Paul Spudis continues to mourn the Vision for Space Exploration. I don’t think it’s lost yet — what was really cancelled was ESAS and Apollo on Geritol. There is not currently a specific goal, but I think that it’s still possible to reform (in the literal sense of that word) the VSE over the coming months, refocused on the original intent of lunar utilization. With regard to the Chinese, I am completely unconcerned about whether or not they plant a flag. If they show signs of doing resource utilization, though, I’ll be more concerned, and I suspect that the political establishment will as well, kicking off a true new race. But we won’t know that for years, at their current snail’s pace.
[Update a few minutes later]
Speaking of going back to the moon, Jon Goff has more thoughts on one-way-to-stay trips, which are probably the only way we’ll get back in the next decade. I’m wondering if it’s possible to do a “stone soup” project, and get commercial entities (e.g., Caterpillar) to donate components for the mission for PR purposes.
I notice the New York Times had an editorial today, cheering the cancellation of Constellation but (of course) also repeating the usual stupid myths about commercial human transport. Space development advocates need to put down the Constellation kool-aid and put their energy into fighting to save the worthwhile part of the new policy. Otherwise we will end up with neither government nor commercial human launch capability.
Rand,
I like the “Stone Soup” approach. Even if it isn’t PR, having someone trade you testing out their system for them provide it for free might also work. Caterpillar and several others have already expressed interest in doing lunar-surface systems. You give them a free ride and a free test program in exchange for them providing hardware. It could work.
~Jon
Jim,
The editorial also calls for President Obama to proclaim Mars as the new goal for NASA, bypassing the Moon. It makes you wonder what the editorial staff is smoking at the New York Times…
Tom
Are there solid indications of whether the “ISS extension” aspect includes the possibility of independent consumable deliveries?
The fact that still seems to be ignored here is that, provided that the cancellation goes through, there will be no space exploration program. While I disagree with Paul about Constellation, he does thoroughly demolish the arguments of the Internet Rocketeer Club.
That “fact” is being ignored because (like many of the things you believe) it’s not a fact.
As a supplement to a the “stone soup” approach I believe Nike would give you money for putting that little swoosh on your space suits and Red Bull would give you money if a few of the one-way-to-stay lunatics would endorse the stuff.
Or maybe Verizon cell phone ads
“Can you hear me now?”
“Good!”
Instead of starting a new pot of stone soup why don’t you just add to the Open Luna Foundation pot?
http://www.openluna.org/
This seems to be their game plan…
“As a supplement to a the “stone soup” approach I believe Nike would give you money for putting that little swoosh on your space suits and Red Bull would give you money if a few of the one-way-to-stay lunatics would endorse the stuff.
Or maybe Verizon cell phone ads
“Can you hear me now?”
“Good!”
Reminds me of Heinlein’s The Man Who Sold the Moon” when Harriman goes to the soft drink company Moke and tells them a white lie that their main competitor wants to pay him to put a ghastly marker that would be visible any time someone looked up at the Moon. He claims he doesn’t want to do that and tells Moke if they become one of his sponsors, he won’t do it. He raises enough money from a large number of such corporate sponsors in a similar manner and is thus able to build his moon rocket.
We need a Marriott Residence Inn in orbit. Show me that and we’re on our way.
Instead of starting a new pot of stone soup why don’t you just add to the Open Luna Foundation pot?
http://www.openluna.org/
I’m not sure how this outfit differs from the old Artemis Society or why they expect better results.
Hi All,
Looks like NASA is once more focused on Mars….
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6859370.html
NASA chief: Mars is our mission
By ERIC BERGER
[[[“I don’t see us colonizing the moon as some people do,” he said. “That’s not NASA’s job. Our job is to explore.”]]]
Like I said in my post in the earlier lunar thread you need to look beyond NASA for a lunar return…
“I don’t see us colonizing the moon as some people do,” he said. “That’s not NASA’s job. Our job is to explore.”
Agreed, but we’re not even close to that point. Six brief landings does not real exploration make. (Why do we keep people year-round in Antarctica? Didn’t Amundsen, Shackleton, Scott and others settle that?) We’re not ‘finished’ with the Moon, not just for the basic science, but for more clearly determining what’s potentially *useful* there that others will come for. (which we don’t allow ourselves to do in Antarctica)
How may manned flights to Mars will it take before someone says; “Okay, been there, done that. Now, lets go on to…”
“We need a Marriott Residence Inn in orbit. Show me that and we’re on our way.”
I’d just be happy to see the equivalent of taxis…
Frank,
Agree 100%, but a Tiger isn’t able to change its stripes and the culture of NASA is not able to move beyond science as exploration, focusing on “firsts” and its fixation with Mars. That is why I have ceased to view them as having any relevance to creating a space faring society. They are simply the wrong organization with the wrong culture and the wrong history to do so successfully. Yes, they have a 20 billion budget but as far as space settlement goes that money might as well be spent on alt energy. As least some of the biofuel developments will have applications in space settlements.
