Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

For project management geeks like myself, I have broken down the components of the proposal according to scope, schedule, and budget here.

Posted by Jay Manifold at January 14, 2004 12:43 PM

So - resource production on the Moon...

Implications for nanotech?

Posted by Duncan Young at January 14, 2004 12:47 PM

Ok, what firm commitments do we see here, apart from boosting NASAs overall budget a little ?

Posted by at January 14, 2004 12:52 PM

Not necessarily any implications for nanotech, though nanotech will make it easier (and this plan superfluous...)

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 14, 2004 12:58 PM

None of the big ticket items come due in this adminstration - as always.

Much as I hate the idea of a four term Bush adminstration, this is a good reason for repealing the 25 amendment.

Posted by Duncan Young at January 14, 2004 12:59 PM

It's also the same goals that his father laid out on July 20, 1989. It's not at all clear to me what's going to be different this time.

That's what I was thinking.

Posted by Dave at January 14, 2004 01:03 PM

I know its a nit but it still bugged me when he referred to the NASA astronauts as "space entrepreneurs". Entrepreneurs produce profit. Yes those men and women are brave and dedicated but they aren't entrepreneurs.

Posted by Michael Mealling at January 14, 2004 01:09 PM

Christ, you would think he had just announced the space program was being grounded. We're going back to the moon people, cheer up. It might not be what most of you wanted, but it gets us there none-the-less. As for his fathers program, I think this one has already gone further than that aborted attempt. NASA *must* start retooling here very, very soon if it's to get moving. And once a monolith like NASA gets moving in one direction, it's going to take quite a lot to bring it to a halt.

Have faith, NASA may redeem itself yet.

Posted by at January 14, 2004 01:10 PM

...it gets us there none-the-less.

That remains to be seen.

...once a monolith like NASA gets moving in one direction, it's going to take quite a lot to bring it to a halt.

Yes, that's what we're afraid of...

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 14, 2004 01:20 PM

If we want to ask some of our questions directly to NASA, Dr. John Grunsfled will be taking questions online. You have to submit them now: http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask/question.html. If you can, post your questions to this thread on Rocketforge so we can see if they're actually answering all the questions or not.

Posted by Michael Mealling at January 14, 2004 01:21 PM

Cheer up?!?

Look: I'm 40 right now. I've just been told that NASA, to the exclusion of all others, is expected to produce results in 15-20 years? They can't get anything right NOW! Let's shovel some more money at them and give them at least 8 years to sit on their behinds and squash any private sector attempts at spaceflight?

I'll be on my deathbed watching "taikonauts" explore the nearer stars before NASA gets us out of LEO.

Posted by BrewingFrog at January 14, 2004 01:22 PM

We're going back to the moon people

We are? I didn't hear anything in there about any plans to figure out how you or I could go. No. Its more like We're going to watch a handful of other guys go back to the moon. I can do that by watching Star Trek.

Posted by Michael Mealling at January 14, 2004 01:25 PM

Pretty good, given what's realistically possible. No massive restructuring (which pisses away huge amounts of money), no blank check (which pisses away huge amounts of money), no overambitious goals (which pisses... you get the point).

NASA now has a concrete goal, something to get the various internal interest groups in line. Everyone will try to use this to advance their pet project, but the goals and budget are limited enough that most of them will be told to take a number. Most important is that this won't tread on the toes of entrepreneurs, since the only new vehicle being developed is the CEV, and the entrepreneurs are either developing orbital boosters (for which CEV could potentially be a customer), or working on suborbital vehicles (which NASA doesn't even notice).

This could have been a lot worse, and may even turn out to be quite good.

Posted by Andrew Case at January 14, 2004 01:25 PM

Apart from a declaration that the USG is getting out of space travel all together and funneling the NASA budget into incentives for the private sector (rather unlikely events now or in the future), I'm not sure I see how this proposal can avoid be similar to early proposals.

Space travel is about travel. That means going someplace. Yes, we'd be smart to build an infrastructure to support it; yes, it makes no sense to inititate one-off missions like Apollo (this proposal doesn't sound like that to me, but we need to see the details); and, yes, it makes sense to bring in the private sector.

But, regardless of who does the traveling, and who pays the bills, you're still gonna go to the same places: LEO, the Moon, Mars, nearby asteroids.

