AirSpaceMag.com

I agree with you! The proposed manned mission to an asteroid is the ultimate example of a wasteful stunt oriented mission, IMO. Shifting away from a stunt oriented manned space program is essential if NASA is going to maintain long term political and public support.

Now that SLS/MPCV development program is underway, I think its time to promote the development of a reusable single stage Extraterrestrial Landing Vehicle (ETLV) to go with the SLS for manned lunar landings and unmanned lunar cargo for developing a permanent Moon base and for exploiting lunar resources at the lunar poles for water, air, and fuel.

Developing the ETLV and exploiting lunar resources should allow NASA to use the same technology to establish a permanent human presence plus water, air, and fuel manufacturing facilities on the tiny moons of Mars. Using a lunar architecture to set up a permanent human presence in Mars orbit on the moons of Mars should make eventual Mars landings and permanent Martian bases much easier to achieve.

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — September 17, 2011 @ 7:17 pm

Sustainability is hard to argue with, but it’s not an actual goal. You have to combine it with something for it to have any meaning. I would agree that the burn rate has to be manageable.

Until a business case is made, you can’t say where, cislunar or otherwise, we need to concentrate. You have made an excellent case that asteroid chasing is a near term waste of effort.

Either we are going to settle space or we are not. Since it’s unthinkable that earth is all there ever will be for mankind, settlement is it. So lot’s of people need to go. All having their own personal goals. Most will need to be able to finance it.

We know that we can live if supplied from earth but that’s not long term sustainable for the number of people we are talking about (keeping a dozen with life support we could do forever, but hundreds, thousands and millions will need ISRU.)

Living in space for now requires the wealth to get supplies into space which limits it to the few. The many are going to live on some rock (moon, mars, ceres, etc.)

There is only one business plan that currently makes it possible and it’s the oldest business plan of them all… real estate. Good news is it pays for everything no matter how large a plan. It scales up to billions of people and we could start in just a few years (technical hurdles are currently being addressed, it’s the non technical hurdles that need to be dealt with.)

So I completely and whole heartedly agree that the real debate is about the paradigm. We need to be thinking about mortgage packages that include the cost of travel, a prepared home (by earlier settlers that will pay the cost of their package by selling developed lots from a reasonably sized claim.)

One sq. km. claims provide 80 to 200 lots with roads meaning only a few percent of the package cost pays for everything no matter the cost.

You are absolutely right that mindset is the problem.

Assume an avg. lot sells for $500k then 100 would be worth $50m. We can send people en mass for much less than $50m each.

A number of business support this. Fueling. Tranportation. Others. There’s room for plenty of money to be made by everyone.

Best of all the banks get their money from those that have already gone (holding a mortgage) and have an incentive to send others even at “no money down” since they get money down from the mortgaged borrower with each package sold. Yes, it’s a sort of Ponzi scheme but with real assets. 144m sq. km. on mars. 37.9m sq. km. on the moon.

Unlike SSI which is just politicians promises.

Comment by ken anthony — September 17, 2011 @ 8:35 pm

Yes! This is what I’ve been trying to say to you in our sporadic discussions.

We want a robust space infrastructure – multiple launch providers, multiple ports of call, different vehicles for different tasks. The Navy idea you mention is very similar to the idea put forth by James Bennett about a Space Guard, along the lines of the Coast Guard. Such an entity would also absorb parts of the NOAA and other agencies with satellites, and part of the Air Force’s (non-warmaking) space efforts such as debris tracking. This would free up a (smaller) NASA to do the cutting-edge research that enables next steps in aerospace.

NASA as currently constituted can only do the Apollo style Big Rocket, and every single one that NASA has tried to develop since Shuttle has ended up gong over budget, over schedule, and eventually has been cancelled. Without making a fundamental change to the structure of NASA itself, the same thing will happen over and over again, and for the same political reasons. Shaking things up by establishing a Space Guard may be a necessary step to break NASA out of a vicious circle.

Comment by Ed Minchau — September 18, 2011 @ 3:23 am

An excellent article indeed.
Perhaps it ought to be forwarded to NASA HQ and Congress.

A good visualization of what you offer, IMO, would be similar to what was depicted in the film (and novel) “2001″.
It featured a spaceplane for LEO access, a lunar transport, and a deep space vehicle.
This ought to be the future for manned space flight; various spacecraft suited to various tasks. No multi-purpose ships that are meant to do ‘everything’, which can prove to be expensive.

I do take issue with your comment on this being an era of limited resources.
If by that you mean the budget, I offer that we’re limited by what Congress is willing to spend, not on actual limitations.
Consider the hundreds of billions spent on bailouts.

Imagine if NASA had gotten that instead….

Comment by Grand Lunar — September 18, 2011 @ 11:05 am

This is a good essay. I do disagree with the alleged case for Mars as being science-only search-for-algae. That’s simplistic. The quest for Mars is based on the (unfortunately too quiet) understanding that with regard to future settlement, Mars is the next best place after Earth. To the extent that life is found there, that will only underscore the point. Hey, if you can find life on the Moon, we can reevaluate what is the next best place.

The long term goal for human space flight has to be, very simply, expansion of the species. That is a goal that no Congress or Administration has ever admitted. You can’t do that robotically. Whether there are resources to harvest in the solar system that we can inject into our economic sphere, and whether human spaceflight is required to harvest those resources is really as yet undetermined, in the sense of a true business case.

The point that a human NEO trip is a “stunt” is a good one. It offers no global security insights (though many reflexively assume that it must), is even questionably enabling for science, and has little relevance to any resource development. Now, stunts have political value. We do stunts all the time for political value. But this one would advance expansion of the species only in a very indirect way.

If you want to talk about about the “right thing” to argue about, let me suggest that we argue about the pace at which we should feel obligated to do this species expansion. Apollo put a “ten-years-or-bust” framework around human spaceflight activities, and we now measure everything we do against that metric. But you know, we don’t need to expand the species on a time scale of ten years. Probably not a hundred. So even with what appears to be dragging our feet in LEO, we *are* moving out. ISS has taught us enormously important things about building and maintaining things in space, and life support there. These things are of priceless value in moving further out. Shuttle, ISS, and Soyuz as well have taught us that space isn’t just for “heroes”. Because if we’re going to expand as a species, it shouldn’t take “heroes” to do it.

So, yes, establishment of, and perhaps development of resources on the Moon that would allow us to more easily reach farther is important. But important on a time scale of many decades and even centuries. So yes, a cost-effective, sustainable human spaceflight program must be incremental and cumulative. One that doesn’t have humans back on the Moon in a decade can actually still be quite compliant, in that regard. That’s a mindset that needs to be changed.

Comment by Heinrich Monroe — September 18, 2011 @ 12:33 pm

Dr. Spudis,

Great article.

Marcel,

Agree about the desirability of a reusable Lunar SSTO vehicle, with one caveat.

Such a vehicle will become useful when Lunar propellant becomes available (if I remember correctly the energy required to reach LEO form the Lunar surface is only about 4.5% of that required to reach LEO from Earth surface – If this number needs correcting anybody feel free to do it, I haven’t looked at the numbers in quite a while but it is very much less). Therefore such a lunar based SSTO should be able to reach any place in cislunar space.

There will, however, probably be a need (initially) during the buildup of the lunar surface facilities for a more conventional two stage lander. That is not as bad a hit as it may sound as the decent stage engines (probably derivatives of the RL-105A) and tankage for that TSTO should be directly applicable to our hypothetical Lunar SSTO as well.

Comment by Joe — September 18, 2011 @ 1:11 pm

Long term, the goal for human spaceflight is to create the capability to go anywhere we choose, for as long as we need, and do whatever we want to in space. For the sake of argument, if one accepts such a goal..

The problem you are having, is that a surprising lot of people will reject such a goal flat out, or reject it as being unrealistic or irrelevant for centuries to come.

Most conversations and debates about space and space policy have people talking past each other because they have different end goals in mind, without explicitly stating them.

For example, ask any of the outspoken “NASA supporting” congressmen and women about what the goal is .. i will bet money on that none of them will ever articulate anything remotely resembling your stated goal.

Comment by reader — September 18, 2011 @ 3:24 pm

Long term, the goal for human spaceflight is to create the capability to go anywhere we choose, for as long as we need, and do whatever we want to in space.

The problem you are having, is that a surprising lot of people will reject such a goal flat out, or reject it as being unrealistic or irrelevant for centuries to come.

It is the long-term, ultimate goal for space travel. I present it that way. That does not mean we should not strive toward such a goal by doing those things which take us in that direction.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — September 18, 2011 @ 3:50 pm

Comment by reader — September 18, 2011 @ 3:24 pm
“The problem you are having, is that a surprising lot of people will reject such a goal flat out, or reject it as being unrealistic or irrelevant for centuries to come.”

I am going to respectfully disagree with you on that one.

I have made a number of attempts to talk about this subject with acquaintances/friends/relatives (all of them not associated with the Space Program and only distantly interested in it – at least at the beginning of the conversation).

It usually begins with the subject of cost. When they are informed that NASA’s whole budget amounts to less than 0.5% of the federal budget, that hurdle is quickly passed.

It then becomes a subject of goals. Having passed the ‘it’s too expensive’ test they are generally not hostile to a ‘flag and foot prints’ program. The younger ones are even excited – the parents/grandparents generally not so much. But if you talk to them about practical use of space (in the relatively near future) to benefit life on Earth and how that would lead to large numbers of people living in space year round, the interest level picks up considerably. In fact it has been my experience that there is a certain enthusiasm for the idea from the kids to their grandparents.

I have gotten lots of questions about what would these moon bases and space stations look like and what living on them would be like.

These are of course anecdotal and you can dismiss them (if you like) as me knowing only atypical people, but I honestly do not think that is the case.

Comment by Joe — September 18, 2011 @ 4:32 pm

It is the long-term, ultimate goal for space travel. I present it that way.

For you, and me, and a lot of other people, who more likely than not are also fans of works by Gerard O’Neill.

For a lot of others, it just does not click, and hence renders all further arguments moot ( or as is more often the case, very confused and heated debates )

For further elaboration on that, see http://robot_guy.blogspot.com/2010/08/space-philosophies.html ( not that i fully agree with the analysis )

Comment by reader — September 18, 2011 @ 4:47 pm

Joe, you realize that it will take a monumental effort of educating and informing a statistically significant number of people about the prospects of utilizing space, apart from current earth orbit applications ?

In your anecdotal evidence, you had to _inform_ people about the potential practical uses, the feasibility of it and the possible timelines, and associated expenditures. They also had to believe you, somewhat, because its all hypothetical at this point.

I am not dismissing your evidence, i could only hope for a modern day Collier’s magazine “Man Will Conquer Space Soon!” to appear and reignite popular imagination about possibilities of space. But past few decades have been very harmful in that regard.

