NASA's Plan B to Build a Moon Base
To the moon? It’s not that loony, MSNBC
“GOP hopeful Mitt Romney says that he’d fire anyone who suggested spending hundreds of billions of dollars to build a moon colony — but what about tens of billions of dollars? A former NASA adviser says he and others at the space agency drew up an approach that could put astronauts on the moon for $40 billion, as a “Plan B” for future exploration. “We figured out at NASA how to do it in about 10 years for $40 billion,” said Charles Miller, who recently left his position as NASA Headquarters’ senior adviser for commercial space and is now president of NextGen Space. “The question is, would Mitt Romney fire me for a proposal to return to the moon for $40 billion?”
I hope if Rommney is elected he will help us continue our manned space flight program. They should have kept 1 Shuttle flying.
Now is the time to influence Romney through his advisers on the importance of reforming NASA so that America can really explore and expand in to the solar system, while nurturing private spaceflight. He’s not a lost cause, unless he’s only listening to Griffin, Shelby and the interests back in Utah. Marburger, Muncy, et al need some ear-time with the candidate.
Personally, I suspect that Mr. Romney hasn’t an opinion one way or another about Moon outposts. It’s something that a rival suggested so he must damn it as a Bad Thing or even a Stupid Thing, irrespective of its actual merits (or lack thereof).
Don’t ya love politics?
Issues for any exploration program:
Landers – they come first
Habs – getting crew to where they can use the lander and return safely
Propulsion – rate such that travel time reduces risk
LV architecture – cost/structure to loft Landers, Habs, Propulsion
Issues for bases:
Logistical support – consumables including the propulsion for logistics
Emergency return to Earth
Solve these issues economically and you shouldn’t be “fired”.
Now, beyond this is the reason for going, good enough to generate a “return”.
If it were a business, it would be like deep water oil wells. This industry spends billions on finding the best places to drill with extensive surveys long before one penny goes forward. Even with this, they have too many “dry holes”. Which get you fired.
Here’s what I will agree with Mitt on – genuine compelling reason such that we don’t have a string of lunar/Mars/asteroidal “dry holes”.
Which is why you do EML1 station and unmanned/manned sorties to establish the best places with a proven rational that is “scaled” by human presence.
There are many that think that any kind of diversion away from the “build it and they will come and find riches” “manifest destiny” moon base is simply a delaying tactic.
There are some like that. My hunch because of the skulduggery of wasting billions on intentionally flawed programs meant to feed money to primes, just like those absurd weapons systems that have in the past dominated defense spending, actually working against national defense by hobbling efficient weapons systems deployment. A Romney sees these as ordinary capitalism, he’d just like to get deals that favor him, just like he’s used to at Bain Capital.
Its hard to have a middle ground to rationally go forward with an expensive proposition like any exploration base, when so much budgetary candy lights up the prime’s eyes like that. An Obama temporizes to allow “least damage” or diversion to occur, at the cost of going forward.
However, a Newt’s passion to see a such a grand vision means it is less likely to be diverted either by Obama’s caution or Romney’s self-dealing, but instead by the ego driven need for raw accomplishment. Damn the horses, full speed ahead.
Lost in all of this is the careful planning a NASA does. And I haven’t even mentioned the significant role of NASA’s own biases in being the sole provider of HSF in America it does not want to give up.
Plan B moon base sounds pretty good. Could this be done even cheaper if you went with a Spacex only plan C?
What are our economic reasons for going to the moon that could get a return other than tourism? or is that the main money maker?
I know this is not possible but I wish the american people could send their money directly to some one like Spacex that does the whole deal.
Elon, what can you do this Plan B for ? 15 billion not 40! ok go do it!
landers modified dragons
bigelow for habs
Spacex adds cores to its falcon heavy for heavy lift if needed
Seems if you could by pass the whole system you could get something started.
Like a home owner hiring the sub contrator to save a buck.
noofcsq
scared to ask questions now lol
SpaceX tests capsule engines
SpaceX says it has successfully test fired its SuperDraco engine, which will provide its Dragon spacecraft with maneuvering and escape …
Highly Cited: SpaceX Successfully Test Fires Its SuperDraco Rocket Engine
Could the super draco be the moon lander engine?
