June 5, 2012
Everyone’s Gone To The Moon
A lunar base creates new capabilities (Pat Rawlings/SAIC)
Where does the Moon fit into plans for future human space exploration? From reading the space media, you might get the idea that the very notion is dead and buried, killed by President Obama’s casual dismissal of the idea in a speech over two years ago at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center, followed this year by Mitt Romney’s dismissive remarks on the Moon during the Republican primaries. Nevertheless, many in the international community (and in the United States) are keeping the lunar flame alive for a variety of reasons, not the least among them being that it is understood that politicians aren’t rocket scientists – nor should we expect them to be.
The Global Exploration Conference (GLEX) held last month in Washington DC was remarkable for the fact that most of our international space partners are proceeding with plans for lunar return as though its abandonment had never occurred. The Russians were particularly eager to express their desire to establish capability on the Moon at the meeting, while in recent months strong interest in permanent lunar return has been expressed by the Europeans, Canada, India, Japan and of course, China. Moreover, unlike many within our own national space agency, the world sees the Moon not simply as a box to be checked-off on the way to Mars but as the enabling asset for space exploration. As Vladimir Popovkin, head of the Russian Federal Space Agency Roscosmos put it, “It’s a new Moon,” pointing out that the recently confirmed discovery of water at the poles of the Moon enables sustainable, permanent habitation of that body and the creation of new capabilities for voyages to the planets.
Our international space partners believe that spaceflight beyond LEO should entail incremental steps that will gradually extend reach and capability. Once such a paradigm is adopted, expensive designer missions to plant a flag or do a “touch-and-go” at an asteroid are seen as having limited value and making no economic sense. On the other hand, the gradual expansion beyond LEO using nearby assets builds a permanent, lasting space faring capability. The Moon fits into such a scheme by virtue of both its proximity and usefulness. In the absence of some technical miracle, such as the discovery of new physics that fundamentally change the nature of spaceflight, we are wedded to rocket technology for the foreseeable future. The rocket equation dictates that it will remain difficult and expensive to reach space and operate there. Given such problems, some now recognize and conclude that the Moon offers provisioning capability and for this reason and many others, is a desirable destination and near-term goal.
Our pioneering (and current) model of space access requires launching everything from Earth’s surface, taking months to complete a mission, yet gathering minimal information (due to limited time in the vicinity of its designated target) and leaving no lasting or reusable infrastructure in space. This template guarantees that human spaceflights will be infrequent, expensive and subject to abrupt cancellation due to political whims. If one views the civil space program primarily as an annoying expenditure whose ambitions must be constrained by making a previously small portion of the program (such as “commercial” launch services) the raison d’être of the entire effort and deferring any real goals to an indefinite and nebulous future, our current path might seem completely reasonable. However, it appears that the international community believes that space is a real theater of human endeavor and their goal is to make it part of their domain and utility – until recently, also a goal of the American space program. Perhaps it still is.
Despite common perception, the Moon has not been officially abandoned as a goal for the United States space program. The current NASA Authorization Act of 2010 lays out the goals and approaches to be followed by the agency in executing its mission. The Findings by the Congress (section 301) outlines the rationale and goals of the space agency’s human exploration efforts. As I have written previously, in the seven points dealing with future agency activities, cislunar space is mentioned in four and the lunar surface is called out twice as destinations. Development of the ability to use the in situ resources of space to create infrastructure is specifically cited in Sec. 301a (4). The entire section 301 is worth a careful reading. It calls for a program that uses a gradual, incremental approach to the extension of human reach in space beyond LEO, specifically specifying both commercial and international participation. There is nothing in the current law that is at odds with the plans and desires of the international community as expressed at the recent GLEX meeting. The only place one reads about the Moon being abandoned as a national goal for America is in the press and such cases, it is always in the context of a single off-hand remark in one Presidential speech.
From the perspective of two years later, that off-hand remark sounds increasingly ill thought-out and hollow. Given its context in the speech, the statement seems to derive from the idea that lunar return must perforce be a repeat of the Apollo experience of 30 years ago. NASA itself has fed this idea, depicting the return to the Moon as the equivalent of a Gemini program within the Apollo-to-Mars fixation of many in the agency. In their 2006 preliminary plans for lunar return, NASA started out properly by describing the development of an outpost at one of the poles of the Moon and emphasizing human presence and development, but over the next few years architectural studies increasingly drifted away from an outpost and towards the sortie concept, in which we would stage (entirely from Earth) and execute one-off missions to sites of scientific interest all over the Moon for visits of limited duration. Such an exploration approach dissipates assets and thus increases costs and reduces surface capability and infrastructure. It was this exploratory approach to lunar return that the Augustine committee evaluated and declared to be “unaffordable,” not the concept of building a centralized outpost that could support ISRU and space development (an approach that the committee did not even consider).
President Obama signed the NASA Authorization bill of 2010 – a bill crafted when his party controlled Congress – and the findings presented in that bill are now law. So even though the agency and most of the media seem to be blissfully unaware of it, NASA has been charged by Congress to develop space systems capable of conducting missions to and throughout cislunar space, including to the lunar surface. Our international partners agree with this intended direction, convinced that the Moon is the appropriate next destination for humans in space.
NASA’s reluctance to go in this direction, even while other nations are making plans, forfeits the opportunity for our international leadership in space. Our space program has to demonstrate the feasibility of using lunar resources to secure us a place as participants and entrepreneurs in the vast economic future of space.
50 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
The web editors have closed comments for this blog.
“Our space program has to demonstrate the feasibility of using lunar resources to secure us a place as participants and entrepreneurs in the vast economic future of space.”
The “entrepreneur” who dominates the media reporting on space right now is space explorations biggest enemy IMO. The private space tourism agenda is a national embarrassment; the Europeans probably chortle and guffaw everytime they see a SpaceX puff piece.
Thanks for the article Dr. Spudis. Excellent.
Comment by GaryChurch — June 5, 2012 @ 4:11 pm
Even before the discovery of substantial amounts of water ice at the lunar poles, the high oxygen content of the lunar regolith alone was enough to make the Moon the next logical step in the expansion of the human economy and humans themselves into the solar system. Water ice and probably substantial quantities of frozen chemicals with carbon and even nitrogen content make it almost inexcusable not to prioritize the lunar poles as NASA’s next goal in both its manned and unmanned space program.
Establishing a permanent American and international presence at the lunar poles is as important, IMO, as Europe’s first colonies in the Americas, Jefferson’s acquisition of the Louisiana Territories in the early 1800s and as important as the acquisition of the western territories of Texas, California, etc. after the Mexican-American War.
Being able to manufacture water,oxygen, rocket fuel, and mass shielding from the lunar poles is going to substantially reduce the cost of manned and unmanned space travel within cis-lunar space and beyond– with huge long term economic impacts on the commercial satellite industry and the emerging space tourism industry.
Most importantly, this first step towards the expansion of humans to the Moon and into the rest of the solar system will substantially increase the long term survival of our species.
There’s no doubt in my mind that just one tiny lunar outpost designed to sustain itself mostly by using resources from the lunar poles will eventually lead to all of the above!
Absolutely excellent article Dr. Spudis!
Marcel F. Williams
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — June 5, 2012 @ 4:18 pm
Gary and Marcel,
Thanks. I have talked to several of the international space people and most of the ones I talk to see the value of lunar return for resource utilization.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 5, 2012 @ 4:25 pm
Paul:
I agree that the Moon needs to be a primary destination of our space program, and that the current WH misdirection of NASA is tragic.
I am not sure that I have much confidence in the Russians because at least once a year they announce a major new spacecraft or exploration program that never happens because they are always waiting for a magical fairy to come along and pay for it.
The ESA spends way less than NASA. Japan spends less than the ESA. And Russian spends less than Japan.
As far as the ESA, with the major Euro chrisis, they will be in no positoin to pay for a manned lunar program, or anything close to it. I also don’t consider Neil deGrasse Tyson’s call for a NASA spending increase to be practical.
China is the only player who is serious about putting people on the Moon. They have a space workforce of 200,000. It will be for purely political reasons: the pursuit of international prestiege, and as an attempt to ferment greater nationalism.
The one thing that I think that NASA needs to avoid is building an ISS on the Moon that will suck more than $3B per year out of it’s limited budget while accomplishing comparatively little. Just keeping humans alive on the Moon will be a very expensive, time-consuming challenge.
I think that we need to decide what are our exploration and development goals for the Moon (which will include manned settlements, long-term) and begin sending affordable teams of remote-controlled rovers that can get the job started while the US economy continues to face some serious challenges.
Comment by Nelson Bridwell — June 5, 2012 @ 7:15 pm
Great article Paul (even if I am now the third one to say it).
I have been curious as to what other nations would do if they began to perceive the US was backing off our intentions in lunar exploration. It looks as if they see it as a “power vacuum” to be filled.
I am still a little pessimistic about any American lunar plans in the foreseeable future. You are of course entirely correct about the NASA Authorization Act of 2010, but the current administration has simply ignored it. That may be ‘breaking the law’, but if it is they clearly have the power to do it and not face any consequences. So will any subsequent administration. With both Obama and Romney on record as being anti-moon, it does not look all that promising to me. Don’t misunderstand me; I would love to be proven wrong on that point.
To end on a happier note, I really liked this quote from Griffin:
“I’d like to back up a bit and remind everybody that commercial, quote unquote, is a procurement mechanism,” Griffin said, stressing that he was speaking only for himself. “We’re still talking about procuring goods and services, using public monies, on behalf of the taxpayer to accomplish strategic purposes that our nation’s policymakers have decided they want done. There is not yet a viable commercial marketplace . . . . Commercial is a procurement strategy. It is not a space policy.”
“Commercial is a procurement strategy. It is not a space policy.” Where have we heard that before?
Comment by Joe — June 5, 2012 @ 7:40 pm
I don’t see what has changed. Lots of people talking about going to the Moon – we’ve had that for decades. Until there is serious money being allocated by the respective space agencies, it’s just hand waving.
And let’s review who is doing the talking:
Russia – they keep promising to build a new rocket family (Angara) and a new spacecraft, but have failed to do either. No money.
Europe – with the future of the European Union in question over the debt of members, do you really think they will commit ten’s of $Billions? They can’t even decide how to replace a rocket that has paying customers.
China – they are 10-20 years behind everyone else, and though catching up, their financial house is starting to face lots of internal pressure.
The U.S. – neither Presidential candidate has indicated that they would like to embark on a Moon return effort, and the Republican’s in Congress want to cut spending not add new government programs. And of course the SLS is a $30B black hole stopping any Moon plans for at least the next decade.
So it’s great that lot of people think we should return to the Moon. But the reasons why we haven’t returned to the Moon still haven’t changed – it’s very expensive.
There are many that still don’t understand the implications of the recent SpaceX flight to the ISS. Future round-trip flights will cost NASA $133M to resupply the ISS, but the same vehicle could be used to resupply a space station at EML1/L2. That becomes an enabling technology. The same will likely be true for the Orbital Sciences Cygnus vehicle, which also demonstrates a modular architecture that could be used for not only supply runs, but the bus/service module could be used as a tug for delivering dumb payloads to EML1/L2. Now commercial companies can take over tasks that would cost NASA and others far more than it would cost to buy it from commercial providers. That is enabling.
Until nations commit to spending lots of real money, grand lunar plans are just talk.
I think instead that if we focus on lowering the cost of the immediate roadblocks we have to expanding out into space – Earth to LEO transportation and LEO to EML1/L2 transportation – one day we’ll realize that the Moon is just a little further, and that it’s within our small budget to build out the last transportation segment. Once that is done, everyone can test out their theories about “living off the land” or setting up refueling stations in the boonies, and if they don’t work out, then we have logistical supply lines already established for them to fall back on.
Comment by Coastal Ron — June 5, 2012 @ 7:53 pm
Gary wrote:
“The private space tourism agenda is a national embarrassment”
Considering that tourism is THEE number one economic activity for ALL of humanity across the entire planet your statement is the embarrassment.
Humans absolutely love to visit and explore new places and see new sights. Why this would stop on the ground and be limited to terra firma is beyond me.
Where is this “tourism agenda” document located, do you have a link? I would like to read it.
Comment by Vladislaw — June 6, 2012 @ 12:53 am
Great article Paul! You know, the Authorization Act of 2005 has not been superceded yet. Therefore it is still the law of the land that we we are to land on the Lunar surface by 2020!
Comment by Warren Platts — June 6, 2012 @ 11:35 am
Nelson,
I am not sure that I have much confidence in the Russians because at least once a year they announce a major new spacecraft or exploration program that never happens because they are always waiting for a magical fairy to come along and pay for it. The ESA spends way less than NASA. Japan spends less than the ESA. And Russian spends less than Japan. As far as the ESA, with the major Euro chrisis, they will be in no positoin to pay for a manned lunar program, or anything close to it.
A key part of my argument is that the amount of money spent is less important than the selection of a strategic goal that can be implemented in an incremental, yet cumulative manner. If we can agree that the goal is to build a lunar outpost to produce water for cislunar export, we can devise an architecture that approaches that goal in small steps, so that we can afford to go to the Moon under virtually any budgetary environment. When times are lean, we go slower; if more money becomes available, we make faster progress. But we go — regardless. That assumption is the basic one behind the Spudis-Lavoie (2011) architecture.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 6, 2012 @ 2:14 pm
Joe,
“Commercial is a procurement strategy. It is not a space policy.” Where have we heard that before?
Haven’t the foggiest. But it sounds right to me!
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 6, 2012 @ 2:15 pm
Comment by Joe — June 5, 2012 @ 7:40 pm
“Commercial is a procurement strategy. It is not a space policy.”
President Reagan would disagree.
On February 11, 1988 Reagan released NSDD 293, which is called “Presidential Directive on National Space Policy”.
Under the heading “Commercial Space Policy” it states:
“The directive states that the United States government shall not preclude or deter the continuing development of a separate, non-governmental Commercial Space Sector. Expanding private sector investment in space by the market-driven Commercial Sector generates economic benefits for the Nation and supports governmental Space Sectors with an increasing range of space goods and services. Governmental Space Sectors shall purchase commercially available space goods and services to the fullest extent feasible and shall not conduct [3] activities with potential commercial applications that preclude or deter Commercial Sector space activities except for national security or public safety reasons. Commercial Sector space activities shall be supervised or regulated only to the extent required by law, national security, international obligations, and public safety.”
So a commercial procurement strategy is in fact part of our national space policy. Since people tend to revere a certain space policy that mentions the Moon as a destination, I’m sure finding out about this part of our national space policy will change opinions about current commercial space efforts, especially since they can get us to the Moon faster and for less money.
Comment by Coastal Ron — June 6, 2012 @ 4:08 pm
Overall an excellent article. I remember being very interested to read about various Moon-related activities on the part of NASA even after Obama made his unfortunate comment; activities involving regolith challenges and Project M. It is obvious to me that whoever establishes a permanent lunar operation and providing water for fuel will be in a leading position in space. As an American, I would like to see that be us. As a human, I’d like for at least someone to be doing that.
Now, it strikes me that there is a potential conflict inherent here though. The development of operations to provide lunar ice for fuel seems to me to logically be a commercial function. I find an international entity providing a product of value to various countries, militaries, and companies to be an unnatural fit. I personally can imagine an approach to establishing telerobotic lunar ice mining operations that would fit within the space budget of the US alone. My concern is that an international effort will hamper the most cost-effective approach and will not yield as much than if the US did it alone. For a manned base, on the other hand, I could imagine that being an international project because there would be little if any income to be made. Except that I see the two (resources and settlement) as being logically together.
Comment by JohnHunt — June 6, 2012 @ 5:31 pm
“…especially since they can get us to the Moon faster and for less money.” Yeah, that’s the crux of it.
If the U.S. government won’t go to the Moon, U.S. private space will. With Astrobotic, SpaceX, Bigelow, and other companies doing work on the Moon before long, are we really going to have missed a beat as a nation in space?
I guess the question that comes up is: what -is- a nation in space?
An example is the old Oregon territory of the 1800′s; the American private presence (settlers) proved more influential that the bureaucracy-laden public presence (joint governance with Britain). The pure number of American settlers that ended up there, on their own basically, tipped Oregon in the U.S. favor (vs., say, British Columbia going to the British Empire).
So if the same thing happens in space–government presence is minimal, but the sphere is dominated by private American efforts—does that make America less of a leader in space?
I guess you have to get back to: what’s the point of America having a leadership role in space? What serves that point?
-Nick from MyMoon
Comment by Nick Azer — June 6, 2012 @ 5:34 pm
John,
I find an international entity providing a product of value to various countries, militaries, and companies to be an unnatural fit
Possibly. However, two points in response. First, we do have extensive experience in international space cooperation in the civil government (e.g., ISS), military (e.g., NATO) and commercial (e.g., COMSAT) areas. Second, the real “mission” of lunar return is not to industrialize the Moon — it is to determine if the Moon can be industrialized. A lunar outpost that develops the technologies and techniques to produce water from lunar materials can serve all functions you mention before those activities become the province of the commercial sector. There are enough unknowns in the end-to-end system design to warrant significant government R&D investment.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 6, 2012 @ 6:08 pm
Nick,
If the U.S. government won’t go to the Moon, U.S. private space will. With Astrobotic, SpaceX, Bigelow, and other companies doing work on the Moon before long
There’s no objective evidence that any of this predicted activity will result in a presence on the Moon of sufficient magnitude to start producing useful spaceflight capabilities. Each of the companies you mention are using virtually all of their individual capacities right now to fulfill one or two needs out of the dozens of coordinated activities and capabilities needed for sustainable lunar presence.
what’s the point of America having a leadership role in space? What serves that point?
Good question. My answer is that it is important for America to lead in space largely to ensure that our politico-economic paradigm becomes the governing organizing principle of future human society off the Earth. Not all societies share our values. If we are not present on the space frontier, there is no guarantee that our national values — democratic pluralism, respect for individual rights, property and the rule of law — will prevail in space.
What serves that point? A vigorous, forward looking civil space program that creates new possibilities and technologies by pushing the envelope of the unknown. In other words, the exact opposite of what we currently have.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 6, 2012 @ 6:19 pm
“The one thing that I think that NASA needs to avoid is building an ISS on the Moon that will suck more than $3B per year out of it’s limited budget while accomplishing comparatively little. Just keeping humans alive on the Moon will be a very expensive, time-consuming challenge.”
One of the reasons why the ISS is so expensive is that water, air, and food have to be transported to the ISS from the Earth’s huge gravity well. The reason for establishing a manned outpost at one of the lunar poles is ice is already there to produce water, air, and for growing food. And that should substantially reduce the recurring cost for a manned lunar facility.
Another reason for the high cost of the ISS is that humans can only stay their for a limited time and have to be replaced with new crews due to the inherently deleterious effects of a microgravity environment and the constant exposure to galactic radiation. On the Moon, however, an outpost can be appropriately shielded against galactic radiation with lunar regolith, water, or a mixture of the two. We also don’t know if low gravity environments like the Moon and Mars are deleterious to human health. If a 1/6 gravity is not deleterious to human health then lunar teams could stay at an outpost for several months or several years before having to be replaced.
Marcel F. Williams
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — June 6, 2012 @ 9:12 pm
“So it’s great that lot of people think we should return to the Moon. But the reasons why we haven’t returned to the Moon still haven’t changed – it’s very expensive.”
The $8.4 billion a year manned spaceflight budget that President Obama inherited from George Bush is plenty of money to return to the Moon and even enough to establish a lunar outpost. NASA simply needs to prioritize returning to the Moon!
Marcel F. Williams
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — June 6, 2012 @ 9:25 pm
> Second, the real “mission” of lunar return is not to industrialize the Moon — it is to determine if the Moon can be industrialized.
I think that I am on the impatient side of this discussion. I have noticed previously that you haven’t made the argument that the Spudis-Lavoie Plan would eventually pay for itself as 150 tons of lunar ice are delivered each year. Rather, you have been consistent in saying that the purpose is to gain that knowledge and skills needed to operate productively off Earth (or something to that extent). But to me that’s an awful lot of money to develop and demonstrate the ability. Isn’t the main challenge in answering the question of if it can be done the actual extraction of lunar water from polar Icy regolith in a very cold environment? I would think that the rest of it is just engineering, as they say, and so could be in the domain of commercial companies if even in a COTS-like program. In this way, the government proving the way could be kept to a more modest budget?
Comment by JohnHunt — June 6, 2012 @ 9:58 pm
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 6, 2012 @ 6:08 pm
“Second, the real “mission” of lunar return is not to industrialize the Moon — it is to determine if the Moon can be industrialized.”
By industrialized I take that to mean can resources be mined, refined and made ready for the use by customers? If determining that the Moon can be industrialized means characterizing the the composition of the material on the Moon, that’s well within NASA’s charter of exploration, since that is pure science.
I have a problem when people talk about government funded mining and refinement. That to me is the realm of the private sector, with the government providing some partial funding or pre-buying if it wants to be a customer of the refined material.
Beyond that though the merits of the market should determine the course of action for mining on the Moon or anywhere extraterrestrial, just as it applies here on Earth. Doing otherwise would be equivalent to the government propping up a Moon supplier over a less expensive Earth or asteroid-sourced supplier, and that is ripe for political shenanigans.
The four laws of supply and demand work well here on Earth, and they’ll work well in space too.
“There are enough unknowns in the end-to-end system design to warrant significant government R&D investment.”
The exploration of the Moon is a good idea to pursue using the low-cost telerobotic systems that you have outlined in the Spudis/Lavoie plan. That is the type of science that would yield not only lots of good understanding about the Moon, but it could pay dividends in citizen engagement and advance our technologies – what the Augustine Commission recommended for any future space programs.
However if the government is going to get into propping up the extraterrestrial mining industry, then likely it’s first opportunity to do that will be with Planetary Resources, who is currently bypassing the government in their efforts to do the equivalent exploration of asteroids.
If it’s a good enough idea for the Moon, then it must be a good enough idea for asteroids too – precious metals and water are the same across the galaxy, so it’s more a matter of how much it costs to extract them that matters.
Comment by Coastal Ron — June 6, 2012 @ 11:06 pm
“There’s no objective evidence that any of this predicted activity will result in a presence on the Moon of sufficient magnitude to start producing useful spaceflight capabilities.”
There is no guarantee than lunar water will do the same. I can just imagine a mars bound craft doing a flyby of the moon, just above an obsolete lunar fuel station with a bumper sticker that reads “Got Aragon”. Electric propulsion for the most part does not use hydrogen due to its low mass.
Hypergolic propellants are what most satellites have for thrusters and switching to lox/hydrogen does not present much of an improvement there. The mass you save in fuel may get taken up with the mass of insulation and the problem of long term storage of hydrogen has not been solved.
Hydrogen and Oxygen are cheaper to produce on Earth for the forseeable future and earth already has “useful spaceflight capabilities”. To be blunt it would be like setting up a factory in the dessert far away from roads, airports, and water just to get the sand for glass or microchip production. There are MUCH better places to locate this factory.
Comment by pathfinder_01 — June 6, 2012 @ 11:43 pm
“A key part of my argument is that the amount of money spent is less important than the selection of a strategic goal that can be implemented in an incremental, yet cumulative manner. If we can agree that the goal is to build a lunar outpost to produce water for cislunar export, we can devise an architecture that approaches that goal in small steps, so that we can afford to go to the Moon under virtually any budgetary environment. When times are lean, we go slower; if more money becomes available, we make faster progress. But we go — regardless. That assumption is the basic one behind the Spudis-Lavoie (2011) architecture.”
Why not a tourist site or a lunar geology station or astronomy station? There is a HUGE assumption that the export of lunar water is worth it. On earth there are places and materials that are not worth exploiting on mass scale. The moon could be another one of those places. Antarctica has more people than the moon, yet has few exports. In fact without technology(Cargo planes) it would be near impossible to have an long term base there(few ice free harbors).
I personally think water for on the scale needed for life support (say about 3 gallons per crew per day depending on the efficiency of the life support) could be the 1st viable use of the water and does not require risk or investment on the same scale as lunar propellant. This problem could be solved at the university level perhaps. Plus greatly aids future development of the moon. Lunar production of food would be next followed by creation of building materials. It will be a long time if ever that the moon can export anything.
Comment by pathfinder_01 — June 7, 2012 @ 12:05 am
John,
Isn’t the main challenge in answering the question of if it can be done the actual extraction of lunar water from polar Icy regolith in a very cold environment?
That is one of many challenges. It’s not only finding and extracting water, it’s producing and storing propellant, exporting it to cislunar and developing delivery systems to service the cislunar transportation system. It is a complete systems engineering task and one well beyond the scope of any single company or even consortium of companies. As development of this system has significant national security and economic ramifications, it is an appropriate task for our federal civil and military space programs to undertake.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 7, 2012 @ 11:18 am
path,
There is no guarantee than lunar water will do the same
The difference is that commercial space will be developed on its own anyway (or so claims the New Space crowd) so why should federal dollars subsidize their development costs? When they have operational systems, I have no problem with the government contracting their services.
Hydrogen and Oxygen are cheaper to produce on Earth for the forseeable future and earth already has “useful spaceflight capabilities”.
The problem is that those materials and capabilities are not where we want them — in space. It still costs over $5000 per kg to launch from Earth’s surface to LEO (at the cheapest). Despite the religious fervor of New Space advocates, I do not believe those costs will decline by much more than factors of 2 to 5, certainly not by an order of magnitude.
There is a HUGE assumption that the export of lunar water is worth it.
As is your HUGE assumption that launch costs will become significantly lower. But you’re still missing the point. Learning HOW to extract and use the materials and energy of space is a vital skill for any space faring civilization. Going to the Moon to learn how to extract water and make propellant is valuable to make spaceflight routine but just as importantly, it is valuable for us to learn how to productively live and work on another world. If we are always limited to what we can lift out of Earth’s gravity well, we will always be mass- and power-limited in space and therefore, permanently limited in capabilities.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 7, 2012 @ 11:22 am
For a truly sustainable presence in space, I view commercially viable ISRU operations as being necessary. I hope but am not certain that lunar ice operations would be competitive against lower cost launches from Earth or asteroidal sourcing.
None-the-less, I think that there is another compelling reason for governmental support of the development of lunar ice operations over asteroidal operations. That is because establishing a self-sustaining minimalist colony on the Moon should be, IMO, a legitimate goal for government funding as an insurance policy for the human race. Such a colony could start as a natural byproduct of human-tended telerobotic operations where the humans repair and construct new telerobots. But if this were in place then, why not go the next step and deliver water to L1 for fuel and shielding or to LEO? This is my perspective on the subject.
Comment by JohnHunt — June 7, 2012 @ 12:16 pm
Comment by JohnHunt — June 7, 2012 @ 12:16 pm
“I think that there is another compelling reason for governmental support of the development of lunar ice operations over asteroidal operations. That is because establishing a self-sustaining minimalist colony on the Moon should be, IMO, a legitimate goal for government funding as an insurance policy for the human race.”
Colonization and making the human race multi-planetary are not listed as official goals for NASA. We can all wish they were, as I also believe we need insurance in case something happens to Mother Earth.
But no one is funding colonization, nor “human race insurance”. However there is more than one way to accomplish the same goal. One would be direct government support. The other would be accomplished by the natural expansion of humans into space – not unlike the natural expansion of our ancestors across unexplored and unconquered oceans and lands. Unplanned. Unmanaged.
Direct government support would take acknowledgement of the problems and the solutions, plus a commitment of funding. I don’t know about you, but I don’t see that happening with our Congress in these hyper-partisan times, at least not without some outside influence. International cooperation, which is what this blog topic is about, could happen, but the funding picture is pretty bleak there too. Oh, and if China is involved, Republicans in Congress will likely say NO. Just thought I’d point that out.
While I agree that the private sector doesn’t have the same motivations for colonization or making us multi-planetary, the less expensive it becomes to do things off Earth, the more companies (and rich individuals) will test out business ideas off Earth. This year has seen a lot of money being committed to lowering the cost to travel to space and exploit space. If some of those gambles start paying off, then that could be our fastest way to expand off Earth.
While it’s fun to think that Congress will cough up $100B for a program to set up shop on the Moon, I think the days of easy money for NASA is gone for now. Gone at least until someone identifies a huge reason to spend that $100B on going to the Moon, and mining water is not the reason. In business you have to define your value proposition, and in the 40 years since Apollo no one has been able to come up with a good one for returning to the Moon.
I suggest putting your efforts behind starting a robotic exploration program – that has a better chance of being funded in our lifetime, and it’s the first step needed anyways, so start small and work your way up. Better than getting nothing.
Comment by Coastal Ron — June 7, 2012 @ 5:26 pm
[...] Outward Step…The Path To Which We Will Return”; Paul Spudis Asserts That World Sees Moon As “The Enabling Asset” To Build Permanent, Lasting Space Faring Capability; Ian Crawford Outlines Scientific Case For [...]
Pingback by Friday / 8 June 2012 | Lunar Enterprise Daily — June 7, 2012 @ 5:47 pm
Paul wrote:
“The difference is that commercial space will be developed on its own anyway (or so claims the New Space crowd) so why should federal dollars subsidize their development costs?”
So that it gets done faster and cheaper than if the government tries to do it the traditional NASA way. Which means Congressional pork and cost plus. As NASA showed it cost them a lot less to fund SpaceX using SAA’s than what it would have cost NASA with FAR’s.
If the bottom line is how can America end up with the most hardware, what does it matter?
Comment by Vladislaw — June 7, 2012 @ 11:26 pm
There are ways to drop prices. Fly back first stages like both Space X and the Air force are thinking might lower prices some. A SEP tug that could make multiple trips would greatly increase the amount of material that could be sent from earth to the moon at a given price.
ISRU would reduce the need for resupply in the first place.Even your estimate of $5,000 a pound is a little off. It is about 2,500 a pound if you used a Falcon 9. If FH works it will drop to $1,000 a pound. Even at the price of $5,000 a pound it is probably still cheaper to export form earth. Remember we have industry that creates LOX, LOH and rockets. You still need to ship your lunar spacecraft and all the parts you need to make it work to the moon at those high prices. Machines breakdown and I don’t see a lunar colony being able to build any spacecraft anytime soon…heck certain materials like rubber, plastic, and lubricants would have to come from earth.
I do think that extracting materials and living on another world is important. I don’t think the government should fund any R/D into propellant manufacture on the moon from lunar ice at this time. It is not clear that lox/loh is the best propellant (boil off). Not clear that exporting gives any advantage (remember you have huge set up costs and ongoing costs from needing stuff from earth).
I think the best use is probably just for life support and maybe the most productive thing a lunar base could be is a science outpost or a tourist attraction. These take far fewer people and likely cost far less to set up than attempting to both industrialize the moon and R/D all the problems of fuel production/storage/transportation at once.
Comment by pathfinder_01 — June 8, 2012 @ 2:00 am
“There is no guarantee than lunar water will do the same. I can just imagine a mars bound craft doing a flyby of the moon, just above an obsolete lunar fuel station with a bumper sticker that reads “Got Aragon”. Electric propulsion for the most part does not use hydrogen due to its low mass.”
Fantasies of colonizing Mars are on a distant horizon. On the other hand, increased capability in cislunar space is quite plausible.
Should we ever go to Mars via ion rockets, the first part of the journey would be a long slow spiral through the Van Allen Belts. A substantial fraction of the trip time would be spent just escaping Earth’s gravity well.
But if a cislunar transportation infrastructure were in place, it would be easy for chemical tugs to quickly take ion rockets near C3. A cislunar transportation infrastructure would make interplanetary ion rockets more plausible.
“Hydrogen and Oxygen are cheaper to produce on Earth for the forseeable future and earth already has “useful spaceflight capabilities”. To be blunt it would be like setting up a factory in the dessert far away from roads, airports, and water just to get the sand for glass or microchip production. There are MUCH better places to locate this factory.”
To be blunt, the naive use kilometers to measure the difficulty of space transport. A more informed metric is kilometers/second, also known as delta V. If you want propellant depots in GEO, an EML1 factory is a MUCH MUCH better location than earth’s surface.
Comment by Hop David — June 8, 2012 @ 11:28 am
“I think the best use is probably just for life support and maybe the most productive thing a lunar base could be is a science outpost or a tourist attraction. These take far fewer people and likely cost far less to set up than attempting to both industrialize the moon and R/D all the problems of fuel production/storage/transportation at once.”
