Trump Moves to Privatize Space

>chief oogabooga is spending his time trapping bulls in pens and making them fuck instead of hunting for more food.

Oh nooo whatever will we do

how many PoC are at NASA vs Spacex?

Trump is moving to privatize LEO, a thing the US government has tried to do since the Space Shuttle was first built in 1980. This is a welcome change and will free up the amount of resources NASA has for lunar or mars bases.

Both SLS and FH/NS/XS1 will exist side by side, complementing each other and making each other work better. No system is mutually exclusive of the other and this is good.

SLS is 140+ ton super heavy lift manrated vehicle almost exclusively for BEO flights.

Comparing it to non-manrated and likely never to be LEO and GEO satellite launcher is not reasonable at all.

Different goals, different designs, different performance, and from there naturally a different cost.

>a rat done bit my sister Nell

SLS will be cancelled when it becomes clear to even the most dim-witted congressman that BFR will completely eclipse it in terms of cost and ability. Continuing to support the program at that point is throwing good money after bad.

the purpose of SLS was embezzlement and jobs programs
They don't give a flying blueberry fuck about the effectiveness of the rocket

>SLS is 140+ ton super heavy lift manrated vehicle
No it isn't. The 140 ton variant is less than a paper rocket now, the 70 ton variant is already five years and tens of billion dollars behind schedule

This fucking scaffold cost twice as much as the entire Falcon Heavy development cycle

NASA's problem is that the military wants to keep solid fuel rockets around, because ICBMs can only be solid state fueled, since they need to sit in Silos for decades and be ready to launch at any given time, and you can't do that with liquid fuel rockets. This is why NASA is not really allowed to start from scratch in their research, and they have to re-use all the Space Shuttle stuff.

SpaceX and Blue Origin are really much more likely to produce rockets that are actually going to fly us to Mars.

SLS represents +17 votes across two states. NASA needs those votes because otherwise those 17 legislators will demand the money be put into other things like infrastructure or defense. Such is the nature of government budgeting. Also BFR doesn't exist yet, so conversations about it only work if Musk can actually get it to fly reliably. This is the same place where NASA is stuck with SLS and where Russia got stuck with the N-1 (and others) over the years.

FH's development also exists because of NASA subsidy, both for basic rocketry research and commercial crew flights. Both are inseparable, especially when a billion dollar launch tower can be sold at a gov't auction to private enterprise like any other big expensive thing the government owns is.

Again they complement each other.

NASA already has rockets that can fly things to Mars through ULA's Atlas V, which took the Curiosity rover there. The private market itself won't expand horizons, because that's too expensive and has too much risk. They especially will not invest in things like nuclear rockets like NASA is currently doing.

But they will get there. Again both complement each other.

>140+ ton
No Earlier Than 2029, costing no less than $20 billion in further development funding

>manrated
No Earlier Than 2023, costing no less than $5 billion in further development funding, and the NASA wonks are fudging their standards like hell to man-rate this thing (SpaceX is being held to a far higher standard for its F9/Dragon man-rating)

>BEO flights
No such flights planned. BLEO maybe, but every flight on the manifest is to lunar transfer, which is still in Earth orbit (the moon is in Earth orbit).

Falcon Heavy could be manrated and upgraded to exceed SLS performance to all trajectories for a lower cost and on a shorter schedule.

SLS isn't doing anything fancy. They are using technologies they already have from different rockets, slightly modernize them, and re-assemble them to make a rocket out of it that can go to Mars, and back, if you send a second ship that transports a fuel tank instead of a manned crewship. Note that NASA is still the only organisation on the planet that has actually landed something on Mars and operated it there.

Musk's BFR is obviously going to blow the SLS away if it works even close to what is proposed. That's a big if though. Same goes for the New Glenn/ULA, though the development of it seems to be more likely to be successful.

