Last night the National Air and Space Museum hosted a screening of the upcoming PBS documentary “Race to the Moon” about the Apollo 8 mission. In attendance at the event were the three astronauts from that mission: Frank Borman, Jim Lovell, and Bill Anders. During a Q&A session after the screening, someone asked the three astronauts what they felt about the recent addition of SpaceShipOne to the museum and the role of commercial spaceflight. Borman’s response:
Well, I think Spacecraft One [sic] was a nice stunt. You spend twenty-five million dollars to win ten. I’m not taking anything away from it because the people who flew it were very brave and courageous, but I don’t think it leads to much, and I think it’s inappropriately displayed up there next to Lindbergh’s and Yeager’s airplanes.
Borman’s comments were met with a smattering of applause from the audience that filled the museum’s IMAX theater.
Why mention this here? Borman’s comments, and the fact that at least some fraction of the audience agreed with him, suggest that proponents of commercial human spaceflight—especially those who want to sell such services to the government—have not convinced everyone yet of the utility of such efforts.
I was the guy who asked the question and I was stunned with the response. I was further floored that some in the audiance actually applauded!
As you report it here, Borman’s comments do not support your conclusion. He was _not_ talking about commercial spaceflight. It sounds as if he answered the question about SS1, not commercial spaceflight.
And on one level he is right–SS1 _was_ a stunt, not necessarily proof of the viability of the commercial suborbital tourist industry. But lots of things in aviation are stunts. Lindbergh’s solo flight over the Atlantic was a stunt, more a matter of endurance than aviation technology or commerce.
During a session at last weeks Space Frontier Conference there was some discussion about what the Foundation should do to convince the USG and NASA that the commercial space flight industry was real. Everyone had all sorts of ideas to talk to congressman X or lobby for Program Y but it really all comes down to one thing, and Burt did it best:
Just fly. The rest will follow….
He was _not_ talking about commercial spaceflight. It sounds as if he answered the question about SS1, not commercial spaceflight.
While Borman’s comment primarily addresses SpaceShipOne (which was used as an example in the question about commercial spaceflight) the impression I—and at least some others I talked with afterwards—was that his words extended to commercial human spaceflight (or, at least, commercial suborbital human spaceflight) in general. Note the comment “but I don’t think it leads to much”: that makes less sense if he’s referring only to SpaceShipOne.
But, I may simply be misinterpreting his comment. Nonetheless, it does go against conventional wisdom to some degree.
The V2 rocket had controlled flight, and went higher and faster than the X1. By Borman’s standard one could argue that putting a human in the latter rocket was also a stunt.
As a Canadian I credit Edison with inventing the light bulb, even though I know a nearly identical light bulb was patented in Canada years before. The reason: Edison developed the supporting technologies, made the economics work, and got people using it.
This allowed the technology to be refined, with prices dropping as usage went up. It quickly went from being a lab experiment to a toy for the wealthy, to common use.
Rutan (and the rest of the alt-apace crowd) are doing the same thing for space flight. Rutan’s early rocket is important for the same reason that Edison’s early bulb is more important than the earlier Canadian one.
“I may simply be misinterpreting [Borman’s] comment. Nonetheless, it does go against conventional wisdom to some degree.”
The conventional wisdom in the alt.space echo chamber, yes. But that’s a subset of those more or less interested in space, which in turn is a relatively small subset of the public.
What matters if you’re talking private funding is the conventional wisdom of investors and angels — and I’d bet that for every Musk, Bezos, Allen, Bigelow or Branson, there are still ten to a hundred who’ll be happy to tell you in pained detail about the Iridium-Teledesic-GlobalStar bust.
Right on Mr. Borman! Burt proved that he could duplicate the 50 year old flight of the x-15, so what. Oh yeah, and he had the benefit of all the knowledge accumulated from those flights, plus modern computers, CFD, and tremendous advances in material sciences. I think I’ll go home and “invent” an electronic device that can multiply and divide numbers, and call it the pocket calculator.
Of course, Monte, to be fair, in any new industry, a large percentage of the people trying to start it fail. It’s the few that finally succeed who change the world. The problem with the alt.space crowd is that they seem to think that every start up is bound to succeed and then run rings around those inefficient, wasteful government bureaucrats at NASA. Of course, some of the successful ones will get rich off of government contracts, but that’s another story.
Well, I profoundly disagree with Mr. Borman, dispite his “very brave” stunt flight around the moon 40 years ago.
