> Great list, and other than when things should be done, I don’t really
> have much to debate about. There are other things you did not mention
> that I would probably put on my list too (and that NASA is already doing),
> but that wasn’t the subject.

Thanks. But I’m curious what you’ld add – or thought was at the wrong time?

> In addition to the large Moon program, I see that you also would
> focus significant amounts on propulsion and power type stuff,
> and that would also help future exploration and transportation. ==

Yes high leverage activities. And with a big program driving the transportation system to economical scales of operation (given the high fixed costs of flight systems, bigger scale ops doesn’t up the total costs much – but makes it look much better on a cost per total pound rate.

Also acting as a anchor tenant eats the capital costs, to stat up the fleet.

>== Good hard R&D, all in all very much along the lines of
> doing something, versus studying.
>
>Thanks for taking the time to provide such a detailed answer.

Thanks- glad you liked it.

Great list, and other than when things should be done, I don’t really have much to debate about. There are other things you did not mention that I would probably put on my list too (and that NASA is already doing), but that wasn’t the subject.

In addition to the large Moon program, I see that you also would focus significant amounts on propulsion and power type stuff, and that would also help future exploration and transportation. Good hard R&D, all in all very much along the lines of doing something, versus studying.

Thanks for taking the time to provide such a detailed answer.

> Wikipedia defines “research” as”
>
> Research can be defined as the search for knowledge or as any systematic
> investigation to establish facts. The primary purpose for applied research
> (as opposed to basic research) is discovering, interpreting, and the
> development of methods and systems for the advancement of human
> knowledge on a wide variety of scientific matters of our world and the universe.

And how is researching old and long established/mature technologies research ni this definition?

More importantly, this is NASA. If a agency such as NASA is given billions for “research” – theres a reasonable expectation that they are going to do more then assist in industrial development of productin commercial or other use for several decades.

>==
> If you don’t like any of this proposed stuff, what do YOU think
> they should be spending $19B/year on?

Research and development of new or cutting edge systems, and exploration, and facilitating public/private use of space.

Say take the $250 billion penciled in for return to the moon over the next 25? years. Issue a RFP for commercial firms to bid on cargo and personnel transport to LEO and Lunar surface from 2020-2040; and construction and operation on the lunar surface of a base capable of permanently manned operation of say 20 people, plus expansion capabilities for expanded science, private or commercial utilization negotiated by the bidding team. Such alternate clients must not unreasonably interfere or inhibit the services contracted for in this RFP. All transport craft and facilities must be adaptable for commercial or private usage, and built to the highest practical aviation safety and reliability standards.

The RFP is assumed to cover development, extensive testing and FAA (or negotiated other credible certification service) certification of all craft adn systems.

US government VIA NASA will provide launch facilities if required, at KSC.

Certified vehicles and facilities, will be available for commercial contracting by the bidding teams – though the depreciated value of the “base fleet” or facilities used to support those commercial activities must be reimbursed.

Should the winning teams require expaned launch facilities for a expanded commercial fleet adn associated operations, this will also be provided by NASA at KCS.

The above should be about 1/3rd the cost of the constellation based systems developed under NASA (given commercial estimaets adn history of related dev programs), and you get a much bigger base, and CRATS launchers and Earth / Moon transport, and the fleets and facilities open up real private/commercial development of space at a tiny fraction of current costs.

As for research – given the above peels a big chunk off the budget:

I’ld throw $500M at the polywell and focus fusion reactor development companies. They aren’t sure yet if the reactors can produce much more power then they consume, but since your paying for full up prototypes to test this and there adaptability for propulsion systems. If they only make 3/4ths as much power as they consumed – NASA gets a plasma or other propulsion system that gives 4 times more thrust then the power you supply it.

REstart with the DOD the BlackSwift tech demonstrator. It was to demonstrate a craft with combined cycle turboramjets, advanced avionics, and advanced TPS that could take off from a runway independently, accelerate to Mach 6+, cruse, and return to land on the runway. It was to be under a $1B program, so perhaps split it with DARPA?

Such techs very close to a runway HROL SSTO. So NASA should look into it.

A tech demonstrator of a Rocket/ramjet combined cycle craft with orbital capacities (if possible). NASA estimates such engines could double the ave ISP from ground to orbit. Lower ISP then craft based on the BlackSwift systems, but lighter. Possibly little heaver then the weight of tanks they replace.

The above would be significantly cheaper, greatly expand commercial (even public) access to space, and have a wow factor to avoid the public seeing it just as pork.

NASA would be decimated of course – but the bulk of their staffs are commercial personnel – and their companies could do so much more they’d be hiring not laying off tens of thousands.

Then assign NASA to study adapting and utilizing the above for advanced (beyond CRATS) launchers, advanced aerospace tech development, and deep space projects.

I expect with to orbit cost down 2(?) orders of mag. compaetd to shuttle, they cuold sp[ec out a very good Mars ship. If the fussion sysetms look promising (the program groups figure they would take a couple years to get to commercial dev – so NASA for propusion shouldn’t take much longer) you could far farther then Mars in months not years. (Bussard did some good papers on this.)

That would be research worth billions to NASA, as opposed to just “researching” P&W buildnig a US competitor to the RD-180’s.

“All of the ones you listed were the opposites. No research, nothing cutting edge – just rehash of old work, me-to studies, pork.”

