Congressman Bill Posey (R-FL) has been vocal recently about making human spaceflight NASA’s top priority in a constrained budget environment. Now he’s more specific: not only does he want to support human spaceflight, he wants NASA to return to the goal from the Vision for Space Exploration of sending humans back to the Moon, and is making a longshot bid to make that happen. In an op-ed in Florida Today on Thursday, Posey says he plans to introduce legislation “calling for NASA to resume the goal set forth in the 2005 NASA Authorization Act to return to the moon.”
In the op-ed, Posey reiterates a number of past arguments about supporting human spaceflight, including its role as an “economic driver” and its military importance (again, as in his statement recently to the House Budget Committee, likening space to “Earth’s Golan Heights.”) He doesn’t go into detail, though, about why a return to the Moon would do more on those fronts than something like the administration’s plans for human missions beyond Earth orbit that don’t, at least in the foreseeable future, including missions to the lunar surface.
“We must make the moon mission our highest priority within a NASA budget that is becoming increasingly distracted with other less important pursuits,” he argues. “The moon is achievable within the budget constraints that are necessary to secure America’s future.”
“The moon is achievable within the budget constraints that are necessary to secure America’s future.â€
Pure political ideological pablum for the base and constituency, nothing more.
Posey wants to go back to the Moon Me too! When can I go?
“The moon is achievable within the budget constraints that are necessary to secure America’s future.â€
With support and money from commercial companies not just rocket companies and universities and other countries and the US tax payer.
The GOP won this debate once, and they will win it again. They can win it again, after 2012. The US will go back to the moon after these unfortunate Obama Dark Ages. We are afflicted with current cadre of political incompetents at NASA due to an aberration of electoral politics. We are paying the price paid for 6 years of GOP hegemony between 2000-2006 and the mortgage collapse of 2008. When they go, NASA will return to normal. Don’t feel bad for NASA’s leaders though. Lucrative futures undoubtedly await them among their political backers.
If Mr. Posey wants to go to the moon he should be talking to SpaceX about a launch vehicle that fits the budget.
I’m a big fan of space exploration and human spaceflight, but I don’t see where money will come from to expand NASA’s human spaceflight budget. I also don’t see how a Republican can get traction to expand any Federal program in today’s political environment. Maybe it’s time to consider a new paradigm in which space exploration isn’t dependent on government funding.
@ amightywind wrote @ April 7th, 2011 at 11:29 am
Oh yeah when you don’t post life seems dull.
“The GOP won this debate once, and they will win it again.”
The GOP “won” this debate? When was that?
“They can win it again, after 2012.”
Bah, only another year and a half to go. Now if by then the economy does tank again I am sure some one will ask for the Moon. No question.
“The US will go back to the moon after these unfortunate Obama Dark Ages. We are afflicted with current cadre of political incompetents at NASA due to an aberration of electoral politics. We are paying the price paid for 6 years of GOP hegemony between 2000-2006 and the mortgage collapse of 2008.”
I love it when you talk (dirty) history. “Obama Dark Ages” and “6 years of GOP hegemony”. But when the new leadership comes in 2012 they will be from… From what party? The Obama Darks or the GOP Hegemons? I am sure NASA will go to the Moon. Oh and btw the mortgage collapse started under Bush, not Obama. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis I know, I know it gives me a headache too from time to time to actually try and understand things, complicated things, like Obama was President in 2008 and the crisis started in or about 2005 under Bush, that the financial market collapsed in 2007… Ah life is so complicated at times. I wish I could go to the Moon and forget it all. Maybe Posey has a spare seat for me? Nah maybe not. Not sure I want to hear how great it is to finally go back to the Moon for all these days it takes to go there and back.
“When they go, NASA will return to normal.”
What’s normal at NASA? Another super duper financially not feasible super Shuttle?
“Don’t feel bad for NASA’s leaders though. Lucrative futures undoubtedly await them among their political backers.”
Oh thanks! For a minute I was terribly worried for them when I woke this morning. Could not find sleep for the past few nights and now I realize it’s because of that. Thanks for the reassuring words. Always nice to read your thoughts on important matters.
FTLFactor wrote @ April 7th, 2011 at 11:47 am
There is one smart human. I’m assuming human.
Here’s something I’ve had a lot of practice writing, in hopes that it will sink in someday.
The problem with BEO human space flight for a long time has been “Why?”.
The only thing that will cost justify developing the Moon is planetary defense against comets and dead comet fragments, in other words CAPS.
While Ed Weiler and anybody who hopes for NASA funding has to insist that only asteroids hit, and not comets, in point of fact comets and dead comet fragments form the bulk of the impact hazard, and it is demonstrably 10 to 100 times worse than what Ed and his subordinates claim.
In other words, NASA wants to believe that only asteroids hit, when in point of fact it is comets. Given that, I expect that that fact will become obvious shortly after Ed Weiler’s relief.
(BTW, the job of NASA Administrator is in the Prune Book, not the Plum Book.)
It doesn’t matter how low launch costs get if you can’t answer the “Why?” question.
After ISS, NASA’s next job is CAPS.
(PS – For you manned Mars flight enthusiasts, the only viable way to Mars is going to be through developing the Moon first, IMO.)
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
E.P.
Kindle it, and you score a purchase….
“The only thing that will cost justify developing the Moon is planetary defense against comets and dead comet fragments, in other words CAPS.”
That makes no sense at all. Developing the Moon has no relevance to near Earth object defense, whether for blocks of rock or ice. That “Why?” is the big question for humans BEO is hard to argue with, but defense against comets sure isn’t the answer.
As to a terrestrial threat from long period comets, that’s been considered, and the statistics and dynamics don’t argue for a serious threat. I think there was a University of Washington study on the inner Oort cloud that came to this conclusion just last year. You’d be wise to practice your reading as well as your writing.
If Mr. Posey wants to go to the moon he should be talking to SpaceX about a launch vehicle that fits the budget.
Not really, he should be procuring launch services competitively. There is no reason to favour any individual provider, in fact it is important not to do so.
“Why?â€
Because if you are going to have a Human Space program than it should do something and both Democrats and Republics want HSF plus lots of industry people and advocates . The why is because it’s the next place to go and we will go eventually but why stand on the shore and do nothing now. It’s better to do measured affordable approach within budget ( I know I’m repeating myself but the point is goal=estimated cost=money). CCDev and COTS show estimated cost much lower than tradition programs and traditional programs are always over budget. So even if Commercial is over cost, I bet it would be less than traditional besides we are leveraging their money and capital.
I think the Augustine Committee final report was very good in describing the options and benefits of flexible path vs. a direct moon. It’s in Chapter 3. Flexible path doesn’t exclude the moon as matter of fact it’s one of the destinations. One problem with the moon being a destination for BEO is it is in Earth’s orbit. So you could practice longer duration flights by cycling between earth and the moon but what’s the different from the ISS circling earth, really?
The only way that there will be another Moon landing in my lifetime (another 10-14 years) will be if the US gets off it’s high horse and starts seriously discussing the hows and where fores of International Co-operation; no one country can afford to do the heavy lifting anymore to get there and stay there; The US can do Boots on the Regolith again, and that is all, it can’t afford anything more; Posey is dreaming or desperate for jobs to keep HIS job;
Thanks for the Socket to Me, Jeff; you must have been a fan; Good night Dick
Want to go to the moon? Defund SLS, maybe even the MPCV (although I’m getting the impression that the project has progressed far enough that cancellation would be irresponsible rather than cost effective), and buy the launch service from SpaceX, or any other launch company able to compete by that time. You could even accomplish the task using their new Falcon Heavy specs if you split the mission payload into 2 or maybe 3 launches, which would still be much cheaper than building a government owned launch vehicle that can do it with a single launch!
But that still isn’t what I’d like to see get done. Focusing on a short term destination doesn’t advance anything! We landed on the Moon over 40 years ago! We demonstrate ZERO progress in space technology by going back JUST to go back. As exciting as a commercial entity making this achievement cheaper might be, the majority of American people won’t be inspired or even impressed and the only thing we’ll prove to our foreign competitors is that in 40 years the only thing that’s really changed is the % of GDP we’re willing to spend to do it. Going to the moon a few times doesn’t make going to the moon easier, that’s the lesson we needed to learn from the Apollo program.
These pork hungry politicians need to get it through their heads that these new commercial space companies are going to enable a more robust exploration program if we take advantage of it properly. Focusing on a single destination like the Moon or LEO/ISS is sooooo last century. I think (and I know I’m not alone in this) that we need to focus on systems and developments that will make going to any location beyond LEO easier and more regularly achievable.
The problem with BEO human space flight for a long time has been “Why?â€.
Seems unnecessary to explain but here it is:
There’s an entire universe out there for humans to explore and make use of, some religions specify this universe was constructed for humanity to make the most of.
If you wish you can sit on he ground and contemplate your navel (and occasional look up in wonder at the stars) or you can take up “Gods” challenge and explore and learn to understand, and evolve into a greater species. Humanity will die out sitting here, I for one and more optimistic about the intentions and potential of human existence.
Let’s get this species beyond Earth’s orbit in living on multiple planets as soon as practical or impractical.
“One problem with the moon being a destination for BEO is it is in Earth’s orbit. So you could practice longer duration flights by cycling between earth and the moon but what’s the different from the ISS circling earth, really?”
Radation enviroment is very different there. The earth’s magnetic sheild protects the ISS from cosmic rays and most solar flares but when you get above it that becomes a bigger issuse.
That being said one of the problems with BEO space flight is what are you going to do there? BEO spaceflight is more costly than LEO spaceflight which limits options.
ahhhhhhhhhh this is a Space Politics web forum, why speculate on BEO Space Dreams that America can’t afford, today or in the next decade; sure there is lots to do between here and the Moon; most of you won’t remember the 70’s dream of a 100 man/person Space Station to be constructed with the Saturn V before the end of 1980; and a Lunar Base by 1999; those were “real” hopes back then; and here we are dreaming again, and probably end up still waiting when you young people are my age;
Lets stop the daydreaming and tackle the political log jam that keeps us from the reality; that log jam is the lack of will to set up a truly International Aeronautics and Space Administration group that can tackle the building of the Space Infrastructure in our own Back Yard, between the Moon and Earth (some call Cis-Lunar) there is lots we can do here, while preparing to send out Explorers to the Inner Planets and NEO in the first half of this Century; and in the second half, begin building outposts on Mars, it’s Moons, in the L-poins, and beyond; The WORLD has the tools, the know how,and the resources; Let’s DO IT!!!
Focusing on a single destination like the Moon or LEO/ISS is sooooo last century. I think (and I know I’m not alone in this) that we need to focus on systems and developments that will make going to any location beyond LEO easier and more regularly achievable.
Absolutely, and frustratingly this appears to be getting no attention from decision makers. That said, focusing on a single destination and developing the systems for making any location beyond (and in) LEO more accessible can go hand in hand.
Whatever destination beyond LEO you choose, you’re going to need lots of propellant in orbit. If you use a process of fair, competitive and redundant procurement of the necessary launch services (and how hard can that be?), then market forces will take care of the transport infrastructure and do so better than NASA could ever do.
