Congress, Other

Brief notes: committee leadership, science funding, Indian consternation

The Dallas Morning News confirmed Tuesday that two Dallas-area representatives, Ralph Hall (R) and Eddie Bernice Johnson (D) are in the race to become the new chair and ranking member, respectively, of the House Science and Technology Committee. Hall’s office in particular notes that Hall has “almost been assured” their chairmanship, with no discussion of any potential competition from either Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) or Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI)

Four former or retiring members of Congress talked about science policy issues in a Science magazine roundtable recently, with an eye towards how the new Congress and its expected fiscal conservatism will affect science programs. While not discussing NASA directly, one participant, former House Science Committee chairman Sherwood Boehlert suggested considering science funding as a “national security” item and thus protected from budget cuts. “When a lot of the conversation is about the next Congress cutting or freezing all non-national security spending, we ought to take [science] funding and put it under the national security umbrella. Because it is a question of national security–lessening dependence on foreign oil, competitiveness, providing opportunities for our young people, creating jobs.”

The meeting between President Obama and Indian Prime Minister Singh resulted in a number of announcements, including a civil space fact sheet (Word .docx format). The fact sheet doesn’t appear to contain any major developments, talking about continuing earth observation cooperation as well as plans to “continue preliminary discussion on Human Space Flight cooperation.” That last passage, though, appears to have caused some consternation in the Indian space community, which was caught off-guard about the inclusion of human spaceflight into the statement. Officials told the Times of India that it was an “embarrassing situation” as just a month and a half ago ISRO chairman K. Radhakrishnan had said there was no immediate plan for India to participate in the ISS. However, there doesn’t seem to be any contradiction, since there’s nothing in the fact sheet about the ISS, or anything else beyond “preliminary discussion” about human spaceflight.

62 comments to Brief notes: committee leadership, science funding, Indian consternation

  • amightywind

    While not discussing NASA directly, one participant, former House Science Committee chairman Sherwood Boehlert suggested considering science funding as a “national security” item and thus protected from budget cuts.

    While there is some truth here it is not true across the board. NASA is in dire need of downsizing and restructuring. NASA’s earth, climate, and life science programs are redundantly funded across agencies. They are also hopelessly politicized (James Hansen, Michael Mann,..) and on the wrong side of the current battle front. National security programs? LOL!

    Good for Obama for not making a bad deal with India on the ISS. No doubt he was under pressure to do so.

  • Not good news for the future of America’s space program.

    Wolf is one of the cuckoos who thinks Obama wants to destroy NASA so the Chinese can take over.

    Hall is pro-pork, wanting to continue Constellation while gutting commercial space. So much for the Republicans who want less government and more business growth.

  • Major Tom

    “NASA’s earth, climate, and life science programs are redundantly funded across agencies.

    NASA is the only U.S. agency that performs Earth science research using space-based remote sensing platforms. NOAA’s space-based remote sensing activities support civil operations (weather forecasting), not research (climate or otherwise), and even they rely on NASA to get their operational birds (GOES, POES) built. All the rest of the U.S. government’s space-based remote sensing platforms serve military or intelligence needs. Other U.S. agencies that perform Earth science research, like NSF, don’t have or utilize space-based remote sensing platforms

    NASA is the only U.S. agency that performs life science research in the space (microgravity, radiation, vacuum, etc.) environment. Other U.S. agencies that perform life science research, like NSF and NIH, do so in Earth-based labs and environments.

    There is no redundancy. If you think there is no value to space-based Earth science research and space-based life science research, then you should argue that opinion. But it’s a false statement to claim that other agencies in the U.S. government besides NASA also perform space-based Earth science research and space-based life science research. They don’t.

    “Good for Obama for not making a bad deal with India on the ISS.”

    Why are you complimenting the President for not proposing or making a deal that the Indians themselves don’t want. Per Mr. Foust’s post:

    “… just a month and a half ago ISRO chairman K. Radhakrishnan had said there was no immediate plan for India to participate in the ISS.”

    That’s like complimenting a car dealer for not making a deal with a customer who never visited the dealer’s lot and isn’t in the market for a car.

    Let’s read, comprehend, and think before we post.

  • MichaelC

    “Let’s read, comprehend, and think before we post.”

    Thank you Tom, for once I read one of your posts without muttering profanity. You even finished without using those god cursed words that make me nauseous. I doubt you will keep up the good work though.

    Thanks to Mr. Foust for providing the link to the science magazine round table. The ex-congress people speaking about bringing research under the national defense umbrella can see the writing on the wall. They are not the moronic politicians so often derided on this site. They sound like very smart people.

    As for India on the ISS. Some of the most beautiful women I have ever seen are from India. And I think they deserve a micro-gravity showcase for curves and long black hair. Oh yeah.

  • Robert G. Oler

    http://spectator.org/archives/2010/11/10/big-governments-final-frontier

    Rand and his partner do a nice job on this. Whittington on his blog takes the obligatory shots.

    What I dont get about the ‘exploration forever’ crowd is that they never can quite justify it in terms of cost. And are, in Whittington’s case stuck defending a program, Cx that before Mark fell in love with it had all the checkpoints of what he would label pork.

    pork is not just spending one disagrees with…it is spending for which there is no value in relation to cost.

    It is hard to argue that NASA’s Cx program was returning value for cost, particularly when “success” in the program was two or more decades and at least 100 billion dollars…away.

    Goofy

    Nice piece Rand. The editors chopped it up a bit but that happens.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Partitioning off science (including space) into a national security lock box is a defensible idea. But one has to be careful. Everyone will want their favorite program or agency considered crucial for national security as well. (“But if we close the Department of Education, the terrorists will have won!”)

    A space deal with India, a democracy and ally of the United States, is a much sounder idea than any space cooperation agreement with China, a human rights abuser and potential enemy.

  • MichaelC

    Thought I would write a really long Major Tom length post;

    “All that is needed is a little innovation, and to break out of the mindset of the Apollo Cargo Cult, in which anything that doesn’t resemble Apollo — a specific destination, a date, and a really big rocket — isn’t a real human exploration program.”

    Never heard of the Apollo Cargo Cult except from you Rand. Did you make it up or have you heard the expression before?

    Is it possibly true that the only thing wrong with ” a really big rocket” (the key phrase) is that commercial cannot swing it?

    Is this the tough nut that no one wants to crack?
    I have been with you guys for awhile now, and I think I understand your point of view concerning the cost plus satan and government inefficiency.

    I have worked on tanks, helicopters, some classified stuff, and been around the world a couple times. Believe me, I understand the frustration and anger felt when treasure is spent of sow’s ears. Electric blade fold on helo’s that never land on ships, jet engines on tanks when diesels were the only right choice, idiot managers making self-serving changes (fixing things that were not broke), and on and on. I know a little something about Industrial Design and Total Quality Management.

    Unfortunately, I do not think “a little innovation” is going to succeed in the case of human space exploration.
    My occupation for many years was troubleshooting some of the most complicated autopilot systems ever mass produced. It was a very stressful job with people breathing down your neck because their rescue helicopter was broke and someone might die if it was not fixed.
    You have to understand there were many reasons why a particular autopilot model was a can of worms. The one that gave me the most problems was half analog because the army did not trust digital in the 70’s. It was running a fly-by-wire tail surface because the army wanted the helo to fold up and fit inside a C-130 and had to shorten the airframe with stability consequences (it was too much trouble and the helo was very rarely ever inched into a C-130). Finally, the ancient mechanical gyros were, as all mechanical gyros are, prone to failure.

    There might have been someone during the development that said,”This half analog half digital system is a mistake, let’s go all digital.” But no one made that decision.

    “Let’s not worry about stuffing this thing in a C-130, it is a little too big to make it worth the trouble.” Did not happen.

    “I do not think our ships can handle an aircraft this big; maybe we better try landing a couple times before spending millions on blade fold.” Did not happen.

    “Jet engines burn too much fuel and need too much clean air- not a good tank engine so we will go with diesel.” Did not happen.

    “This M-16 gas system blows gas right into the operating mechanism and is the dirtiest gun in the world. We need to fix it or get rid of it.” M-416 (finally fixed after 40 years, but only for special forces).

    “The V-22 is the most expensive small cargo plane in history; it cannot autorotate like a helicopter, is not pressurized to avoid weather, and requires an army of mechanics to keep in the air. Kill it.”
    It was immortal.

    “The Aerojet AJ-260 monolithic booster will cost one dollar per pound of thrust and we are building a factory in Dade to process them.”

    The factory is still there- deserted for 40 years.

    The Mindset should be to create what works. If big rockets work but the government screws them up then commercial space needs to find a way around that and build their own big one. Building what will not work and staying the course is what we have been doing for most of the last century and the beginning of this one.

    I do not think 25 tons at a time is going to work. I would be on your side all the way except for this cruel fact of my life. I call them as I see them.

  • A space deal with India, a democracy and ally of the United States, is a much sounder idea than any space cooperation agreement with China, a human rights abuser and potential enemy.

    A sound idea..in theory.

    Especially when we’re in an uneasy marriage with said “human rights abuser and potential enemy” and no “easy” way out.

    What’s your solution Mark?

    Without bankrupting the country, defunding the military and privatizing Social Security/Medicare?

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ November 10th, 2010 at 12:19 pm

    Partitioning off science (including space) into a national security lock box is a defensible idea..,.

    it is a goofy idea one that shows how insincere the GOP rhetoric of cutting spending is…

    Whenever it comes to something the GOP supports (their pork…to use a phrase that you seem to like) then they can always find some measure of words to make it seem more then it is, but when one gets down to it, it is still the same old spending.

    That is one reason the GOP will llikely fail in its ambitions in the House.

    you wrote:
    “(“But if we close the Department of Education, the terrorists will have won!”)

    the right wing uses that explanation for all their pet projects.
    Robert G. Oler

  • googaw

    A bipartisan commission has just recommended deep cuts across the board, with no exception for national security. Also, many Tea Partiers such as Rand Paul actually want to cut the military budget along with the civilian. So much for the idiotic idea of saving NASA programs by fraudulently calling them “national security.”

    Funny how NASA contractors have to make up tortuous arguments about how their expenditures are “commercial”, “national security”, or other desirable things radically different from what NASA is actually doing. Because if they accurately described what they are doing — astronomically overpriced bridges to nowhere and frivolous carnival rides for diaper-wearing government employees and billionaires — it would be soundly rejected.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    This just in from the National Deficit Commission:

    http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/Illustrative_List_11.10.2010.pdf

    “Eliminate funding for commercial spaceflight. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) plans to spend $6 billion over the next five years to spur the development of American commercial spaceflight. This subsidy to the private sector is costly, and while commercial spaceflight is a worthy goal, it is unclear why the federal government should be subsidizing the training of the potential crews of such flights. Eliminating this program would save $1.2 billion in 2015.”

    Standing back while heads start to explode.

  • Earlier today Erskine Bowles and former-Sen. Alan Simpson (a Republican) proposed that Congress “eliminate NASA funding for commercial space flight” as part of a comprehensive deficit reduction plan.

    I offer no opinion, merely the link:

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/deficit-commission-co-chairs-simpson-and-bowles-release-eye-popping-recommendations.php

  • Never heard of the Apollo Cargo Cult except from you Rand. Did you make it up or have you heard the expression before?

    I coined it.

    Is it possibly true that the only thing wrong with ” a really big rocket” (the key phrase) is that commercial cannot swing it?

    No, the thing wrong with a really big rocket is that there is insufficient demand for it to make any economic sense. The key to reducing unit costs is increasing flight rate. Heavy lifters do just the opposite.

    I do not think 25 tons at a time is going to work.

    People who have actually analyzed the problem don’t much care what you think.

  • Coastal Ron

    MichaelC wrote @ November 10th, 2010 at 1:57 pm

    I do not think 25 tons at a time is going to work.

    An opinion as valid as any. But how do we figure out what the actual need is?

    First you have to start with a need, and we don’t have one. We have lots of desire, but no money. We don’t even have a fully funded HLV program, so who knows what the future holds.

    In my business world, it has been realized that it’s better to remove features than to add them – to simplify, not complicate. Remarkably, when you do that, costs go down, adoption goes up, and innovation follows.

    I think it also applies to space. We have a known set of designs for 5m wide space station modules, and they all fit on Delta IV Heavy. There are plenty of margins to make the modules even longer, so there is no reason we can’t build more structures in space.

    We also know that no matter how big we build our launchers, that we’ll need to have fuel depots in space, so it’s really just a matter of the economics of running fuel depots that affects how big of launchers we need for them.

    This gets back to your opinion, and the only way to test it out is to: 1. build things in 25 ton chunks, or 2. pick a fictitious payload number out of the air and build a brand and HLV.

    We can do #1 today, and all we have to pay for is the payloads. As things go, a pretty inexpensive experiment. #2 requires an HLV, and if the wrong size capacity is built, then you don’t know if the experiment succeeds or fails because it’s bigger than 25 tons, or just the right size – but it takes a long time and a lot of money to test.

    In the commercial world, these types of decisions are usually handled by the marketplace – if someone sees an opportunity to build a larger capacity transporter, then they take a risk in creating that new product. If it succeeds, then others follow. If they fail, then others learn from that failure. Such is capitalism.

    But having NASA manage a transportation system continues the wrong lessons of the Shuttle, which is that NASA does not know how to run a transportation company – they just monopolized the marketplace. That government monopoly becomes a barrier to entry for tax-paying companies, who are also the ultimate innovators.

    Let’s not repeat that mistake.

    My $0.02

  • Ferris Valyn

    Correction – its not the entire commission, but the chairmen’s statement

    The overal proposal will go no-where

  • Not directly related to the topic, but in the context of funding future NASA budgets this is a must-read:

    http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/10/news/economy/fiscal_commission_prelim_report/

    The first draft of President Obama’s commission to reduce the debt has been issued. (Yes, such a commission has existed for a year. Funny how no one seems to know this.)

    The goal is reduce government spending by $4 trillion over the next decade, starting in 2012.

    And here’s a side article on the possible cuts:

    http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/19/news/economy/fiscal_commission_2015/

    So it’s entirely possible that any changes recommended to meet the 3% goal* would take effect no earlier than 2015 itself. That would mean reducing spending and/or raising taxes to the tune of $240 billion in that year alone.

    That is a tall order. It’s the equivalent of 17% of all discretionary spending today (or 36% if you exclude defense). In terms of taxes, it’s the equivalent of about 11% of revenue collected in 2010.

    To put it in a different perspective, the biggest deficit-cutting venture that Congress approved in years was the health reform law enacted in March.

    * Obama’s goal is that the deficit would be no more than 3% of the economy.

    Government space would be in that discretionary spending category.

    If you take the simplistic approach and simply cut 17% across the board, that’s a 17% reduction in NASA’s budget.

    This is why the success of commercial space is so important. Given the looming huge deficits, NASA won’t have the money to develop its own rockets any more. They’ll simply have to buy flights, either on commercial vehicles or other nations’ rockets.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ November 10th, 2010 at 3:06 pm

    what they are essentially recommending is the end of human spaceflight in The Republic

    Robert G. Oler

  • Ben Joshua

    Apology for a heads up a bit off topic.

    The Deficit Commission initial report, out today, calls for zeroing out commercial spaceflight funding, as a cost cutting measure, to help the federal budget achieve balance by ( ! ) 2037.

  • This subsidy to the private sector is costly, and while commercial spaceflight is a worthy goal, it is unclear why the federal government should be subsidizing the training of the potential crews of such flights. Eliminating this program would save $1.2 billion in 2015.

    What ignorance. They don’t even understand the purpose of the funds they’re recommending cutting.

  • googaw

    Now that canceling the politically vulnerable “Commercial Crew” program is practically a fait accompli, it’s time to focus on what we are going to do with the vastly larger Shuttle/Ares/SDLV/SLS army of parasites. Also, since CCDev is over there is no longer a reason for fans of that program to keep supporting that preposterous white elephant the ISS. Hurry, crash ISS into the Pacific while you still have time to blame grinchy politicians for canceling it before it had a chance to make come true all those glorious scientific wonders. If only those wicked Tea Partiers hadn’t have come along we could have cured cancer and discovered how to colonize space! What a great way to spin away the monstrous fraud that is the ISS. Use the excuse while you got it. Every day that $100+ billion station on the way to nowhere stays up is another day where the fraud that is NASA HSF gets just a little more outed.

    SpaceX for its part will have to focus, as I have long been urging, on real space commerce rather than fake NASA “commerce” and space-agency-inspired capsules to nowhere. That has always been the only way it could bring its promise of lower launch costs to fruition.

    BTW, I heard that somebody at the DoD claimed that the Mystery Missile off of L.A. was some unauthorized private launch. What’s up with that? Any of you California NewSpacers forget that you have to file for FCC licenses? DoD covering up the embarrassment of a Chinese sub having gotten past our defenses? Surely there is some way our friendly NASA contractor shills can spin this story into yet another creative justification for yet more carnival rides for our diaper-clad heroes? After all it involves national security and rockets oh my!

  • Yes, such a commission has existed for a year. Funny how no one seems to know this.

    I certainly knew it. So did Congress — they’ve been using it as an excuse not to pass a budget. This report has been anticipated for months.

  • MichaelC

    “In my business world, it has been realized that it’s better to remove features than to add them – to simplify, not complicate. Remarkably, when you do that, costs go down, adoption goes up, and innovation follows.”

    You are adding to the costs and complexity of any HSF by trying to get by with smaller launchers.

    “We also know that no matter how big we build our launchers, that we’ll need to have fuel depots in space”

    Not true at all. In fact, chemical propulsion in deep space is a clear show-stopper. Nuclear energy is required not only for powering space ship systems but for propulsion.

    “In the commercial world, these types of decisions are usually handled by the marketplace – if someone sees an opportunity to build a larger capacity transporter, then they take a risk in creating that new product. If it succeeds, then others follow. If they fail, then others learn from that failure. Such is capitalism.”

    Your milton friedman flat world philosophy is a recipe for never getting out of orbit.

    There is no market and commercial space subsidies may soon be cut out of the budget. What now Einstein?

  • Martijn Meijering

    What ignorance. They don’t even understand the purpose of the funds they’re recommending cutting.

    The good news is that it really looks like ignorance, not malice. That means they might be open to persuasion, except for the fact that it may be hard to get through to them and to stick out from the crowd that wants to save their own pork. Perhaps the best policy is to advocating cutting more, not something else.

  • MichaelC

    “The key to reducing unit costs is increasing flight rate. Heavy lifters do just the opposite.
    People who have actually analyzed the problem don’t much care what you think.”

    Almost word for word what they said to justify the space shuttle- which also has a payload of about 25 tons. The “people who have analyzed the problem” are lying just like the original space shuttle people. They, like you Rand, had an agenda they were pushing and did not much care about what people throwing the B.S. thought.

  • MichaelC

    Throwing the B.S. Flag that is. Throwing B.S. is what the commercial space advertisers are good at. Fantastic power points- but fantasy is not reality.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Nuclear energy is required not only for powering space ship systems but for propulsion.

    This is neither true (see the IAA study, which I recall you were going to read and review for us), nor would it require an HLV if it were.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Also, since CCDev is over there is no longer a reason for fans of that program to keep supporting that preposterous white elephant the ISS. Hurry, crash ISS into the Pacific while you still have time to blame grinchy politicians for canceling it before it had a chance to make come true all those glorious scientific wonders.

    Killing the ISS is probably politically impossible. And on the plus side, its high cost may end up killing SLS. And that’s probably the single most important strategic objective if we want to see commercial manned spaceflight. And for those of use who don’t, killing just one of the two isn’t half bad. Time would take care of the other eventually.

  • Coastal Ron

    MichaelC wrote @ November 10th, 2010 at 5:41 pm

    You are adding to the costs and complexity of any HSF by trying to get by with smaller launchers.

    What smaller launchers? Delta IV Heavy launches the biggest payloads that exist – there are no larger payloads!

    If you think you can prove me wrong on this, then identify the payloads that are funded, and need something bigger. So far no one has been able to do that…

    There is no market and commercial space subsidies may soon be cut out of the budget.

    There is a commercial market for launchers, so ULA, SpaceX, OSC and others will continue even if NASA goes away.

    Regarding your other comments, you’re obviously not a capitalist. NASA has a demand for crew services, and Congress has mandated that they use commercial companies first to satisfy that demand. They could continue to pay Russia for that service, or they could pay U.S. companies to develop the capability.

    Your choice – Russian or U.S.

  • what they are essentially recommending is the end of human spaceflight in The Republic

    Not really. They’re just recommending the end of NASA human spaceflight. Though they don’t realize it.

  • MichaelC

    “IAA study, which I recall you were going to read and review for us”

    The study does not address the weight of cosmic ray shielding, tether generated artificial gravity, and closed loop life support.

    It also is fundamentally mistaken (in my own very humble opinion) in predicating Mars as an ultimate destination. Mars is a gravity well and there are much easier resources in the Asteroid belt.

    Ceres may have more fresh water than planet earth.

    It is farther away than mars and will need a larger crew to do any useful infrastructure development.

    Also a good jumping off point for the moons and trojan asteroids of Jupiter (some of them are not high radiation), Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, the bodies in the kuiper belt and even the Oort cloud.

  • Vladislaw

    Rand, just finished your article and can not disagree, what I have found most fastinating from your last three articles was not so much the content as the comments you have received.

    “Randulans” ? … lol Now THAT is rich.

    As far as India, I would imagine, since they are talking about manned flight there, we would not mind having another democracy compete with Russia for space access. A little competition might bring the russian costs down, although I doubt India will do manned flight before our commercial firms do.

  • MichaelC

    Ron, your arguments are just too much time consuming to continue to answer. They are talking points and can be shot down with equally valid talking points on the other side.

    The shuttle is a HLV, no matter how much the regulars here deny it. It exists for now and the main components of the system- the SRB’s, are available in a more powerful 5 segment version.

    There are no 100 ton payloads yet. That does not matter and is a ridiculous argument that keeps getting thrown around here. When we have a vehicle that can lift 100 tons there will be 100 ton payloads identified immediately. Remember your bigger transporter free market philosophy?

    No market for humans except the ISS crew.

    So much for free market capitalism- and no, I guess I am not a capitalist by your definition. Sue me.

  • Coastal Ron

    googaw wrote @ November 10th, 2010 at 5:29 pm

    SpaceX for its part will have to focus, as I have long been urging, on real space commerce rather than fake NASA “commerce” and space-agency-inspired capsules to nowhere. That has always been the only way it could bring its promise of lower launch costs to fruition.

    So they shouldn’t have taken the $278M from NASA to do what they planned to do anyways? Weird.

    SpaceX, like all good companies, will gladly take money from anyone for their standard services. Doing otherwise means giving up business to your competition, which only makes them stronger.

    If Congress cancels the ISS and CRS programs, SpaceX will be sad, but that $278M will have paid for a lot of Falcon 9 and Dragon development work.

    I’m sure Elon monitors your statements for business advice, but it’s good he didn’t take your advice on this one… ;-)

  • Martijn Meijering

    SpaceX, like all good companies, will gladly take money from anyone for their standard services. Doing otherwise means giving up business to your competition, which only makes them stronger.

    Which explains Bigelow coming up with Ares-sized inflatables and Musk talking about HLVs.

  • Martijn Meijering

    The study does not address the weight of cosmic ray shielding, tether generated artificial gravity, and closed loop life support.

    I believe it addresses these by faster trajectories, but it’s been a while since I last read the report. In any event none of these requires HLVs or nukes, nor do nukes require HLVs.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Let me add I agree on the potential importance of Ceres.

  • Byeman

    ” (in my own very humble opinion)”

    Which means little considering the source. Having not worked in the space business means your points are irrelevant. HLV’s are fools folly at this point and there is no immediate need for them.
    1. NASA can’t afford any mission that needs them
    2.more can be done with smaller existing vehicles and their derivatives.

  • googaw

    This incessant argument about megadepots vs. gigarockets, all to enable astronomically costly amusement park thrills for government employees, is about as important to real space development as the debate over Mothra vs. Godzilla is to biotech.

  • googaw

    I actually agree on the importance of Ceres, too. Except that:

    (1) We will find out much more about the place when Dawn gets there in a few years, so let’s not go ecstatic over all the supposed water until we learn more.

    (2) Any missions of exploration or development to Ceres in the next fifty years will be robotic and several orders of magnitude smaller than the NASA-inspired monstrosities under discussion in this thread. Think microbiology instead of Mothra. Miniaturize or die.

  • Vladislaw

    “Almost word for word what they said to justify the space shuttle- which also has a payload of about 25 tons. The “people who have analyzed the problem” are lying just like the original space shuttle people. They, like you Rand, had an agenda they were pushing and did not much care about what people throwing the B.S. thought.”

    The shuttle never reached it’s projected flight rate. ATK built facilities for 50 launches a year and kept them manned for that flight rate for how long on the taxpayer’s dime?

    The shuttle might have delivered 25 tons to LEO but the Nation never once PAID for a 25 ton launch. We paid for a 100 ton plus launch to put only 25 tons into LEO. That would be like using the Atlas V heavy to put 10 tons into LEO.

    It will cost how many billions to build a HLLV, 10 billion? How much mass can be launched for that same amount of funding?

    Falcon 9 will put 23,000 pounds into LEO for 49.9 million or 204 launches and 2,346 tons of payload.

    Falcon 9 hvy will put 70,000 pounds into LEO for 95 million or 105 launches and 3,675 tons. That’s over 7 million pounds of hardware, just how big of a space ship do you plan to build?

    Or 1 million pounds of hardware and 6 million pounds of fuel, regardless we are not faced with somekind of wall and a limitation of how much hardware and fuel we can put up.

    It is about how we go forward as a Nation when we design and build exploration hardware. Does a car manufacture ship a car fully fueled or does it get shipped empty to it’s jumping off point and fueled locally? It will be the same for space, do we send the EDS to LEO fully fueled and use it only one time, requiring a larger launch system and new EDS for each launch, or do we send a reuable, space based EDS to LEO, it’s jumping off point, empty, fuel it locally and refuel and reuse each time.

  • googaw

    SpaceX, like all good companies, will gladly take money from anyone for their standard services.

    Launching satellites for private customers and launching cargo or astronauts for NASA in pressurized capsules to dock with ISS are radically different businesses. They can reduce launch costs by focusing their low-cost rocket on the private customers. OTOH getting further mired in the Byzantine bureaucracy of NASA HSF will radically drive up their costs, destroying the promised (and in terms of development costs so far delivered) cost reductions.

    Thankfully political events have cut the umbilical chord and whether Musk likes it or not, beyond launching out their CRS contract their HSF business is finished.

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    googaw wrote @ November 11th, 2010 at 1:23 am

    ‘Thankfully political events have cut the umbilical chord and whether Musk likes it or not, beyond launching out their CRS contract their HSF business is finished.’

    You’re ignoring other customers. NASA won’t necessarily be the only HSF business in the future. In fact, should Bigelow move forward as he plans to, he will provide more HSF business in a couple of years than NASA has managed to do since its inception. His basic station consists of 2 Sundancer modules (capacity 3×2 long term, 6×2 short term) plus a BA330 (capacity 1×6 long term). So for short term stays, there could be as many as 12 persons on the station rotating every few months. Conceivably a year could see crew turnover of say 12 x 6 times or 72 persons plus of course maintenance crews. How many astronauts have been in space since HSF first started? Could look it up but it’s not all that many considering the number of years we’re talking about here and Bigelow would quickly overtake that number.

    Bigelow’s going to need both CST-100 and Dragon (and dont’ forget the launch vehicles) to service his station and that’s just one station. He could have several or more depending on demand and indications are that demand exists.
    No, government spaceflight could become the minnow next to the commercial whale.

  • Martijn Meijering

    megadepots vs. gigarockets

    Googaw, you must know that I’m advocating neither megadepots nor projects that will lead only to joy rides for government employees.

    Launching satellites for private customers and launching cargo or astronauts for NASA in pressurized capsules to dock with ISS are radically different businesses.

    Launching crew is a business SpaceX wants to be in. Launching satellites is just a means to an end. Musk didn’t start SpaceX because he wanted to make money, but because he wants to go to Mars. Whether that is realistic is another question, but suggesting he should stick to unmanned launches is missing his point.

  • Martijn Meijering

    When we have a vehicle that can lift 100 tons there will be 100 ton payloads identified immediately.

    Fueled spacecraft / EDSs / propellant containers are the only somewhat affordable payloads. And that can be solved with propellant transfer too. There are no must-have payloads that will only fit on an HLV.

  • googaw

    You’re ignoring other customers. NASA won’t necessarily be the only HSF business in the future. In fact, should Bigelow move forward as he plans to, he will provide more HSF business in a couple of years than NASA has managed to do since its inception.

    Alas, when reality fails NewSpacers invariably retreat to this argument ad crackpot. After many years Bigelow still has exactly zero customers. Albeit on the other paw you forgot to add the great advantage Bigelow has in being able to use alien technology once his other far-sighted investment, MUFON, pays off.

  • googaw

    Martijn, all I’m assuming is that Musk is an intelligent man who knows where the customers are, and aren’t, and can learn from his experiences. One can have all the daydreaming aspirations one wants, but the business a company is in is the stuff it is actually selling.

  • googaw

    Martijn, if you questioned the economically preposterous assumption of this thread that these depots should be sized to launch people beyond LEO, I certainly missed it. The economic reality is that depots need to be sized to actually useful (real commerce and real national security) markets for beyond-LEO propulsion The dominant such market being transporting satellites to GEO. This would require depots at least an order of magnitude smaller than those for BEO HSF, as I previously described on Selenian Boondocks. You’re engaged in a debate whre both sides are entirely focused on long-standing NASA HSF economic fantasies. And as usual you can’t privatize an economic fantasy.

    As for the government sector, the budget cuts are coming. Miniaturize or die.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Martijn, if you questioned the economically preposterous assumption of this thread that these depots should be sized to launch people beyond LEO, I certainly missed it.

    I’ve argued that we don’t need depots (or even crew!) to get this started. Modified EELV upper stages, launched fully fueled as a quasi third stage, will do. Once at a Lagrange point a small depot will give you a lot of oomph.

  • Vladislaw

    “Alas, when reality fails NewSpacers invariably retreat to this argument ad crackpot. After many years Bigelow still has exactly zero customers.”

    I believe you are incorrect there:

    “For its part, Bigelow, in addition to showing off his modules, revealed for the first time the six “sovereign clients” that have signed memoranda of understanding to utilize his orbital facilities: the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Australia, Singapore, Japan and Sweden.”

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/news/bigelow-aerospace-ba2100-hotel

    Bigelow specifically said years ago he would not start accepting payments until at least 2012 and that commercial space access would have to be closer to reality before he would accept payments.

  • Martijn Meijering

    argument ad crackpot.

    OK, bonus points for this witticism. It’s fair enough for you to point out that Bigelow’s beliefs in contact with aliens are eccentric (but no stranger than the beliefs of many religions), but can we at least get you to acknowledge that in addition to being an eccentric, he is also a very successful businessman?

  • googaw

    Martijn, Bigelow in his younger and saner days had good success as long as he kept his attention on a down-to-earth business many people had figured out and succeeded in before him, namely low-cost no-frills hotels. Bigelow is great at the details as long as he’s following a general direction that has long since been proven to be successful, but he’s never been tested in judging novel areas of business. Some people are just whoppingly bad at this and Bigelow is one of them.

    Bigelow has come nowhere remotely close to success in either of his big ideas — either of private space station tourism or of discovering aliens visiting earth. NewSpacers are getting really desperate when they invoke Bigelow’s starry-eyed hobbies-dressed-up-as-businesses as an argument from authority for the viability of privatizing the space agency economic fantasy of the space station. But that seems to be the only argument NewSpacers have to fall back on these days, as no stable-minded person has ever invested large sums of their own money in private orbital HSF, much less signed up any customers for same. (Musk, of course, was investing in NASA contracts which made SpaceX profitable long before the Falcon 9 even flew).

  • Martijn Meijering

    Maybe, but for now Bigelow has Boeing, ULA, NASA and ESA taking him seriously. Not bad for a crackpot.

  • Maybe, but for now Bigelow has Boeing, ULA, NASA and ESA taking him seriously. Not bad for a crackpot.

    And a lot better in that regard than the crackpot “googaw.”

  • googaw

    In other words, like every other orbital HSF project, if Bigelow wants actual business he is utterly dependent on space agencies who launch astronauts for the sake of launching astronauts.

  • Martijn Meijering

    As long as space agencies continue to launch astronauts he’s entitled to try and win them as clients. In the longer run he is hoping for corporate clients, but he has clearly stated “sovereign clients” are his main target for now.

  • Coastal Ron

    MichaelC wrote @ November 10th, 2010 at 6:17 pm

    The shuttle is a HLV, no matter how much the regulars here deny it.

    If that were true, then how quickly could you lift a 30 ton payload?

    If the answer to that is “we have to get the money from Congress to modify the Shuttle”, then the Shuttle is not an HLV.

    PARTS of the Shuttle system might end up in an HLV, but the Shuttle is not an HLV. The maximum payload left in space when the orbiter returns home is 27.5 tons, and right now the Shuttle doesn’t go anywhere without the orbiter.

  • Vladislaw

    “NewSpacers are getting really desperate when they invoke Bigelow’s starry-eyed hobbies-dressed-up-as-businesses as an argument from authority for the viability of privatizing the space agency economic fantasy of the space station.”

    The last thing a “NewSpacer” wants to do is present an arguement from authority because it is a fallacy of logic:

    “Appeal to authority is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

    The case for Bigelow is:

    A) Has invested his own time and money i.e. he has some skin in the game.

    B) Has launched hardware to LEO on two occasions that are still functioning.

    C) Has six signed MOU’s from future potential customers illustrating there is a market.

  • Martijn Meijering

    NewSpacers are getting really desperate when they invoke Bigelow’s starry-eyed hobbies-dressed-up-as-businesses as an argument from authority for the viability of privatizing the space agency economic fantasy of the space station.

    Even if we accept that a fully commercial space station is not feasible at today’s launch prices, and in the absence of commercial crew taxis, it is still true that a Bigelow space station would likely be a more economical way to run a government funded space station than Shuttle + ISS, or Orion + ISS, let alone SLS + Orion + ISS. It would at least be a big step in the right direction and it would also help make EELVs more competitive through economies of scale, something which benefits unmanned spaceflight too, including commercial unmanned spaceflight such as comsats.

  • MichaelC

    “PARTS of the Shuttle system might end up in an HLV, but the Shuttle is not an HLV. ”

    The Shuttle lifts several thousand tons free of the earth. It is a HLV.

  • Coastal Ron

    MichaelC wrote @ November 12th, 2010 at 2:48 pm

    The Shuttle lifts several thousand tons free of the earth.

    It’s not the effort, but the result that matters. That the Shuttle was an inefficient launcher should be very apparent, even to someone like you.

    Even with all it’s theatrics, the Shuttle only leaves 1.2% of it’s takeoff mass in orbit, whereas Delta IV Heavy and Falcon 9 leave 3% of their total mass in orbit. And it gets worse when you look at the $/lb it costs to get that Shuttle mass into orbit…

    The Shuttle era, if they can ever get these last two flights off the ground, has ended. Let’s throw a party, congratulate everyone involved, and move on to something better.

  • MichaelC

    Even to someone like me?

    You either do not know me well enough to say that- I have always reviled the shuttle or I suspect you are again just arguing a red herring to argue. The shuttle hardware is heavy lift- and it bothers you for some reason this hardware exists. Too bad.

Leave a Reply to Coastal Ron 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>