AirSpaceMag.com

“Logsdon places particular emphasis on a supposed change of heart by Kennedy after the Moon race was well underway. In citing two occasions where Kennedy publicly proposed to the Soviets that we go to the Moon together, Logsdon believes that had he lived, Kennedy would have retooled the race away from a nationalistic competition to joined hands with the Soviets in a cosmic Kumbaya reach for the Moon.”

I tend to think that Kennedy was twisting the knife, rather than presenting flowers.
I think all serious US presidents have been trying to take down the Berlin wall, since the time it was put up.
And all serious Soviets knew that it would be the end of the Soviet empire if that wall ever came down.

Comment by gbaikie — May 24, 2011 @ 10:41 pm

An additional problem for NASA right now its that its now embroiled in the endless political argument about government vs private enterprise. Ironically, its those who usually like government programs that are arguing that government really has no reason for spending money sending humans into space while those who usually hate government programs are arguing that NASA is an essential government program.

Many cynics, of course, have a more geocentric view of the universe, viewing manned space travel as a series of technical stunts (sort of like X-games in space) rather than as a pioneering exercise. President Obama seemed to reflect this sort of thinking last year when he said:

“I understand that some believe that we should return to the surface of the moon first, as previously planned, but I just have to say pretty bluntly here, we’ve been there before! ”

Yet the public in general seems obsessed with space travel from Star Trek to Star Wars to Avatar. I believe that this is part of the basic instinctive human drive to explore and settle new regions. And now that the Earth is settled, I believe that many people instinctively believe that it its time to gradually explore and settle the rest of the solar system.

In practically every poll that I’ve seen on both conservative websites and liberal websites, a majority of the public thinks a Moon base is the most logical next step in that direction. And I don’t care if we visit an asteroid or the moons of Mars or fly past Venus, there’s still going to be a lot of frustration from both the Congress and the general public if we do not do what is strategically and economically logical by establishing a permanent human presence on our closest celestial neighbor.

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — May 24, 2011 @ 11:02 pm

I have to agree. Before we go anywhere, we should know specifically what we want to accomplish.
The unfortunately reality is that the VSE Moon objective was in response to the political threat of a Chinese manned lunar program. We should be returning to the Moon, and then on to Mars, even if China were to shut down it’s manned space program today. Our objective should be to begin to lay the scientific and technological groundwork for our long-term future exploration and settlement of space.

Comment by Nelson Bridwell — May 25, 2011 @ 4:19 am

“On the 50th anniversary of Kennedy’s rightly famous speech, the real question before us remains unaddressed and in some respects, unasked. I ask it now: What are we trying to accomplish with our national civil space program?”

Right, now we ending the shuttle program. We should be re-organizing NASA. We need a major robotic program that is separate but assisting the manned programs- moon, asteroids, Mars, and also orbital

Comment by gbaikie — May 25, 2011 @ 5:24 am

Dr. Spudis writes:

“After years of reminding space students that the Apollo decision is not a good historical guide for setting a space agenda, Logsdon wants President Obama to resurrect space using the force of a Kennedyesque pronouncement.”

He also writes:

“Without an agreed upon national purpose, space has become a political toy, vulnerable to changes in direction with each new administration.”

The problem is that both Logsdon and Spudis imagine that somehow, by Presidential degree or not, we can come to some “agreed upon national purpose” having to do with space exploration.

Not only can we NOT, it is a bad idea to try. In fact, the real tragedy of Kennedy’s speech is that every president since has tried to emulate it. The results have hardly been useful for building a true space-faring society.

My take is different. As unfortunate as it is that Obama appears to be shutting down the American government space program, in the long run this will be a very good thing, as without an already functioning program to play with, future Presidents will find it far more difficult to propose their own Kennedyesque-type pronouncements.

The result might be that we will finally stop looking to the government, or to any single President’s space dream, to plan our future in space, and maybe will instead let chaotic freedom be our guiding principle, fueled by competition and the dreams of many different ordinary Americans. It is this principle that made the U.S. so wealthy and successful, and made going to the moon in the 1960s entirely possible.

See my essay on this today on Behind the Black.

Comment by Robert Zimmerman — May 25, 2011 @ 9:53 am

I think the goal of space exploration is clear – colonize outside of the planet. The ability of Earth to sustain life is increasing strained with overpopulation and exploitation of natural resources. Sooner, rather than later, we have to resolve to ensure that the human race can live on.

Comment by Dashboard Guy — May 25, 2011 @ 10:02 am

Paul wrote:

“America would demonstrate to the non-aligned (and supposedly undecided) world that a free, democratic system could win against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics’ repressive, communist regime.”

For me it was America, a free, democratic, CAPITALIST system could win against a socialist COMMAND economy. We then proceded with our own version of their system. A huge government run program rather than using the very strenght of our system.

To call for another socialist model for space exploration is the wrong way to do it in my opinion. The government and NASA should be the enablers, the pump primers that unleash our Entrepreneurs. The government can NEVER spend enough on space that could rival what private investment can bring to the table. For space I want to see companies develop the size of Exxon, GE, Google, Microsoft. This will never happen if the government is the player. All we get is more cost plus and years of rockets to no where.

Sooner or later NASA has to develop a “what we have now is good enough so lets go” instead of the endless cycles of build and cancel, build and cancel. We have the know how .. now, we have the rockets we need .. now. Let’s go.

Comment by Vladislaw — May 25, 2011 @ 11:05 am

As beguiling as Bob Zimmerman’s libertarian anarchist model for space exploration is, I think it fails to take into account the very real national security imperative that will increasingly require humans in space. That requires some sort of national effort to do cutting edge exploration and science. Otherwise, the great freedom loving Elon Musks of the world (fueled by government subsidies) might find themselves being asked for their papers by a foreign entity upon arrival to the Moon and/or Mars.

Comment by Mark Whittington — May 25, 2011 @ 11:48 am

Comment by Robert Zimmerman — May 25, 2011 @ 9:53 am.
“My take is different. As unfortunate as it is that Obama appears to be shutting down the American government space program, in the long run this will be a very good thing”

So which is it unfortunate or a good thing? If the answer is bad in the short term, good in the long term; how long is the long term?

“The result might be that we will finally stop looking to the government, or to any single President’s space dream, to plan our future in space, and maybe will instead let chaotic freedom be our guiding principle”

Could you, for the cynical among us, give a better definition of “chaotic freedom”? I know what chaos means, I know what freedom means, but “chaotic freedom” sounds an awful lot like expecting a storm to erect a building instead of tearing one down.

Comment by Joe — May 25, 2011 @ 12:59 pm

“confusing means with ends”. The two cannot be entirely separated. Multiple times in the past a vision has been presented and then a means has been chosen to achieve those ends. The problem is that the means chosen have been the wrong one and so the ends could not have been reached. Typically this has happened when the means chosen has been the biggest possible rocket system that NASA’s budget would allow. But with cost overruns and program delays that launcher has jeopardized (often entirely) the chosen ends. The examples are multiple but Constellation is just the latest, greatest example. Even the Moon shot might have been cancelled had we been unwilling to spend whatever was necessary to achieve the goal. So, I am leery of any plan that proposes using most all of the HSF budget and I am especially leery on a plan which plans on a new HLV. It’s not at all unfair to ask what will happen to the ends if that HLV goes massively over budget.

I believe that the COTS/CRS/CCDev and X-prize approaches are fundamentally different. They don’t dominate budgets and yet, from my perspective, they are providing some means which makes any number of ends achievable. So, my hope is that we can extend COTS-like approached one step further – to the Moon. As Dr. spudis points out, there is commercial value in a cis-lunar economy and so a Lunar COTS makes sense (in costrast to Mars).

My perspective is, if you get the right means first (i.e. a comercially viable Earth to LEO system for both cargo & crew AND a commercially viable cis-lunar transportation system) then we can begin to achieve the ends desired by presidents or others.

Comment by JohnHunt — May 25, 2011 @ 12:59 pm

@ Robert Zimmerman

If we’re going to have a $20 billion dollar a year Federal space program, we might as well spend the next $300 billion over the next 15 years doing something useful like establishing a Moon base rather than continuing to go around in circles on funding make-work research programs for Federal employees.

Private investors are supposedly sitting on about two trillion dollars in potential investment money. So it would be nice if they used some of that money to invest in the emerging private spaceflight companies– like the US government and the tax payers are currently doing. But if the US had waited around for private industry to figure out a way of making a profit from launching rockets into space back in the 1950s, we’d probably still be waiting and America’s only satellite in the long run would have been as a satellite of the Soviet Union.

America needs private space programs to do their own thing while attempting to make a profit. And the Federal space program needs to do what the President, Congress, and the people want while staying within its annual budget. But both the private and the Federal space programs should be mutually beneficial to each other and should both help to advance our technology and grow the US economy while opening up the New Frontier to humanity.

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — May 25, 2011 @ 1:30 pm

“The United States is at a critical crossroads. Will we lead or will we be content to follow?”

Paul, To get an idea of which direction our nation is heading, take a look at a new JSC website http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/capabilities/index.html

Briefly, it says:

“Johnson Space Center embraces and looks forward to supporting a new era in
commercial spaceflight. As commercial partnerships assume an increasing role
in spaceflight development and operations, we have the opportunity to
leverage our national investments and capabilities to ensure mission
success. Our goal is to provide the forum to cultivate relationships and
explore opportunities with organizations interested in commercial crew
transportation and suborbital flight activities. We would like to share the
knowledge, expertise, capabilities and services that Johnson Space Center
can provide in support of commercial spaceflight ventures.”

“We invite you to explore Johnson Space Center’s world-class expertise and
capabilities, including an established infrastructure, unique engineering
facilities, integrated project management, safety and risk analysis, human
habitability, health and performance expertise, and proven design,
development, testing and operation of complex systems designed for extreme
environments. We are committed to helping you leverage our expertise and
capabilities to meet your goals.”

I don’t see the words “lead” or “exploration”. I do see the words and phrases “supporting”, “leverage our national investments” and “provide the forum”, “helping you . . . to meet your goals”. It may be time to rebrand JSC to Johnson Support Center.

Comment by JohnG — May 25, 2011 @ 4:03 pm

JohnG,

A Field Center Leader must work with the political direction given. The link you gave predates the recent NASA HQ decision to base the MPCV on the Orion (and Orion contract). That decision of course came after the rather pointed letter to Administrator Bolden from the Senate. Things change as politics do. The e-mail below was sent out today. Look for more position changes as NASA HQ changes its positions to come in to line with the law.

From: Coats, Michael {Jsc-Center-Director}(JSC-AA111) [mailto:michael.l.coats@nasa.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 10:01 AM
To: JSC-DL-JSC-Civil-Servants; JSC-DL-JSC-Contractors
Subject: MPCV and JSC’s Future

NASA has taken an important step in solidifying the future of human spaceflight beyond low earth orbit. We’ve reached an important milestone for the next U.S. transportation system that will carry humans into deep space. Our Administrator Charlie Bolden announced yesterday that the system will be based on designs originally planned for the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle. Those plans now will be used to develop a new spacecraft known as the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV). That is great news for the JSC Team who have worked so hard on this project.

