August 3, 2009
Next Step or No Step
Target and Distraction: Which is which?
The Moon versus Mars controversy has reared its ugly head yet again. For the newcomers, this is the perennial “debate” among space buffs about what the next destination in space should be. I do not mean to suggest that all possibilities are encompassed by these two options; it just seems that most advocates fall into one or the other of these two camps.
In part, this argument has arisen because the Augustine Commission, currently deliberating the future of NASA’s human spaceflight program, has resurrected the debate with an architectural option they call “Mars First” (a.k.a. Mars Direct, Direct to Mars, Apollo to Mars and Mars-in-MY-lifetime), beloved of the Mars Society and ex-astronauts everywhere. Briefly, this plan calls for sending people to Mars as soon as possible – no Moon, no asteroids, no L-points: do not pass “Go,” do not collect $200. In such a scenario, all pieces of the Mars mission are launched directly from the Earth; this roughly one-million-pound on-orbit mass includes all the propellant needed for the trip, which makes up about 85% of the mass of the spacecraft.
The Mars First option follows the “Apollo template.” In 1961, faced by the political necessity to get men to the Moon and back within a decade, Wernher von Braun designed the biggest rocket he could imagine – basically a scaled-up, clustered V-2 – to lift all of the parts he needed into space. This super heavy lift vehicle was actually a family of rockets (Saturn class), whose ultimate behemoth was the Nova, a vehicle with a lift-off weight exceeding 13 million pounds. Fortunately, the choice of lunar orbit rendezvous for the Apollo mission mode made Nova unnecessary and a self-contained mission was launched by a single, smaller (7 million pound) Saturn V.
The Apollo template makes use of maximum disposability. As the mission proceeds and each flight element is thrown away, unused and unusable, the vehicle gets smaller and lighter. For some items, such as fuel tanks and structural elements, this doesn’t introduce unwarranted penalties, but some parts of the vehicle are high in cost and value. Within the Apollo template, however, their loss is inevitable.
A significant part of the Apollo template is the lack of infrastructure legacy, i.e., the elements brought to a destination that are available for use by the next crew. We need to develop an architecture that leaves equipment in place for future use and expansion by subsequent visitors. This is one reason why sortie missions are inferior to establishing an outpost or a base; sortie missions spread surface assets over a large area where they cannot mutually support each other.
Much of the support for Mars First comes from the belief of its advocates that we will get “stuck” on the Moon or somewhere else, sort of like we have been “stuck” in low Earth orbit for the last 40 years. In their minds, Mars is THE destination. To hear the pitch, one might believe Mars has it all – atmosphere, water, a 24 hour day, and possible ancient fossil life. Adventure! Thrills! What else could a space cadet want?
Although the “Mars First” advocates vigorously present their position each and every time the direction of our space policy is debated, they have never won the argument. Why? Is it some evil conspiracy to keep them from their Mars dream? Is it just the stupidity of policy makers? Some simple facts suggest otherwise.
We do not now have the technology we need to support multi-month, self-sufficient human space travel. The International Space Station needs nearly constant servicing and re-supply from Earth. In fact, one of the missions of ISS is to learn how to live in space without such service and re-supply, closing the various life-support loops and thereby developing sustained human presence. This is experimental technology and not nearly mature enough upon which to rest the lives of a Mars mission crew. Regardless of claims, a Mars mission is at least one (and possibly two) order(s) of magnitude more costly than any alternative mission.
There isn’t the will in either the Congress or the Executive to significantly increase the amount of money allocated to our national space program. Spectacular claims about “exciting the public” with a human Mars mission, regardless of their veracity (which is doubtful), do not translate into higher budgets for NASA. To go to Mars using existing technology, with an Apollo-style business model, is both unachievable and unaffordable.
The Vision for Space Exploration makes Mars a goal – along with every other space destination – after we go to the Moon to learn how to live and work on another world. Moreover, the VSE implicitly states that such is to be accomplished under existing budgetary envelopes. In contrast to the Apollo template, time rather than money is to be the free variable. The Moon can be reached with existing launch assets; although NASA is currently bogged down in a debate about rocket development, the real issues are how you go back to the Moon and what you do there. The Moon offers the material and energy resources to develop the technology and skills necessary for sustained, long duration capability in space.
