Support for Newt May Be Fading But Not for Using the Moon
Guest Commentary: Moon base is not a loony, Denver Post
“The moon continues to surprise and enthrall us with possibilities for scientific breakthroughs, resource utilization, and human exploration. We only scratched the surface of the moon’s potential during the Apollo program, covering an area smaller than Coors Field during Apollo 11. It’s time to go back to the moon — and, this time, to stay.”
Ex-NASA exec: Gingrich moon colony lost in the laughter, CNN
“Lost in the laughter over the past two weeks has been GOP presidential candidate and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s core point about America’s future in space. We shouldn’t just explore space, we should develop and even settle it, using the same enterprise-friendly approaches that helped open the West and the skies.”
Re comparisons to the first transcontinental railroad, there was an easier route not taken, the southern route, that did not require going through the Rocky Mountains. But the promoters of this route in the late 1850’s were southerners, like my own ancestor, and this first option was lost in the commencement of hostilities. Some now argue that the quicker pathway to Mars is through the asteroids, the easier “southern route”, rather than via the deep gravity well of the Moon. But like in the 1850’s, government funding for either option is lacking. Back then, the funding problem was solved by land grants to the railroad company, now by international land grants for asteroids or patches of lunar regolith? What otherwise would be the incentives for private investment, whether by the southern (asteroidal) or northern (lunar) routes?
Land grants 🙂 good idea! Do we war with countries first for the rights to grant land? 🙁
If newts idea is to use x prizes in a smart way to get commercial to go to the moon in a smart cheap way, with a little help from NASA and we can make sure the prizes don’t get gamed by THEM, I’m all for it.
Joe Q Public
Some very good commentary here.
To make progress, we really do need a destination to aim for. A commitment to the moon would give us one. Mars, asteroids, even lagrange points– but right now the space advocacy community seems to be unable to coalesce on any one destination. Turns out “we want to go everywhere” doesn’t do it; it ends up turning into “we’re planning to go nowhere”.
Let’s pick a direction, and stick to it.
Geoff,
I agree completely, not necessarily because it’s the most effective approach long term, but because it seems to be the only way to engage the minds of the less technically conversant.
I suspect that the inability to agree on a destination in large part still hinges on the “why do we go to space?” question that we still can’t agree on after decades of debate.
And, of course, too many people have a destination which is their favorite for no reason that they can put a finger on. It’s like asking them, What’s your favorite color? and then Why? They don’t know; it just is. Makes them kind of hard to deal with.
I would say that Charles Miller’s article was right on the money right up until the last paragraph. I think he was over optimistic and should perhaps have expressed his conclusion more as a realistic possibility than a near certainty. Analogies can easily be carried too far.
Steve
“And, of course, too many people have a destination which is their favorite for no reason that they can put a finger on. […] They don’t know; it just is. Makes them kind of hard to deal with.”
No, it’s worse than that. People rationalise their decisions. That makes them worse because they think they’re being logical.
It’s the same with advocates of BFRs like SLS/Ares. First they want their Saturn V, so they rationalise a reason why it’s absolutely necessary (you can’t do BEO without it, you need the payload diameter, etc), and then back-graft that reason onto the program as if that was their logic all along.
Geoff,
I disagree. The current discussion is more like “I want to go… (cacophony)”. It would be novel for leaders to say “We want to be able to go everywhere and stay wherever it pays to.”
Also, to some extent the differing priorities for different destinations are rooted in the rationales behind those destinations. We love to emulate the JFK paradigm of a single clear destination, but in fact he had a clear purpose: beat the Soviets on a reasonable time schedule.
Now we have multiple conflicting purposes, which tend to drive you to multiple differing destinations. That’s not a bad thing.
– Jim
Re the Charles Miller commentary on the transcontinental railroad, there were options back then not to take the high and difficult road through the Rockies, there was also an easier southern route that was of course more popular in what later become the Confederacy. Perhaps we might compare those options, politics aside, to the current debate on whether to get to Mars via the higher gravity option of the Moon and Newt’s 13,000-person territorial colony (is it too early to file for the gubernatorial election?) or via the “stagecoach waystation” low-gravity “couple of folks in a shack” route of the asteroids. In the end what matters is the ultimate destination, California in the days of Lincoln and now Mars by many accounts. Lincoin spoke of taking his family out west on the railroad, maybe he would made it out there via the faster cheaper better southern route if not for the war and his untimely end.
The narrow-minded new media quickly jumped on Newt for making such a proposal but at least he has a vision that we all share and not a “Let’s stay home” mentality most people share these days. Our complacency and lack of ingenuity will soon catch us off guard and lead to another race for leadership.
I’m sorry but going to the Moon will not be like making a transcontinental railroad in the 19th century.
Everyone knew that once the railroad was built cash would start rolling. Not on the Moon with current tech–we put an outpost on the Moon and it will become an expenditure not an income.There is no shortest route because even the least expensive way to get to Mars and the Moon will eventually be too expensive using any methods we currently know of given the budget deficit.Most of the massive exploration/colonization was done to look for and exploit resources not for scientific inspiration. Unfortunately, we, as a species are more greedy than exploratory. I wish it were not the case but thats the way it is. Thats why I don’t even bother to see how we could man rate an Atlas V etc. In the end any such project will be in the trash bin.
I liked NASA’s mentality of the 90’s with the “faster, better, cheaper, innovation” goal. Once that goal has been achieved then the whole solar system will be open to us for mining and tourism etc. Unfortunately, no one is working on lowering the cost of spaceflight aside from a few commercial companies and at a very slow pace.