And because the infrastructure could support any destination, it can be brought about through demand pull by any destination. So if politicians decide they want the moon, then that will work. Mars or asteroids would also be great.
Of course, the more money they spend on spacecraft, the less money there will be for launches and consequently for infrastructure development. Personally I believe something less ambitious than the moon would be better, but the moon would do. Similarly starting with unmanned missions would also be better, but not absolutely necessary.
If Posey really wants the moon, then he should champion a lander, not Orion/MPCV and SLS. And Orion/MCPV (not SLS) could be morphed in that direction. But of course, the moon is just a pretext, Posey doesn’t really want the moon, but jobs in his district and cost-plus contracts for his campaign contributors.
nail on the head:
“But of course, the moon is just a pretext, Posey doesn’t really want the moon, but jobs in his district and cost-plus contracts for his campaign contributors.”
Rep. Posey is right about one thing, whether out of genuine conviction or a desire for pork for his district or both: NASA NEEDS A SPECIFIC HSF MISSION. It can be the Moon or an asteroid or a Lagrange point or something else. A specific mission can, and should be, the first step towards other long range missions and goals, i.e. flexible path. What we have with Pres. Obama and Gen. Bolden is just commercial to LEO and no specific mission for NASA. Commercial space on its own can never lead to BEO HSF missions. There is no conceivable economic market force to drive it. NASA has to do it, preferably by using the best hardware NASA and commercial space can produce. But vague generalities about NASA’s HSF future, which is what Obama is pushing, instead of a specific mission is what is causing all of the conflict now with Congress over human spaceflight. And this will leave us stuck in LEO for decades, maybe forever.
NASA, International Partner and Commercial partnership should first concentrate on mastering LEO again. Space Agencies buy services and only develop technology and do things that Commercial can’t do yet, and hand off to Commercial as soon as possible, but otherwise don’t make commercial compete with government. Then hopefully commercial will have an easier time raising capitol in the financial markets.
Then master GEO. NASA/IP/Commercial can learn to service their space assets, re-fuel, load new transponders, etc., NASA can learn to operate in radiation fields, re-fuel, deal with closed loop ECLSS, etc. Current space industry is estimated to be approx $250 B. Estimates are that it will be $1 T in ten years. We need to be able to operate at GEO
Then Master Lagrangian points as staging area for missions to the Moon and Mars, again using partnership of NASA, IP and Commercial. Staging place for fuel, supplies, habitable mass, etc.
From there drop down to the Moon to mine for resources, all done commercially of course, as much as possible, with NASA and IPs filling in the gaps that are too heavy for the Commercial guys to handle. Resources that can be taken out of the Moons shallow gravity well, brought up to the Lagrangian pt and used for the assault on Mars.
Obama’s new vision that just might sell in Peoria should be…To the Moon by the end of this decade, by July 20th, 2019 the 50th anniv of Apollo 11, using a partnership of Commercial, NASA and IPs…this time we stay for good! As a necessary stepping stone on the way to Mars and beyond.
NASA and IPs do whatever they need to do to ensure that Commercials are able to eventually stand on their own feet without assistance, but initially do whatever it takes to make them successful.
This will lead to jobs, a larger tax base, innovation, new technologies, mature space capabilities, and on and on. The Earth is getting too small. We need a bigger piece of Pie to fight over.
The next step is to figure out how to grant title to investors in order to guarantee and encourage investments on the Moon and Mars…This just might set off the space race, with the guys that are willing to risk the most to get us there getting exclusive mining, water rights, etc., to the choicest spots on the Moon Mars, NEOs, Comets, etc.
And eventually we’ll have to deal with the Moon and Mars growing up and wanting to be their own sovereign entities.
So we can do everything for less money, despite a decade of failure. Who knew? It’s like, I don’t know, a miracle. Why didnt we realize this before?
There is no conceivable economic market force to drive it.
Huh? Why wouldn’t the same force that is driving suborbital manned spaceflight drive commercial orbital manned spaceflight in the future, first in LEO and then beyond? Without support from NASA (either directly or preferably through a large and fiercely competitive propellant launch program) it would take a lot longer, but is there any doubt fully commercial space tourism will happen sometime in this century or the next?
Hi Doug –
You need to start with Clube and Napier’s books, and the data,
rather than rely on any NASA endorsed mathematical model.
Quite frankly, that’s why I’ve been calling for Ed Weiler’s relief as the first step. Without Weiler’s help, (“khrush” or “roof” as the Russians call it), Morrison and Mueller’s hypothetical model and the derivative models will immediately fall to s***, and NASA will finally have to step up to the plate.
The problem of detection and mitigation was examined by a team of engineers from NASA Langley, and they came up with CAPS. I do disagree with their architecture, as old Soviet Moon architectures are a cheaper way of building the CAPS instruments.
F9H is adequate for the job.
Hi Gary –
My computers were out this last winter, or else the iPad version would already be up: as many color pictures as I want, and any size large type. There’s a special on the paper version over at the cosmic tusk, which is way cheaper than amazon.
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
Your individual responses to the “Why?’ question are interesting.
The diversity of them also is somewhat indicative of why NASA is adrift.
I would ask that all of you posting here consider that here at space politics you have a limited sample of the general population, who are the people who pay for manned space.
Once you understand that NASA has been understating the impact hazard by 10 to 100 times depending on class, then the “Why?” question finds an immediate answer.
E.P.
roush wrote @ April 7th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
“But vague generalities about NASA’s HSF future, which is what Obama is pushing, instead of a specific mission is what is causing all of the conflict now with Congress over human spaceflight.”
No, Congress wants a big honking rocket, but they have no mission for it. And we don’t need a big honking rocket to explore space, we can do it with the launchers we already have, or near-term ones like Falcon Heavy.
But what to do? As Obama and Bolden have been saying, we need to finish developing a number of key technologies and learn what is needed for us to survive out beyond Earth. Making short excursions is OK, but we’ve done that to the Moon already, and if we’re going to go to Mars some day, there are new challenges that have not be conquered.
None of this prep work excludes any destination, and certainly not the Moon for all the various things people want to do on it (ISRU, telescopes, tourist-traps, etc.).
But after the Shuttle is retired this year, NASA doesn’t have an American way of getting to space. The Russians are OK, but they have always been the ONLY way we can keep people at the ISS for longer than a Shuttle visit, so this situation has been known for decades. What we need is two or more transportation methods dedicated to LEO travel, and the MPCV is not being designed for that (only as an emergency backup).
So Congress needs to get off the pot and get the commercial crew programs going so NASA can access to LEO again without burning $1B of their budget for each flight. That in turn frees up money for NASA to spend on doing more exploration, which we all agree is what we want to do.
So instead of perpetuating the non-reusable/non-sustainable exploration methods of the past, I am quite happy to spend a little extra time to get things right so when we venture out beyond LEO, we’re there to stay.
What we need is two or more transportation methods dedicated to LEO travel, and the MPCV is not being designed for that (only as an emergency backup).
It would be more accurate to say that LEO is an emergency backup for MPCV rather than the other way round. And perhaps even more accurate to say that the “emergency” is secretly the main scenario since its proponents are fully expecting that to come true.
@ roush wrote @ April 7th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
Nonsense wrt. Obama’ space policy for NASA.
@ Carl Lawrence wrote @ April 7th, 2011 at 5:05 pm
Not gonna happen, not now, not tomorrow. At the pace we go probably never gonna happen. You are a few 100s years ahead of where we need to be today.
“Posey wants to go back to the Moon”… which , of course, in the Age of Austerity, is utter lunacy.
The comet disaster theory postulated in a comment above is so precious. With Democrats in charge of Congress, NASA scientists dreamed up threats to the climate to justify their science missions. Pony up for our satellites or Antarctica will melt and the sea levels will rise! With Republicans in charge of the House, and set to take over the Senate, we now need a more masculine “national security” story, so NASA contractor shills now dream up terrible threats to the planet from a mysterious group of unknown comets.
Since asteroid orbits and the history of a small rocks hitting the earth every few million years are too well understood to cause any rationalizable scare, conjure from your imagination a bunch of dormant comets in unpredictable orbits that are so dark we haven’t discovered them yet. You can’t prove they’re not out there so borrow a hundred billion dollars from China to develop a big big rocket now!
Comet disasters are “Climate Change” for Florida and Houston Republicans and the NASA contractors who fund them. But not for much of anybody else.
When this scare has run its course I submit for your contractual benefit an idea for the next big scare: alien microbes! We’ve never discovered any such thing but they are going to kill us! SEND DIAPER-CLAD HEROES TO MARS NOW BEFORE WE ALL DIE FROM ANCIENT NANOVIRUSES!!!!!!
Martin
MPCV alone is not politically viable. Obama could do without it and it does not save enough jobs for Congress. Orion’s BEO abilities are both its blessing and its curse. It is too heavy to launch on anything but the Delta IV heavy and at the moment there are no plans to launch a manned version on that. SLS is need to launch Orion but the odds of SLS showing up are at best 20% due to unrealistic funding(which will only decrease with time) and schedule(6 years is too short). If FH9 heavy shows by 2015 SLS will never see the light of day.
Orion could make a nice payload for commercial to launch to BEO in the mean time and let Space X focus on getting FH9 up rather than getting both FH up and a BEO dragon. Congress needs pork and payload pork is a lot better than rocket pork.
Also as a force the shuttle contractors will be powerful in 2012 and were most poweful in 2010 but there power is waining as more and more jobs are lost more and more people will find work elsewhere(or retire) and the amount budgeted so far is bellow the amount needed to make SLS successful(plus some of the people who support it may be unseated in 2012 with the result that they will be lower on the totem pole for congressional commities).
The only reason Posey is pushing this is to bring pork back to his district — which technically doesn’t include KSC but does include CCAFS. In any case, a lot of KSC workers live in his district, so he’s just pandering to them.
Dan aka Dave C wrote @ April 7th, 2011 at 2:07 pm
“The only way that there will be another Moon landing in my lifetime (another 10-14 years) will be if the US gets off it’s high horse and starts seriously discussing the hows and where fores of International ”
probably not
The only way the US (or anyone really) is going to the Moon is if 1) the cost to do so comes really really down (tops 10 or so billion) and 2) if most of hte hardware can be pickedup commercially.
I think this is highly likely actually Robert G. Oler
The evolution of the VSE
- We will return to the Moon and build a permanent outpost by 2020.
– We will return to the Moon for some short Apollo-style sorties by 2020.
– Yeah… we’re ten years behind schedule, billions over budget, and have virtually nothing to show for it… we’ll be lucky if we can even get back into orbit by 2020… whatever it’s the new guy’s problem now.
Sounds like a great plan to stick with, I was sick of us exploring the cosmos anyways. Space exploration is sooooo 20th century.
How much stuff could one have landed on moon for the money that was spent on Ares-I ? To the tune of 9 billion, right ?
Lets calculate .. 9 billion would buy around 90 Falcon Heavy launches, right ? Thats 4500 tons to LEO, over four years at max launch rate.
Lets say an even 4000, accounting for failures and propellant boiloff etc. With reasonable mass ratios and existing space rated engines, LEO to lunar surface should be at around 1/8th .. thats 500 metric tons to lunar surface.
Poof, there’s a lost moonbase.