I will admit however, that the “it is more than a stunt” point is unproven as of yet. If/when Rutan and his investors start flying commercially then we will have demonstrated that SS1 was more than a stunt.
$100k/seat flown for SpaceShipOne is pretty good compared to $3m/seat flown for X-15. $25 million development cost is pretty good compared to $1.5 billion development cost (all in current dollars).
Imagine a chip engineer dissing Greason’s Pentium chip by saying “we did a transistor with a block of germanium 60 years ago.”
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/204/1
But it doesn’t go against conventional wisdom. Borman’s wisdom is conventional wisdom. It’s a certain Internet echo chamber that is going against conventional wisdom on this question.
On the other hand, even if SS1 is just a stunt, Rutan and Branson can do whatever they want with their money.
Whether suborbital will lead to orbital is an important question, which lacks an obvious answer. t/Space is not a follow-on to SS1 nor is a capsule atop Musk’s Falcon a follow-on to SS1. This question is a reprise of Tom Wolfe and “The Right Stuff” and whether America made a wrong turn with Mercury / Gemini / Apollo rather than X-15 follow ons & spaceplanes. Dyna-Soar, anyone?
If Pioneer and Virgin fly commercial suborbital in 2007, how long until those evolve to genuine Earth-to-LEO lift? Borman appears to believe the answer is never. I hope he is wrong but I cannot say (for sure) he is wrong.
Which item of conventional wisdom?
It could be that Borman’s sneer was principally directed, not against Spaceship 1, but against suborbital space tourism becoming a big industry.
It might be Borman is backing the current NASA conventional widom that capsules are better than high Mach number gliders.
It could also be that Borman had in mind the old, original 1960’s rivalry between Mercury-Gemini-Apollo and the X-15-X-20 DynaSoar-Space Shuttle lines of spacecraft evolution. Borman never was an X-15 pilot. There was a time about 45 years ago when X-15 pilots were the real deal. Spaceship 1 has resurrected the spirit as well as the hardware rivalry of that era.
With old geezers, you never can be sure if they are thinking about the present. Soemtimes they’re seeing everything through a decades-old filter.
I suggest that one of SpacePolitics’ crack joournalists get in touch with Dr. Borman to seek claification of his remarks.
It’s the nature of real disruptive breakthroughs that most people initially dismiss them. Unfortunately, that’s also the nature of things that end up being unworkable dead ends.
One thing I do know: if commercial manned spaceflight is doomed to always be too difficult, then government manned spaceflight is largely pointless, since what can it grow into?
It wasn’t a stunt – you right it saying it demostrated what was done 50 years ago – but no stunt.
It was done by the private sector – not one sucking off the public money.
You do NOT require big goverment to explore space – funny thing those cold equations work for everyone.
And what about “NUCLEAR” – we already have the answer the US Goverment won’t do it – till after the Chinese launch their Nuclear SSTO rockets.
Greg: Borman’s wisdom is conventional wisdom.
You are probably right, but it is also wrong. Recall that it was once “conventional wisdom” on the part of people who should know better that government-funded spaceflight was “utter bunk.” The Astronomer Royal was wrong. Why should those in government spaceflight be immune to this disease regarding commercial spaceflight?
— Donald
Imagine a chip engineer dissing Greason’s Pentium chip by saying “we did a transistor with a block of germanium 60 years ago.”
This is an improper analogy. A transistor and a Pentium have substantially different capabilities; SS1 and the X-15 have very similar capabilities. And of course the X-15 cost a lot more just like the first transistor (I’m guessing) cost a lot more than the one you can buy at radio shack today.
I’m glad we can build an X-15 much cheaper today than we could 50 years ago, the question is, what’s it good for? The French and British found out that people won’t pay very much extra to fly Mach 2, and soon enough we’ll find out that almost no one will pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to risk their life to go Mach 25.
Quote from Brian: “I think I’ll go home and “invent” an electronic device that can multiply and divide numbers, and call it the pocket calculator.”
Boy if you could build all the IC’s needed for a pocket calculator within the confines of our own home that really would be something. Considering it currently takes multimillion dollar facilities with elaborate clean rooms and lithography equipment to accomplish the task.
The problem with the alt.space crowd is that they seem to think that every start up is bound to succeed
I always enjoy your little strawmen shots at these nameless people in that evil alt.space crowd, Mark. Just once I wish you’d argue with something specific that some real person actually claims. But then, you’d have to actually defend it, wouldn’t you, which is generally an impossible task?
