National Space Council Plans Another Scripted Event (Update)
Fifth Meeting of the National Space Council March 26 in Huntsville
“On Tuesday, March 26, 2019, at 12:00 p.m. CDT, Vice President Mike Pence will chair the fifth meeting of the National Space Council at the U.S. Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama. This meeting will focus on President Trump’s plan to restore American leadership in space and the next steps in implementing his vision to send Americans to the moon, Mars, and beyond. As chairman of the Council, Vice President Pence will convene the meeting, receive reports from Council members, hear from two expert panels on human space exploration, lead a Council discussion, and present policy recommendations for the President.”
Keith’s note: If you look at the agenda you will see that this is yet another short meeting of the usual suspects who will read pre-prepared statements that echo what others have said at previous NSpC events – and what has been said in front of innumerable blue ribbon panels for decades. In the end there will never be crisp findings nor enough funding to accomplish whatever this panel wants NASA to do. These people really need to focus on specific, realistic deliverables – not buzz words strung together. Otherwise its just more choir practice in an echo chamber.
AIAA Members to Speak at National Space Council Meeting on March 26
“AIAA’s executive director emeritus, Sandy Magnus, who’s also a former NASA astronaut, will sit on the first panel, “Ready to Fly,” which includes AIAA Associate Fellow Col. Eileen Collins, U.S. Air Force (ret.), former NASA astronaut and the first female Space Shuttle commander, and Gen. Lester Lyles, U.S. Air Force (ret.) and former Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force. The “Ready to Explore” panel will feature two AIAA members: Dan Dumbacher, AIAA executive director, former Purdue University aerospace engineering professor, and NASA (ret.) Deputy Associate Administrator, Exploration Systems Development Division, Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate; and AIAA member Wanda Sigur, former vice president and general manager of Lockheed Martin Space Systems. Jack Burns, University of Colorado Boulder, also will participate in the panel.”
All we see at this event are people who represent the status quo in big aerospace and government. And to reinforce this bias, AIAA, the big organization for Big Aerospace with a built-in revolving door, wants everyone to know that they have multiple members presenting at this meeting i.e. the deck is stacked in favor of the status quo. Where are the 20-and 30-something people who are entering the space workforce – the ones who ought to have a say in where things are going? Every speaker is over 50. Many are over 60. This is not new. The whole NSpC/UAG thing is like this.
Space Council Users’ Advisory Group Meets Without Any Users, earlier post
“Have a look at the National Space Council User’s Advisory Group meeting agenda. Not a single person who is speaking is actually a “user” of space – they are either big Aerospace Reps, politicians, government employees, or reps from other advisory bodies. There is no “user” input in evidence.”
During the public input section of the meeting I asked how many UAG members are actually users and how many are sellers and noted that no one on the committee really seemed to be speaking for the next generation of space explorers. The chairman responded: “Users are defined in the broadest of sense so we are all users.” He said he “appreciates my continued interest” in what they are doing or something. In other words go away with your actual questions.
The National Space Council is focused on the most important issue related to the future of space which is creating a favorable environment for space commerce. Sadly, until the Congressional PorkMachine releases it grip on NASA (SLS/Orion/Gateway) there are not many options for salvaging it, so you focus on what you are able to have an impact on. It will be interesting to hear what they have to say on SLS/Orion.
It’s possible – or wishful thinking – that many have been holding their breath and comments on SLS. Recent comments by the Administrator could be interpreted as permission to speak, in a sense.
Look for a flood of comments along these lines: “You know, I always thought that SLS was a step in the wrong direction.”
Maybe not to the NSC; but look for a trickle to become a chorus.
I’ve seen more and more people online that are saying that there is no reason for SLS to exist. People that I would never have thought would say this (for fear that they’ll upset colleagues, friends, and acquaintances who are working on SLS).
Perhaps the tide is finally changing?
Yes, it is encouraging. Since this meeting is in Huntsville, it will be especially interesting to see what is said about it.