@amightywind wrote @ April 7th, 2011 at 11:29 am
The GOP won this debate once, and they will win it again.
Nonsense. The GOP in general and conservatives in particular have never been ‘friends’ of accelorated space exploration. Sober up, Windy.
From Goldwater to Reagan, the Right has been on the wrong side of this issue for half a century. And ‘right’ in character, nothing has changed.
Robert G. Oler wrote @ April 7th, 2011 at 9:12 pm
“… if most of hte hardware can be pickedup commercially.”
Except, of course, commercial HSF in this era is a ticket to no place. Tick-tock, tick-tock… and you are on record on this forum not caring if it survives let alone thrives.
Funny how almost no-one is laughing at SpaceX plans now. Makes one think doesn’t it, that perhaps Musk isn’t quite the looney, or Bigelow or VG or AA or SN or … Maybe there really are newspace companies with the necessary wherewithal to bypass the NASA black hole and do it anyway.
Musk intends to drastically change the space business. Bigelow does to. Boeing’s slowly catching on. Go for it guys. I’m really looking forward to the next couple of years.
As for Congress and the NASA Budget – just a sideshow really.
Funny how almost no-one is laughing at SpaceX plans now.
I am. A few details are missing about F9H considering Musk wants to launch in 2012. They have the core stages. Do they have the crossfeed capability? No. Do they have a viable upper stage? No. Not even a large fairing. Processing and launch facilities? No. And we are to expect a launch next year. Where is the skepticism? Do you enjoy being lied to?
It’s an old analogy but an apt analogy. In 1800s the US set up a program where any entity that would build an operational railroad from point A to point B would be given title to a checkerboard of land on either side of the railroad line. At first the land was undeveloped and relatively worthless, but after time as cities grew along the rail line and farms and ranches grew and mining operations grew, all needing the RR services, the value of the land grew, the lands and the communities became more prosperous and some people like Huntington, Stanford, Carnegie, etc., became fabulously wealthy, and a lot of people became a lot wealthier, and in general most people’s fortunes were lifted. And the US government and the states had a huge new revenue source in terms of all the new taxes, not to mention the new jobs, innovation, etc…Most of the money for the development came from private sources as money was raised on stock markets, etc., based on the prospect of the huge fortunes to be made. Men of vision took risks…some failed and some succeeded. But the development was done commercially. There wasn’t a Government RR.
One of the ways commercial space can be successful is if there can be a similar granting of a limited resource or title or something of value to the investors that are willing to raise the money and take the risks to develop the resource, like mining the moon for H3 or for water in order to make fuel, water for humans on long space flights, and likely mineral resources not known about yet, etc. The same thing could be said about GEO. There is limited bandwidth, limited positions, etc? granted to those willing to take the risk (already happening).
There needs to be a model set up perhaps where it’s not the US anymore giving grants…likely needs to be the UN or some world governing body in order to get everyone on board with the plan…another less positive model, depending on your politics, or who knows maybe it’s just the way it has to be in order for things to happen, is for the US, e.g., to plant its flag on the Moon and declare past treaties null and void, and start granting title to valuable north pole, south pole, areas with lots of water, etc., and handing out grants and titles to anyone willing to put up the money and risk, and actually accomplish…with title backed up by the authority and military might of the US…again, e.g., it might just as likely China or Russia that takes up this model.
My wife is from Mexico. In the farming village she grew up on all the land is owned by all the people of the village and all the profits from the sale of the crops are shared equally by all of the villagers. There is almost no farming in the village because the resourceful people don’t want to have to take all the risks, do all the work and then hand over most of the profits to the rest of the villagers.
Having the Moon belong to everyone is equally unfruitful in the long term future…”but that’s not fair, the Moon belongs to all of us”…well if you want a part of the Moon then probably you should invest in a company that is going there. Buy stock.
I know this all sounds wild eyed and it’s all too far out in the future to really worry about…but unless we start getting stuff like this ironed out and start addressing ways we can make commercial succeed, BY MAKING PROFIT, then commercial will fail, and we will all lose out.
Of course another model might be that commercial picks a big fat juicey piece of the Moon, NEO, Comet, etc., and then sets up a big laser and dares anyone to come and try to take it’s claim…and declares itself a sovereign entity not subject to the laws of Earth or countries on the Earth…this is probably the more likely model given the shape of national and international leadership these days.
From one Republican to another(amighty):
Where the heck do you get ‘2012’ launch from the SpaceX F9H announcement?
“Falcon Heavy will arrive at our Vandenberg, California, launch complex by the end of next year, with liftoff to follow soon thereafter. First launch from our Cape Canaveral launch complex is planned for late 2013 or 2014.â€
You do a disservice to every conservative spouting your BS and obvious axe grinding. Commercial space is the way of the future, and should be every Republican space enthusiast’s mantra.
Gary Anderson
roush wrote @ April 7th, 2011 at 4:57 pm: “There is no conceivable economic market force to drive it.”
Martijn Meijering wrote @ April 7th, 2011 at 5:51 pm: “Huh? Why wouldn’t the same force that is driving suborbital manned spaceflight drive commercial orbital manned spaceflight in the future, first in LEO and then beyond?”
I was referring to BEO, not LEO. I don’t know if there will be a profitable market (besides NASA) for humans in LEO in the near future. The burden of proof for that will be on commercial space. But I cannot imagine a market scenario where commercial space would invest to send humans beyond earth orbit unless NASA or some other non-commercial entity has first paved the way. Under Mr. Obama’s plan there is no mission for NASA, even a first step, to pave the way. Therefore we will be stuck in LEO indefinitely if not forever. So give NASA a destination. Fund it with a budget and schedule consistent with the new federal budget realities. Use commercial space to help in NASA’s BEO mission whenever it makes economic sense.
amightywind wrote @ April 8th, 2011 at 10:01 am
Funny how almost no-one is laughing at SpaceX plans now.
I am. A few details are missing about F9H considering Musk wants to launch in 2012. They have the core stages. Do they have the cross feed capability? No. Do they have a viable upper stage? No. Not even a large fairing. Processing and launch facilities? No. And we are to expect a launch next year. Where is the skepticism? Do you enjoy being lied to?
Umm.. Isn’t that why he is launching in late 2012 or early 2013 because the rocket isn’t built yet otherwise he would launch this year. How do you know he hasn’t been working on prototype tanks or engines? Besides he has more or less been on schedule and cost. He will have at least two launches of F9 this year. His company is growing, He is hiring people. He is buying equipment. Isn’t that the capitalist way?
BeanCounterFromDown under said:
“Funny how almost no-one is laughing at SpaceX plans now. Makes one think doesn’t it, that perhaps Musk isn’t quite the looney, or Bigelow or VG or AA or SN or …”
While I have always been impressed and hoped for the best from SpaceX, I do look at their work and acheivemnts with a little more realistic eye than most of the SpaceX fanboys that seem to populate this site.
Just from past experiance with SpaceX proposed launch dates, mid to late 2014 would be a more realistic time frame for the initial launch of the Falcon Heavy. Still quite an acheivement considering that the SLS outlined by congress sets a deadline of the end of 2016 wich NASA has already said it can’t meet.
Some of the SpaceX fanboys on this and other sites, have tried to compare the FH to the SLS. These two boosters are really two different beasts designed for two different purposes. The FH with 27 engines on 3 cores is really the pratical limit to the Falcon 9 design. Even with refinements and upgrades, the FH will most likely never be able to lift over 60mt to LEO. That said, the FH is the a perfect launch vehical for sending large probes, landers and sample return missions to Mars and the outer planets, multiple or larger more capable satilites to Geo-stationary orbit or even re-supply and/or crew transfer missions to a moon base.
On the other hand, the SLS with a baseline capability of launching 70mt to LEO and projected capability of 120mt or more to LEO is the launch vehical that will be needed to build that moon base. We can get to the moon for a few sorties doing not much more than flags and footprints with the FH, Delta4, fuel transfers and other technologies but to do more usefull exploration and utilization on the moon and cis-lunar space requires a heavy launch vehical like the SLS.
So really, the Falcon Heavy and the SLS compliment each other, not compete against each other.
“You need to start with Clube and Napier’s books, and the data,
rather than rely on any NASA endorsed mathematical model.”
“NASA-endorsed mathematical models”? Geez. CAPS was not only NASA-endorsed (by LaRC and SMD), but NASA-funded. So much for them.
You need to understand that mathematical models and the data are what all the analyses are about. The NRC “Ad Hoc Task Force on Planetary Defense” concluded last year in a long report that long period comets were not a serious risk. Napier has some good arguments, but they are based on the same data that everyone is looking at. No question that IF a long period comet were aimed at Earth, life would be hard, but the consensus is that there aren’t very many of them that could be. The argument that such comets are undetectable because of low albedo is correct only if the surveys are being done optically. Infrared surveys, such as are being proposed, will pick up low albedo objects very efficiently.
But I was challenging you about your suggestion that going to the Moon was essential for mitigating such threats. I don’t believe it is. Not by a long shot. Care to share? Why?
Ed Weiler is probably chuckling at the paranoia that he seems to have induced in some people.
roush wrote:
Under Mr. Obama’s plan there is no mission for NASA, even a first step, to pave the way.
Wrong:
http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/
@ amightywind wrote @ April 8th, 2011 at 10:01 am
“Where is the skepticism?”
Skepticism is definitely needed but not for SpaceX only, rather for everyone. Now you are skeptical of SpaceX because they may not be right on time for launch the way you would like. Yet they fly new rockets and capsule. They fly with a one time budget that NASA burns in a couple of months on Shuttle alone even if Shuttle does not fly. They do fly. Skepticism is good to keep their feet to the fire that much I will agree.
But the problem is not skepticism. It is selective skepticism from people like you. Where is the skepticism about NASA ability to field new rockets and spacecraft? Especially after those decades of fiasco. Now with a little critical thinking you might argue that at least NASA itself is perfectly aware of their shortcomings and that is why in the end they funded COTS and soon more CCDev.
So take a step back from time to time and think. I mean it. What is actually happening today? NASA is fighting Congress and its taxation on their HSF where Congress imposes NASA to spend money in certain states/districts to protect jobs rather that anything else. Jobs is the only reason why NASA receives $10B for HSF, nothing else. NASA wants to change it. Bolden is trying to put Congress feet to the fire and you and others keep insulting him. Very frustrating.
Oh well…
FTLFactor wrote @ April 7th, 2011 at 11:47 am
“I’m a big fan of space exploration and human spaceflight, but I don’t see where money will come from to expand NASA’s human spaceflight budget. I also don’t see how a Republican can get traction to expand any Federal program in today’s political environment. Maybe it’s time to consider a new paradigm in which space exploration isn’t dependent on government funding.”
Hmmm. Why don’t you start with reviewing the history of Robert Goddard and see how far that ‘paradigm’ got him toiling in the New Mexico desert. Then see why Von Braun and Korolev were more successful. Republicans will always fund the military and the DoD is the smart source for consistent funding for mid and long term planning of space operations through the Age of Austerity.
Gary Anderson wrote @ April 8th, 2011 at 10:55 am
@SpaceX excels at launching press releases– but not crewed spacecraft. They’re a ticket to no place in the realm of HSF. Branson is on the right track for this era in the private sector.
amightywind wrote @ April 8th, 2011 at 10:01 am
” Where is the skepticism?”