A few comments to some recent responses (brief, since I’m visiting family this weekend):
The conventional wisdom in the alt.space echo chamber
I guess that means the NASM is in cahoots with the “alt.space” community; after all, the museum not only put SS1 on display, they’ve displayed it prominently in the Milestones of Flight gallery downtown, not in, say, a corner of the Udvar-Hazy Center!
I suggest that one of SpacePolitics’ crack joournalists get in touch with Dr. Borman to seek claification of his remarks.
Unfortunately, I did not see Borman (I do not believe he has a doctorate degree) after the Q&A session, so I was not able to follow up with him on his remarks. Perhaps the next time a reader encounters him, they’ll think to ask for some clarification on this topic, and share the results with us.
I seem to remember that for years after their first flight, folks refered to the Wright brothers flights as mear useless stunts. Suggesting their time would be better spent on their bicycle bisness.
And Borman acomplished what with his multi-billion dolar “stunt moon flight”? Or his later comercial venture?
You might be a curmudgeon too if you missed the Moon and ended up selling used cars in Las Cruces, New Mexico. Never mind Frank Borman. What did Jim Lovell have to say?
Imagine a chip engineer dissing Greason’s Pentium chip by saying “we did a transistor with a block of germanium 60 years ago.”
This is an improper analogy. A transistor and a Pentium have substantially different capabilities; SS1 and the X-15 have very similar capabilities.
A better analogy would be an Intel 4004 (the first microprocessor) with ENIAC (the first practical digital computer). The Intel 4004 could only do what ENIAC did decades earlier (just as SpaceShip One could only do what the X-15 did), but it was much cheaper. The 4004 was also much less capable than the mainframes of its day, and microcomputers were widely derided as toys for quite a while after that.
But today the market is ruled by PCs and workstations whose microprocessors trace their heritage to the 4004 (4004->8008->8080->8088->8086->80286->80386->80486->Pentium), not the mainframes. And many of today’s most challenging computing problems are solved by massively parallel arrays of PCs/workstations rather than a monolithic supercomputer/mainframe. Once microprocessors became powerful and scalable enough, it became more economical to gang more of them together rather than try to design a more powerful supercomputer each time you needed to solve a harder problem.
Someday the same will be true of space transportation. Reusable, high-flight-rate vehicles will be the norm and the idea of launching humans as spam-in-a-can atop ICBMs will be regarded as barbaric. And it will become more economical to assemble large structures in orbit with many cheap launches rather than a single monolithic heavy-lifter, just as parallel PC arrays are gradually winning out over the supercomputers.
(To balance the analogy a little, it will probably take as long to get from SpaceShip One to the above scenarios as it took to get from the 4004 to the Pentium 4. And it is just as moronic to say that “NASA spaceflight is obsolete and should be cancelled now that SpaceShip One has shown the way” as it would have been to discontinue all mainframes in 1971 and build all computers out of massively parallel arrays of 4004s.)
> The conventional wisdom in the alt.space echo chamber, yes. But that’s a subset of those more or less
> interested in space, which in turn is a relatively small subset of the public.
Once again, anyone who disagrees with Monte Davis is part of an “echo chamber.”
Does Mr. Davis really speak for the public? Public opinion polls concerning SpaceShip One showed overwhelming enthusiasm.
From my observations, there was much more cynicism and negative reaction from those Monte deems “more or less interested in space” than from the general public.
Many “spacers” sneered because SpaceShip One wasn’t a Space Elevator or a Constellation capsule, just as many computer scientists sneered because the Apple II wasn’t a Cray supercomputer, but the man on the street bought the Apple Ii and cheered for SpaceShip One.
Ironically, the man on the street may play a bigger role in space development than many who consider themselves spacers.
> What matters if you’re talking private funding is the conventional wisdom of investors and
> angels — and I’d bet that for every Musk, Bezos, Allen, Bigelow or Branson, there are still ten
> to a hundred who’ll be happy to tell you in pained detail about the Iridium-Teledesic-GlobalStar bust.
Most projects don’t need hundreds of investors. If you aren’t interested in anything short of a space elevator, there probably aren’t enough investors in the world to make it happen, but that’s a problem of your own making. Looking for scapegoats and trying to stop investment in practical space transportation won’t change that.
