Last week’s Orlando Sentinel report that NASA will have to spend nearly $500 million on Ares 1 because of a provision in the FY10 appropriations act that has persisted through the series of continuing resolutions isn’t news for people in the industry, but it has attracted the attention of editorial writers at papers that ordinarily wouldn’t pay much attention to space issues. Some examples:
“A failure by Congress has locked NASA – long the symbol of American innovation and technological ingenuity – into funding a program President Obama has killed,” argued the Toledo Blade in an editorial Sunday. (While the administration sought to kill Ares 1, it was the authorization act passed by Congress that effectively did the program in.) “Thanks to congressional inaction on the 2011 budget, the future has taken a back seat to cosmic pork.”
In a brief editorial Monday, the Raleigh News and Observer also speaks out against the continued funding of the program. “‘If we can put a man on the moon …’ is a phrase invoked whenever America faces a daunting challenge. This budget foul-up is a reminder that we reached the moon because of NASA, and not because of Congress.”
“Is it too much to ask? Can our elected representatives in Washington make even a game attempt to avoid obscene wastes of taxpayer money?” asks the Buffalo News Tuesday, complaining about the continued spending on Ares 1 and taking aim in particular at Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL). The senator, the editorial argues, “called [the administration’s proposal] ‘the death march for the future of U. S. human space flight.’ In reality, the senator was probably upset about the death of a future U. S. human employment program in his home state.”
It remains to be seen, though, if any of this editorial-page outrage will translate into action by Congress to remove the offending provision or take other action on a final FY11 spending bill before the current CR expires in early March.
Of course these earnest editorialists miss the point. The root cause is the lack of leadership and the passive attitude on the part of the administration and NASA. The President had every opportunity to weigh in on the funding for his ill thought out and dysfunctional vision, but choose not to do so. Now Congress is running wild and NASA is in chaos.
Excerpt from today’s Baltimore Sun Opinion page:
Relaunch the U.S. space program — We need an ambitious, long-range plan that envisions trips to the moon, Mars and beyond
By C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger.
……………To give up our quest for the moon, Mars and beyond is not what is best for America’s space program. We need a new road map. We must commit to return to the moon through a program run by NASA in partnership with private companies that will invest in bigger, American-made engines to get us to the moon without relying on Russia. This plan must reinvigorate our space industrial base and inspire people, especially younger generations, to dream about our future in space.
As the new Congress convenes today, Republicans and Democrats can build on our progress and keep us reaching for the skies.
U.S. Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, a Democrat, has represented Maryland’s 2nd District since 2003.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-space-20110104,0,5917759.story
The root of NASA chaos was democrat inaction on the 2011 budget as well as Obama’s quixotic leadership. The editorialists would have been be wiser to comment on this and not just howl at the obvious downstream result.
@Whittington:
That’s a pretty vapid observation.
Anne Spudis wrote @ January 5th, 2011 at 7:15 am
Careful Anne you realise that some around here will now have to add Maryland to there list of villified States that only want: Pork, Pork, Pork.
“Cosmic pork” reminds me of the old Muppets Pigs in Space skits. It would be funny to do a voiceover of one of those old skits with references to Ares I and the Alabama and Utah delegations.
“The root cause is the lack of leadership and the passive attitude on the part of the administration and NASA.”
This is an idiotic and ignorant lie. Shelby inserted his Constellation earmark into the FY 2010 Omnibus Appropriations Act way back in 2009, many months before the White House decided to terminate Constellation. In fact, the White House didn’t even have the Augustine Committee report at that time Shelby inserted his earmark. Moreover, the White House decision to terminate Constellation was made in the FY 2011 budget, released in February 2010. After the decision was made, obviously the White House and NASA leadership weighed in on their opposition to continued Constellation funding (whether it was Shelby’s earmark or otherwise) when the FY 2011 budget was released, and they’ve continued to do so in multiple Statements of Administration Position ever since.
Don’t make idiotic statements out of ignorance. Learn how the US system of government works and think through the basic chronology of events before you post. If you can’t, then don’t post here and waste other people’s time with corrections.
Cripes…
Joe wrote @ January 5th, 2011 at 9:41 am
There will be howls for he calls for the Moon and for national security.
“… as well as Obama’s quixotic leadership. The editorialists would have been be wiser to comment on this and not just howl at the obvious downstream result.”
How is the President’s leadership, quixotic or otherwise, responsible for a Senator’s earmark? The Executive Branch doesn’t write legislation, earmarks or otherwise — the Legislative Branch does. Evidence of a basic understanding of constitutional separation of powers is utterly lacking in your argument.
And how is the President responsible for an earmark on a program that was made the year before the White House decided to terminate that same program? The willful ignorance of the chronology of events and logical cause-and-effect in your argument in an attempt to apportion blame where it does not belong is weird and goofy.
As someone who adheres to certain conservative values, I find it utterly stupid or appallingly hypocritical that the most conservative posters on this board apparently havn’t read, don’t understand, or conveniently ignore the Constitution, and, moreover, point the blame finger in the wrong direction and don’t apportion responsibility for earmarks and other bad acts where they belong.
Holy hypocrisy, Batman.
Anne, I honestly don’t think that Rep. Ruppersberger’s op-ed was very well written. It conflates national security and commercial satellite development with human space flight and implies, whether through omission or deliberate dishonesty, that the Obama Administration proposed the termination of the Constellation Program with nothing to come after it. There’s also no mention of the compromise plan set forth in the 2010 Authorization Act.
He is also very clearly unaware of the “sunk costs” fallacy, as he never even entertains the notion that additional expenditures past the $11.5 billion spent already might be throwing good money after bad. Someone should also inform Rep. Ruppersberger that Soyuz has been the primary crew exchange vehicle for ISS Expeditions from the beginning. The Shuttle was primarily used for cargo and module delivery, not crew transfers.
The fact that Soyuz will become our only crew transfer option was set in motion because of the Constellation Program he sees as such a critical “investment.” Though I agree with his conclusion about the necessity of strong public-private partnerships, this op-ed simply doesn’t tell the whole story.
How is the President’s leadership, quixotic or otherwise, responsible for a Senator’s earmark?
In this case the earmark was inserted by Senator Shelby because he did not trust Obama’s Machiavellian NASA leadership team to implement the wishes of the Senate through discretionary spending. The radicals that now lead NASA were hand picked by him. He is responsible for their actions. Cavalier disregard of the wishes of congress and abuse of executive powers is a hallmark of this administration. So congress does what it can through earmarks. Along with HHS, EPA, etc., NASA is just another rogue agency.
“In this case the earmark was inserted by Senator Shelby because he did not trust Obama’s Machiavellian NASA leadership team to implement the wishes of the Senate through discretionary spending.”
This sentence is gibberish.
First, the Executive Branch doesn’t “implement the wishes of the Senate”. The Executive Branch executes laws as passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President. Our system of government is a representative democracy with carefully balanced separation of powers. It’s not an oligarchy designed to cater to the whims of senators.
Second, claiming that the White House tried to circumvent Congress by directing mandatory spending to NASA is goofy as heck. NASA is a discretionary agency, and it can only be funded through annual appropriations bills written by Congress and signed into law by the President. There is no law that provides NASA with mandatory spending powers. NASA can only be funded via discretionary spending.
“The radicals that now lead NASA were hand picked by him.”
And confirmed by the Senate.
What foreign country are you from? Don’t you know anything about how the US federal government works?
Please, please read a secondary school civics textbook before you post again.
Oy vey…
Justin Kugler wrote @ January 5th, 2011 at 10:06 am
So you believe that Rep. Ruppersberger is unaware and uninformed but you agree with the conclusion of, as you describe it, a not well written op-ed piece.
Did I understand you?
“I honestly don’t think that Rep. Ruppersberger’s op-ed was very well written. It conflates national security and commercial satellite development with human space flight and implies, whether through omission or deliberate dishonesty, that the Obama Administration proposed the termination of the Constellation Program with nothing to come after it. There’s also no mention of the compromise plan set forth in the 2010 Authorization Act.
He is also very clearly unaware of the “sunk costs†fallacy, as he never even entertains the notion that additional expenditures past the $11.5 billion spent already might be throwing good money after bad. Someone should also inform Rep. Ruppersberger that Soyuz has been the primary crew exchange vehicle for ISS Expeditions from the beginning. The Shuttle was primarily used for cargo and module delivery, not crew transfers.
The fact that Soyuz will become our only crew transfer option was set in motion because of the Constellation Program he sees as such a critical “investment.†Though I agree with his conclusion about the necessity of strong public-private partnerships, this op-ed simply doesn’t tell the whole story.”
Seconded. This is a very good analysis of the editorial that bears repeating.
FWIW…
I know I shouldn’t feed the internet trollz, but seriously Mark? Could you let us know what planet it is that you live on? The president chose not to weigh in on the funding for his vision? So that little trip down to KSC was like what, a sightseeing tour? As little as I like the rest of his politics, Obama appears to have been more involved in trying to give NASA a realistic vision than any other president in my lifetime.
~Jon
Mark R. Whittington wrote @ January 5th, 2011 at 7:14 am
“Of course these earnest editorialists miss the point. The root cause is the lack of leadership and the passive attitude on the part of the administration and NASA. ”
goofy…
the root cause of the problem…meaning why is the US spending money on a rocket launch system it will never use…is the GOP pork machine.
The joy of the next year is for me going to watch the GOP House try and live up to its billing…and when it doesnt the firing squad that develops.
Mark you are consumed by Bush the last admiration and Obama hate…you use to do better.
Robert G. Oler
See no Moon, hear no Moon, speak no Moon.
Man, that op-ed is a godawful incoherent mess.
Just finished your post Rand, a good run down. When I read Dutch’s article he lost me after this:
“We must commit to return to the moon through a program run by NASA”
NASA has only shown us how to do a program that is over schedule, over budget and unsustainable. If he would have implied that commercial would take the lead and NASA would be there making sure they succeed I would have had a lot more faith it might actually happen.
What’s a “godawful incoherent mess” is a space policy that should have retired the shuttle 20 years ago in favor of a more flexible, modular archetecture that could do both LEO and BEO missions. Blame a total lack of imagination & foresight by all parties involved.
@ Major Tom wrote @ January 5th, 2011 at 9:56 am
“As someone who adheres to certain conservative values, I find it utterly stupid or appallingly hypocritical that the most conservative posters on this board apparently havn’t read, don’t understand, or conveniently ignore the Constitution, and, moreover, point the blame finger in the wrong direction and don’t apportion responsibility for earmarks and other bad acts where they belong.”
I sincerely don’t envy you since “your” political party seems to be hijacked by the enlightened ones who don’t have a hint of conservative “values” in their bodies and minds. It makes me fret when some one refers to “conservative values” nowadays because the said values advocated by the most vociferous ones are full with ignorance at all levels of anything they talk about. On the other hand I myself tend to have more social values (insofar as they can be opposed to “conservative values”?) and the way they are represented by the Democratic Party makes me shiver.
Whatever happened to rational people? Why can’t we have a rational conversation about how we should go forward? Is it an “evolution” problem?
Oh well…
Part of leadership is understanding the dynamic effects that any decision you make will have on the current situation. That is a big damn part of leadership actually. Everyone in the administration was aware that the Constellation program was law and that Senator Shelby’s language was already in place. The proposed cancellation of the Constellation program was rolled out in Feb 2010 along with the proposed FY 2011 budget. It was an enormous shift in direction for the countries space program. That made it unpopular for those in traditional space states. It was also a budget that was going to be unpopular amongst fiscal conservatives in blue and in red. It was a flat out unpopular budged that didn’t pass and when it finally does it won’t be anywhere near the start of the fiscal year. With the large increase in fiscal conservatives now in congress it will also not pass in a form anywhere near the original. Is that good or bad? That is up to your political opinion, but it is certainty not what the administration wanted. As a leader of the American political machine you should be aware of the moving parts inside that machine and what will happen when you start kicking it. This is nothing short of a colossal breakdown in the system that originated with the leader of that system. Senator Shelby is NOT the leader of that system.