NASA and Lockheed Martin will continue working to develop the MPCV. The spacecraft will carry four astronauts for 21-day missions and be able to land in the Pacific Ocean off the California coast. The spacecraft will have a pressurized volume of 690 cubic feet, with 316 cubic feet of habitable space. It is designed to be 10 times safer during ascent and entry than its predecessor, the space shuttle. You can read more about MPCV at: http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/mpcv/

JSC continues to create partnerships and opportunities that allow us and our community to take the next steps in human exploration. It has become clear that our center will play a key role in Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) design and development projects that ensure NASA engineers get hands-on experience to take us beyond low earth orbit. We will discuss these as well as several other topics at an All Hands in early June. Watch JSC Today for more details.

Mike

Comment by Joe — May 25, 2011 @ 7:16 pm

“We have the know how .. now, we have the rockets we need .. now. Let’s go.”

More misleading and deceptive talk from the private space corner. We do not have the know how in the form of the necessary developed technology and we certainly do not have a rocket. This blogosphere babbling just goes on and on without any hint of state realities.

LEO is not space exploration- it is endless circles at very high altitude. Boy wonder hobby rockets are not going to get us to our retirement villas on Mars and inflatable space stations are not going to get the aliens to talk to us.

BEO has one major showstopper and another slightly lesser but significant obstacle and no one, especially the private space sycophants, will discuss it. The first is cosmic radiation and the second is the absolute prerequisite of nuclear propulsion to solve the first due to the mass of shielding needed.

The solution is a shuttle derived sidemount cargo vehicle to get to the moon and the ice on the moon as spaceship radiation shielding. Without these two requirements clearly identified, funded and pursued, there will be no human space flight program worthy of being called such for many decades, stretching even into the second half of this century. NOW is the critical window the historians will write books about.

If it needs to be about war then fine. There is a doomsday threat hanging over our heads every day in the form of comet or asteroid impact. A couple percent of the DOD budget would be several times NASA’s budget and fund a BEO space program.

Comment by GaryChurch — May 25, 2011 @ 8:27 pm

Logsdon sounds like Friedman (Planetary Society head honcho). A lot of talk about an international group hug to explore the cosmos. The United States did not go to the Moon in the 60s to lead an international group hug. And we shouldn’t be doing that kind of crap now. America should be looking at the solar system as a resource to further the economic development of the United States. A means to expand America’s power.

Comment by Jim R. — May 25, 2011 @ 9:15 pm

Your question about establishing what we are trying to achieve in space is exactly right. Kennedy knew. It was to beat the Soviets. We did it. But we’ve never had a compelling answer since, except in slippery words like “exploration” and “inspiration”. So you’re correct. A bold Presidential declaration has to be founded on some end, rather than a means.

That being said. Your own answer isn’t that satisfying.

“Space development is an essential, irreplaceable part of everyday life in 21st Century America; we have charted a course whereby we must learn the skills of creating more capability in space, including the building and maintenance of larger, more capable space assets (as well as protecting existing ones). To proceed, …”

So it’s in there somewhere, you’re saying. It’s before how one must proceed, which is the “means”. It’s essential. It’s irreplaceable. OK. But that’s not an “end”. We must learn skills to build, maintain, and protect assets. Assets to do what? Oh, travel in space? Kinda circular.

I don’t want to be too critical about this, except to point out that on the positive side, this is exactly the conversation that we as a nation should be challenging ourselves with. How to articulate what we think we feel in our bones about the need for human space flight. We’ve largely been afraid to have a real conversation, thus far, hiding behind words like “exploration” and “inspiration”.

Comment by Heinrich Monroe — May 25, 2011 @ 10:24 pm

[...] though possibly a coercion or the  bill of that project.  As heavenly scientist Paul Spudis points out during Smithsonian Air and Space magazine, a genuine problem is that we have never figured out as a [...]

Pingback by Washington » Blog Archive » Apollo at fifty | Rand Simberg | Opinion Zone | Washington Examiner — May 26, 2011 @ 2:39 am

Bob Zimmerman,

The result might be that we will finally stop looking to the government, or to any single President’s space dream, to plan our future in space, and maybe will instead let chaotic freedom be our guiding principle, fueled by competition and the dreams of many different ordinary Americans. It is this principle that made the U.S. so wealthy and successful, and made going to the moon in the 1960s entirely possible.

That’s fine, except that it is not clear that without a significant U.S. government presence, the “frontier” of space will be a zone of “chaotic freedom.” Most frontiers are lawless, violent places because not all people are good. It usually takes some entity to assure that some order (which we call civilization) will emerge from the chaos. On the American frontier, that happened to be the U.S. Army. Not all players in the space game share your libertarian values.

Moreover, despite the claims of some, the federal government (on behalf of all of us) has legitimate interests in seeing that our national economic and strategic assets in cislunar space are safe and free to operate as intended. If we are not there — and cannot get there — such assurances will not be forthcoming. Establishing a permanent presence in cislunar gives us much more leverage than we would otherwise have. Finally, as we are going to be spending the same amount of money on space in any event (more or less), we might as well get something of value in return.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — May 26, 2011 @ 5:23 am

Vlad,

To call for another socialist model for space exploration is the wrong way to do it in my opinion.

Who’s doing that? All I am saying is that as long as we have a government space program (under under your beloved “new direction,” we do — at more money that had originally been budgeted), we should do something smart rather than something dumb.

And I don’t mean shoveling government subsidies to new Space companies.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — May 26, 2011 @ 5:27 am

JohnHunt,

My perspective is, if you get the right means first (i.e. a comercially viable Earth to LEO system for both cargo & crew AND a commercially viable cis-lunar transportation system) then we can begin to achieve the ends desired by presidents or others.

That was the rationale for Shuttle. Didn’t work out that way, did it?

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — May 26, 2011 @ 5:29 am

JohnG,

I don’t see the words “lead” or “exploration”. I do see the words and phrases “supporting”, “leverage our national investments” and “provide the forum”, “helping you . . . to meet your goals”. It may be time to rebrand JSC to Johnson Support Center.

This simply continues NASA’s long slide down the path of bureaucracy and management fetish. It is the classic statement of an organization that does not know what its mission is.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — May 26, 2011 @ 5:30 am

Heinrich,

So it’s in there somewhere, you’re saying. It’s before how one must proceed, which is the “means”. It’s essential. It’s irreplaceable. OK. But that’s not an “end”. We must learn skills to build, maintain, and protect assets. Assets to do what? Oh, travel in space? Kinda circular.

No it isn’t. By “assets” I mean all existing communications, GPS, remote sensing, and strategic satellites. Our goal is not to simply “travel in space” — it is to maintain these existing space systems at full capability and ultimately to build new ones, expanded and distributed systems that will be much more powerful and capable than any launched from Earth as one-offs.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — May 26, 2011 @ 5:34 am

I see the silliness of the SLS (with the very specific 130-ton growth requirement, sans any real mission definition) and how Orion has morphed into MPCV (with nothing further re the mission it is supposed to perform) and so forth and I just shake my head. I just give up completely on the notion of Human Space Flight led by NASA achieving anything worthwhile. It’s all pork. I surrender.

You still have hope, Paul. Good luck to you on bringing some sense of rationality back to HSF.

Comment by Ron Menich — May 26, 2011 @ 8:52 am

Ron,

I just give up completely on the notion of Human Space Flight led by NASA achieving anything worthwhile.

What do you think of this proposal?

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — May 26, 2011 @ 9:43 am

A lot of Schmidt’s proposal sounds quite reasonable. It sounds reasonable to put robotic deep space exploration under NSF and to put the earth sciences under NOAA. But methinks that the NSEA he discusses would suffer from the same pathologies that the current HSF program within NASA does now. Reorganizing the Agency won’t convince the various rent-seekers that there should now be a defined and useful mission (e.g., develop cis-lunar space, ISRU, etc) when heretofore there hasn’t. The lack of any good mission hasn’t stopped billions of dollars flowing to NASA Centers and various contractors. Why spoil the fun by creating a mission to actually do something useful?

Comment by Ron Menich — May 26, 2011 @ 11:04 am

As you’ve pointed out before, the American public is non-chalant, 50%-ish approval rating for NASA no matter what it does. One corollary is that they don’t care enough when $9B is wasted on a program that goes nowhere. Is the U.S. public incensed enough about the lack of human footprints on the Moon to demand change from their Congresspeople? Doubt it. It’s just not that important. So the Centers and contractors can just keep collecting pork and producing nothing of value ad infinitum.

I give. Uncle.

Comment by Ron Menich — May 26, 2011 @ 11:24 am

“What do you think of this proposal?”

I would say, leave NASA alone, and start something new.
And it can be within NASA or outside of it.

The whole issue with space policy in lack of movement rather then the waste of tax dollars.
The problem with bureaucracies is they are slow to move.
So, as I mentioned, NASA or some other agency should start a robotic exploration program. And this should somewhere around a 1 billion per year program. Start with 200 or 300 hundred million and ramp up a couple years to around 1 billion. The purpose of this robotic program is to work with manned programs.

Another thing is you start a Lunar manned program. Maybe a solution is this program is to forbid it to have any space vehicle operation budget, instead it can chose to use any other launch system- including russian, chinese, french, US private, or any made by NASA. It can establish policy on what it needs. It’s job is to train astronauts, and explorers.
Maybe other things, like could need team focused on atmospheric re-entry- heatsheilds, parachutes, etc- both manned and robotic.
Anyway, with Manned program they need a budget they control, so it needs to ramp up and generally should limited to around 5 billion per year.

Comment by gbaikie — May 26, 2011 @ 2:18 pm

“I see the silliness of the SLS (with the very specific 130-ton growth requirement, sans any real mission definition)”

The number is not silly, it was made as a benchmark signifying the state of art concerning Heavy Lift Hardware. With 5 segment SRB’s, RS-68′s, and the Michoud stir friction welding facility for the ET, the technology to lift 130 tons is assured at minimum development cost and time. As for a mission- the amount you can lift dictates the mission. This is the backwards thinking that private space has on repeat. A 130 ton lift can lift a 130 ton payload that no other launcher that cannot lift 130 tons can. Which makes it the optimum vehicle for Beyond Earth Orbit exploration.

Comment by GaryChurch — May 26, 2011 @ 3:21 pm

Paul wrote:

“we should do something smart rather than something dumb.”

I agree, we should be smart and innovation has always been incorporated faster in the commercial world. Like NASA having to try and find old commuter systems because they have not innovated.

I believe our space “program” should be an enabler that creates wealth. Wealth that gets reinvested to incorporate those new innovations in a timely manner.

I have made no secret that I believe NASA should be out of the launch business. Flight rates should not be dependant on the vulgaries of the political process. Can you imagine if our airlines systems had to rely on yearly budget votes to determine how many flights they will make in any given year?

I want NASA to move towards fixed cost contracting that are milestone based. I would prefer that NASA move towards space based systems like NAUTILUS-X. NASA should buy “turn key” in-space vehicles just like the Navy does.

What can NASA do that creates higher flight rates? Buying a couple turn key NAUTILUS-x systems and purchasing fuel at a commercial station opens up a lot exploration potential for NASA Astronauts. I do not have faith that NASA can design, develop, have built at cost plus and then operating a super heavy lift will opent the door for more private investment.

