Other

Two-front funding wars and lunar rationales

An editorial in today’s Florida Today argues that Floridian space supports have to fight a two-front battle to win support for NASA’s lunar plans. The first, and most obvious, front is in Congress, given that the recently-passed final FY07 budget cuts NASA’s exploration funding by $500 million. “NASA’s lunar exploration goals will remain a fat target as the war in Iraq and money to treat wounded veterans, bolster Medicare and fund other programs maintain a higher priority,” the paper claims. “It also raises the specter of a possible attempt to kill the program outright.” Florida’s congressional delegation, led by Sen. Bill Nelson, needs to do more to fight for the program. “We’re not seeing enough of that now, and it’s critical he continue fostering alliances with senators whose states also stand to benefit from the moon program to keep stable funding.”

The second front, according to the editorial, is at the state level; the paper would like to see new governor Charlie Crist “follow-through on his promise to help create a new generation of space jobs through aggressive business incentives.” Those outside Florida might argue whether it’s essential that Florida provide state-level incentives for space businesses; much of the work needed to carry out the Vision will be done outside of the state anyway.

In an op-ed in today’s Washington Post (among other publications), Charles Krauthammer argues that a lunar base is much more preferable to the existing shuttle and station programs. On the shuttle and ISS: “There’s nothing quite as beautiful as the space station and the shuttle that services it, and nothing quite as useless.” He says that a lunar base would have scientific and other value, while acknowledging that robotic missions have more value “pound for pound, dollar for dollar” than manned missions. His rationale is more… abstract:

If you find any value, any lift of the spirit in a beautiful mathematical proof, in an elegant balletic turn, in any of the myriad human endeavors that have no utility but only breathtaking beauty, then you should feel something when our little species succeeds in establishing new life in a void that for all eternity had been the province of the gods. If you don’t feel that, you are — don’t take this personally — deaf to the music of our time.

Mars advocates take note: why is Krauthammer supporting a lunar base over one on Mars? He says Mars would be “better” than the Moon, but “But the best should not be the enemy of the good. Mars is simply too far, too dangerous, too difficult, too expensive. We won’t go there for a hundred years.” That plume in the distance? The steam rising from Robert Zubrin’s ears.

42 comments to Two-front funding wars and lunar rationales

  • anonymous

    On the national front, Florida Today exaggerates. Constellation does not face outright cancellation, at least not until the next White House takes power. Even then, barring technical implosion or a change of heart by Griffin, Ares 1 and Orion are still likely to get built.

    That said, we are going to see a replay of the 2007 budget in 2008, with more delays to the Ares 1/Orion schedule. To stay on schedule, the topline NASA budget must go up six percent, when nearly every other non-defense, discretionary budget is only going up one or two percent, if at all. That’s a huge hurdle to overcome. Senator Nelson can form alliances with Alabama and Texas ad nauseum, and even try to exercise power over the budget process in ways he’s never demonstrated before, and that high budget bar still won’t be cleared. I think NASA will be lucky to get three percent and more delays to Ares 1/Orion.

    On the state front, a good test of Florida’s ability to get its act together would be to simply sponsor or conduct a couple space-related prize competitions, in partnership with NASA, the X PRIZE, etc. Florida actually had one of NASA’s prize competitions but Florida lost it in their latest reorganization to California. If Florida can’t execute something as simple as a small prize competition, I don’t hold much hope for their larger efforts to attract business to the state.

    As usual, Krauthammer’s argument was elegant in its simplicity and there’s nothing to really disagree with. However, I think someone, maybe several someones, should write the Washington Post and point out that NASA’s effort is rapidly getting caught in Earth orbit again as NASA overcommits to a needlessly expensive and time-consuming Ares 1 launch vehicle and actual lunar exploration hardware recedes over the horizon. It would be good if a couple short letters to the editor appeared in such a national paper pointing out that less expensive and more quickly developed alternatives, such as operational Air Force launch vehicles, exist, if NASA could let go of its institutional biases and hubris.

  • Dwayne Day

    Krauthammer’s position is not new for him. He wrote a nearly identical column back in 1988, reprinted below.

    Copyright 1988 The Washington Post
    The Washington Post
    June 24, 1988, Friday, Final Edition
    HEADLINE: To the Moon — Not Mars;
    And let’s go without the Russians.
    Charles Krauthammer

    In August, the tortoise will once again pass the hare in the space race. The Soviets already have a space station. And, before the first American manned flight since Challenger, the Soviet Union will likely have launched a space shuttle of its own. Unlike Sputnik, however, this event will have little shock value. Unlike 1957, today relations with the Soviets are relaxed and Americans feel less urgency to rush into space. Perhaps most important, Americans have lost their romance with space.

    How can we tell? One fairly reliable measure of romance is how much you are willing to shell out for your new girl. American spending for space has declined sharply since the heyday of Apollo moon shots. It is a third of its mid-’60s peak. The resulting cost- and corner-cutting may have contributed to safety risks. It certainly created an ever receding horizon for magnificent projects like the space station.

    The country is now at a decisive point in its space history. A Congressional Budget Office study points out that if Congress does not increase NASA funding it will have radically to revise and cut its agenda for everything from space telescopes to space stations.

    Ultimately such cutting would not just diminish the space program. It may actually destroy it. That is because much current spending is not for flashy projects, but for space infrastructure, meaning the machinery to get us there and back (shuttles) and the “there” to stay in (a space station). Because infrastructure is the basis for just about all other space activities (observation, experimentation, exploration, commercial applications), it cannot be eliminated from the budget. Therefore, if spending remains tight, infrastructure will take an increasing portion of the space budget, leaving nothing for the applications — which is what we build the infrastructure for in the first place.

    Infrastructure is a buzz word on Earth. Everyone is for rebuilding bridges and sewers and roads, since you can’t get anything done without them. But in space, infrastructure is a bore word. Shuttles and stations elicit ennui from visionaries dreaming of bigger things.

    The current hot dream is Mars, specifically a joint mission to Mars with the Soviets. It is a Soviet idea, most recently proposed at the Moscow summit. The administration is thinking it over. The New York Times, however, has decided. “NASA has a mish-mash of missions,” it argues. “Scrap those; focus attention on Mars, and the project needn’t cost much more than NASA will otherwise waste on its present, visionless course.” Think of the benefits. Among them: “Involving the bureaucracies of both countries in a large, long-term venture could create a common interest and give politicians many shared goals to celebrate.”

