A Clear, Believable Goal In Space, Please.
Double the Space Budget?, Paul Spudis, Air & Space
“More funding would enable more activity, but to do what? As we no longer have a reasonable, near-term strategic goal (and I do not count empty promises of human Mars missions 30 years in the future as such), more money might accelerate progress on some programs, but money alone will never establish a healthy and vigorous space program. What has held us back from creating a strong space program? I contend that it is the lack of any strategic direction, by which I mean not simply a goal, but a believable goal, one that combines clear and pressing societal value with attainable, decadal timescales, at costs at or less than their projected budget line. Under the existing operational template, most proposed space goals satisfy one or two, but not all conditions.”
Cislunar Space Next
“Develop a space transportation system using existing assets to the extent possible, build new reusable vehicles to transit cislunar space, develop lunar resources with the aim of propellant production, emplace staging nodes in LEO (use existing ISS), geosynchronous orbit (GEO), Earth-Moon L-1, low lunar orbit (LLO) and on the lunar surface.”
I am cross posting this from the Air and Space Blog and expanding.
Amen PaulI would like to point out our National Defense University Space Power Theory Book: http://www.ndu.edu/press/sp… The fundamental problem at NASA is that at least for the past two decades goals, plans, and their execution have been based only on answering scientific questions. While science in and of itself is a noble cause, it is insufficient to justify the expenditure of funds that are required.Without economic development as a centerpiece and without people who understand this in charge of the goals and the funding, we will continue to not make progress.
At the end of the day economic development, at least beyond the basic infrastructure is not NASA’s job any more than it was the railroad’s job to build farms in California after the completion of the National Railroad in the 1860’s.
We need a national policy beyond NASA that promotes private enterprise investing its own funds to develop new markets and applications in space. The work that we did at the National Defense University does provide the intellectual framework as at the end of the day without a strong economy we do not have a strong nation nor do we have the funds to support a strong scientific agenda.
Let’s just be clear here. “Economic development” shouldn’t be misconstrued as resource
development. That’s the case because, quite possibly, there isn’t a good
business case for mining space. Economic development can be more broadly defined as technology
development, soft power, and exercising a national spirit of creativity and
accomplishment (no, let’s please not use that bogus word “inspiration”). Stuff that improves our economy.
Science can fit under this umbrella. We may well not have the funds to support a stronger space science
agenda, but nor do we have the funds to support the mining of platinum or He-3 in space.
While it only lasted a decade, and can be faulted for that,
the Apollo program left a major legacy of accomplishment that undergirds our
hunger for space exploration today. That program most certainly wasn’t
justified in the narrow picture of resource development, but could be seen in a
broader picture of economic development as defined above.
By the same token, let’s be careful about goals. Returning
to the Moon isn’t a goal. Why? Because we went there before — as a goal.
Mining water on the Moon can’t be a goal. Why? Because lunar water doesn’t do
anything in and of itself. Lunar water can certainly be part of the
implementation of a goal, in lowering the cost of space transportation. OK, it’s a secondary goal. But a
lowered cost of space transportation can’t be a primary goal either, in the
sense that lowering that cost simply makes it cheaper and easier to do
something. That “something” is what we need to come to terms with.
The most important thing that can happen in the near term is
for space advocates to understand what a primary national goal really needs to
look like, and not get distracted by ones that are secondary.
Sounds like people are thinking smarter a money gets tighter.
When I did my little dragon moon mining thing I didn’t mean to leave the impression that I thought that getting water from the moon was THE commercial goal. I was just showing myself that a mining start up could be done pretty cheap.
Does someone have a short list of commercial stuff that can be done. As launch prices get cheaper?
Energy from Leo
Cleaning up Leo
Leo tourism
Lunar tourism
Sub orbital tourism
Etc?????????????? Help
Asteroid defense?
Would more money REALLY help!!!!!!
I don’t see seems to me some how some way the pork programs must be turned to lean chicken with wings 🙂
Shouldn’t independent commercial transportation company/ providers have government science as their customers. Does government need to be out of the tranportion business all together?? Doesn’t ending public rockets open the doors to cheaper better more science. I’m not for ending rockets but I’m pretty sure I don’t want Nasa building commercial rockets at all. That should be left to companies. The time to end pubic rockets is now. Doesn’t NASA do r and d for airplanes now? Well that’s what they should be doing for rockets! Let’s start the commercial space age now! Stop wasting time and money. I don’t think I’m wrong here.
While it only lasted a decade, and can be faulted for that,
the Apollo program left a major legacy of accomplishment that undergirds our hunger for space exploration today.
You know what, the entire Apollo program is nothing more than an history lesson for disinterested students today. It leaves a sour taste in the mouths of our generation because of the bad lesson that it taught NASA. I cannot tell you the number of times that I have heard that “If we only had a president that understood”. Well you did have one in the form of George W. Bush and you blew it because for some damn reason you simply cannot bring yourself to the idea that there is money to be made from the Moon and the rest of the solar system.
During the Space Exploration Initiative (SEI) era I was working with some space suit developers for an advanced space suit. Since I am from a coal mining community I thought that it would be great advertising to get the United Mine Workers of America patch placed on a rendering of the space suit. This was roundly rejected by the people I was working with. It was the height of stupidity because if we had done this I would have been able to get this in every UMWA union hall in the country. That is the kind of support that is needed for space.
Without a practical return on the investment of space, we will NEVER get the level of support needed for Mars or anything else, that is until the Chinese decide that landing on Mars cements their ascendancy over the decadent United States.
