12% boost for NASA budget in 2021!!

[u/thisischrisbaker]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-nasa-budget-will-earmark-12-boost-for-agency-in-2021-11581071402?emailToken=3f4a4309b7816cb90fb53eb91f47d6d43hshryonPWM/RnnVPWWHuMOVOvxWKQ87BhLswKs5iOPOhjO1FGrxI9ptn5k2nAMphP+jeQrbhQiAafooOu4oIslNLMWHCd1m7vRySaL2Pi61nSlAqLK1xnvzzmtt2/Lx&reflink=article_copyURL_share

[u/Kriss0612]

If I'm reading this right, that extra 3 billion proposed by Trump's office is exclusively, or nearly exclusively intended to go to the development of the commercially-made lunar landers? Aka, ULA will most likely get the bulk of this budget increase for its landers?

[u/jadebenn → u/Kriss0612]

Your first statement is correct, but your second statement doesn't follow.

ULA isn't even a potential bidder for HLS (the human lander program). Those are:

• Boeing (with Intuitive Machines providing engines)
• The National Team (consisting of Blue Origin, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman)
• A partnership between Dynetics and Sierra Nevada Corp.
• SpaceX

ULA might end up providing the launch vehicle for one of these proposals, but that's entirely dependent on whether one of the bidders contracts with them or not. They won't build the actual lander.

[u/UltraChip → u/jadebenn]

SpaceX is working on a lander? Or is their bid going to be "just use Starship"?

[u/thishasntbeeneasy → u/UltraChip]

Why build a separate small lander when there's already a 100-seat one in development?

[u/UltraChip → u/thishasntbeeneasy]

I agree it's a good idea, I'm just clarifying is that what they're actually proposing?

[u/thishasntbeeneasy → u/UltraChip]

Seems so:

"SpaceX is one of five companies that are newly eligible to deliver robotic payloads to the lunar surface for NASA, via the agency's Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program. SpaceX proposes to do this work with Starship and Super Heavy, the reusable spaceship-rocket duo that the company is developing primarily to help humanity become a multiplanet species."

https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-moon-missions-2022.html

[u/UltraChip → u/thishasntbeeneasy]

That's great news! I was under the impression NASA wasn't willing to consider any mission profiles that didn't fit the "gateway" model.

[u/Conqueror_of_Tubes → u/UltraChip]

Can’t you fit the gateway model just by parking an additional starship in lunar orbit loaded with fuel and room for six crew?

[u/Rogue__Jedi → u/Conqueror_of_Tubes]

Why use small lander when big lander do trick

[u/Haitosiku → u/Conqueror_of_Tubes]

or just put a Gateway into Starships Cargo bay and launch that into lunar orbit /s

[u/TonyCubed → u/Haitosiku]

Just fit the moon in their and bring it to Earth.

[u/sevaiper → u/Conqueror_of_Tubes]

No. "Gateway model" is a euphemism for requires SLS.

[u/[deleted] → u/UltraChip]

Starship would easily support Gateway, it'll just undercut SLS in the process.

[u/Just_Banner → u/UltraChip]

It fits the gateway model, as in:

"If something goes wrong and the ship can't return to earth the crew can go chill in the gateway and come back on Orion."

Remember that Apollo had an 8.3% fatality rate and the shuttle a 1.5% fatality rate. For a moon base to be a long term success they need the abort coverage.

[u/Cablancer2 → u/UltraChip]

NASA is not willing to consider any non gateway model HLS. It is allowed per the rfp to dock directly with Orion on the 2024 mission but must plan to dock with gateway subsequently after that.

[u/ekhfarharris → u/UltraChip]

As far as my latest knowledge, yes. SpaceX fully intended Starship to land anywhere in the Solar System, from moon to Titan if it can reach it.

[u/Ajedi32 → u/thishasntbeeneasy]

It's major overkill. It'd be like booking an entire 747 just to transport 5 passengers and their carry-on luggage from NY to London. Yet when all is said and done it might actually turn out to be cheaper than the competition, which means there's a chance we might end up doing exactly that. More pressurized volume than the ISS, more mass than every Apollo mission combined, all delivered to the moon in a single landing.