Take for example the COTS program. of the original milestone based contract of 500 million, America enjoyed a doubling of their investment with over that amount invested by Orbital and SpaceX. When NASA called for added milestones and augmented it that again brought in more private investment not matched 100% by the first round but it did bring in more investment.

That is what I mean for NASA to be an enabler and a pump primer rather than the traditional NASA way of doing a big government “program” that doesn’t multiple their investments and open space up to more independant players.

When I say “unleash our entrepreneurs” I do not choose that phrase off handedly. I really mean it. Look at America’s track record when we have done this in the past.
I want a space dot com moment. You will never achieve this with another big goverment space program like a big rocket.

You only get that when you set up the environment for that explosive growth to happen and to create the new disruptive technologies and processes to occur. Like for example zero G – zero tax incentive.

SpaceUp DC – Suborbital Markets and Disruption Theory
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-Q72yOiXOE&feature=related

I would just like you to do an exercise where you put NASA in the position of what would they have to do, to enable private companies to provide that service that you want NASA to do in house in the traditional manner as a program versus buying it at fixed price as a turn key system.

Comment by Vladislaw — May 26, 2011 @ 3:42 pm

“I do not have faith that NASA can design, develop, have built at cost plus and then operating a super heavy lift will opent the door for more private investment.”

Because it is not about making money. Human Space Flight is not going to turn a profit- not till there are alot of people offworld- perhaps in the next century.

So your premise is wrong from the beginning. Billionauts on LEO joyrides does not qualify as human spaceflight.

This is the same mistaken concept that private space is based on and destined for failure pursuing. It is not an airline. It is not milking the telecom companies for expensive sat launches.

Human Space Flight means Beyond Earth Orbit exploration. And I will keep on saying this; boy wonder kerosene hobby rockets are a dead end.

There is no substitute for an HLV with hydrogen upper stages and Sidemount is, at this point, HSF’s only hope.
Going beyond earth orbit with humans is going to require water from the moon and very large spaceships that cannot be built by inferior lift vehicles. Hundreds of launches a year of inferior lift vehicles would not be enough to piece together a single spaceship capable of traveling beyond the moon. “Nautilus” is a poor joke- chemical propulsion and no rad shielding.

Comment by GaryChurch — May 26, 2011 @ 7:23 pm

@GaryChurch

Its funny but Moon habitat illustrations also often appear with either meager or with no radiation shielding at all:-) But the potential for significant brain damage from heavy nuclei over several months or even a few years of continuous exposure should be of serious concern to NASA. The Moon appears to be the only nearby place where it can be appropriately dealt with by simply utilizing lunar regolith.

So unless there is some major breakthrough in magnetic shielding, I seriously don’t think humans are going anywhere beyond cis-lunar space until the age of highly fuel efficient nuclear rockets or titanic light sails that can transport the several hundred of tonnes of mass shielding required for brain safe interplanetary travel.

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — May 26, 2011 @ 11:07 pm

@GaryChurch:

The manner in which you responded to me is indicative of why I have simply have given up on the idea of beyond-LEO, human-led space exploration. It’s all too tautological: just build a big rocket to get a NASA guy in a spacesuit beyond LEO. We’ll figure out later (if ever) what it is that we want him to do once he’s there. Why should we do that? Well, that’s because The Goal is human-led space exploration. Human-led space exploration to do what? Never mind, we’ll figure that out later: whatever it is, we need that 130-ton lift vehicle to do it.

I’ll have to frame your comments from 3:21pm yesterday.

Comment by Ron Menich — May 27, 2011 @ 8:48 am

Comment by Ron Menich — May 27, 2011 @ 8:48 am
“We’ll figure out later (if ever) what it is that we want him to do once he’s there. Why should we do that? Well, that’s because The Goal is human-led space exploration. Human-led space exploration to do what? Never mind, we’ll figure that out later: whatever it is, we need that 130-ton lift vehicle to do it.”

Maybe you have failed to notice but one of the primary purposes of this website is a discussion of your question of “Why?” You may not like the answer (your privilege), but it is disingenuous to claim the answer does not exist.

Comment by Joe — May 27, 2011 @ 9:42 am

Here goes Obama’s science adviser, Dr. John P. Holdren again:

“And it will focus NASA’s unparalleled talents on truly visionary goals — developing and using new technologies to send astronauts to an asteroid for the first time, and then moving onward to Mars — rather than spending the bulk of our limited resources to return astronauts to the moon 50 or 60 years after we did that the first time.”-John P. Holdren

Sorry, but Holdren is a complete idiot who views manned space travel as a series of political stunts instead as a new and promising territorial and economic frontier!

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — May 27, 2011 @ 12:50 pm

Gary Church wrote:

” Human Space Flight is not going to turn a profit- not till there are alot of people offworld- ”

It could if the federal government acted, like it has in EVERY other form of transportation system, as an enabler. You make my very point. Cost will never get reduced if NASA is the sole monopoly player.

“Billionauts on LEO joyrides does not qualify as human spaceflight”

So if a government employee goes on a joyride to space on the taxpayers dime ( 100 mill per seat on the shuttle and 61 million on the soyuz) then it is “human spaceflight” But if an American TAXPAYER goes to LEO on his own dime (20million from SpaceX) then it is a joyride? You are being beyond silly with that statement.

“Human Space Flight means Beyond Earth Orbit exploration”

You better write NASA and tell them that NONE of their people who have flown on the shuttle are not really astronauts at all and have NEVER flown in space, not one in the last thirty years have actually flown in space. They are all pretending to have flown in space because they didn’t go beyond earth orbit.

In a recent post on NASA Watch:

“In a report delivered recently to Congress, NASA admitted that its costing models were so far out of whack that they were even having trouble understanding why.
To quote NASA,
“NASA used NAFCOM to predict the development cost for the Falcon-9 launch vehicle using two methodologies:
1) Cost to develop Falcon-9 using traditional NASA approach, and
2) Cost using a more commercial development approach.
“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.” ”
———

This is why I have moved away from NASA only and moved towards commercial solutions. NASA is never ever going to open up space.

Comment by Vladislaw — May 27, 2011 @ 1:01 pm

Comment by Vladislaw — May 27, 2011 @ 1:01 pmII
“In a recent post on NASA Watch:
“In a report delivered recently to Congress, NASA admitted that its costing models were so far out of whack that they were even having trouble understanding why.””

It would help in accessing your assertion if you provided a link to the NASA Watch Article (Was it an article or was this statement made in the comments section?). It seems unlikely that NASA would say “that its costing models were so far out of whack that they were even having trouble understanding why” even if that were true.

So, what did NASA actually say?

Whose interpretation of what NASA actually said was this(The board moderator or one of the posters?)?

That kind of detail would be helpful.

Comment by Joe — May 27, 2011 @ 1:56 pm

Marcel,

Holdren is a complete idiot who views manned space travel as a series of political stunts instead as a new and promising territorial and economic frontier!

Either that or he is using the current space policy crisis as a smokescreen to do something that he’s always wanted to do — terminate the human spaceflight program. What better way than to pull the rug out from the program and then sit back and watch the mutual fratricide?

I report, you decide.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — May 27, 2011 @ 2:00 pm

“Its funny but Moon habitat illustrations also often appear with either meager or with no radiation shielding at all:-) But the potential for significant brain damage from heavy nuclei over several months or even a few years of continuous exposure should be of serious concern to NASA. The Moon appears to be the only nearby place where it can be appropriately dealt with by simply utilizing lunar regolith.”

In regard to radiation the only difference between between Earth and elsewhere is Earth’s magnetic field and atmosphere mass equal to 30 meters of liquid air. The vision of colonies on the Moon or elsewhere is mostly to do with near term limitation which “all about” the high cost of leaving planet earth.
If we get to the point of there being a 1000 or more people living in the Moon.
The following is possible:
A higher human population [1000+] living in LEO.
Massive amounts of electrical power generated in space.
Electrical power cheaper in space than on earth.
Things manufactured in space are cheaper than making it on Earth.
A trip to Mars per seat from cis lunar space, cheaper than an airline tickets on Earth.
Water about same price or cheaper in space than on earth.
And the cost of getting off earth will still be fairly expensive- equal to long distance airline travel on earth.

The main problem now, and this problem will more or less not change significantly, is the cost of getting off earth.
And this problem, isn’t as significant now, as most people consider it to be. It is not in way the barrier of having space colonies [1000+ populations living in LEO, and the Moon, and elsewhere in this solar system].
Isn’t isn’t now, nor was it 40 years ago.

Comment by gbaikie — May 27, 2011 @ 2:58 pm

“It is not in anyway the barrier of having space colonies [1000+ populations living in LEO, and the Moon, and elsewhere in this solar system].”

The main barrier is political, or more specifically, the laws we impose upon ourselves.

Comment by gbaikie — May 27, 2011 @ 3:11 pm

If the day that US congress makes a law that states no business or persons need pay taxes if in space and this law will be in effect for next 40 years, this would be more significant than all that has been done regarding space.

In terms of budget costs, this has near zero costs.
Consequence of such a law, during the time it was in effect, could be to “solve” any concern about “global warming”, could solve any concern about “oil peak”, could solve the government debt problem.

Now, other laws could be passed which could also helpful, but those could and have involved massive amounts of debate.

How can anyone argue about not taxing something, that shouldn’t actually be taxed by the US govt, and doesn’t exist at the moment, and most don’t think it’s even possible to exist within 40 years. Or a century or ever.
I mean if want to be serious about it, have the law say never instead of 40 years.

Comment by gbaikie — May 27, 2011 @ 3:46 pm

If the day that US congress makes a law that states no business or persons need pay taxes if in space and this law will be in effect for next 40 years, this would be more significant than all that has been done regarding space.

This idea of a “zero-g, zero-tax” comes up all the time and it never goes anywhere. Suggests to me that nobody in either the Congress or the Executive is really serious about “private sector space.”

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — May 27, 2011 @ 4:06 pm

> That was the rationale for Shuttle. Didn’t work out that way, did it?

That’s exactly the wrong point. My point was that the Shuttle was a budget hog because it was too complex. It required too big a standing army. It was built using a cost-plus approach. Little to no commercial (or ongoing military) cost-sharing. This is exactly why it failed to live up to it’s billing.

But NASA’s investment into the Falcon 9 was hardly a budgetary speed bump. Mostly only pay-for-performance model. Leveraging commercial (see their manifest) and probably military cost-sharing. So get a different and the correct launcher and America’s progress in space will be enabled, not disabled.

Zubrin has reworked his plan and numbers using SpaceX’s capabilities and prices. Could you ever imagine a point of SpaceX achievement where you and Lavoie would be willing to rework your plan using SpaceX capability and prices?

Comment by JohnHunt — May 27, 2011 @ 5:20 pm

“if an American TAXPAYER goes to LEO on his own dime (20million from SpaceX) then it is a joyride? You are being beyond silly with that statement.”

You are so transparent Vlad. You want your ticket to a space station vacation with Elon and that is ALL that matters to you. This is not space politics and you do not have your private space infomercial team to dogpile opposing viewpoints with insults and smokescreens. Go back to your friends.

LEO has been explored- it is not space exploration. It is in fact endless circles at very high altitude. The first space travelers were the crew of Apollo 8 and the last were the crew of Apollo 17. You have to leave orbit to travel anywhere except in circles which is why you are just talking in circles.

