Yesterday SpaceX performed a virtually flawless inaugural flight of its Dragon spacecraft from launch at Cape Canaveral to splashdown in the Pacific nearly three and a half hours later. The mission was widely billed as a major milestone not just for SpaceX and its COTS agreement with NASA, but for commercial spaceflight in general, an issue that proved contentious in Congress in the last year. Several members of Congress made public statements late yesterday congratulating SpaceX on their achievement.
“We’ve arrived at the dawn of new era of U.S. space exploration that should ensure America remains a leader in space exploration,” said Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), chair of the Senate Commerce Committee’s space subcommittee, in a statement. The release also modestly describes Nelson as the “leading congressional authority on the U.S. space program”.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), the ranking member of the full Commerce Committee, called the flight an “important milestone” in her statement. “Supporting the development of these commercial activities will allow NASA to focus its efforts on the development of a new launch system and crew exploration vehicle to move beyond low-Earth orbit, which the new [NASA authorization] law established as one of NASA’s highest priorities,” she said. “Much work remains, but this is an important achievement and I congratulate SpaceX on a successful mission.”
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), perhaps the biggest proponent of commercial spaceflight in the House, also congratulated SpaceX on the mission. “SpaceX has taken one more step into changing the paradigm of space flight,” he said. “By demonstrating that we can use commercial companies to meet national goals, the continued success of SpaceX will enable NASA to focus their efforts into the far frontiers of space.”
For the curious, no, the office of Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) has not issued a statement about the mission.
Just picked up Florida Today in the driveway. On the front page is a huge color photo of the Falcon 9 COTS-1 launch with a 72-point (1″) headline:
‘MIND BLOWING’
On their editorial page is this opinion column that begins:
For several years, whiz-kid entrepreneur Elon Musk
has been telling anyone who would listen that he
could build a rocket and spacecraft to carry humans
into orbit faster and cheaper than NASA.
And, in doing so, revolutionize space exploration
by taking it out of the hands of the government and
putting it into the domain of private industry.
Skeptics have ridiculed him as a dreamer, and
politicians have attacked him for trying to capsize
the boat, but no one doubts Elon Musk anymore.
He changed the game forever Wednesday — and
with it the future of the nation’s space program —
when his Falcon 9 rocket carried his Dragon
spacecraft into orbit on a highly successful maiden
test flight that began from Cape Canaveral and
ended with a Pacific Ocean splashdown.
The mission was a bold statement that helps validate
President Barack Obama’s plan for NASA, which calls
for using private rockets and spacecraft like those of
Musk’s company SpaceX to launch astronauts into
space.
As a result, it could permanently alter the debate at a
moment when Congress is considering NASA’s
budget that includes billions of dollars over the
next few years to help get the commercial launch
industry off the ground.
Hopefully this moment wakes up people in the Space Coast to the reality that a new chapter has dawned in our history, that they must let go of their fantasies that somehow Shuttle will never go away, that Constellation will arise from its sclerotic ashes, that the days of relying solely on government-funded space flight are about to be replaced with a new golden age of commercial access to space.
The stagecoach is dead. Long live the horseless carriage.
And as a P.S., I’m trying to keep a comprehensive list of news stories and opinion columns about yesterday’s events at:
http://spaceksc.blogspot.com/2010/12/news-reports-on-spacex-cots-1-launch.html
If you see anything I’ve missed, please post here or over there and I’ll add to the list.
Can’t wait to see what the editorial pages of the Houston Chronicle and Huntsville Times have to say … if they acknowledge it at all …
I am more curious about Giffords or Sensenbrenner
For the curious, no, the office of Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) has not issued a statement about the mission.
Is it surprising Senator Shelby hasn’t issued a statement? In the past he has expressed the hope that America gets something for its $500M investment. I find the triumphalism surrounding these childish replays of space missions 50 years ago to be curious. Congratulations SpaceX. With every advantage you are repeating (not surpassing) the accomplishments of engineers who have gone to the grave. When will you finally deliver cargo to the ISS Elon Musk? No one is actively sabotaging your program. I for one am looking forward to the launch of Taurus 2. Orbital has a better technology package than SpaceX.
Hey guys, now while this achievement by Musk is great, and Im not attempting to down play it here, lets not for get NASA sent men to the Moon. Also while Musk did accomplish much, he did have NASAs help. Actually with NASAs in the wings, I would have been surprized bya failure. Now it remains to be seen what is next. Im sure before the supply Dragon is allowed near the space station, NASA will oversee the procedures for success. Hell if I had NASAs expertise behind me, I couldprobably launch a low cost rocket too. All this hub bub, about a two orbit hop. Lets see some real space activity take place. Interestingly wasnt it just a few days ago, during the Moon program that the last of the astronauts to visit the lunar surface make their landing there? We have seemed to forget the greatness of NASAs expeditions.
Sensenbrenner? Huh, I really never thought a rep from my home state would be in the camera’s eye on the topic of space. About the only thing Wisconsin has in the space world is an almost unheard of spaceport project and the life support testing phase of Bigelow’s spacecraft (a mere two miles from me, by shear chance). Neither of which would usually be enough to raise any interest in the state beyond the average. But committees are what they are.
Go Wisconsin!
PS on a side note, I’m not actually a big fan of Sensenbrenner on most other topics.
Aside from the sour grapes of the usual suspects here, the political demagoguery of Nelson and Hutchison is not surprising and funnier than h3!!.
I have to hand it to wily old Shelby though, he knows when not to run his yap and confirm folks’ opinion about his intelligence.
Politicians as a group aren’t exactly rocket scientists, even though some think they are.
Twain would’ve loved this theater! ;D
Of some significance is that in my local paper (which covers a large metropolitan area) the story about SpaceX isn’t buried in the front section, where space stuff usually ends up. It’s on the front page, above the fold, of the business section! That is, the media recognizes that this isn’t mainly about “inspiration” or “exploration” (whatever those are), but about inexpensive access to space, and the fact that this access to space is for the first time being driven by entrepreneurs.
Stephen,
For what it’s worth, the Chronicle’s science writer, Eric Berger, wrote positively about the launch.
“Orbital has a better technology package than SpaceX.”
Wrong, a solid second stage is lesser technology.
aremisasling – Sensenbrenner has mad noise about wanting the chairmanship of the Space Sub-committee. Olsen is the more likely, but Sensenbrenner has at least a semi-reasonable shot.
Dennis Berube – if anybody could make a low cost rocket, why hasn’t NASA figured out how to? Cause if they could, then we could’ve been back to the moon by now.
“In the past he has expressed the hope that America gets something for its $500M investment.”
NASA’s investment in SpaceX to date is less than $278 million.
Don’t make stuff up.
Moreover, what did America get for $10 BILLION-plus investment in Constellation? 35 times more of my tax dollars have gone to Ares I/Orion than to Falcon 9/Dragon. Where are my Ares I orbital launches? Where are my successful Orion reentries?
“I find the triumphalism surrounding these childish replays of space missions 50 years ago to be curious.”
No mission from 50 years ago successfully flight tested a new launch vehicle and reentry capsule for less than $300 million in taxpayer investment. Those missions all cost taxpayers billions to develop in today’s dollars.
No mission from 50 years ago tested a capsule capable of carrying seven crew.
No mission from 50 years ago tested a PICA-type TPS for reentry from lunar and Mars trajectories.
Don’t make stuff up.
“When will you finally deliver cargo to the ISS Elon Musk?”
Likely next year based on yesterday’s success and the COTS/CRS schedule.
Can’t you read a schedule?
“Orbital has a better technology package than SpaceX.”
I’m all for Taurus II/Cygnus success, but you’re so spiteful and green with envy that you’d prefer NASA to get stuck with a system that is _not_ designed for crew transport over one that is?
Really?
Oy vey…
“… lets not for get NASA sent men to the Moon. Also while Musk did accomplish much, he did have NASAs help.”
Watch yesterday’s press conference. Musk made repeated statements to about SpaceX standing on the shoulders of giants with respect to NASA’s prior accomplishments.
“All this hub bub, about a two orbit hop.”
SpaceX demonstrated a lot more than just a “two-orbit hop”. See my prior post.
Now dont get me wrong gents. Im glad the SpaceX team made a good flight. However until it actually does a mission of some merit, this is been here done that. I also understand SpaceX accomplished alot in this first real orbital attempt, and I truly hope it pans out for them and of course the American public. Let us truly hope also that these private companies will keep cost to orbit down and predicted. Look at all the previous predictions about cost to orbit with the shuttle. Neveer happened did it. Time will tell…
To all the SpaceX doubters like amightywind…how’s that humble pie tasting?
Moreover, what did America get for $10 BILLION-plus investment in Constellation? 35 times more of my tax dollars have gone to Ares I/Orion than to Falcon 9/Dragon. Where are my Ares I orbital launches? Where are my successful Orion reentries?
Constellation is a state of the art exploration architecture. As such it is not cheap. It was cancelled in mid program for political reasons years before scheduled orbital missions. Ares I first stage dynamics were tested to perfection 1 year ago while Obama’s saboteurs schemed. If you fancy an unmanned Gemini program, then by all means, cheer SpaceX.
No mission from 50 years ago tested a capsule capable of carrying seven crew.
Neither did yesterday’s mission. It didn’t even carry a monkey. The crew of 7 exists only in a PowerPoint presentation where astronauts are packed chin to ass in a flying death trap. One can only imagine what an emergency egress would look like. When is the first manned launch scheduled? It isn’t. Neither is a manned Dragon even funded.
No mission from 50 years ago successfully flight tested a new launch vehicle and reentry capsule for less than $300 million in taxpayer investment.
Your cost estimate is wildly understated, and the taxpayer has *still* received no services for their investment.
Can’t you read a schedule?
Well enough to see that it is slipping all the time. If a few weeks a re energized GOP will have their daggers out for the NASA leadership. 2011 should be an interesting year for space politics. Let’s hope it is a better year for NASA.
Justin Kugler wrote:
For what it’s worth, the Chronicle’s science writer, Eric Berger, wrote positively about the launch.
Thanks, Justin. I’d seen that (and the posts by the bigot who hates immigrants, therefor he hates Musk and SpaceX) but was hoping the paper would have run a full story and perhaps an editorial. I guess these papers at the other space centers are just going to keep sticking their heads in the sand and pretend commercial flight doesn’t exist.
Dennis Berube wrote @ December 9th, 2010 at 8:21 am
Hey guys, now while this achievement by Musk is great, and Im not attempting to down play it here, lets not for get NASA sent men to the Moon. Also while Musk did accomplish much, he did have NASAs help. Actually with NASAs in the wings, I would have been surprized bya failure.
actually NASA ‘in the wings’ makes success all the more amazing.
The NASA that sent men to the Moon is either dead, in retirement communities, or long ago left space efforts for something else. The NASA that sent men to the Moon, while having some notion of “cost” (unlike the current agency) had no notion of making a project that was economically feasible…a very important part of the success of Musk.
The NASA that sent people to the Moon is long gone…the NASA that exist today, while having pockets of individual competence is fundamentally incompetent in its structure, engineering, and even notions of politics.
NASA has not done anything “low cost” in modern (read 30 year) year history.
What is amazing about SpaceX is not so much the hill he climbed as a lot of people pointed out Gemini 3 did this some years ago.
What is amazing is that Musk did it with a very very small and efficient team, has done it with technology integration that seems at least so far to be one of those pleasant combinations (read DC-3 or 707) that just seem to work well together…and most importantly has done it for about 1/10th of what NASA spent on Ares/Orion and got nothing.
Musk has proven that the American free enterprise system can still, even with the notions of the GOP’s to big to fail and the Dems “not liking free enterprise” (two generalizations but seemy accurate) WORK.
Gemini III is not the measure of hte accomplishment, that is far TO TRIVIAL.
the measure of the accomplishment is Syncom…and that is an impressive level.
Robert G. Oler
Windy, get your facts straight and take off your partisan glasses.
“Constellation is a state of the art exploration architecture.”
CXP was far from it. Use of SRM’s is at backwards step
“Your cost estimate is wildly understated, and the taxpayer has *still* received no services for their investment.”
Wrong on both counts. The NASA;s COTS contribution was 278 million and the “services” are the data from these launches.
“Ares I first stage dynamics were tested to perfection ”
Wrong, a 4 segment SRM with a dummy 5th is not Ares I.
Why do you post blatant lies?
amightywind wrote @ December 9th, 2010 at 11:18 am
Constellation is a state of the art exploration architecture. As such it is not cheap.
the question that your comment begs however…is why is it so expensive?
Lets look at Orion. Orion the capsule is not much more then “Apollo redone”…they have changed the dimensions some (and one wonders why they did that) but in the end what they are trying to redo with the Orion “capsule”…is redo the Apollo command module.
From any project managerial standpoint the heavy lifting on the effort is done. The shape is well understood, the avionics should if anything be easier today (and lighter), it shouldnt be all that hard to put a new docking device on it and then do some minimal structures change…
really what “should” happen is that one needs a functional mockup for the avionics/interior and then move into rebuilding the Apollo command module with those “innards” and well fly the darn thing.
That should not be a multi billion dollar effort.
When you learn why it is…and why SpaceX has essentially reinvented the Discoverer capsule…for a lot less money…then you will understand why “cheap” is not in the vocabulary of NASA.
Robert G. Oler
@ablastofhotair
Your cost estimate is wildly understated, and the taxpayer has *still* received no services for their investment.”
NASA yesterday stated a total of $287 million that it has paid SpaceX. Just more of your sour grapes.
No, they have not performed any services to ISS yet. Like the so-called Ares I-X, it was a test shot that was supposed to demonstrate technologies. Just to launch Ares I-X cost NASA $450 million and it went less than 30 miles high. Two successful orbital flights and one successful spacecraft return from orbit is ONE HELL OF A LOT better return for the taxpayer than that. Consider the multibillions paid by NASA so far on just development of Ares alone and it is obvious that you are just looking out for your precious local job prospects with your precious ATK SRBs at the expense of what is best for the country’s future in space.
And while you are arguing Spacex is moving ahead with the launch of COTS 2 or COTS 2/3 combined. Ken Bowersox has been given instructions to start the initial phase of Spacex’s manned program and Falcon 9 heavy is about to be started as well. The future moves on. KEEP ARGUING!
Accidentally switched two digits in my post. Should be $278 million instead of $287 million.
There are no more better “wind dummies” then 1) politicians and 2) corporations that are sucking off the teat of political money…and what one is starting to see is the inevitable swing of the various politicians in various space districts who are starting to figure out that it is time to shift to a new direction to try and keep the pork in their district.
Kay Bailey while a wind indicator in the GOP has probably figured out a few things…first the shuttle system/Cx and a SDV are not going to survive the budget crisis, the shuttle system is frankly to dangerous to keep flying and second and most important…the age of commercial space is coming and she is trying to put down some markers to get some of it in Houston
Robert G. Oler
“I find the triumphalism surrounding these childish replays of space missions 50 years ago to be curious.â€
What is curious here is the presumption that SpaceX’s success was that it sent and retrieved a craft from LEO, and the labeling of that destination a “been there done that” one. But the success of SpaceX wasn’t where it went. It was how they did it. Their triumph was that they did it with little oversight and guidance by the national space agency, and (relatively speaking) minor investment by the taxpayer. It was done in a programmatically new way that appears very economical. Until now, we hadn’t “done that”. We have now.
That’s the recurring advocacy fallacy of so many space advocates. To them, it’s all about the “where” and not the “how”. The stagecoach allusion is a good one. The inventor of the horseless carriage would proudly ride it across town, and be accused of “been there, done that”.
Doug Lassiter wrote @ December 9th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
well written…very well written Robert G. Oler
The NASA that sent men to the moon and that developed Skylab and Shuttle, and even ISS was a great organization that achieved world-class accomplishments. Despite the fact they brought back the old meatball logo a few years ago, it is not the same NASA any longer. NASA today is a political organization; it is no longer a technical organization; its a shadow of its earlier self.
The current generation of NASA management, the men and women in their 30s and 40s, and a handful a bit older, overseeing ISS and the remains of Shuttle, Constellation and Orion, have had their chance to make some great new developments but they failed at it. They all got very comfortable with what they had despite the tremendous cost of operating it. When it came time to put together a new plan and new machinery they could not think beyond their past.
You could try to bring back the old guys, but they are mostly gone and have tired of the bureaucracy and the politics. As we saw with Constellation, the current generation delighted in the bureaucracy because their sole claim to legitimacy was through their own political positions; none had ever accomplished anything to warrant being called a success.
Now it is time to take longer strides. Its time to give the next generation the opportunity to do some serious history making.
We are seeing that with Space-X. We’re not seeing it in NASA today, sorry to say.
Cheer up guys, the House just passed an increase of 169 mil, for the development of the HLV. Looks like Orion is going to fly after all!!!!
“Constellation is a state of the art”
Besides the Atlas V avionics in the Ares I-X and the 787 avionics in Orion, what part of “Apollo on steroids” was “state of the art [sic]”? Recycled SRBs and ET elements from 30-odd years ago? Recycled J-2 engines and Apollo-era TPS from 40-odd years ago? Massive thrust oscillation countermeasures? Launcher underperformance leading to a lack of redundancy in the upper stage and capsule? Parachutes failures during both Ares I and Orion testing? Aborts that had a 100% chance of killing the crew 30-60 seconds after launch?
Don’t make stuff up.
“exploration architecture.”
What “exploration”? Griffin defunded Altair and reduced Ares V to $25 million/year studies ad infinitum to feed the Ares I/Orion beast. Orion had the radiation protection and redundant systems necessary to support long-duration exploration missions stripped out to meet Ares I underperformance. The only Orion configuration that appeared to close with Ares I’s payload limits was ISS crew transport, and even then, the crew size had to be reduced to four.
Don’t make stuff up.
“As such it is not cheap.”
No kidding.
As in over $10 billion spent to date and no orbital test flight or launch is “not cheap”.
As in the program needs another $3-5 billion per year on top of the $5.5 billion per year already budgeted just to get to an ISS transport IOC by 2019 is “not cheap”.
As in $40 billion just to get to a lousy ETO transport is “not cheap”.
Cripes… understatement of the year.
“It was cancelled in mid program for political reasons”
What “political reasons”? Why would any first-term US President cancel a program that employed thousands in electoral heavy states like CA, FL, and TX for “political reasons”?
C’mon, think before you post.
“years before scheduled orbital missions.”
Constellation was terminated because it was taking years (and years and years and years and billions and billions and billions of dollars) to get to any mission. The likely Ares I/Orion IOC slipped year for year, all the way to 2019, and even that assumed that another $3-5 billion per year would be flushed down the program’s toilet.
The Augustine report has been out for over a year now, and there were multiple CBO and GAO reports preceding that pointed out this sad story for years. Havn’t you read any of them yet?
“Ares I first stage dynamics were tested to perfection 1 year ago”
The Ares I first-stage was a five-segment SRB. Ares I-X tested a four-segment SRB. The dynamics are different and the latter does not constitute a flight test of the former.
Don’t make stuff up.
“If you fancy an unmanned Gemini program, then by all means, cheer SpaceX.”
Gemini carried two crew. Dragon is capable of transporting up to seven.
Forget Gemini. At 10 cubic meters, Dragon’s pressurized volume is almost double the Apollo CM’s 5.9 cubic meters.
Don’t make stuff up.
“When is the first manned launch scheduled?”
Forget manned. When is Orion’s first launch scheduled?
Forget schedule. What is Orion’s launch vehicle?
Think before you throw stones through your glass house.
“Your cost estimate is wildly understated”
Evidence? Reference?
The total value of the NASA/SpaceX COTS agreement is $278 million, and SpaceX has at least two more payment milestones to go. So taxpayers have spent less than $278 million (and siginificantly less than $300 million) on Falcon 9/Dragon to date versus $10 BILLION-plus on Ares I/Orion.
Don’t make stuff up.
“and the taxpayer has *still* received no services for their investment.”
I’ve put 35 times more of my tax dollars into Ares I/Orion to date than Falcon 9/Dragon. For that multiple of investment, Ares I/Orion should have been providing transport services for years now. But neither vehicle has rendered any services. Again, think before you throw stones through your glass house.
But I’m forgiving, so let’s forget about operations for a minute. What about IOC? For that 35 multiple, neither Ares I nor Orion has reached its IOC, isn’t likely to do so until 2019, and would need $3-5 billion more per year than what was in NASA’s FY 2010 budget runout just to hit that date nine years from now.
Hrmmm… I guess I can be even more forgiving, so let’s forget about IOC for a minute. How about some test flights? For that 35 multiple, neither Ares I nor Orion has completed an orbital test launch or flight, the earliest such test flight for Orion wouldn’t happen for another three years, that test flight would require another $4-5 billion of taxpayer money, and it would take place (ironically) on a Delta IV.
These are suppossed to be human space flight systems, for crissakes. How much do I have to forgive (or cough up) as a US taxpayer to get any actual performance IN SPACE out of Constellation?
Where’s my refund, Dr. Griffin?
“Well enough to see that it is slipping all the time.”
Any idiot with half a brain would take a few weeks of Falcon 9/Dragon test flight schedule slippage (some of which was induced by the recent Shuttle flight slips) over years and years and years of Ares I/Orion design slippage.
“If a few weeks a re energized GOP will have their daggers out for the NASA leadership.”
Republicans in the House just passed a FY11 appropriations CR that provides more than a half-billion dollars for COTS and CCDev. The points on those “daggers” are as dull as a brick.
Sigh…
First Apollo worked, and worked very well. Orion while being a spin off, is a logical next step to take. Its larger size can carry more crew into deep space. Its higher tech than Apollo every was. Everyone rants and raves over Dragon, what of the beefed up Orion and its new tech? Im certainly glad to see Dragon come on line and humankind have yet another way to reach orbit. TREMENDOUS, but we must not remain in LEO, either. If Dragon can be restyled for deep spac,e and I dont see why it cant, then lets go. With the house okaying more money for the HLV, It looks like both space programs are off and running. With China, Russia, the USA private enterprise and the rest, space may become a crowde place. Lets get going.
“Looks like Orion is going to fly after all!!!!”
Probably not. The MPCV budget is ~$700 million less than what was budgeted for Orion in the FY10 runout. That’s a ~40% cut. On top of that, Congress has levied an earlier IOC with additional requirements. If NASA is going to meet that schedule, they’re going to have to exercise the flexibilities in the 2010 Authorization Act and go a different route (CST-100, Dragon, or something else). And if NASA doesn’t go a different route, Orion is unlikely to see completion with that large a budget reduction.
FWIW…
First Apollo worked, and worked very well.
The only thing that Apollo worked well at was beating the Soviets to the moon, and it did that only because it had an essentially unlimited budget. In terms of opening up space, it was a disaster, and repeating its approach would set us back another four decades.
Major Tom wrote:
“No mission from 50 years ago successfully flight tested a new launch vehicle and reentry capsule for less than $300 million in taxpayer investment. Those missions all cost taxpayers billions to develop in today’s dollars. No mission from 50 years ago tested a capsule capable of carrying seven crew. No mission from 50 years ago tested a PICA-type TPS for reentry from lunar and Mars trajectories.”
First of all, I share the enthusiasm about what SpaceX accomplished yesterday. As I’ve mentioned on another thread, it was a historic achievement and another great day in the Space Age. I salute Elon Musk on his vision, and the Spacex team on their achievements.
However …
The reason “no mission from 50 years ago” accomplished any of the things you mentioned is because 50 years ago no one had ever conquered space before. It was all new ground and all new technology. Fifty years ago, we didn’t know how people would react to the space environment. Fifty years ago, we didn’t know how to build reliable space systems. Fifty years ago we didn’t have the knowledge about environmental systems and heat shields that we have today. Fifty years ago, we didn’t have the sort of electronic and computer technology that we have today.
In short, no mission from 50 years ago accomplished what SpaceX did yesterday because the pioneers from 50 years ago were starting from scratch. They INVENTED rocketry and spaceflight. And that was very costly for the very reason that everything was new. The engineers at NASA and Boeing and Convair and Lockheed and Martin and McDonnell and Douglas and North American and the others were boldly going into the unknown … like Lewis & Clark.
The SpaceX team did it for less because they’re following in the footsteps of those pioneers, and they’re building their hardware on the firm foundation laid by some great men and women half a century ago — my Father being one of them. So let’s give some credit where credit is due to the people who blazed the trail rather than trashing them for not doing so with the latest technology … or at greater cost. Learning curves are always more expensive at the front end.
“Don’t make stuff up.”
Good grief! Must you keep repeating that annoying line over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again?
I’ll repeat a line I’ve used before …
Rude comments never persuade anyone. Nor do they say much about the people who make them.
Probably not. The MPCV budget is ~$700 million less than what was budgeted for Orion in the FY10 runout.
These people seem to think that budgets are entirely irrelevant to their Apollo redux fantasies.
Rand Simberg wrote:
“These people seem to think that budgets are entirely irrelevant to their Apollo redux fantasies.”
Going back to the Moon to explore and to learn to ‘live off the land’ on another world is NOT an “Apollo redux fantasy.”
Is SpaceX a Gemini redux fantasy?
If I were an ignoramus, I might suggest that it is. But it isn’t.
Nor would going back to the Moon to explore and exploit its resources be a “redux fantasy.” It’d be the next bold step into the Solar System.
Mr. Simberg, why do you always insult people with different ideas and other visions?
William,
I would note that Elon Musk very specifically thanked NASA for all its support and was quite clear that SpaceX stands on the shoulders of the “giants” that came before. They know and appreciate their heritage.
Going back to the Moon to explore and to learn to ‘live off the land’ on another world is NOT an “Apollo redux fantasy.â€
I didn’t say it was.
“So let’s give some credit where credit is due to the people who blazed the trail rather than trashing them for not doing so with the latest technology … or at greater cost.”
I wasn’t trashing NASA’s ’60s human space flight programs. The other poster claimed that yesterday’s flight was a rehash of those accomplishments, and I simply pointed out the ways in which those earlier programs did not compare to yesterday’s flight.
It’s not trashing. It’s just a statement of fact that those programs cost taxpayers billions in today’s dollars, instead of hundreds of millions of dollars, that their capsules were not capable of carrying seven crew, and that they didn’t flight validate a TPS for Mars return trajectories.
Please read the context in which the statement was made.
And, to be clear, I do give credit where credit is due. In another post in this thread, I wrote:
“Watch yesterday’s press conference. Musk made repeated statements to about SpaceX standing on the shoulders of giants with respect to NASA’s prior accomplishments.”
I agree with that comment. I wouldn’t have repeated it, twice now, if I didn’t.
“Must you keep repeating that annoying line”
The other poster is making repeated false statements. Would you rather I call him a compulsive liar? Or an uninformed dummy?
“Rude comments never persuade anyone.”
Since when is telling someone not to make stuff up when they are repeatedly doing so a “rude comment”?
If you want to criticize “rude comments”, then you should have something to say about the incendiary language used by the other poster — language like “childish replays”, “accomplishments of engineers who have gone to the grave”, “Obama’s saboteurs schemed”, “packed chin to ass in a flying death trap”, and “daggers out for the NASA leadership.”
Do you really think it’s okay for the other poster to use this kind of language but it’s not okay for me to tell the other poster to stop making up facts when they’re repeatedly doing so?
C’mon…
“Orion while being a spin off, is a logical next step to take. Its larger size can carry more crew into deep space.”
Orion is bigger than the Apollo Command Module, but it has the same pressurized volume as Dragon. And Dragon is configured to carry more crew than Orion.
“Its higher tech than Apollo every was. Everyone rants and raves over Dragon, what of the beefed up Orion and its new tech?”
Aside from its 787-derived avionics, Orion doesn’t have much “new tech”. For example, Orion uses the same ~40-year old thermal protection material (Avcoat) that Apollo used, while Dragon employs a new phenolic-impregnated carbon ablator that’s capable of handling the heating from Mars reentry trajectories. Orion also uses a rendezvous and docking system that been around for about a decade now, while Dragon adds new thermal imaging capabilities to its rendezvous and docking system.
This doesn’t mean that there’s anything inherently good about “new tech” or old technology. But don’t be fooled into thinking that Orion is loaded with “new tech” and use it as a justification for that project. It’s not.
FWIW…
Major Tom wrote:
“Since when is telling someone not to make stuff up when they are repeatedly doing so a “rude commentâ€? If you want to criticize “rude commentsâ€, then you should have something to say about the incendiary language used by the other poster — language like “childish replaysâ€, “accomplishments of engineers who have gone to the graveâ€, “Obama’s saboteurs schemedâ€, “packed chin to ass in a flying death trapâ€, and “daggers out for the NASA leadership.†Do you really think it’s okay for the other poster to use this kind of language but it’s not okay for me to tell the other poster to stop making up facts when they’re repeatedly doing so?”
Major Tom,
I am annoyed by ALL rude comments — and the ones you cite by the other poster were certainly rude! On a playground, some of these exchanges would be regaqrded as bullying. But responding in kind to rude or “dumb” remarks doesn’t elevate the debate. And repeating the same worn out lines over and over again does not hold my attention. It’s a turn off. I’d suggest you try to show a little more patience and creativity by explaining WHY you think someone is “making stuff up” (especially when they are clearly doing so) by using facts and logic, not the same old tired insults. If you left out the sarcasm, I’d get a lot more out of some of your remarks because you often raise some good points. But then you toss water on them with flippant comments and rude rebuffs. Of course, you also use a pseudonym. (Unless your first name is ‘Major’ and your last name is ‘Tom’ … in which case, my error.) And it’s very easy for posters to toss insults about when hiding behind their anonymity.
Some advice from an old PR and sales guy …
If you want to “sell” your ideas (rather than simply preaching to the choir), remember that you attract more bees with honey.
Rand Simberg wrote:
“The only thing that Apollo worked well at was beating the Soviets to the moon, and it did that only because it had an essentially unlimited budget. In terms of opening up space, it was a disaster, and repeating its approach would set us back another four decades.”
How can you say that? Apollo was, at the time, the most advanced spacecraft ever built. Look at what preceded it. And look at the remarkable success of the Apollo system during the last three ‘J’ missions — true voyages of discovery. Moreover, look at the success of Skylab. And Apollo blazed the trail toward international cooperation with its final flight (Apollo-Soyuz), as well.
I’d call that an amazing record of achievement.
But a disaster?
I think not.
Setting us back another four decades?
I don’t think so.
I found the Apollo era quite exciting. For the first time in human history, people left this planet and walked on another world.
How can you possibly put that down?
Was the magnificent French liner ‘Normandie’ a disaster because it used steam rather than nuclear power (which hadn’t been invented yet)?
Let’s try to maintain some historical perspective here. The Space Age didn’t begin with SpaceX as you sometimes seem to suggest. To his everlasting credit, Elon Musk is the first to acknowledge and pay tribute to the pioneers and heroes who first stepped into the unknown. They deserve the respect some people are now unwilling to give them.
Dennis Berube wrote @ December 9th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
First Apollo worked, and worked very well. ..
that is your viewpoint but frankly it is no a very sophisticated one from the aspect of both space politics/policy and actually just mission accomplishment.
If the time period from the 1960’s to today has proven anything it is that the Federal government of the US can allocate enough money which buys enough talent to more or less do anything it wants to; this particularly is accurate when the money is more or less “free” to this generation…ie they can borrow it and spend without any real consequences (to them) in terms of hard choices.
Apollo was one of those things…with a lot of money and people tossed at the effort we proved we could have done anything we wanted to…at least as a one term venture that had no real staying power.
BUT the human spaceflight technology that came out of Apollo was more or less NOT affordable in any other venue.
What people like you (and Mark Whittington and others) seem to be happy with is programs that have no real chance, other then in rhetoric to do anything other then “one of” single shot spectaculars.
There is no political support for the kind of dollars it would take, even in a well run, thoughtful program to go back to the Moon and make use of its resources…NONE. If you went to the average American even in Houston who is struggling to make their mortgage, who is seeing the future look worse then their present or past and who is starting to figure out that both teh GOP and the Dems only really care about shoveling tax dollars to wealthy people…
and told them “wow we can make your life better by mining water on the Moon”…they would look at you as if you had had far to much weed and not very good weed at that.