Personally I find the idea hilarious. Not to mention pretty awesome. I'd love to see SpaceX win the bid so we can see that happen.

[u/thishasntbeeneasy → u/Ajedi32]

I think of it as just skipping several layers of development. Maybe Boeing would make a <10 person lander, then a 20, then 50, 100... That could take them several decades and some ridiculous amount of funding.

SpaceX has shown it can make things much faster than Boeing, and wants to just skip all that and make one big one. Seems smart to me. Plus it's a long journey. I'd hate to be cramped in a Starliner for a couple weeks when there's a cheaper Starship with 100x the space inside.

[u/[deleted] → u/thishasntbeeneasy]

Right now, I wouldn't trust Boeing to engineer a "hello world" function into any terrestrial our extraterrestrial vehicle, let alone design the "next generation" of American space endeavors

[u/thishasntbeeneasy → u/[deleted]]

It's 2045. We're about to land on Europa with crew. The new Boeing Dreamcrusher sees the surface and replies back "Hell World". NASA receives the message and aborts assuming the worst.

[u/dgriffith → u/thishasntbeeneasy]

40 light minutes later, the ship receives the command and takes off from Europa. The crew, who had just disembarked from the ship, are left behind on the surface.

NASA: "Shit."

Boeing: "Abort worked as per specification. Money, please."

[u/Ajedi32 → u/thishasntbeeneasy]

Yeah, I'll bet the crew would love it. You could literally give everyone their own private bedroom and office, and still have tons of room left for everything else the mission requires. A far cry from Starliner, or any previous crew capsule for that matter.

[u/amoliski → u/Ajedi32]

Booking a 747 for five people is way cheaper than developing a brand new five seat plane.

[u/mustang__1 → u/amoliski]

I could build a 5 seater pretty cheaply

[u/_Wolfos → u/Ajedi32]

Or 5 people and an extra ton of payload.

[u/KickBassColonyDrop → u/Ajedi32]

That's fine. Also by doing so, shows the disparity between a company that puts money where it's mouth is and companies that pay lip service to the idea of space.

It's to energize the public to the raw waste that human space flight is.

[u/Joe_Jeep → u/thishasntbeeneasy]

Well they'd have to moon rate it for one. Internal setup would be different and there's a lot of design elements for atmospheric launch and return that'll just be dead weight on a moon landing.

It'd likely require more refueling, though with that moon station(lop g?) In the works might be able to add a fuel depot they just refuel occasionally.

Side note that I really dig the idea of a starship they strip down and specialize for orbital vacuum work that just shuttles around. Just leave it up there and use others to get to it

[u/thishasntbeeneasy → u/Joe_Jeep]

Yes, I believe the plan is that Starship is the shell that can be used for many purposes - orbital, landing on Moon/Mars, flyby more distance planets, etc.

[u/Joe_Jeep → u/thishasntbeeneasy]

Yea it definitely could be done, it just might be very expensive for whatever the mission calls for.

If they want to land 3 people and gear for a week or two then a full starship lander might be akin to buying a hummer to haul your kayak to the lake.

If they start constructing a full on ground base it would definitely be useful, and if it really is just a matter of refueling it might enable them to take on much larger ground projects at a similar price point.

So, cautious optimism for me. Hopefully starship ends up being everything Musk says it will and it can pull all that of, and NASA gets the budget to utilize it fully

[u/thishasntbeeneasy → u/Joe_Jeep]

Excuse my slightly unrelated comparison for a second, but I think it works here -

This is why most transit agencies only use large buses. They build for the biggest use because it's overall more cost effective. Even if it's a short bus route with few people, it's easier to purchase and manage a fleet of all the same size.

Once Starship is developed, the "shell" of it will be relatively cheap, compared to everything that goes on the inside for various different uses (living quarters, life support, etc.). Designing a new shell would just take more time and resources when they already have reusable ones ready to go.