    Talk about visionless. Keeping the bureaucracies interacting and the politicians happy is a weird rationale for the most expensive and difficult space mission of all time. Moreover, given what the Soviet press is saying about its bureaucracy, working with it is hardly a prize. And do we really want to be locked in with the Soviets in a decades-long endeavor from which we could not pull out?

    Which is precisely the Soviet political agenda behind its Mars enthusiasm. They want to lock us in to a 10- or 20-year technological embrace. Soviet-American relations would conveniently be hostage to the Mars mission. If things should happen that would otherwise warrant that the United States chill relations or withdraw from joint endeavors, the Mars link would be unbreakable. It would be rather awkward to pull out of the mission while our astronauts are a million miles in space.

    A joint Mars mission is political symbolism disguised as science. And symbolism of what? What, after all, did the great Apollo-Soyuz love-in bring, politically, let alone scientifically?

    Our highest technology and loftiest national aspirations should be put in the service of something more elevated than a spasm of good feeling with the Soviets. Enthusiasm for a joint Mars mission is simply another example of the American penchant for bending great national endeavors to the needs of social work (in this case, international social work). The public schools, for example, were originally designed for teaching. Over the last generation we have turned them into a multiple social service agency: a place where kids get sex and drug and fitness and nutrition education and are taught good neighborliness and ethnic tolerance. All fine causes. But then it should come as no surprise when thoroughly socialized Johnny can’t read, having had so little time left over to engage in such a solitary exercise.

    With space dollars becoming increasingly scarce, this is a bad time to turn the conquest of space into another touchy-feely de’tente project. A terribly expensive and premature project at that. Mars is not the place to go. It is too far away. Now is the time to return to the moon and start colonizing it. And to do that we should start with a space station: a way station to beyond and a place for learning to live in space before leaping into it.

    This time, less flash and less dash. Let’s get to the stars the Russian way, tortoise-like. And let them get there on their own. We had enough comradely hand-shakes at the Moscow summit to last a decade. Let’s use the coming decade for science, not show.

  • anonymous wrote:

    The NSF budget request is $6.43 billion in FY 2008, 6.8% above 2007

  • oops sorry the blockquote is clearly beyond me; my previous brief comment was in response to you saying::

    “To stay on schedule, the topline NASA budget must go up six percent, when nearly every other non-defense, discretionary budget is only going up one or two percent, if at all””

  • anonymous

    “The NSF budget request is $6.43 billion in FY 2008, 6.8% above 2007″

    Not to nitpick, but there are a couple exceptions and that’s why I wrote “_nearly_ every other non-defense, discretionary budget”.

    NSF’s plus-up is part of a larger White House (OSTP/Marburger) initiative started this year in the physical sciences, which, for better or worse, NASA does not partake in. Between the White House support, NSF’s wide base of support in most of the universities throughout the nation, and the fact that it’s an increase off a much smaller base (a smaller dollar increase), I’d argue it has a much better chance of passing intact than NASA’s 6 percent increase.

  • al Fansome

    Anonymous,

    To add to your argument about the political feasibility of the NSF budget increase, the NIH — which has been a congressional favorite for the last decade because it does things like trying to create cures for cancer, diabetes, alzheimer, AIDs, heart disease, etc. — has been arguing for increases in NSF’s budget. The NIG argues that further large increases in the NIH budget, without increases in basic research at places like the NSF, will not be that effective.

    I don’t see NIH arguing for increases in NASA’s budget.

    – Al

  • anonymous

    “Krauthammer’s position is not new for him. He wrote a nearly identical column back in 1988″

    I’ve read a handful of pro-human space exploration editorials from Krauthammer since the late 90s, but to read one from that far back is a real trip. Good use of the archives, Dr. Day.

    If I could make a request, please write a good, in-depth review of the Cowboy Bebop series and movie on The Space Review. I mean that in all sincerity. What a great show.

    See you later, space cowboy…

  • Dwayne Day

    “If I could make a request, please write a good, in-depth review of the Cowboy Bebop series and movie on The Space Review. I mean that in all sincerity. What a great show.”

    I have thought about it. But it would require me to rewatch the show–setting aside the dozens of hours of other things that I want to watch. And one problem with Bebop is that it’s far more about the characters than it is about space colonization. It doesn’t quite fit into the format of The Space Review because space is merely a place where the characters exist. That’s unlike Planetes, where the show clearly has a pro-space exploration agenda.

    Next up: an article on Energia and Roscosmos. Following that: something on Heinlein, particularly Destination Moon. Then maybe the Chinese ASAT. Then Blackstar revisited. Bebop can wait.

  • Dwayne Day: Next up: an article on Energia and Roscosmos. Following that: something on Heinlein, particularly Destination Moon. Then maybe the Chinese ASAT. Then Blackstar revisited.

    I, for one, can hardly wait. (And, I hope to get to your article about Orion in a href=”http://www.bis-spaceflight.com/spaceflight.htm”>Spaceflight next week. . . .)

    — Donald

  • Dwayne Day

    Thank you. That is most kind. My article on the Project Constellation flight program was in the February issue of Spaceflight. I have an article on NASA lifting bodies in March. I should have something on the lunar outpost plans in May (a combination of the Constellation and lunar outpost articles should appear in Raumfahrt Concret in Germany). Two other articles recently submitted concern Blue Gemini (an expanded version of my Space Review piece from last year) and the Gemini paraglider. Other articles in the works for Spaceflight concern: US radar satellite development, US elint/sigint satellite development, the KH-6 LANYARD reconsat, a 4-part history of post-CORONA reconsats focusing on the Samos E-6 and KH-7/8 GAMBIT, more of my history of the development of the early DMSP, and part three of my space nuclear power and propulsion article. All but the very last one exist in advanced states on my hard drive. Add to that several other topics that I want to write about: Wallops Island, the Vandenberg AMROC launch pad, the Vandenberg Blue Scout Junior launch pad, and NASA tracking ships (if anybody can point me to a good history of US tracking ships, I’d really appreciate it). Unfortunately, my job gets in the way of my hobby.