Shouldn’t the American space program be made up of two or more commercial transportation providers that compete for any and all flights to space. Maybe spacex is one of them maybe Boeing or some new company created just to provide travel service to space. NASA only do r and d like NACA did for the Air lines. Then along with the list of other commercial stuff tourism etc. You add Science missions as a customer to help get money for the building of that railroad/airline service to Leo moon, mars, asteroids robo outer planets. I realize that having fat DOD contracts around and countries still playing my rocket is bigger than your rocket may make this idea impossible. But it was already done with airlines and NACA and it worked! So why are we trying to do models that we know don’t work!
Puzzled!
Joe Q
Not to check for typos sorry
Out
Here are the political stakes of this – we must remove a hostile climate where “practicable” must be replaced for “practical” (e.g. SLS), and where “commercial service providers” are no longer a pejorative as they currently are to some.
This needs to be extended into an economic incentive for economic development in space, including beyond LEO.
I was wondering why we can’t all agree on a practical Space plan. So I started looking for culprits. While looking at NASA WATCHES home page. I found the problem. Just look at this!
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
See, proof! It’s all Keith’s fault!
Lol 🙂
DTARS,
If it’s all Keith’s fault, he sure works damned hard to earn the blame. I wonder if there’s a name for that. Overworkforblameophelia maybe?
Steve
I have to disagree with this.
NIH has famously doubled it’s budget recently. I’m not sure what the exact scale of the NSF increase has been, but it’s been substantial as well.
Tell me – why is it reasonable to talk about doubling NIH’s budget (which now stands at around $30 billion), but not NASA’s budget (under $20 billion).
Maybe it won’t happen – but not because this is a crazy suggestion.
Well, that’s the point. NIH has a real goal, which is to improve the quality of life for people. It does that in a very clear way. By curing people who get sick, or keeping them from getting sick. NASA has no such real goal.
To be very simple, that’s why it’s reasonable to double the budget of NIH and not NASA. Because NASA has never proved what it does for the taxpayer. I double the budget for NIH, and I double the chances of finding cures for dreaded diseases. I double the budget for NASA and … we double the amount of “exploration” we do?
Well, that’s the point. NIH has a real goal, which is to improve the quality of life for people. It does that in a very clear way. By curing people who get sick, or keeping them from getting sick. NASA has no such real goal.
Three hundred years ago the industrial revolution and capitalism began the increase in lifespan that continues until today. There are many people at the top of our political pyramid who have the erroneous mindset that the day of industrialism and capitalism and even individual liberty is over. This is supposedly because of a shortage of resources and a shortage of energy here on the earth. This is a mistaken mindset. The economic development of the solar system is the solution to the artificial limits of our political leadership and this is where space exploration should be getting a much bigger share of national resources than it does now.
We have the opportunity to continue on our journey toward the day when the starship enterprise becomes possible, or we have the inevitable journey to war and the mad max world that comes from limits to vision.
Say what you will about George W. Bush and his science advisor John Marburger, they had it right. You say that NASA has never proven what it does to the taxpayer. I say it is because NASA abandoned what it was founded for originally, which is to help open the space frontier for all mankind. The VSE was co-opted by those who think that the role of NASA is to provide jobs to the aerospace industry. NASA was co-oped by a science only agenda a long time ago when space is far larger than that single agenda.
You worry about the possibility that the resources are not there or that the business case is not solid. Well neither was the business case for California before the advent of the National Railroad.
The resources are there, we know that. What we have to do is to build the infrastructure to effectively access these resources. That is the proper role of NASA, private enterprise can do the rest.
Just to make something clear, though I praise president Bush for the vision, it was his second choice for administrator that made it necessary for the Obama administration to terminate the follow on Constellation program. There is no relationship between the VSE and Constellation, and that is the Bush administration’s failure.
No sir Bush took a while before he listened to Marburger. And eventually did VSE but couldn’t deliver (or control) the process.
The beginnings of the Bush administration are studded with dozens of mistakes about NASA, that have since cost tens of billions. While we can point to his predecessor’s mistakes (like X-33), we are talking of an order of magnitude less across the board.
… co-opted by those who think that the role of NASA is to provide jobs to the aerospace industry.
Whoever wants to make things work, they are going to have the same problem – control powerful interests that don’t effectively employ NASA, just exploit NASA irrelevantly for gratification.
If this isn’t done first nothing will change. “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss”.
NASA was co-oped by a science only agenda a long time ago when space is far larger than that single agenda.
Prior to Bush, the “science agenda” of HSF was heavily loaded with diplomatic/internationalism as an expensive non-science product with cheap diplomatic budget subgames hidden beneath. So it wasn’t/isn’t real science either.
NASA is bigger than science. It has been rationalized in a way to deal with our immature, childish politics, because it is too far into the future for the minds that fund it to rationally cope with it in the present.
And if we can’t cope with it in the present, how can we expect it to be anything but an erratic organization that can’t execute in response.
No sir Bush took a while before he listened to Marburger. And eventually did VSE but couldn’t deliver (or control) the process.
The only way to have controlled the process would have been to have fired, or better yet, never hired O’Keefe’s successor. At least with O’Keefe there was an understanding that the heavy lifter was not really on the table despite MSFC lobbying heavily for it. That is why the CE&R studies looked like they did and why Makin’s H&RT portfolio looked like it did. To me it is unfortunate in the extreme that O’Keefe left as he had the ear of the president and Marbuger and things were moving in the right direction, though many did not like Steidle’s spiral development process.
I was pretty involved at this time with folks like Klaus Heiss, Ivan Becky, and others that tried to talk sense into the 9th floor but Dr. Griffin simply would not hear of any other path but a heavy lift vehicle. The ultimate tragedy is that we could have one flying today, the Shuttle C and still have the option of flying orbiters but that was destroyed as well. The chief procurement officer for the External Tank at MSFC lived next door to me and according to him there were specific directives from HQ to terminate contracts with the lower tiered suppliers so that it would be impossible to carry on with ET production.
There is an old saying that the perfect is the enemy of the good and in the search for the perfect heavy lift, we sacrificed a good one, and one that would have preserved the jobs at the cape as well.
It is beyond tragedy but there is no use looking backward. There is another tragedy developing now with the ruse to pit commercial crew against the Mars program. This is the worst possible fight and it will leave a lot of blood on the floor and will probably not end well for all involved.
Dennis,
I’m tempted to debate your first paragraph. If you look around the world, including America, I don’t think feudalism ever disappeared during those 300 years. It just took on different names and faces at different times in history.
Steve
Because NASA has never proved what it does for the taxpayer.
Yes. One needs to control before they can get 2x.
But because they’ve gotten more before, the memory of power persists the myth .. that they would do more.
Trust but verify. Show me its not like CxP or other pure waste cases as before.
Why is it crazy?
Because we’re (The United States of America) is in serious DEBT with no responsible plan to pay it back. That’s the first issue.
The second issue is that NASA needs to be fixed on three separate fronts: 1) Congress porkbarreling and micromangement 2) The centers playing to be job sponges and 3) Poor internal (fiscal, technical risk) management of most NASA projects over $500 million.
Doubling NASA’s budget has to come from somewhere – what projects in other parts of the U.S. gov’t get axed with the looming threat of sesqustration<sp>? You think the cat fights over the ExoMars cuts are fun?
Adding more money does not fix 3) and only leads to more 1).
It would be much more refreshing if planetary (and others) stood up and said “OK, this is the hand we’re dealt with on Mars. Let’s see what we CAN do with what we’ve got.” Rather than last-minute efforts sticking knives in other people’ to claw back what isn’t there.
There’s something that I didn’t see addressed in either Paul’s article or the Tyson plea for doubling NASA’s budget (although I may have just missed it), and that’s the fact that they didn’t break the budget allocations down in any detail; they just talked about the total amount being doubled. I realize that the situation (like sitting next to Jon Stewart) doesn’t always allow one to go into detail, but an extra sentence or two would probably suffice.
We know that, for better or for worse (depending on where you sit) Congress doesn’t just hand over a lump sum and say, “go to it, NASA.” They allocate and withhold money on a program by program basis, plus things like R&D, which they often try to micro-allocate for as well.
So if Congress doubled the NASA budget but specified that the added money was all to be spent on SLS, we wouldn’t really gain anything. Likewise, if Congress doubled the NASA budget but specified that none of it could be spent on either R&D or commercial programs, again we wouldn’t really gain anything, in fact, we’d lose big time.
If Congress changes the budget, either up or down, it gives them the opportunity to modify any and every program allocation, right down to the lowest levels. So, budget increases actually have the ability to make the overall situation worse instead of better by taking money away from key programs, or programs already begun.
Since the days of James Webb there have been NASA Administrators who moved money from one program to another against Congressional direction, but the consequences for doing that have become more severe with time, so I don’t see it happening in the future.
So, if we’re going to ask for a doubling of the budget (or any other increase), I think it’s important to add a statement that somehow heads off the chance of sabotaging any important programs by saying something like, “and assurance that program A, program B, and program C receive a proportional increase in their specific allocations” or whatever makes sense given the current situation.
Never give Congress an opportunity to take money away.
Steve
Love Tyson, but he’s out peddling his book. Kudos to his PR people.
He knows in his heart of hearts that there’s no way in hell Congress is going to have a “Eureka!” moment and scrape up enough money to double NASA’s budget.
Give him credit, he’s got more people buzzing than the Planetary Society or the Mars Society, but Zubrin was the flavor of the month selling a “Case For Mars” and where are we now?
None of this stuff will ever happen. Especially with Obama in office and a Democrat leaning media. They all hate manned space exploration. No votes to buy up on the moon or anywhere else. These are just pretty pictures to look at.
Where are your Republican supporters? The GOP front runners mocked Newt into oblivion when he dared mention returning to the moon. Blame the current predicament as you will. It’s roots run deeper that the present administration.
Jonmark,
We should note that the “facts” which they used to mock Newt were actually nothing to do with his stance today. They were lifted out of a book that was printed a quarter century ago. So apparently, the GOP front runners know nothing about the current space situation, which is supported by the fact that this mocking is the only thing of substance that they’ve had to day about space. Newt may be a dreamer, but would you rather have a dreamer or somebody smug who can’t get the facts straight? Either way, I find the current GOP situation less inspiring than ever. I think it’s safe to assume that whoever wins, which ever party, space is unfortunately going to be essentially an non-issue for four more years.
Steve
Wrong. Won’t happen with all the current presidential fools. And only a “tool” would believe the crap being sold to suggest otherwise.
Lets get this straight – all these guys have ulterior motives. Romney wants to buy influence (prime contractors) then once they translate back into defense again (after the current purge), declare that govt can’t pull off a HSF program, cancel, and restart yet another one from scratch – please note a continuing pattern. Obama wants to use commercial HSF to bell govt/defense industry overspending, and to slowly ratchet down NASA so it can’t be used by them. The others have different motivations – Ron Paul wants no NASA period.
