In an article in this week’s issue of The Space Review, Brian Dewhurst looks at the roots of the current spirited debate about science funding at NASA. In his examination, NASA shifted from a “mission agency” to a “science agency” in the 1990s, when NASA had no major long-term goals beyond assembling the ISS and saw science, robotic missions in particular, as a way of generating positive publicity for the agency. Once NASA shifted back to a mission-based mindset with the adoption of the Vision for Space Exploration, there was the inevitable conflict between that and the science programs that previously flourished.
In a similar vein, I was reviewing some of the Congressional testimony and documentation on the recent hearings about NASA’s budget and its effect on science programs, and came away disappointed: not because of the outcome, but because a number of key questions haven’t been asked, at least in public. Some of those questions include:
- Why do so many NASA science programs, both big (JWST) and small (Dawn, SOFIA) suffer from significant cost overruns? Is there a systemic flaw in cost estimation within the agency (call it, say, “undercosting”) that causes these problems?
- If astronomers are opposed to the current cuts that affect lower-priority missions while sparing the JWST (which was ranked the highest priority astronomy mission in the most recent decadal survey), does that mean that JWST isn’t as important, and that the astronomy community needs to re-rank its priorities? (One of the witnesses at last week’s hearing, Joseph Taylor, suggested as much, although it’s not at all certain he is speaking for anyone other than himself.)
- What is the appropriate level for space science funding, either as an absolute amount or a fraction of the overall NASA or federal budgets?
The current debate, which focuses on specific projects and programs, is rather like treating the symptoms of a disorder rather than the disorder itself.
One of the biggest flaws I’ve seen while writing proposals for NASA is that you are first given a set of requirements and a set budget to meet those requirements and often times these things do not match. One cannot possibly accomplish all the science that is required for a given budget.
This is a similar problem that is being faced in the DoD world with space missions. NASA just cannot keep the personnel that have the experience to properly cost projects. And academia does not work on enough missions to be able to derive costs either.
Industry, which can accurately gauge the costs, is very reluctant to do so. The problem here is that there is not enough missions coming out of the woodworks for industry to make money on so each bid is fiercely competed over. This causes them to sign up to any price that NASA and the PIs come up with knowing that they will make up the difference by CDR.
If you look at missions in the 1990s that actually were on budget, missions like Mars Pathfinder and Lunar Prospector, you will find that they were able to do so with strong management/PIs that were experienced enough to price the mission correctly and knew enough engineering to keep industry in check. Unfortunately, people like these are in short supply and are generally not encouraged to stick around. Somehow this needs to be fixed.
As for the other 2 questions you raised, the decadal surveys that the astronomers were a part of set its priorities under certain ground rules being to list missions in terms of many small programs, a few medium programs and a single large program. Under that assumption, I believe that the priorities still stand. As Dewhurst’s article hints at, it is the implementation of Bush’s VSE that suddenly changed the rules.
The real question here is should his vision trump the scientific community? Or as you suggest can the legislature fix this collision of the VSE vs the scientific community by legislating that a certain percentage of the budget be devoted to fulfilling the desires of the scientific community?
My own opinion is the latter, that it is Congress which needs to mandate on some sort of set funding level be given to NASA to fulfill the scientific communities needs. But I fear that so long as science is part of NASA, that this will never happen due to the politics associated with NASA. Only by transferring science to less politically charged agencies like the NSF or possibly NOAA can this ever happen.
Ryan: Only by transferring science to less politically charged agencies like the NSF or possibly NOAA can this ever happen.
As I’ve argued before, I think such a move would result in a significant (and, over time, probably dramatic) reduction in space science funding. Space science benefits strongly by being part of NASA and associated with human spaceflight. Many missions (especially at Mars) are justified as providing information needed for future human expeditions, and other space science automated missions are being prepared as part of the VSE. If space science, especially deep space science, had to compete directly in the NSF with, say, AIDS research, or in NOAA with weather-related research, it would not do so well. Placed in competition with vastly less expensive laboratory and field research, relatively super-expensive space science missions (even the “cheap” ones) would almost certainly lose.
It is certainly possible to argue that this would be good, that we should not be “wasting” our money exploring the Solar System with either human or automated missions, but I doubt that is what any of us would want. I suspect this is a clear case of, be careful what you ask for!
As to the wider questions, Dr. Griffin made some very interesting comments quoted in an article by Brian Berger in the 20th February Space News. After reminding people that the science budget has not actually been cut, and that the original VSE proposal was actually cut before the science budget, he said,
“Why was it not considered cannibalizing when the science budget within NASA grew from 24 percent to 32 percent of the agency’s top line? When that was happening, no one complained and yet human spaceflight was suffering,” Griffin said. “But our contituency groups didn’t find a problem with that.”
[Rep. Bart Gordon], who like other committee members has heard plenty in recent weeks from people unhappy with NASA’s budget [said], “That may tell you something . . . they are complaining now.”
“Touche,” replied Griffin. “But I am complainiing. The human spaceflight porportion of our portfolio, as fully revealed in the wake of the loss of Columbia, has been damaged for three decades.”
— Donald
Donald,
The NSF does not control AIDS research, that is generally under the guise of the US Dept of Health and Human Services. The NSF does in fact controls all funding for ground based astronomy already and funds it at a level around $3.5B back in 2003 (last budget I saw stats for), which is a little more than astrophysics and planetary science combined ($3.1B) equal to.
As for NOAA, I think they could take Earth Science and Heliophysics under their wing no problem as both tend to deal with climate change and other weather related issues. Maybe by tieing climate change budget to weather budget it would get the attention it deserves.
Also, I am not saying that there will not be some overlap in issues such as Mars and humans. NASA already does cooperate with external agencies and I see no reason why it could not do so on issues such as these.
As for the budget cut vs. growth issue, this was brought up in the testimonies on science in that it is only due to accounting differences that science looks like it had any growth at all (the 24 to 32 percent). As all the panelists agreed, Science has been cut dramatically.
Thanks, Ryan,
First, thanks for the correction re. AIDS research. Comes from writing too fast. As I stated on your earlier post, you half-convinced me that moving space science out of NASA would work. And, as I stated, if it’s what scientists really want, I would have no problem with that, so long as there is no reduction in the human exploration effort.
However, I find your figures very interesting in that we’re spending circa $6.6 billion on automated astronomy (in the broad sense of the word) and remote observation. That seems rather a lot for what is, for the most part, a rather accademic field. Human spaceflight could, eventually, lead to practical applications (vastly more efficient science the the planets where it is possible to send geologists; tourism in the near term; trade in raw materials and finished products in the long term; and human experiences that feed back to the culture at large in all terms.) As an ideal, it does not seem too much to spend as much on the VSE as we do on robots and remote observations.
— Donald
The NSF does in fact controls all funding for ground based astronomy already and funds it at a level around $3.5B back in 2003 (last budget I saw stats for), which is a little more than astrophysics and planetary science combined ($3.1B) equal to.
Astronomy in NSF is part of the Mathematical and Physical Sciences directorate. In 2003, that directorate received $1.0344B (see here for the final appropriation for FY 2003). I don’t know where you got that $3.5B figure.
Paul, thanx for the correction. I was looking at total dollars given to FFRDC by years at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf04310/sectc.htm
They had $3.5B figure in there but I see when looking at the site you listed, only a certain portion of that went to actual astronomy. In 2006 budget, only $198.6 million went to Astronomy, $245.7 million tro materials science (mostly to nanotech which Ames Research does alot of using NASA dollars), and $709.1 million to geophysics science (atmosphereic, earth and ocean science).
Makes my case a bit weaker I suppose in terms of total dollars but not by much. If the NSF can manage a $5B budget in 2006, why can’t they manage a $8.6B budget?
Donald,
I agree with you in terms of human spaceflight though I’d argue science missions have a lot more practical applications. The only real commercial space currently is the comm and remote sensing sectors which benefit directly from spinoffs from the science missions.
I think NASA should continue to support humans and the engineering that goes with it. In fact if you follow my argument a bit, I believe that NASA should only be involved in human spaceflight. Leave science to the scientists with their own controlled agency that is largely run by peer-reviewed processes instead of at NASA where it is more dictated by politics. This would quit pitting science vs. humans.
Ryan: the interesting point is that ground based astronomy gets by on much less than space based astronomy. It’s not at all clear that if the astronomers had control (which, of course, they do not and will not) that money for astronomy would be divvied up with the same fraction going to space. Sure, there’s plenty you can only do from space, and HST has been the best justification found for the shuttle, but billions of dollars buys you a whole lot of mirror acreage down here.