  • Mr. Day: Unfortunately, my job gets in the way of my hobby.

    I’ll say! Look for my interview with one of the people modeling formation theories of the moon. Don’t know what issue of Spaceflight that will appear in, they just accepted it. (And, if that !@# link doesn’t work this time, I give up; people can do a search!)

    — Donald

  • michelle

    Did any of you folks even watch the science committee hearing, there was a lot of general concern about the gap and the possibility the US could lose its leadership in space. It was also decided there would be another hearing this month, and that there may be further attempts to generate funds. Also the idea of Space Bonds was raised, which sounds wierd at first but could actually catch on.
    I would really suggest some of you explore some of the comments on nasaspaceflight.com it might give you a less pestimistic feeling about the whole process. There are actually some very sincere politicians who frequent that forum. There is hope even though you would think so after following this thread.

  • canttellya

    Michelle, I enjoy NSF a lot. If you want happy talk and joyful space cadets chatting about the latest paint stripe on the CEV, head over there. If you want straighter talk, listen up around here. US space leadership? In what, wasting money on gov’t funded human space travel? Feel free to surpass us on that, China and Russia.

    Space bonds? I’d rather watch money flush down a toilet, because that’s exactly what’s happening with the funds spent on gov’t human spaceflight.

    Sorry Michelle, no happy talk from me. Only the straight up dope I would want someone to give me as an investor.

  • anonymous

    “Did any of you folks even watch the science committee hearing,”

    Yes, from start to finish. Also read Griffin’s written testimony, several times. I’d urge anyone wanting to participate seriously in the relevant threads to do the same.

    “there was a lot of general concern about the gap”

    I’m sorry if I sound mean, but so what? Of course a couple Senators with NASA human space flight centers in their states expressed “grave concern” about the future of the NASA human space flight workforce. Those two Senators, just like every other politician, are playing to NASA workforce voters back home, just like they play to every other special interest in their state that might help them stay in office. Just because a Senator expresses support for something does not mean that their words will translate into actual dollars in the federal budget. As long as constituents think that their congressmen are fighting for them, that’s usually (but not always) good enough re-election when the time comes. Whether congressmen are actually fighting for their constituents behind closed doors and succeeding in those fights is usually (but not always) secondary (even tertiary).

    And not to be too harsh on Senator Hutchison and Nelson, but based on their history with NASA funding, that’s largely the case here.

    When the VSE first came out, both Senators expressed all kinds of concerns in public about having any gap between Shuttle retirement in 2010 and whenever a new U.S. vehicle became available. But did they secure additional funding to ensure that there was no gap? No.

    When Griffin rolled out ESAS, both Senators expressed all kinds of concerns to Griffin about having a two-year gap between the Shuttle’s retirement and CEV operations. But did they secure the additional funding necessary to reduce the gap to less than two years? No.

    When the Bush White House failed to live up to its VSE budgetary commitments and the gap between Shuttle retirement and Ares 1/Orion operations widened to four years, both Senators signed letters and expressed all kinds of concerns to the White House about the gap. But did they secure the additional funding necessary to reduce the gap to less than four years? No.

    And now that the gap has widened to five years, do you think Senators Hutchison and Nelson are actually going to secure the additional funding necessary to reduce the gap to less than five years? To borrow one of Griffin’s more infamous turns of phrase, I wouldn’t bet “one thin dime” on it.

    Even if they cared enough to take concrete action, Senator Nelson has no appropriations authority, and Senator Hutchison is not in a controlling position on the relevant appropriations subcommittee. Compared to those Senators in controlling positions on the relevant appropriations subcommitte (like Mikulski) but who have to human space flight centers in their states, Hutchison and Nelson are practically toothless — again, assuming they cared enough to actually bear their teeth and not just spout cheap words in front of an authorization committee camera to sound good to the NASA voters back home.

    “and the possibility the US could lose its leadership in space.”

    To whom? A Chinese program that can barely get three human orbital flights off in two years? A Russian program that is starving for rubles? A non-existent Indian human space program? The vain, decades-old wishes of French nationalists?

    Please…

    “It was also decided there would be another hearing this month,”

    No, the second hearing was scheduled well before the first one.

    “and that there may be further attempts to generate funds.”

    How? From where? With what?

    How is a minority member like Hutchison going to steal dollars from other NASA programs when Mikulski has an interest in and can protect those programs from her chairmanship?

    How is Nelson, who has no appropriations standing, going to do much of anything?

    “Also the idea of Space Bonds was raised, which sounds wierd at first but could actually catch on.”

    This is so goofy as to be laughable. Since the days of Representative Rohrbacher and X-33, zero-g tax breaks, government guaranteed loans, and space bonds have all been bandied about — and all to no avail.

    The congressional committees that control NASA have no influence over such revenue proposals. It’s up to the Ways and Means Committee in the House and the committees that oversee the Treasury to decide whether the nation will incur debt in form of bonds for any purpose (or change the tax code for a special interest, etc.).

    And the chances that those committees are going to take an interest in space bonds is about nil.

    “There are actually some very sincere politicians who frequent that forum.”

    Really? Who are they? What are their screen names? What threads do they frequent? I, for one, would love to read what they’ve written and maybe ask a couple tough questions.

    “There is hope even though you would think so after following this thread.”

    Of course there’s hope — there’s always hope.

    But there’s a big difference between hope and likelihoods or probable scenarios.

    And if you want to be a political realist and actually get things done in Washington, you play the latter game, not the former.

  • al Fansome

    MICHELLE said: “Also the idea of Space Bonds was raised, which sounds wierd at first but could actually catch on.”

    ANONYMOUS said: This is so goofy as to be laughable. Since the days of Representative Rohrbacher and X-33, zero-g tax breaks, government guaranteed loans, and space bonds have all been bandied about — and all to no avail.

    Anonymous,

    I think it is important to expand on why it is laughable. If certain conditions existed, I believe that NASA could acquire space bond authority. It is laughable because those conditions do not exist.

    Michelle, bonds are used in many other sectors, particularly for the development of infrastructure. Bonds are NOT “free money”. Investors who are responsible for other people’s money — quite often the retirement funds of large groups of people — have a fidicuiary duty to make sure that investment is not wasted, and that they will get all their money back, plus a return on the investment on top of that.

