Last’s week meeting of the NASA Advisory Council at NASA Ames featured a presentation by John Holdren, director of the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). His talk, and the Q&A session afterward, covered general issues associated with science policy and NASA. That included the message that the administration was still committed to the NASA policy it unveiled just over 18 months ago, as well as a little frustration about how it’s been communicated to the public.
“The president and [NASA administrator] Charlie [Bolden] and I have all been accused from time to time of not having a vision, of not having a destination, of not having a plan, and I think that’s just misinformation,” Holdren said. All three of those elements exist, he claimed, specifically arguing that investments in advanced technologies—something threatened with significant cuts in the current Congressional debate on the FY12 budget—are essential to meeting those objectives.
Later, Holdren described how he and bolden tried to get published an op-ed intended, as he put it, to “knock down, in succession, five of these misconceptions” about the administration’s plans. That op-ed was submitted but rejected by the Washington Post and the New York Times; it eventually appeared in POLITICO last month. “We couldn’t get it published. Nobody would take it,” he said, his exasperation clearly evident even those listening in to the presentation via telecon. “It’s been quite frustrating.”
“We are thinking about ways to do better,” he said. “I have had some discussions with the president about whether it’s time for another major presidential speech about our space policy and our space program and our priorities.” The president, he added, has been tied up with other issues, most notably the debt ceiling debate, “but now that that’s done, we’re going to come back to all these other issues that need his attention, and I think one of them will be the space issue.”
That space policy, Holdren said, is based on three “pillars” for human spaceflight: extending the life of the ISS to at least 2020, developing commercial crew systems for transport to and from ISS, and advanced technology investments. “These three pillars were fully supported by me and by Charlie Bolden,” he said. Later, he added: The president remains completely committed to those pillars of his human space exploration policy… He will continue to be an ally as we try to figure out this exceptionally diverse and important array of NASA missions done in a severely budget-constrained environment.”
He criticized Congress, though, for trying to get NASA to work on those priorities plus the immediate development of a heavy-lift vehicle without sufficient funding. “If you want to do everything, you have to provide the money to do everything,” he said. “If we’re going to build a heavy-lift rocket now and invest in the advanced technologies that we’re going need to make use of a heavy-lift rocket to go to destinations in deep space, safely, efficiently, rapidly, you’ve got to have the budget… That really is our great challenge going forward.”
This is a mistake that is spreading throughout the Obama administration…ie that the opponents of the administration can just be reasoned with if only wow we could reason together and each present our viewpoints, then we could all negotiate in some honorable fashion.
The reality is that the proponents of the Obama program are like the House GOP living in their own fantasy world.
Go read the “thoughts” of the save Cx or keep SLS or “we have to explore with humans” group and you see people living in a fantasy world. The only thing that “fixes” Cx or SLS is the ability to spend lots of money for no real results over long periods of time. That is what Cx did and was no where near to flying.
There is no desire on the part of Americans to redo Apollo…but that doesnt stop the anti Obama folks. Whittington has more then once talked about the Chinese taking over the Moon (a goofy notion)…Ralph Hall has babbled about the Chinese “space station” (which exist only in drawings) “taking over ” (his words) space around the earth (a goofy notion)
Most of the folks who want to save SLS are really “cut government” people…except the government that they want and then we have to keep all the government handouts going.
Sorry, there was no “rollout” killing the technowelfare beast that would make the right wing happy as we “drain the swamp” at NASA…and its time to do that.
Robert G. Oler
There was a good paper at the NASA Advisory Council meeting:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/578777main_11-08_Commercial.pdf
It lists some good points NASA should act on to engage the public more and bring more Americans into the mix.
Is there more to the vision than this?
(1) Extending the life of the ISS to at least 2020,
(2) Developing commercial crew systems for transport to and from ISS, and
(3) Advanced technology investments.
“That space policy, Holdren said, is based on three “pillars†for human spaceflight: extending the life of the ISS to at least 2020, developing commercial crew systems for transport to and from ISS, and advanced technology investments. “These three pillars were fully supported by me and by Charlie Bolden,†he said. Later, he added: The president remains completely committed to those pillars of his human space exploration policy”
Dr. Evil continues to perpetuate his LEO on steroids agenda. Extending the life of the ISS is a LEO on steroids program. Developing commercial crew systems for transport to and from ISS is also a LEO on steroids program. And all of Holdren’s ‘advanced technology investments’ rhetoric means is: “Let’s just study the problems of manned spaceflight for another 20 years and– maybe– we’ll come up with something!”
Congress is not immediately concerned about the SLS being used for deep space missions far into the future (probably after most of them are dead). They’re waiting for the administration to tell them how the SLS will be used in the near future within cis-lunar space.
@ Marcel F. Williams wrote @ August 13th, 2011 at 12:44 pm
Ever going to elevate the debate? “Dr. Evil”? I think I prefer amightywind, I prefer the original.
@ Robert G. Oler wrote @ August 13th, 2011 at 11:36 am
The only effective tactic would have been the “I earned politcial capital and I am going to use it” strategy. Unfortunately the President is not supported by even his own in Congress unlike Bush. Dems are pathetic at least GOPers have guts. The President had public support but not Congress. Ever wonder why the approval of Congress is so low?
Anywho. Not out of the hoods just yet… No sidemount either…
These are the ravings of a desperate man in an administration that is rapidly imploding. Holdren’s notion is that if you say you have a space plan loudly enough and often enough, people might start to believe you and not their lying eyes.
Then again, as Oler proved, there are people who will fall for it…
The reality is that the proponents of the Obama program are like the House GOP living in their own fantasy world.
Holdren’s policies were rejected when Obama owned congress. What makes him think that they could be accepted now in the re-ascendancy of conservatism? The Obama Administration can either move to the center, like Clinton did, and pass tax and budget reform, or retrench and suffer the fate of Jimmy Carter. The later seems to be the choice of these wild-eyed ideologues. I would replace Holden’s pillars with the ‘giant redwood’ of manned spaceflight, and large, shuttle derived rockets at its trunk, with science applications on tentative branches.
Concur, Marcel. All Holdren wants to do for BEO is “study, study, study.” NO plan, no destinations, no deadlines. What Congress wants, and if they have to drag Holdren, Charlie Bolden, Lori Garver, et al, kicking and screaming to do it, is detailed information on where, when, and how. Where are we going besides NEO and Mars? When? How are we going to go about doing it? THAT’s a plan. Not this vague promise over and over again that the Administration keeps repeating over and over again.
Is Rick Perry really that pro NASA?…… Trying to determine which GOP candidate would actually be NASA friendly for lack of a better word. Since he and huntsman were the only two that were not at the sc debate I am trying to determine their ambitions……. If anyone knows please chime in
Bill White wrote:
Is there more to the vision than this?
(1) Extending the life of the ISS to at least 2020,
(2) Developing commercial crew systems for transport to and from ISS, and
(3) Advanced technology investments.”
(4) Trip to an asteroid enabled by previous advanced technology investments by 2025
(5) Trip to Mars enabled by previous advanced technology investments by 2035
?
Matt Wiser wrote @ August 13th, 2011 at 1:46 pm
“NO plan, no destinations, no deadlines.”
Matt, do you have a short-term memory problem? On another thread you agreed that there was a 2025 date set by the President for visiting an NEO, and now you have completely forgotten that.
“Where are we going besides NEO and Mars?”
Like Alpha Centauri? Jeez, how far out do you plan your vacations? Decades?
Until you can get the American people to provide unlimited money for space, no one can plan for unlimited destinations. Pick one, complete it, reassess and move on to the next one. The Moon (the only one you want) will be in there somewhere.
All Holdren wants to do for BEO is “study, study, study.â€
And all you want to do is “HLV, HLV, HLV”. Neither is necessary for visiting your destinations of choice or providing realistic deadlines and studies and R&D may at least lead to new insights or technology.
Bill White wrote @ August 13th, 2011 at 12:39 pm
“Is there more to the vision than this?”
Is there more money?
The 2025 NEO date is already seven Congressional elections away, and at least three Presidential elections away. Who knows what’s going to happen to NASA’s budget during all of that.
And based on the current NASA budget, the estimates leaking out for building the SLS, and the intent by some in the House to reduce NASA’s budget, I think the 2035 Mars idea is already more aspirational than realistic.
But let’s see what we get with those three goals:
“(1) Extending the life of the ISS to at least 2020”
More research and development for the things that we’ll need to go anywhere in space, plus more experience in operating spacecraft and space stations. some deride the value of the ISS, but I don’t, NASA doesn’t, and neither does Congress at this point, so this is the closest to a space policy consensus as we have right now.
“(2) Developing commercial crew systems for transport to and from ISS”
Some people (not you) seem to think that products of grocery shelves magically appear and cost no money to get there. One of the pillars of America’s economy, as well as one of the distinctive advantages our military has, is that we have the great logistics systems here on Earth. However we don’t have that for space, yet.
I think Holdren generically combines commercial cargo in with crew, and the combination of the two will give us a complete and flexible way to access not only LEO, but everywhere beyond. Putting in place a system that is robust (more than two providers) and lower in cost than previous methods is key for us to be able to afford to go beyond LEO.
It’s never been a question of whether we can go somewhere, but whether we can afford to go and keep going. Basic logistics is imperative in the near term.
“(3) Advanced technology investments”
Though some people think that all the technology we need to move out into space has already been developed, here again cost is really the big driver – can we do it safely and affordably at the same time. Transferring fuel and other liquids in space needs to be perfected, as well as automated docking and lots of other basic technologies.
Though it’s a catchall term, there is lots of in there that could consume $Billions and take quite a while, so again, we need to be working on it now if we want to go anywhere later.
For a administration that is working with a limited budget and no National Imperative for doing much in space, I’d say it’s a good plan for now.
Holden-Bolden-Garver kooky space program to no where.
Just like support for VASMIR HOAX. NUCLEAR THERMAL ROCKET NTR is better quality Isp, thrust-to-wt. ratio to solar system. http://spacenews.com/commentaries/110711-vasimr-hoax.html
Trip to an asteroid enabled by previous advanced technology investments by 2025
What advanced technology would that be? We could do that with today’s technology.
Though some people think that all the technology we need to move out into space has already been developed, here again cost is really the big driver – can we do it safely and affordably at the same time.
And reuse of spacecraft and cheap lift are the major points here. NASA can do the former with existing technology and establish a market that will develop the latter at the same time. I see nothing in Holdren’s proposals that would accelerate cheap lift. A destination-driven approach could advance cheap lift enormously, which is why I think it is preferable *by far*.
Transferring fuel and other liquids in space needs to be perfected, as well as automated docking and lots of other basic technologies.
Most of that has been done already, with the exception of cryogenic fluid transfer and storage, with is merely nice to have (OK, very nice to have), but not crucial – unlike cheap lift.
Mark Whittington wrote @ August 13th, 2011 at 1:19 pm
People like you need a detailed plan ignoring the dynamics of the free enterprise system. Had you been alive in the 1930’s I can see you demanding to know how we got from the Ford Trimotor to the Boeing 707 and a timetable to do it.
The Free enterprise system is a good system…you should embrace it. What happen to you? You use to believe in it?
Robert G. Oler
common sense wrote @ August 13th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
” The President had public support but not Congress. Ever wonder why the approval of Congress is so low?”
There is public support for things that the President wants (at least on economics) there is lowering support for The President…he is a weak leader…and weak leaders do not get people in their own party to line up behind them. There is a carrot and stick approach to leadership, Obama knows nothingabout that.
The approval of Congress is low because Congress is captured by idiots on both parties…
Having said that Obama’s space policy is going to work simply on default…and Bolden having done a darn good job making sure that at the end ofthe day it is the only policy that is viable.
How well Bolden has done cannot be overstated.; He has outmanuevered the Cx and SLS idiots on every single count and helped both those programs succumb of their own weight.
IN the wars of bureacracy, he has excelled…and at his level that is what you do. Impressive
Robert G. Oler
““The president and [NASA administrator] Charlie [Bolden] and I have all been accused from time to time of not having a vision, of not having a destination, of not having a plan, and I think that’s just misinformation,†Holdren said….I have had some discussions with the president about whether it’s time for another major presidential speech about our space policy and our space program and our priorities.â€
My God, are these White House people tone deaf? The nation needs JOBS. Not more speeches but JOBS. Trying to rationalize a luxury expense like HSF as Americans lose livlihoods, homes and increasingly, hope, amidst an economic collapse, the likes of which the nation has not experienced since the Great Depression, is absurd. Given Mr. Obama’s flip-flopping on HSF space policy during his campaigning, more space policy posturing by the administration will fall on skeptical ears– particularly through this election cycle as shuttle employees file for unemplpyment in Texas and Florida.
If Mr. Obama makes yet another speech about lofty, nebulous goals in space with a 9.1% unemployment rate, and continues to blame Congress for obstructing him, he is going to reaffirm the growing perception of weak leadership, alarming passivity and an inability to prioritize the immediate needs of the nation. And rightly so.
Per FDR’s 1933 inaugural: “This Nation asks for action, and action now. Our greatest primary task is to put people to work… There are many ways in which it can be helped, but it can never be helped merely by talking about it. We must act and act quickly.â€
No more words. ACTION. The nation needs jobs, not more speeches, Mr. Obama. Hoover tried to talk his way out of the Depression and got the boot.
“[S]pace policy, Holdren said, is based on three “pillars†for human spaceflight: extending the life of the ISS to at least 2020, developing commercial crew systems for transport to and from ISS, and advanced technology investments.The president remains completely committed to those pillars of his human space exploration policy…”
Three pillars??? Good Lord, why not just label it “Project Stonehenge”….could they come up with a more ancient, calcified image? There are thousands of buildings, bridges and roadways throughout the United States in much more immediate need of ‘three pillars’.. or four, five or fifty— made of concrete. And ‘pillar’ #1 goes in circles and is destined to crumble soon enough. The ISS is doomed to a Pacific grave. The second, commercial crew systems, is tied to the splash of pillar #1 and a LEO plan, which literally goes no place. And the third is simply mastering the obvious- the cadance of technological advance which has marched forward since the pyramids. This ‘trifocaled vision’ is decidely blurry and doesn’t see out much beyond 2020.
““If you want to do everything, you have to provide the money to do everything,†[Holdren] said.”
Blaming Congress is President Obama’s answer for everything theses days. Except Barack Obama is no Harry Truman. And if you want to do ANYTHING you have to fight for it. But unlike Mr. Truman, Mr. Obama has demonstrated an alarming passivity on much more immediate, ‘down-to-earth’ matters indicating he is not willing to aggressively engage. He is no HST. Or LBJ. Or JFK… or FDR. He is not a strong leader. Mr. Obama’s solution to every problem of late is to have us do his job for him– call Congress and try to persuade them… because he cannot. And as the economic storms battering the ship of state intensify, Mr. Obama is signalling to us all to standby the lifeboats, as in the Age of Austerity, it may just be every man for himself.
@ Robert G. Oler wrote @ August 13th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
“There is public support for things that the President wants (at least on economics) there is lowering support for The President…he is a weak leader…and weak leaders do not get people in their own party to line up behind them. There is a carrot and stick approach to leadership, Obama knows nothingabout that.”
Maybe he is a weak leader. But I am very naive and when I win an election with the overwhelming support of the nation I tend to expect support from at least my own people. Even if at the beginning only. This President has faced, still does, an enormous amount of jealousy from every one. Remember “elitist” to describe him? Same thing when other morons say Bolden is “arrogant” etc. But the attacks came from within. As you said Congress is captured by idiots. What it says is that in the end nothing will change unless there is a major form of catastrophe – economical primarily. There is no leader who would be able to make those changes in the current climate not in either camp. The GOP are a broken record of idiocy. The Dems well are the Dems, nothing we can do about it I am afraid.
So what will it take? A new President? Do you think that a Romney would be that much better? Not to mention the others. Perry? I don’t think so he’d be yet another Bush. Ron Paul would be interesting though if he ever gets that far. Today there is no capable leader BECAUSE people do not want to be led at least in Congress. They want cash and it is all that matters, e.g. SLS. But cash is slowly but surely becoming extinct, cash with value that is.
The whole economic collapse enchilada is not over yet. The coming months are going to be joyous I suspect.
You know DCSCA, it’s interesting.
You’ve made a lot of comments on how you believe NASA should be run.
And you’ve made a lot of comments on what you believe are things NASA *shouldn’t* be doing.
But you rarely seem to ever say anything about what, in your opinion, NASA *should* be doing, in terms of missions, destinations, architectures, etc, aside from vague allusions to Virgin Galactic, Orion, and Kraft’s editorial from a few years back.
Not that that is necessarily a bad thing- it just strikes me as somewhat unusual among space advocates, who usually have a pet architecture/technology/rocket/destination.
spacermase wrote @ August 13th, 2011 at 5:33 pm
“But you rarely seem to ever say anything about what, in your opinion, NASA *should* be doing, in terms of missions, destinations, architectures, etc, aside from vague allusions to Virgin Galactic, Orion, and Kraft’s editorial from a few years back.”
He’s a back seat driver, and only likes to point out other people’s faults.
It’s funny that he doesn’t see the irony of him saying that Obama is all talk and no action, when he is the same…
Bill White wrote @ August 13th, 2011 at 12:39 pm
“Is there more to the vision than this?”
Sadly, it seems not. What’s worse is that while extending the life of the ISS to at least 2020, developing commercial crew systems for transport to and from ISS, and advanced technology investments ARE most certainly a plan, they’re hardly a “vision”. A “vision” would provide basic rationale for the plan. If Holdren thinks these three things constitute a “vision”, then we’re in bigger trouble than I thought. The Politico piece sure doesn’t help get there.
I said it before, and I’ll say it again. One of the refreshing things about VSE was that it was really a “vision”. But NASA generally doesn’t know how to do “visions”, and I guess Holdren and Bolden don’t either.
That being said, I’m inclined to believe that it’s a pretty good plan, given any rational perspective on available funding. But I’d sure like to see the “vision” that this plan is meant to serve. Such a “vision” has to come out of the administration. For Congress, the only rationale for a plan is paychecks for constituents, and I can’t call that any kind of a “vision”.
@ spacermase wrote @ August 13th, 2011 at 5:33 pm
“But you rarely seem to ever say anything about what, in your opinion, NASA *should* be doing, in terms of missions, destinations, architectures, etc, aside from vague allusions to Virgin Galactic, Orion, and Kraft’s editorial from a few years back.”
Arrgghhh don’t get DCSCA started! DCSCA will tell you all about NASA under the wing of the DoD in all possible ways. Empty rhetoric for ever…
Doug Lassiter wrote @ August 13th, 2011 at 6:11 pm
“I said it before, and I’ll say it again. One of the refreshing things about VSE was that it was really a “visionâ€. But NASA generally doesn’t know how to do “visionsâ€, and I guess Holdren and Bolden don’t either.”
What’s the difference between a plan and a “vision”?
Is a plan something that is attainable in the “near term” (whatever that may be), but a “vision” is something that has goals, but only the vaguest of rational dates for attaining them?
I will grant you that the VSE, except for the fake 2020 Moon date, met such a definition in that there were no specific date, itineraries, timetables, mission launch schedules or anything else that would provide someone with a warm & fuzzy of what century they were supposed to happen.
But I think there is a fallacy in depending too much on such “visions”. It’s one thing to have an idea of what you’d like to do, but until you have the money allocated to fund it, it’s just a bunch of Powerpoints with imaginary timelines.
Also, does anyone really believe it will be NASA by itself that will be expanding our presence out into space? I think they will be on the pointy end of exploration, but it will require OPM (other people’s money) to fund the activities between Earth and that pointy end of exploration. NASA doesn’t get enough budget to do everything.
We’ve been seeing investments from non-governmental sources for the past couple of decades with the satellite industry, and now we have new entrants getting into cargo and crew transportation as well as some of the other space fields such as Bigelow.
NASA’s view of the future in space is going to be very NASA oriented towards science and exploration of various types, and will ignore everyone else. That may be fine for the exploration part of space, but I want us to be a space-faring nation, and one that is expanding out into space – that is my “vision”.
Just like business & consumers have driven the expansion of commercial space so far, so it will be in the future for our expansion into space. That’s not a NASA “vision”, and I’m not sure who the voice would be for it, but that’s the more important “vision” for me, not where the next rocks are that we’re going to pick up using taxpayer money.
But you rarely seem to ever say anything about what, in your opinion, NASA *should* be doing
Seems to me the burden should be on the hippy radicals trying to remake the agency and ruining it in the process. NASA is one agency that cannot be led from behind, as is this administration’s preference. None of you flexible path proponents can explain yourselves rationally. Derision and disbelief are natural responses.
@spacermase wrote @ August 13th, 2011 at 5:33 pm
=yawn= Inaccurate. This writer has made clear that the ‘way forward’ is a return to the moon to perfect hardware, systems and procedures for long-duration stay off planet (a la Gemini was for Apollo) then adapt the knowledge base for an extended expedition to Mars. That’s your manned space program for the next thirty years. It is challenging and inspiring for fresh generations in several affiliated fields and does not go in circles. Kraft, Cernan, Armstrong et al pretty much layed out this approach. They have voiced concern with NASA’s current management culture- and rightly so. It needs cleared out of shuttlers. This is how it will be done given the state of the art in this era. But in these times, it is a hard sell and whether it is American led is another matter. But the Kraft/Cernan/Armstrong/Lovell position reiterates concern with NASA’s current management culture as well as the fuzzy vision from White Houses – both present and past– and rightly so. NASA needs cleared out of shuttlers. To be sure, the Age of Austerity forces a taut, measured pacing for progress in HSF. But that can be a good thing in the long run-and space projects of scale are a marathon, not a race today. The point is to set a policy with measured goals and stick to it. The Russians decided 50 years ago that HSF was a part of their national character and have maintained human presence in space pretty much the whole half century. Americans tend to be reactive, not proactive in this field.
And in a more down-to-earth reality- yes, a consolidation of American space operations would benefit long-term U.S. space planning, as NASA’s ‘civilian’ projects have historically been hindered by costs since the Apollo days. Tucking NASA under DoD’s wing, where the orgins of HSF planning has its roots, through this austere time might just save it long term. It also terrifies commerical space advocates, desperately seeking government subsidies, denied by private capital sources. But as of now, NASA is a sitting duck, a victim of bad timing and mixed reviews on the cost-effective ‘value’ of shuttle. The agency is a ripe target for repeated budget-battles, destined to be bruised, bloodied if not beaten-down to a pulp and paper-cut to death as the Age of Austerity hits home. And it has no friends in high places- pareticularly in the WH. In a rare moment of agreement, Oler’s correct: “The whole economic collapse enchilada is not over yet. The coming months are going to be joyous I suspect.”
Well, Holdren’s first mistake this past summer was thinking that he and Bolden publishing an editorial in the NYT and WaPo would somehow burnish NASA’s mission and inform the masses.
The masses don’t read those papers, so that’s strike 1.
Strike 2 was failing to have the President actually make a speech after the launch or landing of STS-135. This was a prime opportunity for him to defend his vision for the agency.
Strike 3 was/is sort of an on-going strike at NASA, and that’s how they leverage their actual, engineering and science successes. The JUNO launch and DAWN encounter have come and gone with nary a peep from the mainstream media, viral media, social media — everything. This is all the stuff Keith Cowing’s always harping on NASA about (and rightly so): PR failures, crummy press releases, off-limits telecons, slow-to-release photos, poorly updated websites, and on and on.
NASA has two more big moments coming up this Fall, the Dragon 2/3 mission and the MSL launch. I eagerly anticipate seeing how they screw these up.
Alex wrote @ August 13th, 2011 at 8:22 pm
Excellent analysis. I too look forward (sadly) to seeing how badly the PR wing of NASA performs.
You would think that a NASA PR guy getting a salary of 100k plus would be able to figure out that rockets and rock music go together.
When a government agency can’t get a video to go viral you know our tax dollars are being wasted.
@Amightywind
Seems to me the burden should be on the hippy radicals trying to remake the agency and ruining it in the process. NASA is one agency that cannot be led from behind, as is this administration’s preference. None of you flexible path proponents can explain yourselves rationally. Derision and disbelief are natural responses.
Uhhh…Huh? I don’t even see how this connects to my post. I wasn’t passing judgement, I just found it odd.
Actually, you know, given that my original comment didn’t invoke you at all, I’m going to take this as evidence for my theory that you and DCSCA are actually the same person
@common sense
“Ever going to elevate the debate? “Dr. Evilâ€? I think I prefer amightywind, I prefer the original.”
I could call Holdren Dr. LEO. But I believe that Dr. Evil is more reflective of Holdren’s extremely cynical view of manned space travel.
@Alex wrote @ August 13th, 2011 at 8:22 pm
The ball game: you do realize that the Presdient would have made an appropriate ‘speech’ after the launch of STS-134, which he travelled to KSC w/family to witness– but as we’ve come to expect from shuttle management- they blew it, having months to prep the bird to get it off on time.
@ Bill White
“Is there more to the vision than this?
(1) Extending the life of the ISS to at least 2020,
(2) Developing commercial crew systems for transport to and from ISS, and
(3) Advanced technology investments.”
******
Nope:-)
@Alex wrote @ August 13th, 2011 at 8:22 pm
“The JUNO launch and DAWN encounter have come and gone with nary a peep from the mainstream media, viral media, social media — everything.”
Actually, JUNO got some good print press– half a page in our local rag no less– much more than STS-135’s landing got in the rag. And CBS News broadcast a good package on JUNO as well, and of course up in Pasadena/LA it was well covered for obvious reasons. DAWN got some press but less than JUNO.
@Alex wrote @ August 13th, 2011 at 8:22 pm
“The masses don’t read those papers”
Decisionmakers do.
@DCSCA
Assuming NASA is put under the wing of the DoD, as per your vision, how would the DoD justify lunar missions/BEO missions?
Difficulty: you must use citations or evidence from within at least the last 10 years- no citing Project Lunex, Man in Space Soonest, or any other 50+ year old policy report. After all, I could make a convincing argument that the U.S. needs to build a nuclear-powered cruise missile using Project Pluto as a source- if I were willing to ignore we’ve since discovered that building ICBMs was much more feasible than thought when Pluto was originally proposed. Things, in fact, have changed since the Apollo era.
Also, why do you assume DoD would not use commercial space? As it is, they seem more than happy to make use of commercial contractors in general- why should HSF be any different?
@Vladislaw and Coastal Ron
Sorry. But no amount of pure R&D will get you to an asteroid (a silly destination for a manned mission) or to Mars– unless you actually intend to build a vehicle to get there. And there ain’t no plans to do that from this administration!
Plus plans for a mission to a NEO in 2025 followed a decade later by a mission to Mars is politically and economically unsustainable. You can’t just shut a manned space program down for more than a decade and then try to restart it again for your asteroid mission then shut it down for another decade and then restart it again for a Mars mission. This would be insane!
Marcel F. Williams wrote @ August 13th, 2011 at 10:15 pm sorry at present cost there is no reason to have a crewed Mars or anything mission…uncrewed platforms far better and cheaper. RGO
Coastal Ron wrote @ August 13th, 2011 at 7:29 pm
“What’s the difference between a plan and a “visionâ€?”
Heh. It’s about time someone asked that. Hey Mr. Holdren, ya listening ?
Very simply, a plan is something you do to implement a vision. Building a launcher isn’t a vision, nor is getting new folks to try to build it. The vision is what it’s for that means something more than a great way to go new places. Making crew transport for ISS isn’t a vision. The vision is why they should be there. The vision is what you make out of it that really means something to the nation, and the taxpayers. Something that serves a national need and ideally resonates with a national symbol. It’s the umbrella over everything one does. It’s the big “Why”. The word “exploration” used to be called our “vision”, until people figured out that, with regard to space, they didn’t really know what “exploration” meant. In my mind, a “vision” needn’t have a date, or even a particular destination. Unless it was perhaps important to incorporate Neptune into our our economic sphere by, er, October? That a vision doesn’t have a date or a destination is just fine. The implementation plan might have them, if dates and destinations are particularly important to realizing that vision.
That’s Strategic Planning 101. Study up.
Yep, that’s what a “vision” means to the taxpayer, and that’s exactly why NASA has failed at conveying one. Because it largely doesn’t understand what it is.
Concur, Marcel. This Administration needs to identify more missions and additional destinations if they want Congressional support. They keep clinging to their mantra that came out of the FY 11 budget disaster-which Congress rightfully rejected. And that was from a Democratic-controlled Congress!
While there would be more missions in between the NEO and Mars orbit, they need to be identified as to destination, mission purposes, and so on. When that HEFT (Human Exploration Formulation Team) puts its report out, maybe we’ll have something. Or is this something that Bolden, Garver, etc, are stringing along?
P.S. Let it not be assumed, for example, that JFK’s plan for us to go to the Moon was in any way visionary. Modern space historians don’t believe that it was (except perhaps that it was maybe tele-visionary!) It was exciting, perhaps inspiring, and it was brave, but visionary it wasn’t. Why? Because the plan was to beat the USSR, and show them up. We did, and then it was done. A vision isn’t a box you get to check. That’s what JFK gave us. A box we got to check. Very proudly. A plan that we successfully implemented. And that is why our lunar plans were not sustainable, and we never went back. Because those plans weren’t part of a vision. There wasn’t anything bigger to be committed to. JFK very carefully didn’t want there to be.
Marcel F. Williams wrote @ August 13th, 2011 at 10:15 pm
“You can’t just shut a manned space program down for more than a decade and then try to restart it again for your asteroid mission then shut it down for another decade and then restart it again for a Mars mission.”
What you’re describing is the Constellation model, which would have shut down our only manned space program (the ISS), and waited until the mid 2030’s before going somewhere. Luckily Congress shut that horrible mess down.
And while you dislike the ISS, the ISS does provide the U.S. with an outpost in space to keep our HSF program going. In some ways it’s no different than what we’ve been doing for 30 years, which was making short LEO visits using the Shuttle, but now that the ISS is construction complete we can get on with the long-duration R&D that is needed for us to live and work in space going forward.
But since you are against the ISS existing, then you are the one that wants to abandon space until some grand lunar plan is funded, built, and finally launched – how many decades would that take? Where is the long-term political will for that? Look in the mirror Marcel, because what you accuse the administration of is exactly what you propose to do.
Mark Whittington said
“These are the ravings of a desperate man…”
and
Matt Wiser added
“Concur, Marcel. All Holdren wants to do for BEO is “study, study, study.†NO plan, no destinations, no deadlines.”
It would be nice if you debated the facts and not fantasies.
For the record the Presidents Flexible Path program was announced at the beginning of 2010. By April 8th NASA had worked out the allocation of work around the various centres
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/04/08/nasas-next-steps-telecon/
by June 2010 NASA was circulating this list of missions
(NB this was delivered at a NASA Exploration Enterprise Workshop)
http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=20493&catid=6#c
“2011: human robotics interfaces (ISS) (ETDD)
2011-2016: 3 SpaceX demos and initial 12 operational cargo flights (ISS) (C3PO)
2012: ALHAT (autonomous landing and hazard avoidance) (ETDD)
2012: biomed tech demo (ISS) (HRP)
2012-2016: 1 Orbital demo and initial 8 operational cargo flights (ISS) (C3PO)
2013: radiation risk model (HRP)
2014: advanced in-space propulsion mission (FTD)
2014: closed-loop ECLSS (ETDD)
2014: high-energy systems (ETDD)
2014: NEO robotic precursor (RP)
2014: performance health tech demo (ISS) (HRP)
2014: commercial crew demo flights (ISS) (C3PO)
2015: Lunar lander robotic precursor (RP)
2015: advanced in-space propulsion (ISS) (ETDD)
2015: advanced in-space propellant transfer and storage (FTD)
2015: LOX/methane or LOX/H2 in-space engine demo (HLPT)
2015: another biomed tech demo (ISS) (HRP)
2015-2020: commercial crew missions (ISS) (C3PO)
2015-2020: Orion Emergency Rescue Module missions (ISS) (Orion)
2016: lightweight/inflatable modules and closed loop life support (ISS) (FTD)
2016: ISRU (ETDD)
2016: Mars robotic precursor (RP)
2016: LOX/RP prototype engine (HLPT)
2016: further radiation risk model (HRP)
2017: aero-assist/entry, descent, and landing (FTD)
2017: performance health suite demo (ISS) (HRP)
2018: EVA demo (ISS, maybe for suitport/suitlock tech) (ETDD)
2018: another Mars robotic precursor (RP)
2018: Mars Medical Suite demo (ISS) (HRP)
2019: another NEO robotic precursor (RP)
2020: LOX/RP operational engine, thrust >= 1M lbs (HLPT)
2020: nuclear thermal propulsion (ETDD)
Acronyms:
FTD: Flagship Technology Demonstration
ETDD: Enabling Technology Development and Demonstration
RP: Exploration Robotic Precursor Mission
HLPT: Heavy Lift & Propulsion Technology Program
HRP: Human Research Program
C3PO: Commercial Crew and Cargo Program
Orion: Orion Emergency Rescue Module”
Of course this was all assuming that NASA would get their Flexible Path funding. We all know what happened. The congress gutted it. Reinstated Constellation/SLS and promptly began castigating NASA and the Obama administration for “doing nothing”.
