One Ton of American Ingenuity on the Surface of Mars
Image: Mars Curiosity Front Hazcam on Sol 0
“This image was taken by Front Hazcam: Left A (FHAZ_LEFT_A) onboard NASA’s Mars rover Curiosity on Sol 0 (2012-08-06 06:23:34 UTC) . Image Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech.”
Statement by the President on Curiosity Landing on Mars
“Tonight, on the planet Mars, the United States of America made history. The successful landing of Curiosity – the most sophisticated roving laboratory ever to land on another planet – marks an unprecedented feat of technology that will stand as a point of national pride far into the future. It proves that even the longest of odds are no match for our unique blend of ingenuity and determination.”
Bobby Braun: President Obama’s Policies Bringing Continued Progress To Space Exploration, BarackObama.com
“The President’s plan for NASA also enables continuous manned operations of the International Space Station, development of the critical space transportation building blocks required for our deep space exploration future, and investment in a suite of innovative space technology research efforts to enable bold science and exploration missions in the future. Such a concerted effort of robotic and human exploration is essential to capture the spirit, imagination and creativity of the world, and will yield lasting economic, national security and societal benefits.”
Viewpoint: U.S. Must Remain Leader In Planetary Exploration, Bobby Braun, Aviation Week
“Mars surface missions do not all need to be multi-billion dollar efforts; in fact, Curiosity is the only surface mission in the past two decades to cost more than $1 billion. I am confident that a cost-effective surface mission can be developed that is capable of following up on the discoveries to be made by Curiosity, and advances our readiness for an eventual sample return effort.”
Rep. Schiff Cheers Curiosity Landing at JPL Tonight, Renews Call to Fully Fund Mars Program
“This success must reinvigorate our efforts to restore funding for planetary science and future Mars missions. While we have restored some of the funding — almost $100 million so far — much work remains to return the Mars Program to health. Without the certainty of future missions and support, we will find it impossible to maintain the most specialized workforce on earth — the brilliant engineers and scientists who made this mission possible.”
Keith’s note: According to Presidential science advisor John Holdren speaking at the post-landing press briefing: “There is a one ton automobile-sized piece of American ingenuity sitting on the surface of Mars”
Bobby Braun said what….?
Curiosity was started not started on Obama’s watch.
And we’re not going to send another rover for at least a decade, due to budget cuts, Congressional stupidity and feeding the James Webb pig. (Can you say EXOMars lost 2016/2018 launch opportunity?)
*sigh*
Obama might easily have proposed cancelling MSL in his first budget and did not. In the present climate that amounts to robust support.
We should use the favorable press of MSL to restart the faster-better-cheaper initiatives, which were foolishly abandoned after some easily-correctable early mistakes.
If they can make the instruments smaller and lighter on the next one I’m sure they can scale down the rover. It looks like they should keep the new EDL methods, they only missed the bullseye by 2km, and they don’t have to worry about cutting free and driving off the lander now.
Miniaturization, I believe, amounts to more cost. What that $/kg of miniaturization curve is I do not know (perhaps only JPL knows this). More science also amounts to more instruments, and more specialized instrumentation, which also translates into more mass and more cost. Sure they can scale down the rover: this simply means fewer instruments.
To miniaturize, it’s a matter of which type of instrumentation can and should be miniaturized, and how much technology development is needed to achieve that miniaturization. If they scale down the rover too much, then they may not need the new EDL method, which would make the sky crane a dead end. Unless the engineers felt sky crane was a better delivery method than airbags, even for a smaller rover. There likely is some cutoff for the sky crane system at which air bags make more sense with a smaller rover.
If you want a cheaper mission that weighs less and goes back to airbags, you get limited science — perhaps just more geology. Or perhaps just a couple specialized instruments to do chemical analysis — something akin to another Phoenix.
With the current “science advisors” (really they don’t have the expertise to appreciate space in my view) in the White House, if they remain in office, we’ll just get another lander. Will this lander (I hope not just another orbiter) be able to respond to the biggest science discovery from MSL–i.e. just investigate potential organics at the best site MSL studies? You’d need ultra-precise landing to reach that same spot with a lander. Or perhaps another rover would be better, equipped to land reasonably near such a site and perform actual astrobiology. In my mind, studying habitability (of past/present life) should be the next near term set of science goals, unless we have missions testing elements of a future human mission. But I doubt those could be cheapened.
These missions just cost a lot to develop and prove out, as they should, to ensure success. Cap the cost if you want, or properly scope out the science in the first place, if you want something cheaper. But I doubt we can get the same bang for the buck for significantly cheaper. Whether “commercial” gets involved more seriously — spending their own dime on science missions — rather than just being contracted by the gov’t almost is irrelevant. What really matters is that there is sufficient oversight (either by the gov’t or a private firm) and testing, which requires a sufficient budget.