Mars First advocates worry about getting “stuck on the Moon.” In fact, it is their obsession for Mars that has kept us in low Earth orbit for the last 40 years. By relentlessly pushing for a space goal that is well out of our technical and fiscal reach, they have gotten an undesired (but not unexpected) result: stasis. There is no choice. You use the Moon or you get nothing. Right now, Mars is a bridge too far – we need the stepping-stone of our Moon to reach it.
22 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
The web editors have closed comments for this blog.
I couldn’t agree more. What we need is not an out of reach mission but one that simplifies and industrialises access to space. And actually, I really cannot understand why NASA are spending billions (3Bn$ spent already from what I read) on developping new rockets, especially the Ares I, when many are available commercially. These 3 Bn$ could have been allocated to development of say lunar infrastructure instead. And time would have been saved. And the programme would be more advanced. And further support would have been granted to private launch companies. I may be wrong, or ill-informed, but what is the added-value of reinvinting the wheel at a much higher cost than existing alternatives?
Comment by matchad — August 4, 2009 @ 4:06 am
Dr. Spudis: another excellent post, sir. You should have been on the Augustine committee. (You would be NASA adminstrator if I was the President.) Do you have a link to the white paper that you gave to Augustine?
I must say that I was disappointed that the Lunar Base option was given such short shrift by the Committee. I guess it sort of lives on in the “Program of Record” option. But if President Obama decides to keep flying Shuttle and ISS beyond previous commitments, that’s not going to leave a lot for other expeditions. Which means he will tilt toward the Flexible Path option.
What do you think Paul? Are near-Earth asteroids a viable target for exploration? I think Congress a while back did in fact mandate that NASA take steps to mitigate against the danger of asteroid collisions. But like you said, these would be disposable, easily cancelable missions.
Don’t get me wrong, I am for Lunar Base, for several scientific, economic, and national security reasons. Also the cancelability factor for a Lunar Base would be low. Look at ISS and Shuttle. It’s my hypothesis that they haven’t been cancelled just because of their reusability. People think that they should not waste their “investment”, despite the fact that it is irrational to make future decisions based on sunk costs. Once the first few modules on a Lunar Base were laid down, it would be difficult politically to walk away from our “investment”.
I vote for sticking with the program of record, even if it takes time. But I could get behind asteroids as well. You’ve got to admit the planetary science and ISRU opportunities would be exciting. The main thing, I would say, is to just come up with SOMETHING. A single strategic plan around which tactical architectures can be designed.
Comment by Warren Platts — August 4, 2009 @ 11:47 am
I’m a member of The Mars Society, and you’re simplifying their position quite a bit. Hardware that’s built with Mars as the goal can fly to many destinations (asteroids, L-points, lunar orbit, and some even say lunar surface) without much alteration, and increasingly-stringent testing of Mars hardware before the first landing would be a sensible move. These types of missions would mirror the Apollo 7-10 testing in the 60s. Given a flight rate to Mars of every 26 months, there’s no reason such missions couldn’t continue in the time between launch windows.
That said, I personally favor the more organic approach of building infrastructure allowing us to go anywhere we want, but can’t see that being a politically workable solution. These days the words ‘less government control’ are not winners.
Comment by Tom Hill — August 4, 2009 @ 12:54 pm
Right on Paul. I might quibble with the numbers a little, but i think you have it right. First, let’s learn how to live off-planet, and in so doing, learn to live off the local land. After we have done that, a key by-product is the creation of new wealth, the magnitude of which we cannot predict now, as well as the creation of new commercial opportunities, including space tourism and commerce. The net sum of these 2 by-products may be zero, or small, but just as possible could be a demand and supply curve that has a large value and growth rate. Another by-product that will definitely occur while we are learning to live off-planet is the accumulation of new knowledge (ie, Exploration!). Only after we have started on this path can we really afford as a nation to shift philosophy toward one of Exploration as the primary objective.
Comment by Tony Lavoie — August 4, 2009 @ 2:19 pm
My understanding is that NEOs and Phobos are the target of the “E” option not the surface of Mars. At least in the near to medium term.