Well you can pretend all you like that there was no plan, but the facts are otherwise.
Dissagree with the plan if you like. It’s still a free country.
But don’t, please, deliberately and knowingly misrepresent the facts.
RGO –
Obama wanted to end the gridlock; what he did not understand was that it takes two to tango, and there were those who wanted it to continue. While Clinton was able to “triangulate”, he could do that because of the good economy he got while the Democrats held both houses.
It took $300 Million plus the services of numerous Private Investigators to tar him and get control of one house
Obama better get his team to identify the source of that “misinformation”.
The repeaters of those themes can be tracked, as Jon Stewart does sometimes. Thanks, AW.
As far as neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post providing op-ed space to Administrator Bolden and John Holdrin, my thinking is that Obama needs to hire James Carville as an advisor.
As far as the economy goes for the next few months, th economy in which both budget and space decisions will be made, the Palestinians are applying for UN recognition. The US response “may” affect oil prices, which in turn “may” profoundly affect the US economy.
You don’t hear much about that in the news, for some strange reason.
Holdrin and Bolden just told a lot of fantasists that manned Mars flight in the real world will be difficult and not occur for many years.
Those fantasists don’t particularly want to hear that.
And that’s just one of many things they don’t want to hear.
They probably would have gotten better coverage and been in better shape if they had just outlined the technical hurdles.
@ spacermase wrote @ August 13th, 2011 at 10:11 pm
It’s not necessarily ‘my vision’ but just one proposal for basic survival and for keeping the space agency’s assets in place through austere times. NASA as a civilian-faced ‘department’ of DoD wouldn’t appear much different to the public at large, although internally there would be changes with DoD overseeing the bureaucracy and budget allocations. Nat’l security can be a good safety umbrella for NASA. As far as most taxpayers know, NASA’s HSF is batter-dipped in DoD already- with the bulk of its historied astronauts culled from the military services, riding converted military missiles as LVs; its shuttles piloted by DoD-trained personnel, lofting and landing at or near DoD facilities; its biggest customer carrying DoD payloads before Challenger and so on. Americans were footing the bill for a shuttle launch complex at Vandenberg AFB for higher inclination launches as well until it was shuttered. Hardly ‘civilian NASA’ stuff. Of course your ‘difficulty’ is self-imposed- adding limiting parameters, which isn’t wise for these times. MISS was the viable source for Mercury, transferred to NASA even before the agency by presidential directive was formally in place as you most likely know. Vanguard’s civilian staffing carried the load of the Navy’s Vanguard development in that era, too. But, of course, the immediate objective in this era would be to develop a viable MPCV first, which is where Griffin went wrong. A robust, general purpose spacecraft (as Soyuz was conceived) capable of modifiction for lunar operations in the mid-term with a lander and long duration surface facilities to follow in out years — culminating in a Mars expedition, most likely an multi-national effort. In this immediate economic environment, a MPCV is a decade-long project. A vehicle capable of flying on existing/modified LVs then modified later still for later use on a TBD HLV in the next phase of development in out years makes sense as well.
“Also, why do you assume DoD would not use commercial space?” In fact, you assume it– or worry about it. My point, as stated, reads a consolidation would terrify commerical space advocates, desperately seeking government subsidies, denied by private capital sources. Gigh risk/low ROI. But if commercial space believes it can sell services and make a profit w/o gov’t subsidies and compete with existing in-house government operations, along w/t DoD security issues there with, go for it. But in austere times the government would likely fly in-house, and would be much more capable of absorbing the developmental costs, including inevitable and expensive setbacks- that space projects of scale incur than a quarterly driven, for-profit firm, responsible to stockholders and whose goal is to make a profit when they fly a rocket. Space exploitation is not space exploration and the objective of private rocket firms is to make a buck, not make like Buck Rogers.
You tell the taxpayers that consolidating NASA, DoD, NSA, etc., into a single space operations group will cut costs, streamline duplications/overlaps in projects and personnel– and still keep Americans carrying the flag- rather than a corporate logo- into space along with the PRC, Russians or whoever else is planning to join the club, they might just go for it– or rather, pay for it.
@Marcel
“Plus plans for a mission to a NEO in 2025 followed a decade later by a mission to Mars is politically and economically unsustainable. You can’t just shut a manned space program down for more than a decade and then try to restart it again for your asteroid mission then shut it down for another decade and then restart it again for a Mars mission. This would be insane!”
They’re not proposing two manned missions over the course of a decade, those are just milestones. The idea of a Flexible Path approach is that you take progressive steps, depending on where you are technologically and financially.
Maybe we start with a circumlunar flight or two, then we move on to a NEA rendezvous, then maybe we shoot for something further out like an L point, then later down the line we visit the moons of Mars, and then eventually a surface mission.
The whole point of building this foundation of cheap commercial LVs and new technology is that it opens up more options later down the line if the plan changes. If NASA suddenly finds itself with a passable budget and support for a permanent lunar outpost is revived, for example, we’d have a stronger foundation to build such an endeavor on and would be able to get it done faster and cheaper.
@E.P. Grondine wrote @ August 14th, 2011 at 12:29 am
“Holdrin and Bolden just told a lot of fantasists that manned Mars flight in the real world will be difficult and not occur for many years.”
Not long after they buried JFK, Hugh Dryden talked of a manned Mars flight 20 years in the future– that was wayyyy back in March, 1964. And for the sake of argument, with the increasing sophisitcation of Martian robotic probes and the confidence increasing in the ability to land them safely there and likely get a sample probe up and back, it might be worth asking if there’s really any point in sending people there at all within the next half-century of austere times, anyway. After all, using President Obama’s reference, ‘we’ve been there…’ by robotic extention.
@Doug Lassiter wrote @ August 13th, 2011 at 11:46 pm
“P.S. Let it not be assumed, for example, that JFK’s plan for us to go to the Moon was in any way visionary.”
A calculated acceleration in human evolution is, in fact, visionary. Very ‘way’, BTW. The fact that Apollo and the race to the moon was another battle front in the Cold War doesn’t change that. The race to build the A-bomb was a battlefront in WW2, but for better or worse, splitting atoms was a calculated acceleration in human evolution as well.
Fred, there are technology demonstrators planned: such as the recent RFP that was issued for propellant storage and transfer. Inflatable habitats are planned for ISS demo, and you can bet that things like closed loop life support and radiation shielding will get field trials on ISS. The stuff you mention was rejected by Congress for a very good reason, IMHO: NO Missions other than commercial to/from ISS were listed, and any kind of heavy-lift decision was deferred for up to 5 years. Congress considered the proposed FY 11 budget-and REJECTED IT-as is Congressional perogrative-they’re not a rubber stamp. And it was done in a bipartisan manner in a Democratic controlled Congress! Charlie Bolden himself admitted that he didn’t do a good enough job in selling that plan-and the supplemental after that ‘space summit’ last year (preaching to those who supported the Administration than anything else). He didn’t listen to his PAOs, and he didn’t consult with key Congressional members (the relevant House/Senate committee members and the leadership) beforehand. And members of both parties raked him over the coals as a result. He blew it, as he admitted at a Senate Hearing in May of last year. And as a result, Bolden and Garver are still in recovery mode from that disaster. Botched rollout, botched presentation, no missions listed, and no support on The Hil as a result.
Alex wrote:
Strike 2 was failing to have the President actually make a speech after the launch or landing of STS-135. This was a prime opportunity for him to defend his vision for the agency.
Space enthusiasts keep making the fatal error of thinking the masses actually care. They don’t.
Obama has been making plenty of speeches about how Congressional gridlock nearly drove the federal treasury into gridlock. He asked the masses to call their Congressional leaders to demand they stop the partisan bickering. Well, a lot of people did call but it was ineffective because Congress couldn’t care less what the masses want.
So how is it that Obama making a feel-good speech about the end of Shuttle is going to magically translate into placating those who will never support him anyway?
People like to watch rockets launch. But they don’t want to pay for it and there’s certainly no political will amongst the masses to storm Capitol Hill to demand a bloated human spaceflight program to the Moon or Mars or Vulcan or whereever.
Space enthusiasts need to grasp this basic concept. Space is way down on the priority list for Congress and the voters in general. NASA has to learn to live within the modest budget Congress will give it. Commercial space sets us on the path towards the day when Congress will be irrelevent as humans will fly on private craft to a private space station, and eventually to other worlds.
Imagine that commercial airlines never happened, and we had to rely on the government to fly from Point A to Point B. We’d still be crossing the country in buses while the Government Airline begged for scraps from Congress. The Government Airline would determine which of us had the privilege to fly.
Space enthusiasts, it’s time to let go of the Government Airline.
No takers on Perry? What about Jon Huntsman?
@ DCSCA wrote @ August 14th, 2011 at 12:53 am
“Nat’l security can be a good safety umbrella for NASA. ”
Please read and comprehend if ever possible…
‘Doomsday’ defense cuts loom large for select 12
http://news.yahoo.com/doomsday-defense-cuts-loom-large-select-12-085458548.html
@ Scott Bass wrote @ August 14th, 2011 at 10:13 am
“No takers on Perry? What about Jon Huntsman?”
Perry: Most likely like Bush, W that is. No real interest in NASA or Space but will want to load off a lot of cash to Defense contractors for no good reason. He’ll need to find his own O’Keefe/Steidle team and he will not.
Huntsman: Not a chance but he might use NASA to make a bridge to China. I’d love to see that go though.
If this is what you are asking…
What about Jon Huntsman?
Huntsman doesn’t have a prayer of getting the nomination.
Stephen C. Smith wrote @ August 14th, 2011 at 6:20 am
“People like to watch rockets launch.”
That, and looking at pictures from Hubble and the various Mars rovers, pretty much sums up the publics involvement with the space program. Otherwise they don’t really care to follow what NASA is doing, just as most in Congress don’t care (as Rep. Posey pointed out).
Space advocates that think there is a widespread interest within Congress for what NASA does are deluding themselves (Matt, are you listening?). An agency with 0.5% of the National Budget doesn’t get much attention, especially when there are bigger issues to worry about here on planet Earth.
I used to think that we wouldn’t see any budgetary debate about the SLS until 2013, but now that the cost estimates are looking so bad, and the House is getting ready to whack NASA’s budget, it could be put on the budget altar by those in Congress that want to cut something big that only exists because it’s a jobs program – and the SLS fits the bill perfectly.
And what public outcry would there be? None, since the SLS had no public support to begin with, only support from politicians in Congress.
DCSCA wrote @ August 14th, 2011 at 1:12 am
“A calculated acceleration in human evolution is, in fact, visionary.
You think JFK considered the Apollo program a “calculated acceleration in human evolution”? That was his “vision”? Nope. No way. There was absolutely no such “calculation” involved. At least the historians have never managed to uncover it. OK, so he didn’t calculate it, but that’s what it turned out to be? Sort of a retrospective “vision”? Quite a concept. You get to declare that you were visionary after you’ve achieved a “calculated acceleration”. So a “vision” is a blank sheet of paper that you get to fill out later. Hmmm.
Geez, if NASA had this view of what a vision was, we’d really get tanked.
Again, NASA doesn’t have a vision for human space exploration at least partly because NASA doesn’t understand what “vision” is. They’re not alone, it would seem.
While I have my own reasons for wanting Ed Weiler “relieved”, is it proper to mention here the more than $2 billion in cost over runs he ran on 2 projects?
Scott Bass wrote @ August 14th, 2011 at 10:13 am
“No takers on Perry? What about Jon Huntsman?”
Scott.
It is really to early to figure out who has the GOP nomination. But I suspect that whoever gets the nomination and if that person “makes it to the oval” that it wont matter…NASA is going to be cut fairly massively.
While it is accurate that the Iowa straw poll is not a very good predictor of things, the reality is that the political world is dominated by two things…the first is the incredibly bad collapse of the economic system that once grew the most prosperous middle class in history (that is shrinking)…and the second is incredibly the virtual collapse of Obama’s leadership as President.
I think that most of the GOP candidates are simply wrong on their economics and politics BUT we are going through very bad economic times and everything tried so far has simply failed.
Right now I would not put money down on who Bachmann/Perry/Romney will get the nomination (although that is where I think it is heading…) but I would put money down on the fact that either one of them could challenge effectively Obama. (although if I was the political guy to Obama I would hope Bachman would be the nominee).
In any event all of this is going to bode badly for NASA and traditional human spaceflight. There is a reason that none of the GOP candidates (Perry wasnt there) in one debate when asked thought that more money for NASA was good. There is no support for massive spending on human exploration just to do exploration.
Robert G. Oler
And one other thing, another space speech from Obama? Seriously? The last time he sneered at going back to the Moon because “Buzz has already been there.” God knows what damage he would do to his own policy were he to open his mouth about it again.
Matt Wiser:
and he didn’t consult with key Congressional members (the relevant House/Senate committee members and the leadership) beforehand.”
Ya, I can just see how that would have went:
CB- Senator Hatch the President is proposing that we stop your pork train and stop using ATK’s solid rockets, they are to expensive”
CB- Senator Selby the President is proposing we stop your pork train….
There was absolutely nothing the President could have offered other than the same ole’ same ole’ cost plus pork that those Senators would have accepted.
@common sense wrote @ August 14th, 2011 at 10:43 am
You don’t know a sucker bet when you read one. Republicans will never compromise on matters of nat’l security- particularly in an election cycle and especially as its a core responsibiltiy of government per the Constutition whereas entitlement programs aren’t. Sure, they can shift numbers around and shelve a few pet projects for a year or two to how ‘cuts’ on paper, but the DoD will never suffer long from deep cuts with nat’l defense in the mix- and NASA under DoD could be rationalized as vital to nat’l defense issues, hard and soft.
“You can’t just shut a manned space program down for more than a decade and then try to restart it again.”
Not completely, but you can crank it down quite a bit- per the period between 1975 and 1981 as Apollo ended and shuttle was wrestled into existence. And there are crews for ISS training for flight, post-shuttle. That’s why the key to the next step is development of a general purpose, modifiable spacecraft and the bulk of immediate investment and development really should be in that arena.
@Stephen C. Smith wrote @ August 14th, 2011 at 6:20 am
What you fail to grasp is that every human being can relate to putting a fresh footprint on to virgin ground. And to collective national pride. Those pesky ‘Cernan intangibles.’ That’s the common link between a man on the moon and a man in the street. In addition, Armstrong has always maintained that for him personally, the high point of Apollo 11 was the landing- not so much for the instant, but because ‘we’ as a people invested and decade of time and treasure into it– and ‘we’ managed it.
@Scott Bass wrote @ August 14th, 2011 at 10:13 am
“No takers on Perry? What about Jon Huntsman?”
A bush knockoff and a cup of yogurt. As Archie Bunker might say– Oh, Jeez, Ding and Bat. Neither of which has a clue on how to manage discretionay matters like space projects in austere times.
@Mark Whittington wrote @ August 14th, 2011 at 2:43 pm
This isn’t about space. It’s about the numbers they’re getting on losing both Texas and Forida. He’ll give a speech about space to try to stop support from hemmoraging in these states. It’ll be a tough sell this time.
I’m with Doug L on the vision thing.
A vision, is a look into the future, and represent something you don’t now have. If you had it now, you don’t need a vision.
The Three Pillars (of salt?) that Holdren speak of, are supposed to be pillars to do what exactly? Going to a NEO/Asteroid? Planting a Flag on MARS?
What vision, what future that doesn’t exist now, do these three pillars support the acquisition of ? Nothing.
There is no NASA Vision.
The VSE got it right. Though we don’t know exactly how we’re going to do it, incorporating the resources of the solar system into our economics is about the only rationale I can think of for HSF.
Sadly, continuing ISS to 2020,at which point the business model for Commercial HSF will show that is ‘does not close’, doesn’t do anything but support jobs; While there are activities surrounding Tech Development (pillar 3) are taking place at NASA, what future, that we don’t have, are they designed to bring into existence?
NASA is lost in space…and the 3 pillars are a function of ‘survival politics’
Which is a particular form of political dynamics that is proving the economic ruin of this country.
Regarding Technology Development at NASA.
There used to be, waaay back in the 1990’s a mission directorate (or ‘code’ as they were called back then) that was specifically designed to advance technology for primarily Space and Earth Science.
Over time, as NASA budget continually suffered the small cuts of a tortuous death, this directorate was disbanded. What monies there were left over, were sent to the Science divisions. “Do your own tech development’
This model fails, because as the small cuts of a tortuous death continue science missions in development, that experience cost over runs, will seek technology monies, as the first place to rob someone else to pay for the sins of the development over run.
So NASA has a long history of missions in development eating their future seed corn tech development Money.
Now that Exploration and Operations mission directorates have merged, you will see that anything Exploration develops (good luck with that btw) will now have easy intra mission directorate access to technology development funds to handle it’s over runs. And since the technology development money is not really targeted towards a specific plan, or bringing into existence any specific ‘future/vision’, it is easy pickings for development overruns.
History is repeating itself, even though we always remember our history.
DCSCA wrote @ August 14th, 2011 at 12:53 am
“It’s not necessarily ‘my vision’ but just one proposal for basic survival and for keeping the space agency’s assets in place through austere times. NASA as a civilian-faced ‘department’ of DoD wouldn’t appear much different to the public at large, although internally there would be changes with DoD overseeing the bureaucracy and budget allocations.”
The idea of protecting NASA by putting human space flight at least under the DoD is an interesting one. The older taxpayers think, I’m pretty sure, that investments in human space flight are related to national defense in some way. The Apollo program set us up for that. You’re exactly right about NASA being “batter dipped” in DoD.
That would, however, require a HUGE shift in emphasis for NASA. International cooperation would go out the window faster than you can say “ITAR”. Human space flight would become far less of a public activity. You aren’t going to “inspire” anyone if you can’t talk much about what you’re doing. Finally, any dreams that anyone has about human space flight leading to commercialization of the cosmos would go out the window. The DoD couldn’t care less about bringing the solar system into our economic sphere. So what one would end up with is not only not NASA as we know it, but not even human space flight as we know it. I’m not sure what a “civilian-faced” department of DoD would look like exactly, though if it is that separate from the rest of DoD, it’ll make great low-hanging fruit when real national security dollars get tight. Rationalizing human space flight as providing real national security, compared to say, the hugely expensive F-35 JSF program, which is lately considered unaffordable, is a non-starter.
Although relatively little has been heard about it, there is a DARPA program looking into human “servicing” of satellites in GEO. Not highly secret, but just not well advertised. In that context, it’s probably fair to say that DoD doesn’t give a whit about deep space, so human space flight would get aimed much closer if under a DoD umbrella.
NASA Fan wrote @ August 14th, 2011 at 5:31 pm
“Though we don’t know exactly how we’re going to do it, incorporating the resources of the solar system into our economics is about the only rationale I can think of for HSF.”
In the spirit of intellectual discourse, I’ll argue a little with you on this one. I don’t think it’s ever been established why capitalizing on extra terrestrial resources really requires astronauts. EVERYTHING on the Moon can be harvested telerobotically. As to “who’s going to fix the robots?”, junking the robot is enormously cheaper than having a human there to fix it. I just don’t see humans driving bulldozers on Titan, or with shovels and pickaxes on Mars.
Just watched the Duncan Jones movie “Moon” last night, which is a slightly weird but strangely entertaining piece. Sam Rockwell wasn’t lifting a finger to harvest all that 3He, nor did he have any help.
Actually, the best rationale for HSF is species expansion, perhaps as insurance. Even VSE didn’t dare utter words like that, which I think is a shame. Of course, to do that, having humans on the Moon harvesting resources makes some sense. What if Obama were to say that the long term future of our species, if not just our nation, *requires* that we expand, and that the United States should be a leader in this expansion, in that we see ourselves as leaders in what’s important That’s more like what a vision looks like.
Doug Lassiter wrote @ August 14th, 2011 at 6:40 pm
This is all very interesting however what exactly are the benefits of undertaking this change? Specifically why would DOD want NASA?
I, for one, can’t see any reason to do this. DOD has all the space-based capability it requires including it’s own research, development resources. It doesn’t need to saddle itself with the Pork brigade that Congress has inflicted on NASA.
Lassiter – “… That would, however, require a HUGE shift in emphasis for NASA. International cooperation would go out the window faster than you can say “ITARâ€. Human space flight would become far less of a public activity. You aren’t going to “inspire†anyone if you can’t talk much about what you’re doing.”
NASA and, more importantly, its private contractor teammates are already fully subjected to ITAR restrictions. Inside or outside of a DoD umbrella doesn’t matter.
Perry made it quite clear in his press release last month he hates the idea of astronauts being hitchhikers (his words) and that HSF should be the core mission of NASA. Good bye SpaceX
Oler, Bolden himself admitted in the post “space summit” Senate Hearing (the one where Panel 2 was Norm Augustine, Gene Cernan, and Neil Armstrong-the latter two were serverely critical of the Administration and Norm was noncommittal) that in a normal process, he would’ve briefed Congressional staff, talked with individual committee members, informed them about the plans and intentions of the Administration, and so on. He blew it, and admitted it before the committee and took the rap for it. Congress didn’t like being blindsided, and the Administration never really recovered from it: even Sen. Bill Nelson had reservations about even the revised plan-such as it was-that was announced at the Cape. And he’s the Administration’s point man in Congress on Space!
Thanks everyone for their political comments….I know it’s early but I am looking already….. I don’t take Bachmann seriously and there is just something about Romney that is questionable…. That leaves this Perry guy who also seems a little extreme right and Jon Huntsman…. If you just read the wiki page on Huntsman he has a pretty impressive resume but he may be to center right for the current GOP ….. Anyway just trying to get a feel for their space policy….. Surprisingly Perry is the only one so far that has actually attacked the current policy
NASA Fan wrote @ August 14th, 2011 at 5:31 pm
“A vision, is a look into the future, and represent something you don’t now have. If you had it now, you don’t need a vision.
…..
There is no NASA Vision.”
because every NASA “vision” is a nightmare…cost balloon, dates push back and in the end the “next logical step” turns out to be a step to nowhere.
VSE was a nightmare…in the end we were going to spend 200 billion to get water (and thats only if we are very lucky) that would have cost under 2 billion just flown up from Earth.
Do you think that is a vision?RGO
@Michael from Iowa
“They’re not proposing two manned missions over the course of a decade, those are just milestones. The idea of a Flexible Path approach is that you take progressive steps, depending on where you are technologically and financially.
Maybe we start with a circumlunar flight or two, then we move on to a NEA rendezvous, then maybe we shoot for something further out like an L point, then later down the line we visit the moons of Mars, and then eventually a surface mission.
The whole point of building this foundation of cheap commercial LVs and new technology is that it opens up more options later down the line if the plan changes. If NASA suddenly finds itself with a passable budget and support for a permanent lunar outpost is revived, for example, we’d have a stronger foundation to build such an endeavor on and would be able to get it done faster and cheaper.”
That’s a big maybe! That’s why the Congress requested, more than a year ago, that the Obama administration to tell them how they will use the SLS in the near future within cis-lunar space. But, so far, the administration has been completely silent.
But there are rumors are that there might be– one– unmanned mission around the Moon in 2017 to test the MPCV and then– one– manned mission around the Moon in 2021. Again, single launches with huge multi-year gaps that are completely unsustainable.
Holdren’s hostility towards the SLS tells me that the administration still doesn’t want to build it. The fact that the Obama administration originally wanted to delay full funding for a HLV for 5 years clearly indicated, IMO, that they really didn’t want NASA to build an HLV.
They don’t want NASA to have its own manned spaceflight capability and they don’t want NASA to have its own heavy lift capability. Besides, Obama’s buddy, Elon Musk, already told him that NASA doesn’t need an HLV since Space X can eventually provide the government with private heavy lift vehicle services.
They want NASA out of the manned spaceflight business in order to turn it over completely to private industry. IMO, that would be like the DOD turning the defense of the country over to mercenaries like Blackwater instead of having the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.
Mark Whittington wrote @ August 14th, 2011 at 2:43 pm
“And one other thing, another space speech from Obama? Seriously? The last time he sneered at going back to the Moon because “Buzz has already been there.†God knows what damage he would do to his own policy were he to open his mouth about it again.”
No, he did not say that. And he did not sneer at going back to the moon. But the moon is not the first goal.
Fred Willett wrote @ August 13th, 2011 at 11:57 pm
Excellent comment, Fred!
amightywind wrote @ August 13th, 2011 at 1:41 pm
I would replace Holden’s pillars with the ‘giant redwood’ of manned spaceflight, and large, shuttle derived rockets at its trunk, with science applications on tentative branches.
I think you have been partaking of the magic mushrooms. Man, you are really smoking something.
It’s pretty hard to use a Redwood tree to launch anything into orbit.
Bruce Behrhorst wrote @ August 13th, 2011 at 2:39 pm
NUCLEAR THERMAL ROCKET NTR is better quality Isp, thrust-to-wt. ratio to solar system.
Pretty hard to restart/finish the NTR research without the Advanced Technology Investments
Why don’t you ask the HLV-huggers why they want to hog all the money in the budget just to build a monument to their quixotic fixation.
Mark Whittington wrote @ August 13th, 2011 at 1:19 pm
These are the ravings of a desperate man in an administration that is rapidly imploding.
Look in the mirror, dude.
Get this fact into your head … THERE”S NO MONEY IN THE BANK
How are we going to pay for your colossal 130mt Launcher? There’s no money for anything to launch on it? All the money is sucked up on cost-plus contracts and technowelfare to keep some people in UT, AL and FL employed for the next ten years.
You talk about advanced technology but you’re advocating to use the same old technological sh*t that was built in 1970-1972! GOOD GRAVY! We’ve gotten a little smarter over the last FOURTY YEARS.
It’s like advocating that the only cars that can be built in 2011 must be DIRECTLY derived from a 1972 Ford Pinto (exploding gas tanks and all).
Matt Wiser wrote @ August 13th, 2011 at 1:46 pm
Concur, Marcel. All Holdren wants to do for BEO is “study, study, study.†NO plan, no destinations, no deadlines.
And all you HLV-huggers/Shuttle-huggers want to do is build rockets derived from the 1972 Ford Pinto of Spaceflight. It goes from point A to point B, is complicated to maintain and repair, and if you get rear-ended it explodes with the total loss of the crew.
Lets all be very clear about one thing:
It is Constellation v2.0 (SLS) that is killing jobs in Texas and Florida… not MPCV, not CCDev, not science, not tech dev. SLS is the JWST of SMD. Light rail and other porcine spending will not bring back those engineers.
Respectfully,
Andrew Gasser
TEA Party in Space
@ Doug Lassiter wrote @ August 14th, 2011 at 6:40 pm
“The idea of protecting NASA by putting human space flight at least under the DoD is an interesting one.”
No it is not interesting, sorry Doug. It is not going to happen. It would require a change of the Space Act of the same scale, or worse, than required to change it for “protection of the species”. You’d throw away all the international treaties and collaboration. There are ties between NASA and the DoD. Actually there are ties between the DoD and pretty much anything in the US. Just look at the budget of the DoD. Look at the fact that DoD is (has to be) present in each and every state and activity of the US. For all these reasons the DoD is very intrusive in our society. So what?
If DoD was ever interested in HSF they would have their own vehicles. They stopped classified missions on the Shuttle back around 92. They don’t need HSF. There are no – as far as we know – aliens forces threatening us and no reason to battle in space between earthly nations. There is potential interest in rapid transport of forces but no clear way to do and it might be suborbital once all the bugs are taken out say at VG for example. Not even that clear any way, e.g. how do you send troops in the middle of Afghanistan and retrieve the vehicle? Still if DoD is to do anything like that they will NOT use NASA. Come on!
In any case. NASA will NOT go “under the wing of the DoD”.
DCSCA doesn’t have the first clue how NASA or the DOD operate their program. His idiotic idea of putting NASA under the DOD underscores his complete lack of knowledge in these areas. He bases his “logic” on events that happened more than 50 years ago and are no longer applicable to today. DOD doesn’t have an inhouse capability, it relies on contractors. NRL Vanguard, STL and AMBA don’t exist, it is Boeing, Lockheed, OSC, ULA, NGST, etc who are doing all the work, the same companies producing commercial launch vehicles and spacecraft.
Since he will no doubt respond to this or if not, he will still regurgitate his ridiculous rhetoric to others. I guess it is better to leave him alone, preaching his illogic, much like the crazies in subway stations, vs engaging him/them in a fruitless discussion.
Many here talk of old technologies being used today. Hey what is wrong with something that has proven itself time and again? Examples are the Russian Soyuz and Semyorka rockets. Now both have been upgraded from time to time, and now there is even talk of sending a Soyuz around the moon. Lets hope it happens. This may all be perhaps somewhat modified old technologies, but they work, so why not keep them flying until we have both the money and time to develope the new. Plus the new is generally spun off from the old. Even with the return to capsule designs, the outlines have their own improvements too. As yet we do not have the tech. to build the perfect spaceship, and I suspect it will be along time before we do. Lets however keep pushing on toward a manned Mars mission, even if we must use some old technologies to get there!
I do think it is a flawed argument that cancellation of an sls type program is going to free money up for NASA to do other things that people are proponents of here….. Time will tell but I think if sls dries up you will see that 38 billion go with it….. Hope I am wrong…… It is very interesting to see whether the reality of that ends up beings what saves sls in congress, not saying it is right, just saying members of congress may see it as their only option to keep water in the pipe. And alot of them are becoming increasingly convinced we are only 18 months out from an administration change so they may want to keep NASAs budget in tact til then
Btw….the dod space budget is already slightly more than NASAs budget if I read correctly…..I am not sure what the breakdown is but I am sure if NASA does go down alot of R&D is still going on in that side of the program…. Rocket development anyway, they have already said in so many words that they will have to take up any slack if NASA moves away from solid rocket tech…. The two agencies are joined at the hip in many ways already
GuessWho wrote @ August 14th, 2011 at 10:46 pm
“NASA and, more importantly, its private contractor teammates are already fully subjected to ITAR restrictions. Inside or outside of a DoD umbrella doesn’t matter.”
Yep. That’s why it’s faster than you can say ITAR. A lot faster.
Marcel F. Williams wrote @ August 15th, 2011 at 1:05 am
They want NASA out of the manned spaceflight business in order to turn it over completely to private industry.
No we want it out of the launch to LEO business just like there isn’t a government-owned airline.
IMO, that would be like the DOD turning the defense of the country over to mercenaries like Blackwater instead of having the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.
NASA is defending the country against whom/what? Space Aliens?
Isn’t that the point of the USAF Space Command? (http://www.afspc.af.mil/) – that’s Military Space.
NASA is a Civilian Space entity, not a military one.
common sense wrote @ August 15th, 2011 at 10:23 am
“No it is not interesting, sorry Doug. It is not going to happen.”
I actually agree with you completely. For the reasons I listed. When I say it’s “interesting”, I mean in an academic sort of way. As in off-the-wall-interesting, or crazy-interesting. In fact, the sooner NASA sheds whatever remains of its batter dipping, the better.
@Marcel Williams
“They want NASA out of the manned spaceflight business in order to turn it over completely to private industry.”