My God! It’s full of rocks!
Actually gravel and dirt. But who woulda thunk it?
In one of the news conferences, I believe it was said that they are gonna have move MSL before they go after their first “scoop of dirt”, based on the look of the landing site.. dust, pebbles, and hard ground. Who woulda thought?
2010 Odyssey reference. Got it.
You might know that the Obama pundits would be crawling out of the woodwork to lay claim to this marvelous achievement.The planning for Curiosity was made well before the Obama administration came into office and it have Charles Bolden,Lorie Garver and the Science advisor there their spin on it was an insult to anyone involved in the project,especially since Obama plans a series of cuts to NASA’s budget which will affect any future Scientific endeavors being planned.
Don’t let your hatred of That Man blind you to the facts.
No, Bob, actually I don’t know. Care to point me at all the crawling? Bolden, Garver et al. (Grunsfeld isn’t a political appointee, which you really should know) have every right to stand up and be proud for NASA because it’s happening on their watch. They are the “face” of the agency. I don’t think anyone involved in the project sensed any insult in their enthusiasm. They, and Holdren stepped up to express their pride in the USA. They said nothing about they themselves being wholly responsible for the feat. I’d be happy to hear Mike and Sean step up to express their pride, but I haven’t heard anything from them yet.
So Obama plans a series of cuts to science? Funny, but the runout in his 2013 budget didn’t show that. Care to point me at your evidence? I suspect that if Obama plans any major cuts to NASA, it won’t come down wholly on science.
Yeah, I gather you don’t like Obama.
Makes you wonder, had there been any Constellation, Orion, SLS, Commercial Crew, Webb, or anything under McCain?
No it doesn’t. Just happy to be there.
Helen, sounds like you are not aware that Obama’s 2013 budget request cut planetary science by 20% compared to 2012, disproportionately to Mars exploration. Google it if you are not aware. Bolden even said the idea came from him as these are tight times. Yet commercial crew had a requested boost of 6% and space technology a requested boost of 22%. Right, in tight fiscal times. Billions per month were spent continuing an Iraq war. Of course it would have been political suicide to stop the Iraq war too soon, risking a second term. Doing what’s right for America, right. Funding the vastly overbudget $8b+ Webb telescope, instead of forming an investigative committee on the cost overrun. yet cancel the Moon as a destination citing it as too expensive.
It’s a sad, naive, and almost blind perspective that judges a comment about space science support in terms of Mars exploration investment. It sounds like you aren’t aware of the Administration budget for NASA science, which has a flat runout for five years hence. So get out your calculator, ’cause this is a hard one, I know. The cut to planetary science by 20% is reflected by an INCREASE in other kinds of space science by the same dollar number. Please do have a look at the President’s budget, because it’s all laid out for you there. Bottom line. Obama is holding the line on space science, and it’s an increasingly tough line to hold.
The cut to planetary science was unfortunate, and perhaps inadvisable, but there were some serious questions in OMB about the direction of NASA Mars efforts. The highest priority for Mars science was explicitly sample return, and sample return is simply not affordable, even with the original planetary science budget. The Mars science community largely dug their own hole they fell into.
You’re not commenting on NASA science, but rather just being judgmental about what the best NASA science is. That’s a fair position, but it’s not what we’re talking about here.
Blather about the Iraq war is irrelevant, and the idea that NASA didn’t form an investigative committee to assess the cost overrun on JWST is flat out wrong. As to the Moon as a destination, you’re mixing cherries with watermelons. The cancellation of Constellation was done because it wasn’t just expensive, it was hideously unaffordable.
Helen Simpson:
“It’s a sad, naive, and almost blind perspective” that you clearly just drink the Obama koolaid. From your other comments, it sounds like you believe that everything President Obama does is great. While some of his initiatives may be worthy, not all of them are. And he certainly doesn’t seem to have real space experts on his OMB team, in my opinon. I don’t know that Romney is any better, as he won’t even state a NASA vision beyond “we’ll study it”. Unless his space advisors will pull a reversal of opinion move.
“So get out your calculator, ’cause this is a hard one, I know.” I’m sure you do know. I didn’t major in pure math, but I sure did study enough to warrant your reply to be in “poor taste”. I’m not some dumb Republican/Democrat you can spill on for being math/science illiterate. Get a clue.
“sample return is simply not affordable”. That is a claim, not a fact. Then what makes you think a crewed Mars mission in the 2030s will be? Or in any decade?