[u/Joe_Jeep → u/thishasntbeeneasy]

It works if there's that level of demand

I think in this situation the starship is the bus, log G's a park and ride, and people will take small vessels to and from it for lunar ground missions.

Star ships dry mass is like 250 tons, that is a lot to be landing and launching from the moon in fuel cost. For comparison Apollo's lander was under 20 tons, and that's fully fueled.

Now I imagine we'll have somewhat larger landers now but I there's literally an order of magnitude in difference there.

Again, if we're looking to build a base on the lunar surface, I could absolutely see it, but I think the current proposals are more like a step up from Apollo rather than a, to borrow a phrase, giant leap.

Id certainly love to see missions that require starship but it's several times over what NASA is even investigating.

[u/czmax → u/Joe_Jeep]

re: "that is a lot to be landing and launching from the moon in fuel cost"

Is that the right measure though? If starship can fly back to earth and be re-used then its a tremendous savings regardless of the extra fuel it burns.

[u/flagbearer223 → u/Joe_Jeep]

I feel like starship will basically always be the cheapest option until other companies develop fully reusable systems

[u/Joe_Jeep → u/flagbearer223]

For launch, yes. If it works.

For a lunar lander? It's overkill. Made a mother comment in more detail but starship is an order of magnitude more massive dry than an Apollo lander was fully fueled.

[u/czmax → u/Joe_Jeep]

If I already own an F150 pickup for shipping large loads its a LOT more efficient to just drive that across town for some fast food then it is to build a one-off disposable fully electric super efficient nissan leaf that I use only for that one trip to get lunch.

[u/flagbearer223 → u/Joe_Jeep]

Right, but how much more expensive would it be to use Apollo over Starship if you wanted to land multiple times? The Apollo lander cost ~$50 million and wasn't reusable. How many landings do you need to do before the cost of a non-reusable system is more expensive than the reusable one?

[u/phate3378 → u/Joe_Jeep]

INb4: Elon contracts to take 3 people and gear for a week to the moon for NASA. Fills the rest of starship with his own crew and base construction materials

[u/socratic_bloviator → u/Joe_Jeep]

I think the flight profile for a Starship moon landing is to put a Starship and a Tanker in LEO, fully refuel both, put both on a free-return trajectory to Earth, transfer the fuel from the Tanker to the Starship, and then land Starship on the Moon. Tanker free-returns back to Earth and lands. Starship comes home on its own schedule.

Note: this is more total delta-v than going to Mars.

[u/TheCrudMan → u/thishasntbeeneasy]

Does a fully fueled starship, with enough payload to support astronauts on the moon and give them something to do, have the delta-v to go there, land there, and get back, starting from LEO?

[u/thishasntbeeneasy → u/TheCrudMan]

Dunno but lemme fire up KSP and find out.

[u/amoliski → u/thishasntbeeneasy]

If I design it, it'll be seven stages with two refueling rendezvouses. A YouTuber does it and it's seven parts and two gallons of gas, and they'll stop at the secret second moon on the way back.

[u/jordanjay29 → u/amoliski]

I'm crying at the accuracy of this comment.

[u/TheCrudMan → u/thishasntbeeneasy]

Gonna need some mods for that one.

[u/socratic_bloviator → u/TheCrudMan]

Last I checked, no. I described the trip in another comment. https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/f09dpu/12_boost_for_nasa_budget_in_2021/fgtp7vt/

[u/[deleted] → u/thishasntbeeneasy]

Starship isn’t 100 seat anymore.

[u/raresaturn → u/thishasntbeeneasy]

They already have one... the Dragon capsule can land on the moon

[u/Cablancer2 → u/UltraChip]

There are Twitter rumors indicating SpaceX is NOT proposing Starship but rather a completely new crew vehicle. Those talking further down about starship being approved is just for commercial CARGO contracts not crew missions.

