This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Apollo

Doing Something Again For The First Time

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
November 29, 2018
Filed under ,
Doing Something Again For The First Time

Keith’s note: I first published this exactly one year ago. Listening to all of the talk about going (back) to the Moon – and asking for a show of hands in the audience at NASA HQ for those who saw it live – I thought I’d give Jim Bridenstine something to think about.
Keith’s original 28 November 2017 note: There is a lot of talk these days about yet another pivot in America’s civilian space policy. This time it is “back” to the Moon. Mars is not off the agenda – but it is not moving forward either. Personally I think we have unfinished business on the Moon and that creating a vibrant cis-lunar space infrastructure is the best way to enable humans to go to many places in the solar system – including Mars. Regardless of your stance on this issue, a common refrain about going back to the Moon – starting with President Obama is that “We’ve been there before”.
Humans first reached the South Pole by an overland route in 1911/1912. While we visited the pole by plane in the intervening years, no one traversed Antarctica’s surface again until 1958. 46 years between Antarctic polar traverses. Why did we go back to do something – again – in a similar way – to a place “we’ve been [to] before” after 46 years? Because there was still something of interest there – something we’d only had a fleeting exposure to – and we had developed new ways to traverse polar environments. James Cameron revisited the Challenger Deep in 2012 – after a human absence of 52 years. Why? See above. It is understandable that explorers seek to explore new places and not redo what has been done before. There is only so much funding and there are still so many places yet to be explored. But it is also not uncommon for explorers to revisit old, previously visited locations with new tools – and new mindsets.
Look at the stunning imagery Juno is sending back of Jupiter. Compare that to what we got from Galileo – and Voyager – and Pioneer. Why send yet another mission to the same destination unless, well, you have better tools – tools that enable the pursuit of ever greater exploration goals.
I was 15 when humans first walked on the Moon. The generations who have followed mine have never seen humans land and walk on the Moon. Indeed a lot of them seem to think it never happened. But American space policy is made by Baby Boomers (and older) population cohorts so we just operate on our own biases i.e. been there, done that.
Take a look at the chart below. More than half of the Americans alive today never saw humans walk on the Moon – as it happened – including the person slated to become the next administrator of NASA and the entire 2013 and 2017 astronaut classes. If/when we go back to the Moon in the next 5-10 years this number will increase. For them these future Moon landings will be THEIR FIRST MOON LANDINGS. That’s several hundred million Americans waiting to see what I saw in 1969.
Just sayin’

https://media2.spaceref.com/news/2017/united-states-population-py.jpg

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

57 responses to “Doing Something Again For The First Time”

  1. Brian_M2525 says:
    0
    0

    It comes back, once àgain, to just what is NASA’s role supposed to be? In the 1960s there was a goal and NASA invented the systems that were required to make it happen. After Apollo, particularly with Shuttle, too many wrong-headed in NASA seemed to think NASA’s job was to fly missions and they could simply purchase anything needed from industry. This leads to a mistaken idea hat only a handful of NASA civil servants can fly in space. If NASA no longer knows what it takes to build space hardware, ‘space becomes “difficult”, so difficult the civil servañts let the contractors gouge the taxpayer on prices.

    Its time to turn these ideas around. NASA needs to get back into the proper government roles, like developing new enabling technologies, or even education; these are things industry usually won’t invest in because there often isn’t a profit. When it comes to reasonàbly mature technologies, let industry compete to improve it and make it available at minimal expense and open space to everyone who can afford the fare. There might sometimes be a test pilot role, but the dàys of restricting access or operations to only those with a NASA badge ought to be over and NASA needs to refocus on new technology development.

    NASA needs to get out of the mode of whining ” space is hard” as an excuse for why they cannot get anything done on a reasonable schedule no at a reasonable cost.

    • Mark says:
      0
      0

      Actually the technology development ended with Constellation, not the Shuttle. Before Constellation their was the Space Launch Initiative, which was paying for several engines and other tech to be developed. Before that there was the X-33, X-34, etc. Before that things like the HL-20. Before that, things like the Orbital Transfer Vehicle and Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle.

      So no, it wasn’t the Shuttle, but the whole idea of “going back to the Moon” that killed tech development. Well, the idea of going back and having to use a big, Saturn V type rocket to do it. Constellation and SLS have effectively ended innovation at NASA, at least as space launch/flight is concerned. They’ve sucked all the oxygen (well, funding) out of the room.

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        It wasn’t the idea of going back to the Moon that killed it. It was Administrator Griffin who steered NASA into a dead end with Project Constellation. The OSP and EELV’s, supported by the Shuttle C, could have done it faster, cheaper ad better.

        • Mark says:
          0
          0

          Yet those were cancelled because “we need to get beyond LEO”.