@ Major Tom wrote @ January 5th, 2011 at 9:56 am
See Major Tom the excerpt from Matt above:
“It was also a budget that was going to be unpopular amongst fiscal conservatives in blue and in red. It was a flat out unpopular budged that didn’t pass and when it finally does it won’t be anywhere near the start of the fiscal year.”
A budget that tries to reduce the expense of space exploration would be unpopular with “fiscal conservatives”? Whatever that means, right?
Oh well…
Anne, I was trying to give credit where I thought it was due regarding an otherwise lackluster op-ed. Somehow, Ruppersberger failed to make the connection that the kinds of reforms he advocated in the national security space arena are in much the same vein as what the FY2011 budget proposal tried to do for NASA.
Please don’t play word games with me. I have a great deal of respect for Paul and think he has some good ideas for the technical aspects of lunar exploration. Your overly-strident response to any criticism, though, does him a disservice.
Thank you for the lecture Justin.
“This is nothing short of a colossal breakdown in the system that originated with the leader of that system.”
If by “leader of that system”, you mean the President, that’s simply not true. Shelby inserted his earmark into the FY 2010 Omnibus Appropriations Act the year before the White House released its FY 2011 NASA budget request that proposed terminating Constellation. This “colossal breakdown… originated” with Shelby’s earmark, which precedes the President’s decision.
Maybe you’re from a foreign country, but here in the United States, we don’t live under a dictatorship. Out President does not control what our Congress writes into legislation, especially after the legislation has already passed into law.
And to argue that the White House should make multi-ten billion dollar proposals to Congress that could determine the future of the nation’s civil human space flight program for years to come based on one legislator’s earmark is equally goofy. We don’t live in an oligarchy where a few Senators determine the fate of the nation.
C’mon, folks…
The Ares I mandate was far from irrational or a “foulup”. It worked exactly as its proponents intended – they will get their money. Congress doesn’t care whether anything useful ever comes out of it or not. Why do you think they funded NASP for three years? There’s probably someone in an out-of-the-way corner of MSFC still getting money from the X-33 program.
“I sincerely don’t envy you since “your†political party…”
Just to be clear, although I hold some conservative values with respect to things like personal responsibility, free markets, and fiscal discipline, I’ve never registered Republican (or Democrat). In other areas, I’d call myself a liberal.
What I find sickening is posters who pretend to espouse very conservative viewpoints, but who refuse to assign responsibility for actions to those politicians who undertook those actions; who prefer to protect inefficient government programs when competitive, market-based solutions exist and are more effective; and who would prefer to spend tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to deliver a capability or service when there are proven paths for delivering the same thing for single billions or even hundreds of millions of dollars. It’s the height of hypocrisy.
FWIW…
“We don’t live in an oligarchy where a few Senators determine the fate of the nation.”
Maybe not but it really feels that way at times…
Oh well…
“See no Moon, hear no Moon, speak no Moon”
“Thank you for the lecture Justin.”
Mr. Kugler provided a polite, intelligent critique of an editorial that you didn’t even write — twice. Why can’t you either accept his constructive criticism or politely respond with something more thoughtful than juvenile taunts?
Lawdy…
@ Major Tom wrote @ January 5th, 2011 at 1:43 pm
Same as you: Not registered either way. I would call myself a liberal first though but as a pragmatist I (try to) choose the “best” solution to a problem, political or otherwise.
Jonathan Goff wrote @ January 5th, 2011 at 11:46 am
“So that little trip down to KSC was like what, a sightseeing tour? As little as I like the rest of his politics, Obama appears to have been more involved in trying to give NASA a realistic vision than any other president in my lifetime.â€
Sorry Jon, but Bush also made a single speech to address his new space policy (and did it before the policy got into political trouble). I do not see him getting a lot of credit around here for it.
Additionally according to news accounts at the time Obama spent more time at Gloria Estefan’s house for a fund raiser than he did at KSC.
Just saying.
@Major Tom:
It’s also the height of an extraordinarily dramatic, overactive imagination.
Joe wrote:
“Sorry Jon, but Bush also made a single speech to address his new space policy (and did it before the policy got into political trouble). I do not see him getting a lot of credit around here for it.”
I believe you may be mistaken, very few had problems with the VSE, and I would be willing to bet a majority viewed it very postively. I think Robert Oler was one of the few that was against it from the onset because he didnt believe it would get excuted.
My problem was never with the VSE as put forward by President Bush. It basically said NASA was going to be out of the launch business, something I have been advocating for ever, and switch to commercial services.
If you really look hard at the VSE and what it called for you will find that the budget President Obama proposed for 2011 was basically funding the VSE. Some here believe that the VSE was all about a moon first program. I think that was actually the smaller part, for me it was a technology program to try and build the tools needed for a more sustainable push BEO.
Anne Spudis wrote @ January 5th, 2011 at 11:55 am
“See no Moon, hear no Moon, speak no Moon.”
As usual for you, if the Moon is not first on the list, you interpret that it must be last. This of course is not only wrong, it’s not what anyone has been advocating.
I think part of this perception problem also happens because there are many reasons to go to the Moon.
– Certainly many scientists would love to explore and learn about the makeup and history of the Moon, and use that to increase our overall knowledge of our origins. Apollo did some of this.
– Then there are those that see the resources of the Moon, and want to make use of them somehow, whether for building or supporting lunar occupation, or to supply on-going space operations. The Spudis family seems to be in this camp.
– Others see the Moon as a place to either live or visit.
– And then there is Marcel F. Williams, who wants to turn the Moon into a military outpost. I think we’re all glad he’s not the President…
Looking at it in this way helps me to understand where the money will come from to do these things.
Exploration, at least initially, will likely be the realm of governments, since the knowledge gained doesn’t necessarily have a quantifiable value.
Exploitation has a lot of potential funding sources depending on who the customers could be. If a government sets up operation on the Moon, then supplying part of it’s needs locally may be more cost effective. The same could be true for supplying in-space operations where it’s easier/cheaper to source from the Moon than from Earth or wherever.
For living or visiting, this will likely come as an outgrowth of the exploration and exploitation activities, plus the eventual tourism.
The hard part in all of this is getting the spending going, and keeping a stream of spending going that supports the needed support, and encourages other economic activity to expand or start up.
And this is the whole crux of the Moon debate – who pays for it? I don’t think our government can afford to sustain funding for a permanent level of activity on the Moon, and so far there are no profitable business models for the private sector to fund such an operation.
Instead, I see the Moon becoming ever closer as we expand our level of capabilities in and beyond LEO. At some point, the Moon will no longer become a hard to reach place, but one that is small extension of our existing capabilities. But until we reach that point, grandiose plans are a recipe for wasting money (certainly a lesson Constellation has taught us).
My $0.02
Vladislaw wrote @ January 5th, 2011 at 2:39 pm
The point is not whether or not you, I, or anyone else supports VSE, Constellation, or Obama Space.
The point was a comparison of Bush’s halfhearted effort to support his new policy to Obama’s (what shall we call it?) quarter hearted effort to support his.
From what I could “grok” of Dutch’s op-ed is that it’s just a rhetorical mish-mash of political horse-manure to feed constituents who could barely understand what actual space policy is about, i.e., negative talking points that have been standard fare for about a year now.
He, and other political partisans seeking rent should get better aides who know at least some space policy, not ignorant punditry.
“It’s also the height of an extraordinarily dramatic, overactive imagination.”
How? Specifically?
Show me in the Constitution where it says that the White House is responsible for Senators’ earmarks.
Show me the evidence that the government-designed, largely sole-sourced Ares I/Orion solution to ETO transport has been more effective than the market-oriented, competed COTS approach.
Show me how a $278 million award that has resulted in two successful tests of a new launch vehicle and the successful test of a new orbital reentry capsule is more costly than a Constellation program that has spent over $10 billion to date and achieved neither of those results.
If this is all just a figment of my dramatic imagination, then you must have reams and reams of real-world evidence, references, and links to the contrary.
[rolls eyes]
Sigh…
My hope is that the attention the media is starting to give to this issue will cause the new Republican controlled House to act in a way that coincides with their so called “core values” in fear of a backlash from the people who voted for them for those reasons. What I mean by this is less wasteful spending and more faith in the private sector to reduce costs and do things more effectively than a government run program.
In my opinion, I hope they stop more than just the continued spending on “zombie” constellation, I hope they cancel (or at least delay) the HLV altogether. Let’s invest that money instead into CCCDev and R&D. I’m even willing to accept an overall budget cut if the money left over can be appropriated in this fashion. Republicans truly seeking to reduce government spending should be able to see the merit in this.
After a couple of years, when the current act has one year left to expire and the next presidential term (whoever it might be) has started, we can reassess the situation. By then it should be clear if commercial can fill our LEO needs and we can focus more clearly on the goals that lie beyond. Having had two extra years of research into alternatives/improvements to current systems we will be better able to define a mission and the best way to achieve it.
And I’m not saying we have to start building an HLV then, we could push it even further if I had my way. If we accept the very loose goal of going to a near earth asteroid in about 2025 we don’t even need to start building the system in 2014, we can give ourselves a little bit more time, but not too much or else the cost/year isn’t distributed enough, assuming we keep to the same target date which there is no reason we have to.
Less Pork + Less Politics = More Progress
@ Joe wrote @ January 5th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
“Sorry Jon, but Bush also made a single speech to address his new space policy (and did it before the policy got into political trouble). I do not see him getting a lot of credit around here for it.”
It’s because you haven’t been around here long enough. But some will dwelve on the past and others try to go forward. Where do you stand?
“Additionally according to news accounts at the time Obama spent more time at Gloria Estefan’s house for a fund raiser than he did at KSC.”
Oh wow, that really reflects what this WH thinks of NASA and space in general. I forgot KSC is the center of the world.
Oh well…
“Sorry Jon, but Bush also made a single speech to address his new space policy (and did it before the policy got into political trouble). I do not see him getting a lot of credit around here for it.”
The Bush II Administration deserves a lot of credit for formulating the VSE. It was a good policy and plan. It was the follow-through and oversight, especially after O’Keefe left, that was lacking. The Obama Administration may fall prey to the same problem. We’ll probably get our first indication when the FY12 budget is rolled out.
“Additionally according to news accounts at the time Obama spent more time at Gloria Estefan’s house for a fund raiser than he did at KSC.”
Uselessly goofy.
One could also argue that President Obama dedicated hours travelling all the way to Florida to make his NASA policy speech while Presidnet Bush was too lazy to do anything more than ride in a limo across town to make his speech from NASA Headquarters.
Or one could argue that President Obama wasted hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars travelling all the way to Florida when he could have just made his speech from the Rose Garden at no cost.
This is idiotic playground prattle. It has nothing to do with any substantive changes in national space policy, legislation, or programs.
Major Tom wrote @ January 5th, 2011 at 1:57 pm
If I may offer you advice sir, in the same spirit you have offered some to me, your comments lack brevity. And, almost without fail, your posts end as if you have taken a low bow before you exhale from exhaustion.
“It was a flat out unpopular budged that didn’t pass and when it finally does it won’t be anywhere near the start of the fiscal year.”
The NASA portion DID pass in authorization which is settled law. Appropriations may, and probably will, adjust that in one way or another, but a grand rewrite would require repeal at this point. They aren’t ‘authorized’ to rewrite it.
“This is nothing short of a colossal breakdown in the system that originated with the leader of that system. Senator Shelby is NOT the leader of that system.”
I think the president should have expected congress to have picked one way or another and not fund a path that it had authorized the cancellation of. That congress would cancel the program in written law, but throw half a billion dollars at its corpse could not have been anticipated by Obama or anyone else. Every president since Washington expected that their proposals would be either accepted or rejected. I highly doubt Lincoln thought to himself “huh, I wonder if congress will free the slaves but not pay for the programs necessary to carry it out”.
