Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 151 to 163 of 163

Thread: The Donald Trump Admin Space Exploration Policy

  1. #151
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,623
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    To borrow a famous movie quote, show me the money.
    Yup.

    The Space Exploration policy of this admin seems to be no policy, or rather an ever changing array of policies. But none will happen without a committed, reliable budget.

    Getting a reliable budget for anything seems to be a difficulty even beyond the norm nowadays.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    1,996
    When is the manned mission to Pluto, which as you know, is part of Mars?

  3. #153
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    14,205
    Quote Originally Posted by Squink View Post
    When is the manned mission to Pluto, which as you know, is part of Mars?
    Don't be silly. Pluto is a dog, and Mars a candy bar. Dogs and candy bars are completely different.
    As above, so below

  4. #154
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Great NorthWet
    Posts
    15,539
    I keep finding myself surprised at Blue Origin getting NASA contracts, considering the President's opinion of the guy who owns it.
    Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.

  5. #155
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    16,530
    Quote Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
    I keep finding myself surprised at Blue Origin getting NASA contracts, considering the President's opinion of the guy who owns it.
    Maybe he hasn’t made the connection.
    The greatest journey of all time, for all to see
    Every mission makes our dreams reality
    And our destiny begins with you and me
    Through all space and time, the achievement of mankind
    As we sail the sea of discovery, on heroes’ wings we fly!

  6. #156
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,913
    Guess this goes here. Major work underway, but still no one dares speak The Price That Must Be Named.

    https://phys.org/news/2019-06-nasa-i...moonshots.html
    Do good work. —Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom

  7. #157
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,913
    "Reality check" on Orion and Artemis.

    https://arstechnica.com/science/2019...nding-program/
    Do good work. —Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom

  8. #158
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,824
    They've been hating on SLS over there.

    Something they don't like to report.

    A Peacekeeper/Orion (modern day Little Joe) tested the Orion abort profile--and it passed.

    And Starship' abort motor is....?

  9. #159
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,721
    Where are the passenger parachutes in a 747? SLS/Orion is a "small" capsule launcher, while Starship is an interplanetary vehicle with a 100 pax capacity. You can't expect similar safety solutions applying to both. Its safety features are akin to similar aircraft: it's mostly about redundancy and reliability. It is not realistic to have an escape tower on a crew compartment of that size. Sure it would be nice if it could, but it can't so the risk is minimized in other ways. By the way, you could say that Starship is the launch abort system of the entire earth launch stack as it can separate from the booster if something would go wrong with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elon Musk
    Oh launch abort, the spacecraft itself is capable of aborting from the booster, the erm… Launch abort on the spaceship itself is kinda pointless, if you’re on Mars you’re taking off or you’re not taking off. You know, parachutes don’t work too well and [you can’t have] some standard abort system, and just how do you abort 100 people it’s just not feasible, the key is to make the spaceship itself extremely safe and reliable, and have redundancy in the engines, high safety margins and have [it be] well tested. Much like a commercial airliner. Like they don’t give you parachutes.

  10. #160
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    7,937
    It looks like the Trump administration and the House Science Committee are going in two different directions.

    https://spacenews.com/house-introduc...ars-over-moon/

    The leadership of the House Science Committee introduced a NASA authorization bill Jan. 24 that seeks to significantly alter NASA’s current plans to return humans to the moon and make them part of an effort to send humans to Mars.

    The bill, designated H.R. 5666 and introduced by Rep. Kendra Horn (D-Okla.), chair of the committee’s space subcommittee, seeks to put a human return to the moon within the context of a larger “Moon to Mars” program that would no longer have the goal of returning humans to the surface of the moon by 2024, as Vice President Pence announced in March 2019.

    “The Moon to Mars program shall have the interim goal of sending a crewed mission to the lunar surface by 2028 and a goal of sending a crewed mission to orbit Mars by 2033,” the bill states.
    I am because we are
    (African saying)

  11. #161
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    7,937
    Quote Originally Posted by selvaarchi View Post
    It looks like the Trump administration and the House Science Committee are going in two different directions.

    https://spacenews.com/house-introduc...ars-over-moon/
    The Planetary Society on the house proposals.

    https://www.planetary.org/blogs/case...rnerstone.html

    The U.S. House of Representatives just released its draft of the NASA Authorization Act of 2020, which would re-organize NASA's human spaceflight program, narrow and delay lunar exploration goals, and prioritize the effort to send humans to Mars by the early 2030s. The legislation stands in contrast to the Trump Administration's current policy of returning astronauts to the lunar surface by 2024 and establishing a broad, sustained lunar presence thereafter.

    The bill, H.R. 5666, was introduced late Friday night by the Democratic and Republican leaders of the House's space and science committees. The bipartisan legislation spans over 100 pages and touches on nearly every aspect of the U.S. civil space program. In this analysis, I will focus solely on its directives for human exploration.

    HR 5666 presents a dramatically different vision from the White House's current human spaceflight plans, and also stands at odds with its counterpart Senate bill introduced last year. And unlike annual funding bills, legislation of this type is not required to keep NASA open and working. For these reasons, it is unlikely to become law as-is.

    But it is significant, nonetheless. And the key to its significance—and to correctly understanding its intentions—is how it considers the role of Mars in defining human spaceflight goals. HR 5666 takes the position that Mars is a near-term (< 20 years) goal and attempts to craft a serious policy framework in support of that effort. By implication, it considers the current lunar return program, Artemis, as primarily a lunar-focused effort that will direct resources away from the Mars goal, and attempts to limit its ambitions accordingly.
    I am because we are
    (African saying)

  12. #162
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,913
    Most recent funding for NASA has drawbacks.

    https://www.space.com/nasa-2021-budg...opes-stem.html
    Do good work. —Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom

  13. #163
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    7,937
    "NASA's 2024 moonshot may not work"

    https://www.axios.com/nasa-2024-moon...049de5fa6.html

    The coronavirus and agency shakeups are making NASA's goal of landing people back on the Moon in 2024 seem less likely.

    Why it matters: The Trump administration has hung its hat on the Artemis Moon program as its defining space policy, with the goal of accomplishing the first crewed landing before the end of President Trump's second term — if he is re-elected.

    "I think basically, making 2024 would be a miracle," John Logsdon, the founder of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University, told Axios.
    I am because we are
    (African saying)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •