Congress, NASA

NASA authorization bill introduced in House

The leaders of the House Science and Technology Committee formally introduced new authorization bill for NASA on Thursday, in advance of next week’s markup session on the legislation. The text of the bill, HR 6063, isn’t available yet (it should be in the next day or so), but the statement about the bill by Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO), chair of the space subcommittee, included in the full committee’s release did offer a few clues about its content and nature:

  • It is apparently a one-year authorization, covering FY 2009 only; the previous authorization bill covered fiscal years 2006 through 2008.
  • The bill is co-sponsored by the chair and ranking member of both the full committee and the space subcommittee, which Udall said “demonstrates the bipartisan nature of the support for NASA in this Congress”.
  • The bill would put the agency’s authorized budget “on the same doubling path” as other science agencies, which under the America COMPETES Act enacted last year has their authorized budgets increased at a rate that would double them in seven to ten years.
  • Calling for a “results-oriented human space flight program that serves the nation’s geopolitical goals in addition to advancing America’s exploration of outer space,” Udall said the bill “includes provisions to ensure that the International Space Station… will be utilized in as productive manner as possible.”
  • In a similar vein, the bill includes language that “makes clear that any human exploration initiative to return to the Moon and venture to other destinations in the solar system should be undertaken as a cooperative international undertaking under U.S. leadership.” (Yes, is really says that the exploration should be undertaken as an undertaking—apparently he likes that word.)
  • In earth sciences, the bill would put NASA in a leading role in “a cooperative international effort on Earth observations research and applications, especially with respect to climate change.”
  • For aeronautics, the bill includes several relevant provisions, including enhanced funding that takes NASA research “to a sufficiently mature state so that the results of that research can be transitioned to the commercial sector as well as to key public sector users.”

47 comments to NASA authorization bill introduced in House

  • anonymous.space

    Not sure how a one-year authorization puts NASA on a path to double in seven to ten years. Even if by some miracle appropriations matched the authorized levels, one year hardly sets a trend. But okay…

    Also, how can a human space flight program whose only goal is to cooperate with other nations be described as “results oriented”? Cooperation is a means, not an end. What benefit are we’re trying to achieve with the nation’s civil human space flight program?

    FWIW…

  • Doug Lassiter

    I think the “doubling” business is that the Science & Technology Cmte is just answering their own mail on their own America COMPETES act. But it does take some gumption to say that about a one-year bill.

    The “international undertaking under U.S. leadership” language is just saying that we’ll build the car, and let you put stuff in the back seat. Griffin has been going that route that all along with regard to international cooperation. Of course, that doesn’t apply to ISS during the gap, but …

  • Let’s just hope in undertaking this undertaking, Udall doesn’t end up an undertaker.

  • anonymous.space

    “The “international undertaking under U.S. leadership” language is just saying that we’ll build the car, and let you put stuff in the back seat. Griffin has been going that route that all along with regard to international cooperation.”

    Actually, a full reading of the press release on NASAWatch indicates that the bill writers (or at least Udall and his staffer) expect more international involvement in NASA’s human space exploration activities than what the Bush II Administration has undertaken:

    “…the NASA Authorization Act of 2008 makes clear that any human exploration initiative to return to the Moon and venture to other destinations in the solar system should be undertaken as a cooperative international undertaking under U.S. leadership–and that such a cooperative approach will have the best chance of being successfully sustained if the President is personally involved in inviting our friends and allies to participate in such a venture.

    It is clear that the 21st century will see the emergence and growth of ambitious human space flight programs carried out by a number of nations. It is not in our national interest to get drawn into rerunning a “space race” that we already won almost 40 years ago.”

    My takeaway from that language is that the bill would direct the next President (not just NASA) to invite other nations to participate in the program now (not after NASA lands on the Moon), and that the next NASA Administrator should structure and sell the program on the basis of international cooperation, not competition (e.g., with regards to China).

    FWIW…

  • Charles in Houston

    Fellow Policy Scrutinizers –

    One statement caught my eye any human exploration initiative to return to the Moon [snip] should be undertaken as a cooperative international undertaking under U.S. leadership

    We should just hope that other countries (Europe as well as Japan, with maybe Russia if they are in the mood) will agree to cooperate with us! By the time we have some sort of manned vehicle ready to fly, they may well have moved on to their own vehicle or just upgraded the Soyuz.

    Modifying the ATV to be manned will be a big task, but can be done. The Soyuz is long in the tooth but is available now.

    We have not been reliable international partners, ever, and the Europeans may run out of patience. The Russians are greedy but reliable.

    It might be that a return to the Moon might be a European/Russian venture, and they might let us send an experiment package.

    Sigh.

  • Doug Lassiter

    Actually, a full reading of the press release on NASAWatch indicates that the bill writers (or at least Udall and his staffer) expect more international involvement in NASA’s human space exploration activities than what the Bush II Administration has undertaken

    Yes, that’s a good point that useful international involvement will require effort from the White House. But that involvement could still be nothing more than us transporting someone else’s cargo, a room at the outpost facility, or a few square meters of development space on the already rather crowded site plan. The best way to get international buy-in would be offering partnerships on the development of the space transportation architecture itself. This administration would never do that.

    The bill is now available at http://tinyurl.com/5ddof2

  • Al Fansome

    I recommend that everybody here read the actual bill language. It is not that long.

    I have spent a few minutes looking it over, and already have seen some very important pieces of language that represent MAJOR changes in policy.

    Some of the language that really struck me as important includes the following:

    SEC. 403. LUNAR OUTPOST.

    (a) Establishment- As NASA works toward the establishment of a lunar outpost, NASA shall make no plans that would require a lunar outpost to be occupied to maintain its viability. Any such outpost shall be operable as a human-tended facility capable of remote or autonomous operation for extended periods.

    Such a policy statement is a major driver on approach and architecture.

    SEC. 404. EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.

    (b) Establishment- The Administrator shall establish and maintain a program of long-term exploration-related technology research and development that is not tied to specific flight projects and that has a funding goal of at least 10 percent of the total budget of the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate.

    10% of the ESMD budget for R&D not tied to “specific flight projects”. Griffin has tied *everything* in ESMD to a specific flight project. When combined with the section that follows that mandates that 50% of this 10% shall be entities external to NASA, this is a clear slap at the Griffin approach.

    SEC. 406. EXPLORATION CREW RESCUE.

    “In order to maximize the ability to rescue astronauts whose space vehicles have become disabled, the Administrator shall enter into discussions with the appropriate representatives of spacefaring nations who have or plan to have crew transportation systems capable of orbital flight or flight beyond low Earth orbit for the purpose of agreeing on a common docking system standard.”

    A new version of APAS, here we come. (It is about time. It is sad that NASA needed to be told to do this. It was obvious.)

    SEC. 601. UTILIZATION.

    “The Administrator shall take all necessary steps to ensure that the International Space Station remains a viable and productive facility capable of potential United States utilization through at least 2020 and shall take no steps that would preclude its continued operation and utilization by the United States after 2016.”