A good question to Newt is: Will you direct NASA to lower the cost of spaceflight by innovation of new technologies so that it becomes available to everyone?
That is practically the only way we could have the colony he speaks of.
I’m sorry but going to the Moon will not be like making a transcontinental railroad in the 19th century.
Everyone knew that once the railroad was built cash would start rolling. Not on the Moon with current tech
I would dispute this assertion. This perhaps was true 25 years ago in the SEI era but not today. However, The last decade and especially the last few years has seen the beginnings of a new revolution in low cost robotics, 3D printing, and software to support all of the above. Adapting this to the vacuum of the Moon will interesting yet straightforward.
With 3D printing, plenty of metals, oxygen, and water, industrialization can proceed quickly. With industrialization, and with a delta V of 3.8 km/sec vs ~13 km/sec from Earth, large GEO comsat parks, with megawatts worth of solar power and antennas can become the norm. On orbit servicing becomes commonplace and inexpensive and pervasive and cislunar space becomes our new pond.
Quit thinking like the 1990’s.
NASA in 1970 had it right and it is up to our generation to restore it.
http://beyondapollo.blogspo…
Those were great plans they had, and I am not necessarily advocating the NASA of the 90’s.
The problem in the 1970s was that merely going to Mars was calculated to cost over 400 billion dollars–which is essentially why it didn’t happen.
Sending robots to mine the Moon may be less expensive than sending humans, but most if not all of what I was referring to above was concerning human spaceflight and colonization.
The price per pound to LEO has essentially been stuck at an approximate 5000-10,000 dollars per pound for over 40 years. As long as this value does not come down to below 100 dollars per pound, space will continue to be inaccessible to most people preventing a solid space tourism market or mining industry from being established.
The real problem is that society is unwilling to pay the price of spaceflight as it is with current tech and the price must come down.
If we can bring the price down with current tech that would be great, but unfortunately, it does look like we need some breakthroughs and the sooner NASA gets working on them the sooner we will have a colony on the Moon.
When faced with an intractable problem such as cheap lift we can either throw up our hands complaining about the injustice of the world or we can do a systems analysis to see if there are ways to solve the problem that do not involve dealing with the intractable one.
The opportunity was there in my last post. While it is extremely difficult to build an SSTO that has to climb through 50 miles of atmosphere, and a 9.3 km/sec gravity well, we solved the SSTO problem in 1969 from the Moon. No pesky atmosphere limiting the geometry of the vehicle and a 1.6 km/sec gravity well. Gordon Woodcock did an analysis on the Altair descent stage and figured out that it could lift 25 tons of payload from the surface of the Moon to Low Lunar Orbit and return the vehicle to the surface.
One thing that Craig Steidle had exactly right in his tenure at NASA was an emphasis on systems of systems engineering. What can we do to optimize the entire system, not just one small part of it.
It costs $10k per kg to LEO. Today to put that same kg on the Moon costs $100,000. Now if I can cut the cost of that payload by 50-75% without touching the price to orbit, I have made far more progress than continuing to worry about something that is far more intractable AND it can be done at a lower price than the SSTO investment.
Some body needs to work on them. I’m sure NASA could do a 30 month study to think about it!
Mr. Wingo maybe you should check with Spacex and see what they plan to do on the moon when they test their equipment out there in 3 years or so.
I do agree with you going to the moon for fuel.
My thoughts of cheap fuel to Leo from earth is just to help get us there sooner/cheaper
Help Elon decide where to land that first dragon drill.
Let’s have another meeting how much left in the budget. Who’s got the slides this week who is covering spin control, are the primes happy? Write some more safety rules for commercial.
You are right mr. Wingo NASA SHOULD get working on them sooner!
Don’t wait for NASA they will follow what you and elon decide to do.
I was just thinking back to when NASA met with Spacex about Red dragon was that Nasas idea or did Space say we are going to build our capsule to double as a mars lander. We need a mission NASA.
Mr. Whitfield
I been thinking about your comment in Another Exploration Roadmap to Consider. About us needing a coherent infrastructure plan. Your comment is wise and important. I think it explains what I mean when I call for us to build a railroad to the inner solar system. I strongly agree with your post and feel it should be considered a guide not a tirade. I have no idea if musk and his people have any detailed plan like you suggest, but from my very limited knowledge watching them design their architecture, that is the only time I have seen anybody appear to have a long sighted goal and then start to design vehicles/infrastructure to achieve that Goal. Given our political structure I do not feel that it will ever be possible to fund an infrastructure plan properly. A steady growing funded infrastructure is the reason china will pass us by unless commercial can some how boot strap a way.
The talk these days is Newts moon ideas. Do you think it’s possible to use x prizes so that commercial can build the infrastructure needed to get us off this rock anytime soon?
Personally I don’t really care what direction, moon mars asteroids or all three at once. As long as we have a mission plan that can build sustainable infrastructure.
I noted that you have been watching this revolving circus closely for thirty years. Well isn’t it obvious that it doesn’t work and never will?
Don’t we need to take Space transportation away from NASA?
If something doesn’t work find another way. Isn’t commercial/newbie/piglet/space the ONLY choice?
I’m not just a Spacex fan, I just don’t see another workable affordable way.
Anyway like the optimistic kid in the joke I’ll keep digging in this room and hopefully find Mr. Consequences pony. With this much s$&@ his pony has to be in here some place! lol
Doesn’t take a rocket scientistt
Ps Spacex got their super Draco going 🙂 just a little hope in the big infrastructure picture puzzle 🙂
I begged consequence to write down that plan. Lol He knows a good one. I bet you do too.