Congress, NASA, Other

More on Wolf, NASA, and China

As noted here yesterday, Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), chairman of the appropriations subcommittee whose jurisdiction includes NASA, had some critical remarks about cooperation with China in a symposium on China’s space program held earlier this week. Wolf’s office has posted his prepared statement from that hearing, which goes into more details about his thoughts about both China’s space efforts and NASA.

Much of Wolf’s statement goes into his concerns about China’s plans and its human rights record. “One of the world’s worst human rights abusers does not deserve to be rewarded with greater ‘cooperation’ with the U.S.,” he states. He also talks about the “surprising pace” of China’s space program, including its plans for a space station and, at some time beyond, human missions to the Moon. “In less than 10 years the Chinese have gone from launching their first manned spacecraft to unveiling plans last week for an advanced Chinese space station designed to rival the International Space Station,” he states. (Those plans, actually announced last month and publicly acknowledged even earlier, suggest that the station would hardly “rival” the ISS, at least in size: the total mass of the station would be about 60 tons, compared to over 400 tons for the ISS and about 130 tons for Mir.)

Wolf also took some shots at the Obama Administration for what he perceives to be a lack of support for human space exploration. “Last year, Congress wisely repudiated an administration proposal to take a ‘time out’ from NASA’s Exploration program,” he states. “Fortunately, Congress rebuked this proposal in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act and has provided funding for a robust Exploration program beyond Low Earth Orbit.” He also said NASA’s absence at Wednesday’s hearing on China’s space program “is reflective of this administration’s abysmal record on American leadership in space.” (The administration was represented at the event by Amb. Gregory L. Schulte, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for space policy, who spoke immediately before Rep. Wolf.) “[I]f the United States does not get serious about its own Exploration Program, the next flag planted on the moon may be a Chinese flag,” Wolf says in his testimony. As chairman of a key appropriations subcommittee, it will be interesting to see how he translates those statements into actions, particularly given the fiscal constraints facing the government in the coming fiscal year and beyond.

130 comments to More on Wolf, NASA, and China

  • Rep. Wolf bloviated:

    [I]f the United States does not get serious about its own Exploration Program, the next flag planted on the moon may be a Chinese flag.

    (1) China has announced no plans for a manned lunar mission.

    (2) If and when they do plant that flag, it’ll be more than 50 years after we did it. Wow, that’ll convince the world to turn Commie. Not.

  • amightywind

    As chairman of a key appropriations subcommittee, it will be interesting to see how he translates those statements into actions, particularly given the fiscal constraints facing the government in the coming fiscal year and beyond.

    The government doesn’t have fiscal constraints. It has a lack of will to prioritize spending and zero out wasteful programs. $16 billion is more than enough to fund robust manned spaceflight.

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    Once again, Rep. Wolf demonstrates that his rhetoric has no apparent connection with objectively-perceptible reality. He has managed to hit a new low in actually apparently ignoring the presence of the guest who spoke immediately before him in favour of a fantasy universe where the Administration doesn’t care. The worrying thing is that some people will actually take his charges and scaremongering as holy writ.

  • I wrote Wolf this week, in his committee role, asking how long it would take China to figure out SpaceX’ business model and begin mass producing cheap rockets. We have a brief moment of advantage over the rest of the world in launch costs and need to support and take advantage of that moment.

    I hope the point isn’t lost on him given his role.

  • amightywind

    asking how long it would take China to figure out SpaceX’ business model and begin mass producing cheap rockets.

    No one was every verified SpaceX is producing cheap rockets. Their financials are not public. You are swallowing Musk’s marketing spiel without skepticism. Musk claims that he is profitable at a flight rate of < 2 launches per year without flying a commercial payload.

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind wrote @ May 13th, 2011 at 8:12 am

    $16 billion is more than enough to fund robust manned spaceflight.

    Sure, the ISS.

    But not the lunar fantasies you and others have, and not even the “rocket to nowhere” that goes by the name Space Launch System (SLS).

  • John Malkin

    amightywind wrote @ May 13th, 2011 at 10:15 am
    without flying a commercial payload.

    Yes, he has launched the RazakSAT and ATSB. The ATSB failed to reach orbit. Also he has been getting money leading up to the first COTS launch.

    http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php

    Become an investor and I’m sure you can get the detailed financials and maybe a nice tour.

  • blairf

    go read the commercial crew report from NASA published late April. It verifies the dev costs of Falcon 9 as $390M. Whereas the NASA equivalent would be between $1700M and $4000M.

  • red

    “The government doesn’t have fiscal constraints. It has a lack of will to prioritize spending and zero out wasteful programs.”

    That’s right. A glaring example is the failure to zero out the wasteful Shuttle-derived SLS. The failure to zero out the MPCV is another. It just doesn’t get any more wasteful or low priority than that.

  • Justin Kugler

    I guess windy missed that SpaceX had a third party do an independent assessment of their financials to help prepare for an IPO.

  • Scia

    @amightywind

    I don’t understand aren’t you a conservative?

    Then why do you support socialized space travel, instead of a commercial capitalistic model?

    Please explain i am confused.

  • Vladislaw

    How could SpaceX have had a true independent assessment, they didn’t even call Windy to go over their financials. If windy isn’t sitting in on board meetings and pouring over financials how could the rest of the investment community, satellite operators and NASA even begin to trust SpaceX. We all know an aerospace company needs the Windy seal of approval or they are dead in the water and will NEVER get a contract.

  • Michael Kent

    Scia wrote:

    @amightywind

    I don’t understand aren’t you a conservative?

    No, he’s an anti-Obammunist. He has no independent position of his own. Just take anything Obama does, run it through a not gate, and you’ll have his position.

    amightywind wrote:

    $16 billion is more than enough to fund robust manned spaceflight.

    For once he actually said something truthful. Let’s see…

    $2.3 billion CST-100 (according to rumors)
    $1.3 billion man-rating Delta IV (ULA)
    $0.4 billion man-rating Atlas V (ULA)
    $0.3 billion manned Dragon (COTS-D)
    $0.5 billion LEO cryogenic prop depot demo (ULA)
    $0.0 billion (to taxpayers) Bigelow space station
    $4.8 billion total to taxpayers

    That’s for a robust manned LEO architecture with two manned spacecraft, three man-rated launch vehicles, two large space stations (ISS & Bigelow), and a cryo prop depot demo.

    That leaves $11.2 billion (70% of the $16 billion total) to fund an orbital maneuvering vehicle, a cis-lunar capsule, an Earth departure stage, and a lunar lander. If you used the same contract vehicles as above, it almost certainly could be done.

    Or you could blow the whole $16 billion on SLS and still not make it fly.

    Hmmm. What to do? What to do?

    Mike

  • too late Vladislaw

    Satellite operators have already begun to trust SpaceX with some very large contracts. NASA has awarded SpaceX cots money under contract based upon performance. They’ve developed, built, and now launched their own rockets with largely private money for a mere $800M in development cost (ULA Execs must be cringing over that compared to their multi-Billion $ pork plans). NASA Cots has given them a mere $298M so far.

    Good luck with slowing or stopping them down

  • Das Boese

    amightywind wrote @ May 13th, 2011 at 8:12 am

    The government doesn’t have fiscal constraints. It has a lack of will to prioritize spending and zero out wasteful programs. $16 billion is more than enough to fund robust manned spaceflight.

    I couldn’t agree more!

    With the ISS nearly complete, the expensive shuttle infrastructure winding down and multiple commercial options for crew and cargo transfer coming online, there really is no excuse why NASA is forced to spend billions on the two dead-end projects SLS and MPCV instead of boosting ISS utilization and R&D of technologies needed for sustainable BEO exploration.

    And of course for a fraction of the cost of SLS/MPCV, NASA could significantly expand programs that provide net economic benefit to your country like climate monitoring or aeronautical research.

  • amightywind

    Then why do you support socialized space travel, instead of a commercial capitalistic model? Please explain i am confused.

    Confusion is your natural state so I doubt I can help much, but here is an explanation of my position.

    I like capitalist space ventures. I’m a big fan of Virgin Galactic’s effort. I’d love to see the Boeing/Bigelow station for tourism and the CST-100 completed fot transport. I think there could be a lucrative tourism market.

    I don’t put the ISS resupply fiasco in the same category. I hate ISS. Talk about globalist, socialist garbage! Never was more money pointlessly wasted. I hate the big government contracts chasing that crudy thing. I detest the politicization of the process. It has ruined NASA. ISS resupply missions are to me like paying mercenaries to fight instead of keeping a standing military. You can hire hit men or keep Seal Team Six mission ready.

  • Scia

    amightywind wrote @ May 13th, 2011 at 2:29 pm

    “I like capitalist space ventures. I’m a big fan of Virgin Galactic’s effort. I’d love to see the Boeing/Bigelow station for tourism and the CST-100 completed fot transport. I think there could be a lucrative tourism market.”

    But then why don’t you like SpaceX, and like the CST-100?

    Because the CST-100 is mainly designed as a crew transport to the ISS.

    The main point of the Dragon is eventual crew transportation.

    So is the problem the COTS program and not CCDEV?

    If so how are they different?

    Also how is the ISS socialist garbage and not the SLS/MPCV?

  • reader

    Wow, i cant believe it. Windy said something sensible. There is a LOT to hate about ISS. Just because it currently provides a convenient anchor in bootstrapping commercial orbital cargo and human market, does not justify its existence. We would be way better off without it.

  • DCSCA

    @Coastal Ron wrote @ May 13th, 2011 at 10:18 am
    amightywind wrote @ May 13th, 2011 at 8:12 am“$16 billion is more than enough to fund robust manned spaceflight.” “Sure, the ISS.”

    LOL Nonsense. Going in circles to perpetuate an aerospace works program is not a ‘robust’ manned space program. But it does perpetuate a place for fledgling commerical space firms to seek government subsidies to develop access, doesn’t it. The ISS has already cost $100 billion and returned nothing. $16 billion is throwing good borrowed money after bad. LEO operations, including the ISS, is a ticket to no place. The taxpayer funded ISS is a ‘faux destination’ for desperate commercial space firms seeking justification for more taxpayer funded government subsidies to service same, tapping already dwindling resources from a government borrowing 43 cents of every dollar it spends. W/o the ISS, they’d wither and die. LEO is past planning. BEO is the future.

    @Scia wrote @ May 13th, 2011 at 11:47 am
    “Then why [does Windy] support socialized space travel, instead of a commercial capitalistic model?”

    Because he knows capitalist models only work in the movies (see Destination Moon for details.) In this era private ‘for profit’ firms cannot sustain a space program of scale. That’s why government in various guises have done so for 80-plus years. ‘Reaganomics’ is not going to fuel the expansion of humans out into the cosmos.

    @amightywind wrote @ May 13th, 2011 at 2:29 pm
    “I like capitalist space ventures. I’m a big fan of Virgin Galactic’s effort.”
    Yes and wisely so, because it is financially an technilcally scaled for the times we live in and the market it is trying to service: paying passengers a suborbital ride. it is the next logical step in commerical HSF.

    @Das Boese wrote @ May 13th, 2011 at 2:11 pm

    “…there really is no excuse why NASA is forced to spend billions on the two dead-end projects SLS and MPCV instead of boosting ISS utilization and R&D of technologies needed for sustainable BEO exploration.”

    Going in circles is pretty dead end. The management/contractors and the politicians have a symbiotic excuse- jobs. The ISS is an aerospace works program that has returned nothing to justify the $100 billion costs and further monies spent on it means less for BEO projects. Going in circles may have been space exploration in 1961– it is not in 2011.

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind wrote @ May 13th, 2011 at 2:29 pm

    I hate the big government contracts chasing that crudy thing.

    But yet you LOVED the money that ATK was getting for Ares I.

    Oh, and have you ever seen ATK’s detailed financials?

    Here, let’s rejigger your “public financials” comment to see how it looks:

    ATK’s detailed financials are not public. You are swallowing ATK’s marketing spiel without skepticism.

    Hmm, now how does it sound?

    Of course, as any financially savvy person could tell you, even with public companies you don’t get any detailed financial information. And they don’t have to share it with you, because it is proprietary. Why would you share your cost data with your business competitors? That would be a stupid thing to do (although apparently not for you).

    Lastly, this comment you made sure tells a lot:

    I’d love to see the Boeing/Bigelow station for tourism

    Virgin Galactic is a marketing driven “experience” that competes in a world of fungible experiences. They have a plan and a target market, and I wish them well. The sub-orbital business is essentially just a short plan ride – up and down. It’s the modern day equivalent to taking a ride in a biplane at you local airport.

    Space at this point is different in scale, and in potential market. So far the bar has been set on space tourism that you get to visit someplace (the ISS so far). But the ability for that to happen in the future is dependent on not only larger capacity spacecraft, but also on having a destination in space that doesn’t rely on tourism. Tourism will be an outgrowth of our capabilities, not a prime drive.