I wonder that as well as people advocate for a NASA managed launch system? 10 billion dollars (the entire Gemini program including launch cost was on ly 5.3 billion in today dollars) for no flyable hardware on Cx should make anyone skeptical
Robert G. Oler
Hi Googaw –
Actually, the George Brown Jr amendment passed the Congress on a bi-partisan basis, with major support from legislators who have no NASA facilities in their districts. Mike Griffin promptly ignored the Congress’s instructions.
Googaw, all of those climate research satellites you mention were started under W. Bush, as when he rejected the Kyoto agreements he promised to actually determine whether or not CO2 production was affecting the climate. In any case, those satellites would have greatly improved long and short term weather forecasts.
I suppose if I were simply a political opportunist, I would appeal to the anti-AGW people, including say coal deposit owners, and point out to them that all of those satellites were started under Ed Weiler, so they need to get rid of him, instead of pointing out the need to understand how our weather really works. Contemplating this gets me to thinking about a red convertible sports car, steak dinners, a nice place on a warm beach, and dying of Rockefeller’s syndrome… Unfortunately, for national purposes we need to determine whether AGW is real or not… Oh well…
As far as the impact hazard goes, Googaw, what you don’t know about it would fill several books. Your understanding of both the impact hazard and the NASA bureaucracy’s (lack of) response to it is nil. Here in the real world, for you to accuse me of being a NASA shill is sadly laughable. I only wish the impact research community had funding.
By the way, Googaw, back contamination is a real problem which is going to have to be addressed before manned Mars flight takes place. That will require the development and use of several very capable Mars rovers. The launchers to launch them will be purchased from private sector companies.
Hello everyone else, including AW –
When you speak of commercial, would all of you please keep in mind that all of the competitors are commercial launch companies? That includes ULA and Orbital. NASA does not manufacture launchers, private companies hired by NASA do.
It is also important to remember that SpaceX is the only real start-up in the industry; that is it is the only real one I know of.
AW, Musk has been hiring and relying on the advice of the best engineers he can find. He thinks he can lower launch costs and make money. Including com sat launch money, and products and services few here have considered.
It was the same for Thompson’s Orbital when he started it, though their business plan was developing and serving a niche in the launch market.
It appears Musk has succeeded, and I appreciate that, if many don’t. The new Chinese launchers are going to present formidable competition in the launch market.
@ E.P. Grondine wrote @ April 8th, 2011 at 1:03 pm
“It is also important to remember that SpaceX is the only real start-up in the industry; that is it is the only real one I know of.”
Well you need to do a little more homework. How about Blue Origin? Masten? Armadillo? Sierra Nevada? Virgin Galactic?
Stephen C. Smith wrote @ April 8th, 2011 at 12:03pm: “Wrong:http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/”
By NASA “mission” I was of course referring to a specific BEO HSF destination. I don’t find that anywhere in NASA’s proposed budget.
E.P. Grondine,
I definitely agree that, in the case of ULA, they are a commercial company, and I have good hopes for ULA (assuming mom & dad decide to stop holding it back), and I can see that Orbital is moving towards a commercial provider/operator (albiet VERY slowly). However, there are others I would not characterize as commercial, but as contractors (looking in ATKs direction in particular, but there are others). And yes, operating as a contractor vs commercial provider is fundamentally different
Hi Doug –
I suppose I needed to be much more specific: NASA-endorsed mathematical models of the impact hazard.
“CAPS was not only NASA-endorsed (by LaRC and SMD), but NASA-funded. So much for them.”
Yes, those engineers were not under the control of Ed Weiler.
“You need to understand that mathematical models and the data are what all the analyses are about. The NRC “Ad Hoc Task Force on Planetary Defense†concluded last year in a long report that long period comets were not a serious risk.”
You need to understand that Dwayne Day, who chaired that study, has absolutely no background in impact studies, and besides a “fascination” with US reconnaissance satellites, a “fascination” with Soviet manned Mars flight systems.
Thus the NRC report committee was staffed with Morrison and Mueller’s people, while supporters of Clube and Napier’s model had no representation.
That situation did not hold at LaRC and SMD.
“Napier has some good arguments, but they are based on the same data that everyone is looking at. No question that IF a long period comet were aimed at Earth, life would be hard, but the consensus is that there aren’t very many of them that could be.”
First off, the “consensus” you mention concerning the cometary impact hazard is only here in the US, and that view is NOT held internationally, and for that matter many impact researchers here in the US do not endorse it.
Morrison has been insisting for years that Mueller’s injection model is the “standard” paradigm, when in point of fact it is not. It appears he has peer reviewed publications presenting himself as an unbiased reviewer, when in point of fact he has had and has a horse in the race. The same goes for impact research funding.
As far as the immediate hazard goes, NASA right now is confidently predicting that Comet 73P will turn into magic comet dust based on a sample of one, Comet Biela. We will be in 73P’s debris chain in 2022, and for that matter NASA has not even estimated the climate effects of that “magic comet dust” load in our atmosphere.
“The argument that such comets are undetectable because of low albedo is correct only if the surveys are being done optically. Infrared surveys, such as are being proposed, will pick up low albedo objects very efficiently.”
Yes its correct, and besides IR instruments there are large Lidar and radar based systems. The surface of the Moon is the best (most efficient) place to locate these instruments, hence CAPS, which as you point out has been endorsed by several groups of NASA engineers.
“But I was challenging you about your suggestion that going to the Moon was essential for mitigating such threats. I don’t believe it is. Not by a long shot. Care to share? Why?
Ed Weiler is probably chuckling at the paranoia that he seems to have induced in some people.”
Ed Weiler is a cosmologist, and like most cosmological telescopists he holds comet and asteroid observors in some contempt. His bias is reflected in his budgeting of the Next Generation Space Telescope, while ignoring as best he could the instructions of the Congress concerning impactor detection.
Since you brought up IR, note carefully Weiler’s lack of any planning for a long term follow up for WISE. For that matter, I have not seen any mention of 2 band use of WISE on 73P’s fragments.
Bottom line, what it comes down to is this: the earlier the detection, the more time we have to prevent an impact, and the more options we have for doing so. Instruments based on the Moon will provide the earliest possible and most reliable detection.
That may not be enough of a “Why?” for you, but then your priorities may differ from those of others.
Hi Mr. Earl –
I only have a few really functional minutes in a day now (one finger typing with a spell checker, no grammar check, and only deal with materials which I went through for years, and will stop soon to take a nap)…
…But if PWR can negotiate a full manufacturing license for the RD 180, then fly-back liquids may enter the option space as well.
The problem that you get using “SLS” when you mean to say DIRECT is that Utah and ATK have a different definition of “SLS” than you do, one that includes their 5 segs, and which they hope includes their medium launcher (Ares1 or Liberty).
Maybe you haven’t checked the national budget yet,or gasoline prices, but FH’s launch costs are way low. 3 FH launches put up a much mass as 2 DIRECT launches. Compare the costs.
In closing, I just want to repeat that in my view there is nothing conservative about trying to pay for a war with tax cuts for billionaires, or leaving the nation dependent on foreign oil.
Hi CS –
“How about Blue Origin? Masten? Armadillo? Sierra Nevada? Virgin Galactic?”
How about them?
VG is not orbital spaceflight.
Have the others flown anything? Do they have enough private funding, or way to secure it? Do they have adequate engineering staffs? What sizes are their payloads, what is their path of evolution? Do they have any business plan except to get money from NASA?
@ E.P. Grondine wrote @ April 8th, 2011 at 2:30 pm
You said “It is also important to remember that SpaceX is the only real start-up in the industry; that is it is the only real one I know of.” Where are you talking about orbital flight? You said “in the industry”.
“Have the others flown anything? Do they have enough private funding, or way to secure it? Do they have adequate engineering staffs? What sizes are their payloads, what is their path of evolution? Do they have any business plan except to get money from NASA?”
Why don’t you ask them? So far so good I would say. They seem to do pretty well. VG has flow suborbital flights providing astronaut wings for their pilots. Others are flying lander type craft. Others are still in the development process which is not the same uniform development method for each company. And since they are start ups they must first show they have a viable product to sell. Once they do we’ll talk again. SpaceX was about 350 people in 2008 and somewhere above 1100 in 2010. You have to start somewhere. Nonetheless SpaceX is NOT the only start up in the industry and I am not sure you can still call SpaceX a start up at this stage.
Hi FV –
I have this feeling that if USA had of become more of a commercial company rather than a contractor, DIRECT would have already been developed. My guess is that Dan Goldin would have started that conversion very early on. It is also striking to consider that that conversion would have taken place under a Democratic administration. It would be interesting to talk with Goldin about his planned manned Mars flight architecture using DIRECT.
Another striking thing – the space press reports Dan Goldin’s screaming, and Gen. Bolden’s tears, but it appears that they do not understand why the job of NASA Administrator is in the Prune Book, rather than the Plum Book. They also forget that space flight technologies are still developing, and that crews lives are regularly at risk If you take a look at their reporting of Lisa Novak’s collapse, you’ll notice a similar blindness.
There’s one hell of a lot of pressure.
MPCV alone is not politically viable. Obama could do without it and it does not save enough jobs for Congress. Orion’s BEO abilities are both its blessing and its curse. It is too heavy to launch on anything but the Delta IV heavy and at the moment there are no plans to launch a manned version on that.
Just to make it clear, I was thinking of redirecting MPCV towards an in-space only vehicle. While that still wouldn’t be precisely optimal it would actually be pretty darn good for commercial development of space if it served as the initial consumer of large quantities of competitively launched storable propellant.
Had Obama changed course the day after he was sworn in (never a realistic prospect of course), we could now have been a year and a half away from the first commercial propellant flights. In fact, at any time since Apollo such a decision could have been made and could have had dramatic effects on launch prices. If this had happened at any time between 1970 and 1995 we would probably have had commercial RLVs and large scale manned spaceflight by now.
This is why I find it so disappointing that a majority of posters seem to believe we have to delay exploration to accelerate commercial development of space. I think the reverse is true, delaying exploration means delaying the best opportunity to open up space for mankind and we’ve wasted so much time already. I hadn’t even been born in 1970.
While it is true that exploration in the spirit of Constellation would not have helped commercial development of space one bit even if it had succeeded, that doesn’t mean we have to throw away the baby with the bathwater.
SLS is need to launch Orion but the odds of SLS showing up are at best 20% due to unrealistic funding(which will only decrease with time) and schedule(6 years is too short). If FH9 heavy shows by 2015 SLS will never see the light of day.
I don’t understand this bit. How is SLS necessary? You just said Delta Heavy would be enough. Or did you mean for launching Orion straight to a high energy orbit (most likely L1/L2)? That certainly has advantages, and I’ve advocated it myself. But that could be done with EELV Phase 1 or Falcon Heavy too.
And EOR with an EDS in LEO seems preferable from the point of view of stimulating commercial development of space, even if we start with just Centaurs as makeshift EDSs that are launched fully fueled on an EELV-class vehicle.
Orion could make a nice payload for commercial to launch to BEO in the mean time and let Space X focus on getting FH9 up rather than getting both FH up and a BEO dragon. Congress needs pork and payload pork is a lot better than rocket pork.