As usual, you are viewing everything with inaccurate preconceptions. On the contrary, the idea is for NASA to do manned space exploration (which is not profitable for industry) and have private industry do space exploitation in places where it has a potential to grow new business opportunities. Private industry would do all Earth-to-orbit transportation while NASA would spearhead truly advanced cutting-edge deep space projects, rather than waste enormous sums of money using antiquated Shuttle tech to build the SLS monstrosity. NASA would be doing such things as advanced fuel depots and cutting edge spacecraft for exploration, such as this NASA proposal: http://hobbyspace.com/nucleus/?itemid=26786
Scott Bass wrote @ August 15th, 2011 at 11:15 am
“I do think it is a flawed argument that cancellation of an sls type program is going to free money up for NASA to do other things that people are proponents of here….. Time will tell but I think if sls dries up you will see that 38 billion go with it….”
the problem is that the 38 billion isnt there now. and it will take more then 38 billion to make SLS work…and its not there.
Neither is support for lots of money to be spent to go past Earth orbit…If we could go to the Moon and back for 5 billion the money might be there…but that wont even keep th elights on at NASA RGO
@Marcel
“Congress requested, more than a year ago, that the Obama administration to tell them how they will use the SLS in the near future within cis-lunar space. But, so far, the administration has been completely silent.”
Congress’ plan for the space program:
Phase 1 – Oppose the administration’s proposal, mandate a launch system and destination, and expect the administration to come up with a way to connect the two regardless of how unfeasible it may be.
Phase 2 – ???
Phase 3 – Profit!
Many here talk of old technologies being used today. Hey what is wrong with something that has proven itself time and again?
It costs too much, and there are more cost-effective alternatives.
Time will tell but I think if sls dries up you will see that 38 billion go with it
It may very well. But it would still be a better outcome, for both taxpayers and space enthusiasts, than wasting the 38 billion on an unneeded vehicle.
Marcel wrote:
“They want NASA out of the manned spaceflight business in order to turn it over completely to private industry.”
If “they” wanted NASA out of manned spaceflight “business” they would have not extended the ISS, because the ISS represents manned spaceflight.
NASA is a government agency and not a business and as such they want NASA out of launching and operations for rockets and instead just buy the service at a lower cost. If you can not see that then remove the blinders.
NASA is defending the country against whom/what? Space Aliens?
Eventually the US will have to press its rights on the moon, NEAs, and Mars. We either get out in front of aggressors like Russia and China or cede control of space to them. You have only to look at Russia’s territorial aggression in the arctic, Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia, or China’s in the international waters of the South China Sea to get a glimpse at future conflicts in space. Human spaceflight is indeed of national security importance. The US should start acting like it is. It is then easy to be benevolent when you are in full control. NASA must be militarized!
Marcel F. Williams wrote @ August 15th, 2011 at 1:05 am
“They don’t want NASA to have its own manned spaceflight capability”
What an ignorant statement.
If NASA wants to buy cargo and crew systems from Boeing, SpaceX or any of the other providers, those companies will be very happy to sell them to NASA. Complete launch systems, just the rockets, or just the cargo or crew systems, they won’t care. NASA can own as much of the system as they want.
NASA could also lease what they need from a service provider, which may not even be the manufacturer. This happens with Boeing products already in their airplane business, and there is no reason not to do it for cargo and crew systems.
The difference between NASA building the SLS or buying launch services is mainly driven by cost, since NASA has to foot the entire R&D and operations costs if they design and build their own systems. And they don’t need to right now since they have no requirements or approved budgets for any payloads larger than what can be handled by existing U.S. rockets.
None of the commercial space companies have said that they want to build and operate exploration systems. They are focused on the transportation segment of getting the cargo, equipment and personnel where it needs to go.
Go take your FUD elsewhere…
Doug Lassiter wrote @ August 14th, 2011 at 7:56 pm
“What if Obama were to say that the long term future of our species, if not just our nation, *requires* that we expand, and that the United States should be a leader in this expansion, in that we see ourselves as leaders in what’s important”
That’s not a bad “vison”, and it’s more expansive and to the point than the VSE.
But in today’s hyper-political environment Obama could issue the most clear cut and sensible “vision” ever voiced, and his many opponents would trash it immediately. And if the next President is from the other party, likely the same will happen to them too. That’s just where we are today.
That is part of the reason why I think a Presidential “vision” on space is not very helpful beyond the boundaries of that persons term in office. Obama’s push to get commercial cargo and crew systems up and running is going to be a big effort in the near term, and if he wins reelection next year I think that will be the most significant space-related achievement he will be able to point to.
The asteroid and Mars dates? Meh. It will be up to future administrations to make that a reality, and Obama knows that, and those future administrations will get the credit anyways (which they should). He can point to them as part of the direction he’s taking NASA, but without complete control of events, and no official budget, it’s more of an internal goal than an external one.
RGO…. I wonder if Musk could put boots on the moon for 5 billion this decade ;)….. I bet if they handed it to him he would figure a way lol ;)….. Probably would figure a way to land dragon with his las
NASA Fan wrote @ August 14th, 2011 at 5:40 pm
“There used to be, waaay back in the 1990′s a mission directorate (or ‘code’ as they were called back then) that was specifically designed to advance technology for primarily Space and Earth Science.”
That was Code R, and yes it was supposed to do technology development for the whole agency, including science. Ten or more years ago, the work of Code R for science was described to an advisory committee as being done in an “unpredictable, erratic, uncoordinated, and not particularly useful way.†I think that was because, with respect to science at least, the work it funded had little or no peer review, and the account was pretty much seen as a sandbox for Code R management. This poor relationship between S and R showed signs of improving, especially for mid-TRL work, but the program disappeared in 2004. I don’t remember the details, and I suspect someone could provide a lot more insight, but this is how it was viewed.
To the extent that drawing a programmatic line between science and technology development for that science protects those technology development funds, it sure doesn’t guarantee that the right investments are being made. That might well be a lesson for the large amounts of money that this administration wants to send to OCT.
“That included the message that the administration was still committed to the NASA policy it unveiled just over 18 months ago, as well as a little frustration about how it’s been communicated to the public.”
Well, that about says it all to me. The administration is not committed to SLS or what Congress passed as law. They are committed to the original policy that people went ballistic over when it first was announced!
HELLO, WAKE UP PLEASE !!
So Holdren/Bolden, the reason there is still a problem and frustration is you are not committed to the compromise that was to have commercial AND a HLV.
If you were committed to what was the law and things that have been passed and would just get on with it and stop stalling and whining about how frustrated you are you didn’t get EVERYTHING you wanted you wouldn’t be getting so much grief. This country is about compromise and you need to learn that part of the country wants a HLV and just accept it and move on.
Dennis: You’re right on. In areospace, what seems “antiquated” to some, means “proven” to others. Nothing wrong with using what you know works, and works well. 30 years of Shuttle experience can be exploited to use SLS: which will use shuttle technology and can be upgraded over time as new technology comes into play.
Mark Bernard: It was the perception that counted, and that speech was spun to mean that Mr. Obama was rejecting a return to the lunar surface. Perception counts when you’re trying to sell a program, especially when Congress had already declared the Administration’s original FY 11 request DOA. And that was a Democratic-controlled Congress, remember. A more explicit statement of returning to the moon in between the NEO and Mars missions ought to have been inserted into the speech, IMHO. As long as the Administration was seen as sneering at “leaving the moon to others”, and Charlie Bolden got caught out in a House hearing prior to this speech when a Congresscritter asked him if he (Bolden) cared if the Chinese, for example, beat us back to the moon. Charlie replied that he didn’t, and the Congresscritter replied “It does to me.” Those are the folks who write the checks for NASA activities, and that remark-and the Cape speech, didn’t help in trying to sell that FY 11 budget-even the reviesed one. Congress threw it out-as is their perogrative-and wrote their own.
@Doug Lassiter wrote @ August 15th, 2011 at 11:40 am
“I actually agree with you completely. For the reasons I listed. When I say it’s “interestingâ€, I mean in an academic sort of way. As in off-the-wall-interesting, or crazy-interesting. In fact, the sooner NASA sheds whatever remains of its batter dipping, the better.”
Okay then. I was not sure of the meaning of your post and was surprised but…
On the other hand there are technologies within NASA that can be construed as inherent national security technologies. So yes there is a level of national security as in any technology business. And the interaction should continue at this level with DoD, DoE and others. It’s a customer based relationship. I don’t have a problem with that. The problem I have is if we ever start routing NASA policy towards the DoD policy. They don’t go together well and it would end NASA, eventually. Further we don’t need yet another level of bureaucracy to mingle with NASA. They have far more than they would like already.
@ Matt Wiser wrote @ August 15th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
“Dennis: You’re right on. In areospace, what seems “antiquated†to some, means “proven†to others. Nothing wrong with using what you know works, and works well. 30 years of Shuttle experience can be exploited to use SLS: which will use shuttle technology and can be upgraded over time as new technology comes into play.”
Sorry but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Zip. I truly hope you’re not working in this business. I will try again slowly. Read slowly and think it over for a while and then think again. Ready?
C.O.S.T. you know? Like in it costs too much. Or it is not affordable. Or we do not have the money to sustain a 40 year old infrastructure. Slow enough?
Oh yeah just forgot… It does not work well. Do you ever read how many delays Shuttle get to fly? Ever?
Whatever.
@ amightywind wrote @ August 15th, 2011 at 1:09 pm
“The US should start acting like it is. It is then easy to be benevolent when you are in full control.”
Are you saying YOU are malevolent because YOU are out of control?
Dennis wrote:
“Many here talk of old technologies being used today. Hey what is wrong with something that has proven itself time and again?”
There are two sides to the old tech debate. The positive and negative.
You will see people use it as a negative to complain about SpaceX using “old tech”. They should instead be developing expensive new technologies or they are just “hobby rockets”.
I believe when it is used about the shuttle derived system it is a positive, i.e. the heritage hardware and workforce is to expensive and more bang for the buck can be had by utilizing new systems.
You use old hardware when the cost of utilizing new hardware does not increase the value and or increase your returns. With SLS and utilizing heritage hardware the cost of old hardware is to high compared to the value returned. It would be a higher value to the taxpayer if NASA just bought the product and services it needs.
“Dennis: You’re right on. In areospace, what seems “antiquated†to some, means “proven†to others. Nothing wrong with using what you know works, and works well. 30 years of Shuttle experience can be exploited to use SLS: which will use shuttle technology and can be upgraded over time as new technology comes into play.”
Being “proven” is not enough. It must pass the test of affordability and economic sustainability in the long run. $38 billion just for development doesn’t hack it. I know you guys say that amount is the product of a conspiracy by Garver. I’m sure if the independent Booz-Allen assessment is the same or higher, you will come up with some inventive excuse to say how their input data are tainted or corrupted.
Scott Bass wrote @ August 15th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
“I wonder if Musk could put boots on the moon for 5 billion this decade”
Falcon Heavy can put 35,000 lb into Trans Lunar Injection (TLI) for $125M. As a reference, the Apollo lunar lander weighed around 32,000 lbs, so it would take two or more launches to get the hardware in space for transporting a small crew to the lunar surface and getting them back home.
The Dragon capsule was designed to bring crew back from the Moon, and I would imagine you could buy or lease one for less than $100M, so less the lunar lander that brings the total to around $475M for one Dragon and three Falcon Heavy launches.
I don’t know if the Dragon can land somewhere that doesn’t have an atmosphere, so let’s assume that NASA would have to build their own lander, as well as something that serves the purpose of a service module + crew living space (modified Bigelow Sundancer?).
If those two new hardware items cost $1B each, then that would put the mission hardware cost around $2.5B.
So maybe $5B is way too much? Maybe $3B is more likely.
Return to the Moon for $3B? Wow, look what happens when you use existing commercial transportation and build your hardware accordingly – you can actually afford to go places, and it doesn’t take you decades to get there.
Besides the obvious political considerations, what’s wrong with this approach?
@ Scott Bass wrote @ August 15th, 2011 at 11:15 am
“I do think it is a flawed argument that cancellation of an sls type program is going to free money up for NASA to do other things that people are proponents of here….. Time will tell but I think if sls dries up you will see that 38 billion go with it….. ”
It is a flawed argument and I am not sure who is having this argument. I believe most of us proponent of the FY11 program are saying let go of the SLS/MPCV. These programs do not exist, are not funded and on their own suck up a lot of the resources at NASA. Note further that if these programs were to go first and foremost the contractors would have to find new business. Not NASA. The civil servants, so far, would stay. So rather than using those civil servants to do a program that will end someday anyway why don’t we use these NASA employees to work on leading edge technologies and plans? Why? SLS and MPCV are not a source of work for NASA, they are for the contractors. Let me ask you when you have some work on your house done do you keep sending cash to the contractors? Or does the contractor have to find new business? Think about it. And this regardless whether said contractors have some value or not. And btw if they don’t have enough value as for anything they just close shop. Why would it be any different for NASA contractors? What sort of sacrifice did they offer to this nation to be kept on no matter what? Are they the military? Because it seems to me we treat our military a lot worse than we do these contractors.
Just trying to put things in perspective.
Matt Wiser wrote @ August 15th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
“Dennis: You’re right on. In areospace, what seems “antiquated†to some, means “proven†to others. Nothing wrong with using what you know works, and works well.”
If that were true, then why did the airline industry switch from the known and long proven piston engine over to the new jet engine? Like everyone else has been pointing out to you Matt, it’s cost related. Pistons got better fuel mileage but turbines cost less to operate overall.
The issue with the SLS is the same issue with the Shuttle, in that it needs an army to operate it. Compare that to everybody else in the launch business and you’ll see that using Shuttle derived components builds in costs that can’t be managed later – except by pressuring management to cut corners on safety.
Bottom line Matt, you can’t build something that is cost efficient unless you take cost into account up front. The SLS was not designed to lower costs, it was designed to maximize political desires, so why would you expect it to be a cost-effective mode of transportation?
@Coastal Ron
“I don’t know if the Dragon can land somewhere that doesn’t have an atmosphere”
I would take it from Elon’s recent statement that, because of it’s powered landing capability, Dragon is innately a lunar/Mars lander that no atmosphere is required. So I think your $3 billion may be an over estimate.
@Byeman wrote @ August 15th, 2011 at 10:50 am
Poorly.
A small but telling example: About a decade ago down at the Cape, NASA and AF, with operating facilities literally yards apart, were budgeting and spending scare and hard-fought funding for two separate fire departments and two separate landscaping services for the same areas through two different agerncies. It was so absurd CNN did several pieces on it as a glaring example of poor thinking and waste. Eventually the overlap was pinpointed, corrected and they agreed to share services and saved money. The person who is clueless is you. Because this kind of waste is what’s killing your space agency and America’s faith in the competence of the people who operate it. Have your resume ready, fella, ‘cuse somebody at the DoD may be doing your job already.
@common sense wrote @ August 15th, 2011 at 10:23 am
“It would require a change of the Space Act…”
A change in policy, a stroke of a pen. Rigid thinking is not producting in these changing times and indicative of a mind resistant to change– and hcanging realities.
“You’d throw away all the international treaties and collaboration.”
Not really. NASA as a civilian division of the DoD could work out the details and amend along with State. NATO works. So can NASA as a civilian department of DoD.
@ Doug Lassiter wrote @ August 14th, 2011 at 7:56 pm
“What if Obama were to say that the long term future of our species, if not just our nation, *requires* that we expand, and that the United States should be a leader in this expansion, in that we see ourselves as leaders in what’s important ”
Looks to me that you are appealing to the Manifest Destiny thingy, aren’t you? Now just support your vision with a… plan. And that plan includes commercial space to LEO and NASA BEO until commercial BEO becomes affordable.
Think of the movies Alien (not the little friend they make, the purpose of their mission of course
) and Outland maybe.
When making the comment on old designs being reliable, I mentioned Soyuz and the Semyorka launcher as examples, not the shuttle. Im sure the Soyuz was far cheaper to launch than a space shuttle. Im refering mostly to a return to capsule designs. I see capsule designs as being more adapable for those high speed return runs from deep space. A craft like he shuttle, probably wouldnt survive the higher reentry speeds, not that a craft couldnt be built to do it.Quite probably whatever mankind can imagine he can do, if he has limitless resources, and money, at his beckon call. I guess the idea of Orion being an Apollo on steroids doesnt sit well with some people. Neither does the design of the Dragon, but Im actually glad to see methods coming back on line, that at least allow for launch escape systems, in whatever form they take. Ive always believed that no one should get on a rocket without a means of extracting the crew in an abort situation. The shuttle did not have this, as we all know.
Coastal Ron, as to jets verses pistons, what would have been a cheaper flight over the Atlantic, Concorde or a piston driven aircraft? I think the essence of it was speed vrs. the slower piston engines. Without a doubt the piston would be lower in cost, but if Concorde could make three trips to the pistons one, perhaps in the end more money is made with Concorde. I am here just using Concorde as an example. If you would rather put a 747 in its place. Do not the 747s fly a bit faster than say a 757? Im not sure about that. They complained thatConcorde gulped fuel, but Ive heard a 747 gulps 35,000 gallons of fuel an hour. Those engines could power New York city.
DCSCA wrote @ August 15th, 2011 at 3:45 pm
“NASA as a civilian division of the DoD could work out the details and amend along with State.”
You keep forgetting the biggest reason, among many huge ones, that your silly idea will not work – the DoD doesn’t want or need NASA. It already has it’s own space program, and nothing that NASA is doing is what the DoD needs.
End of story.
A change in policy, a stroke of a pen.
Stop repeating stupidity and ignorance. It would require an act of Congress.
Coastal Ron wrote:
“The Dragon capsule was designed to bring crew back from the Moon, and I would imagine you could buy or lease one for less than $100M, so less the lunar lander that brings the total to around $475M for one Dragon and three Falcon Heavy launches.”
How about for just a Lunar orbital trip, the Russians are going to do it for 300 mil, unless they are subsidizing that price. I wonder what SpaceX could do that trip for.
Something tells me that NASA could not build the lander alone for under 5 billion….. Anyway even if they decided to do this they would probably try to give the lander part to that other company….. Name escapes me at the moment, there is no way they would contract out the entire mission to one company…. Which of course starts building up the red tape that drives cost up
@Coastal Ron wrote @ August 15th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
More press releases…
“Scott Bass wrote @ August 15th, 2011 at 2:06 pm “I wonder if Musk could put boots on the moon for 5 billion this decade  “Falcon Heavy can put 35,000 lb into Trans Lunar Injection (TLI) for $125M.”
Number of Falcon Heavy LVs successfully launched- ZERO. Again, spaceflight by press release, a paper space program, courtesy of the desperately-seeking-government-subsidies-because-the private-capital-markets-remain-wary-Master-Musk.
It’s fast approaching the third quarter of 2011 and SpaceX has not launched, orbited and returned anybody safely from earth orbit to date- from a velocity of 17,500 mph to survivable splash- aboard a Dragon, let alone at 25,000 mph from a lunar flight. SpaceX will never launch any one aboard Dragon- not because they won’t eventually be capable of trying it late in the decade– but because they wont be able to make any money doing it. Dragons may eventually haul cargo- deliver groceries to the ISS to honor contracts and make a buck. Which is the primary goal of a for profit, quarterly driven private enterprised firm in a capitalist society.
The Dragon capsule was designed to bring crew back from the Moon…” yet it cannot carry crews into Earth orbit today. Soyuz is a spacecraft originally designed for adaptive use in lunar flights. And although it never carried cosmonauts to the lunar vicinity, it HAS been adapted and operating successfully in LEO for 40 years carrying crews up and down. Dragon- not so much. In fact- not at all. Tick-tock, tick-tock.
DCSCA, you are clueless and so far behind the times. The DOD and NASA went back to separate contracts for base support including fire protection, security, landscaping, etc.
I have no worries:
a. NASA is not going under the DOD, no matter how many times you say it. This is not the Wizard of Oz and clicking your heels won’t help either.
b. If it did, my job would still exist and I would keep it.
c. I can go over to the DOD and get a job at anytime.
NATO is not a civilian division of the DOD and is not relevant to any discussion.
concerning NASA.
Please refrain from talking about subjects that you have limited knowledge about, which in this case, includes spaceflight.
Once again, DCSCA opens his mouth and removes all doubt.
@common sense wrote @ August 15th, 2011 at 10:23 am
=yawn= The DoD is subject to civilian authority in this land. It will do as it is told and if it is directed to assume oversight and operations of HSF activities through a civilian department, aka ‘NASA’, it will salute smartly and make use of access to said assets to carry out the directive.
@Byeman wrote @ August 15th, 2011 at 4:33 pm\
Nobody said iNATO was -except you- your can’t seem to grasp that DoD can operate cooperatively with int’l partners.
@Byeman wrote @ August 15th, 2011 at 4:33 pm
You’re scared. Rightly so. Because NASA is a sitting duck now to be bludgeoned, bloodied and paper cut to death as a stand alone agency– and it has its own poor mangement culture to blame.
Dennis wrote @ August 15th, 2011 at 4:07 pm
“Without a doubt the piston would be lower in cost, but if Concorde could make three trips to the pistons one, perhaps in the end more money is made with Concorde. I am here just using Concorde as an example.”
Concorde is a good example, since it was built on the premise that people wanted to get from A to B as quick as possible, and they would be willing to pay for it.
It turns out that premise was wrong, and because they didn’t have any easy ways to lower costs or differentiate themselves in the transportation marketplace, France and Britain had to subsidize their operations.
Regarding piston vs Concorde vs a 747, this is where letting the marketplace determine the solutions is the best thing, not governments dictating what they think is best. Marketplaces can react quicker, which in the case of overseas travel, the marketplace picked 747’s over Concorde (and piston too).
So it is with the launch marketplace, where suppliers react to the needs of the market – not always right away, but that can be good when it takes years to bring a new product to market. Airbus will tell you that the success of the A380 is still more than a decade of deliveries away, and it took four decades before anyone decided to gamble on creating something bigger than a 747.
In the launch market there is a dearth of payloads that require the full capabilities of an Ariane V, Delta IV Heavy or the Proton rocket, so why build anything bigger? SpaceX is building their Falcon Heavy, but they are attacking the market from a cost perspective, not a payload size one, so it doesn’t indicate that there is a need for bigger launchers.
Even NASA hasn’t identified anything in their HEFT plan that can’t fit on existing launchers, so why do we need the SLS, and why does it need to be made from expensive legacy components?
@Dennis
“Without a doubt the piston would be lower in cost, but if Concorde could make three trips to the pistons one, perhaps in the end more money is made with Concorde.”
Inappropriate analogy. Concorde was a commercial vehicle making money charging customers willing to pay a higher ticket price. Cost of Concorde to build and operate was higher than other planes, sure, but it was not so high that it wasn’t profitable or it wouldn’t have flown as long as it did in the commercial world. SLS is not created to be a commercial vehicle and there is no commercial market to justify its cost as was the case with Concorde. You are comparing apples and oranges.
The same logical fallacy applies to your 757 747 analogy.
common sense wrote @ August 15th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
“Looks to me that you are appealing to the Manifest Destiny thingy, aren’t you? Now just support your vision with a… plan.”
Except for one thing. This is Manifest Destiny with a REASON — species preservation. The Manifest Destiny thingy doesn’t count for anything by itself, except perhaps to the American exceptionalists. To those folks, we need to do human space flight in order to be exceptionally something or other.
The plan would be that we reach out as far and as fast as we can afford to. You can call that “flexible path”. You can also say that in order to do that we need to be smart about long duration human survival in space, which provides rationale for investment in ISS. Since it’s about species survival, rather than something more nationalistic, the importance of international partnership is underscored.
I’m not trying to create a “vision”, but just toss out an example of what one might look like.
Now as to the question of whether a “vision” is really all that useful, because any “vision” coming out of this administration is likely to be canned by the next, I guess one has to develop a vision that no one will want to argue with. Kind of hard to argue against species protection, don’t you think?
Denis, I rather doubt a pistion engine would have the range for it(it might barely carring much in the way of cargo or passengers). Basically piston engines were replaced by turboprops(a jet turning a propeller).
Turboprops can be more efficient(and slower) than pure jets(although again that depends). With aircraft high altitude reduces drag and so the higher you go the less energy will be wasted to drag, but to go higher you go faster.
Jets are gas guzzlers, but they guzzle cheap kerosene. A piston engine aircraft needs fuel that is more refined that what is in your car. Jets need less maintaince too.
747 vs. 757 different aircraft types. 747 is a large long range hauler able to carry about 400 people. 757 was built for short and medium trip and carried around 200 people.
Like the SLS, you sometimes do need to start from scrath to gain improvemnets for instance the US’s first jet combat plane was barely faster than a piston engine one because they didn’t taylor the body to the jet.
Ive always believed that no one should get on a rocket without a means of extracting the crew in an abort situation.
That’s for those riding the vehicle to decide, not you.
@Rand Simberg wrote @ August 15th, 2011 at 5:36 pm
Nonsense. But then you’ve asserted on this forum before your belief that hardware was more valuable than the crews that ride it. Sick and sad.
@Rand Simberg wrote @ August 15th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
An ac of Congress, an executive order or a presidential directive- a policy change- a stroke of a pen. It’s easy to understand why commercials space advocates would be fear it.
“I guess one has to develop a vision that no one will want to argue with.”
Absolutely and denying the manifest destiny people will not cut it since they are among the most excited and vociferous of all our supporting friends.
“Kind of hard to argue against species protection, don’t you think?”
As I told you in the past I believe it is a good case but it needs to be properly formulated. If we look at impact probability the numbers are so low that we cannot make a case. Climate change… well I am not sure it’d go well with a certain crowd. Etc, etc. But we need it all encompassing. From the Manifest Destiny crowd to every one else.
Now if the levees in New Orleans are any indication it will still be a hard sell though. Don’t YOU agree?
Dennis wrote @ August 15th, 2011 at 4:07 pm
“but Ive heard a 747 gulps 35,000 gallons of fuel an hour”
It’s one thing to have enthusiasm for a topic, but it’s another to be blithely ignorant of easy to find facts.
According to Boeing the 747 has a maximum fuel capacity of 48,445 U.S. gal. That works out to about 8 gallons/mile without fuel reserves, or at 555mph that would be 4,440 gallons of fuel per hour. You’re about 8X too high.
Maybe you should use facts to reassess your other assumptions?
“The DoD is subject to civilian authority in this land. It will do as it is told and if it is directed to assume oversight and operations of HSF ”
Here is one of the flaws in your logic. “if it is told”. Nobody is going to tell the DOD to do this. It is an asinine and idiotic idea, typical of it’s promoter.
Scared? Just like spaceflight, you known nothing about me.
Dennis wrote @ August 15th, 2011 at 4:07 pm
” They complained thatConcorde gulped fuel, but Ive heard a 747 gulps 35,000 gallons of fuel an hour. Those engines could power New York city.”
lets see…Yes, no, no.
Sorry most of your post is really NO…
35K gallons of fuel would be around roughly 210,000 lbs of fuel an hour and the 747 would run out of gas way before that. A 747 400 (perhaps the nicest of the group) eats about 6000 lbs of fuel per engine at Max thrust which is only during takeoff. Thats about 4000 gallons an hour and it rolls back pretty quick to far less. A rule of thumb for all GE non afterburning large bypass fan engines in particular (which I am the most familiar with but Pratts do about the same) is that per pound of thrust the fuel required is pretty much the same.
The Concorde “burned fuel” because to go supersonic it had to use and stay on “Afterburner” or “reheat” and that is very very inefficient.
Having said that I would suspect that the Concorde is still more cost effective then running a Model 337 across the Atlantic (although I have no data to prove that. And even with the Concorde loss on takeoff, I am pretty certain less people KIF (killed in flight) on the Concorde then on the 337.
Large pistons with turbocharging or super charging or turbo compounding were enormously unreliable. Engine changeouts were frequent. My across the street neighbor in Clear Lake (a SAC pilot) told me that in the day the KC-97 almost always came home with one engine feathered.
Past that I cannot figure out your point
Robert G. Oler (who just got his type rating Designator examiner status extended “at the pleasure of the administrator”. ) YEAH
pathfinder_01 wrote @ August 15th, 2011 at 5:34 pm
“Jets are gas guzzlers, but they guzzle cheap kerosene. A piston engine aircraft needs fuel that is more refined that what is in your car. Jets need less maintaince too.”
no on the gas guzzlers
“747 vs. 757 different aircraft types. 747 is a large long range hauler able to carry about 400 people. 757 was built for short and medium trip and carried around 200 people.”
you have the people numbers correct but the range wrong…the 757 ER is quite capable over very long distances…think Abuja Nigeria to oh Houston TX
Robert G. Oler
NASA personnel are going to have an increasingly difficult time justifying their jobs and their pet projects at an agency subject to discretionary budgeting which is funded by a government so deep in debt, it is borrowing 43 cents of every dollar spent on it. Rationalizing that expenditure as an element of national security- hard or soft- in nature, under the safety umbrella of DoD might just save some elements of it. As of now, to the general public anyway, NASA has no real purpose- or value- as a stand-alone agency. It flies nobody into space anymore (they’ll credit Russia with ferrying astronauts to the ISS) and take little note of the sparse planetary probes launched, usually in tandem with other nations and cooporately managed, if not funded, w/universities. Tough sell for tough times in the Age of Austerity.
Rick Boozer wrote @ August 15th, 2011 at 5:22 pm
” Cost of Concorde to build and operate was higher than other planes, sure, but it was not so high that it wasn’t profitable or it wouldn’t have flown as long as it did in the commercial world.”
I bet that is not accurate or if it is then it is narrowly so…The impression I got from Test Pilot chums at BA is that The Concorde had been bleeding pretty hard for over a year…it wasnt that cost to fuel it were going up all that much but the cost to maintain the rest of it were going up “substantially”.
I am told, and have no reason to doubt it that the cost to maintain the instrumentation in the cockpit alone had gone up over 120 percent in the last year of its operation. I would not be surprised if that is low.
Southwest airlines if given a choice between an EFIS (electronic flight instrumentation system) plane with XXK cycles on it and one without EFIS with YYK cycles on it will park the non EFIS one even when YYK is less then XXK by a substantial amount. I know someone is going to say that a non EFIS would be older and have more cycles, “Older” yes but more cycles no…these are typically -300’s which were used by SWA for their “longer” range flights and typically have less cycles then their -500 cousins.
It is not just that the EFIS is so much cheaper to maintain, it is that the non EFIS airplanes are becoming almost impossible to maintain. It is not cost effective now but in the 90’s CAL did a Mod” which replaced their non EFIS HSI and ADI’s with a “electronic system” (NOT EFIS but electronic) and the cost of that change was gotten back in 2 years of mechanical instrumentation overhauls.
I would imagine that the Concorde “panels” were rest of Concordes “old” systems were headed that way. RGO
Dennis wrote:
“Without a doubt the piston would be lower in cost, but if Concorde could make three trips to the pistons one, perhaps in the end more money is made with Concorde.”
Forget about the pistonliner analogy. Let’s stick with the real situation when Aerospatiale/BAC were marketing Concorde in the late 1960s (a decade after turbines replaced pistons across the North Atlantic). Aerospatiale/BAC did try to convince airline executives that the productivity of the Concorde would match subsonic jets in terms of passengers carried based on your argument. That is, Concorde could make a round-trip carrying 200 passengers (100 each way) in the same time that it would take a 707/DC-8/VC10 to carry 200 passengers on a one-way crossing. So, the argument went, revenues would be the same.
Except the operating costs of Concorde (including maintenance, as well as fuel burn) were much greater than those for the subsonic jets. Thus, Concorde had to charge much greater fares. Which greatly reduced the potential market (i.e., the potential passenger pool).