          Again, Constellation and SLS have never, EVER been about going back to the Moon, going to Mars or “getting out of LEO”. It’s always and only been about “Apollo shouldn’t have been cancelled” and trying to right a perceived wrong. That’s why the biggest part of Constellation wasn’t about what they were gonna build, but the fact they needed to get the Shuttle and ISS “out of the way” to do it. Same with SLS. We hear less about what SLS can do and more on how we need to pull out of ISS to do it. Because ISS is a physical representation of the Post-Apollo reality versus their “what if Apollo wasn’t cancelled” fantasies.

          It’s hard to argue against SLS because its supporters live in a fantasy world.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            You are wrong. If you do some research you will see that Project Constellation came out of a Planetary Society study that Dr. Griffin did a year BEFORE he was NASA Administrator. And it focused on using Shuttle assets to get to Mars.

            http://www.planetary.org/pr

            Planetary Society Calls for 2-Step Crew Exploration Vehicle Development
            07/22/2004

            “The Planetary Society today released a study that calls for the planned Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) to be built in two steps – the first allowing completion of the International Space Station (ISS) core assembly and retirement of the shuttle, the second permitting human space transportation beyond Earth orbit.

            The report, “Extending Human Presence into the Solar System,” outlines a strategy for the proposed U.S. Space Exploration policy and was drafted by an independent study group chaired by former astronaut Owen Garriott and aerospace veteran Mike Griffin and convened by The Planetary Society.

            The CEV would be launched on a new human-rated vehicle based on the existing shuttle solid rocket motor (SRM), augmented with a new liquid oxygen (LOX)-hydrogen upper stage. Such a system could be available by 2010, allowing the shuttle orbiter to be retired as planned.”

            “The group considered the entire architecture for a Moon-Mars program and estimated its cost, stating, “A Mars Exploration Program starting in 2014, launching a first mission in 2024 and a mission every 26 months thereafter through 2044, is estimated to have a total cost of no more than $129 billion over that period, or about $4.3 billion per year.””

            When he became Administrator he killed off all the other studies that were going and jammed his architecture forward, creating the mess we have today.

            And BTW if you want to see where the idea for the “Gateway” originated, it has their finger prints on it as well.

            “The Planetary Society commissioned the study as part of its support for the proposed re-direction of the human spaceflight program to exploration beyond Earth orbit. The Society has also commissioned two other studies: one on how Russia would approach the Moon-Mars strategy, conducted by Russian aerospace organizations; and a second on a specific first step preparing for a Mars Outpost- an International Lunar Way-Station.”

          • gunsandrockets says:
            0
            0

            Some pre-Griffin studies of lunar mission architectures which proposed using Lagrange Point Rendezvous (LPR), looked very promising.

            What’s interesting to me is how the current Gateway Station proposal is opening up again those promising LPR lunar architectures. Since Gateway Station orbit is essentially just a variant of an L-2 orbit.

            And apparently Griffin is still sniping at LPR today with his attack on Gateway as a “stupid architecture”.

          • Mark says:
            0
            0

            Yes, there was a Planetary Society Study and yes, Michael Griffin was part of it. He was pushing “the Stick” which had first been presented to him in 1993 by ATK when he was working in the Exploration Office. He also pushed for a big Saturn V type rocket. When he became NASA Admin he threw out the previous EELV-based VSE study and ignored ESAS, which he put into place to study the issue.

            Whatever the Planetary Society wanted, what Griffin and those around him wanted was to end the Shuttle as quickly as possible, “compete” ISS so it could be quickly retired, then get back to the “good ole days” with a big ole Saturn V type rocket. He hated the shuttle and he hates modular space stations nearly as much. As seen from his reaction to the “Gateway”.

            I think the only reason he wanted “the Stick” was because it promised to be a quick, cheap solution that would rapidly replace the Shuttle. Then he turned it into a multi-billion dollar boondoggle. He then tried to push “Ares V” away from “shuttle-derived” to where it would be it’s own thing, with very little shuttle legacy.

            I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, what Constellation BECAME was more about ending STS and ISS than really getting to the Moon. It was a quixotic crusade to right a the “wrong” of trading Saturn/Apollo for STS.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            The decision to replace the Shuttle came before Dr. Griffin became administrator. It was made after it killed the crew of the Columbia and NASA finally admitted to itself there was no real fix for the problem of tile damage.

            What NASA realized is that they had been playing technology roulette with it since the first launch. About the only thing you could do is check for tile damage at the ISS and then send another shuttle to retrieve the crew if the first was was not able to re-enter safely. Of course this path eventually leads to have no shuttles to fly.

            The problem as I noted was the Mars Advocates, like the Planetary Society and Dr. Griffin, trying to salvage the Shuttle infrastructure and workforce with Project Constellation. If they hadn’t worried about keeping the SRB workforce employed, or the folks at the ET facility in Michoud employed, or the folks who worked on the SME working, they would have been better off.

            The Shuttle, like it or not, turned out to be a technological dead end. It was a very expensive demonstration that Dr. Sanger’s space plane was not the pathway to space. As SpaceX has shown there is a better way to access space cheaply, one that does not need space planes or space stations for refueling, the old pathway of Dr. von Braun.