Let's get on with it. Quibbling will only give the anti-space constituency more ammunition. I don't really care if space travel is funded by my taxes or by rich tourists, or both, so long as we just bloody do it.

Given the abiding unawarenss of the public about space travel and the brutal ingnorance of a lot of media pundits, there's a lot of educatin' that needs to be done. (Case in point: A few minutes prior to Bush's speech, an NPR "science advisor" was on the air speculating that the new moon mission might ge premised on the need to use "moonrocks" as radiation shielding for Mars missions. Where do these people come from?)

Posted by billg at January 14, 2004 01:27 PM

In theory, I don't care whether it's paid for with tourist dollars or taxes, either, but in practice, when it's paid for by the latter, results tend to be costly and long in coming, and often they don't come at all.

However, Andrew is right--it could have been much worse (though it also could have been much better).

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 14, 2004 01:32 PM

Pros (from my locally idiosyncratic point of view): Gets ISS to a useful state of completion. Kills the shuttle. Inexpensive (compared to SEI or Easterbrook's strawman). I agree with the philosophy that space settlement will require finding a lower gravity well.

Cons: Wrong gravity well. CEV will be overdesigned for the point of view of LEO, but underdesigned for interplanetary travel. Vague. This administration has a poor record of ponying up commitment for its "good-speech" initiatives - whether it be AIDS, Americorp, hydrogen, or NCLB. Want to know where that $11 billion is coming from.

Recommendations: Screw the Moon, and turn LEO over to the X-prize winners. Go long and go red!

Posted by Duncan Young at January 14, 2004 01:32 PM

For research tasks - I guess robots would do. For colonization look at the Ultima Thule instead.

Posted by Mats at January 14, 2004 01:40 PM

Yea, for all my whining, Andrew is right. I could have been a lot worse. I guess I was wishing for something earth shatteringly amazing but that's just silver-bullet-ism speaking. Back to the hard slog of figuring out a business plan that someone might invest in....

Posted by Michael Mealling at January 14, 2004 01:44 PM

Recommendations: Screw the Moon, and turn LEO over to the X-prize winners. Go long and go red!

"turn LEO over to the X-prize winners"

Let them first prove they can even get into orbit on a regular basis. Until then, the x prize and all the teams involved might as well be playing with star-wars figures as far as the rest of the world is concerned.

"Go long and go red!"

Yes, and plant one or maybe two flags and then call it a day. That's the same mistake Apollo made, only this time it takes 6 months to even get there. As tempting as this is, it's a mistake and would cost us decades we could have spent doing things on the moon, etc. Let Zubrin and his crew stew on it for a while, they'll get over it.

I'm all for the X-Prize, but really, lets talk when they actually make a flight (Go spaceship one!)

Posted by at January 14, 2004 01:53 PM

There is one good thing (or, more correctly, not-bad thing). Although Bush said that NASA's resources would be focussed entirely on manned space missions, he also said that there would be a robotic vangard spreading out ahead of the manned missions. So, they're probably not going to take money away from the jpl and their highly-successful projects. That was a worry when we first heard about Bush's intent on refocussing NASA.

Posted by at January 14, 2004 01:54 PM

Unless I missed something, there was no talk of developing a space elevator (you were right on that, Mr. Simberg). Not surprising, but a shame anyway: I know the thing is decades away, but by reducing the cost of putting things in orbit, it would have the same effect the Erie Canal had on the West, and make sustained exploration at least a bit more feasible.

Posted by Brian at January 14, 2004 02:02 PM

Mars is a lot more resources for not a lot more total energy. We know there is water on Mars; it is still fifty-fifty for the Moon. And without hydrogen - why go to the moon.

And unless LEO is commercially economic, what is the point of having people there? No long term development prospects there without inital high flight rates.

Posted by Duncan Young at January 14, 2004 02:05 PM

O'Keefe just mentioned "commerical providers" for ISS cargo support post STS.

Posted by Duncan Young at January 14, 2004 02:12 PM

NASA-run space elevator could easily work out to be the second Shuttle. Even though government research would come in handy with such long-term prospects, i wouldnt trust NASA to actually design, build and operate one.