    This language represents a MAJOR policy change, and will have significant impact on long-term budget priorities if enacted. The White House VSE strategy, as shown in the budget sand chart clearly had NASA shutting down the ISS around 2016, and using the wedge of funds for lunar missions. This will obviously have an impact on the overall strategy.

    SEC. 611. FLIGHT MANIFEST

    “(b) Additional Flight To Deliver the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer to the International Space Station- In addition to the flying of the baseline manifest as described in subsection (a), the Administrator shall take all necessary steps to fly one additional Space Shuttle flight to deliver the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer to the International Space Station prior to the retirement of the Space Shuttle.”

    An additional flight of the Shuttle for AMS-02. But we know what Mike Griffin thinks about that.

    Sec 902, COMMERCIAL CREW INITIATIVE

    Section A (4): “NASA shall … issue a notice of intent, not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, to enter into a funded, competitively awarded Space Act Agreement with two or more commercial entities for a Phase 1 Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) crewed vehicle demonstration program.”

    Right now, SpaceX, SpaceDev, and tSpace are cheering. But we know what Mike Griffin thinks.

    Personally, I think that this bill has a LOT of good stuff in it, but I don’t think Mike Griffin will be happy. I am guessing that the Griffin will want to push back on this, and pretty hard.

    I personally see this bill as a loss of confidence in Mike Griffin’s leadership, and his ESAS strategy.

    This bill is mostly focused on fixing problems created by Griffin, enacting mandates on Griffin, and making changes to his strategy. This means that Griffin will probably oppose it (behind the scenes), further reducing the chance it will pass in this Congress.

    However, even if it does not pass, I do see this bill as being important — it is one statement of future space policy, which could be easily adopted by the next Administration. And it appears to have bi-partisan support.

    – Al

    “Politics is not rocket science, which is why rocket scientists do not understand politics.”

  • […] available and open up any discussion about its provisions (some of which has already started in the earlier post about the […]

  • Al, thank you for the detailed analysis. I think this language is rather unfortunate NASA shall make no plans that would require a lunar outpost to be occupied to maintain its viability. since it appears to mean that NASA can’t build anything that actually requires a crew. What is the point of spending all this money sending crews if you are not going to utilize them to their full capacity? On an economic level, one of the reasons there is so much pressure to ensure access to the ISS is because it is required for the vehicle to survive for any length of time. A lunar base that requires a crew would likewise require the maintenance of the transportation system(s) come hell or high water — which is of obvious benefit if you want to establish humanity permanently in deep space.

    Anonymous: Cooperation is a means, not an end.

    I don’t agree with that. If cooperation makes war (especially nuclear war) less likely, it is worth no end of otherwise pointless projects. Especially in purely financial terms, war always costs more than almost any other alternative. . . .

    — Donald

  • Ray

    I can see Donald’s point about the advantage to the space access effort of requiring human occupation of the ISS, and the implications for the lunar outpost.

    On the other hand, a human-tended lunar outpost would still require humans to get to the Moon, so the transportation system would still need to exist, and the humans would still get there. There’s nothing to PRECLUDE humans from permanently occupying the base. It seems prudent to design the base to be able to work for an extended period of time, just in case something goes wrong with the transportation system. The “gaps” (after Columbia and after Shuttle retirement) show that. Of course a commercial transportation system in parallel with ESAS would also serve a similar purpose.

    Another way of looking at it is by comparing the ISS with the human-tended space station proposal. Maybe we would have gotten a lot farther with a human-tended station that could be implemented quickly and cheaply, allowing NASA to hand it off to commercial space and move on to the next new thing. That assumes the human-tended version is cheaper … not just the same as the permanently-crewed version with added capability to able to care for itself (which would be even more difficult!). It also assumes some kind of market appears.

  • Ray: Maybe we would have gotten a lot farther with a human-tended station that could be implemented quickly and cheaply, allowing NASA to hand it off to commercial space and move on to the next new thing.

    That may be, but would a human tended facility provide the levels of political and financial commitment that provided the political justification for COTS and current political efforts to reduce the gap?

    That assumes the human-tended version is cheaper

    It isn’t, necessarily. It depends on how much life support can be supplied locally, and thus what it costs, and the cost of transportation. If the cost of transportation remains very high, and the costs of life support expendables can be kept low by using local resources, than it may be cheaper to keep a crew on site for long periods, rather than transport them back-and-forth to Earth. In any case, it is important to demonstrate these skills early, because bases on asteroids and PhD, let alone the Martian surface, absolutely require that transport of crews be kept to a minimum through long stay times combined with maximum use of local resources.

    — Donald

  • Dennis Wingo

    I don’t see anything in that authorization that is really bad and much that is good.

  • Al Fansome

    Mr. Wingo,

    What is the “good” in your opinion?

    Inquiring minds would like to know.

    Also, as the author of “Moon Rush”, what is your specific reaction to the language on the lunar base that Mr. Robertson is concerned about? Do you think this is good language, perhaps for the reason suggested by Ray?

    – Al

  • Dennis Wingo

    Al

    Human tended is fine with me as there will be a huge telepresence effort and this is so early in the process that I am not worried about what that means.

    The good part is that ISS is emphasized and that the Internationals are invited to participate. Both of these things I have been pushing. ISS has the potential to greatly lower the costs of the whole architecture if it is used properly as a base of operations for lunar missions. Guess what, this is what the Russians are already planning.

    Reinvigorating the H&RT efforts is an incredible win as it is stupid to say that we cannot use low TRL technologies and then not fund any TRL raising developments such as ISRU. So much has changed in the ISRU world since the SEI days and we need to take advantage of those advances.

  • anonymouspace

    “I think this language is rather unfortunate NASA shall make no plans that would require a lunar outpost to be occupied to maintain its viability. since it appears to mean that NASA can’t build anything that actually requires a crew. What is the point of spending all this money sending crews if you are not going to utilize them to their full capacity?”

    The point of that language is two-fold:

    1) The ISS design (rather stupidly) incorporated failure modes that require an on-board human presence to mitigate. If the ISS goes unoccupied for significant periods of time (i.e., like what we’re potentially facing with if Soyuz has another bad day after Shuttle retirement), we risk losing the entire facility. This language would essentially direct NASA to not make the same mistake with any lunar outpost.

    2) We don’t know yet whether the Moon is going to be a net drain or a net plus for further human space exploration and development. For example, we don’t even know definitively yet whether there’s water ice on the Moon, nevertheless if it’s in a useful, extractable form. This language would help prevent NASA from getting tied down with the huge expense associated with supporting another human space outpost of limited value. If the Moon proves to be a great boon, nothing prevents NASA from keeping a lunar outpost crewed full-time. But if the Moon turns into a drag, then NASA has retained the option of putting a lunar outpost into sleep mode and redirecting its resources elsewhere.

    “I don’t agree with that. If cooperation makes war (especially nuclear war) less likely, it is worth no end of otherwise pointless projects.”

    This statement conflates policy means (international cooperation) with policy ends (avoid nuclear war).

    There’s no a priori issue with using foreign policy goals to drive human space flight programs. But those goals need to be concrete, e.g., ‘beat the Soviets back to the Moon” (Apollo) or “keep Russian aerospace engineers from migrating to terrorist nations” (Russian ISS partnership).

