“1. pres gets elected
2. pres CUTS NASA funding
3. pres declares the current program unsustainable.

give NASA’s money back so we can have a REAL program again.”

President Obama called for 1 billion extra for NASA twice, congress was not interested. President Obama asked for 400 million for NASA in the stimulus including 150 million to start commercial crew. Lead by Republican Senator Richard Shelby, commercial crew was chopped to only 50 million.

Can you show me proof that the 2010 budget for NASA by the Obama adimistration cut total funding for the agency?

President Obama asked for 6 billion over 5 years to fully fund mulitple firms to compete for commercial crew.

Led by republicans in the house it was chopped to a one year 270 million appropraition? Can you tell me how that is President Obama cutting NASA?

President Obama then in the next budget request wanted a one year 850 million funding for commercial crew, that was chopped down to 406 million. Can you explain to me how that is President Obama cutting NASA?

Can you show me the original budget requests for President Obama’s first NASA budget request that called for cutting NASA funding?

Thanks for pointing that out, though I tstill think that Lindbergh wanted his ashes scattered in the ocean off Hawaii. I’ll go back and check his current biogrqaphy again at some point. Hopefully Jeff will indulge me one last question on Dr. Armstrong, which is what was the effect of Houston’s SEI architecture fiasco in 1989 on his personal life? Given that Adm.Truly was a Naval Aviator, the question intrigues.

“1) FH is a success – customers lining up to launch big loads to GTO. Some customers for enormous loads to LEO.”

The value proposition for Falcon Heavy right now is because it costs less to get a standard communications satellite to GTO, not that it can lift a larger payload.

The satellite industry is pretty standards based too, since most satellites are made from standard satellite designs offered by satellite manufacturers. In order to build “enormous loads”, someone has to be paid to design/build/test such a massive satellite, and then the owner has to test it out in orbit to make sure that it does what they hope it will do (i.e. make even more money than previous smaller versions). That takes a while – years.

I also don’t see the market moving towards larger satellites until more launch providers than just SpaceX can also carry these larger satellites for a reasonable price, because otherwise there is too great a risk in relying on a monopoly (pricing, going out of business, etc.).

Sure satellite payload size has been growing up over time, but unless the supply of GEO parking spots gets really tight, and at the same time the demand for satellite bandwidth goes way up, I don’t see the need for anyone to risk building 2-3X sized telecom satellites.

As far as double launches (i.e. two or more payloads on the same flight), Ariane 5 does that today, but it is a logistical challenge to get both payloads ready at the same time (they may be built by different manufacturers).

Instead, I think SpaceX will focus Falcon Heavy launches on reusability, at least for the two side boosters. That gives them a low-cost way to perfect reusability before moving on to Falcon 9 payloads.

“3) Use the money from the floatation to develop a single stick replacement for FH – more GTO performance (possibly) and lower part count. Call it FX.”

SpaceX calls it Falcon X. Have you seen their proposed family tree?

There is no reason to build Falcon X until the market tells them that Falcon 9/Heavy are too small, and that won’t happen for a very long time.

Also, since Falcon X uses a much larger diameter core, it will be a completely new product for them. That means new manufacturing facilities, new core transportation system (larger cores won’t fit on the freeway), new launch pads – it’s a HUGE step up from their current product, and companies don’t usually do that unless there is a clear market need. I don’t see any anytime soon.

SpaceX has made it clear that reusability is their next big focus, and lowering costs to get to orbit has more demand than the need for bigger payloads.

My $0.02

Sure SpaceX could build it, and it would be far less expensive overall than the SLS, but from a business case perspective it suffers from the same problem the SLS does – there is no demand for that much capability.

The route to a bigger launcher might be –

1) FH is a success – customers lining up to launch big loads to GTO. Some customers for enormous loads to LEO.
2) SpaceX goes public after getting F9, FH and Dragon running on a steady basis.
3) Use the money from the floatation to develop a single stick replacement for FH – more GTO performance (possibly) and lower part count. Call it FX.
4) FX can pay for itself launching commercial loads. The commercial plan is to encourage customers towards bigger sats at no extra launch cost (already the plan for FH).
5) Offer FXH – think FH, but using FX as the basis. Cross feed etc. 150 tons to LEO?

You beat me to it.

“As were Lucky Lindy’s.”

Wrong. Charles Lindbergh was not buried at sea. For the record, his remains were laid to rest in a church yard on Maui per his expressed wishes.

“Illiterate nonsense.”

Which sums up the Reagan, Bush and Dubya years nicely. Keep it up, Rand.

“…SLS advocates may find themselves defending further SLS development in light of, not just Falcon heavy, but Falcon X heavy…”

Falcon X Heavy (as well as the Falcon XX) is more a “vision” of the future than a current reality.

Sure SpaceX could build it, and it would be far less expensive overall than the SLS, but from a business case perspective it suffers from the same problem the SLS does – there is no demand for that much capability. And since the primary objective of the SLS program was job retention in certain states, Congress has no incentive to change contractors and/or designs.

It is going to be years before the Falcon Heavy 53mt payload capacity becomes a limiting factor, by which time the fate of the SLS will have long since been determined.

Besides, if the SLS schedule continues to slip, SLS advocates may find themselves defending further SLS development in light of, not just Falcon heavy, but Falcon X heavy, and pricing based upon re-use capability for Falcon core stages. SpaceX’ multi-track development pipeline is already on their next generation, however quietly.

Once SLS came into being (politically, of course, not on the pad), the wise, if expensive call for Obama was to wait and let matters take their course. As SLS proceeds at its own pace, other approaches are not standing still, and SLS does not exist, excuse the expression, in a vacuum.