January 25, 2012
Everybody has won and all must have prizes
The Dodo awards Alice her prize after the caucus-race
In space circles, the idea of offering incentive prizes to develop complex technology has some currency. Most notably, Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich recently advocated a prize-based incentive model coupled with a leaner NASA as an alternative to our currently stalled, government bureaucratic model of space operations. The incentive idea is behind the current Centennial Challenges program of NASA, which offers money for the demonstration of certain specified technologies or procedures. Presumably, Gingrich is speaking not of this existing program but about a vastly expanded prize structure, funded by the federal government, for significant milestones in humanity’s expansion into space.
This model structure harkens to early days of aviation when prizes for specific aeronautical achievement proliferated. Notable was the $25,000 Orteig Prize offered by New York hotelier Raymond Orteig for the first non-stop air flight between New York and Paris. Charles Lindbergh won the Orteig Prize in 1927 in his specially built Spirit of St. Louis. After this flight, probably due more to celebrity culture and the frenzy of fame rather than actual flight accomplishment, commercial aviation enjoyed a boom of popularity with the public and industry. In short, the prize offering succeeded in producing a PR stunt; the design features of Spirit of St. Louis were specifically optimized to permit Lindbergh to win the prize, not to advance aeronautical technology or establish commercial transatlantic flight operations.
Currently, the most visible prize structure for spaceflight is Peter Diamandis’ X-Prize Foundation, a private funding group that awards prizes for specific space-related goals. The first and most famous, the Ansari X-Prize founded in 1996, was offered to the first non-government group that could (within two weeks) twice launch and safely return to Earth a reusable, manned spacecraft. In 2004, the $10,000,000 X-Prize was won by Burt Rutan’s SpaceShipOne, funded by Microsoft’s Paul Allen. This vehicle used an innovative airborne launch system, a hybrid solid-liquid rocket engine and a “wing feathering” method for re-entry and return flight. Plans were immediately made to construct a commercial version of SpaceShipOne, to be sponsored and operated by Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic organization.
However, since that prize-winning flight almost eight years ago, things have not proceeded smoothly. An explosion in 2007 destroyed the rocket fabrication facility and killed three workers. Virgin Galactic established an operations base in New Mexico on October 17, 2011. There is a passenger manifest backlog of 455 subscribers but as of this writing, not a single commercial passenger spaceflight has occurred.
Another current space prize is the Google Lunar X-Prize, offering a $20 million award for successfully landing a spacecraft carrying a high-definition imaging system and roving on the Moon at least 500 meters. Since its announcement in 2007, over 30 companies have registered to participate in the competition. Additional prize increments are awarded for other accomplishment, such as long range (> 5 km) roving, survival over a lunar night, and documentation of the presence of water in lunar soil. No lunar mission has yet been launched nor has any launch date been announced. The original expiration date for the lunar X-Prize was 2012 but was extended to the end of 2015.
An alternative incentive approach is milestone-based contracting. NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program awards government money to companies that meet specific milestones on previously announced timescales. That money is to be spent developing specific capabilities required for government needs. The reward at the end of this cycle is a performance-based government contract for launch services. However, under this government-sponsored incentive program, a commercial human spaceflight industry has yet to develop.
Bigelow Aerospace, a builder of private, “For Lease” space stations, recently laid off over one third of their workforce. Part of the problem is the lack of assured, commercially available access to their orbital stations. In 2004, Bigelow himself established and funded a $50 million prize to develop a commercial crew vehicle for orbital transport; the prize expired in 2010 without a single attempt at flight. Although rumor has it that Boeing is developing a spacecraft to serve private space stations, nothing has yet appeared, even in prototype form. Due to some unidentified technical issues, SpaceX has delayed the launch of the first flight of their Dragon cargo vehicle to ISS from early next month to an unspecified future date.
The simple glaring fact is the United States has no commercial human spaceflight industry. NASA’s attempt to encourage the development of such through COTS is floundering against some unpleasant realities: it is both very difficult and very costly to get into and back from space. The former drives up the cost, severely limiting potential markets. The latter stops not only imagined demand (such as space tourism) dead in its tracks but also real demand, such as government contracts for ISS crew access.
The hope of space prize enthusiasts for explosive growth in space similar to that seen in aviation innovation and industry following the winning of the Orteig Prize is unlikely to be realized. The problem is that spaceflight is a vastly more difficult field in which to participate than aviation. Many amateurs could and did fabricate aircraft in their garages and barns in the early decades of the last century. The First World War made surplus aircraft widely available at low cost, furthering the development of a robust early aviation industry. In contrast, no one has flown a surplus government space vehicle and “barnstorming” rockets do not exist, despite some imaginative depictions in Hollywood films.
Unfortunately, this is the space program we now have. No American human spaceflight flight systems exist and their development is dependent on the advent of a demand that has not yet materialized. Meanwhile, we comfort ourselves with fantasies about human missions to Mars. I appreciate and applaud Gingrich’s enthusiasm for space, a visionary attitude sorely lacking in most politicians. He needs to think carefully about how to incentivize the development of space and about the critical national needs served by our civil space program. Prizes seem attractive because of their historical role in stimulating a nascent aviation industry. But significant differences between aviation and spaceflight and our primitive level of development of the latter suggest that what worked before may not work now.
68 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
The web editors have closed comments for this blog.
I think you’re ringing the death knell for commercial space flight a little early.
Comment by Andrew W — January 25, 2012 @ 4:28 am
I don’t think I’m ringing anything. I’m simply pointing out the distance between the hype and the reality of the prize incentive as a mechanism to advance technology and promote an industrial sector. The emergence of a commercial space market is tangential to that point.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — January 25, 2012 @ 5:28 am
“Notable was the $25,000 Orteig Prize offered by New York hotelier Raymond Orteig for the first non-stop air crossing of the Atlantic.” – Actually the Atlanic had been crossed years earlier by Alcock & Brown. The Orteig Prize was for a non-stop flight between New York and Paris…
Comment by David Rolfe — January 25, 2012 @ 7:39 am
Thank you for the correction. I have fixed this in the post.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — January 25, 2012 @ 7:52 am
[...] of the latter suggest that what worked before may not work now.” Check out his piece, “Everybody has won and all must have prizes.” Any thoughts? Advertisement GA_googleAddAttr("AdOpt", "1"); GA_googleAddAttr("Origin", [...]
Pingback by Prizes and the Stimulation of Space Innovation and Achievement | Roger Launius's Blog — January 25, 2012 @ 9:24 am
The point you make about novelty is central, and you can strengthen it with regard to the actual money offered. What Lindbergh won was tremendous not just in present-day dollars (roughly 320,000), but especially in purchasing power (It is closer to a 800,000 in today’s dollars).
10 million for an X-prize? With infrastructure costs and everything else, the KSC website estimates an STS launch avergaed $450 million. No wonder industry doesn’t wish to get into human spaceflight… The award is equivalent to a nice cup of coffee, not a “full meal!”
Comment by Guillaume — January 25, 2012 @ 1:30 pm
Note: The original expiration date for the Google Lunar X PRIZE was not 2012, as you state. It was 2014–although the value of the prize purse did decrease slightly at the end of 2012, possibly the cause for your confusion.
Comment by W Pomerantz — January 25, 2012 @ 4:59 pm
I was much more impressed by Gingrich’s space speech than I feared I would be. He certainly knows the a thing doing, like a lunar base, is worth doing sooner rather than later. Some questions and details remain and his approach will need tweaking, of course.
Comment by Mark R. Whittington — January 25, 2012 @ 5:58 pm
“I appreciate and applaud Gingrich’s enthusiasm for space, a visionary attitude sorely lacking in most politicians.”
He wants to get rid of NASA and privatize space. I am not clapping.
Only massive governmental resources- and nuclear energy- can establish a moonbase to launch human missions to the outer solar system.
The budget ceiling everyone takes for granted is the death knell. We are not going anywhere unless far more money is spent on the SLS and a moonbase project. The moon is the gateway to the solar system.
Though some people say it is ridiculous to consider diverting money from the DOD monster into human space flight, it is the only game in town.
Nothing else will work. Not tourism, not baby steps, not inferior lift vehicles and depots; nothing else is going to get us out there.
Comment by GaryChurch — January 25, 2012 @ 6:57 pm
And one more thing,
If you doubt the need for nuclear energy, you might consider the solar storm raging outside the protection of LEO right now.
14 feet of moonwater weight several hundred tons is the only practical solution and nuclear energy the only practical propulsion agent.
Comment by GaryChurch — January 25, 2012 @ 7:00 pm
I know it’s tempting to pretend to take Gingrich seriously, since he’s out there talking up space exploration, but he’s a nutbag. I know it goes without saying, but his poll numbers are cause for some repetition. In any case, there’s no more need to take his prize proposal seriously than there is to take his orbital-mirrors-instead-of-highway-lamps proposal seriously. Or his one-launch-a-day proposal. Or his executing-marijuana-smugglers proposal.
Overblown hype notwithstanding, the more realistic prizes are at least causing some progress along the intended lines.