There is a critical (and common) misconception in Jeff’s lead paragraphs here. JWST was never established as the top priority of the science community in the Decadal Report. It was the top priority among large-class missions. It is neglect of that fact, and neglect of the associated strong words about the importance of a balanced program, that has led to where the space astronomy plans are now. The question is whether one top priority large class mission should be able to kill off the highest priority medium and small class missions. The community does not believe that this was the intent of the Decadal study team, who took pains to keep these mission categories separate in their rankings.
The question of why so many NASA science programs suffer cost overruns is misguided. It’s a good question, but you can ask precisely the same question about the human space flight program and space hardware in general. What, you think DOD space missions hit their budget marks? LOL.
It is well understood that the cost basis of procurement for all space missions is seriously flawed, and the reason for it is not well understood. This was the subject of a high level plenary panel at the last AIAA meeting. There are always going to be missions that are costed responsibly, but any suggestion that those that are not are unique to space science isn’t defensible.
Hi folks,
Re: NSF and NASA astronomy. This is a deeper issue than it appears at first. You can only really do astronomy from the ground in the radio and optical spectrums… with a bit in the near-IR. With the exception of HST, none of the NASA astronomy missions are in these areas of the spectrum. Even HST has a UV capability that is beyond what you can do from the ground. So you can’t merely trade glass for glass – the biggest science questions in the field right now can’t be answered without a multi-wavelength approach – you need the deep IR, x-rays, gamma rays, etc.
Space missions are just inherently more expensive. It often takes years before an “operational” ground-based telescope reaches its research prime – people develop new instruments, fiddle with the optics, etc. etc. In space you mostly can’t evolve an observatory that way. This is on top of all the other difficulties of making a satellite which I don’t think I need to get into in this forum.
Finally, there is a real cultural difference between the NSF and NASA that is intangible, but has to be taken into account. NSF is built to best distribute grant money to individual scientists in the research community. NASA is built to best build and fly spacecraft. These are very different skills. It’s not to say that NSF doesn’t build anything, or that NASA doesn’t give out grants, but as I said in my piece it gets to the culture. In my opinion, NSF is totally incapable of building space observatories. It’s just a totally different skill and they would have no idea where to begin.
I think Paul makes my point rather well. Scientists who like to place experiments in space may well be skating on very thin ice when they propose to place their projects in direct competition with ground-based astronomy.
The fact is, non-terrestrial space science has no better or worse justification than human space exploration. Both are much more expensive than the alternative, but the former does (and the latter has in Apollo and almost certainly will) provide results that cannot possibly be obtained by the less expensive alternative.
The proper flow of events should be:
1). Relatively low cost remote observations from Earth.
2). More expensive automated reconnaissance which can provide close up, in situ, and ground truth observations that remote observations could never achieve (e.g., the discovery of oceans on Europa, which I believe only one scientist even suspected before Voyager, and the probable proof of standing water on Mars).
3). More expensive still human missions which can achieve the kind of detailed survey work that cannot effectively be automated. This includes absolute dates for every flow in a lava, or wind- or water-deposited, sequence. Or, detailed surveys of the transport and evolution of microfossils over time. Or, detailed geochemical measurements at many depths and over wide areas.
All three of these activities are necessary to understand any extraterrestrial body. All three can be done on Earth’s moon today, and on Mars and nearby asteroids in the immediately foreseeable future. However, to do number three, we must be laying the groundwork today, just as we laid the groundwork for automated interplanetary flight in the late 1950s and the 1960s.
The unfortunate reality is, since each step is vastly more expensive than the prior one, it makes no sense to place them in direct competition. If we financed science the way the automated space science crowd thinks they want, we would never do anything but remote observation from the ground. . . .
Of course, both automated and human spaceflight have applications going far beyond science, but my argument only deals with science.
— Donald
Brian: In space you mostly can’t evolve an observatory that way.
Isn’t that exactly what happened with Hubble? Keep in mind that Hubble is a first generation human-tended space telescope, and that it utilizes the expensive Shuttle infrastructure. If the VSE succeeds in bringing down the cost of human spaceflight, second generation human-tended facilities may begin to look more attractive. It is too early to say, but we should not automatically abandon this approach for all eternity just because the first attempt cost a lot more than expected, especially since it has proven worth much of the money. Nor should we make decisions today (e.g., abandoning human spaceflight) that would preclude this approach in the future.
— Donald
Donald – VSE isn’t being designed to bring down the cost of orbital transport down – yes it will probably bring it down somewhat, in comparison to the shuttle, (although even that is debateable), but it won’t be anywhere near the levels to make it cost effective putting humans into the loop. My suspicion is that COTS, if anything, has the potential to really reduce the cost to the levels where adding humans into the loop makes sense.
Seriously, though, I wish and think it would be better if Griffin would through it back into the lap of congress – We need to have a serious discussion about what is nasa’s primary missions, because I’d argue its the Robots vs Humans debate that underlines everything.
Ferris: VSE isn’t being designed to bring down the cost of orbital transport down
That’s true, particularly of Dr. Griffin’s plan (as opposed to the earlier plan to use the EELVs, avoiding development costs and creating economies of scale). However, the net effect probably will be significant reductions in transportation costs. Right now, we’re spending $5 billion a year on the Shuttle and not flying it. That makes $2 billion flights to the moon sound like a bargain!
I agree with you that COTS has the best chance of achieving significant reductions, but only if the Space Station (and a lunar base?) create a market. Most of the plans I’ve seen (e.g., the ones released today about SpaceX) look pretty conservative, much like the CVE. Nonetheless, a combination of competition, innovation, and eventual economies of scale could result in significantly lower costs with little further investment by NASA.
As costs come down, it becomes cheaper to produce more destinations which could result in the positive feedback that allows significant operations on the “new frontier.” It won’t happen as quickly as most of us hope, and there will undoubtedly be setbacks, but just as we are beginning to see a way forward would be singularly unfortunate time to give up.
— Donald
Donald: If the VSE succeeds in bringing down the cost of human spaceflight, second generation human-tended facilities may begin to look more attractive.
You are right that HST evolved, but at roughly the cost of a new space observatory each iteration. That’s one reason why the next generation of space observatories has been designed w/o servicing. The other big reason is location. The LEO environment just has too many drawbacks – you have to go to L2. There is no way of getting a crewed servicing mission to L2 on the timescale we are talking about for this generation of missions, and I do not believe it makes sense to chain the development of space science missions to the next transportation system… otherwise this new generation would be designed for servicing by the OSP or X-34 or god knows what else. When we have a proven capability of getting people to the places where the best observatories will go, we can return to the Hubble model… but I don’t believe that will be inside the next 20 years.
This really shouldn’t be an either/or choice between robots and humans. I don’t see a fundamental conflict between the two approaches to space exploration – in fact, I believe they are quite complementary. They are placed in opposition purely because of budgetary necessity. This opposition doesn’t have to be to the death, however. I have every confidence we can muddle through, as we have for the past 30 years. It won’t be as clean or as lavish or as fast as we would like, but I believe we will get where we want eventually.
Brian, I emphatically agree with your last statement, and probably that the current generation of space observatories should be expendible. (Note, however, how much we are spending on the JWST for a short life; is it really all that much cheaper to throw this thing away, especially considering my next paragraph?)
However, note that the VSE architecture would, at least in theory, be capable of sending human crews out to L2. If that architecture comes about, and is adapted to near Earth asteroid missions, the infrastructure would be in place to service large space telescopes in deep space. At that point, it would be time to reconsider throwing away valuable and expensive instruments.
Also, there are many large instruments that would do just fine in low Earth orbit. Those should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
— Donald
(Note, however, how much we are spending on the JWST for a short life; is it really all that much cheaper to throw this thing away, especially considering my next paragraph?)
What fraction of what we’re spending on JWST is one-time R&D cost, including the cost of building jigs and test fixtures, and what fraction is the marginal cost of building and launching another copy?
Donald and Paul: It’s difficult to separate that out, as it is unlikely we would ever build another JWST unless something catastrophic happened to severely limit the mission’s life (i.e. a launch failure). I will say, though, that the JWST project makes the case that when you compare JW and HST in an apples-to-apples way, JW will cost the same as HST did before you begin to add in HST’s servicing costs. Also, built into the large JW number is the cost to operate it for ten years. I think most astronomers would agree that a ten year primary mission (which would hopefully be extended assuming the spacecraft is still operating) is a good return on this investment, even at its new cost.
I should have said in the piece and in my previous comments that I am purely speaking on my own and not for the NRC or the astronomers that I work with. I’m a space and science policy guy by training, and that’s the angle I’m coming from.
Brian – You are correct that the NSF issue is deep in terms of what the NSF is actually capable of doing. I would argue though that NASA has the wrong mindset to do it also inexpensively.
A problem here is still in how we think developing s/c. I’ve worked enough satellites to know that the biggest cost is the non-recurring engineering that goes into the s/c bus in addition to the instrument.