Frankly, I doubt it was planned. I think this is more of a case of congress getting caught with its pants down. They took a hard-line stand on Appropriations to make a grand point about saving money, without realizing they were wasting $500,000,000 to make that point. I actually admire their stand, at least in pure detached principle. But when the rubber hits the road, it doesn’t quite work as nicely as they had hoped.
common sense wrote @ January 5th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
“Whatever happened to rational people?”
for many people “rational” has checked itself at the door of partisan politics.
While Rand Simberg and I disagree on a lot of things (mainly Rand seems to be upset that I call him a right winger) …what at least in space politics and policy Rand has not let his “conservative” (I’ll be kind here) partisanship get in the way of the reality of what is happening and has happened in space policy.
If you read Rands web site (as I do) or say Whittington’s (as I do) both Rand and Mark W agree on a lot of things “Obama”…but at the very least Simberg has stayed pretty much consistent with the values he has held in space politics for as long as I have known a “Rand Simberg” exist.
Indeed in the late 80’s early 90’s as the space station was gasping along I would go so far as to say (and Rich Kolker will back this up) I was heavily influenced by Rand’s thinking and his logic. He has carried this on through his notion of fuel depots etc.
One morning while Rich Kolker (and he post here and since I am up he probably is since he is just a few countries over) and I were biking back in Houston Rand’s name came up in the conversation as we were talking about the space station and my line was something like “Sadly I cannot support this thing anymore either”.
Not so much with Mark. Mark has clearly morphed his space politics to conform to his partisan politics. Mark is on record in print as supporting exactly the program that Obama has today in an article that I wrote, Rich edited AND MARK ASKED TO HAVE HIS NAME PUT ON and got a check for, from The Weekly Standard.
But Mark was a die hard Bush supporter, much as he is a Palin one because (I think) of the notion that they push out of American power and strength (read his support of Palin’s goofy Iran policy and its pretty clear he is not dealing from a rational position)…and everything Obama does is evil. That is why he is blaming Obama for the curious behavior of Republican Senators and Congressmen.
Many…most space activist see human spaceflight as some extention of “American uber allis” (spell sorry) and just as they see using the military dont really care that their notions make much sense.
Hence the support for Paul S’s goofy plan to spend 88-100 billion plus to get something that can be had for 1-2 billion from earth. Its not rational, its not even explanable..it just fits in with their notion of “America the Great”.
One cannot have a rational discussion with them…one can only point out where they are wrong.
Robert G. Oler
Major Tom wrote @ January 5th, 2011 at 1:57 pm
I have a great deal of respect for Paul and think he has some good ideas for the technical aspects of lunar exploration. Your overly-strident response to any criticism, though, does him a disservice.
Hear hear!
Snark and sarcasm rarely convinces people to join your team. Nor does telling people who disagree with something in Dr. Spudis’ proposal that they either didn’t read it, didn’t read it with comprehension, or should go and read it over and over again until they finally come to agree with YOUR opinion of the matter.
Tiresome.
Sorry, the quote was from Justin Kugler, although MT’s response was valid too.
Coastal Ron wrote @ January 5th, 2011 at 3:07 pm
You might find the information just posted here interesting.
http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/2011/01/regolith-the-%E2%80%9Cother%E2%80%9D-lunar-resource/
One other thing Coastal Ron, people don’t have to be put into camps. There are many people who want to return for the Moon because they see there are many valuable reasons to do so.
@Anne Spudis wrote @ January 5th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
“There are many people who want to return for the Moon because they see there are many valuable reasons to do so.”
Yeah well there are maybe more people who don’t see it that way. Or we would already be on the Moon! Is that logic or spinning?
Joe wrote:
“The point is not whether or not you, I, or anyone else supports VSE, Constellation, or Obama Space.
The point was a comparison of Bush’s halfhearted effort to support his new policy to Obama’s (what shall we call it?) quarter hearted effort to support his.”
First, why isn’t the VSE called BushSpace by you? I have noticed that with the current President if he does something his name is tagged to it, but I find it hard to recall where that same attachment is made by any other president in the history of the republic. Do you call it “Obamaspace” as a negative or a positive?
Second, I have found that there is a direct relationship to the size of spending and how many Presidential speeches it gets. NASA spending is pretty much a rounding error in our 3.4 trillion dollar federal budget. How many speeches have been made about space, by past Presidents, per term? Nixon, 2? Ford 0?, Carter 1?, Reagan 2?, Bush 1?, Clinton 2? Bush 2? Obama 1?
Generally it seems they make one speech unless there is an accident then there is 2?
So the notion that President Obama didn’t burn up the airwaves over 10 billion in human spaceflight funding is hardly a surprise. I don’t believe the United States has ever really had a truely pro space President and that would include President Kennedy. Since JFK it is more likely to be space as an after thought to how to get the votes from the space states type of President.
So although a President might come up with a great National space policy position, for me it is Reagan, Bush II, Obama, the follow through is everything and no President has ever really been about that aspect after the announcement of what the space policy will be.
common sense wrote @ January 5th, 2011 at 3:14 pm
“It’s because you haven’t been around here long enough. But some will dwelve on the past and others try to go forward. Where do you stand?â€
Jon’s post referred to history. Including the statement “So that little trip down to KSC was like what, a sightseeing tour? As little as I like the rest of his politics, Obama appears to have been more involved in trying to give NASA a realistic vision than any other president in my lifetime.†I merely took a moment (politely I think) to disagree that Obama has shown any real interest in his space policy. The speech was made only after the policy began causing political problems for him (in Florida), was made in Florida (a swing state) for political reasons and appears to have been timed to coincide with a fund raising trip on which more effort was clearly expended.
If Bush made only a halfhearted attempt to support his policy, then Obama’s could hardly qualify as more than quarter hearted.
As far as who is forward looking and who is backward looking, I have now spent far more time responding to comments to the original post (including yours) than I did on the original post.
It has begun. The whirling durbish wielding a budget ax is starting to shred at the edges and buffet long term planning. Congress will have to make the hard choices. NASA’s only real chance for surviving the fiscal bloodbath to come is to have it become a ‘wholly owned subsidiary’ of the DoD. The future of America’s HSF program through the Age of Austerity rests with one project- developing a GP manned spacecraft for the 21st century and getting its base-block design flying a top existing LVs through the lean times. Get Orion flying. Everything else is ripe for pruning by the big, bad budget axe.
Anne Spudis wrote @ January 5th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
“…people don’t have to be put into camps. There are many people who want to return for the Moon because they see there are many valuable reasons to do so.”
And there are many valuable reasons to go to Mars and NEO’s, but I don’t see you out there advocating for that, so that makes you appear to be in the “Moon” camp.
For me, I’m in the “whatever we can do on a sustainable basis” camp.
The Moon has it’s list of good (water, gravity, etc.) and bad (gravity, no atmosphere, etc.), and it’s on the To-Do list, but it’s also too far away right now. We’ll get there, hopefully to stay, but we’re not ready yet.
Oh, and no need to keep providing me links to Paul’s articles – I know how to find his writings if I need them, and you don’t want to be accused on link farming…
I am glad to see the public outrage on this growing. When they learn how NASA has failed to handle the impact hazard, they are likely to become furious. The villagers with lit torches are approaching the castle, sire! Perhaps a trial for Griffin for his contempt of Congress for his response to the George Brown Jr ammendment may be on its way. Gather the rope and prepare the gallows!
I’d particularely like to thank Doug Lassiter for pointing out the following. It appearss that Ares 1 and Ares 5 are dead.
IMO it would be prudent to have the 70 ton Direct on hand for the 2022 pass of Comet SW3.
DL pointed out:
“This has probably been addressed before, but how is it that a “protection clause†for Constellation, in an FY10 appropriations act, can extend beyond FY10? That is, the bill language, as passed to public law, said “none of the funds provided herein and from prior years that remain available for obligation during fiscal year 2010 shall be available for the termination or elimination of any program, project or activity of the architecture for the Constellation programâ€. But the funds provided from the continuing resolution are not those provided “herein†in the FY10 appropriations bill. These are additional funds tacked on later.
In particular, the 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act, which bundled Transp.-HUD, CJS, Financial Services, Labor-HHS, MilCon-VA, and State-ForOps appropriations did not call out specific expenditures for Constellation. Where it was called out was in the summary funding listed in the Conference Report which, after all, is not public law. That is, the Act itself, as passed into public law, doesn’t seem to specify expenditure on Constellation.
(In short, the 130 ton HLV requirement did not become law. But it can be handled by Direct anyhow.)
I guess this is an arcane legal point of continuing resolution that has already been settled by NASA LegAff and Legal, but I’ve never heard the point discussed. It’s remarkable how bill language in one year can end up hijacking policy well beyond that year. Maybe someone can elucidate.”
ATK has enough money to cause a lot of confusion, and perception is important. Look how many of us were taken in by press releases which mistated passed law.
Vladislaw wrote @ January 5th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
“First, why isn’t the VSE called BushSpace by you?â€
Because as far as I know, nobody else ever called it that either.
“Do you call it “Obamaspace†as a negative or a positive?â€
I call it Obama Space because that is what it has been called in the general news media. For better or worse the term is better known than VSE or Constellation Systems.
“How many speeches have been made about space, by past Presidents, per term? Nixon, 2? Ford 0?, Carter 1?, Reagan 2?, Bush 1?, Clinton 2? Bush 2? Obama 1?â€
I have no idea and you are missing the point.
My original post was responding to Jon, who had used the speech as a point of evidence of Obama caring about his policy (and before somebody tries to turn this into a flame war between me and Jon, he may have other evidence for all I know, but that is what he presented in the particular post to which I was responding).
I now intned to take “common sense” sensible advice and look to the future.
Anne Spudis wrote @ January 5th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
“One other thing Coastal Ron, people don’t have to be put into camps. There are many people who want to return for the Moon because they see there are many valuable reasons to do so.”
thats goofy
first people are in camps as least ideologically.
You certainly are in one. YOu and Paul and others are banging the drum for a space policy (return to the Moon).
The problem is that none of you can comeup with a compelling reason that is anywhere worth the cost. Going to the Moon for over 100 billion dollars to pull out 2 billion dollars worth of resources…is no reason at all.
Robert G. Oler
@Coastal Ron:
Name one.
Must be as lonely as being in the “against murdering small children” camp.
And in the running of most favorable destinations the country’s space policy should target, the Moon is the clear winner in all those categories.
Too far away? You talk like man has never been there before.
Says who?
@ Joe wrote @ January 5th, 2011 at 4:51 pm
” I have now spent far more time responding to comments to the original post (including yours) than I did on the original post.”
Hey no one forces you to post here or to answer any one. Do as you please. You want, or not, to be part of the conversation. You like it, or not, is your own choice. Just try and not put words in other’s people mouth, i.e. the VSE being good or bad.
common sense wrote @ January 5th, 2011 at 7:14 pm
“Hey no one forces you to post here or to answer any one.â€
Yeah, I know I am just a Masochist.
“Just try and not put words in other’s people mouth, i.e. the VSE being good or bad.â€
Since I never said anything about VSE being good or bad, I have no idea what you are talking about.
“I call it Obama Space because that is what it has been called in the general news media.”
What “general” network or cable news shows? What “general” newspapers or magazines? Where? When?
“For better or worse the term is better known than VSE or Constellation Systems.”
Why would anyone with half a brain use the term “Constellation Systems” for a White House proposal to terminate the Constellation Program?
Robert G. Oler wrote @ January 5th, 2011 at 6:31 pm
This argument can also be applied to ISS, COTS & CCDEV
What is the compelling reason for the American taxpayer to spend a single penny on human spaceflight?
I have a few reasons but they would not withstand utilitarian scrutiny.
Common Sense,
I raise my glass to you.
I want I show of hands from the most vociferous of posters — How many of you actually work @NASA & have been involved in decision making on a large scale?
Presley Cannady wrote @ January 5th, 2011 at 6:54 pm
Do you ever pen anything of substance? Your responses to Coastal Ron’s points are pure “cuteness” and have no substance. You and “Joe” might as well be the same person, with your “non-answers” and bad habit of dodging reality.
