Popular Mechanics has rounded up some thoughts from some panel members, and others, including John Carmack. I haven’t had time to read them yet, myself, but may have more comments when I have.
[Update a few minutes later]
OK, I’ve skimmed them. Bob Park has nothing of interest to say, as usual. I think that Scott’s comment is the most interesting. I think that the answer to both questions is yes. We already can see the economic justification — if nothing else, there is a market for wealthy people who simply want to go. If the price can be brought down, that market is extremely elastic (look what happened to the cruise industry…). The way to bring the cost down is to build an affordable infrastructure, and start living off the land. The great tragedy of human spaceflight is that we have squandered tens of billions over the past decades redoing the unaffordable Apollo model of centralized bureaucracy. Had we not been diverted by the need to beat the Soviets to the moon half a century ago, I think that a NACA that had evolved into a technology agency for space as well as aviation might have had us much further down that road by now.
The way to bring the cost down is to build an affordable infrastructure, and start living off the land.
Lunar LOX is of course the low hanging fruit on the land out there and a reusable lunar lander (RLL) parked at an EML point is the easiest form of permanent infrastructure that allows affordable access to those new lands.
I must admit Bob Parks seems a bit off. Last I checked, my large intestine wasn’t much like the surface and near surface of Mars. Maybe he has the necessary icy bowels, in which case we should endeavor to keep him away from Mars.
Maybe he has the necessary icy bowels, in which case we should endeavor to keep him away from Mars.
And what better way to do that than with a space program that is going nowhere fast?
>= I think that a NACA that had evolved into a technology agency for space
>as well as aviation might have had us much further down that road by now.==
Agreed. We need a NASA more like a DARPA.
One of the things most horrifying is that NASA and the Augustine commission seem determined to make space far less affordable, and far less accessible. Often blatantly claiming ignorance that any RLV concept is conceivable with current tech. Ignoring the 30 years of Partially reusable shuttle and RLV proposals from industry, and instead proposing to spend 2.5 times more on the fully expendable Ares/Orion/Altair systems, then NASA estimates on the cost to build a fully reusable shuttle replacement – which could be lunar or lunar orbit capable.
A giant leep away from space.
I’m so disgusted I’m not even sure I could still watch a moon landing. Are there any pressure groups advocating a rational space policy or is it just scattered bloggers?
Definitely a lot of focus on destinations and very little focus on living off planet, Scot Pace raises some very good points. Where is the Gerald O’Neill of our times? Where is the space habitat new space community and X-Prize?
Whether it be LEO, HEO, Lagrange points, the Moon, Mars, asteroids, we need sustainable low cost habitats in space. They need to be much larger, cheaper and more practical than the ISS of Bigelow space stations, they need to have hangers for building and repairing stuff and they need to have basic food production. They will also need to have tugs, high ISP drives, orbital assembly systems, large cheap solar power systems, etc. If going beyond LEO serious radiation shielding will also need to be developed.
And after we have learned how to make these large somewhat self sufficient habitats from terrestrial resources we need to learn how to make them from extra terrestrial resources.
It seems to me that this capability is the critical path and needs developing before we can sustainably go beyond LEO. New Space seems to be getting on track with regard to developing rockets, now it needs to also start developing the other half of the equation. There now needs to be just as many if not more groups developing low cost habitat modules and associated orbital infrastructure as are currently developing rockets. But how to make this happen?
Material resources are not quickly dissipated by entropy. Energy is the most critical resource for sustainable living off planet, as it is not readily recycled. Energy is required for living and transport, with abundant energy materials can be transported to your door from most anywhere. Energy is much easier in space, it is the economic case for living off planet, yet we have developed very little of it.
“Often blatantly claiming ignorance that any RLV concept is conceivable with current tech. ”
And not helped by many other enthusiasts (‘Moonies’ and ‘Marsies’ as was coined here) who are ‘bored’ with ‘going round and round in LEO’ and who, without good RLVs, don’t understand that they want to make this giant leap to one world or another…with nothing solid to stand on. (Which, like Apollo, may work for a *few* missions…)
The orbital ‘assemble/(re)fuel/checkout/sendout’ paradigm I grew up with, is as valid as ever…but somehow forgotten by those that need it most. for what they want to do If operational costs can’t be brought sufficently under the budgetary radar (like Antarctic research), government programs can’t continue, and commercial projects won’t start. ‘Inspiration’ won’t keep Apollo-esq efforts going…the public’s attention span is not any longer than it was back then.