So the manufacturers proposed “two type” fleets: Concordes would carry First Class passengers willing to pay for speed, and subsonic jets would carry Economy Class passengers who couldn’t afford to pay an exorbitant surcharge to save 3.5 hours of time. I still have an old BAC sales brochure (part of my future book file) laying out that case. (BTW, my former boss was a Concorde sales rep at BAC.) That “two type” fleet concept totally fell apart when Boeing introduced the 747 and subsonic fares were reduced even more based on the cost per seat of operating jumbo jets. Together with environmental concerns, the fate of supersonic transports was sealed by the early 1970s, although the British and French governments subsidized their state-owned flag carriers to fly Concordes for the prestige value. (When British Airways was privatized, the acquisition costs for its Concorde fleet had already been absorbed by the taxpayers. So the airline kept flying them at very high ticket prices to cover the operating costs — and to maintain the prestige factor.)
In short, SST economics were not practical outside of a very small market niche. And SST productivity was significantly less than subsonic jets when you took into account the greater maintenance requirements, as well as the fuel burn. The difference was especially stark when compared to jumbo jets.
Which is why nobody else has built an SST since Concorde (which first flew more than 40 years ago). Boeing didn’t even proceed with its Sonic Cruiser, which would have been significantly less costly to operate than an SST, but significantly more costly to operate than current jetliners.
Human spaceflight, in my opinion, is plagued by the same problems as the SST — except on a much greater scale. The market is extremely small (even smaller if you take the ISS out of the picture). And no matter how much you reduce the operating costs, they’re still going to be exceedingly high given the nature of the beast (i.e., the problems associated with spaceflight).
pathfinder_01 wrote:
“I rather doubt a pistion engine would have the range for it (it might barely carring much in the way of cargo or passengers). Basically piston engines were replaced by turboprops (a jet turning a propeller).”
Transatlantic flights with pistonliners became routine following WWII with the introduction of DC-4s, DC-6s, DC-7s, Constellations, Starliners and North Stars. And SAS introduced Over-the-Pole flights between Copenhagen and Los Angeles (via Winnipeg) with DC-6Bs in 1954. The later versions of these aircraft made the North Atlantic crossings non-stop, including westbound flights.
Unfortunately, owing to teething problems with its Proteus turboprop engines, the Bristol Britannia did not enter service on the North Atlantic until 1957 — just a year before the de Havilland Comet 4 and Boeing 707 jetliners were introduced. Thus, turboprops were never much of a factor in commercial passenger service across the North Atlantic. That said, Iceland’s Loftleidir operated low-cost transatlantic flights during the 1960s and 1970s using Canadair CL-44 prop-jets. The CL-44 was a Canadian-built derivative of the Britannia. Loftleidir’s aircraft carried 189 passengers. But most CL-44s were built as freighters.
“Ive always believed that no one should get on a rocket without a means of extracting the crew in an abort situation.”
I think 500 shuttle passengers would disagree with you.
” but Ive heard a 747 gulps 35,000 gallons of fuel an hour. Those engines could power New York city.”
I think you mixed up gallons with pounds. They compute fuel usage by the pound. From taxi to crusing altitude the 747 uses 33,000 pounds of fuel. It then uses 28,000 pounds per hour. The fuel it uses, Jet A and Jet A-1 weigh 6.84 pounds per gallon. So about 4000 gallons an hour at crusing speed and alitude.
Ron, you know full well the reasons NASA isn’t going to use Space X products anytime soon for BEO missions: The political side is obvious-and it’s certainly NASA and NASA contractors influencing Congress. Then there’s the very idea of a startup company telling NASA “We can do this, for much less than you propose with your rocket.” And that’s galling to a lot of people-including NASA brass, Center leadership, members of Congress, traditional aerospace firms (Boeing, L-M, Northrop-Grumman, etc.) and so on.
Now, when Chairman Hall holds his hearings on Commercial Crew as he’s indicated he wants to do, let’s hope Musk is a witness. He will be questioned-and questioned intensely-on what he wants to do for Commercial Crew, why he’s building things that can go BEO when he’s not even bidding for exploration, the stuff behind that “retiring on Mars” nonsense, and so on. I’m actually looking forward to hearing his answers-not because Commercial crew won’t go away-we’ve gone too far for that, but answering questions about future intentions. Now, if Musk (or any other newspace firm) wants to bid on exploration systems when/if RFPs are issued, they’re free to do so along with the big boys. Just don’t whine if your product gets turned down. And that goes for the established firms as well.
Re: “antiquated” vs. “proven”: I have a cousin who flies the F/A-18E: it’s the hottest carrier fighter today anywhere, and she loves the airplane. Helmet-mounted sight, AIM-9X Super Sidewinders, the latest ECM and EW equipment, and so on: all the bells and whistles. But she also is qualified on the F/A-18C “legacy” Hornet. It can be updated: new radar, EW system, new weapons sytems, etc. It may be “antiquated” to some. But to her, and to her former squadron mates who still fly the C from the late ’80s-early ’90s, it’s “proven.” Especially in the all-important combat arena. It may not be the analogy some want, but it works. Same thing with shuttle-derived technology: it WORKS.
Spaces wrote:
“That included the message that the administration was still committed to the NASA policy it unveiled just over 18 months ago, as well as a little frustration about how it’s been communicated to the public.â€
Well, that about says it all to me. The administration is not committed to SLS or what Congress passed as law. They are committed to the original policy that people went ballistic over when it first was announced!
HELLO, WAKE UP PLEASE !!
So Holdren/Bolden, the reason there is still a problem and frustration is you are not committed to the compromise that was to have commercial AND a HLV.
If you were committed to what was the law and things that have been passed and would just get on with it and stop stalling and whining about how frustrated you are you didn’t get EVERYTHING you wanted you wouldn’t be getting so much grief. This country is about compromise and you need to learn that part of the country wants a HLV and just accept it and move on.
Couldn’t agree with you more. Bolden, Garver, Dr. Holdren, etc., are still stuck on that FY 11 budget disaster that was rejected by Congress-and done so in a bipartisan manner. Personally, they’re still in recovery mode. They expected, IMHO, that their original plan (such as it was) would be praised as being “futuristic, visionary, and exciting”, hailed to the skies, and passed by a Democratic-controlled Congress with a minimum of opposition. WRONG. They were surprised at the amount of opposition, hence that “space summit” and POTUS’ speech. Even then, a lot of what they wanted was rejected, and HLV added because Congress didn’t want to wait up to 5 years on a heavy-lift decision. Not to mention skepticsm and outright hostility to the idea of outsourcing LEO operations to a private sector that still hasn’t flown ANYONE in space. And they wonder why there’s suspicion, anger, etc. about their HSF plans?
@ Rick Boozer wrote @ August 15th, 2011 at 5:22 pm
Whether or not Concorde is the correct analogy you are oversimplifying its history. It did not make profit for years and years until I believe British Airways saw it as a super business jet. France and the UK lost a lot in Concorde after the USA decided not to buy it for its airlines. Its market was dead actually. It was not designed for the lonely routes to and from JFK. And it proved many times it could do a lot more, if only noise was not an issue, if only gas price did not skyrocket, if only the US airlines purchased the thing.
@ Coastal Ron wrote @ August 15th, 2011 at 5:07 pm
One might argue it is the market that lost Concorde but not only. There was a lot of politics involved – you could argue that politics are part of the market and I would agree. But it was not a problem of demand vs. offer so to speak.
But Concorde just like the Shuttle was way ahead of its time and at the same time well you know unaffordable. Which I believe is the real demise of Concorde after its crash in Paris. Not the crash itself but it lost its customer base. And I believe Branson tried to get them and like for the launch business the governments opposed it… Disclaimer: I believe the above is true but I haven’t researched it too much.
“Well, that about says it all to me. The administration is not committed to SLS or what Congress passed as law. “
The administration is waiting for the affordability report from Booz-Allen. But in the interim its own report says $38 billion, which if backed up by Booz-Allen, means that what certain members of Congress demand violates NASA’s obligation to the tax payers that fund them and the same tax payers that elected the very Congressmen who are making the absurd demands. BTW, they have broken no law or Congress would have laid something on them a hell of a lot more harmful than a subpoena.
But I can think of no more effective way than SLS to make sure that the U.S. NOT be the premier space power of the 21st century. Billions sunk into an impractical rocket? HELLO, WAKE UP PLEASE !!
“Then there’s the very idea of a startup company telling NASA “We can do this, for much less than you propose with your rocket.†And that’s galling to a lot of people-including NASA brass, Center leadership, members of Congress, traditional aerospace firms (Boeing, L-M, Northrop-Grumman, etc.) and so on.”
As a NASA study concluded using traditional NASA cost models, if Falcon 9 had been developed the NASA standard way by any of the usual suspects it would have cost at least several times more than it did.
So yeah, since they know it’s true, that would make it especially “galling”. And evidently particularly galling to someone like you. How dare they!
“Now, when Chairman Hall holds his hearings on Commercial Crew as he’s indicated he wants to do, let’s hope Musk is a witness. “
Oh let’s hope he’s called. It will be fun watching Hall and his cronies get ripped a new one.
An interesting article in Defense News:
Lowering Launch Costs
U.S. Air Force, NRO Push Industry To Shrink Price Tag
“The Air Force is scrubbing the Delta and Atlas systems for places to cut costs as it negotiates the next batch of Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) launches for the military, National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) and NASA.
In February, the Pentagon announced plans to buy eight rockets per year, beginning in 2013. The move blunts complaints by United Launch Alliance (ULA) and its rocket suppliers that the unpredictable demand for government launches has driven up costs by preventing them from buying parts in bulk and making it hard to anticipate the equipment and people needed from year to year.
Perhaps more significantly, the Air Force and NRO are drafting plans to allow national security satellites to launch on rockets built by Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), the Hawthorne, Calif., company founded in 2002 by PayPal co-founder Elon Musk.”
Seems the Military would like to see a little more competition when it comes to launch systems.
“That could break the recent monopoly on launches of the most sophisticated and expensive national security satellites held by ULA, the joint venture created in 2006 by Boeing and Lockheed Martin. No other U.S. manufacturer targets that market, and U.S. space policy does not permit national security payloads to be launched on foreign rockets. An exemption would have to be granted by the president’s national security adviser, his assistant for science and technology policy, and the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
The Air Force and NRO have not spelled out the steps SpaceX would need to take to prove it is reliable enough to loft billion-dollar national security satellites, but senior officials have voiced strong support for the idea of fresh competition to ULA.”
I wonder what Senator Shelby has to say about this, it must just grind his gears that the Military is considering using “hobby rockets” to launch billion dollar National Defense satellites.
> He will be questioned-and questioned intensely-on what he wants to do for Commercial Crew,
Make money, I expect. He is running a business, after all.
> why he’s building things that can go BEO when he’s not even bidding for exploration, the stuff behind that “retiring on Mars†nonsense, and so on.
What if he says, “It’s my money and I choose to spend it that way?”
@MattWiser
Congress may want an HLV but it has no interest in outlining a mission that justifies producing one, or in funding its development. The low-balled estimate from NASA on the cost of building the SLS is almost $40 billion over the next decade, more than twice what Congress is currently willing to allocate (if not much more once NASA’s budget is inevitably cut as a part of the debt deal)
F-18C vs F-18E is not the same with shuttle-derived technology. SD is 1970’s. EELV is now, better and cheaper.
@ Matt Wiser wrote @ August 15th, 2011 at 9:43 pm
” Same thing with shuttle-derived technology: it WORKS.”
You keep digging a hole for your reasoning just stop. F/A-18 and Shuttle are comparable in your mind still means you don’t understand what you are talking about. And NO SD technology does NOT work. Keep to your mediocre rhetoric and forget technology for which you do not have a grasp.
Hi all –
Back to ATK. Their pitch for the 5 seg for the manned market is here:
http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/1605-BWB-2011-08-14.mp3
Safety being their big pitch.
A little problem:
with those combustion oscillations,
the sensors will unable to trigger the abort system.
This applies to SLS as well.
RGO, please spell out the technicals here.
And a report on ATK’s political effort:
http://www.teainspace.com/hatch-reid-and-others-forcing-nasas-hand/
(I should mention that while I am not a tea party supporter,
I do appreciate their focus on this particular issue. )
Hi Doug, Close but no cigar. Try
“Actually, the best rationale for HSF is species survival. Even VSE didn’t dare utter words like that, which I think is a shame. Of course, to do that, having humans on the Moon makes some sense.
“What if Obama were to say that the long term future of our species, if not just our nation, *requires* that we expand, and that the United States should be a leader in this expansion, in that we see ourselves as leaders in what’s important
“That’s more like what a vision looks like.”
Yes. Too bad the manned asteroid mission was not put that way.
Matt Wiser wrote @ August 15th, 2011 at 9:43 pm
It’s funny Matt that the more you try to make a point, the more you look like you’re supporting the things that make space so retarded technologically and so expensive. And you seem to want it that way, which is really sad.
For instance, this interesting statement:
“Then there’s the very idea of a startup company telling NASA “We can do this, for much less than you propose with your rocket.†And that’s galling to a lot of people-including NASA brass, Center leadership, members of Congress, traditional aerospace firms (Boeing, L-M, Northrop-Grumman, etc.) and so on.”
So according to you, startups in all industries should be banned from having good ideas and coming up with new ways of doing things?
That only politically-connected companies with high cost structures have the right to bid on government contracts?
I think you’re pointing out the worst parts of our political system, not the best parts of American industry. America wouldn’t be as good as it is today if people listened to how you think things should work.
Heck, all the companies that are established industry leaders today wouldn’t be here if you had your way, because you wouldn’t have let cars take over for “proven” horses, or airplanes take over for “proven” steam locomotives.
Politics does exist Matt, but that doesn’t mean you have to give into it’s worst parts. There’s still time to leave the dark side Matt…
Thanks guys, I learned something today. The fuel is metered in pounds not gallons, and yes Im sure I got that mixed up. Thanks again. Still you know with all its inefficientcies I miss seeing the Concorde in action. I have a double DVD on how it flew and what it took to make a run across the Atlantic. Quite a plane and yes ahead of its time. I do agree with regards to commercial spaceflight, that the story of it may run parallel with Concordes, in that it will be to costly to keep it alive, unless aided by governments! Thanks again for clearing up that info on the 747. Even an old cuss like me can still learn…
common sense wrote @ August 15th, 2011 at 11:06 pm
“But it was not a problem of demand vs. offer so to speak.”
If the market wanted it, at the prices that it needed to charge to not only cover it’s costs but be successful financially, then France and Britain wouldn’t have needed to subsidize it’s operations for so long. But the market didn’t, and they did.
The analogy is not too far off for the Shuttle, in that there were alternatives that could have been used for both cargo and crew, but cost was never a consideration for using the Shuttle. If it was, then there would have been commissions and studies galore going on to figure out whether the Shuttle should have continued or been replaced (and by what).
The SLS, by using legacy Shuttle components, continues the mistakes of the Shuttle program cost-wise, since the politicians in Washington aren’t looking to lower costs, but just to preserve jobs. And people wonder why we haven’t left LEO in 40 years…
Matt Wiser wrote @ August 15th, 2011 at 9:43 pm
“He will be questioned-and questioned intensely-on what he wants to do for Commercial Crew, why he’s building things that can go BEO when he’s not even bidding for exploration, the stuff behind that “retiring on Mars†nonsense, and so on.”
I think the questioning will go something like this:
Chairman Hall: Mr. Musk, what is your intent with regards to commercial crew?
Mr. Musk: To lower the cost of getting people to space.
Chairman Hall: Mr. Musk, why are you building a rocket that can carry twice as much as the Delta IV Heavy, but cost only 1/3 the price?
Mr. Musk: To lower the cost of getting payloads to space.
Chairman Hall: Mr. Musk, why do you say your goal is to retire on Mars?
Mr. Musk: I think humanity needs to become a multi-planet species if we are to survive long term, so I am using a significant amount of my time and money to make that happen. Letting people know that I want to retire on Mars makes it easy for people to understand that goal.
Chairman Hall: And finally Mr. Musk, why should the American taxpayer risk their money on such a young and untried company?
Mr. Musk: Our company may be young, but we have done far more with far less money than NASA has in the same amount of time. We don’t ask to be paid for something we haven’t done, we only ask for the ability to compete and to receive fair payment when we have completed a task. We also think that if more of NASA’s contracts were of the pay-for-performance type, that NASA could do a lot more with the scarce resources it has. And isn’t that the goal Mr. Chairman, to do more in space?
Chairman Hall: Not under my leadership it isn’t. Good day Mr. Musk.
@ Coastal Ron wrote @ August 16th, 2011 at 12:11 pm
“If the market wanted it, at the prices that it needed to charge to not only cover it’s costs but be successful financially, then France and Britain wouldn’t have needed to subsidize it’s operations for so long. But the market didn’t, and they did.”
Again yes and no. As I said a lot of politics were involved then. Boeing wanted their own SST which they canceled later. There was a lot of pressure for the airlines to not buy Concorde. Then environmental concerns and protests I believe killed the market. So. There was a market but it got hmm cancelled. Politics was a major player. Of course after investing so much and publicizing so much the new Franco-British achievement, a big, big deal in Europe both governments were forced to subsidize it for quite some time. I believe BA eventually made money with it but it took them quite a while. Not sure about AF.
“The analogy is not too far off for the Shuttle, in that there were alternatives that could have been used for both cargo and crew, but cost was never a consideration for using the Shuttle. If it was, then there would have been commissions and studies galore going on to figure out whether the Shuttle should have continued or been replaced (and by what).”
I somewhat agree except there never were any real alternatives if you exclude the Tu-144. Concorde like Shuttle was the product in part of the Cold War and of the attempt to get the UK and France closer together. Again a real pain in the neck in Europe. Still is today but thanks to programs like Concorde or the Jaguar and other it is a lot better. I believe there are plans for France and the UK to field an aircraft carrier force together. We’ll see how that goes.
“The SLS, by using legacy Shuttle components, continues the mistakes of the Shuttle program cost-wise, since the politicians in Washington aren’t looking to lower costs, but just to preserve jobs. And people wonder why we haven’t left LEO in 40 years…”
Yeah well it is true but I was not addressing this. Just that what happened to Concorde was slightly more complicated than Shuttle. After all Concorde was a commercial airplane, unlike Shuttle. A privatized BA used it for years.
And yes again market does include politics especially when a market implies very large amount of cash. Note that the US never made any money with the Shuttle, unlike Concorde…
FWIW.
Dennis wrote:
“Even an old cuss like me can still learn…”
It’s only when we think we have nothing new to learn that we really get ourselves into trouble.
This is where we are at with our space program:
“You can always count on Americans to do the right thing —after they’ve tried everything else.†– Winston Churchill
It is now time to do the right thing and NASA should get out of the developing and operating rockets, they don’t seem to do it well and put them back into the driver’s seat in doing actual human exploration.
There are a couple of quips that NASA has to relearn:
KISS – keep it simple stupid, and good enough. America does not have a shortage of launch capability, so NASA should not have to do this, what the Nation does sorely lacks is payloads for those launchers. Let’s have NASA do some tech development and then build a little fly a little.
Start with a freakin’ gas station in space and a starter Nautilus X as LEO2GEO vehicle. Lets work out the problems for a “gas n’ go” reusable, space based, SPACEship. Then, as Chuck Yeager would say, “lets go and wring it out a little bit” (at least said in a movie)
Start spiraling out, Earth Moon lagrange points, Lunar orbit, Earth Sun lagrange points, Asteroids ( possible trojan asteroids around earth?) the moons of Mars.
Lots of firsts, to keep the public happy, lots of destinations, to keep the destination crowd happy, lots of new tech, to keep the tech crowd happy, gas stations, to keep the oil companies happy… see… everyone is happy!
@Dennis
“I do agree with regards to commercial spaceflight, that the story of it may run parallel with Concordes, in that it will be to costly to keep it alive, unless aided by governments!”
If you think that is our point, than you completely missed the point. What we are saying is that, just as in the early days of commercial air (when the U.S. government bought large amounts of air mail service to kick-start commercial aviation), these early days of commercial space will need a kick-start effort from the feds. This time the feds are buying launch services to the ISS, but its the same purpose, to start a new industry that will give the U.S. an economy boosting edge over other countries. After the infrastructure is in place to allow companies to make a profit in the space environment, money will be made without government help. In that situation nongovernment launches will be at sufficiently high rates for volumes of scale to keep the costs down. That transition to high volumes leading to lower prices has been true of every other transportation technology in history and there is no reason why it won’t apply to spaceflight.
“Lots of firsts, to keep the public happy”
I do not think the taxpayer dollars are available for such frivolousness. If NASA can provide the funds and direction to develop enabling technologies the end users (science, tourism, etc.) will be able to afford to go. If not it’s just a stunt. The public was bored with Apollo 12.
If you want excitement, go to a movie.
Vadislaw: you’re forgetting one thing: Boots on the Ground. To many on The Hill, and the general public, exploration is landing on another body and doing things on the surface. The “look but don’t touch” approach may not have the political support necessary for Congressional approval.
How Musk will handle a hostile committee will be interesting, to be sure. He will have a lot of convincing to do to a skeptical audience (at best). And there are those on those respective House and Senate committees who aren’t opposed to the idea of Commercial Crew and Cargo, but against Government funds being used to get them started. “If the private sector wants to develop rockets for commercial services that NASA or other agencies to buy crew and cargo flights, fine. Just do it on their own dime and not use taxpayer money.” He’ll get that kind of questioning, no doubt.
there are those on those respective House and Senate committees who aren’t opposed to the idea of Commercial Crew and Cargo, but against Government funds being used to get them started.
Would they have been opposed to the government paying for the delivery of airmail, which got the airline industry started? Do they insist that we have a government airline? If not, why not? Why should the taxpayer pony up tens of billions for a vehicle that will rarely fly, when for orders of magnitude less they can have a NASA that actually explores space?
No matter how many times you repeat this nonsense, it becomes no less nonsensical.
common sense wrote @ August 16th, 2011 at 1:41 pm
“Of course after investing so much and publicizing so much the new Franco-British achievement, a big, big deal in Europe both governments were forced to subsidize it for quite some time.”
This was really the bottom line, and it pretty much boiled down to subsidizing the European aerospace industry for many reasons, but not for providing cost-effective transportation that the market demanded.
The SLS continues the subsidizing model that the Shuttle started, which is why I’m commenting on Concorde at all, since there are a lot of parallels.
Some in the U.S. Government want the U.S. taxpayer to pay above-market prices for putting mass into space. Why? Jobs is certainly part of it, as is the usual politics of greed, and there are the few honest people that ignorantly believe that a BFR is needed for space exploration in the near term.
However big rockets are hard to sustain budget-wise, as Constellation has proved, and I think the SLS will end up on the budget cutting room floor too at some point, which means more money and time wasted.
We need to build exploration hardware and start exploring, not transportation hardware that doesn’t have a forecasted or budgeted need. How frustrating!
vulture4 wrote @ August 16th, 2011 at 2:27 pm
If you want excitement, go to a movie.
I agree with this statement completely. Attempting to bring the general public level of excitement to same level as Apollo 11 is a complete waste of time and money. This doesn’t mean the public interface isn’t important. It just needs to be focus in the correct direction. I see three classes of interface. “Basic tax payer†non-related to the industry need assurance their money is being spent correctly. “Space geeks†(engineers, scientists, aerospace support personnel, political support groups) these people need to be excited by real things happening and access to data otherwise they will leave the industry and not support it vocally. These are the people we look to for future direction and future NASA administrators. The third group are “students†of all ages from K-Doctoral. NASA outreach is important to get these students interested in space related jobs but the aerospace companies need to contribute too. Also real things happening help to keep interest of all three groups. I don’t expect the basic tax payer to call their representative about NASA or the space industry.
This is why I think the demo mission with advance technology and real hardware is very important since it can be done now using the space station. We are already doing it but the original budget had a lot more.
Matt Wiser wrote @ August 16th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
“To many on The Hill, and the general public, exploration is landing on another body and doing things on the surface.”
People are excited by an astronaut picking up a rock? Unloading a storage locker? Driving back and forth to an research site? You’re NUTS!
Once the danger of failure is gone, it’s just work, and not many people are fascinated by watching other people work, regardless where it is. Now maybe if you made a TV show about what they are doing, like “Ice Truckers” but in space, maybe you’d get some sustained ratings on that, but no one is going to Tivo hours and hours of people working. Maybe you Matt, but not real people…
“How Musk will handle a hostile committee will be interesting, to be sure.”
You keep saying that it would be hostile, but you haven’t pointed out anything that merits hostility.
A serial entrepreneur building yet another successful company? SpaceX forcing long-established government contractors to keep their prices low because of new competition? SpaceX offering cargo and crew capabilities that would cost 10x more if NASA were to provide them? SpaceX not overrunning their budget by $Billions?
Where Matt, where are the things that rational people would be hostile to Elon Musk about?
I’ll be surprised if Chairman Hall calls Musk to testify, since any topic they talk to him about will be embarrassing for Hall, not Musk.
Matt Wiser wrote @ August 16th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
“And there are those on those respective House and Senate committees who aren’t opposed to the idea of Commercial Crew and Cargo, but against Government funds being used to get them started.”
That would be fine if NASA didn’t control the specs for how they want cargo and crew done. But they do, and therefore they have to pay for companies to do it the NASA way. Oh, and the NASA way isn’t even defined yet, so what standards is the commercial industry supposed to use Matt?
What NASA is doing with the COTS and CCDev programs is pretty standard in the commercial industry, since some companies want control over how their contractors do things, or contractors are asked to provide a custom service for a client. In those cases, the customer has to fund the risk upfront, which is no different than what NASA is doing with COTS and CCDev.
As for the people that spout that silly “subsidize” stuff, they are either wanting to hang onto the over-priced status quo, or are doing everything they can to get rid of America’s only outpost in space, the ISS. Which are you Matt?
@Matt Wiser
“Vadislaw: you’re forgetting one thing: Boots on the Ground. To many on The Hill, and the general public, exploration is landing on another body and doing things on the surface.”
A HLV so expensive that it never gives you “boots on the ground” is worse than not building an HLV at all, because at least with the latter the taxpayer’s money is not wasted.
QUESTION MATT:
I doubt I’ll get an honest answer (if any), but here goes:
If even the Chinese claim they can’t match SpaceX on cost, how can the guys you are rooting for do it? See:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/asd/2011/04/15/11.xml&headline=China%20Great%20Wall%20Confounded%20By%20SpaceX%20Prices
This relates to an earlier reply that I made to you in response to your comment:
“Then there’s the very idea of a startup company telling NASA “We can do this, for much less than you propose with your rocket.†And that’s galling to a lot of people-including NASA brass, Center leadership, members of Congress, traditional aerospace firms (Boeing, L-M, Northrop-Grumman, etc.) and so on.â€
As a NASA study concluded using traditional NASA cost models, if Falcon 9 had been developed the NASA standard way by any of the usual suspects it would have cost at least several times more than it did.
So yeah, since the Old Space guys know it’s true, that would make it especially “galling†to them. And evidently particularly galling to someone like you. How dare they!
Robert G. Oler wrote:
“The impression I got from Test Pilot chums at BA is that The Concorde had been bleeding pretty hard for over a year…it wasnt that cost to fuel it were going up all that much but the cost to maintain the rest of it were going up ‘substantially.'”
Three things did in Concorde:
1) The collapse in traffic (passengers) following 9/11,
2) The need to line sthe aircraft’s fuel tanks with Kevlar to prevent another puncture accident of the sort that occurred in Paris on July 25, 2000, and,
3) The decision by Airbus (which had inherited responsibility for product support) to no longer provide after-sales support and liability for Concorde.
The Kevlar liners, incidentally, added weight and reduced payload/range — making an aircraft that had marginal trans-Atlantic capability to begin with even more marginal. New, heavy duty tires (which were the Achilles Heel in the Paris crash) were also added. To offset some of this additional weight, Air France and British Airways were forced to install costly, all-new interiors on their aircraft — interiors which featured lighter weight seats, galleys and lavatories.
I should add that burst tires and runway debris had caused punctures of the wings and fuel tanks in the past, although not with the same deadly results as occurred in Paris. But like the Space Shuttle design, Concorde had some built-in risks.
One cannot help but wonder what would happen to a “commercial” spacecraft operation following an accident with a loss of crew.
Rick Boozer wrote:
“What we are saying is that, just as in the early days of commercial air (when the U.S. government bought large amounts of air mail service to kick-start commercial aviation), these early days of commercial space will need a kick-start effort from the feds.”
What you are missing in that analogy is that a large market already existed for air mail service. The U.S. Government was simply diverting some of its express mail from trains to planes, just as the advent of railroads had seen the mail transferred from stagecoach lines to railway lines. Commercial aviation simply provided an even faster means to send letters and small packages from Point A to Point B. And as aircraft became more reliable (i.e., safer and more capable), the airlines began to siphon passengers from trains (and ships), as well.
In that sense, commercial aviation did not open any new markets per se. It merely transferred pre-existing markets to the air.
Unfortunately, no such pre-existing market exists for human spaceflight. Other than the ISS, there is no real demand to carry people from Point A to Point B in space. There is no real “commercial” need for humans in space. Whether or not a new market will develop … only time will tell. But the comparisons that NewSpace advocates like to draw between the start of commercial aviation and the current effort to create a “commercial” space industry with taxpayer support are not really vaild.
I should add that the Post Office didn’t provide taxpayer dollars to the aircraft manufacturers to develop new airplanes. The Post Office only paid the new airlines to carry so many pounds of mail — the same arrangement they had with the railroads. It was not an effort to “kick start” the airline industry. It was the airlines themselves who started carrying passengers to increase their revenues. Which is why the fledgling airlines began replacing converted mailplanes (such as the de Havilland D.H.4) with early airliners (such as the Fokker F.VII-3m trimotor).
But basic airline economics hardly apply to human spaceflight, and it is something of a fantasy to think otherwise.
That said, I applaud Sir Richard Branson and Burt Rutan for the creation of Virgin Galactic and SpaceShipTwo. Branson is attempting to build a new market for human spaceflight without becoming just another government contractor. His is a genuine “commercial” effort. Moreover, Rutan never promised to deliver the Moon (or Mars). He simply provided an innovative approach to suborbital human spaceflight, and his success inspired Branson to take the next step. Moreover, they are paving the way for high-speed (very high-speed) point-to-point transportation in the future. I find their venture very exciting and very visionary. SpaceShipTwo and the future SpaceShipThree are not “Soyuz on Steroids” designs. Nor are they the product of government subsidies. They are genuine “commercial” spacecraft, and at $200,000 per seat, Virgin Galactic just might find enough multi-millionaires to make the concept pay.
E.P. Grondine wrote @ August 16th, 2011 at 10:20 am
“Too bad the manned asteroid mission was not put that way.”
A trip to an asteroid by a human has nothing to do with species survival. Such a trip just fulfills a “vision” about visiting rocks. A human visit to an asteroid has absolutely nothing to do with NEO protection, although many desperately hope that it might, perhaps trying to channel Bruce Willis. I’ve never seen any credible rationale for why such a human visit can be spun as protection. For one, the NEO you visit isn’t the one that ‘s going to hit you. You chose to visit it not because it is representative of the one that would hit, but just because it’s handy. For another, the one that’s going to hit probably isn’t much like the one you visited. Yes, we need to learn how to do rendezvous and docking with asteroids (which, in two cases, we’ve already done — Eros and Itokawa), but putting a human in the loop doesn’t necessarily help a lot.
Obama latched onto a NEO visit just because he was backed into a corner. We’ve done the Moon, and Mars is too hard. So where’s a rock we can plant a flag on??? Because what’s important is planting flags on rocks. (There’s a “vision” buried in there somewhere maybe?) That commitment, such as it was, was an unfortunate one.
“One cannot help but wonder what would happen to a “commercial†spacecraft operation following an accident with a loss of crew.”
Airliners sometimes crash killing hundreds of people at a time. Seldom, but it happens. Regardless of whether it space vehicle is built the traditional NASA way or a private “commercial” vehicle, there will occasionally be accidents and whether its a NASA vehicle or a private commercial one, it will be just as tragic.
But the lives of people who die in airline crashes are no less valuable than people who die in other accidents. And you didn’t see people calling for the end of air travel in the early days of commercial aviation, when air crashes were as big news as spacecraft accidents are now and when public heroes like Wiley Post and Will Rogers got “tragically” killed and the entire Nation mourned just as sorrowfully as they would later do for the passengers of Challenger and Columbia.