Agreed. But propellant consuming pork is much, much better. Excellent even.
But I cannot imagine a market scenario where commercial space would invest to send humans beyond earth orbit unless NASA or some other non-commercial entity has first paved the way.
Not in the short term, but certainly somewhere in the next century and a half. It’ll be disappointing if it doesn’t happen in the early part of that period of course…
So give NASA a destination. Fund it with a budget and schedule consistent with the new federal budget realities. Use commercial space to help in NASA’s BEO mission whenever it makes economic sense.
Yes, if they do that then things would happen a lot more quickly. Relying on fair, competitive and redundant procurement for launch and crew return would make economic sense today. A more traditional approach might make sense for development of in-space vehicles, especially as there is great value in doing this as soon as possible and with as little risk as possible, and less value in squeezing out the last drop of cost-efficiency in that area. Fifteen years from now even that might be different.
Martin: Bit of NASA history…
“Had Obama changed course the day after he was sworn in (never a realistic prospect of course), we could now have been a year and a half away from the first commercial propellant flights. In fact, at any time since Apollo such a decision could have been made and could have had dramatic effects on launch prices. If this had happened at any time between 1970 and 1995 we would probably have had commercial RLVs and large scale manned spaceflight by now.â€
While prop depots could have been developed any time in that period, commercial launching would have been lagging. Until the early 80ies (the time of the Challenger disaster) this was not possible. NASA once subsidized the launch of all satellites. This is the world the space shuttle was conceived and born into. It was going to not just carry people into space but also launch the satellites that today are sent unmanned. In fact it was going to launch all US spaceflight! The idea was that if it flew enough it would be cheaper than an expendable.
Regan deregulated the launch industry in 1984 and the Challenger Disaster in 1986 pointed out the flaws of risking 7 lives to do what an unmanned booster could do and pointed out the fact that the shuttle could never achieve its designed flight rate and fly safely nor was using this government designed system to do the task a good idea. The only reason why the shuttle program survived the disaster was because it was our only manned access to space and no one wanted to create a new system after spending.All of the payloads that could be launched commercailly were move off of the shuttle and on to thoose boosters.
Had an unmanned system been so costly and so incapable of doing what it was envisioned to do it would have been canceled.
Basically there is no commercial launch industry till 1984 at the soonest or 1986. However the shuttle was a milestone around NASA’s neck. It had enough budget to fly it but had trouble developing anything more (i.e. Space Station Freedom. Which Regan wanted but got put on the back burned till the Clinton Administration turned it into the ISS).
There have always been plans to build large in space items with the shuttle and a prop depot was one of them but only the ISS came to fruition. Bush I wanted an expansion to the moon and mars but that never went anywhere. Clinton was not interested in BEO flight. Bush II wanted an expansion to the moon but didn’t give CXP the support it needed to be successful.
Congress as a whole has generally been hostile to all spaceflight. The Space Shuttle survived by one vote in the 70ies and killing it would have killed all prospect of US spaceflight at the time. The ISS likewise. This is also why SLS has funding problems. Congress as a whole does not wish to give SLS enough budget to succeed while the space states are trying to funnel as much of that budget into their respective states and districts(irrespective of NASAs needs).
“I don’t understand this bit. How is SLS necessary? You just said Delta Heavy would be enough. Or did you mean for launching Orion straight to a high energy orbit (most likely L1/L2)? That certainly has advantages, and I’ve advocated it myself. But that could be done with EELV Phase 1 or Falcon Heavy too.â€
The problem here is that EELV phase 1 is not funded and there are no plans from NASA to man rate the Delta IV heavy (or any booster capable of lifting Orion other than SLS). Granted you could use a commercial crew flight to get around this problem but that is the only way until either Falcon 9 Heavy get man rated or SLS shows up noting can lift Orion plus a crew. This creates a situation where cancelation of SLS leads to cancelation of Orion (nothing to lift it). If Orion survives long enough that FH comes online while SLS goes down in flames it becomes possible to transition the payload.
While you would like to redirect to in space only use there is no way to do that without creating a new program not easy nor will a BEO dragon be around anytime soon(they have to work on the LEO one now). Right now there is a Chicken and egg around propellant depots. There are no depots therefore there are no tankers therefore there are no commercial refill flights.
BEO exploration is the first and best use of a depot. It would use far more propellant than any other user. If you have Orion or something capable of doing deep space flight leveraging a full scale depot becomes easier. It’s the old sales man tatic ask for something small(Orion) and get something larger or in addition to it(Depot). It is much easier to get money to expand a capability than to build one.
While NASA can and should develop the technology of the fuel depot do you think they should be designing tankers too? Odd are they will design the tanker more expensive than it needs to be.
Imagine what taking on 20-30MT of propellant at a depot could do for spaceflight. 20-30MT is low enough that it becomes possible to supply a depot with a few flights of exsisting rockets or one flight of FH9 heavy can supply the depot for 2-3 flights. It allows the market to slowly grow in capability.
With Falcon 9 Heavy it is possible to lift Orion Plus an upper stage and if you can’t man rate it you could lift it to the ISS (or near) and use a commercial flight to man it. If it is manned rated it becomes possible to lift it all in one go.
Falcon 9 Heavy is just the right size big enough to save flights but not so big as to make prop depots useless and better still because Falcon 9 heavy isn’t owned by NASA there will not be the temptation to put all flights on it(like the shuttle and the ISS….The EELV could have launched some stuff ). With SLS they would never do anything that would reduce their launch rate (SLS would launch everything it could).
Basically there is no commercial launch industry till 1984 at the soonest or 1986.
Well, when I said they could have done it at any time that would have included deciding to cancel or not to build the Shuttle. That would have freed up enough money to do exploration. Atlas and Titan were available and Saturn I could have been fully privatised if there had been a large and competitive propellant market.
The problem here is that EELV phase 1 is not funded and there are no plans from NASA to man rate the Delta IV heavy (or any booster capable of lifting Orion other than SLS).
OK, but in that case SLS is only necessary because Congress chooses to make it so. They could also choose to fund EELV Phase 1 or Falcon Heavy. Or they could simply tell NASA to make do with competitively procured launch services.
While you would like to redirect to in space only use there is no way to do that without creating a new program not easy nor will a BEO dragon be around anytime soon(they have to work on the LEO one now).
There would have to be a new program, but it could be based around Orion technology, the Orion workforce and Orion pork. I’m not thinking of a capsule, but about turning the SM + avionics into a reusable and refuelable deep space transfer stage. Not quite an EDS, because it would make more sense to use it from a high-energy orbit like L1/L2, because that would allow you to use LOX/LH2 for most of the way. This wouldn’t have to wait for a beyond LEO Dragon as it could do useful unmanned missions without it as well as manned precursor missions in LEO for which the ordinary Dragon would suffice.
Right now there is a Chicken and egg around propellant depots. There are no depots therefore there are no tankers therefore there are no commercial refill flights.
Correct, and I would want to use an Orion-based transfer stage to break the deadlock. It could be its own makeshift depot and it could consume large amounts of propellant. It’s less easy to see how Orion could usefully do that.
Imagine what taking on 20-30MT of propellant at a depot could do for spaceflight.
Oh yes, absolutely. That’s why I want to see it happen as soon as possible, especially as I believe it could and in hindsight should have been done thirty years ago.
While NASA can and should develop the technology of the fuel depot do you think they should be designing tankers too?
I wouldn’t want them anywhere near the development of depots. A refuelable storable propellant spacecraft would be enough and that could be based on Orion. Not doing it in-house but more competitively instead would be even better, but no more than gravy. Establishing a large and fiercely competitive launch market as soon as possible is what counts. Let the Orion-based transfer stage provide the demand and then we could let the market sort out development of cheaper launch vehicles (probably RLVs) first and then depots, high Isp propulsion, aerobraking etc.
Falcon 9 Heavy is just the right size big enough to save flights but not so big as to make prop depots useless and better still because Falcon 9 heavy isn’t owned by NASA there will not be the temptation to put all flights on it(like the shuttle and the ISS….The EELV could have launched some stuff ).
In my opinion we shouldn’t be trying to minimise flight, but to minimise costs and prices which probably requires very high flight rates. But yes, FH would be a lot better than SLS. I especially like the fact that it could fly in a more reasonable single core configuration.
If Orion survives long enough that FH comes online while SLS goes down in flames it becomes possible to transition the payload.
Orion could work with existing EELVs too. I wouldn’t like to see it continue as a crew vehicle or even a capsule (although a commercial crew taxi could be spun off from it), but it could work. LEO rendez-vous with a Centaur near the ISS (where the crew can safely await its arrival) would work.
Doug Lassiter wrote @ April 8th, 2011 at 11:53 am
“You need to understand that mathematical models and the data are what all the analyses are about. The NRC “Ad Hoc Task Force on Planetary Defense†concluded last year in a long report that long period comets were not a serious risk.â€
E.P. Grondine wrote @ April 8th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
You need to understand that Dwayne Day, who chaired that study, has absolutely no background in impact studies, and besides a “fascination†with US reconnaissance satellites, a “fascination†with Soviet manned Mars flight systems.
Wow. I’ll knock you down before Dwayne does. You are wrong. Period. The Chair of that study was Irwin Shapiro from Harvard, with two very senior and impact-knowledgeable co-Chairs (one of whom was responsible for impacting a comet!). Dwayne was the Study Director, an NRC position that basically keeps the trains running on time for the study. It’s an important job, but is not one that allows his personal opinions to enter into the study report. His job at the NRC has nothing to do with what is essentially his hobby, though you seem to think it does. An apology to Dwayne would, I’m sure, be welcome by him.
There is evidently a lot you need to understand …
That being the case, and being that you STILL evidently don’t want to tell us why you said a return to the Moon is important for asteroid (or comet) mitigation, I think we’re done with this conversation.
“The only way that there will be another Moon landing in my lifetime (another 10-14 years) will be if the US gets off it’s high horse and starts seriously discussing the hows and where fores of International Co-operation; no one country can afford to do the heavy lifting anymore to get there and stay there…”
Wonderful. Yet another layer of bureaucracy, and one dependent on the continued good will and budgetary ability and willingness of all partners involved, for the duration of the project..
Mr. Musk must thinking about how to get in the exploration-support mission. Especially if he’s got (unreleased) concepts for a propellant depot, which Falcon 9 could support.
Remember that under FlexPath (again, a reluctant supporter-I was a Moon First person), commercial handles LEO, NASA and other space agencies do the hard stuff BEO. Now, that doesn’t mean that commercial entities couldn’t get involved in supporting exploration activities (i.e. a fuel depot) under that.
What the good congressman wants is for NASA leadership to commit to lunar return once the NEO mission is done, FWIW. He may have to wait until a successor administration is in the White House, though. Just my opinion, but it may have been Charlie Bolden offering Mr. Obama a choice: either a revamped lunar program or doing something new (NEO, L-Points, etc.) before lunar return. POTUS chose the latter. (again, just my opinion) Though the NASA Authorization Act does state that the Moon is a destination, just not the initial destination a la Constellation.
Hi Doug –
Thanks for making my point.
Being a co-ordinator for a study in no way implies expertise as an impact specialist. It would help if Mr. Day stopped trying to present himself as one.