Bottom line – none of the politicos here trust the situation for NASA to do more.
Do you trust the current situation for NASA to do more with out porking out????
To be specific, its Congress telling NASA who to pork out with. No, I don’t trust that one bit.
Also don’t like the games that need to be played to get it under control, because there’s no clear way to categorically get a deal for the taxpayers that does sensible space for sensible budget – too many competing agendas. So we’re stuck with mediocre options where the best case is to “waste a portion” and “get some sensibility” – no I don’t like it but I understand it.
Remember that this problem has been growing for 50 years – it will take decades to cut it back by even 20%. Thats why its such a pain.
If you do something radical, the money just finds a new path for waste. Only way out of this is to show where the money goes and what you specifically get for it, so we all can see. Make it harder to hide.
I can’t stand waste. But I need progress too. So pick and choose your weasels and watch them closely.
“there’s no clear way to categorically get a deal for the taxpayers that does sensible space for sensible budget“
“Only way out of this is to show where the money goes and what you specifically get for it“
Mr. C,
I think these two points, taken together, get to the heart of the matter. As I see it, in an ideal world, the taxpayers are investors and the government is our investment manager. Our return on investment isn’t money, but rather roads, schools, law enforcement, etc., all of the things that contribute to our quality of life. Every investor may not be in love with every one of these returns, but they see them, recognize them for what they are, and can see where their money is being spent. They can relate the taxes paid to the benefits of society (the investment to the return) without anybody having to try to convince them. That’s an ideal world which, of course, is not our world.
What I see missing in the content of most space proposals, and in the comments of advocates, is a readily recognizable return on the investment, something that the general public can realize as beneficial without having to reeducate them. Lots of “benefits” and “goals” have been described, but they so often boil down to “if we build one of these, then we’ll have one.” So what. What will it do for me? For my children? For my future? For my comfort, entertainment, whatever?
And in those proposals which do go the distance and try to answer “what’s in it for me?” there’s a second omission, one that’s really hard to satisfy — the rate of return on investment. Most useful space activities (if not all) will take a lot of time and a great deal of up-front money before they can show any sort of return that people might find worthy, might be willing to spend the money on. And that, as I see it, is the big catch. Whether you’re running a household, a business, or a country, you absolutely must manage your cash flow — big money coming your way next year is useless when your bills are due now and the kids are hungry. Space, it appears, takes too long to pay off.
We’ve had proposals based on the “pay as you go” concept, which just might make things easier, but it isn’t enough. What we need is a plan with some sort of “return as you go” to it. If people could see progress on a regular basis, and above all, an understandable, meaningful “return” on their space investment (exciting would be nice, too), then it would be a much easier sell. Even the politicians (whatever party) couldn’t dismiss it out of hand without the 6 o’clock news running stories that even Joe Public could easily see as pork and payback instead of managing the people’s interests. Then we might have some public oversight of the government.
I believe that “what’s in it for me?” is the key to getting public support and circumventing the political BS. The hard part, obviously, is answering that question, and then doing so using Joe Public’s own vocabulary. And, at least as important, we need to find a way to get a “return as you go” happening. Neither of these is going to be at all easy to do. But I really think we need to start trying.
Steve
Democratic-leaning media?
What about the socialist Republicans in Congress who want to put more regulation and government into CCDev, most seeming to reside in that liberal haven of Texas?
And the Republicans that have an aversion to free market competition? Instead, they keep on saying there should be “one cooperative effort,” a “star team” or a “dream team.” Yah, managed production, the thing that made the Soviet Union so great.
Obama proposed a substantial increase in the NASA budget.
While I appreciate Neil DeGrase Tyson’s and Paul Spudis’ support and
their confidence that NASA could use double their budget, the fact is
that NASA would be no more effective using double the budget than it has been using the current budget. NASA does not have a plan, does not
know what it wants to do “when it grows up”. After all, it was NASA’s
leadership and the NASA rank and file that got behind Constellation,
which would have done no more than to get us into the unsupportable
place NASA was at in 1969.
Look at ISS today. Besides the fact that ISS cost many times as long and
many times as much as it should have cost, developing and establishing
convoluted and unworkable processes all along the way-simpler processes that
already existed and were well defined in earlier programs, and yet you
heard it from the top guy himself just a little over a week ago when
Gerst told everyone ‘we forgot it was being built for a purpose so we
never put any focus on usability or on the customers’.
Gerstenmaier was being blatantly obvious; he and his engineering staff
are a bunch of engineers happily building something-what it is they know
not what and neither do they seem to care. What a waste.
And please don’t blame it on the Congress. If NASA had a plan that made
sense I am confident that Congress and the President would fall in line.
NASA has no plan, it has no process, and it has a leadership that is at
best misguided, and at worse either doesn’t have a clue or perhaps is
simply in it for their own selfishness and personal power, and not for
the program or the country.
“If NASA had a plan that made sense I am confident that Congress and the President would fall in line.”
Lenny,
I salute your confidence, but please don’t hold your breath.
Steve
“Neil Patrick Tyson”
An obscure insult?
Folks:
The only way to colonize the Solar System is to make money while you do it.
The only company I know of that openly states that goal is Spacex.
A little while ago I read an article where Elon Musk said that the payload capacity for a reusable Falcon 9 would be reduced by about 40%. That’s not bad considering. A reusable Falcon 9 could be used as a crew launcher. Seven crew and support equipment would only weigh a tonne. The Dragon payload capacity is six tonnes.
