An article in this week’s Space News (freely available online) provides some additional details on the changes a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee made to the proposed FY07 NASA budget. The subcommittee approved $16.709 billion for NASA, down from the $16.792 billion in the President’s original request. As previously noted, the subcommittee transferred $100 million to aeronautics and $75 million to science: $50 million for research grants, $15 million to begin work on a Europa orbiter mission, and $10 million for the Terrestrial Planet Finder, which NASA had planned to delay. Much of that money is coming from the $150 million cut from technology development efforts within the exploration program; some money was also cut from space station operations and administrative programs. The full House Appropriations Committee hasn’t announced a meeting to take up the budget bill, while the Senate isn’t expected to take up its version of the appropriations legislation until late July or early September, after the August recess.
This VSE advocate can probably live with that this year. However, I would note that underfunding the VSE, and starting a bunch of new science projects that will also be underfunded, is an excellent way to make sure that none of these projects succeed while consuming vast sums of unanticipated money. We need either to increase NASA’s budget, or to make choices, and (in my opinion since a significant increase is unlikely) delay new science starts until the heavy development bills for the VSE are behind us and the VSE is running on operations costs.
— Donald
“… until the heavy development bills for the VSE are behind us and the VSE is running on operations costs”
I’ll try to hold back a loud guffaw on this, and agree that of course the agency as a whole needs more money. That’s the right answer. VSE and science (by which I assume you mean science that doesn’t depend on human space flight) are both strongly deserving.
To the extent that you believe science should be cut to fund VSE, why not just come clean and state that the latter offers more value to the nation than the former. One could at least respect that as an informed opinion. The federal space funding lessons of the last thirty years don’t give this until-we’re-paid-up argument much credibility.
Okay, Doug, I believe that the VSE offers far more long-term potential value to the nation and humanity — and ultimately even to science — than does the automated space science program.
However, I also stand by my original statement and I base it on history. Expensive as it is, once the Shuttle was on its circa $5 billion / year operations budget, it became possible to simultaneously reduce NASA’s overall budget (in real terms) while singificantly increasing the amounts spent on automated science and applications missions — even while simultaneously spending large amounts on failed attempts to develop new-generation launch vehicles.
I see no reason not to expect the same to happen for the VSE. Once the $100 billion up-front costs are paid and you are spending $2 billion each for two flights to the moon each year, much of the the rest can be freed up for automated science and / or sending crews to Mars, as the nation decides at that time.
— Donald
…you are spending $2 billion each for two flights to the moon each year…
And you think that’s a good deal? And that the American people will agree?
Well, Rand, that’s not an easy question to answer because it depends on a lot of factors that are out of the control of anyone in the space community. First, it’s probably the only deal we get, since the American people and their representatives almost certainly will consider it a better deal than continuing to throw money at dreamtime launch vehicles that never get built.
In an absolute sense, it all depends on how long you spend there. The cost per unit science or other result is not especially dependent on launch prices if you stay for long periods of time and live off the land to the degree possible. Two six month missions at $2 billion each is just as cost effective (and in some ways more so) than, say, twelve one month missions at $333 million each.
One of the places where I profoundly disagree with many space advocates who do not look at history is the widespread view that cheap transportation is a prerequisit to serious space exploration. Humanity has successfully conducted many expeditions (and even colonization efforts) when transportation was very expensive and dangerous (relative to the economy of the time). The initial European exploration of our continent was conducted under just such conditions. Cheap transportation is a “nice-to-have,” but, with a properly designed strategy, it is not a prerequisit.
This is why I feel it is time to reverse our priorities of the past, and why I believe the VSE was such a breakthrough idea. We need to establish initial bases now, with the transportation we have, and use those “facts on the [lunar] ground” to justify investments in better transportation in the future.
— Donald
> it’s probably the only deal we get, since the American people and their
> representatives almost certainly will consider it a better deal than
> continuing to throw money at dreamtime launch vehicles that never get built.
Donald, whether you like it or not, SpaceShip One ***did*** get built.
You might not like the fact that it got built. You might wish it had not been built. You might sneer because it is “only suborbital” and does not go to the Moon, Mars, and Alpha Centauri — but regardless of what you want, it *did* get built.
It is dishonest for you and other VSEers to continue saying that Apollo on Steroids is the only thing that can or will be built.
If you can come up with a good argument for making space transportation more expensive, please do so. If you think it’s impossible to reduce the cost of space transportation, please prove it — based on mathematics, not namecalling.
New spacecraft are being built and the cost of space transportation will be reduced. Why are people who claim to be in favor of space exploration against that?