Without ISRU propellant and orbital propellant depots, delta V to the moon is back is about 18 km/s. Given this sort of delta V budget, a sustained tourist resort isn’t plausible.
Comment by Hop David — June 8, 2012 @ 11:38 am
Vlad,
If the bottom line is how can America end up with the most hardware, what does it matter?
The object is not to “end up with the most hardware” — it is to explore and learn how to use space. To do that requires the development of new capabilities. I do not object to contracting for services from commercial space firms. I do object to declaring a cargo transport contract to be the principal object and justification for the American civil space program.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 8, 2012 @ 12:42 pm
path,
You still need to ship your lunar spacecraft and all the parts you need to make it work to the moon at those high prices. Machines breakdown and I don’t see a lunar colony being able to build any spacecraft anytime soon…heck certain materials like rubber, plastic, and lubricants would have to come from earth. I do think that extracting materials and living on another world is important. I don’t think the government should fund any R/D into propellant manufacture on the moon from lunar ice at this time. It is not clear that lox/loh is the best propellant (boil off). Not clear that exporting gives any advantage (remember you have huge set up costs and ongoing costs from needing stuff from earth).
Nobody is talking about or advocating lunar autarky. The idea is to set a strategic goal of developing a lunar propellant production facility as part of a permanent cislunar transportation system. That object teaches us the skills needed to become a space faring civilization. Saving money is not the driver — knowledge acquisition and technology development is.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 8, 2012 @ 12:55 pm
Ron, I am not advocating 100% government funding for colonization nor believe that $100 billion is needed. Nor do I believe that robotic and then human-tended lunar ice development must logically be separate from establishing a minimalist lunar colony.
I advocate commercial lunar cargo and then crew as commercial purchases by NASA for its own non-colonizing purposes of establishing a cis-lunar infrastructure to facilitate its BEO goals.
I don’t believe that it would require $100 billion for commercial companies to develop lunar cargo and then crew. If NASA spent $400 million to get SpaceX to push through max Q to deliver cargo to the ISS, how much would it cost for them (or Armadillo) to develop reusable, space-only upper stage, OTV, and/or lander? And then how much more to man rate them? Public-private partnerships are the way to go. Both NASA and the private sector would benefit from such relationships.
Although the development of commercial cis-lunar services is only a means, it specifically enables a policy of cis-lunar development.
Comment by JohnHunt — June 8, 2012 @ 3:49 pm
Comment by JohnHunt — June 8, 2012 @ 3:49 pm
“I advocate commercial lunar cargo and then crew as commercial purchases by NASA for its own non-colonizing purposes of establishing a cis-lunar infrastructure to facilitate its BEO goals.”
The procurement of commercial transportation was what Reagan’s National Space policy called for. Of course that’s not what Congress is funding right now, they are funding the SLS, which just goes to show much/little people put stock in National Space policies. The VSE suffers from the same lack of attention (where or not it merits it).
“If NASA spent $400 million to get SpaceX to push through max Q to deliver cargo to the ISS, how much would it cost for them (or Armadillo) to develop reusable, space-only upper stage, OTV, and/or lander? And then how much more to man rate them?”
Why wouldn’t they just build them to be usable for humans from the start? That’s what SpaceX did with their Falcon 9 rocket and their Dragon capsule (Dragon was designed for the crew-specific features to be added later). Kludging on new requirements is never a good idea. In any case, if commercial companies think they can use the same systems for crew, they will build it to be usable for crew from the beginning.
I don’t even think that NASA needs to create the requirements. At some point everyone is going to have figured out what their customers want, and they can build them on their own and have a reasonable expectation that NASA, ESA, JAXA or whoever will be satisfied with what they offer. That’s where we really want the space industry to get to – they become the experts in routine transportation systems. That’s when we’ll see the real start of our expansion out into space, not while we wait around for Congress to fund NASA to drill for water.
Comment by Coastal Ron — June 8, 2012 @ 9:48 pm
“To be blunt, the naive use kilometers to measure the difficulty of space transport. A more informed metric is kilometers/second, also known as delta V. If you want propellant depots in GEO, an EML1 factory is a MUCH MUCH better location than earth’s surface.”
This makes the assumption that all things are equal. They are not. A lunar factory needs to import it’s parts from earth. If the moon could build their own lunar spacecraft with very limited imports from earth then it might happen but as the moon lacks some key ingredients like oil products (plastics, lubes, materials like polyester and Kevlar), food products for workers(You still need someone to fix things and trust me lunar farming is not going to be on the same scale/variety as earth farming….plus even farming takes labor), and ability to make complex materials, you have got yourself a very handicapped location. Heck you can’t breathe without sending some oxygen and oxygen generating equipment first(and how often to do we need to import parts for the mr. ISRU unit?).
An earth based factory just uses fed ex. An earth based factory benefits from economies of scale regarding lox production (there are users other than HSF), LOH production (again other users), rocket production (Delta and other rockets have uses beyond propellant runs). Heck even within the production there are advantages. On earth Oil is used for LOH production, which generates both LOH and useful side products that can be sold. LOX production from air likewise. Earth based factories that need to import workers can use busses, not spacecraft and they usually don’t need to import or create the worker’s food, water, and air.
Sure it is more difficult to transport from earth in terms of delta V, but that isn’t the only consideration. Looking at delta V only would be like building a rail line based solely on distance. (i.e. the shortest route). When in reality there are more considerations than that (like can the ground support the train?, are hills/valleys/bodies of water in the way?, any other nearby lines I can link with or link with in the future? Cost of land? Population density both now and possibly in future?).
Comment by pathfinder_01 — June 8, 2012 @ 10:51 pm
NASA’s role in establishing an outpost at one of the lunar poles should– not– be to make a profit but to:
1.To excavate and quantify the amount of volatiles at the lunar poles
2. To utilize those resources for the production of water, food, air, and rocket fuel in order to avoid importing those vital resources from Earth
3. To determine if the Moon’s 1/6 gravity is either harmless or deleterious to the long term health of humans occupying the surface for a year or more.
4. To use lunar resources to test various levels of water, hydrogen, hydrocarbon, and mud for shielding habitats against galactic radiation.
5. To serve as a refuge in case private lunar efforts or facilities run into any trouble
6. To serve as a central hub for the robotic exploration of the Moon with robots returning regolith samples from various regions from all over the lunar surface for export back to Earth.
Its up to private companies and entrepreneurs, not NASA, to utilize what NASA has learned on the lunar surface to see if they can utilize the Moon for private commercial enterprises!