This is precisely why I am so dismayed by the plan to go with commercial crew and NASA HLV. The real loss is not the monetary cost incurred by SDLV. That though large is dwarfed by other government expenditures. The real cost is the opportunity cost: the biggest opportunity to stimulate the development of RLVs and thus reduce the cost to orbit in a generation. Another probable loss is the opportunity to use ISS as part of an exploration program since SDLV is too expensive and an ISS detour too inefficient with a very large upper stage/EDS.
Fortunately commercial crew taxis can still give a significant boost to commercial space (though not cost to orbit) and ISS will be around for another ten years at least. All is not lost yet.
The good thing is this scenario boosts commercial space in the short to medium term. Ruling out EELVs even helps SpaceX, unless ULA man-rate EELVs on their own dime. But if SpaceX remains dependent on NASA as its main client, it’s going to have a problem if/when the ISS disappears.
Fortunately it looks as if that will not be for a long time to come. This may mean at least ten years of good news for commercial space. And ten more years for the Huntsville boys to shoot themselves in the foot and for commercial space to try to dislodge them. Also bear in mind ACES will happen anyway.
As Marshal Foch said of the Versailles Treaty: “This is not a peace. It is an armistice for 20 years.” Or in this case maybe 10 years.
The ISS was still built with shuttle/apollo-esk cost structures and is similarly unsustainable. For just the operating costs I suspect New Space could develop far more and far more useful space stations.
ISS is probably worth keeping around, definitely a much better use of NASA dollars than Ares. Although beyond providing a market for commercial launch services and sporadic tourist accommodation, I am not sure that it will help develop low cost space habitation anymore than the shuttle helped develop low cost access to space. Need a paradigm shift here too.
Well not necessarily ISS itself, maybe a successor station. If it’s possible to reuse some parts of the ISS, great. If not, use a commercial station. But exploration is easier with a LEO gateway station and LEO tourism is easier with an anchor customer. Exploration also becomes easier with smaller launchers once you have a gateway station.
Interestingly, it was said on nasaspaceflight.com recently that as part of the preparations for a permanent MPLM aka PLM NASA was considering modifications to Node 3 that would keep open the option of a future Bigelow module…
Bob Park has nothing of interest to say, as usual.
Applied to Constellation I think he is absolutely right. I had to look up the Wikipedia page on Bob Park to find out he is a staunch opponent of manned spaceflight in general and even of attempts to open up space or at least of attempts to colonise space. If it has to be paid for with taxpayers’ dollars I don’t think I even disagree with him.
And at least his position is an honourable one and also apparently an honest one. How many SDLV proponents do you know who will in your estimation answer truthfully when asked why they want an SDLV? Off the top of my head I can think of only one: Bob Zubrin.
Just to give some numbers as to how screwed up Constellation is.
In inflation adjusted dollars:
– the space race in the 60’s cost $130B.
– The shuttle development program (everything before operational flights) cost $33B.
– The shuttle program cost from ’72 to the projected program end in a year or two is $175B.
– NASA and GAO was projecting about $100B to develop Orion/Ares/Altiar, (roughly the total cost of the space race)
Orion $20B (the orbiter cost $17B),
Ares 1 $30B (about the total STS dev cost)
I beleave Altair was $35, and Ares-V $15B.
– GAO projected the “Apollo on Steroids program would cost about $250B by 2024. (twice the cost and time of the ’60’s space race)
So…
Why does it cost NASA twice as much now to return to the moon then it did get there the first time?
Why does it cost NASA more now to develop Ares-1 with shuttle derived SRBs, then it cost them to develop the shuttles in the first place?
Why does it cost NASA more now to develop the Orion Capsule and service module, then it cost them to develop the Orbiters?