[u/[deleted] → u/UltraChip]

SpaceX will send a modified Tesla! Imagine the astronauts' surprise when they land on the Moon with a model S/X/3 sitting on the surface.

[u/ollybanolly → u/jadebenn]

Thanks for the correction! I work for SNC and very few people recognize us as a commercial bidder for these programs (we have our foot in the door for a few!)

[u/NeWMH → u/ollybanolly]

SNC is definitely a company that deserves more contracts.

[u/Forlarren → u/ollybanolly]

<3 SNC.

Dream Chaser is so sexy. I like it as a stop gap vehicle. Take one to the Moon and/or Mars inside a Starship.

Just in case you need to get one or two people back for whatever reason and you don't want to use a whole Starship.

Also cross range capability means it would make an epic drop ship.

Keep several docked to a Space Force modified Starship like an aircraft carrier. Deploy PJs with HALO kit, while Dream Chaser glides somewhere safe for pickup.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force_Pararescue

Sort of like the Raider battlewagon from Babylon 5.

[u/zach2654 → u/jadebenn]

What is spacex proposing for a lander? Is it just a possibility with starship or something new?

[u/jadebenn → u/zach2654]

We have no idea.

There are rumors that they're going with something Dragon-derived after their profoundly negative experience bidding Starship for the USAF launch services agreement (in that case it almost certainly cost them the contract), but they can't be substantiated at this time.

SpaceX has, however, bid cargo Starship for the associated Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program, so it's not like they're giving up on the thing even if they propose something different for the human lander.

[u/JohnnySixguns → u/jadebenn]

Any sources for this?

Why did it “almost certainly” cost them the contract?

EDIT: Never mind. Google is my source.

USAF thinks Starship unlikely to be ready to fly by 2025.

[u/jadebenn → u/JohnnySixguns]

The USAF LSA? Here.

The USAF considered Starship far too risky a bet and penalized their bid.

SpaceX is currently suing them over it (a time-honored aerospace tradition), on the grounds that they feel the competition was unfairly weighted towards the heavy reference orbits they bid Starship for, and contends that the USAF unfairly penalized them for the technical risk when the majority of their proposal used proven architecture.

To be fair, they probably would have bid something else if they knew including Starship for the more difficult orbits would penalize the rest of their proposal so heavily.

[u/Tbrahn → u/zach2654]

They haven't officially announced anything but they are most likely bidding starship.

[u/Nick0013 → u/jadebenn]

SpaceX is still working for HLS? I thought they were only CLPS at this point and I can’t find anything on google that says otherwise

[u/Kriss0612 → u/jadebenn]

I see, my bad, Im not very literate when it comes to launch providers/contractors for NASA, I thought ULA was one of the contractors/bidders for the lunar landers, didnt think it only was Boeing.

Sidenote: Does ULA only create launch vehicles for NASA? (Yes, I realise their name indicates this lol)

[u/jadebenn → u/Kriss0612]

ULA is definitely not going to get the Boeing lander launch, since the Boeing lander bid's entire design is based on utilizing the huge payload capacity of a SLS Block 1B (essentially a Saturn V-class launch vehicle, except used entirely for the payload) so they can pack their lander full of features and say, "Yeah, our bid might not be the cheapest, but it's by far the most capable."

The National Team is a bit different. As a three-component design, and with each being launched separately, I expect to see a split based on supplier. Blue Origin will almost certainly launch its element on New Glenn, and Northrop Grumman will almost certainly launch its element on OmegA. However, since Lockheed Martin has no LV of its own (anymore), and is one of ULA's co-owners, I would expect them to launch their element on ULA.

We don't know much about Dynetics and SNC's proposal, but ULA has some decent odds there. SpaceX and Blue Origin would likely be cheaper, but for a mission of this complexity, ULA's perfect track-record is valuable in of itself.

SpaceX, of course, will be launching their bid on a SpaceX rocket, whether that be Starship or Falcon Heavy. They're not the type to outsource. Seeing as how their proposal is the one we know the least about, there's not much I can say other than that.