Comment by Jared — January 25, 2012 @ 8:13 pm
Comment by W Pomerantz — January 25, 2012 @ 4:59 pm
“Note: The original expiration date for the Google Lunar X PRIZE was not 2012, as you state. It was 2014–although the value of the prize purse did decrease slightly at the end of 2012, possibly the cause for your confusion.”
Can you clarify that somewhat?
Did the prize have one value (say X) if the goals were achieved by the end of 2012 and another lesser value (say X-Y) at the end of 2014?
If so how much was the prize reduced?
Do you have any idea where any of the competitors stand as to achieving the initial goals?
Not picking on you, really requesting information.
Comment by Joe — January 25, 2012 @ 8:40 pm
There’s no doubt in my mind that at least a few private companies will have their own manned spaceflight capability well before the end of the decade. My guess would be that the ULA will be the first to achieve such capability with companies like Space X and ATK quickly following them.
But NASA should continue to support such developments by distributing portions of at least $1 billion a year of its budget to private companies attempting to achieve such a capability. And I see no reason why such a tiny bit of funding should not continue afterwards to help develop private industry’s capability to access the lunar surface and unmanned access to valuable asteroid material.
But since NASA already purchases rockets from private industry for government purposes, the real question is can these companies eventually sustain themselves without the need for government programs and tax payers dollars.
As, I’ve argued before, I view the extension of the ISS program beyond 2015 as a hyper expensive corporate welfare program for the commercial crew industry at a cost of $3 billion a year to the tax payers. These are funds that would be better spent helping to fund a lunar base program which would still be beneficial to private industry in the long run, IMO.
After 2015, I believe it would be much cheaper to help sustain the commercial crew industry, if NASA simply bought $1 billion a year in passenger flights from the commercial crew industry to be distributed to average Americans through a national space lotto system for accessing private space stations or space hotels.
If private industry could sustain itself by selling tickets into space for about $25 million each then $1 billion a year would provide access to space for 40 private American citizens every year through a lotto system and should support perhaps 5 to 10 private launches per year.
If you combine this with revenue from private individuals purchasing $1 space lotto tickets through a government run national and international space lotto system; plus revenue from various smaller foreign space agencies that might desire manned access to orbit; plus revenue from private individuals that could afford to purchase their own flights (100,000 wealthy potential customers world wide) then there should be enough launch demand to sustain several private manned spaceflight companies.
In the long run, a $1 billion a year subsidy for a national space lotto system would no longer be needed once the private space tourism industry becomes fully self sustaining through these various sources of revenue. And NASA will have once again help to develop a self sustaining multibillion dollar a year private space industry as the government did with the satellite based telecommunications industry.
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — January 25, 2012 @ 9:37 pm
The author said:
“An explosion in 2007 destroyed the rocket fabrication facility and killed three workers.”
The manufacturer of the SpaceShipTwo rocket motor is Sierra Nevada Corp., but the 2007 blast occurred at a private test site run by Scaled Composites. No fabrication facilities were destroyed.
“However, under this government-sponsored incentive program [COTS], a commercial human spaceflight industry has yet to develop.”
Considering that the human spaceflight portion of the Bush/Griffin COTS program (COTS-D) was never funded, and the Obama/Bolden CCDev program only awarded it’s first CCDev contract on Feb. 1, 2010, it’s not surprising that no spacecraft have started operations yet.
However, considering that there are five companies working on human capable spacecraft for the CCDev program, I would say the industry is there. Still working on their spacecraft and systems, but existing nonetheless.
“Although rumor has it that Boeing is developing a spacecraft to serve private space stations, nothing has yet appeared, even in prototype form.”
Apparently you haven’t kept up with Boeing press releases. On July 19, 2010 Boeing announced:
“The CST-100 can carry a crew of seven and is designed to support the International Space Station and the Bigelow Aerospace Orbital Space Complex .”
They are even doing drop tests on prototypes.
The author also said:
“Many amateurs could and did fabricate aircraft in their garages and barns in the early decades of the last century.”
The maturation and growth of commercial aviation was not because of home built aircraft, so I don’t see the relevance of this example.
“No American human spaceflight flight systems exist and their development is dependent on the advent of a demand that has not yet materialized.”
The first part is true, but the last part is not. NASA has stated publicly that they want U.S. commercial spaceflight providers to transport NASA personnel to the ISS. That is the whole purpose for the CCDev (soon to be CCiCap) program. NASA has demand for transportation through 2020, and has had to resort to using the Russian Soyuz until an American provider comes online. Demand exists.
Comment by Coastal Ron — January 26, 2012 @ 1:47 am
My concern about prizes is that you offer them for things you don’t really care that much about, or aren’t depending on. If you offer the prize and no one goes after it, or many go after it unsuccessfully, you’re left with nothing but bad feelings. The task hasn’t been accomplished. A nation offering prizes isn’t investing in success, it’s just paying for success when it happens. If you care about something, you invest in it. You don’t just issue rewards.
If we really cared about it as a nation, we’d specify what we want, and we’d buy it (whether from civil servants or industry). Yeah, even cost-plus. Then it would get done. Absolutely.
That being said, I don’t think Gingrich really does care about human space exploration. What he cares about are grandiose dreams and bold plans. The purpose of space exploration, for him, is as an outlet for those things and, in particular, as a subject on which he can wax boldly and grandiosely.
Comment by Helen Mason — January 26, 2012 @ 12:55 pm
Newt may be a right wing extremist who clearly contradicted his own anti government story about the Smithsonian by supporting Kennedy’s big government commitment to land a man on the Moon.
But still he’s obviously a space nerd who loves the idea of expanding human civilization into space. He said he use to read Isaac Asimov as a kid. You can’t get much nerdier than that:-)
One of the best pro-space short stories by Asimov, IMO, is his 1952 novella “the Martian Way” which was about a terrestrial politician who tried shutdown the Martian colonies as a waste of public funds. But its interesting to see how the human colonist on Mars manage to turn the tables on this silly politician!
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — January 26, 2012 @ 3:29 pm
“If we really cared about it as a nation, we’d specify what we want, and we’d buy it”
Helen, I would say the occupy movement was a good example of what “we” want being specified. 99 percent of “us” at least. But considering both sides of the aisle, senate and ocngress, are owned by wall street and not main street, not much “buying” is going to go on.
It is not a good argument to call on what “we” want when “we” do not exist. We are divided and conquered daily by consumerism, capital cronyism, political manipulation, and not the least our own sad state of non-participation in a representative democracy. And you will not see anything change as long as people continue to put who won the game or who is winning american idol above civics.
We are on the way to the world as 1700′s Europe, except with billions instead of millions in thrall to the one percent. Unfortunately, there will be no sailing ships to the new world. Like most analogies, it may illustrate but cannot solve a problem.
DOD dollars diverted to impact defense and a lunar survival colony in case of an engineered pandemic is what “we” would buy- if our society and government was functioning at some level of health. As it is, we as a nation, civilization, and a species are endangered.
Comment by GaryChurch — January 26, 2012 @ 3:40 pm
NASA wasted $10 billion on the Constellation program. It has already spent $5 billion on the development of the Orion capsule and it’s years from the first human carrying flight. Congress mandated NASA develop the STS (Stupid Launch System) out of old Shuttle components. That’s conservatively estimated to cost over $30 billion and will cost well over a billion dollars per flight. By contrast, SpaceX has spent about $700 million to develop the Falcon 1, Falcon 9 and Dragon capsule.
You may think the same-old cost-plus paradigm is the way to go but we simply can’t afford business as usual. It’s hard to find a single major NASA project over the past 40 years that wasn’t late and/or massively over budget.
Comment by Larry J — January 26, 2012 @ 3:57 pm
You may think the same-old cost-plus paradigm is the way to go but we simply can’t afford business as usual
Where in the above did I say any such thing? A fine rant, but irrelevant to the point of my post.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — January 26, 2012 @ 4:09 pm
“-but the 2007 blast occurred at a private test site run by Scaled Composites. No fabrication facilities were destroyed”
I guess that makes whatever else you have to say irrefutable.
“Apparently you haven’t kept up with Boeing press releases.”
And of course, the subtle insult.
(No American human spaceflight flight systems exist and their development is dependent on the advent of a demand that has not yet materialized.)
“The first part is true, but the last part is not-”
Depends on your definition of spaceflight Ron.
LEO may have once been spaceflight, but after orbiting the planet several million times it has become endless circles at very high altitude.
Space “flight” is not space “falling.” That would be the more accurate description. Flight would best be described as on the way to or from the moon or other BEO place. And yes, I am aware of the fact that going by that definition the last human spaceflight occurred with the Apollo 17 mission.
If the fine line between space flight and space travel is crossed by actually going somewhere this makes spaceflight and spacefalling another fine line that should clarified in this kind of discussion. Spacefalling might be best put in the space station tourism category.
So if you start again from that premise, you do not have a leg to stand on. As usual.
Comment by GaryChurch — January 26, 2012 @ 4:24 pm
Comment by Helen Mason — January 26, 2012 @ 12:55 pm
“If we really cared about it as a nation, we’d specify what we want, and we’d buy it (whether from civil servants or industry).”