“The cut to planetary science by 20% is reflected by an INCREASE in other kinds of space science by the same dollar number”
“being judgmental about what the best NASA science is”.
I never said Mars was the best NASA science, or only worthwhile NASA science. Simply that Mars was taking a disproportionate cut. OMB could just as easily have proposed cutting your other space science by 20% and increasing Mars by 20%. I do believe some space science has higher payoff in terms of answering key science questions that have plaqued humanity for thoursands of years. But I clearly state that as an opinion.
“The cancellation of Constellation was done because it wasn’t just expensive, it was hideously unaffordable”. Is Constellation the ONLY way to get to the Moon? Obama didn’t just say Constellation was unaffordable, he said the Moon was “been there, done that”. So they didn’t recommend an alternate architecture to get to the Moon, they just removed it entirely as our near term destination. To continue going circles in LEO, with a promise of an asteroid mission, and suggestion to get a warm fuzzy about Mars in the 2030s.
“Blather about the Iraq war is irrelevant”. It is entirely relevant to point out one type of gov’t spending (Mars and human-tended Moon exploration) being called “unaffordable” while another, massively funded effort was continued beyond need.
I’ll thank you not to make unsubstantiated presumptions about my politics. I’m talking about one statement of yours, which was unfounded. Let’s try to stay on topic, OK?
I assumed you needed your calculator because, very simply, you’re telling us about the NASA budget, but you evidently only looked at a tiny piece of it. Maybe you needed glasses instead?
Yes, that Mars sample return isn’t affordable is a claim, but it’s a claim by the Decadal Survey, which includes scientists, technologists, and a crack cost assessment team. They said that “the cost of MAX-C must be constrained in order to maintain programmatic
balance.” That is to say, we can’t afford it, the way it looks now.
I never said a Mars mission in 2030 would be affordable. What hat did you pull that out of?
That the Mars program is taking a disproportionate cut is your own judgement call. Disproportionality isn’t rationale, except in a really policy-barren situation. They cut it because they didn’t think it was smart to keep that budget item level. You think otherwise. That’s OK. Your “opinion” is welcome.
As to the Moon, well, we WERE there, and we DID that. Are you arguing with that insightful call? And they did remove it as a near term destination, at least for humans on the surface. Why? Because they reasoned that we hadn’t figured out how to do it more economically. They most certainly didn’t say that we’d never go back to the Moon, but their space agency presented them with the best option for going back to the Moon that was unaffordable. So you’re saying, no problem, let’s keep the Moon as a destination and just cross our fingers that we can find a way to afford it? Sorry, but space policy doesn’t work that way. Constellation needed to die, and pretending to let it metamophose into another lunar mission isn’t a smart decision. Constellation was, because it was so poorly funded, just warm and fuzzies about the Moon. We were never actually going to get there in any reasonable time. I do hope that lunar return will be reinstated, when we’ve figured out how.
Yep, the words about Iraq are indeed blather. The justification and goals for Iraq were totally, utterly different than that for space exploration. As stupid as the Iraq war was, it’s fatuous to believe that money not spent in Iraq would have been spent on space. The Iraq war is an easy target for so many of our country’s ills. Why, if it weren’t for the Iraq war, we’d have amazing health care, sterling education, and safer highways. Illicit drug use would disappear, and the unemployment rate would be miniscule. Yep, let’s blame it all on that war. That’s easier than thinking.
The more notable point is that JPL and not MSFC nor JSC achieved this. You know, those crazy Californian liberals who actually buy into science and the idea that taxes can fund things not defense related.
If Republicans had their way this would have never happened. That would have been an extra $3.5 Billion routed to defense contracts they sure would have liked.
Funny, sounds kinda what Nixon did when Apollo 11 landed. Guess whoever sits in the big chair at time of landing gets the credit.
Keith’s note: According to Presidential science advisor John Holdren speaking at the post-landing press briefing: “There is a one ton automobile-sized piece of American ingenuity sitting on the surface of Mars”
Dear Dr. Holdren. Where is a similar one that should be sitting on the surface of the Moon?
Dear Mr. Wingo. The Apollo program left MANY tons of American ingenuity on the Moon, in the form of emplaced equipment, lunar rovers, and LEM descent stages. That tonnage served vital and novel lunar purposes well, as Curiosity will now do for Mars. Get with the program!
So I take it you think it’s sufficient to have explored the Moon’s surface with humans only six times (and a select few landed robotic craft) in just the equatorial regions 40-50 years ago. What about the lunar poles, which likely have lots of water ice buried within the soil, holding secrets on early comet bombardment near Earth; potential organics relevant to the seeding of Earth with the building blocks of life; and water, oxygen and rocket fuel for future human outposts, and who knows what else? But I guess Apollo must have given us all we need to know about the Moon, right? I suppose then we should slow down Mars exploration because we have now put a car-sized rover on Mars. Living off legacy is NOT the way to advance. You have to continue to build off of successes to maintain excellence, not pat yourself on the shoulder saying “hey we once did that”.