Comment by reader — September 18, 2011 @ 5:16 pm

There is at least one additional model to choose from than the “Apollo” and “Shuttle” ones you mention, and it’s already operating – call it “Market” for lack of a better word. We already have a competitive satellite industry that leverages multiple sources of transportation companies and rockets. The challenge is how to expand that commercial market beyond just satellites and rockets.

The role of NASA has to get back to focusing on pushing the envelope across a wide area of science and technology, and not “bet the farm” on massive “go it alone” type endeavors like Constellation and the SLS. But I don’t see this specifically as a NASA problem, as the SLS is a Congressionally mandated program, not one that NASA had previously identified as holding it back from doing exploration.

Because of the politics of NASA, it difficult to get a discussion going at the national level. Certainly Congress has shown no interest in listening to options. Chairman Hall of the House proves that by inviting back next week the same people (Armstrong, Cernan and Griffin) that testified previously, and he’s not including any other points of view. So much for looking for alternatives.

As long as NASA is viewed as a source of money by politicians, it won’t matter if a President has a “compelling vision” or NASA has a plan for a sustainable exploration architecture, as they won’t get the money if it doesn’t spend money in the right Congressional districts and employ the right number of people.

NASA will never have enough money to be the major force that is leading us out past LEO. And the idea of a “Navy”, while it sounds good, is really just more government spending that won’t happen absent a recognized “National Imperative” (space militarization, alien invasion, etc.). Simple supply and demand will provide the need for more people in space – commerce of all types.

But no matter which approach we take, it will be a slow expansion. We’re investing in the future right now, with very little ROI outside of the satellite industry, so let’s focus on what we need next for our space infrastructure so we can support the next level of expansion.

Comment by Coastal Ron — September 18, 2011 @ 5:18 pm

@Heinrich Monroe:

The quest for Mars is based on the (unfortunately too quiet) understanding that with regard to future settlement, Mars is the next best place after Earth.

I have a hard time understanding how any gravity trap could be a “next best place” after Earth. Even lunar settlement is merely a necessary evil to opening the solar system.

Comment by Prez Cannady — September 18, 2011 @ 6:47 pm

@Anonymous reader:

Joe, you realize that it will take a monumental effort of educating and informing a statistically significant number of people about the prospects of utilizing space, apart from current earth orbit applications?

Monumental? Compared to what? A never ending stream of tweaked photographs and artists’ renditions? The empty marketing campaign that passes for NASA’s “educational” outreach today? Seriously. Do a search on rocket equation. Seriously, how much do you think it cost to slap this together?

Comment by Prez Cannady — September 18, 2011 @ 6:55 pm

Comment by reader — September 18, 2011 @ 5:16 pm
“Joe, you realize that it will take a monumental effort of educating and informing a statistically significant number of people about the prospects of utilizing space, apart from current earth orbit applications ?
…
I am not dismissing your evidence, i could only hope for a modern day Collier’s magazine “Man Will Conquer Space Soon!” to appear and reignite popular imagination about possibilities of space. But past few decades have been very harmful in that regard.”

I am not entirely disagreeing with your points. I do believe however that there is a large reservoir of good will out there for this kind of thing if it is properly presented.

At any rate I think the whole point of this discussion is, the only way to be sure of failing is not to try.

Comment by Joe — September 18, 2011 @ 7:01 pm

@Coastal Ron:

The role of NASA has to get back to focusing on pushing the envelope across a wide area of science and technology, and not “bet the farm” on massive “go it alone” type endeavors like Constellation and the SLS.

You might want to pin down “pushing the envelope” into something more concrete A 25 mT to LEO was pushing the envelope in 2004. Certainly 100+ mT lifters push the envelope even today. Let’s say feasibility turns national interest towards NTR and NEP; the effort their will push the envelope as well. Hell, the way the phrase has been tossed around, it applies to anything developed without immediate demand or obviously more cost effecitve alternative.

Comment by Prez Cannady — September 18, 2011 @ 7:48 pm

@Henriech: Hey, if you can find life on the Moon, we can reevaluate what is the next best place.

I’ll bet you there is life on the Moon. Follow the water: liquid water should exist in fractured basalt aquifers starting approximately 30,000 feet down (e.g., the Blackbeard play off the coast of Louisiana). Such wells are now drilled on a semi-routine basis on Earth; but because the gravity on the Moon is 1/6 g, the pressure at 30,000 feet would be the equivalent of only 5,000 feet on Earth. So the whole thing could probably be air-drilled without having to worry about the hole collapsing.

Comment by Warren Platts — September 18, 2011 @ 9:43 pm

I do believe however that there is a large reservoir of good will out there for this kind of thing if it is properly presented.

I actually agree, i have seen this good will and genuine interest manifest itself around attendance of X-Prize events, and interest people show in things like Virgin Galactic etc.

However, to tap into that “reserve” at large a few things need to happen : there needs to be a positive demonstration by one of the companies about what are the new things that can be accomplished in space, like actually starting space tourism flights or landing on the moon ( GLXP ) and the media coverage needs to be very well steered in the right direction.
It WOULD help to have a supporting event by popular media, like a major related motion picture, a bestselling book or even a related reality TV show ( yes, thats what we have come to these days .. )

I hope sir Richard and/or X-Prize foundation have their ducks in the row to ride that wave, once it rises.

Comment by reader — September 19, 2011 @ 11:12 am

Comment by reader — September 19, 2011 @ 11:12 am
“However, to tap into that “reserve” at large a few things need to happen : ……”

Wow, I thought all that had to happen I would be very skeptical as well.

Truth is I think I could be a little easier (though still difficult).

If you look at the FY2010 Authorization Bill it is rather amazing that it contains language stipulating that the SLS/MPCV combination must be able (among other things) to support: (1) In space assembly/maintenance of applications satellites , (2) A Lunar return. What it lacks is language supporting an integrated program to bring these two activities together (that is use of lunar resources to support the applications satellite activities). This is I believe where effort should be placed, convincing the congress people/staffers that ISRU can be practical (they are already two thirds of the way there) and that any demagogic attacks on them for supporting such an effort can be successfully and straightforwardly defended against.

I note your references to X-Prizes and Virgin Galactic. If you are one of the New Space types that gag at mention of SLS/MPCV, please do not let that put you off for purposes of this discussion. Any BEO activity is going to require significant government support and participation regardless of the specific hardware, so the issue is the same.

Comment by Joe — September 19, 2011 @ 1:33 pm

Comment by Prez Cannady – September 18, 2011 @ 7:48 pm

“You might want to pin down “pushing the envelope” into something more concrete”

You’re quite right, I didn’t define it.

To me “pushing the envelope” means going beyond our current capabilities. It may not involve new technologies, but could be the combination of existing technologies and techniques. This is similar to the definition of “disruptive technology”, and there is certainly some overlap.

But whatever we do has to have a purpose and a payoff that exceeds what we put into it. In that light building a 130mt rocket is certainly pushing the envelope, but the SLS is not being built because there is a need to launch 130mt payloads to LEO, so I would deem it a waste of time and money since it doesn’t address a defined need that is worth what we’re spending on it.

The JWST is certainly “pushing the envelope”, but that may also be an example of setting the technical goal too far out there.

We can’t just look at the goal of one program, we have to look at what the trade-offs are. If we spend $38B on putting in place the ability to put 130mt of payload into LEO, what are we giving up? What else could we have done with that $38B? Could we build reusable spacecraft like the Nautilus-X and fund related items like autonomous docking systems, fuel depots, centrifugal gravity systems and radiation hardening of human spacecraft? Which one advances our goals better?

So in measuring the payback from “pushing the envelope”, the sole criteria can’t be just the end result of that program, but how well it advances ALL of our goals. Does it help us to have a 130mt capability if we don’t have any money left over to use it? Does it help us if we spend $10B on a space telescope if it means not building three other science platforms?

And NASA is getting more help from private companies as time goes by. NASA can now use commercial rockets to get it’s payloads to space, and NASA is already contracting to get science back from a private race to the Moon.

There does need to be a shared vision of what we want to do in space, and that vision needs to include NASA being a teacher as well as a doer. As long as NASA is looked at as the only way to do things, we’re only going to be able to go as far as NASA funding allows, which isn’t far.

Comment by Coastal Ron — September 19, 2011 @ 1:49 pm

I liked the article Dr. Spudis with a few addendums. I would have liked to see a few additional words included that seems to escape most of your articles. Words like profit, commercial, market, investors, ownership.

The idea of a Navy just doesn’t do it. I would liken it to more of a private sector airlines, as a private sector oceanic shipping, as private sector railroad lines.

I would like to read an article of yours where you put the role of government as a customer for services, as a pump primer, as an enabler for what America has always done best, entrepreneurial innovation engine of commerce.

Just once Dr. Spudis, I would like you to provide ideas about how to make a buck in space and approach the problem not as a stand alone, go it alone, government program, but a program of enabling America.
—-

Ed Minchau wrote:

“NASA as currently constituted can only do the Apollo style Big Rocket, and every single one that NASA has tried to develop since Shuttle has ended up gong over budget, over schedule, and eventually has been cancelled. ”

Actually NASA does not even operate remotely in how it is constituted, as far as human spaceflight.

Remember President Reagan worked to change how NASA was constitued when this was added to their mandate:

“c) Commercial Use of Space.–Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the Administration seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.”

This comes BEFORE any objectives for space are declared. It is a first and foremost statement that all the following objectives are supposed to be based on.

When objectives are then listed in bullet points it is also predicated on this:

“(d) Objectives of Aeronautical and Space Activities.–The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives:”

I do not see NASA only. It is the National objectives, if we are going to be spending a single dime in this area it is for seeking out and encouraging commercial opportunities, for the Nation and to contribute materially to those objectives that are then listed.

NASA is currently not funded for grand ideas, or to utilize commercial to the maximum extent possible but for jobs in districts, those votes, and the political contributions from the usual suspects.

Comment by Vladislaw — September 19, 2011 @ 2:58 pm

I would have liked to see a few additional words included that seems to escape most of your articles. Words like profit, commercial, market, investors, ownership.

Maybe someday I’ll see the terms reality, national capability and accomplishment in your comments. They are the ones that seem to escape your writings.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — September 19, 2011 @ 3:34 pm

“Composite Index of National Capability – From Wikipedia, The Composite Index of National Capability (CINC) is a statistical measure of national power created by J. David Singer for the Correlates of War project in 1963. It uses an average of percentages of world totals in six different components. The components represent demographic, economic, and military strength.[1] More recent studies tend to use the (CINC) score, which “focuses on measures that are more salient to the perception of true state power” beyond GDP.[2] It is still “among the best-known and most accepted methods for measuring national capabilities.”[3] The CINC only measures hard powers and may not represent total national power.”

Ratio = Country/World

CINC = TPR+UPR+ISPR+ECR+MER+MPR/6

Where
TPR = total population of country ratio

UPR = urban population of country ratio

ISPR = iron and steel production of country ratio

ECR = primary energy consumption ratio

MER = military expenditure ratio

MPR = military personnel ratio”

What does National capability have to do with NASA and it’s mandate to seek and encourage commercial firms in the space sector.