Hi Helen,
Your point is well taken.
But I was not as disappointed in Gingrich’s speech as I thought I would be. I was expecting a “do everything with prizes and shut everything else down approach” and that is not what he did.
He proposed a government lead program to establish a base on the moon by 2020 and setting aside 10% of (an undefined) NASA budget for prizes to encourage specific technology developments. There are a lot of details that would have to be filled in, but at a top level it is not a bad plan.
I have severe reservations about Gingrich as well and I wish someone else in the campaign were talking about this, but that is just not the way it is. Hopefully his speech will cause some more serious discussion of the issue.
I am going to wait and see if there is any follow through (from Gingrich or anyone else) before getting either hopeful or depressed.
Comment by Joe — January 26, 2012 @ 4:30 pm
Comment by Larry J — January 26, 2012 @ 3:57 pm
“Congress mandated NASA develop the STS (Stupid Launch System) out of old Shuttle components. That’s conservatively estimated to cost over $30 billion and will cost well over a billion dollars per flight.”
Those numbers came out during the period when the Obama Administration was attempting to “end-run” the Congressional Mandate. New estimates (really conservative – not just intended to scuttle the proposal) will eventually be forthcoming, so I wouldn’t get too attached to those figures.
Comment by Joe — January 26, 2012 @ 4:36 pm
I think I was the one that brought up cost-plus. No, I don’t like it, but it ensures that things happen. Prizes can be considered enormously affordable, for things you’re not really strongly motivated to get done. Take your choice.
No, Constellation is a bad counter-example to the effectiveness of cost-plus. Why? Because we (Congress, the taxpayer) eventually decided not to pay for it. It was a poor idea simply because it should have been understood before we started that we weren’t going to pay for it.
Commercial space is definitely not business-as-usual with regard to space. That in itself shouldn’t inspire a lot of confidence in it, but at least it is driven by investment and, as such, represents more of a commitment to the task than prizes do.
Again, this isn’t about a plan for space exploration. It’s about a plan for Newt Gingrich to be branded as creative, innovative, bold, and grandiose.
Comment by Helen Mason — January 26, 2012 @ 5:20 pm
Again, this isn’t about a plan for space exploration. It’s about a plan for Newt Gingrich to be branded as creative, innovative, bold, and grandiose.
Far be it from me to defend Gingrich’s space position, but I think you do him a disservice with this characterization. He has a long-standing and abiding interest in space. It is genuine and deep. He honestly believes that space is important and wants us to have a vigorous space program that promotes our national interests and values.
One can critique aspects of his plan (I wrote this piece on prizes before yesterday’s speech in Florida), but I think his desire for permanent presence off the Earth is real. As far as space goes, Gingrich has vision. And so far, none of the other candidates do.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — January 26, 2012 @ 5:54 pm
Comment by GaryChurch — January 26, 2012 @ 4:24 pm
““-but the 2007 blast occurred at a private test site run by Scaled Composites. No fabrication facilities were destroyed”
I guess that makes whatever else you have to say irrefutable.”
Hi Gary,
I think you know that you and I (tactical differences not withstanding) are on the same side strategically, so I hope you will take this as intended.
Coastal Ron’s inputs are (in my opinion) disingenuous. Note the point you mention above, even if you grant him (hypothetically) that particular “fact” how does that change the point of the article:
-Is he arguing that the explosion did not happen? No.
-Is he arguing that people were not killed? No.
-Is he arguing that the explosion did not set the activities in question back severely? No.
He is only looking for something to nitpick (in this case it wasn’t a fabrication facility it was a test facility that was damaged) in order to start an argument.
I really think it is best to let him post his bravo sierra and ignore him. Otherwise you are avoiding the sage advice of the old country expression:
“Never wrestle in the mud with a pig. You just get dirty and the pig enjoys it.”
Comment by Joe — January 26, 2012 @ 7:23 pm
Paul, I accept that Newt Gingrich has a long-standing and abiding interest in space. This is good, and I appreciate his passion. I respect it as “vision”. But he should know that the way to make these dreams happen is by cultivating all the relevant stakeholders, Congress in particular. He hasn’t done that. I don’t believe his speech even mentioned Congress or how he would work with Congress to make it happen. In fact, the Congressional reaction to this speech is turning out to be pretty much a hands-off one. The speech is being perceived as politically somewhat toxic. That doesn’t make the case for space exploration stronger. But as I said, what it does accomplish, in spades, is to let Gingrich wear the badges of creativity, innovativeness, boldness and grandiosity.
Comment by Helen Mason — January 26, 2012 @ 8:02 pm
@Larry J: “NASA wasted $10 billion on the Constellation program. It has already spent $5 billion on the development of the Orion capsule and it’s years from the first human carrying flight. Congress mandated NASA develop the STS (Stupid Launch System) out of old Shuttle components. That’s conservatively estimated to cost over $30 billion and will cost well over a billion dollars per flight. By contrast, SpaceX has spent about $700 million to develop the Falcon 1, Falcon 9 and Dragon capsule.You may think the same-old cost-plus paradigm is the way to go but we simply can’t afford business as usual. It’s hard to find a single major NASA project over the past 40 years that wasn’t late and/or massively over budget.”
Less than 4 years after it was created, NASA placed a man into orbit. Its been ten years since Space X was created and they’re still several years away from placing humans into orbit.
So there’s really no reason to argue what Space X could do until they– finally– place humans into space and bring them safely back to the Earth.
And if it weren’t for NASA and the hundreds of billions of dollars that tax payers have invested in space technology, a company like Space X wouldn’t even exist!
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — January 26, 2012 @ 10:31 pm
Comment from Helen Mason:”26… But he should know that the way to make these dreams happen is by cultivating all the relevant stakeholders, Congress in particular. He hasn’t done that. I don’t believe his speech even mentioned Congress or how he would work with Congress to make it happen. In fact, the Congressional reaction to this speech is turning out to be pretty much a hands-off one. The speech is being perceived as politically somewhat toxic.”
Well, one thing I think is that the most toxic thing regarding this issue, over the past day or two, has been the sarcastic, apathetic, misinformed, and inaccurate reactions from some individuals, WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER, but who currently seem to think that any plan or idea that involves sending humans to travel to,explore, and live on the Moon is a joke, or an unjustified, wasteful endeavor etc.
Gingrich certainly deserves credit for not being in that category…
Comment by Zach — January 27, 2012 @ 8:25 am
Comment by GaryChurch — January 26, 2012 @ 4:24 pm
“I guess that makes whatever else you have to say irrefutable.”
Pointing out easy to find public facts only means that I can find and point out easy to find public facts. Any other conclusions you draw are your own.
“Depends on your definition of spaceflight Ron.”
I don’t define these things. But since you asked, my personal opinion would be that just like air flight, spaceflight implies moving between two points, so I would say that being on the ISS is no more spaceflight than all of us on Earth engaging in spaceflight as we travel around the Sun. To me, a stable orbit around a planet is the equivalent of a destination – there may not be anything there yet, like in the middle of a desert, but it’s a destination.
That doesn’t mean I don’t see space stations in LEO as important, and in that regard I’m just agreeing with the many space visionaries inside and outside of NASA that have promoted the usefulness of space stations in orbit around planets – Earth, the Moon, Mars, wherever.
Comment by Coastal Ron — January 27, 2012 @ 12:23 pm
Comment by Joe — January 26, 2012 @ 7:23 pm
“even if you grant him (hypothetically) that particular “fact” how does that change the point of the article”
The topic at hand is whether prizes work. How do we measure that?
I disagree with the authors implication that the X-Prize hasn’t worked because Virgin Galactic hasn’t started customer flights yet. That would not be the business definition of success or failure, which would be whether the company ultimately is profitable. It would be like declaring a winner in the middle of the race – the race is still going.
And what if Virgin Galactic ultimately does fail as a company? Does that mean that the X-Prize failed? It certainly succeeded in inspiring one or more businesses to pursue a business based on sub-orbital flights. It certainly showed that there were private and government customers for sub-orbital flights (i.e. customer deposits & government contracts). So if the goal of the Ansari X-Prize was to see whether interest in sub-orbital flights could be sustained after the prize was won, then I think it succeeded.
Same with the Google Lunar X-Prize – the competition is still going, and there are still competitors, so declaring winners and losers is premature. And again, what is the true measurement of success? One and done, or an increased interest in autonomous lunar rovers?
I tend to take the long view on all things space. It’s a very capital intensive marketspace, and there are few known revenue streams. But the U.S. has more companies working on space related products and services than anyone else, including the Chinese, so I think it’s more a matter of time than a question of whether we will succeed – with sub-orbital, commercial HSF, commercial lunar rovers, and all else.
Our government certainly can’t afford to do it all on their own, and Romney showed his lack of enthusiasm for big space programs last night in the debates, so don’t get any hopes up if he ultimately wins the Presidency. Our only hope for expanding out into space is to figure out the right incentives for getting businesses to pursue space markets, and reasonably-sized prizes have been doing their part in that pretty well so far.