Hey Frank!
Can you spell E-A-S-T-E-R-N ??
Moron.
“James Benson” stunt SpaceShipOne”
“It’s an important milestone, and it showed we could do this, put a
man in space,” Benson said. “But it’s mostly just a stunt. What
comes next is what really counts.”
ps was a stunt
Brian wrote:
I’m glad we can build an X-15 much cheaper today than we could 50 years ago, the question is, what’s it good for? The French and British found out that people won’t pay very much extra to fly Mach 2, and soon enough we’ll find out that almost no one will pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to risk their life to go Mach 25.
Granted that the very large development costs of the Concorde where not recouped– the operation of the SST was a financial success for BA and Air France. We have but a single data point of cost per seat mile for supersonic flight; it is conceivable that this could be lower for a different aircraft or a different operation.
What is SS1 good for? Well, it is a step toward providing a data point in the cost per seat mile (CPSM) for _Hypersonic_ transport. Actually, I expect the follow-on SS2 to be “the” data point. The tourist flights help pay the for development and provide crutial operational experience … and if they don’t cover all the costs then the rest is writen off as R and D.
Whether this factor combined with the demand for supersonic/Hypersonic flight closes as a business case can’t be known a priori. If Branson can get the CPSM close to that of the concorde then it is a fair bet that he could find the customers.
Um, SS1 didn’t go hypersonic (defined to be > Mach 5, the regime where aerothermal effects become very important) at any point in its flights.
I guess that means the NASM is in cahoots with the “alt.space” community; after all, the museum not only put SS1 on display, they’ve displayed it prominently in the Milestones of Flight gallery…
The Smithsonian has offered grist to factions before. Sometimes they change their minds, sometimes they don’t. I will say that the alt.space crowd isn’t as crazy as the creationists.
Besides, even if SS1 is just a great stunt, that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t belong in the Smithsonian. Human-powered flight is only a great stunt as far as anyone knows, yet the Gossamer Condor also hangs in the Air and Space Museum.
Actually, I think that the least practical things are the most enjoyable museum pieces.
SS1 had seats for 3, while X-15 sat 1. SS1 had people in shirt sleeve compared to flight suits in X-15. SS1 used safe fuels. X-15 didn’t. SS1 could fly twice in one week. SS1 has lots of windows for tourists. SS1 is a lot lighter and does not need a B-52 to launch. SS1 is insurable. It does not need a dry lakebed to land. SS1 has “carefree” reentry.
Rocketplane XP, Xerus and SS2 are going to make money at something South of $50,000 per paying seat. Less than that if you count the pilot. $30,000 per seat is 1% of the real cost of flying the X-15.
That is at utilization rates of 1-2 flights per week. At 8 flights per day, you can probably get another factor of 10 decrease in the price.
You don’t need to take passengers. Payloads can be little second stages.
What, praytell, would be something to look for as a breakthrough in this industry if this is not?
What, praytell, would be something to look for as a breakthrough in this industry if this is not?
Having Rocketplane, Xerus, and SS2 actually do everything that you say they will.
Having Rocketplane, Xerus, and SS2 actually do everything that you say they will.
All of them?
I have no doubt that if any one of them does, you’ll just say, “…well, it’s just suborbit. It’s not like they’re doing anything about getting into orbit…”
And when someone is doing orbit privately, you’ll say “…well, that’s just a stunt. When they get to the Moon, get back to me.”
Ad infinitum to starships.
SS1 had seats for 3, while X-15 sat 1.
Who cares about the number of seats? SS1 never actually sat more than 1. It was “the spaceship for the rest of us” only if by “the rest of us” you mean “Scaled Composites test pilots”.
SS1 used safe fuels.
SS1 has “carefree” reentry.
You’d think, if SS1 was as safe and reliable as Rutan’s (and others’) rhetoric, then he would have kept flying it after winning the X-Prize. It would have been a valuable testbed for SS2, and he could have turned a profit by piggybacking some sounding rocket payloads in the other two seats. It is quite understandable that he wouldn’t want to risk an accident prior to handing the vehicle to the Smithsonian, but if the vehicle was really as reliable as claimed, that risk would have been negligible. So his actions indicate that his private assessment of SS1 reliability was more realistic than his public rhetoric. That seems prudent considering that SS1 had flight control anomalies (some quite serious) on every single spaceflight.
