NASA wants to spend over $2B per launch on a super heavy lift system called the SLS, that can only lift about twice as much as a Falcon Heavy that costs around $120M a launch.
More is always better when we are talking interplanetary travel. But the Falcon Heavy is adequate, esp. if you can do in-orbit assembly.
If NASA needs a bigger rocket, they can buy the SpaceX BFR, which has a substantially greater cargo capacity than the SLS, and if they offered SpaceX a fixed price contract at $200M a launch I'd bet Musk would jump at it.
My comment was more aimed at the political rather than technical side of the current state of the American space program.
I was more thinking about politicians not just continuing exhaling hot air through their vocal cords in front of cameras, but having them actually make concrete commitments by actually putting their money where their mouth is.
If they doubled NASAs budget and chucked that 50% increase to private contractors like SpaceX, great, that would probably have incredible results. But seriously, stop talking big and actually commit to these dreams, dammit!
"doubled NASAs budget and chucked that 50% increase to private contractors like SpaceX"
I agree. If the US said they would tax Apple's cash pile @ 10% if Apple were willing to repatriate the money, that'd bring in enough to double NASA's budget. I'm not saying 10% is the right number, but just giving an example.
NASA is supporting the privatized space industry, though. Remember that Dragon were/is developed because NASA gave SpaceX a contract for ISS support. Falcon 9 development also got NASA support.
"support" is not the same as a contract. ULA got a $1B a year just for "readiness", SpaceX gets contracts to do actually useful things, at a far lower cost than other contractors or NASA itself.
That's a good point, and you're right that NASA's budget will trickle down as support to privatized space companies.
As progress in the industry moves forward, though, I expect we may find other forms of government support, such as what we see in many countries' policies towards renewable energy.
I'm merely pointing out that the government's support of the space industry shouldn't be characterized by NASA's budget.
There are a lot of ways for the government to support an industry otherwise; an example being many countries' policy on renewable energy and clean transport, for instance.
I don't think anyone responding to you can figure out what you mean. The US government already has a successful model of interacting with the commercial space industry. You're proposing abandoning that for... ?
This article is about government support of the space industry, and the parent comment stated "I'll believe it when NASA's budget is raised."
My point is that the government can support the space industry in many ways, some of which won't involve more funding for NASA. As an example, governments have 'supported' renewable energy through policy without needing to do so through a NASA-like equivalent in the renewable energy sector.
Comments
Yeah, I'll believe it when I see it. Every president since Bush said something to this effect. My eyebrows will raise when NASAs budget does.
NASA wants to spend over $2B per launch on a super heavy lift system called the SLS, that can only lift about twice as much as a Falcon Heavy that costs around $120M a launch.
Maybe it's not NASA's budget, but how it's spent?
What about the extra range/energy that could be delivered to a falcon heavy size payload?
More is always better when we are talking interplanetary travel. But the Falcon Heavy is adequate, esp. if you can do in-orbit assembly.
If NASA needs a bigger rocket, they can buy the SpaceX BFR, which has a substantially greater cargo capacity than the SLS, and if they offered SpaceX a fixed price contract at $200M a launch I'd bet Musk would jump at it.
My comment was more aimed at the political rather than technical side of the current state of the American space program.
I was more thinking about politicians not just continuing exhaling hot air through their vocal cords in front of cameras, but having them actually make concrete commitments by actually putting their money where their mouth is.
If they doubled NASAs budget and chucked that 50% increase to private contractors like SpaceX, great, that would probably have incredible results. But seriously, stop talking big and actually commit to these dreams, dammit!
"doubled NASAs budget and chucked that 50% increase to private contractors like SpaceX"
I agree. If the US said they would tax Apple's cash pile @ 10% if Apple were willing to repatriate the money, that'd bring in enough to double NASA's budget. I'm not saying 10% is the right number, but just giving an example.
It would bring in triple that. Personal dividend tax is 20%.
Plus California takes another 10% off the top, so they could start their own space program!
I don't have a good idea about how this scales. What would something with twice the lift of the Falcon Heavy cost?
It costs 2 Falcon Heavy launches plus some work on on-orbit assembly.
Scale it up ... or just send a brace of falcon heavies
I think we can be keen in recognizing that the Trump admin maintains interest in science as much as the previous admins.
I wouldn't characterize America's space industry by NASA's budget anymore.
What about support of the privatized space industry, instead? It seems to be progressing faster than NASA did.
NASA is supporting the privatized space industry, though. Remember that Dragon were/is developed because NASA gave SpaceX a contract for ISS support. Falcon 9 development also got NASA support.
"support" is not the same as a contract. ULA got a $1B a year just for "readiness", SpaceX gets contracts to do actually useful things, at a far lower cost than other contractors or NASA itself.
That's a good point, and you're right that NASA's budget will trickle down as support to privatized space companies.
As progress in the industry moves forward, though, I expect we may find other forms of government support, such as what we see in many countries' policies towards renewable energy.
There is no "trickle down" for what NASA is doing with SpaceX and OrbitalATK: It's an outright contract to deliver stuff to the ISS.
I meant that the government funding trickles down to SpaceX and OrbitalATK through NASA's contract.
That's not what those words usually mean when applied to money, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
I don't understand what point you're trying to make?
Right now we have much more advanced tech than was available during the space race, and a lot of the pioneering work has already been done.
Comparing NASA from the 60's - 70's to current space companies is not useful.
We're currently depending on Soviet rockets to get us into orbit, so the state of US space travel is a little shaky right now
We don't depend on the Russians for cargo, and 2 US systems for launching people to the ISS are getting close to the finish line.
I'm merely pointing out that the government's support of the space industry shouldn't be characterized by NASA's budget.
There are a lot of ways for the government to support an industry otherwise; an example being many countries' policy on renewable energy and clean transport, for instance.
I don't think anyone responding to you can figure out what you mean. The US government already has a successful model of interacting with the commercial space industry. You're proposing abandoning that for... ?
Sorry I wasn't more clear.
This article is about government support of the space industry, and the parent comment stated "I'll believe it when NASA's budget is raised."
My point is that the government can support the space industry in many ways, some of which won't involve more funding for NASA. As an example, governments have 'supported' renewable energy through policy without needing to do so through a NASA-like equivalent in the renewable energy sector.
The US government already supports the space industry in many ways, including ways that have nothing to do with NASA's budget. You're proposing? ...
Exactly. I'm saying that NASA's budget is an outdated metric to determine the American government's support of the space industry.
I'm not proposing anything else.
yup