If they only used the reusable Falcon 9 for crew transport to LEO it would be a game changer. The ‘seat cost’ could be as low as $100,000 (wholesale), the flight rate could be high and we could have a solution to the one big problem to achieving the lofty goal of space colonization… getting that precious (but light) cargo, us, up there so we can mount our Conestoga wagons to the stars.
tinker
Many pros don’t believe you can do an economic reusable with chemical rockets but requiring nuclear. Perhaps they will be proven wrong.
The next step to watch for is a first stage that survives intact to transonic speeds. The step after this is economic stage recovery – even a parachute snagged by an aircraft might do it – in other words a lot simpler a task. Then you have to prove safe re-qualification of a stage w/o reprocessing.
We’ll see if it happens.
Many pros don’t believe you can do an economic reusable with chemical rockets but requiring nuclear. Perhaps they will be proven wrong.
There is some simple math involved. It is extremely hard to do a reusable launch vehicle from a 9 km/sec gravity well. It is actually pretty easy to do an in-space RLV with simple refueling.
Today it costs about $3k per kg to get payloads to orbit. It costs $100,000/kg to get that same payload to the lunar surface.
It is my proposition that we have wasted years on fruitless terrestrial RLV efforts when the leverage gained from in space systems are several multiples of that.
We MUST start thinking differently about the problem of space.
We just figured out a staging method that requires NO new launch vehicle development and could easily have us on the Moon in force in five years.
“We just figured out a staging method that requires NO new launch vehicle development and could easily have us on the Moon in force in five years.”
Well… don’t leave us all hanging!
Paul:
I think what Dennis is talking about is the latest iteration for building a Cislunar ecology, a functional means of moving cargo and supercargo (us) between the Earth and the Moon. This is by no means a new idea. In fact, it predates the space age. What Dennis means is that we could do this now with the technology we have without the need to develop anything radically new, like a super heavy launcher. When the Falcon Heavy comes online, the job will get easier with a payload capacity of fifty tonnes. It’ll make a big difference but it’s not necessary for us to achieve a Cislunar ecology, just easier.
tinker
Tinker
Do you think this c lunar plan is the way to proceed now?
Can we get it going?
When do you think falcon heavy will fly?
This looks like the fastest route to mars to me.
Have you heard anything about booster restart up on the next falcon flight? Draco flipper maybe?
If a reusable falcon 9 lifts forty percent it’s weight. What does a reusable falcon heavy lift? More or less that percent?
You’d better call the Air Force, Blue Origin, and SpaceX about the reusability case. The AF has an RFP out looking for a reusable launcher going to the Usual Suspects.
And you can’t run nuclear in the earth’s atmosphere, from a political standpoint. Long term environmental would suck too.
The AF has an RFP out looking for a reusable launcher…
No – they have a RFP out for a reusable booster – a much easier critter. You will find even that … a difficult bid.
My comment didn’t say it was impossible, just hard. It was meant to frame what a remarkable achievement it would be.
To add a little tidbit, SpaceX Falcon 9 stages at Mach 6-7. You have about 35 seconds to flip the stage end for end, stabilize, spool up, have ignition, ramp to full thrust … and then another 45 seconds to make it below Mach 1-2 (without stream separation during retropropulsion). And the resources to do so can’t cost you more than 15% GTOW or you’re not economic enough. Hard.
As to nuclear, look into thorium pebble reactors, they’re safe and no fissile product for exhaust. Terror about nuclear anything? Sure, thanks to two bit decisions by GE and Bechtel over the years, but at some point the 10x-100x thrust/specific impulse difference will happen. These bigger numbers mean you can waste 65% (or more) GTOW.
As to exoatmospheric propulsion with fissile products, I recommend you examine Zubrin’s nuclear salt water engine. It is an impressive idea – shortens interplanetary flight / space radiation exposure.
If we’re going to get serious as a culture, that means a regulatory environment that keeps from having Fukashima Daaichi’s (stupid GE putting off closure of all the Mk 1’s), and a populace that can deal with space use of nuclear power knowing exactly where the bear lays.
add:
Would an engine or two pointing in the reverse direction be possible?
Too heavy/complex/bad CG&CP. Doesn’t deal with the flow seperation issue. Shoots your GTOW.
You could start the slowing process almost instantly or would the bird be to heavy or unstable?
You have to translate if you do retropropulsion – no choice. Stability/control authority is an issue, so is igniting an engine travelling backwards … think of the chamber pressure.
add yet again:
Couldn’t you put a Cap, Over the Engine Nozzle sp to Resolve the Chamber Pressure Problem ??
Actually, you can almost do the same with stagnation pressure given appriopriate aerodynamics … and you don’t have to worry about jettision impacts that way.
The point is there are problems … and “counter-problems” to the solutions …
Would an engine or two pointing in the reverse direction be possible? You could start the slowing process almost instantly or would the bird be to heavy or unstable?
The question guy lol
Couldn’t you put a Cap, Over the Engine Nozzle sp to Resolve the Chamber Pressure Problem ??
Tinker!
Welcome back pal. We were worried about you.
I hate to rain on you, but Conestoga wagons were not a way of making money. They were about opportunity and being willing to take the risks associated with the opportunity. And it seems we haven’t had any luck so far selling space based on that analogy.