Comment by Coastal Ron — January 27, 2012 @ 1:30 pm
I notice that Romney has gathered a group of space wise men to endorse him. The names will be familiar to most and likely will comprise his space commission. I suspect that when they recommend a return to the moon, Romney will not consider it a “zany” idea.
Comment by Mark R. Whittington — January 27, 2012 @ 4:25 pm
Comment by Mark R. Whittington — January 27, 2012 @ 4:25 pm
Interesting. Got any names to share?
Comment by Joe — January 27, 2012 @ 4:31 pm
Got any names to share?
http://mittromney.com/news/press/2012/01/leaders-americas-space-program-write-open-letter-support-mitt-romney
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — January 27, 2012 @ 5:44 pm
“He is only looking for something to nitpick”
Oh, I know Joe. I know him and his infomercial buddies far better than I wish I did.
Dr. Spudis does not post half of the comments I submit concerning private space advocates. He occasionally sends me emails telling me what an idiot I am (in so many words). But he keeps posting me which is more than the SpaceX infomercial sites let me do anymore. It goes like this;
A couple years ago I became interested in space flight and I became a believer in the U.S. space program having a extremely important, in fact, a vital mission. But I found when I started posting comments about this on some of the more popular sites I would be criticized, no, attacked, by a bunch of bravo sierra artists hyping a certain company. This made me investigate and I have not found a single thing to disprove my conclusion that these people are mostly scum.
Having dedicated the major part of my life to maintaining and operating some very expensive military hardware, I see things in a different light than the average citizen or space enthusiast. It is all quite frustrating to see the public manipulated and ripped off like this.
So you can consider my pig wrestling as therapy Joe.
Comment by GaryChurch — January 27, 2012 @ 6:10 pm
“I would say that being on the ISS is no more spaceflight than all of us on Earth engaging in spaceflight as we travel around the Sun.”
Uh-huh. That really clears everything up Ron. Thanks.
“That doesn’t mean I don’t see space stations in LEO as important-”
Some posts are so deceptive and dishonest it is…..unbelievable. You must know that the half a dozen people who follow this site religiously know your agenda.
Unbelievable.
Comment by GaryChurch — January 27, 2012 @ 6:21 pm
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — January 27, 2012 @ 5:44 pm
Thanks, I really do appreciate it.
Isn’t politics wonderful?
- Romney repeatedly attacks Gingrich for proposing a Lunar Base.
- Romney promises to appoint a panel to establish his space policy
- Romney tells a crowd at KSC that he is not promising any new money.
- Romney announces a bunch of high profile space “greybeards” (sorry if that term offends anyone) who are endorsing him (I just heard Gene Cernan indorse him on the news)
- Those individuals who will (presumably) make up his advisory board have (at least for the most part – certainly Cernan) supported Lunar return.
I have to agree with Mr. Whittington, what would a (hypothetical) President Romney do when his panel recommends a lunar base as the goal of a reinvigorated space program?
Comment by Joe — January 27, 2012 @ 6:22 pm
From the letter;
“As president, Mitt Romney will facilitate close collaboration not only within the government’s civil and national security space sectors, but also with the private sector and with research institutions. He will create conditions for a strong and competitive commercial space industry that can contribute greatly to our national capabilities and goals. And he will ensure that NASA returns its focus to the project of manned space exploration-”
Being a Dem I will not vote for this guy. But….if he was to “promise” those things I hold dear as being key to space exploration- I just might have to reconsider.
Heavy Lift Vehicle SLS program greatly accellerated by raising the budget cieling on human space flight- by using DOD funds for a lunar survival colony and deep space impact deflection- and the necessary nuclear propulsion.
I don’t think I have to worry about reconsidering.
There is a possibility of these keys to the kingdom becoming issues if a bioterror or impact event or near enough event occurs. Not something to wish for. But if that were to occur- the dems are more likely to get it done than the party of the rich.
Comment by GaryChurch — January 27, 2012 @ 6:40 pm
“Well, one thing I think is that the most toxic thing regarding this issue, over the past day or two, has been the sarcastic, apathetic, misinformed, and inaccurate reactions from some individuals, WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER, but who currently seem to think that any plan or idea that involves sending humans to travel to,explore, and live on the Moon is a joke, or an unjustified, wasteful endeavor etc.
Gingrich certainly deserves credit for not being in that category…”
No, what we’re seeing isn’t sarcastic, apathetic, misinformed, and inaccurate reactions from some individuals. It’s wholesale astonishment by an enormous number of smart and savvy individuals, as well as the general voting public, who may or may not be smart and savvy. Everyone, except for the dyed-in-the-wool space nuts are roaring with laughter over Gingrich’s proposal. I think the idea of traveling to these places or exploring them is hardly a joke to anyone, but Gingrich seems to consider lunar colonization and statehood to be a near-term need. He deserves to be credited with one thing, and that is a wild extrapolation of the needs and fiscal capabilities of our nation. Gingrich has turned talk about such travels and explorations into a joke.
I actually admire Gingrich for thinking outside the box about a lot of things, and I’ve appreciated his interest over the years in many aspects of space exploration. But here he’s just thrown his credibility on space overboard.
Comment by Helen Mason — January 27, 2012 @ 8:27 pm
Another great article, Paul. Agree 100%.
CCDev is certainly providing an artificial market for several new entrants. The question is WHEN in the future any real markets will arise.
Comment by Nelson Bridwell — January 27, 2012 @ 8:49 pm
The idea of Heinlein’s eccentric scientist building the Rocketship “Galileo” in his backyard certainly doesn’t die easily, does it?
Comment by Michael P. Delaney — January 27, 2012 @ 9:32 pm
Gary,
Dr. Spudis does not post half of the comments I submit concerning private space advocates. He occasionally sends me emails telling me what an idiot I am (in so many words).
Ordinarily, I would not approve this post, but as long as this subject has come up, let me address your point for the entire readership here.
The purpose of this comment section is to discuss what I have written, not to score rhetorical points with internet debating partners or to campaign for some architecture, launch vehicle or space company. I try to approve all submitted posts, those that both agree and disagree with me. All that Air & Space (and myself for that matter) requires is that we conduct ourselves like reasonably responsible adults and not be personally abusive or insulting. Many posts here skirt that line very closely. I try to exercise judgement and occasionally, I may make a mistake and let something through that should not be posted or discard one that is actually valid. It is not my intent to stifle the debate, but to maintain a semblance of some decorum.
If you want to weigh in on the debate, please do. But keep it short, on point and civil. If you find this impossible, then post elsewhere.
One last remark to Gary. I have never called you an idiot, either on this board or in e-mail. I have told you that while you and I are in agreement to a large degree in our skepticism of “commercial space,” we disagree on other subjects. I ask you to rein in your tendency to become personal and insulting. I will edit and/or delete posts to you that show similar attitudes (as I have already done in some cases.) But editing other people’s abusive language is not something I care to spend much time on and I will get bored and tired of it very quickly. So as my late father used to tell me, “Don’t make me come up there!”
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — January 28, 2012 @ 4:43 am
Dr. Spudis,
A question.
While most of us are probably unhappy that Romney has prompted ridicule of Gingrich for even proposing a Lunar Base, other areas of discussion are going ballistic over the makeup of the group that signed the letter (the one you linked to above) supporting Romney. Most of this angst is centered on Pace (listed as the Chair of the Romney Space Policy Advisory Group) and Griffin. The Obamaspace supporters seem to think this would guarantee what some of them are already calling Constellation 2.0.
Do you know if any of signatories were involved in the development of the VSE (as opposed to or in addition to) Constellation?
Comment by Joe — January 28, 2012 @ 12:52 pm
Do you know if any of signatories were involved in the development of the VSE (as opposed to or in addition to) Constellation?
To my knowledge, no. The Vision for Space Exploration was largely developed by an ad hoc group in the White House that included staff from OSTP, OMB and the National Security Council. This WH group worked with Sean O’Keefe and staff at NASA to come up with the VSE roadmap. Of course, Mike Griffin was largely responsible for the development of Project Constellation, which was the agency’s implementation of the VSE. Scott Pace worked at NASA in PA&E at that time.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — January 28, 2012 @ 4:05 pm
Helen Mason,
At no time have I said that I endorse Gingrich’s particular space plans/proposals. I also think it is more than fair to be critical of his substantive policies, and the way he has gone about formulating his plans…I am critical of them. However, the criticism of his proposals, in some cases, has not dealt with the problems with his particular plan or approach, or his “exaggerations” etc., or the way he announced things, but rather the notion that any form of a permanent Moon Base, sustained human presence on the Moon, or a general human lunar exploration program is an unfeasible joke, and of no real consequence or importance. It is with that, which I take issue with. Cheers.
Comment by Zach — January 28, 2012 @ 4:25 pm
“However, the criticism of his proposals, in some cases, has not dealt with the problems with his particular plan or approach, or his “exaggerations” etc., or the way he announced things, but rather the notion that any form of a permanent Moon Base, sustained human presence on the Moon, or a general human lunar exploration program is an unfeasible joke, and of no real consequence or importance.”