    Using international cooperation writ generally as a justification for human space flight (or any other program), with no specific end or rationale in mind, is lazy policymaking that results in aimless, driftless, poorly supported programs.

    FWIW…

  • Vladislaw

    I liked this provision:

    SEC. 502. PROVISION FOR FUTURE SERVICING OF OBSERVATORY-CLASS SCIENTIFIC SPACECRAFT.

    The Administrator shall take all necessary steps to ensure that provision is made in the design and construction of all future observatory-class scientific spacecraft intended to be deployed in Earth orbit or at a Lagrangian point in space for robotic or human servicing and repair

    Regardless of the constellation program manned space missions past LEO is still the plan. ANYTHING to stop flying in circles in leo.

  • Al Fansome

    I am still thinking about what I have read, but my first reaction is that is a good piece of proposed legislation.

    I think it has a low probability of actually passing in this election year, but even so it is a clear statement of future space policy.

    I wanted to emphasize Chairman Udall’s primary statement in his press release — that space policy must be “RESULTS ORIENTED”.

    Imagine that.

    Kind of like Dr. Marburger’s statement that policy must be measured by the benefits it provides to security, economy, and science.

    Again, this is effectively another slap at Griffin.

    Griffin has refused to design NASA’s strategy to produce “results” in security, economics, and science. If you go look at ESAS, you will see that they did not evaluate the options based on projected “results” on those areas.

    – Al

  • Anonymous: NASA from getting tied down with the huge expense associated with supporting another human space outpost of limited value.

    However, it is exactly that which would provide the political and economic pressure to reduce the cost of lunar transportation (and deep space transportation in general). If you don’t have that, there is little incentive to invest in things that will reduce those costs. Yet doing that is essential if humanity is to have a future of any kind exploring the Solar System.

    In the absense of a lunar base with it’s support requirements, I would be interested in your ideas of how the up-front costs of better deep space propulsion can be justified politically and economically.

    — Donald

  • anonymouspace

    “In the absense of a lunar base with it’s support requirements, I would be interested in your ideas of how the up-front costs of better deep space propulsion can be justified politically and economically.”

    Who says that the Moon is the only target that justifies the development of deep space propulsion? Human-tended observatories and NEOs (which got pretty big play in the draft bill) need very similar deep space propulsion systems. And then there’s Mars.

    Even human missions aren’t necessarily a requirement. Electric propulsion was proven out robotically in the past decade or so, and before Griffin came along, NASA’s first attempt to mount a mission using nuclear propulsion was going to be a robotic mission to Europa.

    Heck, who says that any deep space mission is even necessary to develop the technologies for deep space propulsion? A lot of folks here talk about propellant depots in Earth orbit, which in combination with the types of rocket engines needed for tugs or other Earth orbit transport infrastructure, would provide the technologies (long-duration propellation storage, engines that can reliably restart over many years, etc.) needed for chemically powered deep space propulsion.

    I probably sound like a broken record today, but I think we’re again using a means (deep space propulsion) to justify an end (lunar or space settlement). We can’t rationalize what we be a very expensive effort to settle the Moon with the justification that it will help drive demand to do one element of that effort (deep space transport) better. (Similarly, we didn’t settle the American West to build better railroads.) The justification for lunar or space settlement has to stand on its own.

    FWIW…

  • Dennis Wingo

    I probably sound like a broken record today, but I think we’re again using a means (deep space propulsion) to justify an end (lunar or space settlement). We can’t rationalize what we be a very expensive effort to settle the Moon with the justification that it will help drive demand to do one element of that effort (deep space transport) better. (Similarly, we didn’t settle the American West to build better railroads.) The justification for lunar or space settlement has to stand on its own.

    Maybe you can’t rationalize it or that NASA is so fixated on Mars that they refuse to rationalize it (the more likely of the two) but that does not mean that the lunar effort is futile, as is your implication.

  • anonymouspace

    “Personally, I think that this bill has a LOT of good stuff in it, but I don’t think Mike Griffin will be happy. I am guessing that the Griffin will want to push back on this, and pretty hard.”

    “I personally see this bill as a loss of confidence in Mike Griffin’s leadership, and his ESAS strategy.”

    “This bill is mostly focused on fixing problems created by Griffin, enacting mandates on Griffin, and making changes to his strategy. This means that Griffin will probably oppose it (behind the scenes), further reducing the chance it will pass in this Congress.”

    “… Again, this is effectively another slap at Griffin.”

    Mr. Fansome is right that there is much in the bill that would restore those VSE elements that Griffin has killed over the years (commercial human space flight, exploration technology, integrated Mars program, deep space observatories, NEO effort, prizes, etc.) and that the bill would pull NASA back from some of Griffin’s worst excesses (lack of international involvement in Constellation, leap to a baseline human lunar base, etc.).

    But it’s important to note that the bill does not reconsider ESAS, and that it actually tries to accelerate Ares I/Orion. The bill directs NASA to pursue COTS D and only employ Orion when absolutely necessary, but also authorizes another $1 billion for Ares I/Orion.

    So it’s not a total loss for Griffin, and arguably advances his highest priority — Ares I/Orion — after Shuttle shutdown.

    Given the multitude and magnitude of technical, schedule, budget, and political issues with Constellation, I’d argue that the lack of even a study to examine alternatives, nevertheless the pursuit of a robust set of alternatives, is the biggest hole and weakness in the bill. But at least there’s COTS D.

    FWIW…

  • anonymouspace

    “Maybe you can’t rationalize it or that NASA is so fixated on Mars that they refuse to rationalize it (the more likely of the two) but that does not mean that the lunar effort is futile, as is your implication.”

    Where did I say that human lunar exploration/development/settlement is futile?

    I’m just saying that the justification provided so far in this discussion confuses means with ends and is therefore inadequate.

    Just so you know, I do support an economical human return (not Constellation, though) to the Moon on taxpayer dollars. But even with an economical architecture, I would not make the leap to permanent, continuously occupied lunar outposts on taxpayer dollars unless we find or prove out something (or have some other, external, national rationale/justification) that would make the effort worth the expense.

    FWIW…

  • Al Fansome

    DONALD: In the absense of a lunar base with it’s support requirements, I would be interested in your ideas of how the up-front costs of better deep space propulsion can be justified politically and economically.

    There are lots of ideas for better deep space propulsion. The justification is situationally dependent. There are concepts for deep space propulsion that do not depend on going to the Moon or Mars to be funded.

    For example, DARPA has a new program called FAST, which was justified based on “security” reasons. You can see the justification for FAST here:
    http://www.darpa.mil/tto/text/programs/fast.htm

    The goal of the Fast Access Spacecraft Testbed (FAST) program is to develop and perform ground demonstrations of a 20 kW High Power Generation Subsystem (HPGS) that, when combined with state-of-the-art electric propulsion systems, will form the technological basis for a light weight, high power, highly mobile spacecraft platform. The system will be scalable to produce as much as 50-80 kW for operational users, but at high specific power levels (130 W/kg or better for the solar power system, 3-4x that of conventional systems). The FAST HPGS would also greatly enhance the performance of historically “power-starved” payloads, such as high-bandwidth communications, radar, and lidar.”