Steve
I recently read Robert Dallek’s excellent book on JFK, “An Unfinished Life.” In it Dallek discusses Kennedy’s call to send a man to the moon and return him safely to the Earth by the end of the decade. “Such a mission, he believed, would be of compelling value in the contest with the Soviets for international prestige, as well as a way to convince allies and neutral Third World nations of American superiority… Indeed, Sorensen noted that the only time Kennedy ever departed extensively from a prepared text in speaking to Congress was in emphasizing the pointlessness of going ahead with a manned moon landing unless the country was willing to make the necessary sacrifices. ‘There is no sense in agreeing or desiring that the United States take an affirmative position in outer space, unless we are prepared to do the work and bear the burdens.'” “Other considerations were at work in shaping Kennedy’s decision. He shared with James Webb, the head of NASA, and Johnson, the chairman of Kennedy’s National Space Council, the conviction that a manned mission would yield technological, economic, and political advantages. The 30 to 40 billion dollars the government seemed likely to spend on the project promised to advance America’s ability to predict the weather and achieve high-speed electronic communications with satellites. Space spending would also provide jobs, and the political gains in the South and West, where NASA would primarily spend its funds, were not lost on savvy politicians like Kennedy and Johnson.” My generation (I am 44) reaped the benefits from the federal spending on NASA and the manned space program. The advances in technology, medicine, engineering, research & development, prestige, etc., drove our economy impacting our ability to dominate the Soviet Bloc in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s and then compete successfully in the post Cold War era.
Now we are falling behind in investing in our scientific and engineering resources which will hurt us for the next 40 years unless we seriously confront our failure to form a coherent national space policy. JFK was able to see the benefits of having an aggressive manned space program beyond the propaganda value in competing with the Soviets on the world stage. He knew the benefits would spread out across the economy while also energizing a new generation of young people to get into science and engineering to be a part of this great adventure. So will we have the political and national will to rise up to this challenge of competing against China, India, Brazil, the EU, Japan, Russia, etc., by continuing to lead in space or will we turn our back on this new ocean of space willing to flounder in the backwash as other nations dominate the high ground. I seriously hope we choose to rise to the challenge or we deserve our decline into being a 2nd-rate power in this century that consoles itself by celebrating past glories.
Robert,
Good post.
If I may presume to add something, it is not sufficient simply to invest in space, science and technology. We have to invest wisely in these things, with respect to generally understood goals that benefit the country as a whole. This, I believe, is where the US Congress is doing its people a serious disservice, and ultimately it contributes to the growing the lack of interest in these essential areas by the general public. The Congressionally-controlled space program is not, in my opinion, of benefit the country as a whole, but rather only to a few selected recipients. Things are much different now than they were in 1962.
For a time, during Mercury, Gemini and early Apollo (actually a shorter time than people seem to remember), the public was for the space program and approved of having money spent on it. And for the most part, they didn’t really have any concept of how much money was involved. Today, many years and many dollars later, the public (anyone who cares) is much more aware of governmental expenditures of this kind, and that makes a difference in what is deemed acceptable and can be readily allocated.
Another difference is that when President Kennedy made his Moon proposal, I don’t think Congress could have shut him down or cut him back if they’d wanted to. They would have been collectively shooting themselves in the foot if they’d tried. Today, Congress will kill the President’s proposals just because they are the President’s proposals. And the public doesn’t seem to get any say in matters either way.
So, the only thing in all of this that I see as being the same now as in Kennedy’s time is the need to invest, wisely, in science and technology, including space. I think that pretty much everything else is an entirely different world.
Steve
Mike,
I wouldn’t rush to build your lunar greenhouse. You can’t grow anything in regolith and water, and the other stuff that you need doesn’t exist on the Moon, so you’re right back where you started.
I realize that it’s the “made locally” concept that you’re talking about, but I wouldn’t want to see anybody making lunar proposals based in lunar farming. You can’t get there from here.
Steve
“Landsats are the same; people love images of the earth, but not enough
to pay a commercial operator. Yes, launch costs are high, but a
satellite can last ten years in orbit, so that’s not the only factor.
The sad thing is, ignoring launch costs, we simply can’t operate weather
and land sats economically enough to make them viable commercial
businesses.”
really?? That’s funny because the company I work for has built three spacecraft for Digitalglobe for exactly that purpose “Commercial earth imaging from orbit”
“the average space program supporter has the economic knowledge of a 12 year old.“
Mike,
I’d like to be able to say, come on Mike, it’s not as bad as all that. Unfortunately, I can’t really disagree with you. It’s not every space supporter, but it certainly seems like a lot. The real bummer is that it only takes one (often well-meaning) know-not to undo the hard work of many people. I don’t claim to be an expert myself, but I at least took a couple of years of college courses in marketing and economics a few years after studying engineering because a few years in the working world shows one how interdependent they are.
Perhaps we need a space advocacy organization or society that does more than just collect your dues, print a repetitious newsletter and make the same tired presentations to the already converted. We need an organization which can develop a cooperative, universal space advocate’s policy (or at least try, with input from members.) We also need a dictionary, so that were not arguing over terms and talking at cross purposes. We need on-line educational material — economic, legal, marketing, etc., as well as the technical stuff. We need a set-up where serious amateurs can submit the things they write for review by one or more knowledgeable volunteers. Ideally, we need access to people who have access to the words and deeds of the power brokers who we need to convince. In short, we need facilities that will help us educate space supporters and, above all, get us to stand together with a common understanding and common set of goals, instead of forever disagreeing with one another. We all need to be at a similar (and hopefully better) level of understanding of the issue that underlie and affect our desire for a future that includes space — in whatever ways we can agree on — such as economics, marketing, business management, etc.
Some compromise will be required to decide on a common set of goals, but that would be better than the free-for-all we seem to have now. One thing though: members get points for useful work contributed and lose points for being a snob or showing off their specialist vocabulary!