What, praytell, would be something to look for as a breakthrough in this industry if this is not?
I don’t often agree with Greg, but a spacecraft that backs up the rhetoric with an actual flight record would be a nice start.
I have no doubt that if any one of them does, you’ll just say, “…well, it’s just suborbit. It’s not like they’re doing anything about getting into orbit…”
Well, yes.
And when someone is doing orbit privately, you’ll say “…well, that’s just a stunt. When they get to the Moon, get back to me.”
Well, no.
Orbit is the tipping point.
Sir Richard Branson is about to prove something else that is very important, in my opinion.
More revenue will be generated by using space to sell Volvos and artificially flavored carbonated beverages (7-Up) than will be generated by selling tickets to ride. If the private space sector chose to harness the power of media and brand value, revenues would be more than sufficient to put people on the Moon, without tax revenue.
Does THIS accomplishment belong in the Smithsonian? Maybe not in the engineering section but in the section on American culture? Absolutely.
Rand: Yes, all of them, since that is what Sam Dinkin said. The phrase “are going” means all of them. Snarky wet blanket that I am, I take hype straight. If bragging became credible in this business, that really would be a breakthrough.
Also, no matter what you do — suborbit, orbit, the moon, you name it — it’s a stunt if you only build it for a prize and for TV cameras, then ship it to the Smithsonian. But even a stunt can be pretty hard; I take my hat off to Burt Rutan for that.
Rand: Speaking of hype, which you do think that the United States will do first, assemble and provision spacecraft on the moon, or bring stability and unity to a free Iraq? As I said, I take it straight.
No matter what you do — suborbit, orbit, the moon, you name it — it’s a stunt if you only build it for a prize and for TV cameras
At least I agree with you, Greg.
But stunt funding can buy hardware and prove concepts.
But in the long run, the ONLY sustainable reason to go out there is to settle down and make babies. And yes, many of those babies will die horrible deaths. But it will expand the biosphere and spread life to lifeless places.
Anything less is just boys playing with toys.
Science? If we aren’t going to stay, forever, I like Rick Tumlinson’s suggestion: “Just send toasters.”
Greg and Nemo,
Either of you care to wager about what a seat to orbit will cost in ten years? Do you think it will still be $12 million-$20 million or higher?
Sam: I don’t think that it’s quite the right question. I expect that the market will be small enough that its prices will be artificial. As they are today.
Rand: Speaking of hype, which you do think that the United States will do first, assemble and provision spacecraft on the moon, or bring stability and unity to a free Iraq? As I said, I take it straight.
The latter, since NASA has chosen such a disastrous architectural approach. That has nothing to do, of course, with the feasibility of provisioning spacecraft from (not on–it’s really quite nuts from a policy standpoint to take that speech as literally as you insist) the moon.
Which is why I know that you’ll persist in doing so.
Rand: Okay, “from” the moon, then; it makes no difference to me. Also, when I said “the United States”, I didn’t just mean NASA. Actually I don’t even mean just the United States. So which do you think will happen first, that anyone will assemble and provision spacecraft “from” the moon, or that the US will bring stability and unity to a free Iraq? (Maybe a statement about how long either one will take would be helpful.)
Given his background I find it natural that Borman misses an interesting feature of SS-1: the relatively good abort capability. Coming from an aviation background myself, I’m apalled by the large non-abortable sections for carriers like the Shuttle. Even a very limited abort capability greatly enlargens the operational envelope. You can simply try more stuff and see what actually works. Sure, orbital is the tipping point, both from a PR and an delta V standpoint. And SS-1 might be an evolutionary dead end. But it showed non-enthusiasts you can “safely” do sub orbital and most of *them* don’t know there is a large step ahead before orbital. Those false perceptions might turn out to be more true than we can imagine.
So which do you think will happen first, that anyone will assemble and provision spacecraft “from” the moon, or that the US will bring stability and unity to a free Iraq? (Maybe a statement about how long either one will take would be helpful.)
That question is getting off topic for Jeff’s blog, and depends on how one defines “stability” and “unity” and “free.” I’m quite confident that many (like perhaps, you) will do so in such a manner as to make it an unachievable goal. But that aside, I think the former will occur first, because it’s primarily a technical and market problem, whereas the latter is a political one. To compare the two is as dumb as all of the people who say “If we can land a man on the moon, why can’t we (achieve world peace, end world poverty, feed all the children, end drug abuse, fill-in-the-socioeconomic-blank)?