So, What will the public reaction be to an accident with a “commercial” vehicle? Simple, the same reaction as to a traditionally contracted space vehicle. Any other answer is B.S. from someone trying to make a false point against commercial crew by attempting sensationalism.
vulture4 wrote:
“I do not think the taxpayer dollars are available for such frivolousness. If NASA can provide the funds and direction to develop enabling technologies the end users (science, tourism, etc.) will be able to afford to go. If not it’s just a stunt. The public was bored with Apollo 12.
If you want excitement, go to a movie.”
Do you know why the public was bored with Apollo 12? It wasn’t a first. As Administrator Bolden alluded to from NASA polling, the public likes and tunes in for firsts, if NASA wants to engage the public more than a development program that provides them is a good thing. If our ultimate goal is Mars and we are not going to do an ‘all up’ Apollo type program, then we will be spiraling out to Mars eventually regardless.
What is “frivolousness” about NASA having the ability to fuel a reusable EDS that can goto multiple locations, that has the secondary benefit of increasing the competition and launch rates of commercial providers lowering overall launch costs?
You start small and fly close to home and work out the technology kinks and increase the TRL of systems that will be needed as you drive deeper into space.
I didn’t say anything about “excitement”, I said used word happy. Which generally means that the taxpayer is satisfied their money was well spent.
@ William Mellberg
“What you are missing in that analogy is that a large market already existed for air mail service.”
No, I’m not. Bigelow is just sitting on the sidelines waiting for the CCDev vehicles to start flying, so that he will have access to LEO vehicles at low enough costs to make his business profitable. But those low cost vehicles have to come from CCDev before he can proceed in a big way. And there will be other businesses such as supplying fuel depots of satellite maintenance (rather than relaunching an expensive satellite replacement), cleaning up orbital debris, etc.. But there will also be other businesses that no one ever thought of before once space flight is an order of magnitude cheaper than it is now. That’s because there are things that could be done that no one is even contemplating because the cost is too prohibitive.
“commercial aviation did not open any new markets per se. It merely transferred pre-existing markets to the air.”
What a dumb comment. That’s all any newly invented form of transportation has ever done. Trains took the place of wagons for moving goods and for very long distance travel. Cars took the place of buggies for moving people around closer to home. Planes took the place of trains. But each time it was a major time saving and economic advance.
“Lots of firsts, to keep the public happyâ€
This motivator won’t work anymore. Apollo’s 8 and 11 were supremely unique to human history and rightly so. The dream of reaching the moon is as old as the human species capacity to comprehend there was a Luna. The wonder and accomplishment for both flights was acknowledged worldwide– if for a very brief time. Gratifying taxpayers with the ‘first’ among firsts was met with planting a U.S. flag, not a U.N. banner. Reaching Mars- or chasing asteroids will never match 8 or 11 in the pantheon of ‘firsts’.
@Coastal Ron wrote @ August 15th, 2011 at 4:08 pm
What the DoD wants is secondary to what civilian authority directs it to oversee and administrate–be it nation building.. or HSF. It will do as it is directed, will salute and make use of assets on hand to carry out the directive.
@Byeman wrote @ August 15th, 2011 at 6:31 pm
=yawn= Your worry is self-evident. You protest too much.
@Rand Simberg wrote @ August 16th, 2011 at 2:50 pm
The nonsense is attempting to compare spaceflight operations in this era to airline operations.
@Matt Wiser wrote @ August 16th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
“To many on The Hill, and the general public, exploration is landing on another body and doing things on the surface.â€
Correct. And to a fresh generations denied the Apollo experience- it is new.
@Coastal Ron wrote @ August 16th, 2011 at 3:16 pm
“People are excited by an astronaut picking up a rock? Unloading a storage locker? Driving back and forth to an research site? You’re NUTS!”
Don’t be so hard on yourself. It’s subjective to be sure, but there is interest- and new generations should not be denied the ‘excitement of the new’ — new to them– as both Goddard and von Braun said. People are excited by golf matches- yet television ratings for same are consistently low– but consistent. Hence networks still garner sponsors and they are televised. There is interest in it. But if you’re not a golfer, everytime your insurance company sponsors a tourney, you pay for it out of your premiums. Your argument is “stop sponsoring golf and lower my premiums!” — or, “Sponsor curling, because I’m in the broom industry and it is more exciting.” Sheesh…
@ William Mellberg
“It was not an effort to “kick start†the airline industry. It was the airlines themselves who started carrying passengers to increase their revenues.
You need to read some history. The first profitable airline passenger services were people riding with the mail along mail routes. I suggest you watch PBS occasionally. Only after it was apparent from that that there was money to be had in passenger service, were the first dedicated airliners produced.
Doug Lassiter wrote:
“Obama latched onto a NEO visit just because he was backed into a corner. We’ve done the Moon, and Mars is too hard. So where’s a rock we can plant a flag on??? Because what’s important is planting flags on rocks. (There’s a “vision†buried in there somewhere maybe?) That commitment, such as it was, was an unfortunate one.”
That pretty much sums it up.
Other than the ISS, there is no real demand to carry people from Point A to Point B in space.
Tell it to Bob Bigelow.
Hi Doug –
“Obama latched onto a NEO visit just because he was backed into a corner. We’ve done the Moon, and Mars is too hard. ”
The NEO visit was viewed as a step towards a manned Mars mision from the DPT under Goldin to the later more formal processes under O’Keefe.
Obama, Bolden, Garver, and everyone else did not just pull it out of their b***s..
“Yes, we need to learn how to do rendezvous and docking with asteroids (which, in two cases, we’ve already done — Eros and Itokawa), but putting a human in the loop doesn’t necessarily help a lot.”
I agree, but my guess is that the plan was adopted in case 73P does not turn into magic comet dust, as JPL has promised, and it turns out there’s a real need to deliver a larger payload at a comet fragment in 2022. And then Obama was not lying when he said he was fascinated by manned flight to Mars, so the DPT architecture fit right in.
Not the way I would have done it, but the way it happened.
Continuation of answer to the William Mellberg comment:
“commercial aviation did not open any new markets per se. It merely transferred pre-existing markets to the air.â€
The gas station will be moved to space, but it’s called a “fuel depot”. The service station will be moved to space, but it will be called “on-orbit” repair. Garbage collection will be moved to space, but it will be called “orbital debris removal”. This will be made possible by cheaper access through commercial vehicles produced in greater numbers and with higher flight rates.
That last should read “but the way it appears to have happened”.
William Mellberg wrote @ August 16th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
“The U.S. Government was simply diverting some of its express mail from trains to planes”
In the case of commercial crew, we will be diverting traffic from Russian spacecraft to American ones.
“Unfortunately, no such pre-existing market exists for human spaceflight. Other than the ISS…”
It’s funny how people want to write off a $Billion market for something. Russia is being paid $753 million for 12 round trips to the ISS, and I don’t know about you, but $63M/person sounds like a viable market to me. Keep in mind too that the ISS will be in space through at least 2020, and all the countries involved are making plans to keep it going past then.
And though Bigelow could be not considered a pre-existing market, they have been driving some of the activity for commercial crew before the current administration put an emphasis on it, so they definitely want to expand the crew market. While the ISS could probably sustain two well funded crew providers, Bigelow’s demand is what will likely provide the market with enough demand to sustain more than two profitably.
In any case, the U.S. has a funded need for transporting crew, so it’s really just a matter of who they are going to pay to perform the service – Russia or U.S. companies. I know who I want.
“Branson is attempting to build a new market for human spaceflight without becoming just another government contractor.”
I think you need to remember what the differences are here:
– Commercial crew is transportation
– Virgin Galactic is entertainment
I wish Virgin Galactic well, but they are an entertainment company. That they are also offering to carry some science experiments into the sub-orbital realm makes sense, but the company will be sustained by people seeking a thrill, not getting a ride to work.
John Malkin wrote:
“I agree with this statement completely. Attempting to bring the general public level of excitement to same level as Apollo 11 is a complete waste of time and money.”
Would you please reread what I actually wrote, and show me where I said “excitement to the same level as Apollo 11″?
I said happy. I highly doubt the general public get as excited about a space event as they do for a football game. I believe people are happy when they see that NASA launched the first probe to an asteroid and it returned pictures, they do not get excited. They like when America does a first, I believe it makes them happy to see their taxdollars paid off and there was a tangible result like pictures, they do say 1000 words.
“This is why I think the demo mission with advance technology and real hardware is very important since it can be done now using the space station.”
As I said, NASA should be developing the advanced tech we need to do missions past GEO.
Matt Wiser wrote:
“Vadislaw: you’re forgetting one thing: Boots on the Ground. To many on The Hill, and the general public, exploration is landing on another body and doing things on the surface. The “look but don’t touch†approach may not have the political support necessary for Congressional approval.”
I am not forgetting, I am putting the costs of landing on a back burner until we have a vehicle.
I used the anology of taking a road trip to a new lake and driving around it to check it out, and the next time you visit the lake you bring your boat on a trailer, and launch your boat to explore the new lake.
Lets worry about the car first, take some road trips, and spiral out farther and farther. Build a little, test a little, fly a little. Once we have our reliable, space based, reusable, vehicle and the service & fuel infrasture inplace then lets worry about the boat (landing system).
Once we have the vehicle we can do landings where we want, planet, moon or asteroid.
As I said, NASA should be developing the advanced tech we need to do missions past GEO.
Vladislaw, you know that we share the same goals, but I’m very skeptical of this. We don’t really need advanced tech to go beyond LEO or GEO, and we do need cheap lift to get into LEO. There’s certainly technology that would be useful, but the focus should be on earth to orbit. Secondly, is there any reason to believe NASA is better at developing advanced technology than it is at building rockets with 70-ies technology?
DCSCA wrote @ August 16th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
“Apollo’s 8 and 11 were supremely unique to human history and rightly so.”
Apollo 8, Apollo 12 – I would have to look them up to remember why I am supposed to remember them (so much for supremely unique), but here it is 40 years later and it doesn’t matter. It’s old news. And the next time we go to the Moon, no one will remember who the second person was out of the lander after a couple of days, not unless they make a spectacle of themselves.
Working on the Moon is going to be like working in every other hazardous environment, and no one gets too excited about that. It’s WORK.
“It’s subjective to be sure…”
Yes, so subjective that you can’t show any concrete data to support your point of view. The reasons for going to the Moon, or anywhere else, cannot rely on “excitement”, because the public doesn’t get excited by space anymore. There is data to support that.
We’re either going into space as part of our species long-term survival, or we should stop spending the money.
“…but there is interest- and new generations should not be denied the ‘excitement of the new’ — new to them– as both Goddard and von Braun said.”
The horseless carriage was “new and exciting” to Goddard and von Braun, so you continue to use out-of-date examples.
And playing golf on the Moon would have been a fantasy for them, but yet we did it 40 years ago. Doing more golf on the Moon is not going to be anymore exciting today than it was for Apollo 14, and it will still be a waste of taxpayer money. If Congress wants to make NASA the ‘excitement of the new’, they should change their charter and adjust their budget accordingly.
Oh, and the DoD doesn’t do anything in front of the public, so if you want NASA under the DoD, you can kiss goodbye any public viewing of their missions. One more reason your DoD idea is idiotic…
“Hence networks still garner sponsors and they are televised. There is interest in it.”
You’re even further off course than normal – go take your meds and re-watch “Destination Moon” to calm down.
That they are also offering to carry some science experiments into the sub-orbital realm makes sense, but the company will be sustained by people seeking a thrill, not getting a ride to work.
Actually, that’s not clear. The market for affordable near-space research is a lot bigger than most thought just a couple years ago.
“Well, that about says it all to me. The administration is not committed to SLS or what Congress passed as law. They are committed to the original policy that people went ballistic over when it first was announced!
HELLO, WAKE UP PLEASE !!
So Holdren/Bolden, the reason there is still a problem and frustration is you are not committed to the compromise that was to have commercial AND a HLV.
If you were committed to what was the law and things that have been passed and would just get on with it and stop stalling and whining about how frustrated you are you didn’t get EVERYTHING you wanted you wouldn’t be getting so much grief. This country is about compromise and you need to learn that part of the country wants a HLV and just accept it and move on.”
This little tirade ignores the fact that the HLLV design in question (SLS) is not affordable, timely, or executable according to the law. The 2010 NASA Authorization Act required NASA to design a HLLV that could throw 130 tons by 2016 for a total development cost less than $12 billion, and the Act expressed a preference, if practicable, for a design that utilized the Shuttle/Constellation workforce, contracts, and infrastructure.
The SLS that NASA has designed will cost at least $38 billion (and that’s before the independent cost estimate comes in) and it won’t be operational until 2021, at the earliest:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-nasa-next-moonshot-20110805,0,4257663.story
Little wonder that the Administration is backing off SLS. It’s like filling out a loan application to buy a car for $12K next week, only to have the dealership come back and tell you that the car will cost $38K and won’t be ready for a month. You’d have to be an idiot to finish the application and sign the loan. Similarly, Administration decisionmakers would have to be idiots at this point to request funds for or agree to funding SLS in future appropriations acts, regardless of the agreement in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act. That agreement has been broken.
Whatever else one may think about the President’s Science Advisor’s opinions in other areas, Holdren is right about the HLLV decision. If Congress can’t figure out how to design an affordable HLLV now (or is unwilling to allow lower cost EELV- and Falcon-derivatives to compete), then Congress needs to put off that decision for a few years and invest in technologies to bring the cost of exploration access down, instead of rushing to a compromised and expensive design that will hang another albatross around NASA’s neck for decades to come.
“Ron, you know full well the reasons NASA isn’t going to use Space X products anytime soon for BEO missions”
Because based on the SLS schedule, there are no BEO missions until the 2021, at the earliest.
“The political side is obvious-and it’s certainly NASA and NASA contractors influencing Congress.”
That’s not a legitimate excuse to waste tens of billions of taxpayer dollars on launchers or capsules that are grossly more expensive than what SpaceX or other firms are offering. Parochial politics is a poor basis for national space policy decisionmaking.
“Then there’s the very idea of a startup company telling NASA ‘We can do this, for much less than you propose with your rocket.'”
To be clear, SpaceX hasn’t just talked the talk. They’ve walked the walk when it comes to developing launchers and capsules at a small fraction of what Constellation cost or what SLS/MPCV are projected to cost. Per NASA’s own report to Congress:
“Under methodology #1, the cost model predicted that the Falcon 9 would cost $4.0 billion based on a traditional approach. Under methodology #2, NAFCOM predicted $1.7 billion when the inputs were adjusted to a more commercial development approach. Thus, the predicted the cost to develop the Falcon 9 if done by NASA would have been between $1.7 billion and $4.0 billion.
SpaceX has publicly indicated that the development cost for Falcon 9 launch vehicle was approximately $300 million. Additionally, approximately $90 million was spent developing the Falcon 1 launch vehicle which did contribute to some extent to the Falcon 9, for a total of $390 million. NASA has verified these costs.”
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/543572main_Section%20403%28b%29%20Commercial%20Market%20Assessment%20Report%20Final.pdf
“And that’s galling to a lot of people-including NASA brass, Center leadership, members of Congress, traditional aerospace firms (Boeing, L-M, Northrop-Grumman, etc.) and so on.”
There’s no evidence of any “NASA brass, Center leadership” or “traditional aerospace firms” being “galled” by SpaceX’s achievements. On the contrary, anyone leading or working the ISS program is relieved that SpaceX is delivering on their Space Act agreements.
As for certain members of Congress, they may pretend to be “galled,” but they’re actually fearful for the Shuttle jobs, votes, and campaign dollars in their states and districts. But again, parochial politics is not a good basis for national space policy decisionmaking.
And even if any of these leaders or decisionmakers were actually “galled”, that’s not a excuse to waste tens of billions of taxpayer dollars on launchers or capsules that are grossly more expensive than what SpaceX or other firms are offering.
“He will be questioned-and questioned intensely-on what he wants to do for Commercial Crew, why he’s building things that can go BEO when he’s not even bidding for exploration”
First, if SpaceX is developing potential BEO capabilities like Falcon Heavy on the company’s own dime, taxpayer dollars and Congress don’t enter into the equation. Congressmen can ask, but they have no influence over whether SpaceX makes an internal decision to fund project X or project Y out of the company’s kitty.
Second, SpaceX is developing the Falcon Heavy to go after the military EELV market, including the Delta IV Heavy, in the near-term. No doubt, if successful, Falcon Heavy could be used by NASA to execute human BEO missions, but that’s not the initial business case for the decision.
“the stuff behind that ‘retiring on Mars’ nonsense”
Why is it nonsense? Why can’t an aerospace CEO make inspirational comments about wanting certain achievements in space exploration to occur during his lifetime?
Unless you’re not a U.S. citizen, why would you want to hold any American back in space exploration?
“Re: ‘antiquated’ vs. ‘proven': I have a cousin who flies the F/A-18E: it’s the hottest carrier fighter today anywhere, and she loves the airplane. Helmet-mounted sight, AIM-9X Super Sidewinders, the latest ECM and EW equipment, and so on: all the bells and whistles. But she also is qualified on the F/A-18C “legacy†Hornet. It can be updated: new radar, EW system, new weapons sytems, etc. It may be “antiquated†to some. But to her, and to her former squadron mates who still fly the C from the late ’80s-early ’90s, it’s ‘proven.’ Especially in the all-important combat arena. It may not be the analogy some want, but it works. Same thing with shuttle-derived technology: it WORKS.”
This is a useless analogy. The same could be said of HLLV derivatives of the EELV or Falcon. These are all launch vehicles that “work”. The question is which options cost less and can be ready sooner.
FWIW…
Remember, Vadislaw, that’s assuming you can get Congress to write the checks. And to them, exploration of a new body IS boots on the ground. Especially the ones on the relevant Committees that deal with NASA.
That’s also assuming some of the technology development doesn’t pan out: betting the farm on tech that may not work in space isn’t a good idea. And even NASA’s chief technologist admitted on NASA TV that some of the technologies that some promote for exploration may work in the lab, but not in orbit. On-orbit refueling is one: it has potential, and would get the commercial sector involved in supporting exploration activities, but is it absolutely essential? NO. It’s a “nice to have.” Improved radiation shielding and closed-loop life support, OTOH, are musts. Inflatable habitats are another possiblity, but need to be flight-tested on ISS and show how they’d work with people using ‘em, plumbed for life support, electronics, etc.
Given the makeup of the Commitee on the House side, the only member that Musk can count in his corner is Rep. Dana Rohrbacher (R-CA). Why? Because a Space X facility located in Hawthorne is in his district. If Rohrbacher had gotten the chair of the committee, he could steer the discussion in a way that would be more favorable to Commercial Crew, but Hall got it instead, and Hall, though not having JSC in his district, is much more disinclined to Commercial Crew. He may not be happy about it, and knows it’s coming, but he’ll use the hearing to get his point across. And you can bet it will be skeptical of Mr. Musk at the very least. Musk knows that some are downright hostile to the idea of commercial crew, some are on the fence, and some may be willing to support it. Those are the Congresscritters and Senators he and the Administration have to convince.
E.P. Grondine wrote @ August 16th, 2011 at 5:38 pm
“The NEO visit was viewed as a step towards a manned Mars mision from the DPT under Goldin to the later more formal processes under O’Keefe. ”
Obama didn’t pluck a NEO trip out of thin air. Of course not. What he plucked out of thin air was a priority, and a date. DPT never suggested any particular time criticality for such a mission. In fact, I don’t recall DPT ever saying much about NEOs at all. Their “stepping stones” included primarily the Moon, Earth-Moon Lagrange points, and Earth-Sun Lagrange points, before going to Mars. They had a lot of design reference missions, and I don’t believe they had one for a NEO.
In fact, what DPT properly emphasized was capabilities, rather than discrete destinations. As soon as Obama pointed us at a random asteroid as a place we had to be in 2025, and without a clear reason for doing so, he tumbled off that white horse. NEOs as destinations for humans are not much more than rock worship.
Matt Wiser wrote @ August 16th, 2011 at 9:19 pm
“Given the makeup of the Commitee on the House side, the only member that Musk can count in his corner is Rep. Dana Rohrbacher (R-CA).”
As is your normal M.O., you have it wrong. SpaceX is in Maxine Waters district, not Rohrbacher.
And why again does SpaceX need someone in their corner? Is SpaceX under investigation for low pricing? Has SpaceX overrun a budget? Is it against the law to want to retire on Mars?
Matt, you are imagining things again.
Besides, Commercial Crew is in the same law that funded the SLS, so why is Congress supposedly opposed to it? Don’t they want to stop using Russia to get to our space station?
Rick Boozer wrote:
“And you didn’t see people calling for the end of air travel in the early days of commercial aviation, when air crashes were as big news as spacecraft accidents are now and when public heroes like Wiley Post and Will Rogers got ‘tragically’killed and the entire Nation mourned just as sorrowfully as they would later do for the passengers of Challenger and Columbia.”
Knute Rockne’s death ended Fokker Aircraft’s position as the world’s largest airliner manufacturer practically overnight. The firm didn’t sell another airplane in North America for the next half century (although Fairchild built and sold Fokkers under license in the Western Hemisphere starting about 25 years after Rockne was killed in a Fokker trimotor).
In later years, the Comet 1 disasters ended de Havilland’s remarkable lead in jet transport development.
The DC-10 accidents contributed to the demise of Douglas Aircraft Company.
Rick Boozer also wrote:
“You need to read some history. The first profitable airline passenger services were people riding with the mail along mail routes. I suggest you watch PBS occasionally. Only after it was apparent from that that there was money to be had in passenger service, were the first dedicated airliners produced.”
I’ve written two popular books about the development of the air transport industry, and I’ve penned hundreds of feature articles about airline history for AIRLINERS magazine (23 years as a writer and contributing editor), AIR ENTHUSIAST, AIR INTERNATIONAL (the UK’s leading aviation magazine), AIRWAYS, AVIATION HISTORY, MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, WINGS, Exxon’s AIR WORLD and United Airlines’ HEMISPHERES (in-flight publication). I also wrote a 48-part, monthly series about aviation history for Midway Airlines’ in-flight magazine. And I was the media spokesperson for Fokker Aircraft’s North American Division. Moreover, I was the fact checker for United Airlines’ official history (“The Age of Flight”).
You might want to read some of my books and articles some time.
FYI, I watch PBS all the time. In fact, I wrote two PBS specials, and I was a contributor for another PBS program about the de Havilland Comet.
Bottomline: A handful (or two) of flights to the ISS does not represent a mass market and bears no relationship to the large demand (consumer-driven) for air mail services at the beginning of the commercial aviation industry.
Martijn Meijering wrote @ August 16th, 2011 at 7:27 pm
“We don’t really need advanced tech to go beyond LEO or GEO, and we do need cheap lift to get into LEO.”
I guess the way I look at it is that we have lots of proven 60’s technology for going beyond LEO, and lots of current tech for LEO. But we don’t have complete sets of tech for current vehicles to go beyond LEO. I don’t think it will take long to get it together and test it out, but it still needs to be done, and it’s important that the testing be thorough, so it is on the critical path for us to leave LEO.
Regarding cheap lift, I’m assuming you’re talking about cargo and crew, since all the near-term launchers except for Falcon Heavy are already available. Unless you’re talking about a revolutionary reduction in lift costs, which I would think is still over a decade away from even being defined, must less started on, and wouldn’t be economically sustainable yet.
If you are talking cargo and crew, then yes we do need to finish putting them in place. But we can be working on what is supposed to be next at the same time, and in my mind the two most important ones would be a reusable spaceship (ala Nautilus-X) and some sort of refueling capability (depots, robotic transport systems, etc.) to extend the amount of time we can spend in space, along with extending the distance we can travel.
Both of those shouldn’t require revolutionary tech advances, but they will take time to design, test, iterate and make operational. I can foresee lots of trips around the Moon for doing shakedown cruises.
My $0.02
Matt Wiser wrote:
“Given the makeup of the Commitee on the House side, the only member that Musk can count in his corner is Rep. Dana Rohrbacher (R-CA). Why? Because a Space X facility located in Hawthorne is in his district.”
Interesting how Congressman Rohrbacher’s support for SpaceX isn’t seen as “pork” by some people. He’s apparently more enlightened in the minds of some than his colleagues from Houston and Huntsville. And it’s apparently only “pork” if it helps their districts … but not if it helps Rohrbacher’s district (and SpaceX).
Double standard? Or simply another representative looking out for his district?
“to them, exploration of a new body IS boots on the ground.”
Based on what evidence?
Quote? Link? Reference?
“On-orbit refueling is one: it has potential, and would get the commercial sector involved in supporting exploration activities, but is it absolutely essential? NO. It’s a ‘nice to have.'”
This is a false statement. For the larger exploration missions, we can’t build HLLVs big enough. Even Constellation with its 200 ton Ares V required seven HLLV launches to field a human Mars mission (and one Ares I launch). For example, see:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090012109_2009010520.pdf
We’re not going to launch and dock payloads from seven HLLVs in a matter of hours. It’s going to take months, if not a couple years, to assemble such a mission. And that’s going to require months, if not a couple years, of in-space propellant storage, transfer, and management capabilities. (And cryogenic fluid management shows up on the list of key driving requirements and challenges in the link above.)
Even in the near-term, if we want to make use of (or just test the utility of) lunar polar volatiles and other close in-situ space resources, we have to be able to store those volatiles. Again, that requires long-term,in-space propellant storage, transfer, and management capabilities.
HLLVs are not on the critical path to further human exploration and development of space. Once you take propellant mass out, most exploration architecture elements can be launched on existing or near-existing LVs. Long-term propellant management, however, is on the critical path to further human exploration and development of space. Without it, we’re stuck with Apollo-class missions.
FWIW…
Rand Simberg wrote @ August 16th, 2011 at 7:32 pm
“The market for affordable near-space research is a lot bigger than most thought just a couple years ago.”
All the more reason to deny private firms ANY government subsidies.
“First, if SpaceX is developing potential BEO capabilities like Falcon Heavy on the company’s own dime, taxpayer dollars and Congress don’t enter into the equation.”
Inaccurate. “The Falcon Heavy rocket from SpaceX will soon have a launch site. The company–better known as SpaceX than by its official name, Space Exploration Technologies–announced earlier this week that it has broken ground in Southern California at the Vandenberg Air Force Base, which is a Department of Defense space launch and missile testing site.”
DoD’s Vandenberg AFB is a taxpayer constructed, funded and operated facility. A government facility. The equation adds up to tax dollars involved. Case closed.
Doug: And the Administration’s been in recovery mode ever since. Now, if the Administration had announced a specific target for the NEO mission, there may very well have been less hostility and more support. Instead, a vague promise to an unspecific target asteroid is what we got. One of the Design Reference Missions, even if not “moon first” would’ve been an easier sell, no?
DCSCA: Of course: exploration with boots on the ground would be a new thing to many people. Especially those who missed out on Apollo (too young) or grew up with Shuttle-only. That’s one reason I’d prefer Moon first if at all possible. Moon first, then go further out. (L-points, NEO, then Mars vicinity) But knowing the money’s not there, I’d go with what Ed Crawley said in his FlexPath presentation last year at the Cape: build the rocket and crew capsule (with any needed hab module), and GO PLACES. Get some basic exploration done while doing the design work on lander, surface systems, etc. so that when you’re ready to put boots on the ground, the development’s been done and the prime contractor’s ready to start cutting metal and fabricating parts.
“the stuff behind that [Musk]‘retiring on Mars’ nonsense†… “Why is it nonsense?”
Because it is.
Rock worship totally! You CAN’T walk on them, NOR stand on them, NOR plant any flags, NOR drive a moon-car on them, NOR do any walking EVA’s to do geological surveys. In fact, you CAN’T even land on an asteroid!! This whole preposterous would-be enterprise deserves to be derided and exposed for the hoax-like expectation of any real humaned explorational ‘progress’ that would result. A manned asteroid mission merely exists as a ‘goal’ for the Planetary Society-types who want nothing to do with renewed Lunar expeditions. The Louis Friedmans of the world, who’d much rather act like the Moon stopped existing after the 1970’s. This pathetic slide into delusion—that a manned Mars mission can be mounted without ever going back there—is exactly what is going to keep us trapped doing endless circles ’round the Earth for the next twenty years!
DCSCA wrote @ August 17th, 2011 at 3:48 am
“the stuff behind that [Musk]‘retiring on Mars’ nonsense†… “Why is it nonsense?â€
Because it is.
Didn’t they say the same thing about Christopher Columbus? That whole nonsense about a new trade route to China. Everyone knows the world is flat – you’ll fall off the edge.
Didn’t they say that about the Wright Brothers? Langley was given the governmental nod to go invent an airplane, but those pesky bicycle makers from Ohio beat him to it.
But then the truth doesn’t fit into your worldview …
@ William Mellberg
“Bottomline: A handful (or two) of flights to the ISS does not represent a mass market and bears no relationship to the large demand (consumer-driven) for air mail services at the beginning of the commercial aviation industry.”
And I never said it constituted a mass market. Just a vehicle development kick start to lower launcher/spacecraft prices as a prelude to higher volume market apps such as Bigelow. SpaceX also has seen much interest in it’s Dragon Labs. Bigelow wants to launch on ULA with CST-100, ULA with Dream Chaser, as well as Falcon/Dragon.
“I’ve written two popular books about the development of the air transport industry, and I’ve penned hundreds of feature articles about airline history for AIRLINERS magazine (23 years as a writer and contributing editor), … “
Still doesn’t change the fact of what I said: “The first profitable airline passenger services were people riding with the mail along mail routes. . . . Only after it was apparent from that that there was money to be had in passenger service, were the first dedicated airliners produced.”
“Knute Rockne’s death ended Fokker Aircraft’s position as the world’s largest airliner manufacturer practically overnight. The firm didn’t sell another airplane in North America for the next half century (although Fairchild built and sold Fokkers under license in the Western Hemisphere starting about 25 years after Rockne was killed in a Fokker trimotor).
In later years, the Comet 1 disasters ended de Havilland’s remarkable lead in jet transport development.
The DC-10 accidents contributed to the demise of Douglas Aircraft Company.”
And none of these incidents, as tragic as they were, led to a call for an end of commercial air, because there were was more than one company doing it. And that’s the way it will be with commercial space. Not just SpaceX, but Boeing, ULA, Sierra Nevada, etc.
Martijn Meijering wrote:
“Vladislaw, you know that we share the same goals, but I’m very skeptical of this. We don’t really need advanced tech to go beyond LEO or GEO, and we do need cheap lift to get into LEO.”
I used to advocate for cheap lift but when you start crunching numbers for cargo, based on what Bigelow Aerospace is proposing, almost a dozen stations, I believe it will evolve on it’s own.
There will be such a rise in competitive pressure for cargo delivery that private firms will start those investments on their own. I also believe we will see incremental changes that will lead to the lower costs, unless something like skylon pans out. It is a chicken and the egg kind of senerio but there has to first be a need for that many runs to leo to justify the investment. I believe that stations will have to go up first and increasing cargo demands will be that spark.
“DoD’s Vandenberg AFB is a taxpayer constructed, funded and operated facility. A government facility. The equation adds up to tax dollars involved. ”
Not if SpaceX is paying for to construct its facilities at the base and if SpaceX is reimbursing the government for use of the base.
Don’t make stuff up.
“All the more reason to deny private firms ANY government subsidies.”
Paying companies to develop and operate capabilities that the government needs is not a subsidy. When a NASA secretary orders more paperclips, she’s not subsidizing the office supplies industry.
Don’t make stuff up.
“Because it is.”
What a witty rejoinder.
Ugh…
Rick Boozer wrote:
“And none of these incidents, as tragic as they were, led to a call for an end of commercial air, because there were was more than one company doing it. And that’s the way it will be with commercial space. Not just SpaceX, but Boeing, ULA, Sierra Nevada, etc.”
I should have mentioned the Hindenburg. That accident ended long-distance airship travel in about 30 seconds. Permanently. BTW, Goodyear was also planning to build a fleet of Hindenburg-type airships for long distance travel. The accident at Lakehurst ended those plans, too.