You can argue NASA and soft power but it has nothing to do with hard power and the military.

Accomplishment is all I have ever avocated for, the bottom line on maximizing tax dollars and by bringing in more commercial we get a greater multiplier effect from the added capital.

Comment by Vladislaw — September 19, 2011 @ 6:22 pm

You can argue NASA and soft power but it has nothing to do with hard power and the military.

Ridiculous. NASA has always had very strong national security connections, from common facilities and infrastructure with the DoD, shared technology and industrial base, and cooperation on mission planning, execution, space debris avoidance, and a myriad of other interfaces and overlaps.

the bottom line on maximizing tax dollars and by bringing in more commercial we get a greater multiplier effect from the added capital.

Your opinion, but not yet demonstrated in the field of human spaceflight. Your desire to shower NASA’s budget money onto New Space companies may make you think you’re accomplishing something but that has yet to be demonstrated.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — September 19, 2011 @ 7:04 pm

“I would have liked to see a few additional words included that seems to escape most of your articles. Words like profit, commercial, market, investors, ownership.”

That’s really not the role of a government space program. Although private American aerospace companies have done all of that thanks to NASA.

Private spaceflight companies really need to be making their business case to private investors who are currently sitting on more than two trillion dollars of potential investment money.

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — September 19, 2011 @ 8:20 pm

Comment by Vladislaw — September 19, 2011 @ 6:22 pm

You present s ‘definition’ of “Index of National Capability” (from Wikipedia no less) complete with a long list of vaguely defined variables (supposedly to be used in an equation to arrive at a specific quantitative number defining with precision what the “Index of National Capability” is – based on a study done in 1963 – and even accoring to Wikipedia is superseded by later studies).

When you are ready to:
- Present the missing equation
- Give quantitative numbers to those variables
- Justify those numbers
- Present a result that supports your position (whatever that is exactly)

Then you will have a point to make. Until then you are just throwing words around to obscure the subject.

Comment by Joe — September 19, 2011 @ 8:28 pm

The two — shuttle and Apollo — have totally different goals and significance. I don’t agree that the shuttle is the “incremental, go-somewhere-to-stay-and-then-expand-onwards mindset.” It looks more like “let’s live on the edge of the familiar for as long as possible” approach. Apollo was expected to be the first of the long-duration vehicles, but it was abandoned before it could be replaced by anything at all. What was needed was something else that would permit long-distance, larger, more intensive expeditions.

It is, however, past the time when some decisions need to be made on direction and commitments to various space-related activities.

Comment by Michael Holt — September 19, 2011 @ 9:38 pm

Let’s Argue About The Right Things.
The Great White Fleet was a military operation.
Do we want a strong military presence in space?
And what would a strong military presence look like?

I would say almost every sfi depicts military in space as wrong.
A star cruiser that could destroy a planet is silly. All that needed is something that can move a 100 km diameter rock- assuming you wanted to destroy a planet- which is pretty stupid military objective.

A military presence in space could have the purpose of preventing any dangerous object from hitting anywhere on earth- whether it’s a natural object or man-made.
And this would mean stopping any ballistic missile or cannon round that have longer range than 40 miles.
Such a thing isn’t desired at this point in time.

A military presence in space could make carriers or Great White Fleets obsolete. Again such a thing doesn’t seem to be desired at this time. But in such a future ocean navies could mostly comprised of subs [but with underwater monitoring- as the US has, subs would also be quite vulnerable to space assets.
But having military presence in space could make having any armies, navies and air forces obsolete. Large armies would only have advantage in terms of occupy areas- which doesn’t have much political support in general and if needed could be made from national guard type military rather than standing armies.
Anyways, a military presence in space would mostly have to do with being able to survive another military attack- our current military space assets are extremely vulnerable.

But to the topic of the choice between Apollo and Shuttle.
Both the Shuttle and Apollo were built because they were not available in the private sector.
NASA task is to explore space. For this task, NASA doesn’t need launchers which aren’t already available from private sector. A very large Apollo like rocket would be made by private sector if there was a need or market for such rockets. A Shuttle like vehicle would also be built by the private sector if there was a market for it.

Comment by gbaikie — September 19, 2011 @ 9:46 pm

So you are arguing that a small percentage of NASA’s 18 billion a year budget is a major element? How much of NASA’s total budget goes towards the things you pointed out? 50% of their budget? 25%? Out of a 700 billion Military budget, NASA’s 1 billion? 2 billion? share makes it that important?

I illustrated what measures the government used in calculating hard power. You would be hard pressed that the amount NASA contributes would total more than an asterik in a footnote.

Not yet demonstrated in human spaceflight? SpaceX is involved in CCDEV, SpaceX has already put their own capital towards elements in the Falcon and Dragon. So it HAS already been demonstrated that private capital is going towards human spaceflight and has already had a mulitplier effect on how much NASA has had to contribute.

Blue Origin has used it’s own funding in the CCDEV, again, NASA got a multiplier effect.

3 of the CCDEV teams are planning on using the Atlas. The Atlas and Delta EELV’s were funded by the Airforce and each company had to also contribute their own capital towards those rockets.

So again, the Air Force got a multiplier effect for their contribution and NASA got a multiplier effect for their contribution.

So you are incorrect, it has been demonstrated.

Can you please show a quote of mine where I have wanted NASA to “shower” commercial firms with funding?

I want NASA to do actual exploration. I want NASA out on the cutting edge. They, through congress, have failed to bring it off. The constant call is they don’t get enough funding, so how can NASA stretch their dollars? By gaining a multiplier effect for every dollar that they do spend.

If NASA has to spend 20 million a seat to LEO for a domestic commercial firm versus 63 million to Russia, it would seem to be a no brainer the faster we get this done, the more funding NASA has to do other things.

That is my bottom line, I want NASA doing more things. Running NASA though the congressional middle man making everything more expensive is not the solution.

Comment by Vladislaw — September 19, 2011 @ 10:37 pm

Comment by Joe – September 19, 2011 @ 1:33 pm

“If you look at the FY2010 Authorization Bill it is rather amazing that it contains language stipulating that the SLS/MPCV combination must be able (among other things) to support: (1) In space assembly/maintenance of applications satellites , (2) A Lunar return.”

Who were the science and engineering experts that designed the SLS? Oh, that’s right, Senate staffers. Congress can wish for many things, but it only matters what they fund, and so far they haven’t funded anything to stick on top of the SLS except for the single-use MPCV.

“What it lacks is language supporting an integrated program to bring these two activities together (that is use of lunar resources to support the applications satellite activities).”

Which kind of proves my point. As the author says:

“In an era of limited resources, our challenge is to create a worthwhile space program with an expenditure rate that falls at or below a level perceived as affordable.”

The Senate designed a rocket so expensive they didn’t have any money left over to use it. Doesn’t sound like the foundation for a well thought out and sustainable space program.

“This is I believe where effort should be placed, convincing the congress people/staffers that ISRU can be practical”

So political lobbying should replace a sound scientific, technical and financial review? Isn’t that a recipe for disaster?

Comment by Coastal Ron — September 20, 2011 @ 2:26 am

I don’t agree that the shuttle is the “incremental, go-somewhere-to-stay-and-then-expand-onwards mindset.” It looks more like “let’s live on the edge of the familiar for as long as possible” approach

It may have ended that way, but that was not the intention of the program. Shuttle (whose official name is “Space Transportation System“) originally was a program of incremental elements and vehicles designed to take us to the planets. The sequence was Shuttle for Earth-LEO, Space Station for assembly and transportation node, and Orbital Transfer Vehicle (OTV) for beyond LEO into cislunar space. Beyond that, follow-on programs and vehicles would take us to any destination. It is in that sense that I use the term “Shuttle model.”

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — September 20, 2011 @ 2:43 am

I illustrated what measures the government used in calculating hard power.

No, you quoted a vague and incomplete concept from Wikipedia to score some rhetorical points. But believe what you want to.

Not yet demonstrated in human spaceflight?

Correct.

So you are incorrect, it has been demonstrated.

Fine. So you can move on now.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — September 20, 2011 @ 2:50 am

Do we want a strong military presence in space? And what would a strong military presence look like?

We already have one. But you are missing the point of my post — I use the “space navy” analogy not to advocate the militarization of NASA but to illustrate the kind of space access that we should be striving for.

NASA task is to explore space

Actually, the act of legislation that created NASA mentions several different objectives as follows:

The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives:

(1) The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;

(2) The improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles;

(3) The development and operation of vehicles capable of carrying instruments, equipment, supplies and living organisms through space;

(4) The establishment of long-range studies of the potential benefits to be gained from, the opportunities for, and the problems involved in the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes.

(5) The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science and technology and in the application thereof to the conduct of peaceful activities within and outside the atmosphere.

(6) The making available to agencies directly concerned with national defenses of discoveries that have military value or significance, and the furnishing by such agencies, to the civilian agency established to direct and control nonmilitary aeronautical and space activities, of information as to discoveries which have value or significance to that agency;

(7) Cooperation by the United States with other nations and groups of nations in work done pursuant to this Act and in the peaceful application of the results, thereof; and

(8) The most effective utilization of the scientific and engineering resources of the United States, with close cooperation among all interested agencies of the United States in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, facilities, and equipment.

Those activities are broader than exploration, which is only one part of our civil space program.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — September 20, 2011 @ 4:13 am

“We already have one. But you are missing the point of my post — I use the “space navy” analogy not to advocate the militarization of NASA but to illustrate the kind of space access that we should be striving for.”

The Great White fleet was only significant in regards to it’s military strength. Instead one could simply have a fleet of large ships but without large naval guns, bunch of large ships wouldn’t do the trick.
In terms of access America had many commercial ships engaged in trade- maintaining that trade by showing navy power was purpose of the Great White fleet.
The purpose of most navies was to maintain free oceanic trade- at least in regards of British and American navies.

If you had no trade and didn’t desire any trade, one would generally would have little interest in having navies.

“Those activities are broader than exploration, which is only one part of our civil space program.”

I would say 1-8 they are details concerning how one explores space.

I think most of NASA budget should be spent on activities related to exploring space. I don’t think NASA budget is mostly spending it’s budget on exploring space- rather I think it should be.
Instead NASA is spending most of it’s budget on making space vehicles. It would be similar to the Navy spending most of it’s budget on making ships- which it doesn’t. A navy purpose is to defend this nation- it’s not ship building.

Comment by gbaikie — September 20, 2011 @ 6:22 am

The purpose of most navies was to maintain free oceanic trade- at least in regards of British and American navies.

A “space navy” includes commerce shipping, as I have made clear in numerous previous posts. Such a “space merchant marine” would be established by government creating the infrastructure needed for it by building a cislunar space system to service pressing national needs. And NASA is in business to service national needs, of which “exploration” is only one.

I would say 1-8 they are details concerning how one explores space.