Landers are expensive and the delta v to Phobos is less than the delta v to the lunar surface. No need to “land” on Phobos, you can kinda sorta just settle down, like docking.
An un-crewed gravity tractor mission to an NEO is also appealing — set up a forward operating base for future robotic and crewed exploration of that NEO, both for science and resource exploitation and use that base to deflect the asteroid’s trajectory helping to develop systems to protect us in the event we find an asteroid on a collision course with Earth.
= = =
Lunar resources? Including those Dennis Wingo has been hinting about?
NewSpace should team up with international partners and go exploit the Moon.
Probably do it better than NASA would, anyways.
Comment by Bill White — August 4, 2009 @ 11:23 pm
The Mars/Moon debate is silly. Spudis is correct; Mars is not technically nor financially doable for a price the nation is willing to pay…but he then makes the assumption that the Moon is. The technical part is there, heck we have done it before…but there is no reason to go. None.
We will not go to the Moon or leave low earth orbit until there is a sustained space industry that can exist at least in part off the government dole. As it is right now, that does not exist.
But the future is coming. Here is a predicdtion…on the 50th anniversary of LtC Glenn’s first flight…Elon Musk and Dragon fly go to orbit with the first non government crew …
Until then Spudis, Zubrin and all the other folks are just wailing at the Moon with their various arguments.
Robert
Comment by Robert Oler — August 5, 2009 @ 12:23 am
Robert,
You’re really arguing against NASA, not for or against a destination or activity in space. Take that up with Washington, not with me.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — August 5, 2009 @ 5:05 am
As I have said before “Phobos First!” (By way of L1, ESL2, NEOs of opportunity, etc.) But this Space Cadet has a new mantra courtesy of HSF Augustine II: Flexibility!
Whilst an immediate lunar base (= Emergency Radiation Shelter) …will be useful for ground truthing and proofing of 2nd Gen systems and hardware; Orbital Aggregation [of] Space Infrastructure Systems is the way to go. My take:: Roscosmos: LOS and Hypergol Depot; NASA: L1 “Gateway” L(UN)OX Depot; ESA: OTV infrastructure & Argon Depot; China: SEL2 Station Core (with a little help from everyone) plus an ISS Module of their very own! EVERYONE builds their flavour of Lander evolving to a Deep Space Vessel! And whilst we are dreaming: the UK fully funds SKYLON!
Fingers LCROSSED but failing the fabled “Ice Caves of Shackleton”, I still think Tranquillitatis is the best place for tourism and the Mass Driver. If nothing else it will need to be crewed permanently to stop vandals and souvenir hunters!
The Moon is an essential next step *if nothing else* to resolve property rights; the internationalistion of space and eliminate once and for all the old style of Geopolitics:
“Planet Earth looks beautiful from space. There are no borders on the Earth,” Sunita Williams. That’s why we need the Moon. Perspective.
From Mars it’s just a dot!
Comment by brobof — August 5, 2009 @ 5:45 am
This seems to be all, or mainly about NASA. What do you think of private initiatives of going to the moon to actually do something there. Do you think there is any chance we see that in the medium term?
Comment by matchad — August 5, 2009 @ 8:51 am
What do you think of private initiatives of going to the moon to actually do something there.
I’m all for them. But I assume that NASA will continue to get its $18 billion/year and as a taxpayer, I’d like to see something useful done with it. Tackling challenging, technically difficult things, like space resource utilization, is something a federal engineering R&D agency should be eager to do.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — August 5, 2009 @ 9:03 am
Paul:
As a former and retired NASA MSFC employee and an old
Army Ballistic Missile Agency employer I think we need to use the existing Shuttle based system minus the Shuttle replacing it with a heavy lift rocket system. To me this is
using the KISS approach system(Keep It Simple Stupid. As you have stated the Apollo System was really an upgraded V-2.
Comment by Otha H Vaughan — August 5, 2009 @ 10:02 am
Paul.
I am not arguing for or against NASA any more then I would argue for or against the FAA. The issue in both cases (as well as any agency of the Federal government) is a basic one, “ what is the agency suppose to accomplish?”