Really? John Glenn is widely quoted as saying that “Sometime we’ll go to the moon, but I think to have a lunar colony by 2020 is optimistic to say the least”, and the press is nodding approvingly. The issue seems to be less going there than going there in a decade, and spending hundreds of billions of dollars in a short time period (by the end of Gingrich’s second term?) to do it. Santorum was specifically worried about spending that kind of money while we’re in such financial straits, not specifically worried about going to the Moon. I don’t think anyone is saying that going back to the Moon is crazy. But going back to the Moon NOW, and with no credible fiscal plan, is nearly so.
I don’t believe I ever suggested that you supported his proposals. I do agree, however, that Gingrich’s proposal has rendered human space flight largely off limits for all the GOP candidates. Reference to it at this point is going to make the referrer just look less “bold” than Gingrich.
Comment by Helen Mason — January 28, 2012 @ 6:42 pm
“-the notion that any form of a permanent Moon Base, sustained human presence on the Moon, or a general human lunar exploration program is an unfeasible joke, and of no real consequence or importance.”
It is not a “notion” if there is a real need. If there is a valid mission then a moonbase becomes of real importance and consequence.
I have been puzzling over the problem of BEO-HSF for a while. My research, though not funded by grants, prizes, or backed up by Phd’s and engineers, has led me to some fairly “over the top” conclusions.
I state them often enough here and no one seems to argue with them any more. Either I am considered an idiot, ignored, or both. Does not bother me too much. I have not found anyone that can prove my points wrong so far.
The moon is the gateway to the solar system due to a set of requirements and technical constraints.
We face the threat of an extinction level impact, or an extinction level engineered pandemic. Nobody can argue with this- only the chance of it happening. And in the case of an impact, it is not if, it is when. And “on average of millions of years” does not mean it will not happen tomorrow. Fact.
I could go on with with several more long paragraphs covering all the fine points, but I will just get right to the main points;
To get out there and accomplish the mission will cost big money. There is no cheap. Prizes are not going to do it.
It is a valid DOD mission and God knows DOD has the money. If you doubt this check out the trillion dollar budget for just one project- the F-35.
Radiation shielding for deep space travel will require hundreds of tons of mass. The only practical source of this shielding is Lunar ice. The only propulsion system that can move this mass around is nuclear energy and the only practical place for nuclear activities is the moon or lunar orbit.
And Lastly, the private space agenda will fight tooth and nail to prevent any of this happening because they want their business plan for space tourism funded and a real mission makes private space look like what it is- a joke. The first prerequisite is a Heavy Lift Vehicle.
The “Stupid Launch System” as it was called on this thread.
Tell the dinosaurs it is stupid.
Comment by GaryChurch — January 28, 2012 @ 6:59 pm
I’ll do one more on this particular thread/post…
GaryChurch- I support humans exploring the Earth’s Moon with global surface access, and support developing the first permanent human Moon Base in a realistic and practical manner. There are a number of good reasons, large and small, for doing so.
Helen Mason-
I agree with John Glenn on the part of his comments that a “lunar colony” as described by Gingrich, by the year 2020 is indeed very optimistic, to put it nicely and mildly. I also question, and have concerns and doubts, about the feasibility of the current incarnation of Gingrich’s proposals and strategy to get to the Moon, for a number of reasons(see the above post by Dr. Spudis for at least a couple). I do believe that it is possible and realistic that humans could return to the Moon’s surface by 2022 give or take, and the beginning of a human Moon Base by 2026, give or take, is realistic depending on committment, architecture, funding amounts, political will etc. but I digress….
I strongly disagree with the “sometime we will go back to the Moon but not now” mentality. That type of thinking, is one of the reasons why no humans have travelled beyond Low-Earth orbit since December of 1972. Earth-Moon space, and the surface of the Moon, are the next logical steps in human exploration of space, and are important for the United States to maintain its lead and remain a “player” in pushing the frontier etc….
Comment by Zach — January 29, 2012 @ 7:06 am
Since Congress is already funding a Moon rocket that should be ready by the end of the decade, it would be foolish not to use it to build a Moon base. A Moon base is the next logical step in our manned space program.
The public concern is that the government is spending a significant portion of the Federal budget on space which, of course, is simply not true. Unfortunately there have not been many champions out there explaining this fact to the public. Of course if you hate any government programs then even a penny spent on space would be too much for such individuals.
And that’s Newts dillemma with the Republican party. He trashed big government spending while endorsing a big government program.
Comment by Marcel Williams — January 29, 2012 @ 7:45 am
Comment by Helen Mason — January 28, 2012 @ 6:42 pm
“I don’t think anyone is saying that going back to the Moon is crazy. But going back to the Moon NOW, and with no credible fiscal plan, is nearly so.”
It is interesting that Gingrich proposed government-funded prizes to spur innovation in space, but then proposes a huge government-funded Moon program that would have to be developed far faster than the now cancelled Constellation program.
That’s the duality that people don’t like with Gingrich, although if the Florida polls are any indication, this whole NewtSpace discussion will soon die away as he limps on to other states and changes the discussion to what is near and dear to their interests.
Regarding Romney’s space advisors, Eric Anderson (who is on the cover of this month’s Air & Space magazine) was interviewed on another space blog and stated that “You must remember, Mitt Romney is a very experienced businessman. People in business of course believe in private industry! They know that if you can find goods and services in the private sector then clearly those would be preferable to the government recreating that capability.”
That type of clarity – the how NASA will operate going forward more than the where – is what I think Romney would have the most profound affect on NASA. Is NASA in the transportation business or the exploration business. They can’t afford to do both at once.
Comment by Coastal Ron — January 29, 2012 @ 1:21 pm
“Since Congress is already funding a Moon rocket that should be ready by the end of the decade, it would be foolish not to use it to build a Moon base.”
Since Congress is already funding a NEO rocket that should be ready by the end of the decade, it would be foolish not to use it to go mine NEOs. Since Congress is already funding a Lagrange point rocket that should be ready by the end of the decade, it would be foolish not to use it to go use Lagrange points for proving our capabilities in deep space.
Since Congress is already funding ELVs, the heavy versions of which would take just two or three to get people to the Moon, it would be foolish to build a new mega rocket to do it all by itself for a dramatically larger cost.
Yes, there is plenty of foolishness all around.
I agree that on the scale of federal spending, NASA expenditures are small, and the public largely doesn’t realize how small. But when you boost NASA spending, you’re going to have to cut something else. That’s not easy. In fact, as budget cuts are made, the politically safest way to do it is to cut everything uniformly unless you can show that one budget function is vastly more important than the others. NASA has never made that case.
Look at it this way. If I got my salary from the feds, I could say “My goodness, I’m a tiny tiny itsy bitsy part of the federal budget. So hey, kick my salary up, wouldja? No one would notice!” But the rationale for doing something has to be better than that no one would notice.
But yes, Newt does have a serious dilemma here.
Comment by Helen Mason — January 29, 2012 @ 3:13 pm
Comment by Helen Mason — January 29, 2012 @ 3:13 pm
Fully realizing that you did not mean these statements to be entirely serious, I will give a few answers to them anyway.
- Since Congress is already funding a NEO rocket that should be ready by the end of the decade, it would be foolish not to use it to go mine NEOs.
Not that simple. Mining NEOs would require the work to be done entirely in (at best) milli-gravity. That is quite a challenge for current mining/processing techniques. I worked on the first President Bush’s SEI and did interviews with industry sources about ISRU. They were very enthusiastic about lunar activities (the Sixth G gravity gave them confidence they could adapt their procedures to work there), but were very reluctant to even talk about asteroid mining (because they did not believe their techniques were readily transferable to “weightlessness”). That does not mean I think NEO mining will never happen only that it will not happen first.
- Since Congress is already funding a Lagrange point rocket that should be ready by the end of the decade, it would be foolish not to use it to go use Lagrange points for proving our capabilities in deep space.
That might not be a bad starting point (the Lagrange points after all could be useful to a lunar program), but I will leave that to the orbital mechanics experts. It is, however, in no way a replacement for a real destination.
-Since Congress is already funding ELVs, the heavy versions of which would take just two or three to get people to the Moon, it would be foolish to build a new mega rocket to do it all by itself for a dramatically larger cost.
Actually more like four launches, with numerous extra rendezvous/docking maneuvers required; complicating completing the mission.
- Yes, there is plenty of foolishness all around.
About this we are in complete agreement.
- I agree that on the scale of federal spending, NASA expenditures are small, and the public largely doesn’t realize how small. But when you boost NASA spending, you’re going to have to cut something else.
And that is what elected officials get paid to do, make decisions (no matter how hard they may try to avoid it).
Comment by Joe — January 29, 2012 @ 4:09 pm
“Is NASA in the transportation business or the exploration business. They can’t afford to do both at once.”
That is not true. What they can afford depends on their budget, not your Byzantine promotion of private space Ron.
It is the number one infomercial device of the space clown wannabe cult; there is no money so take our cheap junk or get nothing. They constantly blame NASA for having a huge “standing army” and wasting money. This demonizing of the very organization they depend on for funding is endless.