Either answer, counter, or argue. But please don’t waste everyone’s time with cute pablum.
Presley Cannady wrote @ January 5th, 2011 at 6:54 pm
“Name one.”
Water
“Must be as lonely as being in the “against murdering small children†camp.”
You’d think, but amazingly enough, not everybody is in our camp. Hence this debate.
“And in the running of most favorable destinations the country’s space policy should target, the Moon is the clear winner in all those categories.”
It depends on what your goals are. If you want to demonstrate the ability to operate beyond the Earth-Moon system, then no, the Moon is not the place. If you want to demonstrate a variety of skills on an airless body that has significant gravity, then the Moon is the closest candidate.
“Too far away? You talk like man has never been there before.”
Physical distance is not the only measure. One of my favorite books on World War II is called “A Bridge Too Far”, and the moral of that story was that it wasn’t the distance that was the problem, but the effort to go that distance.
So in this case it’s too far away for the effort and money we have been willing to expend on space since Apollo.
“Says who?”
Uh, the only people that matter – the citizens of the United States of America. Have they been clamoring for us to return to the Moon during these past 40 years?
We have been to the Moon before, so it’s not new. All you and Anne are talking about is expanding on what we’ve done, and starting the exploitation of the Moon. Talking about digging up and processing tons of regolith is not a popular topic at the parties I attend, and I suspect that is true around the country. Maybe you need to organize a march on Washington…
@ Joe wrote @ January 5th, 2011 at 8:09 pm
Indeed my words. Your words below and my interpretation. Welcome to heated debate about space.
@ Joe wrote @ January 5th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
“Sorry Jon, but Bush also made a single speech to address his new space policy (and did it before the policy got into political trouble). I do not see him getting a lot of credit around here for it.â€
“I don’t believe the United States has ever really had a truely pro space President and that would include President Kennedy.”
Lyndon Johnson might deserve the title.
And we can wonder what might have been if Hillary Clinton had made it, being (at the least) the most pro-space of those running that year.
Presley Cannady wrote @ January 5th, 2011 at 6:54 pm
@Coastal Ron:
And there are many valuable reasons to go to Mars and NEO’s…
you replied
Name one…
……………………….\
the reasons to go to an NEA or Mars or Titan or Mercury are about the same as going to the Moon….ie
there is not one reason or aggregate of reasons that have value for the cost involved in the technology both to get there and stay there…
so what folks like you do is summon up a lot of reasons that have no set value…national pride, we are pushing humanity forward etc…and while those dogs might hunt in an era of surplus budgets the Bush era economics have killed that.
Plus to be kind, its pretty one dimensional thinking. It is applying cold war logic to a new era.
What we need to do is develop a space infrastructure that has as part of it something that humans do that on its face has value. That might not be possible in human spaceflight; it certainly is in submarines…if it were not for the requirement of the military there would be no “serious” submarines…but I am an optimist and think that there are probably things humans can do in space (and on orbit) that if the price to keep them there comes down, can justify their cost.
Robert G. Oler
The problem with the “Mars/Moon/somewhere else” debate is that it simply ignores the evidence of the past 50 years and particularly that of the post Apollo era.
The argument of a “destination” presupposes that the US in particular will spend a certain amount on human spaceflight “no matter what”. While that debate was ok duing the Clinton era surpluses (and had they continued it might be a useful debate now) the reality of the Bush the last years and the first two years of Obama is that spending is going to go down, not up…unless that spending can justify itself on some concrete term, something more then wealth transfer to create jobs…but on what those jobs actually accomplish…it is not a given that this spending will be there.
Second such a notion limits whatever is done “to that spending” and hence the results will always be far short of what most space advocates want.
The basis of the Obama policy is that it starts to create the foundation for an effort by US industry and perhaps even government agencies whose “organization” is not simply space…to find some rationale for humans in space…some contribution that they can have that is near the cost (or perhaps above it) of having humans in space.
And if that can be found, then at some point the dollars to support the technology of humans in space will become self sustaining as will the cycle of lowering the cost to operate in space.
In another thread someone mentioned to me that the cost of transatlantic flight today was actually higher then the cost of transatlantic passage in the past…
That is just simply wrong. The cost of Delta (or Gulfstream) first class is clearly quite high, but the cost for average transportation across the Atlantic and the safety of it…has lowered and improved respectively over the last couple of centuries…
why? the technology of that transportation (by all means both surface ship and air) has been found to itself be useful in the commerce of nations.
It is clear to me that there is no technological bullet which is going to drop the cost in one level from the space shuttle to something that is “affordable” in terms of “average people”…but there are some cost savings that in my view are clear which can be had by cutting away the stiflling NASA bureacracy and settling on a structure of HSF which is more like aviation and less like NASA’s goofy image of itself.
That alone should open up the door to the first serious round of cost reduction…and the first lowering of what on the compuserve Space Forum I use to call “the launch bar”.
To argue over a destination is ridiculous. There is no political will for that entitlement in the US other then as pork…and it is bad policy as well because it makes the future like the past.
There is a tendency to do that. The folks who support Cx and a lunar goal are generally (if you look at their web postings) caught in the ideological thinking of that past. Whittington for instance on his blog never lets a day go by where he is not banging the drum about how the Chinese are getting ready to take us on militarily (his current fancy is that they are coming up with a stealth fighter…goofy)…or trying to justify the old sort of thinking that got us into Iraq.
The cold war is over and we got into trouble post 9/11 by trying to revert to it…we should not do so in space politics or policy.
When USS Nautilus went to sea a lot of “two dimensional” people saw it as the massive extension of US subrmarine policy in WW2…they talked about how the US could have swept the seas (had they had functioning torpedoes) in months with Nautilus in WW2…and that was goofy.
What they didnt understand is that Nautilus was part of a new generation of weapon systems that simply made the kind of war done in WW2…obsolete.
Whittington, the Spudis and others are stuck in cold war old style thinking…
the new policy is a new reality for a new era.
Long Live The Republic
Robert G. Oler
@Bennett:
No, if you define substance as amateur rigmarole attempting to present itself as a theory of political science or economics.
You mean they’re short and to the point? Yes.
Funny, considering your last significant contribution as a “me too” about mythological charters how they say nothing about humans on “gubmint rockets.”
Assuming you meant “agree” rather than “argue,” please point to a single comment where I haven’t chosen from one of the three.
@Coastal Ron:
There’s water on the Moon.
Who? The strawman community?
No, it really doesn’t.
Where’s the bottom line in that?
Setting aside that you didn’t even bother to explain why you think one demonstration is more worthy than the other, you apparently take the view that these demonstrations are ends in and of themselves. I’d be entirely happy if instead of a Moon we had a thick ring of rock and ice. We don’t, so the Moon suffices. Do you understand why?
I don’t think the Moon can shoot back. Do you?
Spudis put up a number that clearly indicates otherwise. Do you have a better one?
Their elected representatives agreed by unanimous consent and voice vote to do precisely that five years ago.
We’ve been to the Gulf of Mexico before. Shall we shut down all the oil rigs therein due to the lack of novelty?
Yeah, pretty much.
Talking about digging up and processing tons of regolith is not a popular topic at the parties I attend…
I didn’t know we were spending tens of billions to make you the life of the party.
@Oler:
You’re really working hard not to answer the question. I asked you to name one reason for going to Mars or NEOs. Didn’t even have to be a good one, just a starting place for further conversation.
I disagree where it concerns the Moon, but you still haven’t answered my question. At the very best, all you’ve done is reassert that Mars and NEO are worthy destinations.
Really? Where have I done any such thing? Matter of fact, haven’t I been abundantly clear that my one and only interest in the Moon is raping it for its natural resources?
Bush-era economics? Spudis is asking for $12 billion less than Obama did in 2009.
Non-sequitur.
Ya don’t say? We also need to need to be good to our neighbors and remember to breath every day.
Presley Cannady wrote @ January 6th, 2011 at 8:14 am
@Bennett:
Your responses to Coastal Ron’s points are pure “cuteness†and have no substance.
you replied
You mean they’re short and to the point? Yes…
no he doesnt mean that. What he means is what he said, and I’ll say the same thing.
your replies are lacking in substance. For instance on the point I made about the South Pole that no one lives their permanently or will ever settle there…
your reply was “by law”.
there are treaties about the South Pole, but that is not stopping people from living there. The southern continent was known well before the treaties came into affect and like the Western Sahara…there are no settlements or towns there.
This is an old tactic of the extremes. It is sort of Clintonesque…to lack the ability to engage on the larger picture and simply define something as whatever you want to do it…the right wing is good at that far better then the left.
Robert G. Oler
common sense wrote @ January 6th, 2011 at 12:06 am
“Indeed my words. Your words below and my interpretation. Welcome to heated debate about space.â€
Then you misinterpreted my words. Jon had made the point that Obama had given a speech in Florida and offered that as evidence of Obama’s support for his policy.
I had read postings (on this website and others) where the assertion was made that Bush did not really support his plan and as evidence it was noted that he gave only one speech and then never talked about it publicly again.
My Counter Point to Jon was that, as of now, Obama had done essentially the same thing and only made his speech after his policy had begun to give him political problems in Florida (a key swing state in Presidential elections); whereas Bush made his to kick off the debate on his policy (while presumably under no duress). The scope of the comment was limited to comparing relative and verifiable presidential activity in support of their plans.
Maybe this could be considered an introduction to “un-heated†debate about space, since in my experience “heated†debate generates more heat than light.
@Oler:
My God, I’ve seen the errors of my ways.
And your point is?
Yellowstone was known well before it was converted into national parkland. It’s as sparsely populated as Antarctica and the Western Sahara. What’s your point?
Were you trying to get a point across here, because this last paragraph reads like a rambling mess in desperate search of one.
Guys, isnt it Boeing that claimed it could have an Orion ready for a test flight, on a Delta heavy, by the end of this year, if the money came forth. This would help close the gap between the delaying and continual shuttle missions and the new spacecraft. Just maybe less Soyuz flights will be needed in the end. Lets get on with it!
Presley Cannady wrote @ January 6th, 2011 at 8:34 am
“Setting aside that you didn’t even bother to explain why you think one demonstration is more worthy than the other, you apparently take the view that these demonstrations are ends in and of themselves.”
Well let’s review why we went to the Moon in the first place. President Kennedy said the U.S. would:
“commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth.â€
And we demonstrated that.
Bush stated in the VSE that we should “Extend human presence across the solar system, starting with a human return to the Moon by the year 2020, in preparation for human exploration of Mars and other destinations”
We tried getting back to the Moon by 2020, but the program chosen to do it (Constellation) turned out to be too risky and too expensive.
Keep in mind though that in the VSE, the Moon is just one of the many building blocks along the way towards reaching Mars and other destinations. Few people are clamoring to live on an airless body with 1/6 gravity, when they could migrate instead to a planet that has an atmosphere and 1/3 gravity.
So last year President Obama stated:
“By the mid-2030s I believe we can send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth, And a landing on Mars will follow“.
With his plan, the next goal would be testing out the technology and techniques we need to survive beyond the Earth-Moon system, which I think everyone would agree is something far harder than returning to the Moon.
Now you may fret that your precious Moon is being ignored, but the way I see it, at some point in our expansion into space the Moon will become not only a resource to use for our expansion, but a destination in itself. So I don’t fret over the Moon being ignored, because it’s not – it’s just not getting the majority of the attention.
“I don’t think the Moon can shoot back. Do you?”
The Moon is a harsh mistress, and the smallest mistakes will kill you – vacuum, temperature swings between 107C and -153C, and the effects of prolonged exposure to Moon dust. And that doesn’t take into account the normal hazards of everyday life, like accidents, bad designs and equipment failures. So, yeah, people will die.
Not a reason not to go, but just a realization that whatever we do in space is very costly. And partly because of that, I don’t believe the $88B number of Spudis/Lavoie, especially because of how much we still need to invent to get back and do brand new tasks on the Moon.