How many Lewis and Clark type missions ( it cost 2% of the Budget for it’s day) should the government have financed? 50 – 100?
The government financed 6 missions at a cost of billions. Now it’s time for the exploitation phase. When the commercial lunar miners start, NASA can send lunar geologists to delve in where they are mining and do research .. JUST like they do here on earth.
Well, as far as I know, only one 2-year L&C mission was funded, and that apparently was enough to open a large part of the frontier. If one weren’t enough, then it would be prudent, in my view, to fund additional missions. Clearly 50-100 would not have been needed.
The 6 Apollo missions were clearly not enough to open the Moon as another frontier. I am grateful that Apollo was done, but it was a crash course to the Moon and thus far amounts to 6 stunt missions, as the political will to continue them, even in reduced fashion, did not exist anymore. Even so, to even get lunar mining (I don’t have figures for the cost-effectiveness of returning lunar minerals to Earth), you have to have the capability and technology to simply get large cargo to the Moon. Not to mention the launch vehicle to return the minerals to Earth. I’m all for it, but don’t think it will happen soon. Not without first regaining a foothold on the Moon again.
Also, I think that surviving an expedition through the American northwest is way easier (in terms of required cargo and expertise, meaning less cost) than human missions to the Moon. So it’s not exactly a 1-to-1 comparison in my view.
Did she say that? This is a ridiculous strawman.
So adastramike, I take it you believe it should be our highest priority to have a Marvin the Martian detecting probe named Bugs Bunny as our next mission to Mars and a swiss cheese detecting probe as our next mission to the Moon. I disagree completely. Living off our Looney Tunes legacy is NOT the way to advance. Let me proceed to bash your statement (which I completely bastardized and very nearly made it all up) to a pulp with my very authoritative sounding anti-Marvin the Martian detection arguments.
Really smart rebuttal there! And you took time to link it to Looney Toons too!
Helen stated we do have hardware on the moon from Apollo in response to another commenter asking John holdren why we don’t have a similar lunar science lab rover. So she somewhat implied its already been done. That is why I said “I take it that…” which means it’s an interpretation of what she said. Get some comprehension skills.
Better yet, go back to your hiking website and stay there. You can write about the historic world of hikes there. Maybe soon you can go on a permanent one.
Thanks 🙂 Well Dennis said where’s our lunar rover. Then Helen’s response showed that we did have just as much stuff on the Moon or more. Obviously Dennis wants to stick with the Moon, but Helen didn’t say she was against more Moon exploration like you interpreted. So I see your response as a mischaracterization. By the way I’d love if we did those things that you mentioned (and Dennis and Paul Spudis…).
Lets see. You’re just making stuff up, right? I do NOT think our lunar efforts have been sufficient, and I NEVER even implied that they were. What I said was that we DID proudly put lots of tonnage of ingenuity on the Moon, which Mr. Wingo seemed to have oddly forgotten about. In fact, we proudly crashed a lot of ingenuity there too, the products of which he’s spent a lot of time recently excavating. I actually agree entirely with what you say about maintaining excellence, except for your bizzare assertion that I don’t. Our Mars program is precisely that. One that builds off successes.
I look forward to more tonnage of ingenuity on the Moon, and it’s a real pity that we did not succeed in building off successes there. Hopefully we eventually will, when we figure out how to design a human lunar return program we can afford. But right now that ton of active ingenuity is on Mars. Get with the program.
There may be a ton of American smarts on Mars, and even more on the Moon, but it sure would be nice to see a little here.
Goodness, here we go again. I can’t help but respond. Clearly I am making certain conclusions from what you write, and you call that “making stuff up”. I’ve seen other people try to use the same tactic. But you should realize my responses are something called interpretation (maybe misinterpretation) and prodding. By your retorts and references to “thinking”, “nice to see a little [smarts] here”, you must think you are super bright — maybe you are — I can’t really judge that from a blog as that doesn’t tell me if you can design an MSL.
I don’t know what you do, I don’t need to know. Just as well, I don’t have to prove my smarts to you, as I know what I’ve achieved thus far academically and that I have the opportunity to shape NASA’s future and not just blog about it. Although I like to blog about it.