Marcel F. Williams
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — June 8, 2012 @ 11:15 pm
Forgive me for trying to “Hijack” this conversation back to the original point of the article to which we are supposedly responding, but does anyone have anything to say about the goals of the American Space Program (Moon vs. Mars, ISRU vs. Exploration only, etc.) rather than arguing and rearguing (and rearguing) procurement policies?
For reference this was the closing paragraph of the article:
“NASA’s reluctance to go in this direction, even while other nations are making plans, forfeits the opportunity for our international leadership in space. Our space program has to demonstrate the feasibility of using lunar resources to secure us a place as participants and entrepreneurs in the vast economic future of space.”
Comment by Joe — June 9, 2012 @ 10:09 am
Paul D. Spudis wrote:
“The object is not to “end up with the most hardware” — it is to explore and learn how to use space. To do that requires the development of new capabilities. I do not object to contracting for services from commercial space firms. I do object to declaring a cargo transport contract to be the principal object and justification for the American civil space program.”
First, I did forget to mention that I did, as with most of your articles, enjoy the read.
Now to business, I agree with you on your last sentence, American space policy should not be defined by one company’s actions.
But look at what you wrote:
“it is to explore” – the more exploration hardware you have, in space, the more space exploration you can do.
“learn how to use space” – which, requires all kinds of new and expensive hardware.
“requires the development of new capabilities” – new capbilities of, again, hardware.
For me it is all about hardware and infrastructure versus vaporware, or powerpoint presentations.
We need, as you say, a lot of infrastructure in space and the cheaper it costs the taxpayer to get that hardware working in space the better.
I hope we are just not talking past each other, but the one thing that was illustrated by the 396 million given to SpaceX, if we can go around the porkonauts in congress and the elements beholden to them, we get a lot more hardware for the dollar.
That is all my points are about. Billions spent should, in my mind, SHOULD produce a hell of a lot of hardware, but with recent congressional/NASA projects, we spend billions and are left wanting for actual hardware and infrastructure.
If I saw real changes I would advocate for a permanent Lunar return, but for now, I believe we can at least get a working gas station and an in-space based vehicle and start doing road trips, in space, and avoid the high infrastructure costs of dropping into a gravity well. Not forever, but until we at least have a fierce competitive fuel supply market going on. Increased flight rates with at least have a marginal effect on launch prices.
Comment by Vladislaw — June 10, 2012 @ 1:13 pm
Comment by Joe — June 9, 2012 @ 10:09 am
“…but does anyone have anything to say about the goals of the American Space Program (Moon vs. Mars, ISRU vs. Exploration only, etc.) rather than arguing and rearguing (and rearguing) procurement policies?”
I’ll just stick with the Moon part of that – we don’t currently have an “American Moon Program”, and if we follow what happened with the ISS, the U.S. will be part of an international effort to return to the Moon. But would that be a “program” or something else?
The term “space program” seems to be a popular term, but I think sometimes it is confused with “space policy”. Apollo and Constellation were programs, but the use by NASA of commercial services where possible is a policy. Bear with me on this.
Should there be a Moon program or a Moon policy?
A Moon program implies that there is a plan, and to me, that it is government funded (or at least controlled). A Moon policy implies more of a framework, but though it may have been developed through the government, it may not be controlled or funded by a government.
The Global Exploration Conference (GLEX) seems to be more of a “program” type effort and not a “policy”, which to me means that it will have to wait for a bunch of governments to agree on a goal and agree on funding. That could take a while.
However with a Moon “policy” anyone could be working towards the goals – governments and private entities together or separately. Some level of incentives would be involved, either directly or indirectly. Certainly it would be nice if it involved resolving the question of how people and companies can profit from the Moon (resource extraction, land rights, etc.).
So with a “Moon policy” companies and individuals wouldn’t have to wait for the government, yet they would know that the government officially sanctions what they are doing. We don’t have that right now, so efforts like the one announced by Planetary Resources still assume a degree of risk that what they are doing is not lawful under prior international agreements. They probably feel that they are OK, or that if they aren’t that the U.S. will force a change to allow it to be legal (thereby implicitly acknowledging a U.S. space policy).
So to me when we are talking about procurement policy we are also figuring out how we will return to the Moon – by a Moon “program” or a Moon “policy”. I think doing it by “policy” is better, and likely faster too.
Comment by Coastal Ron — June 10, 2012 @ 1:27 pm
Dr. Spudis,
In no way do I think human missions to asteroids is a wise use of treasure. Send probes.
I am not a “moon first” or a “Mars first” because I don’t think those terms communicate a dependency.
We have reaction mass available at the edge of the Earth’s gravity well (lunar polar propellant, EML2).
But we cannot now justify lunar polar installations because there is no demand other than the principled need to learn ISRU.
Mars being the more Earthlike is the more compelling case for being a final or permanent destination.
Its distance, however, means that initial missions will have to use single rockets from Earth, with perhaps the possibility of refueling or restaging in LEO or EML2.
At any rate, Mars might get a trickle of inputs by this method of launching all from Earth.
The future I want to see is where demand for access to Mars increases to the point where the cost of lunar polar infrastructure breaks even.
If that occurs, and someone can make money supplying EML2 with lunar polar propellant for serious mass flux to Mars, it’s the future I want to see.
The question for me then is: how much do I get behind Mars efforts in comparison with getting behind Lunar efforts?
Where do you agree, disagree, and what corrections would you make to this line up of dominoes?
Comment by Robert M thompson — June 10, 2012 @ 9:26 pm
“NASA’s reluctance to go in this direction, even while other nations are making plans, forfeits the opportunity for our international leadership in space.”
Which nations? China for the next ten years or so is focusing on LEO space stations. Russia lacks the funds to commit to sending people to the moon. The US is attempting to get its man spaceflight back and frankly should be laughed out the room for considering sending a man to the moon when we can’t send one to LEO without Russia at the moment.
”Our space program has to demonstrate the feasibility of using lunar resources to secure us a place as participants and entrepreneurs in the vast economic future of space.”
Feasibility and profitability or even if the action is economical are different things. If there is water on the moon then yes it is feasible to use it. Wither it turns out to be worth it and for what purposes are different things.
A good example is ice on earth. In Roman times they would use runners to gather ice from the top of mountains and carry it down to the emperor (the Ice was carefully insulated with furs). With roman technology it is feasible to get ice to a few very rich people for dinner. It isn’t feasible to use the ice for much else like say an Ice Box.
I don’t see that as being strictly NASA’s job. If you can get the costs down then MAYBE a university or group of rich people for instance could do experiments on lunar ice. Also once you can simulate the conditions on the moon on earth once you get enough data.
Comment by pathfinder_01 — June 11, 2012 @ 1:05 am
Robert,
But we cannot now justify lunar polar installations because there is no demand other than the principled need to learn ISRU.