    Robert Bigelow is not making his space habitats for the tourism market, and so far he has pursued a more consistent market in long-term leases to sovereign countries. The economics of this are quite easy to see if you just sit down and figure them out, so I won’t detail them here, but suffice it to say that pure tourist flights will be rare, and the tourists that do go up will be going on previously scheduled crew flights – just like Russia has done Soyuz in the past.

    The true value of “space” will be in the commerce we can create that relies on it. So far that has been satellites, but more and more we are seeing possibilities in the manufacturing of new materials and biotechnology. That is where the real money will be, and that is what will drive us as a civilization out into space. Tourism won’t do that, nor even NASA’s puny budget.

  • amightywind

    Of course, as any financially savvy person could tell you, even with public companies you don’t get any detailed financial information.

    No. But I get enough disclosure and legal assurances that if a CEO says something stupid like Musk he would be liable for making misleading statements..

    Space at this point is different in scale, and in potential market.

    I mentioned Boeing/Bigelow as well. That is a real private space venture. The only question is the value of the market compared to the required investment.

  • red

    “I like capitalist space ventures. I’m a big fan of Virgin Galactic’s effort. I’d love to see the Boeing/Bigelow station for tourism and the CST-100 completed fot transport. I think there could be a lucrative tourism market.”

    You like the Virgin Galactic effort, even though it’s going to fly out of Spaceport America? Even though it’s going to provide commercial transportation services to NASA for payloads like science instruments, and NASA is going to pay them for those services the same way it’s going to pay for the orbital crew and cargo services you don’t like? Even though SpaceShip2 it might be flying some science instruments that gather data about the Earth? Even though White Knight 2 might be used for drop tests for vehicles like the Dream Chaser?

    You like the CST-100, even though it’s being funded from NASA’s CCDEV and CCDEV2 commercial, milestone-based procurements? Even though its intended anchor business is the ISS? Even though it got more CCDEV2 funding than SpaceX, Sierra Nevada, and Blue Origin? Even though Boeing has made it pretty clear that they aren’t interested in developing CST-100 without the NASA development partnership and anchor tenant (whereas SpaceX merely says that without those things their crew effort will still happen, just on a timescale that is much too late to solve NASA’s space access problem)?

    You like Bigelow even though there’s a chance there will be a Bigelow inflatable habitat exploration technology demonstration at the ISS?

    I like Bigelow, CST-100, and Virgin Galactic too, but based on what you’ve said before, I really can’t figure out why you’d like any of these.

  • DCSCA

    @Coastal Ron wrote @ May 13th, 2011 at 4:02 pm

    “Virgin Galactic is a marketing driven “experience” that competes in a world of fungible experiences.” It is, in fact, a sub-orbital for-profit HSF enterprise with paying passengers. “They have a plan and a target market, and I wish them well.” [That doesn’t show through.] “The sub-orbital business is essentially just a short plan ride – up and down.” Yes, and as planned, with paying passengers and profitable- Aunt Bee and Barney can ride it. “It’s the modern day equivalent to taking a ride in a biplane at you local airport.” Hmmmm… and yet SpaceX still can’t do it.

  • DCSCA

    @Coastal Ron wrote @ May 13th, 2011 at 4:02 pm

    “The true value of “space” will be in the commerce we can create that relies on it.” Will you ever learn? Even with government subsidies, space exploitation is NOT space exploration.

  • DCSCA

    @reader wrote @ May 13th, 2011 at 3:43 pm

    Yep.

  • John Malkin

    red wrote @ May 13th, 2011 at 4:48 pm
    Maybe Windy is starting to see the light.

    Change is hard, if it was easy everyone would do it.

  • Bennett

    red wrote @ May 13th, 2011 at 4:48 pm

    Good call, red. I was wondering the same thing. Everything he says he dislikes about SpaceX is more than true of the CST-100.

    It must be a stock ownership thing.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Personal note: Mark Whittington: our deepest condolences over the passing of your mother in law. Robert/Monica

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ May 13th, 2011 at 4:01 pm

    BEO is the future.

    To quote someone you know, the only way that will happen is by “tapping already dwindling resources from a government borrowing 43 cents of every dollar it spends.” That quote is from you of course.

    When you get done arguing with yourself, let us know who wins and report back.

    But you also said:

    LEO is past planning.

    People like you think too small. You think space can only hold one “mission” at a time. How are we, as a civilization, going to expand out into space if we keep throwing away $100B space stations and other myriad hardware (EDS, landers, etc.)?

    Disposing of the ISS would be like destroying your house every time you move. Stupid, huh? Instead you sell your house, or rent it out so you don’t lose the equity that you have invested. It’s the same with government and industrial assets, and it should be for space hardware too if we can ever get people like you to stop supporting disposable space architectures.

    Why someone that is so “concerned” with the National Debt likes throwing away taxpayer money is beyond me. If you want the taxpayer to finance your lunar dreams, you better be able to show them what a good steward you are of their money – so far you haven’t.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ May 13th, 2011 at 4:57 pm

    That [my support for capitalism] doesn’t show through.

    LOL. You’re the one that doesn’t believe in capitalism. You think everything has to be government-funded, government-run.

    What Virgin Galactic will be providing is joy rides to the edge of space. If you think that equates to Human Space Flight (HSF), then you must think a walk around the block equals the Boston Marathon. If I had an extra $200K I wouldn’t mind taking the ride, but they won’t be directly supporting the expansion of the humanity into space. I hope I haven’t burst your bubble.

    and yet SpaceX still can’t do it.

    Why are you so jealous of a successful capitalist? But that’s OK, keep chanting that mantra. They have the launcher and the capsule, and in about 3 years you’ll be eating crow.

    I’m sure you’ll change your pseudonym by then, and you’re next “bold” anonymous statement will be “Musk will never land on Pluto”… ;-)

  • Holdren started all of this when he started talking about China cooperation with the US in order to get to Mars. NASA’s problems are not because they are not cooperating with other nations in space. In fact, I think you could argue that space cooperation with other countries probably inflated the price of the space station program.

  • I’m sure you’ll change your pseudonym by then, and you’re next “bold” anonymous statement will be “Musk will never land on Pluto

    Regardless of the meaningless pseudonym, we’ll know the troll, by its idiotic third-person reference. You know, “this writer.”

    It’s like Bob Dole in 1996. “Bob Dole won’t stand for this, and Bob Dole won’t put up with that, and Bob Dole doesn’t believe the other thing.”

  • reader

    I consider myself a commercial spaceflight fan. I loved the gist of VSE, and i hated how ESAS and Griffin derailed it. I do wish that commercial entities would finally get around to flying often, rather than speaking about flying often. That out of the way, its time for the question ..

    Note the parallel:
    “Ok, ISS sucks and is overly expensive. But as the government billions on it are already blown and politics demands its existence , lets keep it around to perform a useful function : provide an anchor market for commercial flights, that is. ( And note of course that money keeps going into it, there are obviously significant operations costs )

    “Ok, Shuttle infrastructure sucks and is overly expensive. But as the government billions on it are already blown and politics demands its existence, lets keep it around to perform a useful function: lift heavy loads to orbit.

    Why is the first argument considered OK most of the regulars here, and second is not ?

  • Karthik

    @amightywind

    I’m not sure I understand. We contract private airlines flying privately designed aircraft to transport our troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. If we can rely on the commercial sector to transport soldiers to battle, can’t we rely on the commercial sector to transport astronauts somewhere there isn’t a war going on?

  • DCSCA

    Coastal Ron wrote @ May 13th, 2011 at 6:30 pm
    BEO is a smart investment in the future for limited available resources; LEO is wasted monies on past planning and a ticket to no place. But you know that, just as you know that far from being a juant in a biplane, Branson’s ticket-to-ride is suborbital HSF- and something SpaceX has yet to do. @Coastal Ron wrote @ May 13th, 2011 at 6:57 pm- Government funded and managed space programs have been flying humans for half a century and government run rocket programns under various government banners representing various philosophies established and moved the technology forward for 80-plus years. To date; ‘for profit’ ‘HSF firms have not launched, orbited and returned anyone. They will never lead the way in this era and will always be follow alongs, cashing in where they can- and of late their goal is to go in circles. Space exploitation is not space exploration.

  • Karthik, only if the cotton wool the astronauts are wrapped in is provided by the government.

  • Bennett

    reader wrote @ May 13th, 2011 at 11:24 pm

    Not speaking for anyone else, but I don’t think that “the ISS sucks”. In fact, I think that despite the cost and the drawn out construction, it’s perfect as an initial destination and a reason to help commercial launch providers get up to speed.

    I don’t know how many scientific breakthroughs will happen aboard the ISS, but the promise of finding out exactly how much gravity we humans need to maintain health (one example) is a strong reason for keeping it around as long as we can.

    The shuttle seems to be the antithesis of this in that it is a reason to NOT help commercial launch providers, and it eats too much of the NASA budget by being the most expensive way to get tonnage to orbit.

    Still, I don’t think “the shuttle sucks”, but I do think it’s time to move on to a more productive phase of space access. Ending the shuttle will move us forward, even if billions of dollars are wasted on Ares V/MPCV.

  • Major Tom

    “… and of late their goal is to go in circles.”

    Bob Zubrin, the dean of human Mars architectures, is using SpaceX Falcons to send humans to Mars:

    online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730804576317493923993056.html

    And Doug Stanley, the old ESAS study lead, is using SpaceX Falcons to send humans to NEOs:

    images.spaceref.com/news/2011/F9Prop.Depot.pdf

    Don’t make stupid statements out of ignorance.

  • Vladislaw

    Reader wrote:

    “Why is the first argument considered OK most of the regulars here, and second is not ?”

    Because the ISS does not require the shuttle infrastructure and workforce to be maintained to carry out it’s investigations and research. Without that NASA would beable to fund more actual flight hardware and have it launched cheaper using commercial launchers than the shuttle infracture and workforce can.

    It comes down to which way gives the best bang for the buck for NASA. With NASA out of the design, development, cost plus contracting for builds and no ground force army for launch operations the taxpayer will see more space hardware actually launched into space.

  • amightywind

    We contract private airlines flying privately designed aircraft to transport our troops to Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Dumb analogy. The Air Force operates the worlds largest cargo transport service. You don’t see FedEx delivering tanks.

    but the promise of finding out exactly how much gravity we humans need to maintain health (one example) is a strong reason for keeping it around as long as we can.

    How many more billions will we lard on such trivial, 3rd order science? Meanwhile the inner solar system goes unexplored for lack of funds and heavy lift capability. Come on, America!

  • Vladislaw

    Karthik wrote:
    “I’m not sure I understand. We contract private airlines flying privately designed aircraft to transport our troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. If we can rely on the commercial sector to transport soldiers to battle, can’t we rely on the commercial sector to transport astronauts “

    amightywind responded:

    “Dumb analogy. The Air Force operates the worlds largest cargo transport service. You don’t see FedEx delivering tanks.”

    I disagree, the analogy wasn’t dumb, your response was. Just another fallacy of logic. He wasn’t talking about NASA transporting cargo, NASA has already contracted with the commercial sector to transport cargo to LEO. What he WAS talking about is NASA’s astronauts riding commercial transport to space, something they have not contracted to do yet. The point he was making is if the military has no problem contracting commercial transport services for soldiers NASA should not have a problem with commercial transport hauling astronauts.

    So don’t try and switch the arguement from transporting people to transporting tanks, that isn’t what he was talking about.

  • @DSCA: “Going in circles may have been space exploration in 1961– it is not in 2011.”

    If we cannot work productively in LEO then we certainly cannot work productively on the moon or Mars. The reasons offered for spending $200 billion tax dollars on Constellation are incredibly superficial and naive, even within NASA. The taxpayers are not going to give us $200 to fly to the moon just because we want to “explore the solar system”? Human spaceflight BEO is dead until LEO is far more accessible, i.e. <$1M per person to orbit. Any money spent now on using 60’s tech (giant ELVs) to return humans to the moon is money down the drain. The ISS was proposed as a fueling and servicing station for spacecraft, which has not even been tried yet, and as a platform for earth and space observation, which will only begin with the launch of the AMS on STS-134. It was funded as a vehicle for reducing tension with Russia following the breakup of the USSR, and has worked fairly well for this despite the efforts of Bush and Putin. It can also serve as a destination for tourism and for all the new commercial designs, with or without the Shuttle. At present the most logical geopolitical evolution of ISS would be to invite China to join the program. This would help to reduce tensions between China and several major nations, not just the US but also Japan and India, any of which could spark a hugely destructive conflict, whether cold, hot, or nuclear. The potential value of microgravity materials research and the need for studying humans in weightlessness have both been exaggerated. People have tolerated weightlessness for well over a year with no indication of irreversible problems. Although there are unresolved hazards in spaceflight, such as radiation, they aren’t related to weightlessness and can be simulated on earth. Both microgravity and medical research are revisions in the goal of the ISS program that have been marketed successfully because the public buys them and they fund NASA researchers.