The problem I see is in large part is how we design s/c. If you built the same s/c bus over and over again in the 200 kg range with enough power for cryo (needed for far-IR wavelengths), you could get the recurring costs down to $10-$15M. Add another $10-$15M for developing the instrument and another $10-$15M for launch and operations for a year and you could easily fit the s/c total costs into the budget for NSF. For non-cryo you could even get it alot cheaper.
A good example of this is the science and astronomy that is performed wit the sounding rocket program. A program which NASA is also trying to cut which the panelists before congress voiced a lot of concern over.
The only other option besides the NSF is to create a seperate agency similar to the department of energy that is dedicated to space astronomy. Switch JPL and possibly Langely to that new agency.
> However, the net effect probably will be significant reductions in transportation costs. Right now, we’re
> spending $5 billion a year on the Shuttle and not flying it. That makes $2 billion flights to the moon
> sound like a bargain!
That’s a terribly biased argument. A fair comparison would be based on an equal number of flights, equal payload, or equal number of passengers.
There is no scenario in which it would cost less to launch N people on Shuttle-derived than it would on the Shuttle — regardless of the value of N.
The net effect of Shuttle-derived will be significant increases in transportation costs, significant reductions in the number of astraonsuts NASA can fly, or both.
> I agree with you that COTS has the best chance of achieving significant reductions, but only if
> the Space Station (and a lunar base?) create a market.
You can’t create a market, unless you buy in bulk. Three or four flights to ISS every year are not a significant market. To create a real market, flight rates need to go up so prices can go down.
“Minimizing the number of launches” does not create a market. It stifles it.
> Most of the plans I’ve seen (e.g., the ones released today about SpaceX) look pretty conservative,
> much like the CVE.
NASA offered a trivial market, so it got a trivial response. What did you expect?
No one’s going to develop a vehicle capable of daily flights just because NASA offers to buy a couple flights a year.
If NASA offered to buy propellant for VSE, many times a week, then someone might.
This is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
> Nonetheless, a combination of competition, innovation, and eventual
> economies of scale could result in significantly lower costs with little further investment by NASA.
No, not significantly lower. You can’t have economies of scale without scale. That means scaling the *flight rate* — not just building giant rockets you can only afford to launch a few times a year.
NASA’s mantra of “minimizing the number of launches” prevents costs from coming down significantly.
> As costs come down, it becomes cheaper to produce more destinations which could result
> in the positive feedback that allows significant operations on the “new frontier.” It won’t happen
> as quickly as most of us hope,
It won’t happen at all, as long as NASA insists on doing space the way Kennedy and Kruschev did it. There can’t be any positive feedback loop until you allow people to do things differently and launch often. As long as NASA continues trying to copy Project Apollo, it will continue down the same path to disappointment.
Costs will come down, Don, not as quickly as you hope, but *more* quickly than you hope. It’s already happening, with SpaceShip One being the first step.
The next few years will see the development of frequent, cheap access to space for commercial and military purposes — while NASA is stuck with the expensive, dangerous ELVs and capsules that the Old Guard insisted on building, despite everyone who tried to talk you out of it.
There was something interesting in the NASA budget numbers. It showed a cost for the CEV of $2.4 billion dollars per year through 2016. Now this obviously does not include lunar missions so it seems to me that they are spending $1.2 billion per mission to ISS.
How is this supposed to be cheaper than STS?
Dennis
Dennis – its not – the fact is, nasa can’t make the station work with CEV. If its forced to do station resupply – all we’ve got is another shuttle, because it will spend all of its money on station resupply. It *might* be able to make it work with COTS
With respect, Edward, I believe most of your arguments are beside the point. “Economies of scale” in the sense you mean them are not in the cards since there is no market large enought to justify developing a vehicle capable of daily spaceflights. Realistically (as opposed to what you may wish to believe), that is several generations of vehicles down the road. If we are ever to get to that vehicle, we must leverage the existing and potenial markets (comsats, etc., Space Station, and possibly a lunar base) to justify developing the next generation of vehicles. You are correct that this collection of markets cannot justify the vehicles you (and I) want, so we’re going to have to do it one incremental step at a time. Commercializing existing technology, and modest improvements thereon, is achievable with the markets, technology, and politics we are stuck with, and it is a step (admittedly a modest step) toward our goals, therefore it is what we should do.
Edward: There is no scenario in which it would cost less to launch N people on Shuttle-derived than it would on the Shuttle — regardless of the value of N.
Are you saying that not lifting the dead weight of the Shuttle orbiter and its wings, and foregoing all the refurbishment, would not result in reduced costs? I’m not an engineer, but I find that hard to believe.
— Donald
Are you saying that not lifting the dead weight of the Shuttle orbiter and its wings, and foregoing all the refurbishment, would not result in reduced costs?
We won’t be foregoing all the refurbishment, because it’s likely that CEV will be somewhat reusable, but if you think that refurbishment is expensive, you should try throwing the hardware away.
And even if it was lower cost on the margin, it won’t be when you take into account the huge up-front investment in it that must be amortized. No, CEV will not save us any money. It will only allow us to go to the moon for the same cost that it currently requires to go to LEO, with fewer people, and (perhaps) reduced risk of killing them. It’s a tragedy, really.
Donald: “That’s true, particularly of Dr. Griffin’s plan (as opposed to the earlier plan to use the EELVs, avoiding development costs and creating economies of scale).”
Donald, have you had a chance to see Dr. Doug Stanley’s presentation of the ESAS trade studies?
You can download a video of his almost 1.5 hour presentation here:
http://www.nianet.org/seminarscolloquia/stanley_111405.php
If you have a problem downloading it contact me via email, I’ll get you a copy.
Rand: It will only allow us to go to the moon for the same cost that it currently requires to go to LEO, with fewer people, and (perhaps) reduced risk of killing them.
Getting to Earth’s moon for the same cost it currently takes to get to LEO strikes me as a pretty good deal! Seriously, what do you want? Without a huge up-front investment that isn’t in the political or financial cards, the choices were using the EELVs, or Shuttle derived vehicles, or staying at home and continuing to throw money at technological play pens in the hopes of dramatically reduced costs in some distant future. While I preferred the first strategy, I still maintain that there were very few options.
Rather than criticize the current plan — since fratricide is a far greater risk to the VSE than any technological issue — we should be trying to figure out ways to use it to get us where we do want to go. At the end of the road, we may have a Space Station and a lunar base, both of which will need large (and growing) volumes of supplies. We need to figure out how to leverage those markets into a new generation of transportation.
— Donald
Thanks, Cecil, I’ll take a look on my home computer.
— Donald
> With respect, Edward, I believe most of your arguments are beside the point.
> “Economies of scale” in the sense you mean them are not in the cards since
> there is no market large enought to justify developing a vehicle capable of
> daily spaceflights.
Donald, just saying that does not make it true.
Launching propellant for VSE would be a market large enough to justify daily flights *if* NASA adopted an open architecture that could accept such deliveries.
Mike Griffin refused to consider such an architecture. NASA has no market large enough to justify daily flights because Griffin *chose not* to create such a market.
Second, commercial human spaceflight — “space tourism,” if you must — is a market large enough to justify many flights per day.
It may not be as “PC” as Griffin’s historical reenactments, but it is a much more promising market.
Third, military spaceflight is a market that can support many hundreds of sorties per year.
> If we are ever to get to that vehicle, we must leverage the existing and
> potenial markets (comsats, etc., Space Station, and possibly a
> lunar base) to justify developing the next generation of vehicles.
Again, Mike Griffin deliberately designed the lunar architecture to “minimize the number of launches” — i.e., to ensure that there *won’t* be any significant market. That’s just the opposite of what you claim to want. Yet, you think NASA should be rewarded for it?
Comsats, ISS, and ISS 2 on the Moon are not the only existing and potential markets. Human spaceflight (commercial and military) is a much larger potential market. You’re asking us to take hundreds billions of dollars and piss them away doing Apollo on Steroids, instead of developing real markets.
Why would we want to do such a thing?
> Are you saying that not lifting the dead weight of the Shuttle orbiter
> and its wings, and foregoing all the refurbishment, would not result
> in reduced costs? I’m not an engineer, but I find that hard to believe.
You’re relying on soundbites. The “dead weight of the wings” is about 15% of the vehicle dry weight. Wings would add only 15% to the launch cost *if* the cost per pound was fixed and immutable. It isn’t.
Likewise, the soundbite about “foregoing the cost of refurbishment” assumes that building new hardware for every mission is very cheap. Again, it isn’t.
If you think CEV is going to save money, then please tell me — why is the NASA budget going up while the number of projected flights is going down?
Spending more money is not “saving” money. Even Mike Griffin isn’t making that claim.
Ryan: My guess is that most space scientists would strongly favor the (improbable) “new space science agency” over being thrown into the general-science pool… and failing that, would prefer the status quo.