You’re telling several people to “get with the program”. That tactic won’t work on me. I’m all for robotic and crewed Mars exploration. I’m also for lunar exploration. So if the current program ignores the Moon because some president said so, or wants to eliminate Mars sample return, I don’t have to get with that or support his particular “vision”. He’ll be gone either next year or 4 years from now. I hope this current WH [lack of] vision and excuse for mediocrity is just a temporary blip.
That tonnage served vital and novel lunar purposes well, as Curiosity will now do for Mars. Get with the program!
And it is my life’s work to make sure that we DON’T do flags and footprints on Mars. Going to Mars while bypassing the Moon is the recipe for nothing but another generation of failed dreams.
Its essential to have a rover on the Moon to determine how much water and other precious volatiles are at the lunar poles.
Space is also about creating wealth and jobs for the American economy. We’ve already done that with commercial satellites at LEO and GEO. Now we need to expand our economic realm to the rest of cis-lunar space.
And the commercialization of the Moon will come a lot sooner than the commercialization of Mars and the moons of Mars.
Marcel F. Williams
A comparison with hardware left behind during Apollo is not very relevant. The primary scientific bounty of Apollo was the soil and rock samples which were hand selected and then personally delivered back to Earth by human couriers. Most of the hardware that you refer to was used by the astronauts to accomplish this task, and was left behind on the Moon simply because it was no longer needed. All of the lab work on the samples was done back on Earth. Yes I realize that there were some scientific instruments left behind but it was the returned lunar samples which were the real scientific prize of Apollo.
Curiosity on the other hand is a laboratory on wheels, and is getting ready for what will hopefully be several years of robotic surface operations yielding many important scientific discoveries.
I agree with your points about the un-sustainability of human exploration of the Moon for the foreseeable future. The same goes for Mars in my opinion. And unfortunately you may also be right about sample return missions. So in the meantime it seems that we have to be content with robotic exploration. However as we have learned from Sojourner, Spirit, Opportunity, and hopefully Curiosity, the capabilities of robotic exploration are proving to be a very satisfying and rewarding consolation.
So this begs the question that Dennis posed – why are we not seeing similar robotic exploration of the Moon? The answer to me seems obvious, it’s because of the current obsession with the hypothesis that life once existed on Mars, or perhaps still does. While certainly an interesting hypothesis, and one worth investigating, it seems that continued exploration of the Moon has been shortchanged by the seemingly obsessive pursuit of this one scientific theory.
I am a big fan of the Mars rovers, but I would prefer to see a bit of equal time for the Moon.
Well, this miraculous achievement didn’t take long at all to devolve into politcal drival in the comments. Some things never change. Bummer.
Steve
Not political crap Steve thought you might like. lol
Mr. Whitfield
You said keep the ideas coming so you are to blame for this one.
You and I have talked about the building of what I call the Inner Solar System Railroad. Well with the recent success of NASA putting a small car on Mars, and the soon to be first test flight of the Falcon Heavy. I propose that with the next Mars flight opportunity that Spacex fire a Falcon Heavy free of charge at the Mars. Like a railroad train, this flight is scheduled whether there are customers or not.
Commercial Beo Space travel needs to be established, and this one way it could be done.
News Flash !!! Elon Musk makes deal with the Google Guys and others in the business community to provide a falcon heavy flights to Mars. Contact Spacex to purchase Dragon Lab/lander opyions of your choice. Any company or country including NASA could buy these flights four robotic Missions to orbit or land on the red Planet. Should there be no customer ready the Falcon Heavy/ train leaves the station anyway.
This idea should not be lost on the moon either falcon heavy flights should be scheduled on a regular basis to the moon too. maybe one per year to start.
News Flash
Elon musk told the Google guys that he promised that when Falcon Heavy developed reusability that the cost of these flights would drop. Google responded by saying well in that case we will send TWO!!!!!
While reading Nasa watch someone said that Spacex does not know how yet. That may be. I would think that NASA and prime employees would want their experience baring fruit on cheaper Space flight??? Instead fear rules the day.
I saw Elon in an interview being questioned about whether he fears other companies like GM taking over the market and he just laughed. It is obvious that Spacex sees themselves as the rabbit, in the race, and they are inviting the rest of the space community to pick up the pace.
Flash back lol
I went to cross county camp back in the days when I dreamed of being an olympian we ran 4 times a day. During the two group runs we would run in packs 50 to 100 people or so. Lol I would always line up for that practice at the front lol. If you’re there to run why not run in the front with the fastest runners lol. Spacex is the fastest runner, and Elon is just begging for a race.
The Tick pilot
Your space conscience
DTARS,
When the money can be made available, an idea like yours can be turned into a once-a-century opportunity for investment. But (you know there’s always a but) for such an investment to “work,” you need the cooperation of other players, and you need it for the entire duration of “investment.”