I honestly haven’t a clue how to get such a thing started (I welcome ideas), but the way things are now, as societies and as individuals, we’re disagreeing more than we’re agreeing, so we’re our own worst enemies, unless our real goal is to have the longest-running debate society in history. Education is our best weapon and knowledge is our best defense.
Steve
Clem!!!! We can be a part of new space economy too! You know how much work you and I have done building motels and apartments and interior up-fits. Well guess what. There will be work at ET city in outer space! Yup you remember all those shuttle launches. A hundred and something. Well I read in a NASA watch post how easy it was for the shuttle to drag it’s external fuel tank to orbit. Yup clean structures just perfect for roomy living units. All we would need to do is hire some architects to design for our space customers, send some up-fit packages up on a recoverable falcon 9, heavy, or falcon six pack, and we will be rich!
I’m not sure where the Leo Shuttle ET depot is. But I’ll look into it. NASA is looking out for our future. Surely they had the vision to save all those tanks. Each shuttle launch cost a billion plus a pop. Yup I bet you and I could make enough money that we could afford to retire at ET SPACE CITY!
Joe Q
I wonder how many they still have left! Surely many of them are being used to build fuel depots for the inner solar system railroad.
Waste not want not.
An old adage used by many successful businesspersons.
If a privite company had been running the whole shuttle program there is no way in hell they would have burned up all those tanks.
And no one even speaks here when I bring up versions of Tinkers lifter that puts a big hydro into space every launch.
A falcon six pack is two falcon heavies mated together on a launch pad after horizontal integration, that uses either 54 merlins engines or six Merlin 2s
It’s not as clean as Tinkers lifter or as big. But it’s cheaper, and could be built sooner. And it sure could build this space railroad to moon mars or way out there, pretty darn fast and cheap
No new factories needed! Just feed Spacex missions based on a smart plan and watch us build our way to the stars.
Note to Martians, Commercial Space is your ticket to ride.
Note to loonies Commercial Space is your ticket to ride.
You fight them you end up no where!
Note to the world we can build a space economy if we start here with first things first, be wise be smart.
Note to NASA your main jobs should be to provide the r and d to make space affordable. Next your job should be to plan that economic railroad
Note congress this is a new day a new start let’s continue with VISION. It is time for you to invest in our future with wise choices and stop giving in to all worldly pressures and realize that we can make our own successful future we want too and you let us!!!!!
America/world wants a growing future. And one direction for that is up!!!!!!!
Let’s work to figure it out! Where do I sign up for highway to the heavens brain storming political site MR. WHITFIELD!!!!!
Ok standing on this soap box has me a little dizzy lol
I’ll shut up lol
Isn’t Disqus great.Read all the great comments,then comment yourself and set for newest first and see if anybody reply’s. The answer is not to double,but cut costs.NASA can make launchers and space craft for the cost of material.They can buy from the mill.Do like Eurofifghter.Make all parts at different centers at the same time and truck a 12′ diameter rocket to KSC for assembly and launch.Control too,but JSC would have a fit.The commercial companies have already have been paid enough.They can continue or not.Maybe just build the launcher and buy a spacecraft.Eliminate the 800 million$.This is what the Debt Commission and budget committee wanted to do last year.Add enough money to the materials account to build ever how many rockets the centers can build in FY ’13.Put what ever is left in SLS.These rockets would only be for NASA.It would save millions now and billions later.Gerst. would be called billion dollar Bill.These would be liquids,no solids.It only takes 2 people to feed a slip roller,to make curved sections for tanks.1 or 2 to run a robot welder.1 person to stick in a chunk of aluminum and come back later for a finished part.SpaceX makes 1 engine a week.MSC should be able to do that.Start with workers and move to robots.
By building their on launchers,NASA could then furnish the launcher for the ESA Mars missions.They would build launchers from 1000 top 50,000lbs. lift,whatever is needed. They would follow the SpaceX model and build a single engine model first,to get experience,then use that as a second stage.They would use their launcher to see if a small launcher could go back to the Moon as some want.Continue SLS as long as they get funds.If you asked the Centers rather than HQ,they should say they can have a launch in 6 months.If KSC can not get ready in time,rent F9 launch site.If they did this it would make everybody happy.Any other requests?Rockets are simple.Car makers would laugh compared to what they do.
“Is there an interim point where people “retire” from the base, […] should the lunar inhabitants devise some other income support mechanism?”
Hmmm, I see three groups able to retire on the moon: First, the already wealthy, who go from tourist to self-funded retiree. Then the employee who receives part of his salary in colony-stocks, which gain enough value to allow him to stay on as a self-funded retiree, thanks to the possibility already created by the wealthy tourist-cum-retiree. Finally the grandparent, having raised his family on the moon, and able to be supported in retirement by his own (adult) lunar-children.
It may then evolve into more conventional retirement as the number of citizens rises, but only those three can break the assumption of a career-end return to Earth.
All three require a privately funded base (or a cluster of private bases around government owned common infrastructure.) A purely NASA base, operated by NASA employed astronauts, can never transition.
Mike,
It sounds to me like you and I don’t need to convince each other. It would appear that we share pretty much the same frustrations. For the satisfaction it gives me, I have responded to some of your points.
“And yet, that level of analysis is about all that’s available for assessing American space programs.“
I would augment this statement to say that level of analysis is about all that’s available for assessing American space programs to anyone for whom said analysis is not a full-time job. But there’s a catch; in order to so something like analyzing the American space programs as a full-time job, someone has to be paying the analyst(s), and their job then inevitably becomes finding/inventing support for opinions of the guy paying their salary instead of doing objective analysis.