You’re free to say anything you want to. That doesn’t mean that you’re correct.

Instead NASA is spending most of it’s budget on making space vehicles.

Because it cannot procure the vessels it needs from the existing commercial market. And the agency’s job is not to create such a market, but to show how such a market could be created. Thus, NASA “building space vehicles” is doing exactly what it was created to do.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — September 20, 2011 @ 8:02 am

Comment by Coastal Ron — September 20, 2011 @ 2:26 am

Sorry Ron, I no longer respond to Trolls just looking to pick a fight.

You will have to find someone else to annoy.

Comment by Joe — September 20, 2011 @ 9:15 am

Comment by Paul D. Spudis – September 20, 2011 @ 8:02 am

“Such a “space merchant marine” would be established by government creating the infrastructure needed for it by building a cislunar space system to service pressing national needs.”

Do we have any “pressing national needs” in space?

We haven’t even decided on the direction we should be going in space (the topic of your article), and part of the reason why we haven’t is that there are no pressing national needs in space beyond the already existing (and separate) DoD/NRO Earth observation activity.

Using the government to fund a “space merchant marine” may look like it forces us to do something, but we still lack an agreed upon goal and the high amount of funding that will be needed. It also spends money on something that doesn’t have a clear need, which is never good.

And do we need the government to oversee the cislunar space system? I’m assuming you mean the U.S. government, which I doubt even our closest international partners would agree with. The need for such an undertaking has not been established.

In fact, if history is any guide, it will be commercial shipping that will replace NASA’s limited exploration vessels. We already have that for satellite transportation, and next year we should have that for cargo to LEO destinations. Little by little commercial companies are taking over the jobs that were once the domain of countries, and this is the same pattern that has followed throughout our history.

Why not embrace it for space too?

Comment by Coastal Ron — September 20, 2011 @ 3:45 pm

“Because it cannot procure the vessels it needs from the existing commercial market. And the agency’s job is not to create such a market, but to show how such a market could be created. Thus, NASA “building space vehicles” is doing exactly what it was created to do.”

Constellation isn’t doing anything new, and isn’t showing the private sector how to build large rockets. The private sector doesn’t build 130 ton payload rockets because there is no market for them.
The only justification offered is job program, impress the world, and NASA needs it’s own rocket. None of these reasons is vaguely rational.
All it means is I will be much older before the Moon is explored. And it will take longer before there is a Manned Mars.

Comment by gbaikie — September 20, 2011 @ 8:03 pm

Suppose Bill gates got it into his head that he wanted to mine lunar water and make rocket fuel.
And Bill asked you how you suggest he do this and how much would it cost.
Or say Bill wanted to do Manned Mars.
Would you tell Bill the first thing he should do is build a 70 ton rocket, then build a 130 ton rocket?

Comment by gbaikie — September 20, 2011 @ 8:24 pm

Btw, I would tell Gates, the first thing he would need to do is explore the Moon to determine how he could mine lunar water.

Comment by gbaikie — September 20, 2011 @ 8:31 pm

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — September 20, 2011 @ 8:02 am

“A “space navy” includes commerce shipping, as I have made clear in numerous previous posts. Such a “space merchant marine” would be established by government creating the infrastructure needed for it by building a cislunar space system to service pressing national needs. And NASA is in business to service national needs, of which “exploration” is only one.
….

Because it cannot procure the vessels it needs from the existing commercial market. And the agency’s job is not to create such a market, but to show how such a market could be created. Thus, NASA “building space vehicles” is doing exactly what it was created to do.”
Dr. Spudis,

As is all too often the case there are attempts to divert the conversation to pointless semantic games.

However I think the above statement covers the original point. Call it a Navy, the Merchant Marine or call it the Imperial Order of the Flying Monkeys for all I care; the intent is to develop a flexible transportation system in (initially) cislunar space with the government taking the lead due to (1) the high technical risk (2) the high capital investment required (3) the long lead time before the return on investment can begin.

There are some who cannot (or more likely will not) understand the point and rather than address it try to argue against ‘straw man’ arguments of their own making instead.

Comment by Joe — September 20, 2011 @ 9:06 pm

Obama said that we shouldn’t go to the Moon because Buzz had been there already. That statement made me and probably most of you go into convulsions. But I don’t see any evidence that Obama was punished by general public opinion with respect to that comment, no matter how distasteful to us.

Bolden has made various statements and speeches talking about the goal being a “sequence of firsts”. To me, “firsts” means “unsustainable stunts” and “flags and footprints, not much else” and that also made me go into convulsions. Again, I don’t see any great uprising of the US populace against such a conceptual plan, no matter how distasteful to me.

I agree with Paul’s article and good luck on that. But we’re swimming upstream. The general US populace — and therefore the Congress and President — remembers Apollo and big rockets and that’s about it. I don’t know how to convince the American public (and their Congresspeople and President) that they should abandon the Apollo flags and footprints mindset and instead focus on sustainability. I wish I could. More power to you, Paul.

Comment by Ron Menich — September 21, 2011 @ 9:20 am

I don’t know how to convince the American public (and their Congresspeople and President) that they should abandon the Apollo flags and footprints mindset and instead focus on sustainability.

Those are two different things. The “public” doesn’t really care one way or the other — it’s the decision makers that you have to convince. I think NASA has wasted a large part of their lobbying efforts trying to convince the “public” that they wanted space when a large fraction of them are completely indifferent to it.

And we had convinced the decision makers, at least enough such that the VSE was adopted into the agency’s authorization by two different Congresses. The current administration abandoned that path without much thought or discussion. What has been made wrong can be made right again.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — September 21, 2011 @ 10:08 am

@Coastal Ron:

Does it help us to have a 130mt capability if we don’t have any money left over to use it?

Why not ask “does it help us to air drop $40 billion into a wild fire?” The United States dumped over $100 billion into the ISS; she somehow finds money to use it, regardless of how actually useful it is.

The question is whether or not super heavy lift has or will have some place in whatever the hell it is Americans are trying to accomplish in space. If the objective is expand commercial access throughout the Earth sphere, then the answer is “we don’t know.” If on orbit assembly becomes cheap enough soon enough to obviate super heavy lift, it will come about in spite of–not because of–our $100 billion experience with the ISS. Even then, are there some activities that lay outside of the reach near term orbital assembly? Say, nuclear reactors?

Does it help us if we spend $10B on a space telescope if it means not building three other science platforms?

Does it help us if we spend any amount of money on a space telescope?

Comment by Prez Cannady — September 21, 2011 @ 9:04 pm

And we had convinced the decision makers, at least enough such that the VSE was adopted into the agency’s authorization by two different Congresses. The current administration abandoned that path without much thought or discussion. What has been made wrong can be made right again.”

I agree that doing what the public wants in terms of specifics is a rather pointless exercise- a suggestion from the public might be using the Shuttle to go to the Moon or Mars or something.
But if we are suppose to convince the decision makers [assuming "we" is not royal we] who are they?

Comment by gbaikie — September 21, 2011 @ 10:54 pm

I feel that NASA’s main objective should be an aggressive international lunar exploration program that includes satellites and remotely-piloted rovers to explore the entire surface of the Moon, a small long-duration human outpost to measure the effects of long exposure to 1/6 g, and a pilot ISRU production facility for fuel, water, air, shelter, and food. Only where advantageous, commercial space capabilities should be utilized.

To make this happen I feel that we need to farm out the satellites and rovers to other nations and let NASA focus on the manned outpost and ISRU pilot production facility.

At this early stage I think that it is just as unwise to promises commercial markets for ISRU products as were Dan Golden’s ISS wondercure claims or the $100 per pound shuttle promises.

There is much for us to learn about exactly what is out there, and how it can be used. Now is an excellent time to begin.

Comment by Nelson Bridwell — September 22, 2011 @ 2:49 am

But if we are suppose to convince the decision makers [assuming "we" is not royal we] who are they?

By “we” I mean space advocates; by “they” I mean the Congress and the White House.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — September 22, 2011 @ 4:05 am

Excellent discussion, illustrating Apollo and Shuttle templates. I agree we should build a “Great Space Fleet” instead of custom specific missions. However I’m worried our industrial/technology base is a shell of what it used to be. Great White Fleet leveraged off domestic Steel Age manufacturing base.

Apollo leveraged off industrial might built in WWII (along with engineers trained under the GI Bill and the Natl Defense Education Act). And experts that came to USA, Germans (von Braun) and Canadians (laid off engineers from Avro).

Shuttle has many components made by companies that no longer exist or have been reduced to a marketing shell, i.e. Fairchild and Rocketdyne. We went from paper (program approved in 1972) to a winged vehicle flight test (ALT in 1977) in five years. But to begin with a capsule (Orion starting in 2005) to start of fabrication (2011) is six years! Why does it take longer to build a capsule than a winged vehicle? (that first used extensive composite materials, fly by wire, etc). I think there was a lot of ground test facilities used during the 1970s developing Shuttle, much of this is probably abandoned these days.

I say NASA should go back to its NACA roots (no glamourous missions but it helped US aerospace companies be globally competitive).

Comment by Michael Wright — September 22, 2011 @ 12:45 pm

Comment by Michael Wright — September 22, 2011 @ 12:45 pm
“I say NASA should go back to its NACA roots (no glamourous missions but it helped US aerospace companies be globally competitive).”

Yes, here we go again the Obama FY 2011 Space Budget proposal proposed again.

No goals, no objectives; just vaguely defined research projects with no timelines and no measures of success.

Then they can be left to be cut back/cancelled for precisely those reasons and the real goal to the Obama FY 2011 Space Budget proposal will have been achieved – No American Space Program at all.

Comment by Joe — September 22, 2011 @ 4:02 pm

“By “we” I mean space advocates; by “they” I mean the Congress and the White House.”

Ok, but they get elected every 2, 4, or 6 years.

It should be NASA who are the decision makers- that body is suppose to be informed enough to make decisions.

But you are correct, if you mean politicians who have NASA jobs and/or private sector NASA contracts in their districts.
And lobbyist who paying/involved with a politician election. It’s the lobbyists who work for companies who existed before NASA was even established which tend keep a consistent policy. It’s quite predictable.
Not sure what you are going to convince these particular politicians of. They would listen to you if you support their next election or if you going get them voted out of office.
The politicians that don’t have NASA jobs in their district and don’t have business that is getting NASA contracts, have no interest in NASA or space. So you only have a handful of politicians who interested in space because they representing people who will elect them- they are told what decisions are the correct ones.

Comment by gbaikie — September 22, 2011 @ 8:01 pm

Congratulations Dr. Spudis!