As much as they may feel like Cinderella at NASA, their ~$5.6B is a bit more than all of NSF. Put space science there, and it’s not just the 800-lb. gorilla vis-a-vis terestrial astronomy; it’s also a natural target for competition from oceanography, or geophysics, or systematics, or any of a dozen other fields that have never seen multi-hundred-million-dollar project budgets.
> Getting to Earth’s moon for the same cost it currently takes to get to
> LEO strikes me as a pretty good deal!
It isn’t the same cost. Again, you’re asking for a sustained increase in the NASA budget so NASA can send fewer people into space.
>Seriously, what do you want?
How about reducing the cost of getting into space?
Instead of spending more and more money to send fewer and fewer people further and further into space — until finally, you can afford to send no one at all — why not reduce costs so that large numbers of people can go to many desinations, both near and far?
> Without a huge up-front investment that isn’t in the political or financial
> cards, the choices were using the EELVs, or Shuttle derived vehicles, or
> staying at home and continuing to throw money at technological play pens in
> the hopes of dramatically reduced costs in some distant future.
Those are not the only choices. We can dramatically reduce costs in the near future. Projects like Clementine, DC-X, and SpaceShip One have shown that.
> Rather than criticize the current plan — since fratricide is a far greater
> risk to the VSE than any technological issue — we should be trying to figure out
> ways to use it to get us where we do want to go.
Because under your plan, Donald, “we” will never get to go anywhere. Space travel will become even more expensive and will waste hundreds of billions on another 40-year “Apollo cycle.”
> At the end of the road, we may have a Space Station and a lunar base,
> both of which will need large (and growing) volumes of supplies.
The volume of supplies required by ISS is quite small, and it will remain small unless there is some significant commercial development there (which isn’t part of NASA’s VSE). The supplies required by ISS 2 on the Moon will be equally small (apart from propellant, which NASA has already decided will be launched by Shuttle-derived).
Ed – I disagree any of those will get the economy of scales you are talking about.
Propellant depots are something I’ve done market studies on this during my day job. I looked at how these could be used for commsats and the market just isn’t going to be there sustainably for at least 10 years after a depot is launched.
So assume we start building a depot today to service satellites for GTO and manage to get it launched by 2012. The first problem you have is where do you place the damn thing. The majority of GEO launches happen at either Baikonaur, Sea Launch, KSC, or Korou. There is nowhere practical to put the depot to service all four launch locations. The plane changes alone would kill the benefits. So you can only service one spot at a single time, I’ll give you maybe 2 spots if you’re really creative and smart.
So given that typically 6-12 launches happen per launch site, you are talking about at best a market of 12-24 launches that could use your depot. Given the conservative nature of GEO users, you would probably have a very low adoption rate of these satellites being fitted to use the highly risky prospect of in-orbit refueling (not to mention insurance companies willing to underwrite you for doing this). On top of all this, not all spacecraft use the same type of fuel (i.e. hypergolics, LOX/LH2, LOX/Methane, Xenon, you name it). There are also inherent risks here in terms of rendezvous, docking and propellant transfers (especially for fuels that need cryo)
So least be HIGHly optimistic and say you can claim 10% market share of all launches. We are talking what, 1-2 customers per year?
So what about for VSE you ask? I’d need to see hard market numbers on the fuel ultimately picked by the CEV before I can realistically do an estimate on fuel needs. For a true business market to exist, it would need to be in excess of 300,000 kg of fuel needed per year before a business case can be made. And that is assuming launch costs around $1,000/kg.
I won’t even argue space tourism as that is a pie in the sky market right now and the market potential is totally based on religious faith.
As for the military, there may be a market in LEO for it eventually. The problem here is one of orbits though. For it to make sense, these sats would have to all dock with the depot for refueling and therefore have enough fuel to get to whatever altitude and orbital plane the depot is at. This could theoretically be possible but it would also be a tough sell in the national security detail b/c now our enemy states can more easily track our spy sats by seeing what docks with the depot. Also, we have again the problem here that all the sats would need to use the same fuel.
As for the impact of reducing the cost to space will have. I highly suggest you read the NASA ASCENT Study that Futron put out in 2003. It is very enlightening on which markets are actually impacted by launch costs.
Propellant depots are something I’ve done market studies on this during my day job. I looked at how these could be used for commsats and the market just isn’t going to be there sustainably for at least 10 years after a depot is launched.
No one was talking about propellant depots to support comsats. Where in the world did you get that?
As for “hard market numbers” for propellant (not “fuel”) requirements for VSE, just look at the ESAS report. It’s large amounts of LOX/hydrogen (which could be produced from water delivered to orbit).
Sheesh.
For a true business market to exist, it would need to be in excess of 300,000 kg of fuel needed per year before a business case can be made. And that is assuming launch costs around $1,000/kg.
That’s an interesting number, for one pulled entirely out of the air.
> Propellant depots are something I’ve done market studies on this during my day job. I looked at
> how these could be used for commsats
Why did you choose such an obviously unpromising market?
> I won’t even argue space tourism as that is a pie in the sky market right now and the market potential
> is totally based on religious faith.
If you don’t understand the difference between marketing data and religious faith, it’s your loss. Employees in sunset industries often dismiss new markets as “pie in the sky.”
> As for the military, there may be a market in LEO for it eventually. The problem here is one
> of orbits though. For it to make sense, these sats would have to all dock with the depot for refueling
I said nothing about “sats” — where did you get this obsession with satellites? You don’t need sats to deliver smart weapons or Marine Corps raiders anywhere in the world within 45 minutes, conduct single-pass recon missions over any point on Earth, counter enemy satellites, etc.
> and therefore have enough fuel to get to whatever altitude and orbital plane the depot is at.
It doesn’t need enough fuel to get anywhere, if you can launch a military spaceplane from Earth to refuel it — and refueling satellites is only one of many missions such spacecraft could perform.
> it would also be a tough sell in the national security detail b/c now our enemy states can more easily
> track our spy sats by seeing what docks with the depot.
There’s no need for spy satellites to dock with a depot. If you’re worried about enemies tracking US satellites, cheap launch offers a range of solutions to that problem — moving satellites to new orbits, launching low-cost decoys, and filling in the gaps between satellite passes.
> we have again the problem here that all the sats would need to use the same fuel.
Why do you think that? Cargo aircraft are able to transport a wide variety of fuels, from coal (during the Berlin airlift) to jet fuel. There’s no reason why spacecraft can’t be designed with similar flexibility.
> I highly suggest you read the NASA ASCENT Study that Futron put out in 2003.
I have read it — and spoken with some of the authors — but since ASCENT included human spaceflight, I have to wonder why you recommend a work that you think is “totally based on religious faith.”
Rand Simberg: it’s likely that CEV will be somewhat reusable
Definitely! Transparencies used in CEV talks can be washed with alcohol and reused in new CEV talks. Printed paper can also be recycled. Or, if NASA switches to PowerPoint presentations and PDF documents, reuse is even easier: You just erase the files on the laptops to free up disk space.
Ryan, regarding plane changes: The majority of GEO launches happen at either Baikonaur, Sea Launch, KSC, or Korou. There is nowhere practical to put the depot to service all four launch locations.
It would require an entirely new infrastructure, and so it won’t happen any time soon, but this could be solved by delivering the heaviest part of the fuel required, oxidizer, from Earth’s moon. Mine oxygen, store at point of use (GEO, LEO, etc.), and use it as oxidizer for propulsion, and as one of the heaviest expendables needed by any human facility. This won’t be a market in our generation, but it could well be one a few decades down the road.
— Donald
> The majority of GEO launches happen at either Baikonaur, Sea Launch, KSC,
> or Korou. There is nowhere practical to put the depot to service all
> four launch locations.
> It would require an entirely new infrastructure, and so it
> won’t happen any time soon,
We weren’t talking about GEO, Donald. You and Ryan have built a strawman to argue against. Are the real arguments are too tough for you?
> this could be solved by delivering the heaviest part of the fuel
> required, oxidizer, from Earth’s moon.
That depends entirely *how much it costs* to deliver oxidizer from the Moon. That, in turn, depends on how much it costs to deliver equipment and personal *to* the Moon. By making Earth-Moon transportation super-expensive, you don’t make lunar resources more competition. You make economic resource extraction *impossible*.
All of your arguments, even the strawmen, reinforce my point. Despite handwaving claims that Apollo on Steroids will somehow lead to reduced costs in the far distant future, NASA is not interested in anything that would lead to significant cost reductions in our lifetimes. NASA, and its cheerleaders, won’t even *consider* lower-cost alternatives.
Yet, having slammed the door in our faces, you turn around and say we must support huge budget increases for your programs because you have the one true way? Have you no shame, Donald?