Musks said
“These engines will power a revolutionary launch escape system that will make Dragon the safest spacecraft in history and enable it to land propulsively on Earth or another planet with pinpoint accuracy.”
Read more: http://www.upi.com/Science_…
DTARS,
Could this be done even cheaper
Yes. But a better question is “what is the motivation” for cheaper?
Dennis Wingo, in his support for Newt, likes the prize aspect – make a prize for bringing off even cheaper. Thats better than a govt SLS project, whose motivation is to be bigger/more expensive, to be the most insane risk that only the greatest most insane nation would dare, thus locking out all others … regardless of what you actually do. Eg – none.
Or you have “old space” motivation, which is to handcraft works of art LV/SC, lovingly assembled and tested, each hyper optimized to achieve a goal, where expense isn’t the issue, but getting a govt as a sponsor for your artistic expression. Eg – none – it’s “cost plus”.
Or you can have “new space” motivation, which is to struggle to recreate the space LV/SC industry as a service from the ground up before losing it – maybe afterward they get it right and its cheaper? Eg – some but unproven.
These are your current options. Oh, and many university related projects that can do “cheaper” will be unfunded to fill the hole of Webb/SLS.
My point being that there is not enough motivation for what you want. But there can be, numerous ways.
Here’s a cheap one – fund a program to deliver logistics to the moon with any kind of LV, using the cheapest possible “crasher stage” – the issue is second stage lifetime, software to bring it to the lunar surface nozzle first, where at worst it topples over but doesn’t explode but safes. There – you just reduced the cost of logistical support something like 50x over current plans. But oops, primes that want to build fat landers – will hate the loss of billions of cost plus revenue.
What are our economic reasons for going to the moon that could get a return other than tourism
Ask Dennis Wingo – he’ll give you an earful.
But He-3? Nope – ask the NIF people about that – its unproven.
Right now the best known likely use of the moon is ISRU for propellants to cheaply go to Mars and beyond.
Which is why you do an EML1 station, to develop the known resource to cost offset larger exploration programs, and use it as a base to economically exploring the moon to answer your question with hard numbers, and to use reworked unmanned landers to experiment with extracting value from the moon. These should be underwritten by the same commercial entities that extract value from the earth – its the same game only on the moon or elsewhere – use tax policy to encourage it.
Oh, and for Space-X see Alan Boyle:
https://twitter.com/b0yle
Part of the delay for Dragon to ISS is a paint job!
Human/ robot Space flight
Why go to the moon?
Maybe I’m getting it!
WHATS THE GOAL ?
Is it expensive science NO!
Exploration ? NO!
Is it jobs for NASA and primes NO!
Is it Mars, moon or asteroids? NO!
IT IS TO MAKE MAN A MULTI PLANET SPECIES!
What does that mean settlement / getting man an economic way to get off this rock.
So why do I say I want it done as cheap as possible? Because pork and hand outs do not help to do the job that NASA should be doing for us.
What is NASAs job?
NASA job is to create an ECONOMIC RAILWAY to LEO moon, mars and the Asteroids and beyond.
What is the most important thing you need to have a railway system to anywhere?
CHEAP FUEL!!!!! CHEAP transportation!
SO if the job is to build an affordable rail system off this rock I want the least expensive transportation system possible?? And I want that system to become economically sustainable.
So is a EML1 the right thing to do soon to get that CHEAP fuel? I think so?
The other day I was exploring using rail launchers wings jets and rockets to get fuel into leo cheaper .
Years ago back in the 60s I saw a TV special on man getting into space. It said that the air force figured that to get into space they would just fly faster and higher X-15 and all that. Then Kennedy said on to the moon. And that all stopped and it was giant rockets and capsules. Old fashion SLS lol
Well I’m all for going to the moon to find fuel but don’t forget that there may be ways to get fuel and stuff to LEO cheaper than any vertical launch LV.
The job is to get that fuel and stuff up there cheaper and lay those tracks.
On to my Dragon drill Bigelow habitat OUTPOST oh I mean EML1
Watch that cost now! cheapest safe way wins lol
ON WITH THAT SUSTAINABLE CRITICAL PATH TO MARS LOL
Lead us Elon!!!!