Posted by at January 14, 2004 02:17 PM

Reasons to be on the moon (off the top of my head):

cheap construction material lying around for on lunar structures and other in system use (powdered rock is very neat stuff)

dangerous high energy industrial processes viable
(and you've got a hard vacuum 'for free')

you've got a place to build stuff for use in space that needn't be launched up a gravity well as heavy as the earth or mars, yet still has a mild one to make working easier for the hairless monkeys (us)

self-replicant nanotech and otherwise dangerous bio-tech experiments can be carried out safely

retirement homes for the very old and rich, those who can't live in a deep gravity well anymore anyway, and hence don't care about atrophy, since they'll be living longer

Sure there're more...

Posted by David Mercer at January 14, 2004 02:22 PM

I think this is one of those scenes where the murderer slips in the knife so gently the victim keeps walking a while before realizing he's dead.

Bush has put an expiration date on the Shuttle. That's irrevocable--limited parts runs, closing down production lines, retirements without replacement hires, etc. Shuttle is going to stop flying and station will be abandoned to whoever wants it.

Meanwhile, the shuttle follow-on has been tossed into the procurement process with a promise of $1B and best wishes. The existing powers that be won't let it cut into their rice bowls. Nobody else is going to fight for it. By the time it hits the crucial milestones Bush will be back on the ranch. CEV will go the way of station or X-33--delayed, redesigned, stretched out, and budget cut.

So in 2011 NASA will have no flying vehicles and a bunch of viewgraphs of CEV concepts. Without operations it can't justify its budget. NASA's funding will collapse by half to just the planetary probes and basic R&D (assuming those don't get wiped out by JSC's death throes). And the road will be clear for the private sector to go into space.

Posted by Karl Gallagher at January 14, 2004 02:24 PM

David,
All good reasons to go to the moon. None are reasons to go to the moon first.
Hydrogen remains a limiting factor.
I anticipate a lunar pole lander will be a very early Code T objective.

Posted by Duncan Young at January 14, 2004 02:30 PM

Let me jump in here as someone from the manned-space side: I thought it was a decently good speech, although long on timetable and a bit short on details. (However, I assume that it will be O'Keefe's job to spell out some of the detail over the next couple of days.) I'll start with some of my worries and whines:

* It bothers me that, in manned space, it always seems like we have to give up an existing capability in order to get a new capability. In order to do Shuttle, we had to give up Saturn; now in order to do a new Moon/Mars program we have to give up a lot of the space science capability that Shuttle provided. (However, we might be able to make this up in other ways; I'll get to that in a minute.)

* I think the schedule is too stretched. 2014 for first manned flight of a CEV seems way long to me; other than funding reasons, I don't see why it can't be done by 2010 or so. And the gap between the end of Shuttle operations and the first CEV flight leaves a political opening for opponents to try to kill the whole thing at that time. (Why is the first CEV flight stated as being 2008, but the first manned flight is not until 2014? That part just confused me.) The moon landing target of 2020 is so far to the right that, in Washington terms, it just doesn't really exist. (In Washington terms, anything beyond the next fiscal year doesn't exist.)

* As others have pointed out, a CEV built as a trans-lunar vehicle will be over-built as a LEO vehicle. With the CEV and the launchers we have today, the whole Lunar Orbit Rendezvous mission design doesn't make sense, but that seems to be what everyone is assuming. (Then again, this is stuff that will probably get resolved within the next two years.)

* We are tied in a knot by our ISS international committments, but there's not much we can do about it now. It's a shame, because a station at low inclination would be a mighty handy thing to have for this program. How much energy would it take to shove ISS down to a 28-degree orbit? Is it totally impractical, or just 99% impractical?

* How to avoid throwing away existing investments in, e.g., Orbital Space Plane remains to be seen.

On the other hand, a lot of good things seem to be happening:

* We have a goal! It may be a bit vaguely stated, there are a lot of devils lurking in the details, but at least we have a goal.

* It's not an Apollo-style crash program. There won't be wildly cyclical employment with people killing themselves with overtime one year, and being laid off the next. And interest won't fade once that first flight is complete.

* It combines robotics and manned exploration in a reasonable fashion. (You JPL folks may find it hard to believe, but us MSFC/JSC/KSC types wouldn't for a minute want to see you put out of business. Robotics has a lot of work to do, both as a precursor and as a surrogate for going places where humans, with the technology we have today, just can't go.)