In the end while you might get excited about going back to the Moon, you cannot name a single reason why it is important. and thats why it is not happening.
Robert G. Oler
@ Rand Simberg
Rand (if I may),
While we’ve locked horns here from time to time, I DO want to thank you for using your real name … and for some informative remarks that have given me some food for thought.
Bill Mellberg
Major Tom wrote:
Orion is bigger than the Apollo Command Module, but it has the same pressurized volume as Dragon. And Dragon is configured to carry more crew than Orion.
More misinformation spread by Major Tom.
Wikipedia says:
Orion Pressurized Volume: 19.55 m^3
Orion Habitable Volume: 8.95 m^3
Dragon Pressurized Volume: 10.0 m^3
Dragon Habitable Volume: (none listed)
Since Dragon is a smaller spacecraft one would assume habitable volume is proportionally smaller, but they don’t say. I don’t see a Dragon launch abort system either. Orion’s has already been tested.
William Mellberg said: Going back to the Moon to explore and to learn to ‘live off the land’ on another world is NOT an “Apollo redux fantasy.â€
William, just for my own education, who was planning to go back to the Moon and live off the land?
I ask because, although I think this is a noble idea, I was unaware of any real program that aimed to do this (VSE sort of aimed for it but was never really implemented). Note that I credit you with a good intellect and assume you were not thinking of Constellation.
How can you possibly put that down?
I am not putting Apollo down, other than as a useful way to open up space. It was not. It was what it was.
William Mellberg wrote @ December 9th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
Was the magnificent French liner ‘Normandie’ a disaster because it used steam rather than nuclear power (which hadn’t been invented yet)?..
I think that the failure of the Normandie as a commercial liner was more atune to some decisions her operators made (ie to much first class and some decorating decisions)…her hull was an amazing feat, her turboelectric systems “modern” even by today standards and her radar systems innovative.
To bad she never made the transition to troop transport, her sinking is a sad thing…
She was launched on a day somewhat significant to me, although quite a few years “before my time”
grin
Robert G. Oler
What SpaceX proved is that even an inexperienced organization developing hardware from scratch for the first time can perform near miracles (scope, cost, time)…
…….’if’ unencumbered by the “thousands of pages of do it my way or the highway†government bureaucracy. One wonders how many other federal programs would benefit from similar hands off, fixed objective focused approach to contracting and how many billions of dollars could be saved.
Regardless, the demonstrated success of SpaceX is just as achievable using proven hardware and experienced organizations that are just as “Commercial†as SpaceX…….
…….’provided’ they are also afforded a similar level of hands off management that SpaceX enjoyed.
A relationship they most definitely didn’t enjoy during CxP and (if we don’t learn/apply the primary lesson from SpaceX’s success) won’t enjoy in the future to the determent of our Space Program. Ironically as it is now the organizations with the least amount of experienced have the least amount of government technical oversight while the opposite is true for the most experienced organizations with decades of ‘technically’ successfully programs.
SpaceX has also proved just how pathetic (fortunately) the North Korean and Iranian ballistic missile development programs are. Both of which have had more time and money but have achieved significantly less than SpaceX. Hopefully they won’t catch on. It would seem that governments in general tend to slow things down regardless of whether they are Elected or Tyrannical.
Having said all the above though, you’re never better than your last successful launch. NASA had 25 successful flights of a significantly more complicated system before Challenger happened. The unfortunate fact of this business is that frequency eventually begets failure because success in the face of such a difficult task almost always increases compliancy and pride which leads to most falls. So don’t get cocky kid, but great job none the less. Plan B is looking more like Plan A.
It speaks volumes about the aging Hutchinson and Nelson that they’d praise the successful repitition of a ‘back to the future’ feat they were alive to witness in early 1960’s. But the biggest hurdle and true test remains: SpaceX FLEW NOBODY INTO SPACE.
Meanwhile, NASA and other government operated space agencies have been successfully conducting human spaceflight operations for half a century. It’s worth repeating over and over: SpaceX FLEW NOBODY. And it’s a false argument by commerical HSF proponents to even try to compare commerical HSF plans to the validated, experienced and historied half a century of government funded and operated human spaceflight activities.
Essentially, SpaceX, a ‘commercial company’ vying for more and more government contracts and subsidies, orbited an ‘empty can’ from government owned launch facilities at Cape Canaveral, recently refurbished with taxpayer stimulus funds for their operations.
This might have looked like daring stuff in the cutting edge missile days of the early 1960’s but it’s quite a yawn in 2010, as muted media coverage beyond the cluster of space centers around the country clearly indicates. Examples: CNN aired a clip after the launch and did not cover it live; ABC News did not even include a report on the flight in their evening network news broadcast (West Coast feed, no less!) In fact, an unmanned missile launch is pretty routine today.
SpaceX needs on-going government contracts as private sector capital investment remains wary (hence Musk’s verbal grab for Orion’s ‘future’ business at the presser), keenly aware space is a limited and risky market with questionable returns on investment requiring heavy upfront costs. And a quick review of investors in SpaceX indicates the pool has not expanded much beyond Musk’s own circle of cronies, although to Musk’s credit, he invests his own fortune in the firm. The bulk of the actual flight data from Dragon’s on orbit performance remains unknown as well at the time of this posting so the public– and the investor class– really have no clear idea of knowing if Dragon is a gem– or a deathtrap, other than the spin from commercial space advocates and SpaceX’s own press releases.
There’s nothing particularly ‘earth-shattering’ about SpaceX duplicating a feat accomplished by NASA 45 years ago. In March, 1965, when the government funded civilian space agency lofted the likes of Gemini 3– it was a new technology then facing much more daunting challenges. And Gemini 3 carried two astronaut pilots, John Young and Gus Grissom, up and around the earth several times and returned them safely to Earth.
The Dragon spacecraft orbited Wednesday was unmanned.
SpaceX has had half a century of successful, government funded human space operations and 80-plus years of government funded rocket development to draw from. If anything, it should have been easier for SpaceX in 2010 than it was for the NASA of the early ’60’s. The true milestone for any commercial space venture will be to launch, orbit and return crewed vehicles safely to Earth. Until then, it’s all an exercise of “been there, done that.” Even China is years ahead of SpaceX in that regard, having already orbited and returned crews safely.
The day a privately funded, crewed, commerical spacecraft is launched, orbited and safely returned to earth is the day the world will truly change for human spaceflight. But Wednesday was a blast from the past, no more, no less. SpaceX flew NOBODY.
@Rand Simberg wrote @ December 9th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
“The only thing that Apollo worked well at was beating the Soviets to the moon, and it did that only because it had an essentially unlimited budget. In terms of opening up space, it was a disaster, and repeating its approach would set us back another four decades.”
The ‘only’ thing? Rubbish. Utter nonsense. History has never been your strong point and if you’re going to pass yourself off as an ‘educator’ you best bone up on it. But then, those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach.
Essentially, SpaceX, a ‘commercial company’ vying for more and more government contracts and subsidies, orbited an ‘empty can’
It wasn’t an “empty can,” you idiot. It was a fully functional spacecraft, capable of maneuvering in space, entering, and returning to earth, that could have carried people, and would have returned them safely, had they chosen to risk it.
Stephen Metschan wrote @ December 9th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
you raise some interesting and valid points…
There is a mix, and sadly right now the US is not balanced correctly in that mix…of government oversight to industry performance.
To little is a problem, as is obviously to much.
Where NASA HSF is imploding is in my view the notion that somehow there is some expertise at NASA HSF that is important in terms of design of products and then their building and then their operation…as opossed to stating a requirement, regulation how that requirement is met then buying a product (and using it in an effective manner).
NASA HSF sort of acts as if they should be involved in the design of the “weedcutter” (and that begs the question of if they should operate it).
What we will never know is what could have been with the shuttle system had at some point USA took over almost everything with the shuttle system…including even “lock stock and pilot astronauts”. and NASA just supplied the folks on the shuttle who were doing “G things”…the bad decisions that brought us Challenger and Columbia and a lot of near misses in between are a function of NASA employee decisions.
Having said all that…what is driving the success behind SpaceX and Virgin and a few other groups is that they are all being designed with “cost” in mind; acquisition and operations cost…and not only does that make a viable product; but it also drives the technology sequence.
One reason DIRECT was a flop is that it in large measure tried to design a vehicle without the notions of cost involved..
As for Iran and North Korea…lol both those “programs” are designed more to tweak the US and excite the right wingers in The Republic; as well as satisfy local political concerns more then produce an operational weapon.
Really
Robert G. Oler
@Stephen C. Smith wrote @ December 9th, 2010 at 7:18 am
“For several years, whiz-kid entrepreneur Elon Musk
has been telling anyone who would listen that he
could build a rocket and spacecraft to carry humans
into orbit faster and cheaper than NASA….”
What else would you expect to hear trumpeted from a region whose entire economy clings to space operations. Soon it may be the only game in town. Earth to Stephen: The fact remains, it’s all hype: Musk has not flown ANYBODY.
DCSCA wrote @ December 9th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
they flew cheese…
http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=10150340040215131&set=a.10150340038325131.581457.353851465130
Robert G. Oler
“More misinformation spread by Major Tom.”
I mistyped. I intended to write “habitable volume” per yesterday’s news conference.
“Since Dragon is a smaller spacecraft one would assume habitable volume is proportionally smaller”
That would be a bad assumption, especially given the large size of Dragon’s unpressurized “trunk” section relative to Orion.
“I don’t see a Dragon launch abort system either. Orion’s has already been tested.”
If you count a capsule’s recovery parachutes as part the launch abort system (and we should), then Orion’s LAS testing experienced failures:
http://gizmodo.com/5039573/nasa-tests-orion-parachute-result-spectacular-failure
Moreover, independent analysis has shown that Ares I/Orion has a 100% probability of killing its crew in the event of a launch abort approximately 30-60 seconds after liftoff:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=31792
If it were my life on the line, I would take an undeveloped LAS (Dragon or otherwise) over the “developed” Orion LAS. The latter appears to do more to ensure than prevent a crew’s death in the event of an accident while at least there’s the hope of improving that situation in the former.
And that doesn’t even take into account the fact that the Orion pressure vessel, TPS, GNC, maneuvering, etc. have yet to experience a launch, the space environment, or reentry and recovery. These risks and more were retired on Dragon yesterday.
FWIW…
DCSCA: SpaceX FLEW NOBODY INTO SPACE.
Give them a chance. They are making great progress at almost trivial expense by comparison with, say, something like the NASA managed Orion or Ares, which in their “test-flight”, not only did
Constellation FLEW NOBODY INTO SPACE, and
Constellation DID NOT EVEN FLY AN ORION INTO SPACE, and
Constellation NOT FLY AN ARES 1 INTO SPACE.
All Constellation flew was an SRB pulled from the Shuttle assembly line, with some airliner software, with an Atlas guidance system.
“First Apollo worked, and worked very well. Orion while being a spin off, is a logical next step to take. ”
Apollo was an unsustainable program, logic would dictate the very last thing you would want to, if you want to open up space exploration on a sustainable basis, would be to repeat the same profile that was unsustainable in the first place. Your logic is very flawed.
William Mellberg wrote:
How can you say that? Apollo was, at the time, the most advanced spacecraft ever built.
Rand was not commenting on how advanced Apollo was or what it did for exploration or advancing science. He was commenting about the same thing I did at the top of this post. The logic of Orion being a replacement to Apollo for opening up space.
Rand Simberg wrote:
“In terms of opening up space, it was a disaster, and repeating its approach would set us back another four decades.”
No one would argue that Constellation was sucking the oxygen out of the room with it’s budget demands. There were no longer funds available to do anything else. We lost COTS-D, the promethus project, Jupiter icy moons, fuel depots, modular, in space assembly, space based vehicles.
All of this was laid out in the Vision for Space Exploration. All of this was ignored by Griffin. I listened to an interview Griffin gave to space news. He said with such pride that Ares I and Ares V would be flying for the next 50 YEARS. Absolutely no mention of NASA doing anything else. When asked about other things, it was always turned back to his baby being his legacy. Nothing else seemed to matter to him in that interview.
There is no way Apollo could sustainably open up space and neither could Constellation. Until we can come to terms with space gas stations we are never going anywhere sustainably. This is a classic chicken and the egg, and in those senerios someone has to make the first move. It should be NASA developing the technology and shoveling it into the private sector.
OH, and by the way, the Constellation “Ares 1X” did not make it into space.
Dave Salt wrote:
“William, just for my own education, who was planning to go back to the Moon and live off the land? I ask because, although I think this is a noble idea, I was unaware of any real program that aimed to do this (VSE sort of aimed for it but was never really implemented). Note that I credit you with a good intellect and assume you were not thinking of Constellation.”
Dave, I refer you to the report issued by the NASA Advisory Council Workshop on Science Associated with the Lunar Exploration Architecture. This was the end product of the Lunar Science Workshop held in Tempe between February 27 and March 2, 2007. You can read the entire report here:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/LEA/finalReport.pdf
It offers a fascinating look at some of the science that was being planned in association with our return to the Moon (via whatever means). Although I was skeptical at first about a lunar outpost on the rim of Shackleton Crater myself, the more I read this report, the more excited I became about what could be accomplished there — including “living off the land” via the water ice buried nearby, and the hydrogen and oxygen that could be extracted from the rocks and regolith, as well. Within a short distance (a few miles) you could also establish optical and radio telescopes permanently shielded from the Sun and Earth. The report details some of the other science that could be accomplished from a base at Shackleton (astronomy, geology, astrophysics, heliophysics, Earth studies, etc.).
Note: This was not a definitive plan. But it was an effort to define the proposed lunar outpost, and the work that could be done there. It also addressed some of the hardware that would be required. In this respect, the Lunar Science Workshop at Tempe was similar to the 1965 Falmouth Conference which laid the groundwork for the science that was so much a part of the Apollo ‘J’ missions (as well as the ALSEPs deployed by Apollo 12 and Apollo 14). That conference is described in “Where No Man Has Gone Before.” I don’t have the link handy, but I believe it’s available online. Look for NASA SP-4214. The author was William David Compton. The book describes the science aspects of the Apollo missions.
The Lunar Science Workshop at Tempe brought together leading scientists, such as astronomer Heidi Hammel, to gather their input for the proposed outpost at Shackleton. “An outpost on the Moon will help us understand our ‘home in space,'” the report noted, “while providing a beginning toward the next steps toward sustained human presence on other planets.”
The conference was planned, in part, by Dr. Harrison Schmitt (Apollo 17), who was Chair of the NASA Advisory Council at the time. His input was important as he remains the only scientist to have explored the Moon firsthand.
If the notion of a permanent research station(s) on the Moon appeals to you, this report will hold your attention and capture your imagination.
The Falcon/Dragon test/demo is most definitely a step in the right direction to maintain LEO capability and lower costs after shuttle ends. I think way too many people are really jumping the gun here, it’s still a LONG, LONG way to go (4-6 years at a minimum?) till a manned LEO capability is tested/demonstrated. If we are to ever go BEO, I dont think SpaceX/Dragon has the expertise to do it. We are going to need SOMETHING along the lines of Orion/MPCV for C3 coupled to something like a MPLM to provide livingspace/consumables powered by Centaur or ACES. All launched by Delta4 Heavy at a minimum but probably Atlas 5 Heavy. Those are the minimum pieces I see needed to start to open the solar system.
“…….’if’ unencumbered by the “thousands of pages of do it my way or the highway†government bureaucracy. One wonders how many other federal programs would benefit from similar hands off, fixed objective focused approach to contracting and how many billions of dollars could be saved.
…….’provided’ they are also afforded a similar level of hands off management that SpaceX enjoyed.”
These are critical points going forward for NASA’s human space flight programs and they really can’t be emphasized enough.
We can set aside the higher costs associated with unique, legacy Apollo/Shuttle programs/infrastructure/workforce. We can also set aside the lack of competition or good sensitivity analysis to substitute for competition in the requirements assumptions and major systems decisions that led to the Ares and Orion designs.
We can set aside all that, but the enormous paperwork burden that Constellation was operating under was arguably still a showstopper all by itself.
Whether its public/private, cost-plus/fixed-price, or something else going forward, that aspect of NASA’s human space flight development programs _has_ to change.
“SpaceX has also proved just how pathetic (fortunately) the North Korean and Iranian ballistic missile development programs are. Both of which have had more time and money but have achieved significantly less than SpaceX. Hopefully they won’t catch on.”
That’s an interesting and provocative point. But I’d also caution that they’re not the same achievement. A space launch vehicle has the luxury of stopping the launch sequence in the event of anomalous data or hardware, correcting errors and modifying software and hardware, and trying again at the next launch window, as happened with yesterday’s flight. But a ballistic missile _has_ to work when fired.
FWIW…
think way too many people are really jumping the gun here, it’s still a LONG, LONG way to go (4-6 years at a minimum?) till a manned LEO capability is tested/demonstrated.
Why in the world would it take four to six years to develop a launch escape system?
Dave, I refer you to the report issued by the NASA Advisory Council Workshop on Science Associated with the Lunar Exploration Architecture. This was the end product of the Lunar Science Workshop held in Tempe between February 27 and March 2, 2007.
William, you are completely missing Dave’s point. I’m sure he’s quite aware of that report. His point was that Constellation was not going to be able to sustainably support those plans.
Rand Simberg wrote @ December 9th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
“It was a fully functional spacecraft…”
C’mon, Rand. Lose the spin and find some manners. It was battery powered… didn’t even have solar panels so don’t try to spin it as a ‘fully functional’ spacecraft they could have chosen to crew but decided not to. There’s no independent varification that the flight was even survivable for a crew, let alone that it had an operational environmental control system, etc., unless you’re privvy to data yet unpublished. Please share with the class. Make us all proud… stop the spin and just FLY SOMEBODY. The world awaits.
@guest wrote @ December 9th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
From 1961 through 2010, Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, shuttle and ISS have– and they were and are crewed.
“A space launch vehicle has the luxury of stopping the launch sequence in the event of anomalous data or hardware, correcting errors and modifying software and hardware, and trying again at the next launch window, as happened with yesterday’s flight. But a ballistic missile _has_ to work when fired.”
No, nothing “_has_ to work”. If you think that is possible you are kidding yourself. Everything is probabilities. The DoD is well aware that a certain % of missiles are expected to fail at launch. That’s just reality. But they do work hard at reducing those chances of failure.
Vladislaw wrote:
“Apollo was an unsustainable program, logic would dictate the very last thing you would want to, if you want to open up space exploration on a sustainable basis, would be to repeat the same profile that was unsustainable in the first place. Your logic is very flawed.”
Vladislaw, Apollo was a first generation ‘interplanetary’ spacecraft. (I use the term ‘interplanetary’ loosely.) It opened space beyond Earth orbit. (Although the Moon orbits the Earth.) Similarly, the Ford Tri-Motor was a first generation airliner. The growth of the airline industry could not have been “sustained” flying Ford Tri-Motors forever. Or Douglas DC-3s (even if DC-3s wind up flying forever, which they might). But the DC-3 was built on the legacy of the Ford Tri-Motor. And the DC-6 was built on the legacy of the DC-3. And the DC-8 was built on the legacy of the DC-6. And so on.
Likewise, Apollo created a legacy upon which even Dragon is being built. It’s a capsule, not a winged vehicle. It splashes down in water using parachutes. And so on.
When you talk about “sustainability” you must recognize that some things aren’t sustainable in a commercial sense. Take our research stations in Antarctica, for example. Basic R&D costs money. High technology doesn’t come cheap. Never has. Never will. But Apollo opened space like nothing had before it … or since. It carried humans to another world for the first (and last) time in history. Whether or not the architecture was sustainable isn’t as important as the fact that it was a tremendous pioneering effort.
When I was a lad, the Moon was still a mystery. Ditto for Venus and Mars. When my Father was working on Surveyor, no one could tell him if the lunar surface was hard or soft, smooth or rocky. Because nobody knew. (Although Gene Shoemaker proved to be remarkably accurate in his predictions of what the surface would be like.) The generations born after Apollo can’t really appreciate what a remarkable era that was … literally opening up new worlds for the first time. Today, the Moon is taken for granted (“been there, done that”). Sometimes the cost of success is complacency.
I think what SpaceX did yesterday was tremendous. But again … let’s not put down the achievements of the past.
There’d be no 787 if there hadn’t been a Ford Tri-Motor. (And Ford certainly got the Tin Goose into service a lot faster than the Dreamliner!)
As for Constellation repeating the Apollo architecture … that wasn’t totally the case. There were some major differences in approach. But, of course, there are only so many ways you can peel an apple.
“This might have looked like daring stuff in the cutting edge missile days of the early 1960′s but it’s quite a yawn in 2010, as muted media coverage beyond the cluster of space centers around the country clearly indicates.”
Coverage was not limited to local papers. It made the:
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/08/AR2010120801591.html
Wall Street Journal
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/08/AR2010120801591.html
Economist
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2010/12/private_spaceflight
LA Times
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-spacex-launch-20101209,0,7012313.story
… and more. Don’t make stuff up.
“SpaceX needs on-going government contracts
This is a false statement. SpaceX won the largest commercial launch contract in history from Iridium:
http://investor.iridium.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=479890
The value of that contract alone is nearly $500 million.
Even setting aside the Iridum contract, the SpaceX manifest is chock full of commercial and other non-NASA payloads. See:
http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php
There are even two Dragon flights on that manifest that aren’t paid for by NASA.
NASA could terminate its COTS agreement and CRS contract with SpaceX tomorrow, and the company would still be launching Falcon 9s and Dragons. Just none of them would be headed for the ISS.
Don’t make stuff up.
“as private sector capital investment remains wary”
Another false statement. SpaceX has already attracted $200 million in private sector (venture capital) investment:
http://www.buzzbox.com/news/2010-11-10/elon-musk:spacex/?clusterId=2405214
Don’t make stuff up.
“In March, 1965, when the government funded civilian space agency lofted the likes of Gemini 3… The Dragon spacecraft orbited Wednesday was unmanned.”
This is a bad or misleading comparison. Just like Dragon, Gemini had unmanned test flights prior to the manned Gemini 3 mission — one suborbital and one orbital.
“Even China is years ahead of SpaceX in that regard, having already orbited and returned crews safely.”
This is another bad or misleading comparison. SpaceX is a company with a net worth measured in the hundreds of millions to low single billions of dollars. China is a sovereign nation with the second largest economy in the world with an annual GDP in the neighborhood of $5 trillion.
Sigh…
Vladislaw, Apollo was a first generation ‘interplanetary’ spacecraft. (I use the term ‘interplanetary’ loosely.) It opened space beyond Earth orbit.
That phrase doesn’t mean what you think it means. Apollo did not “open up space.” It simply sent a few government employees to the moon, at horrifically high cost, and one that was clearly unsustainable, as evidenced by the indisputable fact that it was not sustained.
“Opening up space” would mean putting into place a transportation infrastructure that was robust and scalable, with the possibility of dramatic reductions in cost with increasing levels of activity.
As for Constellation repeating the Apollo architecture … that wasn’t totally the case. There were some major differences in approach.
The differences were trivial compared to the unaffordable unsustainable similarities — big rocket, little capsule, all expendable, billions per mission, few flights per year.
If you want to understand what we’re talking about, go read this.
Rand Simberg wrote:
“William, you are completely missing Dave’s point. I’m sure he’s quite aware of that report. His point was that Constellation was not going to be able to sustainably support those plans.”
No, I’m not. Because the report also addressed how Orion and Altair would fit into the equation. Since Harrison Schmitt was one of the organizers of the conference — and Chair of the NASA Advisory Council at the time — he and the other participants were very much aware that Constellation would be providing the Earth-Moon transportation architecture. In any case, Dave’s question to me addressed plans for “living off the land” on the Moon. And that’s the question I (and the report) answered.
“It offers a fascinating look at some of the science that was being planned in association with our return to the Moon…”
Subcommittees of NASA advisory bodies can put together all the plans they want. That doesn’t mean that NASA is going to adopt them in the agency’s planning or that they’re going to be implemented even if adopted. Only about a year after this report was printed, Griffin was zeroing out Altair and extending Ares V’s design period beyond the budget runout. No lunar base, however wonderful, is going to be built without a lander and a means of getting it there.
FWIW…
“it’s still a LONG, LONG way to go (4-6 years at a minimum?) till a manned LEO capability is tested/demonstrated”
More like three years.
“If we are to ever go BEO, I dont think SpaceX/Dragon has the expertise to do it. We are going to need SOMETHING along the lines of Orion/MPCV…”
Dragon has a thermal protection system that can withstand reentry from Mars trajectories. Orion does not.
“coupled to something like a MPLM”
Why would you want something as small as an MPLM for the habitat when inflatable volumes have been tested in space?
FWIW…
William Mellberg wrote:
“Vladislaw, Apollo was a first generation ‘interplanetary’ spacecraft. (I use the term ‘interplanetary’ loosely.) It opened space beyond Earth orbit. (Although the Moon orbits the Earth.) Similarly, the Ford Tri-Motor was a first generation airliner. The growth of the airline industry could not have been “sustained†flying Ford Tri-Motors forever. Or Douglas DC-3s (even if DC-3s wind up flying forever, which they might). But the DC-3 was built on the legacy of the Ford Tri-Motor. And the DC-6 was built on the legacy of the DC-3. And the DC-8 was built on the legacy of the DC-6. And so on.”
Yes it would have to be a very loose comparison because Luna is an earth satellite only 3 days away and Mars and Venus are/were long duration chemical flights.
You are actually making my point. NASA can never give us sustainablity. It is not in there short or long term interest. You are using commercial examples to try and explain a government sanctioned monopoly. A monopoly does not have to change as long as the government supports it. Are NASA and it’s contractors screaming for sustainablity? That NASA should be doing things a lot cheaper? It is in no one’s interest to change the current food chain. You honestly believe Lockmart couldn’t do Orion for 1 billion if they were forced to? You honestly believe the current NASA is willing to force them to? Monopolies enjoy many things, extra normal profits and no competition.
It was competition driving those changes in the airlines. NASA has none and has actively fought it since the first time someone mentioned pushing the launch business into the private sector.
“No, nothing “_has_ to workâ€. If you think that is possible you are kidding yourself.”
I’m not. I’m making the point that engineering for weapons systems is a very different beast than engineering for transportation systems. You almost never get a second chance on the battlefield. You almost always have a second chance in transportation.
“The DoD is well aware that a certain % of missiles are expected to fail at launch.”
Of course. But that failure rate per launch attempt is still much, much lower than on space launch vehicles. And, moreover, it’s compensated with multiple launches. The overall system cannot fail to get enough warheads on targets when fired the first time. That’s not true of a space launch vehicle and its payload.
FWIW…
How many more years until NASA’s HLV is declared a lame duck? 4? 6? 8? hmm.
Major Tom wrote:
“We can set aside all that, but the enormous paperwork burden that Constellation was operating under was arguably still a showstopper all by itself. Whether its public/private, cost-plus/fixed-price, or something else going forward, that aspect of NASA’s human space flight development programs _has_ to change.”
Well, here’s a point of agreement, Major Tom! Some years back, while my Father was still an active engineering consultant, he was asked to get involved with the ISS. He and a colleague had a meeting with some NASA representatives and quickly decided NOT to get involved. They were stunned by the mountain of paperwork that would have been involved. “Too much bureaucracy,” was my Dad’s conclusion. “Not worth the trouble.”
@ William Mellberg wrote @ December 9th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
I have read some of your posts here and I understand your enthusiasm for something that might have been. But since you expect reason in all our arguments, how can you tell that Constellation was a program about going back to the Moon? Possibly living off the Moon resources? Yes you may have read papers about all those grandiose things we were going to do. But with what money may I ask? Most budgets at NASA were being dried up for Ares I and Orion. Just these two. In order to go to the Moon, let alone live on the Moon, let alone off the Moon resources, we would have needed Ares V and Altair at the very least, both of which were NOT funded. So yes you are enthusiastic and you may have claims to PR/Marketing in the aviation industry but why would any one listen to your arguments? What is you relation to the former Constellation program? To NASA? To COTS? Yes you are entitled to an opinion indeed but please try and give us concise arguments based on facts AND budget otherwise you are just another “space cadet” whose dream got shattered or so you may believe (that your dreams were shattered).
Please.
@ William Mellberg wrote @ December 9th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
“I think what SpaceX did yesterday was tremendous. But again … let’s not put down the achievements of the past.”
Who is putting down the achievements of the past??? Certainly not SpaceX, did you hear Elon Musk yesterday? Certainly not any engineer working on anything space!!! Do you think that all the people at SpaceX think that Apollo was a joke, a failure? What most people are saying is that Apollo’s goal was to show the US predominance over the Soviets, nothing else. They did. They did an unbelievable thing and any one today who thinks they even come close to Apollo’s technical achievements in this field 40 years ago is simply an idiot. No one claims any such thing. THE claim is the cost. The possibility to open up space to more people, to people who have cash indeed but who don’t need to go through a mystery selection to become astronaut (do you know what it takes to become an astronaut at NASA? At ESA?).
“As for Constellation repeating the Apollo architecture … that wasn’t totally the case. There were some major differences in approach. But, of course, there are only so many ways you can peel an apple.”
You know you haven’t shown you know the actual difference in these two architectures no matter what you say. The differences in approach are so insignificant that the end result would have been the same. Actually worse! Constellation could not get funded and was cancelled!!! What else do you need?
@ Stephen Metschan wrote @ December 9th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
You know I am baffled. What kind of post is that? You only warn of impending doom? How about being humbled by what SpaceX accomplished? Where does Jupiter stand today compared to Falcon/Dragon? Who ket telling us ad nauseam that the DOD was considering their architecture for HLV? Where do you stand on that? Who is being cocky again?
“The growth of the airline industry could not have been “sustained†flying Ford Tri-Motors forever.”
No but it did make it sustainable, if not, airlines would have disappeared. The tri motor was noted for it’s rugged dependability and it’s ease of repair in the field. They were still flying into 1960.
“When you talk about “sustainability†you must recognize that some things aren’t sustainable in a commercial sense. Take our research stations in Antarctica, for example.”
Yes, let’s take our commercially supported, sustainable bases in Antarctica, so you think they would be there if the only way they could be resupplied is if NASA had to launch rockets to do it?
If anything the antartica bases shows ss, if you want sustainablity look to the commercial sector to provide the transportation systems and services that the government can actually afford rather than a government monopolized transportation system.
William Mellberg wrote @ December 9th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Apollo was a first generation ‘interplanetary’ spacecraft. (I use the term ‘interplanetary’ loosely.) It opened space beyond Earth orbit. (Although the Moon orbits the Earth.) Similarly, the Ford Tri-Motor was a first generation airliner.
not to pick a fight, but I dont agree much with any of that.
And I think that there is an important issue here.
First I dont think Apollo was a first generation “interplanetary” spacecraft….and then to compare it in any fashion to the Ford Tri Motor strikes me as really out of bound.
AT best Apollo ( is a series of “X” vehicles that tested technology toward a particular goal, which instead of a particular technology or speed happened to be a place. There is almost no paralell in the history of mankind for Apollo unless they are looked at in the urge of X vehicles.
There was nothing enabling about Apollo for the rest of the nation AND there was nothing sustainable about Apollo unless the nation was willing to spend lots of dollars that it did not have.
None of that is accurate for the Ford Trimotor. The Trimotor enabled air travel for a growing group of people AND it enabled along with some clever legislation and experiments by groups like NACA the ability of other companies (Boeing/Douglas) to put together better and more versatile airplanes…all to chase a market.
Apollo was a dead end, the moment Jack Kennedy announced the goal that spawned it…The Ford Trimotor was a dead end, only when technology had passed it by.
It is important that these distinctions be understood
Robert G. Oler
William Mellberg,
You are looking at the hardware of Apollo. What is really being talked about is the way the program was implemented. It was not a program that allowed incorporation of newly developed technology, it was not a program that allowed new players to join in, etc. More over, I disagree that it “opened space.” If you (or a country) loses an ability, then that situation was never truly open.
If you look at Apollo as a battle that was won during the Cold war, it was very successful. If you look at it as an attempt to open space, it failed miserably. Because it wasn’t sustainable, because America wouldn’t keep spending money on it to keep that capability. Thats the only criteria that matters. The type of vehicle doesn’t matter – its about the program type & implementation. The “opening of other worlds” never was a reality. You may have imagined it as such, but it wasn’t. The only world that has arguably been opened is LEO.
As far as a report capturing imagination – you can do a lot of that testing without humans on site. You haven’t demonstrated why we should be putting humans on site
As far as “repeating the same line” – the problem is that the same lies (or at least the same mis-information) keeps getting repeated. And most of the people repeating it aren’t doing so because they are involved in some sort of intellectually honest debate. They are political partisans, and will continue to spread lies as long as it serves there purpose.
Finally, I often feel like the real issue for you, and some of the other people, is that, because we weren’t given a date certain back to the moon by Obama, clearly whats going on won’t ever get us there. But you have no problem looking at stuff like the report you cite, and say “see, thats why we need to go to the moon, and thats why a moon program was so important, and thats why Constellation was so important” without looking realistically at the possibility of Constellation actually delivering this ability. Its a lot like looking at the old First Lunar Outpost architecture, and being annoyed that that didn’t get us back to the moon, when it was clear there wasn’t money for it. In short – your so enthralled with a particular destination that because someone says “we’ll do so by date XX, and this program’s explicit purpose is to get us back to the moon”, you assume all sorts of magical things about it, without considering whether that program will actually get you there, and can sustain the level of public support needed to survive multiple years & changes in administration.
In fact, lets look at a particular point you raise, to explain this point.
Compared to Apollo….
1. Did Constellation bring any new hardware that would enable lowering the costs of going to the moon?
2. Was Constellation structured in a way as to encourage new technology development, that could be implemented without large redesign needed?
3. Did Constellation bring any new players into the exploration of the moon? Did it have a mechanism for them to become involved?
4. Was Constellation expandable to do something like the moon base you talk about, without getting a major budget increase?
The evidence suggests that most of the answers is no. Thus, Constellation was repeating Apollo
Doug Lassiter wrote @ December 9th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
“But the success of SpaceX wasn’t where it went. It was how they did it. Their triumph was that they did it with little oversight and guidance by the national space agency, and (relatively speaking) minor investment by the taxpayer.”
This is absurd. SpaceX drew upon the collective knowledge and success of 50 years of government funded and managed HSF operation and 80 years of government funded rocket development. They didn’t invent the technology out of wholecloth. Good grief, they dupicated a feat accomplished nearly half a century ago by NASA that used much more primative albeit cutting technology for its era ,challenging greater unknowns at a much greater risk. And in the case of Gemini 3, it was crewed by two human beings in 1965. SpaceX’s repetition of a decades old feat was much less risky in 2010 as it should have been– and they flew no one. Bear in mind, too, that when ‘horeseless carriages’ back in the stagecoach days first arrived in town they usually drew crowds– sort of like the early days at the Cape. In 2010, the media outside of the space center areas across the country where the industry is vital to local economies pretty much shrugged and ignored it. Dragon was unmanned. Seen one uncrewed rocket launch, you’ve see them all; seen one horseless carriage, you’ve seen them all.
Re the Tempe “Lunar Science Workshop”, let’s be careful. Aside from lunar science, it was concluded from the astrophysics, heliophyslcs, and Earth science teams that while the Moon offered many opportunities, few were actually unique. That is, there is loads of great science you can do on the Moon in these disciplines that you don’t have to do on the Moon, and might well be easier to do elsewhere.
For astronomy, some of the biggest advantages of the lunar program were not going to be found on the lunar surface but in the Ares V that was going to be built to take us there. Put huge telescopes in that launcher, and don’t go anywhere near the Moon with it! In fact, one of the astronomy team members in Tempe had written a well considered paper about how the Moon wasn’t the best place to put many kinds of astronomical telescopes. There are few astronomers now who believe that it is.
For Earth science, the Moon was considered a place where one could do whole disk monitoring. It doesn’t take much thought to understand that there are many places you can do that, especially if you’re using a constellation of instruments that would cost much less than putting a manned outpost on the Moon. The lunar surface was considered advantageous because the instruments would be serviceable, which might come as a surprise to the people who have been involved in the many servicing efforts in free space, both human and robotic. If you include the experiments on ISS, our expertise at servicing science experiments in free space is absolutely vast.
Same is true for heliophysics, where experiments on the lunar surface were seen as valuable mainly because a resident astronaut could trot over and tweak something. The cost of that tweak would, however, be enormous.
It’s important to separate what you CAN do on the Moon from what’s BEST to do on the Moon. That wasn’t done, and there is some reluctance in the lunar community to ever try very hard to do that.
If the report sounded exciting, it probably helped that it was edited by Dr. Harrison Schmitt, who still has a lot of lunar dust in his eyes. That his input was important because he remains the only scientist to have explored the Moon firsthand can be misleading. The importance of input about science that can be done on the Moon has no connection with whether the person giving that input left footprints there. It is, rather, in assessing the effort that would be necessary for human beings to do science there, and Dr. Schmitt has deep insights along those lines.
Bottom line … the best science to be done on the Moon is science of and about the Moon.
William Mellberg wrote @ December 9th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
“Similarly, the Ford Tri-Motor was a first generation airliner.”
You jumped from talking about a 3-person exploration vehicle (Apollo), where no one was a passenger, to a true passenger aircraft that had crew plus passengers. Not a valid comparison.
“Apollo created a legacy upon which even Dragon is being built.”
Apollo was built on the legacy of what came before it (Mercury & Gemini), so you didn’t go back far enough. Apollo was an evolutionary product, just like Dragon.
“When you talk about “sustainability†you must recognize that some things aren’t sustainable in a commercial sense.”
You keep missing the point. We haven’t been talking Apollo being “sustainable” in a commercial environment, but that it wasn’t sustainable in a government-funded one.
“…let’s not put down the achievements of the past.”
It looks like you’re the one that only reaches back as far as Apollo for inspiration – isn’t that putting down the achievements of the past, like what came before Apollo?
Musk was very public about “standing on the shoulders of giants”, and I think everyone here knows about our space history, so somehow you’re misinterpreting things.
“There’d be no 787 if there hadn’t been a Ford Tri-Motor. (And Ford certainly got the Tin Goose into service a lot faster than the Dreamliner!)”
There would have been no Ford Tri-Motor without the invention of fire, and SpaceX is getting Dragon into service a lot quicker than Orion…
“As for Constellation repeating the Apollo architecture … that wasn’t totally the case.”
Talk to Griffin – he’s the one that said it was Apollo on steroids, and really it was. Constellation may have been intended for testing future technologies, but all it had planned was flags & footprints. Four people instead of two, and somewhat longer duration, but I don’t think they even had a lunar rover. Oh, and no reusable assets left over. Yep, sounds like Apollo.
Congress has stated that it’s too early to make the Moon a destination again. Until you can lower the cost of getting there (which is part of Obama’s plan), then it will continue to be outside the budgetary limits of NASA.
amightywind wrote @ December 9th, 2010 at 3:44 pm
“Since Dragon is a smaller spacecraft one would assume habitable volume is proportionally smaller, but they don’t say.”
They do say on the SpaceX website (Dragon spec sheet). The pressurized payload volume is 10.0 m^3, which is also the passenger space. That’s bigger than the Orion’s 8.95 m^3 capsule space.
“I don’t see a Dragon launch abort system either. Orion’s has already been tested.”
All you’ve seen is an LAS for Ares 1/Orion, not Delta IV Heavy/Orion (or MPCV). If they plan on flying crew on MPCV/D4H, then they’ll need a new LAS.
Regarding Dragon, there is no LAS yet, but there is no requirement for an LAS. All in good time.
It is clear at this point that the fastest, most cost effective way of end the US HSF gap after the retirement of the shuttle is to adapt Dragon for crew launch. It will cost billions less and be available years sooner than any possible alternative. The HSF gap at this point only exists so parochial political interests in Utah, Alabama, Florida and Texas can extract pork from the tax payer.
Coastal Ron wrote @ December 9th, 2010 at 8:33 pm
“All you’ve seen is an LAS for Ares 1/Orion, not Delta IV Heavy/Orion (or MPCV). If they plan on flying crew on MPCV/D4H, then they’ll need a new LAS.”
That’s an overstatement. The current bone crushing LAS is over kill for D4H but it would still work.
A improved LAS for D4H would have lower accelerations and wouldn’t need to delta V to get away from a rouge SRB, which would make for a lighter LAS. However, much of the LAS – guidance, attitude control and jettison motors – could remain the same. Off loading propellant and derating the thrust of the existing should be straight forward – much easier than developing a wholly new LAS.
I would go further as say that if we really wanted to close the HSF gap, we would use a heavily derated Orion LAS could be used with Dragon to give the US a manned space flight capability in 12 to 18 months as an interim measure while SpaceX develops its pusher LAS.
Ack…we would use a heavily derated Orion LAS could be used with Dragon
I’ll give credit where it’s rightfully due: Space X orbited a spacecraft and successfully returned it to earth, although it was unmanned. Do it again, then start doing your demo flights to ISS to show you can dock with the station, then deliver cargo. Want to get those of us who have a healthy skepticism in your corner? Do it with a crew. Even if it’s a two or three orbit flight with a company crew. Then go to the station with a crew. And do it again. Only then can you talk a crew delivery contract. Meantime, let’s get Orion mated with the appropriate rocket, and start going places. Anyone see John Zarella’s piece on CNN with Pam Melroy today by any chance?
Wow! I get the impression some of you aren’t too keen on going back to the Moon. I can’t answer all of the comments as I have a real job that demands my attention at the moment. But let me reply to Ferris Valyn, who wrote:
“If you look at Apollo as a battle that was won during the Cold war, it was very successful. If you look at it as an attempt to open space, it failed miserably.”
But Ferris, it revolutionized our understanding of the Solar System and enabled us to start dating events in the distant past. The Moon is something of a cosmic Rosetta Stone. Earth’s dynamic geology has erased most traces of our early history. But the Moon, to some degree, has been frozen in time for the past 3 billion years. Understanding the Moon’s cratering rate has also given us a better field for the geology of Mercury and Mars and other bodies in our Solar System. Too many people think about astronauts and flags and footprints when they think of Apollo. They don’t appreciate the science that was done there. That alone was a remarkable achievement.
“The only world that has arguably been opened is LEO.”
No. We opened the door beyond LEO … then we closed it. I’m reminded of the following exchange which took place in the Fall of 1969:
College Student: Dr. von Braun, what was the most important factor in sending men to the Moon?
Wernher von Braun: The will to do it.
Von Braun understood that “will” meant money. The political will to explore worlds beyond our own existed in the 1960s. But it ended when President Nixon cancelled the last three Apollo lunar missions. And you’re right … with a hot war in Vietnam and a Cold War with the Soviet Union, the budget for space exploration could not be sustained. However, you should note that had a commitment been made TO sustain the program, the costs would have come down as they would have been spread out over a longer production run. The Proton rocket cost a bundle in the 1960s when it was first being developed. The same applies to the R-7 and the Soyuz spacecraft. But as those vehicles went into what amounts to mass production, the cost per unit has come down. The R&D costs were covered long ago. Likewise, the Apollo hardware would have been less costly had the R&D costs been spread over a longer production run. But I’ll grant you that the system would never have been “economical” and the architecture chosen to beat the Soviet Union wasn’t von Braun’s first choice.
If you’re familiar with the Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow, there is a bit of a connection here (besides the Avro engineers who came to NASA when the Arrow was cancelled). One of the arguments the politicians used to kill the Arrow was the cost of the program. But when they cited those costs, they were usually referring only to the first five pre-production aircraft. Spreading the program cost over the entire proposed production run would have dramatically lowered the unit cost.
The sad thing about Nixon canceling the last three Apollo missions is that the hardware had already been paid for.
“And most of the people repeating it aren’t doing so (not) because they are involved in some sort of intellectually honest debate. They are political partisans, and will continue to spread lies as long as it serves there purpose.”
Ferris, let’s be honest here. I have the impression you’re rather politically active yourself. But I’ll grant you that there has been plenty of partisanship in these threads coming from both sides of the aisle … my own included. That said, space policy shouldn’t be a partisan issue, although clearly it is. But my interest isn’t in whether or not space policy is set by Democrats or Republicans. My interest is in the policy itself. It’s politics that makes logical, long-range space policies unsustainable. Politics and pork. And there are plenty of people to blame on both the Left and the Right for that situation. Which is unfortunate.
Doug Lassiter wrote:
“Bottom line … the best science to be done on the Moon is science of and about the Moon.”
Yes, but that science has implications beyond selenology alone. Which is what makes the Moon such a great place for doing space science.
William Mellberg wrote:
“Vladislaw, Apollo was a first generation ‘interplanetary’ spacecraft. (I use the term ‘interplanetary’ loosely.) It opened space beyond Earth orbit.”
There is only way, I believe, the Apollo program could have opened up space. If President Nixon would have ordered 6 more Saturn V’s and used them to launch space station modules. Three for NASA and three paid for launches for commercial firms. Then order NASA to buy seats on a commercial ride to the stations that both NASA and private citizens could utilize. NASA would have also been ordered to use commercial launch services for cargo.
There were enough millionairs in the 70’s to take advantage. Who knows where we would be now, after 40 years of commercial competition, if the correct road forward would have been taken in 1971.
Obama is an AWFUL leader, with regards to manned spaceflight! He and his cronies sure lost my vote, forever, when they thoughtlessly demolished a program that would’ve got America out of LEO—and pointlessly trapped us for perhaps two more decades there, doing nothing else. DON’T BUY INTO THE HYPE: Commercial Space will do NOTHING but LEO!!! That’s all that these entrepreneurs will be capable of risking capital on!
Mr. Mark wrote @ December 9th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
And while you are arguing Spacex is moving ahead with the launch of COTS 2 or COTS 2/3 combined. Ken Bowersox has been given instructions to start the initial phase of Spacex’s manned program and Falcon 9 heavy is about to be started as well.
Great news but source please?
Sorry, that’s directed to the bit about the SpaceX manned program.
Double bad!! Manned and F9H programs?
Major Tom wrote @ December 9th, 2010 at 5:38 pm
Inaccurate. The ‘investment pool’ as posted by this writer, is essentially the same group of Musk cronies and a percentage of that figure is, in fact, Musk’s own investment capital. Look it up. It’s no secret. The investment pool is essentially stagnant- he keeps tapping his pals and his own resources.
@Major Tom wrote @ December 9th, 2010 at 5:38 pm
“Dragon is capable of transporting up to seven.” There’s no viable data to support that assertion. To date, Dragons have transported NOBODY.
Major Tom wrote @ December 9th, 2010 at 5:38 pm
SpaceX needs government contracts to survive. Musk’s own verbal ‘grab’ for ‘future’ Orion business at the presser speaks volumes. SpaceX needs NASA contracts to survive. Stop making things up.
William Mellberg – I think what most of us who aren’t moon firsters object to isn’t the selection of the moon over other destinations – its making the moon into a fetish.
The problem is you are equating science with opening space. You need science to open space, but science isn’t opening space. Opening up space means having the ability to regularly go back and to a particular destination (in this case, the moon). Since we lost the ability to go to the moon after Apollo, by definition, Apollo failed to open BEO spaceflight. It laid some of the ground work for opening BEO spaceflight, and did some great science. But it did not open up BEO spaceflight (or if you prefer, it failed to open up BEO spaceflight).
Everything you point to about R&D costs having been paid, and the like, all point to the same thing – we lost the ability to go to the moon, therefore, Apollo was a failure in opening up space. Apply the logic, not the fetish.
Well, I would submit that most policy shouldn’t be a partisan issue. However, I submit that we live in a world where everything is partisan. Its not a world I particularly like, but given everything that has happened, I can either ignore it (in which case, I realize I’ll be ineffective), or embrace it (or I suppose I can crawl into a hole and wait for better times). To decree the politics is to reduce your effectiveness, and ignore reality.
At the end of the day, the real problem comes from the fetishers and the porkers. And I am sick and tired of each. If you are going to fetish space, start fetishizing it all, and not just the moon, or not just mars.
Chris Castro – did he ever have your vote?
William Mellberg wrote @ December 9th, 2010 at 11:21 pm
Von Braun carries little weight with commerical space advocates of today or with the 40 and under crowd. But his kind of vision is sorely needed. It remains one of the high points from my college years to have met him over a few days back in ’74 when he bunked in across the hall for a symposium. Singularly devoted to space travel, even in his declining years. Heard and saw it first hand. He has become a mythical figure at best and at worst, his history is increasingly clouded as the details of his Faustian bargaining in the Third Reich days began to reach the public domain after his death 33 years ago. Had he lived, he may have faced the kind of scorn along the lines of that thrust on Arthur Rudolph which would have made Tom Lehrer’s song from the ’60’s seem like a nursery rhyme. After Apollo, the ‘Germans’ became political baggage and easy to jettison.
Yes indeed, if we had continued on with the Saturn class of rocket, put them into a production line type of assembly, we would have a base on the moon already. The problem is producing one rocket for one mission. As with the auto industry, production linew would bring the cost of rocket tech down. Stamp them out. A moderate HLV, produced with production line tech, would lower the cost to space by many fold.
Ferris Valyn wrote:
“William Mellberg – I think what most of us who aren’t moon firsters object to isn’t the selection of the moon over other destinations – its making the moon into a fetish.”
Ferris, the Moon isn’t a “fetish” with me … it’s the first stop on our way into the rest of the Solar System. Unfortunately, many people these days lack a sense of historical perspective. Our education system teaches young people all about political correctness and self-esteem … but not very much about history or culture. Which is a pity.
However, you are correct about being politically aware and politically active. Too many engineers over the years have shied away from politics as a dirty business … and seen their livelihoods disappear as a result. You and I are on opposite sides of the political fence. But I respect your interest in public affairs and your willingness to stand up, speak out and get involved. Democracy calls for citizen involvement.
But I can’t buy your depiction of space exploration (i.e., getting out of LEO one of these decades) as space fetishism. Good grief! You make it sound like we’re perverts!
Wow! I get the impression some of you aren’t too keen on going back to the Moon.
The only way to get that impression is to not read for comprehension. I for one am quite eager to go back to the moon. I just want to do it in a sensible way.
“The ‘investment pool’ as posted by this writer, is essentially the same group of Musk cronies”
They’re prior business associates. That doesn’t make them Musk’s “cronies”.
Moreover, they’ve invested something approaching $200 million in SpaceX. No investor throws that kind of money at a company just because they’re a “crony” or someone’s buddy.
Get a grip on reality.
“and a percentage of that figure is, in fact, Musk’s own investment capital.”
Evidence? Link?
That’s not what the reference I linked to stated.
Don’t make stuff up.
“The investment pool is essentially stagnant”
The “investment pool” has grown in both size and number of investors.
It started with Musk at some fraction of the $150M he received from the PayPal sale to EBay circa 2003:
http://www.spacex.com/media.php?page=12
The Founders Fund added another $20M in 2008:
http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=47
DFJ added another $60 million in 2009:
http://venturebeat.com/2009/06/29/spacex-raising-another-60m-for-private-space-travel/
Then DFJ and Founders added another $50M this year (2010):
http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2010/11/11/the-daily-start-up-spacex-blasts-off-with-50m/
And somewhere along the line, Scott Banister added ~$10M:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2010/11/09/spacex-raises-50-million/
The initial investment has grown from one to four investors and from something less than $150M to something in the neighborhood of $300M.
Any idiot would take that kind of “stagnation”, any day.
“There’s no viable data to support that assertion.”
Yeah, the CADS showing the Dragon crewed configuration that NASA has posted on its own websites are made of fairy dust:
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/c3po/partners/spacex/index.html
Don’t make stuff up.
“SpaceX needs government contracts to survive.”
When has anyone at SpaceX or NASA stated this?
Evidence? Reference? Link?
“Musk’s own verbal ‘grab’ for ‘future’ Orion business at the presser speaks volumes.”
When did Musk say that SpaceX needed “Orion business” to “survive”?
In fact, when has Musk ever said that SpaceX needs _any_ NASA business to “survive”?
Don’t make stuff up.
“SpaceX needs NASA contracts to survive.”
Why are you repeating yourself?
Are you that green with envy or red with rage?
“Inaccurate… Stop making things up.”
Look in the mirror when you call kettles black.
Sigh…
It seems to me that most of the folks celebrating Elon Musk’s odyssey were too young to remember Apollo or Gemini and they are reliving the experiences many of us have already had. That Musk is warming over technologies already advanced several generations by the space shuttle hasn’t entered their minds. Let them enjoy the fantasy. The danger is that it is distracting this nation from developing a modern a post shuttle launch architecture suitable for lunar and NEO exploration.
“Yes indeed, if we had continued on with the Saturn class of rocket, put them into a production line type of assembly,”
The Saturn V stages (S-IC, S-II, S-IVB) had to be individually produced, individually ground tested, individually transported to Canaveral, stacked on an MPLM in the VAB, transported to the launch pad, and fueled before launch.
Although the three individual stages were produced in a “production line type of assembly”, the entire Saturn V vehicle could not be assembled that way. It wasn’t designed as such. It’s nature of the HLV beast — they’re too big for rapid assembly in a single facility.
“As with the auto industry, production linew would bring the cost of rocket tech down. Stamp them out.”
If you want a launch vehicle to approximate mass production, then you have to move away from Saturn V and towards smaller vehicles. HLVs are too big. No single facility can construct all the stages, stack them, and get them to the launch pad.
“we would have a base on the moon already. The problem is producing one rocket for one mission. .”
They didn’t produce “one rocket for one mission”. IIRC, thirteen (13) Saturn Vs were launched and several more were fully or partially assembled over five or so years.
The problem was that the Saturn V was egregiously unaffordable in the absence of a Cold War competitor to drive up NASA’s budget. Saturn V cost nearly $45 billion in today’s dollars. That’s nearly five times more than what we’ve spent on Ares I/Orion to date — just for an HLV (forget the Apollo CM, SM, lander, etc.).
“A moderate HLV, produced with production line tech, would lower the cost to space by many fold.”
It’s a nice hypothetical, but every HLV ever designed or built by any nation has either been cancelled (Saturn V, Energia) or never gotten off the drawing board (Ares V, ALS/NLS variants, N-1, etc.) precisely because they were unaffordable.
History shows that HLVs raise the cost of space transportation to unaffordable levels. They don’t lower it.
FWIW…
“It seems to me that most of the folks celebrating Elon Musk’s odyssey were too young to remember Apollo or Gemini and they are reliving the experiences many of us have already had.”
You “seem” wrong.
“That Musk is warming over technologies already advanced several generations by the space shuttle hasn’t entered their minds.”
Musk himself made reference to standing on the shoulders of giants in the press conference, and some of us have repeated his words here.
Don’t make stuff up.
Moreover, Falcon 9 and Dragon have demonstrated technologies that were never part of STS.
“The danger is that it is distracting this nation from developing a modern a post shuttle launch architecture suitable for lunar and NEO exploration.”
No, affordable ETO systems like Falcon 9/Dragon — and hopefully Taurus II/Cygnus and EELV/CST-100 — free up something over $20 billion in NASA’s budget going forward towards a “lunar and NEO exploration architecture”. Without them, we would have spent another $30 billion just to complete Ares I/Orion (or been reliant on foreign systems ad infinitum).
William Mellberg –
fetish, definition (from dictionary.com)
Quote you, Mr Mellberg
I would submit that the way you’ve put it, that meets the above definition of a fetish. I would certainly argue that there are people here who do put the moon up far too much on a pedestal.
I will grant that it is the easiest gravity well we can go to. But is it the first stop on our way into the rest of the solar system? Well, that seems to ignore things like LEO, GEO, and Earth moon Lagrange points, all of which may make moon travel much easier, as well as other solar system. OTOH, I would grant that lunar development is perhaps the easiest gravity well to develop.
As for historical perspective – I suspect that part of the issue is we disagree about the history & culture. And thats the problem (case in point – your claim that Apollo did not fail in opening up the solar system).
Additionally, you earlier mentioned the NASA Advisory Council Workshop on Science Associated with the Lunar Exploration Architecture, and the report it produced. I haven’t read the report, but for the moment I’ll accept your characterization of the language, in being transportation independent. Assuming you are characterizing it correctly, I applaud that, and thinks that is probably a good way to go. But we need to apply that across the board, to multiple technologies, to destinations, to everything. If we have these things independent, and then build technologies and companies and industries and a regulatory framework, and so on, that allows for this independent growth, that is self-sustainable, that encourages new entries, and so on, we’ll get the moon – we’ll get the moon, mars and everything in the solar system.
Let me bring back an earlier comment you said
Because Obama canceled a “moon program” that was failing to deliver, and said that comment, suddenly it has been decided that all the stuff being worked on has no relevance to the moon. That by doing stuff like tech development, and commercial development, a return to the moon will not be in the cards for generations. Despite the fact that most of that stuff will BENEFIT lunar exploration and enable it sooner.
I stand by my statement about making the moon into a fetish.
amightywind wrote @ December 10th, 2010 at 9:57 am
It seems to me that most of the folks celebrating Elon Musk’s odyssey were too young to remember Apollo or Gemini and they are reliving the experiences many of us have already had.
wrong yet again.
or mostly wrong.
First off what Musk has accomplished has NEVER been accomplished. He and his team have developed an affordable (he claims we have not seen the cost numbers stated, but he is on a contract) method to orbit and back for people and supplies…
Second…well I still recall Walter Cronkite in tears after the lunar landing talking about the “beginning of the Lunar era”…
he got that wrong…why?
because affordability had nothing to do with the notions of Apollo…and unless we inject a little realism into the notions of having to have cost and value in some proportion…and value in REAL not rhetorical terms…we will never see anything of a space age other then make work programs for humans.
What is annoying and moves me to make this point to you, is that people like you glam onto slogans and that becomes the debate issue with you…
First off we should not debate issues based just on slogans but on facts and issues…second we should debate serious issues seriously. To even have as a notion “excitement” in a debate is silly.
Robert G. Oler
Musk is taking the right approach by letting his work speak for itself. Successful and affordable commercial flights will lead to more commercial flights. Congress will give more money to the COTS approach based on success. Right now they see Commercial as high risk because there are unknowns that some Congressman aren’t comfortable with accepting plus there has been a lot of misinformation. Not to mention the political aspect which is beyond reason.
SpaceX is the new Apple, Microsoft, Dell, Borland so being small and Microsoft was once small, they are very flexible which leads to innovation. That’s one of the reasons small and mid-sized companies are so important to the American economy. Some large companies will learn from the smaller companies while all benefit from a collective legacy.
My business teacher use to say almost every class innovate or die and he wasn’t talking about technology but ideas.
Ferris Valyn wrote:
“fetish, definition (from dictionary.com) … any object, idea, etc., eliciting unquestioning reverence, respect, or devotion”
Ferris Valyn,
I’m beginning to think you have an Obama fetish … not to mention a SpaceX fetish.
Seriously, the fact of the matter is that you have your perspective, and I have mine. Neither is a fetish. They’re beliefs. They’re different approaches to different goals. But it’s an age-old tactic of political hacks and demagogues to smear their opponents by calling them names and trying to belittle them … as in the President’s latest reference to his Republican opponents as “hostage takers” or your reference to me as a Moon fetishist.
Fetishists, hostage takers … it’s all the same. Name calling.
Which is another name for bullying.
Ferris Valyn wrote @ December 10th, 2010 at 11:19 am [I would submit that the way you’ve put it, that meets the above definition of a fetish. I would certainly argue that there are people here who do put the moon up far too much on a pedestal.]
The Moon is where it is and that’s what bothers you. It’s the first stop on an extensible, affordable, sustainable “railroad” to everywhere else.
Think man! Stop regurgitating idiocy.
@ablastofhotair
“It seems to me that most of the folks celebrating Elon Musk’s odyssey were too young to remember Apollo or Gemini and they are reliving the experiences many of us have already had.
That’s probably true but it doesn’t necessarily mean what you think it does. From my own experience, it appears that there are about the same proportion of young versus old in both camps, probably just because population as a whole has increased. I’m 58 years old and those flights were some of the most exciting times of my life. While I am still immensely proud of those accomplishments, mindless hero worship of things past to the point where obsolete methods that no longer are practical (such as cost-plus contracting) are continued to be implemented is something to be avoided.
“That Musk is warming over technologies already advanced several generations by the space shuttle hasn’t entered their minds. Let them enjoy the fantasy. “
Again, you keep repeating the same thoughtless comments. It’s not the fact it’s been done before that is important, it’s the fact that it’s being done more affordably.
“The danger is that it is distracting this nation from developing a modern a post shuttle launch architecture suitable for lunar and NEO exploration.”
But as I proved in a preceding post by pointing out a false statement you previously made (which you never addressed). Your professed concern about deep space exploration is a facade. No matter how often you are embarrassed by your own ludicrous statements, you will keep it up to defend your ATK gravy train at the expense of this country’s potential to become a true spacefaring nation. A future where not just a few tens, but hundreds, thousands and eventually more people will be BOTH exploiting and exploring space simultaneously. A future that backward looking people such as yourself would cause to be stillborn from either greed or intentional closed-mindedness or both. Even long after the first flight of Falcon 9 was shown to be a success, you stubbornly claimed its failure until even you could not deny your mistake. But you still make ludicrous claims in face of the facts. Don’t you ever get tired of having egg on your face? No wonder you post under a pseudonym! That way you can afford to be the laughing stock of the space blogosphere and not have to live with the repercussions.
Anne Spudis wrote @ December 10th, 2010 at 12:28 pm<i
"The Moon is where it is and that’s what bothers you."
nope what bothers ME at least is that people like you seem intent on reinventing the Apollo "mold lines" in terms of how things are done in space…and hoping against hope (or hoping on rhetoric) that something this time will be different.
First off right now there is no reason to suppose that the Moon, even if it were "the promised land" equivelent to our society that California and the west was a century and 1/2 ago…is the promised land now.
You and Wind and whittington and lots of people are inventing enemies (Whittington has the Iranians placing non existant ICBM's in Venezuela) and then giving them magical capabilities to forward a political agenda…ie you and the rest of the old guard cannot get the song out of your head "dont stop wishing for yesterday".
Second, the technology And most important at least in a society that should value Free Enterprise…the capitalistic tools do not exist to take advantage of anything right now on the Moon, nor sees the need for them.
The government (and space policy) have tried this act before. We spent tens of billions (hundreds of billions) building a space station that NO private concern wants to use…(for a variety of reasons some of which include the problems of dealing with a NASA that is simply mired in concrete)…there is no hint that the government spending tens of billions hundreds of billions to go back to the Moon and on its own mine lunar resources would find a single customer.
Sit back and let the free enterprise system work for a change. WE have had 50 years of a true socialist space program…lets try something new and different (and no dont worry about either the Chinese on the Moon or the Iranians in Hugo land…)
Robert G. Oler
@ Ferris Valyn wrote @ December 10th, 2010 at 11:19 am
Ferris, I think you got it right about the “fetish”. I think this older (I assume) than 40 crowd had their brains impressed by the Apollo images. I did too but maybe I did not watch it long enough to completely create this permanent image in my brain. I don’t know I am not a neuro surgeon.
What really, really I find exasperating is their insistence that “they” know more and better about Apollo when none of them, NONE, has ever worked the business of space transportation, save for some Sci-Fi reading. Don’t get me wrong I love Sci-Fi but I made my life more Sci than Fi so that I can bring the Fi to Sci
These people have either no, absolutely no, science/technological background or perfectly fit the depiction of the nerd. You know the one in school with the high tech gadget that never really could get out of the virtual world. To them the high tech gadget is (rumbling drums) going “back” to the Moon. But not everyone should go mind you only a select few. And those select few only because… er… well I don’t know. If we were to follow the current NASA/ESA/government process the few would still be multi-PhD MD fighter pilots. What good would they be to build a lunar station? How about laid off construction workers? That would help solve unemployment at least.
Anyway. The “Moon first Apollo” types are hurting the efforts of those of us who try to actually make it happen no matter their political affiliation, if any, and I find it very very sad.
Oh well.
@ FerrisValyn
The key is to find that inflection point (or “hinge of history”) which allows us to transition from government funded space exploration to privately financed space exploration.
In the long run, its who writes the checks that matters most as I believe that taxpayer financed space exploration will never be genuinely sustainable, in the long run.
And IMHO, the Moon offers our species its first best opportunity to generate revenue that is not ultimately sourced back to the taxpayers.
Ending NASA’s monopsony (as sole buyer of human spaceflight) is one mission critical task if our species is to become spacefaring, at least IMHO.
Thus, I fear for SpaceX being assimilated into the NASA Borg collective.
Hopefully those fears will prove unfounded.
@ Anne Spudis
The above being said, Ferris is correct about the LaGrange points.
It is EML-1 & EML-2 that are the on-ramps to “an extensible, affordable, sustainable “railroad†to everywhere else” even if the Moon is the most accessible source for fuel to support such facilities.
Heinlein was correct about LEO being halfway to anywhere; but in addition, EML-1 & EML-2 are 80% of the way to everywhere.
That said, I believe success is most likely if EML facilities and lunar surface development happen in synergy.
How important was the Dragon flight?
You can bet money that the folks at say Boeing (to pick a large company) are trying to sort out why and how they can build a spacecraft that meets the cost numbers of Dragon/Falcon9.
We are entering into a wonderful era of spaceflight for humans…an era where the cost goes down, utilization goes up…and space becomes NOT A PLACE but a product…
Robert G. Oler
Dennis Berube wrote:
“Yes indeed, if we had continued on with the Saturn class of rocket, put them into a production line type of assembly, we would have a base on the moon already. The problem is producing one rocket for one mission. As with the auto industry, production linew would bring the cost of rocket tech down. Stamp them out. A moderate HLV, produced with production line tech, would lower the cost to space by many fold”
If you are refering to my comment on Sat V production, I limited it to only 6 and they would have only been used to get NASA out of the launch business not extend it. By forcing NASA out of the launch business and creating a competitive market for it, that would have brought prices down.
First NASA could never have gained the funding it needed for payloads for an assembly line production of the Sat V nor could they have afforded the variable labor costs of operations. The point I was trying to make is America could have used it to usher in commercial operations, the only way we will get affordable space access.
—-
William Mellberg wrote:
“Ferris, the Moon isn’t a “fetish†with me … it’s the first stop on our way into the rest of the Solar System.”
Actually the first stop to the rest of the solar system is not Luna but LEO. Once you gain LEO you are halfway to everywhere. That is why it is important to put a commercial gas station there. Fuel your space based, reusable, aero capture capable, earth departure stage and goto Luna.
I see some pretty clear battle lines between Vladislaw / Valens and Mellberg / Spudis – – please correct me to the extent I am wrong:
(1) One side believes that ultra cheap access to LEO can be achieved rather quickly by taking the right programmatic approaches and therefore plans to return to the Moon “too soon” are a wasteful distraction;
Expressed with snark — give Gary Hudson and his compatriots an open checkbook and cheap RLVs will be flying within a few years.
For this faction, a focus on lunar water is a hindrance and an obstacle as developing such resources will compete with the RLV from Earth fed LEO depot market.
(2) Others do not believe that significant order of magnitude reductions in launch costs are readily achievable and therefore look to lunar ISRU to make spaceflight affordable. For this faction, lunar water simply is the key to everything.
I see no need to be emotional or personal about this; people simply interpret the current state of play differently.
As an aside, I believe SpaceX is a HUGE triumph that could place US human launch costs essentially on par with Russia and China.
However Falcon plus Dragon (IMHO) will not provide routine access to LEO at price points that are significantly lower than what is available using Soyuz and Proton even if SpaceX will (IMHO) blow the doors off Delta IVH.
@ Vladislaw
Indeed. But EML-1 & EML-2 are 80% (or more) of the way to everywhere.
The question (IMHO) is whether its “cheaper or better” to fill EML depots from LEO depots filled from Earth based RLVs or whether its “cheaper or better” to fill EML depots with lunar ISRU water based fuels.
And that is a question best answered by accountants, rather than visionaries.
= = =
Also, who will write the checks and why remains a mission critical question and I believe the emotional allure of the moon would facilitate the writing of checks, both by governments and the private sector.
Common Sense (?) wrote:
“What really, really I find exasperating is their insistence that ‘they’ know more and better about Apollo when none of them, NONE, has ever worked the business of space transportation, save for some Sci-Fi reading.”
Excuse me, Mr. Sense, but I worked (albeit briefly) with ERNO on Spacelab. Or don’t laboratory modules count? I also sold jet airliners for Fokker Aircraft, worked for two airlines, served as an airline consultant and have earned a living as a professional aerospace writer and historian for many years. My work has been published in professional journals around the globe (including Russia), from Aviation Week and Air International, to Sky & Telescope and Mechanical Engineering. Plus three popular aerospace books, including “Moon Missions” with a foreword by an Apollo moonwalker. Along the way, I’ve met and interviewed some of the key players (astronauts and managers) in the Apollo Program. Moreover, my Father was directly involved with the space program as an electro-optical engineer, and he participated in the design and development of instruments that went to the Moon, Venus and Jupiter. I grew up with the space program. And I think Anne Spudis knows a thing or two about space science and history, too (putting it mildly).
How about you, Mr. Sense? What is YOUR background and experience?
“These people have either no, absolutely no, science/technological background or perfectly fit the depiction of the nerd. You know the one in school with the high tech gadget that never really could get out of the virtual world. To them the high tech gadget is (rumbling drums) going ‘back’ to the Moon.”
Name calling is no substitute for rational thought. And I was hardly a “nerd” in school (as my classmates could tell you), although I was honored a few years ago as a “Distinguished Alumnus” at the University of Illinois. How about you, Mr. Sense?
And maybe you’ll tell us your real name one of these days, Mr. Sense. It is so easy to toss insults while hiding behind pseudonyms.
Bill White wrote:
“I see no need to be emotional or personal about this; people simply interpret the current state of play differently.”
The voice of reason!
common sense wrote @ December 10th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Ferris, I think you got it right about the “fetishâ€. I think this older (I assume) than 40 crowd had their brains impressed by the Apollo images. I did too but maybe I did not watch it long enough to completely create this permanent image in my brain. I don’t know I am not a neuro surgeon.
__________________________________________________________________________
yeah. among many in the “older white right of center crowd” that is in particular dominating GOP politics now…there is a yearning for Apollo because to them it symobolizes something that went “right” when most everything else that they embrace went wrong.
Apollo is a clear cut symbol of American dominance. It is (mostly) white people like them in crisp white shirts with skinny ties working together in a unified program almost militaristic without being military where everyone works 80 hour weeks “for the good of the program”…
to most of them other then Apollo the era of their youth is well less. They dont embrace the joy of the civil rights movement, or even really the womens movement, Vietnam should have been “won” (whatever that means), and well it would be nice if we had the clear cut foreign policy of the “commies” back.
The replay of that era, the last Bush years, has turned out badly. Most of the folks who loved Bush in 00 are now really dissapointed in him, but of course he is far better then that person who is there now (even though most of his problems stem from the mistakes Bush made)…because well to quote John Bolton on a recent Fox news interview “At least Bush loved the Country”…as if the current person doesnt.
Most of the folks who love Apollo and want to redo it want really to redo American dominance (Anne’s favorite phrase is where she misquotes another persons use of “American excellence”), none of them have any real hope of going into space…nor could most of them put up with the realities of what it takes to survive in space (ie discipline a chain of command etc)…
In the end the road we have traveled since Apollo has been one of political and bureacratic inertia…I would argue that most if not all of the US problems are those things…politicians trying to maintain the “old order” in face of changes which they cannot control, change, or really understand. When someone tells me “we should have won in Vietnam” (an impossibility) I know they are really lost.
Robert G. Oler
@Bill White
“However Falcon plus Dragon (IMHO) will not provide routine access to LEO at price points that are significantly lower than what is available using Soyuz and Proton even if SpaceX will (IMHO) blow the doors off Delta IVH.”
Possibly true if F9 remains totally expendable. However, Musk has said that if he doesn’t get to a point where the F9 first and second stages are reusable, then he will consider himself a failure. If he achieves this goal, all bets are off.
Bill White wrote @ December 10th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
However Falcon plus Dragon (IMHO) will not provide routine access to LEO at price points that are significantly lower than what is available using Soyuz and Proton even if SpaceX will (IMHO) blow the doors off Delta IVH……………………
maybe, but maybe not…and even if “not” that the price points have been achieved by truly commercial for profit ops instead of using Ivan which is basically a state subsidized system that only keeps cost low because Russians are paid like Walmart people…
is a truly magnificent accomplishment and points the way toward even lower price reductions. The magic in The Republic is that commercial success by one company is met by other companies trying to best it…and that has shown itself a positive force in communications satellites…now it is time to work in human spaceflight.
Robert G. Oler
William Mellberg,
If you are curious about my problems with Obama, I can list them in spades. I just suspect that Jeff would prefer I not do so.
As for SpaceX – honestly they are just one company among many that I think have some good potential (my personal favorite is SNC’s Dreamchaser, but thats from an aesthetic position, not based on any sort of technical details). Although, I actually don’t expect them to be the group that does a dramatic low cost system. That I believe will come from a sub-orbital that grows to an orbital system.
If you wanted to accuse me of anything, probably a NewSpace fetish, or a pure space fetish, or a SDLV hater. That may be pretty close to accurate.
As for the accusation of name calling, and each of us having our perspective – this isn’t just a simple case of debating the enjoyable qualities of the latest Miley Cyras song (Note, I don’t actually listen to her, but my roommate does – I do not claim to understand his musical taste). This is a debate about what is logical and rational, and how to really open space up. And I find your views on the moon, and your attitudes towards things like commercial spaceflight development and technology development to be illogical to the point where you treat it with unquestioning devotion. Thats a fetish.
You can claim its bullying if you want. But its really an accurate reflection of the situation.
Anne Spudis,
So, if I wanna go to LEO, I have to go to the moon? Can I only enter Lunar orbit, or do I have to land on the moon to go to LEO? Same question for GEO, same question for Earth moon Lagrange points.
Surgeon, heal thyself
common sense,
I don’t know if you are a West Wing fan or not, but in one episode, one of the characters takes a young staffer to task for wearing a Star Trek pin to the office, arguing just this very point, about Star Trek being a fetish (of course, the irony is the guy taking her to task treated sports as a huge fetish, something I wish could’ve been discussed). If you are desperately curious, it was the episode Artic Radar. Anyway…
@ Rick Boozer & @ Robert Oler
Markets and buyers for human spaceflight that do not buy launch services with tax dollars will be the paradigm shattering event.
All else is prelude, even if a successful SpaceX is a huge step closer to that inflection point.
Bill White wrote:
“I see some pretty clear battle lines between Vladislaw / Valens and Mellberg / Spudis – – please correct me to the extent I am wrong:
(1) One side believes that ultra cheap access to LEO can be achieved rather quickly by taking the right programmatic approaches and therefore plans to return to the Moon “too soon†are a wasteful distraction;”
I have never been one to argue that we need the ultra cheap access to LEO for human crews or even cargo. I have stated we need to get it out of the hands of NASA and into a competitive arena.
It will be the disposable rocket and capsule for the short forseeable future. Under competitive demands those systems will have to be wrung out first, why? Because it will still be cheaper in the short run to support those systems. Profits generally have to be absolutely maximized before you toss it out and make the change to an ungraded system. If the launch demand is only for 300-500 people per year rck/cap will be more than enough. But if those same 500 people have an average stay in space of 3-6 months is more a key issue.
I do not believe it will be the competitive pressure for human cargo that will bring about the ultra cheap, it will be non human cargo supporting an increasing number of people living in space. The longer each customer stays in space the more cargo launches required. It is the duration of the stay in space for each customer that will drive the need for both larger stations and the increasing needs for more standard (cheap goods like food/water/air) cargo.
It is the launching of cheap cargo that developers can try new approaches because failures will not also incure an enormous cost for loss of an expensive cargo.
For me it has always been how to get the commercial train started, not really that much about which train a commercial firm chooses to build, the market will sort that out automatically.
That is why I see Luna as a short term distraction but still want it as the long term goal after we have the infrastructure. I would rather see a NASA Lunar researcher take a commercial flight to LEO to a commercial station. Board a commercial EDS and ride it to a EM1/lunar station. Then take a commercial ride down to the lunar surface to a commercial lunar base and ride a NASA rover to NASA lunar base. Costs to NASA would be cheaper because it is all dual use commercial/government except for the NASA lunar base.
(sidebar) every NASA center has a commercial vistor’s center, why should LEO/GEO/LM1/Luna facilities be any different.
————
Bill White wrote:
“Indeed. But EML-1 & EML-2 are 80% (or more) of the way to everywhere”
I agree, I only worry about what happens to the tanks? Everything throwaway? or just more space junk. It is easy to deorbit gas tanks in LEO, what is the problem the farther out we go?
Fuel cargo from earth flys to a LEO fuel station where a reusable robotic solar powered transport ship fills up from the station and then flys to EML1 drops off the fuel and returns to LEO. If that is what you are advocating then I would be onboard. If it is fly fuel from earth to EML1 and create more space junk with disposable fuel tanks then I would not support it.
Bill White wrote @ December 10th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
“I see some pretty clear battle lines between Vladislaw / Valens and Mellberg / Spudis – – please correct me to the extent I am wrong:”
I would be in group #1, and I you gave it a good effort. At least in the ballpark.
Lowering the cost to access space, and developing non-government sources of demand for in-space products & services, are the key to space exploration, because NASA does not have the budget to do it on it’s own.
I would characterize “Moon First” proponents as being idealistic, but not realistic. They see the riches that the Moon holds in resources and knowledge, but they can’t articulate a funding plan that gets them there without exceeding NASA’s current budget allocation.
My efforts in “correcting the record” with them is that I don’t want another Constellation to happen. Constellation focused on getting to the destination, and not enough on creating the sustainable road behind it.
I kind of view “Moon First” proponents as wanting to build a 7-11 on the Moon, because they know it will the only store around. But they forget that without customers they will be far ahead of the demand. In other words, they want to build supply before there is demand, and they want the government to pay for it (Paul Spudis told me this directly).
I see our expansion into space in more organic terms. Commercial satellite and launch companies have been a good start, and now it’s time to go to the next level by adding commercial crew services. With that in place, the Moon and everyplace else is much closer, and it will cost far less to get there.
Oh, and in the meantime, I have been a proponent of sending a continuous stream of lunar rovers to start the prospecting and preparation efforts to prepare for lunar settlement. I wouldn’t be doing that if I didn’t want to go to the Moon. Binary thinkers can’t understand that…
My $0.02
Robert G. Oler wrote @ December 10th, 2010 at 1:03 pm [nope what bothers ME at least is that people like you seem intent on reinventing the Apollo “mold lines” in terms of how things are done in space…and hoping against hope (or hoping on rhetoric) that something this time will be different.]
Well, “people like me” are amused that you and others think that by continuing to say our lunar resource development advocacy is reinventing Apollo, redoing Apollo, fantasizing about Apollo, obsessing over Apollo — just plain stupid, or that we’re deluding ourselves, that somehow by characterizing us as stuck in the past that someone might believe the Moon is less close, is less useful or less interesting. No one with good reasoning skills believes we are calling for a repeat of the Apollo program.
It isn’t working Robert G. Oler. Twist away. Shout from the top bleachers. Stamp your foot. Shake your fist at the Moon. Insult away. It won’t change the facts.
A sound, affordable, extensible, flexible lunar architecture, beginning with robotic probes doing reconnaissance, instillation, mining and manufacturing will open up the pathway to the stars. And yes, that eventually includes humans.
“How about you, Mr. Sense? What is YOUR background and experience?”
You know, the nice thing about these comment sections is that they allow anonymity. That anonymity may actually be used to protect someone senior and knowledgeable who can’t afford to associate his or her name with certain comments. It can also be used to hide someone who knows absolutely nothing.
That being the case, the way these comment posts work is simply that who you are is the words you write, and your expertise is what you show when you write it, not what you claim it is from your record. If you want to turn this into a “my qualifications are better than yours” deal, and trot out your awards, bibliography, job experience, and who your father was (?) then go somewhere else. A person can have an impressive record and still say dumb things! (Not that you’re saying dumb things, but …)
By the same token, we need to be careful about generalizing who has what kind of an experience base. There is no reason to say stuff like that. We’re supposed to be having an intelligent discussion about what people write. As in, the words they’ve used in their posts.
There is at least one blogster out there watching NASA who gets very offended by anonymous postings. Let’s not worry about that here, eh?
Coastal Ron wrote @ December 10th, 2010 at 2:49 pm [I kind of view “Moon First†proponents as wanting to build a 7-11 on the Moon, because they know it will the only store around. But they forget that without customers they will be far ahead of the demand. In other words, they want to build supply before there is demand, and they want the government to pay for it (Paul Spudis told me this directly).]
Directly? As in a reply to a blog question or comment? The same Paul Spudis who you find so annoying whenever I post a link to his viewpoints at Air and Space Magazine?
Paul does advocate for federal funding to demonstrate the ability to do resource development on the Moon. Commercial money will flow if it is proven feasible.
@Bill White
“Markets and buyers for human spaceflight that do not buy launch services with tax dollars will be the paradigm shattering event.”
Ah, for once we agree on something. Some of those markets and buyers already exist and are just waiting for the commercial lift from SpaceX, ULA, et al. Bigelow and Space Adventures, etc.
Anne Spudis wrote @ December 10th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
Paul does advocate for federal funding to demonstrate the ability to do resource development on the Moon. Commercial money will flow if it is proven feasible.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
there is no recent or historical data to support that statement.
Just because the federal government with unlimited resources shows something can be done, that is a far cry from saying that commercial operators who have to turn a profit on their endeavor…will come along and try and do it or invest money into it.
The shuttle and station have both proven over and over that your statement is not a fact but a hope.
Robert G. Oler
editorial change to above post
“Some of those markets and buyers already exist and are just waiting for the commercial lift from SpaceX, ULA, et al. Customers such as Bigelow and Space Adventures, etc.”
Anne Spudis wrote @ December 10th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
“Commercial money will flow if it is proven feasible.”
The job of the Federal Government is not to prove out a commercial market. Maybe that’s why you’re confused…
Anne wrote:
“A sound, affordable, extensible, flexible lunar architecture, beginning with robotic probes doing reconnaissance, instillation, mining and manufacturing will open up the pathway to the stars. And yes, that eventually includes humans.”
I agree on those types of probes being done on a small scale to test the processes. My prefrence would be to have them done as X prizes and NASA buy the data because history has shown NASA would see a multiplier effect for each dollar they spent from their limited budget. As I have said before, this would be great work for our PHD’s and entrepreneurs and increases the chance for a eureka moment that can be immediately capitalized on in the private sector.
“Paul does advocate for federal funding to demonstrate the ability to do resource development on the Moon. Commercial money will flow if it is proven feasible.”
It has to be more than proven feasible for commercial money to flow. There has to be customer(s) and enough room for profit. The reason I want dual use, commercial/government, is so that we are not handing NASA another monopsony.
It would be my hope that it would deliver INSANELY high profits for the first manufacturer/service provider. There is nothing like extra normal profits to suck capital in like a whirlpool. Why I keep harping on the ability of a firm to make extra normal profits is that it quickly leads to excess capacity. When you have that at the beginning of a new product life cycle it leads to lower prices the fastest.
Bill White,
I actually would submit that my position is like this:
1. We can walk & chew gum at the same time. Fundamentally, to get cheap access and affordability, it’ll either come from good operations, or advance technology (one of which is lunar water ISRU, and yes, I’d even say that that is near term enough that work needs to be done on that). And honestly, I suspect it’ll come from a combination of both.
2. At some point, we do actually need a destination into the mix (although this really needs to come later than is usually assumed, because a goal is not a destination) and the moon is perfectly acceptable, within the timeframe we are talking (10-15 years)
3. We can make the pieces compatible with multiple exploration targets, provided we are judicious in how we plan it out, and in terms of careful selection of the various pieces. This is particularly important for the technology development selection.
4. What we can’t do though is articulate THE PLAN, with all of its associated pieces, today, at this moment, and be able to state “this will be the spacecraft, and all of its parts.” Some of it we can articulate now, but not all of it.
5. Also what we can’t do is use stupid justifications, ie He3 or China suddenly declaring the moon is its territory. Again, this doesn’t mean the moon is off limits, or off limits in the near term – just that we have to actually be judicious in our approach to justification. In point of fact, I would go so far as to say that our present justifications, across the board, are terrible, and we need to be working on new ones
6. Given 4 & 5, we cannot re-create Apollo, where we get 4% of the national budget. That means finding new funding sources, for at least part of the plan.
I would argue its really about the level of detail needed for “the plan” as we move towards BEO spaceflight (which would include going to the moon). What one group wants is to know that we are going to use Rocket X, with Spacecraft X, with Lander X, and we’ll get there by date Y, and be at destination Z, and they want that right now, before we determine justifications. (And, BTW, the Zubrinistas join the Moon firsters in this category).
The second group wants to take what we currently have (realizing it will have to play a role in “The Plan”), but develop the technology & justifications further, before we announce “The Plan”.
I actually think you are probably correct on this, Bill. I think it’ll be the next generation of launchers, that are outgrowths of suborbital launch vehicles, that open space. But, for that to happen, government & industry have to figure out how to make commercial spaceflight work (which involves a lot of things, from business practices & insurance to regulatory, and so on). And this 1st generation of commercial spaceflight will enable this
William Mellberg and Anne Spudis,
A question for both of you – lets suppose that, the president’s plan pretty much stayed the same – Constellation remained canceled, and tech development & commercial space was retained, BUT, he had specifically said the moon remains the primary target, with the hope of a landing date of 2020, and no later than 2025.
Would you still be opposed to what he proposed?
I have been saying for years & years that getting a non-NASA destination up to LEO (a Mir Corp 2 so to speak) would be the best possible stimulus for NewSpace;
however countless NewSpace folk have rejected that saying NewSpace absolutely needs NASA to be the “anchor tenant”
I respond, “Why?”
Re: Anonymous Posters
I am one of them. The reason I post anonymously is because I want the Google results for my real name to generate returns for my business, not one of my pastimes.
I think Doug Lassiter said it very well in stating “who you are is the words you write“. I had never heard of William Mellberg, Anne Spudis, Bill White, Robert G. Oler, Doug Lassiter or Justin Kugler before I starting reading this blog, and all I know about them is what they’ve written here. For all I know, they are all pseudonyms too.
And no, I’m not going to bother to read what you’ve written in the past, because that was then, and this is now. Circumstances change, as do opinions, so I’d rather hear what everyone is saying today, and not what they wrote years ago. History is only good for inspiration, not direction.
“However Falcon plus Dragon (IMHO) will not provide routine access to LEO at price points that are significantly lower than what is available using Soyuz and Proton even if SpaceX will (IMHO) blow the doors off Delta IVH.”
I would argue that “it depends” (smiles)
I have stated that when SpaceX sells it’s first commercial crew seats to NASA, provided these prices are not set in stone first with a longer term contract, they will set the seat price at or just below what NASA is already obligated to pay the Russians. It is only common sense.
If both soyuz and F9 are going to try and sell seats to NASA at the same time, with neither having a contract, then I believe they will both be selling them for the same price as Bigelow Aerospace is willing to pay. I think BA will be the price setter for seat prices because they will have a higher turnaround traffic demand.
If SpaceX is only going to get 20 mil per seat from BA and they are the biggest customer it would be harder to try and sell to NASA at a higher price. Unless NASA is willing to pay more for a preceived better service.
Bill White wrote @ December 10th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
“however countless NewSpace folk have rejected that saying NewSpace absolutely needs NASA to be the “anchor tenant—
Maybe because you’re talking about something too theoretical (“a Mir Corp 2 so to speak“), and a lot of us are gun shy after Constellation. Besides, who pay for a second space station?
The ISS is there right now, and it needs supplies and crew – that is a guaranteed demand through 2020, and likely beyond.
NASA and it’s partners have already lined up five different cargo supply options (Progress, ATV, HTV, Dragon and Cygnus), and if they add two more crew services options, then I think that is enough infrastructure for NewSpace entrepreneurs to try out their new ventures. Certainly Bigelow wants at least two commercial crew options, and likely the rest of the market won’t even get funding until a dependable infrastructure system is in place.
I don’t see a huge rush to LEO, at least not until the first company gets up and demonstrates great success. We also have to be concerned with too much supply for the limited demand, and that’s where the ISS partners have to assess what is required (one provider), and what dependable (2 or more).
Coastal Ron wrote @ December 10th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
Federal investment in technology and science is done why? Is money spent on our space program just idle entertainment for the masses? Explain please.
Showing the feasibility of something isn’t proving a commercial market CR. Perhaps you are the one who is confused.
Ferris Valyn wrote @ December 10th, 2010 at 4:12 pm [A question for both of you – lets suppose that, the president’s plan pretty much stayed the same – Constellation remained canceled, and tech development & commercial space was retained, BUT, he had specifically said the moon remains the primary target, with the hope of a landing date of 2020, and no later than 2025.]
What do you mean by “target?” A flyby? Sortie missions? Resource exploitation?
What lunar architecture do you mean by “target?” The VSE w/o Ares (Constellation)?
Coastal Ron wrote @ December 10th, 2010 at 2:49 pm [I would characterize “Moon First†proponents as being idealistic, but not realistic. They see the riches that the Moon holds in resources and knowledge, but they can’t articulate a funding plan that gets them there without exceeding NASA’s current budget allocation.]
Stay tuned.
however countless NewSpace folk have rejected that saying NewSpace absolutely needs NASA to be the “anchor tenantâ€
The NewSpace position is that the government “anchor tenant” (in this case NASA) would first fulfill it’s need for crewed flight to ISS. This would pay for a significant part of the initial development cost that would be too high for industry alone to supply and also kickstart production of launchers and spacecraft. Once the extremely high economic burden of both development of the vehicle and the building of production lines is complete, there would then mainly only be production costs left which would allow subsequent vehicles to be supplied to both NASA and commercial customers at cheaper costs. Only at this point could Bigelow put up its station and afford to pay for the launchers and spacecraft to get its customers there. So you have it backwards. A significantly lower priced (it just has to be enough cheaper to allow a modest profit for Bigelow) launcher/spacecraft would exist first, then private station second.
@ Vladislaw & @ Rick Boozer
My understanding (please correct me if you have better data) is that federal law would prohibit NASA paying SpaceX more than BA pays SpaceX.
In other words, if BA pays $15 million per seat for transport to its private hab, SpaceX cannot charge NASA more than $15 million per seat.
Therefore, if NASA is the “anchor tenant” they can block competitors simply by paying a NewSpace company a higher price per seat than Bigelow can afford.
More than a little perverse, actually.
Bill, The reason why NASA is needed as an anchor tenant is because there is a chicken and egg problem with commercial human leo space flight.
Here is the problem: There is no access to space other than perhaps via Soyuz. This makes any sort of commercial space station or commercial destination like Bigloew impossibility. How can people get to the station if they are unable to buy tickets?
Of course Bigloew could provide transportation but this greatly increases the cost and risk on his end. Now you need to develop both the station and a capsule to service it.
It would be like having a beautiful tropical island without a runway or navigable harbor. The only access is by a government owned helicopter that does not sell tickets and exists solely to transport government officials on and off the island. With out runways and harbors, and very limited access via helicopter there is no way for this island to start any business that depends on people being able to come and go on and off this island. Until this problem is solved (and this problem is usually solved by government) then you don’t have a tourist destination and any business that depends on tourist or even just importing and exporting goods can not start here. That is what space is at the moment.
The other problem is that there is great uncertainty about the number of people who want to travel to LEO commercially and until this uncertainty is resolved there will be no commercial travel to LEO.
There are enough people who need to get to LEO to support a commercial service (Astronauts), and so you can build a profitable system around that group of people and extend to others. If I know that I need to transport 14 people a year at 50 million a seat and will be doing so far at least five years, I can crunch the numbers and come up with a profitable system.
If I don’t know how many I will be carrying there is great risk that I can design a system that is too big (and likely overly expensive) or too small (not enough people to divide cost over or impractical (a two seat taxi car or a subcompact one)).
If I don’t know how often they will be traveling, again system risk(i.e. you choose the wrong system) and business risk(You will have a much better case in front of investors if I know that I have or can land a contract for five years rather than “I don’t know, how many people will be going or how often but I think I can make a profit if I charge some number I have pulled from some orifice†)
In addition a profitable system is one that is a less under congressional control. This can lead to faster development of new spacecraft and new operations as the companies try to increase profits by reducing cost. If NASA does its own transport then it must ask congress for funds to build new spacecraft. With private space, they don’t need to ask congresses permission to come up with a Dragon mark II. Imagine how much better the shuttle would be if new orbiters had been built in the 90ies or if shuttle c could have been built for heavy lift.
Forgot to add
Thus, NASA as an “anchor tenant” sets a price floor that Bigelow contracts cannot go below.
That is why I don’t really want NewSpace to start slurping on the NASA gravy train, because its hard to kick the habit.
Anne Spudis wrote:
“Showing the feasibility of something isn’t proving a commercial market”
Federal exploration is one thing. Going on to prove the commercial viability is another. We already have lots of data about resources on the Moon, and I support more robotic exploration. But it is up to the private markets to determine if there is a commercial market, and the potential profitability.
It’s because of that view that I think resources on the Moon will only be utilized when it becomes clear that they are either less expensive, more reliable a supply, or more plentiful. But that should be a market decision, not a government one, and companies are already free to start setting up resource operation on the Moon – they just need to find funding for it, just like Musk did for SpaceX.
“Stay tuned.”
I have heard so, and I look forward to reading it. I hope I’m pleasantly surprised…
My understanding (please correct me if you have better data) is that federal law would prohibit NASA paying SpaceX more than BA pays SpaceX.
In other words, if BA pays $15 million per seat for transport to its private hab, SpaceX cannot charge NASA more than $15 million per seat.
Therefore, if NASA is the “anchor tenant†they can block competitors simply by paying a NewSpace company a higher price per seat than Bigelow can afford.
No, you miss the most obvious application of the law. Instead of NASA forcing prices too high for BA, if SpaceX chose to charge BA a lower price then they would simply charge NASA the same lower price. SpaceX would do that in a case where the higher volume from adding the extra customer would give it more profit with the lower price.
Doug Lassiter wrote:
“You know, the nice thing about these comment sections is that they allow anonymity. That anonymity may actually be used to protect someone senior and knowledgeable who can’t afford to associate his or her name with certain comments. It can also be used to hide someone who knows absolutely nothing … If you want to turn this into a ‘my qualifications are better than yours’ deal, and trot out your awards, bibliography, job experience, and who your father was (?) then go somewhere else. ”
If you will recall, my trotting out my background was in response to the ill-informed suggestion by ‘Common Sense’ that people like yours truly (lunar advocates) know “nothing” about Apollo and have zero experience in the field.
If someone if going to hide behind a pseudonym, he/she shouldn’t make such rude statements. It adds nothing to the debate. But it IS an underhanded way of trying to discredit one’s opponents. And THAT is why I responded to those false accusations and personal attacks as I did.
“There is no reason to say stuff like that. We’re supposed to be having an intelligent discussion about what people write. As in, the words they’ve used in their posts.”
Absolutely. But an “intelligent conversation” doesn’t include calling one’s opponents “know nothings” with no experience or background in the field. Disagree with me if you will. But don’t belittle my professional career and experience.
Bill White wrote @ December 10th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
That is an odd assertion. Since we can’t prove a negative, can you provide a positive reference supporting the claim that we can evaluate?
s
Ferris Valyn wrote:
“William Mellberg and Anne Spudis,
A question for both of you – lets suppose that, the president’s plan pretty much stayed the same – Constellation remained canceled, and tech development & commercial space was retained, BUT, he had specifically said the moon remains the primary target, with the hope of a landing date of 2020, and no later than 2025. Would you still be opposed to what he proposed?”
Short answer: Probably not. I’d want to see the details. But I suspect I would have supported such a proposal. I wouldn’t be opposed to achieving the same goals via a better plan if one is put forward. I’m just keen to see us (humanity) get out of LEO within the timeframe you suggest.
Bill White wrote @ December 10th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
“in other words, if BA pays $15 million per seat for transport to its private hab, SpaceX cannot charge NASA more than $15 million per seat.”
I don’t know about the legal aspects, but Musk has already stated that if they get $300M from NASA to finish the crew upgrades, then they would charge $20M/seat. I’m sure that would be for a full load of passengers, but that’s still pretty good.
It is not unusual for the government (or industry) to have two suppliers that get compensated at different rates. We already see that with the ISS CRS program, where SpaceX is being paid far less $/lb delivered than Orbital.
I think at the beginning NASA will negotiate compensation rates on a per carrier basis, and even though SpaceX may have the lowest rates, Boeing/ULA or whoever will still get some percentage of the business. I’m fine with this, because the higher cost is essentially insurance.
The big question is whether the commercial market will be able to get the same rates as NASA, or something close, because NASA has the leverage for lowering the prices, and BA & others don’t. If they do get the same prices, then I think Bigelow will get a lot of enthusiasm to try out his service. If not, then that will slow things down some – c’est la vie.
In other words, if BA pays $15 million per seat for transport to its private hab, SpaceX cannot charge NASA more than $15 million per seat.
NASA is going to demand things of SpaceX (e.g., that it be “human rated”) that BA will not. Therefore, they will be justified in charging NASA more. I am not aware of any law that requires SpaceX to charge NASA the same price when they make special demands.
Rick Boozer wrote:
“Only at this point could Bigelow put up its station and afford to pay for the launchers and spacecraft to get its customers there.”
I agree with the first part of your arguement but would have to disagree with you on this line.
Bigelow has been very clear he would prefer not to be hampered by NASA regulations and it why he has been doing his inflatables without trying himself to NASA. He funded the 50 million dollar America’s Space prize for anyone attempting a crewed flight. He wanted to actually be flying well before any COTS-D funding would create commercial crew services for NASA, again to try and get out from under any overly expensive NASA directed systems that would emerge under COTS-D.
When COTS-D funding didn’t come forward and no takers on the space prize he next offered up a 700 million plus contract for crew and cargo services and that’s when he signed an MOU with Lockmart.
————–
Bill White wrote:
“Therefore, if NASA is the “anchor tenant†they can block competitors simply by paying a NewSpace company a higher price per seat than Bigelow can afford.”
Actually I do not believe NASA could do that, it would fall under restraint of trade:
“Restraint of trade is a common law doctrine relating to the enforceability of contractual restrictions on freedom to conduct business. In an old leading case of Mitchell v Reynolds (1711) Lord Smith LC said,
“it is the privilege of a trader in a free country, in all matters not contrary to law, to regulate his own mode of carrying it on according to his own discretion and choice. If the law has regulated or restrained his mode of doing this, the law must be obeyed. But no power short of the general law ought to restrain his free discretion.” “
You still see cases like this once in a while when the government or a firm trys to practice what you outline.
The courts would rule that if SpaceX wants to sell their service for a lower price to the government they would have to accept a lower price. It is rare for the federal government because this exact situation is not common at the federal level, you see it more at the state or local level relating to cronism.
————–
pathfinder_01 wrote:
“Bill, The reason why NASA is needed as an anchor tenant is because there is a chicken and egg problem with commercial human leo space flight.”
I believe the chicken and the egg situation is a bit different then you outline.
No firms want to build space access because there is no destination in LEO, No firms want to build a destination because there is no one providing space access. Bigelow is trying to get both going at the same time. * read above for actions he has already taken
Data collected has shown that the number of wealthy people willing to pay for a Friendship 7 type ride into space (orbital only and short duration a basic capsule ride) is only around 5% while going to a station was about 14% and those wanting to goto the ISS was highest at about 16%.
(it was those numbers that started me advocating for NASA to add a commercially operated visitor’s center to the ISS, they could also add a cafeteria to the habitat and then NASA astronauts would simply get a food voucher and they could just pop into the cafeateria and order what they want and NASA could get out of the resturant business. This would also bring more secondary traffic to the ISS providing NASA a lot more opportunities for crew swaps and small part replacements et cetera.)
“The other problem is that there is great uncertainty about the number of people who want to travel to LEO commercially and until this uncertainty is resolved there will be no commercial travel to LEO. “
There already is commercial travel to LEO being provided. The problem so far has never been trying to find a passenger it has always been having a destination. The ISS offers very few opportunities and when the full crew compliment of six was reached an open slot became nonexistent.
Brin, from Google, has paid a 5 mil deposit and is slated for the first open slot if and when it opens.
You can lease half a BA 330 for 54 mil and put two astronauts up for 70 million each serving 6 months in LEO. (bigelow’s stated prices) That means any government can have a prestigous national space program for about 150 – 200 million a year including some expeirments. I believe a lot of people are going to be amazed at how many countries will want a space program for national prestige. For a price that is cheaper than most robotic missions you can have a full up national space program being sent to every class room.
Coastal Ron wrote:
“it’s because of that view that I think resources on the Moon will only be utilized when it becomes clear that they are either less expensive, more reliable a supply, or more plentiful. But that should be a market decision, not a government one, and companies are already free to start setting up resource operation on the Moon – they just need to find funding for it, just like Musk did for SpaceX.”
I agree, all NASA has to do is ask for bids “we need 5 tons of oxygen every six months delivered to point X” and the market will determine where they can obtain that resource for the lowest shipped rate. If it is cheaper to buy it on earth and then launch to point X or mine it from the moon and transport it to point x.
All NASA has to do it provide the start up market and set it up so NASA will not be a single buyer. The market will determine when it is time to switch to lunar sources. That’s why I push for the commercial fuel station senerio, NASA or commercial firms can then buy fuel/water/oxygen from that station.
William Mellberg wrote @ December 10th, 2010 at 7:16 pm
“I’m just keen to see us (humanity) get out of LEO within the timeframe you suggest.”
Me too, but Constellation wasn’t going to do that, and I felt that the Obama’s efforts were the best way to eventually do it. Even the new NASA law by Congress is far better than Constellation.
I think Ferris is expressing the same feeling as many of us when he asked his question, since it seems like all you heard was “We’ve been there before” when the President talked about going to NEO’s instead of the Moon. NEO’s are out of LEO, but since it’s not the Moon, you ridiculed him for the comment.
Well since Constellation was not affordable for getting to the Moon, if you want people to believe that the Moon is achievable, then you better come up with a plan that the American Taxpayer can afford. Maybe you’ll be the first to propose such a plan – no one else has.
Oh, and just so you know, I grudgingly supported “Apollo on steroids” even though it wasn’t inspiring, but it had Congressional support. But once it was apparent that it was failing budget & schedule, and the plan could be changed, then I added my support for shutting it down.
And now that Congress has acted, it’s like that old Vorlon saying “The avalanche has started. It’s too late for the pebbles to vote.”
Anne until travel to and from the moon is much cheaper and much more easily available then thoose lunar resources will sit unused.
Right now it is possible to send people to LEO and to supply a space station in LEO using currently available commercial rockets. The same rockets that launch satellites can launch people and supply into LEO. In terms of price LEO space exploration is much cheaper than lunar exploration. If you can get a commercial market up to LEO then NASA’s resources are freed to focus elsewhere and non government money can be of use both here and elsewhere.
My personal path would be:
Step 1. Get commercial crew and cargo up the ISS. Let say it costs $60 million a person(the aim is for 20 mil). At 60 million a person 4 people to the ISS will cost $240 million(MUCH cheaper than the shuttle) Four crew of that will cost $960llion . Cargo will be around 130 mill a flight for dragon and 238 for Cygnus. Assuming two deliveries of each per year 736 million. About 1.8 billion total vs. 2.4 billion and up for 4 shuttle flights. And the nice thing is if someone figures out how to supply the ISS for less in 2016 NASA can choose them and lower the price further.
Step 2. Establish a human presence (even if it is just 2 vists a year) at 11/l2. From here lunar operations as well as NEO, and mars operations are possible. The availability of a Biglow habit and the availability of commercial cargo means that NASA would only needs to focus on getting crew safely here via Orion or an enhanced Dragon. While I would prefer a chemical rocket supplied by a propellant depot in LEO, an HLV could work too.
L1/L2 is nice point in space for commercial operations. The heavier versions of Atlas, Detla and the upcoming Falcon 9 heavy could send cargo directly here. Or an electric tug service could be established between LEO and l1/l2 allowing you to send cargo to l1/l2 for not much more than a LEO launch. The other nice thing an l1/l2 tug or a LEO propellant depot would do is allow any reduction in the price to LEO to trickle through the system. Meaning getting to L1/l2 or the moon would be cheaper. Even without that just using larger commercial rockets directly to l1/l2 again allows you to take advantage of cheaper prices whenever they occur.
Step 3: Here I am more open to destinations other than the moon, but let say the moon becomes the focus. Having commercial crew and/or cargo to l1 or l2 means that the government would only need to focus on landers. It means that a commercial supply line is available for surface operations. It means that a company could send employees to the moon to support NASA ISRU operations without having to build the rocket and capsule and lander themselves. It means that the government is no longer responsible for the whole of lunar access. It moves us beyond Apollo.
Going to the moon directly at this point is like putting the Calvary too far ahead of the troops. If you repeat Apollo then all there can ever be from that approach are a new set of foot prints to be never repeated again when NASA’s budget gets cut and given NASA’s current budget even getting there is next to impossible. If you extend a commercial presence as you go out then it becomes possible to exploit lunar resources without needing a NASA budget increase. All that is needed is a lowering of prices combined with faster application of new technology.
Anne Spudis wrote:
“What do you mean by “target?†A flyby? Sortie missions? Resource exploitation?
What lunar architecture do you mean by “target?†The VSE w/o Ares (Constellation)?”
Targeting the moon long duration orbital missions by 2020 would be fine with me. Why do I prefer orbital only?
1. It is a whole lot less expensive to do orbital versus landing. By not building the landing infrastructure you free up a lot of funding for setting up an orbital constellation of communication satellites for robotic rover missions.
2. You get to test fly your aerocapture return, inspace fuel management, inspace refueling, reusablity of the EDS, closed loop life support, inflatable habitat, radiation midagation, et cetera, more often because you are not inflating the mission cost with landing operations. Again those freed up funds can used to validate the above.
3. You are providing a destination (lunar orbit) for a commercial firm to establish a resupply base because you are providing the traffic to that area. ( much like hotels/general stores building along the railways). As long as NASA is routinely flying to a lunar orbital destination Bigelow or others could take advantage of it and build a space station there. (personally, something I believe Russia might try)
4. Once a commercial lunar orbital station is in place for south pole operations then have NASA do an Xprize for a Lunar surface – to lunar orbit – to lunar surface vehicle and services at the south pole. NASA could have a habitat lunar vehicle parked there waiting for 14 day lunar scouting missions/sample return/ISRU equipment and process validation.
5. Once NASA is providing traffic to the Lunar surface move towards a commercial lunar base at the south pole. ISRU should be fully ready to shovel into the private sector providing for their own needs.
“The other problem is that there is great uncertainty about the number of people who want to travel to LEO commercially and until this uncertainty is resolved there will be no commercial travel to LEO.”
There has already been commercial travel to LEO on Soyuz, but the size of the market is very small because of the high cost. Prices are set by the curves of supply and demand. Moving the supply curve to the left by providing new technology that lowers cost is hte only way to increase sales. Like anyone else, SpaceX will sell to the government at the highest price it can get; it’s not a regulated common carrier and is free to offer discounts to tourists if it thinks this will benefit it.
“My understanding (please correct me if you have better data) is that federal law would prohibit NASA paying SpaceX more than BA pays SpaceX.”
NASA is unlikely to be buy the same product from SpaceX that Bigelow buys.
When NASA buys a launch for a science satellite from ULA or OSC, it requires interfaces, handling, analysis, reports, tracking, on-orbit operations, and other services as part of the launch package that the commercial sector does not require when buying a launch for a communications satellite. Therefore, NASA pays a premium versus the commercial sector, even if the NASA science satellite and the commercial communications satellite are identical masses and volumes going to the same orbit on otherwise identical launch vehicles.
The same will almost certainly hold true when NASA purchases tickets for its astronauts. NASA will require additional or different analyses, reports, suits, suit interfaces, training, monitoring, communications, and other services from SpaceX that Bigelow doesn’t want or need to pay for. Thus NASA rides/seats on SpaceX Dragons will likely be more expensive than Bigelow rides/seats on SpaceX Dragons.
It’s the difference between renting a luxury car with GPS, satellite radio, prepaid gas, and all the insurance options versus renting a compact car with no frills, no prepaid gas, and no insurance. The extras add up for NASA, but they don’t prevent or constrain the commercial sector from buying a lower-cost version of the same essential product without all the extras.
FWIW…
Meanwhile, even Dr’ Griffen understands the magnitude of what happened on Wednesday…
“Dr. Michael Griffin, the former NASA administrator and now King-McDonald Eminent Scholar at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, was an early critic of a heavy emphasis on commercial space flight. Griffin called Wednesday’s orbital flight and capsule recovery a “stunning achievement” for SpaceX.
“New launch systems are notable for their high failure rate on early test flights, yet Falcon 9 is now two-for-two with its success today,” he said in a statement. “Moreover, the first flight of any new air- or spacecraft is an uncertain event, even more so when the vehicle must be re-entered and recovered. To accomplish all of this so early in the planned flight test sequence is a marvelous feat for SpaceX. I offer the team my heartiest congratulations and best wishes for continued success.”
So there you have it.
“I have been saying for years & years that getting a non-NASA destination up to LEO (a Mir Corp 2 so to speak) would be the best possible stimulus for NewSpace;”
The best thing would be for the US government to buy all of its launch services through competitive bid, firm fixed price contracts. The US government purchases more launch services than any other entity in the world yet it squanders purchasing power through the sole-source, cost-plus contracts that make up the shuttle stack.
The next best thing would be to pursue architectures that emphasize medium lift launch vehicles – ones that have applications outside of government service – rather than specialized vehicles, like HLVs, that will low flight rates and high costs.
Both of these suggestions are in the narrow interest of the government in terms of minimizing cost and in the wider interest of promoting better space access. They could be implemented immediately. The obstacles are purely political.
Bill White wrote @ December 10th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
There is a fairly simple way for the government to promote both lower launch costs and lunar ISRU at the same time without picking a winner between the two: Offer to contracts to buy propellant delivered in LEO at a propellant depot.
The starting price would have to be substantially lower than current launch prices and would have decrease as offered deliveries increase. The delivered propellant could then be offered as GFE to government missions going beyond LEO.
This mechanism doesn’t care whether propellant is delivered from the moon by an RLV, a low cost expendable, or a giant rail gun. Capital will go where investors think the lowest cost cost means of meeting the requirement is.
William Mellberg – assume you got the level of technical detail we got for the current 2011 FY proposal. Same funding profile, same everything, except for the destination – Basically, assume that when Obama had his Florida speech, he made the moon the destination, rather than a NEO. Would you have supported that?
Anne Spudis – we’ll assume that the intent was to have humans walking on the moon no later than 2025, with a primary goal of 2020. Beyond that, we’ll assume Obama didn’t specify. Effectively, substitute Obama’s NEO mission with a return to the moon. Would you have supported that?
Ferris: re: your question to Anne and William: count me as one who would’ve supported such a program that deleted the NEO as first destination, and had the moon instead. Remember that Apollo only scratched the surface on lunar exploration with people, and sooner or later (hopefully with a successor administration in 2013-or ’17 at the latest), it will happen. Either NASA or a joint venture with NASA and/or ESA and JAXA. Throwing away a definite destination in return for a promise of human lunar return after the Plymouth Rock NEO mission “sometime in the late 2020s” didn’t sit well with many people. It was Ed Crawley’s presentation at the Space Summit on 15 Apr that sold me (a moon first supporter) on FlexPath, but we’ll get boots on the ground before shooting for Mars. See his presentation on NASA’s youtube channel-it’s well worth looking at, if you haven’t already done so.
pathfinder_01 wrote @ December 10th, 2010 at 9:14 pm
and
Vladislaw wrote @ December 10th, 2010 at 9:19 pm
Excellent posts, and with the kind of ideas and details (especially $$) that we don’t get from the “Moon First” people.
For example, Anne and William are definitely passionate advocates of their desires, but we never see any details from them – it’s like their plan shows the Earth and the Moon, and in between the plan says “and then a miracle happens”. No explanation on how they get from here to there.
Now I know Anne says that details are coming, but unless it depends on some sort of secret technology, someone out there should be able to put forth a rough sketch of how the U.S. is supposed to turn the Moon into a mining camp.
And to show you that it could even get a warm reception, many of us have praised the ULA study called “Affordable Exploration Architecture 2009″, which outlines how they would set up and support an outpost on the Moon using existing launchers.
So what do you say “Moon First” advocates?
Is there a link to the ULA study? I’d sure like to see it for comparison purposes with the late CxP, and the HLV that’s in the pipeline. But you’ll still need a HLV at some point, and if the funding pipeline is adequate, get it done. Argue about destinations all you want, but once the HLV is flight-ready and if it’s going to have Orion, human-rated, get it done, get it ready and start training the first crews for BEO flights. Just do it. Just my $.02, but to satisfy those who wanted CxP, do some lunar orbit missions along with a new LockMart proposal for a Orion to L2, with a rover on the lunar surface. (it’s been in Aviation Week). The crew would do the usual photography, biomedical research, and other experiments, while also teleoperating a rover on the lunar surface. Not as thrilling as boots on the ground, but it’ll do for now.
Matt – I personally think that we can, assuming we are judicious in how we do things, end up with something that allows both deep space, and moon first, practically at the same time. But lets put that to one side
William Mellberg, Anne Spudis, (& Matt Wiser, if you wanna also play)
Assume that everything other than the destination remained the same – HLV decision by 2015, Game-changing technology gets a huge funding increase, Orion Phase 0/Emergency vehicle being funding, Commercial Crew the mode of transportation for astronauts to and from LEO, ISS extention, etc. The only difference is the moon is noted as the primary first destination, with a “planned for date” of 2020, and a possible slip date of 2025 (IE we really wanna have boots on the ground by 2020, but we’ll definitely have them by 2025, and I am not gonna specify the level of interaction beyond having boots on the ground, at least not at the moment)
Would you support this plan or not?
Ferris Valyn wrote:
“William Mellberg – assume you got the level of technical detail we got for the current 2011 FY proposal. Same funding profile, same everything, except for the destination – Basically, assume that when Obama had his Florida speech, he made the moon the destination, rather than a NEO. Would you have supported that?”
Probably so. I would have liked to have seen a few more details; but most likely I would have supported the new policy if the President had said, “We’re still going to the Moon. We’re still going to get there by 2025, if not sooner. But I believe we can get there a better way than how we were doing it under the previous plan. A way that will enable us to decrease the cost and increase the exploration. A way that will get the private sector more involved.”
Such a statement would have captured my imagination. But the way the new policy was rolled out …
As for NEOs, I have no objection to visiting asteroids. But for the moment, I believe robotic spacecraft can do the job better by visiting more of them; and the operational experience needed for missions beyond the Moon can be gained on the lunar surface first. That was one of the things Neil Armstrong was talking about last summer. In any case, I certainly recognize the asteroid threat (I’ve written about it, in fact), and I don’t suggest that NEOs are destinations not worth exploring. I just don’t think they should be the first step. (I’m counting on an asteroid not hitting us in the interim.) Of course,, I also realize that had the Tungaska event of 1908 occurred over a major city like Tokyo or Moscow or London or New York … there would have been massive loss of life and property damage. And that happened just over 100 years ago (not a very long time, really). So the threat is very real, and I don’t criticize the President for talking about asteroids. Moreover, asteroids are interesting objects worth investigation from a scientific perspective. I just happen to believe — as do other people, like Neil Armstrong — that it makes more sense (technically) to return to the Moon first.
Of course, I know people who oppose me on the grounds that going to the Moon represents a diversion of funds, and that we ought to head straight to Mars. And I respect their point of view. I think Mars is a fascinating world, and I might agree with my friends if we could prove the existence of life on the Red Planet (now or in the past). Such a discovery would be worth the effort to learn as much about Mars as possible — as soon as possible. But I still believe the Moon is the first stop on the road to Mars.
Most of my associates have no objection to the commercialization of LEO. We just fear that we (humanity) might wind up staying locked in LEO for another 30 years rather than heading … “out there.” We also believe that if a long-term program of exploration is going to survive multiple Administrations and changes in Congress, a timetable is needed with specific goals and schedules (i.e., a plan, like John Kennedy’s). We have seen too many studies and proposals and commitments tossed aside and forgotten over the years (Tom Paine’s commission, Sally Ride’s report, Bush 41’s lunar return, etc.).
You see, some other promises have been broken along the way. And that is why some of us are frustrated that so much focus is being placed on LEO when we’d like to see humans exploring space again (the space beyond LEO). But that doesn’t mean that it should be an either/or situation.
As for a detailed plan …
CxP just got the axe. So it’s time for the lunar advocates to regroup and rethink our approach. But there were those among us who said it was time to “rethink” the plan even before it was axed. I never objected to the suggestion that some better ways of getting to the Moon might be possible. Nor have you heard me putting down Mr. Musk or Mr. Bigelow or the others. I have questioned the viability of the “commercial” market. But I haven’t ridiculed their vision. And while SpaceX might hit some bumps in the road at some point in time, they’ve certainly gotten off to a great start, as demonstrated again this week.
In any case, had the President said what you suggested back in February and April, I think a lot of people who’ve been opposing him would have supported him. I probably would have been one of them. It wasn’t Constellation that we were married to. It was the destination.
By way of comparison, when the transcontinental railroad was being planned, several routes were proposed. I would have backed whichever route looked like the best one. It wouldn’t have been the route — it would have been the basic idea (linking the country by rail) that I would have supported.
pathfinder_01 wrote @ December 10th, 2010 at 9:14 pm […Going to the moon directly at this point is like putting the Calvary too far ahead of the troops. If you repeat Apollo then all there can ever be from that approach are a new set of foot prints to be never repeated again when NASA’s budget gets cut and given NASA’s current budget even getting there is next to impossible. If you extend a commercial presence as you go out then it becomes possible to exploit lunar resources without needing a NASA budget increase. All that is needed is a lowering of prices combined with faster application of new technology…]
This is where everything in your argument falls apart.
No one is advocating launching humans to the Moon – “too far ahead of the troops.” Robotic precursors will be the scouts, prospectors, miners and construction “troops” ahead of human footprints.
It has become clear (using your definition) that you believe anything done on the Moon by NASA should be dubbed “a repeat of Apollo.”
Sir, you need an objective (human migration), a goal (the Moon) and an architecture (lunar resource dev) to have a viable, affordable, sustainable, extensible program. Everything shakes out from there: technology, science, commercial applications, exploration, national economic and security payoffs — lunar resource dev is the necessary shot in the arm for commercial space development and transportation innovation.
Uncertainty about why, when, where and how kills initiative, innovation and progress.
The government needs to show the feasibility of lunar resource development (design it, buy it, but fund it) before there is a market for commercial. Once the initial robotic resource collection demonstration is shown to work, further development moves to commercial. It is at this point that investments look profitable, markets open up and costs drop.
Vladislaw wrote @ December 10th, 2010 at 9:19 pm
I get the sense from your time line of operations, that you will be dragging participants (government funding) to your objective vs investors anticipating resource potential for their business plans and lining up to participate (commercial).
You must have a goal, a sensible architecture and potential value (value has different meanings for different groups) to have a sustainable, extensible, affordable path.
Lunar return is not about “getting stuck on the Moon” or “Moon First stubbornness” or a “destination-specific ball and chain” but rather the future of affordable space access.
Ferris Valyn wrote @ December 11th, 2010 at 12:06 am poses this scenario to Anne Spudis – we’ll assume that the intent was to have humans walking on the moon no later than 2025, with a primary goal of 2020. Beyond that, we’ll assume Obama didn’t specify. Effectively, substitute Obama’s NEO mission with a return to the moon. Would you have supported that?
What value is there in this idea? How can I give you a reasoned reply with so little information? What do you expect to have 15 years down the road to make space exploration cheaper by proposing a nonspecific architecture for consideration?
The Huntsville Times finally posted an editorial late yesterday about Wednesday’s achievement:
http://blog.al.com/times-views/2010/12/editorial_a_space_agency_in_tr.html
Whether longtime space buffs like it or not, the space industry is in transition from strictly a government endeavor to one with a central role for commercial companies.
Leaders from Huntsville and other NASA-linked towns need to embrace it not as a necessarily bad thing but a transition that could strengthen those communities’ long-established space roles.
But Congress must give NASA a workable budget. Spaceflight is a complex and dangerous business, one that requires ample government involvement. The private sector can’t, nor shouldn’t, carry the load alone.
Translation: Okay, we grudgingly admit that SpaceX proved their point, but keep our pork coming.
Rhyolite, move that depot to EML-1 and/or EML-2 and I would enthusiastically agree.
A depot in EML-1 buying fuel / supplies would more equally facilitate both LEO depots and lunar ISRU.
Also, flag that EML-1 depot to a small neutral power (Isle of Man?) and then we would have global competition to bring down launch costs.
LEO depots could then be located at multiple orbital inclinations to support various global launch sites.
Rand Simberg wrote @ December 10th, 2010 at 7:48 pm
I agree, Rand.
A simple work around of any procurement law restrictions would be to sell NASA an apple and sell BA an orange.
But if NASA adds numerous unnecessary “bells & whistles” to their apple then SpaceX needs two production lines (one to make apples and another to make oranges) and thus they lose some (or all) of the economies of scale that come from having NASA as an “anchor tenant”
Persuading NASA to drop unnecessary “features” is indeed fighting the good fight however bureaucrats can be difficult to defeat on such matters and having NASA as an “anchor tenant” could end up being more about the “anchor” (that weighs them down) then the “tenant” (being a valued customer).
pathfinder_01 wrote @ December 10th, 2010 at 9:14 pm
I pretty much agree with your proposed program but would re-state the “master plan” as follows:
1. Commercial crew / cargo to ISS
2. Deploy EML depots (which also function as crew shelters and transfer stations). Stockpiled fuel would offer valuable radiation shielding, for example.
3. Initiate lunar surface operations (ISRU) & deploy LEO depots at various orbital inclinations to feed the EML depot(s)
4. Robust lunar development and missions beyond cis-lunar space (NEOs, Phobos etc . . .) happening in parallel
FWIW and IMHO, the above is fairly close to what Boeing proposed back in Fall 2004 and Spring 2005, at least pre-Griffin, and even that drew on earlier work..
But to this, I would add the constraint that the US taxpayers cannot possibly pay for all of this, therefore I would add two additional points:
A. Near term profitable business ventures are needed, and I assert that sale of media rights, advertising, marketing and tourism as the most likely early revenue streams that would not be ultimately funded by the taxpayers; and
B. America cannot do this alone, therefore engaging international partners, (including foreign and multi-national private corporations) is both desirable and inevitable.
@Bill White
“But if NASA adds numerous unnecessary “bells & whistles†to their apple then SpaceX needs two production lines (one to make apples and another to make oranges) and thus they lose some (or all) of the economies of scale that come from having NASA as an “anchor tenant—
Two production lines? That does not follow. Instead it would be like the production of automobiles of the same make with different features. The base hardware (which is most of the unit) would be common to all. The ““bells & whistles†could be added on on production line but with different production runs. You are really stretching the bounds of logic to find arguments against going the commercial route as it is outlined. The argument you continually put forward seems to be that NASA shouldn’t be doing the kickstarting, that if there is truly a market then industry can do it totally by itself For reasons I stated earlier, it will take a partnership of BOTH government and industry to do the kickstart. Given this fact, your argument is just a rationalization to keep the old-style NASA centralized production of launchers and spacecraft going for as long possible.
editorial correction to above.
“on on production line” should read “on one production line”
@Ann Spudis
What do you expect to have 15 years down the road to make space exploration cheaper by proposing a nonspecific architecture for consideration?
This paper from ULA should be specific enough for you:
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/AffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf
But you’ll still need a HLV at some point, and if the funding pipeline is adequate, get it done.
That point is many years in the future, long after we’ve established the initial transportation infrastructure to/from the moon and other BEO destinations. An HLV can’t be justified until there is a high enough level of demand for it to amortize the investment. By the time we have to make that decision, it will probably be on a commercial basis, with multiple providers. It is not something that NASA should be wasting taxpayer money on now. If they have to take a haircut, that should be the first thing to go, because the misperception that we need it to go BEO has been holding us back since the end of Apollo.
I am curious how the google x prize contestants are planning to get their rovers to the moon, anyone seen any letters of intent from space x or anyone else, this is suppose to take place in the next couple of years. I think the registration deadline is this month
Matt Wiser wrote @ December 11th, 2010 at 2:53 am
“Is there a link to the ULA study? I’d sure like to see it for comparison purposes with the late CxP, and the HLV that’s in the pipeline.
Here is ULA’s link and one to an article at NASAspaceflight.com:
unitedlaunchalliance.com/site/docs/publications/AffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf
nasaspaceflight.com/2009/09/ula-claim-gap-reducing-solution-via-eelv-exploration-master-plan/
“But you’ll still need a HLV at some point, and if the funding pipeline is adequate, get it done.”
If history is any guide, then yes, we’ll want to ship larger and larger amounts of mass to space as time goes on. More mass, but not necessarily in larger sizes.
With no defined need, any transportation system we build will be:
A. Spending money too early
B. Most likely the wrong solution (i.e. too big, too small, wrong technology, wrong cost structure, etc.)
Someone could make the argument that Congress, in it’s infinite wisdom on transportation economics, is anticipating the market trends. But to date the market has not shown any need for anything bigger than Shuttle or Delta IV Heavy, and there are larger capacity launchers that can be available in less than 3 years that don’t have orders.
The other issue regards alternatives. Before spending vast amounts of money to build and operate an HLV, have we actually tested out alternative solutions? Do we know what the fungible payload sizes are?
The SLS as envisioned today is supposed to require larger sized payloads than what is available today. But that means building new factories to build payloads that only fit on one launcher. By comparison, the current classes of payloads can fit on multiple launchers, which provides competition, and redundancy. That will not happen with NASA’s SLS, meaning that cost growth over time is almost a given. Not an affordable way to expand into space.
I’ve seen paper studies that summarize why existing launchers would be “uneconomical” or that say “too many would be needed”, but I have never seen the math behind that, which leads me to believe that there isn’t any. I have seen the math behind numerous studies that show existing launchers are not only feasible for exploration, but far less expensive (and available today).
And keep in mind that all of this is in the context of our initial efforts to expand into space. Once we get out there, and we understand what we’re doing and what we need, then things can evolve or even change. We’re not there yet.
“Of course, I know people who oppose me on the grounds that going to the Moon represents a diversion of funds, and that we ought to head straight to Mars.”
For me it isn’t going to the moon, it is landing on the moon that is the diversion of funds.
Anne Spudis wrote:
“I get the sense from your time line of operations, that you will be dragging participants (government funding) to your objective vs investors anticipating resource potential for their business plans and lining up to participate (commercial).”
I am just stating use what we learn in LEO about commercialization and bring it with.
It is the traffic provided by NASA and the private sector that is providing a stimulas for developers to want to build a station there, no traffic no station. That is why I would prefer NASA first provide the traffic to lunar orbit along with commercial ventures providing orbital traffic there that stimulates developers to build a station there. By building station modules in LEO, off the shelf modules can be sent to Lunar orbit. By building commercial lunar surface modules NASA can buy off the shelf modules for themselves. There is nothing in the timelines that pathfinder or I laid out that presupposes massive investments to the tune of percentages of the budget.
I am just not putting the resource development in front. I would want to see funding for the robotic precurers but the major resource development would be done commercial only at such time it is actually needed. I do not want to put the cart before the horse. Traffic is the key. I believe Bill White illustrates it with the EML1 location, provide the traffic there and you illustrate the market potential for a base being built there.
I am very clear on goals, aquire the abilty for a reusable space based transportation system from LEO to LLO and start providing traffic. Using innovative federal funding to stimulate commercial operations along the traffic zone.
Here is what I don’t want. Some NASA center saying “we can build the JWST ISRU device for 1.5 billion in 4 years” and 4 years later and 4 billion spent they tell us they need 3 more billion and 2 more years.
Again, what I and others outline is what we know we can do with the budget NASA is getting in a timely fashion if commercial is brought with. NASA has a 30 track record of what we know they can do if the same ole same ole way is used to move forward lapsed schedules and very very costly budget overruns. Do you really want to see another constellation type program for lunar resource development started? Just be to be chopped because it couldnt be managed properly?
I want a system that will succeed DESPITE anything NASA does. I do not want it to solely hinge on the success of NASA, they have let me down to many times. Time to bring commercial with EVERY step of the way, so no matter how NASA manages to mismanage the program the commercial transportation systems and stations will go one without them.
A basic fact some people seem to forget, or willfully ignore …
Nothing in the National Aeronautics and Space Act requires NASA to launch humans into space, to explore other worlds, or even to own its rockets:
http://history.nasa.gov/spaceact-legishistory.pdf
It does, however, require NASA to make commercial access to space a priority.
I’ll echo what William Mellberg wrote: it wasn’t necessarily CxP, but it was the destination. If Obama had said what Ferris laid out, and said it back in Feb or in Apr, then yes, I would’ve supported it, and done so gladly.
Anne Spudis,
Lots of people engage in hypotheticals, I figured you’d indulge me.
I’ve actually given you quite a bit of info, since you know what Obama proposed in the original budget, and all I am asking is to substitute a different general destination.
Propellant depots, much more efficient solar electric propulsion, Commercialized LEO access, just to name a few.
William Mellberg wrote @ December 11th, 2010 at 3:40 am
“Most of my associates have no objection to the commercialization of LEO. We just fear that we (humanity) might wind up staying locked in LEO for another 30 years rather than heading … “out there.—
Once we have people in LEO, how are we “locked” there? The only limitations are the funding for us to go beyond, not the desire.
From the commercial side, I can guarantee you that if Bigelow gets his business established, that either he or others will propose plans to go to LaGrange or orbit the Moon. With commercial crew and existing launchers, that is doable using todays technology. No HLV needed.
For government funded exploration, with NASA able to get crew & cargo to LEO for far less cost, you would think that NASA would have MORE funds for exploration, not less.
Maybe you need to explain your logic in more depth – I don’t get it.
“We also believe that if a long-term program of exploration is going to survive multiple Administrations and changes in Congress, a timetable is needed with specific goals and schedules ”
History has shown that long-term programs do not survive. Apollo was started under Kennedy, continued under Johnson, and cancelled by Nixon. Constellation was started by Bush, but because it went so far over budget and over schedule, it was cancelled by Obama. ISS has survived (barely), but only because it’s been an international effort, and it’s only in LEO.
Learn the lesson – you have to explore in smaller chunks. And the only way to do that is to build progressively more capable infrastructure so you’re not having to invent the entire mission each time.
@Ferris
I’ve already cited to her the detailed specific architecture laid out in the ULA paper that doesn’t even require the solar electric propulsion you mentioned:
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/AffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf
The only answer expected to your original question
“we’ll assume that the intent was to have humans walking on the moon no later than 2025, with a primary goal of 2020. Beyond that, we’ll assume Obama didn’t specify. Effectively, substitute Obama’s NEO mission with a return to the moon. Would you have supported that?”
is either “Yes” or “No” with reasoning to back it up. But I suspect, there will be a side-stepping response to avoid a direct yes or no answer even though I have addressed her main objection of
“How can I give you a reasoned reply with so little information? What do you expect to have 15 years down the road to make space exploration cheaper by proposing a nonspecific architecture for consideration?”
I hope I am incorrect in this pessimistic assumption, because I’m as curious about what a more concrete answer from her would be as you are.
@Scott wrote @ December 9th, 2010 at 10:54 am
Scott, you’ll note pretty much every one has praised SpaceX for duplicating a feat accomplished by NASA- facing greater unknowns with less sophisticated technology, 45 years ago. SpaceX’s biggest challenge remains- they have to fly somebody safely and retuen them to Earth befor thry can honestly pose a viable HSF argument.
Rand Simberg wrote @ December 10th, 2010 at 9:32 am
“The only way to get that impression is to not read for comprehension. I for one am quite eager to go back to the moon. I just want to do it in a sensible way.”
Which is why a government will do it. Your own belief that the next lunar visitor wil be an ‘American entrapreneur’ is quite nonsensical in this era, considering no private enterprised venture has yeat to orbit a soul. With the profit motive a vital factor in the mix, it is not an economical expectation in ths time frame.
@Coastal Ron wrote @ December 11th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
“History has shown that long-term programs do not survive.”
You mean American long-term programs– and this mind-set has plagued U.S. space planners as the long term investment in stsrt-up and roll out, which is the nature of the technology in this era- is what it is. The Russian programs have survived decades just fine. See MIR and Soyuz for details.
“you’ll note pretty much every one has praised SpaceX for duplicating a feat accomplished by NASA- facing greater unknowns with less sophisticated technology, 45 years ago. ”
I don’t recall that NASA ever developed a launch vehicle using private money, as an entreprenurial venture. That they successfully developed the hardware for a business case that space advocates have been drooling over for the last, what, 45 years?
Just another example of the thinking that what SpaceX accomplished was sending a payload into LEO and recovering it. That wasn’t the feat that everyone is praising them for! You really don’t get it, do you.
DCSCA
And NASA did what the Army (suborbital Redstone) and Air Force (orbital Atlas and Titan) had already done. Then they stole the Army’s rocket team (which the Army had taken from the ruins of the Third Reich), gave them a corner of the Redstone Arsenal, and gave them money to finish up the Saturn program which had also been started by the military.
We all build on the shoulders of giants. Von Braun credited Goddard’s work when discussing the A-4.
Your petty whining does credit neither to you nor the hard working people at NASA and traditional contractors who understand how special what SpaceX has done is.
I post under my own name, and if you Google me and do a little research, you’ll find I’ve worked at JSC, KSC and other NASA centers, on shuttle, stations and planetary probes AND wrote articles critical of programs when criticism was due while I was still working there (although I don’t work on space projects any more). I didn’t hide behind some random initials then, and I don’t now.
A man stands behind his words.
Anne Spudis wrote @ December 11th, 2010 at 5:30 am
High time to start factoring in the political realities facing the space agency. If/when this new tax compromise gets through Congress, it tacks another $850 billion on to the deficit- borrowed money- and during his pitch, the president has telegraphed hard choices will be coming and severe budget cutting coming as well for government agencies and programs. Moon HSF plans are as dead as the moon itself in this era if proposed by anc independent NASA. It’s just not a luxury a cash-strapped America can afford. The only real chance for survival of NASA-styled, big government space projects as we slide into the Age of Austerity is for NASA to be ‘abosrbed’ and operate as a division of the DoD, under the protective guise of ‘national security.’ Look at the recent street riots in Britain– and those were just over cuts in education subsidies. The only chance long-term space projects will have of surviving the budget ax in the near future will be to slip under the umbrella of the DoD. NASA is whistling past the graveyard these days and appears all teed up to be sliced and diced as an example of government budget cutting. Sad, really. But the Cold War is over and the NASA you know today appears sorely obtuse to the realities facing a nation which has to borrow 41 cents of every dollar it spends.
@rich kolker wrote @ December 11th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
You’re tilting at windmills. It speaks volumes about the desperation facing the culture at our space agency that a current/recent NASA employee is willing (or forced) to accept the argument put forth by commerical HSF advocates as a viable alternative and/or adjunct to NASA HSF activities when they have flown nobody. That makes you part of the problem, not a source for solutions.
Duplicating a feat accomplished by NASA 45 years ago- a feat that should be easier today for SpaceX than it was for NASA in ’65– is no big deal in 2010– and the NASA of 1965 faced bigger challenges with more primative technologies albeit cutting edge at the time. You’d do well to bone up on Von Braun as well. Although he ‘praised’ Goddard’s research as being on the ‘same track’ as that of his own A-4 rocket team, they had no direct access to it in the 30’s and developed rocket technology along their own line of research fueled with government funding. Goddard, as no doubt you know, was forced to subsist on philanthropic research grants which stifled his research given the costs involved. Not so in deep-pocketed, government-funded Germn rocket research– as the private sector as well as the U.S. government all but ignored its potential in Goddard’s time. Von Braun’s savvy marketing ‘praise’ for Goddard made for good media PR as he integrated into U.S. research circles in the post-war period but his team was largely unaware of what the good doctor was up to in New Mexico. Perhaps Branson should consider renaming his ‘spaceport’ the Goddard Space Flight Center. No doubt that will be happily embraced by the NASA installation employees who embrace your rationale in Greenbelt, Maryland.
@Coastal Ron wrote @ December 10th, 2010 at 4:16 pm
Precisely. Well said.
@Coastal Ron wrote @ December 11th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
“Learn the lesson – you have to explore in smaller chunks. And the only way to do that is to build progressively more capable infrastructure so you’re not having to invent the entire mission each time.”
Yes, but bear in mind, a vast percentage of the costs when Apollo was set in motion was spent on simply creating the base infrastructure– not constructing spacecraft and LVs. You know, building the KSC, MSC in Houston, assembling the global tracking network for the period, etc. Dug into the numbers in my college days and it was a vast sum. Most Americans don’t realize pretty much all of that had to be created and built as well along with developing space vehicles in that period.
Anne Spudis wrote:
“It has become clear (using your definition) that you believe anything done on the Moon by NASA should be dubbed ‘a repeat of Apollo.'”
One does get that impression. The reason for going back to the Moon is to pick up where Apollo left off — not to repeat it. “Apollo on steroids” was a very unfortunate choice of words as so many people subsequently equated a return to the Moon with “recapturing the glory days” of that era.
“Uncertainty about why, when, where and how kills initiative, innovation and progress.”
How true. And that statement applies to any great undertaking or enterprise. It’s called “a plan” … and that is what was missing when President Obama rolled out his new space policy. Lots of generalities. But no specifics. Sort of like an orchestra with no conductor or score … or a team without a coach and a game plan. That doesn’t mean that there weren’t some good ideas in the President’s proposals. There were. But it all seemed rather uncoordinated. Which is what Congress thought, too. Unfortunately, the “plan” Congress finally adopted isn’t any more certain or specific.
“The government needs to show the feasibility of lunar resource development (design it, buy it, but fund it) before there is a market for commercial. Once the initial robotic resource collection demonstration is shown to work, further development moves to commercial. It is at this point that investments look profitable, markets open up and costs drop.”
Absolutely, Anne! And this is where the comparison can be drawn with the Army Corps of Topographical Engineers which followed Lewis & Clark and did more detailed surveys of the American West and its resources. Their work is what demonstrated the economic potential of the region. The miners and ranchers and farmers and investors followed — as did the transcontinental railroads to serve them. We need to explore the Moon in greater detail. If a new generation of lunar explorers can determine the feasibility of lunar resource development, the miners and investors will follow … just as the private sector entered LEO after the first few government communication satellites demonstrated their value.
“It has become clear (using your definition) that you believe anything done on the Moon by NASA should be dubbed ‘a repeat of Apollo.’â€
One does get that impression.
Again, one only gets that impression if one is not reading for comprehension.
The reason for going back to the Moon is to pick up where Apollo left off — not to repeat it.
The reason to go back to the moon is beside the point. Our issue is the means by which it is done, which is very Apollo like (Mike Griffin as much as said so) and thus doomed once again to failure in terms of doing it in a sustainable manner.
William Mellberg wrote @ December 11th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
“so many people subsequently equated a return to the Moon with “recapturing the glory days†of that era.”
How was Constellation more than “Apollo on steroids”? And only reference the actual budget plan, not your unfunded hopes and desires.
“It’s called “a plan†… and that is what was missing when President Obama rolled out his new space policy. Lots of generalities. But no specifics.”
You feel that way, and that’s fine. But you must also agree that the dates of the VSE and Constellation were fictitious. So what is the difference between fake dates and no dates?
That’s the part I don’t understand about “Moon First” advocates. VSE was an aspiration without a plan, and the plan that was put forward (Constellation) was slipping more than a year out every year – it was a mirage. And yet you saw Constellation as finally returning you to the Moon. Reminds me of the definition of insanity…
So shouldn’t you be more miffed at Bush than Obama? At least Obama isn’t promising things he can’t deliver. Plus, Obama is working on hardware that will be usable for any exploration, whereas Constellation would have left nothing in space – no reusable hardware, no reusable lunar outposts, no inhabited space stations. Aren’t you aware of the differences?
Actually, SpaceX did something else that NASA never did. Did NASA ever put a wheel of Le Brouere into orbit? An amazing feat that would never have occurred to the graybeards of human space flight. I doubt if you’re going to find any of that lovely Alsatian cheese in tubes or cellophane bags on any NASA mission. I’m glad SpaceX had their priorities straight. NASA would have done their ballast with bricks of lead.
Oh, but NASA could never have done this. It would take an act of Congress to allow a federal agency to pay the Ermitage Fromagerie for such a wheel of cheese!
This little stunt actually sends a nice message. That space exploration is about transporting things that can be meaningful to pleasures of life. Not a bad message for future space tourists. On the next mission, it should be accompanied by a nice Burgundy.
A votre santé, SpaceX.
DCSCA – Your own belief that the next lunar visitor wil be an ‘American entrapreneur’ is quite nonsensical in this era, considering no private enterprised venture has yeat to orbit a soul. With the profit motive a vital factor in the mix, it is not an economical expectation in ths time frame.
I guess you missed the post launch press conference. Elon Musk explained how “the profit motive” has no place in SpaceX’s motivations. That he had explained this quite clearly to his investors, and retains controlling interest to make sure his path for SpaceX continues to do whatever it can to further mankind’s expansion off-planet.
But as Doug Lassiter wrote, you really don’t get it.
Rick Boozer wrote:
“This paper from ULA should be specific enough for you:”
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/AffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf
This reminds me of the debate that raged within NASA for about a year following President Kennedy’s May 1961 speech to Congress about sending a man to the Moon. Three modes were considered, and each had its proponents. Direct ascent, requiring a mammoth Nova launch vehicle, would have been extremely costly, and probably couldn’t have been achieved by the end of the decade. That left Earth Orbit Rendezvous and Lunar Orbit Rendezvous. At first, John Houbolt had a hard time getting people to listen to his proposed LOR ideas. But after the competing plans were thoroughly discussed and debated, LOR was finally adopted and accepted as the best approach — even by Wernher von Braun who had championed EOR.
When I previously suggested that President Obama should have convened a “genuine” space summit last Spring, these were the sort of intensive meetings I had in mind — not a one-day or one-month gathering of like-minded people. But a genuine, extended and combative debate between experts (NASA field center managers, industry planners, academicians, etc.) laying out their competing ideas. Actually, such a debate should have been held during the Bush Administration. It isn’t too late to have that debate now.
The ULA proposal would be an important part of that debate. And like LOR, it could be the plan that is eventually adopted. It’s certainly a different approach than Constellation.
In the case of LOR, it was the quickest and cheapest way to reach the Moon and beat the Soviets. But it wasn’t necessarily the best way to sustain the sort of lunar outposts that were envisioned under the Apollo Applications Program. EOR might have served that goal better.
As I mentioned above, my interest is in the goal (advanced lunar exploration and resource development). Intelligent people can disagree about the best way of achieving that goal … and they do. But I think many of the President’s space opponents would have been among his supporters had he launched the sort of “knock ‘em down, drag ‘em out” debate last Spring that I just described above. Some of them might have even changed their views … as happened in the ‘Mode Debate’ of 1961-1962.
With Constellation now dead and buried, the ULA proposal is one of several plans that ought to be thoroughly discussed and debated as NASA charts the future.
It looks like either a technical issue or something else skipped my response yesterday and I won’t bother.
Now I am still waiting for the people with the grandiose plans to the Moon first regardless of how it is accomplished actually give a semblance of a budget. Something ballpark, something that shows they actually have some idea what their great vision will cost. See there was a time back in 2004, like Jan 14th (for the history buff), when someone with quite a few more advisers with technical knowledge said we will go to the Moon by 2020 with crew. They had all the budget and technical knowledge available to them. Yet they failed, miserably so.
So let me ask again. How do you plan to go back to the Moon? Budget and schedule, ball park, please.
Show me that with all your experience and knowledge designing space transportation systems or writing books or whatever you think gives you that sacrosanct knowledge you have at least a little clue and will humbly apologize to you.
and Iwill humbly apologize to you.
Obama has done a horrible dis-service to the cause of humankind getting out of LEO, by his condemning renewed Lunar exploration, and instead coming up with this dumb idiotic “let’s send astronauts to NEO’s” crusade. Asteroids are NO substitutes for the Lunar surface! [1] There is no gravity. None that is tangible. [2] Base modules could NOT viably be sent nor established there, on the poorly-understood asteroidal surfaces. [3] Multiple trips to the same body would never be viable as well. Each docking/”landing” would inevitably be a Guiness Book of World Records stunt, for one-time only. [4] The distances & travel times are truly enormous, to reach asteroids with piloted craft. Hence, NO industry nor usage of resources at these NEO’s will ever be practical; during the next twenty years. So, both the manned-NEO-visit fantasy combined with the Commercial-Space-will dominate LEO delusion; those things are totally going to DERAIL the quest to move the arena OUT of LEO. If Obama can tell us that once visited, the Moon must never again be re-visited, then why can’t he recognize that all this “new” emphasis on LEO operations will just be “returning back to where we’ve already been” as well?!?! Again, I tell all of you: Low Earth Orbit: Have not we been there already??! Do we have to strand our manned space program there and only there, once more, for another twenty years?! After 30 years of the Space Shuttle, is this all that NASA is going to do in space??
William Mellberg wrote @ December 11th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
“As I mentioned above, my interest is in the goal (advanced lunar exploration and resource development).”
And if Obama did convene the summit you suggest, you would not have been satisfied unless advanced lunar exploration and resource development would have been part of it. Face it Mr. Mellberg, unless it’s the Moon, the plan, in your eyes, is a failure.
“But I think many of the President’s space opponents would have been among his supporters had he launched the sort of “knock ‘em down, drag ‘em out†debate last Spring that I just described above.”
The space community is not united on a space plan, and it will likely never be. Moon first, Mars first, NEO first, or even none. Because we don’t have the capability to send humans to any of them with our current funding levels, there will always be a debate about where the scarce funds should go. That’s why we need to get our infrastructure in place first, then everywhere becomes that much closer.
“With Constellation now dead and buried, the ULA proposal is one of several plans that ought to be thoroughly discussed and debated as NASA charts the future.”
I like the ULA plan, and I point it out as having lots of good ideas. IF we were going back to the Moon, then I think it would be my favorite plan so far.
But you keep assuming we should be working on a Moon plan. Congress has not allocated funds to go back to the Moon, and there is no National imperative to do it right now. Going back to the moon is one of many things that is on the NASA to-do list (as Obama has stated many times), but not the first.
We’ll go back to the Moon when either the desire is high enough, or it becomes easy enough (i.e. not a budget buster). Until then, it’s a destination too far – budgetwise.
Chris Castro wrote @ December 11th, 2010 at 10:02 pm
“NO industry nor usage of resources at these NEO’s will ever be practical; during the next twenty years.”
The same would have been true for Constellation since it wasn’t going to start landings until the 2030’s. In that case, I guess you’re right….but for the wrong reason.
“If Obama can tell us that once visited, the Moon must never again be re-visited…”
Which he never said. Honestly, if you’re going to hate him for something, it ought to be for something that he really did say, not one he didn’t. Obama said regarding the Moon “We’ve been there before” as part of explaining why NASA’s next goal should be an NEO. We have been to the Moon before – 6 times.
We’ve never been to an NEO, and the infrastructure and technology needed to visit an NEO can be used to stop off in lunar orbit. That’s not landing on the Moon, but once you get out that far, it doesn’t take a Constellation-like plan to build a lander and surface habitats.
That’s the part you don’t get, in that the Moon is just one of many interesting places in the Solar System, and the goal is not just one of those places, but eventually all of them.
Apologize for disappearing
Rick Boozer,
I was kinda waiting to see if Anne would respond first, but I’ll lay it out now.
Matt Wiser & William Mellberg,
You have just largely demonstrated why i say the word fetish is correct. The resulting pieces of hardware won’t have changed, and neither will what destinations are actually available to us, when the hardware is completed.
Assuming the president’s original budget had been carried out, when 2016 rolled around, it wouldn’t matter what destination he had said he wanted us to pursue – we would still have commercialized LEO, we would still have demonstrated technologies such propellant depots, or better inflatables, etc. All of these technologies and developments would’ve made a moon program happen faster, and better, and more sustainable, regardless of which destination he selected – these technologies are destination agnostic – you yourselves have acknowledge this.
Further, Obama will be out in 2016, which means a decision about whether to pursue the off ramp to the moon is preferable. Additionally, if you go back, and look at the chart’s from Sally Ride about costing options, you’ll note that a LANDER development begins in 2017 (I think).
Thus, the decision of destination does not matter for the proposed budget – every destination would’ve benefited.
The fact that you opposed it, based not on the likely result, but because Obama picked a destination that was alterable after he was gone, is the reason I say you have a moon fetish.
Anne Spudis
the fact that you still view it with hostility tells me that, as I said before, what this is really about is you want a detailed plan, that spells everything out, to a point where we are at the mercy of current justifications & budgets & so forth, which means we can’t get out of LEO.
We’re adrift because Bush killed the Shuttle, It’s quite true the asteroid mission is pointless. But that’s because the Constellation architecture is a failure because it’s far too expensive to be affordable. Who’s going to pay for Constellation when the Tea Party demands their taxes be cut to zero?
William Mellberg,
And we had that under Obama’s proposal. Again, the key thing which wasn’t really provided was a specific destination (and I mean destination – not goal – we had specific goals).
Also, this proves the other ascertion I made, which is what you want is a detailed plan to a point where we are locked into to many details far too early on.
Further
We DID have that debate. Go look at the Augustine Report as well as the Augustine Hearings. Tell me how that wasn’t the debate you wanted. Did you see the people involved in the hearings? Cause I seemed to remember quite the variety of witnesses, papers, proposals, all being discussed, exactly as you wanted. So, I pose the question, why are you unhappy with the debate you got?
“If Obama can tell us that once visited, the Moon must never again be re-visited …”
He never said that. You’re just making stuff up. You’re doing that right along with the people who accuse Obama of saying “been there done that”. Nope, he didn’t say that either.
The Moon appears in a list of important destinations in Obama’s FY11 NASA budget proposal. (It’s also a key destination in the 2010 NASA Athorization act). What the President said at KSC in April was that landing a human being on the Moon was not a near-term priority, certainly doing it in the way that Buzz had already done it. His highest priority was investment in understanding how to better and more economically do space travel, and making such investments that would pay off if there was actually anything to be done on or harvested at the Moon. What’s the rush? Certainly a major investment in resource assessment needs to be done first via robotic missions.
But I agree that highlighting a NEO visit as a goal was pretty dumb. That NEOs don’t have gravity is irrelevant to implanting a “base module”. A couple of spikes and a rope for anchoring will do fine. But the real threat of no gravity is debris. Rock, sand grains, dust — it’ll be all over the place. Much worse than the Moon. Also, as you point out, once you go to one NEO, you don’t go back to it. It’s not going to pass close enough again for a LONG time. So any pricey investment in reconnaissance of a particular NEO is largely useless for future work. Learning about NEOs for threat mitigation? Well, it’s unlikely that what one can learn about threat mitigation for some random NEO will be relevant to the one that’s headed straight toward us. All that aside from the fact that it’s pretty hard to do. I think the HEFT folks are reluctantly coming to these realizations about NEOs.
Mr. Melberg’s suggestion that a real “space summit” be convened to decide what’s truly important for humans to do in space is an excellent one. Of course, ESAS was a collection of insiders in a policy echo-chamber. The Augustine committee was broader, but was just chartered to just come up with options. But Congress has now directed the agency to do just that (see Sec. 204 of the 2010 NASA Authorization Act), with an NRC panel that ideally would have the flavor of a major scientific decadal survey. Such a survey would reach out broadly and over a extended time period to really hear out the various stakeholders on what’s important for our human space flight effort. It would “review of the goals, core capabilities, and direction of human space flight”. More power to them.
@Bennett wrote @ December 11th, 2010 at 7:18 pm
And it was not a particularly impressive, confidence building statement for a CEO of a ‘commercial space venture’ to assert in austere times, either. Especially as he keeps pitching for gov’t subsidies and contracts. A little less Charlie Kane from him might be in order. If he plans to stick to that philosophy, expanding an investment pool beyond his circle of cronies is dim.
@Bennett wrote @ December 11th, 2010 at 7:18 pm
Want to see a business plan at work from a dynamic group of capitalists who wanted the government to get out of the way as they put together a ‘private enterprised’ effort to reach the moon w/o any profit to be made (until the landed and found uranium)? Watch the 1950 film, Destination Moon. Even hollywood penned in a profit motive at the end.
@ Ferris Valyn wrote @ December 10th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Nope. It’s not I am not a fan. I just don’t have the time to watch.
I am not sure if it is fetish or obsession or maybe it’s the same thing I don’t know that motivates them. See I don’t have a problem with ISRU, not one bit. I also “believe” somehow that we will be able to truly explore once we have understood how to live away from Earth. BUT, but it’s ways away from now. Do we have the technology? We may have some of it actually a lot of it to make it happen. Do we have the cash? Nope. Nothing, zilch, nada, niet, niente. Did I say no? You know I would love, really, to see one of the “Moon firster” or even “Mars firster” for that matter, and you may include the L1ers etc actually tell how much it is going to cost. Because it seems to me we don’t even know for sure how much LEO will cost. What SpaceX accomplished is really great, technically and financially but so far it only is a promise to get to LEO with not too great a cost. I will submit this. The day SpaceX is no longer 1200 people but rather 30,000 people and it may just happen if they have to build 100s of LVs and Dragons then the cost will most likely creep up as in any usual contractor. Now if they are successful at reusability that may change but not in the immediate future. Most people who disparage SpaceX do it on senseless basis. Not one of them is actually trying to understand to see what made their success. Would they do they may, just may, find a constructive way to criticize, see for example if their model is sustainable. Is it? I don’t know. It definitely is a technical coup. But again when you read all the doomsday warning about possible failures that they are as good as their last launch or whatever bs it “infuriates” me. It only is idiotic jealousy.
Anyway. Business as usual in the space arena.
Oh well…
Rand Simberg wrote @ December 11th, 2010 at 5:56 pm
Your post reminds me of President Barack Obama references to President George W. Bush in order to assign blame for the country’s current problems two years into his presidency.
We are not talking about repeating Constellation (ROCKET) but rather calling for demonstrating the use of resources on the Moon (VSE) to spur space transportation and access. This approach cannot be called Apollo redux, as we are not attempting to breath life back into Mike Griffin’s big rocket program.
So again I state to those attempting to hobble a good idea with the characterization that lunar return merely repeats Apollo: “It has become clear (using your definition) that you believe anything done on the Moon by NASA should be dubbed ‘a repeat of Apollo.’â€
It certainly would be nice if the Mars programs could spare a robotic lander or two. Would you still call that Apollo warmed over?
We already know a lot about the costs of getting to LEO commercially.
Musk said the Dragon and Falcon 9 cost roughly $50M each.
CRS contract price for Dragon to ISS is currently $133M a flight.
The crew Dragon is essentially the same vehicle as the cargo Dragon, so the price should be about the same, say $140M for 7 seats which means NASA will be paying of the order of $20M a seat to fly on Dragon.
This assumes brand new Dragons on each flight (currently the case with CRS).
If NASA insists on brand new Dragons for each crew flight then I would guess $20M a seat is what they’re going to wind up paying.
Considerably better than Soyuz.
But consider reusability.
I’ll bet Bigelow has.
If each Dragon will fly 10 times, and lets say it costs $5M to refurbish them after each mission.
Cost of Falcon 9 $50M
Cost of Dragon ($50M amortized over 10 flights) $5M
Cost of refurbishing (just a guess) $5M
And a profit margin $10M
Gives a total of $70M
and a per seat cost of $10M in very rough and ready figures.
I doubt figures will be as low as this to start with. After all Dragon has no flight history at all yet, so it’s impossible to know what the long term costs of keeping it flying will be.
But Bigelow has said that at $15M a seat he could make money, so it will be interesting to see what happens.
And then just maybe SpaceX might manage to start reusing the Falcon 9s…
Vladislaw wrote @ December 11th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Aren’t you are letting the inability (or blatant refusal) of our space agency to understand, monitor and execute a workable program influence your architecture?
I agree commercial is important. The VSE was strongly pro-commercial.
If there was a clean slate and strict oversight of NASA program management, would you still lay out your steps the same way?
They’re late to the dance, but the Houston Chronicle finally acknowledged the SpaceX flight in this editorial:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/7335139.html
Predictably, some of the loudest voices of protest came from senators and members of Congress from states where major NASA centers are located. Republicans who usually profess an unerring view that anything government can do private industry can do better proclaimed the nascent private launch industry incapable of quickly filling the gap soon to be created by mothballing of the venerable space shuttle fleet.
But then there’s demand to keep the pork flowing …
Since the Johnson Space Center will retain its astronaut training functions under the new mission plan, the Houston area stands to benefit from an explosion in private spaceflight development. The Texas congressional delegation should vigilantly guard that JSC function, and business support groups such as the Greater Houston Partnership have key roles to play in attracting and supporting space-related ventures.
And then there’s this snarky editorial cartoon in the Chronicle:
http://blogs.chron.com/nickanderson/archives/and121010b5.jpg
Stephen
Ferris Valyn wrote @ December 12th, 2010 at 12:15 am [wrote to Anne Spudis: the fact that you still view it with hostility tells me that, as I said before, what this is really about is you want a detailed plan, that spells everything out, to a point where we are at the mercy of current justifications & budgets & so forth, which means we can’t get out of LEO.]
You addressed me with a question that was pure vapor and are now annoyed that I didn’t treat it as substance. Because I asked for something to address (objective/value realized) in order to make a reasoned comparison, you conclude that I’m hostile and holding you hostage in LEO.
The fact is Mr. Valyn, you are the one who appears hostile, the one who is searching for ways to twist viewpoints, the one who’s personally insulting in your ham handed attempt to color others’ posts with claims of their political animus, something you alone can see, like the vapor that you offered up for me to analyze.
Anne your goal of lunar migration is impossible with current technology. Apollo only sent 3 to the moon and landed two. CXP was going to send 4 people to the moon twice a year for two weeks. 4 people to the moon does not a migration make.
The pilgrims and almost all other colonist trough history have been able to finance their own migration. Until this is possible the moon will remain a barren wasteland briefly visited by a few government employees for shorts period of time at great expense.
Right now if you wanted a commercially supplied moon base, you would use the Delta IV heavy. Only problem is that it only can send roughly 10 tons towards the moon and some of that 10 ten tons must be propellant and landing systems so maybe you could land around 4-8 tons worth of supply to your base. This will cost around $400 million for just the launch (spacecraft extra). However to get that 4-8 tons to the moon, I need to develop a spacecraft ($$$) and if CXP is any guide there won’t any demand for my supply at the moon (NASA would have spent just about all of its budget just getting there).
For the same price I could buy 3 flights of dragon to a LEO space station each carrying 6MT and able to return around 3MT to earth. In addition if I just needed a flight of the falcon 9 I could buy that at around 95 million.
One of these is more affordable than the other atm and tip it ain’t the moon base.
If you want lunar colonization it has to start with making access to space affordable and it cannot start from the moon first and it cannot come solely through NASA. If spaceflight were compared to air travel, we might have just entered 1910.
You imagine jet travel but the reality in terms of spaceflight is we live in an age of biplane travel (and frankly just early biplane travel at that). In order to get to jet travel it took R/D not just for jet engines but for things like radar. It took investment not just from government but from industry to build airports and runways and latter runways capable of handling a jet landing. It took lots and likewise lunar exploitation is going to take a lot more than a Apollo or Wright style flight. Both are impressive firsts but neither heralded the age of commercial aviation or commercial lunar travel.
The best way to make lunar travel affordable is not to build lunar specific rockets like the Saturn V. It is to leverage as much existing capability as possible. It is to grow new capabilities and capacities using both government and private investment.
It is a lot easier to raise 140 million plus 130 million for crew and cargo to LEO than to raise the billions required to even send one person to the moon again. One of these is a lower hanging fruit than the other.
If you want to get to the moon focus on technologies that are useful to more than one goal and more than one party. For instance an uprated dragon could be used to carry crew or cargo to lunar orbit. A propellant depot in LEO could be used for more than lunar flight and could be useful in spawning lower cost space access. If you could lower the price of a lunar trip to around 50 million a seat a well healed university could afford to send one member of its geology department to the moon.
IMHO moon first and mars first both do their own causes no good when they promote those causes ahead of just improving access to space for all.
@William Mellberg
This reminds me of the debate that raged within NASA for about a year following President Kennedy’s May 1961 speech to Congress about sending a man to the Moon. Three modes were considered, and each had its proponents. Direct ascent, requiring a mammoth Nova launch vehicle, would have been extremely costly, and probably couldn’t have been achieved by the end of the decade. That left Earth Orbit Rendezvous and Lunar Orbit Rendezvous. At first, John Houbolt had a hard time getting people to listen to his proposed LOR ideas. But after the competing plans were thoroughly discussed and debated, LOR was finally adopted and accepted as the best approach — even by Wernher von Braun who had championed EOR.
What you state is true, but you have taken the wrong lesson from it. Yes, LOR was the FASTEST way to beat the Russians to the moon. That is why it was chosen. BEFORE
sorry accidentally hit SUBMIT above before I had finished writing. Continuing . . .
What you state is true, but you have taken the wrong lesson from it. Yes, LOR was the FASTEST way to beat the Russians to the moon. That is why it was chosen. BEFORE the NOVA vehicle was considered, von Braun wanted an architecture involving a somewhat smaller launcher and fuel depots, under the argument that it would allow economically SUSTAINABLE access to the moon INDEFINITELY. This option was rejected because it was argued that the development of the extra infrastructure would take too much time and possibly allow the Russians time to beat us to the moon.
So yes, LOR was the best way to beat he Russians to the moon. It was NOT the economically sustainable way that the new plan would ultimately permit. The latter is what we need NOW, we are no longer in a cold war race in a time of high prosperity where we can consider a tremendous cost for SHORT TERM success. We need a way where we will not be so much at the mercy of Congressional whims and budget short falls; therefore, you have taken the WRONG lesson from history.
@Ann Spudis
Because I asked for something to address (objective/value realized) in order to make a reasoned comparison, you conclude that I’m hostile and holding you hostage in LEO.
And I offered you that “something to address” http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/AffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf. A detailed architecture involving existing launch vehicles put forward by the company that sent the LRO and LCROSS to the moon. As I predicted, you avoided answering the question, even when a detailed plan was presented to you.
Who’s going to pay for Constellation when the Tea Party demands their taxes be cut to zero?
What a stupid straw man.
So again I state to those attempting to hobble a good idea with the characterization that lunar return merely repeats Apollo: “It has become clear (using your definition) that you believe anything done on the Moon by NASA should be dubbed ‘a repeat of Apollo.’â€
You can state it as many times as you want, but it remains at a variance with reality. I believe no such thing, and have never either said it, or implied it. What was a repeat of Apollo is Constellation, and anything resembling it (a heavy-lift vehicle, a capsule and expendable lander, and no attempt to reduce the cost of access to LEO, let alone the moon).
@Fred Willett wrote @ December 12th, 2010 at 5:21 am
“We already know a lot about the costs of getting to LEO commercially.”
…
“I doubt figures will be as low as this to start with. After all Dragon has no flight history at all yet, so it’s impossible to know what the long term costs of keeping it flying will be.”
As I said, we don’t know the actual cost for LEO…Read what you write above.
Oh well…
Anne Spudis: “We are not talking about repeating Constellation (ROCKET) but rather calling for demonstrating the use of resources on the Moon (VSE) to spur space transportation and access. This approach cannot be called Apollo redux, as we are not attempting to breath life back into Mike Griffin’s big rocket program.”
The Administration’s original FY2011 proposal included lunar ISRU technology development followed by a robotic mission to the lunar surface to, among other things, assess lunar resources and demonstrate ISRU.
The budget “compromise” had Congress wipe out most of the proposed exploration technology development and demonstration funding, as well as the robotic precursor mission funding, in favor of a big new rocket and Orion. It seems that your opponent isn’t the current Administration or NASA leadership, it’s a certain fragment of Congress that wants to spend most of the exploration money on a big, expensive rocket.
From the FY2011 Administration budget proposal:
“In Situ Resource Utilization: NASA will fund research in a variety of ISRU activities aimed at using lunar, asteroidal, and Martian materials to produce oxygen and extract water from ice reservoirs. A flight experiment to demonstrate lunar resource prospecting, characterization, and extraction will be considered for testing on a future Flagship Technology Demonstration or robotic precursor exploration mission. Concepts to produce fuel, oxygen, and water from the Martian atmosphere and from subsurface ice will also be explored.”
“NASA will begin funding at least two dedicated precursor missions in 2011. One will likely be a lunar mission to demonstrate tele-operation capability from Earth and potentially from the International Space Station, including the ability to transmit near-live video to Earth. This will also result in investigations for validating the availability of resources for extraction. NASA will provide opportunities to participate in the payloads and observation teams, and potentially portions of the spacecraft, through open competition.”
The following is from the “FY 2011 Exploration Precursor Robotic Missions (xPRM) Point of Departure Plans” from May 25:
“2015: Teleoperated Lunar Lander
“Target (via LRO information): Sunlit polar region (<100h night) with Earth visibility and confirmed Hydrogen enhancement signature
• Objectives: Resources (including volatiles), hazards (including dust, trafficability and radiation), con-ops (teleops, hi-bandwidth comm and surface mobility)
• Static Lander instruments (possible candidates)
– 3D-high-definition, wide-field, zoom camera with video frame rate (0.2 frames/second)
– Dynamic albedo neutron spectrometer with active Neutron source
• Measuring hydrogen in water down to 1 m depth
– Volatile mass spectrometer
– In situ radiation experiment
– In Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) sub-system demonstrator
– Sampling arm possibly with microscopic imager
– Allotment for partnering experiments
• Surface mobility experiment : Sojourner class “rover†at < 35kg with 1-2 instruments (2kg)
– Context camera, Dust particle size analyzer, Alpha Particle X-ray Spectrometer
– Fetch capability
• Lander requires Direct–to-Earth telecom system for near-real time video and playback of all data (unless orbiting relay otherwise provided)
• Lifetime would be more than 2 months (goal of 1 year)"
Now you could make the case that the Administration proposal should have had more of this sort of thing. Maybe the budget proposal should have had $7.8B for robotic precursor missions and $3.0B for exploration technology demonstrations through FY2015 instead of vice versa. Changes like that wouldn't alter the basic nature of the FY2011 proposal, though. The FY2011 proposal wants to (among many other things) demonstrate use of lunar resources, and certain well-placed members of Congress want development of a big rocket instead.
The FY2011 objectives (lunar ISRU demonstration and many others) are useful, affordable, and achievable. The Congressional giant rocket is, I would argue, none of those.
Rick Boozer wrote @ December 12th, 2010 at 10:10 am [http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/AffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf.]
Yes. I’ve seen it before. Thank you. It is a good reference.
Perhaps others who haven’t seen it will have the opportunity to review it too.
However, that has nothing to do with why I was asked for my approval of the President’s “new plan” if he’d named the Moon before an asteroid mission. As you can see, there is no correct answer, only the option of leaving one’s brain at the doorstep.
Rick Boozer wrote:
“What you state is true, but you have taken the wrong lesson from it. Yes, LOR was the FASTEST way to beat the Russians to the moon. That is why it was chosen. BEFORE the NOVA vehicle was considered, von Braun wanted an architecture involving a somewhat smaller launcher and fuel depots, under the argument that it would allow economically SUSTAINABLE access to the moon INDEFINITELY. This option was rejected because it was argued that the development of the extra infrastructure would take too much time and possibly allow the Russians time to beat us to the moon … you have taken the WRONG lesson from history.”
Mr. Boozer, I don’t think you read the rest of my post:
In the case of LOR, it was the quickest and cheapest way to reach the Moon and beat the Soviets. But it wasn’t necessarily the best way to sustain the sort of lunar outposts that were envisioned under the Apollo Applications Program. EOR might have served that goal better.
Maybe I didn’t make my point clear enough. But I was suggesting just what you’ve written.
I still have two very old but classic books in my library: Across the Space Frontier and Conquest of the Moon. Published in 1952 and 1953 respectively, they’re the hardcover versions of the famous series von Braun and others (Willy Ley, Heinz Haber, Fred Whipple) penned for Collier’s magazine six decades ago. In those articles (and in the books), von Braun laid out an architecture for lunar exploration that was not all that different from the one proposed by ULA. Which is why I wrote that von Braun finally accepted (after months of arguing) that LOR was the best way to beat the Soviets to the Moon — but not necessarily the best way to do the other things he would have liked to have seen as part of the Apollo Applications Program The only part of AAP that was realized was Skylab. Had von Braun’s original architecture (early 1950s) been adopted, we might have lost the race to the Moon (had the Soviets finally perfected the N-1); but we might have had an outpost on the Moon decades ago, as well as an Earth-orbiting space station and a series of generic rockets and spacecraft to serve both.
My point was that we need another knock ‘em down, drag ‘em out debate like the sort which finally adopted LOR as we plan future missions to the Moon. Because without the Cold War factor which von Braun succumbed to during Apollo, an architecture such as that proposed by ULA could very well be the way we go to the Moon the next time.
In short … I was making your point, not opposing it.
red wrote @ December 12th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Thank you for taking the time to post that information.
There is an upcoming architecture to do just those things and more. How will NASA, Congress, companies (not just commercial rocket companies) and research institutions receive it? That will be interesting and tell us a lot about their intentions and vision for the country and U.S. space access.
Thank you for taking the time to post that information.
Anne, that information has been available since February for anyone who was really interested. But you seem to be more concerned about whether or not a president whose every statement has an expiration date, and is likely to be a one-termer, said “moon first” or not, when in fact the real destination decisions will be made in the future, after we have a better idea of what both budgets and available infrastructure will be. This kind of “policy analysis” doesn’t seem very serious to me.
Anne Spudis: “We are not talking about repeating Constellation (ROCKET) but rather calling for demonstrating the use of resources on the Moon (VSE) to spur space transportation and access. This approach cannot be called Apollo redux, as we are not attempting to breath life back into Mike Griffin’s big rocket program. 
sure it is Apollo redux.
It is a government program for no purpose other then to demonstrate something that IT alone can do…and for which there is no market for.
Say the government spends 1-200 billion (thats the range but it is more like 30-200 billion dollars) to send something to the Moon (people or a machine) that scoops up some amount of lunar “dirt” and then breaks it down into resourceable components and thats that.
What do you think happens next? Commercial companies say “wow its been done, we will now try and do it ”
thats goofy.
What commercial companies, particularly the novel start up ones which do such things (see SpaceX) will do is take mature or near mature technology and integrate it into a unique product that serves a niche that is either being underserved or does not exist.
The federal government has spent 100’s of billions on the space shuttle/station…and no commercial company of any value wants to have anything to do with that infrastructure.
Lunar resource use is a product looking for a market that does not exist.
Robert G. Oler
@William Mellberg wrote @ December 12th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Problem is, the writings of the ‘visionaries’ in your ‘library’ from three or four generations past propose exploratory programs and long term projects completely out of sync with the economic realities of our times. You might as well be sourcing H.G. Wells for inspiration. Unfortunately, these kind space projects are simply unaffordable today, particularly when the U.S. government has to borrow 41 cents of every dollar it spends and the current brain trust has ‘compromised’ another $850 billion to be added to the deficits of the United States. This era is less favorable for lunar exploration and more akin to just plain lunacy.
William Mellberg wrote @ December 12th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
“My point was that we need another knock ‘em down, drag ‘em out debate like the sort which finally adopted LOR as we plan future missions to the Moon.”
But the Moon is not on the list of places to go next. Maybe around the Moon, but we’re still 10+ years away from even that.
I think the problem here is that you keep thinking on the scale of Apollo, which had a tremendous amount of funding and was a recognized national imperative. We don’t have either today.
We can’t afford to jump directly to the Moon again, so we need to put in place ever increasing amounts of in-space infrastructure. At some point, there will be a tipping point that allows the U.S. to afford a sustained presence on the Moon. But we’re a long way away from that.
Congress has decided on the plan, and now NASA needs to get going on it. We don’t need anymore distractions – we need hardware in space.
Anne Spudis wrote @ December 12th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
How do you plan to pay for all these projects and proposals? It’s disturbing that the dreamer camp appears completely disconnected from the economic realities facing real world, down-to-earth space advocates. Space exploration is a luxury, not a necessity. And space exploitation remains a struggling endeavor fighting for limited returns and justification for continued investment. It’s past time for space advocates to start tayloring their dreams to match the the resources available in the Age of Austerity.
Anne Spudis wrote:
“Aren’t you are letting the inability (or blatant refusal) of our space agency to understand, monitor and execute a workable program influence your architecture?
I agree commercial is important. The VSE was strongly pro-commercial.
If there was a clean slate and strict oversight of NASA program management, would you still lay out your steps the same way?”
Yes I would lay it out the same way. Because if NASA (and the congressional districts that mainly support that monopoly) is given a monopoly again they will act to protect all the jobs and centers that that monopoly creates in those districts, whether it is good for the Nation or not. history is on my side on this issue as we have a 50 year database supporting my position.
It is exactly why I stressed so strongly that I want commercial systems put in place either before NASA or that mirror NASA so that it survives regardless and dispite any actions congress or NASA does later.
Anne you have to believe me on this point, NASA and congress have never been serious about the moon since Apollo. It is just to easy to illustrate why they have truely never been serious about it.
Here is an example. Let’s say through congress, NASA, the FAA, or the Dept of Transportation they were truely interested in opening up the moon.
AMERICA’S LUNAR CUP 2 1/2 billion funded each year.
1st place 1 billion
2nd place 750 million
3rd place 500 million
4th place 250 million.
Each year’s prize money would roll over into the next year if no one wins.
After only five years first place would be 5 billion.
2.5 billion is only about 15% of the NASA budget and as a percentage of the federal budget it would not even represent an rounding error.
So believe me, congress has never ever wanted to truely open up the moon. It would be so cheap to do it no one could even make an arguement to stop that funding it represents such a tiny fraction.
What I have laid out is first and foremost doable with projected budgets, secondly the way I lay it out it, it can work DESPITE what congress or NASA does later, because once the commercial infrastructure is in place it would be to late.
Rand Simberg wrote @ December 12th, 2010 at 2:04 pm [But you seem to be more concerned about whether or not a president whose every statement has an expiration date, and is likely to be a one-termer, said “moon first†or not, when in fact the real destination decisions will be made in the future, after we have a better idea of what both budgets and available infrastructure will be. This kind of “policy analysis†doesn’t seem very serious to me.]
I’m concerned that as a country we are losing the argument and ability to access space Rand. And don’t drag up Constellation because I’ve known for a very long time it was killing the VSE and said so.
It is you who is on top of the president’s statements along with everything else. I know I can’t hold a candle to your clever insight, analysis and pronouncements about so many things but I do have the gut feeling that we are letting something slip away and will live to regret it if we don’t stake our claim and develop the Moon’s resources ASAP.
The new program depends on a yet to be envisioned technology being developed, approved and funded for launch……and then you want to decide on where to go?
Robert G. Oler wrote @ December 12th, 2010 at 2:58 pm [Say the government spends 1-200 billion (thats the range but it is more like 30-200 billion dollars) to send something to the Moon (people or a machine) that scoops up some amount of lunar “dirt†and then breaks it down into resourceable components and thats that.]
You better locate a pencil sharpener Robert because your ciphering needs some sharpening.
And may I suggest that you leave geology and all that dirty work to people who know something about it.
“Lunar resource use is a product looking for a market that does not exist.”
The phrase “a solution looking for a problem” comes to mind.
@William Mellberg
In short … I was making your point, not opposing it.
Mea Culpa. That’s what I get for hastily reading stuff while my wife is trying to rush me out the door to go to a family Christmas season get-together. My genuine and sincere apologies.
Anne Spudis – I am not annoyed at you for your response to my hypothetical.
I admit to expecting a slightly different response, but your response matches pretty much up with what I expected. I was merely explaining how I see your point of view.
BTW,
1. We’ve envisioned it.
2. Its funding was proposed under Obama’s budget.
3. And since the technology is destination agnostic, you don’t need to make that decision right now.
Anne Spudis wrote @ December 12th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
“The new program depends on a yet to be envisioned technology being developed, approved and funded for launch…”
What would that be?
Rick Boozer wrote:
@William Mellberg
“Mea Culpa. That’s what I get for hastily reading stuff while my wife is trying to rush me out the door to go to a family Christmas season get-together. My genuine and sincere apologies.”
Thank you very much. And no problem. I figured you must have missed part of what I had written … or that I had simply made the point in too subtle a fashion. But it is clear that von Braun was thinking about sustainability many years ago — even though he was forced to give up those ideas (and that infrastructure) a decade later to meet a very specific Cold War goal. I rather suspect Wernher von Braun would have been excited about some of the things that are happening these days, including what SpaceX did on Wednesday.
Anne Spudis wrote @ December 12th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
“And may I suggest that you leave geology and all that dirty work to people who know something about it.”
see that is the problem with most space advocates…they dont get it…it isnt a question of geology or astronomy or even physics…the rocket equation means nothing compared with “the market equation”.
If “right now” the “something”ology only required that lead be loaded into the space shuttle payload bay and the shuttle launched into orbit and then the lead became “Au”…the market equation would dictate that there is no market because the cost is to high to make even that magical conversion worthwhile…
The issue of lunar resources is complicated somewhat by the notion that “it is out of the gravity well”…but it is killed by the reality that the government can borrow all the money it wants from future generations…and prove whatever it wants to prove…and unless there is a market for it at the cost that it can be done at…there wont be any rush toward commerciazlizing the process.
Given your right wing politics the notions of government doing all this seems bizarre.
Robert G. Oler
DCSCA wrote: “Space exploration is a luxury , not a necessity.” Alot of people would (or did at one time) say the same thing about AIR TRAVEL, (you could do with ships and cars) RAILROADS (you could do with horses and wagons) JETS (you could do with props) INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS (you could do with route 66) TELEPHONES (you could do with telegraph or pony express) OIL WELLS (you can do with wood peat and whale blubber) Lets just save the money and halt all research into making anything newer/better and concentrate on our real problems here at home. What a great world we would be living in, huh? What a great nation we would be.
A couple of articles from MSNBC on Orion: both are discussing an Orion launch on a Delta IV Heavy, and a mission to L2 involving teleoperation of a rover on the lunar surface. This is stuff that is the first step to getting boots on the ground. Even if lander development doesn’t start until 2020 or so….
http://www.msnbc.com/id/40441749/ns/technology_and_science-space
http://www.msnbc.com/id/40354753/ns/technology_and_science-space
Sorry, Ferris, but respectable people can disagree. While I do support FlexPath as Ed Crawley laid out in his 15 Apr presentation, let’s get some BEO to lunar orbit-as in stays in lunar orbit for several weeks, before shooting for the PLYMOUTH ROCK mission-as L-M calls it, and then start getting serious about the lunar surface. As you indicated in your question to Anne, had Obama said in his speech that lunar exploration was simply being revamped to make it more affordable and sustainable, yes, I woul’ve gladly supported such an FY 11 budget request-not the disaster that Charlie Bolden rolled out in a PR nightmare on 1 Feb.
Matt Wiser wrote @ December 13th, 2010 at 12:04 am
“A couple of articles from MSNBC on Orion: both are discussing an Orion launch on a Delta IV Heavy, and a mission to L2 involving teleoperation of a rover on the lunar surface. This is stuff that is the first step to getting boots on the ground.”
LOL…this is an effort by some folks who want to build Orion, to come up with some reason to build Orion…and a makework mission at that.
While there is some “time” improvement in the Lag of controlling a lunar rover, particularly one on the farside by having a human crewed vehicle at L2…the difference is trivial with modern electronics…and one that hardly justifies the cost of the entire effort…particularly if this is the “only” thing Orion is used for.
Doing this from Phobos or Martian “aerosynchrous” orbit (believe I got the “aero” correct) to rovers on the Martian surface makes sense…but there is hardly any reason to “practice” this effort in L2/lunar ops…unless one is trying to find something anything that humans can do…and one is going to spend the money anyway.
Also it hardly is a first step to getting “boots on the ground” (a goofy term in itself)…because of the ridicule that such an effort will get when the cost of the entire show starts being talked about…and someone is going to point out that the Chinese (who will likely have a uncrewed lander by then) and maybe even a private one are doing it all uncrewed.
I’d ridicule it.
The problem with Orion is that no one now can figure out a reason for it. NASAspaceflight.com has another tome up on why Orion is moving along, but at NASAspaceflight.com they have long confused NASA excitement and meetings for actual progress.
when the dollar signs for Orion and any booster (or booster upgrades) that NASA is going to require for an in house effort are shown, the thing is DEAD. There is no money for such foolishness….
Robert G. Oler
Rhyolite wrote @ December 12th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
“Lunar resource use is a product looking for a market that does not exist.â€
The phrase “a solution looking for a problem†comes to mind…
yes, this of course is the problem and what lead to the statement I quoted.
In the end the entire notion of why to go back to the Moon dies because there is right now no reason that even comes close to justifying the cost. So what do proponents do…they make up reasons.
Robert G. Oler
Matt Wiser – IMHO, doing lunar orbit is PART of flex plan, so I have no problem with that. In point of fact, I wouldn’t rule out an Apollo 8 style mission before the end of the decade. And yes, the PR was a disaster.
The point is, if you were supportive of the president’s proposal if he had merely changed the destination, then your primary point of interest is in a declaration of a particular destination, rather than having the capability to reach that destination, then I submit that that destination is a fetish, rather tan merely a destination for you.
Fred Cink wrote @ December 12th, 2010 at 8:09 pm
““Space exploration is a luxury , not a necessity.†Alot of people would (or did at one time) say the same thing about AIR TRAVEL, (you could do with ships and cars) RAILROADS (you could do with horses and wagons) JETS (you could do with props) INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS (you could do with route 66)…”
Your comparing exploration to modes of transportation. Their not equivalent.
Space transportation is essential to the nation. The US government is the largest single purchaser of launch services in the world to loft its communications, navigation and earth observation satellites. Investing to lower space transportation for the kinds of payload that we need is a rational activity.
Space exploration is much less critical than space transportation, though I don’t think anyone is seriously suggesting we abandon it. The question is whether it is rational to spend $200 Billion on manned missions that could be accomplished for a 1/10th the cost with unmanned missions. Or whether investing large amounts in specialized launch vehicles (e.g. HLVs) that don’t meet critical space access requirements is a good use of the nation’s funds.
Vladislaw wrote @ December 12th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
I enjoyed reading your post.
I have no delusions about why the Moon has not been revisited. But that neglect does not change the fact that the Moon will be where we go for routine access to space. Other countries have no qualms about making the Moon a target and are working slow (but increasingly faster) steady paths toward that goal.
But despite the obstacles (there are several) by getting a small lunar program here and there (no small feat), great progress has been made in our understanding about the potential of the Moon/ciclunar and it’s value for a transportation network. Location, location, location and resources.
There should have been robots on the Moon long before now.
I am a strong supporter of private enterprise but I also understand the realities of funding something unproven and not fully understood. That’s a big step for commercial to take. This is where government funding should come into play and demonstrate the feasibility of resource utilization. Government should think about the new source of revenue.
Don’t you worry when “commercial” is dependent on government? All they have to do is cut off the money supply (or direct it anyway they choose) and that could cripple them. It’s difficult to invest or work a business plan when your business partner is so, let’s say unpredictable and may drop a ton of restrictions or laws in your lap for the favor of bankrolling you — with your own taxed money. It just doesn’t pass the smell test. How is this “cleaner” or a more “reliable” money stream than the “pork” others find offensive?
Robert G. Oler wrote @ December 12th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
Given that NASA uses .005 of our national budget, it is a stretch to say it is too expensive. All federally funded agencies and programs need a haircut but some have very, very long hippie hair, while others already have a fairly close shave.
Anne,
Lunar resource utilization – by itself – will not provide positive revenue flows for a long, long time. Recall that,
He3 can be produced on Earth via tritium decay.
Total annual terrestrial PGM production is ~$10 billion per year, far too thin of a market to justify (by itself) a multi-billion dollar lunar mining operation. Also, if truly abundant lunar PGM resources were to come on-line, the price of PGM would plummet, thereby making profit even more elusive, although I believe cheap PGM would be a terrific macro-economic stimulus for the terrestrial economy.
Lunar water? A terrific resource to significantly lower the cost of space operations but not a source of profit in and of itself.
Some strategically necessary rare earths could be harvested from the Moon, to counter Chinese hoarding but remember that in this case economic value arise from geo-political market distortions. Once we start mining lunar rare earth metals (heh – lunar rare earth) China could simply choose to export more and crash the market price.
= = =
What lunar resource extraction does offer is the hope and promise of humanity eventually becoming a spacefaring species. And I believe that has significant aspirational value (or existential value), although these are intangibles rather than tangibles.
And, many companies have been very successful selling aspirational and intangible “commodities” — companies such as Nike, Red Bull, and even Branson’s Virgin family of enterprises, Virgin Airways, Virgin Galactic, etc . . .
I continue to advocate harnessing brand value enhancement as a mechanism to monetize the aspirational, existential and inspirational aspects of lunar resource extraction.
But, government (and especially NASA) is not well situated to do this.
Anne Spudis wrote @ December 13th, 2010 at 8:36 am
“Given that NASA uses .005 of our national budget, it is a stretch to say it is too expensive”
that is where all the people like you run to when they cannot on any other term justify the expenditures that they are seeking…”its not a lot of money anyway’.
That kind of thinking equates “expense” with amount of money and is a political charade….for instance the National endowment of the arts spending is really a “very small amount of money” but it and National public television and a lot of other “chump change” programs are always the first thing out of the lips of people who have your political beliefs…and yet you then run to the chump change argument to support programs which “you like”.
That kind of intellectual dishonesty is what makes the right wing/tea party groups to me anyway the trash heap of American politics (although of course generalizations are broad and there are always exceptions).
But the notion that things which you would not excuse in other programs are tolerated in programs that you like…all on the basis of “they are not expensive” makes your arguments less.
If the government collects the collective tax dollars of the US to accomplish on behalf of the sovereign collective things…then there are inefficiencies because of the politics involved. Collective effort requires collective compromises and thats been the case since the dawn of The Republic. The ships probably would have all been cheaper had they been built say in Boston and New York and Phily, places that had mature Navy Yards….but politics required that some of what became The Constitution class frigates be built in the South (at Norfolk) of materials in the south.
What you cannot answer is “why” if the US government borrows billions, tens of billions or even hundreds of billions to send humans to the Moon and demonstrates that with more or less unlimited funds lunar resources can be recovered…you cannot answer or demonstrate how that “jump starts” commercial activity.
So then you start to make things up…”Other countries have no qualms about making the Moon a target and are working slow (but increasingly faster) steady paths toward that goal.”
thats a broad brush like “dangers gather near our shores” so we should do something that is otherwise unjustifiable. There is no evidence that any other country on the face of the Earth is attempting to send humans to the Moon to put in place some effort to use the resources there or to dominate them for that particular nation.
I understand the science of lunar resource use to the level of what is required for policy, and your husband (but so have others Dennis Wingo for instance) have done some pioneering work along those lines, in the theoretical. But in particular Paul and You have no clue about the politics. None. And the fact that you revert to the “not expensive” argument illustrates that.
Robert G. Oler
common sense wrote @ December 9th, 2010 at 6:23 pm
“Where does Jupiter stand today compared to Falcon/Dragon?â€
Jupiter/Orion, or more specifically the DIRECT approach as presented to the Commission ie;
-Phased development of a true inline SDHLV (Core followed by EDS)
-Orion’s BEO capabilities restored
-Propellant Depots supplied by competitive commercial bid (ideal market for new startups and new ideas, +70% of the mass required)
-Lunar ISRU (Only possible if the Propellant in space technology/market is in place and Lunar ISRU is more price competitive than Earth based production/delivery)
-Flexible Path (a reality of year to year political budgeting)
Are now the laws of the land.
Our main engines (SSME), upperstage engines (RL-10), and boosters (4-Segment SRB) are all paid for, flight qualified with over three decades of operations/technical upgrades and have a well understood cost structure and performance point. Our tooling for the 80% of the core is complete and about 80% of the launch facilities are in place. Even the tower that Ares-1 built can be restacked at the pad enabling a clean pad approach for SLS with all hook-ups done in the VAB.
The long pole in the tent is SLS avionics but its amazing what some off the shelf re-tasked Atlas boxes were able to do for the Ares-1X. Fortunately, what has been historically the cost/schedule wildcards and most difficult part of rocket development effort (ie the rocket engines/boosters) are done.
A little over two years ago Mike was about to destroy the tooling we needed for the SLS core and more than 50% of the politico’s bought his line that we were defying the laws of physics (despite proof he was lying to them in ESAS appendix 6a). Even now some in the House still think Mike has never lied to them, go figure, and still follow his advice. Regardless, I think our fortunes have certainly improved.
Now we are not out of the woods, but we have at least changed the course of the ship head towards certain doom at the hands of the shaft. Whether NASA still ends up hitting the iceberg in the end is something only time can tell at this point. Given the fiscal situation I make no predictions of success of failure at this point. In addition, the two irrational extremes of Apollo on Steroids vs. shutdown/restart NASA HSF are still locked in battle, despite the clear will of Congress and the now stated Law of the Land. The Star Trek episode of “Let that be your last battlefield†comes to mind.
My main problem with too many SpaceX supporters is that they have turned a good idea for future government contracting (ie more hands off, objectives based requirements approach for well understood/proven technologies) into a personality cult. SpaceX success is just as (if not more) achievable for experienced companies using existing paid for hardware and demonstrated processes, provided they are managed by NASA the same way as SpaceX.
@Ferris: “3. And since the technology is destination agnostic, you don’t need to make that decision right now.”
You do, for reasons that have nothing to do with the technology. VSE didn’t just pop out of nowhere; it was the closest Americans have ever gotten to articulating a path towards exploiting space for purposes other than those that matter only to telecos, the cosmic navel gazers and the Right Stuff crowd. Obamaspace has done away with that.
Anne Spudis wrote @ December 13th, 2010 at 8:10 am
“I have no delusions about why the Moon has not been revisited. But that neglect…”
What about the neglect of all the other planetary bodies? I think Ferris Valyn was right about “some people” having a fetish about the Moon. It is just another clump of material that is not part of the Earth. It certainly does have potential and intrinsic worth to human expansion into space, but it is not the ultimate location for where we’re going – not in the long term anyways.
“But that neglect does not change the fact that the Moon will be where we go for routine access to space.”
You’re sounding like that 7-11 business owner again, you know the one that is trying to get people to stop in their small town after the highway bypass gets built.
The Moon is a gravity well, so it’s not the best place to stop if you’re planning on traveling beyond Earth’s orbit. Now maybe supplies will be sent up from the Moon, but why would you force everyone to land on the Moon before continuing on to NEO’s, Mars or beyond? Weird.
“There should have been robots on the Moon long before now.”
There have been. Maybe you mean modern rovers, like the ones on Mars? I have stated on numerous occasions that I think we need a long-term robotic exploration program for the Moon that focuses on getting a continuous stream of ever capable lunar rovers. With the Moon so close, we can certainly land much bigger and more capable rovers than the ones on Mars.
“This is where government funding should come into play and demonstrate the feasibility of resource utilization.”
Discover yes, but feasibility of resource utilization is the realm of private enterprise.
You continue to get the economic formula backwards. There needs to be demand for supply, otherwise the supply, and the capital used to produce the supply, is spent too early.
There is no need (i.e. demand) yet for the vast riches of the Moon. Someday yes, when it costs less to produce it locally than importing it from Earth or other locations. But we’re not there yet, and we don’t even have a forecasted need for it.
Until that time, spending government money to determine “feasibility of resource utilization” is wasted money. It can be spent on building infrastructure to actually GET YOU TO THE MOON.
Robert G. Oler wrote @ December 13th, 2010 at 10:40 am
Guinness World Records need to measure your Wack-a-mole speed. I suggest they don whiplash collars before they attempt it.
I was addressing your inflated costing and deep, deep “concern” for deficit spending — the place you always run when you don’t have a good argument.
Anne Spudis wrote:
“I am a strong supporter of private enterprise but I also understand the realities of funding something unproven and not fully understood. That’s a big step for commercial to take. This is where government funding should come into play and demonstrate the feasibility of resource utilization. Government should think about the new source of revenue.”
That is why I would like to see some of that stuff funded under competitive means like X prizes. It does not cost the taxpayer a dime until something actually gets built an tested. We want to encourage commercial investment and we want competitive pressure because it drives innovation. If NASA directs a project where they outline and define every nut, bolt and screw you will never see this. Also look at the track record of NASA incorporating upgrades into a system, commercial systems intergrate upgrades far faster and cheaper. We have to put in place a new way of doing business and NASA has to loosen it’s reins, they will fight this tooth and nail, but until that change is made we will be stuck where we are.
This is from that ULA doc that someone provided you the other day:
“Of greatest importance was the ability to compete as many functions as possible in a marketplace. As much of the architecture as possible must be a commodity- something that many suppliers can provide. Without competition the suppliers to NASA would be in an eternal monopoly position- not a recipe for cost containment or innovation. This is the precise situation that is lamented today. The architecture needs to create a situation where many companies can make a business case close- a reliable, predictable demand with a calculable cash flow and good returns. If this is in place then continuing development costs will be undertaken commercially, allowing government investment to focus on the actual exploration mission rather than spending 90% of NASA’s exploration budget on space transportation as is currently the case.”
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/AffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf
Anne Spudis wrote:
“Don’t you worry when “commercial†is dependent on government? All they have to do is cut off the money supply (or direct it anyway they choose) and that could cripple them.”
The way I have outlined it is so that commercial is not dependant, I have stated several times I want as much of the systems to be dual use as possible.
Again from that ULA doc:
“One of the anchors of sustainability is that a project must benefit many users. To date, the manned space program has been effectively pitted against a wide range of unmanned scientific activities in the yearly battle for limited resources. The present Shuttle system was never able to deliver utility for scientists sending probes to Mars or Jupiter. It is simply too expensive and risky to use for the mundane purposes of placing a weather satellite into orbit. However with the right architecture for lunar exploration all users benefit. The key here is to create the functional equivalent of a highway- a tool that everyone can use and whose cost is borne in proportion to the user’s demand”
Again this goes to the idea of NASA providing traffic to a point in space. Repetitive trips to the same place (lunar orbit) and then to the lunar surface is the incentive for commercial infrastructure to be placed in those areas that could be used by both government and commercial users.
If having missed Apollo and wanting to see renewed human lunar exploration is considered a “fetish” then I wonder what’s considered “degenerate” in space terms. FYI I wasn’t born until Aug 1970, so wasn’t around for Apollo 7-13, and a toddler for 14-17 and all of Skylab. The earliest space flight I remember seeing on TV was Apollo-Soyuz. So, if wanting to go to the Moon and pick up where Apollo left off is considered a “fetish”, then so be it.
Oler, Oler, Oler….the politics made sure Orion made it after CxP’s cancellation, and the politics will ensure it flies.
It looks like Blue Origin built a pusher type escape system, it says it has already been ground tested.
http://www.commercialspaceflight.org/Other%20Content/High-Resolution%20Version%20-%20CCDev%20Significant%20Hardware%20Milestones%20Reached%20-%20Nov%208%202010.pdf
Here is some images of Boeing’s entry in the crew cargo race. It show’s their capsule riding on an Falcon 9, Atlas V and the Delta IV
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2010/09/15/GA2010091505170.html
Anne,
While we have been described here as “Moon firsters” and “Moon fetishists” (among other names and adjectives), I’m beginning to think there are “Moon vampires” residing among us in the blogosphere. Just as Dracula had an aversion to sunlight and crosses, they seem to recoil at the very mention of the Moon, or any suggestions that humans ought to go back there!
SpaceX success is just as (if not more) achievable for experienced companies using existing paid for hardware and demonstrated processes, provided they are managed by NASA the same way as SpaceX.
Unfortunately, NASA is intrinsically incapable of doing that, and those other companies won’t accept the same kinds of contracts that SpaceX has.
Coastal Ron wrote:
“What about the neglect of all the other planetary bodies? I think Ferris Valyn was right about ‘some people’ having a fetish about the Moon. It is just another clump of material that is not part of the Earth. It certainly does have potential and intrinsic worth to human expansion into space, but it is not the ultimate location for where we’re going – not in the long term anyways.”
And where would that be? Should it be Mars to placate the “Mars fetishists” and their obsession with the Red Planet? Or an asteroid whizzing by to satisfy the President’s call for a mission to an NEO because we haven’t done that before?
Mind you, I see Mars as the “ultimate location” in terms of exploration and science. And that is why I believe we should return to the Moon. A lunar outpost would give us the operational experience to launch meaningful expeditions to the Red Planet rather than a martian version of “Apollo redux.”
But perhaps you had some other more inhabitable “location” in mind. The icy surface of Europa, perhaps? Or maybe the sulfur lakes of Io?
Frankly, I would like to see more missions to those places and others … robotic missions.
But the Moon is our “first” goal because it’s the closest and best place for humans to learn what it will take to travel to — and work at — other worlds (primarily Mars). The Moon should not be the subject for ridicule any more than any other destination. Unless you believe that it is humankind’s destiny NOT to explore new worlds in person.
@Coastal Ron:
This is akin to whining about how a 17th century New World colonization venture neglects Hawaii.
It is also, at present, the most accessible clump of material that is not part of Earth. And clumps of stuff, of course, is the main show for just about anyone looking to actually *develop* space into something useful.
The long term is in units of geological time. How about we worry about the next couple of decades first?
Seriously, if anyone has a destination up there that’s a better immediate candidate than the Moon along the path towards permanent, profitable human SETTLEMENT of space, let’s hear it.
Coastal Ron wrote:
“The Moon is a gravity well, so it’s not the best place to stop if you’re planning on traveling beyond Earth’s orbit.”
Robert Oler wrote:
“While there is some “time†improvement in the Lag of controlling a lunar rover, particularly one on the farside by having a human crewed vehicle at L2…the difference is trivial with modern electronics”
This is why I push for NASA to do lunar orbits only, because they are more affordable, provides traffic, can be duplicated by the private sector and in the future docking at a commercial orbital station because there is now enough traffic to warrant it. We can escape a huge cost if we bypass landing for now and instead work on more infrastructure.
I would much prefer NASA sending a Lunar Researcher to a commercial lunar orbital station and let them set up a lunar surface, real time, operations center for the real time operation of lunar rovers from lunar orbit. Billions that would go into landing can be better spent on a lot of other more basic infrastructure.
I still believe the lunar gemstone market will be one of the first commercial operations that bring back a resource from Luna, and it will be a luxury item with no real commercial value other that it is rare and unique and that only a few can afford in the beginning.
Presley Cannady
Why? What difference does it make? If there is a legit reason, I’ll gladly hear it.
How about LEO, GEO, Lunar Orbit, Lagrange points, Lunar Surface – all at the same time.
Matt Wiser – the issue isn’t whether you were around for Apollo. FYI, neither was I, and yes, I’d love to see people on the moon again. But I don’t care if an elected official, who won’t be in office when it happens, picks a particular destination, as long as he is providing the necessary capabilities to make it happen.
William Mellberg – again, its not that I am against going to the moon. What I am against is someone saying we are going to do it, and then not following through. Or the idea that, without making it a great big deal about a particular destination, we can’t have the capability to get there.
Stephen Metschan wrote @ December 13th, 2010 at 11:53 am
” SpaceX success is just as (if not more) achievable for experienced companies using existing paid for hardware and demonstrated processes, provided they are managed by NASA the same way as SpaceX.”
no…absolutely not.
IN fact to me that statement indicates you know absolutely nothing about technical projects or why they are successes or why they are failures.
DIRECT would be a failure no matter how it is managed because the hardware is incapable of being produced or flown economically. Part of the “commercial” success of technology is the notion that the technology is affordable and that it has some relationship to the cost of the mission.
SpaceX SEEMS to be on the road to success while DIRECT is simply playing to the cheering section for a simple reason…neither you nor anyone else can identify a single payload for DIRECT that 1) is either funded or 2) has some value/cost relationship which would drive the technology.
SpaceX has figured out a payload mass that seems to generate interest in both the uncrewed lift market AND seems to match what the needs are for resupply of the station…
As one of the “evangelist” for DIRECT noted in a thread on NASAspaceflight.com…(to paraphrase but its close) “If we had DIRECT what payloads should go on it”…a product in search of a mission.
Robert G. Oler
I spent several years helping the Moon Society and eventually became its chairman. I helped run business tracks at the Space Frontier Foundation’s lunar conferences. No need to convince me that the moon has a lot to offer.
But I left the Society when I finally realized that low cost access to space was necessary for anything other than watching a few government employees planting flags. I said then and I say it now: it has absolutely zero to do with technology and hardware and absolutely everything to do with business models.
That’s why I’m out here trying to build a suborbital RLV company.
The only way to get to the moon to stay is by developing free cash flow from each and every step on the way to getting there. And yes, I think that does mean an NEO mission before you try to for the lunar surface again. But that’s the beauty of business models, there are so many to chose from. If you feel differently and can find the investors then go for it.
If you truly are a “moon firster” then your best best is GLXP teams on a SpaceX vehicle, not recreating Apollo expecting to get different results.
Just as Dracula had an aversion to sunlight and crosses, they seem to recoil at the very mention of the Moon, or any suggestions that humans ought to go back there!
Like whom? This is straw-man hyperbole. What is it about the word “first” that you have trouble understanding?
Matt Wiser wrote @ December 13th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
“Oler, Oler, Oler….the politics made sure Orion made it after CxP’s cancellation, and the politics will ensure it flies.”
Nah…politics will kill Orion as the cost escalate and the thing has no real mission…NASA is frankly helping. The genius who are managing the program have now come up with a requirement that in the case of hull penetration the capsule support “life” for 48 or something like that hours. That burden alone will drive the cost.
NASA is a moth to the flames in terms of dealing with reality…
As for exploration. Cassini is more fun then Apollo ever was. OK the spacecraft has not hit a golf ball on the Moon, but it has delivered vast amounts of knowledge about the Saturian system.
Robert G. Oler
Stephen Metschan wrote:
“My main problem with too many SpaceX supporters is that they have turned a good idea for future government contracting (ie more hands off, objectives based requirements approach for well understood/proven technologies) into a personality cult. SpaceX success is just as (if not more) achievable for experienced companies using existing paid for hardware and demonstrated processes, provided they are managed by NASA the same way as SpaceX.”
Well said.
Ferris Valyn wrote @ December 13th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
I’ll echo your response to Mr. Mellberg.
I want to go everywhere in space, and even the Moon. But going directly to the Moon ended up being a disastrous plan under Constellation, and I haven’t heard anyone articulate how we avoid the same fate with any Moon program that starts this decade – we don’t have the infrastructure to support Moon operations yet.
We barely have the infrastructure to support operations in LEO, and people like Mr. Mellberg are complaining about not having a Moon plan set in stone. Regarding what it takes to do sustained human occupation of the Moon, there are too many of the Cernan “do not yet know what they don’t know†type stuff for any current attempt. It would be the Moon version of “A Bridge Too Far”.
NASA can’t even build a launcher and capsule on budget and schedule, and “Moon First” type people think that a full-up Moon colony will happen within some sort of reasonable budget – truly cloud-cuckoo-land.
For now we need to concentrate on the basics – transportation to LEO, then add more functionality as we go. At the same time, we push out robotic explorers to get the basic exploration going, and help determine WHY we’re going to go to the Moon, and WHAT we’ll be doing there when we arrive.
All of that should keep everyone busy for the next 5 years or so, and then we can reassess things – do we have redundant and reliable crew access to LEO, do we have reliable cargo supply systems for LEO? We’ll also know if commercial companies are really setting up destinations in LEO, which will help to spread the cost basis for space travel.
People keep forgetting what Robert Heinlein said, and which is still true:
“Once you’re in orbit, you’re halfway to everywhere. All it takes is energy, and the will to go there.”
Focus on the first problems first.
Michael Mealling wrote @ December 13th, 2010 at 5:39 pm
“That’s why I’m out here trying to build a suborbital RLV company.”
Well that’s putting your money where your mouth is!
I wish you the best of luck, and I’m sure you already know how hard the road is ahead of you. But if people don’t try out their ideas, then we’d never find out which ones work.
@ Michael Mealling
How will a NEO mission generate cash flow?
To be clear, I very much agree with this:
Persuade me there will be cash flow coming from a NEO mission and I will advocate for NEO missions. But right now, I just don’t see how revenue will flow from NASA doing a NEO mission.
Robert G. Oler wrote:
“As for exploration. Cassini is more fun then Apollo ever was. OK the spacecraft has not hit a golf ball on the Moon, but it has delivered vast amounts of knowledge about the Saturian system.”
Apollo provided the firm scientific foundation to interpret much of the knowledge returned by robots from other worlds. The carefully selected rock and soil samples brought to Earth by the Apollo astronauts taught us volumes about the history of the Solar System, and they’ve enabled us to assign times to cosmic events in the distant past — events which are linked to our future. Moreover, the Apollo astronauts returned far more science in a few days than the early robots returned in many months. Granted, it was far more costly sending humans to the Moon. But the scientific return was far greater, too.
As for Cassini being “more fun than Apollo ever was” … are you serious?
I’ve marveled at Cassini’s images of the Saturnian system, as well as the remarkable images returned by Huygens at Titan. All fantastic stuff. But it certainly isn’t “more fun” than watching Neil Armstrong taking that historic first step … or seeing Dave Scott and Jim Irwin peer into Hadley Rille … or observing John Young and Charlie Duke as they worked next to House Rock … or following Gene Cernan and Jack Schmitt as they sampled the orange soil at Shorty Crater … all on live television. Most of the people I know relate more to humans exploring other worlds than to robots. Perhaps you are an exception. However, I don’t mind admitting that, like you, I’m also excited about the exploration of space via robotic means. And I wouldn’t mind seeing more of it.
Still, I don’t see how you can say Cassini is “more fun” than Apollo was … unless you think hitting golf balls on the Moon was the highlight of the Apollo Program. I’d say the hike to the rim of Cone Crater was the highlight of the Apollo 14. (The golf balls came at the end of that mission.) Rock sample 14310, retrieved from the rim of Cone Crater, gave scientists a much clearer understanding of the Moon’s past — and the Solar System’s. Of course, laying out the second ALSEP package (following the one deployed during Apollo 12) was pretty important mission highlight, as well.
Sadly, too many people equate the Apollo Program with Neil Armstrong’s first step, Al Shepard’s golf balls, Dave Scott’s hammer and feather demonstration, etc. They don’t know about (or care about) the remarkable scientific harvest of the Apollo Program. Which, perhaps, is why they have no interest in going back to the Moon.
@ Michael Mealling
IMHO, GLXP teams should also push the “co-brand with Google” meme when seeking sponsors.
For example, “Acme Corporation is proud to partner with Google to send XYZ Team to the lunar surface” – – even if Acme doesn’t give a flying fig about space exploration, being a Google partner is brand value platinum.
Maybe some GLXP teams are doing this and I just haven’t seen it.
But this is an example of making money from aspirations and inspiration rather than tangible lunar resources.
Stephen Metschan wrote @ December 13th, 2010 at 11:53 am
“SpaceX success is just as (if not more) achievable for experienced companies using existing paid for hardware and demonstrated processes, provided they are managed by NASA the same way as SpaceX.”
What you’re missing though is the price that they would have to charge. Legacy companies have legacy overhead, hence the $4.5B Lockheed Martin said it would cost to just to FINISH Orion, and that was predicated on far less NASA oversight.
What SpaceX did is certainly achievable by Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop-Grumman and many other American and non-American companies. Their trick was doing it for as little as they have.
And for me, yes I do like what SpaceX is doing and plans to do, but I also advocate for using ULA’s existing launchers, and I also cheer on Orbital Sciences as they build their Taurus II/Cygnus. So I guess it boils down to liking companies that are actually making progress on making space more accessible, and lowering the overall costs. If that makes me a fanboi, so be it.
Vladislaw wrote:
“I still believe the lunar gemstone market will be one of the first commercial operations that bring back a resource from Luna, and it will be a luxury item with no real commercial value other that it is rare and unique and that only a few can afford in the beginning.”
I must admit … that’s an interesting suggestion. We’ve already seen what some of the minute portions of Luna soil samples have sold for. And meteorites have soared in value over the past few decades. Lunar gemstones would no doubt command a good price, too.
Michael Mealling wrote @ December 13th, 2010 at 5:39 pm
The only way to get to the moon to stay is by developing free cash flow from each and every step on the way to getting there..
good luck on the Suborbital company…and the above sentence…you nailed it. Thats it period
Robert G. Oler
Seriously, if anyone has a destination up there that’s a better immediate candidate than the Moon along the path towards permanent, profitable human SETTLEMENT of space, let’s hear it.
LEO. Suborbit even.
1. But I left the Society when I finally realized that low cost access to space was necessary for anything other than watching a few government employees planting flags.
2. The only way to get to the moon to stay is by developing free cash flow from each and every step on the way to getting there.
Please listen to this man. He has just mentioned two of the most important insights in space policy. Very few people seem to really understand their significance. This goes way beyond what the Augustine panel said with their Flexible Path and even beyond what Steidle was doing and beyond what the Huntress IAA study says.
Robert G. Oler wrote @ December 13th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
“Nah…politics will kill Orion…” Politics will, in fact, save it. You vasyl underestimate the power and value of national pride.
as the cost escalate and the thing has no real mission…NASA is frankly helping. The genius who are managing the program have now come up with a requirement that in the case of hull penetration the capsule support “life†for 48 or something like that hours. That burden alone will drive the cost.
“As for exploration. Cassini is more fun then Apollo ever was…” Then you are easily amused. In fact, Voyager was much more ‘fun’ than Cassini ever could have hoped to have been as the ‘excitement of the new’- as Von Braun was gone with Cassini- bloom off the rose as it were. And neither comes close to the second-by-second moments of discovery shared by millions on television as men poked, probed and rode across the surface of the moon in those first six moon landings. The people who pay the freight; the folks whose ancestors gazed up at it from the dawn of the human species could relate in a primordial way to a fresh footprint on a pristine beachhead in the moondust– less so to a box Brownie snapping pix and radioing them back from a point of light in the sky few could find even if they tried.
Stephen Metschan wrote:
“SpaceX success is just as (if not more) achievable for experienced companies using existing paid for hardware and demonstrated processes, provided they are managed by NASA the same way as SpaceX.”
Exactly right. But they can’t and won’t be managed the same way as SpaceX. They just aren’t organized that way. End of story. That management strategy you’re wishing on “experienced companies” is, in sum, SpaceX’s big success. They did it. That’s the WHOLE POINT.
DCSCA wrote @ December 13th, 2010 at 9:02 pm
” And neither comes close to the second-by-second moments of discovery shared by millions on television as men poked, probed and rode across the surface of the moon in those first six moon landings.”
the ratings slumped after the first one, and by the time of the last one, there were almost no watchers…
sorry
Robert G. Oler
For William Mellberg: I think you’re quite right. There are those who recoil at the thought of going back to the Moon. Even though there’s still a lot to be done up there. Ed Crawley mentioned FlexPath as providing “firsts” to keep people energized and supportive (first NEO mission, first L-point mission, first Mars flyby, Martian Moons, etc.), but there are “firsts” yet to be done on the lunar surface: first landing on the farside, first landing at the poles, first woman to walk on the lunar surface, first stay of 7 days or longer, one can go on and on. And don’t forget Sample #15415 from Apollo 15 at Hadley-Appenine: The Genesis Rock. A random surface sample from a robot would never have found that rock. It took two trained eyes only a few feet away to pick it out, examine it, and know what they found. Even if they were fighter pilots turned amateur geologists.
Ferris: Provided the Administration (of whichever party is in power) provdes not only the necessary rhetorical support, but the funding, that’s great. Let’s go and get it done. Again, if wanting to go to the lunar surface first instead of an NEO is a “fetish”, then what’s considered degenerate?
Coastal Ron,
While everything you said was true, I think there is a point it misses. And that is that its not just about a realization of we need to do this destination vs that destination (and this applies to Low-cost LEO), but also an inability to recognize when that you don’t need someone saying your destination is X, if you are developing the capability to go to X.
William Mellberg wrote @ December 13th, 2010 at 6:29 pm
I was a child during Apollo…and as did most children of that era I marveled at the entire “space program” and the individuals that were the focus of it…
BUT as I grew up and grew to understand the world particularly the world of human spaceflight in the 80’s I grew less easily impressed by the notion of individual accomplishment enabled by massive group effort for a cause that really in the end had no purpose. When Challenger went “bang” at that point, having seen a few people die and of course living in a pretty dangerous world myself…it dawned on me that the entire notion of human spaceflight was an excersize that at least “then” and sadly now is accomplished for reasons which have nothing to do with human spaceflight…and over the years (and decades) my “excitement” from it faded a great deal.
When my relatives landed in the US in the early 1800’s and decided to move to what was then “Norte Mexico” (Texas)…about half of the folks who came from Germany died in the trek from the east coast to Texas…but what they died for (and what the others stayed alive for) was collective and national improvement…that really was worth the cost in both lives and treasure.
One of the realities of human spaceflight, is that there is nothing done there now that is worth either the cost in dollars much less the cost in lives..as a result my interest in the endeavor as something of value has shrunk…particularly since most of those things can be done with our uncrewed toys; perhaps not with the versatility but certainly with a value that more relates to the cost.
Robert G. Oler
Doug Lassiter wrote @ December 13th, 2010 at 9:53 pm
Rubbish. SpaceX has flown nobody.
@Robert G. Oler wrote @ December 13th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
“Nah…politics will kill Orion as the cost escalate and the thing has no real mission…NASA is frankly helping.”
Nah, SpaceX Dragon just killed Orion
Give me one simple reason why we woud be able to justify Orion now. Only a rhetorical question of course…
@Stephen Metschan wrote @ December 13th, 2010 at 11:53 am
I am sorry but your response is a little short on substance. Falcon flew, Dragon flew. Where is Jupiter? You said SpaceX is cocky, not its supporters. So how cocky is it to actually fly, twice, to orbit and reenter a capsule with full success on the first attempt, each.
You on the other hand are very proud that you think your vehicle will be the next HLV. Yet, there is no such indication it is true, no such budget and nothing flies yet. So?
I think you should meditate this http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&q=define%3A+cocky&btnG=Search
“My main problem with too many SpaceX supporters is that they have turned a good idea for future government contracting (ie more hands off, objectives based requirements approach for well understood/proven technologies) into a personality cult. SpaceX success is just as (if not more) achievable for experienced companies using existing paid for hardware and demonstrated processes, provided they are managed by NASA the same way as SpaceX.”
This whole paragraph is total nonsense. There is one experienced company doing it and it is Boeing and the CCDev manager, Keith Reiley, I believe somewhere said they would still rather use a cost-plus contract. I cannot find the link but if you bother I am sure you will find it. Now why would they rather do it with cost-plus? What do you think?
I am still baffled that you (seem to) call yourself a rocketeer and when a fellow rocketeer does an unbelievable job the only thing you say is to warn doom and gloom.
Now: Jupiter/Orion will not be. Orion will most certainly not be any longer. But you don’t have to believe me, I am sure you are much better connected than I and people already assured you that being the law of the land you’ll get to see your rocket fly.
Oh well. Sorry.
Matt Wiser
Again, my point about it being a fetish boils down to capabilities enabled by a plan. The FY2011 budget would’ve enable a number of capabilities. These capabilities all would’ve enabled lunar exploration as much as it enabled NEO exploration. As I said, they are destination agnostic.
If you and William truly feel the capabilities developed by Obama’s plan would’ve made it harder (or at least were not nearly as efficient) to return to the moon, you would’ve identified those areas, and said “Look, x capability hurts us in going back to the moon – we have no use for it, and that needs to be changed.”*
But the attacks on Obama’s plan (at least from Mr. Mellberg, and to a degree, you, although somewhat less so) haven’t been on a lack of capability developed. They’ve been on the destination. And you’ve both said that had he changed the stated destination, you would’ve supported it.
I personally don’t care about the stated – Obama could’ve endorsed the moon, or mars, or Jupiter, or Alpha Centauri, as the destination, if he offered it up with this budget. Thus, when he leaves office, hopefully in 2016 (at least IMHO, although I’d like to see him move away from the center), we’ll be much closer to whatever destination makes the most sense, because the developments the plan pushes moves us closer to all destinations.
To put the shoe on the other foot, so to speak – some of the CER studies that have been discussed, that were being developed prior to ESAS had some great ideas. Had one of them been selected (for example, I really loved the t/space one, but there were others that had some good points in them to), I would’ve been a huge proponent. Not because of the destination being selected, but by the capabilities being developed (and, FYI, capabilities isn’t limited to technologies). Additionally, my opposition to Constellation had nothing to do with the moon – it was the capabilities that it didn’t develop. Constellation could’ve been targeted at a NEO, at Mars, or something else – but that set of vehicles & rockets & funding would not enable capabilities that really enable exploration, development, and colonization.
So, when you are looking purely at the destination, without considering the capabilities that the program is developing, and will switch your support for or against a plan because of a stated destination, thats why I say someone is a Moon fetish (or a Mars fetish).
Its not a question of whether you oppose it or not – its your rational for opposition to it.
* Minor note – I will grant that FY2011 doesn’t develop a lander real quickly, but we seem to be missing a lander no matter what. And anyway, even under a moon first scenrio (regardless of the mode), the lander seems to be the last thing developed.
One last point – again, citing dictionary.com definition of fetish
I am using definitions 1 & 2, not 3
It seems with our species, that popularity is a fleeting thing. When something first appears, people flock to it. Look at TV shows. They run a few years, and then get cancelled do to a lack of interest. Sadly the Moon flights were the same. We should have none the less kept the missions going. Maybe one or two a year, and we would have a base there now. Today it is like we are starting over. Whatever mission finally gets to go, at least we will be going, and that iis the important part. We must not stay tied to this planet, or our species wont make it.
@Robert G. Oler wrote @ December 13th, 2010 at 10:36 pm
Nonsense. Best open your eyes beyond the borders of the United States. The world was watching, even if American commerical television network ‘viewership’ declined– but that doesn’t diminish the wonder. And, of course, it’s a very safe the lowest viewership numbers stateside were considerably higher than those for your own example, Cassini, — which was nil.
Ferris,
What you don’t seem to understand — and maybe you’re too young to appreciate this fact — is that for nearly four decades, people have talked and talked and talked and talked about sending humans beyond Earth orbit once again — back to the Moon and on to Mars. But it’s been all talk. There’s been one commission after another. Tom Paine put together his vision for space exploration. Sally Ride followed a decade or so later. And there have been others. Virtually every one of them described the following path:
1) Permanent Space Station in LEO
2) Permanent outpost on the Moon
3) Expeditions to (and outposts on) Mars
4) Robotic exploration of the Solar System
1 and 4 have been addressed. VSE took a look at 2 and 3. But time and again, 2 and 3 have been squashed. And some of us “fetishists” (as you so fondly, but rudely, call us) are tired of seeing one “mission to nowhere” after another. And there is no guarantee that “commercial” space will develop to the point of supporting missions BEO any time soon (i.e., in my lifetime). All of which is very frustrating.
One other thing on a more personal note …
You seem to have described yourself as a progressive based on your politics. So having been told by several people that we find your use of the term “fetishist” insulting (and rather immature, if I may say so), why don’t you respect our sensitivities and stop using that word? To some adults (myself included), the term “fetish” implies something perverse (of a sexual nature). You seem to be using the term as a slur, and I find that highly offensive. Even if you don’t find the word offensive yourself, others do. It’s almost like using an ethnic or racial slur because the word is intended to demean other people. For someone who purports to care so much about your fellow human beings, your continued use of the term “fetishist” to describe others here — despite our mild protests — suggests you really aren’t a very sensitive person. Which also implies that you might not be all that progressive, either. Bigotry is ugly no matter what form it takes.
Based on some other things you have written, I don’t think you’re a bad fellow — or a bigot. But please don’t let your enthusiasm get in the way of common decency and good manners. And please stop using the term “Moon fetish.” Call me a “Moon firster” or what have you. But not a fetishist. I don’t care what the dictionary says, I find the word highly offensive. I ask this both sincerely and politely. As I said, your use of that term is somewhat akin to a racial or ethnic slur from my perspective. Whether or not you feel that way, I do. And you really ought to respect other peoples’ sensitivities once they’ve told you how they feel.
Dennis Berube wrote @ December 14th, 2010 at 6:09 am
In today’s 500 channel media universe, a manned lunar exploration would obviously be televised via NASA Select and feed made available to any and all of the cable outlets. Speaking strictly from a television perspective, Apollo had a few bad breaks for its ‘specials.’ Sure, Apollo 11 had wall to wall coverage (or, as advertised at the time, Walter to Walter coverage by CBS News) but six months later, 12 lost its colour camera after the first 30 minutes or so and five months later 13’s landing was aborted. Essentially, there was no TV from the moon between July, ’69 and February, ’71, when 14 landed which is a long time, in TV circles, between specials, and the United States was changing quite a bit in that period as well. And the picture was still comparatively poor on 14– if you ever view it it was essentially Apollo 11 in colour. With 15, 16 and 17’s computer enhancement techniques, the television was vastly improved– and widely broadcast and viewed internationally (speaking from personal experiences in the era), if not as much in America. 15 in particular was carried by CBS during all the EVAs. It was always a source of amusement to friends overseas that Americans were smart enough to walk on the moon and dumb enough to walk away from it.
It would appear that prospects for further constructive conservation on this post are limited, so comments will now be closed. Thank you for your participation.