    Airports float bonds, and pay back the bonds from fees they charge to airlines, and many other forms of economic activity that take place at airports. Every plane that takes off and lands generally pays a fee.

    Seaports float bonds, and pay back the bonds based on many kinds of fees they charge to private users of the seaport.

    Other government agencies float bonds, and then they pay back the bonds from the fees charged to the economic activity that it creates.

    But it is private investors — led by big professional investment funds — that give these government entities the money. They are not stupid. They are generally quite smart, and they are world-class professionals about managing risk.

    If you can tell me how NASA will pay back those “space bonds”, PLUS interest, at a low risk to the investors — based on the economic activity that NASA creates — then I might quickly become a HUGE supporter. Where does NASA get the money to pay back the bonds? What economic activity will NASA create?

    It would be extremely valuable to make NASA start thinking about creating and delivering “solid, measureable, concrete economic activity” and returns on investment.

    One of the reasons “This is so goofy as to be laughable” is that nobody is suggesting that NASA will create any near-term measurable — its really going to happen — economic activity in space from its Constellation (CEV, Ares 1) program. If NASA were proposing real economic activity, we would have heard it by now.

    The statement about bonds is laughable because it shows how ignorant some of our elected leaders really are. They should know this.

    – Al

  • anonymous

    “If you can tell me how NASA will pay back those “space bonds”, PLUS interest, at a low risk to the investors — based on the economic activity that NASA creates — then I might quickly become a HUGE supporter. Where does NASA get the money to pay back the bonds? What economic activity will NASA create?”

    All good points, Mr. Fansome. I would just add, though, that the Treasury (not NASA) could theoretically incur debt in the form of bonds for any government purpose, including funding NASA. It’s been done in the past (e.g., “war” bonds), and the bonds are paid back from future taxes (not utility fees or other business revenue). I would guess that’s what Senator Stevens was referring to when he asked that (goofy and laughable) question.

    But again, NASA can’t sell bonds and collect taxes, only the Treasury can. And the Treasury can’t do so unless the congressmen over on Ways and Means approve it (and probably some other Treasury oversight committees). Even in good times, I seriously doubt Ways and Means would care enough to even have a hearing on “space” bonds. And with federal debt at sky-high levels and much higher spending priorities to compete with (we’d hear about “war on terrorism” bonds before “space” bonds), it just ain’t gonna happen. No way.

    Also, historically, even “war” bonds are just regular Treasury bonds. The money isn’t squirrelled away for the Department of Defense — it just goes into the general treasury and is used for all kinds of government functions. The term “war” bond is just a advertising moniker to help with fund-raising. When our parents or grandparents bought “war” bonds, they were just buying regular old Treasury bonds. It would take some very unusual, almost unique, legislation to guarantee that “space” bonds actually benefit NASA. Again, ain’t gonna happen. No way.

  • Anonymous, could you email me? I have a question (and I’ll maintain your anonymity).

  • canttellya

    If NASA was somehow developing the technologies to enable very-low-cost human spaceflight, with advanced life support systems, in-situ resource utilization, and advanced propulsion systems, then maybe I could get behind the idea of a gov’t funded human spaceflight program.

    But as bad as it was before Griffin, Griffin has made it SO MUCH WORSE. Now instead of leveraging an expensive (but existing) asset, the EELV rockets, we’re charging off to build the Utah-pork-on-a-stick rocket.

    Instead of designing a CEV to fit on existing rockets, like EVERY SINGLE OTHER PAYLOAD in the world is developed, we’re building a six-person fat gumdrop Apollo on drugs.

    Instead of considering lunar architectures that might have some sustainability in them, with fuel depots, or electric-propulsion cargo tugs, or Lagrange staging points, we’re going after an architecture chosen in 1961 for its extreme expediency at the expense of future evolvability or development. Will we be building Mars vehicles in lunar orbit?

    Instead of actually developing technologies to enable all of these malformed activities to reap some modicum of benefit assuming that they actually take place, NASA guts all technology development, including those DIRECTLY related to cislunar activity. No advanced life support, no nuclear power supplies on the lunar surface, no mining systems, no lunar orbital communications architectures.

    No, the astronauts won’t even have a Shuttle-class toilet in the CEV. Their mixed-gender crews will employ the Apollo technique of crapping in a bag and then kneading germicide into their own feces.

    And why, pray tell, are all these decisions being made? Because all money and effort is being plowed into new huge rockets.

    Let’s peel the onion back a little more. Why is that happening? Because Griffin has chosen the path of least-immediate-political resistance. Tell all the senators from all the space states and all the shuttle contractors that they will be happily paid cost-plus contracts for the foreseeable future to do exactly what they have been doing since the late 1970s. All power-brokers are happy because they’ve heard the magic words they want to hear: “the people in your district will get as much or more money than they did before.”

    That’s why we’re discussing this on “Space Politics”. Because it’s not about efficiency, it’s not about technology, it’s not about capability, it’s about politics. The most mean and base sort around.

  • anonymous

    “Anonymous, could you email me? I have a question (and I’ll maintain your anonymity).”

    Sorry, Mr. Simberg, I don’t want to take the risk. No one knows who I am, and I want to keep it that way. It’s not that I don’t trust you specifically; I just don’t trust anyone.

    If your question can be asked here, I’ll be happy to try to answer. If not, then again, I’m sorry.

  • D. Messier

    Unfortunately for Chucky, the war that he supported so fervently is squeezing money for lunar and Mars missions. That’s generally true of his support the bushcheney admin, whose reckelss spending and massive deficits will crimp non-defense related spending for years to come. (Not to mention how this repub govmint has implement VSE.)

    Not that it would really bother Chucky if NASA got a massive boost while the rest of the non-defense budget got shredded. He doesn’t care much about the problems people face here on Earth, so it’s quite easy for him to dismiss them. And unfortunately for Chuck, these cuts would be so painful that they would likely never make it through Congress. Our representative – unlike pundits – are accountable to constituencies.