In his written testimony today before the Committee of Commerce, Science, and Technology
United States House of Representatives, Neil Armstrong referred to your blog as a reference for the argument favoring returning to the Moon over visiting an asteroid:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=38493

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — September 22, 2011 @ 10:31 pm

From Here?
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=38490

Former NASA Administrator, Michael D. Griffin has interesting testimony. This is rather exciting:
“To paraphrase my friend and colleague, Boeing Commercial Aircraft CEO Jim Albaugh, the current administration’s view of our nation’s future in space offers “no dream, no vision, no plan, no budget, and no remorse.”
and this is…
“..but the argument in any case ignores a more crucial fact – if NASA does not build a heavy-lifter, then we will not have a heavy-lifter!
fascinating.
In summary I think Mike is still annoyed about the cancellation of Constellation, and sees the current monster lift as adequate but not as good as his plan [but basically the same thing with different name- but as he indicates with chart it's not funded now or in future with enough funds].
Mike’s view in regard to private efforts to resupply ISS is somewhat misguided as far as I am concerned. I do sort of agree with the idea that we don’t need all the suppliers- but Mike fails to grasp that some launch companies already have other markets for their rocket and aren’t dependent exclusively on ISS’s market. And others may also get more business other than ISS. His point about going to the Moon as means of providing addition market for private launch, is a good point.
Anyhow lots I agree with and lots I disagree about, but I think keeping Mike would have better than his replacement.

Comment by gbaikie — September 22, 2011 @ 10:50 pm

Great White fleet:
“If our goal is to “sail on the ocean of space,” we need a navy. Navies don’t operate with just one class of ship because one class isn’t capable of doing all that is necessary. Not all ships will look or operate the same because they have different purposes and destinations. We need transports, way stations, supply depots, and ports.”

I would say it would better to have private, rather govt- which space navy suggest. But I would favor the idea of a govt Mars spaceship. And in near terms “things/prototype” which lead to this development.
So my idea of a Mars spaceship is a vehicle that carry crew to Mars in 2 months. And it would be a chemical rocket- probably LH2/LOX. Such a vehicle would start at Earth/Moon L-1 and have enough delta-v to alter the vector of Earth orbit of 28.9 km/sec. Not use Hofmann transfer. And need somewhere over 12 km/sec in rocket power. And such a vehicle would be designed for such acceleration in the space environmnet.
Having such a vehicle ready to fly 2025+. And such a vehicle not cobbled together from spare parts.

In the nearer term, a space tug. This space tug could be a zero or first stage of the above mentioned Mars ship.
The purpose of the tug is demonstrate space refueling.
It could move space junk to a stable orbit. If the space shuttle still existed one one thing a tug could do would to boost the ET [which was nearly brought to orbit] and so this tug grab other spent stages which arrive or nearly arrive in LEO. Also it task could move dead satellite from GEO graveyard.
A stable orbit could be Earth/Moon L-4/5:
“Although the L1, L2, and L3 points are nominally unstable, it turns out that it is possible to find stable periodic orbits around these points, at least in the restricted three-body problem.
…
In contrast to the collinear Lagrangian points, the triangular points (L4 and L5) are stable equilibria (cf. attractor), provided that the ratio of M1/M2 is greater than 24.96″
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point#L4_and_L5
And no one using these points, so good place to put junk.

Some people have suggested harvesting space junk could be profitable, but no one is doing, and the idea is NASA wouldn’t do it for profit but more of a “public good” and perhaps private sector could at some point use to junk. But idea isn’t to make profit but remove junk and save/recycle things sent into space.
And I said it’s prototype for Mars spacecraft, and tug should developed with idea testing the technology needed.

Comment by gbaikie — September 22, 2011 @ 11:47 pm

You’re right about Commercial Crew=Solandrya.

Seriously? SpaceX is lucky to get a contract for a $100 million to cover development of actual rockets delivered to the pad. Solyndra gets $500 million loan guarantee under the table and wasn’t even so much as expected to deliver a bone to a dog.

Remember what Charlie Bolden said last year? That if the commercial entities had problems, he’d bail them out?

How is he going to bail them out? Last I check, Congress cut the checks.

Their problem is that no goverment funds should be used to develop such services. If Space X or Orbital want to develop their own rockets and crew vehicles, do it on their own dime, not the taxpayers’.

Precisely. Taxpayers should only have to hand over their bucks to Boeing, LockMart, OSC, ATK…uh…wait, one of those don’t belong.

Said it before, but I’ll repeat: I agree with what Neil and Gene have previously said re: Commercial Crew, and add what Gen. Stafford said. Proceed with caution, and have a backup plan in case these NewSpace outfits fail.

Your “backup” plan is a $40 billion super heavy that won’t even dream of flying before 2017. You’re worst case exposure on SpaceX’s IDIQ contract is $1.6 billion; best case, you get 12 cargo flights for not a dime more.

Comment by Prez Cannady — September 23, 2011 @ 12:05 am

It should be NASA who are the decision makers- that body is suppose to be informed enough to make decisions.

NASA is an executing agency, not a policy-setting agency. If they have expertise to share, they do that by presenting options to the Congress and the president. Our elected representatives are capable of setting policies and making decisions on the basis of national, not personal, interest as numerous federal activities over the years (e.g., national defense, infrastructure) have demonstrated.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — September 23, 2011 @ 5:30 am

Marcel,

Thanks for the heads-up and link!

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — September 23, 2011 @ 8:06 am

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — September 22, 2011 @ 10:31 pm

Marcel,

Great catch.

Dr. Spudis – congratulations indeed!

Here’s hoping that the Congressmen (or more likely their staff members) take Armstrong’s advice. It could go a long way toward connecting the cislunar space applications and lunar goals that are in the Authorization law.

Comment by Joe — September 23, 2011 @ 9:19 am

You can watch an archive of the testimony of Armstrong, Cernan, Griffin, and others before the Committee of Commerce, Science, and Technology United States House of Representatives at:

http://science.house.gov/hearing/full-committee-hearing-nasa-human-spaceflight

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — September 23, 2011 @ 1:05 pm

“NASA is an executing agency, not a policy-setting agency. If they have expertise to share, they do that by presenting options to the Congress and the president. Our elected representatives are capable of setting policies and making decisions on the basis of national, not personal, interest as numerous federal activities over the years (e.g., national defense, infrastructure) have demonstrated.”

President Bush and Congress made that decision.
The President and Congress represent the people of this nation, therefore they are charged with making decisions on public policy on the national level. We don’t take a popular vote to decide what to do in terms of national policy, eg whether we go to war- and how to go to war is something military leadership make decisions regarding- and these decision are accepted or rejected by Commander in Chief and ultimately by the Congress.
It shouldn’t be any different in terms of space, NASA should be body that make policy decisions regarding how.

Instead in regard to NASA, we have the makers of weapons of war, deciding how to conduct a war.

Comment by gbaikie — September 23, 2011 @ 1:40 pm

It shouldn’t be any different in terms of space, NASA should be body that make policy decisions regarding how.

Only to the extent that something is possible or desirable from a technical viewpoint within a given fiscal envelope.

The real issue here is not an abstract argument over who sets space policy and direction. NASA lost the trust of Congress because on more than one occasion, they slow-rolled a program or vehicle development. Congress wrote the design specs for the SLS because they did not trust NASA to do what Congress intended.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — September 23, 2011 @ 1:59 pm

“The real issue here is not an abstract argument over who sets space policy and direction. NASA lost the trust of Congress because on more than one occasion, they slow-rolled a program or vehicle development. Congress wrote the design specs for the SLS because they did not trust NASA to do what Congress intended.”

We could discuss this aspect. Here Rand’s piece:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/278210/blame-congress-and-pork-not-nasa-rand-simberg

But I would say the most critical aspect at the moment is successful transition of the Shuttle program. And second most important aspect is operations of ISS.

And would say that congress is actually some members of congress and concern is over money earmarked for spending- worries that some money isn’t getting somewhere, rather than the speed of program.

But if NASA isn’t following the law, then that is always important and should be thoroughly investigated.

Comment by gbaikie — September 23, 2011 @ 4:05 pm

Paul Spudis wrote,

”
The “public” doesn’t really care one way or the other — it’s the decision makers that you have to convince. I think NASA has wasted a large part of their lobbying efforts trying to convince the “public” that they wanted space when a large fraction of them are completely indifferent to it.
”

If an issue is not critical, not one for which a political decision-maker feels heat from his or her constituents, then I wonder whether or not they really care. Maybe they endorsed VSE in the past, but we find now that that endorsement was perhaps fickle rather than enduring. Perhaps what matters more to a political decision-maker right now is Jobs In My District, in which case a plan for a big new rocket becomes a bandwagon on which to jump.

I’d love it if the decision-makers really would truly endorse sustainable growth of human civilization in space in a non-fickle way. But I’m not hopeful so long as the US populace doesn’t care. Perhaps we can convince a decision-maker or decision-makers to endorse sustainable growth, but at the next change of political winds we might find that abandoned.

Comment by Ron Menich — September 23, 2011 @ 5:11 pm

Comment by Ron Menich — September 23, 2011 @ 5:11 pm

“I’d love it if the decision-makers really would truly endorse sustainable growth of human civilization in space in a non-fickle way. But I’m not hopeful so long as the US populace doesn’t care. Perhaps we can convince a decision-maker or decision-makers to endorse sustainable growth, but at the next change of political winds we might find that abandoned.”

I am going to disagree in one very specific way. I think there is (at least) a sizeable plurality of the public that do care about the country having a viable space program. It is not their top priority and they do not have a clear idea of what the correct program should be.

But they do know when they think things are not going right and expect the countries leadership to correct the course.

That is where I think we are now and that gives the ‘decision makers’ a real chance to establish a program to produce ‘sustainable growth of human civilization in space’.

That is almost certainly not what the current administration intended, it would be ironic if that turned out to be the result.

Comment by Joe — September 24, 2011 @ 3:48 pm

Comment by Joe – September 22, 2011 @ 4:02 pm

“Comment by Michael Wright — September 22, 2011 @ 12:45 pm
“I say NASA should go back to its NACA roots (no glamourous missions but it helped US aerospace companies be globally competitive).”

No goals, no objectives; just vaguely defined research projects with no timelines and no measures of success.”

This gets back to one of the central questions, which is whether it’s better to have a top-down approach to our space program (i.e. destination driven) or bottom-up (i.e. technology & capability driven). Both approaches have shown that they can be cancelled by a fickle Congress, so neither provides protection from that.

Let’s look at what each approach has brought us:

Destination Driven – Apollo architecture that succeeded in getting us to the Moon, but wasn’t sustainable beyond that (Skylab used leftover equipment). The Constellation program was on course to do the same, since with no commercial usefulness the entire program cost had to be borne by NASA, which couldn’t afford it.

Technology Driven – The largest of these programs has been Shuttle, which didn’t have a destination per se, just a capability to get to LEO. It did not meet it’s cost goals, but it did provide us with a range of capabilities that we could leverage to do more in space, like repairing Hubble and building the ISS. The ISS continues without the Shuttle, and now it is drawing more capabilities to be created (science experiments, technology testing cargo & crew services, etc.) that can be leveraged for more capabilities in space.