    Another advanced propulsion capability called VASIMIR was started using small amounts of NASA funding, but is being taken to the level by its Franklin Chang-Diaz with private funding for Earth-based reasons. You can read more about VASIMIR here:

    http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/19427/

    Basically, this rocket has the ability to destroy toxic wastes of all kinds, which is a useful ability, and the source of his private financing.

    FWIW,

    – Al

  • Ray

    Anonymous.space: “Given the multitude and magnitude of technical, schedule, budget, and political issues with Constellation, I’d argue that the lack of even a study to examine alternatives, nevertheless the pursuit of a robust set of alternatives, is the biggest hole and weakness in the bill.”

    I agree, but I’d be willing to make the trade of going ahead with ESAS in exchange for some of the other items in the bill (increased suborbital use, COTS D, augmented ISS cargo services, doing something with DSCOVR, getting a better pipeline of NASA Earth science cutting edge missions into operational NOAA missions, doing more R&D, institutionalizing robotic or human servicing capabilities for big observatories, doing a study of the effects of ITAR as currently implemented, tracking NEOs, a small Apophis mission, encouraging commercial supply of fuel and water and other services, space weather focus, etc).

  • Ray

    anonymousspace: “Mr. Fansome is right that there is much in the bill that would restore those VSE elements that Griffin has killed over the years (commercial human space flight, exploration technology, integrated Mars program, deep space observatories, NEO effort, prizes, etc.)”.

    There is a section on prizes at the end that seems to allow bigger prizes ($10M to $50M). It also makes some suggestions on what kind of prizes to implement (aviation, power beaming, NEO). However, I didn’t see anything that looked like an actual budget line for prizes. Did I miss it?

  • Anonymous: I think we’re again using a means (deep space propulsion) to justify an end (lunar or space settlement).

    I think you have my argument backward. I’m using the end (lunar or space settlement) to try to justify better transportation. No, we did not colonize the American West to create a cross country railroad, but that begs the (my) question: would the cross country railroad have happened if we hadn’t coloized the West (or, more accurately, built San Francisco)? I think not.

    The key charactoristic that all of your suggested alternatives to a lunar base have in common is that none of them happened. In LEO, the ISS did happen and better transportation (or at least different transportation) is being financed, however badly and inadequately.

    Al: I agree that we can get deep space propulsion incrementally with other projects. DARPA (I believe) are also funding solar thermal propulsion tests through SpaceDev. However, I would still argue that it would happen a lot faster if there were an immediate political and economic justification to do it — an immediate need or requirement to fulfill, without which something will break, like the ISS is providing in LEO.

    Everyone: It looks to me like Ares-1 may have enough political mementum that it will prove very difficult to kill, no matter how much of a waste of money it is. Maybe we should direct our efforts to ensuring that there are more economic alternatives, e.g., COTS-D, and not directly tie the latter to the death of the former.

    — Donald

  • Al Fansome

    DONALD: Everyone: It looks to me like Ares-1 may have enough political mementum that it will prove very difficult to kill, no matter how much of a waste of money it is.

    Anonymous,

    You say that you are not happy with the bill because it does not tackle the Ares 1 problems.

    Donald,

    I am guessing that you are interpreting the bill as some kind of endorsement of Ares 1 because it does not kill the Ares 1.

    Let’s look at the situation.

    Udall represents a Colorado district with a lot of NASA business. He is also running for the U.S. Senate in Colorado. The last thing he is going to do is attack (head on) the #1 priority of the Administrator of NASA, and have Griffin then say things about how Udall is hurting the space program. Attacking Ares 1 is a losing proposition for Udall. It only generates political pain.

    In other words, Udall is demonstrating good political judgement.

    On top of this, Rep. Bart Gordon is the Chairman of the House Science Committee (Udall’s notional leader) and his southern Tennesee district is a bedroom community for many MSFC engineers. Many MSFC engineers work on Ares 1. Even if Udall wanted to attack Ares 1, he would not have support of his leadership, and probably would create a lot of grief for himself.

    Finally, Udall knows that Ares 1 is likely to die without his help in the next Administration.

    In summary, there is little upside reason for Udall to attack Ares 1, and many downsides.

    – Al

  • Dennis Wingo

    Just so you know, I do support an economical human return (not Constellation, though) to the Moon on taxpayer dollars. But even with an economical architecture, I would not make the leap to permanent, continuously occupied lunar outposts on taxpayer dollars unless we find or prove out something (or have some other, external, national rationale/justification) that would make the effort worth the expense.

    Thus you have revealed that you do not think that this is the case. Over the past few years of discussing this issue and the economic development of the solar system as the core value of our future human space efforts, I have seen broad types of response.

    The first response is yours, which is a string of sentences with the words if, can’t, isn’t, nothing, must prove.

    Without going, without doing, there is no proof. Without the investment, without the will, without the level 0 requirement, without the goal, of developing at least a self sustaining industrial infrastructure, there is no human space program.

    Mars at our current level of technology is a bridge too far and an unsustainable flags and footprints dream. Lets take the most optimum scenario that we find life on Mars. So what? What does this do to improve the lives of the taxpayers that fund these efforts? Answer, not a damn thing.

    This leads to the second response.

    Without a human spaceflight program that has improving the lives of the taxpayers that pay the bills, human spaceflight will continue in the morass that it is in today. This is to me the greatest part of the new authorization bill, it demands that this connection be made.

    I have spent the last 15 months on a completely non space website making these arguments and it is amazing how it breaks out. The older the aerospace professional, the more I hear the first response, which is your response. The further away you get from the entrenched aerospace world, the more you hear the second response.

    It may be that this generation of aerospace professional and space advocate must die before we make any progress. Because, at no time in human history has it been that humans have done anything of great importance, civilization level importance, without some economic return envisioned, without it doing something to materially improve our lives.

  • anonymous.space

    “I agree, but I’d be willing to make the trade of going ahead with ESAS in exchange for some of the other items in the bill (increased suborbital use, COTS D, augmented ISS cargo services, doing something with DSCOVR, getting a better pipeline of NASA Earth science cutting edge missions into operational NOAA missions, doing more R&D, institutionalizing robotic or human servicing capabilities for big observatories, doing a study of the effects of ITAR as currently implemented, tracking NEOs, a small Apophis mission, encouraging commercial supply of fuel and water and other services, space weather focus, etc).”

    I’d agree with Ray that it’s a decent tradeoff if there was some reasonable guarantee that the funding for all these activities in the bill was going to materialize. Unfortunately, this is just an authorization bill. Even if this bill makes it through the House and by some miracle a companion bill materializes in the Senate, there is no guarantee that the appropriators are going to cough up the extra $1.5 billion that this bill calls for over and above the President’s budget request for NASA in FY 2009. I’d argue that the only realistic way these kinds of activities are going to make their way back into the NASA budget is with either a change in Administration and NASA priorities and/or different NASA leadership that chooses not to sink so much of the agency’s resources into duplicating the intermediate-lift ETO wheel.