In terms of who is actually going to be able put people on Mars by 2030, the probability goes like follows:

1. NASA is the safest bet
2. New Glenn/ULA
3. SpaceX

This approach is actually really good, because it almost guarantees that we are going to reach Mars by 2030. It is rather unlikely that all 4 organisations are going to fail to produce a rocket that can go to Mars. Or in other words, if the BFR is actually going to fly, I think that NASA will not be exactly pissed about it. Yeah, they will look kind of like failing, but on the other side they will surely like that humans finally have a real "working horse" with which they can finally conquer outer space.

This is Veeky Forums not /farming&sisterfucking/, ragtier propaganda doesnt work here

>wahh wahh it doesnt matter that Trump is objectively the worst candidate in history, one of the worst presidents in American history, conspired with a hostile foreign nation to cheat democracy and is in multiple violations of the constitution cuz he won suck it libz!!!
>hey whered my healthcare go???!!!
>wait a minute, what do you mean im losing my benefits?? ill sue! wait, what do you mean i cant sue?
>at least i can still enjoy using public roads and parks- wait every road has a toll now?? theres industrial waste all over my park???
>wait what do you mean income-based loan repayment is gone??
>huh? how comes my rents wents up and homez is unaffordables???

>no accomplishments
This is objectively wrong. A simple, surface level investigation of their website or any science news site proves otherwise.
The only way they arent """accomplished""" is if you are retarded and think science is about muh fancy rocketz, muh profitz, muh rocket launches only take a few yearz!!! Science iz supposed 2 be fast!!!

Private companies arent science organizations, theyre profit seekers. Spacex and all the other junk dont do science, they mooch off of the longterm, rigorous research by actual scientists, steal their ideas, profit, market themselves to dumbasses like you and then take all the glory of being super geniuz scientizt without doing any of the work.
Privatizing science will dramatically slow progress as those passionate about science will move away, private corps will cut corners and slop together whatever minimum effort will yield the most profit.

>privatizing science is good
why are you on this board if you dont have understanding of science? at least make an effort to learn instead of shitposting like you know stuff. its okay to admit you dont know things. actually, its more than okay, its scientific.

link the article

>a headline is evidence
WEW LAD

>SLS isn't doing anything fancy. They are using technologies they already have from different rockets, slightly modernize them, and re-assemble them to make a rocket out of it that can go to Mars, and back, if you send a second ship that transports a fuel tank instead of a manned crewship
SLS isn't a Mars rocket. There is no plan to use it to go to Mars.

>put people on Mars by 2030
NASA is hoping, at best, to put people on the moon by 2030.

You might think you're cleverly trolling by pretending to be an idiot, but you're just being a different kind of idiot than you're intending to.

>shilling this fucking hard
ULA has yet to achieve a single fucking thing thus far and they have fucktons of government bux to work with, they are not going to put people on mars

9536238
>ass blasted commie disregarding history and the leaps private enterprise have done because it makes him upset

>This is a crewed mission, with four to six astronauts,[11] to a semi-permanent habitat for at least 540 days on the surface of Mars in 2033 or 2045. The mission would include in-orbit assembly, with the launch of seven SLS Block 2 heavy-lift vehicles (HLVs). The seven HLV payloads, three of which would contain nuclear propulsion modules, would be assembled in LEO into three separate vehicles for the journey to Mars; one cargo In-Situ Resource Utilization Mars Lander Vehicle (MLV) created from two HLV payloads, one Habitat MLV created from two HLV payloads and a crewed Mars Transfer Vehicle (MTV), known as "Copernicus", assembled from three HLV payloads launched a number of months later. Nuclear Thermal Rocket engines such as the Pewee of Project Rover were selected in the Mars Design Reference Architecture (DRA) study as they met mission requirements being the preferred propulsion option because it uses proven technology, has higher performance, lower launch mass, creates a versatile vehicle design, offers simple assembly, and has growth potential.

arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/nasa-spends-1-billion-for-a-launch-tower-that-leans-may-only-be-used-once/

oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY12/IG-12-022.pdf
nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy19_nasa_budget_estimates.pdf

>The agency spent $234 million to originally build the launch tower. However, after the government's Ares I and V rockets were canceled due to delays and cost overruns in 2010, NASA was left without much of a use for the large structure, which consists of a two-story base, a 355-foot-tall tower, and facility ground support systems.