Incovient space program truths.
“Interestingly, it was said on nasaspaceflight.com recently that as part of the preparations for a permanent MPLM aka PLM NASA was considering modifications to Node 3 that would keep open the option of a future Bigelow module…”
See also this…
http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=15136
It would be a step in the right (or at least a more useful) direction.
Which is why HSF committee largely plumped for commercial.
Atlas V & Delta IV already exist and would cost around $1B each to man rate. Falcon 9 COTS-D was $300M (aprox).
Commercial seems to be the way to go.
It saves you some $30B from Ares 1 you can use on Orion, Landers, tugs, fuel depots, R & D, science, etc.
Use the money wisely and my minimise job losses.
@ Kelly Starks: “fully expendable Ares/Orion/Altair systems”–actually, the first stage of Ares I and Ares V is reusable. Just like the shuttle RSRMs they will drop into the ocean and be recovered and refurbished. The Ares I-X test later this month will be an operational test of the new (larger) parachute system as well as recovery operations.
The harsh criticism I am seeing of Constellation and Ares ignores some important facts. What Constellation has accomplished in the face of massive budget cuts is remarkable. The Ares I and Ares V combination is the safest and most reliable configuration today’s technology can provide. The cost of Ares V is significantly offset by Ares I development (note the difference in the figures Kelly provided), so we gain a high degree of flexibility at the lowest cost per pound for a nominal increase in cost–a “buy one, get the second at half price” kind of deal. The payload capacity of Ares V will enable missions we haven’t even dreamed of yet. Constellation is a program worth paying for, and it will provide results that this nation can be proud of for generations.
> Captain J-Bo Says:
> October 15th, 2009 at 7:01 am
>
>> @ Kelly Starks: “fully expendable Ares/Orion/Altair systems”
> –actually, the first stage of Ares I and Ares V is reusable. Just like
> the shuttle RSRMs they will drop into the ocean and be recovered
> and refurbished. The Ares I-X test later this month will be an
> operational test of the new (larger) parachute system as well as
> recovery operations.
Its not certain they will recover the SRB stages in Ares. When I was on the program last year they weer leaning hard toward droping the recovery systems to save weight.
Really the Shuttle SRBs were trashed, and there was always a debate over if build from scratch SRTBS weer a couple million cheaper, or a couplemillion more expensive then recycled SRBs. Mainly they just recycled the steel hull segments.
> Captain J-Bo Says:
> October 15th, 2009 at 7:19 am
>
> The harsh criticism I am seeing of Constellation and Ares ignores
> some important facts. What Constellation has accomplished in
> the face of massive budget cuts is remarkable. The Ares I and
> Ares V combination is the safest and most reliable configuration
> today’s technology can provide. The cost of Ares V is significantly
> offset by Ares I development ===
Are you nuts?!!!
Ares-1 alone cost more (in same year dollars) then the full shuttle program, and is less flexible, safe (according to the data I heard and saw), more violently shakes the cargo. Add into that its utterly redundant with Ares V.
Total program cost per launch of the “Apollo on steroids” is estimated by the GAO to approach $10 BILLION per launch – 6-8 times as much as shuttle. That means the twin launch lunar flights (Say 300,000 lb) would reach $66,000 per pound, assuming the full on orbit booster stage counts as cargo. Over twice the cost per pound of the shuttles.
So for 2.5 times the cost of the Shuttle devlopment program, and nearly the total cost of the space race to the moon program, we get “Apollo on Steroids”. Vastly less flexible, less safe, more expensive. A bold step toward Griffins vision of a NASA where space flight was far less frequent, and more space spectacular then space utilization. Capable of carrying only a fraction of the number people or gear to orbit per year. A-Vs only plus is as a fuel tanker.
If NASA was trying to humiliate itself it could have done better given SpaceX is building more capable launchers, and a capsule; with high program quality grades at PDR by NASA, and a program cost hardly going to break the billion $ mark. Oh, and they are ahead of NASA schedule.
Iment to say at the start of the last parragraph:
If NASA was trying to humiliate itself it could NOT have done better …
opps.