US AeroSpace: Policy & Politics [updates]

[IsItPluggedIn]

So how will today's election result effect, the Space Industry?

 

I know Trump's campaign is built on the premise of American built/American Jobs, which would point to SpaceX however I dont know how much love Elon has from his camp due to his stance on Climate Change.

 

Ive not been across the election and how each side fund the space industry. So any thoughts/Evidence from our American friends?

 

[Beittil]

Hmm, SLS is gonna keep being showered in money now I guess...

[DocM]

http://spacenews.com/what-a-trump-administration-means-for-space/

 

Quote

 

WASHINGTON — A space policy of the administration of President-elect Donald Trump is likely to focus more on human spaceflight, technology development and commercialization, and less on Earth science.

 

Trump, the Republican nominee, claimed victory in a speech in New York shortly before 3 a.m. Eastern Nov. 9, after the Democratic nominee, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, called to concede. The outcome shocked many, given polls generally projected a modest but clear Clinton victory.

 

For most of his campaign, which formally started in June 2015, Trump said little about space, and offered only terse responses to questions about his positions on civil or military space issues. In the final weeks before the election, though, the campaign took space more seriously, bringing on Robert Walker, a former congressman, as its space policy advisor.

 

“I’ve been that for about two weeks,” Walker said of his advisory position in comments at an Oct. 26 meeting of the Federal Aviation Administration’s Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC) here. “I think the campaign figured out, at one point there, that they actually did need a space policy.”

 

Walker said he developed a policy that, at the request of the the Trump campaign, offered “real change” in space. “I would describe what we came up with in four terms: it’s visionary, it’s disruptive, it’s coordinating and it’s resilient.”

 

He further described the campaign’s space framework by listing nine key aspects of its proposed implementation:

1. A “commitment to global space leadership” that Walker said would produce the “technology, security and jobs” needed for the United States in the 21st century.

 

2. A reinstitution of the National Space Council, headed by the vice president, to oversee all government space efforts to seek efficiencies and eliminate redundancies. The council was last in operation during the presidency of George H.W. Bush.

 

3. A goal of “human exploration of the solar system by the end of the century,” which Walker said would serve as a “stretch goal” to drive technology developments to a stronger degree than simply a goal of humans to Mars.

 

4. Shifting NASA budgets to “deep space achievements” rather than Earth science and climate research. Walker said that some, unspecified NASA Earth science missions might be better handled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, but “there would have to be some budget adjustments” to transfer those missions from NASA to NOAA.

 

5. Development of small satellite technologies that in particular can provide resiliency for the military, and also develop satellite servicing technologies.

 

6. Seek world leadership in hypersonics technology, including for military applications.

 

7. Hand over access to and operations in low Earth orbit to the commercial sector.

 

8. Start discussions about including more “private and public partners” in operations and financing of the International Space Station, including extending the station’s lifetime. Walker also left open the possibility of including China as one of those new partners.

 

9. Require that all federal agencies develop plans for how they would use “space assets and space developments” to carry out their missions.

 

One issue that Walker did not directly raise in his outline of a Trump administration space policy was funding for NASA. “We are not likely to get huge new numbers for the space program in the future, even if we get the budget settled,” he said later in the COMSTAC discussion. He called for “marshaling the resources of the entire space community” to carry out those policies, but didn’t go into details about how that would be done.

 

Walker suggested a Trump administration could create a bigger role for the moon in NASA’s space exploration plans than today, when the agency has no plans for a human return to the lunar surface.

 

“I became convinced at the time that we did the Aldridge Commission, where I served, that it was very essential to have the moon as a part of our planned missions headed for Mars and beyond,” he said, referring to the 2004 commission established to study the implementation of President George W. Bush’s Vision for Space Exploration. “I can’t speak for the campaign or the transition team, but I will say personally I think going to the moon as a part of an extended presence in space is vital.”

 

 

Edited November 9, 2016 by DocM

[IsItPluggedIn]

I think the most telling line in the whole thing is.