The study’s head was a cosmologist, and as I stated before, cosmological telescopists generally hold asteroid and comet observor’s in some contempt.
Mike Ahearn is very good, as is Bob Verish. Both can be relied on for interception tasks.
Amy Mainz headed up WISE, whose primary purpose was to find Morrison and Mueller’s Nemesis companion to our Sun.
Having stacked the panel, the NRC still told NASA that it was not doing enough, and that was simply in regard to ASTEROID detection, not COMET and DEAD COMET FRAGMENT detection, which is what the Congress asked about.
The late Brian Marden who headed up the MPC had very good connections directly with the Congress. If George Brown Jr or Gene Shoemaker had not passed on, the impact hazard would have been dealt with, and we would not be having this conversation.
Note carefully that Ed Weiler has ignored JPL’s request for an IR satellite devoted to the detection task, as well as the Congress’s instructions, consistently for 5 years now. It is past time for his relief.
As the capabilities of CAPS have been discussed extensively, you can find that yourself. Note that the first word in CAPS is COMET.
I liked the “Impact is the “Global Warming” for Florida and Texas” comment, and just wish it were so.
Now what is your answer for the “Why?” question.
Hi Matt –
Keep in mind that neither Obama nor Bolden came up with the visit to an asteroid architecture. It started with Dan Golden and continued until Griffin ended it. The plan is to test manned Mars flight systems by visiting an asteroid. Griffin’s plan was to test manned Mars flight systems by visiting the Moon. Its strange that no one can conceive of Obama being a manned Mars flight enthusiast.
While I too am a Moon first backer, it is likely that a visit to an asteroid will lead to vastly improve impactor detection systems.
Musk’s business plan is to make money in the launch market.
Hi, E.P;
Try telling that to those who think Musk and SpaceX are the way to go for everything-and there are some here. Musk wants to make money, no doubt about it, but he’s made some statements that make Congressional support for his suggestions problematic at best, and some are downright hostile to him. Any suggestion that NASA buy Dragon and Falcon 9 heavy for BEO exploration will be DOA on The Hill. There’s a difference in what you want to do and what the politicans will let you do.
I’m sure Dan Golden was thinking of that, even though during his tenure at NASA, exploration was a dirty word in the agency.
Try telling that to those who think Musk and SpaceX are the way to go for everything-and there are some here. Musk
Who?
Why do you make things up?
Hi Matt, all –
It looks to me like there are three medium heavy launch options for BEO work:
One is Falcon Heavy.
One is clustered Atlases,perhaps fly-back, if PWR can negotiate an RD manufacturing license.
One is DIRECT.
All three are perfectly capable of supporting modular Moon and Mars architectures, with fuel transfer technology which is already in hand.
While I like all three launch options, can the nation afford all of three? The answer to that question is beyond me.
I do know that work on the Falcon, Falcon Heavy, and Dragon will proceed regardless of the Congress’s actions.
That leaves open the question of whether the nation can afford supporting clustered Atlases, with fly-back possibly, and DIRECT.
I don’t think RD engine cost can be justified on a one use basis, but that RD tech may likely form the basis for fly-back re-usables.
ATK’s solids are a dead end in commercial launch, and no explicit defense need has been stated for their 5 seg.
If ATK will endorse the 70 ton DIRECT with 4 segs, that is known to acceptable to the Administration.
That’s the good news for ATK. The bad news for ATK is that the next generation of boosters for DIRECT will likely be fly-back liquids which will be able to be clustered to build stand alone commercial launchers.
That’s my current analysis, but there may be game changing tech on the way, such as new engine tech and solar thermal propulsion engines.
In closing, please remember that the space industry is a whole lot more than manned flight, and that manned flight is a whole lot more than simply manned Mars flight. As you work your way through your own analysis, please keep in mind the physics, engineering, and cost restraints, as that will prevent your desires from degenerating into fantasies.
Aside from that, the only thing I’d like to add is that there is nothing conservative about trying to pay for a war with tax cuts for billionaires, or in leaving our nation dependent on foreign oil.
Hi Matt –
“I’m sure Dan Golden was thinking of that, even though during his tenure at NASA, exploration was a dirty word in the agency.”
Its Dan GolDIN, Charles BolDEN. That happens to me now sometimes as well.
I will not pretend to speak for Dan Goldin; he is still alive, and you can ask him about his experiences as NASA Administrator if you want to. But I will point out a few facts.
What Dan Golden had to deal with was political attacks done simply for political advantage while he was trying to carry out the essential business of the nation, attacks made by individuals who knew damn well how essential that business was to the nation’s well being.
Their leader is a political non-entity right now, a person who was caught up by his own hypocracy. None of his colleagues are exactly clamoring for his return.
Dan Goldin had an exploration plan, which was to cut the shuttle over to the NLS (from which DIRECT evolved) and use the NLS to land men on Mars by 2020.
I have some notes on his architectures which have been assembled from different public sources and press reports, but they are too lengthy to post here.
Not making things up: there are some on this board in previous threads who seem to worship Musk. Or at the very least, want NASA buy all of its future vehicles from Space X. I don’t want to name names, but previous posts in past threads speak for themselves.
All three are perfectly capable of supporting modular Moon and Mars architectures, with fuel transfer technology which is already in hand.
You conveniently “forgot” to mention Delta IV Heavy which, unlike the other three, has flown already, repeatedly in fact. And if you really wanted to EELV Mediums or Falcon 9 would suffice, but that would require either smaller spacecraft or more advanced cryogenic propellant transfer.
I don’t want to name names, but previous posts in past threads speak for themselves.
Perhaps you should name names or else remain quiet about the subject because I don’t think the previous posts speak for themselves. It is true that some people are very enthusiastic about SpaceX, but I haven’t seen anyone call for a SpaceX monopoly. What I have seen however is people calling for a near monopoly for SDLV. And if you’re opposed to a SpaceX monopoly why is it you are not opposed to a near SDLV monopoly?
As you work your way through your own analysis, please keep in mind the physics, engineering, and cost restraints, as that will prevent your desires from degenerating into fantasies.
Physician, heal thyself.
Hi Martin –
Its Sunday. So briefly:
What is the launch cost for clustered Delta, and what is its Mass to LEO? Does if offer a path to re-usability or other lower cost? Does it offer a path to larger payloads?
There are other fuels besides cryogenics. Have you looked at the architectures for using them? The practical and operational constraints?
Thanks for the reminder.
Ed
What is the launch cost for clustered Delta, and what is its Mass to LEO?
Costs are proprietary, so I don’t know. I do know that costs are dominated by fixed costs so they will come down as flight rates go up. They probably won’t go down enough to lead to much higher numbers of private space tourists, but if Bigelow is successful we may see much larger numbers of government space tourists (aka astronauts) and a slight increase in private spaceflight.
Does if offer a path to re-usability or other lower cost? Does it offer a path to larger payloads?
I don’t think the prospects for reusability are very good, but ULA considered a scheme to recover Atlas first stage engines and something similar might apply to Delta. It has been suggested that the real reason behind this is to remind Energomash that there are alternatives, but at sufficiently high flight rates it may make sense either way.
Reducing costs and increasing payloads probably go hand in hand, through commonality with Atlas. A common upper stage would yield the 40-50mT EELV Phase 1 and adding a common first stage based on Delta tooling would yield EELV Phase 2, which is 60-70mT IIRC.
That would reduce fixed costs and increase payload and should therefore increase efficiency, but only at high volumes and you would also have to amortise development costs, which may wipe out any gains, unless they are paid for by NASA, which is something I would oppose, though not as strongly as SDLV. As would be the case with Falcon Heavy, single core configurations would be able to serve commercial markets which gives additional efficiency.
In any event, I see use of EELV Heavies to launch fully fueled Centaur-based EDSs without needing cryogenic refueling as a stopgap solution for exploration until cryogenic depots are available as well as a way to enable immediate use of storable propellant transfer to create a commercial launch market so that that doesn’t have to wait for cryogenic depots either. Two birds with one stone.
Which brings me to your next question…
There are other fuels besides cryogenics. Have you looked at the architectures for using them? The practical and operational constraints?
Heh, are you pulling my leg? I have indeed been looking at alternative propellants, so much so in fact that some people seem to think I have a thing for hypergolics. There is something about hypergolics that makes people switch of their brains and immediately disregard them as a possibility. They appear to be surrounded by something resembling a “somebody else’s problem field”.
Yes I know they are toxic and expensive and among the lowest performing of the high performance propellants, but none of that is crucial if you use them intelligently.
They are the propellants of choice for spacecraft and are likely to remain so for the foreseeable future, promising alternatives like DMAZ and NOFB or hydrogen peroxide notwithstanding. They are also more convenient payloads (not propellants!) for RLVs than even mild cryogens.
As for performance, they are also absolutely fine from high energy orbits onward. It’s good to remember that the performance difference is only large compared to LOX/LH2 which has exceptional performance. It’s not much worse than most other propellants. And you can combine hypergolics with use of solar electric propulsion, which has even higher Isp. Moderate performance of hypergolics combined with spectacular performance by SEP may even outperform LOX/LH2 for some applications.
And in any event the argument in favour of hypergolics is that they are a good place to start and to break the deadlock. Once they have enabled exploration and commercial funding for RLVs they will have played their most crucial role and can safely be replaced with alternatives once they become available.
Accepting a modest mass penalty (only ~10% for lunar cargo and that excludes use of SEP and improved dry mass through use of denser propellants and dry launching) would be worth it, especially since you would be reducing development costs as well as reducing launch prices spectacularly. It is not self-evident that waiting for cryogenic depots would be cheaper on a net present value basis and I contend it is self-evident that it would be faster and could be done on a smaller yearly budget.
A combination of LOX/LH2 for LEO -> L1/L2 (no refueling or heavy lift required, a modified Centaur + EELV Heavy would suffice) and hypergolics for L1/L2 -> beyond (and back!) could allow immediate exploration (which is what SDLV proponents say they want) and immediate commercial propellant flights, which would enable commercial (!) funding for small RLVs, which is what proponents of commercial manned spaceflight want. So far no one has been able or willing to show me the bug in my thinking, which leads me to wonder if perhaps there may be ulterior motives at play.
Hi Martin –
For CAPS, L1/L2 is probably not the best solution, but rather lunar orbit is the location for the fuel transfer to a re-usable landing frame, and provides an abort point and radiation safety shelter as well. The problem is Moon polar transfers – perhaps a polar orbit can be used. It seems to me swing by aborts like Apollo 13 should still be possible using it. (I can no longer work the plane change equation mechanics.)
Hypergolics are cheap and developed, bur provide no future path to in-situ. With cryogenic LH/LO, you have to ask if whether it is even possible for any length of time, and whether storing water then electrolyzing it before use would be better, or even alcohol/peroxide hypergolic.
That kind of trade calculation is well beyond my capabilities now, and I have to leave that kind of analysis to others. I think your conclusion about immediate use of hypergolics is correct.
As far as ULA developments go, a lot depends on negotiating a reasonable patent/tech license on the RDs.
Small RLVs are not good for much more than tech demonstration, IMO.
But then that could become one of those famous wrong quotes in the future – you know “The aeroplane will never fly or amount to anything practicable”.