For example, SpaceX may agree to supplying and completely paying for the Falcon Heavy itself, but:
• who pays for the launch facilities?
• who pays for the transportation of the various payload items to the launch facilities?
• who pays for the insurance for each payload item? (actually, various insurances per item, dependent on its stage of creation, transport, launch, etc.)
• who pays for the integration of the various combined payloads onto the Falcon Heavy?
• who pays for the delays and added costs while “issues” are settled or canceled because of discrepancies between payload owners?
• who arbitrates and benefits from cumulative intellectual property?
• how are risk trade-offs prioritized between various payload owners?
• who pays for the fuel and oxidizer, delivers them, and loads them?
• who pays for the combined program management?
• who pays for the “mission control” and “tracking network” facilities and their operation?
• who pays for the advertising and PR? and what is the thrust of the advertising and PR? Why do this and who benefits, how? (Always assume that nothing is obvious. You’re going to need a punch line as well as a bottom line.)
• etc.
This is just a short list of some of the more obvious issues that would need to be resolved and paid for. I believe that they could, very potentially, be resolved and paid for, but to generate any interest in your proposal, you would need to have all of these answers and many more worked out (satisfactorily) ahead of time, and you’d need to present them as part of your proposal. Because it’s an unorthodox proposal, the very first time you have to say something like “we’re still working on that,” “let me look into that and get back to you,” “this is something yet to be resolved,” “we don’t yet have consensus on the best way to do that,” or anything along those lines, it’s going to be game over. You’ll have to have all of the answers, complete answers, non-attackable answers, and have them all ready on the tip of your tongue, ready to be supplied convincingly. Better still, these answers should be in your written proposal, each answer presented at the point just ahead of when the reader is logically going to ask the question.
Basic issues: Why SpaceX; Why Mars; Why Falcon Heavy? There is nothing sacred or patentable in any of this, not even the “railroad” concept, so the moment you present this to the world you’ve given your competition (and your enemies) 95% of what they need to either do it first or make it more difficult and more expensive (or even impossible) for you (if you can’t own the golden goose, kill it so that no one else can either). So you need to make it obvious, without anyone having to ask, why SpaceX, Mars, and Falcon Heavy. Which brings us to a major stumbling block — can SpaceX pull this off alone, and even if they can, is it a good idea? This, I think, hangs heavily on the IPO question. If SpaceX were run by a seasoned Board of Directors, instead of a sincere dreamer, the answer would be NO! The Board would pay to have Musk killed and disposed of rather than commit the company to this, despite his track record. Even if it was a guaranteed winner, it’s too unorthodox for a single company to sell, especially a small-scale new-comer.
But let’s be honest; your goal is not to have SpaceX set up and operate your Inner Solar System Railroad. Your goal is to have someone create and successfully operate the Inner Solar System Railroad, whoever can pull it off on acceptable terms. It would be nice, and symbolic, if it were SpaceX/Musk, but it’s not necessary. For this discussion, let’s assume that it is beyond SpaceX’s capability from a resource standpoint; what, then, are the alternatives?
The first viable approach that I can see is to copy the one method that we know succeeds in aerospace — when your company doesn’t have everything it needs to do a given program and it can’t (for whatever reasons) subcontract the missing resources/capabilities, your next step is to attempt to acquire another company which already possesses what you need. I think of this as the Boeing Method. Today’s Boeing includes many acquired, previously independent companies operating as divisions or branches. This method has some advantages that are similar to some of those that SpaceX enjoys through its vertical integration, but overall each has its own separate pluses and minuses. If your marketplace and/or business model change down the road, it is easier to sell off a whole division than it is to selectively downsize your operation.
The second, and only other, viable approach I can see is a consortium, which is an amalgamation put in place for a single program (or set of programs), or for a specified time frame/milestone set, and then dissolved afterward, game over, ship sailed, bars tabs paid.
Which approach anyone favors is most likely dependent solely on his/her past experiences. Personally, I favor a consortium, because if it was contracted properly, it will dissolve more cleanly afterward (it also isn’t as open to creative accounting as an acquisition, but that’s another matter).
If I were a big-time wheeler dealer and my secret goal was to bring into being your railroad, I would be trying to maneuver things behind the scenes (and it would take years) so that I would end up with a consortium of four companies, each of which would subcontract as required (through a single contract management entity). I would be attempting to stack the deck such that, when the time came to announce/propose the railroad program, the logical and obvious choices for the consortium would be SpaceX, Boeing, a world-class program management team, and a logistics/purchasing company that understood incentives and penalties. The key is write the screenplay such that the character casting selections are obvious.