>NASA spent $281.8 million revamping the mobile launcher from fiscal years 2012 to 2015, but still the work was not done. The recently released White House budget for fiscal year 2019 reveals that NASA anticipates spending an additional $396.2 million on the mobile launcher from 2015 through the maiden launch of the SLS, probably in 2020.

>Therefore, from the tower's inception in 2009, NASA will have spent $912 million on the mobile launcher it may use for just a single launch of the SLS rocket. Moreover, the agency will have required eight years to modify a launch tower it built in two years.

>especially when a billion dollar launch tower can be sold at a gov't auction to private enterprise like any other big expensive thing the government owns is.
The billion dollar launch tower is a piece of shit that could collapse at any time and it's estimated that it would cost $120 million to build a superior replacement

>vehicle almost exclusively for BEO flights.

No such thing. If your rocket can launch mass to LEO, then it can launch mass to BEO. Especially with distributed lift and refueling. SLS is just a badly designed rocket, period.

>wahh wahh it doesnt matter that Trump is objectively the worst candidate in history, one of the worst presidents in American history, conspired with a hostile foreign nation to cheat democracy and is in multiple violations of the constitution cuz he won suck it libz!!!
>hey whered my healthcare go???!!!
>wait a minute, what do you mean im losing my benefits?? ill sue! wait, what do you mean i cant sue?
>at least i can still enjoy using public roads and parks- wait every road has a toll now?? theres industrial waste all over my park???>wait what do you mean income-based loan repayment is gone??
>huh? how comes my rents wents up and homez is unaffordables???
You made up every fucking element there, what the fuck are you talking about? You sound like that cunt who tearfully proclaimed "I guarantee Trump will nuke China by the end of 2017" on NBC

Like SpaceX never got any goverment subsidies.

>Private companies arent science organizations, theyre profit seekers.

Not everything is about science you autistic dumby-dumb. Space colonization and developing spaceflight technology should be the goal, not science. However, if we manage to reduce the cost of space launch significantly, then space science will also benefit greatly.

They didn't. Getting payed for a mission is not the same thing as getting subsidies. They did get access to technology though.

The point is that SpaceX eats an order of magnitude less subsidy than Lockheed and Boeing while delivering superior products

>Proposed SLS and Orion Missions
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_SLS_and_Orion_Missions
>2033 or 2045
>in-orbit assembly
>nuclear propulsion modules
>In-Situ Resource Utilization

This isn't a plan, it's a hand-waving fantasy, and there's no reason to use either SLS or Orion for this. SLS isn't needed because it would be assembled in LEO. Falcon Heavy would be far more suitable, and it'll be ready for routine use next year. Orion's too small for a transit vehicle, can't contribute anything to the Mars landing, and way too heavy to be taken to Mars and back just to be used for entry, descent, and landing back on Earth.

>Comparing it to non-manrated

This is a non-issue. Falcon 9 will soon be manrated, Falcon Heavy does not need to be. When doing a manned mission, just launch both 9 and Heavy and dock in orbit.

wait

are you saying states and governments saying "we plan to be coal free by 2070" and getting headline articles about how progressive and virtuous they are is mostly bullshit?

BFR will also be assembled in space you dumb fuck, and nuclear propulsion is actually much less adventurous than 31 methlox engines.

>BFR will also be assembled in space
Refueled in space

I suppose you think this is a picture of an airplane being manufactured in midair

>nuclear propulsion is actually much less adventurous than 31 methlox engines.

lol wut? a conventional rocket engine already under development is much more adventurous than nuclear propulsion? just stop posting, you have no idea what you are talking about

Distributed lift and refueling just bring in complexity and failure modes. The fewer launches the better. For this large rockets with capable upperstages are needed.