So yes, destination-driven programs may have more “excitement” or “glory” associated with them, but I think it’s ephemeral, and doesn’t leave anything lasting behind it. That’s why I see technology-driven programs as providing more ROI for what we ultimately want to do in space, which I think is to get ever increasing numbers of people out there.

Congress, which tends to be reactionary in their actions, is not a good guide for what a space program should be. By default if they keep changing their minds (for a multitude of reasons), it will be the technology-driven approach that will succeed in the long run.

Comment by Coastal Ron — September 25, 2011 @ 8:13 pm

FYI,
John Kelly: Privatization’s Value Evident in Study

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20110925/COLUMNISTS0405/109250303/John-Kelly-Privatization-s-value-evident-study

Comment by JohnHunt — September 26, 2011 @ 2:56 am

Comment by Coastal Ron — September 25, 2011 @ 8:13 pm
Two points:
(1) Given some things you have said on other websites, I find your new found respect for the Space Shuttle touching, if curious.
(2) The Space Shuttle was not a technology project in the sense that the original Obama FY 2011 budget proposal (and any reference to returning to NACA ‘roots’) would imply. The Shuttle was a specific vehicle, with specific capabilities, and a specific schedule. Due to political budgeting many of the schedules changed, but the vehicle and its capabilities remained close to its originally approved 1972 form. The Obama FY 2011 budget proposal consisted of a long list of basic research into technologies that if developed ‘might’ prove useful somewhere, sometime, somehow. There was not even a selection of which of these technology developments would be funded.

Based on past experience, I do not intend to get into a further open ended discussion with you so you can keep ‘adjusting’ you position just to keep the debate going. Spin it any way you like, I stand by what I said.

Comment by Joe — September 26, 2011 @ 1:21 pm

The author stated “A cost-effective, sustainable human spaceflight program must be incremental and cumulative” which I think is true.

Not being in the aerospace industry, my original interests in participating in forums like this came about because I thought DIRECT was an interesting alternative to Ares I/V. But as I learned about the cost structure of the Shuttle program, I came to see DIRECT and other Shuttle derived designs like Ares I/V as not addressing the cost issue of accessing space. Because of that, I changed my focus to advocating for those things that lower the cost to access space.

Looking back in our world history, there are many examples of where reducing transportation costs opened up new frontiers. Certainly my ancestors benefited from this trend when they migrated from Europe, and I see the same trend with space industry.

Of course our politicians could find this out by putting together a commission or requesting the right experts to testify, but that doesn’t look like that will happen – not in this hyper-partisan environment. So if the politicians, who hold the purse strings, won’t bother to learn or listen about our options in space, what is the way forward?

Again I see analogies in history, where little by little people, groups and companies put in place what they needed, and that formed the foundations for others to use. Maybe not as fast as a focused government initiative could do it, but absent something that brings national unity on this question I think that’s what will happen by default.

Which will be sad for us space enthusiasts, since that means truly no official direction, whether it be the Apollo or Shuttle model, technology vs destination driven – it will be occasional realizations like “hey, we have enough capability in place now to send people around the Moon again – who’s got the money to give it a try?” Which ironically is how we’ve done most of our exploration throughout history, so who knows, maybe that’s the least expensive approach.

Comment by Coastal Ron — September 27, 2011 @ 12:06 pm

I have a hard time understanding how any gravity trap could be a “next best place” after Earth.

If you think of planets=land and space=seas we have an analogy regarding logistics. Ships at sea are supplied from land. Space is likely to be the same even for self sufficient ships.

We live on a gravity trap. This has been the best place for life, so no matter how much you might desire living in space, ‘a hard time understanding’ seems disingenuous. I strongly suspect you do understand how another planet could be the next best thing, but it doesn’t fit your desire. To thine own self be true… cuz I’m not buying it.

The problem with living in space is you really need a big ship to do so. The bigger the ship the more fuel needed to move around to collect resources. Not to say that it can’t be done, but living on a rock full of resources has a lot of advantage over that, even if it’s less fun than floating in zero g.

I believe we should have the freedom to do it all. However, the martians will grow faster than the spacers in the near term (next few hundred years.)

Comment by ken anthony — September 28, 2011 @ 12:28 am

Comment by Prez Cannady — September 18, 2011 @ 6:47 pm
Comment by ken anthony — September 28, 2011 @ 12:28 am

The issue at hand is orbital settlements vs. surface settlements.

I am not trying to sell the book (OK, I am trying to sell the book, but I will not make a dime off it), but I would suggest looking at ‘Krafft Ehricke’s Extraterrestrial Imperative’ by Marsha Freeman. There is a chapter called ‘Three Dimensional Civilization’. On page 79 there is a figure titled ‘The New Growth’. It is very simple and straightforward and shows how Lunar surface (and eventually Martian surface) settlements fit together in a coherent plan with Orbital Settlements (which Ehricke referred to as Androcells).

Comment by Joe — September 28, 2011 @ 9:32 am

must be incremental and cumulative

Agreed. So why is everybody ignoring the right thing and still arguing the wrong thing?

First, NASA is mostly irrelevant. Although they have funding useful for exploitation, in the grand scheme it is an insignificant amount as a driving force. Ten times there budget wouldn’t be enough; yet the money exists. It doesn’t matter if that funding looks significant, because when you look at the overall economics it’s nothing.

What overall economics?

People looking at this or that way to make money in space are looking through a keyhole and missing the big picture. It doesn’t matter what you pick when looking at a single data point.

Talking about a fleet of diverse vehicles is all fine and good, but if you don’t focus on who that fleet will serve it’s a cart before horse situation.

Elon is talking about 8000 settlers going to mars. He’s being pessimistic. With a million mars settlers, suddenly you’ve got something for a diverse fleet to do and serve.

Real estate pays for those million settlers and does it today.

So yeah, let’s argue about the right things.

Comment by ken anthony — September 30, 2011 @ 10:33 pm

So why is everybody ignoring the right thing and still arguing the wrong thing? First, NASA is mostly irrelevant.

Then stop worrying about it. If everything will sort itself out with New Space and NASA really is irrelevant, why do all the space internet discussion boards spend 99.9% of their bandwidth discussing NASA and the new destination-launch vehicle-technology-architecture du jour?

Elon is talking about 8000 settlers going to mars. He’s being pessimistic. With a million mars settlers, suddenly you’ve got something for a diverse fleet to do and serve.

Talk is cheap. And it’s no space program.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — October 2, 2011 @ 4:35 am

“First, NASA is mostly irrelevant.”

“NASA mostly irrelevant” to opposite side of spectrum “space is only NASA”. I would say it’s somewhere in between.

I would say govt can not be ignored. And in terms of space
the govt has an agency called NASA.
The only legal way to space is through a govt, even Sea Launch is subject to the American government.
The government has life or death control over launching anything into space. And ITAR is another life and death matter.
NASA can not be ignored nor is mostly irrelevant.
The only time NASA [or some govt agency which does something similar as NASA and has a different name] could be ignored is when space is no longer important- nobody bothers to launch anything into space [which is very unlikely].
NASA may appear to becoming less relevant, but it’s sleeping- it’s not the dead parrot.

Musk, by what he said, gives me no indication anyone is going to Mars anytime soon.
If you send people to Mars for 1/2 million per seat [nevermind the baggage] then you send people to the Moon for 1/5 of that amount.
If you want your passengers to be alive, then Mars is higher delta-v than the Moon. You could send cargo to Mars cheaper than to Lunar surface, but not humans.

The only way you can have Mars settlements is to make rocket fuel in space. And only way you make rocket fuel in space is to have markets for rocket fuel in space.

The reason is quite simple. The cheapest with chemical rockets to leave earth [get to nearest destination- LEO]
Is about $100 per lb- this assumes the rocket itself costs
are nothing- and we talking mostly about energy cost of the rocket fuel used. So rocket fuel will cost more than $100 per lb at LEO. To get beyond LEO you at least a lb of rocket fuel for every lb of payload- to get slow route to Mars would costs about 2 lbs of rocket for each lb of anything going to to Mars- spacecraft, heatsheild, rocket fuel to land on Mars, lifesupport- food, water, air, crew themselves, flare shelter, and power. And with slow route, crew are sick or dead before get to Mars. If instead you travel to Mars in 6 months or less then you need more rocket fuel. And if you want to get in 4 months or less even more rocket fuel is needed.
If Musk want a settlement on Mars, he first needs to go to the Moon.

Comment by gbaikie — October 2, 2011 @ 9:40 pm

The cheapest with chemical rockets to leave earth [get to nearest destination- LEO] Is about $100 per lb- this assumes the rocket itself costs are nothing- and we talking mostly about energy cost of the rocket fuel used.

It is meaningless to toss out numbers like that. You cannot ignore LV costs. The absolute cheapest commercial launch cost at present is about $5000 per kilogram (~ $2500/lb.) and that number is not going to decrease by more than a factor of 2 or 3 for the foreseeable future. The $100/lb number is a space cadet fantasy of long pedigree and duration.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — October 3, 2011 @ 4:35 am

I said: “The cheapest with chemical rockets to leave earth [get to nearest destination- LEO] Is about $100 per lb- this assumes the rocket itself costs are nothing- and we talking mostly about energy cost of the rocket fuel used.”

“It is meaningless to toss out numbers like that. You cannot ignore LV costs. ”
Musk said he thought he could reuse his launcher 1000 times.
I don’t believe it. But if this could be done and low cost reusing then you could ignore LV costs.
My point is it is not possible with chemical rockets regardless of volume to have it lower than $100 per lb.

“The absolute cheapest commercial launch cost at present is about $5000 per kilogram (~ $2500/lb.) and that number is not going to decrease by more than a factor of 2 or 3 for the foreseeable future. The $100/lb number is a space cadet fantasy of long pedigree and duration.”

A third of 2500/lb is about $800/lb. With what Musk described I also think it’s unlikely to lower launch cost lower than $800 per lb. But it’s possible if there is enough market. Such as a launch every week- more 50 launches per year.
And keeping with Musk’s “idea” of 1000 uses per rocket- the launch rate would have to exceed 50 launches per year. If using merely one rocket it would be 20 year old rocket before it’s retired. So I can only assume
his idea somehow involves having a very high launch rate.

In general think it is possible to lower launch cost to below $800 or even lower than $100 per lb- but not with chemical rockets.

Such as:

“Deliver propellant to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) at less than 10% of the current cost. By using hydrogen gas gun launchers we will attain costs of $500/lb at the pump in LEO.”
http://quicklaunchinc.com/
I think the above is possible- and so delivering rocket fuel to LEO from such a gun could result in rocket fuel in LEO with a price less than $1000 per lb and such could be achieved in near term.
“Could” in sense of technically possible but not could as in likely to happen [even a 10% chance of happening].

And with some kind of gun or other means the lowest cost could be considerable less than what is possible with chemical rockets- if enough market and over enough time to develop that market [with large traffic and general improvement in the delivery system].