> The cost per unit science or other result is not especially dependent on
> launch prices if you stay for long periods of time and live off the land
> to the degree possible.
To “live off the land,” you will need machinery. The cost of that machinery includes transportation costs, so the cost of living off the land will be directly dependent on space transportation costs.
If you want to do science, you’ll need apparatus and supplies. The more science you want to do, the more apparatus and supplies you’ll need — please don’t think it will be simple to just manufacture an electron microscope, for example, out of moon dust.
If you had a magic Star Trek replicator that could manufactures everything a human civilization requires, using only lunar regolith, then what you say might be true. Until someone invents such a box, however, the myth of a lunar colony that does not depend on transportation costs will remain a myth.
> One of the places where I profoundly disagree with many space advocates
> who do not look at history is the widespread view that cheap transportation
> is a prerequisit to serious space exploration.
Ad hominem. Just because we disagree with you does not prove we “do not look at history.” In fact, I’ve read quite a bit of history that disagrees with claims you make.
> Humanity has successfully conducted many expeditions (and even
> colonization efforts) when transportation was very expensive and
> dangerous (relative to the economy of the time).
Prove it, Donald. Show me all the examples of successful colonization with transportation costs greater than $10,000 per pound.
Better yet, show me all the examples of successful *lunar* colonization with transportation costs greater than $10,000 per pound.
I can find only one historical example of transportation costs close to that. It occurred during World War II, when the US Army was ferrying supplies over the “Hump” into Burma with cargo planes being shot down right and left. During the worst period, transportation costs (adjusted for inflation) were in the thousands of dollars per pound — but that was not by design and the operation coninued only to meet a dire military emergency. There were no explorers, colonists, or tourists just along for the ride.
Please present your historical data, if you have it. Prove your claim — or retract it.
> The initial European exploration of our
> continent was conducted under just such conditions.
Again, please prove it. I’ve seen abundant data that shows it was possible for an upper-middle class person to cash in his life savings and buy a trip to the New World. Please show your data to prove it wasn’t.
Successful explorers like Columbus almost always used small, cheap vessels. La Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria were very small ships by the standards of their time. Furthermore, they were surplus ships that the Crown got in hock for a bad debt, making them effectively free.
Columbus didn’t sit in port pouting and telling everyone he couldn’t set out unless he had a galleon (the heavy lift vehicle of his day). He did not testify before Crown Commissions saying it was too difficult and dangerous for ships to rendezvous at sea or insist that the expedition had to be accomplished with a single ship. (In fact, if he had done that, he would have died.)
> This is why I feel it is time to reverse our priorities of the past,
“Reverse our priorities”??? For 40 years, the priority has been to send a handful of NASA astronauts to the Moon and Mars, while keeping space transportation expensive. You want to continue that for another 40 years. How is that “reversing”?
Edward: New spacecraft are being built and the cost of space transportation will be reduced.
If that is so, Edward, (and I agree that it is) than what is your problem with the VSE? If this can happen in the presence of the Shuttle project, it can certainly happen in the presence of the VSE which was designed to cost very roughly what the combined Shuttle / Station projects do.
Why does it have to be either / or? I fully support all the efforts at private suborbital and orbital spaceflight. I think one of the most important things Dr. Griffin has done is the COTS effort. But, COTS is a response to the needs of the Space Station program. We need a “lunar COTS,” but to get that, we also need to be landing on the moon ASAP.
These two sets of efforts — the VSE and alt.space activities — especially since they come out of completely separate financial pies, should not be in conflict. And, I don’t believe that they are.
— Donald
American people and their representatives almost certainly will consider it a better deal than continuing to throw money at dreamtime launch vehicles that never get built.
Ah, nothing like a false choice to win an argument…
Humanity has successfully conducted many expeditions (and even colonization efforts) when transportation was very expensive and dangerous (relative to the economy of the time). The initial European exploration of our continent was conducted under just such conditions.
I’m sorry, Donald, but this is nonsense on stilts. Dangerous, yes (of course, those were dangerous times in general) but it wasn’t particularly expensive, at least not within two orders of magnitude, in the context of the economics of the times, as NASA space transportation.
It’s an economic and political fantasy to think that we’re going to seriously explore or develop space with anything resembling NASA’s current plans.
> If that is so, Edward, (and I agree that it is) than what is your problem with the VSE?
What a bizarre question. My problem with VSE is that it’s a waste of taxpayers’ money. Why should anything that’s going on elsewhere cause me to be in favor of wasting taxpayers’ money?
> If this can happen in the presence of the Shuttle project, it can certainly happen in the presence of the VSE
“If this can happen in the presence of the Shuttle”??? Donald, are you aware of the things NASA did to protect their shiny new Shuttle from potential competition in the 1980’s? And Apollo, before that?
