Gregg Easterbrook gets it half right, sort of, which is usually the case when he pontificates about space policy.

Once again, he uses Shuttle as the exemplar of launch costs to argue that we can't afford a lunar base. In addition, his numbers are simply pulled out of the air, or perhaps some danker, less sanitary location--I don't want to know...

He also remains hung up on science as the raison d'etre of doing such things, and assumes that the ISS is representative of what a space station should or could cost, which is just as absurd as using Shuttle costs for the estimates.

Now, I'm not a big proponent of sending NASA off to build a moon base, but if one is going to argue against it, it should be done for sound policy reasons, not financial handwaving.

He finishes up with one final flawed argument:

A Moon base would actually be an impediment to any Mars mission, as stopping at the Moon would require the mission to expend huge amounts of fuel to land and take off but otherwise accomplish nothing, unless the master plan was to carry rocks to Mars.

This misses the point. The purpose of doing a lunar base is to learn how to do planetary bases in general, in a location that's only two or three days from earth if something goes wrong, not to provide a way station on the way to Mars. And of course, it's possible that we might be able to generate propellant on the moon. If that's the case, and it can be done for less cost than lifting it from earth, then the moon may indeed be a useful staging base for deep-space missions.

I do agree with his last graf, though, as far as it goes.

NASA doesn't need a grand ambition, it needs a cheap, reliable means of getting back and forth to low-Earth orbit. Here's a twenty-first century vision for NASA: Cancel the shuttle, mothball the does-nothing space station, and use all the budget money the two would have consumed to develop an affordable means of space flight. Then we can talk about the Moon and Mars.

My only quibble is that this should not be interpreted as giving NASA the money to develop the affordable means of space flight. That will simply result in another attempt at another single monoculture vehicle that will leave us no better off than Shuttle. It should be given to people who have the motivation and organization to do so, probably via prizes or other forms of market guarantees.

[Via Tyler Cowen]

I would love to see NASA go to the moon and/or Mars. I would love to see them plan things out so that they subcontract out the Earth to Earthorbit phase of each launch. I might be missing something but this could seriously jumpstart the industry in ways the satellite and tourist launch businesses could never do.

I might also be wrong on another point but didn't the Clemintine mission show that their is ice mixed in with the soil on the lunar south pole. If i'm remembering that correctly Gregg Easterbrook is way off on line about carrying rocks to Mars. If there is ice up there the moon becomes the gas station that makes a series of Mars mission significantly easier.

I would like to see NASA banned from all Earth Orbit projects. They should be pioneers looking and acting further afield so that others can move in and commoditize access to Earth orbit.

Has he ever responded to any of your points before? Did he ever respond to I'm Calling You Out, Gregg? Apparently the interactive aspect of blogging is completely lost since his 'blog' (if you could call it that) doesn't accept comments.

No, he hasn't. Of course, I've never tried to get his attention (e.g., emailing him).

Easterbrook will happily change the terms of his argument, so long as the end result is bashing the space program. Over ten years ago he wrote an article in TNR comparing on a pound per pound basis, the cost of placing a pound of payload into LEO--Saturn V versus Shuttle.

He concluded, as I recall that the Shuttle was over seven times more expensive than the Saturn V. He posited that a Saturn V launch cost $415 million and placed 280,000 pounds into orbit. That worked out to $1482 per pound.

He then claimed a Shuttle launch cost $515 million and used a semi-arbitrary 48,000 pound payload (why didn't he use the design max of 65,000 pounds?) and that costed out to $10,729 per pound delivered to LEO.

This is a strawman on several counts, not the least of which is the apples and oranges nature of comparing a big dumb booster with a reusable spaceplane. Have no idea how accurate the figures might be either. This article dates from around 1991 or so.

But for him to be intellectually honest or at least consistent, he should now be happy that we should go back to the moon on a Saturn V type heavy lifter, since it would be cheaper on a pound per pound basis as he pointed out all those years ago. Nope, now he's got to have 'cheap access to space' whatever that means, to be happy.

He dislikes the space program. Period. Even if it were free, he'd not be happy with it. Jerk.

He concluded, as I recall that the Shuttle was over seven times more expensive than the Saturn V. He posited that a Saturn V launch cost $415 million and placed 280,000 pounds into orbit. That worked out to $1482 per pound.

He then claimed a Shuttle launch cost $515 million and used a semi-arbitrary 48,000 pound payload (why didn't he use the design max of 65,000 pounds?) and that costed out to $10,729 per pound delivered to LEO.

This is a strawman on several counts, not the least of which is the apples and oranges nature of comparing a big dumb booster with a reusable spaceplane. Have no idea how accurate the figures might be either. This article dates from around 1991 or so.

Well, I think he gave a valid comparison of the two assuming (!) the figures are close. I wouldn't base my launch decisions solely on launch costs per kg (reliability and the number of people you can bring to orbit being other sticking points), but it is the single most important economic factor for most missions.

You must admit that NASA has from time to time portrayed the shuttle as among other things a cargo carrier. The six shuttle missions cancelled in 2003 were to service the ISS and bring up construction materials. In that sense, the shuttle is a failure since only about a third of its launch mass is cargo and dumb expendables are cheaper.

Shoot. First three paragraphs of my last rant were actually due to Thomas. Got the italics wrong. Sorry.

YAY PRIZES AND MARKET INCENTIVES!