Why am I prattling on about all of this seemingly mundane stuff? Because I want you to see how much work is required, how much planning is going on, and how much money is being spent, before the first engineering drawing is on the table. Most complex engineering programs that fail do so for one of two reasons, either: 1) the program kicked off without a proper program plan and strategy for implementing that plan; or 2) the program plan — good, bad or otherwise — was not adhered to. And then the death blow is delivered when, realizing in mid-program that things are not proceeding according to plan, management does the most amateur thing possible — they start rewriting the plan while the program is in process. Game over; money wasted; hold out no hope; we’re toast.
Speaking of government, why did I not include Government in the proposed consortium? Surely, with its alleged resources, expertise and connections they would be an ideal beneficial addition to the team. I would say no, absolutely not, no government as a partner. First off, it would involve several conflicts of interest, since the government controls the regulatory agencies and would be our biggest customer. The second reason is less obvious and involves money. Don’t we want government money? (it’s really our money; the government doesn’t have any money.) Yes, we most definitely want an need money coming to us by way of the government(s) involved, but NOT as federally-controlled budgets, but rather as tax incentives, user fees, and mostly in payment for services rendered. How much money do the civil space agencies around the world spend in attempts to justify, increase and defend their pitiful annual operating budgets? That’s no way to run a railroad!
A final question for us to think about (but certainly not the last one) — What’s in it for SpaceX? (or whoever is in your consortium/whatever). Everyone is going to ask, so you’d better have a good answer ready, and answer that people are going to buy and buy into. “Because George and Steve say it’s a good thing” is not going to cut it. Why is it good for SpaceX (or whoever)? Why is it good for the country, the world, the people, the future, our children’s future, in straight-forward, understandable, sensible terms that clearly justify both the expense of doing it and the loss of other things that weren’t done because we are doing this.
To sell this to the know-nots, the know-at-alls, and the chronically misinformed, you’re going to have to sell the idea, once and for all, in two simple sentences, so polish up your salesmanship.
Steve
Not answer to your post just more thoughts Steve.
Steve, Tinker, Mr. C
What is the point?
Today the Olympics ended .
We got the most metals, yet how many Syrians died in the last 16 days? How many American lives and money was saved for not getting involved? Many rebels say they will not forget!
Yea!!! We beat china!!! Yet we loose capability to them each day.
Our politics seems more polarized than ever. Right! Left! Is there a solution in the middle?
Thoughts of life as a Tick pilot in the year 2032 float in my head. Lol (A Tick Pilots job is pretty safe Mr. C.)
NASA blew up a test rocket! So what!! It was a test rocket!!!
Will we have landed humans on Mars by 2030? Elon is getting crows feet around his eyes.
Next up, Orbital
Then Spacex’s dragon ISS again, then a Spacex grasshopper test or two.
A small car sits on Mars : )
Tinker
I sketched a cross section of a gravity wheel built from a square Tinker Tanker tank. The thrust frame was unfolded to reflect in maximum light. Lol it is adjustable of course, hinged, just an unfolded thrust frame being reused. A farming gravity wheel I think lol. (I may build a model of a section out of half gallon milk bottles and tooth pick or maybe draw a perspective or two. lol I do many things poorly.)
Lol A Tick pilot job in 2032 building The Aldrin Von Braun Mars recycler gravity wheels out of Methane Tanks.
Could it happen??
Dare I suggest??
Dare I dream??
Time is running out, The Ice caps are melting, the frogs are disappearing, We keep populating.
What is the point of my random thoughts of conscience they ask??
Why do I type when I barley know how?
I feel I must!
Joe Q
PS The author of The Devils highway said “There is no THEM, there is only US!”
Lol Maybe that’s what Mr. C was trying to say Steve lol
Holdren also stated in a NASA interview that the U.S. is the only nation to put a surface lander on another planet. Guess he forgot about the Russians repeatedly landing on Venus in the 1970s. And ESA landing on Titan (though technically it’s a moon not a planet).
A. He corrected himself later (it was late at night) and B. He is not an expert in space – so he doesn’t know everything about every single mission that everyone has done since the 1960s. You seem to not care about his main point that no one but America could do something like this and that a nice heavy chunk of American ingenuity now sits on Mars ready to go exploring.
What I care about more is that six months ago Holdren’s boss slashed the budget for Mars Exploration. So we won’t see any more “American” one-ton rovers on Mars for at least a decade.
And Keith, my friend, correct me if I misquote you, but I believe that you were strongly in favor of cancelling MSL (and JWST) for going overbudget.
Ray Gedaly
I was thrilled to watch the landing and when the post landing press conference started and they introducted John Holdren, I just knew.. somehow.. he was going to link Obama to this amazing feat. Of course, I was not dissappointed and Obama’s name was mentioned a few times. Unbelievable!