You cant have a favorable environment for commerce if there is no one or a very limited few who want to buy your product. No sustainable business case has been made for anything in space beyond what currently exits; because if there were, then it would already have occurred. There is no magic existing today that has not existed for at least the past 25 years.
25 years ago, water ice at the lunar poles was a theory. Now it’s a fact with the debate being over abundance, distribution and extractability. 25 years ago, robotic, in-space repairs and refueling were science fiction. Now we’ve got real, commercial companies putting money into the idea. Large constellations of small satellites weren’t a concept 25 years ago. There’s nothing magic about those things, but the science and technology didn’t exist 25 years ago. Things have changed.
True, but the point remains the same: a new class of commercial opportunity is yet to be identified, beyond (chiefly) earth-facing satellites, and providing service to ISS.
I was disagreeing with the idea that nothing has changed in the last 25 years, but that things have changed enough to make new commercial opportunities viable. We aren’t quite there yet.
I think there is one new opportunity on the horizon. That’s providing services for those Earth-facing satellites. The potential for LEO-to-GEO tugs, in space servicing/repairs and refueling is there, but there a number of unresolved ifs in the way putting them in a company’s business plan. But there are identified customers, the necessary cost of the services can estimated based on the customers’ needs and funds, and potential ways to deliver have been identified. That’s actually closer to commercial viability than electricity was in 1875.
Space tourism tends to be somewhat scoffed at or minimized, but I see it as potentially more of an industry than people currently think it will be. Especially if prices decrease and options increase, i.e. ranging from suborbital, to multi-orbit, to overnight stays, to lunar orbit, and eventually even lunar landings.
If the upcoming suborbital tourist flights are successful and the volume trends steadily upwards, instead of peaking then declining as so many people seem to predict, then it will be able to expand into an actual industry much sooner than any of the other ideas such as resource mining or anything of that nature. Those industries may ultimately have much higher potential revenue and ultimately would be more important than tourism, but I think tourism has the potential of becoming an established industry much sooner.
Steve and Dr. Crary: Yes. You’ve identified the remaining low hanging fruit (servicing satellites, and tourism).
I suppose I was including satellite service in categorizing ‘earth-facing’ birds, and in fact so too ‘tourism’.
Tourism, I think, is possibly the type of meg-industry I’m envisioning as something new. I’m thinking that 5 minute rides, or even orbit in a cramped capsule, will wear thin quickly, creating a demand for living space on orbit and eventually elsewhere in the system.
Yes, joy flights will be much different from orbital hotels and lunar resorts.
Arguably, and except for the species, a space tourist might be considered an “’earth-facing’ bird.” I mean, they will be something launched into orbit to look at the Earth…
As far as satellite servicing is concerned, I see your point. The best analogy I can think of is a restaurant at a highway truck stop. I wouldn’t call that part of the highway itself, nor a part of the business of transporting cargo. But I can see how someone might regard it as part of a transportation system.
The thing I see as promising is the prospect for refueling those Earth-facing satellites. To be viable, that would probably involve lunar or asteroidal resources. The infrastructure to do that would not be developed for its own sake, and saying “build it and they will come” isn’t a good way to attract investors. But supporting the existing sorts of satellites is an identifiable market, and could act as an anchor tenant for in situ resource companies. Once the infrastructure is there, I suspect people will find additional uses for it.
I’m thinking it won’t wear thin quickly, again I’m countering the common belief that after the few people rich enough to get their suborbital thrills each take their turn the market will decline until the next big thrill ride comes along.
I see it differently, more like existing tourism. Like let’s say the Grand Canyon, which most people only go to once, especially foreign tourists. That may seem like a poor comparison but it depends on the perspective. To most of the world’s population being able to afford a trip to see the Grand Canyon is as out of reach as a trip into space might seem to many of us. And yet among those who can afford to see the Grand Canyon they don’t all go until everyone has seen it and then the market declines, instead it’s an ongoing tourist destination.