Now if Spudis/Lavoie want to create a company and get investors to put their own money in, and do the whole thing on a fixed-price basis, that’s another thing – maybe (still no demand for lunar water). But I don’t know of any government projects of that size & complexity that come in on budget, so I’m just basing my feelings on history, not the task.
@ Aberwys wrote @ January 5th, 2011 at 10:03 pm
“I raise my glass to you.”
Hmmm. Yeah thanks, in reference to what?
“I want I show of hands from the most vociferous of posters — How many of you actually work @NASA & have been involved in decision making on a large scale?”
Do I qualify as a most “vociferous poster”? If yes then I have been involved in decision making on a large enough scale.
@ Joe wrote @ January 6th, 2011 at 9:54 am
“Then you misinterpreted my words.”
I believe I admitted that much.
“Jon had made the point that Obama had given a speech in Florida and offered that as evidence of Obama’s support for his policy.”
I think it is evidence too. May not be as strong an evidence to you but when you consider this WH’s challenges and scales, space is like number 1123 on the list. So I’d say too that this is an evidence of interest.
“I had read postings (on this website and others) where the assertion was made that Bush did not really support his plan and as evidence it was noted that he gave only one speech and then never talked about it publicly again.”
Well and I will speak for myself only. Bush did support the VSE, never did he Constellation, especially after Griffin came onboard (looks like not many people can work with him?). While O’Keefe was in charge there was a clear if slow direction how to implement the VSE. The slow part was due to NASA’s budget. Unlike what Griffin thought the budget cannot be expanded to infinity in order to built useless rockets with no mission. So I think if you dissect the posts a little better you will find that a lot of the posters who advocate the commercial aspect had essentially no problem with the VSE, save maybe, and I’ll speak for myself again, for the ludicrous timeline in the VSE. What the pro-commercial see is that Constellation as implemented by Griffin is a catastrophe of gigantic proportion not only for HSF but for NASA as a whole. Therefore we (?) think it is time to change the strategy. Let’s give a try to the commercial sector for most of HSF and see what happens. First LEO and then we’ll see. Again VSE good Constellation bad.
“My Counter Point to Jon was that, as of now, Obama had done essentially the same thing and only made his speech after his policy had begun to give him political problems in Florida (a key swing state in Presidential elections); whereas Bush made his to kick off the debate on his policy (while presumably under no duress). The scope of the comment was limited to comparing relative and verifiable presidential activity in support of their plans.”
That is “your” (mis)interpretation of Obama vs. Bush. I do not believe that Florida is a “key swing state” for Obama. Please don’t give me the 2000 results. Again what spot did space have on the priority list of this WH? I mean in no particular order here Social Security, Health care, Iraq, Afghanistan, Wall Street… Where does space stand according to you? Why would the WH give more than one speech at a time of “your” preference? A little reality check would do no bad you know. Nonetheless this all about the past. The question, the real question, is how do we go forward? VSE is gone, Constellation is (pretty soon) gone. There is very little to support HSF at NASA anymore. If Shelby and the likes are successful then COTS/CRS/CCDev will be gone too. Because don’t fool yourself there is no budget, ZERO, to execute anything like Constellation despite the rhetoric of our leaders in Congress. If you don’t believe me I encourage to read the Augustine report, if you don’t believe them I encourage to do your own analysis based on facts, not wishful thinking that a lot of Constellation/Jupiter/Sidemount supporter are doing.
“Maybe this could be considered an introduction to “un-heated†debate about space, since in my experience “heated†debate generates more heat than light.”
Well do you know any heated debate that generates more light then heat, especially “public” debate?
Dennis Berube wrote @ January 6th, 2011 at 11:12 am
“Guys, isnt it Boeing that claimed it could have an Orion ready for a test flight, on a Delta heavy, by the end of this year, if the money came forth.”
No, it’s not Boeing, and it’s not the end of this year.
common sense wrote @ January 6th, 2011 at 12:40 pm
Well I see we are back in heated debate mode again.
“I encourage to do your own analysis based on facts, not wishful thinking that a lot of Constellation/Jupiter/Sidemount supporter are doing.â€
Sigh. Simply saying that someone else’s analysis is based on wishful thinking, but not facts does not make it true.
Oh WOW, was I wrong. I stated Boeing because of Orions origins. I realized it was not Boeing that deals with the Delta. However the two must work together in order to make it happen. The 2011 time period I guess I did get wrong. At any rate this should be pushed along asap.
@Coastal Ron:
Kennedy’s dead, and this doesn’t address the point I raised. You seem to view these demonstrations as ends in and of themselves. I strongly suspect that lies at the heart of our disagreement. I don’t want to go back to the Moon to demonstrate anything. I want to go back to expand commerce through the Earth sphere.
So you try something else.
I’ve no problem entertaining the expensive dreams of Mars and deep space types so long as I get lunar commerce. I imagine the LEO commerce types feel the same way.
@ Joe wrote @ January 6th, 2011 at 1:56 pm
“Well I see we are back in heated debate mode again.”
Nope. Why?
“Sigh. Simply saying that someone else’s analysis is based on wishful thinking, but not facts does not make it true.”
I welcome any link/document, anything you have on the subject that shows that Constellation/Jupiter/Sidemount is NOT wishful thinking. I will be happy to profusely apologize if I am wrong.
I stated Boeing because of Orions origins.
Nope, Lockheed Martin, not Boeing.
Re: Orion.
Orion is not ready to be flown, not now, not tomorrow, not the day after tomorrow. It is not, nope. Orion does not even have a set of requirements ready for its mission. It does not even have a mission for crying out loud! Is it a crew return vehicle? A crew transfer vehicle? To ISS? To the Moon? To silly country? Orion will NOT fly, ever. There is not even enough of a budget to build an Orion. Then if they ever come up with a mission for it, they will have to start the integration with the LAS and with the LV. Orion is NOT like “some” payload. It’s supposed to carry a crew. The trajectory(ies) of the LV impose abort modes. Several abort modes have to be analyzed. The structures within Orion are NOT built to spec with those of an EELV since it was intended for Ares I. Etc.
Clear or do I need to carry on?
@common sense:
Shuttle sidemount, courtesy of Augustine.
As for Ares I, V and the lander, Augustine concludes the program on record completes at $99 billion somewhere in the 2030s–obviously unacceptable. The Moon First and Flexible Path options hold hope out for mid-2020s for mission executions at a cost of $3 billion more.
The issue isn’t whether Constellation is doable–it is in the strictest sense. The issue is whether it’s doable considering the alternatives. Even when restricted to the heavy lift class of solutions for any given mission profile, Constellation looks like a stinker.
common sense wrote @ January 6th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
“I welcome any link/document, anything you have on the subject that shows that Constellation/Jupiter/Sidemount is NOT wishful thinking. I will be happy to profusely apologize if I am wrong.”
Try this I’m pretty sure you will just reject because you do not like the source (it comes from NASA, maybe we could get Space X to do one for you. Then you would believe it).
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2010/SDLV.charts.pdf
Here
Here’s another to reject out of hand because it comes from evil companies.
http://www.highfrontier.org/Archive/hf/SDLV%20Overview%20Paper%20_Rev%202%204-15-05c_5.pdf
@resley Cannady wrote @ January 6th, 2011 at 3:57 pm
“As for Ares I, V and the lander, Augustine concludes the program on record completes at $99 billion somewhere in the 2030s–obviously unacceptable. The Moon First and Flexible Path options hold hope out for mid-2020s for mission executions at a cost of $3 billion more.
The issue isn’t whether Constellation is doable–it is in the strictest sense. The issue is whether it’s doable considering the alternatives. Even when restricted to the heavy lift class of solutions for any given mission profile, Constellation looks like a stinker.”
The issue is that Constellation is NOT doable with the budget allocated to NASA. Therefore Constellation is NOT doable. If you change the LVs it no longer is Constellation. Constellation is Orion/Ares I-V/Altair and all systems and subsystems associated with this architecture. As soon as you say you are not using Ares for example then it no longer is Constellation. Constellation is NOT doable and will not be done. Period.
So how about this one.
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2009/hlv.abort.pdf
@Joe wrote @ January 6th, 2011 at 4:01 pm
“Try this I’m pretty sure you will just reject because you do not like the source (it comes from NASA, maybe we could get Space X to do one for you. Then you would believe it).”
Talk about heated but I will not take the bait buddy. What you do not seem to understand is that SpaceX flew twice a vehicle to orbit and returned a capsule for very little money. Then again another little detail that is difficult it seems for you and others to grasp. SpaceX in under contract with??? Guess who? NASA, you know this administration that tried hard to sell you Constellation. So why would I trust SpaceX? Does NASA trust SpaceX? What do you think? You know I do not see much light coming from your side of the debate.
Now about Sidemount: Why please tell me I would trust those numbers? Did you believe the numbers for Constellation? Who ran those numbers for Constellation? NASA? Who at NASA? Furthermore the LAS does not work with Sidemount. Go ask NASA, I mean the engineers who actually ran the abort sims what the status is. And come back tell us all about it.
I assume the “evil” company is Boeing? Where did I say Boeing was “evil”? Please point a post of mine saying so. You seem to have a very narrow understanding of the government contractors. Boeing will provide NASA all possible architectures NASA wants, SD or not, EELV, SSTO nuclear pulse. NASA is the customer. They pay, Boeing provides. It’s called business. Do you know that Boeing is an entrant in CCDev thereby directly competing with Constellation for which they have several systems including Ares I second stage.
So now, take off the pink colored glasses and get real. You “believe” what you want the facts remain that Ares/Jupiter/Sidemount will NOT see the light of day. Because there is no cash to make them happen. C’est la vie.
I will try again. The $ numbers that all these studies show would make (some) sense if they were based on fixed price contract. COTS/CRS are fixed price contract. It means that prices are… fixed. You know cost cannot change. NASA will pay for a service.
Anything shown based on cost plus only is vapor dollars and they result in vaporware.
Anything SD can only be done cost plus since it requires such complexity that no one can really what cost what. No one to this day knows what a Shuttle launch cost. There is no way any one can show these costs are real.
I’ll grant you that though: Whatever SpaceX is trying to do comes with a big “IF”. However considering the progress achieved by SpaceX since 2002 or so and those by Constellation since 2005 or so and not even including the cost I say you people are dreaming if you think that any of those Sidemount/Jupiter/Ares can work any time soon. You are welcome to not see reality as it hits you in the face but reality it is nonetheless. In a few years from now I welcome yet another study for an SD vehicle when whatever is left of the Shuttle industrial complex is nice slides on a computer of what could have been.
Then again commercials are not limited to SpaceX, all those guys on CCDev are not commercials you know, Boeing, ULA, Blue Origin, Sierra Nevada, etc. But they do not seem to inspire as much rage, or as much fear. Good for them.
@Joe wrote @ January 6th, 2011 at 4:31 pm
“So how about this one.
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2009/hlv.abort.pdf”
I saw this study when it was published first at nasawatch.com. Did you look at the abort scenarios? Do you understand what they mean? Without going into too much detail: Look at alpha = -2 deg. Do you think that in an abort they can assure a -2 deg pitch? What if the LV pitches 10 degrees (loss of a main engine) and the LAV pitches +5 degrees (or any combination of pitches you like)? Where is this being studied? What you have is very, very preliminary. Again go ask JSC the status of their analysis if there is more. This was done very quickly at the time it was done. It does not show a max-q abort for example with adverse pitching, unless they can show it will not happen (?) but it is not in this study. The aerothermal is fairly simplistic. A question for you, where are the vents locates on the tanks? Is there a chance the LAV plume might ignite the vented gas? Now on pad if one SRB “explodes” what are the chances that the LH2/LOX goes as well? What happens if 2 SRBs explode? Ever herad of shock reflection off the pad? Where is the LAV supposed to go? During ascent what if 1 SRB has to be stopped? How do you control the overall LV? Will you have time to launch the LAV and still make the crew survive the abort?
Anyway and again this is highly preliminary and it is not NASA’s best considering the resources they have they could have done (and maybe they did since then) much, much better.