  • Robert G. Oler

    amightywind wrote @ May 14th, 2011 at 10:30 am

    “Dumb analogy. The Air Force operates the worlds largest cargo transport service. You don’t see FedEx delivering tanks.”

    actually the “dumb” is your response. The USAF has airplanes sized for delivering tanks (but most of the tanks actually go to theater in ships!) because there is a unique need that has no commercial equivalent. And it is not the “load” persee, airlines have airplanes that can carry a M-1 tonnage…what is unique is the tonnage is concentrated “in mass” and the floor throughout the transport has to be sized to carry the entire tonnage…and hence that makes the airplane far heavier then it needs to be for commercial service.

    But FedEx and UPS do carry “tank parts” to the deployed areas, particularly in Iraq…most of what “we” got when I was there came on either FedEx or UPS planes.

    None of this has anything to do with the space station or with the notion of needing a government launch system however…RGO

  • Robert G. Oler

    amightywind wrote @ May 14th, 2011 at 10:30 am

    “How many more billions will we lard on such trivial, 3rd order science? Meanwhile the inner solar system goes unexplored for lack of funds and heavy lift capability. Come on, America!”

    and political will…there essentially is none with either party. RGO

  • Robert G. Oler

    “In less than 10 years the Chinese have gone from launching their first manned spacecraft to unveiling plans last week for an advanced Chinese space station designed to rival the International Space Station,”

    Wolf’s statement here shows why it is almost impossible to deal with the right wing…there is no reality in the statement…its all rhetoric. No fact. Yet Wolf and other folks say it as effortlessly as if it were fact.

    RGO

  • Ferris Valyn

    reader – its fundamentally a question of private sector availability vs fundamental human need.

    Let me start right off the bat – no, neither shuttle nor ISS fall under the category of fundamental human need (as opposed to something like health care – I am not looking to debate that here, though, so lets leave that argument for another day)

    Let me also add that, while I don’t consider much of what we have as ideal, and if I could go back, there are clearly policy decisions I’d change, we have the space program we have, and we need to determine how to make it as efficient & effective as possible. So saying “Its not a perfect policy/vehicle” is not the same as “its something that needs to be ended”

    Therefore, we have to consider – is the value offered by retaining ISS worth the monetary costs associated with it, or is there an existing private sector option that can fill the needs of ISS? And you have to apply that question also to Shuttle infrastructure.

    And the answer to the question of ISS is a yes, while the answer to Shuttle infrastructure is no. At some point in the future, I do believe the answer to ISS could easily become a no (at least in terms of providing a real platform of value for space development), and I worry that we aren’t considering that situation (because its easy to deal with now, rather than later). But right now, there is value offered by ISS, not only in acting as the foundation for the commercial spaceflight industry, but also for large scale space developers, such as NanoRacks, and Space Adventures.

  • pathfinder_01

    amightywind responded:
    “Dumb analogy. The Air Force operates the worlds largest cargo transport service. You don’t see FedEx delivering tanks.”

    Actually the military does use commercial transport as much as possible. Only critical hardware or hardware that cannot go any other way (like tanks) goes via the air force or navy. A better analogy would be something like food. The military does not pick up the food from the plant and carry it to the battle field. The food is delivered to a base and from there sent to the troops.

    Read this: http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/military-sealift-command-completes-annual-resupply-mission-antarctica/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Deep_Freeze

    In this case they charted but do not own the ship. The crew was technically civilian. They did use NAVY forces to offload the cargo but they probably traveled to New Zealand (Where Operation deep freeze is based) by commercial airline. Raytheon polar services is the company that handles much of the logistics. The military only handles the last leg or legs of the logistics. i.e. From New Zealand to Antarctica and within Antarctica.

    In the case of space, there are lots of rockets that can deliver cargo and crew to LEO. NASA does not need any system that does this. NASA’s mission needs to focus to in space only and that does not require government owned HLV or SDHLV. The ISS and LEO is our New Zealand. Heck a Delta IV heavy could throw around 10MT to L1/L2 in a single shoot. We need in space propulsion, habitats, lander and this is where NASA’s future needs to be. Commercial to the ISS is the first step of that transition.

  • Robert G. Oler

    vulture4 wrote @ May 14th, 2011 at 2:02 pm

    you wrote:

    “If we cannot work productively in LEO then we certainly cannot work productively on the moon or Mars. The reasons offered for spending $200 billion tax dollars on Constellation are incredibly superficial and naive, even within NASA. The taxpayers are not going to give us $200 to fly to the moon just because we want to “explore the solar system”? Human spaceflight BEO is dead until LEO is far more accessible, i.e. <$1M per person to orbit. Any money spent now on using 60′s tech (giant ELVs) to return humans to the moon is money down the drain."

    those sentiments have been expressed before on this forum, I have expressed them; but you did the job very very nicely in a tight graph…the first sentence is even "the place holder".

    Bravo Zulu…well done RGO

  • Robert G. Oler wrote:

    Wolf’s statement here shows why it is almost impossible to deal with the right wing…there is no reality in the statement…its all rhetoric. No fact. Yet Wolf and other folks say it as effortlessly as if it were fact.

    The technical term you’re looking for is “liar.” :-)

  • Coastal Ron

    Reader, I’ll give you my view. First of all, experimentation is good. Sometimes the only way you know if something works is by giving it a try.

    The Shuttle was an experiment to see if we could build and operate a reusable, “low cost” space truck. Where the program went wrong was not in the trying part, but in the lack of a comprehensive evaluation of whether it should have continued operating. That should have been after it was flying regularly, but the evaluation of whether it should have continued to fly, or evolved, or shut down, never happened.

    Part of the evaluation would have looked at lower cost alternatives for getting cargo to LEO, as well as alternatives to it’s role as a temporary lab/construction shack. Maybe a smaller followon shuttle would have been recommended, or maybe a return to capsules. We won’t know, since nobody wanted to stick their neck out and question the usefulness of the service that was being provided. But in essence, NASA was operating a transportation system, which they contracted out to the private sector – the same companies that already ran their own transportation companies. Do you see the obvious duplication of effort here?

    For the ISS, which Congress has designated a National Laboratory, the goal in my eyes is to learn how to live and work in space, specifically so we can expand our presence in space. Now you could do the same thing 1000x further away on the Moon, but it would cost more, your lessons learned would evolve slower, and the lessons learned would apply more to an airless world with 1/3 gravity than it would to zero-G. We need to know that too, but we don’t even know how to build zero-G equipment perfectly yet (I.e. Urine recycler), so I don’t think we’ve exhausted it’s usefulness yet.

    But two thing:

    1. The ISS should be reviewed regularly to make sure the results are worth the money.

    2. Why is the ISS and other space destinations (Moon, Mars, etc.) like Harry Potter and Voldemort, where one must die for the other to live? I thought the whole purpose of our space program was to EXPAND our presence, not just spend money for temporary visits?

    Last thought. I don’t see the purpose of the ISS as giving commercial companies work. The ISS partners have the ability to resupply the ISS with crew and cargo on their own, but the cost is high. As long as commercial companies save NASA money over other alternatives, then use them. If not, don’t use them, and use the ATV, HTV, Progress and Soyuz. I don’t mind experimenting, as long as it’s clear what the goals are, and whether they are being met.

  • Major Tom

    “Dumb analogy. The Air Force operates the worlds largest cargo transport service. You don’t see FedEx delivering tanks.”

    If you think Orion is a tank, then it should be delivered by a military launch vehicle, like Delta IV Heavy, not a civilian-run Senate Launch System.

    Think before you post.

  • Son of Szebehely

    Mildly amusing to read the echo chamber that is the comments here, especially those who write that Wolf is a “liar”, “bloviates”, or “doesnt get it”.

    Let’s be clear about something–Wolf is a great American. Despite not having a NASA Center in his district, he has none-the-less stepped-up as the Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee with jurisdiction over NASA to ensure that this country will remain a leader, if not the leader, in HSF despite the havoc wrought by the President and his appointees who give bulls in a China shop a bad name. And as if the so-called “commercial guys needed it, there’s more bad news. Want to guess how sympathetic the Apprpriations committees will be now that NASA releases its assessment on commercial cargo and crew, which doesn’t paint a very rosy picture for the future of commercial space? Hint: not very. When it comes to a vote on funding our nation’s space program, there’s Wolf and then there’s Mikulski…oh, and Shelby, her friend.

    If you want to make a difference for our nation, quit wasting your time blathering here in your echo chamber, cum tree house, and work for a member of Congress. Or…run for Congress.

  • reader

    >>1. The ISS should be reviewed regularly to make sure the results are worth the money.

    At no time in its history were its “results” worth the money, if you are speaking about the research results. And by money i do not mean the design and construction costs, i mean the operations costs.

    The notion of ISS being some immensely valuable research asset is BS.

  • DCSCA

    @reader wrote @ May 13th, 2011 at 11:24 pm

    Shuttle and station are LEO 1980’s- 1990’s planning. LEO is a ticket to no place. It condemns the United States to more years if not decades of going in circles. Every dollar wasted on it is that much less of a dwindling resource available for BEO operation.of which 43 cents of every dollar spent is borrowed, available for BEO operation.

    @Coastal Ron wrote @ May 14th, 2011 at 7:17 pm

    “Where the [shuttle] program went wrong was not in the trying part, but in the lack of a comprehensive evaluation of whether it should have continued operating.”

    No. Where shuttle went off course was when it was culled out of a shuttle/station concept (where it was a much smaller design); under funded as the only element of the system, then forced to secure DoD funding to survive and to accomdate same, incurred more costs and redesign. Then it was sold as a ‘space truck’ to attract customers and was pressed to be both a ‘profit center’ (like the Postal Service) and ‘operational’ after 4 flights and pay most of its own way– and part of that plan involved two week turn arounds and flying shuttles a great deal. Per the CAIB, it never really was ‘operational’ and it was unrealistic to sell it as such. The competition from Ariane, etc., forced loss leader manifests as well as filling slots w/military ‘created’ business for it. The people tasked to managed it had no experience at attempting to operate an experimental vehicle as a commercial enterprise. Then disaster struck; the DoD went with ELVs and shuttle was redirected away from commercial payloads to research flights and getting HST operating and serviced. The ISS assembly was make work.

    “For the ISS, which Congress has designated a National Laboratory, the goal in my eyes is to learn how to live and work in space, specifically so we can expand our presence in space.”

    But then you’ve already stated you don’t much care if there’s a destinnation at all… implying that what only matters is contracts are let for servicing anything. Been there, done that on the LEO bit. See Saylut; Skylab and MIR for details. LEO is a ticket to no place. BEO is the future. Going in circles does not “expand our presence in space.” The ISS is a ‘faux destination’ for fledgling commerical space firms desperate for government subsidies to service it. It’s a works program and a jobs program coming and going, no more no less. And the 20 year gravy train has already cost $100 billion and produced nothing.

  • Coastal Ron

    Reader said:

    At no time in its history were its “results” worth the money, if you are speaking about the research results.

    What “history”? We haven’t even finished building it!

    But just out of curiosity, how are we supposed to learn how to live and work in space without a place in space to test out new ideas? Should we launch untried equipment directly to Mars without validating that it works in zero-G?

    Explain your “vision” of how it should work.

  • DCSCA wrote “LEO is a ticket to no place. BEO is the future. Going in circles does not “expand our presence in space.” ”

    What evidence is there that the taxpayers would want to pay $200 billion in taxes to “expand our presence in space” when the politicians we have elected are clamoring for more tax cuts and smaller government?

  • reader

    >>But just out of curiosity, how are we supposed to learn how to live and work in space without a place in space to test out new ideas?

    By launching necessary focused experiments on dedicated platforms, and when needed also testing them on a orbital station, should one become necessary. I’m sure you have noticed that ISS does almost none of that. Most of its useful research outputs, like the MISSE series experiments, would have been cheaper on a dedicated free-flying experiment platform.

    ISS is poorly positioned to solve the remaining hard problems like deep space radiation environment mitigation, long term effects of partial-G, or in situ resource utilization, i.e. the problems that need to be solved if we were to “live and and work in space” in any meaningful way.

    >>Should we launch untried equipment directly to Mars without validating that it works in zero-G?

    JPL has done it for a while now. They wont test MSL on ISS before it heads off to Mars. Not that i am advocating doing manned Mars sorties…

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ May 15th, 2011 at 5:39 am

    “Shuttle and station are LEO 1980′s- 1990′s planning. LEO is a ticket to no place. It condemns the United States to more years if not decades of going in circles. ”

    THATS RHETORIC and it doesnt really deserve a response. If we had a Moon base it would be “going around” in “circles” or more correctly elliptical orbits.

