October 23, 2009
Paradigms Lost
New report - same old assumptions?
There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. – Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince.
In his famous book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn described two types of science: normal science, the everyday background work, where constant, steady but unspectacular advances occur in our knowledge, and revolutionary science, where fundamental assumptions and ways of conducting business are unalterably changed forever. Kuhn called such a change a paradigm shift; a new paradigm (i.e., a framework of knowledge, including the assumptions, worldview, approaches and techniques to conduct business under a given set of circumstances) replaces the existing one and the new approaches and attitudes become the norm.
The paradigm model might also be applied to conducting business in other fields, in particular, the business of spaceflight. Since it arose more than 50 years ago, the paradigm of spaceflight has largely remained unchanged. In short, we conceive a mission (robotic or human), then design, build and launch a spacecraft to conduct that mission. This satellite or spacecraft operates for a time in space—gathering information or providing a service—until it breaks down or becomes obsolete and is abandoned. We then imagine the next mission—going back to the drawing board to design the next spacecraft—a process repeated continuously and a major cost of space exploration.
Is a paradigm shift – a “revolution” in space travel possible? One would think that with 50 years of experience under our belts, we would have already exhausted all the possibilities. Indeed, the imminent development of warp drive or “Cavorite” does not seem likely, but then, that’s the nature of truly revolutionary breakthroughs, isn’t it? On the other hand, is there something missing – something that could be done right now using existing knowledge to change the rules of spaceflight and possibly spur additional breakthroughs?
As long as we’re chained to the existing spaceflight paradigm, we must continue hauling from Earth everything we need in space. For human missions this includes all the air, water and other consumables needed for life support. The cost to lift all this mass (which includes the weight of a massive amount of fuel needed to escape from Earth’s very deep gravity well) is budget busting. So for “normal” space exploration, costs will never be lower except at the margins and we will always be mass-limited in space. And when you are mass-limited, you are capability-limited as well.
I’ve argued here and elsewhere that there is a method that is already well understood in principle, but its practical application and viability is completely unknown. If we could use what we find in space to create new capabilities, we would change the rules of spaceflight, thereby ushering in a true paradigm shift in space travel.
Such was the original intent of the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE). The desire for fundamental change in perspective was behind the program’s specific direction to study and experiment with using the material and energy resources of the Moon. From the moment it was announced, the true purpose of a lunar return was misunderstood, both inadvertently and deliberately. Constellation is a rocket program; the VSE is not.
No one knows if using space resources is possible but we can find out by pursuing innovative technology. In theory it works. We’ve never attempted high-risk mining on the Moon and it may have significant practical difficulties but potentially, it could become a highly leveraging activity.
If we can extract and make rocket propellant on the Moon, we can create a completely reusable, refuelable transportation infrastructure in cislunar space. If we can extract the oxygen and hydrogen, we can live in space. Of course, such an outcome would change and transform the business model of space—something that fascinates and attracts many but repels others and hence, its mixed reception in aerospace circles.
This would truly be a revolution, a paradigm shift in the same sense as we understand it from Kuhn’s description of scientific progress; as a vast new expanse is opened to us and we are free to move about the universe, the world changes and things are never the same again.
In order to mitigate risk and to ensuring our economic and national security, government often steps in to develop technology that the private sector cannot or will not take on. A government push to learn how to use the resources of space will break the cycle of launch and discard. Instead of having a short “shelf-life,” our indispensable and unprotected systems in space become maintainable, reusable, extensible and affordable.
While reading the newly released Augustine report, keep in mind its background and its assumptions. It is based solidly on the traditional models of conducting business in space – design, launch and abandon, along with the accompanying plea for more money to ensure a “robust” program of space exploration.
As long as such assumptions prevail, advances never will.
20 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
The web editors have closed comments for this blog.
Mr Spudis, I fully concur with this post, especially in light of the clear goal of ‘expansion into the solar system’ the Augustine commision has given to human spaceflight.
I was just wondering how realistic it is to expect a major paradigm change like this to originate in a politically restrained NASA or a presidential research panel. Especially a paradigm change that would certainly require major workforce and money shifting…
Maybe initiatives like the Google Lunar X Prize could provide some concrete results. A firm like SpaceX went from scepsis to resupply contracts, and now may be called upon to transport astronauts. At least I’m hopeful that these private efforts could provide a wake-up call that a paradigm change like the one described is feasible and a good thing.