Obviously space tourism won’t see anything like the number of tourists that go to the Grand Canyon each year, but there are a lot more people around the world who can afford even a $250,000 spaceflight than most people realize, and if the price drops that only increases the likelihood that it becomes a sustainable ongoing industry. And then when orbital flights are added I expect a sustainable market for that also because of the enhanced experience of being much higher above Earth, getting to see continents go by both day and night, experiencing multiple sunrises and sunsets, and more time to enjoy weightlessness (for those who don’t get nauseous). Assuming that the price is substantially higher than suborbital it will be a smaller market, but presumably with higher profits.
Yes I agree there will be a demand for orbital hotels etc., but only because people who can afford it will want it. The equivalent let’s say of going to Tahiti or Bora Bora. But that doesn’t stop everyone else from going to the Grand Canyon.
Steve’s optimism could become reality I suppose. But as I read through the thread this morning with fresh eyes, I wondered if our own enthusiasm for space travel isn’t coloring our predictions.
Do either of you see something like the inhabited solar system depicted by Corey? A fully developed Mars, and another center of economics based further out, as perhaps Ceres is presented? Corey’s premise largely depends on ice being moved from outer sources to Mars and ‘the belt’.
In my dream of dreams, I see a space economy and settlement depending on 3D printing. It is true that 3D printing has a long way to go, mainly in integrating many different elements into the same product. But the day is coming, and the ‘belt’ is replete with all elements (south of iron, mainly).
https://www.scientificameri…
My involvement in design and construction of homes for third world people would be greatly aided by this tech for sure.
I think the main premise of Corey’s books is the magical fusion drive. Without that the system of interplanetary commerce they describe wouldn’t work. Launch windows between asteroids, or between asteroids and Mars, are not very convenient. And even if we had a fusion drive, it wouldn’t be nearly as impressive as they portray. If memory serves, the ice trade, first from Ceres and later from the outer solar system, postdated the establishment of colonies and the fusion drive.
So, no I don’t imagine anything like the inhabited solar system they describe. But it’s a good story and I’m not going to let technical deals ruin it for me.
But I don’t see anything that rules out some sort of inhabited solar system. Heavy use of in situ resources (that ice trade again, I guess) would be mandatory. Local fabrication couldn’t use too many specialized tools (which is where your 3D printing ideas come in.) And I think it would take a certain critical mass, in terms of population and skills, before the whole thing was viable. A viable economy would need more than miners exporting physical goods back to Earth.
(Grammatical note: I use “they” to refer to the authors. The Expanse was written by two people using one name, Corey, as a pseudonym.)
“magical fusion drive”
Yep. Here’s one thing we know about space travel: it requires stunning amounts of concentrated potential energy. This is something that cannot be avoided, at least within currently understood physics.
Nuclear energy’s effect on submarines might be an example. Sure, submarines based on diesel electric drive trains are powerful, and remain in use today; but it was the nukes that really allow submarines to mature.
In space we face so many energy density issues, from plane changes, to being tied to ‘launch windows’ (in the manner of sailing ships and tides), to…well, the list is long. It’s the single issue obviating any sort of effective space force; without true mobility such a force will be ineffective.
How would the ability to easily acquire, and transfer, oxygen and hydrogen/methane from planetary surfaces to orbit affect the argument? Not much. Oh, sure, it would be helpful, in the way the invention of side paddlers improved on clipper ships.
To truly become space faring, nothing short of energy densities many orders of magnitude higher than available will do. And where will that come from? Hell if I know. Nuclear fission? Not likely. Anti-matter? In science fiction. Nuclear fusion? Maybe, but containment issues are overwhelming.
And it is this simple fact that informs my own derision considering ‘light sails.’ Beamed energy? Not likely (the stunning work of the Benford brothers notwithstanding).
Argh.
I should have been clearer about that “magical fusion drive” comment. I don’t think a fusion drive is impossible. It’s way off on the horizon, but there aren’t any fundamental problems with the idea of one.