That didn’t change until the 1990’s, when the Shuttle was so long in the tooth that even NASA recognized it was not the future.
Now, VSE wants to replace the Shuttle with a brand new Shuttle-Derived Vehicle, and once again, NASA thinks that’s the future. Do you believe NASA won’t try to protect SDV from any potential competition, as they’ve always done in the past?
> Why does it have to be either / or?
Good question. Why did Lunar Gemini have to die so Apollo could be the only manned space program? What about the X-15, Dyna-Soar, Reusable Atlas, MOL, X-24, etc.?
What about all the launch systems that tried to compete with the Shuttle in the early 80’s?
Why did it have to be either/or?
What about the CEV and LSAM? Why did NASA make those so large that only SDV can lift them? Why didn’t it design smaller, modular systems that could fit on multiple launch vehicles? Why does it have to be either/or?
Why does Mike Griffin say the cost of space transportation cannot be reduced in the next 40 years? Why do VSEers like yourself constantly say that the development of CATS has to wait until after NASA’s done Moon, Mars, and Beyond?
Why does it have to be either/or? You tell me, Donald.
> We need a “lunar COTS,” but to get that, we also need to be landing on the moon ASAP.
ASAP stands for “As Soon As Possible.” That’s not what you’re advocating, Donald.
If you wanted to land on the Moon as soon as possible, you would talk about using Soyuz capsules and existing rockets, not waiting a decade and a half so NASA can develop new capsules and new rockets.
Why would NASA need a “lunar COTS” anyway, if it builds SDV? NASA will barely have enough money to keep SDV flying, let alone pay for a competing syetem. This hypothetical lunar COTS might be cheaper than SDV, but if NASA cared about money, it wouldn’t be building SDV in the first place.
Rand, there is no real way to measure it, but the first colonization efforts by the Spanish Empire were undoubtedly as expensive relative to their economy as our spaceflight expenditures are to ours. In fact, I would guess they spent far more than a percent or two of their government budget, which was a lot larger part of their total economy than ours is. Likewise, Britain did the same when they mapped the world. Edward (and you) are using the fully-developed transportation systems that did indeed transport upper middle class people. But, that is not how it started. Respectfully, I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this issue.
Edward, I would (and have) advocated using EELVs and / or Zond technology. That former is something the United States government has chosen not to do, and the latter is something they will not do (though I still hope that Space Adventures will be able to market a few missions). You seem to want to completely abandon the VSE strategy. If so, you (and Rand, et al) are certainly going about it the right way. Letting it degenerate into endless battles over strategy is the single best way to ensure that nothing whatsoever happens. . . .
Again, I think we have to agree to disagree.
— Donald
> I would ***guess*** they spent far more than a percent or two of their government budget
That’s the problem, Donald. Instead of looking up facts, you’re just guessing.
> Edward (and you) are using the fully-developed transportation systems
> that did indeed transport upper middle class people. But, that is
> not how it started.
No, Donald, that is how it started. The three ships I mentioned — Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maris — were the first Spanish vessels to reach the New World. I’m sure you know that.
Small sailing ships were not fabulously expensive, as you claim. Ships of that size sailed from Spanish ports every day. Sailings were not rare events, like Apollo Moon shots. They were part of a large passenger and cargo trade, which would have been impossible if ships were as expensive as you say.
Now, there might have been some time when Spain and England were spending one or two percent of their national budget — to send *many thousands* of people to the New World, not a dozen or so.
Numbers matter, Donald.
> I would (and have) advocated using EELVs and / or Zond technology.
Maybe you “would have” but you aren’t. The NASA plan you advocate rejects both EELVs and Zond technology.
> That former is something the United States government has chosen not to do,
> and the latter is something they will not do
The US government uses Zond technology (better known as “Soyuz”) to send astronauts and supplies to ISS. So, clearly it is incorrect to say the government will not do it. Or do you believe that’s a hoax?
As for what the government “chooses not” to do, the government chooses lots of stupid things, Donald. Do you think the taxpayers have an obligation to support everything the government chooses, no matter how stupid.
> You seem to want to completely abandon the VSE strategy.
You seem to want to abandon truth for fiction. I have never said we should abandon “the” vision for space exploration. I have said time and time again that NASA’s VSE is only *a* vision for space exploration, not *the* vision. It’s the height of arrogance to insist that only the head of NASA can have a vision for space exploration.
What I want to abandon is the vision that space transportation should remain expensive so that space exploration remains a rare government luxury.