    As an aside, one gets a sense that this general attitude helped to cripple our efforts in Iraq. It was all big picture stuff; overthrow Saddam, strike a blow against al Qaeda, bring democracy to the Mideast. The fundamentals of providing basic fundamental services and security – the nuts and bolts of governing – weren’t thought through much at all. (If you doubt this, read Imperial Life in the Emerald City and Fiasco.) If you don’t care about stuff like that, it’s hard to do it well.

  • Robert G. Oler

    canttellya wrote @ March 3rd, 2007 at 11:02 am

    thats ok…ultimatly there wont be any program!

    Robert

  • If your question can be asked here, I’ll be happy to try to answer.

    No, it’s private. If there’s some way to communicate without revealing your identity, I’d appreciate it. I don’t have a need to know who you are, but I did want to discuss something not in a public forum.

  • al Fansome

    It did not occur to me that Sen. Stevens was proposing the equivalent of “war bonds”. If Stevens was thinking “war bonds” would be even whackier.

    I assumed he was proposing “bonding authority” as that is how many quasi-governmental authorities finance the development of infrastructure. You can develop a lot of infrastructure in this way with some innovative thinking — in addition to airports and seaports a well managed organization can pay for the construction of highways or bridges — you just pay off the bonds via tolls (a.k.a. user fees) that the users pay.

    BTW, NASA is already funded by the modern day equivalent of “war bonds”. They are called “T bills” — “T bills” are used by the Treasury department to fund our multi-Trillion dollar national debt.

    Which is why I assumed this was different.

    – Al

  • anonymous

    “If there’s some way to communicate without revealing your identity, I’d appreciate it.”

    Here, I opened a Yahoo account:

    anonymous.space@yahoo.com

    Hope that works.

  • Al and Anonymous have it right. You always have to ask yourself if the people who manage “grandma’s retirement money” would invest in this. Ultimately, in this post-401K / IRA world, most of the money that get’s invested is somebody’s retirement money, and usually grandmas’ since women live so much longer than men. (And, not to be misunderstood, I think the 401K is the greatest financial instrument of our time — certainly I wouldn’t manage to save anything without it!)

    This applies to the government as much as a private investor of someone elses money. There are always “social needs” to fund, however those are defined.

    That said, this can happen. Comsat’s are funded by retirement money right now, and a significant (if small) part of the required launch infrastructure is also privately paid for from this pool. My bet is that suborbital and orbital tourism will be the next two industries to break into the retirement pool — with lunar oxygen a possibility some decades down the road.

    Yes, it’s not fast or fun, but it is reality.

    — Donald

  • […] the comments to a post on Friday about Charles Krauthammer’s op-ed in the Washington Post, one person noted, “It would be good if a couple short letters to the editor appeared in such […]

  • al Fansome

    DONALD: That said, this can happen. Comsat’s are funded by retirement money right now,

    Donald,

    Good point. If you look at what it took to make this happen, that will tell you what needs to be in place for other markets to tap the same funding source.

    First, almost all the technical risk was retired. Rene Anselmo, who led the way, did not have to develop or build any new technology. He just bought another.

    Second, insurance must be available to mitigate against the residual remaining risks. Even proven LVs blow up, and even proven spacecraft fail — you need to protect grandma’s retirement from this risk.

    Third, the market must be PROVEN and large. No speculation allowed. The satellite telecom market was proven, and quite large and growing when Rene Anselmo raise funds from Wall Street.

    All those 3 conditions existed before Rene Anselmo had a chance. He had many remaining hurdles, including regulatory issues, but the risk issues above were mitigated.

    DONALD: and a significant (if small) part of the required launch infrastructure is also privately paid for from this pool.

    It would be useful to list what infrastructure you are thinking of.

    For example, the Astrotech payload integration facilities were developed based on debt.

    What else?

    DONALD: My bet is that suborbital and orbital tourism will be the next two industries to break into the retirement pool —

    Donald.

    I agree with you.

    In fact, IMO this becomes highly likely after the market and technical risk is retired, assuming that the FAA continues to use a light touch on regulatory issues.

    The report is that the deal Rutan negotiated with Branson was that Rutan could sell versions of SpaceShip Two (and its carrier) to other companies. So, after Virgin Galactic proves the technology, and proves the market exists and is large, IMO there will be entrepreneurs knocking on doors on Wall Street attempting to raise capital to buy another SpaceShip Two off the assembly line.

    Related to this, the rumor is that some of the COTS semi-finalists claimed to have had funds lined up from Wall Street, contingent upon getting a COTS award. Clearly, RkP claimed that they could raise money from Wall Street, as they are trying to do so right now. I hope they succeed, but I worry they will not as they violate several of the investment rules I have written above (for example, they have not retired the technical or market risk).

    Some of the technical risks are obvious. Historically, about 50% of every new LV fails on the first launch. The K1 will have a first launch.

    The market risk was stated by George Mueller in 2005, when he publicly acknowledged that (then Kistler) needed at least 10 flights per year to close the business case for their RLV. As Mr. Simberg (and many many others) have written about, an RLV needs an even higher flight rate to close the business case because of the larger upfront investment. Since RkP does not have contracts in hand for 10+ flights per year to show Wall Street, this will be viewed as a significant additional investment risk (on top of all the other RkP risks).

    When you consider that …

    A) Elon is out there competing with RkP on price, and

    B) Elon does not need to, and does not plan to, recover his original investment (while RkP does need to recover the original investment, plus more), and

    C) Elon’s competition will put pressure on RkP to lower price and profit margins even more, thus requiring even more flights/year to close the business case, and

    D) Wall Street knows all of this.

    … you can see that RkP has a really tough job to raise the money from Wall Street investors.

    Personally, I think RkP’s best hope is to raise money from:

    A) Another venture philanthropist — in the mold of Beal, Musk or Bezos … e.g. somebody who wants to make a difference to humankind, and who is not investing grandma’s retirement money — or

    B) Dumb money, probably from overseas, that does not understand the risks (maybe another Saudi Prince?)

    I really do hope they succeed. It would be absolutely fantastic for everything we space cadets care about. But I am very worried that it is a bridge too far.

    – Al

  • Al, great summary of the investment realities that I am always on about — which is why “non-government exploration” is little more than a fantasy in the near-term future.