            The problem is the Shuttle generation at NASA not wanting to walk away from their SRBs, ET, SMEs and ISS, starting fresh with a clean sheet like SpaceX and Blue Origin did.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            I think I’ll disagree with a couple of those comments.

            First, I’d say the X-37B makes spaceplanes look much better than the Shuttle did. Perhaps not as cost effective as Falcon-like launch vehicles, but with some advantages in operational flexibility. Unfortunately, that program is so far in the black that it’s hard to say for sure.

            Second, SpaceX is planning on on-orbit propellent transfer. Operationally, I think that will lead to a some sort of depot in low Earth orbit, and potentially a man-tended one (although perhaps not permanently manned.) There will be launch delays and there will be launch failures. So you need to buffer the Earth-to-orbit shipping by having on orbit storage facilities. You would not want to launch your SpaceX Spaceship, have it hang around for half a dozen BFR tanker flights to refuel in orbit, and have that turn out to take three, rather than one, month. And that leads, I think, to a facility in low Earth orbit. Perhaps not exactly what Von Braun envisioned. Perhaps not even vaguely what he envisioned. But it would still be a LEO transportation hub.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            The X-37B is bringing some credibility back to the idea of space planes, but the basic problem the Shuttle illustrated remains.

            If the space plane is large it needs to be side mounted to the booster to minimize asymmetrical aerodynamic pressures during launch. This creates the problem of ice breaking off the booster (or shuttle ET) and hitting the heat shield as occurred during Shuttle launches. This means you need to have a heat shield strong enough to take it or it ends up bad for the space plane.

            The other option is the one that has made the X-37B successful which is make it small enough you are able to place it within a faring and eliminate the asymmetrical aerodynamic pressures during launch.

            Early advocates of space planes never really considered the problem of asymmetrical aerodynamic pressures during launch or damage to the heat shield from debris from a booster. I often wondered what would have happened if the X-20 had made it into orbit. Likely it would have highlighted both problems and produced a better designed space shuttle.

            Of course, if you are able there is always the option of SSTO that eliminates both, but the material science technology is not there for building such a craft – yet.

            In terms of refueling the economic trade off will be the ability of SpaceX to launch tankers quickly and reliability versus the cost and expense of building and supporting a fuel depot in LEO.

            SpaceX believes its model of simply launch tankers will be better. If they had multiple launch pads available and are able to launch multiple tankers in a narrow window it may well be less expensive. Time will tell if it is a better solution.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Side mounting and asymmetric loads are separate issues. You could put a spaceplane on top of a rocket, like the X-37B and removing the debris issues, while not putting it in a payload faring. The asymmetric loads can be managed, although that might require either a new launch vehicle design, or a major redesign of an existing one. But I agree there is a size limit. On the other hand, crew rotations are personnel transport in general may be within those limits. Sierra Nevada, with their Dream Chaser, certainly seems to think so.

            In terms of SSTO spaceplanes, I always liked Mitch Clapp’s old idea for taking off with near-zero fuel in the tanks and a midair refueling before firing the rockets and going to orbit. The technical details looked good, but I think he was looking for private funding at a time when investors weren’t convinced of the market.

            For orbital tank farms versus multiple tanker launches in a sort interval, yes, it certainly does depend on the details. SpaceX is being optimistic, and they’ve done that in the past. As often as not, they end up having to change their plans. The tanker approach is going to need one tanker more than necessary, as a backup. Possibly more than one. An orbital tank farm eliminates that. So now were speculating about which would cost more. I suspect we’ll have to wait and see. Or wait, see, and start a company building the tank farm (attracting investors on the grounds that we now know how much it would save potential customers…)

          • Mark says:
            0
            0

            A lot of errors in what you wrote. First, the decision to replace the Shuttle happened several times between 1986 and 2004. Second, there were several ways to deal with foam shedding and the fragile TPS. Studies for the later started as early as 1979 when Columbia was having TPS issues (that would delay first launch by nearly two years). NASA also knew about the foam issue and actually developed a solution. It was never implemented, but a commercial version of the Aerojel blanket developed is in use as a low-cost, easily installed alternative insulator at LNG terminals, etc.

            Though in the long run we’ll have to agree to disagree.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            You are wrong on both counts. The decision to replace the Shuttle only took place once, under President Bush.

            Yes, there were a lot of studies about replacing the Shuttle, and some of them actually predate 1986. But there is a huge difference between studying a replacement and making an actual decision. When the decision was made a time table was created and the logistic chain that supported the Shuttle started to be shutdown.

            Yes, foam shedding as a problem dates to the first flight. And a lot of solutions were tried. But none ever worked satisfactory. I know some believed the aerogel would work, but NASA never seemed to buy into it as a solution.

    • mfwright says:
      0
      0

      If NASA were to be a technology development role it should be careful not to contract too much of it out. Opportunist writes on slashdot, “If a corporation develops and invents those things alone, you really think they would share that with anyone? They’ll take taxpayer money to fund their R&D without giving any of those developments back.”