    FWIW…

  • anonymous.space

    “However, I didn’t see anything that looked like an actual budget line for prizes. Did I miss it?”

    This is just an authorization bill. It only authorizes up to $50 million for prizes. It’s up to the appropriators to actually supply the money and it can be at any level at or less than $50 million, including zero.

    Sadly, even if the authorization bill became law, given the performance of the past few years, it’s highly unlikely that the appropriators will provide any funding for prizes, nevertheless $50 million. NASA’s last authorization bill authorized $10 million per year in prizes, and the appropriators have provided squat every year after the program’s first year.

    With the right push from senior NASA leadership or lobbying from the authorizing legislators, that could change. But there’s been no indication of anything more than lip service from either.

    FWIW…

  • anonymous.space

    “I think you have my argument backward. I’m using the end (lunar or space settlement) to try to justify better transportation. No, we did not colonize the American West to create a cross country railroad, but that begs the (my) question: would the cross country railroad have happened if we hadn’t coloized the West (or, more accurately, built San Francisco)? I think not.”

    Fair enough, but you (or we) still need to provide a justification for the lunar base.

    “The key charactoristic that all of your suggested alternatives to a lunar base have in common is that none of them happened.”

    I’m not sure what your point is here. A lunar base hasn’t “happened” either.

    “In LEO, the ISS did happen and better transportation (or at least different transportation) is being financed, however badly and inadequately.”

    Again, I don’t understand what’s so special about the Moon that the ISS/COTS model can only be replicated there. There are plenty of plans out there for Lagrange servicing stations, Phobos/Deimos outposts, Mars Direct, etc. that would produce very similar or greater demand pull for deep space transportation.

    Now if you prefer the Moon over these other targets because, say it’s the closest target with a shot at having enough resources to sustain an off-Earth branch of humanity, well, that’s a different argument and one that revolves around the rationale and justification for a lunar base, not the best path for developing deep space propulsion.

    “It looks to me like Ares-1 may have enough political mementum that it will prove very difficult to kill, no matter how much of a waste of money it is. Maybe we should direct our efforts to ensuring that there are more economic alternatives, e.g., COTS-D, and not directly tie the latter to the death of the former.”

    The problem is that this is just an authorization bill. Even if by some miracle it becomes law, it’s still highly unlikely that the appropriators are going to cough up an extra $1.5 billion plus above the President’s FY 2009 request for NASA to fund the additional activities (including COTS D) called for in this bill.

    As great as many aspects of this bill are, the additional funding needed to pursue them is largely a fantasy unless cuts are made elsewhere at NASA. At some point, a hard decision is going to have to be made. Do we want NASA to continue suck all the oxygen out of its budget by (very slowly and very poorly) reinventing the intermediate lift ETO wheel at great cost to the taxpayer? Or do we want to leverage existing military and commerical launch vehicle investments and/or more smartly reuse the Shuttle infrastructure to satisfy NASA’s ETO needs so that there’s something left over within NASA’s limited budget for actual human space exploration or other activities?

    Just by the nature of the institutions, those are the kinds decisions and major changes in direction that White Houses, not Congresses, make. As Mr. Fansome pointed out, the fate of Constellation, and what replaces it, if anything, really lies in the hands of the next Administration. It’s good that the House authorizers are starting to at least put down a marker on COTS D, but the decisions and funding necessary to make that or other alternatives a reality won’t come from them.

    FWIW…

  • anonymous.space

    “Thus you have revealed that you do not think that this is the case.”

    Where did I say I do not think it is the case that lunar development can be a net benefit to the exploration and development of the solar system overall? Please stop putting words in my mouth.

    I’m simply saying that we (you, me, and everyone else) don’t know yet. Until we have some reasonable evidence that such benefits will accrue, as a matter of good policy, throwing tens or hundreds of billion of dollars at yet another permanently occupied human base in space (at the Moon or anywhere else) is not a wise investment of taxpayer dollars.

    For example, if the justification for a permanent, continuous human lunar presence is the production in a less burdensome gravity well of propellants and other consumables from lunar water ice, then we should probably make sure that there is actually water ice on the Moon and that the water ice can be mined from, refined in, and shipped from that environment economically before making the commitment to that permanent, continuous human lunar presence. It would be silly, at this point in time when we havn’t yet identified the source of the lunar polar hydrogen signatures, nevertheless determined whether the postulated water ice is in a useable form, to make such a commitment on that basis.

    “The first response is yours, which is a string of sentences with the words if, can’t, isn’t, nothing, must prove.

    Without going, without doing, there is no proof. Without the investment, without the will, without the level 0 requirement, without the goal, of developing at least a self sustaining industrial infrastructure, there is no human space program.”

    I apologize in advance if these words offend, but that’s a faith-based justification and we’ve had far too much of that for far too many decades in NASA’s human space flight program.

    On the basis of faith that microgravity research would produce breakthroughs in medicine and materials, NASA plunged headlong into an enormous, $100 billion space station program that has fallen far, far short of such benefits. Would that we had spent a few billion on smaller research platforms to test the promise of the microgravity environment before making such commitments.

    On the basis of faith that the reuse (however poorly) of launch vehicle systems would produce huge savings in space transportation costs, NASA plunged headlong into an enormous, workforce-intensive, operationally fragile, and unsafe $175 billion space shuttle program that has proven to be nearly unaffordable. Would that we had spent a few billion on smaller X- and Y- vehicles to test approaches to such a vehicle before committing to an operational design.

    Before we make another such commitment to yet another boondoggle that ties up the nation’s civil human space flight resources for another couple of decades, we need to do our homework, execute some incremental activities, and have some reasonable certainty that we’re headed down the right path before making the big bets. We can’t sustain endless cycles of jumping into enormous engineering projects with huge costs and tiny (or negative) benefits.

    “Mars at our current level of technology is a bridge too far and an unsustainable flags and footprints dream.”

    Where did I make the argument for Mars or bust? For the third time, please stop putting words in my mouth.

    “Lets take the most optimum scenario that we find life on Mars.”

    Actually, if we find Mars life, humans are highly, highly unlikely to tread the surface of that planet anytime soon. The back- and forward-contamination issues will probably be intractable for decades to come. There may be an extensive robotic presence on the ground and a human presence in Mars orbit to direct it, but it won’t be the kinds of space development and settlement activites that I think you’re looking for.

    “What does this do to improve the lives of the taxpayers that fund these efforts? Answer, not a damn thing.”

    And how exactly will the development and settlement of the Moon improve the lives of taxpayers?

    If it’s improvement in the lives of taxpayers that we’re looking for — at least those taxpayers that are actually living today — then that argues for redirecting the NASA human space flight program back towards microgravity research in the hope that some medical or materials breakthroughs will be made in the next couple decades. Or it argues for redirecting human space flight dollars towards improvements in unmanned applications in the vein of Earth remote sensing, global positioning, and space communications. Or it argues for redirecting human space flight dollars to technologies and vehicles that would allow taxpayers to experience space for themselves (space tourism). Or it argues for redirecting human space flight dollars to direct investment in terrestrial technologies that the program is always trying to claim through spin-offs.