    It would be useful to list what infrastructure you are thinking of\

    When I wrote that, I wasn’t thinking of Astrotech (although the debt is certainly now backed by grandma’s money, and mine since I have been a stockholder in Orbital for well over a decade). I was thinking of Boeing’s and Lockheed Martin’s substantial private investments in the EELVs. Maybe they lost their shirts — though I suspect the true situation is nowhere near as grim as they make out while holding out their bowl to the Air Force — but that is always a risk of even the “safest” investment, and no EELV investment could reasonably be considered safe.

    I agree with you that the near-term future in private space exploration lies with “high net worth” individuals. Once they have proven the market, grandma’s money might come on board — but we’re talking decades into the future, not tomorrow. Unfortunately, HNWs are not enough to storm the Solar System by themselves.

    But, keep in mind that just because it’s most probably decades in the future does not mean it won’t happen, or that public investments we make now cannot speed it up. Comsats, the one truly successful private space industry, were the result of huge government investments in launch vehicles and spacecraft technology extending back to World War II and before, and the first comsat was launched by what the British Empire used to call a crown chartered company — a government sanctioned and partially financed monopoly.

    These are the unhappy lessons to draw from the past, not barely applicable analogies drawn from the computer and aircraft industries.

    — Donald

  • Oops, Astrotech is of course owned by SpaceHab. But I’m safe: I’ve owned stock in them for almost as long — and with SpaceHab I have lost my shirt! (So far. . . .)

    — Donald

  • al Fansome

    DONALD: I was thinking of Boeing’s and Lockheed Martin’s substantial private investments in the EELVs. Maybe they lost their shirts — though I suspect the true situation is nowhere near as grim as they make out while holding out their bowl to the Air Force — but that is always a risk of even the “safest” investment, and no EELV investment could reasonably be considered safe.

    Those really are a different class of investments. Big aerospace firms are not thinking about “grandma’s retirement” when they are making investments. They are thinking about their corporate strategy, the business they are in, and beating the competition. This leads to some poor investments if they are not in a good business, or have a poorly defined business, but also have access to large amounts of capital from corporate coffers. In the case of EELVs, the senior executives of Boeing probably never seriously considered not competing for the EELV business.

    The attitude is much different than Wall Street financiers who provided the capital for Panamsat. Investment fund managers say “No” all the time. Now, I am not saying that Wall Street investors are perfect — their failings just have a different flavor — for example, they often think like lemmings. (So so is making billions off of Business A … that is now a proven business … so I will invest in another version of Business A.) One bad outcome of the lemming failure mode is several dozen startup PC disk drive companies, and half a dozen internet pet food companies. Another bad outcome is that at any given time they have their focus on a specific good type of investment that is the latest “hot thing” — often quite narrowly defined — and if you are not part of that latest “hot thing”, they have a real hard time thinking about your new business.

    DONALD: I agree with you that the near-term future in private space exploration lies with “high net worth” individuals.

    For the most part, Yes, and we need to figure out how to do more than that. There are other ways.

    DONALD: Once they have proven the market, grandma’s money might come on board — but we’re talking decades into the future, not tomorrow. Unfortunately, HNWs are not enough to storm the Solar System by themselves.

    Donald, why so skeptical? If Virgin Galactic succeeds in the next few years, there will be thousands of people travelling into space every year. If the market proves to be large enough, within a year or so after Virgin’s first commercial flights we may see Wall Street pumping financing into competitors to Virgin who will use the funds to buy and fly the exact same spaceships coming off of the assembly lines in Mojave.

    DONALD: Comsats, the one truly successful private space industry, were the result of huge government investments in launch vehicles and spacecraft technology extending back to World War II and before,

    True. Those government investments were almost entirely for national security purposes.

    In many ways, there is more synergy & alignment of requirements between DoD and commercial interests, than there is between NASA & commercial, or NASA and DoD.

    – Al

  • Al: Donald, why so skeptical? If Virgin Galactic succeeds in the next few years, there will be thousands of people traveling into [SUBORBITAL] space every year. If the market proves to be large enough, within a year or so after Virgin’s first commercial flights we may see Wall Street pumping financing into competitors to Virgin who will use the funds to buy and fly the exact same spaceships coming off of the assembly lines in Mojave.

    Because, while I don’t disagree with a word of that, and what Virgin Galactic is doing is exciting and I hope to be a customer someday, it is also close to irrelevant in the near term to the kind of space commerce that could “open the Solar System.” It’s like saying we’ve privately financed and built a littoral ferry carrying thousands of joyriders a year a tenth of the way to the nearest island and that it will lead to private financing of deep sea ships that can reliably deliver goods between the continents. This may be true, but in the real world it took thousands of years and a lot of military (government) help to get from early litoral shipping to safe and reliable transport between the continents. Orbital tourism for large numbers that might support the kinds of investments of “grandma’s money” in the kinds of technologies needed to support deep space commerce is far more difficult than suborbital flight, and probably a lot of time (and government money) away.

    However, I don’t see that as skeptical or even pessimistic. I’ve always believed that anyone who truly believes that truly private deep space commerce is going to happen quickly is living in a fantasy world.

    We are only fifty years in, yet already we have one truly private space-related business making significant returns to grandma’s retirement, several supporting industries, the demonstrated potential of another (orbital tourism), and the identified possibility of a third that has a currently small but significant and growing market (oxygen for use in space). We’ve visited the nearest visible island and we’ve managed to keep people alive near the shores for a year or two at a time.

    Without exception I think, everyone here will (often violently) disagree with me, but the archaeologist in my background sees how difficult opening truly new frontiers (with no destinations at the other end) has been historically, and how long it has taken, and I view what we have accomplished so far as almost blinding speed. This is something that humanity has not really attempted since the end of the last glaciation of the current ice age, so it is something we have no modern experience in and no contemporary models for.

    Economically self-supporting colonies in an extremely alien and difficult frontier without pre-existing markets will be a lot tougher than any of us (probably even I) think, but I also think we are making remarkably good progress.

    — Donald

  • On second thought, I take a little bit of that back. The Pacific Islands were colonized more recently. And, I do see reason to hope that things will go faster, possibly much faster, in the Solar System. But that does not change my basic position that we are hugely underestimating the difficulties and the setbacks that lie ahead of us (what happens when one of Mr. Biglow’s modules full of tourists get’s punctured by a piece of a Chinese satellite? or the first base on the moon fails because of technological or economic setbacks?), and that we would all do better to think more realistically about the difficulty of the tasks that lie ahead.