Rick Boozer also wrote:
“Still doesn’t change the fact of what I said: ‘The first profitable airline passenger services were people riding with the mail along mail routes … Only after it was apparent from that that there was money to be had in passenger service, were the first dedicated airliners produced.'”
Your point being? The first airliner that could earn a profit carrying passengers alone was the Douglas DC-3. That’s because the operating costs per seat were finally reduced to affordable rates thanks to the DC-3’s payload capacity and its high utilization rates. But how do you relate this to “commercial” space? How do think airline economics apply to spaceline economics? And what sort of productivity do you expect “commercial” space vehicles will offer? What sort of utilization rates do you think will reduce the operating costs to genuinely affordable rates?
“Rock worship totally! You CAN’T walk on them, NOR stand on them, NOR plant any flags, NOR drive a moon-car on them, NOR do any walking EVA’s to do geological surveys. In fact, you CAN’T even land on an asteroid!!”
This is a false statements. It depends on the mass of the asteroid whether there’s enough gravitational force to perform these activities.
Don’t make stuff up.
“This whole preposterous would-be enterprise deserves to be derided and exposed for the hoax-like expectation of any real humaned explorational ‘progress’ that would result.”
Since when is “humaned” a word? Since when is “explorational” a word? Since when does “progress” need to be put in quotes when referring to “real… progress”?
Reading your post is like reading a script for the Beverly Hillbillies.
“This pathetic slide into delusion—that a manned Mars mission can be mounted without ever going back there—is exactly what is going to keep us trapped doing endless circles ’round the Earth for the next twenty years!”
A NEO mission has more in common with a Mars mission, in terms of duration, radiation exposure, propulsion, Earth return, distance, communications lag, operations, etc., than lunar missions. In fact, if your goal is Mars, lunar conditions like the 1/6th gravity, thermal environment, regolith dust, lack of atmosphere, proximity to Earth, lack of communications lag, etc. are a big, expensive distraction from Mars. You won’t use the same hardware or operations on both worlds, not by a long-shot.
Don’t make stuff up.
“Now, if the Administration had announced a specific target for the NEO mission, there may very well have been less hostility and more support.”
Again, this is an unrealistic expectation for a Presidential announcement. Kennedy didn’t set a goal of landing in the southwest corner of the Sea of Tranquility. He set a goal of landing on the Moon.
FWIW…
Matt wrote:
“Remember, Vadislaw, that’s assuming you can get Congress to write the checks. And to them, exploration of a new body IS boots on the ground. Especially the ones on the relevant Committees that deal with NASA.”
If you are talking about the Senators from the space states then exploration is not about boots on the ground on another body in space. It is about boots on the ground working in THEIR district on launch systems built with cost plus contractors in their district.
It doesn’t matter that Constellation never actually flew. It doesn’t if matter if SLS ever flys. What IS important is that the funding pork train stays on the tracks. They get their high paying jobs in their district/state and their votes and the contractors get their cost plus contracts and keep donating to their reelection campaigns.
Some people here say don’t waste time and money on fuel depots/fuel station in LEO or EML1 because it is to hard, instead lets goto Luna and do ISRU and mine and process fuels on the moon and then send them to depots in LEO or EML1/2.
No one seems to see the apparent contridiction there?
Matt wrote:
“And to them, exploration of a new body IS boots on the ground.”
How in the world did the Dawn mission ever get funded? Or messenger? Or Cassini? Or or or or or.
Congress routinely funds NASA to explore with no boots on the ground. If we spiral out we would beable to put boots on the ground of low gravity well bodies, like asteroids, dead comets, moons of Mars. It is the deeper gravity wells of Luna and Mars that can be forstalled until we have a reliable vehicle.
If we do Luna now we will get bogged down just as people say we are bogged down in LEO. It will eat up any funds that could go towards developing the vehicles and infrastructure we need to create a viable inner solar system transportation system.
Matt Wiser wrote @ August 17th, 2011 at 2:06 am
“And the Administration’s been in recovery mode ever since. Now, if the Administration had announced a specific target for the NEO mission, there may very well have been less hostility and more support. Instead, a vague promise to an unspecific target asteroid is what we got. One of the Design Reference Missions, even if not “moon first†would’ve been an easier sell, no?”
You can’t complain about the administration not choosing a particular NEO for a visit. That would have been really dumb, as it is well known that we haven’t identified all possible targets. ESMD (such as it used to be called) had decided that they wanted a rock at least 50m in diameter for a visit. I guess a rock that is smaller than the exploration vehicle would look a little silly, eh? We haven’t identified half of such rocks. For civil defense, science, and human space exploration EVERYONE AGREES that the first order of business is doing a good survey, and that needs to be done long before you put any one rock in your gunsight.
So that part they got right.
@ William Mellberg
You stretch analogies to the breaking point.
” I should have mentioned the Hindenburg. That accident ended long-distance airship travel in about 30 seconds. Permanently. BTW, Goodyear was also planning to build a fleet of Hindenburg-type airships for long distance travel. The accident at Lakehurst ended those plans, too”
Note, by your own admission, Goodyear was not yet in the transatlantic travel business when Hindenburg went down. Yes that influenced their decision not to enter that arena. But it is not like that situation now where you have several companies rather than just a couple vying for the same market and the vehicles in this case will be flying concurrently with each other rather than having only one company monopolizing as Zeppelin did transatlantic flight before another major competitor entered the game.
“Your point being? The first airliner that could earn a profit carrying passengers alone was the Douglas DC-3. That’s because the operating costs per seat were finally reduced to affordable rates thanks to the DC-3′s payload capacity and its high utilization rates. But how do you relate this to “commercial†space? “
The mail planes lowered costs just enough at first to where a goodly number of affluent passengers could afford the flights. In the same way the lowering of costs now will be just enough to result in a greater number of private passengers (and governments who could not afford space travel before) going to orbit, even though the current vehicles used are not solely developed for passenger use. That lowering of costs by the merely adeguate amount needed right now will occur because the vehicle that NASA needed for ISS will aready exist and private companies will be able to use that vehicle until flight rates are high enough to warrant dedicated specially built passenger vehicles are seen as profitable. The lowering of prices with the later vehicles will cause more passengers to go to orbit, who aren’t necessarily billionaires which will in turn lower prices due to that higher flight volume.
Now this new kick-start is not the way aviation was kick-started. But it is still a kick start to encourage the space transportation industry. No the government didn’t by airplanes to kick-start the air industry, airplane prices were initially lowered because of the frequency of mail flight and that led to higher volumes of aircraft, which led to lower plane prices. But just as the current kick-start for commercial space is not the same as the kick-start earlier used for air, the same government kick-start that got railroads going in this country was not the same as the one that was needed for commercial air that came later. Granting of railroad rights-of-way was used instead. Each government kick-start has to be tailored to whatever new transportation is to be encouraged. That kick-start for railroads could not be used for air travel. So to expect the exact same kick-start for air to work for space is absurd. That still doesn’t change the central fact that in each case, a government kick-start was needed, even though each is not implemented in the same manner.
Typo in previous comment to Melberg.
“No the government didn’t by airplanes to kick-start the air industry, ”
Should be:
“No the government didn’t buy airplanes to kick-start the air industry, “
William Mellberg wrote @ August 17th, 2011 at 8:36 am
“I should have mentioned the Hindenburg. That accident ended long-distance airship travel in about 30 seconds. Permanently.”
Airships were just another fungible (i.e. interchangeable) form of transportation, but not the only way to travel. When people stopped riding airships they changed back to other forms of transportation like trains and ships – they choices.
Right now there is only one way to get people to the ISS (rockets & capsules), and only one provider (Russia). By definition that would be a monopoly, regardless if they are acting in a benign fashion or not.
Whoever is the first to space out of the CCDev participants is likely to get guaranteed business from NASA through at least 2020, and once a second provider comes on line, Bigelow’s space habitat business will be starting up to test out their business plan, providing some additional level of competitive business for at least a short time.
While this doesn’t constitute a “mass market”, it does constitute a potential competitive market for travel to/from LEO. And since the overall market is in the $Billion range through at least 2020, it’s a significant business too.
In any case, the only choices for the U.S. are to either keep relying on the Russians for access to our space station, or develop a domestic capability. I prefer the later for many reasons.
“DoD’s Vandenberg AFB is a taxpayer constructed, funded and operated facility. A government facility. ”
Another clueless post by DCSCA
How is it different than major airports?
“consolidating NASA, DoD, NSA”
Another clueless example
The NSA does not operate spacecraft nor does the DOD operate deep space vehicles.
MT: Check the Lockheed-Martin PLYMOUTH ROCK study. They ID’d several potential targets for NEO missions well before POTUS made his speech. There were targets in the gunsight as far as L-M was concerned.
Vadislaw: Not knocking the robotics: they’ve done great stuff over the years, and will continue to do so. But to many, including members of Congress and the Public, real exploration is boots on the ground. The robots go where you can’t send humans-for the time being. The “look but don’t touch” approach will not get very far politically unless you have missons planned where NASA astronauts actually touching and exploring another body. (Moon, NEOs, Martian Moons, Mars itself).
Rick Boozer wrote:
“Goodyear was not yet in the transatlantic travel business when Hindenburg went down. Yes that influenced their decision not to enter that arena.”
But Goodyear WAS in the transatlantic airship business when the Hindenburg exploded as a partner with the Zeppelin company. In fact, it said “Goodyear-Zeppelin” on the side of Goodyear’s giant Airdock in Akron. And Goodyear had their own representatives flying aboard the Hindenburg and the Graf Zeppelin. The firm had people based in Germany, and Zeppelin had people in America. A fleet of Hindenburg-class airships was to have been built for global services with the production divided between both companies. The LZ-130 (“Graf Zeppelin 2″) was the next ship in that fleet, but it never went into service owing to the demise of her sistership at Lakehurst. I would suggest you read “Golden Age of the Great Passenger Airships: Graf Zeppelin and Hindenburg” by Harold Dick (Smithsonian Press) in which he describes his experiences as a Goodyear representative serving aboard those airships in preparation for the joint operation. It is a fascinating first-hand account. The book also goes into airship economics.
Rick Boozer added:
“The mail planes lowered costs just enough at first to where a goodly number of affluent passengers could afford the flights.”
Not really. Passengers were simply regarded as an added source of revenue at the time, starting with the Boeing Model 40. The popularity of those flights (which carried two, and later four passengers) led Boeing to quickly develop its Model 80 trimotor which carried 18 passengers between Chicago and San Francisco. But air travel had already existed in Europe for nearly a decade by that time, with the Fokker F.II and Junkers F.13 being two of the first purpose-built airliners. Carriers such as KLM, Imperial Airways and Luft Hansa were well-established long before their American counterparts. In fact, Zeppelins were safely carrying tens of thousands of passengers on regularly scheduled flights around Germany (via DELAG) well before World War One. The United States was behind Europe in commercial aviation, and the Post Office air mail contracts simply provided a means to help American firms catch up, although a brief air service was launched by Tony Jannus between Tampa and St. Petersburg using flying boats in 1914.
Again, the comparisons made by so many NewSpace advocates between early commercial aviation and today’s so-called “commercial” space industry simply aren’t valid as they apply to passenger services. A handful of flights to the ISS are nothing like the nationwide (and worldwide) network of air routes that were carrying passengers between hundreds of different destinations around the globe. The difference lies in the lack of a pre-existing commercial market.
Rick Boozer wrote:
““No the government didn’t buy airplanes to kick-start the air industry …”
Again I ask, what sort of productivity do you expect “commercial” space vehicles will offer? What sort of utilization rates do you think will reduce the operating costs to genuinely affordable rates?
I should also point out that the U.S. government did not “kick-start” the railroad industry. Railways had been around for a long time before Uncle Sam helped get the transcontinental railroad built. In part, it was the successful use of railways for military transport during the Civil War that helped make the case for government involvement in building a transcontinental railroad to link East and West (i.e., national security was a factor, as it was a century later with the construction of the Interstate Highway System). The Canadian Pacific Railway had government support north of the border for similar reasons. But again, an extensive system of railways already existed in eastern Canada prior to the opening of the Canadian West. Railways got their start as private ventures.
Matt Wiser wrote @ August 17th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
“The “look but don’t touch†approach will not get very far politically unless you have missons planned where NASA astronauts actually touching and exploring another body.”
For the life of the Shuttle, this was not the case. Not until the Shuttle was ending did Bush 43 even utter the word Moon, and only then one time – he expended no political capital to even support it.
The public is not clamoring for space exploration, nor boots on the ground, and the only people in Congress that even realize we have a space program are those that have NASA facilities in their districts. Ask the agriculture people in Kansas if they care about NASA, or the oil workers in Alaska. Ask them who should be getting $35B of the taxpayers money.
Even better, ask your neighbors who was on the Apollo 12 mission. They don’t know and they don’t care.
Spending $Billions so one person can have personal glory is not a reason to have a space program. Sheesh.
@ Coastal Ron wrote @ August 17th, 2011 at 3:49 pm
“Spending $Billions so one person can have personal glory is not a reason to have a space program. ”
There goes my life long dream. Note though that I will gladly accept only 1% of the overall cost transferred to my bank account for dream damages. Then I can go and buy a seat in SS2 and keep the change for my house and boat and airplane and…
Matt wrote:
“The “look but don’t touch†approach will not get very far politically unless you have missons planned where NASA astronauts actually touching and exploring another body.”
Matt I do not appreciate the mischaracterization of what I have advocated. I have never don’t touch. I said first things first which is not look but don’t touch. The landing aspect will cost NASA billions and if you spend those billions on trying to land on the first rock you will not have the funds for developing the TRL of the systems we want.
As far where we will get politically, we have had exactly what you say congress won’t fund. We have been in a look but do not touch mode for 4 decades. It is exactly the opposite of what you say.
congress has refused for over 40 years to fund landings. If congress is more willing to fund non landing exploration then a space based, reusable, exploration vehicle is closer to what congress has funded the last four decades then what you propose, which is spend billions to get out of a gravity well only to add more billions to plunge right back into another one.
Major Tom wrote:
“This is a false statements. It depends on the mass of the asteroid whether there’s enough gravitational force to perform these activities.”
Please name one asteroid (just one) on which humans could stand, walk or drive.
Ceres, as an example, has a surface gravity of 0.028 g. It is the largest asteroid (by far).
To use your own tired phrase, “Don’t make stuff up.”
And don’t attack Chris Castro’s vocabulary when you can’t get your singulars and plurals right. (“This is a false statements.”)
FWIW
“I should also point out that the U.S. government did not “kick-start†the railroad industry”
They didn’t kickstart it but they did provide subsidies, paid for surveys and mail routes. The states offered charters and some grants.
“In his Congressional History of Railways, Louis H. Haney credits these surveys as being the first to receive federal aid. He notes that such grants to states and corporations for railway surveys became routine”
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/gmdhtml/rrhtml/rrintro.html
That started as early as 1824, long before the transcon was started.
William Mellberg wrote @ August 17th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
“Again I ask, what sort of productivity do you expect “commercial†space vehicles will offer? What sort of utilization rates do you think will reduce the operating costs to genuinely affordable rates?”
The most obvious one is that all of the commercial crew vehicles are planned to be reusable, whereas the current Soyuz is not.
Boeing thinks that they’ll be competitive price-wise with the market, which if they are looking at Soyuz would be around $60M/seat. Let’s do some math here:
Let’s say NASA pays $60M/seat for a minimum of three seats per flight, or $180M/flight for a CST-100. Let’s also assume that the Atlas V 412 they’ll be using has a list price of $110M – ignore the fact Boeing gets 50% of the profit from the Atlas sale, since they own 50% of ULA. That leaves $70M to cover all the other costs, including the CST-100 capsule.
If the CST-100 costs $300M/unit in low volume production, and they can get 10 flights per unit, then that means it costs them about $30M/flight, leaving $40M to go for all the other costs and profit. Not a huge business, but it could be profitable.
Now where I think the real profit comes from is with the other four seats that are in the CST-100 (seven total). NASA could buy the whole flight, which I’m sure Boeing would give them a discount on, so let’s say they pay $25M for each additional seat, or $100M ($280M total for the flight). Or Boeing could sell the extra seats to other ISS partners for short stays (assumes a 7-passenger vehicle is already there and needs rotation), or the tourist market. That $100M could essentially be profit for Boeing on every flight. Not bad.
SpaceX has an even better price proposition, since they own all the hardware, and Falcon 9 is already priced far below Atlas V. SpaceX can also amortize their overall Dragon capsule production or use the Dragons from the CRS program, so their overall costs/seat are much lower. Musk has been quoting a $20M/seat figure for quite a while, and though that assumes a full capsule, it still only works out to $140M/flight max.
I see money to be made on carrying people, and apparently so do Boeing and SpaceX. The big hurdle is a lack of standards from NASA, and that’s why NASA needs to pay for the commercial crew companies to do things the NASA way, because no one will risk doing things in a way where NASA won’t pay. Hence the CCDev program.
Matt Wiser wrote @ August 17th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
“Check the Lockheed-Martin PLYMOUTH ROCK study. They ID’d several potential targets for NEO missions well before POTUS made his speech. There were targets in the gunsight as far as L-M was concerned.”
Great. Let them pay for the mission then. NASA is taking a more expansive search to find proper candidates, and has been for quite a while. Here is a Space.com article from March of this year:
http://www.space.com/11189-nasa-asteroid-choice-astronauts-deep-space.html
But this gets back to your silly insistence that a firm target be identified 14 years in advance. NASA doesn’t even pick a landing site for their latest Mars rovers until just before they launch, so why is 14 years ahead of time so critical?
Does it make you sleep better at night knowing which asteroid our astronauts will visit? Are you making t-shirts? Why is it so important Matt?
Vladislaw wrote:
“They didn’t kickstart it but they did provide subsidies…”
Are you familiar with the history of the Baltimore & Ohio, America’s first common carrier railroad? One of the world’s first railroads, as well, it was financed by twenty-five Baltimore area businessmen.
Vladislaw wrote @ August 16th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
John Malkin wrote:
“I agree with this statement completely. Attempting to bring the general public level of excitement to same level as Apollo 11 is a complete waste of time and money.â€
Would you please reread what I actually wrote, and show me where I said “excitement to the same level as Apollo 11″?
I was just agreeing with the statement “If you want excitement, go to a movie.†wrote @ August 16th, 2011 at 2:27 pm by vulture4. The rest was my feeling about using excitement to justify funding a space program.
“Again I ask, what sort of productivity do you expect “commercial†space vehicles will offer? What sort of utilization rates do you think will reduce the operating costs to genuinely affordable rates?”
That productivity applied in new directions has already resulted in SpaceX having substantually lower prices than their competitors (primarily due to vertical parts supply and in-house manufacturing techniques). Go to their website to see their prices. Falcon 9 launches are already currently in the $2000/lb to LEO range. Once the crewed Dragon is finished, this and special features of the Dragon will be enough to undercut the Russians (as SpaceX has said they will) by a factor of 2 to 3 right off the bat. So already that should get some people who are looking for a better deal than the Russians going as passengers. Any increase in flight volume is bound to have a downward effect on prices below that, especially when you consider that Falcon 9 will also be used for satellite launch and station supply as well. Plus, competition from other CCDev companies can counted on to drive the prices of commercial space flights even further down. I do not have numbers as too what flight rates will reduce prices down to genuinely affordable rates for say an upper middle class person, it’s not my field. But I think it may be too early for anyone to have those numbers. However, throughout history competition has always lead to a downward spiral in prices.
“I should also point out that the U.S. government did not “kick-start†the railroad industry”
See Vladislaw’s comment about what got it started in the east. The westward rights-of-way after the civil war kick-started the industry in a westward direction to speed up settlement/development of the west and increase national security. It ultimately gave us a true nation-wide coast -to-coast rail industry that we wouldn’t have had otherwise.
“it was the successful use of railways for military transport during the Civil War that helped make the case for government involvement in building a transcontinental railroad to link East and West”
So, the government was the first American entity to pay industry to get a person to space, the companies they used that made a profit from what NASA paid them never reached the price per pound to orbit that SpaceX has already demonstrated because cost-plus contracting deincentived them. Yes, they would get the contract by bidding the lowest price, but it often had no relation to the final real cost because the companies knew that any overruns would be paid by NASA. That’s what cost-plus contracting is.
The verbose extended explanations that you require are taking too much time away from my astrophysics research; therefore, I will leave any future answers to you in the capable hands of such people as Major Tom, Coastal Ron, Vladislaw, etc.
I used to advocate for cheap lift but when you start crunching numbers for cargo, based on what Bigelow Aerospace is proposing, almost a dozen stations, I believe it will evolve on it’s own.
It’s far from certain Bigelow will be successful, even if commercial crew is a success, which depends strongly on the degree of sabotage that the old guard will be able to commit. But yes, if his dreams pan out then cheap lift may take care of itself.
It is a chicken and the egg kind of senerio but there has to first be a need for that many runs to leo to justify the investment. I believe that stations will have to go up first and increasing cargo demands will be that spark.
It’s possible and I’d be very happy if it worked out. But an exploration program that is used to establish a large and fiercely competitive propellant launch market could also be that spark. While the exploration program is more uncertain given the political climate (active sabotage by the old guard, budget pressure) I think it would be nearly certain to deliver cheap lift. Bigelow on the other hand may need cheap lift (or at least cheaper lift) before he is able to realise his dreams, instead of being the catalyst for cheap lift. Then again, he might just pull it off.
I’d prefer to pursue both paths, or more if anyone can think of other promising approaches.
William Mellberg wrote:
“Are you familiar with the history of the Baltimore & Ohio, America’s first common carrier railroad? One of the world’s first railroads, as well, it was financed by twenty-five Baltimore area businessmen.”
I am only a little familiar with it. If you read the 1826 state charter creating the corporation B&O you will find that:
“2. And be it enacted, That the capital stock of the said Baltimore and Ohio Rail Road Company, shall be three millions of dollars, in shares of one hundred dollars each, of which ten thousand shares shall be reserved for subscription by the state of Maryland, and five thousand for the city of Baltimore, “
You can see that the state of Maryland bought 10,000 shares or 1 million dollars of the 3 million total the 25 businessmen raised and the 1/2 million of the 3 million total was financed by the city of Baltimore. So the the state and city governments financed 50% of the project.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Maryland_state_laws_relating_to_the_Baltimore_and_Ohio_Rail_Road#1826_Chapter_123
@Byeman wrote @ August 17th, 2011 at 1:04 pm
How is it different than major airports?
If you gotta ask, stay away from sharp objects and HSF planning.
@Coastal Ron wrote @ August 16th, 2011 at 7:31 pm
If you have to look up why Apollo 8 was ‘important’ then you have no business being any place close to the space business. ‘End of story.’
@Major Tom wrote @ August 17th, 2011 at 8:33 am
“Paying companies to develop and operate capabilities that the government needs is not a subsidy.”
1. Yes it is, be it a need/necessity or a want/luxury. And, of course, commerical HSF is not a need/necessity– it’s a luxury. ‘Don’t make things up, indeed.’
‘When a NASA secretary orders more paperclips, she’s not subsidizing the office supplies industry.’ In fact, she is– particularly if those paperclips are earmarked as a contracted purchase/fiscal year below retail cost to the general public.
“Because it is.’ â€What a witty rejoinder.’
Yes, it is.
“Please name one asteroid (just one) on which humans could stand, walk or drive.
Ceres, as an example, has a surface gravity of 0.028 g. It is the largest asteroid (by far).”
Even with less than 3% of Earth’s gravity, objects still fall at the rate of nearly 0.3 m/s^2 in Ceres’ gravitational field, or the length of the human body in just a couple seconds.
Both NASA and JAXA have landed spacecraft on much smaller and closer (near-Earth) asteroids:
http://near.jhuapl.edu/news/sci_updates/01feb20.html
“To use your own tired phrase, ‘Don’t make stuff up.’â€
I’m not. Small g-forces are not insignificant, and we have conducted unmanned operations on the surfaces of NEOs.
Don’t make stuff up.
“And don’t attack Chris Castro’s vocabulary when you can’t get your singulars and plurals right.”
There’s a huge difference between an odd typo and making up multiple words in the same sentence like an illiterate hillbilly.
Vadislaw: Congress hasn’t funded landings since Apollo 17 because NO ONE was proposing any serious exploration programs as part of NASA’s budget. Every Administration was content to have Shuttle in LEO and exploration was a dirty word at NASA for a very long time. Bush 41 on Apollo 11’s 20th Anniversary proposed an exploration initiative, but the Democrats who controlled Congress made sure it never got out of Committee. Senator Al Gore said at the time, “there’s no such thing as a free launch,” and Mr. Bush never fought seriously for the proposal. It took the Columbia accident to shake up NASA and get exploration back on the front burner.
Ron: A destination is important because it give NASA focus and direction. A vague promise of a NEO mission to a target that hasn’t even been decided yet is no substitute for a defined destination and a defined mission to that target destination. Pick a target asteroid, decide on how you’ll get to the target, what’s needed for other possible objectives (Venus flyby and biomedical/radiation reasearch, to give two examples) what you’ll do when you get there, compute the launch window, and freaking FLY THE MISSION.
“1. Yes it is, be it a need/necessity”
Based on what definition of the term “subsidy”?
Link? Reference?
“And, of course, commerical HSF is not a need/necessity– it’s a luxury.”
Since when is the only domestic path to the ISS through at least the next decade a “luxury” for the country?
“particularly if those paperclips are earmarked as a contracted purchase/fiscal year below retail cost”
This is gibberish.
An earmark is directed spending in a congressional appropriations bill. No congressman is earmarking spending for paperclips.
And by definition, a “fiscal year” cannot be “below retail cost”. Years and dollars are not comparable figures.
Take your meds.
Cripes…
Matt Wiser wrote @ August 17th, 2011 at 11:42 pm
“A destination is important because it give NASA focus and direction.”
They have a destination – an asteroid. Which one 14 years out doesn’t matter. Why? Because the same technology and systems we need for one asteroid apply for just about any other that are nearby.
Do you think that spacecraft are built for a specific asteroid? The mission equipment is designed for a specific task at an asteroid, but how we get there will be the same.
Just out of curiosity, did Constellation have all of their landing sites identified to the specific square meter they were going to land? No. So why do you have different standards for asteroid missions than you do for your precious Moon missions? Not biased, are we?
DCSCA wrote @ August 17th, 2011 at 7:22 pm
“If you have to look up why Apollo 8 was ‘important’ then you have no business being any place close to the space business. ‘End of story.’”
Oh, now you’re setting new standards for the aerospace industry?
That every person working on a space program must know the history of every Apollo mission?
I suppose this will be a government subsidized educational program, and those that fail will go to Apollo re-education camps?
You are just an endless source of idiotic ideas, aren’t you…
Major Tom wrote @ August 17th, 2011 at 11:44 pm
Alas, “gibberish’ and press releases are the mainstay of the paper commercial HSF dweebs. Tick-tock, tick-tock, fella. Fly some one– oh wait, if you tried in Dragon, you’d kill them. no viable, operationan, tested, man-rated ECS for human survival. Oops. Purchasing limited rides on the reliable Soyuz is fine for the Age of austerity. Especially to a space station slated for splash just 24 months ago in 2016 and now desperately searching for a rationale to keep being funded into 2020 but still doomed to a Pacific grave– with no reason to exist and nothing yet returned for the massive investment. Soyuz is access enough to an ‘INTERNATIONAL’ space platfom that has yet to return anything of value- and goes in circles. But then, you know that. Tick-tock, tick-tock.
Ron: being stuck in LEO for 40 years is different than going somewhere and not doing anything on the surface. Every administration since Nixon was content with Shuttle, either its development or actual use, until the Columbia accident. During that time, exploration was a dirty word at NASA, and NASA brass admitted that post-Columbia.
Certainly, when we do shakedowns of exploration vehicles, lunar orbit will be part of that, and while it’s not boots on the ground, it’s a first step in that direction. And it will happen. Not when those of us who originally supported CxP were hoping for, but it will in due time. Now, if POTUS hadn’t had the perception of sneering at lunar return with that “been there, done that” remark, and had said something like “I want NASA to do something that has never been done before in traveling to an asteroid. Now, I realize that there are those who would rather return to the moon before going to destinations further out in the solar system, and I respect that. Make no mistake, NASA will return our Astronauts to the moon, and certainly will do so before we travel to Mars.” That’s all he needed to do. Instead…his speech was spun as dismissing lunar return, and poor Charlie Bolden takes the heat in Congress for that.
Major Tom,
you are beating your head against the wall, I have posted dozens of times the definition of subsidies, hell I posted pages of it to Mark Wittington straight out of economic textbooks, links to economic sites, links from wiki on his yahoo articles. It doesn’t matter. He still drones on and on with one of the last arrows in his quiver.
The fact that he has been informed, shown the definitions and yet he still uses it to try and scare people into believing him, makes him an outright pathological liar, and a fear mongering deceiver , a sure sign of the value of his arguements.
Major Tom wrote:
“Small g-forces are not insignificant, and we have conducted unmanned operations on the surfaces of NEOs.”
My challenge to you was to name an asteroid (just one) on which humans could stand, walk or drive.
Here are some things to consider:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2010-06-20-asteroid-obama-nasa-plan_N.htm
In reality, even the biggest asteroids have practically no gravity. So anything in contact with the surface could easily drift away.
“You don’t land on an asteroid,” says former Apollo astronaut Rusty Schweickart, a longtime advocate of asteroid studies. “You pull up to one and dock with it. And getting away from it, all you have to do is sneeze and you’re gone.” He envisions a spaceship hovering next to the asteroid and occasionally firing its thrusters to stay in place.
Astronauts wouldn’t walk on an asteroid. They would drift next to it, moving themselves along with their gloved hands.
To keep from floating into space, crewmembers could anchor a network of safety ropes to the asteroid’s surface, but “that has its own risks, because we don’t understand how strong the surfaces of asteroids are and whether (they) would hold an astronaut in place,” says Daniel Scheeres, a planetary scientist at the University of Colorado.
The minimal gravity also means that any dust the astronauts stir up will hang in a suspended cloud for a long time. Because there’s no weather on an asteroid, there’s no erosion to smooth the dust particles.
“It’s all going to stay pretty razor-sharp. It’s not the most friendly stuff in the universe,” Korsmeyer says. Keeping humans safe as they explore an asteroid “is going to be really tricky.”
Major Tom added:
“… we have conducted unmanned operations on the surfaces of NEOs.”
The NEAR-Shoemaker spacecraft basically bumped into Eros and stayed put. It didn’t have to move afterward (i.e., “walk” or “drive” across the surface).
Major Tom also opined:
“There’s a huge difference between an odd typo and making up multiple words in the same sentence like an illiterate hillbilly.”
As a professional writer and speaker, I cringe whenever I see and hear some of the glaring misuses of the English language that have become so commonplace today (including your grammatical error … or typo). But I would never be so rude, intolerant and insensitive as to describe an obviously intelligent person as “an illiterate hillbilly.” I believe you owe the gentleman an apology, although I don’t expect you’ll offer one. Which says more about you than him.
Rick Boozer wrote:
“See Vladislaw’s comment about what got it [the railroad industry] started in the east.”
The fact remains that the railroad industry was created by the private sector. You should check your library for a copy of “The American Railway: Its Construction, Development, Management and Appliances.” First published in 1888, reprints have been available in recent years. What makes the book so interesting is that it was written by industry leaders of that era.
In the meantime, you might note this Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_the_United_States
“During this period [1826-1850], Americans watched closely the development of railways in England. The main competition came from canals, many of which were in operation under state ownership, and from privately owned steamboats plying the nation’s vast river system. The state of Massachusetts in 1829 prepared an elaborate plan. However private enterprise built nearly all the country’s railroads …”
“SpaceX can also amortize their overall Dragon capsule production or use the Dragons from the CRS program, so their overall costs/seat are much lower. Musk has been quoting a $20M/seat figure for quite a while, and though that assumes a full capsule, it still only works out to $140M/flight max.”
More press releases for a paper space project. Yet they fly nobody and their capsule has carried a wheel of cheese.
=yawn= Musk has been quoted on a lot of things. How’s that retirement condo on Mars coming along… As Groucho Marx said of Florida real estate- “You can get stucco. Boy can you get stuck-o.”