      • Jeff2Space says:
        0
        0

        NASA should be primarily research with a tiny bit of development in order to mature technologies for use by US aerospace industry.

        Development of operational vehicles should be left to the US aerospace industry. NASA should be purchasing rides on launch vehicles, commercial cargo vehicles, and commercial crew vehicles. NASA should not own any of these themselves (i.e. SLS).

        I’d be o.k. if NASA purchases “deep space” vehicles but still, the intellectual property should remain with the US aerospace industry. For example, if NASA wants to buy a Bigelow Aerospace module, that’s fine. But, Bigelow Aerospace should be free to sell copies of that same module to other commercial ventures. Same goes for things like spacesuits, crewed lunar landers, crewed lunar rovers, and etc.

        If we’re ever going to grow “space” beyond the realm of the US Government, then the US Government needs to start getting out of the way of the US aerospace industry and needs to start helping the US aerospace industry.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          I think the concern is over NASA contracting out the research. What if NASA contracts out to have private companies provide some very desirable service (large lunar landers or on orbit fuel depots or whatever) and that involves developing some groundbreaking technology? If NASA’s paying for the service, the private company is free to patent that new technology.

          I don’t object to that, but, since no one else can use it, it doesn’t really advance the overall state of the art. Getting NASA out of operating launch vehicles is fine, as is getting NASA out of launch vehicle development. But I think it would be a good idea for them to stay deeply involved in fundamental research and development, to the extent that new and critical technology stays in the public domain.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            Here are a couple of examples of how things work in my world.

            In the early 70’s, Texas A&M and the University of Florida worked together to develop a lawn turf suitable for our very hot summers. The work product is a variety of St. Augustine turf that is extremely widely used in the tropics around the world called ‘Floratam’ (from the names of the two Universities). More recently, UF has been busy developing citrus varieties that resist ‘Citrus Greening’, a tragically widespread virus decimating Florida’s citrus crops.

            Here’s the important bit: the work product is made available to industry without charge.

            A few years ago the local Ag Agent planted several varieties of an ornamental peanut that had some promise as use to replace lawn grass. The fields were open to the public, as are the on-going results.

            There are hundreds of examples (many of which come to mind when certain right-leaning folks start bellowing about how the “government” can’t do anything right).

          • Jeff2Space says:
            0
            0

            I’m in agreement.

            When developing new ground breaking technologies, NASA should be in charge so that any technologies it helps mature are in the public domain for any US aerospace companies to use. But once that tech is matured (e.g. insulation, cooling, and standardized fueling hardware and software for fuel depots), NASA ought to be procuring services from multiple providers that utilize that technology.

            The thing I want to avoid is NASA becoming the sole operator of something like a fuel depot. Even worse is if NASA decides that they don’t have enough of a need to support multiple providers so they down select to only one to “save money”. Sole source operational contracts are precisely what I want to avoid. I’d argue such contracts hurt NASA in the long run because they become “locked in” to a single provider that gradually becomes more expensive and “NASA specific” over time.

        • mfwright says:
          0
          0

          “Government needs to start getting out of the way of the US aerospace industry”

          I don’t think the government is in the way of industry (unless this same industry wants govt money), these companies are free to build their own rocket. Of course SpaceX was saved by NASA contracts. Maybe an obstacle is the govt providing the “good stuff” such as certain details and knowledge of making a high performance rocket capable of putting a satellite into orbit, and also dual use such as lobbing a bomb 5,000 miles (govt doesn’t want everyone to know how to do that).

  2. Tom Mazowiesky says:
    0
    0

    I agree Keith, but I’ll make a further observation – we’ve explored an area of the moon equivalent to what – Central Park in NYC? You can’t even say you’d understand the city, much less the rest of Earth by what we’ve explored so far on the moon. I believe returning to the moon will be an important first step in opening the remainder of the solar system to human exploration. I understand some fear it will delay Mars exploration to a future time they may not see – I’m 61 – but for the long range exploration of space I think it’s critical.

    IMHO, one of the things wrong with LOR was that it was a dead end as far as usable technology was concerned for space exploration. From early science fiction, a theme of assembly in orbit to carry on missions was pretty common. The imperative to land a man on the moon by 1969 destroyed this more common sense approach of human exploration. In Heinleins’ classic alternate history series, the use of specialized hardware for earth to orbit, earth orbit to lunar orbit, then lunar orbit to landing was basically the cheapest way to land a kilo on the moon. And please note that all of this hardware was reusable, nothing was thrown away.

    So I think that pursuing a moon centric mission as the next step in human exploration of the solar system is correct and should be encouraged. It will provide information and experience in surviving on another world. Mars is a big step, it probably makes sense to take a smaller step first to help prepare.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      Jill Tartar likes to compare all of the SETI efforts to date to a teaspoon of water taken out of Earth’s oceans. It’s particularly vivid.