In the abstract, to make an agency of the federal government more then just a wealth transfer machine…the agency should do things that directly benefit the people of The Republic, the ones who make all federal agencies possible. To the extent that the agency consumes resources, its benefits should be more tangible and obvious. NASA consumes a fraction of the federal budget but all the money set up for civilian space flight. The people of The Republic should get some tangible benefits from those dollars, if the people do not, then the money spent is simply wealth transfer.
There is nothing in any plan to return to the Moon or go to Mars that has such a tangible benefit. Other then the ability to “learn how to live and work on another world”, (a goal which could far more easily be accomplished at the bottom of our oceans) your op ed does not mention a single one. Stripped of the various “great country” or “how the west was won” arguments the reasons for going to the Moon or Mars or the Near Earth Asteroids or whatever boil down to “it is something to do and we are going to spend the money on NASA anyway so why not do (something)”. That argument is what got us a multi decade effort to build a space station, which as it is completed, all the folks who argued for it are tired of.
The argument for (something else) replaces the ISS as a program but does nothing to ensure that the nation receives any tangible benefits from the goal. Figure out what has doomed ISS from returning any of the tangible goals that Ronald Reagan sold the nation on in his state of the Union speech and you will understand the fatal flaw of your piece. .
The good news is that after 40 years of stops and starts the government infrastructure which has felt no obligation to show value for its cost, has finally gotten so monstrous that it is collapsing of its own weight. The vacuum has allowed some private efforts, which seem to be “real” to fill the void. One day we will go back to the Moon (probably as a government effort) just as Lewis and Clark went out west. Not because it is hard, but because it is easy. The technology will not have to be developed; most of it will be in use. It will not be soon, but it will be sooner then we can get there today.
You are one of the bright folks in the field. Your heart is in the correct place and I applaud your integrity.
Robert Oler
Comment by Robert G. Oler — August 5, 2009 @ 3:24 pm
Bob, you are wrong. There are many tangible benefits: one of them is US national security.
Consider that the Moon constitutes the 8th continent of Earth; since the United States is a global superpower, the Moon is by definition of concern to the US. Moreover, the Moon’s ultimate political status is still very much in the air, the Outer Space Treaty (OST) notwithstanding. It is not clear that the USA will remain a signatory to the OST in perpetuity. The desirability of remaining a signatory was seriously reviewed by the Bush administration in 2004. Logically, therefore, it would not be surprising if other space faring nations will question whether they want to remain signatories as well.
By building a permanently manned base on the Moon, the USA will ensure that the final political disposition of the Moon will be on terms favorable to the United States. In particular, the US would like to see a free and democratic lunar legal regime that is favorable to business. If another country established permanent lunar bases first, and then chose to withdraw from the OST, they could claim the right, through use and occupation, to dictate the terms of a new lunar legal regime, that we might not like.
Furthermore, historically, the Moon has been considered as a possible platform for missiles or directed energy weapons, or as a strategic command-and-control base. This is not to suggest that the United States ought to weaponize the Moon; however, a permanent American lunar presence would reduce any temptation for other nations to do so.
In addition, there is the following chilling scenario to consider that is not talked about much: once a nation develops ISRU techniques for extracting pure elements such as oxygen, titanium, aluminum, gallium and silicon from the lunar regolith, there is nothing in principle that would prevent that nation from constructing a satellite manufacturing facility. Such a facility could effectively “corner” the market for LEO satellites. This is not a matter of economics; it is a matter of physics. The delta-v requirement from the Earth’s surface to LEO is ~10 km/s, whereas the delta-v budget from the surface of the Moon to LEO is only ~6 km/s; the use of a heat shield and aerobraking would reduce this figure to ~3 km s-1; the addition of a lunar maglev launch system (LMLS) could reduce this figure to < 1 km/s. In essence, an LMLS could essentially eliminate the marginal cost of placing satellites into orbit.
The implication is that the nation possessing a lunar satellite factory and an LMLS could build and cheaply launch a “Brilliant Pebbles” constellation consisting of thousands of satellites capable of a full-spectrum global dominance of the entire cis-lunar space and the upper atmosphere of Earth, and therefore of the Earth itself.