    There are reasons to argue against ISS. I KNOW UNDER MY REAL NAME and at some “flak” from a lot of the people who are now even making policy (Garver) I argued AGAINST ISS…but the reality is we have it and to advocate simply “ending it” is DUMB.

    and you should know better. Try and contribute to the notion of debate not just babble on really dumb rhetoric lines. Its no better then Wolf babbling on about a space station by the Reds to “rival” ISS…

    try and do better

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    reader wrote @ May 15th, 2011 at 1:27 pm

    “By launching necessary focused experiments on dedicated platforms, and when needed also testing them on a orbital station, should one become necessary. I’m sure you have noticed that ISS does almost none of that. Most of its useful research outputs, like the MISSE series experiments, would have been cheaper on a dedicated free-flying experiment platform.

    ISS is poorly positioned to solve the remaining hard problems like deep space radiation environment mitigation, long term effects of partial-G, or in situ resource utilization, i.e. the problems that need to be solved if we were to “live and and work in space” in any meaningful way.”

    that is a valid position (although the comparison with uncrewed Mars missions is I think over the top)…but I dont see how your policy is followed in reality.

    The only way to gain experience with long lived space vehicles is to have long lived space vehicles particularly in terms of human interaction. ISS might be poorly positioned (and it certainly is not an optimum platform) but for instance if they cannot make a water recyling machine work on ISS I am not sure why there is any validity in trying to plan one to do anything else.

    NOW there may be other ways to approach water recycling (or insert this problem here) but the reality is that a long term platform to test it at seems prudent to me.

    RGO

  • Coastal Ron

    Reader said:

    ISS is poorly positioned to solve the remaining hard problems like deep space radiation environment mitigation, long term effects of partial-G, or in situ resource utilization, i.e. the problems that need to be solved if we were to “live and and work in space” in any meaningful way.

    Two of the three problems you list apply more to the Moon than “space”, but maybe you mean “space” as anywhere but here.

    Regarding testing on the ISS, any high dollar testing hasn’t been done because a majority of the funding has gone to Shuttle and ISS construction. Congress is just now asking NASA to get someone to run the lab, so I don’t think we have seen it’s potential yet.

    But this gets back to timeframes for evaluation – you apparently think something should be dicarded shortly after it’s be completed if it’s not pumping out daily useful discoveries, regardless how much money we spent – no evaluation or tweaking, just flush that $100B of taxpayer money down the toilet and go back to the taxpayers for another $100B. This time with the promise that the outcome will be “fantastic” (however you determine that).

    How do you convince the taxpayers that deserve more money when you don’t try hard to salvage what you already have? Maybe if you “dump the ISS” types would say instead “let’s move the ISS to lunar orbit to support our new Moon program”, then I might believe that you could be trusted with U.S. Taxpayer money, but not when you keep throwing things away when they aren’t broken.

    How do you respond to that perception?

    Oh, & apologies for typo’s- on travel & using a phone to post.

  • Son of Szebehely bloviated:

    Let’s be clear about something–Wolf is a great American.

    Then why does he keep lying to the public about the true nature of both American and Chinese human space flight?

    Despite not having a NASA Center in his district …

    But he does have Orbital Sciences, which just flunked out of the Commercial Crew Development competition.

    Orbital is one of Wolf’s biggest campaign contributors, according to OpenSecrets.org.

  • DCSCA

    @vulture4 wrote @ May 15th, 2011 at 11:39 am

    The difference is LEO goes no place; BEO goes some place. And, of course, most pols look no further forward than their next election cycle and are reactive to circumstances of same, hardly a characteristic representative of leading the way forward. In the short term, saving jobs related to LEO projects garners votes- but it is a short-sighted strategy and condemns the United States to more years of going in circles. It is not progress.

    The ISS has been permanently manned since 2000 and in spite of desperate excuses by proponents with financial and professional interests in keep American involvement funded, no significant research or scientific breakthroughs have been returned in the 11 years thus far as it ramped up to its present state. Indeed, before Constellation was killed, International Space Station program manager Michael Suffredini told the Augustine Commission in ’09 that the ISS would be decommissioned, de-orbited and destroyed in 2016. That’s where their heads were at less than 24 months ago.

    The ISS in various configurations has been a works program for the U.S. aerospace industry since the Reagan-Bush era that has restricted America’s HSF program and focus to LEO operations and literally has kept America’s space program going in circles- going no place. As it ramped up costs have been in excess of over $100 billion over 20 years on the ISS coupled w/t x-hundred billion spent on shuttle for 30 years- including 10-14 day research flights: ALL going in circles. Plus years of LEO HSF ‘research’ obtained aboard Salyuts; Skylab and MIR as well already exists to be mined for data. Underfunded from the start, approx. $10 billion was spent on Constellation, a BEO initiative and will cost $2.4 billion to close it down– its chief cost overrruns due to a lousy rocket design- Ares– thanks to poor decision-making on Griffin’s part. He was part of the problem. A 20-30-50 year BEO HSF program using methodology per Kraft’s proposal (return to the moon as a ‘Gemini-styled’ program for developing procedures for long stay habitats, flight operations and GP spacecraft design then pressing on out toward Mars) would mitigate costs through the Age of Austerity and actually build something tangible that goes some place. The ISS will leave a legacy of a $100 billion vapor trail when it deorbits and disintegrates. LEO is a ticket to no place. A measured, disciplined, BEO space effort can expand the human presence out into the solar system over decades and in the long term, offer job opportunites as well as deliver something tangible in return. LEO operations no longer do that. LEO may have been space exploration in 1961- it is not in 2011.

    Last year, Neil Armstrong argued before Congress that, in effect, the way to Mars and beyond is via the Moon. He noted, “a return to the Moon would be a most productive path to expanding the human presence in the solar system… The lunar vicinity is an exceptional location to learn about traveling to difficult distant places…. The long communication delays to destinations beyond the Moon [such as Mars or asteroids] may mandate new techniques and procedures for spacecraft operations … Flight experience at lunar distance can provide valuable insights into practical solutions for handling such challenges.” Armstrong is correct. This is part of the Kraft methodology which experienced hands like Armstrong/Cernan/Lovell/Kranz/Lunney et al endorse as the ‘way to go.’ It is a methodology this writer endorses. And given the state of the art of our engineering technologies in this era, it is the way it will be done. It is a space project of scale- and of risk- beyond the capacity of private sector ‘for profit’ firms to mount. That’s why governments do it. That’s why governments, in various political guises, have led the way in developing the relatively new science of modern rocketry over the past 80-plus years. For profit firms have always been follow-alongs, cashing in where it could. But they have never led the way in this field, except in the movies (see ‘Destination Moon’ for details.)

    Whether a space effort of scale BEO will be American led is another matter- but the economics and politics festering in the immediate future of the Age of Austerity may place NASA in the position of being directed to partner w/t PRC in a supportive role as the Chinese send humans back to the moon.

  • DCSCA

    @Robert G. Oler wrote @ May 15th, 2011 at 3:57 pm

    “THATS RHETORIC and it doesnt really deserve a response.”

    And yet you gave one. In fact, it is fact.

    “If we had a Moon base it would be “going around” in “circles” or more correctly elliptical orbits.” Yes, as part of an expanding, disciplined, long-term program per Kraft’s methodolgy, and at lunar distance of approx. 240,000 miles out, not a mere 250 miles up, w/accompanying infrastructure in place to develop long term habitats in a harsh environment, flight operations and procedures with the added bonus of 14 million square miles of ‘Luna’ yet to explore. Quite a challenge- something commercial HSF only dreams of doing in the movies. See Destination Moon for a business plan. LEO may have been ‘space exploration’ in 1961 but it is not in 2011.

    “I argued AGAINST ISS…but the reality is we have it and to advocate simply “ending it” is DUMB.” No, it’s not- at least for American involvement in same. [And FYI, this writer personally challenged Garver on the rationale for the ISS many years ago, but her lobbying role in aerospace contracting is well known.] Before Constellation was killed, International Space Station program manager Michael Suffredini testified before the Augustine Commission in June, ’09 stating the ISS would be decommissioned, de-orbited and destroyed in 2016. That’s where their thinking was less than 2 years ago, after $80-$90 billion was already dumped into it.

    Walking away from expensive initiatives, aerospace, science or otherwise has been done before by the U.S. Like cancelling Apollo’s 18, 19, 20 after the hardware was procured; like lofting the second Skylab now perched at the NASM… like the X-30; the X-33…like Constellation, or the super collider or in foreign policy follies and so on. The Congressional Record is full of them. And it will happen again.

  • red

    “Let’s be clear about something–Wolf is a great American. Despite not having a NASA Center in his district,”

    From the http://www.opensecrets.org entry on Frank Wolf:

    Top 20 Contributors

    2. Orbital Science Corp
    5. United Technologies
    12. United Space Alliance
    20. Lockheed Martin

    “Want to guess how sympathetic the Apprpriations committees will be now that NASA releases its assessment on commercial cargo and crew, which doesn’t paint a very rosy picture for the future of commercial space?”

    I just read that report. I think you need to read it again.

    http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=37002

  • DCSCA

    vulture4 wrote @ May 14th, 2011 at 2:02 pm
    “Human spaceflight BEO is dead until LEO is far more accessible.”

    LEO HSF has been accessible to human beings since April, 1961. Over half a century. BEO HSF was last accomplished in December, 1972. In 2011 LEO, routinely reached via Soyuz, shuttle and most recently Shenzhou is a ticket to no place in 2011. BEO is the future and every dollar lost to LEO projects is a dollar less for BEO projects given the dwindling/limited resources available in the Age of Austerity. It condemns the United States to LEO for decades to come. LEO has been awaiting the first successful commercial ‘for profit’ HSF to be launched into it and a crew safely returned for half a century now. Convince the private capital markets the high risk is worth the minimal ROI and go fly- but not by socializing the risk on the backs of the many taxpayers to ‘profit’ a few.

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ May 15th, 2011 at 5:46 pm

    I dont mind challenging rhetoric masquerading as facts and that is what I did. To oppose ISS because “it goes around in circles” is goofy it is almost as goofy as “we have to have a destination”…and I will continue to challenge rhetoric. I notice that you didnt try and defend the statement…that was wise.

    Who knows if you “challenged” Garver or not. We dont have a clue who you are really, I did it, I did it under my name, and publically and in print and that is a matter of record.

    “International Space Station program manager Michael Suffredini testified before the Augustine Commission in June, ’09 stating the ISS would be decommissioned, de-orbited and destroyed in 2016. That’s where their thinking was less than 2 years ago, after $80-$90 billion was already dumped into it. ”

    I dont recall the specific quote but I am pretty sure it is completely out of context. Mr. Bush the last had as a plan to end US involvement in ISS soley (I guess) to try and find money for his “grand scheme” or who knows maybe it was just another attempt to be goofy in front of the world. but the “thinking” was not NASA’s internal thinking.

    There is a time to leave things that are not working and a time to fix them. We are at the time to leave shuttle…we are not there at the space station; particularly since there is no real alternative to it.

    And that includes going back to the Moon. there is no political or popular support for it. Are not you the one who babbles on about 43 cents out of every dollar or something like that.

    RGO

  • red

    Oh, it looks like Steven mentioned the opensecrets.org item before me. I didn’t realize that; sorry for the repeat.

  • Vladislaw

    Look, we can’t make a go of it 200 miles away from earth, it’s a boondoggle that is way over budget. We spent 50 billion for a space station and another 50 billion to launch the components with the space shuttle. It is sheer follow to continue this, it is way to expensive. It should be plunged into the ocean and we should start all over from scratch. Only this time, we will do it 240,000 miles away.

    That will simplify the whole process. Not only will it be cheaper to do it 240,000 miles away rather than only 200 miles, but it will faster as well. It won’t take longer or cost more if we only do it on Luna. We have proven it is impossible to create an outpost quickly or cheaply in LEO. If NASA can’t do it, it can’t be done. So obviously the problem for creating an outpost is location and LEO is not it. We should goto Luna because NASA could that faster and cheaper than any boondoggle flying 200 miles over earth.

  • @DCSCA

    There was never any logical reason for a super titanic multiple module microgravity space station in the first place, IMO. And I believed that when Ronald Regan proposed the first space station concept back in the 1980s. That money would have been better spent developing a heavy lift companion for the space shuttle so that large but cheaper space stations could have been deployed with a single launch.

    Continuing the ISS and using it as a $3 billion a year work-fare destination for the emerging private spaceflight companies is an even worse idea. That’s money that NASA should be using for beyond LEO missions.

  • DCSCA

    @Robert G. Oler wrote @ May 15th, 2011 at 6:52 pm
    No, it is, in fact, a fact: Shuttle and station are LEO 1980′s- 1990′s planning. LEO is a ticket to no place. It condemns the United States to more years if not decades of going in circles. “Who knows if you “challenged” Garver or not.” It is a matter of record but of little sway as the $100 billion boondoggle exists- but my ego doen’t need quenched over it as yours does- nor is there a wall in home to same.