Edward: That’s the problem, Donald. Instead of looking up facts, you’re just guessing.
This I cannot pass on. I haven’t seen you looking up the GNP of Spain in the 17th Century, nor the cost of a sailing ship.
Sailing ships did in fact cost enormous amounts of money. Likewise, we fly many, many rockets, not just those to the moon, in spite of their astronomical costs.
I am using what has worked historically to try and develop a strategy for the future. You are purely “guessing” that something radically different for a completely open frontier with no pre-existing destinations _might_ work. Maybe it will; maybe it won’t — but I’m not prepared to bet the whole show on your strategy being the one that will.
I have opposed NASA’s efforts to lock other people out in the past. I am just opposed to your view that large government projects are not likely to be a vital part of a successful strategy — just as they were for the freeway system that allowed private individuals the supposed “freedom” to sit in traffic jams.
To succeed in moving humanity into the Solar System, we need both the large government efforts, and small private efforts. American mythology aside, neither are likely to be successful in isolation.
— Donald
You seem to want to completely abandon the VSE strategy. If so, you (and Rand, et al) are certainly going about it the right way. Letting it degenerate into endless battles over strategy is the single best way to ensure that nothing whatsoever happens.
I’m all in favor of VSE, Donald. What I’m opposed to is the particular (unaffordable and unsustainable–the opposite of the criteria that it was supposed to meet) way that NASA has chosen to implement it (note: nothing in the president’s speech requires ESAS). And for that reason, it will need no help from me (or Ed) to collapse.
> This I cannot pass on. I haven’t seen you looking up the GNP of Spain
> in the 17th Century, nor the cost of a sailing ship.
I’m sorry if your extensive spy network failed to observe every detail of my reading, Donald.
Columbus sailed in 1492, Donald, not the 17th Century.
In 1510, the British government authorized 700 pounds for the fitting of two ships, one of 400 tons displacement and one of 300 tons. Later, an additional 316 pounds was authorized for fitting out the ships. So, the cost of building and fitting out a ship was about one pound per ton displacement.
The Santa Maria displaced about 100 tons, at most. So, building and fitting her out would have cost about 100 pounds.
At the same time, a soldier or a sailor was paid 5 shillings (1/4 pound) a month. So, a ship like the Santa Maria cost about 400 months (33 years) of wages for a private soldier.
La Nina and Pinta were much smaller than Santa Maria, but I’ll be generous to you and pretend they were the same size. The cost of three such ships would then represent about 100 years of wages for a soldier, or wages for one company of 100 soldiers for one year.
Is that “more than a percent or two of their government budget”? That would mean the government budget was only 5,000-10,000 pounds. But in 1512, the British Parliament passed a single military appropriation of 600,000 pounds — and England was a relatively poor nation compared to Spain.
As Rand said, you are off by at least two orders of magnitude.
> Sailing ships did in fact cost enormous amounts of money.
No, ships did not cost enormous sums of money.
A private soldier today earns about $1500 a month. Based on equivalent wages, the largest of Columbus’s ships would have cost $150,000. That is not comparable to the Apollo program, no matter how much handwaving you do.
Not only do construction records prove you wrong, so do shipping records. Ships were commonly used to transport grain, animals, wine, even fresh water. Not to mention passengers. Prior to Columbus’s voyage, Santa Maria apparently once served as a floating brothel. If sailing ships were comparable in cost to ELVs, all of these uses would have been impossible
> I am using what has worked historically to try and develop a strategy for
> the future. You are purely “guessing” that something radically different
> for a completely open frontier with no pre-existing destinations _might
>_ work.
No, I am not “guessing,” Donald. I am using real numbers. You are guessing, and contrary to your claims, your guesses show gross ignorance of historical facts.
> A private soldier today earns about $1500 a month. Based on equivalent wages, the largest of
> Columbus’s ships would have cost $150,000.
Sorry, that should have been $1500 x 400 = $600,000. Still nowhere near the cost of an Apollo mission.
And Santa Maria carried a lot more than three men to the New World.
Well, Rand, that’s not an easy question to answer because it depends on a lot of factors
Whether that member of the community is ‘reality based’ or ‘faith based’ for example.
If that is so, Edward, (and I agree that it is) than what is your problem with the VSE?
It puts the budget further into deficit while achieving nothing, at the cost of cancelled science.
There’s also serious questions about whether the V was supposed to bee ironic all along.
Rand Simberg: I’m all in favor of VSE, Donald. What I’m opposed to is the particular (unaffordable and unsustainable–the opposite of the criteria that it was supposed to meet) way that NASA has chosen to implement it (note: nothing in the president’s speech requires ESAS).
