high frontier.

Slight problem is no nation can control what another nation will do or restrict as there are existing treaties in place already.

We have had a good period of trust with the ISS partners and that should stay the way it is...

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2016-04-14 18:41:59

A US Department of Space

#2 2016-04-15 12:04:11

Re: A US Department of Space

#3 2016-04-15 16:50:03

Re: A US Department of Space

#4 2016-04-15 21:34:25

Re: A US Department of Space

#5 2016-04-16 13:56:35

Re: A US Department of Space

#6 2016-04-16 18:37:11

Re: A US Department of Space

#7 2016-04-16 20:08:47

Re: A US Department of Space

#8 2016-04-17 16:52:50

Re: A US Department of Space

#9 2016-04-17 20:58:31

Re: A US Department of Space

#10 2016-04-18 16:54:24

Re: A US Department of Space

#11 2016-04-19 13:25:57

Re: A US Department of Space

#12 2016-04-19 19:18:03

Re: A US Department of Space

#13 2016-04-19 22:15:38

Re: A US Department of Space

#14 2016-04-20 16:56:32

Re: A US Department of Space

#15 2016-04-21 10:16:08

Re: A US Department of Space

#16 2016-04-21 18:55:05

Re: A US Department of Space

#17 2016-04-22 07:59:16

Re: A US Department of Space

#18 2016-04-22 17:23:25

Re: A US Department of Space

#19 2016-04-24 05:28:53

Re: A US Department of Space

#20 2018-06-18 20:13:46

Re: A US Department of Space

#21 2018-06-19 02:50:54

Re: A US Department of Space

#22 2018-06-19 17:08:31

Re: A US Department of Space

Board footer