Rand: The point is to find the working definition of either mandate from our current president to relate it to spending $60 billion each year, in the case of Iraq, or $100 billion in 15 years, in the case of the VSE. When he’s tossing this much money around, it would be nice to know what he’s really talking about. Or, closer to your terminology, to know the hard goals that correspond to these fuzzy policy sentiments.
Because if fuzzy policy sentiments are all that there is, then the policies could be eternal treadmills. Looking back at history, I certainly think that American involvement in World War II was correct, and I could give qualified approval to Apollo too; but we should all be glad that they both ended. It would be a drag if were still “winning” World War II, instead of having won; or if we were launching Apollo 57 next year to bring back yet more moon rocks.
(Or it would be a drag if we were launching STS-121 to pretend yet again that the shuttle is routine and economical. Hey! That’s what we are doing.)
I realize that the issue is much more general than space policy, and can easily stray off topic. But I think that sometimes you can peg the character of a president by generalizing from the one issue that you understand best. Space policy works if that happens to be it.
It would be a drag if were still “winning” World War II, instead of having won;
It was indeed a drag (it was called the Cold War–we still had troops in Germany several decades after Germany surrendered). Wars are a drag, man (taking a long toke). How’s that for policy wisdom?
Not that it makes sense to compare them to space initiatives (though I do wish we would finally declare victory on ISS and come home).
or if we were launching Apollo 57 next year to bring back yet more moon rocks
And, why would this be a drag? How else are you going to learn lunar Geology.
Of course, we all like to concentrate on the transport of scientists to a lunar base, but the return flights are hardly likely to be empty of cargo. I have argued that some of that should be lunar oxygen for use in LEO, but if a direct entry architecture is used, much of it will probably be rocks from novel areas for study on the ground.
— Donald
Rand Simberg: It was indeed a drag (it was called the Cold War–we still had troops in Germany several decades after Germany surrendered). Wars are a drag, man (taking a long toke). How’s that for policy wisdom?
There isn’t any wisdom in it whatsoever, because the Cold War was a completely different war from World War II. It was thurst upon a different president and the enemy was actually an ally in World War II. In fact most of it wasn’t a war at all, but a military stand-off (although it did lead to proxy wars). It makes no more sense to call the Cold War part of World War II than to call the space shuttle part of the Apollo program.
No, World War II was a real war with a real war declaration and a real surrender that ended after 3 years, 8 months, and 8 days of direct American participation. Good thing too.
I suppose that there are some very foolish space fans who think of the shuttle as basically the same thing as Apollo.
Donald Robertson: And, why would [Apollo 57] be a drag? How else are you going to learn lunar Geology.
Not by doing the same thing over and over again in search of fuzzy policy sentiments. Once you’ve learned something, you’ve learned it; then it’s time to do something new.
It makes no more sense to call the Cold War part of World War II than to call the space shuttle part of the Apollo program.
It makes as much sense as to call the current fight against Al Qaeda (and erstwhile Sunni allies) in Iraq part of the war to depose Saddam. That war lasted only a few weeks.
Rand: Fine. You keep arguing over semantics, but the question doesn’t go away. Which do you think will happen first, that someone will assemble and provision spacecraft “from” the moon, or that the United States will win “the current fight against Al Qaeda and erstwhile Sunni allies in Iraq”? To be more specific, what would be the time scale of either one? That, in both cases, is the hundred-billion-dollar question.
Greg: Once you’ve learned something, you’ve learned it; then it’s time to do something new.
That’s true, I suppose, but there is no way you are going to learn everything (or even very much) about the moon by sampling fifty-seven (or indeed 570 or 5,700) individual sites on the moon. We’ll learn about the moon by establishing a permanent presence and conducting on-going studies of an ever-accumulating number individual sites — exactly like we do it on Earth. There is no other way to do geology.
— Donald
Which do you think will happen first, that someone will assemble and provision spacecraft “from” the moon, or that the United States will win “the current fight against Al Qaeda and erstwhile Sunni allies in Iraq”?
As I said, given the vagueness of the wording of both of those propositions, I see no point in even attempting a schedule estimate of either. In some sense, I’d say that the recent election results indicate that we’ve effectively already done the latter. They can continue to murder people, like any street gang, but they’ve already lost their war.