  • DCSCA

    @ Robert G. Oler wrote @ May 15th, 2011 at 6:52 pm

    “I dont recall the specific quote but I am pretty sure it is completely out of context.” You mean you want to forget it. It’s a matter of public record– and the truth can sting: “There’s been a fair amount of outcry this week regarding a quote in the Washington Post from International Space Station program manager Michael Suffredini that the ISS would be decommissioned, de-orbited and destroyed in 2016. Suffredini made that statement to the Augustine Commission, the presidential panel reviewing NASA’s future plans, at a hearing in June.” Less than 24 months ago this was the thinking going on. Now it’s a ‘scramble’ to invent reasons to keep it aloft. Very sad.

  • DCSCA

    “There is a time to leave things that are not working and a time to fix them. We are at the time to leave shuttle…we are not there at the space station; particularly since there is no real alternative to it.”

    There are always alternatives. LEO is a ticket to no place. BEO is the path to the future, unless you’re a fldeglnig commerical HSF contractor vying for government subsidies to service the government O&O ISS. It’s a works program tha gets the taxpayer coming and going- and goes in circles at the same time. LEO is past planning. BEO is the future and it is progress.

  • red wrote:

    Oh, it looks like Steven mentioned the opensecrets.org item before me. I didn’t realize that; sorry for the repeat.

    Actually you went further than I did, so thank you for the enhancement.

    I find it amusing how extremist Republican members of Congress carrying water for certain aerospace industry interests reflexively try to frighten us with a non-existent Chinese Red Menace when they have no facts to back up their claims. It’s the same problem down here in the Space Coast with Adams and Posey. Outside their small band of porkers, it seems no one else in Congress (or the media) takes them seriously.

  • Das Boese

    DCSCA wrote @ May 15th, 2011 at 6:30 pm

    BEO HSF was last accomplished in December, 1972.

    Nope.
    I hate to break it to you, but the Moon is, in fact, orbiting the Earth.

    BEO is the future and every dollar lost to LEO projects is a dollar less for BEO projects given the dwindling/limited resources available in the Age of Austerity.

    What “BEO projects”, specifically?
    Because as far as I am aware, no credible architecture for sustainable (or even unsustainable) BEO exploration currently exists.

    It condemns the United States to LEO for decades to come.

    What condemns the United States (and the few other countries that participate in human spaceflight) to LEO is the lack of the necessary technology and knowledge to safely send human beings BEO and return them alive.

    And of course, the vast majority of the human race is condemned to the surface of planet Earth by astronomical launch costs.

  • @Das Boese

    “What “BEO projects”, specifically?
    Because as far as I am aware, no credible architecture for sustainable (or even unsustainable) BEO exploration currently exists.”

    Its called a Moon Base. And it is sustainable with the current NASA budget– if we’re not wasting $3 billion a year on the ISS.

    At the lunar poles, you can utilize the Moon’s water resources to test the mass shielding that will be necessary for safe interplanetary travel without significant brain damage from heavy nuclei. On the Moon you can test water processing plants that will probably be needed to process water from the regolith on the moons of Mars to reduce the cost of fuel, water, and air needed to reach Mars and the martian surface. On the Moon, we can find out if a 1/6 gravity environment is inherently dangerous to humans over the course of a few years. On the Moon, we can find out how reliable habitat modules are over several years, something that that such structures will have to be on Mars ventures that probably have to last several years. On the Moon we can also find out if humans can remain sane after living in artificial habitats for several years away from Earth.

    And, of course, once NASA is on the lunar surface and solved most of the major problems of living there, the privateers will quickly follow and the nearly one trillion dollars that is annually spent on tourism on Earth will finally expand to another world!

  • Robert G. Oler

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ May 15th, 2011 at 8:29 pm

    ” find it amusing how extremist Republican members of Congress carrying water for certain aerospace industry interests reflexively try to frighten us with a non-existent Chinese Red Menace when they have no facts to back up their claims.”

    you notice how quiet most of the right wing toadies are about this…it is hard to make that claim on a forum where the facts can be easily distributed.

    The problem with the GOP is that it is in (what I hope) is the final phase of an evolution where to have extreme policies and notions one has to have extreme claims. Wolf is simply following that line…he is making claims which of course are absurd…but to the folks who make up the GOP base the facts long ago stopped mattering and instead “what could happen” is what they pass as facts…

    My hope is that this cycle is about to run itself out. There is a reason folks like the Gov of MS and Huckabee and a few others are passing on a run for POTUS when (in my view) the sitting POTUS is vulnerable. The right wing of the party makes a sensible candidate all but impossible now…and if the GOP offers up a really right winger you are going to see in my view again Obama reelected and that will start a new course (hopefully) in the GOP.

    There is nothing that justifies Wolf’s statement or any actions on that statement…but he had no trouble making it its just typical GOP rhetoric (lies)

    RGO

  • Robert G. Oler

    http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1846/1

    Nice job by Mr. Stern…really nice job. If the F9 and F9H make their numbers there is a golden era coming in the next 20 years of spaceflight RGO

  • Egad

    > Moon’s water resources

    It might be prudent to find out what the Moon’s water resources actually are before we go too far in planing to use them.

  • Coastal Ron

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ May 16th, 2011 at 4:00 am

    Its called a Moon Base. And it is sustainable with the current NASA budget– if we’re not wasting $3 billion a year on the ISS.

    Why should the U.S. Taxpayer believe that you’re going to be any better steward of “Moon Base” funding than you are of the ISS funding? Why should they believe that you won’t just throw away another $100B worth of space assets when you want to move on to Mars?

    More importantly, do you live your life the same way? Do you destroy your house when you move, or destroy your brand new car when a new model comes out? Weird.

    The Shuttle is/was a transportation system that was eclipsed by lower cost alternatives. Even it’s unique features such as it’s robotic arm, airlock, and Spacehab have been replicated and improved on the ISS.

    There is no replacement for the ISS at this time. Dunderheads use the inane excuse that the ISS is “not a destination”, but that’s like saying your place of work is not a destination. Others claim that “no results” have come from the ISS (there have), but that’s like complaining about how few major breakthroughs you’ve had at a research facility that just had it’s grand opening.

    It’s fine to be a space dreamer, but at some point you have to look at the realities of what is being spent and what is being returned in value. The Shuttle lasted 30 years, and is finally being eclipsed with lower cost (and safer) alternatives for cargo, crew and as a temporary place of work in space.

    There are no alternatives to the ISS, which Congress has designated as a National Laboratory. And until you come up with a plan that makes the most of the investment the U.S. Taxpayer has already made, you will get little support, public or otherwise.

    And this is easy to test at home folks – tell your friends and neighbors that you want to throw away a fairly new $100B taxpayer-funded space station (visible in the sky and on NASA TV), but you want another $100B of their money to spend on going to the Moon. Should be an interesting conversation.

  • Vladislaw

    Robert, the F9H is no longer a launch vehicle, that was discontinued. It is now the F9 and the Falcon Heavy. No F9H.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Vladislaw wrote @ May 16th, 2011 at 12:39 pm

    “Robert, the F9H is no longer a launch vehicle, that was discontinued. It is now the F9 and the Falcon Heavy. No F9H.”

    thanks for the correction, I label the FAlcon 9 Heavy the F9H for brevity and that was not the best of plans as it could confuse some RGO

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ May 15th, 2011 at 8:05 pm

    “There are always alternatives. LEO is a ticket to no place. BEO is the path to the future, ”

    there are always alternatives that are analytical “excursions” and those that are “really possible”. On paper or in think tanks anything is possible in terms of policy…but the “real world” has a different set of metrics.

    The reality right now, with the economic situation you are constantly barking on, and the fact that every NASA project/program ends up looking like 100 billion and a few decades…the US taxpayer is not going to put music (meaning money) behind any grand scheme to build “ISS on the Moon”. People might say “it is doable on 3 billion” but the reality is nothing of that scale is doable on 3 billion at NASA HSF right now.

    As for LEO being a ticket to nowhere, if it is then so is human activities outside LEO…there is no coherent argument where anything done outside of LEO at the cost structure in place today pays any value for the cost RGO

  • reader

    @Coastal Ron

    ::Regarding testing on the ISS, any high dollar testing hasn’t been done

    Exactly. When will the high dollar, high return research start to happen ?

    ::you apparently think something should be dicarded shortly after it’s be completed if it’s not pumping out daily useful discoveries, regardless how much money we spent – no evaluation or tweaking, just flush that $100B of taxpayer money down the toilet

    No, very apparently to me, i do not think that. I have not advocated deorbiting ISS.

    But, you are engaging in a bit of sunk cost fallacy here. Just for a second, ignore the $100B already spent on the thing.

    What value will you get out of it for the projected $3B a year expenditure on it for the next decade ? Will it be worth it ? Are there not OTHER alternatives to spend $3B a year to actually advance the cause of space development and human expansion into cosmos ?

    I can think of several more productive ways.

  • Coastal Ron

    reader wrote @ May 16th, 2011 at 1:22 pm

    What value will you get out of it for the projected $3B a year expenditure on it for the next decade?

    What “value” do you get out of any science funding? It depends, right? I know there are quite a few past tests and experiments that have been done on the ISS (others have provided long lists), as well as current and future experiments and tests planned (even more long lists).

    About the ISS, NASA has stated:

    As the Nation’s newest national laboratory, the ISS will further strengthen relationships among NASA, other Federal entities, and private sector leaders in the pursuit of national priorities for the advancement of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The ISS National Laboratory will also open new paths for the exploration and economic development of Space.

    As I’ve stated before, outside review and evaluation should be part of the process, just like it should be for Moon, Mars or any programs. I think one of the major failures of the Shuttle program was a lack of review about it’s goals and accomplishments, so I hope we get honest feedback on what’s going on.

    But that also gets back to the goal of the ISS – why is Congress supporting it? It has had bipartisan support for nearly two decades, so they at least support the idea of a manned laboratory in space, but like anything it needs to show a return on it’s investment. If it doesn’t help us to expand our presence into space, then in my eyes the funding should end and the equipment repurposed or sold. But I don’t think we’ve had enough time to determine that yet.

    I know one of the experiments I look forward to is the VASIMR, and to see if the real-life engine tests in space meet predictions. That and the weightless exercise experiments are ones that are easiest for me to see as helping us add more people into space for longer periods of time.

    Are there not OTHER alternatives to spend $3B a year to actually advance the cause of space development and human expansion into cosmos?

    Sure, lots. But none of them have funding from Congress. Some people want to return to the Moon, some want to go directly to Mars, some want commercial transportation, others want government-run transportation. There’s no shortage of ideas, but a lack of national imperative and cohesive will. Is that a problem? No. The Apollo Moon program was a political program, not a desire to visit the Moon, and since then there still is no urgent need to visit the Moon. It’d be nice, but nice doesn’t equal an urgent need.

    I can think of several more productive ways.

    Great. Let’s hear them. Who knows, maybe you’ll provide a compelling vision that others can get behind. Stranger things have happened… ;-)

  • @Egad

    “It might be prudent to find out what the Moon’s water resources actually are before we go too far in planing to use them.”

    That’s part of the fun of a government space program. Unlike private space programs, its not there to make a profit. Its there to find out things like how much water is there and how efficiently it can be extracted. And the results from the last few space probes clearly indicate that there is a substantial amount of ice, probably mixed in with the powdered regolith, in the permanently shadowed craters of the poles.

    But even if there was absolutely no water at the lunar poles, the fact that the lunar regolith is composed of 40% oxygen would still be beneficial since oxygen comprises 89% of the mass of water and about 86% of the mass of rocket fuel.

    But, IMO, its pretty obvious now that the poles have a significant water component that could probably easily be extracted by simply heating the dug up regolith. And this would be a lot cheaper than the high temperatures required for extracting oxygen from the regolith– although both processes, in theory, should be substantially cheaper than importing water or fuel from Earth.

  • On the general subject of the ISS and its value, I offer this PowerPoint:

    http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/515797main_UN-HSTI_research_accomplishments_overview_compressed.pdf

    It was a presentation in February by ISS Program Scientist Dr. Julie Robinson to the United Nations. Lots of good stuff.

    I use it locally when explaining to visitors the benefits from ISS research.

    Much of it is technical and over my head but it shows that ISS is just getting started what with could be an exciting decade of discoveries.

  • Das Boese

    reader wrote @ May 16th, 2011 at 1:22 pm

    Are there not OTHER alternatives to spend $3B a year to actually advance the cause of space development and human expansion into cosmos ?
    I can think of several more productive ways.

    Let’s hear it.

    And please, no “moon base” PRATT.

  • Robert G. Oler

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43040726/ns/technology_and_science-space/

    Jay still has a fascination for the ATK thing…but otherwise he is figuring it out RGO

  • @Coastal Ron

    By 2016, the year when the ISS was supposed to be decommissioned , there will be plenty of cheaper alternatives to the ISS. With our new heavy lift capability we’ll be able to launch Bigelow type space stations with internal volumes as large or larger than the ISS, instantly into orbit, with a single HLV launch.

    And if we’re going to have a $15 to $20 billion a year government space program, we might as well use it to do something useful besides going around in circles right above the Earth. And once again, the establishment of a permanent presence on the Moon is an essential key towards establishing a permanent presence on Mars and the moons of Mars.