Want more?
Joe, legacy hardware means legacy costs.
I know you feel that NASA can get the job done but there really isn’t any need for a heavy lift built for NASA at cost plus, is only used by NASA (no dual use to lower costs) and has all the legacy workforce in place that will drive the costs to an unstainable level.
If you look at NASA’s history with cost plus contracting you will see that it is in the contractor’s best interest to drive the costs right up to but not over the point the project will be canceled. How many times do we have to see this before we move NASA out of the rocket business and allow commercials to competively bid fix price contracts for all of NASA’s launch needs.
Presley Cannady wrote @ January 6th, 2011 at 2:41 pm
First of all, let me tell you that there are some things that you say (not to me) on Space Politics that I agree with. This subject we obviously don’t, and I think it gets down to “Why” we should do whatever you want NASA to do on the Moon.
If you want NASA to use an expanding number of robotic explorers on the Moon, then that’s something I have advocated for even before the Spudis/Lavoie plan came out. It’s been in NASA’s budget for a long time, but it needs some better focus.
If you want a human outpost set up, then in principle I do see this as a goal, but not next on NASA’s list.
If you want NASA to fund, set up and operate some sort of commerce on the Moon way in advance of any need, then I am completely against that.
And that’s because I don’t know what commerce you mean – who is the customer, what are their needs, how much are they willing to pay, what are the alternatives, who are the competitors? I don’t hear any answers, or even any good guesses. Even government run operations have to know these answers.
The same reason we haven’t been back to the Moon in 39 years is the reason we don’t have any firm plans to go back even now – it’s interesting, but otherwise there is no need for it.
Until you can change that, the inertia won’t change. And because of that, the Spudis/Lavoie plan goes on that big stack of interesting proposals that won’t get acted on.
” lunar commerce”
No such thing nor will there be.
See I can make short statements too. Except mine is true.
“non-sequitor”
Applicable to Cannady’s posts
Common Sense,
I can see I stirred up a Hornets Nest by complying with your request for links to studies that support SDHLV.
You seem to think that all of these papers (and the people who wrote them) are wrong.
OK. But if that is the case your “heated debate†is not with me, it is with them. Take all of your evidence that they are wrong (for whatever reason you pre suppose) up with them. It is not like they are hiding, their names are on the papers and at least some of them appear in public forums (one of the linked studies is from an AIAA Conference). Find the next time they are making a presentation, go to the conference and during the question and answer session devastate them with your rapier like questioning.
Let me know where the epic event will be, I’ll bring popcorn.
Presley Cannady wrote @ January 6th, 2011 at 2:41 pm
I missed this when I responded to your previously.
“This is the fourth time you’ve skirted over the objections to your take on water economics in space.”
I’m not sure what you mean. Some of these conversations get pretty long, so maybe I missed the question. If you re-ask it, I’ll respond.
Joe wrote:
“OK. But if that is the case your “heated debate†is not with me, it is with them. Take all of your evidence that they are wrong (for whatever reason you pre suppose) up with them. It is not like they are hiding, their names are on the papers and at least some of them appear in public forums (one of the linked studies is from an AIAA Conference).”
Joe that is a big part of the frustration, isn’t doesn’t matter if you take it to them. NASA and congress does what it takes to maintain the monopoly and keep the jobs and spending in their districts. Remember when the ESAS was done? People did try over and over, but in the end Griffin said this is what we are doing and it didn’t matter that there was better designs. You say it is not like they are hiding, but in fact, a lot of the data from the appendixes from the ESAS were not released until the deed was done, this was well documented on the NASA Spaceflight forums.
My quote in the Sentinel article even made p. 16 of this week’s Newsweek!
@ Joe wrote @ January 6th, 2011 at 7:32 pm
Look I told you what I think, I never said they are “all” wrong. I showed you that the LAS study is at best preliminary but how do I know whether you are equipped to understand what I say? I know some of these people. I know they read nasawatch and therefore I already told them something was wrong. I also know they know that the study is not complete. Why do you think not one of them has come out saying so? One of the reasons may include there is a better analysis somewhere and it has not come out yet. Another reason may be that I am just right. Nothing has come up from Sidemount since this study leaked out. Maybe some AIAA paper some time in the future? Who knows/ In the mean time I would not bet our NASA HSF money on something as ludicrous as the Sidemount. Note I say HSF in that particular instance. Feel free to believe “they” are right and I am wrong, I cannot demonstrate further. That’s for LAS and Sidemount. If you know something about government procurement then you KNOW that those $ figures are not, cannot be, correct despite the best intentions. Heck when we define a budget within an organization and even though we do our best quite often we come up low balling the numbers. You don’t have this experience? Augustine showed they were wrong with their numbers, they don’t need “me”. What I told you is that Augustine said so, the committee showed that we could not afford Constellation even if it were handed over to us on a silver plate.
Finally think of it this way, Constellation or not, Sidemount or not, it will most likely no longer affect my career. If I don’t make sense and you see my comments as “rapier like questioning” then you can ignore me.
I debated you because you seemed to have taken those studies as the “truth” and to have forgotten the various interests at play. Furthermore you this time put words in my “mouth” e.g. “evil” company, I never said any such thing.
I just hope I lit something in you that help you become a critique of what you read and not just take it as it is. It reminds me too much of Constellation…
Also how do I know “they know that the study is not complete” might you ask? Well there was a lot more done on CEV for the LAS/LAV even at the preliminary stages… Try and browse AIAA for LAS as a start. And not everything is always published. Oh well…
FWIW.
Here’s another to reject out of hand because it comes from evil companies.
The objection is not to SDLV, but to predetermined SDLV. Let’s have an open competition and see if a commercial SDLV can get a slice of the action. But you and I both know SDLV wouldn’t stand a chance in a fair fight. So why do you keep shilling for it? I believe you are on the record as saying that promoting it because it “creates or saves” jobs in your local area would be unethical.
@Coastal Ron:
I want the United States to enjoy limitless expansion of its commercial sphere into space as soon as possible. To clear this condition, I must settle the Moon. To clear it as soon as possible, I must use the principal aggregators of space-based capital–this currently means NASA.
The sooner I can do away with the Moon and NASA, the better–they are means to an end, and nothing more. However, there is a limit to the amount of time spent waiting I’m willing to trade for efficiency.
Don’t give a crap about robot exploration beyond its utility in hastening the day we can settle space.
Don’t give a crap about settling the Moon beyond its utility in hastening the day we can settle space.
1. We certainly know the boundaries of commerce–as set by physical limits–which emerge from space settlement. That is to say, we know those boundaries are several orders of magnitude greater than what we can ever hope to find on Earth.
2. We know the Moon is a far more favorable environment gravitationally speaking than the Earth.
3. Lunar advocates propose to spend public monies to determine what it would take to crack open this frontier for trade.
Not being able to answer every question in detail isn’t a reason to give up on the immense bounty space offers. It’s a reason to find out those answers.
There was no need to open up the New World, either.
@Coastal Ron:
Regarding space water economics, you’ve argued that the upfront investment in lunar operations necessarily renders a lunar source of water less viable than an Earth source. That cost, however, is sunk; not recurring. So long as recurring costs of the lunar enterprise do not exceed those of an Earth-based operation, there is no reason why lunar water couldn’t be priced competitively. The only question remaining is how quickly you need lunar water to show profit. At the same price point and all else being equal, lunar water requires 80 times longer than SpaceX lifted water to turn to profitability.
Martijn Meijering wrote @ January 7th, 2011 at 3:40 am
“But you and I both know SDLV wouldn’t stand a chance in a fair fight.â€
Thanks you for telling me what I know. However you have no idea of the “depths of my ignorance†as I do not know that at all.
“So why do you keep shilling for it?â€
You use the phrase “shilling for itâ€. Yet again attacking someone’s integrity, someone you do not even know. I cannot just have a different opinion (even if you consider it wrong), if I disagree with you I have to be corrupt.
“I believe you are on the record as saying that promoting it because it “creates or saves†jobs in your local area would be unethical.â€
Nope, never said any such thing. But let’s keep in mind that “jobs in my local area†is not why I am (in your words) “shilling for itâ€.
However you have no idea of the “depths of my ignorance†as I do not know that at all.
Interesting, so would you be in favour of totally competitive procurement?
I cannot just have a different opinion (even if you consider it wrong), if I disagree with you I have to be corrupt.
Nope, that’s not my position at all.
Presley Cannady wrote:
“That cost, however, is sunk; not recurring. So long as recurring costs of the lunar enterprise do not exceed those of an Earth-based operation, there is no reason why lunar water couldn’t be priced competitively.”
How could the recurring costs of a Luna enterprise not exceed those of Earth? Every single pound of replacement parts has to be shipped there at 20,000 dollars a pound. One supplier gets their parts shipped on an 18 wheeler, the lunar supplier gets spare parts shipped by rocket. The cost of moving their product to the final user would have to lower than an earth based firm because that is the only place where they might have a competive advantage. Even their extraction costs would be higher.
Presley Cannady wrote @ January 7th, 2011 at 9:36 am
“I want the United States to enjoy limitless expansion of its commercial sphere into space as soon as possible.”
To a certain degree, this is part of the goal of many space advocates. However it won’t happen by depending on the whims of Congress, and so far there is only commerce in LEO, so it’s the chicken-and-egg situation for the “limitless expansion” part.
As I’ve said, I’m in the camp that sees the answer in progressively expanding out from Earth, building a solid base of commerce as we go. Kind of like building a tall pyramid by building a small one first, and then expanding it’s base to support ever taller heights. This is very failure tolerant, which I see as important because space operations have to whether economic ups & downs just like any other business.
NASA, being in the exploration business, is always at the top of the pyramid, leveraging the solid base below it, which means it can “go higher” without having to spending huge sums of money every time it wants to go somewhere.
That’s the concept anyways. My $0.02
Presley Cannady wrote @ January 7th, 2011 at 9:43 am
“That cost, however, is sunk; not recurring.”
I can tell you’re not an investor, because no investor would consider their upfront investment as “sunk”, and not needing repayment. If anything, they are looking for an even higher ROI on their first investment than their follow-on ones, so you better recalibrate your assumptions – non-recurring AND recurring costs have to be taken into account when determining the viability of a business plan.
Unless you’re saying the government taxpayers (me & you) should spend all this money to set things up, and then “give” it to Haliburton so they can make all the profit. Is that what you’re saying?
“So long as recurring costs of the lunar enterprise do not exceed those of an Earth-based operation, there is no reason why lunar water couldn’t be priced competitively.”
I’ll echo what Vladislaw said, and add that in general the water mining plans I’ve heard tend to imply that once everything is set up, few supplies from Earth are needed. The Spudis/Lavoie plan is this way too, which is amazing due to the amount of knowledge Spudis should have on terrestrial mining operations.
And still that pesky little question – who’s going to pay for water?
Have we beat this topic enough?
@Coastal Ron:
No, you probably can’t.
Considering the term originates in finance, I beg to differ.
I’m fairly certain I never said anything of the sort.
That is one option, but not the one I’d prefer. A long term loan is another option.
However, the specific method sunk costs are retired is inconsequential to our disagreement. The point is that lunar water can be priced competitively with an Earth source simply by extending the period in which the investor recoups the initial capital. The remaining challenge, therefore, is finding an aggregator of capital large enough to afford parting with the initial investment–as a loan, grant, or in whatever form you deem in the best interests of bringing the project to completion.
Let’s say for this arguement we have no firms with ability to put water into LEO.
Two firms decide to compete for this LEO water market.
The earth firm develops a water cargo carrier that fits on multiple pre-existing launch providers, buys launches and turns on the tap and fills it’s water cargo carrier.
The second firm builds all the infrastructure it will need on Luna, launches it, tests it, and then starts producing water, then builds and has to launch to Luna all the infrastructure it needs to then ship that water from Luna to the end user.
Now the two firms write up their business plans and approaches investors, which firm would you invest in that, in your mind, would give you a return on investment during this century?