Given that a Delta IV Medium rocket costs ~$100 million USD, the cost savings would likely be measured in hundreds of billions–if not trillions–of dollars. Moreover, the marginal ratio cost (MRC)–the incremental cost of each countermeasure versus the incremental cost of each new Brilliant Pebble satellite–would not be favorable to the Earth-bound nation. If current trends continue, China will have an economy larger than the United States in a mere 20 years. If the US were on the losing side of such a MRC, that could prove decisive. The US would find itself in the same position as the former Soviet Union–financially run into the ground. On the other hand, if the US were in possession of the satellite factory and LMLS, that would be an important assymetric force multiplier.
In sum, if America does not choose to master the lunar environment, some other nation will. That such a mastery of the lunar environment could translate into a political and/or military advantage cannot be ruled out from the comfort of your armchair. Seen in this light, a new NASA Moon program is pretty darn cheap insurance if you ask me. To consistently argue otherwise, you’d have to claim that the US Navy doesn’t deliver tangible benefits to American citizens.
Comment by Warren Platts — August 6, 2009 @ 12:47 pm
Hello Warren.
Try as I might, I cannot see a single national security concern “now” or in the foreseeable future that would prompt a return to the Moon. I have no doubt that sometime in the future the Moon and its resources will play a significant role in national security; but that day is at best half a century away.
President Jefferson, when he bought the LA purchase sent Lewis and Clarke out west in part for national security reasons. A nation cannot legitimately claim what it does not even map or understand…and Jefferson knew that.
But in terms of the Moon we as a society and a technology are no where near where Jefferson was as L&C left. There were no significant technology hurdles that the effort had to clear. All the expedition had to do was buy the hardware and go The folks who went already had the basic skills for “living off the land”. There were no “resupply” shipment needed. The list goes on (and is quite lengthy) but concludes with one basic statement. There were no obstacles to Americans and American industry following L&C except their own initiative and grit.
NONE of those things exist right now in human spaceflight. No nation on this planet could “go” or “return” to the Moon and even start to scratch any of the assumptions that you have stated as reasons. Even if Dennis Wingo is correct and there are lots of “raw materials” on the Moon; from mining them to fashioning them into things like semiconductors and then forming those subcomponents into satellites is not going to happen with any of the infrastructure that the US (or any country) could put on the Moon in the next 50 years. It is not Delta V that is at issue, it is manufacturing economics.
Why? Because in the case of the Chinese even if they had the will, they don’t have the technology that makes the effort affordable…and in our case not only is the effort not affordable; but there is no hint that other then government any other part of the American infrastructure is ready to follow such an effort.
I was having lunch with Jim Oberg the other day…and he told the story of the Russians in the 1980’s trying to open Siberia. They found gold there and tried to mine it. The region was so tough that even with convict labor that was essentially working itself to death that the infrastructure was so expensive, it was not worth the effort.
That is where we are right now with humans going to other bodies in space. Until that changes (and the space station is the key to changing it) there is no other body in space that is not a recipe for a failed program.
If the Moon is the 8th continent, there is no history of civilization from one continent getting a toehold on another, without transportation cost that are manageable.
As I told the writer of the op ed, go read Reagan’s SOTU where he plugs the space station. Figure out why NONE of those things have happened yet…and you will understand why the Augustine commission is wasting its time.
Robert
Comment by Robert G. Oler — August 6, 2009 @ 4:26 pm
[...] Next Step or No Step by Paul D. Spudis Mars First advocates worry about getting “stuck on the Moon.” In fact, it is their obsession for Mars that has kept us in low Earth orbit for the last 40 years. By relentlessly pushing for a space goal that is well out of our technical and fiscal reach, they have gotten an undesired (but not unexpected) result: stasis. There is no choice. You use the Moon or you get nothing. Right now, Mars is a bridge too far – we need the stepping-stone of our Moon to reach it. [...]
Pingback by Spudis on Moon and Mars « National Space Society Blog — August 7, 2009 @ 12:59 am
Hi Bob,
You say that “no doubt that sometime in the future the Moon and its resources will play a significant role in national security; but that day is at best half a century away.” Even if that’s true, that doesn’t doesn’t entail that we shouldn’t start planning a satellite factory right now. Like I said, if China were to continue to grow at 7% per year and the US only grows at 3%, then in 20 years, the Chinese economy will exceed the USA’s in a mere 20 years. Therefore, if we get in a space race with China that starts 50 years from now, we cannot hope to come out on top. On the other hand, if we start out now, while we have a temporary advantage, the efforts we make now will pay dividends 50 years from now.