Wikipedia defines “research” as”

Research can be defined as the search for knowledge or as any systematic investigation to establish facts. The primary purpose for applied research (as opposed to basic research) is discovering, interpreting, and the development of methods and systems for the advancement of human knowledge on a wide variety of scientific matters of our world and the universe.

You can look up other standard definitions too if you want, but they are all similar.

Now Kelly, you may have your own definition of what research is, but what NASA is doing fits these definitions. And many of these programs have been going on since before Obama/Bolden arrived, so you must also have a beef with Bush/Griffin and everyone else before them.

If you don’t like any of this proposed stuff, what do YOU think they should be spending $19B/year on?

How could what you propose be considered non-pork, taking into account our method of government?

Ok, you’re again redefining things to make your point. The numbers came up to most of a billion, Musk was saying it. Case closed.

Not going to bother going into details when you just play games when the facts don’t go your way.

>>>Any “generally the opposite” ones that you’d like to identify from the
>>> list below? And maybe share your reasons?

>>Excelent examples of what I’m talking about”

> I didn’t see you cite any example of opposite

Did you read the post?

All of the ones you listed were the opposites. No research, nothing cutting edge – just rehash of old work, me-to studies, pork.

“Your forgetting the tonnage lifts are down – and shuttles phasing out.”

Well duh, for NASA, since the ISS is almost finished, and the Shuttle program is coming to an end. What’s your point?

Outside of Shuttle, however, the lift market is still going strong. Just Google the “2010 Commercial Space Transportation Forecasts”, and you’ll see the launch market is strong, and will continue. This provides a basis of work for ULA and SpaceX so that crew prices will not be affected by infrequent launches (as you stated in another post).

This is why commercial providers can drive down their ISS cargo costs once established, and this is also why commercial crew can be so much more less expensive than any government system. ULA launches an average of one rocket per month, and they have lots of capacity to ramp up.

Commercial companies can spread their cost basis across cargo, satellites or crew, since they always have something flying. The Shuttle, and any government launcher, can never match those kind of launch rates, and so their cost basis is spread across far fewer flights, and are inevitably far more expensive per launch, per seat, and per pound.

Econ 101. You really need to take that class.

I have a project I have to finish, so I’ll just address one of the most obvious:

“> There you go again. The public facts don’t agree with you. Fairly quickly, I
> found this statement that was made after the Falcon 9 flight – “Musk told AP
> that he estimates that $350 million to $400 million has been spent so far
> developing the Falcon rockets.”

That’s just the rockets.
http://www.astronautix [dot] com/craft/dragon.htm
listed about $300M
Musk said it would take $300M to do just the dragon escape system.”

You are confusing sunk costs (the $350-400M Musk stated) with potential future costs ($300M for an LES). They have not incurred the LES costs yet. Focus on the question.

So getting back to your original statement of “SpaceXs quotes their R&D costs to date being about a billion.”, you are not able to back that up, whereas I have been able to cite public sources for mine. Typical Kelly.

“>Any “generally the opposite” ones that you’d like to identify from the
> list below? And maybe share your reasons?

Excelent examples of what I’m talking about”

I didn’t see you cite any example of opposite. Just examples of where were just continuing what we’ve been doing. Weird.

>Any “generally the opposite” ones that you’d like to identify from the
> list below? And maybe share your reasons?

Excelent examples of what I’m talking about

> Flagship demonstration program – Demonstrates critical
> technologies such as in-orbit propellant transfer and storage, ==

used operationally for 30-40 years, currently used on the ISS

>==inflatable modules, ==

Current commercial product, 2 demonstration prototypes have been ni orbit for years

>==automated/autonomous rendezvous and docking, ==

Also used operationally for years including the automated refueling tankers currently refueling the ISS.

>== closed-loop life support systems, and other next-generation capabilities.

NASA been working and demonstrating these since the ‘70’s, they are one of the big examples of NASA never delivering anything in open ended research programs without hard delivery dates.

>== in-situ resource utilization and advanced in-space propulsion.

ISRU has been researched adn demoed for years. and whats the mission it needs to support? Without having a mission – you can’t do much more then has been done.

The only inspace propulsion system I hear discussed is VASMIR, which has been in research since .. ‘80’s? and has failed to even attract commercial users compared to other ion or plasma engines with better performance.

VASMIR’s main limit for future major missions is you need a major reactor to power them. Which is not being developed.

Also Obama specifically mentioned a new research program to develop a RP/LOx rocket in the RD-180 size range. Hardly research given we’ve made such engines for half a century. Mainly it seems a way to not have to see Cyrillic letters on the tail of a Atlas-V.

> Robotic precursor missions to the Moon, Mars and its moons,
> Lagrange points, and nearby asteroids to scout targets for
> future human activities, ==

We’ve been sending robots to most of these for generations, and given flying humans beyond LEO is off the table according to Bolden, whats the point?

>== Full Utilization of the ISS

Doing what? The station was designed just to be a showpeace of international cooperation. Full utilization generally just means operating it.

> Commercial Crew and Cargo

Obviously not research

>== modernize the Kennedy Space Center to increase the
> operational efficiency ==

Really KSC has been falling apart. In the VAB they hang nets under the roof to stop bits falling off and hitting someone. So doing some repairs and modernization isn’t a bad idea – but its not research, and whose new rocket is it built to support?

==
> Earth and Climate Science

NOAA does that, and NASA got in a lot of trouble with Gore when their sat data showed global warming wasn’t happening, and Gore was nasty enough about it that some in HQ thought that was why the big head cut for NASA under Clinton. So I expect NASA nervous about this one.