* If funding for some space science activities is picked up in other places, say the National Science Foundation, it could be a huge shot in the arm to the X-Prize folks who could possibly see a profit in flying science sorties. People building research payloads would need something to fly on, and without Shuttle competing with them, some of the private LEO spacecraft could bring in revenue in the short term doing this. It might provide the financial bridge to get us to space tourism.

Posted by Cousin Dave at January 14, 2004 02:32 PM

squash any private sector attempts at spaceflight?

Space project veteran, but space policy newbie here.

Can someone explain for me, concisely, how NASA has squashed private sector attempts at spaceflight?

Don't we have some of that happening now (Rutan, X-Prize, etc.)? Is NASA opposed to this for some reason?

Confused...

Posted by John Copella at January 14, 2004 02:39 PM

>>...when it's paid for by the latter, results tend to be costly and long in coming...

Sadly, quite true. The USG should stop getting in the way of private space efforts. The case for encouraging the private sector to operate in LEO is substantial. I would have liked to have heard an intention to encourage, or, at least, stop discouraging, the private sector. But, Bush was unlikey to make that kind of announcement at NASA HQ. In addition, the CAIB report has successfully branded LEO operations using the Shuttle as experimental and risky. The private sector is not going to be ferrying any astronauts to LEO until it has proven it can do it safely and reliably by not killing a bunch of space tourists.

On another point: Reports before the speech cited some kind of new NASA-DoD relationship. I didn't hear Bush mention this. Not happening, or he doesn't want to talk about it?

BTW, Rand, for somone who said he was on the beach, you've cranked out some excellent material this week.

Posted by at January 14, 2004 02:46 PM

I'm at the beach, not on the beach...

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 14, 2004 02:57 PM

"On another point: Reports before the speech cited some kind of new NASA-DoD relationship. I didn't hear Bush mention this. Not happening, or he doesn't want to talk about it?"

Pete Aldridge is tied to the DoD.

Posted by at January 14, 2004 03:09 PM

Listened to the speech on NPR as I was going to pick up the first-graders from school. Right afterward Sam Brownback came on and said they'd probably have to outsource later ISS supply missions to civilian contracts. The kids were excited and wanted to talk about spaceships, planets, comets, etc. I can't find a down side.

We'll spend $390 billion this year on defense, and $1.2 trillion on various "mandatory" social programs. Whinging over another $1 billion to NASA seems like wasted concern.
http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2004/budget.html

Posted by Cecil Turner at January 14, 2004 03:18 PM

Don't know about this one. I'm worried that all NASA will do is go to Mars, plant a flag in the ground, and spend 30 years patting themselves on the back for it like they did with Apollo.

I like the idea of a Moon Base. Going to Mars is just not feasible when we haven't even proven that we can do it on our nearest satellite.
Knowing Nasa were going to have to take that 11 Billion and triple it.

But in the end it doesn't matter. None of us will ever live to get our own buts on a flight to Mars. At this rate it'll be well over 200 years before we get one.

Hopefully someone will win the X-prize. Then atleast I'll be able to get my but in space and I won't have to watch on CNN someone else doing it for me.

Posted by Jason Verheyden at January 14, 2004 03:45 PM

Don't know about this one. I'm worried that all NASA will do is go to Mars, plant a flag in the ground, and spend 30 years patting themselves on the back for it like they did with Apollo.

But in the end it doesn't matter. None of us will ever live to get our own buts on a flight to Mars. At this rate it'll be well over 200 years before we get one.

Hopefully someone will win the X-prize. Then atleast I'll be able to get my but in space and I won't have to watch on CNN someone else doing it for me.

Posted by Jason Verheyden at January 14, 2004 03:45 PM

No downside? $200M per year is nothing and will result in nothing.

"I believe that this nation should commit itself to the strategery before two
decades are out of landing a man in the moon and returning him safely to the earth"

Posted by jerry at January 14, 2004 03:57 PM

"i believe this nation can see whether it wants to land on the moon when im safely out of the office. Until then, heres some light music"

Posted by at January 14, 2004 04:03 PM

The thing is, in terms of sustainabilty, Mars is easier than the Moon, and it is easier to prevent deteriorating into "a we done it" mission. If you have figured out how to last the 1000 days of a Mars mission, you have everything you need for a permanent human occupation. Meanwhile flags and footprints for the moon is relatively easy - but without hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen or cheap oxygen, you have little incentive to stay.