Comment by Simon Vanden Bussche — October 24, 2009 @ 9:34 am
I was just wondering how realistic it is to expect a major paradigm change like this to originate in a politically restrained NASA or a presidential research panel
Simon,
A fair point. However, several good solid steps in the direction of a different approach were taken early in the implementation of the Vision, by people inside and outside of NASA. Unfortunately, old business methods and attitudes die hard.
Look at it another way. If the agency cannot reform itself, it will simply drift off into irrelevance.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — October 24, 2009 @ 1:00 pm
I think there is one paradigm shift we need to make before the one you’re talking about, Paul. It is to standardize and reuse the vehicles we build. NASA will want to continue to pour most of their money into the old way of doing things, but if they can be persuaded to put a fraction of their investment into the commercial/reusable paradigm, it may help to birth an industry that could better support ISRU research. In short, we still need to get the cost of access to LEO down before the next steps are possible.
Comment by Bill Hensley — October 24, 2009 @ 3:18 pm
Well said. I couldn’t help but be reminded of the ancient days of the First Bush White House, when some clever White House wag was quoted as saying, “Brother, can you Paradigm?”
After reading the much ballyhooed and perhaps unnecessary Final Report I was struck by a couple of things. It didn’t strike me as looking like the result of 90 hour work weeks, the release has received almost no press attention, and what little I’ve seen is headlined by things not in the report, perhaps based on interviews with committee members.
And finally, an appalling understatement of one of the central conclusions from the NAS “Scientific Context for the Exploration of the Moon” from 2007, namely equating the sticky problem of mitigating the dangers posed to deep space travel by galactic cosmic rays, equating this with the physiological challenges of micro-gravity and the psychological challenge of long-term travel.
News accounts of the committee’s conclusions are headlined as a recommendation to skip the Moon and proceed with their, so-called, “Flexible Path.” That’s not what I read in the report at all.
While I disagree with the committee’s conclusion that “Mars is clearly the most interesting long-term destination,” I don’t think even the Flexible Path option is a viable way around the Moon.
Cosmic rays and an accelerated risk of Radiation Exposure Induced Death make the Moon as necessary as undergraduate work before entering the Graduate courses. Sure, I can understand why folks would like to skip high school and proceed directly to college, but you can’t say you’ve been to high school if, as an elementary school student, you visited the auditorium there a few times.
Comment by Joel Raupe — October 24, 2009 @ 3:32 pm
In short, we still need to get the cost of access to LEO down before the next steps are possible.
Bill,
We can start understanding how to do ISRU, what the feedstocks are like, how difficult it is, how to extract and store product all before the cost of launch to LEO is lowered. True, inexpensive access to LEO is a good thing, but once we’ve got refueling depots in space, you have a fully functional space transportation system, one that can access all of cislunar and whose existence will naturally increase flight rates to LEO.
I’ve heard about “lowering” launch costs for years, but it’s a “chicken or the egg” issue. We already know why LEO access is expensive — the “marching army” required to assemble, prepare and launch rockets. Automate most of that and you’ll lower launch costs.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — October 24, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
Paul, I’m all for going full speed ahead on ISRU research, but it can’t really become operational until we can afford to actually get to the moon. You indicate that the chief weakness of the current mission-oriented paradigm is that we have to lift everything up from the earth’s surface. I’m saying its chief weakness is having a government agency conduct a multi-year program to design and build special purpose hardware that is used once and thrown away. That’s an exceedingly expensive way to proceed and the sheer cost of it limits our forward progress.
You mention fuel depots. I expect that would be an element of the commercial/reusable paradigm I’m suggesting needs to come first. I guess what I’m saying is that what you envision as a single paradigm shift is really two paradigm shifts. The first step is to convince NASA to focus on defining standard interfaces and letting commercial contracts for spaceflight services. That in itself is a major paradigm change for space exploration. In fact, it’s too large for NASA as a politically driven organization to embrace quickly. After reading all the back and forth on the Augustine Committee over the past few months, I think about the best we can realistically hope for is a partial step in that direction. Perhaps NASA will be able to embrace spending $5 billion or so on commercial crew services as long as they get to keep building Orion and some big heavy lift vehicle. The latter two will be obscenely expensive and will provide cover for the former.