I don’t agree. Learning how to extract and use off-planet resources is an essential skill to learn if we are to become a space faring species. If we have a civil space program at all, what should it be doing? One point of view advocates strictly scientific missions to various targets, all staged directly from Earth. I want instead to incrementally create more and more capability and reach, first throughout cislunar and then interplanetary space. Viewed through such a programmatic prism, we can justify lunar return and in fact, such already has widespread support throughout both the space community and the Congress. It’s only the current administration that does not see its value.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 11, 2012 @ 11:29 am
“…the most productive thing a lunar base could be is a science outpost or a tourist attraction. These take far fewer people and likely cost far less to set up than attempting to both industrialize the moon and R/D all the problems of fuel production/storage/transportation at once.”
At $20M per hop (SpaceX estimated) only a small handful of people will be able to afford LEO tourism. Lunar surface tourism will be beyond the reach of anyone. Space Adventures has been looking for years for a second taker on their lunar orbital junket…
As far as establishing a manufactuing infrastructure on the Moon, the firsg goal would be to reduce the launch mass needed to grow the remote-controller rover workforce, which would target the heavy components of solar power generation stations, an east-west power line to provide recharge power to rovers that are not in sunlight, metal casting production of large structural members of rovers, large, heavy electric drive motors…
The goal would be to be able to use a solar thermal process to refine key metals from regolith and produce cast metal parts and cables.
Lightweight computers and communications modules from Earth would be plugged into these to turn the parts into functional vehicles and infrastructure…
In a word: Bootstrapping !
Comment by Nelson Bridwell — June 11, 2012 @ 11:32 am
And a fringe benifit: All of a sudden NASA will have job openings for dozens, then hundreds, then thousands of rover operators. Finally, something genuinely productive that we can do with NASA’s large workforce.
Comment by Nelson Bridwell — June 11, 2012 @ 11:37 am
Comment by Nelson Bridwell — June 11, 2012 @ 11:32 am
“At $20M per hop (SpaceX estimated) only a small handful of people will be able to afford LEO tourism.”
And that is their current cut at pricing for crewed missions, when they are only at the beginning of trying to develop a crewed version of the Dragon ($140 Million per launch).
http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/another-first-for-the-space-program-first-commercial-spacecraft-joins-international-space-station
They began by promising $5 Million “per hop” ($35 Million per launch). That is an increase in their own estimates by a factor of four. If they actually get closer to a crewed flight it is not unreasonable to expect further cost increases.
http://www.npr.org/2012/05/22/153308652/although-private-spacex-still-involved-with-nasa
All of this makes, to anyone really interested in space development, the leveraging of lunar resources more necessary.
Comment by Joe — June 11, 2012 @ 1:08 pm
“This makes the assumption that all things are equal. They are not.”
I made no such assumption. Of course earth propellant factories are easier to supply and maintain. This is a given.
But then you proceeded to ignore delta V and the difficulty of reaching earth orbit from earth’s surface.
Which is better?
Expensive lunar propellant production and cheap reusable cislunar transportation
or
Cheap terrestrial propellant production and expensive expendable cislunar transportation.
Given enough cislunar transportation, the second option looks better to me.
If it were cut and dried that the first option is clearly better, you would be entitled to write “To be blunt…”
But, to be blunt, you haven’t made your case.
Comment by Hop David — June 11, 2012 @ 3:45 pm
Paul Spudis wrote:
“Learning how to extract and use off-planet resources is an essential skill to learn if we are to become a space faring species. If we have a civil space program at all, what should it be doing? One point of view advocates strictly scientific missions to various targets, all staged directly from Earth.”
Great points.
I wonder if many people realize how much archeology is beholden to commercial mining operations? Hell even road building turns up things of interest.
Why do people assume that a mining operation on Luna will not prove to be a freakin’ HUGE boon to the lunar geologists? They will get to look at layered cuts through the regolith that could probably never be justified for funding at the governmental level.
I believe once mining operations start taking place on Luna it will also see a huge increase in the amount of science being done there also.
I believe government should act the pump primer, or the enabler for commercial operations, which in turn will provide a lot of science opportunities. A great pairing.
Comment by Vladislaw — June 12, 2012 @ 8:26 am
Joe wrote:
“They began by promising $5 Million “per hop” ($35 Million per launch). That is an increase in their own estimates by a factor of four. If they actually get closer to a crewed flight it is not unreasonable to expect further cost increases.”
The link you gave doesn’t show your “per hop” quote. The 35 million was not for a Falcon 9 and a crew rated Dragon capsule.
The 27 – 35 million quote is from 7 YEARS ago was for an unitergrated Falcon 9 rocket only not a crewed cost, which you imply with your per hop quote. Would you do a check on what the average inflation rate of costs are in the space industry that has been growing at 12% a year? Hasn’t ULA also said that costs have risen on average 15% a year?
Comment by Vladislaw — June 12, 2012 @ 8:40 am
Comment by Vladislaw — June 12, 2012 @ 8:40 am
The linked to article contains the following quotes”
“SIEGEL: Back in 2005, Elon Lusk told space.com that a flight of the Falcon 9 would be priced between 27 million and $35 million. The SpaceX website now cites a price of $54 million. Do you know, am I comparing space age apples and oranges or has the price of passage into orbit doubled since those early estimates a few years ago?
PASZTOR: Well, I think space engineers like to say that a two or three-year delay in a space project is almost being on time. And based on the history of space projects, mostly government space projects, doubling in price for a specific project is almost coming in on target.”
Musk has used the $5 Million figure (assuming 7 passengers for a $35 Million flight) in interviews on television. It is obvious that PASZTOR (like yourself) is a Musk supporter and yet acknowledges the “two or three-year delay” and the (at that time) “doubling in price”. Since then the price has more than doubled again to $140 Million.
Spin that anyway you like it is still a fact.
Comment by Joe — June 12, 2012 @ 10:45 am
Joe… that still does not explain the “per hop” not appearing in the link you provided.
Can you provide a link from Musk saying that on television lately? What he said almost 10 years ago is not taking into account inflation. You seem to think that because Henry Ford quoted 500 bucks… cars should still be priced at that price point.
You can easily find data showing how much costs have risen in the space sector, to think those prices Musk said almost ten years ago should still be valid is silly.
Musk also said that if they can nail down reusablity it can bring prices down.
Burt Rutan, working with TGV i believe it was, during the CEV bids, said their system would do 5 million a seat. But I doubt he would still use that same number almost a decade later and printing presses printing money non stop for a decade.
Comment by Vladislaw — June 13, 2012 @ 8:03 am