    — Donald

  • al Fansome

    DONALD Because, while I don’t disagree with a word of that, and what Virgin Galactic is doing is exciting and I hope to be a customer someday, it is also close to irrelevant in the near term to the kind of space commerce that could “open the Solar System.” It’s like saying we’ve privately financed and built a littoral ferry carrying thousands of joyriders a year a tenth of the way to the nearest island and that it will lead to private financing of deep sea ships that can reliably deliver goods between the continents. This may be true, but in the real world it took thousands of years and a lot of military (government) help to get from early litoral shipping to safe and reliable transport between the continents. Orbital tourism for large numbers that might support the kinds of investments of “grandma’s money” in the kinds of technologies needed to support deep space commerce is far more difficult than suborbital flight, and probably a lot of time (and government money) away.

    Donald,

    I don’t disagree with your statement. The physics tells us that to get to Mach 24 it takes 64 times the energy it takes to get to Mach 3 (E=m*v-squared), which is what Burt Rutan accomplished.

    Fortunately, there are some economically viable stepping stones between Mach 3 and Mach 24. For example, the Air Force appears to think that it makes a lot of sense to develop a launch vehicle with a reusable first stage (that goes to Mach 6-10) that carriers an expendable upperstage to pop things into orbit. This is called a “hybrid LV” and U.S. Air Force studies have concluded that a hybrid LV is the next correct step.

    A Mach 6-10 first stage is an incremental and achievable step up from a Mach 3-4 vehicle. Operationally, it is much easier to get to Mach 6-10 than it is to get to Mach 24. Beyond that, the next incremental step might be a two-stage reusable RLV with a reusable (Mach 6-10 first stage) and a reusable upperstage.

    There are other potential markets beyond “orbital tourism” that might drive industry, innovation and development.

    Virgin Galactic has already stated that they believe the next big market is NOT orbital tourism, but point-to-point delivery on Earth. The energy required for this is almost the same as getting to orbit, but this is the market that Virgin is focused on — partly because “point to point” delivery is part of their existing business. Think of this as the “When it absolutely has to be there today” business (or it even “When it needs to be there yesterday” if you are sending packages from the U.S. to Japan). Nobody I know really understands how big this market is, but few people really understood the “next day delivery” market until FEDEX showed us all that a large market existed.

    On top of that, if NASA were to go to a different architecture for exploration — of using a fuel depot in LEO — this would create additional demand deliverging bulk cargo to LEO in the lowest cost manner possible. This too is a market expansion decision — that could be made by one person in the right position — that can drive innovation & cost reductions in launch services … and is another market beyond “orbital tourism”. (NOTE: This month Boeing’s Orbital Express spacecraft, paid for by DARPA, is supposed to demostrate both rendezvous & docking, component transfer, and prop transfer technologies. I am surprised there has not been any commentary on this subect.)

    On top of this, the DOD has a stated need for “Operationally Responsive Space” launch. More than ever since the Chinese ASAT demonstration.

    In conclusion, the same basic technology that provides an “orbital tourism service” could also address three (3) other markets — “global same day package delivery”, “operationally responsive space access”, and “low-cost delivery of propellant to a LEO depot”. Oh yeah … it could also lower the cost of ISS cargo delivery. So that is five (5) potential market applications of one basic technology.

    There are other potential markets that I have mentioned, that might be quite lucrative, but I will keep those to myself.

    I do think your skepticsim is healthy, but there are some paths to work that could accelerate the process faster than you appear to think is possible.

    – Al

  • Al, I fully agree with all of that, especially, point-to-point delivery on Earth as a potential market. I emphatically agree that now there are clear and identifiable markets for each step of the way (probably the key and most promising development of the arrival of orbital tourism on the scene in the last decade)..

    But, each of these markets will take time to develop. Each of them will take further time to incrementally reduce costs through second and third generation vehicles.

    Lest I be misunderstood, I am convinced that humanity will develop LEO to commerce and a lot of it will be privately paid for. This, being “half way to anywere,” eventially, that will open the Solar System. Where I disagree with way too many space advocates, who look at the technical how and dream of what’s possible while ignoring the political and economic how, is that this will happen next year. Or, that anybody but an organization like NASA can skip some of the steps, and somehow privately proceed to the moon (or an asteroid or Mars) before we have private suborbital and then Earth-to-LEO transport supporting LEO industries (most likely tourism).

    Privately paying for all of this will take time, lots of it. A few key government projects can create artificial markets (the Space Station) which might dramatically speed some of this up (e.g., COTS). But, even with that, it will still take decades (at a minimum) before the pool of grandmas’ money can be deployed on deep space projects. Until that financial breakthrough happens, deep spaceflight will always be a relatively small, mostly government financed activity.

    I think we need to understand this because one of our greatest problems is over-promising. We say we’re going to industrialize the Solar System in our or our children’s lifetimes, and people believe us. In the best possible world, we could make a start on that — but doing it in this century almost certainly is not in the cards. To avoid disappoinment leading to political and financial burnout, we’ve got to be realistic about what we promise.

    I’d love to be proven wrong, but I don’t expect to be.

    — Donald

  • al Fansome

    DONALD: But, even with that, it will still take decades (at a minimum) before the pool of grandmas’ money can be deployed on deep space projects. Until that financial breakthrough happens, deep spaceflight will always be a relatively small, mostly government financed activity.

    Donald,

    Actually, based on this statement of “decades” you are in danger of being counted as an optimist on commercial deep space compared to me. You can count me as a skeptic for commercial applications beyond LEO — excepting new supporting industries for comsats beyond LEO (such as what Orbital Recovery is proposing). If there is a successful commercial DEEP space industry by the end of this Century, I would be shocked. I think there is lots of opportunity in LEO, and in getting to LEO, but beyond is much more difficult.

    I can get excited like the next space cadet about the prospect of capturing an asteroid for its material resources, but I don’t believe for a minute there will be commercial demand for deep space projects within my (currently) expected lifetime. Earth-based competitors are just so much cheaper .. and Earth-based technical advances (including nanotech) are much more likely to solve the Platinum resource issue better & cheaper than either asteroids or lunar PGM mines.