Comment by Bill Hensley — October 24, 2009 @ 5:43 pm
I’m all for going full speed ahead on ISRU research, but it can’t really become operational until we can afford to actually get to the moon.
Bill,
We can afford to get to the Moon right now — robotically. Moreover, much of what we need to know, at least initially, can be done via robotic spacecraft and rovers, operated from Earth via teleoperations. This is one area in which NASA should be able to perform. This is also a program that doesn’t require significant new money, only the will to execute it.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — October 25, 2009 @ 5:02 am
Well, I agree with that. We may not be so far apart in terms of our ideas about practical steps forward. For instance, if anything actually comes of the Google Lunar X-Prize, I hope NASA will find a way to leverage it and to encourage further advancement. Another prize, perhaps. Or a COTS-like program to fly NASA experiments to the lunar surface aboard GLXP-heritage spacecraft.
Comment by Bill Hensley — October 25, 2009 @ 10:34 am
Dr. Spudis -
Given the realities of today’s NASA (as well evidenced by the Augustine Report) perhaps you and Buzz Aldrin could make common cause, at least to the extent of his October 12th call to develop the Moon – much along the lines you propose – but as a public sector & private sector partnership in cooperation with the entire world.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/buzz-aldrin/a-different-kind-of-moon_b_317786.html
Archimedes famously said that with a place to stand, he could move the Earth. If we are to move (change) NASA perhaps we need a fulcrum outside the United States if we are to obtain sufficient leverage to achieve that goal.
Both Senator Shelby (R-AL) and Representative Giffords (D-AZ) are representative of numerous staunch and influential defenders of the “Program of Record” and it appears so is much of NASA’s middle management. Should we attempt to batter down the Maginot Line, or go around?
Going forward, should we bemoan opportunities (and paradigms) lost or seek the most effective route for achieving the vision you (and Dennis Wingo) have articulated?
I believe Buzz Aldrin is 100% spot on, here:
“New space powers such as China and India have dedicated and complex space programs now under development, with the Moon as their target. Trying to “win” a Moon race with them would be foolish. They would eventually reach the Moon, with or without our help. What would be our policy then? Try to deny them access to the Moon’s bountiful resources in minerals — and maybe water as well? Such an attitude is more appropriate for the Cold War era that has been over for more than two decades.”
Comment by Bill White — October 25, 2009 @ 10:47 am
you and Buzz Aldrin could make common cause…to develop the Moon – much along the lines you propose – but as a public sector & private sector partnership in cooperation with the entire world.
Bill,
Two problems with what Buzz proposes.
First, not everyone shares our economic and political values, including the respect for contract law that for over 200 years has been largely responsible for creating the wealth that America now enjoys (and seems hell bent on destroying.) One of the principal arguments for America “leading” in space endeavors is to ensure that our values become the values of the new frontier.
Second, in the piece you reference, Buzz defends the existing paradigm — he simply wants to direct us elsewhere, specifically to Mars. If the idea of using space resources to enable new capability makes any sense at all (which you seem to acknowledge), why does it make any sense to continue the old ways of doing business with human missions using the Apollo template to destinations other than the Moon?
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — October 25, 2009 @ 1:15 pm
Paul, the link I gave does offer a new paradigm for lunar exploration.
He calls for a public/private partnership “to build the communication and navigation satellites needed by future lunar travelers, develop fuel depots using lunar LOX — perhaps derived from the recently discovered lunar water — and construct habitats that will shelter space travelers while on the surface. It will enable a sustainable human presence on the Moon that will be accessible to all the nations on Earth.”
Lunar ISRU is central to this approach.
Also, as for a capitalist (free market) business structure he writes:
“Unlike the International Space Station (ISS), which is governed by complex treaties, the LIDC will have the same flexibility as an NGO in working with different nations and private entities to finance build and operate the facilities and equipment needed for lunar exploration. Using a corporate structure, the LIDC will allow nations to join through the purchase of shares and enable them to contribute at a level that is sustainable for their economies. Intelsat, the international corporation that bought the benefits of communication satellites to the nations of the world is an example of the potential benefits of a focused NGO in developing global space infrastructure.”