I think you would be hard pressed to find an investor for moon water.
How can having to spend billions to mine and process the water compete with turning on the tap?
My product is basically considered a free good where your product requires billions to produce your very first drop. Sunk costs or not one breakdown for a lunar facility will require how many months to schedule a launch for a part replacement versus an earth firm making a phone call to a parts distributor and having it sent by fed ex.
@Coastal Ron:
I’m not sure how to read this. It seems you’re arguing that Congress is powerless to expand commerce into space. I don’t see how you reach that conclusion; historically governments played prime roles in furthering their countries’ economic spheres through sheer territorial expansion. Expeditions stand up outposts, which attract settlers to support the garrison, which grows trade within the settlement between colony and homeland.
Incrementalism is not incompatible with parallelism, which is precisely what the Spudis plan leverages. Nothing’s stopping you from building more than one pyramid except available capital. The question is whether we expend it now or continue to wait for prices to bottom out. At some point, being thrifty is just a waste of time.
@Vladislaw:
You can configure any such hypothetical to be as favorable or unfavorable as you like.
Consider this. It’s fifteen years from now. The US has pursued the Spudis plan and now places it on the market with a very generous, very long term payment plan–generous enough that the annual payments are negligible compared to say the recurring costs.
Two firms decide to get into the business of exporting water to space. One manages to snap up the lunar operation. All else being equal–including say the sale price of water per kilogram–which one would you invest in?
@ Vladislaw wrote @ January 7th, 2011 at 3:14 pm
Come on Vladislaw you are neat picking on the order of billions when our national budget is worth trillions. And in Presley’s own words:
“The remaining challenge, therefore, is finding an aggregator of capital large enough to afford parting with the initial investment–as a loan, grant, or in whatever form you deem in the best interests of bringing the project to completion.”
So here you have it. Vladislaw, you should “focus” on fining an investor for your “plan” while Presley will find one for his own plan. Now the investor can be the US government of course, right?
This conversation is “almost” funny. We cannot find an investor, including the government, here on Earth to fund 2 rockets but we will find one willing to fund a lunar base. Right?
@Vladislaw:
Except your product isn’t.. You do have a sunk cost to retire, the launcher itself. Obviously it is far smaller (on the order of a billion dollars v. $88 billion). You price the product to recover sunk costs over some term and recurring costs periodically. The longer the term, the less you have to pay down cycle to cycle.
Presley Cannady wrote @ January 7th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
“A long term loan is another option.”
And I guess you would have the taxpayer (you and me) be the loan provider?
If so, yes, it’s been done before, but remember the public’s reaction to the $49.5B loan that was made to GM? And that company had a strong revenue stream, lots of American employees, and a known marketplace, whereas the Spudis/Lavoie plan is twice as costly, no market, and no known repayment date. Good luck with that.
Outside of the U.S. Government, who would fund such an enterprise? Exxon/Mobil? Apple? Russia? China? Saudi Arabia? Brazil? Who has $88B they don’t need for a couple of decades?
“The point is that lunar water can be priced competitively with an Earth source simply by extending the period in which the investor recoups the initial capital.”
So you’ll lose money in competition with Earth-bound competitors, but you’ll make it up in volume over time? Perhaps you could give us an example of a company or industry that has succeeded in doing this?
In the end, your biggest challenge is in finding the money for this venture, which is especially challenging because there is no demand for the product you want to produce. Even the investor of last resort (the U.S. Taxpayer) is not an easy sell, and I don’t think you have a compelling reason yet. That may change in the decade or so it takes for us to start expanding out past LEO, so maybe it’s just a matter of timing. I hope you wait a decade or so…
Two firms decide to get into the business of exporting water to space. One manages to snap up the lunar operation. All else being equal–including say the sale price of water per kilogram–which one would you invest in?
The one operating low-cost space transports. It will be a long time, if ever, before it’s cheaper to deliver water from the lunar surface to LEO than to launch it there. If lunar propellant is produced, its most likely uses will be for transportation to/from the lunar surface, and for BEO missions.
RGO wrote:
“The problem is that none of you can comeup with a compelling reason that is anywhere worth the cost.”
Page 51 of this months Playboy; the best solution is CAPS (Moon based instruments); and the impact hazard is so large that the cost beneift ratio works out very very very well.
@Coastal Ron:
That would be duplicative, since the taxpayer has title in the first place. On the other hand, the government may choose to lease-to-own to on terms favorable enough to spark interest.
Imagine the American people’s outrage if they found out Congress literally gives away $20 billion a year–no repayment date whatsoever–to an organization that makes no money whatsoever.
I think you know where I’m going with this.
Apparently the US, since Congress has already agreed to spend $99 billion on the HSF program of record.
What’re you talking about? You lose money if revenue falls short of obligations in a given period.
Pretty much any start-up that’s taken out a loan.
I love how you keep shifting the goalposts on demand. Pump public money into creating destinations in space to prop up Earth-sourced lift, but not one cent for rockets on the Moon?
Good. Then I don’t think you have a compelling reason for commercial space. Or space in general. There, we’ve just saved ourselves $20 billion a year.
It’s a matter of capital being available to do it, which we presently have. The Spudis plan doesn’t interfere with your commercial lift aspirations, it comes in under the projected spending on the program of record, and takes the next necessary step to opening space to the whole of mankind. There’s no reason to delay.
@ E.P. Grondine wrote @ January 7th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
“Page 51 of this months Playboy;”
Playboy? Ah! Finally some one making serious references about lunar something. This debate gets better by the minute. I need to think how to incorporate a Playboy reference into my next paper if at all possible. Would love to see the referee’s face. Good one. Good one.
@ Presley Cannady wrote @ January 7th, 2011 at 4:58 pm
“Good. Then I don’t think you have a compelling reason for commercial space. Or space in general. There, we’ve just saved ourselves $20 billion a year.”
Well it may be closer than you think.
Oh well…
Presley Cannady wrote:
“Except your product isn’t.. You do have a sunk cost to retire, the launcher itself. Obviously it is far smaller (on the order of a billion dollars v. $88 billion). You price the product to recover sunk costs over some term and recurring costs periodically. The longer the term, the less you have to pay down cycle to cycle.”
Actually no, the product is water, the product’s packaging is the water cargo container ( multiple, independant companies could provide this packaging), the product and it’s packaging would be sent to LEO by a delivery company, the launch provider.
Sunk costs for me would be the facility I use to put my product, water, into the packaging. Everything else would be bought as needed depending on demand.
Martijn Meijering wrote @ January 7th, 2011 at 10:27 am
“Interesting, so would you be in favour of totally competitive procurement?”
The only way to have a totally competitive procurement would be to defund everybody (COTS included – including any ISS anchoring promises), otherwise accusations (no matter how baseless) of favoritism would be ricocheting everywhere. Some of them possibly even being made by you if it looked (even for a nanosecond) as if things were not going your way. Therefore the answer to your question is no. That would bring everything down, not just government space but commercial space as well. Without NASA provided “award fees†(is that an acceptable term?) and bank loans based on ISS anchoring Orbital Sciences would be in financial trouble long before reaching operational status. Even Elon Musk’s “deep pockets†would be down to lint before long
“I cannot just have a different opinion (even if you consider it wrong), if I disagree with you I have to be corrupt.
Nope, that’s not my position at all.â€
A little background on the word Shilling (used as a you did in this case as a verb):
The use of the word shill to describe a person who promotes a product for financial gain rather than for its intrinsic value originates in the US at the beginning of the 20th century. In Jackson and Hellyer’s 1914 A vocabulary of criminal slang, with some examples of common usages, the word shill is defined as “to act in the capacity of a hired criminal.â€
So if that is not your position at all why did you use the word shilling to describe what you say I am doing for SDHLV?
Vladislaw wrote @ January 6th, 2011 at 8:44 pm
“People did try over and over, but in the end Griffin said this is what we are doing and it didn’t matter that there was better designs. You say it is not like they are hiding, but in fact, a lot of the data from the appendixes from the ESAS were not released until the deed was done, this was well documented on the NASA Spaceflight forums.â€
I hope this does not offend (and that is not intended as sarcasm), but (for what seems to me like the one millionth time) I am not now nor have I ever been a supporter of the final results of the ESAS Study.
Presley Cannady wrote @ January 7th, 2011 at 4:58 pm
“Imagine the American people’s outrage if they found out Congress literally gives away $20 billion a year–no repayment date whatsoever–to an organization that makes no money whatsoever.”
Oh, that’s right, I forgot that NASA does nothing of value for you.
Well, good luck trying to get Congress to shut down NASA and spend it’s budget on lunar water mining operation. Of course I’ll be advocating against that particular course of action, but you probably already knew that.
TTFN
common sense wrote @ January 7th, 2011 at 1:15 am
You seem to be making the assumption that I am some kind of unknowledgeable outsider that you are trying to educate. You know no more about my background than I do about yours. I assure you your assumptions about me are wrong. You will of course not believe that (at least do me the favor, if you are going to call me a liar, to try to find a new and inventive way to do it). I can assure you however, that (among other things) I know better than to be dragged into a debate defending research on which I am not a primary contributor. No matter how knowledgeable and well intentioned I am, all I have to do is get a decimal point wrong someplace and the claim will be made that not only am I discredited, but so is the research and all associated with it.
I am well aware that the studies on a number of booster configurations are still ongoing (know people who are working on it as well). None of that changes what I suggested before.
@Coastal Ron:
At present, spot on.
I’ll settle for reprogramming $88 billion of NASA’s HSF budget for the next ten years.
I’ve no idea why, but feel free.
@Vladislaw:
Whaddya mean no? You just listed off sunk and recurring costs. Obviously your product is not free.
Joe wrote @ January 7th, 2011 at 5:31 pm
“The only way to have a totally competitive procurement would be to defund everybody (COTS included – including any ISS anchoring promises), otherwise accusations (no matter how baseless) of favoritism would be ricocheting everywhere.”
Nope. Competitive procurement means that you held a competition, and picked the winners based on (hopefully) established parameters. This happens every day in every segment of our economy. You even do it when you shop and you are presented with two fungible choices.
COTS/CRS was an open competition that SpaceX and Rocketplane Kistler won, and later Rocketplane Kistler was removed and replaced by Orbital Sciences because RpK could not meet the requirements of their contract. Happens all the time.
Because of the complexity and scope of the COTS and CRS programs, NASA extended the duration of the CRS contract beyond one delivery, and out to 8 for OSC and 12 for SpaceX. Otherwise they would have to go through the COTS process with new vendors for every delivery to the ISS. Ugh.
What you’re describing is a marketplace that is completely fungible, and no minimum purchases are specified. That works OK for individual purchases (hamburgers, cars, etc.), but if you want consistency of performance on a complex service or product, then extending the purchasing period out beyond beyond one occurrence is a good idea.
“Without NASA provided “award fees†(is that an acceptable term?) and bank loans based on ISS anchoring Orbital Sciences would be in financial trouble long before reaching operational status.”
You sure are insistent on using words that imply “subsidy”, as well as implying that the COTS/CRS program payments are “loans”. Neither are correct.
I’m sorry to say this, but you’re either willfully stating wrong stuff, or you’re willfully ignorant.
“ You know no more about my background than I do about yours [in response to common sense]. I assure you your assumptions about me are wrong.”
You don’t have to be anybody to post on this blog, and I am proof of that. I have spent the majority of my career in manufacturing operations management, both in consumer products and products for the government (mainly DoD), but nothing related to space.
But your viewpoints on various topics indicate that you are not familiar with contracting, government contracting, or space industries, so that is why I had previously asked you what your background was – nothing specific, but something that would provide a frame of reference for discussion.
Do you want to say?
“…all I have to do is get a decimal point wrong someplace…”
I have made many typo’s, and have not experienced that. I think people understand the difference between a typo and a viewpoint. Typo’s can be easily changed – not so with viewpoints.
@Vladislaw:
Whaddyamean no? You just listed off your sunk and recurring costs. Obviously your product is not free.