Most of what private space wails and gnashes their teeth about plays on a hoped for public perception that NASA is a hugely inefficient and wasteful organization that screws up everything they touch.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
NASA has launched over a hundred Heavy Lift missions- the equivalent of a hundred moon shots. That their vehicle was designed to do everything and was sold as impossibly cheap while being sadly underfunded was the result of a small group of politially influenced decision makers making very bad decisions.
Because of underfunding- these decisions would never be reversed and the resulting problems solved.
From the beginning of the program to the end the option to convert the shuttle into what would have been the best Heavy Lift Vehicle in the world and vastly increase the capability of the space program was not taken due to underfunding.
Along comes private space saying they can do better. Actually what they are trying to do is use the taxpayer to subsidize a tourist business for the rich using what amounts to a hobby rocket.
If you doubt this you can add up how many of the amazing merlin engines it takes to equal the thrust of one 5 segment SRB. Resuable solid rocket boosters have fired flawlessly over 200 times in a row. The most powerful launch hardware on earth sits idle while a ridiculous and inferior scheme to use refueling depots to allow Beyond Earth Orbit spaceflight is sold as the future. It is the enron of space exploration.
The choice is whether NASA is going to go in the space clown tourist business or send humans on missions of exploration beyond earth orbit to the far reaches of the solar system.
The DOD budget is the proof we can afford a BEO space program. Indisputable proof. Saying we cannot afford to is a lie that has been told so often that the gullible and uninformed believe it.
This is the true issue- the easy money of weapons and classified programs vs. the hard money of building spaceships.
Comment by GaryChurch — January 29, 2012 @ 5:35 pm
Comment by Joe — January 29, 2012 @ 4:09 pm
“Fully realizing that you did not mean these statements to be entirely serious, I will give a few answers to them anyway.
…Mining NEOs”
My interpretation of what Helen was saying was that the SLS is no more a Moon rocket than it is a Pluto rocket – or anything in-between. Marcel seems to think that if you call the SLS a Moon rocket, then the U.S. must create a Moon program. I don’t think so.
However on the subject of NEO’s, the current plan is not to go to NEO’s for mining, but to visit like we did when we went to the Moon. I agree that there would be challenges in mining an NEO, just as we know there will be challenges mining on the Moon, but luckily we don’t have to solve those problems until someone decides to fund mining somewhere in space.
“Actually more like four launches, with numerous extra rendezvous/docking maneuvers required; complicating completing the mission.”
When was the last time the U.S. was not able to dock with something in space? The 60′s?
If we can’t master in-space autonomous docking, then we won’t be going very far in space – we need that ability regardless whether we use the SLS or not, since the SLS is too small to support any manned lunar program without multiple launches.
But I would agree that we don’t have off-the-shelf autonomous systems developed for everyone to use, and that’s where a NewtSpace type X-Prize could be useful. NASA could open a competition to develop a industry standard for autonomous docking systems. That level of problem and prize is more likely to be quickly solved than one to colonize the Moon by 2022.
Comment by Coastal Ron — January 29, 2012 @ 6:27 pm
@ Helen Mason
Unless there is some major breakthrough in radiation shielding, a NEO mission would require several hundred tonnes of mass shielding to protect astronauts from a major solar event. So no chemical rocket is going to be able to take humans beyond the Earth’s magnetosphere on an interplanetary journey to an asteroid without significantly risking the health and the lives of the astronauts in an unshielded vehicle. I guess you could reduce the risk by excluding younger astronauts and women, but that would make such journeys more of a risky stunt rather than a pioneering effort.
EELVs still need to be man-rated and they won’t have the large fairing diameter and volumes that the SLS will have. The Delta IV heavy is currently costing more than $400 million just two launch a 20 tonne plus payload into space. NASA estimates that the SLS should be able to launch at least five or six times that amount for nearly the same cost.
Man-rating EELVs should allow NASA to be competitive in cis-lunar space. The SLS, however, would allow NASA to totally dominate cis-lunar space.
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — January 30, 2012 @ 2:02 am
The reason that I’m such a strong proponent of both government and private manned and unmanned space programs is because I believe that it creates technological advancement and wealth and will gradually give our country access to substantially more wealth in the New Frontier.
During the Kennedy and Johnson years, spending on our civilian space program reached nearly 4.5% of total Federal expenditures. We spend less than 0.6% on NASA today.
Did such enormous NASA expenditures hurt the economy during the Kennedy and Johnson years?
Annual GDP growth under Presidents:
1. Eisenhower – 2.4%
2. Kennedy – 5.2%
3. Johnson – 5.1%
4. Nixon – 3.0%
5. Ford – 2.0%
6. Carter – 3.2%
7. Reagan – 3.5%
8. Bush I – 2.1%
9. Clinton – 3.6%
10. Bush II – 2.3%
Spending a lot of government money on substantial scientific and technological advancements in space was apparently very good for the economy during the Kennedy and Johnson years. And there have been many studies that back up the idea that NASA spending is good for the economy. China believes that this is true which is part of the reason why they started their own manned space program and have plans to go to the Moon.
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — January 30, 2012 @ 2:44 am
“Unless there is some major breakthrough in radiation shielding, a NEO mission would require several hundred tonnes of mass shielding to protect astronauts from a major solar event.”
Not to understate the importance of radiation mitigation, but your mass requirements are inflated. The latest (2011) risk statistics for both GCRs and SPEs are such that a middle aged nonsmoker, behind 20 g/cm2 of aluminum shielding (which really only shields SPEs) has a 3% risk of radiation induced cancer mortality (95% confidence level) for about six months in deep space. That risk is small compared to other risks associated with the trip. Now, 20g/cm2 of aluminum is a huge mass if you’re going to surround the whole habitat with it, but SPEs are highly episodic and highly directional, such that compact storm shelters (think of the kind of confinement that pre-shuttle astronauts endured for many days at a time) can be had for less than 1mT per person. Of course, with proper arrangement of supplies, especially water, arranged to optimize shielding in the direction of the Sun, the extra mass required may not even be that large. The major mistake here, which is one you’re probably making, is the presumption that humans in deep space have to be shielded to reduce their irradiation to terrestrial levels. Ain’t gonna happen, and doesn’t really need to happen.
Your SLS cost estimates are wildly off as well. That SLS cost is (as you’ve admitted in other forums) even just possibly credible at a launch rate of 5-6/year. No way is that going to happen in our lifetimes. (And you’ve been told that repeatedly in other forums.) Of course, new opportunities (e.g. Falcon 9) are looking like they will pull the rug out from under that ELV cost. In fact, the idea of human-rating a cargo launcher is really pretty silly.
But getting back on topic here, commercial investment, and even prizes, will focus on smaller launchers and smaller masses-to-launch. Those routes to economize spaceflight will strongly incentivize in-space construction, and therein strongly disincentivize elephantine and hugely costly launch vehicles to loft preassembled facilities.
Comment by Helen Mason — January 30, 2012 @ 9:34 pm
I am skeptical that prizes are the right choice for large steps along a critical path. And for this reason, I don’t support Gingrich’s reliance on them. However, I think that there is a place for smaller prizes to advance technology but I think that they should be more than just engineering challenges to inspire college students.
I personally would use a combination of COTS-like payments for milestones for paths that require good integration of the steps (e.g. developing new, less expensive rockets for cargo and people to the ISS) + moderate-sized prizes for specific technologies.
From SpacePolitics.com:
[Eric] Anderson [Space Adventures] said there was also “good and bad ideas” in Newt Gingrich’s plans to use billion-dollar prizes to incentivize the private sector to go to the Moon and Mars. Prizes, he noted, have been effective on smaller scales when carefully tailored, citing the $10-million Ansari X PRIZE in particular, but he’s not sure that they would work on the much larger scale proposed by Gingrich. “It has to be realistic,”
Regarding prizes, I would actually look at what was accomplished for only $2 million in the Lunar Lander Challenge as an example of a good prize. To me, the main thing to result was not a small lander to deliver a small package on the lunar surface, but more importantly teams which now have the emerging skills to build larger landers. If there were a COTS-like program to build lunar landers for prospecting and a lunar ice exploitation plan, then perhaps we could get the sort of cost-efficiencies that it appears that we are getting in the COTS program.
We all agree that it would be wonderful if Congress were to decide to double NASA’s budget so that we could all see our preferred space dreams become a reality. But realists know that this won’t likely happen. Unfortunately this necessarily sets people’s plans against each other. If one gets adopted, others’ cannot. So I believe that we need to come up with a plan to permanently open up space which can be achieved even while the SLS is dominating the changable parts of NASA’s budget.
Comment by JohnHunt — January 30, 2012 @ 11:12 pm
JohnHunt,
Prizes, he [Anderson] noted, have been effective on smaller scales when carefully tailored, citing the $10-million Ansari X PRIZE in particular ……. Regarding prizes, I would actually look at what was accomplished for only $2 million in the Lunar Lander Challenge as an example of a good prize. To me, the main thing to result was not a small lander to deliver a small package on the lunar surface, but more importantly teams which now have the emerging skills to build larger landers.
At best, using such examples to illustrate the value of prizes is premature. Winning a prize does not indicate that the prize offer was a success (except in the superficial sense that the prize was won). The real object of prizes is to obtain some capability or to develop some technology. That new capability must then be applied to either enable or make easier some task toward which we are striving, in the two cases that you cite, both human commercial spaceflight and robotic lunar landers.