    The unique benefits of a human lunar presence that could accrue to taxpayers — minerals from the Moon that could compete economically with terrestrial mining, solar or He3 power from the Moon, etc. — are very iffy at this point in time and many decades into the future. At this point in time, a multi-ten or -hundred billion dollar lunar exploration and development activity cannot be justified on the basis of improvements in the lives of taxpayers. There may be other justifications, but that one is a bridge too far.

    “Without a human spaceflight program that has improving the lives of the taxpayers that pay the bills, human spaceflight will continue in the morass that it is in today. This is to me the greatest part of the new authorization bill, it demands that this connection be made.”

    The bill demands a result-oriented human space flight program. It doesn’t say that those results are improvements in the lives of taxpayers.

    I’m all for an incremental, affordable human lunar return. And I’m all for a human space flight program that focuses on economic benefits. But we have to be realistic about how we rationalize and justify these programs. It remains to be seen whether the former has anything to do with the latter.

    FWIW…

  • Ray

    anonymous.space: “For example, if the justification for a permanent, continuous human lunar presence is the production in a less burdensome gravity well of propellants and other consumables from lunar water ice, then we should probably make sure that there is actually water ice on the Moon and that the water ice can be mined from, refined in, and shipped from that environment economically before making the commitment to that permanent, continuous human lunar presence.”

    That’s one reason why I’m disappointed that the so much of the return to the Moon effort has revolved around getting people to the Moon in 2020, and so little has gone into the robotic scouting and prototyping that would give us a better idea why, where, and how to go there with people. At least a couple more lunar robotic missions were added a few months ago. I’d like to see more robotic missions to characterize the Moon and its resources. I’d also like to see demos of lunar ISRU, robotic systems that would work with the astronauts, small versions of science instruments that could only reach full capability with the astronauts, etc. Even if the budget dictated that these efforts had to be traded with, say, a crew of 2 instead of 4 per mission, or human-tended instead of constantly-occupied base, I’d make the trade.

  • Dennis Wingo

    That’s one reason why I’m disappointed that the so much of the return to the Moon effort has revolved around getting people to the Moon in 2020, and so little has gone into the robotic scouting and prototyping that would give us a better idea why, where, and how to go there with people. At least a couple more lunar robotic missions were added a few months ago. I’d like to see more robotic missions to characterize the Moon and its resources. I’d also like to see demos of lunar ISRU, robotic systems that would work with the astronauts, small versions of science instruments that could only reach full capability with the astronauts, etc. Even if the budget dictated that these efforts had to be traded with, say, a crew of 2 instead of 4 per mission, or human-tended instead of constantly-occupied base, I’d make the trade.

    This I absolutely agree with and see that the authorization bill’s call for reinvigorating the H&RT effort is a good thing.

    As for Mr. Anonymous.space, you are one of these professional skeptics that I am growing to loath. Exactly how much research have you done on Lunar resources, modern materials processing (in terrestrial industry not NASA), and the growing importance of vacuum based processing of alloys? From super alloys and nanotechnology to intermetallics the Moon has both the resources and the proper conditions for high tech materials industry.

    I worked in the microgravity field for ten years and understand that as well. I do think that there is promise in the field, but if we take as a premise that we can build a robust lunar effort that incorporates ISS as part of the plan, then the transportation architecture that results will enable low cost transportation for microgravity experiments. Frequent and reliable access to space was always the core problem in the microgravity world. If you have that, the microgravity manufacturing world will grow on its own. With ISS and the advent of several vehicle to service it this problem will solve itself. Oh, and don’t talk to me about microgravity disturbances unless you have internalized all the data from Dr. Robert Naumann and understand the Naumann curve.

    Furthermore, recent scientific papers resulting from the Japanese data and theoretical modeling indicates that my own pet thesis that there are large quantities of Ni-Fe-Co-PGM impactors on the lunar surface is almost 100% assured, then with quite a lot of confidence, along with what we already know from the Apollo samples, indicates that these materials are there, and in industrial quantities.

    Additionally, until you have elevated your competence level both with books like the “Resources of Near Earth Space”, NASA SP-509, as well as the hundreds of papers regarding materials processing methods of lunar resources you simply are not competent to be a naysayer on this subject.

  • Dennis Wingo

    sorry the html did not come out right and everything was italicized. The first paragraph was from Ray.

  • […] NASA authorization bill introduced in House – Space Politics […]

  • Anonymous: Fair enough, but you (or we) still need to provide a justification for the lunar base.

    Do we? Was there a rational justification for the ISS? Probably not, but it did get built and is providing tha t”market” for transportation investment. Something to consider. . . .

    I don’t understand what’s so special about the Moon that the ISS/COTS model can only be replicated there. There are plenty of plans out there for Lagrange servicing stations, Phobos/Deimos outposts, Mars Direct, etc. that would produce very similar or greater demand pull for deep space transportation.

    I agree that there is nothing special about the moon, except that it is the easiest to get to and that you can get oxygen there. I would actually prefer an asteroid or PhD effort, since that would provide greater deep space experience while also providing access to local resources. I would argue against Langrangian and other orbital destinations as a next goal because I think we do need to go somewhere where we can practice living off the land.

    that’s a different argument and one that revolves around the rationale and justification for a lunar base, not the best path for developing deep space propulsion.

    I don’t agree. I still think the best path for justifying deep space propulsion is to give it an urgent need for being — that is, someplace that needs supplied at the lowest possible cost. This may be an oversimplification, but I think it has a lot of truth: build a lunar (or asteroid or PhD) base, and better transportation will take care of itself — just as is proving the case with the ISS.

    — Donald

  • Vladislaw

    “I think you have my argument backward. I’m using the end (lunar or space settlement) to try to justify better transportation. No, we did not colonize the American West to create a cross country railroad, but that begs the (my) question: would the cross country railroad have happened if we hadn’t coloized the West (or, more accurately, built San Francisco)?”

    From 1850-1871, the railroads received more than 175 million acres (708,000 km²) of public land – an area more than one tenth of the whole United States and larger than Texas.

    Gosh I wonder why they agreed to build the railroads? All that FREE LAND and mineral rights or was it the 16,000 – 32000 – 48000 dollars they were paid per mile on top of the free land and all the free timber, water and mineral rights.

    Transportation of today is all we need to start up with on the moon. Before the railroad we used ships and wagons, they were slower but they still did the job, it only made goods more expensive to the end user in california. California was basically a seperate economy that experienced inflation from lack of a cheap transportation system. It was the merchants who pushed for the railroad, the BIG FOUR.

    If we use Today’s rockets the lunar economy will also be a seperate economy much like in california. If it costs $200,000.00 a kg to ship something to the moon how will lunar residents pay for it? They will do the same thing they did in california, pay for it with common LOCAL resources that are rare in the other seperate economy. timber, gold and silver was more common then in the east and paying for something with a “pinch of gold” was common.