Edward, I don’t claim to have the “one true way,” that sounds rather more like your argument. What I do say is that, if the alt.space crowd really can dramatically reduce the cost of access, there is very little now standing in their way and more power to them. I suspect that they can, but also that it will take longer than they (or we) would wish (witness SpaceX).
If “Apollo on Steroids” really is as expensive and useless as you predict, than it’s hardly going to interfere with any market for access to orbit. If the market is there, and you can produce the goods, you should do fine.
I know you weren’t talking about GEO; I was. That’s one of the few proven markets. The Space Station (including orbital tourism) is the other. Ironically, suborbital tourism is not yet a proven market. While I am not a business person in this sense, it is my understanding that good business plans usually start with proven markets, then expand to more speculative ones.
— Donald
…it is my understanding that good business plans usually start with proven markets, then expand to more speculative ones.
Good, low-risk business plans do that. Good high-payoff (but also higher-risk) business plans satisfy a market that appears to be there, but is currently unsatisfied. Different investors have different risk/reward criteria. There’s generally something for everyone, but it’s clear that, economically, no existing market can justify the large investments required to drop costs.
> I don’t claim to have the “one true way,”
Donald, you need to go back and read your own posts. e.g.: “Rather than criticize the current plan — since fratricide is a far greater risk to the VSE than any technological issue — we should be trying to figure out ways to use it to get us where we do want to go.”
VSE is not the one true way, but everyone should support it and no one is allowed to criticize it???
> that sounds rather more like your argument.
Hm. I mention *several* alternatives — and that sounds like “one true way” to you? Are you using “new math,” Donald?
> If “Apollo on Steroids” really is as expensive and useless as you predict,
> than it’s hardly going to interfere with any market for access to orbit.
What evidence do you have for that statement?
The first Apollo program helped kill off Dyna-Soar, the orbital X-15, Reusable Atlas, the Air Force lifting bodies, etc. It set the development of reusable spacecraft back 30-40 years.
Now, we have a new Apollo program, supported by a propoganda program that says it’s impossible to reduce launch costs with current technology and we must rely on ELVs and capsules for another 40 years. How is that not interfering?
You want to take away billions of dollars in potential government launch business off the market and use the money to subsidize development of new government ELVs instead. How is that “not interfering” with the market?
> Ironically, suborbital tourism is not yet a proven market.
That argument is inane. People are putting down hard money for suborbital flights, right now. The existance of paying customers not only proves the existance of a market, it’s the only thing than can prove its existance.
> it is my understanding that good business plans usually start with proven
> markets, then expand to more speculative ones.
Not when the “proven market” is proveably too small to justify the costs involved. You would continue investing in buggy whips because automobiles are “speculative.”
That’s fine, if that’s the way you want to spend your money, but you’re asking the taxpayers to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to develop Buggy Whips on Steroids. That requires something more than just your belief that buggy whips are a proven market. “Past performance is not a guarantee of future returns.”
How about a cost-benefit analysis? Tell us why Apollo on Steroids is a better investment than anything else that might be done with the same money. Returning NASA astronauts the Moon with existing Delta and Atlas rockets, for example. Sponsoring large space-exploration prizes, as suggested by Sam Brownback, Newt Gingrich, et. al. Developing and deploying military spacesplanes. Or all of the above?
Back to the topic which is JWST and big science overruns.
Most people forget that the original goal of the JWST program was that it would cost no more than $1 billion dollars. The original contract with Northrup was $987 million.
Now they are talking about a $1 billion overrun as not being that much on a program that was already $2.5 billion dollars over budget.
Even Ed can do the math on that equation.
Dennis
Edword: Returning NASA astronauts the Moon with existing Delta and Atlas rockets
That has always been my preferred strategy. That was not the decision that was made. Trying to change the decision now will only create the kind of disasterous indecision that led us to today’s Space Station, or kill the program all together. To succeed, we have to pick a strategy and stick to it. The strategy that was picked is far from perfect, but if we want to succeed we have to stick to it.
Sponsoring large space-exploration prizes, as suggested by Sam Brownback, Newt Gingrich, et. al. Developing and deploying military spacesplanes. Or all of the above?
Bt all means. Most on your list, and many more, are being funded. None of them are precluded by persuing the VSE, especially if the markets that you claim exist. To succeed, we have to send people to the planets to create long-term markets in addition to all the other activities. If there is any lesson of the last sixty years it is that doing one or the other does not work. You need pull (far-off bases) as well as push (launch vehicle development).
The first Apollo program helped kill off Dyna-Soar, the orbital X-15, Reusable Atlas, the Air Force lifting bodies, etc. It set the development of reusable spacecraft back 30-40 years.
I think you need to provide some evidence. The Viet Nam war did far more to kill these than the existance of Apollo. Today, if the United States backs off from human spaceflight, the reason if far more likely to be found in the White House and Iraq than in NASA.
People are putting down hard money for suborbital flights, right now. The existance of paying customers not only proves the existance of a market, it’s the only thing than can prove its existance.
If that is fully true (and I agree that it probably is), than we’re all sitting pretty. Virgin Galactic and Scaled Composites are proving that you have no need of government money and the VSE is quite beside the point.
— Donald
To succeed, we have to pick a strategy and stick to it. The strategy that was picked is far from perfect, but if we want to succeed we have to stick to it.
That may be a necessary condition (I sure hope not, but it’s hardly a sufficient one. Picking a fatally flawed strategy and sticking to it can lead to disaster (as Shuttle/station demonstrated). Thelma and Louise had a strategy, and they stuck to it.
> Returning NASA astronauts the Moon with existing Delta and Atlas rockets
> That has always been my preferred strategy. That was not the decision that
> was made.
So, you’re such a good Democraft that you automatically support whatever decision a Republican makes?
> Trying to change the decision now will only create the kind of
> disasterous indecision that led us to today’s Space Station, or kill the
> program all together.
Again, you set up a false dichotomy. Those are not the only two possible outcomes.
Even if they were, I don’t see why cancelling a bad program is worse than continuing it.
> To succeed, we have to pick a strategy and stick to it.
Got a strategy, Don. Reduce the cost of access to space, as quickly as possible, as soon as possible. I’m sticking to it.
You’re asking me to give it up and support NASA’s strategy of making space transportation more expensive. Not gonna do it.
>> Sponsoring large space-exploration prizes, as suggested by Sam Brownback,
>> Newt Gingrich, et. al. Developing and deploying military spacesplanes.
>> Or all of the above?
> Most on your list, and many more, are being funded.
Huh??? The government is developing and deploying military spaceplanes? Offering a $500 million prize for orbital spaceflight? $1 billion for the next American on the Moon?
In what universe is this taking place?
>> To succeed, we have to send people to the planets to create long-term
>> markets in addition to all the other activities
We will send people to the planets, when we have transportation systems that allow us to do so first. Why obsess with sending humans to the Moon, Mars, and Alpha Centauri when we don’t even have an adequate means of getting to orbit?
>> The first Apollo program helped kill off Dyna-Soar, the orbital X-15,
>> Reusable Atlas, the Air Force lifting bodies, etc. It set the development
>> of reusable spacecraft back 30-40 years.
> I think you need to provide some evidence. The Viet Nam war did far more
> to kill these than the existance of Apollo.
How’s that? It was Kennedy and Johnson who chose to spend it the space budget on Apollo instead of those other things. What did the Vietnamese have to do with it?
> Today, if the United States backs off from human spaceflight, the reason
> if far more likely to be found in the White House and Iraq than in NASA.
If? Don, NASA *is* backing off from human spaceflight. They plan to replace the Shuttle with new systems that will allow fewer NASA astronauts to go into space — and that’s a decision you support.
What does that have to do with the Iraq War?
How is the war causing Bush to endorse Apollo on Steroids instead of military spaceplanes? Please explain it to me.
> Virgin Galactic and Scaled Composites are proving that you have no
> need of government money and the VSE is quite beside the point.
So, why is politically incorrect to criticize NASA for spending hundreds of billions on something you admit is “quite beside the point”???
Donald – actually, it was Mercury (and so argueably by extention Apollo) that killed Dynasoar and Orbital X-15. The Dynasoar was killed in 63, well before the Vietnam war.
The Orbital X-15 really only had a chance by going up against mercury, and after the Capsule selection, an orbital X-15 was never gonna happen
As far as VSE precluding other options being pursued on the government side, actually, its quite arguable that VSE is limiting those options, since VSE is taking a large chunk, in fact most, of the money that the US government is spending on space. For example, pulling some of the money out of VSE could fund the Space Prize bill proposed at ProSpace this year (mind you, not all, just some). And in fact, the Centinial Challenges were cut from 35 million to 10 million.
I think the underlying point is this – if what we are really after is some sort of colonization, will VSE actually help it, or will it pull valuable resources away from working towards this goal? In my mind, it wastes more resources than anything it might provide.
Rand Simberg: Picking a fatally flawed strategy and sticking to it can lead to disaster.