I would argue that we still do not know whether the Ansari X-Prize was successful or not — to date, no commercial human spaceflight has occurred. As for your lander challenge, “putting a team together” is not really prize-worthy — there’s no doubt that a “team” can be built since teams have been built for various projects throughout time. The real goal was to develop the technology needed to develop and build a cheap lunar lander spacecraft. That capability will only be proven to have occurred once it’s done. And it hasn’t been done yet.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — January 31, 2012 @ 4:40 am
Comment by JohnHunt — January 30, 2012 @ 11:12 pm
“If there were a COTS-like program to build lunar landers for prospecting and a lunar ice exploitation plan, then perhaps we could get the sort of cost-efficiencies that it appears that we are getting in the COTS program.”
Since no cargo has been delivered under the COTS program (which is 2 years plus behind schedule), there are currently no established “cost-efficiencies”.
Comment by Joe — January 31, 2012 @ 10:01 am
Since lunar ice has not yet been extracted, processed, nor returned to LEO, that capability has not been proven.
Since orbiting fuel depots have not yet been demonstrated that capabilty has not been proven.
“We choose to go to the Moon and do the other things not because they are easy but because they are hard”. The Moon landing wasn’t yet demonstrated and so not proven.
Of what utility are these observations?
If the conclusion is that we shouldn’t try a new thing because something hasn’t yet been demonstrated, then we’d do no new things. If that’s not the conclusion to be drawn then what is the point of the observations? If it is just cautionary, then so be it. But why signal caution about some new things much more than others?
And what about evidence indicating things such as rather significant cost savings?
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/586023main_8-3-11_NAFCOM.pdf
How much can such evidence guide us as to whether one approach should be tried verses another?
What about track record? Yes, there have been delays. So, we can probably expect delays in the future. But also we can expect continued progress, mastering a variety of technical challenges. If Armadillo’s team can successfully build a small lander given a cut-rate prize, might this suggest that equipment of similar complexity could be build at similar prize levels? Or perhaps larger, more complex equipment can be secured for higher prize levels?
Comment by JohnHunt — January 31, 2012 @ 6:03 pm
Of what utility are these observations?
You are the one claiming that prizes create new space capabilities. I contend that proposition has not yet been demonstrated.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — February 1, 2012 @ 5:07 am
Comment by JohnHunt — January 31, 2012 @ 6:03 pm
You are attempting to blur the distinction between technical/operational achievements (lunar mining, fuel depots) and management techniques (prizes, COTS).
Of course some degree of risk must be taken to achieve the former or all progress stops. However, there are plenty examples of the latter already in place. I am not suggesting that new techniques should not be tested (on a limited scale). Only that you should not “bet the farm” on an unproven technique any more than you would bet your life on an untested component.
The COTS program originally promised multiple providers would be supplying cargo to the ISS by November 2009. It is now February 2012 and the two remaining competitors are still working to get off their first test flights to the ISS. I am not saying the program is a failure (although it is not hard to imagine what some others – possibly including you – would be saying if a more conventionally run program were similarly behind schedule). I am saying that it has yet to prove itself in this venue and to rely on it for other projects is at best premature.
Comment by Joe — February 1, 2012 @ 9:17 am
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — February 1, 2012 @ 5:07 am
“You are the one claiming that prizes create new space capabilities. I contend that proposition has not yet been demonstrated.”
Before we can know the answer either way, we have to know what the goals of the prizes are (or were).
The X-Prize Foundation says that they are “an educational (501c3) nonprofit organization whose mission is to bring about radical breakthroughs for the benefit of humanity, thereby inspiring the formation of new industries and the revitalization of markets that are currently stuck due to existing failures or a commonly held belief that a solution is not possible.”
Using their definition, they have definitely spurred increased activity in the sub-orbital marketplace. And as far as “inspiring the formation of new industries”, both Virgin Galactic and Stratolaunch can trace their inspiration back to the Ansari X-Prize competition.
I know your article also touches on a commercial human spaceflight industry, but as you point out, only Bigelow Aerospace has offered a prize starting in 2004, and I think the industry perceived it as too small for the requested result (crew transportation to LEO for 5). There was some progress when Bigelow partnered first with Lockheed Martin, then with Boeing, but that effort has been eclipsed by the NASA Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) program, which is also better funded ($320M so far).
You also stated in your article “The hope of space prize enthusiasts for explosive growth in space similar to that seen in aviation innovation and industry following the winning of the Orteig Prize is unlikely to be realized.” I don’t know anyone that thinks that “explosive growth” is coming anytime soon to the space industry, or at least not without “explosive growth” of NASA’s budget. So I would say this is a false premise to base progress in the commercial aerospace sector. Since there is no “space race”, I’d be happy with steady progress forward.
There is a very simple reason we have not been back to the Moon since 1972 – it’s very expensive. That still hasn’t changed, but small prize programs like the Ansari X-Prize and the Google Lunar X Prize can spur progress where NASA can’t. And considering our lack of progress over the past three decades (no direct follow-on programs for Apollo and Shuttle) any steady progress should be welcome.
Comment by Coastal Ron — February 1, 2012 @ 9:27 pm
Dr. Spudis, I just stumbled across an article saying you’re chief scientist for the Odyssey Moon Limited, a Google Lunar Xprize team.
I had been disgusted with two Lunar X-prize blogs, one saying lunar mining was impractical because mining platinum group metals and He3 were too expensive, the other saying they were going to get rich mining PGMs and He3. Both of them were equally clueless in my opinion. It didn’t occur to either of them the potential uses of lunar water.
But the Odyssey Moon Limited team at least seems to know you exist.
What odds do you give for any of the X-prize teams making a contribution that will be helpful to future lunar mining efforts?
Comment by Hop David — February 9, 2012 @ 7:53 pm
I just stumbled across an article saying you’re chief scientist for the Odyssey Moon Limited, a Google Lunar Xprize team.
I am no longer associated with the Odyssey Moon team and I do not know what their current plans might be.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — February 10, 2012 @ 4:48 am
I think it is a bit premature to dismiss the likely impacts of the Google Lunar X-Prize and of “the prize culture.”
1 I think it is quite likely that this contest will have first and second prize winners. We shall within the next four years see if the 2015 prize deadline brings any lunar mission to successful fruition. Of the 29 teams that were officially registered before the cutoff many cannot be considered technically or financially substantive. But others certainly are. Two of the leading contenders are Moon-X and Astrobotics. Moon-X offices are located at NASA Ames, and their endeavor is supported financially by two billionaires. They have also been working on a “standard bus” lander design with NASA as a way to bring down the costs of subsequent lunar landers. If these teams can succeed in providing landers of about 100 kg to the surface that is a significant technical achieve for privately funded organizations and provides the goal of bringing a small lunar lander to “the market” for a price point somewhere around $100M. Team Italia similarly combines the efforts of 4 Italian Universities and a major industrial sponsor Thales Alenia, which has built components of the ISS.
Two generations ago it took the technical and financial might of the two world superpowers (Soviet Union and the US) to undertake and achieve the same objectives. Astroboticss is a team initiative centered on Carnegie Mellon University’s Field Robotics Institute with other substantive partners. Team Israel is aiming at a very different strategy using a CubeSat scale lander design launched as a “hitchhiker” payload on a commercial launch. Their timetable to do this is by the end of 2012 and at a cost of $8 Million dollars. Their team also has a credible constellation of academic institutions and industrial support of the Israeli Defense and electronics Industry.
(Other low digit Million lunar missions by other groups not associated by GLXP are being planned as well.)
2. After a long hiatus in post Apollo era the pace of international lunar missions certainly reached a “fever pace” last decade with missions from ESA, CNSA, JAXA, ISRO, and the US. While the US seems to have shut the water off for it’s lunar ambitions and lost its NASA HQ and White House lunar appetite for the moment, other international space agencies continue with mission development
in India (Chandrayaan II 2016),
China Chang’e III 2013) ,
Japan (Selene II 2016),
Europe (ESMO 2014 and Moon Next 2018),
Russia (Lunar Grunt 2014).
The reality of there being an international community of interest in returning to the Moon for both scientific and commercial purposes is hardly in dispute.
3. If the Google Lunar X-Prize results in several successful demonstrations it also is intended to stimulate a “commercial community” that may or may not exist on a continuing basis depending on the price points. Their second prize is $5 Million and the supplimental prizes Paul mentioned are $1M each. India’s Chandrayaan I was a good example of a national launch demonstrating first time ISRO capabilities to leave LEO/GEO and go to the Moon (with its own instruments and those of other international
agencies). Both Moon-X and Astrobotics have a similar commercial model in mind that could include customers that are national space agencies and/or private commercial firms.
Team Israel intends to demonstrate an ability to land something quite small ( <10kg mass) at a price point in the single digit millions. Successful demonstrations by GLXP teams will take the giggle factor away.
4 The questions remain:
Will unmanned lunar missions at price points ranging from roughly $100 Million on the high end to Single digit millions on the low end provide a sustainable proposition for commercial companies?