 

"One issue that Walker did not directly raise in his outline of a Trump administration space policy was funding for NASA. “We are not likely to get huge new numbers for the space program in the future, even if we get the budget settled,” he said later in the COMSTAC discussion. He called for “marshaling the resources of the entire space community” to carry out those policies, but didn’t go into details about how that would be done."

 

This just says that they are going to pull all funding and put it all into the SLS.

[Blue-Vision]

Not necessarily. They actually can't do that. There are lots of Missions and Initiatives that are ongoing, not to mention R&D, that requires funding and if the whole "we're gonna have new technology and better systems in Space to maintain or improve our position" thing is true then things should be fine.

 

I think that R&D especially is going to see continued support, at minimum. SLS/Orion .. well, that one is it's own can of worms.

[DocM]

Gee...wonder what SpaceX could propose as a BEO exploration vehicle?

 

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/11/as-trump-takes-over-nasa-considers-alternatives-to-its-orion-spacecraft/

 

Quote

As Trump takes over, NASA considers Alternatives to its Orion spacecraft

 

In October the space agency quietly solicited ideas from Boeing, SpaceX, and others.

 

NASA has initiated a process that raises questions about the future of its Orion spacecraft. So far, this procedural effort has flown largely under the radar, because it came in the form of a subtle Request for Information (RFI) that nominally seeks to extend NASA’s contract to acquire future Orion vehicles after Exploration Mission-2, which likely will fly sometime between 2021 and 2023.

 

A new, independent review of the Orion spacecraft is pretty damning

Nevertheless, three sources familiar with the RFI, who agreed to speak on the condition of anonymity, told Ars there is more to the request than a simple extension for Orion’s primary contractor, Lockheed Martin. Perhaps most radically, the RFI may even open the way for a competitor, such as Boeing or SpaceX, to substitute its own upgraded capsule for Orion in the mid-2020s.

 

This RFI process, which originated in the Washington, DC-based office of the manager of NASA’s human spaceflight operations, Bill Gerstenmaier, appears to be an effort to keep the agency’s options open during a presidential transition. “This is NASA taking a breath and looking at alternatives,” one source told Ars. “Part of why they also did it is they are signaling to the next administration that they may be willing to look at alternatives.”
>
There are also hints of NASA expressing a willingness to consider other spacecraft to fulfill its needs in the 2020s and early 2030s, as it pushes crews into cislunar space, the area around the Moon. In contrast to a capsule designed for low-Earth orbit, a vehicle coming back from the Moon must have a more robust heat shield to tolerate higher temperatures during a return through the Earth’s atmosphere.

 

Some members of Congress have quietly been asking NASA why it is now funding the development of three capsules. There is Orion for deep space, as well as Boeing’s Starliner and SpaceX’s Dragon for transport to the International Space Station in low-Earth orbit. It is possible one of these vehicles, or perhaps other concepts by companies such as Blue Origin or the Sierra Nevada Corporation, could be modified for a deep space return.
>
A replacement?

 

Entering into the transition period between presidents, NASA’s administrator, Charles Bolden, has encouraged the next White House administration to continue support for Orion and the Space Launch System rocket, which account for more than $3 billion annually. Congress, too, has expressed a strong interest in continuing work on these vehicles.

However one source told Ars that it may become necessary to choose either the Orion capsule or NASA rocket in the coming years as the space agency looks to pare back its budget, and this might necessitate going to a less expensive, more privately developed vehicle. “Look,” this source said, “if you have to cancel a program, this is a responsible way of lining up a replacement.”

 

Without knowing the responses NASA received to the Orion RFI, it is not possible to know what options the agency—and the incoming Trump administration—will have when it comes to NASA’s flagship spacecraft and potentially its rocket. But what seems plain is that Gerstenmaier—a cautious, highly regarded engineer expected to remain at the agency after Bolden leaves along with the Obama administration—believes it prudent to offer incoming officials a suite of possibilities.

 

 

[Blue-Vision]

Oh ... my .... and I bet this development has some at NSF hopping mad. Wow. One or the other but not both, eh?