That is a very wise statement about “optimism”, “vision”, “resolve”, and giant government efforts in general. Many people have said it about the war in Iraq, as well as the space shuttle and the space station.
Many people have said it about the war in Iraq, as well as the space shuttle and the space station.
So? Many people have said many foolish things. Just because “many people” think that the war in Iraq is a bad idea, doesn’t make it so. I’d think that a math professor would be better at logic than that, not that it’s in any way on topic for this web site. How about taking it to one where it is?
Rand: The germane point is that many lessons of space politics are in fact universal lessons of politics. Whether or not you are persuaded that the war in Iraq is a valid example, there are many cases other than the space station in which the government attempts to win at any cost, despite a fatally flawed strategy.
Greg: That is a very wise statement about “optimism”, “vision”, “resolve”, and giant government efforts in general.
Do you drive on anything but local roads? Do you fly? If so, you cannot honestly believe that “giant government efforts in general” are always a bad idea.
(For the record, I do not drive and I think the highway and freeway projects were, in general, a far worse idea than the Space Station. However, I do fly, and I’m very glad that the government developed, subsidized, and encouraged that industry.)
— Donald
> For the record, I do not drive… However, I do fly,
You can’t drive a car but you fly a plane??
Or do you mean you “fly” as a passenger? If so, I fail to see how that gives you any special expertise on the aviation industry.
> I’m very glad that the government developed, subsidized, and encouraged that industry.)
But Donald, the government did NOT subsidize and encourage the aviation the way you think NASA should “subsidize and encourage” space. The NACA did not build National Airplanes to carry NACA aeronauts on trips. The NACA did basic research on aeronautics so that *private industry* and *the military* could develop airplanes. The very research Griffin is slashing to pay for VSE.
The government also hired private companies to carry government air mail. The NACA administrator did not object to private industry being “in the critical path” of aviation. If he had, Roosevelt would have fired him on the spot. Everyone knew the NACA existed to support industry — not vice versa, as Griffin assumes.
If you accept the NACA/air-mail model was successful for aviation, why do you insist that space policy must follow the Apollo model — a model that’s produced less progress in 40 years than the aviation made in a single decade?
(For the record, I do not drive and I think the highway and freeway projects were, in general, a far worse idea than the Space Station. However, I do fly, and I’m very glad that the government developed, subsidized, and encouraged that industry.)
So, you only support government programs that benefit you personally? Seems kind of selfish to me, for a self-proclaimed liberal.
Rand: I did not say that, though I can see how you could read that in what I did say. In general, I think point-to-point transit and compact efficient cities are good ideas, and the aviation system encourages that. I think hugely inefficient spread-out communities that require everyone to spend hours and buckets of energy on every trip are a bad idea. But that is too far off-topic and I’ll discontinue this discussion here.
— Donald
Edward: The development of air travel, and space travel, are and must be very different. In the former, the destination almost always existed. In the latter, the destination must be created from scratch. The development of deep sea-going travel, and the human expansion across our globe, are much better models than aviation.
— Donald
> The development of air travel, and space travel, are and must be very different.
They have been, up to now. That does not mean they “must” be.
Those who think the future must look just like the past are certain to be wrong.
> In the former, the destination almost always existed. In the latter,
> the destination must be created from scratch.
The main destination (space) already exists. It cannot be created or destroyed by man.
Other destinations exist, also. The US military does not have to create terrorist strongholds before it can attack them with military spaceplanes. Federal Express does not have to create Tokyo or Hong Kong before it can deliver overnight or same-day packages with suborbital transports.
If you mean that ISS is the only desination, well, it isn’t, and even if it was, building ISS would be much easier with cheap, reliable, on-demand space transportation. The fixation on expensive, unreliable Shuttle-derived ELVs is counterproductive to your stated aims.
> The development of deep sea-going travel, and the human expansion across
> our globe, are much better models than aviation.
Neither of those was accomplished by a socialist centrally planned Apollo program. There is only one example of an Apollo program you can point to — Kennedy’s Apollo program — and that program utterly failed to open the frontier.
Yet, you still remain closed-minded and refuse to even consider any alternative. Why?
How many times must the US try to repeat Apollo before you believe it’s PC to consider some other space policy?
For those who pooh-pooh military markets, the Pentagon is preparing to spend $503 million to convert Trident missiles to carry conventional warheads.
Military spaceplanes could perform the same mission from CONUS, eliminating the cost of forward-deployed submarines.
With this budget request, global hyperstrike is already larger than the $500 million NASA is promising to spend on COTS — and it’s going to grow larger in the future.
http://www.dod.mil/news/Mar2006/20060309_4439.html
Ed, I gotta take issue with at least 2 of your points.
First, claiming space as a destination really doesn’t make sense, unless your just looking at the tourist market, and even there, people have said they’d prefer a station, or something like that. Alternatively, I imagine many would like the option of going to a planarty body, but in the near term, its a few years off
As far as the military market, 2 problems with that – the more you tieing yourself into the military, the more problems you would (at least potentially as I see it) open yourself up for regqaurding ITAR. So that may limit your future prospects to being just a defense contractor
Finally, I am not entirely thrilled with the concept of space warfare, which is what they would like to start considering (I ain’t Bruce Gagnon, and in fact was at March Storm – doesn’t mean I really like the idea of space weaponization)
First, claiming space as a destination really doesn’t make sense, unless your just looking at the tourist market, and even there, people have said they’d prefer a station, or something like that.
The tourist market is currently the biggest one, at least potentially, even without an orbital hotel. The latter simply makes it all the larger.
> people have said they’d prefer a station
There’s nothing stopping people from building stations, once costs go down. Neither ISS nor VSE is a prerequisite for that.
> Finally, I am not entirely thrilled with the concept of space warfare, which is what they would
> like to start considering (I ain’t Bruce Gagnon, and in fact was at March Storm – doesn’t mean I
> really like the idea of space weaponization)
Space was weaponized by Von Braun in 1944 (and remember the scum bag he was working for at the time).
ProSpace wants to have it both ways — asking the military to do research without supporting any military applications of that research.
I ain’t Bruce Gagnon, and I ain’t ProSpace. I support the US military, and I have zero problem with using space to “reach out and touch someone.”
This is for Rand and Ed
–
I aint saying the market for tourism isn’t there. But if you want anything other than Up and Back suborbital hops, you either need a large scale craft for people to “spread out” and enjoy space, or you need an orbital station. I am not saying that the suborbital market isn’t there – thats a huge market, and I have great hopes for it – all I am saying is, claiming “space is the destination” doesn’t work beyond the sub-orbital phase.
I have to wonder how much interest there would really be for people to just fly on a soyuz to orbit, and not spend time at ISS – Soyuz is rather cramped, and as I said, people want to be able to spread out for a few days and enjoy it.
–
This is just for Ed
–
And as far as Prospace not supporting it, you weren’t there and weren’t paying attention – I said I wasn’t thrilled with it. ProSpace very much supports the military to use Operational Responsive Space – however, there are certain things you don’t bring up because its guarenteed to piss people off. Space Weaponization is one of those topics. Mentioning it will stop the conversation dead in its tracks with many people. In those cases, you simply say “Spysats and other classified payloads”
And as far as my own personal reasons – I have em, and this is way off topic, so we’ll have to save this debate for another day.
> you either need a large scale craft for people to “spread out” and enjoy space, or you need an orbital station.
That all depends. For some types of flights, space to spread out may not even be desirable. The Gemini astronauts never became spacesick, because they didn’t have space to spread out. The Apollo astronauts did.
> ProSpace very much supports the military to use Operational Responsive Space – however, there are
> certain things you don’t bring up because its guarenteed to piss people off. Space Weaponization is
> one of those topics.
Yes, if I was Osama bin Laden, I would be very pissed off about it. Imagine trying to get a good night’s sleep when there’s no place in the world a Special Forces team can’t be in 40 minutes.
>>That all depends. For some types of flights, space to spread out may not even be desirable. The Gemini >>astronauts never became spacesick, because they didn’t have space to spread out. The Apollo astronauts >>did.
The thing is Ed, we are talking about tourists. Yes, for certain spaceflight, you don’t want/need to spread out. But, I am betting that tourist flights are the type of flight where people will want to spread out. Or rather, when a tourist is in orbit, they will want to spread out.
Show me a market study that shows people would really consider spending large amounts of money to fly into space in nothing more than a Gemini capsule, spending days, or possibly even weeks, in that capsule, just orbiting earth, and then returning in that capsule.
Its a question of experinces – simply orbiting earth in Gemini capsule is cool, but to really tap into a market, you’d need a larger craft or a station.
Ferris: orbiting earth in Gemini capsule is cool, but to really tap into a market, you’d need a larger craft or a station.