Furthermore, there is a danger that you overestimate what it takes to build a spacecraft on the Moon. The hard part is getting the refined raw materials from lunar rocks–this is the only new technology that needs developed. Once this is accomplished, assemblying satellites is comparatively trivial. If we stay on schedule, we could get back to the Moon by 2020. By 2030, if we stay focused, we could have a permanent lunar base that is at least as functional as the current ISS. Thus, by 2040, you would have a decade of solid research on the Moon for developing ISRU techniques. By 2050, if not sooner, the first satellites could be launched.
Alternatively, if we get involved in a decades-long oddysey to Mars, and decide to “leave the Moon” for others, and China steps into the resultant vacuum and do what they do best–setting up factories–then the stage could be set for a true technological “strategic surprise” in the Clausewitzian sense, from which Western civilization and the values we hold dear may never recover.
Also you are wrong about Lewis and Clarke not needing resupply. They brought tons of supplies with them, which they cached in various locations to which they later returned, and they bought horses, food, and boats from Indians they encountered. Your Siberia example is also misleading: probably, the Soviet implosion in the 1980′s had more to do with the failure of the gold mine that James Oberg mentioned. Certainly, Canadians and Alaskans have no problem extracting minerals from equally challenging environments.
I don’t know why you think that the ISS is going to be the key to revolutionizing space travel. There are no game changing technologies that are going to come from Earth or the ISS. To be sure, the ISS has proved that manned outposts in space can be occupied for years at a time, and it also demonstrated the power of modular construction (and also the weaknesses: Skylab delivered 80% of the volume for a 10th of the price; a single launch from an Ares V could launch a station with 2.5 times the volume of the ISS). We’ve basically maxed out the possibilities. Reusable SSTO’s from Earth capable with any reasonable payload mass fraction are just not physically possible. (Incidently, you might find it interesting that most SSTO research was funded by the SDIO.) The only way to escape the Earth’s gravity well is to avoid it altogether by building our spacecraft off planet. The Moon is by far the easiest place to do that. The sooner we get started on that task, the sooner you will get your “manageable” transportation costs.
Whether the Augustine committee turns out to be a waste of time depends upon how they “spin” their final recommended options.
Comment by Warren Platts — August 7, 2009 @ 8:36 am
Hello Warren.
First let me say that I opposes Zubrin’s plan as much as I oppose “going back to the Moon”. As I made clear in my reply to the op ed writer…I think both plans have their minds stuck in an Apollo “big government/big plan” mentality which I would like to see buried in the dust bin of history.
I don’t trust economic forecast more then 6 months ahead of time, and even those I sort of shake my head at. If I were to tell you in 1960 that in 2010 time frame we would be running multi trillion dollar deficits and have run massive deficits for sometime (several decades), then even I would think that the statement was nutty. So who knows what our economy will be like in 2015 much less 2050.
In any event along with not seeing the national security edge the Moon gives us, I don’t see in any reasonable time frame the infrastructure on the Moon to make “satellites” of any sophistication, particularly ones whose components are completely “moon grown”…Much less a sky full of brilliant pebbles…and actually I think that in another 10 years brilliant pebbles will be an idea whose time has passed.
What I do see is ISS. We have spent hundreds of billions on it…and we need to make it the fulcrum of a new space age. One, where we eschew large government “explorations” and instead concentrate on building a true space industry. That is occurring. Musk has a very good shot at not only flying his vehicles, but flying them at prices and internal infrastructure that cost far less then anything Lockmart and Boeing can come up with. Think the airmail contract of the 1930’s and you will see how ISS is the key to developing a real space infrastructure that can do just magnificent things in space both crewed and unscrewed.
We are on the brink of having the private industry (truly private industry not the equivalent to Soviet design bureaus) which will launch for an industry affordable price, be able to do on orbit assembly of massive payloads and even on orbit repair of those massive payloads as far as geo synch orbit. That is the capability the military wants now..and will find useful when there are lots of directed energy weapons in geo synch orbit…which is what is going to replace brilliant pebbles.