Doesn’t take a rocket scientist
PS well really it does but I have fun pretending lol
“If it were a business, it would be like deep water oil wells.“
no one of consequence,
Good post. It relates to a more understandable situation that can be readily followed. But we must be careful not to push analogies too far. Even in the best of circumstances, analogies should always be treated as suspect.
Having said that, let me push your analogy a little further. One other thing that a space program has in common with the need to separate the dry wells from the genuine opportunities involves the motivation of the supporting cast of players. The knowledgeable people (geologists, et. al) who do the analysis sometimes are employees of the oil company and sometimes are independent contractors (analogous to the aerospace contractors who work on behalf of, but are not employed by, NASA). Those employed by NASA/the oil company generally have the same motivations and methods as their employers, whereas independent contractors are motivated solely by what is in their own self interest. And yet another similarity is that independent contractors, as a rule, don’t go around investigating the planet and then try to sell their “finds” (promising bets) to the best buyer (NASA & DOD/the oil company). Rather they are employed, under contract, to investigate a buyer-specified location with the buyer paying the bills. Independent contractors themselves don’t generally have the kind of money it takes to do a survey.
Unfortunately, I think the big hole in the analogy is in the first line where you say, “If it were a business,” because the most significant differences (and the root source of many of NASA’s major problems) derive from the fact that NASA is not run like a business. If it were, then either they’d quickly be out of business or things would be running a whole lot smoother. Of course, the same could be said for the federal government. If its guiding principles and “employee” practices were enforced to be like those of, say, GM, or Sony, or one of the major food chains, things would be very, very different and more closely connected to the real world.
Steve
Hi Steve,
You’re reading the wrong meaning in the “if it were a business” – not meant as a conditional.
When you work around policy makers providing insight, you never presume / conclude a position – you leave it for them to do as part of them “telling the story”. The same approach allows you to take the active role in choosing the narrative.
The principle reason for assay by the “contractors” you mention that do it is to avoid the blame of “dry holes”. In the energy biz, they are generally very sober, negative people who try to claim everything as possibly dry.
Its important to understand that NASA has no role past developing space to the point that industry can become interested – any interest. The moment serious interest occurs – NASA has won its case, its succeeded at its mission – doesn’t have to yield a single thing more.
As for industry, they often do “market development” and expense it as a “marketing expense” for the PR exposure – easily a few hundred million a pop. More than enough to do speculative moon resource evaluation using a refuelable, reusable, refittable lander off of a EML1 station, whereby the economics of a few dozen sorties increases the likelyhood of a valuable, exploitable find – the necessary “second stage” effort. You see, the reason it doesn’t happen is the lack of a reasonable believe that there is a follow-on.
The next requirement is two-or-three rivals actively considering same. They each worry the other will bite, succeed, and leave them in the dust. These considerations are far, far, more important than immediate return you cite.
By the way, the “manifest destiny” types are all about national security, which is an even more peculiar story to detail. All “non predatory finance” stories work best at this stage with an EML1 station. Because of the greater “chances at bat” because of the mobility of resources without the costing/risk of multiple launches.
But if all you want is to consume billions by faking a moon program, you don’t want anything to do with EML1 station.
“But if all you want is to consume billions by faking a moon program, you don’t want anything to do with EML1 station. “
I’m wondering why there aren’t more posts here are they all working on Orion or SLS?
posting in another place comment can’t be empty lol
It may well be that Plan B should have been Plan A all along. Many of us have been suggesting similar plans using EELV-class launchers for more than a decade.
We also found out in 2011 that NASA consistently overestimates the costs of its programs by large amounts, and then pays more than it probably should, sometimes by a great deal. So the $40 Billion figure might be reduced with appropriate management and/or Space Act Agreements. Plan B is a straightforward approach toward an affordable lunar program that, in the end, might cost less than SLS (!) and (as a side benefit) build the beginnings of an orbital infrastructure that could be used for later missions. Nor would it require massive and costly infrastructure investments Earth-side, a la SLS.If it were up to me, I’d do it.
🙂
Not many posts ? Y’all out on Friday spending SLS money?
Do NASA people REALLY want to settle space?
Doesn’t take a rocket scientistt