    Modern Lunar Prospectors will not offer up their poke sack but they WILL offer secondary mineral claims and land they OWN. They will trade regolite to the oxy processor or sell the mining rights to the regolith on the land they OWN. And like in California, where the risk of transporting gold was high, Lunar Prospectors will NOT cart the gold, silver, platinum back to earth, they will do what the miners did then. Stick it in a box and hang a sign outside “First Lunar Bank” .

    NOTHING has to be brought BACK to earth in the beginning just like during the gold rush. The fortune was found locally and spent locally. Lucky for us we can just use ELECTRONIC EARTH LUNAR BANKING. It doesnt matter if my gold is in a vault on earth or the moon, I can still draw against it, take loans out for it, transfer ownership of it without ever actually touching it or having to move it.

    “The unique benefits of a human lunar presence that could accrue to taxpayers — minerals from the Moon that could compete economically with terrestrial mining, solar or He3 power from the Moon, etc. — are very iffy at this point in time and many decades into the future.”

    Minerals from the moon will never beable to compete with earth based minerals because costs associated with transportation and extraction will always be higher. That is not the problem.

    We have to generate WEALTH for developers BEFORE they develop. When they built the railroad they gained 10 square miles of FREE LAND, an INSTANT ASSET, with each mile of track they laid.

    We will never do anything on the moon until the PRIVATE sector actually OWNS something on the moon because it will always be predicated on ONE customer, NASA, and the political vulgarities of the day determining their budget. We need to create a ton of BILLIONAIRES by giving away MILLIONS of acres of free land so it is in THEIR economic best interest to develop the resources independent of what the next president or political party decides to spend on the space effort.

  • Someone

    Yep, we need to get rid of that pesky Outer Space Treaty and claim the Moon for the USA. And if anyone says anything we will just nuke them.

    And people thought the 19th Century land grabs were a thing of the past.

    Really you already have thousands of trllion dollar NEOs out there for the taking and yet no one is rushing to build spacecraft to reach them. How would claiming the moon make any difference? Especially when you are able to mine all the PGMs you are able to find without permits or licenses from anyone?

  • Vladislaw

    Who is talking about a land grab? If the US recognizes ANY claim from ANY individual and ANY company from all over the planet? I would imagine if a US company went to the moon and claimed 500,000 acres out of the 9 BILLION acres and the US government RECOGNIZED it as a legal claim, russia, china, europe and the ESA, japan and india would all just say congrates and not pursue it themselves.

    The US could say we will not recognize an individual claim over X acres and no corporation over X acres. It would definately add some friendly competition to the space race. Anyone that doesnt think it is a race is fooling themselves. The moon is a 9 billion acre UNCLAIMED asset and sooner or later some of it will be listed on some company’s balance sheet.

    Personally, I would like to see US firms get the high ground. LEO and GEO “real estate” has been defined. Since the USA was there first we got a lot of slots. A company can get a slot IN SPACE for their equipment. Lets extend that right a couple hundred thousand miles to include the moon.

  • Vladislaw

    “Really you already have thousands of trllion dollar NEOs out there for the taking and yet no one is rushing to build spacecraft to reach them. ”

    Because what government would recognize it? If it was legal to just claim them you would not even have to build a craft just claim it. But again, what government would recognize it.

    Legal tender or forced tender is payment that, by law, cannot be refused in settlement of a debt, a debtor cannot successfully be sued for non-payment. If I borrow money and use my car as collateral and default I could just hand over the title deed and if the car was valued at more then the loan a court would rule that the debt was settled. If you claimed land on the moon or NEO without the US government recognizing that claim it would be worthless as far as being legal tender in a US court of law and for accounting purposes for taxes.

  • Habitat Hermit

    But it isn’t legal to “just claim them” without actually going to them and capturing or refining them or whatever and it won’t become so either because it doesn’t make any sense to do it that way.

    Imagine if as a limited experiment a million people got to claim a few tens of thousands of metric tons each among NEOs as they choose and pay taxes on it(please excuse the joke ^_^) and borrow with it as security.

    Can you imagine the inflationary pressure from such a freebie? Are we trying to destroy economies here or are we trying to extend humanity (and hopefully freedom) into space?

    I agree with a lot of what you say up until you get into the claims stuff Vladislaw but at that point I get the thousand mile stare and lose track of the reasoning. Why is it supposed to be a good idea again?

  • Vladislaw

    Habitat… you have to understand what legal tender is:

    Legal tender or forced tender is payment that, by law, cannot be refused in settlement of a debt, a debtor cannot successfully be sued for non-payment.

    In lending agreements, collateral is a borrower’s asset that is forfeited to the lender if the borrower is insolvent — that is, unable to pay back the principal and interest on the loan. When insolvent, the borrower is said to default on the loan, in which case the lender becomes the owner of the collateral.

    A LEGAL claim can be used as legal tender for collateral. It becomes a negotiable instrument. A negotiable instrument is a specialized type of “contract” for the payment of money that is unconditional and capable of transfer by negotiation.

    In other words, mineral claims, timber claims, oil claims, water claims are in effect MONEY. You can use a claim as collateral for a loan and the bank HAS to accept it if it is recognized by the government in a default situation. You can lease claims or sell them outright. Claims were used as money in california for buying the equipment to mine after the rivers were panned out by the individual prospectors and industrial mining started.

    By handing out land grants and mineral claims, the US would be in effect, handing out money at no cost to the taxpayer. Companies and individuals would then have INSTANT wealth generated. Since the claims are recognized by the taxing agent, the United States Government, they can be used as assets in accounting, collateral for loans, leased or sold to raise invesment money. A banker would be more willing to make a loan on a project if they KNOW that the assets are “real property”.

    In the common law, real property (or realty) refers to one of the two main classes of property, the other class being personal property (personalty). Real property generally encompasses land, land improvements resulting from human effort including buildings and machinery sited on land, and various property rights over the preceding. ( including mineral rights)

    Land is the number one asset a banker loves to see. If space companies have real property on the moon then the bank or lending agents are more willing to take part.

  • Vladislaw

    “Can you imagine the inflationary pressure from such a freebie? Are we trying to destroy economies here or are we trying to extend humanity (and hopefully freedom) into space?”

    I did talk about that. As in california when the mode of transportation was slow and irregular they did have enormous inflation and you would see that on moon. I was being facetious about just claiming NEO’s, I think you should have to go and pile up some rocks plant a pin et cetera. In the early mining districts if you left your tools in the hole, your claim was considered occupied and being worked. If you didnt work a claim in X amount of months it was considered abandoned and someone else could start working it. It should be the same in space, you get a claim and you get X many years to start working it and have to have a miner there X amount of months per year to maintain the claim. In land grants it was usually measured by making improvements, the homestead act you had to build a shelter et cetera, the same would hold for space, you do not get the free land or claim unless you are actually working it and making capital impovements.

    If we suddenly added the ENTIRE moon into our economy overnight it would be to much. The rate at which we develop and how disruptive would be a function of how much and how fast you bring it in.

    The moon will be very expensive and those expenses will be paid for with the very valuable resources, made valuable ONLY because of TODAY’S transportation system’s costs. Because the wealth generating capability will be so high, enormous pressure will be for a different method. That same enormous wealth will then be used to be the first to bring that transportation system online.