The question is essentially meaningless, because the lunar spacecraft, however you define it, is a point event achievement. Once defined, it will, or will not, be achieved at some specific point in time. “Winning” “the current fight against Al Qaeda and erstwhile Sunni allies in Iraq” is, at best, a shade of grey. It is a safe bet that there will never be a decisive victory by any of the various sides that completely eliminates any of their opponents’ ability to fight.
— Donald
Rand: Okay, you gave your answer to the question. We already did win “the current fight against Al Qaeda and erstwhile Sunni allies in Iraq”; and if we didn’t, the goal is so vague that there is no telling how long it will take. (Never mind the Shiite militants in the same country.) Both are very strong statements about a continuing expenditure of $60 billion per year. I’m not sure that Bush would endorse these strong statements; but then, I didn’t ask him.
On the other hand, it’s a lot like the VSE. We already did send astronauts to the moon. If we want to do it again, the purpose of it is so vague that there is no telling how long it will take or how much it will cost. Minimal government, it ain’t.
Either of you care to wager about what a seat to orbit will cost in ten years? Do you think it will still be $12 million-$20 million or higher?
Probably less than $12 million, though by how much, I don’t know. And neither does anyone else.
Sorry I haven’t been able to respond to this fantasy space discussion, but I’m at a real propulsion conference. Anyway this is one fantasy that I just can’t just let go:
Posted by Sam Dinkin at October 30:”SS1 has “carefree” reentry”
Anyone that knows anything about hypersonics knows that the “reentry” configuration used for SS1 will never work for an orbital reentry, it’s useless above Mach>4. Study the topic and you’ll agree with me. I’ll let you present the details of why.
Minimal government, it ain’t.
??
Did someone claim it was? This seems like a very strange non sequitur.
Nemo: want to place an over/under bet on $5 million to orbit for a 100 kg person in 2015? Greg: want to place an over/under bet on the market for orbital tourism being above or below $100 million/year?
Sam: I really doubt that they will find $100 million per year from paying customers for “orbital tourism” in 2015. It could happen in one year if a single mogul shells out all or most of it to shoot the moon. I do not foresee a year-over-year market.
$100 million is a single Space Adventures “Apollo 8″ using Soyuz and a Proton Block DM. One tourist.
$5 million per person to orbit? Soyuz costs that now. Some say Dennis Tito’s $12 million “whisper number” was enough to pay for the entire launch of 3 humans to LEO. 2 were government crew and the 3rd a tourist.
$4 million per person, a few years ago.
Nemo: want to place an over/under bet on $5 million to orbit for a 100 kg person in 2015?
Nope, but I’d take the “under” on $10 million or the “over” on $1 million. The size of the market is too uncertain to slice it any finer than an order of magnitude.
$100 million is a single Space Adventures “Apollo 8″ using Soyuz and a Proton Block DM.
You misspelled “Zond”. Space Adventures’ mission would not enter lunar orbit, therefore it doesn’t qualify as “Apollo 8.”
$5 million per person to orbit? Soyuz costs that now. Some say Dennis Tito’s $12 million “whisper number” was enough to pay for the entire launch of 3 humans to LEO.
Some disagree. One piece of counterevidence is that the USSR once had the capability to launch six Soyuz spacecraft per year but now flies only two. If they were really turning a clear profit on Soyuz tourists to ISS, they would have ramped up production to fly more than two per year. It’s been four-and-a-half years since Tito’s flight, so they’ve had more than enough time. That tells me that one of the following must be true:
1) The price of a tourist seat on Soyuz is not enough to pay the fully-loaded cost of the flight, or,
2) The price is enough but the size of the Soyuz tourist market is too small to justify ramping up Soyuz production (and many alt.spacers have claimed to me that this cost is trivial).
Another piece of counterevidence is that Russia plans to charge NASA $65 million per Soyuz flight once the current agreement expires, if the INA is amended.
And finally, there are insider statements like this:
“Anderson also pointed out that seats on the orbital flights to the ISS were part of missions already bought and paid for by the Russian government.”
Bill: $100 million is a single Space Adventures “Apollo 8″ using Soyuz and a Proton Block DM. One tourist.
I don’t have time to confirm this right now, but I thought the plan was to fly two tourists and a pilot on each mission. If so, the “income” from the mission would be $200 million, and the cost presumably somewhat less than that.
Nemo: If they were really turning a clear profit on Soyuz tourists to ISS, they would have ramped up production to fly more than two per year.