That sounds more “free market” than a NASA led program could ever be and if the Indians and Japanese and Europeans and Chinese are all participating then it will be far easier to demand a significant role for U.S. NewSpace ventures as well.
That said, perhaps the NGO/Intelsat model is not the best model and could be improved upon. But surely it is a better model than anything we can expect from NASA in the next few years.
Comment by Bill White — October 25, 2009 @ 2:18 pm
the link I gave does offer a new paradigm for lunar exploration.
My point is that Buzz’s “new approach” does NOT carry to his preferred destination — Mars. If it makes sense to develop commercial lunar ISRU, why then does it make sense to do a big government Mars mission?
Buzz’s idea is simply a bone thrown to the lunar community to divert their criticism of his tenacious clinging to the old Apollo-template in his preferred humans-to-Mars flags-and-footprints program. Sorry — I will not be misled or diverted.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — October 25, 2009 @ 3:12 pm
Dr. Spudis,
How do we go about changing the Paradigm?
Find some other agency besides NASA to do space development?
Pure commercial?
Comment by Karen Cramer Shea — October 25, 2009 @ 6:23 pm
Karen,
I think that NASA could lead the way, followed by a transition to the private sector. That’s what the Vision for Space Exploration was all about, although the agency misinterpreted it as a human Mars mission. Learning to use space resources to develop new space capabilities is the mission on the Moon.
Needless to say, many in the space business have never gotten and will never get this concept. But I know many who do, both inside and outside the agency, and are doing their best to educate their associates.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — October 26, 2009 @ 4:59 am
Dr. Spudis -
I also believe NASA “could” lead the way, followed by a transition to the private sector. But if they won’t, doesn’t a “Plan B” become necessary?
Even if Buzz Aldrin’s idea is not your first choice, how about as a “Plan B” alternative?
Comment by Bill White — October 26, 2009 @ 7:46 am
I personally think our best bet to cause a paradigm shift at NASA is to find some other agency, possibly DOE to fund space solar power research. Space solar power will at some point become necessary for our technological civilization and profitable, as alternatives fail to meet demand. So far only $80 million has been spent on its development, so anyone who writes it off is doing so very prematurely.
A space solar power industry would naturally develop lunar resource utilization because of the physics. So long term without NASA this path would develop the Moon and Earth Orbit. The effect could work on a much shorter term by NASA feeling threatened by the competition and getting involved in actual space development.
It is possible that NASA might change its ways but currently it doesn’t look promising that it can. If NASA is forced to extend the life of the shuttle, a paradigm shift maybe impossible until after the next shuttle accident.
Comment by Karen Cramer Shea — October 26, 2009 @ 10:20 am
[...] Part of the reason to set up a human presence on the Moon is to learn how to tap the resources found there to do better stuff in space. Oxygen is the most-cited export for Moon industry, and with good reason. The Moon is composed, in bulk, of about 40% oxygen, primarily bound up into the minerals. The reason oxygen is such a valuable commodity in space is that it makes up the bulk, by mass, of propellant loads. When you’re launching from Low-Earth orbit to near-Moon space, some 75-80% of your ‘wet’ mass (payload, vehicle and propellant masses) is composed of propellant. Of that propellant, 7/8ths of the ‘weight’ (the mass you’re moving out of the gravity well) is oxygen. If that oxygen can be delivered to LEO from somewhere other than the surface of the Earth then the potential exists for significant cost savings. That kind of paradigm is visited by Paul in his latest Once and Future Moon post, “Paradigms Lost“. [...]
Pingback by Carnival of Space #126 (& Carnival of the Moon) - Out of the Cradle — October 26, 2009 @ 11:38 pm
[...] Changing the Game Paradigms Lost | The Once and Future Moon [...]
Pingback by Changing the Game « The Four Part Land — October 27, 2009 @ 5:15 pm
[...] Committee in the first place – is that the agency only knows one way of conducting business: the Apollo template. This business model calls for big rockets, big infrastructure, a large marching army, and big [...]
Pingback by Arguing about Human Space Exploration | The Once and Future Moon — December 16, 2009 @ 5:15 am
[...] take issue with several points in the Augustine report and have commented on them at length in several previous posts of this blog. But now that the dust has settled and we have a [...]
Pingback by Can we afford to return to the Moon? | The Once and Future Moon — December 21, 2010 @ 9:11 am