In the space community, we all tend to want everything, and prioritizing is tough. Our Congress has to figure out how much they NEED to spend, not how much they’d like to spend.
Martijn Meijering wrote @ April 10th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
Hey Martijn , I go with what Commander Taggart said about the plan to replace the Berilium Sphere:
“Yeah, let’s do that!”
I think your assertions are a billion times better than doing nothing, and several hundred millions times better than building a SLS before we actually start doing something.
Thanks for the good read.
Matt Wiser wrote @ April 9th, 2011 at 11:07 pm
“Not making things up: there are some on this board in previous threads who seem to worship Musk. Or at the very least, want NASA buy all of its future vehicles from Space X.”
I don’t know of any, so if there are any, they do not represent a significant amount of opinion, and certainly not enough to condemn SpaceX in general.
And, as Martijn has pointed out, you are ignoring those that ONLY want government solutions, and no commercial. So what’s YOUR agenda, huh?
“I don’t want to name names, but previous posts in past threads speak for themselves.”
I for one have been a vocal fan of what SpaceX has been doing, but that’s not surprising since I support those things that lower the cost to access space. I have also stated that I don’t want to replace one monopoly (NASA) with another (SpaceX, ULA etc.). If anything, I want to see two or more providers of routine transportation of cargo and crew to LEO, as without competition there can be a lack of cost containment and less innovation.
I have also stated that I think NASA is the right organization to lead our exploration efforts, but that doesn’t mean that they have to be the ones actually doing the exploration. They can, or they can contract for it like they are doing with the lunar data from one of the Google Lunar X Prize competitors.
The point is to move out into space and do stuff, and the best way to do that is to lower the cost to access space, and get more organizations putting their money into space activities. NASA can’t afford to do all the things we all want to do, so let’s be realistic about it, and find alternate ways of getting out there.
I don’t want to name names, but previous posts in past threads speak for themselves.
In other words, you want to sling Bravo Sierra, but are utterly incapable of backing it up.
Why are we not surprised?
For CAPS, L1/L2 is probably not the best solution, but rather lunar orbit is the location for the fuel transfer to a re-usable landing frame, and provides an abort point and radiation safety shelter as well.
Why do you think lunar orbit is preferable? I can see why you would want a radiation shelter, but such a shelter could be reached from L1/L2 too (global lunar access and any time abort is one of many advantages of L1/L2) or could even be placed there in the form of something like Nautilus.
Hypergolics are cheap and developed, bur provide no future path to in-situ. With cryogenic LH/LO, you have to ask if whether it is even possible for any length of time, and whether storing water then electrolyzing it before use would be better, or even alcohol/peroxide hypergolic.
Well, you could still use ISRU for hypergolics, since NTO is 40% oxygen. You could also try to play with the mixture ratio. You’ll never get the efficiency of LOX/LH2, peroxide monopropellant, silane/peroxide etc which can be sourced completely from lunar resources but you’ll still get some use out of it. That said, I think it is more likely that the market would develop cryogenic depots within a decade after large scale propellant flights started, so it’s a mostly hypothetical scenario.
Still, it’s not a completely useless scenario to consider, because before we decided (as if!) to spend a lot of money on starting exploration right now, we’d want to make sure we didn’t paint ourselves into a corner that would be difficult and expensive to get out of.
I think your conclusion about immediate use of hypergolics is correct.
I’m only advocating it for immediate use, because I think it would allow early exploration (for which there was official funding, but that’s looking less and less likely now) to fund commercial RLVs, which I believe to be crucial. If I didn’t think RLVs were crucial, I wouldn’t care so much about commercial propellant flights as soon as possible.
In fact, before I knew they were possible and before I knew commercial propellant flights were probably the best way to get them funded, I didn’t care very much about commercial propellant flights. I started out sympathetic to the Shuttle stack (especially in the form of DIRECT or a “Light” version of it) and hostile towards hypergolics, but the possibility and urgency of RLVs (if we want to see something worthwhile happen in the field of manned spaceflight in our lifetimes) made me change my mind.
To illustrate the logic, let me enumerate a number of scenarios that would make me change my mind on the advisability of starting with hypergolics as soon as possible.
If RLVs were proven to be impossible or incapable of achieving cheap lift, then I wouldn’t care so much about depots or about speeding things up by using hypergolics.
If I thought MSFC was capable of building such an RLV themselves, then I wouldn’t be advocating a roundabout way to achieve that goal. If such an RLV reduced launch prices by an order of magnitude, then it could be fully privatised and made available to commercial users as well, and that would achieve my main goal: commercial development of space. No need to get into a major fight over that.
Similarly, if Jeff Bezos were to announce tomorrow that he had developed an RLV, I would no longer care about NASA depots or propellant transfer. I’d think they’d be stupid not to use them, but I care more about commercial development of space than about exploration, so it wouldn’t be a big deal if they wasted their budget on an HLV.
As for hypergolics, if someone were to demonstrate a cryogenic depot tomorrow, then I’d see no reason to start with hypergolics anymore because that would then no longer save you any time.
Similarly, if exploration isn’t going to happen for at least a decade, as unfortunately seems likely, then cryogenic propellant transfer and storage in space may well have been developed so the previous point will apply a decade from now. By that time it will be too late to cry over spilt milk (or unspilt hypergolics) and too late to reap any benefits. They advantage will have been wasted and it will be too late to do anything about it.
Right now, however, we’re not yet at that point, at least theoretically. Not that decision makers will take heed of what is said on a blog, hence my “as if” above. Ah well, a guy can vent.
I have also stated that I don’t want to replace one monopoly (NASA) with another (SpaceX, ULA etc.).
Byeman had a good point about that the other day: he advocated selecting three providers for CCDev and giving two of them actual crew rotation contracts.
Thanks for the good read.
Thanks for your kind words.
Martijn Meijering wrote @ April 11th, 2011 at 2:56 pm
“Byeman had a good point about that the other day: he advocated selecting three providers for CCDev and giving two of them actual crew rotation contracts.”
Must have missed that blog thread (was traveling), but I’d be OK with that.
For instance if SpaceX (Dragon) and Boeing (CST-100) were selected, then I would hope there would be no less than a 60/40 split for the contracts, since we know that SpaceX would have the lowest price, but we want to encourage Boeing to stay in the market (and eventually expand their services).
As time goes along, let’s hope the U.S. Government develops fairly logical requirements for transporting government employees and contractors, which should provide some incentive for new companies to enter the market.
“Costs [for Delta IV Heavy] are proprietary, so I don’t know.”
I don’t have any insight into the internal costs, but they are selling them for around $450M/flight. Elon Musk even has some cost info to back this up at the Falcon Heavy announcement, where he gave an example of three launches the Air Force has bought for an average of ~$430M each.
It would be interesting to see what their costs are for Delta IV Heavy vs Atlas V Heavy. I wonder if the LH2-fueled Delta IV has higher overall costs for manufacturing and launch than the Atlas V?
“Hypergolics are cheap and developed, bur provide no future path to in-situ. With cryogenic LH/LO, you have to ask if whether it is even possible for any length of time, and whether storing water then electrolyzing it before use would be better, or even alcohol/peroxide hypergolic.â€
LCROSS found methane, ammonia, hydrogen gas, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide on the moon so hypergolic ISRU may be possible as well as non LOX/Hydrogen propulsion. In addition nitrogen has other uses for both equipment and crew and could be imported easily from earth.
It is kind of early to define which propellant a lunar lander should use. I can also see times when a non polar lander may use a different propellant than a polar one(i.e. to avoid boil off).
Small RLVs are not good for much more than tech demonstration, IMO.
A tech demonstration would be no mean acccomplishment. It would help enormously if you wanted to get funding for a larger RLV. But even very small RLVs would be useful for launching propellant and that would have a major impact on the cost of exploration, especially if you used reusable spacecraft as you should. Slightly larger RLVs could make launching people affordable.
Once we have the ability to launch both people and propellant / consumables we will be able to rely on EELV-class launchers to launch expensive but reusable infrastructure like space stations. In other words: small RLVs (“small cheap lift” / “cheap small lift”) would open up space for mankind. EELV-class RLVs would be no more than gravy.
It is kind of early to define which propellant a lunar lander should use.
It’s kind of early to determine that for the long term. But if you are looking for a very quick way to do both exploration and to create a large propellant market, then a hypergolic lander is a good choice. It will remain a decent choice in the long run, but that’s mainly important from the perspective of not accidentally painting yourself into a corner.
But there are much less ambitious spacecraft than a lander that could fulfil that role and in a time of budget pressure it would be good to consider alternatives, especially alternatives that could evolve into a lander in the longer term. A deep space transfer stage based on the Orion SM + avionics (but not the CM, other than the avionics) could be such a spacecraft.
Hypergolics are cheap to design but not to operate. The hazards associated with ground servicing create a pyramid of costs for hazardous operations, particularly on manned spacecraft, including PPE, training, IH, and Safety that have gotten worse with time, not better. On unmanned systems they are still expensive to process and their corrosive properties have caused a fairly high rate of valve failures. If we are to have practical spaceflight we ultimately need alternative systems, whether long-term cryo storage or relatively nontoxic storable oxydizers such as N2O or H2O2.
Ron: My agenda is this: A robust HSF program that blends both commercial industry (Boeing, L-M, Space X, Orbital, etc.) for LEO operations and NASA and other space agencies doing the hard stuff (BEO to Lunar, Asteroid, L-Points, Mars and beyond). Can commercial contractors support exploration activities? Almost certainly. (i.e. fuel depots if they turn out to be viable, resupply of ISS and crew rotation, maybe supporting a lunar base if that becomes an agenda item again) And let NASA do the actual exploration. But NO commercial exploration at the present time. Commercial handles the exploitation when that time comes, but NASA and other space agencies handle the exploration side. Expecting Commercial entities to handle exploration in place of, or in conjuntion with, NASA is not politically feasible.
I’ve said it before and I’ll repeat:the sooner the commercial side starts flying people, the skepticism about the private sector will go away. And that frees up NASA resources and personnel to concentrate on exploration. Once Orion and SLS are flying, get out of LEO with a lunar orbit mission. Preferably, several with progressively longer durations (up to 5 months); then fly PLYMOUTH ROCK and get that out of the way. Fly to an L-point or two and stay a while. And then get boots on the lunar surface. Not just once, but several times and stay on the surface not for days, but weeks. Get the surface operations side down to get ready for Mars. Do the Mars flyby, and then Martian orbit and landing on Martian Moons. Once that’s out of the way: shoot for the big one: Mars proper with boots on the ground.
Ah Matt, commercial does not depend on political viability as much as
NASA.
IMHO SLS needs to be canceled and NASA needs to focus on payloads only. Payloads should be commercially launched but doing this is impossible when the current politics of NASA is about building rockets and the US needs another NASA rocket like a fish needs a bicycle.
If NASA thinks it needs heavy lift it should work with either ULA or Space X not contact to build and launch its own.
Anyway if SLS goes to plan its first launch will be 2016(and NASA does not think so) and to LEO as the upper stage or an earth departure stage are currently not funded. Orion is planned to make an unmanned test flight in 2013, but must wait 3 years (and probably more) till it can do anything besides sit on the ground or travel unmanned at all. Most shuttle derived rockets can’t throw anything beyond LEO without upper stage or earth departure stage. Pray congress takes something non shuttle derived.