Comment by gbaikie — October 3, 2011 @ 5:41 am

I was hoping that the development of heavy launch vehicles would encourage planners to think of spacecraft as vessels.
From an exploration perspective don’t we want to put up as much tonnage as possible into orbit? How about a shuttle ET furnished a la skylab? Couldn’t earth/mars departure stages be stacked in orbit?
I think NASA has to go big or lose out to the commercial space folks and their “cost-effectiveness”, and from there it will be difficult to undo any losses.

Comment by Phil Thomas — October 3, 2011 @ 8:58 am

My point is it is not possible with chemical rockets regardless of volume to have it lower than $100 per lb.

My point is that quoted number is too high by a factor of at least twenty.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — October 3, 2011 @ 9:18 am

From an exploration perspective don’t we want to put up as much tonnage as possible into orbit?

Not from my perspective. I want to learn how to use the materials and energy of space to create new capability; use the stuff that’s already there. I don’t want to have to continually lift “tons of mass” from the bottom of the deepest gravity well in the inner Solar System.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — October 3, 2011 @ 9:20 am

Mr Spudis,

IMHO a large-scale rocket program is necessary to get this venture started as one can move processing plants in larger assemblies for completion, and make enough smoke and noise to get the public interested.
And if NASA/Congress chose to ignore the Moon completely, a manned orbital expedition to Mars could be planned with this architecture, just to raise some interest…

Comment by Phil Thomas — October 3, 2011 @ 12:08 pm

My point is it is not possible with chemical rockets regardless of volume to have it lower than $100 per lb.

My point is that quoted number is too high by a factor of at least twenty.

That is an interesting point.
It’s heretical.
But I would say it has some merit.

So you don’t accept: A Rocket a Day
Keeps the High Costs Away
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/rocketaday.html

I would say your a view has some practical aspects in terms of public policy.
And that NASA’s effort to lower launch costs has been
an failure. And I would favor the idea that NASA simply not attempt it.

Comment by gbaikie — October 3, 2011 @ 1:49 pm

and make enough smoke and noise to get the public interested…….a manned orbital expedition to Mars could be planned with this architecture, just to raise some interest…

It won’t. NASA has been chasing the chimera of public interest/excitement for 50 years to no real positive benefit. I discuss that issue at length here:

http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/2009/02/another-strategic-plan-misfires/

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — October 3, 2011 @ 3:15 pm

Public interest is certainly not a sufficient condition for getting an ambitious manned lunar and planetary exploration program going, but it is probably necessary. The precipitous decline in TV ratings for the later Apollo flights was an important factor in the cancellation of the last two landings (though the hardware had already been built). Such a program is probably not sustainable over the long term without public support, though it is more important for NASA to first come up with a sensible, cost-effective program plan, which they spectacularly failed to do with SEI and VSE.

Comment by Dick Morris — October 4, 2011 @ 3:17 pm

Public interest is certainly not a sufficient condition for getting an ambitious manned lunar and planetary exploration program going, but it is probably necessary. The precipitous decline in TV ratings for the later Apollo flights was an important factor in the cancellation of the last two landings (though the hardware had already been built).

I simply don’t agree with this. The federal government has lots of programs of which the public is completely unaware, let alone supportive. The real issue is does the program provide value for money? I contend that a program to build an extensible, reusable cislunar space faring system provides return on the dollar spent, unlike public relations stunt missions.

The real reason the last few Apollo missions were terminated was because 1) the goal had been accomplished (Man-Moon-Decade) and 2) they had already stuck out their necks and had some pretty close calls and were afraid of losing a crew. In that order.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — October 4, 2011 @ 3:48 pm

“In an era of limited resources, our challenge is to create a worthwhile space program with an expenditure rate that falls at or below a level perceived as affordable. ”

It seems to me the only way to do this is to have a moderate
space policy, as I mention here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26617.0

What I discussed isn’t a “what” as much as a “how”. And it’s how NASA explores beyond LEO.

In terms of “what” and “where” I think NASA should explore the Moon. In contrast to Apollo on Steroids, it would be a lightweight Apollo. It would exceptional as compared to Apollo, in that it’s done quicker. In contrast with Apollo on Steroids which would taken longer to put a man on the Moon as compared to what NASA did in the 1960′s.

Or the Manned Lunar Mission would be a cheaper, faster, better type thing. FBC has a large amount confusion regarding it- I am not even sure Goldin actually understood it, though he advocated it and implemented it.

One aspect of FBC is it’s in contrast to gold plated projects. One problem with the Hubble telescope or the Cassini, or our current Webb telescope is the people politicians who provide the funds for it don’t appreciate it as much as “they should”. To them it’s a telescope. Many people may tell them it’s a very special telescope, but when all is said and done, it’s a telescope [or something expensive going into space].
Congress is a body that doesn’t think space is important.

The solution to Congress not thinking space is important is not to tell me it’s important, but to show them it’s important. And a govt agency that gets 15 to 20 billion per year is able of showing congress that Space is important. But in the present state of things this is certainly a challenge. And the only way I see of NASA meeting this challenge [other than a savior riding in to rescue them] is to have a moderate space policy.

Comment by gbaikie — October 4, 2011 @ 3:55 pm

FBC has a large amount confusion regarding it- I am not even sure Goldin actually understood it, though he advocated it and implemented it.

Having been involved in one of the original FBC projects (Clementine), I can attest to that. One problem a lot of people have with FBC is that acceptance of failure is required; because you are flying more missions more often, you must be prepared to accept a few may not work or get lost. Of course, if the loses come early in your program, that tends to bother the senior agency types (e.g., Mars Polar Lander).

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — October 4, 2011 @ 4:25 pm

Here is interesting interview of Burt Rutan:
http://bigthink.com/ideas/18881

One important point he mentioned is his idea regarding “man rating”- basically if the engineers and people involved with making vehicle think it’s safe enough for their children to ride on the vehicle- it’s safe enough for passengers [or NASA crew].

Of course there are problems with that idea- but as general rule it’s not a bad idea. Though not sure I think requiring a NASA administer to fly on first “operational” manned rocket makes any sense, and probably better rule in regards to private rocket companies.
Btw, Rutan seems favor NASA doing something really difficult. I am “apparently” saying almost the opposite. But NASA isn’t just about flying rockets. And doing something like FBC manned lunar isn’t easy- in terms of NASA an organization it is a massive challenge. So I would say there all kinds of things which are challenging.

And having safety of the crew could be almost considered as the sole reason to do the manned FBC. When you consider that an element of cancelling the Apollo program was the fear we lose crew at some point, putting a lot effort in making it as safe as it can be is very important- and certainly trumps “faster”.
So being able to say that the missions are 5 or 10 times safer than Apollo [and be this to actually be true] could be one of the more challenging aspects of it. Perhaps that isn’t possible, maybe one could only get twice as safe.
But I think attempting to make as safe as Apollo is not a good idea.

Comment by gbaikie — October 4, 2011 @ 5:19 pm

I am listening to space show at moment and they mentioned
supersaturation of water on Mars. So I googled:

“Extremely high levels of super-saturation were found on Mars, up to 10 times greater than those found on Earth. Clearly, there is much more water vapor in the upper martian atmosphere than anyone ever imagined. It seems that previous models greatly underestimated the quantities of water vapor at heights of 10 to 30 miles (20 to 50 km), with as much as 10 to 100 times more water than expected at this altitude.”

“The atmosphere of Mars holds 10,000 times less water vapor than that of Earth. However, water vapor is a very dynamic trace gas”
http://www.astronomy.com/en/News-Observing/News/2011/10/Orbiter%20discovers%20water%20super-saturation%20in%20the%20martian%20atmosphere.aspx

So this talking water in very high atmosphere of Mars.
I assume this very thin atmosphere and cold.
I was wondering if something similar could found in dark craters of the Moon?

Comment by gbaikie — October 4, 2011 @ 7:28 pm

“The federal government has lots of programs of which the public is completely unaware, let alone supportive. The real issue is does the program provide value for money?”

Manned lunar and planetary exploration will be a very high profile activity, and if the public is not supportive of it – if they feel they are not getting enough value for their money – they will let their elected representatives know about it, and the program may well suffer the same fate as Apollo.

“I contend that a program to build an extensible, reusable cislunar space faring system provides return on the dollar spent, unlike public relations stunt missions.”

If the cislunar space transportation system includes a fully-reusable launch vehicle then it will indeed provide an abundant return on investment. Otherwise, I’m not so sure. If it costs anything like $80 billion to set up this system using expendable launchers, as you proposed, it’s going to be difficult to earn a return on that investment doing things like satellite servicing. I’m also not so sure that the public will not come to regard that sort of thing as public relations stunts.

“The real reason the last few Apollo missions were terminated was because 1) the goal had been accomplished (Man-Moon-Decade) and 2) they had already stuck out their necks and had some pretty close calls and were afraid of losing a crew. In that order.”

Yes, those were also factors. As I recall, it was the Nixon administration which cancelled the last Apollo flights, and they may have felt it was safe to do so because of the loss of public interest and support. There were twice as many Apollo landings after Apollo 13 as before it, and I doubt if anyone in NASA wanted to cancel those last flights because they were afraid of losing a crew. On the contrary, NASA had grandiose plans for building lunar bases using the Saturn-Apollo system under the Apollo Applications Program. The politicians cancelled those plans by shutting down the Saturn V production line. Once the goal was accomplished, it simply cost too much to throw away a Saturn V to land two astronauts on the Moon for a few days just for science.

Comment by Dick Morris — October 4, 2011 @ 8:59 pm

if the public is not supportive of it – if they feel they are not getting enough value for their money – they will let their elected representatives know about it, and the program may well suffer the same fate as Apollo.

Space has never been an issue of such political intensity. Most people don’t have the faintest idea of what NASA even does, how much it spends, and what its future plans are. And they care about it even less.

it’s going to be difficult to earn a return on that investment doing things like satellite servicing.

Considering that we have trillions of dollars of investment in cislunar assets, “difficult” is a relative term. Besides, there’s more to it than “servicing” — there is assembly of large, distributed systems and protection of existing assets.

I doubt if anyone in NASA wanted to cancel those last flights because they were afraid of losing a crew.

Doubt it if you want, but there was serious consideration given to cancelling the remaining lunar landings after Apollo 11. After all, with Kennedy’s goal achieved (Man-Moon-Decade), what was the point of continuing?

NASA had grandiose plans for building lunar bases using the Saturn-Apollo system under the Apollo Applications Program. The politicians cancelled those plans by shutting down the Saturn V production line.

There were never any “grandiose plans” except in the minds of some people in the agency (like von Braun). NASA never had a mandate to use Apollo hardware to conquer space; they were told to get a man on the Moon. They did that.

It was Lyndon Johnson who stopped Saturn V production in 1967. Nixon was loath to cancel human spaceflight because he thought it was a positive example to American youth. But he was concerned about the cost. He tasked NASA to come up with a human spaceflight program that would come in at an “acceptable” rate of expenditure (which he did not reveal). They presented Shuttle to him as a possible path forward and he bought it.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — October 5, 2011 @ 3:51 am

So this talking water in very high atmosphere of Mars.
I assume this very thin atmosphere and cold.
I was wondering if something similar could found in dark craters of the Moon?