While this may be true, I believe they are also constrained by the Space Station’s ability to accept them. I know there was talk at some point of flying independent Soyuz missions, but presumably customers wanted to go to the Space Station, not spend their whole trip stuffed into a can. If the market is for Space Station flights, NASA won’t let them send more than two flights a year — as you may recall, it was a fight to get that much. So, I’m not sure how much, if anything, the flight rate says about the profitability or otherwise of this program.
— Donald
I believe they are also constrained by the Space Station’s ability to accept them.
Why? The station has demonstrated the ability to accept six shuttle flights and two Soyuz flights in a single year, so I don’t see how (say) four shuttle flights and four Soyuz flights would be a problem. What “constraint” do you have in mind?
I know there was talk at some point of flying independent Soyuz missions, but presumably customers wanted to go to the Space Station, not spend their whole trip stuffed into a can.
Especially because Soyuz is limited to four days of independent flight.
NASA won’t let them send more than two flights a year — as you may recall, it was a fight to get that much.
Not only do I not recall it, I am highly skeptical of it. Two Soyuz per year has always been a floor, not a ceiling. It’s been driven by the Soyuz operational certification limit of 200 days. In fact, it has been the Russians that have pushed for longer expedition stays – NASA’s standard ISS crew rotation with the shuttle pre-accident was 135 days, while now it’s 180 days.
As I understand it, Soyuz flights are six months apart because that’s the on-orbit shelf life of a Soyuz.
Even if you weren’t rotating crew, you’d still need to keep replacing the Soyuz. They did that – A visiting crew would launch in a brand new Soyus, move their custom-molded seat cushions to the Soyus that had already been in orbit for six months, and return in that one a few days later.
Pre-Columbia-loss, this was to make sending tourists to ISS affordable – when you’re swapping a Soyus for a new one, the trip is already paid for out of the ISS budget. A paying cargo (the tourist) is gravy.
Post-Columbia-loss, the tourist takes the third seat with the new ISS crew, and returns on the six-month-old Soyus with the old crew. Again, the Soyuz is paid for by the ISS budget. You’re not filling the third seat with supplies, so you lose some money sending them on the next Progress flight.
This is why you have two flights per year even with tourists; it’s all the ISS budget will subsidize.
As I understand it, Soyuz flights are six months apart because that’s the on-orbit shelf life of a Soyuz.
Correct. Actually, the cert limit is 200 days. They fly six months apart so they have a little margin in case of delays.
This is why you have two flights per year even with tourists; it’s all the ISS budget will subsidize.
Exactly my point. If the tourist flights were truly profitable, they wouldn’t need the subsidy and therefore could fly more often.
… You’d think, if SS1 was as safe and reliable as Rutan’s (and others’) rhetoric, then he would have kept flying it after winning the X-Prize. It would have been a valuable testbed for SS2, and he could have turned a profit by piggybacking some sounding rocket payloads in the other two seats.
Uh, how to eject the payloads from the cabin? Just open the hatch?
It is quite understandable that he wouldn’t want to risk an accident prior to handing the vehicle to the Smithsonian, but if the vehicle was really as reliable as claimed, that risk would have been negligible. So his actions indicate that his private assessment of SS1 reliability was more realistic than his public rhetoric.
You very obviously know nothing about Rutan and SS1. He has said more than once publicly that SS1 “has a known design flaw,” the flaw being insufficient wing dihedral. This lack of dihedral causes SS1 to be unstable about the roll axis during ascent after release from the mothersip.
No, it’s not cost effective to build a new wing for SS1.
Uh, how to eject the payloads from the cabin? Just open the hatch?
Who said anything about ejecting the payload? It’s a suborbital rocket – the payload would ride up and down with SS1. The win is that you can dispense with the need for telemetry, since you recover the payload after landing.
You very obviously know nothing about Rutan and SS1. He has said more than once publicly that SS1 “has a known design flaw,” the flaw being insufficient wing dihedral.
Yes, I’m aware of that. He has also made multiple claims about how safe SS1 is, which contradicts his admission about the dihedral.
The win is that you can dispense with the need for telemetry, since you recover the payload after landing.
Telemetry reporting what? The experience of riding up and down in the SS1 crew compartment?
Telemetry reporting what? The experience of riding up and down in the SS1 crew compartment?
Well, duh. That “experience” is called micro-G, and SS1 could have provided it more cheaply than any sounding rocket.