Will the numerous national space agencies from countries that have no complete space faring capabilities be willing to purchase rides for instruments that their scientists want to get to the Moon? I hope so!
Sadly NASA lunar mission initiatives seem to have been gutted in the last budget go around by the Science Mission Directorate. I am not holding my breath about Bolden's budget announcement tomorrow. I hope the pendulum will swing toward the Moon once again as far as NASA's SMD goes. I hope I will be alive to see humans return again to the Moon to stay and do both useful scientific exploration but more strategically important achievements in using lunar resources for commercial purposes.
5 It does seem to be the case that geopolitical competition is once again driving a group of "frenemies" to demonstrate their technological capabilities and economic will to explore another nearby planet. The Apollo missions and Soviet lunar mission remain gigantic benchmarks for the world even after almost 50 years since the 1960's race. Unlike the quick takeoff of the commercial satellite industry after the collaboration of ComSaT the high cost barriers and high risk of landing on Moon have not generated anything like the commercial satellite industry.
Those seeking a genuine return on investment are gambling that a modest multi-
national "market" for lunar transportation/exploration can emerge. That is also "the $30 Million gamble" of the X-Prize Foundation and the Google Corporation.
6 I believe that the path to an expanded commercial space industry is one that will follow the model the successful existing commercial satellite business and build on the potential for larger GEO platforms that can relay communications, provide navigation services, and sell weightless electromagnetic waves to a mass market. Ultimately electrical power provided by microwave for baseload electrical power on the Earth's surface and the mass market of billions of potential customers could be a model for orders of magnitude expansion. Only that later industry could have a multi-trillion dollar commercial market within two to three generations time.
If the Moon can be demonstrated to be a cost effective source of materials for fuel and construction of such mammoth structures then the hopes and dreams of greatly expanded commercialization may be more than fantasies. A recent International Academy of Astronautics report provides some support for the proposition that a space based solar power demonstration might be cost feasible within 15 to 20 years.
6 It will take a combination of approaches such as the GLXP, NASA Mellenium Prizes, and competed contracts for things like the Innovative Lunar Data Demonstration, and ISS commercial crew and cargo to continue to advance toward a space-faring commercial culture. The ISS was and is a "scheme to pool resources and reciprocally justify the existence of national space agencies and their space contractors and the associated public employment of their technologists and scientists" in a geopolitical prestige economy. It is in fact a scheme that has been successful in meeting those objectives.
One may "convincingly" argue( that is argue with seeming sincerity and passion) that the ISS achievement might have been more cost efficiently done by private industry. There is no evidence to support the mythology that private enterprise(i.e private capital)l could have or alternatively would have risked their own capital to have accomplished the same thing as a pathfinding enterprise.
Bigelow has been developing a NASA initiated and patented second generation inflatable modular system for manned space. He has as noted laid off a substantial fraction of his workforce. It remain to be seen whether:
A The transportation to get his modules into LEO will become available and
B Customers for a private space station will merge.
I certainly hope he gets his reward! I also hope that he can demonstrate that his costs for putting up a volume of habitable space double that of the ISS can be done for approximately an order of magnitude less cost than the ISS. We shall see in due time.
The publicly traded private investors seem more than well enough informed that the risk of loss of investments and the return on investments in manned space will not be realized unless someone, "the national publics" subsidizes them and covers their risks with cost plus contracting and other government generated incentives. That seems to be the positions of national "heritage" space companies such as Energia, EADS, Mitsubishi, Antrix, ULA, Boeing, and Lockmart.
The glaring exception being the commercial satellite industry that serves the needs of billions of customers for tele-communications and geo-positioning information. Only in that context might Paul's Title "Everybody Has Won and All Must Have Prizes" be seen to have a some cynical application to the success of the commercial satellite industry. According to the Annual Report on the global Space Industry of the Space Foundation commercial space activities amount to about $175 Billion annually and exceed in volume the total of international government expenditures in space.
It seems that if you want to become a millionaire in the space business then first start with a billion dollars. Perhaps Paul Allen, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Richard Branson, Robert Bigelow, and a very few others in the "New Space" could join the conversation in this regards. These people have been shrewd enough to amass great fortunes in other enterprises than space. They also seem strangely enough to be "infected" with the same "space mania" that I have experienced, (even though I lacked the same business genes).
In my opinion it will also take some similar international collaborative effort to the ISS to get to a space based solar power demonstration and thereafter (as Bigelow hopes to demonstrate with space stations) a an interative successful second or third genration economic and technical model. The infrastructure investments for that grand enterprise can support a variety of commercial space industries, including:
1 solar power satellites,
2 space construction,
3 space fuel depots,
4 space tourism,
5 space fuel production from lunar in situ resources,
6 continuation of publicly subsidized space exploration and science activities.
7 low mass high value space manufactured products
As the IAA report makes clear there is at present no commercial case for space solar power. There is still no "commercial case" for human space stations either. Nevertheless
The space faring nations publics must feel that "they have won" and at least many feel that the "prizes" of:
1 Improved science education,
2 Research and development and spin-off commercial and medical products,
3 Subsidized public and private employment in high tech related science and defense
4 A competitive winning status with international competitors
5 Tangible commercial and mass market benefits flowing out of these heavily
subsidized space and defense expenditures.
justify continuing their existence.
I for one would hope that the Team Israel model of a single digit Million Lunar lander can be demonstrated as a cost efficient way to assay lunar polar ice deposits (as at least one useful objective) and "hedge" the risk of missions costing an order of magnitude more. That would be a "prize" worthy of Paul's ambitions in that regard!
Some of the objectives of the ILNetwork might be similarly realized for a level of expenditures an order of magnitude less than NASA projected as well. More "prizes" for the LEAG community. I hope that the "prizes" of more dividend checks from successful lunar and other commercial space businesses like Space Energy and Shacklton Energy, Space-X, Moon-X, Bigelow, etc. can emerge in the next ten years. I am now too old to contemplate such investments myself, but I hope my kids and grand kids can all be prize winners in that regard.
Comment by Dave Dunlop NSS — February 12, 2012 @ 1:26 pm
Dave,
Congratulations on posting a comment significantly longer than my original post. In general, I prefer that future comments be kept short and pithy. But as this is your first one and is on topic, let me respond to some of your points (numbers refer to your originals).
1. We shall within the next four years see if the 2015 prize deadline brings any lunar mission to successful fruition.
We shall indeed. Whether one chooses to believe that it will or will not happen is entirely a matter of opinion, informed by knowledge and experience. I’ve given my opinion in the post above and nothing you’ve laid out makes me think differently.
2. The reality of there being an international community of interest in returning to the Moon for both scientific and commercial purposes is hardly in dispute.
There’s no dispute that there is international interest in the Moon (did I say otherwise above?), but the “commercial purposes” concept is not yet a reality. That’s why I favor lunar return as a NASA mission, until it is demonstrated that water harvest from the Moon is commercially viable.
3. If the Google Lunar X-Prize results in several successful demonstrations it also is intended to stimulate a “commercial community” that may or may not exist on a continuing basis depending on the price points.
Perhaps not. Suppose the Google X-Prize is won and no follow on commercial lunar missions materialize. Would you claim that the prize was a “success”? On what basis? That it demonstrated that robotic landing on the Moon is possible? We already know that it is. That the Google missions established commercial lunar spaceflight? But assuming the premise of my answer, they did not. In that event, what value was achieved?
4. Sadly NASA lunar mission initiatives seem to have been gutted in the last budget go around by the Science Mission Directorate.
Nothing involving the Moon was “gutted” because the agency planned nothing at the Moon.
I hope I will be alive to see humans return again to the Moon to stay and do both useful scientific exploration but more strategically important achievements in using lunar resources for commercial purposes.
Me too. But if there is existing commercial value in lunar return, why do you need NASA?
5. It will take a combination of approaches such as the GLXP, NASA Mellenium Prizes, and competed contracts for things like the Innovative Lunar Data Demonstration, and ISS commercial crew and cargo to continue to advance toward a space-faring commercial culture.
This is a statement of your faith, not objective fact. There is no evidence that any of the NASA “commercial” initiatives have produced anything as yet. Not an ounce of commercial cargo has been delivered to ISS nor has a single commercial human spaceflight occurred. The only “commercial” lunar flight in history was the use of the Moon for gravity assist for the rescue of the HGS 1 comsat in 1998; that needed no NASA funds to accomplish.
6. As the IAA report makes clear there is at present no commercial case for space solar power. There is still no “commercial case” for human space stations either.
Nor for lunar surface return either, you might add. That’s why I think it will likely be done (if at all) by nations or groups of nations that decide on the basis of self-interest that lunar return is important to economic, scientific and security concerns. I believe that such a case can be made (I attempt make it HERE) but prizes and the current so-called “commercial” players have minor roles to play. Most of them are long on rhetoric, promises and slick videos but short on actual spaceflight accomplishment.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — February 12, 2012 @ 4:20 pm
Amazing article! I originally located your website a week or so in the past, and I just want to subscribe in your RSS feed.
Comment by Vissarion — March 14, 2012 @ 12:15 am