No. Once deposited into a cold trap, the water is no longer mobile and stays there forever. If it is disturbed (for example, by an impact), you may create water in vapor form and it could be present as a (temporary) exosphere above the Moon. Such water vapor will be rapidly lost to space through a variety of processes or it will re-condense into ice and settle onto the Moon again.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — October 5, 2011 @ 3:56 am

Talk is cheap.

Depends on who’s doing the talking. Elon has credibility because he’s done more than just talk.

…stop worrying about it.

Stop worrying if we’re talking about the wrong thing?

I think it’s important that we do talk about the right thing. The right thing is settlement. Talking about how to get a piece of NASA is a much smaller issue.

Settlement will involve trillions of dollars, not the few billions of NASA. That’s why NASA is basically irrelevant. Those trillions exist today. Yes, even with people seeing the decline of this country and permanent decline in the NASA budget. New wealth makes it possible and the new wealth is right there for the taking.

If, and only if, we focus on the right thing.

Comment by ken anthony — October 5, 2011 @ 10:00 pm

Elon has credibility because he’s done more than just talk.

Two flights of a prototype vehicle that is itself only 1/3 of a imagined HLV does not make a Mars colonization program. Credibility is built by doing, not saying.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — October 6, 2011 @ 6:42 am

Paul Spudis said:

“Two flights of a prototype vehicle that is itself only 1/3 of a imagined HLV”

To be clear, the second flight of the Falcon 9 was with a production rocket, not a prototype, and it generated revenue (COTS Flight #1).

And since the Falcon Heavy in it’s basic configuration (no cross-feed) is really just three Falcon 9′s strapped together, Falcon 9 flights represent almost 100% of the initial “planned” HLV. Except for the straps that hold the three boosters together and their booster caps, all the hardware has been flown. I think that qualifies as “real hardware”, not “imagined”.

The SLS would be closer to an “imagined” HLV, since there are major portions of it that don’t exist and haven’t even been designed.

“Credibility is built by doing, not saying.”

So far SpaceX is doing far more than NASA with rockets and new spacecraft – but maybe that’s a low bar these days.

Comment by Coastal Ron — October 6, 2011 @ 7:37 pm

Those ‘prototypes’ flew at a dramatically lower cost than any before. That’s doing.

That imagined HLV is made of parts that have already flown. It’s too bad others haven’t engaged such imagination.

A program has to start with a plan. Nothing is a program until it is. I would not bet against SpaceX.

Comment by ken anthony — October 7, 2011 @ 12:46 am

So it’s now the showdown on NASA budget:
September 28, 2011:
“In the coming weeks, the House and Senate will sit down to negotiate final appropriations bills for fiscal year 2012, and the appropriate level of funding for JWST will be one of the most significant issues considered.”
http://nasawatch.com/archives/budget/

What do you all think?
Happy with budget? Does it say where NASA is going in coming
years?

Comment by gbaikie — October 7, 2011 @ 5:19 pm

“Settlement will involve trillions of dollars, not the few billions of NASA. That’s why NASA is basically irrelevant. Those trillions exist today. Yes, even with people seeing the decline of this country and permanent decline in the NASA budget. New wealth makes it possible and the new wealth is right there for the taking”

I personally do not think it would or should take trillions. Once fuel production is established on the Moon, everything from LEO on out is “free.” All you need to do then is get your cargo to LEO. Hitch a ride on a previously launched Orbit Transfer Vechicle and head to your destination.

After fuel comes power and industry. It will take importing equipment for sure. In time however, you can start producing some of those parts and items that you would have imported.

Multiple revenue streams will help defray some of the costs. Medical information of those living on the Moon. Televised views from the Moon. It will be quite engaging chasing down various ways to profit from the Moon.

Oct 6 platinum spot price. $1512/oz. at this price importing 53t of goods from Earth on a Falcon Heavy will require delivery of 2.25t of platinum. Not the most efficient tradeoff when taking into consideration hauling equipment to gather said platinum. But every ton imported is a step in the direction of self-sufficiency. Most things on the Moon will be cost prohibitive to transport to Earth. However with lunar made reentry shields and lunar fuel for transit. The only cost to deliver the goods are the time and effort of the people involved.

At some point in the future the only thing imported will be humans. Either as immigrants or visitors. Both do nothing but enhance all the work done so far.

Comment by Rhyshaelkan — October 8, 2011 @ 1:59 am

“I personally do not think it would or should take trillions. Once fuel production is established on the Moon, everything from LEO on out is “free.” All you need to do then is get your cargo to LEO. Hitch a ride on a previously launched Orbit Transfer Vechicle and head to your destination. ”

If the gross cost to make rocket fuel in space is say 100 billion, then you need about 1 trillion spent elsewhere in space.
Rocket fuel made in space in the near terms will be similar
to the cost of shipping the rocket fuel to space from Earth.
Shipping rocket fuel to space from earth, would a bigger reduction in costs as compared to making rocket fuel in space. Or having a market for rocket fuel in space [regardless of where you get the rocket fuel] would represent the largest cost saving.

Comment by gbaikie — October 8, 2011 @ 4:05 pm

Comment by Coastal Ron — October 6, 2011 @ 7:37 pm
“To be clear, the second flight of the Falcon 9 was with a production rocket, not a prototype, and it generated revenue (COTS Flight #1).”

To be clear the second flight of Falcon 9 generated no useful product of any kind and the revenue of which you speak is a government subsidy (something you claim to disapprove in other conversations) intended to support the development of an (as yet undelivered) useful capability.

“And since the Falcon Heavy in it’s basic configuration (no cross-feed) is really just three Falcon 9′s strapped together, Falcon 9 flights represent almost 100% of the initial “planned” HLV.”

You might want to look back at the first flight of the Delta IV Heavy (which was ‘just’ three Delta IV’s ‘strapped together’) before making such statements.

“The SLS would be closer to an “imagined” HLV, since there are major portions of it that don’t exist and haven’t even been designed.”

Really? What would those ‘major portions’ be?
- The SSME’s? No.
- The SRB’s? No.
- The ET? No.
- Upper Stage? Not required for the initial version of the SLS and in any case required for the Falcon Heavy.

Comment by Joe — October 8, 2011 @ 5:07 pm

Hi Joe. You said:

“To be clear the second flight of Falcon 9 generated no useful product of any kind”

Completing contractually required tests is not useful? Are you advocating that NASA should not require testing of any HSF-related spacecraft? Isn’t that a little cavalier?

“and the revenue of which you speak is a government subsidy”

For someone that is unfamiliar with government contracts, maybe that’s what it looks like. In reality it is a pay-for-performance contract, where NASA doesn’t pay unless SpaceX and Orbital Sciences actually complete a contractually defined development milestone. For SpaceX that was COTS Milestone #17 (Demo 1 Mission), and they received $5M when it was deemed successfully completed.

“You might want to look back at the first flight of the Delta IV Heavy”

If you’re implying that they changed from their 3 CBC’s design after the first flight, you’re mistaken. My comment about Falcon Heavy hardware still stands.

“Really? What would those ‘major portions’ be?”

The SLS is not a DIRECT Jupiter 130, which would have used Shuttle designed components. Except for the SSME’s nothing else on the SLS is the same as what the Shuttle used. Why do you think it’s going to cost so much?

“- The SRB’s? No.” Yes. Just last week Gerstenmaier said “It turns out that to get to the 130 metric tons, we’re going to have to redesign the five-segment booster as well.”

“- The ET? No.” Yes. The External Tank needs to be designed virtually from scratch since it has to carry far more inline weight while being attached to more powerful boosters. NASA doesn’t know what the design is yet.

“- Upper Stage? Not required for the initial version of the SLS and in any case required for the Falcon Heavy.” True, the 70mt version doesn’t need an upper stage, but the 130mt one does, and this does not yet exist.

Even the crawler, roadway, and launch pad will need major upgrades to handle the SLS (not to mention a new launch tower). The SLS is a new rocket, which besides the SSME’s doesn’t share any of the same Shuttle hardware.

As for Falcon Heavy, it uses the same upper stage as Falcon 9.

Comment by Coastal Ron — October 14, 2011 @ 7:05 pm

Comment by Coastal Ron — October 14, 2011 @ 7:05 pm
“Completing contractually required tests is not useful? Are you advocating that NASA should not require testing of any HSF-related spacecraft? Isn’t that a little cavalier?”

My response was to you statement: “To be clear, the second flight of the Falcon 9 was with a production rocket, not a prototype, and it generated revenue (COTS Flight #1).”

I know you love to change the subject and continue debates to no purpose, but past noting this; I will waste no further time on it.

“For someone that is unfamiliar with government contracts, maybe that’s what it looks like.”

As we have discussed numerous times I have spent 25 years in the business dealing with government contracts, so I am very familiar with them (I suspect far more than you are). I know you love to change the subject and continue debates to no purpose, but past noting this; I will waste no further time on it.

“If you’re implying that they changed from their 3 CBC’s design after the first flight, you’re mistaken. My comment about Falcon Heavy hardware still stands.”

Considerable work had to undertake to eliminate the Pogo effect cause by the mating of the three parrellel segments. That you do not understand the issue is not surprising.

“The SLS is not a DIRECT Jupiter 130, which would have used Shuttle designed components. Except for the SSME’s nothing else on the SLS is the same as what the Shuttle used. Why do you think it’s going to cost so much?”

The final NASA cost used in the formal announcement for the SLS was $10B. That is $2B more than the $8B required for the Side Mount. This fits in very well with the cost for tank and ground handling modifications. I know you love to change the subject and continue debates to no purpose, but past noting this; I will waste no further time on it.

“Just last week Gerstenmaier said “It turns out that to get to the 130 metric tons, we’re going to have to redesign the five-segment booster as well.””

Here is some video of the (according to you – yet to be designed) five segment solid rocket booster being tested in September.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BSEvI6EsaE

“Yes. The External Tank needs to be designed virtually from scratch since it has to carry far more inline weight while being attached to more powerful boosters. NASA doesn’t know what the design is yet.”

The first scale pressure test articles for the inline tank have already been produced at Michoud. Pretty good for something that is yet to be designed.

“True, the 70mt version doesn’t need an upper stage, but the 130mt one does, and this does not yet exist.”

Here is video of the J2-X engine for the SLS upper stage engine being tested:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbsuwlzPIzw

I have spent a great deal of time fact checking you and have become extremely bored with it. I intend to ignore your posts from now on. If someone else chooses to take up the bottomless task, I wish them luck.

Other than that I can only quote an old expression I once heard: “have a nice life, but do it in Pittsburg.”

(No offense intended to Pittsburg.)

Comment by Joe — October 15, 2011 @ 9:12 pm