You sound just like the people who, they claim, were all in favor of the war in Iraq, but not the way that the Pentagon chose to implement it. It is too nuanced. Or, to stick to pre-Norman English, it’s cleaving hairs.
Chris Mann: There’s also serious questions about whether the V [in VSE] was supposed to be ironic all along.
Or cynical rather than ironic.
You sound just like the people who, they claim, were all in favor of the war in Iraq, but not the way that the Pentagon chose to implement it.
And you sound just like the people who make foolish and spurious analogies.
Okay, Edward, I concede that I did overstate my case. I find your wage analysis especially compelling. However, I also think you overstate yours. By your own figures,
In 1510, the British government authorized 700 pounds for the fitting of two ships, one of 400 tons displacement and one of 300 tons. Later, an additional 316 pounds was authorized for fitting out the ships.
= 1,316 poinds of silver.
But in 1512, the British Parliament passed a single military appropriation of 600,000 pounds
So, this appropriation would have paid for less than six hundred thousand ships.
The current annual military budget would pay for fewer, but still several hundred thousand Apollo missions even at $2 billion a flight.
— Donald
Oops. That should, of course, be several hundred Apollo missions. . . .
— Donald
SDV – Shuttle Derived Vehicle.
One can hardly call it an SDV any longer.
Let’s just refer to it as the HLV. In fact, let’s not even call it the post Shuttle era anymore, let’s refer to it as the post NASA era, since barring any dramatic developments, it will be the ELV era anyways.
>> But in 1512, the British Parliament passed a single military appropriation of 600,000 pounds
> So, this appropriation would have paid for less than six hundred thousand ships.
Yes, much less than 600,000 ships — about 1,000 maybe. If they funded nothing else.
> The current annual military budget would pay for fewer, but still
> several hundred thousand Apollo missions even at $2 billion a flight.
> Oops. That should, of course, be several hundred Apollo missions. . . .
Not even that. The DoD budget for 2006 is $419 billion. That would pay for just two hundred Apollo missions, not several hundred.
Leaving that aside, goofy comparisons like that are the reason why space activists are not taken seriously. The United States is not going to cancel the entire Defense Department to fund hundreds of Apollo missions. Nor should it, in my opinion. The vast majority of Americans would agree with me on that.
And 200 Apollo missions (600 astronauts) would still not compare to European settlement of the New World.
If you’re serious about lunar settlement, you need a means of transportation that *doesn’t* require one-half percent of the defense budget just to launch three astronauts. (Or even six.)
Leaving that aside, goofy comparisons like that are the reason why space activists are not taken seriously. The United States is not going to cancel the entire Defense Department to fund hundreds of Apollo missions. Nor should it, in my opinion. The vast majority of Americans would agree with me on that.
If the vast majority don’t agree, I strongly recommend that they consider learning japanese, mandarin, portuguese and hindi.
Well, the Brazilians aren’t quite in the game yet, the Indians have the GSLV and a hydrogen engine, but the launcher isn’t necessarily human rate-able, so they’ve got to go another iteration, but certainly the Europeans and Japanese could get into the business in short order, it looks like the Japanese are actually making preparations to take that step, and the Chinese are already there.
My group has changed its focus to ELVs for the short term, the goal now is to encourage these nations to human rate their launchers and gain experience by flying to the Russian Space Station anytime after 2015. We also feel they should be encouraged to make the extra iteration to unmanned heavy lift. From the looks of it, the reusable retrofittable era is still a long way off. As long as they continue to brag about dumping trash filled Progresses into the sea, the post-NASA era will remain the ELV era.
US – Delta IV Medium
Russia – Soyuz
China – Long March 2F
Japan – H-IIC
Europe – Ariane V
India – GSLV++ ?
Brazil – ???
Any other players? South Africa? Australia?
“I also stand by my original statement and I base it on history. Expensive as it is, once the Shuttle was on its circa $5 billion / year operations budget, it became possible to simultaneously reduce NASA’s overall budget (in real terms) while singificantly increasing the amounts spent on automated science and applications missions — even while simultaneously spending large amounts on failed attempts to develop new-generation launch vehicles.”
Well, I was trying to separate myself from this absurd proposition. But let me take one more swing. You will remember that the Shuttle program was *dramatically* descoped in order to come anywhere close to being on what ended up being a sustainable budget. And let’s not even talk about ISS. By this historical guideline, I guess you’re saying that once VSE is dramatically descoped (maybe it’ll be Apollo on herbal vitamins, instead of steroids?) we’ll have funds to do other stuff. That descope will have some substantial impacts on the national value equation and, in short, I thnk the nation would really rather not wait.