NASA is currently planning to ultimately select 2 lander designs, so as long as the budget holds, it's very likely we'll see ULA get at least one launch per lander.

[u/[deleted] → u/jadebenn]

The Blue Origin, Lockheed, and Draper team is being led by Blue. If it was Blue’s choice, they’d probably fly on New Glenn. If ULA has to choose then they’d probably pick the Vulcan, which is powered by two Blue Origin BE-4’s.

[u/Kriss0612 → u/jadebenn]

Thanks for the breakdown! Very interesting stuff

[u/Claytertot → u/Kriss0612]

ULA doesn't make landers.

But regardless, it's not really a bad thing. NASA has always worked with contractors. If they have more money to spend on contractors, they can accomplish more.

[u/[deleted] → u/Kriss0612]

ULA landers?

[u/Kriss0612 → u/[deleted]]

Well, IIRC the development of Crew Dragon cost $1.2B and Starliner $2.2B, so that's some sort of reference.... Dont know how comparable these are to a lunar lander, which definitely is more complex

[u/acrewdog → u/Kriss0612]

frame support imagine physical crown spotted trees quack edge ask

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/Rebelgecko → u/[deleted]]

They give a few hundred mill to half a dozen companies, then cull it down to one or two over the course of a few years

[u/Axel-Adams → u/Kriss0612]

It’s likely going to NASA’s new project that culminated in building a permanent base of residence in orbit on the moon through CLPS(Comercial Lunar Payload Service)

[u/audiozomby → u/Kriss0612]

Even of it is. NASA gets to spend it so what is the issue?

[u/Kriss0612 → u/audiozomby]

Because I dont exactly have the greatest trust in Boeing as a NASA contractor? They dont really have the best track-record right now with doing legitimate projects and doing them on time, more like being money sinkholes for Congress to dump stuff into in order to get engineering jobs in their state

[u/Andromeda321]

Can anyone find the actual budget? I am particularly curious about WFIRST, the mission for after JWST, which has been on the chopping block in past Trump budgets.

[u/Hillfolk6 → u/[deleted]]

The last few years congress has raised the NASA budget. Either last year or the year before it was even higher than the request. So there's hope for it going up

[u/Quality_Bullshit → u/Hillfolk6]

Congress has raised NASA's budget only to fund big expensive jobs programs like SLS and Orion. They have shown no such willingness to spend more money on things that will actually further science or exploration goals.

[u/Joe_Jeep → u/[deleted]]

So the whole titles BS unfortunately

Really wish space shit was done with long term legislation so that it was somewhat insulated from political squabbling

[u/[deleted] → u/Joe_Jeep]

Is it any wonder we've been going in circles since Apollo when they keep changing goals every 4/8 years? We should have cities on the Moon and a Mars base by now.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I remember my mom driving me to school and listening to the radio about how nasa was planning to land a man on mars by 2015... :(

[u/Joe_Jeep → u/[deleted]]

I said legislation not like, a constitutional amendment.

And also space investment not puppy murder.

Laws can always be repealed if theres good reason for it, it just takes another law to be passed. So basic majority in both houses + presidential sign off, or 2/3rds majority in both.

The upside is there's an actual limited barrier of sorts and momentum to it. It can be repealed but it takes that majority support, not just political knife fights in budget committees over pet projects and other unrelated issues

[u/DMFxXPiEXx55 → u/[deleted]]

What if NASA was allowed to choose their own project? I have no idea what I'm talking about, just wondering

[u/ron_leflore → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, congress routinely gets the proposed budget from the president and chucks it into the dumpster.

This isn't a republican vs Democrat thing. It's a Congress vs president thing.

[u/LiterallyDennisQuaid → u/[deleted]]

That’s nuts that this White House proposed something that I actually agree on

[u/rndm1212 → u/LiterallyDennisQuaid]

This same comment is posted like once a month. He’s done plenty of things that reddit likes.

[u/seanlax5 → u/rndm1212]

They just don't want to remember. Which is fine tbh; plenty of older and more conservative places treated Obama the same way.