      We talk about “the moon or “Mars” as if they might be the house next door. As Douglas Addams points out, “Space is big. You just won’t believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it’s a long way down the road to the chemist’s, but that’s just peanuts to space.”

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        That’s actually the problem with the way NASA and other government agencies fund scientific work. The current practice is to fund projects which will answer a predefined question. But space, as you and Mr. Adams correctly noted, is really, really big. There is a whole lot out there which we don’t know about. So maybe it would be better to fund investigations which just go out and look, as opposed to investigations which simply answer a predefined question.

        • ThomasLMatula says:
          0
          0

          But I wonder if that would fit the short term budget cycles of Congress. What you are really describing is the “Patron” system that was so fundamental to the advancement of science before WW II. Indeed, it was the original purpose of universities with education being the secondary function as students who admired the work of the scholars there came to be their apprentices. I have long felt that there is a need for new institutions to replace universities in the mission of knowledge generation since the focus of nearly all universities is now providing job training and students have become customers instead of apprentice scholars. The Institute for Advance Studies in Princeton comes to mind as a model with the Southwest Institute and RAND Corporation perhaps being other examples.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      The Central Park comparison is interesting, but it could be taken further. The Apollo missions did land in six different places, but they were deliberately boring and atypical. That’s because the primary criteria for site selection was a safe landing, not exploration. But analogy, you could explore Central Park all you want, and never discover you’re on an island in a big river. You would see tall buildings around the edges of the Park, but I don’t think there’s any spot where you could see whether the buildings extend for blocks or for miles.

      At the same time, I think there is a contradiction between the “been there, done that” attitude, what NASA is planning and actual exploration. Saying we’ve visited six locations, and even saying they weren’t necessarily the most exciting ones, ignores the fact that real exploration _is_ boring. Most of the time, at least. It involves traveling around through lots of uninteresting places in order to discover the interesting ones. Discovering Yellowstone, and the Rocky mountains in general, could be called one of the high points of the Lewis and Clark expedition, but getting there from St. Louis involved crossing a whole lot of flat, not especially scenic land.

      But to counter the “been there, done that” attitude (or possibly because they share it) quite a few people within NASA think returning to the Moon must be dramatically bigger and better that Apollo. That’s not exploration. That’s a more intensive examination of a few sites. Instead of a permanent base with a dozen or so astronauts, what about dozens of few-person, few-day visits to dozens of different locations? Or long-distance traverses by a few people, to really cover ground and access sites that aren’t safe places to land? That might not be exciting or impressive, but is exciting and impressive the goal?

      • moon2mars says:
        0
        0

        Might want to do some research especially on the Apollo 15 and 17 sites.

        • kcowing says:
          0
          0

          yup. Lots of unfinished business on the Moon.

          • moon2mars says:
            0
            0

            Yes no doubt about it!

            “The Moon is the first milestone on the road to the stars.”
            — Arthur C. Clarke

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          But not the Apollo 16 landing site? Do you have something against the Descartes highlands? The site selection criteria was relaxed between Apollo 11 and Apollo 17, but landing safety was always the primary consideration. Describing the landing sites, especially the last few, as “boring” might be a bit harsh. But safety did bias the site selections in that direction.

          The J series rovers helped. But I think it’s safe to say we’ve only explored parts of the Moon within a few kilometers of a safe landing site (4.5 to 7.6 km if you want to be precise.)

          • Richard Malcolm says:
            0
            0

            Yeah, I think “boring” is harsh. Hadley Rille in particular carried significant risk, and had significant opposition from the engineers. NASA did not even have high resolution photography of the area. The result was the roughest (and most tilted) landing of the Apollo missions.

            “Boring” is a fair knock on the early mission sites – and it made sense given where they were at in that stage of the program.

            But agreed on the larger point: Lots of unfinished business on the Moon.

          • moon2mars says:
            0
            0

            Apollo 15 Commander Dave Scott lobbied very hard and successfully for the Palus Putredinus (Marsh of Decay) site, which to this day has been the most diverse and beautiful landing site of any surface mission anywhere; manned or unmanned. You had the Apennine Mts towering almost 4 km (13,000 ft) above the plains as well as Hadley Rille which was 360 m (1,200 ft) deep all in one small area (it was great compact geology).

            I have nothing against the Descartes Highlands site of Apollo 16 (which was primarily a rolling highland plateau) but wanted to point out that Apollo’s 15 and 17 (Taurus-Littrow Valley) landed amongst lofty mountain ranges with spectacular scenery.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            You are quite right, and I’ve admitted that calling the later Apollo sites “boring” was unfairly harsh. They were quite interesting. But I believe they were also far from the most interesting sites the Moon has. The later Apollo sites were the most interesting ones which allowed a safe landing. But the requirements for a safe landing ruled out other, more interesting sites.

        • ThomasLMatula says:
          0
          0

          They were a bit more insteresting, but not on the scale of landing in Tycho, near the poles or on the lunar farside.