    It california everyone thinks all the millionaires were made by finding gold. Actually the most millionaires were made from merchants SUPPLYING the miners! And it was merchants, the BIG FOUR, who pushed for railroads, the different form of transportation they needed in their day. I believe it will be the same thing on the moon. Merchants supplying food, water, breathable air, rovers, portable habitats, roving habitats, processors et cetera, to the miners that will be the big winners.

  • Habitat Hermit

    I’m very familiar with legal tender and of course like just about anyone I’d like to be even more familiar with it ^_^

    Vladislaw wrote:

    “By handing out land grants and mineral claims, the US would be in effect, handing out money at no cost to the taxpayer.”

    There would be a very high cost to both taxpayers and everyone else in the economy (and not just in the US), it would amount to macroeconomic harakiri by instant massive devaluation and/or inflation, market instabilities of all sorts and general upheaval across the board.

    Vladislaw wrote:

    “I was being facetious about just claiming NEO’s, I think you should have to go and pile up some rocks plant a pin et cetera.”

    Ok however what you go on to describe is practically the same as already exists under the Outer Space Treaty (occupation and/or use equals a valid claim) and that is already in effect. Sure there are details that will be worked out as it actually happens but there’s nothing major that’s needed and least of all preemptively or as some kind of prerequisite.

    Vladislaw wrote:

    “The moon will be very expensive and those expenses will be paid for with the very valuable resources, made valuable ONLY because of TODAY’S transportation system’s costs. Because the wealth generating capability will be so high, enormous pressure will be for a different method. That same enormous wealth will then be used to be the first to bring that transportation system online.”

    Not sure I read you correctly but if you’re saying what I think you are then it’s like baron Münchhausen pulling himself up by the hair ^_^

    There’s a market price for most commodities, let’s say you discover a fantastically rich vein of ore in a rather hard to get to place on Earth (has happened more than once and no California isn’t a good example but West Guinea and Papua New Guinea are). If I understand you correctly what you’re saying is similar to claiming that such ore would become more valuable than its commodity price because of its remoteness.

    From a local perspective (i.e. close to the mines) that’s wrong as there’s vast oversupply.

    From the perspective of everywhere else (and that’s all there is beforehand) it’s still wrong as such remote and difficult locations need to have richer than normal ores in order to attract investment and provide profit. The transportation costs deduct from the value of the ore.

  • anonymous.space

    “As for Mr. Anonymous.space, you are one of these professional skeptics that I am growing to loath… until you have elevated your competence level… you simply are not competent to be a naysayer”

    Please, no personal attacks. I’ve made none against you. You’re better than that, Mr. Wingo.

    Debate the post, not the poster.

    “From super alloys and nanotechnology to intermetallics the Moon has both the resources and the proper conditions for high tech materials industry.”

    There is much, much more to an industry than just resources and production conditions. Does the lunar product address an unfulfilled market? If not, what’s the value proposition of the lunar product — does it possess a technical or cost advantage over competing terrestrial products? Is that advantage great enough to displace these terrestrial products? Is the combination of market size and profit margin large enough to sustain the necessary lunar infrastructure?

    Without a much more detailed discussion, the short, vague list of products above provides no meaningful answer to these and other critical questions, especially in the absence of any quantifiable, nevertheless experimental, knowledge about the challenges and costs of lunar production.

    Superalloys (one word, not two) have been around since the 1940s, when they were first used in gas turbines. New terrestrial production techniques (like radiolysis) promise to maintain the steady trend we’ve seen since that time towards superalloys capable of withstanding ever higher temperature creep. It’s not clear that lunar experimentation and production could accelerate this trend, and even if it could, it remains to be seen whether the advantages conferred would be worth the additional costs imposed.

    Nanotechnology is a very broad term encompassing many, very different products. But assuming we’re talking about nanomaterials specifically, and not nanotechnology generally, the promise of nanomaterial production and application has yet to be fulfilled terrestrially. CNTs were only discovered in the early 1990s, and we’re only now beginning to see lab applications like transitors and potential lab proofs of industrial-scale production. Until terrestrial nanomaterial products actually hit the market and open up new applications or displace existing products, it’s premature to talk about the advantages of lunar nanomaterials (assuming any are conferred).

    Various intermetallics have been around since the Roman Empire, at least. Some desirable intermetallics for semiconductor, microelectronic, and hydrogen storage application are difficult to manufacture terrestrially, and the lunar environment could theoretically alleviate (but not eliminate) these production issues. But even basic lunar experiments in lunar production of intermetallics have not been executed, and again, even if the theoretical advantages proved out, it remains to be seen whether the advantages outweigh the additional costs imposed by production on the Moon.

    “Oh, and don’t talk to me about microgravity disturbances unless you have internalized all the data from Dr. Robert Naumann and understand the Naumann curve.”

    The Naumann curve is just a plot of acceleration versus frequency. It defines disturbances in the microgravity environment, a key condition for microgravity experimentation and production. But again, there’s much more to the viability of an industry than environmental conditions. They are necessary, but not sufficient, prerequisites. Many other unknowns must be tackled before a business case can be made.

    “Furthermore, recent scientific papers resulting from the Japanese data and theoretical modeling indicates that my own pet thesis that there are large quantities of Ni-Fe-Co-PGM impactors on the lunar surface”

    Exactly — it’s a “pet thesis” (and this one is still about just the existence of resources, forget extraction, refinement, production, transportation, market, and competing products). It’s not a well-defined business case ready for major government or private investment.

    I hate playing devil’s advocate here. I really do think that there is some promise regarding lunar resources than needs to be explored and pursued further. Apollo-era data and terrestrial experiments are clearly not enough. But there’s a huge leap between our existing state of knowledge and justifying a multi-hundred billion dollar investment in a human lunar base on the basis of lunar materials production. In between, there are many, many multi-ten million, multi-hundred million, and multi-billion dollar class missions and experiments that need to be undertaken before we can say with any confidence that there are products that can produced on the Moon that will sell well back on Earth, especially well enough to carry the burden of a human lunar infrastructure.

    My 2 cents… FWIW…

  • anonymous.space

    “Do we? Was there a rational justification for the ISS? Probably not, but it did get built and is providing tha t”market” for transportation investment. Something to consider. . . .”

    It depends on the point in history, but going back to the beginning, the Reagan-era space station that eventually led to ISS was justified partly on the basis of competition with the Soviets and partly on the promise of microgravity science and manufacture. Even after 30 years of Shuttle and ISS experiments, the latter has not panned out, arguably in the slightest. That may be because Shuttle and ISS are such constrained research platforms, but if no sustainable markets prove out there or elsewhere (e.g., Bigelow), it won’t matter much in the long-run that ISS demand helped incubate a couple new launch systems/providers. When ISS goes away sometime towards the turn of the next decade, in the absence of some proven, profitable microgravity research benefits and/or products, there won’t be much to replace that demand (excepting orbital space tourism, of course).

    FWIW…

Leave a Reply to Al Fansome 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>