But there are fundamental problems with the way it’s described in _The_Expanse_. Accelerating at one (or more) g’s for hours (or days) isn’t in the cards. Even with controlled fusion, that’s pushing or passing the limits of conservation of energy and momentum. If and when a fusion drive is invented, it will be a fast improvement. But it’s still going to be fraction of a g burns, lasting something like an hour, and followed by a long (weeks to months) cruise in free fall. People aren’t going to be racing from one side of the solar system to the other in days or weeks.
Personally, I think a more likely or nearer term prospect would be fusion-powered ion thrusters. The low acceleration ion thrusters currently provide is mainly due to the power they require and the mass of the hardware required to generate that power.
In any case, few month travel times and having to deal with launch windows isn’t an obstacle to a interplanetary civilization. Australia was colonized with similar limits on transportation (with seasons and weather being the equivalent of launch windows.)
The words, “restore America’s leadership in space” always bug me. I am an advocate for human spaceflight and U.S. ability to do their own space launches, but taking ALL space activity and recent innovation together, implying that the U.S. doesn’t already lead, or has ever stopped leading, just isn’t true.
1> Anyone who tries to land any package on Mars without partnering with NASA runs a much higher risk of mission failure.
2> U.S. based efforts lead the momentum and direction of all current changes in that industry.
3> No other player than NASA operates more deep-space exploration projects.
4> NASA is one of the two lead partners in the ISS and the other lead partner is in decline.
5> NASA still leads in human space FLIGHT even though they haven’t done human space LAUNCH in a while.
6> The U.S. hiatus in human space LAUNCH will soon end in a way that will likely facilitate a new period of human spaceflight advances which do not depend on government initiative. NASA facilitated and sponsored, and will be the greatest fruit-eater, of that effort.
It’s just the space version of MAGA. It isn’t supposed to actually mean anything real.
I agree that it is a space version of MAGA in that I have the same beef with that statement. However, “MAGA” is an actual slogan and pseudo trademark that represents a whole lot of things that it doesn’t say.
“Restore American Leadership in Space” is not a slogan, it says what it says and fails to say way too much.
Keith, please be cognizant of the age bias going on these days, and yes, there may be no “the 20-and 30-something people…” but there are very few that age who have put in the time to really understand the problems and issues or have a clear understanding (i.e. those who have not been absorbed/brain-washed or bought out by the status quo holders) of what needs/should be done for the future. The issue is finding anyone who will stand up against the “status quo” that you mention, anyone who has a different view on how things might or should be, anyone with novel or outside the “big organization for Big Aerospace” who do not represent those who choose to live on their laurels and can plainly speak truth to power when they see what needs to be changed.
I’m not sure if there is anything biased about saying “Where are the 20-and 30-something people who are entering the space workforce – the ones who ought to have a say in where things are going? Every speaker is over 50. Many are over 60.”
The people in their twenties will, probably, still be working in the field in forty years. Many people over 60 will probably not be working in the field in forty years. So, when it comes to what the field will be like in forty years, I think the people just starting out in the field really ought to have a say. Those decisions will have a much greater impact on their lives.
Maybe the ones that do care are too busy in Boca Chica, Hawthorne or Van Horn to waste their time in meetings like this. Its hard to find time for meetings when you are racing to build a starship or sending sports cars to the stars.
AP is reporting that Pence is going to hit speeding up the manned space program and “doing more than PowerPoint missions “
Looks like it may not be that scripted afterall…
https://spacenews.com/space…
Space Council seeks urgency in NASA exploration plans
by Jeff Foust — March 22, 2019
I’m thinking Keith’s reading on this is wrong. Here’s why:
If an administration were seriously bent on moving in a new direction, and quickly, how would it be achieved?
Were you President, how would you move the entire, leaden NASA human space effort into a new direction and a new sense of speed? Where would you go, and how would you frame the message?