    And the Moon should be a major destination for private commercial space tourism which should help to grow the US economy. And companies like Bigelow have expressed a desire to set up hotels on the lunar surface.

  • Vladislaw

    How do you propose for astronauts to gain long term exposure to outer space unless astronauts are housed long term in outer space?

  • Vladislaw

    From Robert’s link:

    Choosing the rocket

    Standing by is arguably the world’s most reliable rocket: a U.S.-European vehicle that is an upgraded version of the space shuttle’s solid booster rocket, which has flown perfectly 216 times, plus France’s Ariane 5 rocket as a second stage, which has flown 41 times without a problem.

    The rocket, called Liberty, is being offered by ATK Space Launch Systems. It’s capable of carrying all crew vehicles in development today.

    “Both stages of Liberty were designed for human rating from the beginning,” said ATK Vice President Charlie Precourt, a veteran astronaut and former director of NASA’s flight crew operations. The other rockets haven’t yet gone through the time-consuming process to be certified as safe for flying humans.

    What’s more, an earlier variant of Liberty has already flown in the form of the Ares 1-X rocket, and it already has its launch pad and facilities to accommodate astronauts. Although the Ares project was canceled last year, that experience gives Liberty an extra boost in this second space race. “We can perform a test flight in late 2013 and deliver crew by 2015,” Precourt said.

    How many times has this “arguably the world’s most reliable rocket” flown in this configuration?

    How many times has this rocket been assembled and put on a launch pad?

    How many test firings has this combination of rockets been put through?

    How many parts of the “earlier variant of Liberty has already flown” will be used on the liberty rocket?

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    @ Marcel F. Williams,

    Personally, I think that the thing for which NASA should use Bigelow modules is to be going around in circles at EML-1. Something like Bigelow’s tri-module Alpha at L1 would be a superb place for testing things like radiation mitigation and exo-magnetosphere life sciences without having to spend cash and time on a lander. Even better, an L1 science platform would be accessible from Earth by large commercial launchers like Falcon Heavy and the solid motor-augmented Delta-IVH and Atlas-VH. Additionally, as L1 is always five days from Earth in a low-energy orbit, you can get crews back relatively quickly in case of an emergency. That would be impossible if they are on multi-month journeys to NEOs or need to wait for their CRV to align with their landing site in the case of a Moonbase.

    As a secondary bonus, the work on the lab could be easily applied to a ‘cheap and cheerful’ NEO encounter spacecraft (basically, just a Bigelow Sundancer attached to several Common Centaurs and maybe an Falcon Heavy Upper Stage as propulsion stages). You therefore get for the price of one archetecture both a site for research on long-term deep space habitation and an exploration vehicle that, when funds are available, can be augmented with a lander for a Mars landing.

  • Coastal Ron

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ May 16th, 2011 at 2:47 pm

    Its [your taxpayer funded government] there to find out things like how much water is there and how efficiently it can be extracted.

    Why should the government do exploration?

    Is that the way it’s done here on Earth? No! Natural resource extraction companies pay for the rights to explore parcels of land, and pay for the exploration. The costs are recouped through selling the resources they extract at a later date.

    If there is a need for natural resources on the Moon, then companies should be starting the exploration. Too expensive your say? Well then that goes back to the economics of whether you should be extracting the resources from the Moon or shipping them from Earth (or other locations). Or if the costs are too high, but they see a potential market, then they will benefit from the use of commercial transportation companies to lower the costs.

    If you’re suggesting sending a robot explorer, that’s fine with me. But anything more expansive, especially if the intent is actual production, should be handled by the free market – you know capitalism (you are a capitalist I presume?).

    Unlike private space programs, its not there to make a profit.

    The government doesn’t even have an incentive to spend our tax money wisely, so why is this an advantage? You’re not making a convincing argument here.

  • Coastal Ron

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ May 16th, 2011 at 3:02 pm

    By 2016, the year when the ISS was supposed to be decommissioned , there will be plenty of cheaper alternatives to the ISS.

    If by “cheaper”, you mean an inflatable bubble in space with no equipment and little extra power, that hardly qualifies as an alternative to the ISS.

    But I’ll bite – name one that is funded?

    There are no government funded programs for less expensive space stations that are envisioned, proposed or funded. So right there your statement is false.

    And if you think Bigelow Aerospace is included in that count, you’re wrong, because he won’t launch until there are two or more commercial crew transportation systems working, since he wants redundant transportation. And there won’t be two or more commercial crew companies without the ISS, which is the ONLY funded destination in LEO through 2020.

    And if we’re going to have a $15 to $20 billion a year government space program, we might as well use it to do something useful besides going around in circles right above the Earth.

    Ooo, a Griffin disciple. Next you’ll be using words like “Simple”, “Safe”, and “Soon”… ;-)

    And once again, the establishment of a permanent presence on the Moon is an essential key towards establishing a permanent presence on Mars and the moons of Mars.

    Maybe. But even if it is, what’s the difference if it takes 20 years instead of 10, or 40 years instead of 20? Without a “national imperative”, and there is none, we can return to the Moon at a pace that is economically sustainable like the last time we went. When we return, it should be to stay, but within a reasonable budget.

    And the Moon should be a major destination for private commercial space tourism which should help to grow the US economy. And companies like Bigelow have expressed a desire to set up hotels on the lunar surface.

    See you keep not understanding the concept here. If companies want to set up operations on the Moon, for mining, tourism or whatever, then great! But the U.S. Taxpayer does not need to be footing the bill for those profit making endeavors. As usual, you have failed to “close the business case” on your lunar desires.

  • pathfinder_01

    “ignore the $100B already spent on the thing. What value will you get out of it for the projected $3B a year expenditure on it for the next decade ?”

    At a minum we should gain some experience with working and living in space long term. We are moving away from the mission paragin where everything was done within a single mission and towards one where people can spend months in space. Experince with things like long duration life support should help a lot when we make the next step. If we can get a centrifuge to the ISS we could get data on simulated gravity. Right now it is giving information about the psychology of long term spaceflight, the amount of labor needed to maintain equipment(and what sorts of tasks are needed).

    “Will it be worth it ? ”

    Time will tell but so far yes it seems worth it. The lessons of what to do and what not to do are things that have to be learned and LEO is a safer cheaper place to do so.

    “Are there not OTHER alternatives to spend $3B a year to actually advance the cause of space development and human expansion into cosmos ?”

    Moon bases will not fit in a 3 billion a year program and yield anywhere near as much data as the ISS esp. if NASA is launching it. There are things that can be done on the surface of moon now, but with humans in the next 5 years I would say no. I can think of some commercial things that can be done both on surface and in lunar space but that is a next step, not the current step.

    Mars, forget about it. Too costly and too risky to be funded by government and too costly to be funded by commercial atm.

    I can see a future where the ISS is replaced by smaller more specialized space stations in LEO but we are not there yet. Oddly enough commercial cargo and commercial crew can enable this to happen but they are dependent on the ISS atm.

  • pathfinder_01

    “By 2016, the year when the ISS was supposed to be decommissioned , there will be plenty of cheaper alternatives to the ISS. With our new heavy lift capability we’ll be able to launch Bigelow type space stations with internal volumes as large or larger than the ISS, instantly into orbit, with a single HLV launch.”

    I have got a perfectly working car that is almost paid off. Should I go out and buy another just because I can get it cheaper now? That would be a bad financial move. The new car would cost about the same in terms of gas, give me no new functionality, and give me another car note (or drain my bank account).

    A bigloew station the size of the ISS could be cheaper to construct, but mainatance and support costs are likely to be similar. Plus I hate to break it to the HLV crowd but uh…size is not everything. What new functionality is it supposed to give and why is the ISS unable to give said functionality? Chicago’s city hall is 100 years old. I don’t think the new Mayor is going to propose replacing it just because we can build a new one cheaper.

    “And if we’re going to have a $15 to $20 billion a year government space program, we might as well use it to do something useful besides going around in circles right above the Earth. And once again, the establishment of a permanent presence on the Moon is an essential key towards establishing a permanent presence on Mars and the moons of Mars.”

    If you want a permanent presence on the moon you need to reduce the cost of resupply. If I need to lift 2 tons of supply to the ISS, I can use either a Taurus II or Falcon 9. If I want to land 2 tons on the moon, I am going to need a much bigger and more expensive launcher. Delta IV heavy can probably send abound 10MT to TLI and of that 10MT would have to be a landing system. Delta IV heavy is the most expensive rocket outside of the shuttle!

    “And the Moon should be a major destination for private commercial space tourism which should help to grow the US economy. And companies like Bigelow have expressed a desire to set up hotels on the lunar surface.”

    That may happen but not yet. The price to go to the moon will always be more expensive than the price to LEO. Commercial needs to cut its teeth in LEO first before tackling the moon.

  • Um, why can we only have one space station?

    Let ISS handle government research. Let Bigelow and others handle commercial space. The more, the merrier.

  • pathfinder_01

    “Um, why can we only have one space station?
    Let ISS handle government research. Let Bigelow and others handle commercial space. The more, the merrier.”

    In the world of moon/mars first LEO has no purpose. It is a place to be crossed quickly and forgotten about. To them the only real desitnation in space is what ever lifeless rock they prefer.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ May 16th, 2011 at 3:02 pm
    “And if we’re going to have a $15 to $20 billion a year government space program, we might as well use it to do something useful besides going around in circles right above the Earth. ”

    the “going around in circles” thing is useless rhetoric. There is in all likely hood the same notion that what would be done at a Moon base is what they are doing on ISS…ie maintaining the facility and trying to stay alive with little else on the agenda.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Bennett

    Vladislaw wrote @ May 16th, 2011 at 4:44 pm

    My eyes rolled a tad when I read that crap. I wonder how much it costs to have a reporter like Jay Barbree lie through his teeth?

    It sounds as if he actually believes that “Liberty” is more than an artist’s rendering. As you note, NONE of Ares 1-X will be part of this concept rocket. Not the 4 seg SRB, not the plywood interstage or the dummy capsule, none of the electronics, so, what?

    Oh yeah, choosing the Atlas V over ATK’s “Le Stick Du Merde” is such a fantastic risk. Boeing had better do some serious analysis of how long it will take ULA to get the Atlas V ready to fly.

    But as has been noted before, the cool decals on “Le Pet” will make it fly really fast!

  • @Ben Russell-Gough

    L1 will probably be the gateway to Mars from cis-lunar space. The delta-v requirements from L1 to high Mars orbit is only about 1.7 km/s.

    But a space station located at L1 is going to have to be heavily mass shielded to protect the human body and especially the brain from heavy nuclei. This is probably going to require several hundred of tonnes of hydrogen and probably even more mass if we use water.

    The sources for such large quantities of water or hydrogen to L1 will have to come from heavy lift vehicles from Earth or from the lunar surface. The HLV that we are currently contemplating would deliver only 40 tonnes of mass to L1 per launch. So I think the Moon might be a better source for mass shielding manned interplanetary vehicles since the delta-v requirements from the lunar surface to L1 is about 2.52 km/s vs. the delta-v requirements from Earth to L1 which are more than 13.7 km/s.

  • @Coastal Ron

    The Moon is a new land. And it is the role of government to assess the strategic and economic prospects of that new land for the benefit of the American people. America is not a plutocracy, its a democratic republic. If we had waited around for the corporations to figure out how to make a profit out of launching objects into space– then we’d probably still be waiting.

    Governments colonized, purchased, and even took by force the lands that we now call the United States of America. And governments explored these lands and protected these territories so that private industry and the American people could prosper. Government helped the Wright Brothers turn their innately dangerous flying machine into a much safer aircraft that would make air flight common place throughout the US. Government invented the computer, the space rocket, the satellite, the nuclear reactor, and the internet and private enterprise has benefited immensely from these government investments.

    So the Tea Party idea that government is innately harmful to the economy is a complete myth. There ain’t much government in Somalia but there sure are a lot of privateers or should we call them pirateers:-).

  • @Coastal Ron

    “See you keep not understanding the concept here. If companies want to set up operations on the Moon, for mining, tourism or whatever, then great! But the U.S. Taxpayer does not need to be footing the bill for those profit making endeavors. As usual, you have failed to “close the business case” on your lunar desires.”

    The business of the US government is to protect the interest of the American people and to help increase the prosperity of the American people. The US government invested in developing rockets that could launch satellites into orbit and now satellites are at the core of a $100 billion a year private commercial telecommunications industry.

    Helping to advanced America’s technological know how is essential to the prosperity of the American people. And those nations whose governments that do not invest in the future are usually referred to as third world countries that usually ended up receiving financial aid from other governments and not their own.

  • @pathfinder_01

    The ISS is a titanic waste of tax payer money. And it doesn’t even belong solely to the American people which allows the Russians to say no if Space X attempts to dock there. And its not even in the easiest orbit for American spacecraft to reach it from American soil.