  3. Mark says:
    0
    0

    There was a large “been there, done that” sentiment before Obama.

    The biggest issue IMO is that Boomers want to go back to the Moon, but only in the way we went there before. IE, a Big Ole Saturn V type rocket. Since VSE the fool’s errant of a Saturn/Apollo analog has cost NASA over $50 billion. And that’s not adjusted for inflation. We could have been back to the Moon with that kind of money, if Michael Griffin and his ilk hadn’t gone down the rabbit hole after their Relive-Apollo-Fantasies.

    • Jeff2Space says:
      0
      0

      “Boomers want to go back to the Moon, but only in the way we went there before. IE, a Big Ole Saturn V type rocket. ” – I know of these people. They call themselves Space Hipsters and go to space conventions like I go to comicons.

    • Sean Boyle says:
      0
      0

      I would almost say the “been there done that” sentiment is still pretty prevalent especially with the pop culture impact that recent robotic missions have had. I was born in 1991 and got interested in space watching the shuttle make human space flight “boring” and seemingly commonplace. Then Hubble effectively doubled our knowledge of the deep cosmos, the mars missions revealed a dynamic history of a “dead planet”, and the outer planet missions taught us how unique each world we encounter is. All while the shuttle killed yet another crew and languished until it’s coup de grâce. Society at large has seen how much robotic exploration can accomplish and, absent a viable human alternative provided by nasa, resigned itself to Earth.

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        I’ve said something like this before, but only comparing two generations. Now you have reminded me that there are more.

        There are very different views about NASA from people who grew up at different times. People who grew up in the 1960s, when NASA was doing great things, and sending astronauts to the Moon, tend to think NASA and the way NASA does things is the right way to do things.

        My generation (and I was 15 when Challenger was lost) grew up seeing NASA doing very little other than killing astronauts due to incompetence. Even robotic exploration of the solar system was at a standstill, with 1970s missions like Voyager and PVO being the only ones still operating. And Hubble was looking as bad as the James Web space telescope looks today. I guess that’s why people in their late forties and early fifties have a much more negative opinion of NASA and the way NASA does things.

        And now, you have made me realize there is another generation or two to consider. One where human spaceflight hasn’t really gone anywhere, one who also saw a disastrous loss of a Space Shuttle, and one who has seen great things done by NASA robotic missions.

        I wonder what people of your generation think about the way NASA does things. That really ought to be a big deal. I’ll probably be retired, and the people who grew up in the 1960s may well be dead, before we see astronauts walking on Mars. I don’t think we’re paying enough attention to what the people born in the 1990s and 2000s think. After all, the 2030s and 2040s are going to be the world they live in.

        • Mark says:
          0
          0

          For as “great” as Apollo was, it successfully launched 45 people and kill 3 others for just over $100 Billion. For just over $200 billion the Shuttle launch 803 successful individual space flights and kill 14.

          The reason we haven’t been beyond LEO has nothing to do with the Shuttle. Or ISS. It’s the fact all efforts were cancelled, using money as the excuse. Yet went the horrible, abject failure that was Project Constellation they managed to “find” money in the Budget for it. $25 billion was spent on Constellation, Orion and SLS WHILE the Shuttle was still flying and assembling ISS. And more that 60% came from within NASA, not in budget increases. That’s $2 billion a year. Over a stretch of say…seven fiscal years you could develop Orbital Transfer Vehicles, Propellant Depots, etc that would help people get from LEO to the Moon EVEN WITH THE SHUTTLE FLYING.

          So we get a bunch of excuses, two big massive failure programs and even without the Shuttle flying, NASA can’t seem to afford the actual hardware to do anything but a Lunar flyby. They can’t even find the money for the “Gateway” until ISS is no more. And SLS is the problem. Not the solution.

  4. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    As I read through the comments here a few things came to mind.

    On the “space is hard” meme: if it’s easier these days to scoff, at least a bit, when we hear this repeated, it’s because an awful lot of trailblazing has been done by our favorite Agency. Lots of companies nowadays are able to develop the necessary machines but as Mr. Musk points out they are all stand-in on someone’s shoulders.

    How many players, for instance, are designing rocket engines from white paper? Many. As in a lot. Which means, at least to me, that the tech has moved forward so far that the knowledge required to build a rocket is widely available, and in the minds of many hundreds of engineers. Maybe thousands.

    And I think that one of the quiet effects of Apollo was the institutionalization of the Big Ole Rocket approach to space in general, and Luna in particular. Indeed the whole Apollo program made many decisions based not so much on “best” but on “good enough in 5 years.”

    Worse: for 50 years another meme ruled space development, namely that the fuel penalty for return-to-base was just too heavy so why even bother. An outsider asked the Big Question with the results we see today. Deeply chilled fuel? Whodathunk?