>BFR will also be assembled in space
Well, it will be refuelled in space. There's a difference there, but the more important difference is that BFR is a fully-reusable launch vehicle, that should be the least expensive launch option by far.

I think you've missed the point of the objection. Because this concept is based on LEO assembly, it doesn't require a particular rocket. It just needs commodity launch services.

If you're going to use 7 SLS Block 2 launches, you could use 14 Falcon Heavy launches. No need to spend the $20 billion developing SLS Block 2, then spend another $10+ billion doing the launches, when you can just buy $2 billion worth of commercial launch services. In fact, it'll cost at least $20 billion more to keep the SLS program alive, apart from the specific Block 2 costs.

Imagine that you want to go to Mars, but your plan starts with just plain wasting $50 billion. Actually, if you look at the costs of SLS so far, and the costs of Orion, it's closer to $100 billion.

>nuclear propulsion
Nobody has ever actually used anything like this. They won't be able to do significant in-flight testing, unlike BFR, which can be flown and put through entry, descent, and landing (under far harsher conditions than would be encountered on Mars) many times before they actually do a Mars mission.

>31 methlox engines
It's a hydrocarbon engine. Nothing challenging about methane. And SpaceX has just demonstrated a 27-engine lift-off. BFR's a natural progression from what they've done so far.

Assembling in space is something that has been done in the form of the ISS. Fueling a rocket is on the ground pretty dangerous, in space even more so. Musk is probably calculating with a couple of failures before they actually manage to do it reliably.

>Distributed lift and refueling just bring in complexity and failure modes. The fewer launches the better. For this large rockets with capable upperstages are needed.

Disagree strongly. Distributed lift and refueling is an absolutely basic technology to master if we ever want to get serious about space. The more launches, the better, especially with reusable rockets that can support very high launch rates.

>build a superior replacement

you mean no replacement, because there wouldn't be any launches requiring a tower that size as rockets of that size would not exist. You're advocating for the destruction of manned spaceflight, much like the private industry successfully lobbied for in the early 90s and late 10s.

>If you're going to use 7 SLS Block 2 launches, you could use 14 Falcon Heavy launches. No need to spend the $20 billion developing SLS Block 2, then spend another $10+ billion doing the launches, when you can just buy $2 billion worth of commercial launch services. In fact, it'll cost at least $20 billion more to keep the SLS program alive, apart from the specific Block 2 costs.

Block 2 can also launch larger payloads, allowing for larger things to be built in space. FH can't match this capability especially not in a reusable configuration.

Methan as a propellant isn't really powerful though. Blue Origin and SpaceX still want to reach thrust levels you usually only achieve with more powerful propellants. So yeah, remains to be seen if they succeed.

>Fueling a rocket is on the ground pretty dangerous
Only because it's new, untested hardware, and it's not designed for long-term storage of propellant in the vehicle. Remember that the SpaceX pad explosion was not a launch, but a pre-launch test, and it was a new system for quick-loading subcooled propellant that would rapidly warm and expand. The failure initiated in the high-pressure helium tanks.

BFR will be designed for long-term propellant storage. There will be no big rush to transfer the propellant. The propellants will not be subcooled in space (though they will be at lift-off), since they'll be maintained by boil-off. There will be no helium tanks.

>Musk is probably calculating with a couple of failures before they actually manage to do it reliably.
I doubt that very much. The trickiest part is the docking. After that, it's just using thrusters to settle the propellant, as they would do for a burn, opening valves, and pressurizing one BFS's tanks (again, as if for a burn) while venting the other's.

Or just build a bigger rocket motor. Less complexity, greater fuel efficiency. As was the case with the Saturn V.

>BFR will be designed for long-term propellant storage. There will be no big rush to transfer the propellant. The propellants will not be subcooled in space (though they will be at lift-off), since they'll be maintained by boil-off. There will be no helium tanks.