    A large Bigelow space station will be a lot cheaper to launch and maintain than the ISS with its multitude of leaky joints and limited crew. Continuing the ISS after 2016 as a make-work program for private industry would be a titanic waste of tax payer dollars. Hopefully, the deployment of the first Bigelow space stations, whether they be purchased by NASA or by private industry or both will finally put and end to this $3 billion a year orbiting piece of pork!

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    @ Stephen C. Smith,

    This is an interesting question and will probably be at last partly dependent on how high the commercial companies can get their flight rates. If they can deliver enough mass to orbit in a year, there’s no reason why there can’t be more than one commercial space stations up at the same time as ISS & the Chinese Salut clone.

    That said, the elephant sitting on the table is finding customers with deep enough pockets. Even if SpaceX succeeds in bringing cargo-to-orbit costs down to $1,000/lb, there are still going to be few institutions and companies that can afford it. As matters stand, I’m not convinced that there is enough likely interest to support more than one commercial space platform, unless they are small and specialised to narrow roles (research, space hotel, etc.).

    However, due to their high operating costs (mostly due to bureaucratic and procedural inefficiencies), it is unlikely that NASA, specifically, can operate two major human programs in parallel. It will have to be ISS followed by whatever follows with only a minimal operational overlap.

  • DCSCA

    @Robert G. Oler wrote @ May 16th, 2011 at 7:30 pm
    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ May 16th, 2011 at 3:02 pm
    “And if we’re going to have a $15 to $20 billion a year government space program, we might as well use it to do something useful besides going around in circles right above the Earth. ”

    “the “going around in circles” thing is useless rhetoric.”

    Except, of course, it is, in fact, a fact.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Ben Russell-Gough wrote @ May 17th, 2011 at 3:25 am

    “That said, the elephant sitting on the table is finding customers with deep enough pockets. Even if SpaceX succeeds in bringing cargo-to-orbit costs down to $1,000/lb, there are still going to be few institutions and companies that can afford it.”

    nice comments on the NASAspaceflight forum, I am still thinking of how to respond.

    “deep enough pockets”…there is an emerging market (in my view) it is educational institutions in the US. If SpaceX can make its numbers and a private station emerges there is significant interest by some major educational institutions who have access to serious political muscle but who are frustrated by dealing with NASA and its space station.

    RGO

  • Coastal Ron

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ May 17th, 2011 at 11:25 am

    “deep enough pockets”…there is an emerging market (in my view) it is educational institutions in the US.

    I think the biggest interest for science in space will be by using the ISS, and not from individual satellites or missions. However I don’t think that research on the ISS in general will really get going until we have the ability to make frequent deliveries of people and payloads to the ISS.

    The matériel restrictions on the ISS will be mostly solved once both CRS contractors come online (SpaceX and Orbital), and we have a fleet of five different cargo delivery options. That will help with the quick turnaround of fixing what breaks and returning results to Earth (Dragon only at this point). That was also one of the issues outlined in the NASA “Commercial Market Assessment for Crew and Cargo Systems” report.

    The crew portion is where I really see a big upsurge in use of the ISS, including educational institutions. I think some of the extra seats on the crew rotation flights will go to researchers that will want to observe first hand the experiments that their equipment is performing, and to make adjustments or improvements if necessary. It may only be a stay of a few days, but that type of hands-on observation and work will likely be very popular. And if NASA is already paying for the full flight (like they do with Shuttle), they might offer free or discounted prices to educational institutions, which increases the interest in going.

    Until that point, the ISS is a remote place of research with severe labor restrictions, and it’s output will reflect that.

    And if the ISS has these types of challenges, then anything we do on the Moon will be far worse, just in case any “moonies” think this is justification for not using the ISS.

  • Coastal Ron

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ May 16th, 2011 at 10:52 pm

    Governments colonized, purchased, and even took by force the lands that we now call the United States of America.

    I suppose you could find an example that justifies anything, but in this case I’ll point back to the westward expansion, where there was little government involvement. It was people and companies that lead the westward expansion, and the most visible embodiment of the government was the U.S. Army – and the last I looked, we don’t have any indigenous people on the Moon that we need protection from.

    But this gets back to the reasons for going to the Moon. There is no demand for the Moon’s resources. None. The only demand is for knowledge at this point, and that has no defined need date.

    I have always said that we’ll mine the Moon when we need to, but that date is far, far away. Send robotic explorers for sure, and that was one of the casualties of the Constellation program (good thing Obama killed it, huh?), so I hope Congress let’s us get back to doing more robotic exploration.

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ May 16th, 2011 at 10:19 pm

    This is probably going to require several hundred of tonnes of hydrogen and probably even more mass if we use water.

    You ignore the possibility of supplying that water from Earth in small increments. For instance, when the space station construction deliveries are made, small amounts of water could be delivered along with them. If you’re sending a large pressurized module to L1 (something rather lightweight), then you could piggyback a water tank as a secondary payload. It’s not as hard as you think to progressively add more water over time.

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ May 16th, 2011 at 11:07 pm

    The business of the US government is to protect the interest of the American people and to help increase the prosperity of the American people.

    In the preamble to the U.S. Constitution I find phrase “promote the general Welfare“, not “scout for resources on the Moon“.

    Let’s not make up things.

  • Vladislaw

    “As matters stand, I’m not convinced that there is enough likely interest to support more than one commercial space platform, unless they are small and specialised to narrow roles”

    The last interview I read from Bigelow is they plan on having 36 person capacity by 2016-17 timeframe and would require about 20 launches a year. I would sure like to know more particulars about those MOU’s with other countries and how many people they would like to put in orbit.

  • reader

    : Let’s hear it.
    : And please, no “moon base” PRATT.

    You asked, here is a short list off the cuff :

    – demonstrate a space solar power system at small scale, to figure out whether its worth pursuing as an option for our energy future. Do a “power a lightbulb” on earth with energy beamed from space

    – figure out how partial G affects animals, long term, in particular lunar and martian gravity equivalents. See Mars Gravity Biosatellite for example

    – demonstrate practical application of ISRU in space, for example robotic lunar station to do Lunox

    – develop as system for prospecting either NEOs or main asteroid belt for materials ( a swarm of nanosats ? )

    – develop in-space refuelling infrastructure, mature the relevant technologies

    – determine the long term radiation effects on animals in deep space, outside of Van Allen belts for long durations, test out different shielding strategies

    I could go on. This is a list that would answer key questions that relate to the potential of humans eventually living off earth in any meaningful way.

    None of this requires an ISS, or a moon base, or actually humans in space, for a a while, for that matter.

  • reader

    Also note that the list above is more technology development focussed, and only partially science related. So funding for any of that would not come from the science budgets.

  • Martijn Meijering

    The sources for such large quantities of water or hydrogen to L1 will have to come from heavy lift vehicles from Earth or from the lunar surface.

    Nonsense, the EELVs were designed to be capable of launching hundreds of tonnes a year. You are turning the argument on its head: the only payloads that we could afford to launch in such large quantities are things like water and propellant.

  • pathfinder_01

    “The ISS is a titanic waste of tax payer money. And it doesn’t even belong solely to the American people which allows the Russians to say no if Space X attempts to dock there. And its not even in the easiest orbit for American spacecraft to reach it from American soil. ”

    It is in the orbit it is in because it allows others countries US, Japan, ESA, Russia to get to it. Russia and the US and its partners all have say on what goes on there. Russia however is unable to prevent Space X from docking but they do have a point.

    “A large Bigelow space station will be a lot cheaper to launch”

    Cheaper to launch, we have already launched most of the ISS. This is a poor metric to gauge by. I can get my car for about 3,000 less than what I paid for it therefore I should go out and buy another for $14,000?

    “and maintain than the ISS with its multitude of leaky joints and limited crew.”

    Limited crew? You do know that the ISS can support a crew of 7 with surge capacity of around 14. Leaky joints? You mean CBM ports where the different modules attach?

    You do know that having a modular space station has advantages. If something should go wrong in one of the modules you can seal that module up ( like MIR and Spekter after the collision of progress and also one good reason not to combine COT 2 and 3) saving the rest of the station. It gives you options to add on more as needed.

    The modules of the ISS are about 10-15 tons each, this means you can launch it now instead of waiting years for a HLV to become available just to launch everything in one shot ala skylab.

    Bigeloew’ Alpha and Beta stations are modular and constructed out of even lighter materials than the ISS.If you will notice even he is not waiting on an HLV to start building space stations. If one is availbe he may use it but if you want to get a mission going it is best to use the rockets we have and maybe this lesson should be instilled into the planners of BEO exploration. USE WHAT WE HAVE. DON’T try to build something using shuttle parts or else you will just use up your funding on the rocket and won’t have enough for payloads.

    “Continuing the ISS after 2016 as a make-work program for private industry would be a titanic waste of tax payer dollars. Hopefully, the deployment of the first Bigelow space stations, whether they be purchased by NASA or by private industry or both will finally put and end to this $3 billion a year orbiting piece of pork!”

    Attempting to go to the moon without funding and spacecraft in place is a dumb move. CXP degraded into having the whole of the American space program be 2 lunar sorties of 4 people twice a year for two weeks. No moon bases, no ability to do anything much in LEO (station gone…and capsules suck for science work). Moon bases at the moment are unaffordable and unattractive when it takes 20 years to get to the moon with current NASA funding and practices.

    The ISS allows 9 Americans/ US crew a year to spend months in space which could increase to 12 a year when commercial comes online. Exists right now and can do more science than any lunar base could hope to with the same amount of money. If you care about this countries access to space protect it. If you care more about lunar dreams that are too costly to come true atm dump it.

  • Coastal Ron

    reader wrote @ May 17th, 2011 at 3:53 pm

    Thanks for coming up with the list – some short comments:

    space solar power” – A nice-to-have, but not necessary for human expansion into space.

    how partial G affects animals” – Important, and something that has been proposed for the ISS. All they need to do is send up the experiment – the support infrastructure is already there, ready for the scientists to use.

    ISRU in space” – Needed at some point, but not known when. Until then it should be pursued with increasingly more capable robotic efforts.

    prospecting either NEOs or main asteroid belt for materials” – Same comment as ISRU in space.

    develop in-space refuelling infrastructure” – Important, and one of the enabling technologies that will get us out of LEO and let us live beyond of LEO.

    long term radiation effects on animals in deep space” – Important, but this requires inexpensive transportation to high-radiation areas, since you’ll want to iterate your solutions as quickly as possible to see what works best. Once commercial crew is in place, this one gets easier.

    In short, if this is the best list you can come up with then I don’t see anything that is equivalent to or better than what we can do on the ISS.

    Keep in mind though, that the argument for “getting rid of the ISS” shows a lack of our ability to do more than one major effort in space at a time. That is just trading one “program” with another “program”, but doesn’t expand our presence into space.

    Drive down the costs to do things in space and then we can afford to do more concurrent activities in space, including returning humans to the Moon. If you continue to ignore costs and capabilities then you’ll only be able to do one thing at a time. That’s a ticket to nowhere.

  • pathfinder_01

    “long term radiation effects on animals in deep space”

    Actually you could use a Dragon lab mission to do this. Dragon’s main role is ISS cargo and in the future perhaps crew but another version is Dragon lab which is stand alone. The ISS’s need for commercial cargo could enable this mission or make it cheaper than a stand alone mission that had to develop everything at once.

    “develop in-space refuelling infrastructure”
    There are already stand alone demos planed but here is one thing the ISS might do:

    http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/asd/2010/01/12/01.xml&channel=space
    Not quite up to mars and moon missions but still useful for getting a market for propellant in space.

  • reader

    >>In short, if this is the best list you can come up with then I don’t see anything that is equivalent to or better than what we can do on the ISS.

    None of it is being done on ISS, none is being planned ( CAM was cancelled in case you did not notice ) and some of it is downright impossible to do on ISS, for obvious reasons that have to do with its location ( on LEO, within van Allen belts, far from any meaningful resource ).

    What activities currently running or planned to be done on ISS are more fundamental, or more important to warrant the expenditure ?

    In any case unmanned, teleoperated if necessary, dedicated experiment platforms would work out cheaper for most everything that one would want to do from that list.

    >>In short, if this is the best list you can come up with then I don’t see anything that is equivalent to or better than what we can do on the ISS.

    I don’t argue for getting rid of ISS, please read what i wrote. I said there are huge opportunity costs for the expenditure. That is not saying “deorbit it now”

    We are NOT doing any of what i listed above because we are blowing around $3B a year, to keep a manned lab on orbit. Which may or may not have a useful experiment run on it. Some day.

    But the chances of it being uniquely suited for any sort of research or development that would further humankind in space, are practically nil.

    ( btw, you dismissed SPS as a “nice to have”. Not so, if you care about having a chance for the biggest potential launch market besides tourism, if the concept proves viable. And having a large robust launch market obviously furthers development of space. )

  • reader

    Actually i have come to realize this is a fruitless debate. The glitch here is, i am talking about things relevant for actual space development, i.e. expanding humanity’s economic sphere and later on human presence beyond the confines of earth.