[DocM]

My NSF reply

 

Quote

Elephant in the room; ITS

They say a mid-20's replacement which coincides with SpaceX's timeline, by definition it'll have a long duration ECLSS, large internal propellant stores, and its cargo capability would eliminate the need for developing a large cargo lander for Mars. Crew size: no problem.

Just saying...

 

[Blue-Vision]

That's what I immediately thought of too. "Just buy ITS units. It's meant for re-use, nearly 100% so, and it'd be cheaper than SLS/Orion together that is only used once." NASA would only need to buy perhaps two or three, and rehab the BFS segments @needed. 

[DocM]

Bits & pieces from transition team members, especially retired Rep. Robert S. Walker, former Republican chair of the House Science Committee, and policy wonk Peter Navarro, 

0) NASA Transition Team: "Goal is Human Exploration of Our Entire Solar System"

1) the Nation Space Council under the Vice President returns (a clear attempt to limit Senate influence on space policy)

2) the Moon is back, large

3) strong public/private partnerships continue & expand

4) NASA is for probes & human exploration

5) Earth science missions move to NOAA, whose responsibility is already weather/climate, to narrow NASA's focus. See #4.

6) ISS evolves to a more public facility.

This in light of the NASA RFI to reconsider SLS/Orion as vehicles sets in motion all manner of possibilities which leverage commercial players for exploration. 

Edited November 11, 2016 by DocM

[Blue-Vision]

I like everything I see there.  LH/M, Boeing, ULA, ATK, Aerojet & Co can finish up SLS/Orion on their own. ULA and its' parent companies wanted a SH-Class rocket? Now they can have one. SpaceX is a far better alternative for both Lunar and Mars Missions (and elsewhere) and for handling everything non-Mil/Gov. The ecosystem is (in my view) way more balanced than it was before, and everyone has sorta "picked their spots" in that ecosystem now.

 

Let SpaceX do the Commercial stuff, and let ULA have the Mil/Gov stuff. That's what everybody is best at. Let NASA supervise and set policy. Everyone wins.  

[DocM]

Opening shot from the Orion replacement RFI story,

 

Quote

The new RFI states that Lockheed will continue with development of Orion through a second uncrewed flight set for late 2018 and Exploration Mission-2, the first crewed mission, as early as 2021. However, once this base vehicle configuration is established, the RFI signals NASAs intent to find a less expensive path forward. "This RFI serves as an examination of the market, which is an initial step in pursuing any of the available acquisition strategies, including the exercising of existing options," the document states.

 

Lockheed Martin response,

 

Quote

Statement from Mike Hawes, Lockheed Martin Orion Program Manager:

The NASA and Lockheed Martin team are approaching the end of Orions development phase having successfully tackled many of the toughest engineering challenges associated with deep space travel. Now, as outlined in Lockheed Martins response to NASAs RFI, weve identified savings that will reduce the recurring production costs of Orion by 50 percent  and we arent stopping there. We believe the cost savings weve defined in our response will enable decades of affordable human space exploration. Orion is the only ship built to NASAs rigorous requirements for human deep space travel, and remains on track for Exploration Mission-1 in 2018.

 

They're hearing footsteps in the dark, and it isn't Santa....

[IsItPluggedIn]

Well that was a good play by NASA if it does work. If they can reduce costs by 50% why didnt they do that before NASA sent out the RFI....

[DocM]

1 hour ago, IsItPluggedIn said:

Well that was a good play by NASA if it does work. If they can reduce costs by 50% why didnt they do that before NASA sent out the RFI....

No incentive before, and now it may be too late. Keith over at NASAWatch is hearing whispers.

[Blue-Vision]

Aka they milked Bessie waaaay too often. Orion + CST was a "double dip" in the cookie jar .... should have done one or the other, fellas. Not both.

[DocM]

This is how we get $40B rockets, $1,500 toilet seats and $500 hammers....

 

@spacejammie is doing her postdoc at JPL.