William Mellberg wrote:
“The fact remains that the railroad industry was created by the private sector.”
If you read that charter from 1826 you will find that along with direct funding through the purchase of stock, B&O was given the right of emminant domain. If someone had trees on their property and B&O needed lumber for cross ties, they could get the sheriff and 20 people and a fair market price would be set. If someone had gravel, same thing, the railroad could use it.
If you read the next chapter the state wanted B&O to extend that line to the city of Washington. The state financed 5/8ths of the total cost and they were given the right of domain also.
You will find at the very least almost all railroads were given this right to obtain land and resources once a state granted the charter.
You see, I do not see what the problem is here with state/city partnerships with the private sector. A city has a problem, no rail access. They add incentives, and partner up to get that transportation system.
It is exactly the same with what NASA is doing, the Nation needs a new commercial transportation system where non exists, so NASA partners up with the private sector to get it up and running. Then that commercial transportation system offers the service to the entire Nation to utilize thereby increasing overall economic activity.
It has always been a good investment for taxpayers.
“Given the makeup of the Commitee on the House side, the only member that Musk can count in his corner is Rep. Dana Rohrbacher (R-CA). Why? Because a Space X facility located in Hawthorne is in his district.â€
Interesting how Congressman Rohrbacher’s support for SpaceX isn’t seen as “pork†by some people.
It’s only interesting if one believes the repeated lie that SpaceX is in Rohrabacher’s district. It is not.
Rohrabacher supports SpaceX because he supports an affordable, vibrant, American space program, rather than a congressional porkfest that will trap us in LEO for decades more.
Matt wrote:
“Every Administration was content to have Shuttle in LEO”
You see Matt, you just refuse to see it. Every Administration were not content to just have the NASA operating as a monopoly. Hell look at what President Reagan did, he had the original Space Act that created NASA changed to add:
“(c) Commercial Use of Space.–Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the Administration seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.”
Then look what President Bush Jr. added in the Vision for Space Exploration:
Goal and Objectives
“• Promote international and commercial participation in exploration to further U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests.”
—–
“C. Space Transportation Capabilities Supporting Exploration”
“« Acquire cargo transportation as soon as practical and affordable to support missions to and from the International Space Station; and
« Acquire crew transportation to and from the International Space Station, as required, after the Space Shuttle is retired from service.”
—-
“D. International and Commercial Participation
• Pursue commercial opportunities for providing transportation and other services supporting the International Space Station and exploration missions beyond low Earth orbit.“
– PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH – JANUARY 1 4 , 2 0 0 4
“Our aim is to explore in a sustainable, affordable, and flexible manner.” – Sean O’Keefe
Now how can you read what past Presidents have did and then say that Administrations have been content, they have been trying to push past the status quo but certain members of congress have fought tooth and nail to protect what they have and not allow commercial. President Obama is following exactly what other Presidents have called for.
The Vision for Space Exploration said that NASA would build no new launch systems and Griffin immediately started building TWO new systems with support from the usual cost plus contractors and members of Congress like Hatch, Shelby, Hutchinson, Nelson, et cetera.
The idea that Administrations have been happy with the “traditional” NASA way of doing the space program is just plain silly and ignoring history.
Matt Wiser wrote @ August 18th, 2011 at 1:06 am
“Now, if POTUS … had said something like “… NASA will return our Astronauts to the moon, and certainly will do so before we travel to Mars.”
And that continues to be the galling point for you and others Matt, that Obama didn’t promise you the Moon.
Admit it, nothing but a firm statement saying that government dollars will be expended to put a government employee back on the Moon will suffice.
You are not interested in space exploration, only Moon exploration. It’s a tiny world you live in…
“How’s that retirement condo on Mars coming along”
I would imagine the wise thing to do would be to buy your retirement home 30 years before you retire. I can only guess you have already bought your retirement home 30 years before you planned to live in it.
William Mellberg wrote:
“A handful of flights to the ISS are nothing like the nationwide (and worldwide) network of air routes that were carrying passengers between hundreds of different destinations around the globe. The difference lies in the lack of a pre-existing commercial market.”
There is something refered to in economics as pent up demand. As that demand grows it usually will either hit a tipping point, where the R&D and cost of entry can close the business case and there are times that the government will do the R&D and act as an anchor tenant in the early stages to create just enough demand to make it viable early on before other customers gain confidence in that business.
I do agree with you that currently there is not enough demand at the current price points where most people can take advantage of space flight. But I do believe there is enough pent up demand at a global governmental level that there does, in fact, have a big enough market for space flight at the suggested price points.
You just have to look at the 7 MOU’s that Bigelow Aerospace has already signed and what he has stated publically. The numbers he is suggesting will support around 10 of his stations. There are potentially about 40-50 2nd and 3rd tier countries that could afford a space program through Bigelow.
The federal government has spent close to a trillion dollars maturing “pre-competitive” space technology. With commercial crew and cargo we are finally past the pre-competitive stage and are now entering the competitive stage.
Can I offer you a link to part 2 of a seven part series. This is an excellent series of articles that expresses a lot of what some people on here advocate.
U.S. Space Industry at the Crossroads; Part 2: It’s Time to Kick the Oldest Kid(s) Out of the House
Rand Simberg wrote:
“Rohrabacher supports SpaceX because he supports an affordable, vibrant, American space program, rather than a congressional porkfest that will trap us in LEO for decades more.”
And because Elon Musk is a Rohrabacher campaign fundraiser and contributor. One hand washes the other.
Follow the money …
http://www.rohrabacher.com/elonmusk.pdf
At least Rohrabacher is one of a handful of Republicans that Musk supports with his donations. Most of his Congressional “friends” are liberal Democrats.
Follow the money:
http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/elon-musk.asp?cycle=10
This won’t be helpful for Space X if power changes hands in January 2013. When it comes to donations, politicians have long memories. And favoritism is only rewarded if the side one favors wins.
Vladislaw wrote:
“I do agree with you that currently there is not enough demand at the current price points where most people can take advantage of space flight. But I do believe there is enough pent up demand at a global governmental level that there does, in fact, have a big enough market for space flight at the suggested price points. You just have to look at the 7 MOU’s that Bigelow Aerospace has already signed and what he has stated publically.”
And I agree with you that Bigelow’s approach has some very real potential in the niche market you’ve identified. That said, MOUs aren’t firm orders/contracts. There have been many MOUs signed for aircraft sales that never materialized. It’s one thing to sign a MOU. It’s another to pony up the money. But Bigelow’s approach has always made a great deal of sense to me. And I wish Bigelow Aerospace all the best as their inflatable habitats would have applications beyond Earth orbit, as well as in LEO. I’m thinking in terms of habitats for a lunar outpost, for instance. It would seem that Bigelow has something to offer for everyone. Which is a good position to be in.
And because Elon Musk is a Rohrabacher campaign fundraiser and contributor. One hand washes the other.
Which has what to do with pork, or the continuing lie that SpaceX is in Rohrabacher’s district?
Of course Elon is going to provide support for someone with an enlightened space policy. Do you expect him to donate to Richard Shelby?
Ron, I am not saying the Moon should be the ultimate destination: it’s not. Mars is. What I’m saying is that the Moon should be, even though the funding isn’t there at the present time, the INITIAL Destination. VSE had the moon as a stepping stone for destinations further out.
When POTUS’s speech sneered at lunar return, that made sure even the revised FY 11 budget would get nowhere in Congress, and Senators like Bill Nelson, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Richard Shelby, and Orrin Hatch wound up writing their own NASA bill. As long as this administration is seen as sneering at the idea of lunar return, you’ll have congresscritters pushing for a destination-based approach to HSF.
William Mellberg wrote @ August 18th, 2011 at 1:37 pm
“When it comes to donations, politicians have long memories. And favoritism is only rewarded if the side one favors wins.”
When politicians do something to favor one particular company, that is called an earmark. The SLS is a good example of this with regards to the SRB’s, which Senator Hatch has gleefully proclaimed was essentially an earmark.
Nothing SpaceX is contributing to either party or politician rises anywhere near the level of what ATK has contributed over the years, so it’s hard to see how SpaceX’s lack of political contribution would be a significant influence on anyone.
The real battle has been and will be the funding stream represented by the SLS. SpaceX, and ULA to the same degree, threaten that gravy train by being existing alternatives that Congressional SLS supporter bend over backwards to avoid acknowledging directly. Why? Once any talk about mission payloads is brought up, the emperor will be discovered to be stark naked, in that there are no forecasted or funded payloads that require the SLS.
That issue, the lack of need for the SLS, is the real reason people pick on existing alternatives like SpaceX, not how much and who they give campaign money to.
“Follow the money …”
Follow the money indeed. But just like a magician fooling you into watching the wrong thing, you’re looking at the wrong hand that’s providing the money.
“So anything in contact with the surface could easily drift away.”
This is a false statement in the case of some asteroids. Again, gravity will pull objects towards Ceres at a rate of nearly 0.3 m/s^2. That means that if I drop an object in Ceres gravity well, it will move 0.3 meters towards Ceres in the first second and 0.9 meters towards Ceres in the second second. That’s 1.2 meters in two seconds, which means if I hold my arm out straight and drop an object while standing on the surface of Ceres, it will be on the ground in under two seconds. Feathers fall more slowly than that in Earth’s gravity well and atmosphere.
“‘You don’t land on an asteroid,’ says former Apollo astronaut Rusty Schweickart”
Schweickart’s statement is wrong in the case of some asteroids. Again, the NEAR spacecraft landed on Eros. And Hayabusa landed on Itokawa:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20007555-1.html
“Astronauts wouldn’t walk on an asteroid. They would drift next to it”
Again, this statement is wrong in the case of some asteroids. An astronaut that started at a height of 1.2 meters above Ceres’ surface would fall to the ground in about two seconds. They’re not going to “drift” next to Ceres for any appreciable amount of time.
“The minimal gravity also means that any dust the astronauts stir up will hang in a suspended cloud for a long time.”
Again, this statement is wrong in the case of some asteroids. Many particles in an dust cloud that start at a height of 1.2 meters above Ceres’ surface would fall to the ground in about two seconds.
If your statement was true, then all asteroids would be surrounded by dust clouds from constant micrometeorite bombardment. They aren’t.
“Because there’s no weather on an asteroid, there’s no erosion to smooth the dust particles.”
I’m not sure what the relevance of this statement is to the earlier posts. This is true of any airless, stony or metallic object in the solar system (including our Moon).
“But I would never be so rude, intolerant and insensitive as to describe an obviously intelligent person”
What is “obviously intelligent” about the other poster’s post? He gets basic physics concepts wrong, randomly capitalizes words, randomly employs quotation marks, throws around incendiary accusations like “hoaxes” and “pathetic delusions” in the absence of any evidence, and makes up words like “humaned” and “explorational”. I don’t see evidence of anything that’s “intelligent” in his post, nevertheless anything that’s “obviously intelligent”.
“as ‘an illiterate hillbilly.'”
I did not say that the other poster was an illiterate hillbilly. I said that his post reads like the writing of an illiterate hillbilly.
Don’t put words in my mouth.
“I believe you owe the gentleman an apology”
I’m not going to apologize for calling a spade, a spade. Poor writing is poor writing. If someone can’t form a coherent, calm argument without making up words, they shouldn’t be wasting their and other folks’ time posting here (or anywhere else).
And if you want to play petty, tit-for-tat games, I believe you owe me an apology for putting words in my mouth. But I’d prefer that you spend your time learning high school physics first so I don’t have to waste my time correcting your false statements about gravitational forces on asteroids.
Ugh…
William Mellberg wrote:
“That said, MOUs aren’t firm orders/contracts. There have been many MOUs signed for aircraft sales that never materialized. It’s one thing to sign a MOU. It’s another to pony up the money.”
True, a MOU doesn’t directly always turn into a revenue stream, but in this case I am not looking at in that regard. Look at it more like a barometer. If Bigelow Aerospace had went out on their first potential customer roundup and they had received absolutely no interest and slammed doors, it would be one thing. For me this illustrates pent up demand, how much? Probably only Bigelow has a handle on that.
What I found interesting is when he first mentioned they were not really going to pursue the pure tourist trade but going after sovergn clients instead some things seemed to change. At that time Robert Bigelow was not talking much about potential customer numbers and they were planning on launching the Galaxy. As they added MOU’s you found that they decided on skipping Galaxy and were going to go straight to Sundancer, Then added another MOU and now it looks like maybe skip Sundancer and go straight to BA 330’s then at the last talk he gave a few weeks ago, mentions that from his talks with the potential clients the demand would equal about 10 stations.
That is one of the reason I have increased my view on the importance of pump priming commercial crew access. I think there might be a LOT of countries that want to “get in the game”. National prestige, technology development, I have not really picked up the driver because the countries signing the MOU’s have not really commented that I have seen. I believe the pent up demand on the government level of these 2nd and 3rd tier countries wanting to be in space just might be a lot higher than anyone suspects.
Hell it might just be keeping up with the jones’s but I do believe we could be in for a surprise. But if that global market does exist, I would sure like America to capture the lion’s share of that sector before anyone else. America=Space=Moon landing is one hell of selling point for who do you want to ride a rocket with, that Brand will only last as long as we stay in front of the curve.
“MT: Check the Lockheed-Martin PLYMOUTH ROCK study. They ID’d several potential targets for NEO missions well before POTUS made his speech. There were targets in the gunsight as far as L-M was concerned.”
So what?
The President is suppossed to take one contractor’s study as the basis for setting national civil human space flight goals that will involve tens, if not hundreds, of billions of taxpayer dollars? Really?
And the President is suppossed to use what method to select one asteroid from among the “potential targets” in this contractor’s study? A ouija board?
C’mon…
“I am not saying the Moon should be the ultimate destination: it’s not. Mars is. What I’m saying is that the Moon should be, even though the funding isn’t there at the present time, the INITIAL Destination.”
Why?
If the funding isn’t there, and you insist that Moon be the first destination, then we go nowhere. Wouldn’t you rather go somewhere — get some human space exploration started — than go nowhere out of spite because the funding isn’t available to support a pet lunar expedition?
And if Mars is the ultimate destination, then why waste tens of billions of dollars on a detour to a target that doesn’t test any of the key components of a Mars mission: the multi-month transits and radiation exposure, atmospheric entry/descent/landing, surface operations with a multi-ten minute time lag, structures/mechanisms/operations in a 1/3rd g environment exposed to corrosion in the Mars atmsophere, life support in an environment with poisons like hexvalent chromium, ISRU techniques relevant to Mars atmosphere and ice resources, etc., etc.
“When POTUS’s speech sneered at lunar return, that made sure even the revised FY 11 budget would get nowhere in Congress, and Senators like Bill Nelson, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Richard Shelby, and Orrin Hatch wound up writing their own NASA bill.”
The 2010 NASA Authorization Act wasn’t written in reaction to anything the Administration said about the Moon as a target for human exploration. If those Senators were concerned about lunar return, then they would have written a lunar goal into the Act. They didn’t.
In fact, they weren’t concerned about setting exploration goals at all because there are no exploration goals in the Act. All they cared about was ensuring that the Shuttle/Constellation workforce remain employed and voting for them and contributing to their campaigns in the next election via SLS.
“As long as this administration is seen as sneering at the idea of lunar return, you’ll have congresscritters pushing for a destination-based approach to HSF.”
Again, Congress wrote no human space exploration destinations into the 2010 NASA Authorization Act, and no one has moved any serious legislative proposals into committee since then to set such goals.
You’re projecting your interests and desires onto Congress. To first order, Congress doesn’t care about exploration destinations. They care about jobs and the votes and campaign contributions that come with them.
FWIW…
Rand Simberg wrote:
“Of course Elon is going to provide support for someone with an enlightened space policy.”
I see. So anyone who agrees with Elon Musk and Rand Simberg is enlightened. Anyone with a different point of view, or a different set of goals, is not. That’s an interesting perspective, Comrade.
As a former corporate spokesman for an aerospace manufacturer, I understand all about promoting a particular agenda. But at least everyone understood that I was being paid to say positive things on behalf of my employer.
Major Tom wrote:
“I’m not going to apologize for calling a spade, a spade … And if you want to play petty, tit-for-tat games, I believe you owe me an apology for putting words in my mouth.”
I’m not surprised that you won’t apologize to the gentleman who has as much right to express his thoughts here as you do, whether you agree with him or not (and whether or not he is a veteran wordsmith). Moreover, I didn’t put any words in your mouth. I simply pointed to your own mean-spirited and ugly comment about another contributor.
Why is it that some people feel the need to use insults and invective to make their point? Your rude, arrogant behavior wins no converts to your cause. Nor does it reflect positively on your own intelligence.
Major Tom also opined:
“Schweickart’s statement is wrong …”
So Russell Schweickart, an acknowledged authority on asteroids (and chairman of the B612 Foundation), doesn’t know as much about the subject as Major Tom? Amazing.
As for Ceres … even if humans could stand, walk or drive there (which they can’t), it’s in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Not exactly a good choice for Obama’s 2025 asteroid mission, is it?
Vladislaw wrote:
“What I found interesting is when he first mentioned they were not really going to pursue the pure tourist trade but going after sovergn clients instead some things seemed to change.”
That is what caught my attention (and imagination), too. Because I think it’s the best business approach to follow initially. Should that niche pan out, I see tourism following.
Martijn Meijering wrote:
“It’s possible and I’d be very happy if it worked out. But an exploration program that is used to establish a large and fiercely competitive propellant launch market could also be that spark.”
My apologies, I missed your post the first time around.
I am in 100% agreement with you on that.
It would just be another added bonus, if you have stations demanding cargo, and NASA demanding cargo (fuel), man what a great place for our commercial space sector to be in. Fierce competition to lower your costs to get a chunk of all those launches and since it is cargo, not much worry about safety and killing off astronauts. I can just see the innovation trains that would start leaving the stations.
Now the Nation would really have a reason to give people some rational for dreaming about doing things in space because those dreams would actually have the potential of being acted on.
The reason I mention dreams is because a lot of theorical people have said how solutions came to them in dreams. So it is a simple numbers game, the more people dreaming about any particular needed solution the more likely someone has that eureka moment and comes up with something.
After apollo we literally had millions of people dreaming about space. It seemed like the 60’s and 70’s filled reams of paper, that were stuffed into three ring binders filled with ideas. It appears the numbers have only went down from there because space never opened up to masses, it became very limited to a right stuff program.
What are the dreams now? A better Xbox or video game?
MT: Check the 2010 NASA Authorization Act: it specifically mentions the moon as a destination (though not the first) for human exploration. Now, if Congressman Posey gets his way via Committee Chair Hall, you might see a “Sense of the Congress” resolution come out in favor of lunar return. Now it may not have the force of law, but it would be a strong signal of the direction that Congress wants NASA to be going for.
Remember the first House Hearing following that disaster known as the FY 11 Budget rollout? A congresscritter asked Charlie Bolden if he was concerned about someone like China “beating us back to the Moon.” Bolden replied that he didn’t care, and the congressman replied, “It does to me.” It’s those people that the Administration has to convince to go along with what POTUS and Dr. Holdren have in mind for NASA. Perception counts in politics, and the perception that the Administration was sneering at the idea of NASA returning to the lunar surface didn’t help when their own Budget proposals were REJECTED. With bipartisan support, mind you.
Check this part of the 2010 Space Authorization Act: Section 301.
SEC. 301. HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT BEYOND LOW-EARTH ORBIT.
(a) Findings- Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The extension of the human presence from low-Earth orbit to other regions of space beyond low-Earth orbit will enable missions to the surface of the Moon and missions to deep space destinations such as near-Earth asteroids and Mars.
(2) The regions of cis-lunar space are accessible to other national and commercial launch capabilities, and such access raises a host of national security concerns and economic implications that international human space endeavors can help to address.
(3) The ability to support human missions in regions beyond low-Earth orbit and on the surface of the Moon can also drive developments in emerging areas of space infrastructure and technology.
(4) Developments in space infrastructure and technology can stimulate and enable increased space applications, such as in-space servicing, propellant resupply and transfer, and in situ resource utilization, and open opportunities for additional users of space, whether national, commercial, or international.
(5) A long term objective for human exploration of space should be the eventual international exploration of Mars.
(6) Future international missions beyond low-Earth orbit should be designed to incorporate capability development and availability, affordability, and international contributions.
While Congress did not direct NASA to return to the moon, it did list the lunar surface as a destination for NASA. Also, take note of Section 7:
(7) Human space flight and future exploration beyond low-Earth orbit should be based around a pay-as-you-go approach. Requirements in new launch and crew systems authorized in this Act should be scaled to the minimum necessary to meet the core national mission capability needed to conduct cis-lunar missions. These initial missions, along with the development of new technologies and in-space capabilities can form the foundation for missions to other destinations. These initial missions also should provide operational experience prior to the further human expansion into space.
This was passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent, and in the House by a vote of 304-118. The Administration didn’t fight it, as they knew their original proposed NASA budget was dead on The Hill. And there are still folks here pushing for something similar?! And this was a Democratically-controlled Congress that passed the legislation.
@William Mellberg wrote @ August 18th, 2011 at 6:11 pm
Well said. However, “If the funding isn’t there, and you insist that Moon be the first destination, then we go nowhere.” Who says ‘we’ will go, anyway. Someone will go, but whether it is American led is less certain. The moon is the logical place to go and perfect hardware, systems and procedures (a la Gemini was for Apollo) for long duration stays off planet before taking what is learned and embarking on an expedition further out into the radiation laced space of asteroid chasing and establishing a foothold on Mars. That’s your manned space program for the next 35 years. A marathon, not a race, well paced with a long distance goal.
Of course Elon is going to provide support for someone with an enlightened space policy.
He can barely suport himself, let alone generate outside support.
“A congresscritter asked Charlie Bolden if he was concerned about someone like China “beating us back to the Moon.†Bolden replied that he didn’t care, and the congressman replied, “It does to me.†“
If they truely wanted a lunar return they would open it up to competition for the bidding of a HLV, the fact that they only legislated how NASA could not use competition but use the heritage hardware and workforce tells you what it is really about. Actually getting to the moon has nothing to do with it.
@ William Mellberg
@ Major Tom
Ok, guys. Everybody here knows where I stand on the SLS vs asteroid issue. But this does fall within the purview of my field and I must state the facts with scientific integrity.
Schweickart is essentially correct about any asteroid close enough for us to visit. Very few NEOs (Near Earth Objects) have the mass to give a gravity sufficient for walking around and pretty much those that do have that much mass have such eccentric orbits that (regardless of how close they come) the delta-vee requirements would obviate a lot of the advantages of the asteroid’s close approach. That leaves smaller asteroids of a few hundred meters diameter to couple of kilometers as the only viable candidates: ones with lower eccentricity orbits or relatively stable Trojans.
But that is a non-issue to me. It’s still a valid stepping stone to Mars: testing time lag, radiation exposure, etc. And if Schweickart is sincere about the philosophy behind the B612 Foundation, he will consider it important too.
This is all I will say about the issue because I am in a time crunch, but I felt strongly that it needed to be said.
I see.
Apparently you don’t.
So anyone who agrees with Elon Musk and Rand Simberg is enlightened. Anyone with a different point of view, or a different set of goals, is not. That’s an interesting perspective, Comrade.
No one said that.
As a former corporate spokesman for an aerospace manufacturer, I understand all about promoting a particular agenda. But at least everyone understood that I was being paid to say positive things on behalf of my employer.
Is this supposed to have some relevance to the current discussion?
If they truely wanted a lunar return they would open it up to competition for the bidding of a HLV
No, if they truly wanted a lunar return they would have funded a lander instead of a new launch vehicle. Dragon could be the capsule and we already have plenty of launchers, with more on the way.
DCSCA wrote @ August 19th, 2011 at 1:17 am
“He can barely suport himself, let alone generate outside support.”
Yes, the $14M Musk got from the Tesla IPO is just barely enough to keep him rolling in caviar and champagne. And SpaceX? I’m sure they can’t afford a fourth launch facility, so they will have to make do with just three for all the business they already have on the books ($3B at last count).
Seriously, do you ever try to find out facts before you post? Or is empty rhetoric the best you can do?
“So anyone who agrees with Elon Musk and Rand Simberg is enlightened”
Actually, what he said was that Rohrabacher was enlightened. So Musk and Simberg are agreeing with the enlightened one, Rohrabacher.
So it should have been stated that anyone that agrees with Rohrabacher is enlightened.
@ Martijn Meijering
“No, if they truly wanted a lunar return they would have funded a lander instead of a new launch vehicle. Dragon could be the capsule and we already have plenty of launchers, with more on the way.
According to Elon, no need to fund a lunar lander, once the human crewed version of Dragon is ready, Dragon is innately a lunar/Mars lander.
Well, if Dragon could be the lander that would be even better! But that ignores the fact that Dragon doesn’t have the delta-v for a lunar descent, let alone descent and ascent. A lander could be Dragon derived of course.
@ Martin Meijering
Well, if Dragon could be the lander that would be even better! But that ignores the fact that Dragon doesn’t have the delta-v for a lunar descent, let alone descent and ascent. A lander could be Dragon derived of course.
Martin, all I can tell you is that Musk said in a recent video interview that the Dragon could, because of its powered landing capability, be a lunar/Mars lander. He has also said that it could take off from Earth’s surface and hop a fairly long distance, though he didn’t say how far. If it has that much lifting power, here is a possible conjecture on my part (I don’t have the time to run the numbers, but it may be feasible). One Dragon with heat shield for return to Earth, another without the extra mass of the heat shield as a lander with possibly a lower number of crew instead of the usual 7 (2? 3?) to get the mass down even more.
Martijn Meijering wrote @ August 19th, 2011 at 4:48 pm
“Well, if Dragon could be the lander that would be even better! But that ignores the fact that Dragon doesn’t have the delta-v for a lunar descent, let alone descent and ascent. A lander could be Dragon derived of course.”
That’s kind of what I was thinking too, and though Dragon could land you somewhere, you still need an ascent vehicle.
That’s why in my simple example I didn’t use Dragon for landing, as they may want a more specialized vehicle. At least for the first couple of landings. Anyways, Dragon lowers the overall cost needed to mount an expedition, which is really the bottom line.
Rand Simberg wrote:
“Is this supposed to have some relevance to the current discussion?”
Yes, it does. Because this discussion (if you go to the top) started out with the Obama Administration’s failure (self-acknowledged) to get its message across with respect to NASA’s new direction. In other words, this discussion began as a conversation about the failure of NASA HQ to “sell” its new agenda on Capitol Hill and to the public at large. As a former spokesperson for an aerospace manufacturer, I would certainly agree with the suggestion that the initial rollout for the Obama Administration’s new space policy was a disaster, and that things haven’t gotten any better since then. (Had they hired me as a consultant, that rollout would have been very different.)
Of course, I do see the comments that are posted day after day by a small group of individuals on multiple websites. These same few individuals tirelessly support President Obama’s space policy. And some of those same few individuals sing the praises of Elon Musk and SpaceX on multiple websites day after day. Which is fine. There’s nothing wrong with being an enthusiast. And I get a kick out of some of the kids on YouTube who present their own “space news” videos from time to time. But I do wonder how some of the adults can afford the time to post comment after comment, on website after website? Do they have real world jobs? Or are they, in fact, being paid to do what they do? In which case, shouldn’t they be telling us whose payroll(s) they are on in the interest of full disclosure? When I was a spokesman for Fokker Aircraft, everyone understood my connection to the company. Although I believed everything that I said about our fine products, it was still important that the people I talked with knew where I was coming from (i.e., that I was a paid spokesperson).
As you know, I enjoy posting a few of my own comments here at SpacePolitics.com every so often. But I could hardly afford to do so day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year. I certainly could not afford to be posting comments on multiple websites day after day, week after week, month after month and year after year. I simply don’t have that kind of time as I have a “real job” that takes up most of my attention.
Thus, it is only natural that I should wonder how some people can afford the time to be, in effect, full-time Internet commentators and SpaceX boosters? And given my own professional background in corporate communications, I naturally wonder if some of those folks are on somebody’s payroll? That would be the ethical approach if it’s the case. And it would certainly influence my reactions to some individual’s comments if I knew they were being paid to make them — especially when I read remarks that so vehemently disparage opposing points of view.
In short, it would be nice to know if some people are just giving their personal opinions … or if they are being paid to promote somebody else’s agenda.
Any thoughts?
Martin, all I can tell you is that Musk said in a recent video interview that the Dragon could, because of its powered landing capability, be a lunar/Mars lander.
He may have meant that it would be capable of terminal descent and landing. In combination with a crasher stage it could act as a lander in the strict sense, but still not as an ascent vehicle. Moon to / from LLO is 2 km/s. Even Orion with its service module would have only 1.4 km/s. There’s no reason you couldn’t build a larger service module and / or crasher stage, but you’d need more than just a Dragon.
In short, it would be nice to know if some people are just giving their personal opinions … or if they are being paid to promote somebody else’s agenda.
Heh, I’d love to get paid for promoting commercial manned spaceflight, but no such luck I’m afraid.
I do suspect that there are a few paid SLS shills here and on other boards, though most of them probably aren’t paid to shill, they are simply trying to defend their jobs.
“That would be the ethical approach if it’s the case.”
I should have written:
“Disclosing their ties would be the ethical approach if it’s the case.”
In other words, if some people are being paid to post comments on the Internet every day promoting a particular point of view, the ethical thing to do would be to make those connections clear.
William Mellberg wrote @ August 19th, 2011 at 6:39 pm
“In short, it would be nice to know if some people are just giving their personal opinions … or if they are being paid to promote somebody else’s agenda.”
Many of us think that “amightywind” is on the payroll of either ATK or SpaceX. ATK for obvious reasons, since he has got to be their biggest fan. And SpaceX in that he could be a paid provocateur to unite commercial space supporters. Still not sure which it is…
Otherwise the only way to know, even for those that provide their real names (like you), is to check their tax forms. Since that’s not likely to happen, you’ll just have to rely on the old standby, which is gauging someone by what they say.
Do you want to submit your tax forms for review?
“In short, it would be nice to know if some people are just giving their personal opinions … or if they are being paid to promote somebody else’s agenda.
Any thoughts?”
I have never made any bones about my background, I studied economics at the University of North Dakota, I am not connected in any way with the space sector, just a space junkie. I have commented on here for about 5-6 years and also on Space Review, if I post on other sites it is usually from clicking a link on here.
So you can see why most of my comments relate to the bad economics of how NASA does business. In turn how the Nation suffers because certain members of congress could care less about space exploration and more about jobs in their district/state and campaign funding from the usual suspects who depend on cost plus contracting.
While in college more than one time professors used NASA as the bad example for economic principles. It was pointed out from economics professors just how much the country was sacrificing by allowing NASA a sacred cow status and refusing to embrace commercial aspects.
I was in college when Reagan had the Space Act revamped to include:
““(c) Commercial Use of Space.–Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the Administration seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.â€
You would not believe how excited some of those Profs where at this news. They said you were going to see a surge now in space, little did they know how strong that cabal is in congress and another 20 years would be wasted before it was finally embraced.
In short, it would be nice to know if some people are just giving their personal opinions … or if they are being paid to promote somebody else’s agenda.
Any thoughts?
I am giving my personal opinions, which I have been giving for more than two decades on the Internet. I am not on anyone’s payroll, other than my own.
And I consider the implication that I am being paid to write what I post here slanderous. I suspect that the other posters here who want a sane space policy, that will open up space affordably, instead of continuing to feed cost-plus contractors and porker politicians, feel likewise.
Any thoughts?
I would like to add, one Professor did a couple lectures comparing the role of government in trains planes and automobles to space as it relates to the private sector.
With railroads it was how can we creatively finance more railroads, more track how can a small rural ag town get a spur to their grain elevator, what laws can be passed to help the industry, more players.
With automobiles it was how can we creatively finance more roads, more gas refineries, more oil drilling, what laws can be passed to help the industry, more players.
With airplanes it was how can we creatively finance more airlines to smaller towns, more airports, more runways, what laws can be passed to help the industry, more players.