I’m not sure I agree with you on this, Ferris. In the long term, you are undoubtedly correct, but it’s going to be a while before your grandmother or average cruise ship passenger will be flying to orbit. In the near term, it’s going to be the type of adventurer who is willing to take on some personal risk and discomfort. For them, I think it’s more important to keep costs as low as possible.
However, government bases are still vital at the edge (today, that’s the moon). That’s how you get the transportation that tourists will use.
Look at what’s happened today. The only operational tourist vessel is the Soyuz, which was developed first to fly to the moon and then adapted to support Salyuts. It was then adapted for tourist use. Beyond suborbital flight, I expect much the same to happen in the future.
— Donald
Show me a market study that shows people would really consider spending large amounts of money to fly into space in nothing more than a Gemini capsule, spending days, or possibly even weeks, in that capsule, just orbiting earth, and then returning in that capsule.
Show me another strawman. That one’s not even worth responding to. Initial orbital tourism experiences, whatever the vehicle looks like, will be brief. Longer stays will await the construction of hotels (which will come quickly once the cost of access comes down). This is in fact Bigelow’s business plan.
The only operational tourist vessel is the Soyuz, which was developed first to fly to the moon and then adapted to support Salyuts. It was then adapted for tourist use. Beyond suborbital flight, I expect much the same to happen in the future.
I don’t. I think that vehicles will be custom built for tourists, and then NASA will eventually be compelled to use them.
> Show me a market study that shows people would really consider spending
> large amounts of money to fly into space in nothing more than a Gemini
> capsule,
Pete Conrad wanted to take a Gemini capsule to the Moon. I’m sure he wasn’t the only one who would do it.
Hundreds of people spend large amounts of money to travel to Russia every year to fly MiGs. Ever try to spread out in a MiG?
> spending days, or possibly even weeks, in that capsule, just orbiting earth
If all you’re going to do is orbit the Earth, you don’t need to stay up for days or weeks.
> Its a question of experinces – simply orbiting earth in Gemini capsule is cool,
> but to really tap into a market, you’d need a larger craft or a station.
What’s your point?
Griffin isn’t interesting in developing cool experiences for anyone but NASA astronauts. He’s doing nothing to support the development of such craft at a price point that’s affordable to mortal men.
As for the station, ISS *might* be a suitable prototype for early travellers *if* Griffin would allow frequent, regular visits. He’s not allowing it. NASA’s pulling that “ISS can support no more than 12 visits per year” crap.
Griffin won’t even stand up to support Centennial Challenges and aeronautical research.
Contrary to the fanboys, NASA isn’t doing squat to help the rest of us get into space.
Rand, I stand by my statement. Existing operational vehicles are likely to be used first. Once the market is proven (e.g., to the moon), these vessels will be modified to better serve tourist use. Only then will new vehicles be built from scratch.
Thus, once CEVs (or, more likely, the Russian equivalent, since they will be hungrier) are flying regularly to the moon, the odd tourist might tag along, especially if these eventually become commercially operated. Then, you’ll see a tourist-optimized CEV. Then, you’ll see a clean sheet design. This requires the lowest up-front costs by the tourist operator, therefore it’s the most likely route.
Is there anyone out there who can cough up $2 billion for a flight to the moon? Probably not many, at first, but the cost of operating the CEV should come modestly down over time, and there may be more billionaires in the future.
The only place I expect this to be different is with suborbital tourism since there are no existing vehicles. (Though note that the next-best thing is flying tourists in military fighters, which did happen before suborbital vehicles started to be developed.)
— Donald
Donald
I’m not sure I agree with you on this, Ferris. In the long term, you are undoubtedly correct, but it’s going to be a while before your grandmother or average cruise ship passenger will be flying to orbit. In the near term, it’s going to be the type of adventurer who is willing to take on some personal risk and discomfort. For them, I think it’s more important to keep costs as low as possible.
I tend to disagree with you on your timeline – my suspicion is that once costs start coming down, they will come down fast.
Rand
Show me another strawman. That one’s not even worth responding to. Initial orbital tourism experiences, whatever the vehicle looks like, will be brief. Longer stays will await the construction of hotels (which will come quickly once the cost of access comes down). This is in fact Bigelow’s business plan.
I disagree. My suspicion is that we will have either larger craft, or stations/hotels in short order. Lets take the SpaceX dragon – thats a 7 passanger ship – It looks rather cozy to me. I don’t believe that they could make that craft be feasable as some sort of tourist craft with 7 people. 4, I could see. And as far as Bigelow’s plan, I am in agreement with it, and agree with you. What I am saying is that my personal suspicion is such that we can get costs down, right now, already, to make a hotel make sense. My point is that the speed of lower cost to orbit will happen with such vigor that when we start talking about a mass market orbital travel, the hotels will go up in short order. In fact, I suspect that the money would work out better if you do a station first.
Ed
Pete Conrad wanted to take a Gemini capsule to the Moon. I’m sure he wasn’t the only one who would do it.
Hundreds of people spend large amounts of money to travel to Russia every year to fly MiGs. Ever try to spread out in a MiG?
With going to the moon, you’ve got a clear destination there, again.
As far as MIGs, they are in there for not a long time (I’m gonna be extremely high, and say 6 hours max per flight) You are talking about spending days, and possibly even weeks.
What’s your point?
Griffin isn’t interesting in developing cool experiences for anyone but NASA astronauts. He’s doing nothing to support the development of such craft at a price point that’s affordable to mortal men.
As for the station, ISS *might* be a suitable prototype for early travellers *if* Griffin would allow frequent, regular visits. He’s not allowing it. NASA’s pulling that “ISS can support no more than 12 visits per year” crap.
Griffin won’t even stand up to support Centennial Challenges and aeronautical research.
Contrary to the fanboys, NASA isn’t doing squat to help the rest of us get into space.
Of that you won’t get any disagreement from me. I don’t think Griffin is as bad as O’keefe, but don’t expect Nasa, under Griffin, to start colonization. And thats what I want – colonization in the next 20 years. Aside from Space Weaponization, I am in quite a bit of agreement with you reguarding space privatization. All I am saying is, claiming “Space” as a destination isn’t doing you any real favors beyond sub-orbital.
Donald
Is there anyone out there who can cough up $2 billion for a flight to the moon? Probably not many, at first, but the cost of operating the CEV should come modestly down over time, and there may be more billionaires in the future.
But thats assuming it has to be 2 billion per flight. We’ve already got a serious offer from Space Adventures allowing for a moon trip for 100 million (yes, I know you don’t even orbit the moon, but it still counts for something). SpaceDev ran a study that showed that we could get to the moon much cheaper than with CEV. And there were some back of the envelope calculations done that argue that SpaceX’s Dragon could do a circumlunar mission for a cheaper amount. http://selenianboondocks.blogspot.com/
CEV won’t get us colonization in 20-30 years, and thats what I am after
I should add – I don’t think SpaceX could make a 7 passager dragon a good tourist trip by itself – if it were a taxi to a station, or something like that, thats fine, but by itself at 7 people, I think it’d prove to be a non-starter.
> it’s going to be a while before your grandmother or average
> cruise ship passenger will be flying to orbit. In the near term, it’s
> going to be the type of adventurer who is willing to take on some
> personal risk and discomfort.
You don’t think a grandmother could do that? Like Shannon Lucid, for example??
If you looked, you could probably find a 40-year-old grandmother flying fighter planes in a combat squadron. Someone who says he doesn’t drive a car ought to be careful about throwing bricks at grandmothers.
> However, government bases are still vital at the edge (today, that’s the moon).
Even if that were true — and you still haven’t explained *why* government bases are vital — there’s more to the US government than NASA.
Even if we buy the paranoid fantasy about Red China taking over the Moon, that’s a threat better countered by the US military — which, unlike NASA, actually has guns.
> That’s how you get the transportation that tourists will use.
You mean, like all the tourists who used Apollo capsules and Saturn Vs to go to the Moon?
You’re bright enough to know better than that, Donald.
If you think it’s a good idea for NASA to spend hundreds of billions to make space transportation more expensive, why don’t you just say so? Why do you have to make up stories about how tourists will use Constellation capsules to go to the Moon?
> Look at what’s happened today. The only operational tourist vessel
> is the Soyuz, which was developed first to fly to the moon and then adapted
> to support Salyuts. It was then adapted for tourist use.
On very rare occassions.
This is the great cultural divide. On the one side, there’s NASA and its fan, who see space travel as something that will remain very rare. On the other, there are those of us who want to make it routine.
Of course, NASA doesn’t want to use Soyuz to go to the Moon — which it could do right now. It wants to develop a much more expensive capsule and booster. Since you support that decision, your citing Soyuz seems a bit insincere.
Farris: We’ve already got a serious offer from Space Adventures allowing for a moon trip for 100 million (yes, I know you don’t even orbit the moon, but it still counts for something).