All a government return to the Moon or going to Mars or doing anything big ticket in human spaceflight does is suck up cash on useless adventures. The cash really ought not to be spent at all (we have this deficit) but if it is going to be spent, it should be on something that develops infrastructure that the rest of the Republic can use…not just something that keeps requiring government money.
As an aside…I don’t fear the Chinese all that much.
Robert Oler
Comment by Robert G. Oler — August 7, 2009 @ 9:54 pm
Bob, you’ve got it completely backwards. The ISS is the drain on resources, and it always will be, until it is deorbited. It’s worth was mainly in the building of it, and as an experiment to demonstrate both the strengths and weaknesses of international cooperation. At this point it is a drag that is slowing down innovation.
I understand your mail-contract analogy of the 1930′s. But it pales in comparison to the effects that WWI and WWII had on the aerospace industry. All you want to do is shift government transfer payments from ATK to SpaceX. The effect would be a marginal improvement at best.
Your idiosyncratic theories about economics, technology, and the dynamics of the space industry are systematically blinding you to the potentially game-changing opportunity that a lunar base would represent. Infrastructure is not what counts. The EFFECT of infrastructure is what we are after.
For one thing, the ISS cannot grow itself. A lunar base, once a threshold of equipment is emplaced, will be capable of increasing its size and functionality largely by itself, using local materials. That is the game-changing reality of a lunar base versus a space station. Moreover, long before actual spacecraft manufacturing capability is achieved, lunar rocket fuel will be produced.
Meanwhile, the ISS cannot and will not ever manufacture anything. It is a heavy, unsafe behometh that would require at least 7 space shuttle loads of fuel to move to a useful orbit. I can’t see how the ISS will be the fulcrum for much of anything; but how about this: let’s offer to sell the American components to Elon Musk. How much do you think he would pay? I wonder if he would even bid $1 USD. Probably not, but if your theory is correct he would pay at least a dollar for it, and if he did, that would solve everyone’s problems, wouldn’t it? It would free up NASA resources, and give a big jumpstart to the new aerospace upstarts.
Paul has got it right: it’s the Moon or nowhere–take your pick.
As for China and SDI, the SDIO looked very carefully at all sorts of SDI architectures, including the giant, Battlestar Galactica directed energy platforms you envision. The main problem is energy. To capture the energy required for repeatedly firing an effective weapon would require HUGE solar arrays. And their very size makes them vulnerable to stealthy kinetic kill vehicles. And they are expensive to launch because they would require multiple launches to assemble one.
But even if you are correct that a Battlestar Galactica system would be superior to a Brilliant Pebbles system, that doesn’t affect my argument by one iota. The nation in possession of a lunar spacecraft manufacturing facility on the Moon is STILL going to have a huge strategic advantage. To paraphrase what I said earlier: it is not a matter of architecture, it is a matter of physics. The delta-v advantage that the Moon has over the Earth is inexorable. Here’s a prediction for you: the strategic advantage is such that Earth will never allow a lunar civilization to exist as an independent political entity.
As for you lack of fear of China, I can’t do better than quote from a recent paper on strategic surprise that I ran across recently:
“China, with or without a Russian consort, is by far the leading candidate to play the starring role in opposition to the U.S. hegemon. Predictable capabilities support this view, as does an unsentimental appreciation of China’s political and strategic culture. Some among us believe that China will mature in its modernization into a contented and generally cooperative, profit-maximizing trading partner in a U.S. policed world order. People of that opinion would do well to ponder these words written by the eminent cultural historian, Adda B. Bozeman:
‘[I]t is noteworthy that the Chinese themselves have traditionally conceptualized the Middle Kingdom not as one bounded state in the company of others, but as a civilization so uniquely superior that it cannot be presumed to have frontiers. This self-view spawned China’s insistently Sinocentric worldview; sanctioned imperial schemes of military and political expansion; and sustained several politically and culturally potent ideas of imperial administration, chief among them the notion of the emperor’s “heavenly mandate” and the concept of a family of unequal and inferior nations held together by the “Imperial Father”―images persuasively concretized throughout the centuries by the tribute system and the well-organized dependence on hedge-guarding satellites and surrogates.’”