  5. Matthew Black says:
    0
    0

    When it comes to manned Lunar spaceflight; it is like a slow turning wheel. The wheel of time is turning and will soon(ish) bring us back to a special point in our lives… Back when those of us old enough to remember, can virtually time-travel back to our youth and hopefully feel again the same way we did in 1969. Those of you young enough to never have witnessed it first hand in your lives; I almost envy you!

    An entire world, three days rocket ride away, waits for human bootprints
    again. And the exploration of the 99.9% percent never trod can happen at last! I hope…

  6. ed2291 says:
    0
    0

    Going to the moon occasionally is fine. A BFR could go there and back without refueling and a Bigelow could make an inflatable habitat for occasional use by visiting astronauts. However permanent settlement with mining, etc. sounds like the wishful wondering thinking that has kept man out of anything higher than low earth orbit since 1973. We need to focus on a definite goal that is not decades out. Look at the ISS.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      If you want to focus on a definite, near-term goal, you probably don’t want to wait for BFR. The “#dearMoon” lunar flyby is listed as flying no earlier 2023. The presidential interest horizon is January 20, 2024. So what about something even sooner?

      Apollo was shut down because, at an inflation-adjusted cost of half a billion per mission, it wasn’t sustainable. Since we’re spending about $3 billion a year on ISS operations, it’s hard to say what a sustainable lunar program would need to cost. But how about this: Let’s not expect NASA to much more than Apollo, at Apollo-like price ($150 billion or so, inflation adjusted) and on a longer timescale than Apollo. Instead, what about starting by matching Apollo, but doing so on a shorter timescale and for a sustainable price?

      In some respects, I’d say we’re roughly where the Apollo program was at the time of Apollo 7. Commercial crew and the Falcon 9 are on par with the Apollo CSM (less propulsive capability) and the Saturn 1B. Falcon Heavy isn’t too far below the launch capabilities of a Saturn V. And Apollo 7 wasn’t even a year before the Apollo 11 landing.

      Perhaps NASA should start where Apollo 17 left off. Land two people on the Moon (and return them safely to Earth), after spending three days on the surface. Land a surface science package and a rover capable of covering 25 km while staying within 10 km of the landing site. What’s new or challenging about that? Well, after fifty years of improved technology, we could try to do it in five (not ten) years, while the current President could still be in office, do so for a tenth the development cost, and fly subsequent missions on a sustainable budget (call it $250 million per.)

      Just get back, get back in a way that is sustainable, and then improve capabilities after that. Plans for a massive program, with orbital gateways and lunar villages, is too much to expect as a first step. It costs too much and nothing happens until too many years in the future. Which means it just gets pushed off indefinitely.

      • ed2291 says:
        0
        0

        All good thoughts, but thinking we will do anything before 2023 is very unrealistic. Neither Boeing nor NASA have shown the ability to act faster. That is why humans have not been out of low earth orbit since the early 1970s. In 2023 or shortly after Musk will have a real vehicle that can go anywhere in our solar system with refueling. It is being built as we speak. Contrast with Orion which has been little more than a Powerpoint Presentation for years.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          NASA, Boeing and others have done things on short timescales. It’s been a long time since they have on a human spaceflight project, and it might take quite a bit of pressure to get them to do so. But I’d argue that that is about politics and direction (e.g. orders) from higher authorities. I think they have the technical capability for an Apollo-like return to the Moon, for far less and within five years.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Robert Zubrin’s Moon Direct is a good example of how it could be done.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Zubrin tends to get fixated on specific approaches he came up with. That’s not necessarily a good idea. I was suggesting a high level goal: Reestablishing the capability to fly missions like the Apollo J series missions for a fraction of the cost. I have some ideas about how that could be done, but I’m not married to them. So I’m just suggesting a goal, not how to accomplish that goal.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Yes, he does get very focused. But he is right in one aspect in that really all the basic elements are in place with the Falcon Heavy, Falcon 9/Dragon2 and the Atlas 5/ Starliner. Only a lunar lander needed to make the Moon accessible again, not a Gateway. Of course Elon Musk’s Starship eliminates even that doing it all with one vehicle and a booster for Earth launch which is why he is moving beyond FH/Dragon2.

            But we are closer than most folks think. The problem is the NASA Gateway and SLS/Orion detour.

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        Or even better, let’s just keep NASA out of it and create a public-private partnership to close the gap. And it doesn’t need to be a federal one. When the federal government refused to fund the Erie Canal because of politics the state of New York did. It was the turning point that created the fortune and wealth we associate with New York today.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          Someone would have to pay the bills, and what I suggested would be essentially scientific exploration. The Erie Canal was a investment by the State of New York, and a good one. They were definitely in it for the money.

          Even at the prices I suggested (a fraction of $150 billion in development costs and something like $250 million or less per flight), there aren’t many people or organizations who could afford that. At least not without a prospect of recovering their investment. Just doing it for the hell of it would take a very rich and somewhat obsessed patron.