Comment by GaryChurch — May 27, 2011 @ 5:30 pm

Marcel > …that can transport the several hundred of tonnes of mass shielding required for brain safe interplanetary travel.

That position may have been determined to be incorrect. Please go to crowlspace.com and look at the third picture. It shows that several cosmonauts have been exposed to more radiation than an interplanetary trip to Mars. Once at destination, the planetary body would shield half the sky, the astronauts could sleep and do much of their work under ground so that their total radiation exposure while on the surface would be reduced.

Comment by JohnHunt — May 27, 2011 @ 5:36 pm

“a smokescreen to do something that he’s always wanted to do — terminate the human spaceflight program.”

Oh yes, the backroom deals that divide up the tax dollars. We may never know what is being said on the golf course to set up who gets what. That is what will decide the future of human space flight; greed. There is a new bunch of players who want those dollars and have to get rid of what is putting them in the pockets of civil servants and the wrong companies instead of their dividend checks. And that “what” that must be done away with seems to be human space flight. I think Dr. Spudis has it nailed. I do not regret voting for this president considering what he replaced but it does not sit well with me that something (HSF) I believe is of critical importance to the human race appears to be getting ripped off in yet another act of corporate crime.

And yes Ron, regarding human space flight beyond earth orbit- “whatever it is, we need that 130-ton lift vehicle to do it.”

Comment by GaryChurch — May 27, 2011 @ 5:45 pm

JohnHunt,

Shuttle was a budget hog because it was too complex. It required too big a standing army. It was built using a cost-plus approach. Little to no commercial (or ongoing military) cost-sharing. This is exactly why it failed to live up to it’s billing.

This is all retrospective reading of history. Nobody started out to make a complex, standing army vehicle. It just turned out to be what was needed, given its requirements, existing technology and envisioned uses. I dare say that New Space may be in for few surprises along the way too.

Zubrin has reworked his plan and numbers using SpaceX’s capabilities and prices. Could you ever imagine a point of SpaceX achievement where you and Lavoie would be willing to rework your plan using SpaceX capability and prices?

Yes, the moment those capabilities and prices become real. Let them launch about a dozen or so Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavies successfully at their quoted prices and I am happy to purchase their launch services. Until then, it’s all just wind.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — May 27, 2011 @ 5:54 pm

Gary Church wrote:

“You are so transparent Vlad. You want your ticket to a space station vacation with Elon and that is ALL that matters to you. This is not space politics and you do not have your private space infomercial team to dogpile opposing viewpoints with insults and smokescreens. Go back to your friends.

LEO has been explored- it is not space exploration. It is in fact endless circles at very high altitude. The first space travelers were the crew of Apollo 8 and the last were the crew of Apollo 17. You have to leave orbit to travel anywhere except in circles which is why you are just talking in circles”

There is no way I will ever reach LEO in my lifetime. So no, I will not be vacationing on a spacestation. What matters to me is the economics of NASA and how can they get more bang for the buck so that MORE not less Astronauts can both be in space and can actually explore.

Taxpayers can pay 140 million to put 7 astronauts in space or 700 million. This seems like a no brainer to most people. The savings generated by NASA utilizing commercial dual use systems can be used to fund actual space hardware.

Here is what I wrote:
“I want NASA to move towards fixed cost contracting that are milestone based. I would prefer that NASA move towards space based systems like NAUTILUS-X. NASA should buy “turn key” in-space vehicles just like the Navy does.

What can NASA do that creates higher flight rates? Buying a couple turn key NAUTILUS-x systems and purchasing fuel at a commercial station opens up a lot exploration potential for NASA Astronauts. I do not have faith that NASA can design, develop, have built at cost plus and then operating a super heavy lift will opent the door for more private investment.”

Please explain to me how NASA buying a fixed price, milestone based system like NAUTILUS – X as a turn key system implies I want NASA stuck in LEO. I specifically stated I was NASA out exploring and not bothering with launch operations.

How you can actually read what I wrote and imply I am against space exploration is .. once again.. silly.

Space Adventures has signed up one customer for a lunar orbital trip and the second one they are working with and expect it to be signed by the end of the year. But how in the world will the Russians beable to go beyond earth orbit without that magic 130 ton heavy lift? Are the Russians secretly building one?

When we need heavy lift, which we don’t yet because there isn’t a funded program for the missions or the hardware then we can deal with it. Until then, NASA should utilize America’s strength, our entrepreneurial spirit and the capital markets to create a multiplier effect for the limited funds NASA does receive.

Comment by Vladislaw — May 27, 2011 @ 6:19 pm

“It shows that several cosmonauts have been exposed to more radiation than an interplanetary trip to Mars.”

There are numerous articles and postings that dispute the assertion by space radiation experts like Eugene Parker (Shielding Space Travelers, scientific American magazine) and European radiation researchers, that heavy nuclei damage in deep space is the show stopper for human space flight beyond earth orbit.

The truth is that LEO is not deep space and no humans have been exposed to cosmic radiation beyond earth orbit for more than a few weeks. The calculated damage to DNA is that one third of all the DNA in a human being would be damaged by heavy nuclei during a year of deep space flight. Even if the body could repair such massive damage, the brain cannot repair neurons anywhere near as well as the rest of the body can replace cells. Science being a matter of empirical proof, no one can definitely say what will happen, but it is obvious to most people with any knowledge of human physiology. The people who have an agenda to pursue that would not benefit from an accepted amount of spacecraft shielding massing in the hundreds of tons are quick to say there is no evidence, so there is no problem.

And why is Mars always the destination? I have to keep mentioning Ceres as the place you can land on almost in a spacesuit and potentially has plenty of water. We may find out in 2015 when the Dawn probe gets there. I am so excited!

Sorry for so many postings Dr. Spudis. I will give it a rest for a couple days. Thanks again for letting me express my opinions.

Comment by GaryChurch — May 27, 2011 @ 7:26 pm

“That position may have been determined to be incorrect. Please go to crowlspace.com and look at the third picture. It shows that several cosmonauts have been exposed to more radiation than an interplanetary trip to Mars. Once at destination, the planetary body would shield half the sky, the astronauts could sleep and do much of their work under ground so that their total radiation exposure while on the surface would be reduced.”

The graph doesn’t provide enough information.
It seems as though the graph indicates the radiation is equal: days in ISS are the same as days spent traveling to Mars. If so this is incorrect.
In other words 230 days on ISS is less and 375 days on ISS is more than round-trip to Mars.
First, trips to Mars can take different amounts of time, depending on many factors. One could have a trip lasting 6 month or one lasting 4 months.

Zubrin generally mentions trip time of 6 months each way. so that would be 180 days plus 180 days, and equal 360 days.
360 days in ISS does equal the effect of Zero gee on the astronauts going to Mars if trip totals is 360 days, but does not equal the amount radiation of Mars trip.

Or a different way to say this is it would an unreasonable engineering requirement that Mars manned trips must have the same radiation exposure [or slightly less] than what crew experience in ISS.

Comment by gbaikie — May 27, 2011 @ 9:31 pm

@Joe:

You wrote,
“Maybe you have failed to notice but one of the primary purposes of this website is a discussion of your question of “Why?” You may not like the answer (your privilege), but it is disingenuous to claim the answer does not exist.”

I am the greatest fan of using the resources of the Moon, to develop a cis-lunar transportation infrastructure based on lunar propellants and to jumpstart our civilization off-planet. I’ve noticed Dr. Spudis’ arguments in this area.

But I don’t see the need to build any new ETO launch vehicle. Within a few years it would be possible to build a robotic lander capable of being launched on any of Delta IV Heavy, Ariance V ECA and H-IIB. Using this very robust launching infrastructure we could begin very soon to deploy LOTS of telerobotic equipment to the lunar surface a la the first part of the Spudis / Lavoie plan and to start serious prospecting and ISRU activities.

And not spend $0.01 on a Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle.

Comment by Ron Menich — May 27, 2011 @ 9:33 pm

Though I would say the effects from Zero gees on a mars manned trip, are probably more significant. But normally astronauts after long stay are unable to simply walk away after their landing on earth.

Since crew are going to need to experience high gees entering Mars’ atmosphere, it would be interesting to know how tolerate crew returning from ISS are to high gees- put them in gee machine.
Of course even if they don’t blackout from relatively low gees, we know their performance in general is not good. They need days to weeks to recover on earth.

Comment by gbaikie — May 27, 2011 @ 9:42 pm

“There are numerous articles and postings that dispute the assertion by space radiation experts like Eugene Parker (Shielding Space Travelers, scientific American magazine) and European radiation researchers, that heavy nuclei damage in deep space is the show stopper for human space flight beyond earth orbit.”

Obviously this is wrong since the trip to the moon is same radiation exposure per day as beyond the Moon earth system.

The issue has to do with time of travel.
And I think it’s possible to get to Mars in less than 2 months- using chemical rockets.

Comment by gbaikie — May 28, 2011 @ 12:02 am

Comment by Ron Menich — May 27, 2011 @ 9:33 pm

The point about being a fan of ISRU. That may be true, but what you wrote (Replying to Gary Church) was:
“The manner in which you responded to me is indicative of why I have simply have given up on the idea of beyond-LEO, human-led space exploration. It’s all too tautological: just build a big rocket to get a NASA guy in a spacesuit beyond LEO. We’ll figure out later (if ever) what it is that we want him to do once he’s there. Why should we do that? Well, that’s because The Goal is human-led space exploration. Human-led space exploration to do what? Never mind, we’ll figure that out later: whatever it is, we need that 130-ton lift vehicle to do it.”

You mention an HLV, but your comment was to giving “up on the idea of beyond-LEO, human-led space exploration” because it had no justification and it was to that I replied.

The point about no need for an HLV. I am also a supporter of the Spudis / Lavoie plan (I will leave to others to determine who the “greatest fan” is ), but as I have mentioned before I believe (based on ISS experience) that as the assembly sequence matures human intervention will be required sooner than currently envisioned in the plan. I also believe that (at that point, not necessarily later after ISRU propellant is available on orbit) the most expeditious way to get those people to the lunar surface is a SDHLV. If SLS/MPCV are developed in parallel with the lunar robotics part of the plan (as hopefully they will be) that will greatly increase the plans chances of success.

I could be wrong about both those assertions (unlike some I do not think I am infallible), but the part about the assembly sequence is based on extensive ISS experience.

I do not want this to turn into one of those long running ‘oh yeah well what about this’ debates that some on the internet seem to love so much, so this will be my last comment on this particular subject.

Comment by Joe — May 28, 2011 @ 9:22 am

@Paul Spudis

“Either that or he is using the current space policy crisis as a smokescreen to do something that he’s always wanted to do — terminate the human spaceflight program. What better way than to pull the rug out from the program and then sit back and watch the mutual fratricide?”

Unfortunately, I think your hypothesis may come closest to the truth. Mr. Holdren should be fired, IMO. And Congress should insist on it!

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — May 28, 2011 @ 12:03 pm

@JohnHunt

Beneath the Earth’s magnetic field, astronauts in Earth orbit are only periodically exposed to significant heavy nuclei exposure. See the Spacedoc.net article:

Retinal Flashes and the Conquest of the Moon for a good synopsis of the problem at:

http://www.spacedoc.net/retinal_flashes.html

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — May 28, 2011 @ 2:52 pm

“How you can actually read what I wrote and imply I am against space exploration is .. once again.. silly.”

I was going to give this a break for a couple days but this private space silliness cannot go unanswered. It is the same tactic the spaceX sycophants use to the point of nausea everywhere on blogs; first cut and paste long Falcon advertisements, then when someone points out the fallacies, completely cloud the issue being discussed.

The issue is the future of human spaceflight. Kennedy sent the first space travelers beyond earth orbit- that was Apollo 8. Travel means going somewhere- not in circles.

The private space fantasy is based on a house of cards that will inevitably fall.

1. Entrepreneurs can make money in space.

The kerosene hobby rocket is going to run out of billionauts pretty quick- especially when the ISS starts to fall apart and becomes uninhabitable. The un-heavy N-1 wannabe F-9H will expend 27 of those little hot rod Merlins per launch. And unlike soyuz, each one with it’s own turbopump, gimbals and a cross feed fuel system. It may work and work well but is extremely complex for the amount it puts up. It will not fly humans because of this safety issue and is thus competing with other cargo rockets.

2. Inferior lift vehicles can build fuel transfer depots and spaceships one piece at a time in orbit.

There is no substitute for an HLV with hydrogen upper stages lifting a hydrogen earth departure vehicle. All those wonderful numbers for putting man back on the moon with inferior lift vehicles like the Delta IV heavy are based on being able to store and transfer liquid hydrogen indefinitely. That technology is decades away if it is practical at all- which may very well be considering just how difficult it is to the stuff a few degrees above absolute zero and keep it from exfiltrating. Using storables with an ISP 100 seconds lower balloons the boosters to battlestar galactica size very quickly for boosting any amount of payload to escape velocity. When the vehicle’s speed exceeds the exhaust velocity the propellant mass multiplies quickly in relation to the payload mass. Simple physics.

3. There is no mission for HLV’s.

This is hilarious considering a sidemount cargo vehicle could launch a fleet of satellites in one afternoon with low risk due to the excellent human rated heritage of the launcher. The Payload dictates the mission. Space probes, Commsats, telescopes, etc. are all made to fit the launcher. If there was a 130 ton payload launcher missions for it would come into existence overnight. The heavy Lift Infrastructure was limited to a low launch rate due to that abomination with wings and landing gear it had to deal with. A shuttle derived Heavy Lift vehicle would fly up to 10 times a year. That would be about 700 tons vs. 250 tons for inferior launch vehicles and to match the sidemount would require close to 30 launches. Any comparison with what the dragon capsule loaded with cargo is a joke.

4. Lastly is the often talked about missions to settle Mars.

500 tons and 14 feet of water is required to shield a small capsule from the heavy nuclei component of galactic cosmic radiation. This is the figure given by the guy who is the recognized expert on what is flying around out there- and through any Mars bound astronaut’s body in an unshielded capsule.

The same nonsense is being posted over and over disputing these points. I can only post so many times but the private space disinformation infomercial has spread so far into the blogosphere that these silly notions will make the rounds for years to come. That human space flight can make money for boy wonders with kerosene hobby rockets and we can do everything we need, including “settling Mars” with inferior lift vehicles and don’t need those too expensive bad old heavy lift vehicles is…pathetic.

Comment by GaryChurch — May 28, 2011 @ 4:15 pm

Sorry, I have to correct the sentence concerning orbital fuel storage and transfer depots.

“That technology is decades away EVEN if it is practical at all- which IT may very well NOT be considering just how difficult it is to KEEP the stuff a few degrees above absolute zero and keep it from exfiltrating.”

I get upset and cannot type right when I think about the whole fuel depot transfer fallacy card that get’s played constantly.

The best fuel depot is an underground facility on the moon- along with a launch silo for HLV’s. Check the numbers on launching from the moon with a hydrogen fueled HLV and you will understand.

Comment by GaryChurch — May 28, 2011 @ 5:16 pm

“There is no substitute for an HLV with hydrogen upper stages lifting a hydrogen earth departure vehicle. All those wonderful numbers for putting man back on the moon with inferior lift vehicles like the Delta IV heavy are based on being able to store and transfer liquid hydrogen indefinitely.”

No. Fuel depots could use kerosene or methane, or whatever.
So, you would need to be able to store LOX. Probably.

If using LH2& LOX, most of the mass of your rocket fuel is LOX. So if you can’t store LH2 {I won’t argue this point- at the moment] you could just store LOX, and bring the LH2 from Earth.
Next, you might be able to store Liquid Hydrogen at 188 psi at -240 C, in dark craters would are reportedly -240 C
constantly.

“That technology is decades away if it is practical at all- which may very well be considering just how difficult it is to the stuff a few degrees above absolute zero and keep it from exfiltrating.”

It may be decades away. And i we wait couple decades it may still be decades away.
We know Apollo brought LH2&LOX, [not to mention the Shuttle] why after 40+ years haven’t we made any progress in this regard, IF it’s “decades away”.

“Using storables with an ISP 100 seconds lower balloons the boosters to battlestar galactica size very quickly for boosting any amount of payload to escape velocity. When the vehicle’s speed exceeds the exhaust velocity the propellant mass multiplies quickly in relation to the payload mass. Simple physics.”

No you don’t understand the physics. It has nothing to do with the velocity- same thrust at 10 km/sec as if one were at 100 km/sec

Comment by gbaikie — May 28, 2011 @ 10:45 pm

> Thanks again for letting me express my opinions.

Yes, and my thanks too.

@ Paul Spudis
“Let them launch about a dozen or so Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavies successfully at their quoted prices and I am happy to purchase their launch services.”

A dozen or so flights (say 9 Falcon 9s and 3 Falcon Heavies) will probably occur in the 2014-2015 time frame.  My concern is that the Senate Launch System will have already consumed many billions of dollars sucking up budgetary funds from other worthy alternatives.  The SLS may well be saddling us with an expensive-to-maintain system with no commercial activity to share the costs with and entrenched forces with their hired senators ensuring that the thousands of SLS jobs are not touched.

Rather, the best time to try to prevent such a scenario is now before we become entrenched.  What you guys could do is present an alternate path which consumes significantly less than $88 billion so that if (likely when) the SLS overspending and delays puts us in a once againg hand wringing situation, there will be a better, less expensive alternative at hand.

Comment by JohnHunt — May 29, 2011 @ 8:16 am

Atlas V has offered a heavy version for how many years with no takers, SpaceX offered the F9H and no takers.

So NASA launches a fleet of satellites on it’s first launch what about the second launch? Another “fleet” of sats? Who exactly is paying for all these fleets of sats?

So a sidemount launching at a billion dollars plus per launch ten times a year is 10 billion, NASA’s entire human spaceflight budget. I guess we will not have the ISS anymore.

So if the payload costs are equal to the launch costs (many times the payload cost more than the launch vehicle) Where is the 10 billion for the payloads coming from?

Comment by Vladislaw — May 29, 2011 @ 8:30 am

JohnHunt,

What you guys could do is present an alternate path which consumes significantly less than $88 billion so that if (likely when) the SLS overspending and delays puts us in a once again hand wringing situation, there will be a better, less expensive alternative at hand.

We wrote our “affordable lunar architecture” to be independent of any specific launch solution, so we can accommodate the selection of any LV that is available when we implement it. However, in order to estimate a cost, we had to assume some specific hardware. The estimated cost you quote includes launch of all assets by Atlas V EELV and a new 70 metric ton HLV developed by NASA (Shuttle-derived, either side-mount or in-line, whichever is cheapest). If you have cheaper launch options, our cost estimates will be correspondingly reduced.

Feel free to work and modify our architecture to your heart’s content.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — May 29, 2011 @ 9:10 am

@ Vladislaw

“Atlas V has offered a heavy version for how many years with no takers, SpaceX offered the F9H and no takers.

So NASA launches a fleet of satellites on it’s first launch what about the second launch? Another “fleet” of sats? Who exactly is paying for all these fleets of sats?

So a sidemount launching at a billion dollars plus per launch ten times a year is 10 billion, NASA’s entire human spaceflight budget. I guess we will not have the ISS anymore.

So if the payload costs are equal to the launch costs (many times the payload cost more than the launch vehicle) Where is the 10 billion for the payloads coming from?”

1. Space X, Lockheed, Boeing, and the ULA will probably all be considered too build the HLV or parts of it. However, Space X is still an amateur rocket company compared to the others I’ve listed. So they’ll need show several years of reliability if they’re going to be taken seriously.

By the way, any Atlas V heavy lift technology would leave the US dependent on Russian engines and a greenhouse gas polluting fuel based on foreign oil.

2. Congress forced NASA out of the commercial satellite launch business several years ago to give private companies like the ULA exclusive rights to commercial launches.

3. I wish the ISS would end so that $3 billion a year could go to cheaper and larger Bigelow space stations and lunar base development. However, just one heavy lift launch could probably supply the ISS with all of its supplies for an entire year.

4. You probably only need about three or four unmanned HLV flights per year for lunar base construction over a few years and perhaps 2 manned flights per year. But NASA could easily derive a much cheaper crew launch vehicle from the HLV that wouldn’t have to use any SRBs at all. Boeing has proposed such a vehicle. However, more frequent HLV flights would actually reduce cost per launch.

5. Since fuel depots are supposed to be part of NASA’s future, HLVs would be inherently compatible with them since they could deploy fuel to orbit much cheaper per tonne with an HLV than with small launch vehicles.

Additionally, utilizing lunar fuel resources with reusable lunar landers and fuel depots could dramatically reduce the cost of shuttling people to and from the Moon.

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — May 29, 2011 @ 12:42 pm

Comment by Vladislaw — May 29, 2011 @ 8:30 am
“So a sidemount launching at a billion dollars plus per launch ten times a year is 10 billion, NASA’s entire human spaceflight budget. I guess we will not have the ISS anymore.”

Could we please provide a source for that “billion dollars plus per launch ten times a year” figure?

The actual figures I have seen (based on analysis by people with long experience with the hardware) indicates a per paunch cost about half that figure for six launches per year. Extending the flight rate to ten per year would only reduce the per launch cost further.

Comment by Joe — May 29, 2011 @ 1:20 pm

“When the vehicle’s speed exceeds the exhaust velocity the propellant mass multiplies quickly in relation to the payload mass. Simple physics.”

No you don’t understand the physics. It has nothing to do with the velocity- same thrust at 10 km/sec as if one were at 100 km/sec.

My mistake. Of course exhaust velocity limits the final speed of a rocket. Or if needed delta-v is 2000 m/s and your exhaust speed is 4500 m/s you can have higher payload in relation to propellant mass. Whereas if exhaust speed is much lower say 400 m/s, it would be impossible without a large number of rocket stages to achieve 2000 m/s [as guess you would need around 5 stages plus you would have a massive and expensive rocket].
So if leaving the Moon which requires around 2000 m/s you don’t want to use compressed CO2 which has exhaust speed of 400 m/s*. It would make leaving the Moon as difficult as leaving the earth. Though one could use CO2 in a first stage of a rocket which was dropped before reaching 400 m/s- why you would want do this I don’t know.

*a list of some other exhaust speeds:
http://www.spaceflightnews.net/special/gpl_rocket_scripts/exhaustvelocity.html

Comment by gbaikie — May 29, 2011 @ 3:53 pm

“Though one could use CO2 in a first stage of a rocket which was dropped before reaching 400 m/s- why you would want do this I don’t know.”

And I don’t know what you are talking about.

“Extending the flight rate to ten per year would only reduce the per launch cost further.”

That billion a launch is another private space propaganda gimmick they run into the ground. The orbiter out of the equation the shuttle hardware could actually do what it was designed to do- pay for itself by launching satellites. But anything that threatens the plan to dismantle the heavy lift infrastructure is is a target for endless repetition of misinformation and technobabble.

Sidemount would get cheaper and cheaper the more it is refined as a cargo vehicle. Cheaper meaning eventually in some block, using the RS-68′s and an expendable RS-25 for an earth departure stage. With 5 segment SRB’s that is lift that no one can come anywhere near with their faux “heavy” labeled inferior launch vehicles.

Economy of scale and high flight rate is what what the private space con is all about; supposedly smaller cheaper is better and allows for a high flight rate.

Prove it.

130 tons 10 times a year is the benchmark using state of the art hardware available NOW. Not when some telecom company get’s suckered into a cheap deal with a hobby rocket company. 1300 tons a year for ten years is..do the math.

Wonder how many times a Delta IV heavy would have to launch to match those 100 missions (that the shuttle components have already flown)? You see the smaller is better is a case of trying to sell the opposite of what is being advertised. Every heavy lift launch puts the inferior launch vehicle behind by several launches in the tons to orbit score- which is the only number that really matters.

You might want to throw in the mass wasted on structure using the smaller vehicles. Adjusted economy of scale at a rough guess would be six inferior lift vehicle (Delta IV is the only one that can lift even 25 tons)SIX launches of a pretty big hot bird for every 130 ton Heavy Lift mission.

If you think launching once a week with all the associated preparation is economical compared to launching less that once a month- I think you are wrong.

If the Falcon 9 heavy is cited with it’s supposed payload and cost’s, which, the Chinese space program for one, says is impossible, then you are citing something that does not yet exist.

You can argue that Sidemount Cargo does not yet exist but everyone knows the difference except the brain washed Musk fanatics.

The whole private space scam has gone on way too long and has done enough damage. It is time for everyone concerned with human space flight to start shouting the spaceX sycophants down and exposing their smoke and mirrors game.

I would be curious what kind of moon base Dr. Spudis and Mr. Lavoie could build with 13,000 tons of earth departure vehicle and payload delivered about 15 years from now.

That is what is possible, private space is the fantasy.

Comment by GaryChurch — May 29, 2011 @ 6:18 pm

@Joe

“The actual figures I have seen (based on analysis by people with long experience with the hardware) indicates a per paunch cost about half that figure for six launches per year. Extending the flight rate to ten per year would only reduce the per launch cost further.”

You are correct if the launch rate is about 6 per year according to NASA figures. However, I believe Vladislaw’s high cost figures are based on the 18 HLV maximum launch study. 18 flights lets say from 2017 until 2037 would be less than 1 HLV flight per year. Almost like having no Federal space program at all:-)

But under the Obama plan, to visit an asteroid or two and maybe Mars orbit in the 2030s, this might not be too far away from the truth. Such an extremely low launch rate would be very expensive. And this is why the flexible path really doesn’t make any sense as a politically or economically sustainable government space program.

But maybe Dr. Spudis is right: Dr. Holdren and the Obama administration may not really want a Federal manned space program and are intent on undermining it.

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — May 30, 2011 @ 12:27 am

“Congress forced NASA out of the commercial satellite launch business several years ago to give private companies like the ULA exclusive rights to commercial launches.”

ULA has “exclusive” rights? Meaning no other launch firm can launch a sat? I believe it was more like commercial sat companies didn’t like the high costs and delays. I believe the Air Force didn’t like the delays either.

“However, just one heavy lift launch could probably supply the ISS with all of its supplies for an entire year.”

Where would the ISS store 100+ tons of cargo?

“You probably only need about three or four unmanned HLV flights per year for lunar base construction over a few years and perhaps 2 manned flights per year. But NASA could easily derive a much cheaper crew launch vehicle from the HLV that wouldn’t have to use any SRBs at all.”

Here again, where is the planning and costs for this? If the HLV is supposed to fly in 2016 when do they have to start funding for an EDS? A lander? Habitats? How long will it take to develop those? Orrin Hatch is going to sign off on no SRBs?

Does the government supply fuel to Airports? Gas Stations? et cetera?

Why do you want the government handling fuel deliveries? What about using the strength of our capitalist system? Isn’t that why we fought the cold war? Because a free and open democratic republic capitalist system was better than a big government command economy?

Why do you want bigger government and more government employees?

Fuel services should be handled commercially and it will increase the flight rates for everyone shipping fuel. I tend to look for commercial solutions first before a government run solution.

Comment by Vladislaw — May 30, 2011 @ 2:33 am

“Could we please provide a source for that “billion dollars plus per launch ten times a year” figure?

The actual figures I have seen (based on analysis by people with long experience with the hardware) indicates a per paunch cost about half that figure for six launches per year.”

With labor cost of 200 million a month for shuttle I do not have much faith that NASA will reduce that much and will try and transition as many from design and development into operations.

I take NASA’s 500 mil per launch with a grain of salt. Call me jaded but their history of big projects and budget creep is long established. How much is the development going to finally cost? Again if history is the judge it will be twice as much as the original estimates.

SpaceX said they would do heavy lift for 300mil a launch and guarantee the price. Just ONCE I would like to see any of the usual suspects connected with NASA say that. Once everything HLV gets parceled out to 20 states and as many districts as possible it will be more of the same ole’ same ole’.

Comment by Vladislaw — May 30, 2011 @ 2:41 am

Comment by Vladislaw — May 30, 2011 @ 2:41 am
The $200 million a month you quote is for the full shuttle system including the orbiter which is the most labor intensive part of the stack.

In any case you provided an answer to the question of the source of the “billion dollars plus per launch ten times a year” figure. The source is you.

Comment by Joe — May 30, 2011 @ 9:23 am

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — May 30, 2011 @ 12:27 am
Hi Marcel,

Actually at a flight rate of less than once a year I would expect the cost per flight to be even higher than the figure Vladislaw used, but he was using that figure for a flight rate of 10 per year.

Additionally per his answer the figure he used seems to have come from his skepticism of NASAs competence and intentions (complete with sarcastic references to the “usual suspects” of course). In other words he doesn’t believe NASA so he simply used a much higher figure.

It’s a free country and everybody has a right to their opinion, but one of the things that bothers me about these discussions is how ‘facts’ find their way around the internet. Vladislaw uses his number, but somebody else reads it and the next thing you know they are quoting it someplace else. It is given undeserved ‘credibility’ because it is said to come from this website.

That is the reason I asked for the clarification of the source.

Comment by Joe — May 30, 2011 @ 10:07 am

@Vladislaw

1. I didn’t say exclusive rights. I said “private companies like the ULA”. Space X, for instance, is attempting to be such a company.

2. A heavy lift cargo vessel could either dock with the ISS until all the supplies were utilized or either float nearby the ISS and dock periodically with the ISS when more supplies are needed. Of course, my dream is to have no ISS by the time the HLV is ready with such deliveries possibly going to titanic Bigelow BA 2100 space stations.

3. An HLV capable of lunar landings and delivering lunar base modules and machinery probably won’t be available until 2019 or 2020, IMO. Congress really hasn’t given NASA enough money for an HLV with an upper stage or a reusable extraterrestrial landing vehicle. I also don’t think that they have been given enough money even to continue developing the 5-segment SRBs by 2016.

So, initially, I think we’re looking at a shuttle derived vehicle that uses the current 4-segment SRBs with no real upper stage except for maybe a small Centaur or hopefully an ACES 41 perhaps jointly funded by NASA, the DOD, the ULA, and both Lockheed and Boeing.

Missions for such a vehicle would probably be confined to traveling to the Lagrange points and to lunar orbit while testing ACES space depot technology.

But I advocate that funding for a single stage LOX/LH2 extraterrestrial landing vehicle (ELV) that could be both expendable or reusable and used for manned and unmanned missions to the Moon, Mercury, NEO asteroids, the moons of Mars, Callisto, Ceres, Vesta, etc. should start to be funded by around 2013 at around $1 to $1.5 billion per year and be ready for lunar missions by 2019. In theory, the development cost of such a vehicle should be about half to perhaps 75% of the cost of developing a two stage Altair since we would be developing just one vehicle instead of two (a descent and an ascent vehicle) in the case of the Altair.

What’s wrong with the Federal government helping to develop and utilizing space depot technology? It would be mutually beneficial for both government and private space programs. Once the space tourism industry really gets going in the 2020s, it will dwarf government activities in space thanks to the help of a strong government space program that helped these companies get on their feet in the first place.

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — May 30, 2011 @ 2:19 pm

Vlad is too used to posting on another website where anyone opposing Musk conquering the universe is an infidel and shouted off the site- or moderated off if he happens to do some research that reveals the SpaceX infomercial team for the con artists they are. He thinks he can avoid every question put to him and just keep citing things like shuttle costs which include an orbiter that is retired while chanting the capitalist holy mantra. I expect Vlad will be the one getting moderated off a site if he keeps up his SpaceX free advertising. So close to outright lies that it is hard to believe he thinks people will not call him on it. This is not one of those kerolox cult websites Vlad.

300 million a launch for “heavy” lift? Again the faux heavy deception. 7.2 million pounds of thrust for two REUSABLE boosters; that is heavy lift. Components all tested and modifications to the launcher that basically amount to a cargo pod. Is there any doubt it is the best deal? Any doubt that it will continue to launch time after time as it has a 100 times, lifting heavier and heavier payloads for the next half a century? Not much doubt.

Falcon “heavy”, if that 27 engine monstrosity can be made to work, is 3.6 million pounds of thrust and expended hardware. SpaceX’s plan to reuse it’s Merlin engines was obviously just P.R. The 5 segment SRB test firings were flawless and used steel casings from 48 different shuttle flights and 5 ground tests. Sidemount boosters are reusable and are inspected after each flight for any problems- thus the over 200 flawless firings.

The 60 ton payload figure for Falcon “heavy” that may go “as low as 500 dollars per pound” is very impressive. Lifting only ten tons short of a block one Sidemount with half the thrust seems like magic! It really is heavy! And this 100,000 dollars for 200 pounds is where Vlad’s ticket to a space station vacation fantasy comes in. “What about using the strength of our capitalist system? Isn’t that why we fought the cold war?”

And so the infomercial rolls on.

The problem is what sounds too good to be true usually is. While we are waiting to find out the real deal with private space, the Heavy Lift Infrastructure continues to be dismantled. The evolved Sidemount lifting 130 tons of payload is becoming less and less a possibility.

There is no substitute for a Heavy Lift Vehicle with hydrogen upper stages and a hydrogen Earth Departure Vehicle. Space flight is inherently expensive, there is no cheap. China’s rocket people have called the wunderkinds bluff by saying his price is impossible.