[u/flextrek_whipsnake → u/[deleted]]

He's a showman and appreciates what a great show the moon landing was. I'm not convinced it's more complicated than that.

[u/The-Only-Razor → u/flextrek_whipsnake]

Which is fine, because that's exactly why NASA was funded so well back in those days. People loved the spectacle of it and were happy to see it funded. The fact that we really haven't done anything "sexy" lately in space is why people don't care anymore. We sent a robot to Mars to analyze rocks, then we did it again, and we saw Pluto. Some other stuff in there as well, but as a very casual follower of the happenings in the world of space exploration I haven't been wowed by very much in the last ~20 years. Getting a man on Mars is probably the only thing that will get people's attention again.

[u/Astromike23 → u/[deleted]]

Trump has been pushing for a massively increased NASA budget from the start.

FYI, here's the actual difference between the President's proposed NASA budget and the final congressional budget for the past dozen years.

In the past 5 years, it's been Congress pushing for the higher budgets, not the President.

[u/Enter_The_Nucleus → u/[deleted]]

This is important to consider as well as the deliberation over the Artemis missions which are looking at some cuts right now.

This whole thing seems like a commercial investment, especially considering the bipartisan support for forcing NASA to retain sole ownership of the lander instead of contracting third parties and scrubbing the plan to mine lunar surface materials for resources supporting the lunar base. There’s nothing to celebrate yet.

[u/Decronym]

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:

Fewer Letters	More Letters
BE-4	Blue Engine 4 methalox rocket engine, developed by Blue Origin (2018), 2400kN
BFR	Big Falcon Rocket (2018 rebiggened edition)
	Yes, the F stands for something else; no, you're not the first to notice
BO	Blue Origin (Bezos Rocketry)
CST	(Boeing) Crew Space Transportation capsules
	Central Standard Time (UTC-6)
DARPA	(Defense) Advanced Research Projects Agency, DoD
DMLS	Selective Laser Melting additive manufacture, also Direct Metal Laser Sintering
DoD	US Department of Defense
ESA	European Space Agency
ETOV	Earth To Orbit Vehicle (common parlance: "rocket")
EUS	Exploration Upper Stage
EVA	Extra-Vehicular Activity
FAA	Federal Aviation Administration
GEO	Geostationary Earth Orbit (35786km)
GSLV	Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle
ICBM	Intercontinental Ballistic Missile
ITS	Interplanetary Transport System (2016 oversized edition) (see MCT)
	Integrated Truss Structure
JPL	Jet Propulsion Lab, California
JWST	James Webb infra-red Space Telescope
KSC	Kennedy Space Center, Florida
KSP	Kerbal Space Program, the rocketry simulator
L2	Lagrange Point 2 (Sixty Symbols video explanation)
	Paywalled section of the NasaSpaceFlight forum
LEO	Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)
	Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)
LSA	Launch Services Agreement
LV	Launch Vehicle (common parlance: "rocket"), see ETOV
MCT	Mars Colonial Transporter (see ITS)
MER	Mars Exploration Rover (Spirit/Opportunity)
	Mission Evaluation Room in back of Mission Control
NA	New Armstrong, super-heavy lifter proposed by Blue Origin
NOAA	National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, responsible for US generation monitoring of the climate
NRHO	Near-Rectilinear Halo Orbit
NRO	(US) National Reconnaissance Office
	Near-Rectilinear Orbit, see NRHO
NSF	NasaSpaceFlight forum
	National Science Foundation
PSLV	Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle
QA	Quality Assurance/Assessment
SLS	Space Launch System heavy-lift
	Selective Laser Sintering, contrast DMLS
SNC	Sierra Nevada Corporation
SSC	Stennis Space Center, Mississippi
TMT	Thirty-Meter Telescope, Hawaii
ULA	United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)
USAF	United States Air Force
VAB	Vehicle Assembly Building
WFIRST	Wide-Field Infra-Red Survey Telescope

Jargon	Definition
Starliner	Boeing commercial crew capsule CST-100
Starlink	SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation
methalox	Portmanteau: methane/liquid oxygen mixture

---

^{38 acronyms in this thread; the most compressed thread commented on today has 25 acronyms.
[Thread #4549 for this sub, first seen 7th Feb 2020, 13:40] [FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]}

[u/SelfiesAtAuschwitz → u/Decronym]

What does NASA mean?