          Oh… like the one who’s spending $1 billion per year on Blue Origin. Never mind…

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            A offshore oil platform is a $4-6 billion investment. Firms may spend $50 billion developing a major oil find, so the $250 million is not that impressive. As you note Blue Origin could afford four flights a year on their budget. But a state based lunar development corporation would create value for the state’s economy long before it launched the first mission to build a Moon settlement in terms of tech spinoff, STEAM education and the image it would create for the state.

            The wealth of the Erie Canal wasn’t only from the transportation benefits, but also from creating the American cement industry, a construction industry and the establishment of the civil engineering profession. The firms and IP that had to be created to build it then went on to build other canals as well as railroads and roads. It was the classic example of how a market builds an industry

            Originally the canal was built by the Canal Authority contracting with local farmers to dig a couple miles of it. Some were successful, others were not. The successful ones took over the contracts of the unsuccessful ones and consolidated them and then hired workers to do the work. They became the ancestors of the modern construction gaints. The same was true with the individuals who supplied them with the needed resources.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            I think that sort of investment is something a government needs to make. Consider your example of the Erie Canal, the cement industry and civil engineering. While it was pretty clear from the start that the Canal would be good for the State of New York, it wasn’t clear who, exactly, would benefit or benefit most. That’s fine if the state government is paying. But how do you convince a private investor when it isn’t clear _he’s_ going to be the one who benefits?

            If the benefits are specific and clear, then I believe you can attract private funding. But if it’s a more nebulous good for the local (or national) economy in general, I think that case is easier to see to a government than a private investor.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Yes, and it doesn’t always need to be the federal government, especially now that the cost of accessing space is dropping.

      • Nick K says:
        0
        0

        “I’d say we’re roughly where the Apollo program was at the time of Apollo 7” If you are talking about NASA capabilities, no we are back around the time pre-Apollo 4. We have not yet flown a real Orion capsule nor a real Saturn V class heavy launcher. By the time of Apollo 7 we had real Apollo unmanned flights including 2 unmanned missions using the Saturn V, one fully successful and the other perhaps a bit less. We will not get to the phase of the program equivalent to Apollo 7, I’d guess, for about another 5 years. Its really pretty ridiculous for that “safe, simple, soon” Apollo on steroids, using mainly a lot of Shuttle spare parts. It shows how far NASA human space flight has fallen. Truly they are incapable….

    • mfwright says:
      0
      0

      “A BFR could go there and back without refueling”

      I haven’t followed the BFR design (at least what is disclosed) but something doesn’t seem right of a single stage spacecraft that can do all that in terms of the Rocket Eqn.

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        There is so little disclosed that that’s a hard question to answer. But… Round trip from Low Earth orbit to the lunar surface is going to be about 11 km/s, give or take 10% or so, since I’ve just done a back of the envelope estimate. The BFR (well, BFS, now “Starship”) numbers I can find and the rocket equation give it a 10.5 km/s delta v capability.

        But that’s with no payload. And that’s starting in Low Earth orbit with full tanks. What it takes to fill those tanks isn’t clear. Well, it would be multiple BFR tanker launches and on orbit propellent transfer. But it isn’t clear from the available information how many tanker flights that would be. Probably something like five or ten.

        The whole thing starts looking much, much better if oxygen were available on the Moon. The “Spaceship” would still need a round trip worth of methane, but oxygen is over 70% of the propellent mass. But I can’t see an initial landing (with people) which depended on previously untested in situ oxygen production. I think a more likely possibility is something which starts with less ambitious missions (robotic and probably a few with people) to set up the water mining and in situ oxygen production.

  7. ThomasLMatula says:
    0
    0

    The Boomer Generation was promised a New Ocean to sail on and conquer by President Kennedy, but all they got were a few flags and footsteps before NASA HSF retreated to LEO. If going to the Moon was only about flags and footsteps there is no reason to return to it. The picture of the Flag is there to frame on your wall so why return? And if NASA’s prime mission is science, searching for life and the origin of the Universe, there is no need to send humans as robots will do the work cheaper without risking astronaut lives, especially in a nation that seems risk adverse.

    You see, thr value of the Moon, and a human return to it, is not about science or flags, it is developing the Moon’s resources to build an off world industrial base to enable the settlement and economic development of the Solar System. But if that is not NASA’s mission, or the desire of the post Boomer Generations, then there is no reason to return to the Moon, or perhaps to even have a NASA HSF program.

    • gunsandrockets says:
      0
      0

      I could argue that the failure to accelerate was the unintended consequence of a couple JFK decisions, and also one of Eisenhower.

      JFK resorting to a moon-race for Cold War propaganda purposes obviously set NASA down a dead end path, true enough. But I also think the nuclear test ban treaty under JFK killed the most promising accelerator of humanity into space, Project Orion.

      Of course NASA wasn’t all that interested in Orion in the first place, and NASA as the monopolizer of space policy comes from the Eisenhower administration.

  8. Bill Keksz says:
    0
    0

    FWIW. There are young adults for whom there have always been at least three humans in orbit. And children for whom there has always been a rover on Mars.
    I wonder what their advise would be.