Will Capitalism triumph again?
After the sublime victories of Enron, the sub-prime mortgage deregulation, and the defense industrial complex happily fighting war after war for several trillion in profits so far….yes, perhaps this guy is a winner. The same juvenile who responded on camera to a New York Times article by Randall Stross voicing opposition to a huge government loan for Tesla by saying ”Randy Stross is a huge douchebag…and an idiot.”

He can call me names if he wants, I am not a believer.

Comment by GaryChurch — May 30, 2011 @ 5:42 pm

“Though one could use CO2 in a first stage of a rocket which was dropped before reaching 400 m/s- why you would want do this I don’t know.”

/i And I don’t know what you are talking about. i/

Well just meant one could use a propellent which had lower ISP in first stage.
But obvious problem is lack of CO2. But one could have situation where one had lots lunar water and lunar electricity [used to make LH2&LOX] was costly.

Or lunar water could less than $100 per kg and lunar electrical power was more than $50 per kW/h.

In such a situation where lunar water is practically “free”, you could use boiling water as a rocket propellent.
In the ref I note above, it says, boiling water has Exhaust Velocities ( m/s): 850.

Now in a vacuum water boils at it’s freezing point 0 C, and once frozen evaporates [at different rates until somewhere around -150 C].
BUT I would assume that 850 m/s exhaust velocity refers to water at 100 C. 125 C would faster and below 100 C would slower exhaust speed.
I know of a person who suggest using nuclear power steam rocket on the moon.
I don’t think that this good idea.
But one could heat lunar water to say 99 C and use a pressure vessel which withstand about 15 psi without using nuclear power. One could also heat water above 100 C and use pressure vessels- commonly use in steam engines- e.g. steam engine trains 100 hundred year ago.
So my edition of CRC on page D-111, has chart for water pressure depending on temperature:
100 C is 14.696 psi
125 C is 33.664 psi
180 C is 145.417 psi
215 C is 305.383 psi
Let’s keep it simple and assume you heat the water so it’s between 100 C and 125 C, requiring a vessel which can withstand 80 psi- and with operate below 40 psi. Such vessel could made from very thin walls made from Aluminum or steel.

Heating water with solar panels, cheap and efficient:
“Following the energy crisis in the 1970s, in 1980 the Israeli Knesset passed a law requiring the installation of solar water heaters in all new homes (except high towers with insufficient roof area). As a result, Israel is now the world leader in the use of solar energy per capita with 85% of the households today using solar thermal systems (3% of the primary national energy consumption), estimated to save the country two million barrels of oil a year, the highest per capita use of solar energy in the world.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_water_heating

Heating water on the moon is much easier than splitting water into H2 and O

So heating water up to 100- 125 C is easy. Storing this water is also easy. A simple tank [a 45 gallon oil drum] of hot water would keep it’s heat for days- even if stored in dark craters. One could pipe the water so as to fill a rocket, use a truck to carry it to a location. Or fly it to a location using steam power.
There is no need to use nuclear power to make hot water.
But you need to use more mass of rocket propellent, compared to using “normal rocket propellent. Say need a 5 ton first stage as compared to a 1 ton first stage.
So comparing a first stage rocket of 5 ton water or less than 1 ton LH2&LOX. Both stages not achieving much delta-v and both fairly easy to recover and re-use. And both launching from a dark crater- and possibly having a some percentage of that water being “recoverable” in subsequent lunar water mining.
Anyhow it seemed to me that to use “boiling water” would need water to be much cheaper than I expect AND electrical power to be more expensive than I expect.

Comment by gbaikie — May 30, 2011 @ 7:27 pm

Sorry Marcel, I have to disagree.

“-to titanic Bigelow BA 2100 space stations.”

About as much chance of “titanic” blow up tents in orbit as there is of Bigelow contacting the aliens.

“An HLV capable of lunar landings and delivering lunar base modules and machinery probably won’t be available until 2019 or 2020, IMO.”

Sorry for the very long post and then this one right after.

Well, yes, that is the good news. Nobody else has anything close- not even close to what Sidemount could do by that year. Why make it sound like a losing proposition when it is the only one?

“I think we’re looking at a shuttle derived vehicle that uses the current 4-segment SRBs with no real upper stage except for maybe a small Centaur or hopefully an ACES 41″

Well, yes, that would be Sidemount block 1 with a 70 ton payload. You won’t have to look very far for an earth departure stage- just as one example, a modified delta IV CBC could be ready in the same time frame. There are so many engines and stages available for an EDS, that is the least problem. Again, it is the best possible outcome and you speak of it like it is second best. Anything else would compare very poorly.

“Once the space tourism industry really gets going in the 2020s, it will dwarf government activities in space”

No way. Obscene spending on joyrides will go out of fashion after the first fatalities. And going cheap and nasty- there will be, you can count on it. The Russians have said as much and even though they do have a conflict of interest I would pay attention to them after launching 1700 soyuz rockets. SpaceX has launched….how many?

Comment by GaryChurch — May 30, 2011 @ 7:54 pm

“Economy of scale and high flight rate is what what the private space con is all about; supposedly smaller cheaper is better and allows for a high flight rate.

Prove it.”

The US government has a arsenal of weapons that can be launched in a moment’s notice and hit targets half way around the world in less than 45 mins. It’s had this arsenal for decades.
Those launch vehicles are similar to smaller launch vehicles to can reach orbit.
In fact these types of vehicles can and are being modified to put sizable payloads into orbit.
These rockets have the added value/costs of being able to store for long periods of time, not having a high costs of storing them, and being able to be launched quickly. This capability cost more money.
It is proven to cost more money because this is not how most non military rockets are made and deployed.

So, how big is the missile arsenal and how much did it cost to build?
Let’s do google search: ICBM US arsenal:
First one:
Year Deployed: 1970
Number Deployed: 530 missiles (500 planned)
Primary Contractor: Boeing Aerospace
“The Minuteman III is a direct successor of the original Minuteman ICBMs first deployed in 1962.”

Peacekeeper ICBM
Year Deployed: 1986
Number Deployed: 50 missiles
Primary Contractor: Martin-Marietta Strategic Systems
http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/database/usnukes.html

I didn’t see anything specifically discussing cost of these missiles- rather the cost is mostly about the nuclear weapons used.
Look at other search entry:
Let’s see, number of missiles with more than 10,000 km range, soviets:
180, 167, 46, and 352. Respectively, SS-18, SS-19, SS-24, and SS-25
http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/database/nukestab.html
Again no mention of costs of missiles. Hmm.
Will add: ICBM US arsenal + costs
LGM-118 Peacekeeper
“Unit cost approximately $70 million”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-118_Peacekeeper
Not sure if that include cost of nuclear weapon
hmm, it also says:
“A total of 50 flight tests were accomplished. The operational missile was first manufactured in February 1984 and was deployed in December 1986″
Ok here is something:
The project had already cost around $20 billion up to 1998 and produced 114 missiles, at $400 million for each operational missile. The “flyaway” cost of each missile was estimated at 20 to 70 million dollars. The total combined firepower for all 114 ICBMs was rated at around 342 megatons, or 342 million tons of TNT.”
The above mentioned times 1984 to 1998, so at least 14 years costing 20 billion, so less than 2 billion a year, for entire program and made on average 114 divided by 14 years, so 8 missile per year.
Not really high production.
Next entry:
LGM-30 Minuteman
Unit cost $7,000,000

I assume they mean just missile costs.
“The name “Minuteman” comes from the Revolutionary War’s Minutemen. It also refers to its quick reaction time; the missile can be launched in about 1 minute. The Air Force plans to keep the missile in service until at least 2030.

The current US force consists solely of 450 Minuteman-III missiles”

“Operational range 8,100 miles (13,000 km)
Flight altitude 700 miles (1,120 kilometers)
Speed Approximately 15,000 mph (Mach 23, or 24,100 km/h, or 7 km/s) (terminal phase)”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman

So according to last entry per missile cost is 7 million.

The US can make smaller mass nuclear warheads than Russia, so this missile if modified might have a fairly small payload to orbit. But it might in range of say 1000-2000 lb.
So the Dnepr-1 which put Bigelow “test” space station in orbit, was a IBCM
Dnepr-1
Payload to
LEO 4,500 kilograms (9,900 lb
“The Dnepr is based on the R-36MUTTH ICBM – called the SS-18 Satan by NATO – designed by the Yuzhnoe Design Bureau in Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine. Its control system developed and produced by the JSC “Khartron”, Kharkiv. The Dnepr is three-stage rocket using storable hypergolic liquid propellants. The launch vehicles used for satellite launches are withdrawn from service with the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces and stored for commercial use. A group of 150 ICBMs can be converted for use and are available until 2020″
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnepr-1

Comment by gbaikie — May 30, 2011 @ 9:17 pm

@Gary Church

Capitalism will prevail if it sticks to capitalism and not try perpetuate and intertwine itself into big government programs. Many capitalist may hate the government but they sure love getting their hands on tax payer money! Just ask Elon:-)

And those who believe in crippling NASA in order to create some sort of a libertarian paradise in space will end up with a solar system dominated by a China that doesn’t care how much government or private money it spends in order for its companies and its government to economically dominate both the heavens and the Earth. And, unfortunately, many US companies just love appeasing and even propagandizing for the ruling oligarchy in China.

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — May 30, 2011 @ 10:31 pm

Oh, about steam rockets. Found ref:
“The issue is whether to use the water directly, or to split and convert it into cryofuels. Landis5 and Zuppero6 examined this issue where propellant is abundant and the space transportation system is only limited by the total energy the system can give to the propellant. They showed that the optimum payload delivered per ton of launched hardware is greatest when the rocket exhaust velocity is about 2/3 the mission velocity. Since the mission velocity to escape the lunar gravity is about 2600 m/s, the optimum exhaust velocity is about 1730 m/s. This would imply a rocket specific impulse of about 175 seconds. A steam rocket with mixed mean outlet temperature of about 800 Kelvin would provide this performance. ”
http://www.neofuel.com/moonicerocket/

Hmm my table goes up to:
374 C with 3199.613 psi
So kelvin we add 273 and get 647 K. So, it’s well over the chart, probably meaning no sane steam guy who deal with such pressures.
But if you wanted to deal with higher pressures than 3000 psi, you could generate water this hot using solar power.

But if you wanted to “get serious” with using steam one could using pressure vessels which handle 300 to 500 psi, around 215 C to around 240 C. No idea of what the exhaust speed, but one could start the rocket engine and stop the rocket engine fairly easily.
And you don’t need to carry the mass of nuclear engine.
Just make the water hot with solar power.
But I think you should limit it to first stage rocket, and use normal rocket fuels in second stage.

Comment by gbaikie — May 30, 2011 @ 10:53 pm

“Capitalism will prevail if it sticks to capitalism”

I understand how capitalism works and I am not in love with it- which makes me objective enough to see that without strong government oversight capitalism turns into a giant ripoff. Besides the recent killing made by the banksters of wall street gratis the government, witness the former 90 percent tax rate for the ultra rich that used to provide our government with the balance of it’s public funds for infrastructure and safety net programs. The rich have been buying politicians for the last half century and chipped away at it until, guess what? It is not 90 percent and tax shelters and lawyers allow the ultra rich to pay less taxes by percentage than me. I don’t like that. But the free market fanatics love it and continue to worship the idea of trickle down voodoo economics despite the condition of our economy. I do not believe our economic disaster is the fault of the evil left. Which kind of puts me on left, right? Enough about that.