So let me rephrase. Going to the moon is easy; staying on the moon is very hard. Going to Mars is harder than going to the Moon, but here, going is the same as staying.

Plus it is harder to cancel a program with a crew en route.

Posted by Duncan Young at January 14, 2004 05:22 PM

"It's not at all clear to me what's going to be different this time."

There is one difference that may be important: This time both Houses of Congress are held by Republicans who have reason to support the President rather than tear him down unlike the Democrats who held Congress did in 1989. I consider that a reason to support all decent Republican candidates for Congress and the Senate in this coming election. ^_~

Posted by The Snark Who Was Really a Boojum at January 14, 2004 08:35 PM

"without hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen or cheap oxygen, you have little incentive to stay"
Hydrogen and oxygen, we have. Much more importantly, moon stans a chance of being used for practical purposes.

Posted by at January 15, 2004 02:47 AM

I just thought about a political benefit of the speech last night. Because of when GWB made the speech, the Democratic candidates will probably have to come out with their own space plans to prove that they have better alternatives. Regardless of who wins the election, some plan to get back to space will be promised to the voters. So, there will a lot of awareness about the space programs for a while, which should help the new space program get through the first few years of funding and build enough momentum to achieve some successes.

Posted by johnjay at January 15, 2004 04:51 AM

John Copella asked earlier:
> Can someone explain for me, concisely, how NASA
> has squashed private sector attempts at
> spaceflight?

The best example is Beal Aerospace mainly because Andrew Beal got pissed off enough to talk about it afterward. See Beal's old website for the details. There are other cases like this. Most involved private companies announcing missions only to have NASA come out within a few weeks with a hearty "We're doing that too!". Unless you have investors who really understand NASA and its methods, most investors will drop you like a stone if they know they're main competitor will be a government program.

Posted by Michael Mealling at January 15, 2004 11:16 AM

Man oh man! So the shuttle's being EOL'd, now's the time to plan what to do with the leftovers!

First, send up 5 missions intent on boosting external tanks into LEO and then lunar orbit, so you can build relatively cheap and roomy space stations. Leave at least one shuttle plane in orbit to serve as transportaiton between the ISS and Luna station.

Later, build the first space elevator from the surface of the moon since 1/6G is much more forgiving!

Posted by at January 15, 2004 12:12 PM

If you can build and launch communications satellites from the moon cheaper than from earth, a lunar colony would be profitable.

If you can gather and beam solar power from the moon to earth at an economic rate the moon will always be profitable.

The key is figuring out how to make a colony profitable and you'll end up with a small government research facility that costs money and a massive private facility that makes money.

Posted by TM Lutas at January 15, 2004 12:20 PM

I still think going to the moon first makes more practical sense. I think Mars first people get stuck in fantasy land a little too much. The facts are that unless there is some sort of technological leap in engine technology sending people to Mars is unprofitable and at best overly expensive. The Moon is a better plan but by no means the best plan. We should be focusing on reducing the cost to access space. But seeing the option as being a return to the Moon or a mission to Mars, I think we need to get the first job we started done first, before we go off and re-comitt the same errors some place else. No matter how much Everybody tries to wish it away the Moon is closer and easier to get too. Mars may have a friendlier more Earth-Like environment but the fact that it's at best 200 times farther away blows any other argument out of the water.

I love how the idea of a 1000 day mission seems to make some believe that it will make it less able to be abandoned once the mission is done. If the mission's a week or a few years the government's ability to loose focus is faster and dumber than anything imaginable and I refuse to underestimate it.

Who will go at a 6 Billion dollar ticket price? No one. You'll have your colony but no-one will show up, because no one can afford it. And that's what it takes. Not a few dozen people that NASA selects but it has to be affordable for average joes if it will ever be a real colony. America was never colonized by Blow-Dryed Snotty Astronauts, it was colonized by misfits, and the undesireables of society that scrounged and saved to get their ticket to a new world. Otherwise it will be the frog leg testing outfit they have with the ISS.

Don't get me wrong I'd love to go to Mars. But I have to be realistic. And I still have say the Moon has a better shot at it by shear distance than anything else.

Posted by Jason Verheyden at January 15, 2004 07:41 PM

Post a comment