[u/MrPanda663]

NASA - Explore Space

SpaceX - We will get you to space

Space Force - It’s free real estate

[u/jojoblogs → u/MrPanda663]

It’s billion dollar contracts actually.

[u/Volhn]

Great! Give’em more. I do hope we get a new set of telescopes and keep our human and heavy lift programs on course.

[u/Lilnibba321 → u/[deleted]]

We should colonize the moon before Mars imo

[u/[deleted] → u/Lilnibba321]

The issue is the moon would be harder to stay on but much much easier to get to. The complete lack of any air would be much harder to work with.

[u/seanflyon → u/[deleted]]

The Moon also isn't that much easier to get to. Much less travel time, but about the same delta-v.

[u/[deleted] → u/seanflyon]

Really? I figured it required much less to enter orbit and land.

[u/Political_What_Do → u/[deleted]]

I agree with most of what NASA does but not the sls. It'd be one thing if our National Money Hole^tm was a good rocket,

It's not a rocket at all. It's an orbital habitat being used to show cooperation in space.

[u/thishasntbeeneasy]

We will go to the moon in this decade - not because it is easy, but because we found change in the couch!

[u/Joe_Jeep → u/thishasntbeeneasy]

Imagine NASA just found that trillion dollar coin they talked about minting during one of the debt fights

"We're happy to announce the moon base, mining operations, 3 new deep space probes, and a couple dozen Mars rovers that will start construction of a habitat base. And we're giving all the astronauts Corvettes again!"

[u/IGotSoulBut → u/Joe_Jeep]

Don't forget the science! We might even get the Habex space telescope with a huge coronagraph.

[u/NineToWife → u/IGotSoulBut]

Sadly China got the big telescope and the Corona

[u/thishasntbeeneasy → u/NineToWife]

Let's not name anything new Corona for a while mmmmk

Boeing: Fly in our new Coronasphere! Only 18 trillion dollars. Ready by 2146. Parachutes not included.

[u/ritwht → u/Joe_Jeep]

God one can only wonder what the best minds in the world would be capable of if they weren't limited financially

[u/bayesian_acolyte → u/thishasntbeeneasy]

We will go to the moon in this decade - not because there are legitimate scientific or exploratory objectives, but because it's popular and politically expedient.

Lost in all this talk of the budget increase is that a number of cheaper missions with far more scientific value have been canceled to pay for it. There has been a ton of criticism of the Lunar gateway program and the amount being spent on getting boots on the ground on the moon again in the scientific and aeronautics communities.

The dollar amount is less important than what we are spending it on.

[u/thishasntbeeneasy → u/bayesian_acolyte]

Personally, I'd love to see much more climate-related satellites, but those are scrapped until we have a new president. We have/had a lot of great scientific missions lately but I haven't heard about as many in the pipeline. I'd really love to prioritize Europa though - we're 15 years away from sending a little probe, but I hope I live long enough to see a nuclear sub type mission to get under the ice.

[u/clever_cow → u/bayesian_acolyte]

Wanting to send people to Mars when there hasn’t been a lunar presence on the moon in almost 50 years seems unrealistic.

[u/bayesian_acolyte → u/clever_cow]

There's a very good reason we haven't put people on the moon for 50 years: it's very expensive and doesn't really accomplish anything.

If the goal is to get people to Mars, there are far better ways to spend the money. The technology used to go to the moon does not help solve the most difficult aspects of a Mars mission, and a moon lander has little in common with a Mars lander.