    I am also highly skeptical (for other reasons) that viable Helium 3 mining industry, or a lunar power system, will happen in this Century.

    Space solar power has a lot of potential, but it too is a long-term industry that depends on earlier breakthroughs in many other commercial space industries to become commercially viable. I think the U.S. government should conduct/support long-term R&D on all these potential industries, much beyond what is currently happening, but they are LONG-term projects.

    BTW, I am intentionally distinguishing between “commercial demand” — which means commercial customers — and “commercial supply” to government customers. I think there can & should be “commercial supporting industries” that pop up to support the “government fort on the lunar frontier” — but I don’t count that as a 100% commercial deep space project.

    My point in previous posts is there are many nearer-term market applications for “cheap access to space” industry to LEO, and that our priority should be to support a “more rapid” development of a commercial LEO industry. One way to do this is to use an O’Keefe/Steidle approach to going to the Moon.

    There are many benefits of supporting development of these markets & industries, which can be measured in terms of the VSE metrics of economic, national security, and science. If we mix smart government policy & approaches with the American entrepreneurial culture and spirit, and in the potential of these nearer term industries, it should not take DECADES for grandma’s retirement money to start being invested in those industries.

    Again – we have to be smart.

    – Al

  • Al, I agree with much of that. I’m still putting my money on lunar or asteroidal oxygen (and possibly other resources such as hydrogen) for use in space as the first deep space industries. And, as I argued in an article in Space News a while back, I think this could begin to happen happen relatively soon (a few years after the first lunar base). But, even if we are lucky, these types of things are the seeds of future industries, and it looks like we pretty much agree in our basic outlook, if not on all of the details.

    — Donald

  • Al Fansome

    DONALD: Al, I agree with much of that. I’m still putting my money on lunar or asteroidal oxygen (and possibly other resources such as hydrogen) for use in space as the first deep space industries. And, as I argued in an article in Space News a while back, I think this could begin to happen happen relatively soon (a few years after the first lunar base). But, even if we are lucky, these types of things are the seeds of future industries, and it looks like we pretty much agree in our basic outlook, if not on all of the details.

    Donald,

    I agree with you that a lunar oxygen industry has merit (and I don’t know enough about asteroidal oxyen to have an opinion.) To be clear, a commercial lunar oxygen industry would basically be a supplier to a monopsony government customer for a long-time.

    BTW, I think there are a couple steps that are required before a lunar oxygen supply chain becomes practical from a business perspective. You mentioned a lunar base. That is necessary, but not sufficient.

    We also need a transportation architecture that uses (and hopefully maximizes the use of) lunar oxygen, and a storable fuel to go with it (such as methane).

    A problem is that NASA, or at least parts of NASA, appear to want a hypergolic based solution in the initial CEV and Constellation hardware. They make sounds about changing later to O2/Methane, but we all know it is much easier to build it into the system from the start, and that there will be a LOT of pressure to resist changing that once hypergols are designed in from the start. (Side note: I believe that hypergols were put back into the CEV when they were still focused on launching the CEV by 2012, and it became clear that O2/Methane could not be ready in time. Since they are now looking at 2015, hopefully they will go back to O2/Methane as the baseline.)

    Next, we need the technology for storing and transferring O2 and Methane, in orbit, for long periods. I believe the short pole on the tent for this technology — and the easiest place to prove it out (other than in the tanks fo Constellation hardware — is a LEO propellant depot in LEO.

    MY CONCLUSION: IF we actually had an operating LEO propellant depot — proving that the technology works to the satisfaction of the investors of grandma’s retirement money — and IF the Constellation hardware maximized the use of O2 and Methane — creating substantial demand for lunar oxygen — the development of a lunar oxygen industry at NASA’s lunar base would be a foregone conclusion. NASA would sound find multiple large companies competing for this business.

    But without those two pre-conditions, just having a lunar base does not get you a commercial lunar oxygen industry.

    As always, my opinion, and 3 dollars, will buy you a cup of coffee.

    – Al

  • Paul Dietz

    A problem is that NASA, or at least parts of NASA, appear to want a hypergolic based solution in the initial CEV and Constellation hardware.

    Making nitrogen tetroxide — the dominant mass component of hypergolic fuels — may not be that much harder than making LOX. If you have nitrogenous materials at the lunar poles, then heating will liberate either ammonia or molecular nitrogen. Either can be reacted with oxygen to make NO2 (the latter in an arc, the former on a noble metal catalyst), which is converted to N2O4 under pressure.

    Making hydrazine or hydrazine derivatives in space could be considerably harder. Maybe irradiate ammonia, say with a nuclear reactor? The efficiency would be bad, but it would be simple.

  • Al Fansome

    Paul,

    Interesting concept — producing NTO/UDMH on the Moon. First time I have heard of this idea. But assuming we can … the next question is “Should we?”

    What are the consequences for introducing such chemicals into an area that people are living in?

    We are already worry about lunar dust, and how to keep it out of living quarters, but what if that lunar dust includes small amounts of such chemicals? How much is too much?

    What if it gets into the the water we think may be at the poles. Can we drink it? How costly will it be to purify that water?

    It is already hard enough to deal with a lunar environment — what are the impacts of chemical spill on the Moon? Will we lose the entire lunar base? What is the cost of mitigating against a potential spill? Since this is a potential killer, do all the systems need to be “two-fault” tolerant.

    That said, I don’t know if NASA’s lunar lander is designed to use NTO/UDMH (somebody please pipe up who does know) … but if they do plan to use this, there will be some nasty substances in the lunar lander rocket exhaust that is widely (and repeatedly) distributed around the lunar base.

    In all cases, I wonder if NASA has thought about the potential environmental impacts on the people living at the lunar base.

    I wonder if NASA has included these potential environmental costs/risks in their evaluation of alternatives for the propellants in the Constellation system.

    – Al

    PS — Again, I am a fan of LOX/Methane. This is just another reason.

  • […] We don’t want to wind up without manned spaceflight capability, like we were between Apollo and Shuttle! Let’s go, Congress – someone will colonize the moon and Mars, it might as well be us! […]

Leave a Reply to canttellya Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>