I despise the influence of the profit motive on space exploration- it is toxic to any kind of meaningful progress. That is the truth. There is no way to make money with beyond earth orbit human space flight. No way. Which is why the means to accomplish it are being converted into something that supposedly will.

And I am mad as hell about it.

It is so crystal clear the steps needed to open up the solar system and defend the earth against impacts and guarantee the survival of our species. It starts with the moon and HLV’s to get there. But nobody sees a buck to me made on it and we will probably go extinct. And we will deserve it.

Comment by GaryChurch — May 31, 2011 @ 6:18 pm

“Just make the water hot with solar power.”

I am skeptical.

But I am not as conservative as one would think; after much consideration I have concluded that the only form of propulsion that does not grossly insult the rocket equation for SSTO launch vehicles is…..wait for it…..beam propulsion.

Yes. I am pretty sure that is the only “cheap access to orbit” we are going to see- in this century anyway.

I was encouraged to read this article the other day about transmitting power that made me feel all warm inside about my predicton.

Enjoy:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110523124218.htm

If it will work through the atmosphere it will work even better from the moon and a very high power system like this might be the only way to send those spaceships streaking to Mars on fast 40 day trips and avoiding radiation exposure.
It will be quite a trick slowing down once they get there.

Comment by GaryChurch — May 31, 2011 @ 10:40 pm

“40 day trips and avoiding radiation exposure.
It will be quite a trick slowing down once they get there.”

Normally one goes to Mars using Hohmann Transfer Orbits.
Which one vector in the direction of earth’s orbit around the sun, I think.

I think it should possible to instead go perpendicular to Earth’s orbit, in terms vector, but unless one is going Sun escape velocity at earth distance the resultant vector from earth orbital velocity of 29.8 km/sec is angle of about 30 degrees instead 90 degree from earth orbit, and the velocity once you reach Mars isn’t vastly different than Mars orbital speed.
But if apply a lot delta-v and do a Hohmann Transfer type trajectory you add earth’s velocity plus whatever delta-v that’s added. So roughly if add say 16 km/sec, it would be 29.8 + 16 giving around 45 km/sec to the Mars orbital speed of 24.1 km/sec, so 20 km/sec higher velocity than Mars plus the gravity attraction of Mars. Rather tough to slow down.

Comment by gbaikie — June 1, 2011 @ 12:47 pm

“So roughly if add say 16 km/sec, it would be 29.8 + 16 giving around 45 km/sec to the Mars orbital speed of 24.1 km/sec, so 20 km/sec higher velocity than Mars plus the gravity attraction of Mars. Rather tough to slow down.”

I have no idea how fast you have to go in what year at what time of year to get to Mars that fast. It looks like you are having fun with a calculator.

In my opinion atomic bomb propulsion is the only practical way to get around the solar system AND carry hundreds of tons of water for radiation shielding and closed cycle life support medium AND a tether generated artificial gravity system. But….I am not stuck on this as some people seem to be stuck on their own personal vision of how it oughta be.

A beam propulsion antennae, perhaps built in a crater and transmitting a tremendous beam of energy to a spaceship would get it going pretty fast probably. Really fast probably. But, unlike atomic bomb propulsion, beam spread and energy loss is a problem with no solution as of yet. All it takes is a way to focus the beam and I think it might change everything. So launching spacecraft to Mars from the moon using beam propulsion might be the way to go. I usually consider Ceres a better destination than Mars but with this kind of system I guess I would have to recant and get excited about Mars because the Aerocapture technique then becomes the only way to slow down and for that you need an atmosphere.

This does not change my opinion about HLV’s and moon water being critical though- a base to launch and transmit power from becomes just as important using beam propulsion.

Comment by GaryChurch — June 1, 2011 @ 2:34 pm

GaryChurch and gbaikie,

This discussion has drifted away quite far from the original topic. If you guys want to continue the discussion along these lines, please take it elsewhere. I can put you in touch with each other, if you want me to.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 1, 2011 @ 2:47 pm

“This discussion has drifted away quite far from the original topic.”

Sorry about that, just curious what fastest trajectory to Mars would be.
It seems to me fast trajectories to Mars, are interesting since staging from L-1 and being able to provide lots of rocket fuel, gives higher possible delta-v.
Therefore if one could get to Mars faster using lots of rocket fuel, this could effect the minablilty of lunar water- provide much bigger market in L-1.

Comment by gbaikie — June 1, 2011 @ 7:33 pm

Sorry about drifting too far off the topic.

“Because we have not stated what we are trying to achieve, arguments about how we go about it, whether in terms of rockets, destinations, declarations or participants, leave us still sitting on the launch pad (soon, only on a Russian launch pad). Without an agreed upon national purpose, space has become a political toy, vulnerable to changes in direction with each new administration.”

This is really, in my opinion, the very best part of the article and states the problem clearly.

In my opinion, the first point is to agree there ARE worthwhile goals to pursue in space. This is a point of contention among the people who see nothing but waste and “a jobs program.” 100 years ago, there was no point in wasting money on space exploration except for telescopes. There was no technology that made space travel practical. Most people would agree we now have the technology.

But even in this there are vast differences of opinion. At one end is the kerolox cult with their hobby rockets who want no government space program messing up there new space frontier fantasy. At the other end are people like me who want truly massive spending on space-instead of on defense. At one end are people who do not like anything that is not squeaky clean green and saves the planet. There is nothing wrong with that but there are also people like me who want to save the planet with atomic bomb propulsion- by defending the planet from extinction level impacts and also establish off world colonies as insurance for our species.

There are people who think only in terms of aviation- of lightweight vehicles and chemical propulsion. They ONLY think in these terms and disregard any other approach as impractical. And there are people (yes, like me) who believe that 400 tons and 14 feet of water, a tether generated artificial gravity system, and again- atomic bomb propulsion, is the very minimum requirement for beyond earth orbit human space flight. That space travel to the asteroid belt and outer planets is doable now. That LEO is not space flight anymore- it is endless circles at very high altitude. The private space fanatics really hate it when anybody says this because their toy rockets, if they work, will only be good for billionaut tourist rides to space station vacations.

But right now, at this particular moment in history, the big issue seems to be the United States Heavy Lift Infrastructure. Is it to be saved or thrown away? I believe there is no substitute for a heavy lift vehicle with hydrogen upper stages and a hydrogen earth departure vehicle. Because the moon is the only place we can get that water for shielding (and life support medium) and also light off a nuclear propulsion system. I doubt that is going to happen in earth orbit.

Heavy Lift Vehicle.
Lunar water.
Comet and Asteroid defense.
Off world colonies.
Lots of DOD money.

I am not shy about STATING WHAT WE NEED TO ACHIEVE.

Comment by GaryChurch — June 1, 2011 @ 10:59 pm

“It’s going to be a long time until you see a vehicle roll out to the pad that looks as beautiful as that,” said Atlantis astronaut Rex Walheim, who was at the Kennedy Space Center along with his three crew mates to watch NASA’s final shuttle roll-out.”An airplane on the side of a rocket. It’s absolutely stunning,” he said.”

It might have looked great but, but it proved that sending most of the payload up as wings, landing gear, and airframe, turned a Saturn V class launch vehicle into an inferior lift vehicle with so much useful payload sacrificed it could not sacrifice any more by having an escape system. So we lost one crew. Bringing the engines back to the runway meant a sidemount- nothing wrong with sidemount if you need to do it- unless there is the oh so fragile leading edge heat shield on a wing that keeps getting hammered by pieces of insulation. So we lost another crew. And if there was not such a culture of underfunding and pressure to succeed we would not have lost either crew, despite those cardinal design mistakes.

Because of the shuttle sidemount heritage a Sidemount Cargo Vehicle is the fastest and most economical heavy lift vehicle to put into service. It is now the most evolved and powerful hardware on planet earth and with more powerful SRB’s and new main engines which already exist, it will only become more capable.

Way beyond the capability of any other launcher on this world. Why are we going to throw this hard won unique asset away? Especially when it will require a truly vast sum to replace with anything even close?

The United States has gone in a half century from being behind the Russians and playing catch-up to landing on the moon to having nothing to send people up with and having to buy seats from the Russians. Ironic.

Heavy Lift and the resources on the Moon are the only way to make beyond earth orbit human space flight a reality in this half of the century. We have the resources to accomplish this by simply diverting a few percent of our cold war weapons budget to space flight. And there is a valid defense mission- planetary protection from asteroid and comet impact.

Why are astronauts like Rex singing the praises of this failed program? And worse, why are they not publicizing the lessons learned and the tremendous investment this country has made in heavy lift hardware?

Comment by GaryChurch — June 2, 2011 @ 7:46 pm

Why are astronauts like Rex singing the praises of this failed program?

Maybe because they don’t look at it that way.

The success or failure of a program must be measured against its objectives. Shuttle was designed to provide cheap and routine access to space and at the same time, provide new capabilities missing from previous space transportation systems. It failed at the first, but arguably, succeeded at the second and third — we went into space successfully 132 times, delivered multiple payloads of varying purposes, serviced and repaired a variety of spacecraft, most famously HST, and delivered and assembled the ISS.

Your desired objectives in space may have been different. But although Shuttle cost a lot of money, that money would have been spent anyway and we did get the benefits I listed, among others. So while it may not have lived up to everyone’s hopes, it was hardly a “failed program.”

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 3, 2011 @ 4:00 am

“Shuttle was designed to provide cheap and routine access to space”

“It failed”

“Your desired objectives in space may have been different.”

My objectives were not different.

Sorry to play the cut and paste game with you Dr. Spudis.
You may not consider it a failed program, Rex might not consider it a failed program, but having failed in it’s primary purpose, I and maybe a few others consider it a failed program.

That said, it did not fail in providing the heavy lift hardware that would make it all worthwhile and redeem the mistakes that were made. So yes, in that sense I have to agree and say it did succeed- but only if the resulting shuttle derived heavy lift vehicle goes into service.

Losing the Heavy Lift Infrastructure would be the final failure.

Comment by GaryChurch — June 3, 2011 @ 4:11 pm

but having failed in it’s primary purpose, I and maybe a few others consider it a failed program.

The purpose was “cheap and routine” access to orbit. It failed at the first part, not at the second. Failure or partial success? Po-TAY-to, puh-TAH-to.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 3, 2011 @ 4:20 pm

Alright, I give.

I am just so unhappy with that orbiter. After reading several books on it’s development and problems I am filled with bitter regrets. Just a few things different and we could have accomplished so much more. Just a little more money. I wonder how much shuttle development money they funneled into the B-1 program under the table? That made me mad also.

But it is what it is and it is almost over.

I will have to get over it.

Comment by GaryChurch — June 3, 2011 @ 4:41 pm

[...] was the 50th anniversary of both Yuri Gagarin’s first flight into space and John F. Kennedy’s announcement of the Moon landing goal – two events separated by type and location but connected in motivation.  It also was the [...]

Pingback by Annus Horribilis: Space in 2011 | The Once and Future Moon — December 27, 2011 @ 9:31 am