@Coastal Ron:
No, it doesn’t. That’s neither here nor there. What is relevant is that you just pooh poohed lunar water on the notion that we’d have to sink $88 billion and fifteen years to sell a single drop, but you’ve no problem with expending $20 billion a year to pursue no profitable activity whatsoever.
I’d settle for simply reprogramming the HSF budget for the next ten years, and Spudis says he doesn’t even need all of it.
I’ve no idea why, but feel free.
@ Joe wrote @ January 7th, 2011 at 6:14 pm
“You seem to be making the assumption that I am some kind of unknowledgeable outsider that you are trying to educate. You know no more about my background than I do about yours. I assure you your assumptions about me are wrong.”
I don’t, where did I do that?! I still question what you know or believe. It’s the purpose of a debate and so far you haven’t convinced me that I am wrong. It looks I did not convince you otherwise either.
“You will of course not believe that (at least do me the favor, if you are going to call me a liar, to try to find a new and inventive way to do it).”
Again putting words in my posts. I don’t remember even insinuating you were a liar. Why so defensive?
“I can assure you however, that (among other things) I know better than to be dragged into a debate defending research on which I am not a primary contributor. No matter how knowledgeable and well intentioned I am, all I have to do is get a decimal point wrong someplace and the claim will be made that not only am I discredited, but so is the research and all associated with it.”
That is the danger for sure but you are not posting with your real or full name, so? Well intentioned tend to put people in trouble more often then not. I am trying to give my view of the “facts” from my experience, what I know and from my crystal ball. So far, I haven’t been proven wrong but it’s okay. It happened before and most likely will happen again, that I am wrong that is.
“I am well aware that the studies on a number of booster configurations are still ongoing (know people who are working on it as well). None of that changes what I suggested before.”
Neither does it what I said. I stand by my comments. Period.
So if that is not your position at all why did you use the word shilling to describe what you say I am doing for SDHLV?
From Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: 1shill
Pronunciation: ‘shil
Function: intransitive verb
Etymology: 2shill
Date: circa 1914
1 : to act as a shill
2 : to act as a spokesperson or promoter
Other dictionaries also indicate a degree of deception, especially as to motive or appearance of impartiality, so there is a whole range of meanings. The meaning I had in mind is secretly having a personal preference (for whatever reasons) without being open about it.
Note that this has nothing to do with your claim that “I cannot just have a different opinion (even if you consider it wrong), if I disagree with you I have to be corrupt” or my denial of it.
The only way to have a totally competitive procurement would be to defund everybody (COTS included – including any ISS anchoring promises), otherwise accusations (no matter how baseless) of favoritism would be ricocheting everywhere.
There is no need to defund everybody, and there are legal obstacles to it too. But other than that, I’d not be opposed to it in principle. It sounds as if you have found a convenient “obstacle” to free and fair competition.
Why does NASA feel that they are the only agency with this kind of spending issue? This sounds like an argument of relativism-$500M out of $19B sounds a lot more significant vs. DoD excesses of $500M against a significantly larger budget. Who wants to bet that similar probs exist in other agencies?
Coastal Ron wrote @ January 7th, 2011 at 7:47 pm
“You sure are insistent on using words that imply “subsidyâ€, as well as implying that the COTS/CRS program payments are “loansâ€. Neither are correct.â€
As you are aware, on another thread I tried very hard to get a term from you that would be acceptable to use for the Government money going to the Commercial Space Firms (specifically to avoid this semantics game) and of course got nowhere. I guess the only acceptable phrasing to you would be to somehow say the Commercial Firms were doing the Government a favor in taking it’s money. Not going to happen
“But your viewpoints on various topics indicate that you are not familiar with contracting, government contracting, or space industries, so that is why I had previously asked you what your background was – nothing specific, but something that would provide a frame of reference for discussion.â€
I have spent my entire career (25 years) in the space business working in hardware, operations and systems engineering. During that time I participated in 4 different contracting proposal activities (3 as a part of one of the bidding contracting teams – not that it matters but “we†won all three of those contracts and 1 as a reviewer on the Government side).
“I’m sorry to say this, but you’re either willfully stating wrong stuff, or you’re willfully ignorant.â€
Based on the above I could return the “complementâ€, but I am glad to say I am not going to stoop to that level.
Have a nice day.
Martijn Meijering wrote @ January 8th, 2011 at 5:07 am
“Other dictionaries also indicate a degree of deception, especially as to motive or appearance of impartiality, so there is a whole range of meanings. The meaning I had in mind is secretly having a personal preference (for whatever reasons) without being open about it.
Note that this has nothing to do with your claim that “I cannot just have a different opinion (even if you consider it wrong), if I disagree with you I have to be corrupt†or my denial of it.â€
So you are not saying that anybody that disagrees with you is being dishonest only that they “secretly†have “a personal preference (for whatever reasons) without being open about itâ€. If you do not see the discrepancy in that, then any further discussion of this topic is will serve no useful purpose.
So you are not saying that anybody that disagrees with you is being dishonest only that they “secretly†have “a personal preference (for whatever reasons) without being open about itâ€.
No, I’m not saying that either. It looks as if you have a reading comprehension problem. I was suggesting you aren’t being open about your personal motivations, not everybody who disagrees with me. That last bit was your own invention. Similarly, you recently berated me for not backing up an accusation against Paul Spudis that I didn’t even make…
Martijn Meijering wrote @ January 8th, 2011 at 11:51 am
OK so you are only makeing the acusation about me (an individual you do not even know). And ot course you do it with no evidence at all. Yes, that would make it much better.
As previoulsy stated:
If you do not see the discrepancy in that, then any further discussion of this topic is will serve no useful purpose.
Have a nice day.
Joe wrote @ January 8th, 2011 at 10:03 am
“As you are aware, on another thread I tried very hard to get a term from you that would be acceptable to use for the Government money going to the Commercial Space Firms (specifically to avoid this semantics game) and of course got nowhere.”
Maybe you missed it, but in response to your question I stated “The contractors are being paid for work they have performed” as one definition.
Before that, Vladislaw stated “It is literally performance pay”, and I believe he has said he is an economist (to give you a frame of reference).
Or just simply “payment”, which Wikipedia defines as:
“A payment is usually made in exchange for the provision of goods, services or both, or to fulfill a legal obligation.”
“I have spent my entire career (25 years) in the space business working in hardware, operations and systems engineering.”
Did your employer compensate you with subsidies or loans?
“…not that it matters but “we†won all three of those contracts…”
And what did your company win – subsidies or loans?
Or did they create products or performs services for agreed upon compensation?
If it helps you any, here is the link for the 2009 GAO report about the COTS program:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09618.pdf
On page 19 is the milestone tasks SpaceX has to perform, and the compensation they receive when the tasks are successfully completed. The list for Orbital Sciences milestones starts on page 25.
No gifts, subsidies or loans. Capisce?
Presley Cannady wrote @ January 7th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
“The point is that lunar water can be priced competitively with an Earth source simply by extending the period in which the investor recoups the initial capital.”
No, for at least three reasons:
1) Extending the repayment period indefinitely causes the ROI to asymptotically approach zero. When the ROI falls below that of safer investments – treasury bods, for example – then no one will invest.
2) The Spudis plan involves a continuing operating cost of $6.5 B per year. If water can be provided from earth for less than 150 mt / $6.5 B, then no one will buy lunar water.
3) The Spudis plan is going to require recapitalization periodically. It is a solar powered system and solar arrays begin degrading immediately in the space environment. Batteries have a finite cycle life. Abrasive lunar dust is going to take a toll on moving parts. In short, most or all of the initial $88 B capitol is going to be have replaced in 10 to 15 years to maintain production.
The initial $88 B has to be recouped in a reasonable period for the investment to make sense.
Rhyolite wrote @ January 8th, 2011 at 6:35 pm
“If water can be provided from earth for less than 150 mt / $6.5 B, then no one will buy lunar water.”
$6.5B for 150mt of water = $43,333/kg
Getting water to LEO, if you use Delta IV Heavy, assume $300M/launch and 15,000kg (66% of total payload), that = $20,000/kg
If you use Falcon 9 Heavy, which is advertised for $95M/launch, and 21,000kg to LEO (66% of total payload), that = $4,523/kg
The price difference for Earth vs Moon water really depends on a number of factors, like FOB origin or destination, where the water is being delivered to, and how much advance notice there is for needing the delivery (slow routes vs fast routes).
FWIW
@Rhyolite:
Some confusion may result because we switch from discussion of Spudis plan as recorded and a hypothetical market for water in orbit from idealized Earth and lunar sources. Anyways:
We’ve already stipulated that $88 billion is a tough aggregate for the private sector to swallow. I don’t think anyone here imagined anyone other than government fronting the initial capital.
The Spudis plan projects only out to Year 15, and this holds only for the period where:
1. production capacity and demand for water remains below three and a quarter million tons a year,
2. lunar annual recurring costs exceed $300 million (against an idealized Earth source), or
3. your lunar water enterprise subsumes more than $300 million of the annual recurring costs.
We can safely say 1 and 2 will remain true for some time. Three is nothing more than subsidy. We can argue whether its fair for government to either compete or offer a company an advantage in which they use a publicly funded project to compete with an Earth company. We can debate whether its prudent for government rightfully defray the cost of a lunar endeavor by doing so. But with a public backer we can’t categorically say that lunar water cannot be priced competitively.
And that would undoubtedly be a pain in the ass if all we do on the Moon is extract water.
For a private firm, yes. But then again, a private firms overriding concern isn’t the spread of the whole of civilization and commerce into space.
Curious. How are we arriving at $6.5 billion a year following assembly?
Coastal Ron wrote @ January 8th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
“Maybe you missed it, but in response to your question I stated “The contractors are being paid for work they have performed†as one definition.â€
Yeah great I can just say “The contractors are being paid for work they have performed†every time this issue comes up
“Did your employer compensate you with subsidies or loans? And what did your company win – subsidies or loans? Or did they create products or performs services for agreed upon compensation?â€
Actually I do not remember anybody in Engineering ever obsessing about what the reimbursements that pay the salaries are called (I know I don’t). Maybe somebody in Legal or Contracts does, but if so they never mention it to me.
“No gifts, subsidies or loans. Capisce?â€
Capisce, wasn’t that word used in at least one of the “Godfather†Movies. By the “logic†you use I should be saying you are accusing me of being a member of the Mafia.
I made a good faith attempt to come up with reasonable language that would not offend you. Obviously, that will not work out. Therefore in the future I will simply state what I believe to be true without worry. I will select my language carefully and I will have no secret motives or hidden agendas.
If you choose to “squint real hard†looking for things to take offense at, that is your problem
This particular conversation is exhausted and I am now exiting it.
@Coastal Ron:
Two words worth committing to memory: “yeah, whatever.”
Nobody’s paying you to mind their feelings.
Joe wrote @ January 9th, 2011 at 4:06 pm
I frequent this blog to discuss, debate and learn, and certainly I have learned a number of things on this blog (thanks Jeff). I have also been corrected on occasion, including during this drawn out discussion of ours (thanks Byeman).
I don’t think anybody has time to fact check what everybody says, but there are some things that are quite basic and obvious – just like the difference between the directions “up” and “down”.
Such is the situation with your use of the word “subsidy” as it applies to the COTS/CRS program. It sounds like since you didn’t hear a replacement phrase you liked, you’ll just keep using the wrong word. Hopefully not, as those types of things tend to distract from the real topics that we should be discussing, which on this blog is “space”, and the politics thereof.
My $0.02
Presley Cannady wrote @ January 9th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
“Two words worth committing to memory: “yeah, whatever.â€
Nobody’s paying you to mind their feelings.â€
Yeah, that was the point of my last post to Coastal Ron. Note in his post below yours he says I repeatedly use the term subsidy. Fact is, I stopped using it immediately after he objected to it and tried to get cooperation as to what would be considered acceptable. This is because I believe civil discourse is a goal to be sought. However, I reluctantly accept that trying to be civil around here is like trying to be hygienic while mud wrestling with a pig.