    There is no federal mandate or funding for that, as NASA is chartered with vague “exploration” and science goals.

    Private money will not go after any meaningful space development beyond earth satellites for the very high risk and slim chance of any kind of payoff associated.

    So the handwringing about lack of meaningful space development is pointless, there is nobody to do it at present day and age. I’ll be quiet from now on, and keep saving money for my suborbital ticket.

  • Coastal Ron

    reader wrote @ May 17th, 2011 at 8:38 pm

    I don’t argue for getting rid of ISS, please read what i wrote. I said there are huge opportunity costs for the expenditure. That is not saying “deorbit it now”

    We are NOT doing any of what i listed above because we are blowing around $3B a year, to keep a manned lab on orbit. Which may or may not have a useful experiment run on it. Some day.

    I don’t disagree that the ISS is not being used to it’s full potential, but if you don’t think a useful experiment has ever been done on it, then that’s pretty ignorant. And I mean that from the standpoint that a little research would tell you that experiments have been run and completed ever since the station was occupied, and there is a long list for the future. So if you want to debate the ROI of that science, fine, but to say that none has been done is ignorant.

    Secondly, the reason why I think you are focused only on the ISS is that you have said nothing of the budget for the SLS. The ISS program requires people in space doing things that we need to get better at doing if we want to expand in space. You seem to be for that in general. The SLS? It spends money to build a launcher that has no funded needs. Why wouldn’t you advocate to end the SLS program first and use THAT budget to fund the efforts you outlined?

  • Coastal Ron

    reader wrote @ May 17th, 2011 at 11:14 pm

    The glitch here is, i am talking about things relevant for actual space development, i.e. expanding humanity’s economic sphere and later on human presence beyond the confines of earth.

    As am I, but as with all things, there is more than one way to accomplish it, and sometimes multiple ways at the same time.

    There is no federal mandate or funding for that, as NASA is chartered with vague “exploration” and science goals.

    NASA’s self-described mission statement is to “pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.

    The debate as I see it on this forum and in Congress (the public is generally disinterested) is whether NASA should do everything themselves, or if there is a role for non-governmental groups to play a significant role. For instance, this is relevant for the debate over commercial crew, where some in Congress “don’t believe” that commercial companies can transport crew safer than NASA. Or should NASA build, own and operate their transportation system?

    For myself, I think NASA should be focused more on the “pioneer” part by taking more of a NACA role of fostering innovations within the space industry. They should still do exploration, but it should always be at the leading edge, and not the routine kind of stuff.

    Private money will not go after any meaningful space development beyond earth satellites for the very high risk and slim chance of any kind of payoff associated.

    Your sub-orbital ticket that you’re saving up for is a high-risk venture. That ticket to nowhere is a pure entertainment venture that hopes to find enough high-wealth individuals and companies that will want to go for a ride. I do think there is a market for that, as well as markets for true space related ventures.

    But I think you have to readjust your timescale here. NASA’s puny budget won’t give us Star Trek starships within the next decade, and there is lots that we as humans have to learn about surviving outside of LEO. It’s going to be a while before we venture BEO with confidence, but there are a lot of companies that are interested in parts of the solution, so it’s not like there isn’t any interest.

    And in case you missed it, the SpaceX announcement of Falcon Heavy has generated a lot of interest in sending a mission to Mars again. I don’t know if someone will actually fund it, but it would be cheap enough for a Billionaire if they really wanted to. Who knows, maybe an investor group will do a public/private Mars venture? It’s still too early to count out any options.

    So the handwringing about lack of meaningful space development is pointless, there is nobody to do it at present day and age.

    I think there is, otherwise I wouldn’t be spending time on this blog. Your ideas for the future are better than some others on this blog, so I hope you continue the discussion.

  • reader

    :: but if you don’t think a useful experiment has ever been done on it, then that’s pretty ignorant. And I mean that from the standpoint that a little research would tell you that experiments have been run and completed ever since the station was occupied, and there is a long list for the future.

    Thats actually pretty insulting. I am quite familiar with most major activities on ISS, and i have read most every summary research report that has come out of it. My personal favorites are actually MISSE series and things like SPHERES, but they are nowhere near $3B a year worth. Several orders of magnitude off, and again would be more efficiently done as standalone experiments without ISS.

    :: So if you want to debate the ROI of that science, fine, but to say that none has been done is ignorant.

    Where did i say there hasn’t been anything done ?
    ( beside the point, but i’m not a fan of fundamental science being done in space with the current associated costs. I tend to think that applied sciences and technology development should be way prioritized over fundamental sciences, to advance us further in space. )

    ::Secondly, the reason why I think you are focused only on the ISS is that you have said nothing of the budget for the SLS.

    Thats a pretty bad debating tactic. You are trying to defend ISS with money being wasted elsewhere ? Wasting $3B a year is all right, because larger sums gets wasted elsewhere anyway ? Just for the record, i think both STS and SLS are insanity.

    Go back in the thread, and see where the discussion started ..

  • Coastal Ron

    reader wrote @ May 18th, 2011 at 11:31 am

    Just for the record, i think both STS and SLS are insanity.

    A lot of people come to the this blog to promote different things, so part of having a discussion is understanding where people are coming from. For myself, I advocate for those things that lower the cost to access space.

    Regarding STS and SLS, I am of the mind that experimentation is a good thing if done right. STS (the Shuttle Transportation System) was an attempt at creating a significant leap in improving our access to space (frequency, cost, abilities, etc.). It should have had a critical review early and often in the program to see if it was meeting it’s goals – that it didn’t was a major failure for NASA and Congress, but I think the original attempt was worth a try.

    The SLS doesn’t have any goals besides using specific Shuttle and Constellation companies and hardware. Oh sure it has capacity goals, but it is not being designed to solve a current or forecasted problem. The SLS is a failure of need.

    The ISS, in my opinion, was built to help us answer the question of how will we live and work in space. You seem to have a lot of interest in this topic, but I’m still trying to understand how a working space station is of no interest to you, but many other basic abilities we need to learn are.

    For instance, maybe you take for granted that two objects in space can dock together, but apparently this is still an art rather than a science. The CRS program is in some ways pioneering the standards that will be used so ANY spacecraft can dock with the ISS, not just ISS partner spacecraft. Your interest in in-space refueling benefits from this work, and I would agree that more innovation needs to be done so two objects in space can dock by just pushing the “dock” button.

    Even the work of resupplying and maintaining the ISS is work that benefits your proposed “standalone experiments”, some of which may need human interaction (like a spacecraft visit). How do we create systems that can be robust enough not to fail, but easy enough to repair or replace? Sure you can do that individually, but at some point the pieces have to be brought together and tested out as a whole.

    I’m not a science geek, but a manufacturing nerd, so the more exciting part of the ISS for me is how it’s built and functions, and how we keep it supplied and working. If we want to expand into space, then we have to be able to replicate the ISS and it’s progeny while simultaneously improving and lowering the TCO (Total Cost of Ownership).

    This is the issue that confronts us right now, because some say the ISS must go so we can afford to go onto the Moon (or wherever). Until we can do more than one thing at a time, we’ll never expand into space. If $3B/year is too much to run the ISS, then we should be looking at ways of lowering it’s recurring costs before we decide to throw it away.

    In any case Congress for now supports the ISS, so it will likely be at least two years before any major changes will get debated.

    My $0.02

  • reader

    reread your post ..
    >>I don’t disagree that the ISS is not being used to it’s full potential,

    I think im saying something different : ISS does not have, and will never have the potential for anything that would justify anywhere close to $3B a year expenditures. Not even close.

  • Coastal Ron

    reader wrote @ May 18th, 2011 at 3:13 pm

    ISS does not have, and will never have the potential for anything that would justify anywhere close to $3B a year expenditures. Not even close.

    So what would be the number be that would make it worthwhile? Should we splash it, or would it be OK to sell it at a discount to another country (our ISS partners, China, Brazil, etc.)?

    Congress has designated the ISS a National Laboratory – I wonder if you feel the same about the other National Laboratories? Sandia, Argonne, Los Alamos, etc.? Their combined budgets are around $30B/year. Should we get rid of them too?

    Why should we have any National Laboratories?

  • reader

    Yes, we should have NLs.

    But seriously ? You want to compare ISS side by side with Sandia for instance ? Sandia has a comparable total budget figure across all of its areas, at around 2.5B
    Do you want to look compare
    http://www.sandia.gov/LabNews/labs-accomplish/2011/lab_accomp-2011.pdf
    with
    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/science_results.html
    ? Thats one year versus 8 years (ok , admittedly of a not fully operational facility but . )

  • reader

    As for the numbers, for the type of science being done on it, would click with numbers at least two orders of magnitude smaller. If you want to put a number on it, say a few tens of millions range.
    And now we get to the point : if this type of research cannot be currently conducted for a price in such range, its a type of research that we have no urgency conducting.

  • reader

    Oh, and im not sure what your “congress designated national laboratory” means, but im pretty sure ISS has never been in this list here
    http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/ffrdclist/start.cfm

  • Coastal Ron

    reader wrote @ May 18th, 2011 at 6:58 pm

    Oh, and im not sure what your “congress designated national laboratory” means, but im pretty sure ISS has never been in this list here

    Yes, I noticed that when I was writing up my original post, but nevertheless it is true. Here is what the latest NASA Authorization Act says:

    SEC. 2. FINDINGS. (12) The designation of the United States segment of the ISS as a National Laboratory, as provided by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005 and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2008, provides an opportunity for multiple United States Government agencies, university-based researchers, research organizations, and others to utilize the unique environment of microgravity for fundamental scientific research and potential economic development.

    As I’ve mentioned before, Congress currently supports the ISS for research, and likely the earliest that it will come up for scrutiny and review will be in two years.

    By that time we should have a good idea what’s going on with CRS (cargo resupply), which affects how well the ISS can be used through 2016. We should also have a good idea whether commercial crew will come online by 2016 (or even earlier), and that affects how easy it will be to support the ISS through 2020. And of course we’ll have two more years of activity on the ISS to evaluate.

    But until then, I don’t see the point of doing much arguing with anyone about the merits of the ISS. I also think it will be two years until we can cancel the SLS, just in case you’re wondering, so I’m not being selective here. But just like I’ve been trying to “educate” people about the complete lack of need for the SLS, I’m sure you’ll advocate the same for the ISS.

    We’ll see what happens in two years.

  • Coastal Ron

    reader wrote @ May 18th, 2011 at 6:44 pm

    Thats one year versus 8 years (ok , admittedly of a not fully operational facility but . )

    Thanks for the link – I hadn’t seen that report.

    If we’re going to be a spacefaring nation, then the research I think the ISS does better than any alternatives I’ve heard of is the following (page 9 of the report):

    Human Research Program
    Research on the human body in space—how it reacts to microgravity and radiation—is a high priority for NASA’s ISS science portfolio (fig. 2). The Human Research Program (HRP) experiments aboard the ISS build from the large body of work that has been collected since the early days of space program, including a robust set of experiments that was conducted on Skylab, Mir, and shorter-duration shuttle flights. Clinical evidence demonstrated important physiological changes in astronauts during space flight. The HRP, together with ISS Medical Operations, sponsored experiments that study different aspects of crew health, and efficacy of countermeasures for extended-duration stays in microgravity. Up through the 15th ISS expedition, 32 experiments focused on the human body, including research on bone and muscle loss, the vascular system, changes in immune response, radiation studies, and research on psycho-social aspects of living in the isolation of space. Several of the early experiments have led to new experiments, testing details of observations or pursuing new questions that were raised by early results. One or two new experiments are started nearly every expedition (fig. 3).

    And then in another paragraph:

    Results from the initial experiments on the ISS are just now being published; most studies require multiple subjects over several years to derive the necessary data. Nevertheless, we have already identified 43 scientific publications from research sponsored by the HRP that was performed on ISS. These results document, in increasing detail, locations and parameters of bone loss, links between bone and muscle loss, renal stone development, rates of recovery and changes in recovered bone mass, changes related to the immune system, associated profiles of other physiological or biochemical parameters, and roles of diet, drug countermeasures, and exercise. Compilations that include the collective results and collaborations of ground and space-based human research experiments have also been published (e.g., Cavanaugh and Rice 2007). Since many of the human research studies continue aboard the ISS, results will continue to flow in from the early experiments.

    To me, this is the type of research that can only be done in space, and the ISS is well outfitted and supported to quickly iterate studies and potential solutions.

    My $0.02

  • Ziping Tang

    China’s universities pump out 5 times more engineers and more Ph.Ds each year than US schools can. China should have enough brain power to have a vital space program, which is a good thing for NASA. Too much of a nationalism is a crime as Einstein said so. Cooperation brings peace to the world. Frank Wolf got kicked around in congress because of his racist behavior. He is on his way to hell, we don’t have to follow him.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>