And then space. Here it was the exact opposite. How do we limit new player entry to compete with NASA. No financing new space startups, laws to create roadblocks it was amazing to see the work that went in to not turn over space transportation to the private sector as fast as possible and expand it to the same level as the other three.
A Tough Pill to Swallow
“Just last month, the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation heard testimony on the “Contributions of Space to National Imperatives.†Without exception, each speaker confirmed, in so many words, that the U.S. Space Program’s lasting contribution is the massive global space economy it launched and fuels. With scientific discovery, global security, and inspiration as its chief drivers, the space industry in the United States alone sustains “nearly 11 million jobs…(and) remains the single largest contributor to the nation’s balance of trade, exporting $80.5 billion and importing $27.2 billion in relevant products in 2010, for a net surplus of $53.3 billion.†(Testimony of Aerospace Industries Association Vice President Frank Slazer; May 18, 2011)
“Over the past six years, the global space economy has grown by 48 percent – from $164 billion in 2004 to $276 billion in 2010. The average annual growth rate of the industry increased from about 5 percent to nearly 8 percent last year.†(Testimony of Space Foundation CEO Elliot Holokauahi Pulham; May 18, 2011)
So, if at its core it’s all about American economic prosperity, how can we accelerate the coming of what’s next?”
That is why I push for commercial transportation and fuel depots/spacebased vehicles, to accelerate what’s next.
Rand Simberg asked:
“Any thoughts?”
Yes. Given some of the other comments (see above), it seems I’m not the only one who has wondered about some of the things that get posted here and elsewhere on the Internet (and some of the people who post them).
But as Coastal Ron said:
“Otherwise the only way to know, even for those that provide their real names (like you), is to check their tax forms. Since that’s not likely to happen, you’ll just have to rely on the old standby, which is gauging someone by what they say.”
I agree.
Coastal Ron wrote:
“Do you want to submit your tax forms for review?”
Good one!
You’ll see them if I decide to announce my candidacy for the GOP presidential nomination. I think that might be the best way to help shape this country’s space policy for the future. Now let’s see … who would I choose to be NASA Administrator?
@William Mellberg
“In short, it would be nice to know if some people are just giving their personal opinions … or if they are being paid to promote somebody else’s agenda.
Any thoughts?”
I can definitely tell you I’m not getting any money from anyone, other than a few bucks from Yahoo! News when I write about the new direction in manned spaceflight.
I’ve always been passionate about what’s out there in the universe in general. That’s the reason why I quit a successful career as a software engineer at the age of 54 to pursue my childhood dream to become an astrophysicist. I then got my masters degree and was awarded the University Medal (an honor above cum laude) and am now working on my PhD in astrophysics (I’m doing cutting edge research into the physics of H II regions).
Bottom line: as an outgrowth of my lifelong desire to explore the universe in general, I have been passionate about human spaceflight as long as I can remember. Hell, even before I, at the age of 9, saw Alan Shepherd take that first suborbital flight. But in my everyday life, other than my research, I have a part-time job tutoring mathematics and physics.
But I am concerned about the crass political motivations behind SLS and MPCV. I want to see the U.S be the No. 1 spacefaring nation. And the attempt to make space a public jobs program first (rather than the natural job creator it could be by creating an industry that pushes forward into the solar system) is something that appallls me. It is ironic that there are some who honestly fight the new direction and actually think this thing that the politicians have come with up for political reasons will get us there. We will go back to the moon as a matter of course, it just won’t be the main goal and we won’t do it by throwing money at it in huge piles.
I’d love to get paid for all of my pro-Orion/MPCV and SLS remarks, but sadly, no such luck. Everything I’ve posted here is my personal opinion.
Musk is getting way, way, ahead of himself. He needs to demonstrate the cargo capability of his vehicle, then fly some Human missions, before thinking about BEO (which is NASA’s mission, remember) If he wants to offer a Dragon variant for Lunar missions, he’s perfectly free to offer it to NASA when the time comes for lander RFPs, but we’re a ways from that. He can dream, but focus on what NASA wants for LEO first. And when RFPs get issued for exploration systems like landers, his company can bid like everyone else.
it seems I’m not the only one who has wondered about some of the things that get posted here and elsewhere on the Internet (and some of the people who post them).
Well, all I can say is that, given the other things those creatures have written about us, you are in pretty tawdry company. It seems a lot more likely that they are on the take than us. Whether you want to stay there is up to you.
Musk is getting way, way, ahead of himself. He needs to demonstrate the cargo capability of his vehicle, then fly some Human missions, before thinking about BEO (which is NASA’s mission, remember)
Opposition to people who have vision, and opposition to express it, or even think about it, noted.
Fortunately, the people who built this country didn’t pay attention to stasist, ultraconservative creatures like you.
And the notion that only NASA should be allowed to go beyond earth orbit is both totalitarian, and insane.
Matt Wiser wrote @ August 19th, 2011 at 10:48 pm
“He can dream, but focus on what NASA wants for LEO first. And when RFPs get issued for exploration systems like landers, his company can bid like everyone else.”
I’m sure you’ll give the same advice to Lockheed Martin and their “Plymouth Rock” proposal – they need to concentrate on building a workable MPCV first, then they can talk about possible uses.
Cuz I know you are applying these “special rules” across the board, right Matt? Especially since SpaceX has already flown a working Dragon capsule and Lockheed Martin isn’t even close to having a flyable MPCV.
Or are these more “Musk Only” rules that you’re creating?
Rick Boozer wrote:
“I’ve always been passionate about what’s out there in the universe in general.”
And it shows! Moreover, I share that passion.
A few weeks ago, I had a speaking engagement in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. My host owns a ranch 30 miles south of town and invited me to stay there with him and his family. We arrived around midnight (owing to the late arrival of my flight into Spokane), and I was immediately blown away by the spectacular view of the night sky at the ranch. It was remarkable. I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a magnificent view of the heavens (other than in a planetarium)! After everyone else had gone to bed, I went outside and sat under the stars for an hour — admiring the view of the Milky Way spilling across the sky and wondering about “what’s out there” as you put it. I don’t recall seeing Messier 13 in Hercules, or the soft glow of the Double Cluster in Perseus, with my naked eyes before. What a treat! And a magnificent bolide left a smoky trail across the sky as the grand finale to my stargazing.
I thought back to the first telescope (a 3-inch Newtonian produced by Edmund Scientific) that my parents had given me for my 11th birthday in 1963. It opened the window to the heavens for me, and I’ve been an amateur astronomer ever since. But my interest in space was also piqued by my Father’s involvement with the Surveyor project, starting in 1962. He was responsible for the design and development of the cameras for America’s first lunar landers. So I followed the early space program with keen interest. Moreover, I was thrilled to meet Jim McDivitt and Ed White when I was in 7th Grade — shortly after their Gemini 4 mission.
In December 1972, my Dad and I were invited to the Apollo 17 launch. It was a night to remember — all the more so since we saw the crew as they were heading for the launch pad.
Twenty-five years after that, Harrison Schmitt (the last man and first geologist to set foot on the lunar surface) wrote the foreword to a book I wrote about the Apollo Program. We have been friends ever since. And as some people here already know, I am the co-editor of his website. Researching that book, I also befriended several of Dr. Schmitt’s former colleagues. Which explains my ongoing interest in lunar exploration.
Although I took Astronomy 101 and 102 at the University of Illinois (and spent some time using the 12-inch Brashear refractor in the historic observatory on campus), I pursued a business curriculum rather than science. That was because I wanted to become involved with my other passion: the commercial aircraft industry. (Growing up just a few miles from O’Hare International Airport, I had a much better view of airplanes than of stars as a kid.) And that is how I wound up working for the legendary Dutch airplane manufacturer, Fokker Aircraft.
But I have never lost my passion for space … nor my interest in “what’s out there.” Granted, I haven’t followed your route (although I greatly admire your decision to pursue your dream of becoming an astrophysicist). But I’m still looking up, as I did in Coeur d’Alene a few weeks ago.
And I have thoroughly enjoyed my work as an aerospace author and historian. It has taken me to some interesting places and introduced me to some fascinating people.
Some people (including some who leave comments here) have differing views about how best to “conquer” the Cosmos. I don’t think anyone has a monopoly on good ideas. But I do know that despite some of our differences, most of us do share the same passion about space … and that same sense of wonder about the Universe around us.
We should keep fact that in mind.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Matt Wiser wrote:
“Musk is getting way, way, ahead of himself”
You know, that is a very true statement. And frankly, it’s what has annoyed me about Musk and his fans as of late. All the talk about “retiring on Mars” and the other stuff … it’s just hype. And it’s almost as though he’s trying to build a cult of personality around himself. Musk should focus on getting the current job done first. Then, after producing a genuine record of success (i.e., a lot of successful flights), he can start talking about bigger things. I’m reminded a little bit of the Nobel Prize that was given to Barack Obama for achieving nothing … except getting himself elected. I wish I had been given all A’s in school before I took the exams!
I’d love to get paid for all of my pro-Orion/MPCV and SLS remarks, but sadly, no such luck. Everything I’ve posted here is my personal opinion.
I believe you.
I wouldn’t slander you as some here have me, by implying or actually accusing you of being on the take. Your opinions, like those of abreakingwind, or DCSCA, are far too clueless, in terms of politics, economics, technology, history, and otherwise, for anyone to have paid for them. If they did pay for them, they were fools, and should have hired smarter shills, and deserve to go out of business.
Rand Simberg wrote:
“I wouldn’t slander you [Matt Wiser] as some here have me, by implying or actually accusing you of being on the take. Your opinions, like those of abreakingwind, or DCSCA, are far too clueless, in terms of politics, economics, technology, history, and otherwise, for anyone to have paid for them. If they did pay for them, they were fools, and should have hired smarter shills, and deserve to go out of business.”
No one has slandered you here, Mr. Simberg. Although you have certainly smeared and insulted plenty of other people here and elsewhere in the past, including Captain Cernan a few weeks ago, and Matt Wiser tonight.
For the record, your own resume states the following:
“Since leaving Rockwell in 1993, he [Simberg] has been an entrepreneur and independent consultant in the information technology and commercial space industries, including lobbying …”
http://randsimberg.com/resume/index.html
Don’t pretend to be offended if some people might wonder who you’re a lobbyist for — especially given some of your comments.
What is clear is that you routinely resort to insults and invective to answer anyone who disagrees with you. Which I find deeply offensive, very immature and highly unprofessional.
Rick: you need to remember that NASA is beholden to Congress, just like every other government agency. The question of how much of a public/private sector partnership in HSF is still being hashed out, but the basic dividing line is this: commercial companies handle what Charlie Bolden calls “the easy stuff”: flying people and cargo to ISS (under NASA oversight for those flights) and other LEO destinations. NASA and other governments’ space agencies handle BEO missions. That doesn’t rule out commercial support of BEO (on-orbit refueling depots, for example), but any commercial BEO is going to be initially exploitation, not exploration, when that time comes, though commercial support of a lunar base (i.e. resupply) is not out of the question.
William Mellberg wrote @ August 20th, 2011 at 12:18 am
“All the talk about “retiring on Mars†and the other stuff … it’s just hype.”
Maybe. But since we won’t know for probably 30 years, does it matter?
Now if Musk was directing his company to start building Mars-specific hardware that would be used for his retirement, then that would be worth questioning. But he’s not. He’s building transportation systems that can be used for places near and far, and not just Mars.
What he has provided is his desires for himself, which by extension would also be for others. Earlier in this thread (August 16th, 2011 at 12:41 pm) I posited a mock Q&A between Chairman Hall and Elon Musk, and I based the answers on what Musk has already stated in public. Here is the part about Mars:
Chairman Hall: Mr. Musk, why do you say your goal is to retire on Mars?
Mr. Musk: I think humanity needs to become a multi-planet species if we are to survive long term, so I am using a significant amount of my time and money to make that happen. Letting people know that I want to retire on Mars makes it easy for people to understand that goal.
Will he retire on Mars? I guess we wait a while to find out. But let’s remember that the statements he makes in public are also what his employees hear, so they know what direction he is taking the company. If you believe his sincerity, and it’s something you think is worthwhile, then that could be a very powerful vision.
Companies make declarations about where they want to be in the future all the time, but we don’t notice it as much because they are terrestrial in nature. Matt complains about a lack of vision from Obama, but here we have a businessman providing his. And what’s Matt’s reaction? Derision.
So what’s a person to think? Where is the consistency of thought? That’s why it seems like as much as you think there is a cabal of people that are paid SpaceX promoters, others think there are a cabal of people that are paid SpaceX detractors. Where do you fall?
All I can say for myself is that I have been clear with what I want, and it doesn’t matter what the name on the company is. I advocate for those things that lower the cost to access space. SpaceX happens to be the poster child for that right now, but I also voice support for Orbital, SNC, Boeing and even ULA.
And if someone new comes along that has a likely way to significantly lower costs below what SpaceX can do? Then I’ll throw my support behind the new company. I only care about the end result, and not who gets us there.
And if Musk’s vision for the future creates a viable business that can get us to Mars in an affordable fashion, I’m not going to complain about where he wants to spend his last days. Hell, there’s probably a lot of people that would love to join him on Mars. And what’s wrong with that?
William Melberg: Care to bet that’s one of his (Musk’s) motives? He’s not the Messaiah when it comes to HSF, and he needs to realize that-and so do his fans. Mr. Musk needs to get real, concentrate on what NASA’s paying his firm to do, and when he’s demonstrated that not only does he have a capability, but that its safety and reliability are beyond doubt, then he can think about bidding on any NASA RFPs for BEO systems. (Ron and Rand: that last is for you two). Nothing wrong with dreaming; hell, even Henry Ford and Jack Northrop did that, but what Musk needs to do is stop this “retiring on Mars” nonsense-there were probably Congresscritters who were sitting on the fence re: Commercial Crew, and that may very well have turned them off-or at the very least made them skeptical. When he’s proven his systems in LEO, and should NASA tender for proposals for additional exploration systems, he would have a case to put forward as to why NASA should buy his stuff. Until then, he needs to shut his trap, prove to NASA and Congressional satisfaction that his firm can do what they’re being paid to do, and start flying cargo and crew to ISS.
Coastal Ron wrote:
“Maybe. But since we won’t know for probably 30 years, does it matter?”
You know, now that you mention it …
I don’t think Wernher von Braun ever said he was going to retire on Mars. But he did use a little hyperbole himself at times. So I guess I can’t blame Musk for doing the same. It just seems a little overwhelming at times.
@Matt Wiser
“NASA and other governments’ space agencies handle BEO missions. That doesn’t rule out commercial support of BEO (on-orbit refueling depots, for example), but any commercial BEO is going to be initially exploitation, not exploration, when that time comes, though commercial support of a lunar base (i.e. resupply) is not out of the question.”
My only problem with this is that SLS won’t be able to handle BEO missions because (especially in the country’s strapped financial straights) it will not be built within a reasonable time line anyway and for a much greater amount than need be if it were built. It may be possible to do with 2 Falcon Heavies or 2 souped up ULA vehicles what one SLS could do (should it even be built) in the time it would take to build the SLS or even less time. And even if they won’t, an industry competition would yield an equally capable but much more reasonably priced vehicle probably within less time even if they don’t start immediately, for reasons I outline next.
“He’s not the Messaiah when it comes to HSF, and he needs to realize that-and so do his fans.”
And most of us realize that. It just that currently (and even the Chinese admit this) he has set the bar for everyone else to meet as far as lowest $/kg to orbit. All you have to do is look at the price lists on the SpaceX website. And a NASA study showed that hisdevelopment costs were much less than what NASA would have spent to do the same thing and in less time. As Heinlein said, “Reach Earth orbit and you’re half-way to anywhere in the solar system” because Earth’s gravity well is the most expensive obstacle to overcome. If the guys working on SLS could give anywhere near those prices to orbit (the place they have to reach first) than I’d be the first to sing their praises. Those are cold hard facts.
@ Matt Wiser
Addendum
I too want NASA to handle BEO exploration, in the truest sense of the word, since that would not be profitable for commercial enterprises. But that means them working on the spacecraft that will go from Earth orbit out into the solar system. That does not require them to come up with their own heavy lifter. Private companies can do Earth to LEO just fine.
It may be possible to do with 2 Falcon Heavies or 2 souped up ULA vehicles what one SLS could do (should it even be built) in the time it would take to build the SLS or even less time.
You don’t even needed souped up EELVs, the existing ones would do. That’s part of why we need a spacecraft, not new launch vehicles.
@Coastal Ron:
Regarding cheap lift, I’m assuming you’re talking about cargo and crew, since all the near-term launchers except for Falcon Heavy are already available. Unless you’re talking about a revolutionary reduction in lift costs, which I would think is still over a decade away from even being defined, must less started on, and wouldn’t be economically sustainable yet.
Sorry, missed this bit earlier. I did mean revolutionary reductions in lift costs (and prices!) and the sooner we start, the sooner the necessary vehicles will be operational.
The first space transportation segment (Earth to LEO) is the most important one, but the best way to revolutionise it is to pour lots of money into it, and not by direct funding but by creating large demand for launch services. That’s why I’m eager to see exploration started as soon as possible, since exploration is inherently propellant intensive, at least for the foreseeable future, and would therefore provide enormous demand for launch services.
And that is another part of why we need a spacecraft, not new launch vehicles.
William Mellberg wrote @ August 20th, 2011 at 9:08 am
“It just seems a little overwhelming at times.”
I don’t know what would be overwhelming.
Other than announcing new hardware such as the Dragon LAS that doubles as landing jets, and the Falcon Heavy which is just three Falcon 9 with some new plumbing, Musk himself hasn’t said anything beyond restating what his goal for the company is (to be a space transportation company) and restating his goal to retire on Mars.
Maybe you don’t keep up with all the other announcements in the commercial space industry? Like three other companies building reusable crew systems, or ULA’s Atlas V being picked by those three companies as their crew launcher of choice? Or Orbital Sciences targeting February for their first COTS docking with the ISS?
These are exciting times for commercial space, and SpaceX may be the furthest along, but other companies are doing exciting stuff too – stuff we need to make a redundant, competitive commercial space transportation industry.
THAT to me is the most exciting part, the end result. Everything else is just progress reports, which is good, but I’m waiting for paid customer flights before I’ll really start celebrating.
In the meantime, as per Congresses direction, NASA is being forced spend vast sums of precious money in the vain hope that a mega-rocket will do something beyond supporting jobs in certain Congressional districts. Congress has provided no vision for their SLS, and have provided no guarantees that they will ever fund a use for it.
It’s easy to see why I’m more excited about commercial space than a rocket design by a Congressional committee.
Matt Wiser wrote @ August 20th, 2011 at 2:02 am
“you need to remember that NASA is beholden to Congress, just like every other government agency.”
Matt, you need to become familiar with what is known in our system of government is called “separation of powers”. NASA is an agency of the Executive branch, and is not beholden to Congress (the Legislative branch), it is beholden to the President.
If Congress doesn’t like what the Executive branch is doing, then they can complain, hold hearings, and even take the Executive branch to court to have the Judicial branch decide who’s right.
But Congress does not rule the Executive branch.
Mr. Musk needs to get real, concentrate on what NASA’s paying his firm to do, and when he’s demonstrated that not only does he have a capability, but that its safety and reliability are beyond doubt, then he can think about bidding on any NASA RFPs for BEO systems. (Ron and Rand: that last is for you two).
This is stupid. Any American citizen or corporation is allowed to bid on any government project they wish to, regardless of what Matt Wiser thinks or (more accurately) emotes.
Martijn Meijering wrote @ August 20th, 2011 at 10:48 am
“And that is another part of why we need a spacecraft, not new launch vehicles.”
And, to expand on what you’re saying, we need the spacecraft taking lots of trips so that they need to be refueled. That’s ultimately what will drive demand for more trips, is the consumption of supplies in space.
I could be wrong, but I don’t see demand becoming large enough for an RLV for at least 10 years. And then there is the question of who will build the next generation RLV. If Boeing won’t build the CST-100 without government involvement, I would assume they wouldn’t do the same for an RLV.
It would be nice if NASA actually did some preliminary work on what would be the best design for an RLV. However as long as the SLS is being funded, that won’t happen.
Matt Wiser wrote @ August 20th, 2011 at 2:24 am
“He’s not the Messaiah when it comes to HSF, and he needs to realize that-and so do his fans.”
Only Musk detractors see him as their messiah. People that support commercial space see him as a businessman that is actually DOING something about lowering the cost to access space. He is putting his own money at risk to do something larger companies have ignored. What’s wrong with that?
“Mr. Musk needs to get real”
No, big rocket supporters need to get real.
SpaceX has built and flown two new rocket systems in the past three years – how many has NASA flown?
SpaceX has built and flown one new spacecraft in the past year – how many has NASA flown?
SpaceX could be docking their Dragon capsule with the ISS later this year – when will NASA be doing same?
Musk is actually doing things, which is why people like what he’s doing. It’s NASA that has big plans but can’t actually finish anything without going horribly over schedule and over budget.
Now NASA has a lot of good people, so I don’t blame them. But I do blame the politicians that are forcing NASA to do things that are outside of their capabilities.
“then he can think about bidding on any NASA RFPs for BEO systems”
SpaceX doesn’t need to do any of the things you say they must before bidding on NASA RFP’s. Federal regulations don’t place those kinds of limits on companies that want to bid on federal contracts – it would be illegal.
Again we see that you want special rules that only affect SpaceX. Kind of un-American isn’t it, and really just political favoritism. How ironic.
“So I guess I can’t blame Musk for doing the same. It just seems a little overwhelming at times.”
That is always the case when you have the introduction of a Disruptive technology.
“A disruptive technology or disruptive innovation is an innovation that helps create a new market and value network, and eventually goes on to disrupt an existing market and value network (over a few years or decades), displacing an earlier technology there. The term is used in business and technology literature to describe innovations that improve a product or service in ways that the market does not expect, typically first by designing for a different set of consumers in the new market and later by lowering prices in the existing market.”
This is the transition that SpaceX is bringing to the spaceflight sector.
The Nation has spent literally close a trillion dollars on pre-competitive space technology. “Only NASA can do it because because no business could afford to do space.” Now, 50 years later, the institutional knowledge that the Nation enjoys allows a dorm room genius with a laptop the ability to crunch rocket equation numbers, cad modeling et cetera. Gone are the days of a room full of government engineers with sliderules. A lot of space tech has moved to the competitive stage.
It is the time to embrace the changes and innovations rather than to try to stem the tide and keep the traditional NASA as the only way to do space.
We have the opportunity to look at spaceflight through a new lens and prices and the ability to open a lot of doors that have been closed in the past.
And, to expand on what you’re saying, we need the spacecraft taking lots of trips so that they need to be refueled. That’s ultimately what will drive demand for more trips, is the consumption of supplies in space.
Precisely. And you could also make the spacecraft reusable, which means it will use up much more propellant. This will likely not save you any money initially, but it won’t be much more expensive either. It would trade launch costs against spacecraft construction costs. But the difference to the launch services sector would be enormous, since it would mean a lot more demand.
I could be wrong, but I don’t see demand becoming large enough for an RLV for at least 10 years.
Technically we could be as little as three years away from that. And if more enlightened choices had been made in the past, we could have been decades into such a program. Then we would have long had commercial RLVs large enough to take humans into LEO.
And then there is the question of who will build the next generation RLV. If Boeing won’t build the CST-100 without government involvement, I would assume they wouldn’t do the same for an RLV.
That depends on the size of the RLV and the amounts of propellant involved. Even a small unmanned exploration program can keep a <1mT RLV gainfully employed. To do the same thing for manned launches with capsules like CST-100 might requires tens of manned flights a year. I think an unmanned exploration program based around propellant transfer and competitively procured propellant launch services would be a cheaper way to fund cheap lift than a manned LEO program.
It would be nice if NASA actually did some preliminary work on what would be the best design for an RLV.
I suspect that would do more harm than good. Depending on market forces ensures that whatever design survives is, well, viable.
Martijn Meijering wrote @ August 20th, 2011 at 2:07 pm
“I suspect that would do more harm than good. Depending on market forces ensures that whatever design survives is, well, viable.”
While true in it’s basic sense, it leaves out the fact that every company building spacecraft today is using past NASA research. I’m not saying NASA would design the next RLV, but that they fund the basic research that lets the businesses decide which approaches are worth pursuing.
Boeing chose a capsule that had been proven out extensively by NASA research, and Sierra Nevada used other NASA research to use for their Dream Chaser and be aggressive in the market. Neither chose a completely clean-sheet approach, and likely no one will for an RLV.
While true in it’s basic sense, it leaves out the fact that every company building spacecraft today is using past NASA research.
And USAF research, Reichsministerium für Rüstung und Kriegsproduktion research and their own research…
I’m not saying NASA would design the next RLV, but that they fund the basic research that lets the businesses decide which approaches are worth pursuing.
They tried that with NASP, X-33, SLI etc to no avail. As long as the R&D isn’t prescriptive it won’t be as bad as SLS / Constellation / Shuttle, but it will likely be a waste of money and more importantly a waste of time when life is so short and the art so long and when we’ve wasted so much time already. We could have had it all by now.
When it comes to expendable launch vehicles the knowledge resides mostly in industry. I don’t see any reason why it would be different for reusable ones. That is one of the main reasons why I would like to see RLV development (as well as other important infrastructure like depots) funded through demand pull and not through a scheme like COTS or CCDev. The latter lends itself well to relatively mature types of systems but not in my opinion to R&D of systems designed to be more economical and radically so.
Ron, you forget who writes the Checks, and that’s Congress. NASA cannot spend money on a program unless the funds are approved by Congress. Congress has told NASA “Thou Shalt Build a Heavy-Lift Rocket and Crew Vehicle”, and has appropriated funds for that purpose. The current spat over HLV between Congress (the Senate specifically) and the Administration is a battle of priorities. Congress wants HLV and MPCV to get fully funding as per the 2010 Authorization Act. The Administration underfunded them to fund Commercial Crew/Cargo programs. Congress isn’t happy, and the current fight is the result. Perceived foot-dragging doesn’t help the Administration any, either.
While CxP had not fully developed its manifiest, they did have sorties in mind for the first few landings (assuming their funding profile at the start was what they got and not two administrations’ butchery via OMB), followed by a permanent outpost at Shackleton Crater. (remember Shauna Dale, Lori Garver’s predecessor, making the announcement on NASA TV?)
Vadislaw: Depots are a “nice to have” part of the infrastructure, but need not be mandatory. Right now, apart from small-scale demonstrations with Progress/ISS and some fuel transfer experiments in GEO (AF sponsored) ,we don’t know if it’ll work or not. Why do you think NASA issued the RFP for a technology demonstrator to flight test and see if it works or not? Betting the whole exploration strategy on a technology that may not succeed is not a good idea. Even Dr. Braun, NASA’s chief technologist, is on record as saying that some of what they will be working on may work in the lab, but not in orbit. What’s your Plan B in case depots don’t work? (either the boil-off problem can’t be solved, propellant storage and stability, or fuel transfer are the three likely stumbling blocks) Will they work? Probably. But as Chris Kraft says, “Have a backup plan.”
Depots are a “nice to have†part of the infrastructure, but need not be mandatory.
This is an insane statement, to anyone who understands the technology and economics of space transportation. It is HLVs that are “nice to have.” Propellant storage and transfer on orbit are absolutely mandatory to a spacefaring civilization. The longer we put off developing them, the longer it will be until we have one, and money pissed away on a government jobs program simply continues to delay that day.
Matt either there will be commercial crew or there will be no HSF program. CXP did major damage to NASA. It exposed to the world their inability to put American HSF before local interests and their inability to be honest (i.e. They would rather let the schedule slip into insanity than admit that things are not going well). I don’t think Congress will let NASA drag on till 2020 without any ability to put anyone in space and no way on god’s green earth will SLS be man rated before then. It would simply be canceled esp. if SLS develops any developmental problems.
SLS lacks a sane timeframe/budget to get the job done. Congress is not providing enough funding to get a shuttle derived launcher and any launcher that needs 10,000 plus people to launch it isn’t going to leave any budget left over for payloads (heck even having enough to finish Orion seems to be a problem…I mean you could do something with it and no SLS, but Congress does not seem to be too happy with spending more to finish it in the short term). Sorry but technology has advanced a lot since oh 1981. How would you like it “the law†specified that you must use systems developed in the 1970ies for a small pickup truck in your new car? Do you think it wise?
IMHO I would not be surprised if ccrew gets drop, Space X flies a crew by about 2015(Musk wants to fly people NASA or no NASA), and people start asking hard questions about Orion(i.e. As it has zero chance of being manned in this time frame). And yes he is in a position where he could do just that.
“While CxP had not fully developed its manifiest, they did have sorties in mind for the first few landings (assuming their funding profile at the start was what they got and not two administrations’ butchery via OMB), followed by a permanent outpost at Shackleton Crater. (remember Shauna Dale, Lori Garver’s predecessor, making the announcement on NASA TV?)â€
Yeah sometime around the 2030ies with not much spaceflight in that period taking place. The Altair lander was deferred in the attempt to get CXP going. Sorry but you cannot fit a more than Apollo mission, using 1970ies rocket parts into a 21st NASA budget. Not going to fit and congress is not likely to increase the budget to make it fit.
SLS isn’t a back up plan to depots. It is just an overpriced rocketed designed to keep certain constituents happy by NOT CHANGING THE STATUS QUO. But if you truly want exploration, you need cheap access to space (SLS isn’t cheap). You need to widen the political consentient beyond the current space states (SLS does not do that) but a prop depot might.
Anyway the cost to prove depots is less than the cost needed to build SLS and depots make a huge difference as to what kind of rocket do you need to complement it and even CXP was facing a boil off problem (they needed to launch Ares 1 within 7 days of launching the Ares V assuming the loiter skirt worked….or else there would be no moon mission). Can you imagine the expense that being able to launch two rockets different rockets in a short period of time would have cost? If you had a depot then you would have more than 7 days to launch the mission.
Coastal Ron wrote @ August 20th, 2011 at 12:47 pm
Matt Wiser wrote @ August 20th, 2011 at 2:24 am
“He’s not the Messaiah when it comes to HSF, and he needs to realize that-and so do his fans.â€
Only Musk detractors see him as their messiah. People that support commercial space see him as a businessman that is actually DOING something about lowering the cost to access space.
You mean like he did for automibles with TESLA? Oh yeah, there’s a good business model– not.. unless your plan it to get government subsidies rather than seek financing in the private sector.
What’s your Plan B in case depots don’t work?
There’s no “in case they don’t work”, because they have worked for more than thirty years. It’s a known known as Donald Rumsfeld might say. The main uncertainty is how much time and money it will take to develop and deploy cryogenic depots that are capable of storing LOX/LH2 for about a month in LEO and about a year at L1/L2. There’s a tiny probability LH2 in LEO will turn out to be problematic. But even that wouldn’t be a problem because you could launch LH2 straight to L1/L2 just before you depart, because of the high O/F ration. And that’s even if you insist on using LOX/LH2 everywhere, which is itself unnecessary.
You are simply telling lies. Do you want to be known as a liar?
Propellant storage and transfer on orbit are absolutely mandatory to a spacefaring civilization.
Correct!
The longer we put off developing them, the longer it will be until we have one
We already have them.
Market forces will take care of the cryogenic variants once there is sufficient traffic beyond LEO, but we need to unleash those market forces first.
“Depots are a “nice to have†part of the infrastructure, but need not be mandatory”
Gas stations are “nice to have”? In what form of transportation are fuel stops only nice to have?
Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrup Grummen and a host of other aerospace firms have said they are not show stoppers and all have said they are doable. I tend to agree with them.
Remember it was NASA that said EELV’s were impossible to rate for humans and the black zones made them impossible to use for crew. It was NASA that said we needed the Constellation program as the only way forward.
You have a group in congress that knows if we go the route of commercial fuel we don’t need a heavy lift launch vehicle. If we don’t need a HLV then we do not need that army at NASA. That means jobs in their districts and less campaign support because we would be moving away from cost plus-fixed fee aquistion and towards fix price.
@Matt Wiser
I notice you addressing everything but the last two posts I made in response to you.
It’s time to shut down this comment thread. Thank you for your participation.