“I’d like someday to see a serious discussion of how a good sized lunar base might be nudged or intentionally shifted to being a colony.“
There has been some stuff (admittedly a limited amount) published over the years about how to do this (most of it kind of dated by now) by a few people, including Gerard K. O’Neill and, if I recall correctly, our own Dennis Wingo. The reason, I think, for its absence is that it’s not something that can be clearly described in one or two sentences and it includes some controversial and very expensive steps. Essential to the process is that base inhabitants need to supply their own vocational specialist in all of the same disciplines that we have on Earth (bankers, lawyers, doctors, chemists, factory workers, bankers, law enforcement people, and on and on…). A second absolute must is the ability to expand and maintain the infrastructure, from housing to all of the manufacturing and business facilities (and have assurance of the physical resources being available to do so). And although a lot of people don’t realize it, or refuse to admit it, there are huge amounts of R&D and financial investment required before we can begin to satisfy this second need. There are so many things that can’t simply be done the same as they’re done on Earth. And there is still an awful lot of medical, environmental and legal knowledge about living on the Moon and interacting with Earth that we’ve only scratched the surface of. And, of course, all of this comes down to lots and lots of money coming from somewhere. That money can not come from lunar resources and manufacturing, as so many people have proposed, because the infrastructure and facilities have to be built and we have to learn to use them effectively before any resources acquisition or manufacturing can get done (the horse absolutely must come before the cart). The money won’t be coming from any standard sort of investors because the ROI would be too little and much too late. That usually means government money, so we’re right back to square one, meaning that things will have to be done much differently than we’ve so far imagined.
“Do retired folk on the moon receive social security, or should the lunar inhabitants devise some other income support mechanism?“
Since countries can go broke and several governments are having big problems with managing their old age/retirement pension funds, lunar (or any other) colonists had better have a system of their own. The simplest way to start this is to make all colonists shareholders in all of the major lunar corporations. The colony would need to structure tax policies, tariffs and business margins such that retirees can live off of profit sharing from their investments in lunar corporations, with tax benefits as a limited fall back.
“Again, the failure isn’t ours alone.“
Agreed. The failure/blame lies with anyone and everyone (from the top to the bottom of the social hierarchy) who failed to make an effort to learn the workings and dependencies of their society, such that they could make intelligent, informed decisions wherever and whenever it was their responsibility to do so. By default, laziness, apathy, indifference and pork are their own reward. You reap what you sow, and all those other clichés.
“I’ve looked at papers cranked out by space lawyers“
The problem, I’ve found, with papers, books, proposals and presentations by lawyers, or any other alleged specialists, is that they were inevitably prepared to meet a deadline (conference date, publishing deadline, etc.), which means they were rushed and not given the amount and quality of attention that they really needed. Because of this, we get second-rate efforts which are either incomplete and ambiguous or too easily shot down. The second problem is that most of these people consider themselves good writers, but the reality is that most people are simply not good writers. Another problem, associated to the poor writing skills, is that specialists see this as an opportunity to impress the world with their professional, and often confusing, vocabulary, and end up doing the opposite. When your reader doesn’t know the meaning of key terms, and the writer hasn’t explained them (which is usually the case), then the reader (or listener) will simply stop reading/listening. The reader can stop and Google! each word that he doesn’t know before continuing past it, but how many people will actually do this? (hint: you’ll only need one hand to answer this question.) What the reader does instead is skip over the rest of the sentence, so the message is lost. Do it more than once or twice and the reader actually feels insulted and so skips the rest of the whole thing. Any reader who is already familiar with the specialist’s vocabulary probably is in the same profession and so already knows what the writer is saying; in other words, preaching to the choir. After many years as a book editor, I can assure you that these things are true. And I should add that most blog posts have the same characteristics; people don’t spend lots of time checking what they write, rewording anything that’s not entirely clear, or improving them in any way (I often go back and reread my own posts and all too often cringe at their lack of quality — because they were rushed).
“The greatest loss, the greatest insult, comes from economists.“
Economists, on average, seem to believe that they understand certain complex rules of the universe that are far beyond the ken of us mere mortals, and that their knowledge is the grease that keeps humanity’s financial wheels turning. But, how many wealthy economists can you name? (there are some, but they got rich doing something other than economics). If you look back at their collective track record, economists make weathermen look perfect. Without fail, if you ask X economists the same question, you’ll get X answers (as a minimum), whether they are on different continents or sitting side by side in the same room. I tend to place economists in between ghost hunters and spark plugs on the evolutionary ladder.
“But we are now past that point, and contemporary economists have learned to take technology for granted.“
Because taking technology for granted is far easier than attempting to actually understand it, and is probably the limit of what’s within their grasp.
Well, that was fun.
Steve
gpurcell,
Why do you do this?
You make unqualified dismissals of other people’s comments. No explanations; no alternatives; no sources to support your opinions. Are we supposed to believe that you alone have access to the absolute truth and don’t need to justify your words? NASA Watch is a way that we can exchange information, ideas and opinions about the items that Keith publishes. Speaking for myself, your know-it-all attitude is insulting and completely lacks tact. You’ve done this often enough that I no longer care if you know what you’re talking about or not. I dismiss your posts for their arrogant attitude, much the way that you dismiss out of hand other people’s statements that you don’t happen to agree with. I’m posting this for the sole reason that it might make you realize just how your pronouncements come across, so that maybe you’ll give more thought to how you present yourself in the future.
Steve