Maybe you have the Administrator say to a Congressional committee that NASA should meet its deadlines.
Possibly an initial move would be among the most difficult: and that would be to somehow change the ‘consensus’ by building a widely-based system of support. And one way to do that is to do something that the current President demonstrably excels: identify a large, unempowered sub population and give them a voice. That’s one move.
Another would involve subverting the ‘status quo’: give folks ‘permission’, as I’ve mentioned elsewhere, to speak openly about SLS. And I don’t mean the likes of armchair critics, like me, but folks with real authority, and real clout. For example: ever have a friend announce she was divorcing her husband? After the announcement, you are finally able to reveal that you thought her hubby was a lout and that she could do better? But that you wanted to support her and her marriage?
That’s SLS in a nutshell.
What else? How about get a bunch of Big Dogs, all accustomed to lengthy presentations, together in a room so they can ponderously powerpoint one another with excessive solemn thinking? Explaining why they are ready to ‘consider’ moving on?
There is more.
That’s how I read the tea leaves.
When you want an organization to move in a new direction the first thing you need to estalish in a matter that is very clear to everyone how the current direction is leading to a dead end. Only then will the organization be open to be steered into a new direction. We are seeing the first steps in this direction.
Remember the current path for HSF is well rooted in the disastrous mismanagement of NASA by Administrator Griffin and President Obama’s poorly conceived space strategy based on his desire to “kill” Project Constellation at all cost. The result is the tragic triad of SLS/Orion/Gateway that does nothing but drains money from taxpayers. Many at NASA and in Congress believe 110% in it and are blind to how out of date and poorly structured it is.
By establishing that theSLS/Orion/Gateway is unable to stay on schedule and in budget Administrator Bridenstine is showing NASA is on the wrong path with the SLS/Orion/Gateway. The more it falls behind schedule, while commercial alternatives rapidly move forward, the more apparent it will be that a radical change is needed. Eventually all but the more fantical supporters SLS/Orion/Gateway will recognize it and NASA will be ready for a new more rational strategy.
Incidently the same thing is being done quietly with the other NASA Albatross, the ISS. Yes, it was wonderful in its day, but it is rapidly aging and is out of date given the commercial alternatives that will soon be available. By establishing its impossible to commercialize ISS it will be easier to end it when the International partners leave for new projects. Remember,uner the ISS agreements ALL of the partners need to agree to extending it, and funding it. Russia won’t have the money once NASA subsidies in the form of buying Soyuz flights end and the others seem more than ready to move on, with other partners (China, India) if NASA insists on clinging to the ISS forever.
I find myself largely in agreement with you, Dr. M. Shocking.
In a word, if you want to make a change you gotta do something.
Hopefully that doing something is the right doing something.
Yes! Oh, you mean something other than beat on a keyboard, right? 🙂
True.
But, sometimes maybe it just takes a tweet.
(Excessively off topic): I’ve been using Disqus since the first year it was available. And for many years, when I came to NASAWatch, I’d be logged in to make comments. But now I must login for every post. Yes, it’s a problem for the 1%. But it is annoying and I wonder about others’ experience? Do you login for ever post?
Yes, It seems to require it now.
I don’t. Maybe once every two weeks it will ask me to re-login. It didn’t ask me this time.
I tend to get logged off but only rarely. Typically I have to log back in when I switch from one device to another (I currently use three) or when I switch from one WiFi server or provider to another. But that isn’t a consistent pattern. I have a suspicion that this may be randomized, in the way that airport security does not do things in the same way, every day. Predictable patterns can be exploited by someone with malicious intentions.
Have you made sure that any cookie cleaners are configured to ignore the Disqus cookie on your system? I had the same problem you did until I realized that I needed to tell CCleaner NOT to delete the cookies Disqus puts on your computer. Once I did that, I didn’t need to log on every time I wanted to post anymore.
“where are the 20 and 30 somethings?”
Are you implying Keith that those of us in our 40s and 50s have nothing to contribute? How dare you?