I’d bet a dollar that most of the people who complain about Obama getting any credit for MSL are more than happy to blame him for the consequences of the foreign and economic policy mistakes made under Bush.
Instead, let’s get back to talking about the flawed management process that nevertheless led to this remarkable achievement :_>
I watched it too. Holdren mentioned Obama precisely twice. Once in relaying congratulations from the President of the United States (his boss, as Holdren helpfully pointed out) and once in referring to their hopes that the U.S. would put humans on Mars in 2030. He didn’t need to say that at that future event, it wouldn’t be Obama who would be congratulating the team when it happened. Everyone knows that. In no way was Obama linked to this amazing feat with Curiosity except, whoops, he’s the President, and NASA works for his administration. I guess they could have gotten the Secretary of Agriculture to congratulate the JPL team but, gee, that wouldn’t seem quite right.
So I too am not disappointed that Obama’s name was mentioned a few times in these ways.
My point is that Obamas name should not have been mentioned.. period. This was a time to celebrate the accomplishments of the engineers and scientist of NASA, JPL and others of landing Curiosity on Mars. It just appeared to me to be ‘slimey’ that anyone outside of those engineers and scientists had to have their names mentioned. And I believe Obama was named more then twice. Regardless, they should have kept the politics out of it. I could understand Charlie making a statement but it should have stopped there. I have no doubt politics was involved with regards to John ‘needing’ a platform to make a statement. I was disappointed that he was even involved and I’m sure most of the engineers did not appreciate this ‘politician’ being there.
“My point is that Obamas name should not have been mentioned.. period.”
Then you’d be whining because it wasn’t. “Obviously this proves Obama wants nothing to do with NASA!!!1!one!”
Helen Simpson:
(Disqus didn’t allow any more replies, so a new thread)
Well, you stand on your position, and I’ll continue to stand upon mine. You disagree, I disagree, what else is new between people?
“you’re telling us about the NASA budget, but you evidently only looked at a tiny piece of it”
You are right, I am focusing on Mars, as this is a Mars posting and we just had a momentuos Mars landing. If Kepler discovers an Earth-like planet, I’ll then focus on astronomy and astrophysics. The overall space science budget being flat doesn’t make me think the White House is doing space science a favor. They just want to fund their initial space policy — technology development instead of applied missions — for some always future HSF mission. Their perogative. Good news is, there are many in the planetary science community who are up in arms about the proposed cuts, thinking it unfairly targeted.
“So you’re saying, no problem, let’s keep the Moon as a destination and just cross our fingers that we can find a way to afford it”
I did not state that. Yes, keep the Moon as a destination, just explore a better architecture for it. Waiting until we find a better way? With the Moon being canceled, and Congress going along with it…well that means NASA won’t be studying how to get there more efficiently with any serious planning, until it is reinstated. I’ve heard from some knowledge folks that getting to an asteroid may be even more complex than landing on the lunar surface, so how that is more cost effective is confounding.
“They said that “the cost of MAX-C must be constrained in order to maintain programmaticbalance.” “
Not the same as saying we can’t afford it. Can’t afford it means can’t have it at all. That decadal quote simply says to keep it cost capped to balance with other programs. Like a lunar return, it’s about a proper architecture. And despite the White House budget request, NASA is still looking at ways to prepare for sample return. Just not via ExoMars. We’ll just have to see what the Mars mission concepts studies have to say on that.
“Yep, let’s blame it all on that war. That’s easier than thinking.”
So maybe you think I blame all the country’s ills on the Iraq war, and must have a lack of thinking as a result. You certainly have that wrong. I’ll just keep it at that.
Anyway, don’t confuse my discussion of the Iraq war with all the reasons the some in the public have to hate the war or blame it for other national woes. What I did point out was the gross spending difference between that war and space science missions, particularly for the Mars and the Moon. I don’t believe any myopic president would have redirected even a fraction of that Iraq money to space. Maybe only a space-savvy, visionary president would have — someone capable of articulating how tiny the cost of space missions are compared to other gov’t expenditures and how it’s an investment in the future. But I won’t hold my breath for that. NASA will have to make do with the trend of budget fluctuations. Fortunately we have missions like MSL to show us what we can achieve now and in the future, not what we achieved decades ago, when given sufficient resources.
t
Not political drivil Steve, just another kooky idea from the Tick pilot. lol Future Joe Q climbs through hatch tranforming himself into The Tick pilot. Not bad for a Joe Q super hero lol
Anyway let me know what you think of a rocket/train schedule idea lol
You and I can save the world inspite of their silliness lololol