This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
TrumpSpace

Take Home Message From The National Space Council Meeting

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
October 5, 2017

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

12 responses to “Take Home Message From The National Space Council Meeting”

  1. DougSpace says:
    0
    0

    Just hilarious!

  2. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    Dancing dinosaurs at the capitol! God I love this country!

  3. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    Ms. Shotwell is a role model. Not for girls. Not for boys. She’s a role model for anyone: get the facts straight, wait your turn, focus on the what you do best.

    It’s not about gender. She’s just damn impressive.

  4. Johnhouboltsmyspiritanimal says:
    0
    0

    Keith wins the internet today. How long before this administration sees through the BS and gives them a “You are fired Head for the chopper!”

  5. fcrary says:
    0
    0

    I missed seeing this myself, but the BBC’s story on the event quotes Mr. Pence: “The president has charged us with laying the foundation for America to maintain a constant commercial human presence in low-Earth orbit. From there, we will turn our attention back toward our celestial neighbours,” he said.”

    Can someone confirm that? Constant _commercial_ human presence? I may be over-interpreting, but that’s a bit different. At the moment, we don’t exactly have commercial human presence on orbit.

    • DougSpace says:
      0
      0

      Yeah, that’s what he said. What he meant is the idea of a “gapless transition” from the ISS to a commercial LEO station. It means increasing CASIS-supported commercial use of the ISS followed by a commercial station still with NASA support but theoretically eventually with purely commercial, profitable operations. My take — yet one more budgetary burden preventing us from having the funding for Lunar COTS to get to where the resources (i.e. propellant) are.

      IMO, this is the top example of how commercial-space-is-always-good hinders the establishment of space settlement. Rather, lunar polar ice gives the propellant that makes lunar access more affordable resulting in companies serving the national lunar exploration desires of the world. That flight rate further lowers the cost of accessing the Moon resulting in private settlement. We don’t get there by producing better fiber optics in LEO.

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        Hmm.

        At first I was ready to give Mr. Pence some kudos. While I’m late to the commercial space party, having looked askance at anything non-NASA for many years, the VP’s comments were a little — well, short-sighted?

        By which I mean this: what exactly are we doing in space, anyway? Is human settlement the long term goal? (full disclosure: answer should be ‘yes’).

        And if that’s the case what’s the best way to get there? How does a constant commercial presence move the ball forward? Ms. Shotwell says that once there are many folks in orbit good things will happen (paraphrasing here, folks). But what?

        I’d point out that if SX brings BFR to fruition, this system with attendant refueling obviates any sort of “way station”. BFR is presented as so cheap, and so capable, that point to point anywhere in the solar system becomes feasible.

        (And I would add my own prejudice, that the true wealth in the solar system is in the minerals in the asteroid belt and in space-based manufacturing; BFR puts this dream squarely in a much, much shorter time frame).

        • DougSpace says:
          0
          0

          > having looked askance at anything non-NASA for many years

          COTS was a public-private program and so not entirely “commercial space”. Yet it has been one of NASA’s most successful programs and so should be seen as a model and repeated.

          > the VP’s comments were a little — well, short-sighted?

          I hate to but I have to agree. I think that he’s not a knowledgeable space advocate and so is dependent upon advisors. I think that they come in two varieties: “traditional space” who want the continuation of the status quo (or varient thereof). And “commercial space” who believe that anything commercial is good and so don’t adequately understand that some commercial things aren’t profitable nor lead to the ultimate goal of settlement. The compromise which I fear is to give the lion’s share of the budget to traditional space leaving little for others while achieving only mediocre results and then throwing commercial space a bone which does little for our ultimate goals.

          > Is human settlement the long term goal? (full disclosure: answer should be ‘yes’).

          Human settlement shouldn’t be our long-term goal. It should be our near-term goal because it is entirely doable in the near term (in about 15 years). The key is to understand that settlement starts with a few people settling down indefinitely. The minimal example of this would be a small crew of couples (a type of family) staying at a base covered with regolith (radiation addressed) using an indoor centrifuge (one gee four hours a day) and we can achieve this in about 15 years at about 5-7% of NASA’s budget. See DevelopSpace.info for details.

          > How does a constant commercial presence move the ball forward?

          Again, hate to say but it would actually delay when the first permanent foothold of settlement would be established by misdirecting multiple billions in a direction not directly related to settlement. The SFF people will argue that we need to commercialize LEO and solidify our position there before moving on to points further away from Earth. There is a type of logic there but it fails to understand that there is a “market” demand for transportation to the Moon in the for of sovereign clients and that the lunar polar ice is the resource needed to enable both lower-cost access to the Moon and (technically) sustainable settlement. But, to achieve this we need not a pure commercial approach but moderate government funding in the form of a Lunar COTS program. Landers delivering care packages is not a sufficient substitute for a real Lunar COTS program and the Deep Space Gateway is a terrible waste of resources and it really is unnecessary for commercial and international entities to access the lunar surface.

          > Ms. Shotwell says that once there are many folks in orbit good things will happen (paraphrasing here, folks). But what?

          A model is that settlement itself is a profitable venture in the way that retirement communities start, grow, and maintain themselves without generating revenue. Life savings grease the skids and make it all work.

          > I’d point out that if SX brings BFR to fruition, this system with attendant refueling obviates any sort of “way station”.

          Very good observation. Not only is a way station unnecessary but stationary propellant depots are unnecessary except for high delta-v situations.

          > BFR is presented as so cheap, and so capable, that point to point anywhere in the solar system becomes feasible.

          From a technical standpoint, I believe that this is doable. I could make the case that after going to Deimos, Vesta is technically not that much of a stretch and that even point further out are conceivable even with only chemical rockets and even remaining within radiation career limits.

          > the true wealth in the solar system is in the minerals in the asteroid belt

          Yeah, that’s too far down into the future for me. I view the big money generators would be: international, suborbital, lunar exploration, orbital tourism, lunar retirement, Mars retirement, and associated goods and services for the settlers. Getting the material stuff to become economical will take time. But in the near term most of the money will come from national space budgets and savings.

  6. zug42 says:
    0
    0

    Well done!

  7. Nick K says:
    0
    0

    As Boeing has shown with their CST, they can be nimble (creative is a stretch) and efficient when they want. But when they are sucking on the American taxpayer’s teet, they like to be as inefficient as possible. Their first job is making money for their shareholders. NASA likes to be in charge and few NASA people have ever designed or built anything. That happened in the last century. So NASA is built in bureaucracy and inefficiency, with little added value.

  8. Bernardo de la Paz says:
    0
    0

    Good to see the lunar phobia of the post Constellation years erased.