This does not appear to be on their Web site. I’ve been waiting with baited breath to see if anyone buys, not least to see if there is already a commercial market for deep spaceflight. I’m a little surprised no one has, but that may be telling us something.
Ed: I have repeadly stated, here and elsewhere, why I believe government bases are required, e.g.,
http://www.speakeasy.org/~donaldfr/sfmodel.pdf
Of course, you’re welcome to disagree with me, but if you can’t be bothered to read my argument, I see no value in typing it in again.
— Donald
> I have repeadly stated, here and elsewhere, why I believe government
> bases are required, e.g.,
Nope. Nothing in that essay shows that government bases are required on the Moon.
The argument that the Spanish government settled San Francisco, therefore NASA must settle the Moon, is flawed.
I could point to thousands of cities that were founded by private citizens. The fact that *one* city was founded by the government does not prove that all cities must be the government. That’s a logical fallacy called “generalizing from a single data point.”
You also ignore the fact that it was the Spanish *military* that founded San Francisco — not the Spanish NASA. And they did it together with a private-sector institution — the Catholic Church.
Too bad you can’t bring yourself to support similar roles for the military and private sector today.
Thus, once CEVs (or, more likely, the Russian equivalent, since they will be hungrier) are flying regularly to the moon, the odd tourist might tag along, especially if these eventually become commercially operated. Then, you’ll see a tourist-optimized CEV. Then, you’ll see a clean sheet design. This requires the lowest up-front costs by the tourist operator, therefore it’s the most likely route.
Nope. A far-sighted tourist operator isn’t as interested in driving down up-front costs, as in driving down marginal costs. If the market is perceived to be there, the investment will follow. NASA’s hardware will never be affordable for tourism, other than the one-off you describe, which does almost nothing to make it affordable (other than demonstrate small demand, at a high price).
Edward: I could point to thousands of cities that were founded by private citizens.
But, these cities were not founded on a hard-to-get-to frontier with no infrastructure in place. Nor did they result in enough economic activity to justify developing new transportation (the transcontinental rail roads).
Too bad you can’t bring yourself to support similar roles for the military and private sector today
I have never once denied these roles. I will gladly accept any role the military and private sector care to contribute. I have argued that it is the private sector hand the military that has kept alive our post-Apollo ability to do lunar and interplanetary flight, through ongoing support of the launch vehicles. I certainly hope that AvWeek is correct and the intelligence agencies have already developed a two-stage-to-orbit vehicle, though if so I wish they’d let some of your commercial friends in on the secret. Even in my essay, I state that religion and trade are often reasons for maintaining an existing base, and I’ll accept that, on occasion, they contribute the initial foothold (Australia?).
You are the one, Edward, who seems to feel they have been revealed the only one true way, with no room for any other strategies. I am perfectly prepared to see all strategies followed, as long as something like the VSE is one of them. In fact, I think one of our strengths right now is the proliferation of strategies.
I am giving up here. This has turned into essentially a religious argument.
— Donald
Rand, maybe, but I think we’ll have to agree to disagree. The one example of space tourism we have leads me to believe my model, but I’m perfectly willing to accept that this is a sample of one and not very meaningful.
— Donald
> But, these cities were not founded on a hard-to-get-to frontier with
> no infrastructure in place.
Nonsense. Pick up any history book and you’ll read about Plymouth, Boonesboro, and a thousand other places.
Many of which are thriving today.
On the other hand, Apollo did not create a socialist utopia on the Moon. Why should we believe one will develop merely because we repeat Apollo (and reject any alternative as politically incorrect)?
> I will gladly accept any role the military and private sector care to contribute.
You’ve already said that you *won’t* accept any alternative to Apollo on Steroids. You can’t “spin” opposition into acceptance.
> I certainly hope that AvWeek is correct and the intelligence agencies
> have already developed a two-stage-to-orbit vehicle, though if so I
> wish they’d let some of your commercial friends in on the secret.
We are in on the secret, Don. Aren’t you?
Here it is. The story is a hoax. “Blackstar” doesn’t exist. We *could* have had that capability 30 years ago, but Jack Kennedy wanted bread and circuses (Apollo) instead.
Now, you want us to waste another 40 years pursuing another pointless Apollo program.
No, thank you.
> You are the one, Edward, who seems to feel they have been revealed
> the only one true way, with no room for any other strategies.
That slander is getting old, Don.
I’ve suggested a dozen different strategies, in various conversations with you. You’ve rejected all of them.
You just keep saying NASA’s VSE is the only politically correct strategy.
I know you don’t do math, but you must surely understand the difference between one and many.
If you can’t argue honestly, at least think up a new slander. This one’s worn out.
> I am giving up here. This has turned into essentially a religious argument.
Since you apparently can’t argue honestly, it’s just as well.
You just keep saying NASA’s VSE is the only politically correct strategy.
What we have here is a space policy example of Stockholm syndrome.
Paul, that comment is outragiously unfair. My loyalty is to an ideal — human exploration of the accessible planets, leading to the eventual establishment of bases and trade. I think the VSE is the most realistic route to those goals in the current political and financial environment. You may disagree with either or both of those positions. But to state that having and sticking to those positions is “pathological” goes beyond reasonable debate.
Turnabout is fair play: It seems to me that your and other scientists’ extreme devotion to mechanical toys because they are cheaper in the short run is far more pathelogical than my efforts to do the up-front work required to get my own fellow human beings into a position where they can get their gloves dirty. That is, directly study and observe and experiment — and do all the other things that human beings do.
— Donald
> My loyalty is to an ideal — human exploration of the accessible planets, leading
> to the eventual establishment of bases and trade.
“Eventual,” yes — but not in our lifetimes, or those of our grandchildren.
> I think the VSE is the most realistic route to those goals in the current political and financial environment
Yes, we *know* you think VSE is the only Politically Correct route.
That’s the problem with NASA’s leaders and cheerleaders. Anything that would save money or increase effectiveness, you reject because of Political Correctness.
Military spaceplanes could perform the same mission from CONUS, eliminating the cost of forward-deployed submarines.
(a)Would military spaceplanes be any cheaper than submarines already operating? No.
(b)Would military space spaceplanes have as much endurance and time on station? No, particularly if the “spaceplanes” were manned.
(c) Would military spaceplanes be easier to detect and track? Yes.
(d) Could a submerged submarine launch an anti-satellite missile — even to shoot down a spaceplane — from a submerged location in the south polar seas in such a way that other nations would have a hard time detecting the launch? Yes.
(e) Could an orbting spaceplane attack a submarine? Not likely.
Advantage: submarines. Armed Dynasoar was a good idea in 1961 or ’62.
> Would military spaceplanes be any cheaper than submarines already operating? No.
And your evidence for this is…???
Oh, right. Space is “supposed” to be expensive.
Do you even know how much it costs to operate an SLBM?
> Would military space spaceplanes have as much endurance and time on station? No, particularly if the “spaceplanes” were manned.
And your evidence for this is…???
Submarines can remain on station for only a few months.
An airbase in the US is always on station.
> Would military spaceplanes be easier to detect and track? Yes.
And your evidence for this is…???
> Could a submerged submarine launch an anti-satellite missile — even to shoot down a spaceplane — from
> a submerged location in the south polar seas in such a way that other nations would have a hard time
> detecting the launch? Yes.
A missile that won’t show up on infrared sensors??? Neat trick.
What will propel this missile? Warp drive?
Of course, you assume a spaceplane couldn’t shoot back or change course to avoid this super-missile.
> Could an orbting spaceplane attack a submarine? Not likely.
And your evidence for this is…???
One kinetic energy round would send a submarine to the bottom before it ever left its pen.
> Armed Dynasoar was a good idea in 1961 or ’62.
Yes — despite similar flawed arguments at the time. It’s still a good idea today.
The United States cannot live in the 60’s forever. The world is too dangerous a place.
A missile that won’t show up on infrared sensors???
Edward, the other side doesn’t currently have much or any continuous satellite-based infrared or radar sensor coverage of Earth’s south polar latitudes.
>A missile that won’t show up on infrared sensors???
> Edward, the other side doesn’t currently have much or any continuous satellite
> -based infrared or radar sensor coverage of Earth’s south polar latitudes.
SLBMs currently operate in the *north* polar latitudes. There are more potential military targets in the northern hemisphere than the south, and the Trident missile doesn’t quite have the desired global range as it is. Moving Trident SLBMs to the Antarctic Ocean would put many targets out of range, which defeats the goal of “Prompt Global Strike.” It would also mean longer transit times to patrol areas, less time on station, increased operating costs, etc.
Which “other side” are you alluding to? China? Korea? Iran? India? Al Queda? Any hypothetical enemy that with systems that can detect and shoot down spaceplanes would certainly have the capability to put up infrared early warning satellites.