Boeing expects the cst100 to do its first unmanned launch in 2014 and manned launch in 2015 and NASA is expecting commercial crew service to the ISS in 2016. Dragon and Dream chaser are also planning to be ready about that time frame. As it stands now commercial is going to be ready before Orion and Orion will not be able to do BEO from the get go with SLS. Big problem as you do not need a 70 ton to Orbit lifter to push a 21MT capsule to LEO. The advantage commercial has is that they don’t have to wait for a new rocket to be built. Atlas and Falcon are ready, they just need man rating.
pathfinder_01 wrote @ April 12th, 2011 at 2:49 am
Great summary.
Matt Wiser wrote @ April 11th, 2011 at 10:43 pm
“I’ve said it before and I’ll repeat:the sooner the commercial side starts flying people, the skepticism about the private sector will go away.”
That’s kind of stating the obvious, but what has not been obvious is that it also applies to NASA. NASA has not built a new spacecraft in over 30 years, and the vast amount of people working on the current one are contractors, not NASA personnel.
And regarding flying, the SpaceX Dragon already has 12 launches scheduled – how many does the MPCV? Do you see where the trend is going, and who is going to be getting the most flight experience? It’s not NASA.
Now that the Senate Appropriations committee has stated that the SLS will lift 130 tons from the start, it will be too expensive for MPCV-only missions, and will require full-up (i.e. real expensive) missions in order to justify it’s use. The way the budget is going, how often will they be able to afford one of those, and how long will it take them to build the mission elements?
The sustaining costs for the SLS are going to retard the ability for NASA to do anything in space, and ironically it will force them to rely on the commercial side for more and more. At some point the SLS will be deemed too expensive to maintain, and NASA will have been forced to waste $Billions that it could have used to build mission payloads and launch on commercial rockets.
The SLS is an evolutionary dead-end, and the longer we wait to cancel it the longer it will take for NASA to start real exploration. What a waste, both in time and money.
If we are to have practical spaceflight we ultimately need alternative systems, whether long-term cryo storage or relatively nontoxic storable oxydizers such as N2O or H2O2.
Sure, and I agree the issue of cryogens vs storables is separate from that of toxicity. Even if for whatever reason we ended up using storable propellant in the long run, it wouldn’t have to be traditional hypergolics, it could be others like the ones you mentioned.
But what I’m after is commercial manned spaceflight and that is hindered much more by the absence of cheap lift than by the absence of a replacement for toxic hypergolics (one that can also be stored and transferred in space). I see competitive commercial propellant flights funded through a NASA procurement program for launch services for the propellant it needs anyway for exploration as a way to achieve cheap lift. Using hypergolics is “merely” the fastest way to get that going, but in my mind minimising time to initial operational capability is an important consideration.
Once we have cheap lift, I think we’ll see the flood gates of purely commercial funding opening. At that stage progress would not longer depend on continued synergy with NASA, although both NASA and commercial manned spaceflight could continue to profit from it if it did continue. At that point (or long before) the market will get rid of the hypergolics. I don’t think it requires policy attention from NASA and I don’t think it ought to influence the choice of propellant for a near term spacecraft.
So in essence, I’m accepting a near term inconvenience (one that is widely accepted in the industry, has been for a long time and will continue to be for the foreseeable future) to help solve a much more urgent and much more difficult problem, namely achieving cheap lift.
In my opinion even that is understating the case, since I believe achieving cheap lift is the only thing that stands between us and commercial development of space in our lifetime. People who disagree with that analysis are likely to be much less enthusiastic about starting commercial propellant flights as soon as possible and consequently less willing to accept the undeniable disadvantages of hypergolics.
If you happen to be among those who do not share this analysis of the importance of achieving cheap lift, then I’d be very interested in getting to the bottom of that, rather than a superficial discussion of the pros and cons of hypergolics, which are merely a means to an end. In the former area discussion could lead to deeper insight on either or perhaps both sides and maybe even a new consensus.
SLS has more support in Congress than Commercial crew does. The recent House hearing, and yesterday’s Senate one (granted, only four Senators), strongly hinted at that. There’s a difference in what you want to do and what the politicans will allow you to do. Are there folks at NASA who’d want to use a commercially available HLV? I’m sure there are. But suggesting that course of action is not politically viable. And it would not win Congress’ approval. Or does that little problem concern you? If you want NASA to use Falcon 9, get in touch with your Congresscritter.
Ron: NASA is bound by the Authorization Act. It dictates a MPCV and a heavy-lift vehicle that uses as much Constellation work as possible. It is not a suggestion. It’s the law. And there was no objection from the White House when it passed.
No doubt, once the commercial sector gets cargo and crew flying, the skeptics will be silenced. But until they prove that, those in Congress with concerns about the viability of such services will not be satisfied. The commercial space advocates need to stop preaching to the choir and start talking to those with reservations about their goals and plans. Obviously, those who are downright hostile are a waste of time, but when Musk does show up on The Hill before the House (as he’s supposed to do at some point in the future), he’ll be in a position to do just that. And the other commercial advocates, too.
Matt Wiser wrote @ April 12th, 2011 at 10:00 pm
“SLS has more support in Congress than Commercial crew does.”
That’s not saying much. NASA is an agency that consumes only 0.5% of the federal budget, so other than ignorant views of national security, it doesn’t get much attention compared to 99.5% of the rest of the government.
“There’s a difference in what you want to do and what the politicans will allow you to do.”
And that will always be what holds NASA back, no matter what the program or who is President. But the great thing about the commercial market is that is far more immune from political shenanigans than NASA is. For instance, while Congress decides what size rocket it really wants NASA to build (70, 100 or 130 ton), and how much to finally fund it, the commercial market keeps launching customer payloads and working on their next generation systems.
“NASA is bound by the Authorization Act. It dictates a MPCV and a heavy-lift vehicle that uses as much Constellation work as possible. It is not a suggestion. It’s the law. And there was no objection from the White House when it passed.”
You keep forgetting what the President was trying to achieve, and what he was willing to trade for it. Constellation is now officially dead (Shelby amendment is now removed), and now NASA needs to get Congress to realize that building the biggest rocket in the world doesn’t make sense if Congress is not going to fund a mission for it.
How can you justify a rocket that doesn’t have a funded mission?
And regarding “it’s the law”, look at the budget and the schedule, and compare it to what Ares I was trying to do, and see if you can honestly say that NASA has enough money and enough time to build the SLS.
Ares I was billed as Simple, Safe, Soon, and after 5 years no flight hardware ever flew – how is a rocket that can lift 4.6X more payload supposed to be built in the same timeframe?
And you keep forgetting that the VSE, which called for landing on the Moon by 2020, is not going to be met, and Congress cancelled the program that was supposed to be meeting that goal (Constellation). Is Congress going to amend the VSE to reflect a new Moon date? They did not replace Constellation, and likely the same fate will happen with the SLS once it becomes horribly apparent that it is under-funded and behind-schedulenow that they FINALLY FUNDED IT.
Like I said earlier, Ron: Reasonable people can disagree. As for funding, well, based on what Sen Hutchinson said in the Appropriations subcommittee hearing, she’s bent on reversing the funding priority from Commercial to Orion and SLS. And Sen. Nelson has indicated when Bolden went before the Science and Technology subcommittee, “there’s no way the President’s budget is going to be adopted.” And he’s of the same mindset as Sen. Hutchinson is. And this is bipartisan-so no one can accuse the Senators of partisanship (except for Shelby).
It’s bad enough for Bolden that he’s got a House Committee head who is skeptical at best to Commercial Crew. If the Senate committee (Rockefeller heads it) was of a similar mindset, things would be worse in that department.
Congressional intent appears to be fully funding Orion and SLS as per the authorization act, and getting enough for Commercial Crew to get at least two companies in on this.
What some House members strongly hinted at when Bolden went before the full House Science and Technology Committee was that they want answers: When is the first BEO mission? Where? Are there target asteroids that you can visit by 2025? Do you have lunar exploration in mind (no robots-people)? Things like that. Now, information like that can’t be provided overnight. But, if Bolden wants these congresscritters’ votes, that information had best come soon, if he wants a budget similar to what is proposed to get Congressional approval.
Matt Wiser wrote @ April 13th, 2011 at 9:10 pm
“Congressional intent appears to be fully funding Orion and SLS as per the authorization act”
Nope, not fully funded according to NASA, and Congress just accelerated the coming train wreck by adding the requirement for an EDS, but not providing anymore funding or schedule relief. The first GAO report that comes out will mirror the Constellation report that said it lacked a business case and was not properly funded. We all know what Congress ultimately did to Constellation…
“What some House members strongly hinted at when Bolden went before the full House Science and Technology Committee was that they want answers: When is the first BEO mission? Where? Are there target asteroids that you can visit by 2025? Do you have lunar exploration in mind (no robots-people)? ”
So Congress is saying “here’s a launcher larger than you need, but no money for missions – what can you do with it, and why can’t you do it faster?”. They are so cute.
It’s all cart-before-the-cart stuff. If they want exploration, they should be asking NASA to put together an exploration plan and budget, and THEN debate the associated costs such as transportation.
NASA has been developing different plans for doing exploration (HEFT, Nautilus-X, etc.), but none require the SLS. However spending money on the SLS actually SLOWS DOWN exploration because of the funds required to get the SLS going, and the recurring costs of maintaining the SLS while it waits for missions. How stupid is that?
Congress has to choose if they want human exploration, or they want a Shuttle-derived massive launcher without a need. There is not enough money for both.
Matt, you have this view of Congress as technical geniuses. I’m sorry to tell you that they are not, and they are just looking for ways to bring home the bacon. SLS is a whole lot of bacon, and nothing else.
I know they’re not technical geniuses. Don’t get me wrong. I bet there’s only a handful-if that-who have an engineering or physics degree. But to get funding for what you want to do, one must please the Congresscritters-they do write the checks, after all. That’s practically a must in D.C. these days.
Matt Wiser wrote @ April 14th, 2011 at 9:45 pm
“But to get funding for what you want to do, one must please the Congresscritters-they do write the checks, after all.”
Matt, EVERYONE knows this, including the companies that get Congress to insert earmarks, or perpetuate locked-in contractors for non-compete programs.
Hmm, what programs does that sound like…
Instead of Congress writing the technical requirements, the best non-political (and usually least costly) method has been for Congress to define the need, allocate a budget, let NASA determine the solution, and then compete out the solution for the best value for the American Taxpayer.
The people in Congress who control NASA’s budget don’t want the best value for the American Taxpayer, they want specific companies to do specific work, which retains jobs in specific locations.
Don’t be naive.
If Congress wants the most cost-effective HLV, then they should have not specified what parts to use, and given NASA too little time to consider alternatives, which ever they may be. Maybe the ultimate solution would have used ATK 5-segment SRM’s, but maybe not. Maybe it would have used SSME’s, and maybe not. See the point?
I applaud Rep. Posey’s goal to return to the moon! NASA needs a definite goal and going to the moon is the right one!
Same here. The World sucks, and then you blog.
The end.