Literally you have no clue what you are talking about. Stop posting.

Are you seriously defending a scaffold that cost nearly a billion dollars and is expected to fail after one launch

>Methan as a propellant isn't really powerful though.

What exactly do you mean by that? Methane is actually in the middle between hydrogen and RP-1 when it comes to density, temperature and specific impulse. One could say that it is an ideal propellant because it nicely balances all the variables.

Saturn V was extremely inefficient. The only reason why it worked was because the government drowned NASA in money in order to get footprints on the Moon. After that was accomplished the program was quickly cancelled as a huge waste of money. If you want to be efficient, then Apollo approach is not good at all. In-space refueling, reusable rockets, high launch rate and distributed lift is how you do space missions on a budget.

Specific impulse you idiot.

>muh specific impulse

you know that reading wikipedia for one day does not make you a space expert

methane has pretty high specific impulse, and compared to hydrogen has important advantages of significantly higher density, tolerating higher temperatures and not diffusing through everything

methane > hydrogen

none of that matters for thrust ya doofus

Everything you quoted there is accurate. Produce what you think is a reliable source (not someone's blog, not a clueless popular media article, not speculation) for an objection to any one of those, and I'll show you a more reliable source for why my original statement was correct.

methane has higher thrust than hydrogen

do you even realize that thrust and specific impulse are negatively correlated?

do you even know what "thrust" means?

literally got cancer reading this thread you're all fucking retards.

Get back to your calc 1 homework children.

He's baiting by (possibly) pretending to be retarded.

>Block 2 can also launch larger payloads, allowing for larger things to be built in space. FH can't match this capability especially not in a reusable configuration.
It's actually far cheaper and faster to upgrade FH to match this desired performance than to develop SLS Block 2. They've said that, having worked through the difficulties of building a heavy variant of Falcon 9, they can do a "Falcon Super Heavy" just by adding more boosters. There's also no reason they can't put a big fat fairing on it to match the one for SLS. It's just another development cost and performance reduction.

Expendable Falcon Heavy costs $150 million, under a tenth of the incremental cost of an SLS launch. I wasn't factoring reusability into the comparison.

If NASA demands SLS Block 2 LEO performance, SpaceX could probably do a 7-core Falcon Super Heavy with an 8.4-meter fairing and 150 tonnes to LEO for $300 million per launch, plus a $1 billion up-front capability fee, ready to fly within 1-6 years of being ordered. That would still be about a $30 billion saving.

>They've said that, having worked through the difficulties of building a heavy variant of Falcon 9, they can do a "Falcon Super Heavy" just by adding more boosters.
if any company would do that it would be spacex

i love the fantasy super ultra heavy delta iv configurations boeing drew up

Trump isn't privatizing space.

The national space council exists to subvert Presidential intent away from questioning or abandoning SLS and Orion.

These regulation announcements are extremely minor things to give Pence the idea that his interest in promoting commercial spaceflight is being followed. He doesn't know any better; neither do people who read headlines like these and take them at their word.

>Ajit basically gave a full green light to a huge competitor to current ISPs
Too bad satellite internet is terrible.

technology has a magical ability to improve when people put effort into improving it
things aren't static

Why? So a select few fucktards who know nothing about science can force scientists into wage slavery so we can do all work and they can capitalize of it to make more fidget spinners?

Rocketry in general is hugely inefficient. This is the #1 complaint the aerospace industry has against NASA and is why they don't want manned space exploration at all when NASA could funnel all that money into building better hybrid airliners. As NASA has spent the past thirty years doing.

Your argument is the exact same argument Boeing made with the STS by the way. It'd be able to do lunar missions in a few goes, rather than a single hugely expensive launch. In practice, the launch was still there because STS was still a rocket, just a far less capable one compare to the Saturn V.

>It's actually far cheaper and faster to upgrade FH

Boeing era 1990: it's actually far cheaper and faster to upgrade the STS than it would be to build a whole new SSTO system like NASA wants us to do.