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/Pubs/display.cfm?pubid=602
Comment by Warren Platts — August 9, 2009 @ 1:23 pm
Hello Warren
Nice little discussion we have going on here, I certainly am enjoying it.
Our differences of the future aside, I think that you grossly overestimate the ease (or underestimate the difficulty) of setting up 1) any kind of mining operation on the Moon and 2) any kind of manufacturing system on the Moon for refined parts. I don’t see the latter happening on any scale (other then maybe sustainables for a lunar base) in the next 50 years…heck I don’t even see lunar base construction starting until 2030 at best… I have heard Dennis Wingo beat the same drum and he does a lot of blue sky waving…of course a few years ago he was all excited about assembling satellites at the space station.
Plus I see zero participation in such an effort by anything other then government and that is a foundation for failure.
ISS on the other hand is here. I think that you are completely underestimating what can be done in microgravity with the timely participation of private enterprise. The effort to utilize the resources of near earth space have floundered because of NASA requirements (which would be on any lunar facility) and because of long time lines. Joe Allen, who I am reasonable friends with made in the 80’s a convincing case that a private facility run in a private manner…could do some cutting edge research and eventual product work…if there was private access to space.
To me ISS, which the nation has invested billions in, is such a “anchor partner”. We are for national pride etc reasons going to continue to fly to ISS for another 10-15 years and probably longer. There is no reason that this effort is not the “anchor tenent” for private access to space…and eventually that will, as the airmail contract did start up the cycle of private infrastructure development.
That is my gripe with Obama’s stimulas package…it did nothing to stimulate private capital all it did was sustain government infrastructure…and a misbegotten effort to head to the Moon (or Mars or anywhere) will only do the same thing.
If I were “King” we would immediately move to a Comsat like corporation to run ISS, move all lift to private concerns (think airlines) and get NASA out of any business but unscrewed exploration and crewed technology development. Eventually in my view that will let a real space infrastructure/private enterprise system develop which will eventually put together the “parts” that some government (or private concern) can use to go back to the Moon…and do it on an affordable basis.
That is what made air travel an American adventure…we developed through the airmail contracts and with some technology spin off from WWII a private American industry that could on its own build the Dash 80. it is essential for any space future that this cycle (private enterprise providing a product for services) start…otherwise we will go nowhere in space.
As for the military…I agree with Gates (who I admire a lot)…any “program” that is more then 10 years in the making doesn’t work well in the real world. We are going to evolve our C3 systems in space which will include larger and larger platforms and eventual servicing of those. We are not in my view going to move much past theater ballistic missile defense systems. MAD will work well into this century.
As for the Chinese. While I read and understand what you say, I also remember the last administration beating the drums about Saddam and how he was going to kill us all. I spent a good chunk of my recent life searching for his WMD in Anbar…and found nothing. We don’t need to invent enemies. They will come all by themselves.
Again this is quite a good conversation with quite a nice tone.
Robert
Comment by Robert G. Oler — August 10, 2009 @ 10:12 pm
Looks like Gen. Robert Oler took time off from flying imaginary solo fighter missions in Iraq, pretending to advise John McCain on matters of great importance, and paling around with his make believe astronaut pals to drop a load of silliness on us all.
“I spent a good chunk of my recent life searching for his WMD in Anbar” Yea right.
Comment by Roo Orbijet — August 12, 2009 @ 10:55 am
[...] a solution in search of a problem; what it is, is a back-door attempt to sneak in a Mars mission. As Paul Spudis pointed out in a recent blog post, the obsessing over Mars has done as much damage to the Moon porgram as anything. In addition, the [...]
Pingback by Augustine: Moon Return a No-Go. . . . - Page 3 - Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum — September 17, 2009 @ 7:58 am
[...] Posted by Warren Platts As Paul Spudis pointed out in a recent blog post, the obsessing over Mars has done as much damage to the Moon porgram as anything. And Chris [...]
Pingback by Augustine: Moon Return a No-Go. . . . - Page 5 - Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum — September 22, 2009 @ 4:51 pm