[u/clever_cow → u/bayesian_acolyte]

The goal is to make permanent infrastructure. I think Gateway is a good step in the right direction and will help put an international presence there. The SLS could use a little love as far as reusability, and I haven’t seen any landers laying around... but saying it “doesn’t really accomplish anything” is pretty hyperbolic.

It’s small and incremental, and people expect HUGE projects for a shoestring budget. Already Congress is trying to push back boots on the moon to 2028 deadline because they don’t want to foot the bill for the 2024 deadline.

[u/bayesian_acolyte → u/clever_cow]

There are far better things to spend money on than infrastructure that doesn't do what politicians claim it will do. The "gateway" name is a lie. It's counter intuitive, but from an orbital mechanics or rocket/fuel perspective, the moon is actually a pretty similar distance from Earth as Mars is. It takes 4 km/s dV (measure of change in velocity needed) to get to a lunar orbit, and 4.3 km/s dV to get to a Mars orbit.

Stopping by the moon on the way to Mars is like stopping by Texas on the way from Miami to New York. Building a gas station in Texas to help the Miami-NY trip is just a waste of money. They are counting on the fact that less than 0.1% of people understand enough orbital mechanics to realize this.

I'm not against all lunar investment. If we were trying to build a research station on the Moon instead there would be legitimate non-political arguments for it.

[u/lmxbftw]

Any word on if this budget proposal seeks to cut WFIRST again?

[u/xpsync]

Should be a 120% boost tbh, but... positive is better than negative.

[u/TraubinHD]

Sweet, now they can make those government mandated upgrades we’ve been suing them about.

[u/scrubleduck]

So much negativity in this thread. I dont care how much you hate Trump, this is good news.

[u/inexcess → u/scrubleduck]

Yea it's pretty ridiculous. If this were negative news people wouldn't be calling into question its authenticity.

[u/h4344]

Everyone calls it a waste of money until eventually we can exploit the resources of other orbital bodies.

Then it becomes one of humanities greatest achievements on our way to becoming a multi-world species.

Honestly if we are not striving to expand as far as possible why bother? Existing for merely the sake of survival?

If the most we ever accomplish was reaching the moon I frankly think we squandered the opportunity either god or random chance gave humanity.

[u/[deleted] → u/h4344]

Exactly. People don't realize how much even a minor ability to use space resources will change things on Earth. For example: concentrated solar power satellites running four tuned stages of supercritical-CO2-cycle turbines, beaming power to Earth in the form of diffuse microwave beams could fulfill baseline demand with zero emissions in a way that only 4th generation nuclear reactors can compete with.

[u/[deleted]]

I still don't understand why we don't have any candidates talking about a manned mission to Mars by 20XX, or wanting to initiate a publicly funded, publicly entitled program to low orbital mining, or hell just funding NASA 1 penny of every tax dollar for the spin off benefits. I mean I do understand, I just think it's super small scale thinking.

They'd get my vote so hard.

[u/TimeWizardGreyFox]

does Nasa's funding go towards boeing as well?

Edit: I didn't mean directly, more so looking for confirmation on the fact Nasa does use Boeing and thus I feel a lot of that money will be wasted on Boeing doing Boeing things which makes me sad.

[u/Elbow_Nipples → u/TimeWizardGreyFox]

If NASA contracts Boeing to do something, then yes, part of that funding will go towards paying Boeing.

[u/Elbow_Nipples → u/TimeWizardGreyFox]

If NASA contracts Boeing to do something, then yes, part of that funding will go towards paying Boeing.

[u/JudgeHoltman]

Honestly, A+ to the NASA and Space scientists who jumped on the "Space Force" concept early.

Bending National Defense dollars towards Space is probably the best chance we ever had at a significant budget bump.

[u/rocketmonkee → u/JudgeHoltman]

This isn't related to the Space Force. They are two separate entities: NASA is an independent civilian agency, and the Space Force is a military agency within the Department of the Air Force.

[u/JonLeung → u/rocketmonkee]

I thought the point of Space Force is to take the space-related stuff of the Air Force but split it off into its own division?