 

 

[Blue-Vision]

"This is what it's like working at JPL". Needs expanding to pretty much every Gov't office, everywhere. The Paperwork Reduction Act added levels of complexity, if anything, by requiring all forms in Digital-copy and eventually different Departments to deal with it all.

 

Biggest sham ever.

 

Welcome to the Maze (TM).

[DocM]

Space News reports the first crewed Orion mission may not orbit the moon but be a loop-around and back -  a lunar free return mission

 

http://spacenews.com/nasa-considers-shorter-first-crewed-slsorion-mission/

 

Meanwhile, there's a lot of speculation SLS will be mothballed after already contracted flights, then Orion could launch on any or all of; Falcon Heavy, New Glenn, New Armstrong or Vulcan-ACES.

 

OR...the Orion design, which is owned by NASA, could be  put up for bid to be produced by the lowest bidder.

 

Besides the aluminum Orion being build by Lockheed Martin there was also a late 2000's composite Orion design which got to the prototype phase. This was developed by NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC), Northrop Grumman, Janicki (of SpaceX's ITS tanks) and Collier.

 

Pick one.

 

OR....Orion could follow SLS into mothballs, and a BEO COTS begun; BEO versions of Blues SV, Boeing's Starliner, SpaceX's Crew Dragon or ITS, or all comers bidding based on the mission - a fleet approach.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 3, 2016 by DocM

[Blue-Vision]

Dragon 2 can fulfill any and all Mission Parameters that Orion was slated for at far lower cost. Anything more and they can buy seats on ITS and really do some exploring.

 

As for strapping Orion onto a Falcon Heavy? That would be ... interesting. It'd likely require a custom Interstage Adapter (no big deal), and the FH's flight software would have to be tuned for it (because Orion would be an extremely light load) ... hell, a Falcon-9 could almost push it uphill if we're talking LEO and no S1 recovery. Once we've got a Block-V Falcon-9 (the "full monty" one), it could probably get Orion uphill as long as we aren't doing S1 recovery. Yeah, it would take a FH to run Orion's mission requirements.

 

OR, NASA can fund a development of a Mini-ITS for the smaller Missions. There's talk all over the place (including Academic circles) that the idea of a Mini-ITS has legs and would really have a lot of uses beyond what SpaceX has envisioned -- besides being an Engineering challenge that people are keen to take on due to miniaturizing the systems (I know I would be!).

 

I hate to see anything scrapped outright, but SLS is, and has been, a money trap. Orion had promise but there's no longer a need for it either.

 

 

[DocM]

There was talk of a 1/3-ish scale IT'S for initial testing of its flight and reentry charistics.  I could see it as a "Dragon 3" with a max crew of 10-20. Use it for tourism, point to point suborbital hops, cislunar crew rotations etc.

[Blue-Vision]

I was thinking more about a composites-based Orion, the updated design that uses new techniques and new materials, while out grocery shopping (a truly mundane task ...).

 

If they really want Orion to mean something, and be capable of doing all of the things that was envisioned for it, then Orion really needs updating in every category. The design is FIFTEEN YEARS OLD. That in of itself should mandate changes. The technologies and techniques used in spacecraft (and spacetravel) have improved by an order of magnitude at minimum and in some cases by orders of magnitude since then. We can literally do things now that were impossible when Orion was first designed. We can build Orion at half the weight and four times the hull strength comparatively. We can design an Orion-Class spacecraft that will have capabilities that nobody thought possible.

 

And in the right hands, a fully-reuseable, completed Orion would cost a third of what's been doled out for a "test article" that really didn't do much of anything. And we know the people who'd treat it right.

 

But there's already a spacecraft that does all these things, and is just about ready to go now.  And its' development was far less in cost, production, and bureaucracy.

 

Dragon 2 is everything Orion was supposed to be, and more. And what's better, Dragon 2 has addons in-work that will make it even more capable.

 

So, scrap Orion altogether. It's a dead-end design, as it currently stands. There's already something better.