What will happen with the “new” policy is very predictable. They will throw some multi-million contracts out as crumbs to New Space firms to get the New Space folks excited and support the new policy. Then when the time comes for the real money contracts they will go to Boeing and Lockheed-Martin, whom they consider as “qualified” contractors for updated versions of the OSP and or Orion-Lite. NASA will proclaim they are commercial providers, and the contractors will own the vehicles but you won’t see any commercial customers rushing to them because of the lack of capacity, since they will be all “booked” up with NASA flights and it will be too expensive for commercial customers any way after the are configured to meet NASA safety guidelines.
SpaceX will be allow to haul cargo to the ISS, but probably won’t be considered capable enough by NASA to do crew.
In 2025 the ISS will be crashed into the ocean, the commercial crew providers will stand down since the commercial market “just isn’t there” for them to keep operating after NASA no longer needs rides. There will then be another spaceflight gap while NASA prepares for the great Mars Odyssey…
No progress will be made towards open the space frontier as a result of this new policy. In fact, it will be pushed backward at least a decade or more as the new “commercial crew” policy will have “proved” there is no sustainable market for human commercial spaceflight just as X-33/X-34 “proved” orbital RLVs are impossible.
And, I said before, when this becomes clear in 2-3 years the New Space Advocates praising this as a victory will be waving their pitchforks and torches and screaming for NASA’s hide, just like with X-33/X-34 and the VSE.
Thomas, you did not mention Bigelow. They offer an alternative market for LEO crew transport. One can always predict Bigelow’s failure, or SpaceX’s failure, but both companies have orbited multiple payloads and both are private entities led and funded by “believers” or whatever you wish to call them. So NASA doesn’t represent the entirety of (potential) destinations for HSF.
I believe Thomas & Patrick are both correct.
First, Thomas:
What will happen with the “new” policy is very predictable. They will throw some multi-million contracts out as crumbs to New Space firms to get the New Space folks excited and support the new policy. Then when the time comes for the real money contracts they will go to Boeing and Lockheed-Martin, whom they consider as “qualified” contractors for updated versions of the OSP and or Orion-Lite. NASA will proclaim they are commercial providers, and the contractors will own the vehicles but you won’t see any commercial customers rushing to them because of the lack of capacity, since they will be all “booked” up with NASA flights and it will be too expensive for commercial customers any way after the are configured to meet NASA safety guidelines.
Yep, dead spot on, IMHO.
But wait!
Thomas, you did not mention Bigelow. They offer an alternative market for LEO crew transport.
Indeed.
And therefore getting a non-NASA destination up there sooner rather than later remains the real “game changer” and corporate sponsors (advertising) may be necessary to pay for it.
Bill,
I agree, the sooner you have commercial destinations like Bigelow the better. But you need to generate markets for it.
I know the biotech market has potential but there again my fear is that as long as the ISS is up it will be seen as competition for it. This is especially true if NASA adds a Bigelow module to ISS for that purpose. Then Bigelow will become tied to the fate of the ISS. This is why the extension of ISS to 2025 is not really a long term benefit for the commercial development of space.
BTW one advantage of an International Lunar Development Corporation is that it would create a market for Bigelow, both for the EM L1 Gateport and for lunar surface habitats. Both would move his business model along and create destinations for true commercial human spaceflight.
Thomas,
I agree that an International Lunar Development Corporation owned EML-1 facility would be a terrific idea and something that might appeal to Bolden and Obama
The ILDC could also auction access rights to particular craters to various nations and/or private companies to help pay for the facility.
The ILDC might not have the authority to award “property rights” but it would have the ability to terminate logistical support to anyone who poached on another member’s assigned crater, without permission.
Centuries ago merchant’s guilds created law-like procedures even without sovereign authority.
Bill,
I wish people were not hung up so much on creating lunar property rights. The current state of affairs, where if you pick up a rock its yours, if you build a facility you are govern by the nation of registry, is perfect for lunar economic development. With real property rights go all the baggage of property taxes, mining rights, land management, etc.
The oceans used to be free for mining outside the territorial limits, then in the 1960’s some fool mining firms wanted to treat them like land by making mining claims triggering the Law of the Sea Conferences. When the dust settled the new treaty regime killed ocean mining and development to this day. That is the LAST thing we need for lunar development.
There is Zero need for lunar property rights to settle and develop the Moon. They won’t accelerate it as some people believe, they will just stop it dead by entangling it in a decades long legal dispute. The space lawyers may get rich, as the maritime lawyers with the Law of the Sea debate did, but the space entrepreneurs will be long gone when the dust settles.
Along these lines I am surprised space commerce advocates didn’t decry the precedent of California declaring the Apollo landings sites as historical sites….
I wish people were not hung up so much on creating lunar property rights.
I agree
As I stated, an ILDC could function just fine under today’s laws and treaties. However the ILDC “Operating Agreement” would need careful drafting.
Then Bigelow will become tied to the fate of the ISS.
How’s that? They would just be one customer.
Bill,
[[[However the ILDC “Operating Agreement” would need careful drafting.]]]
I agree. Also the organizational structure which is why I am pushing an Intelsat Model to maximize flexibility.
For example the EM L-1 might not even be owned by the ILDC. it might be owned by Bigelow or a third party and just have the ILDC as an anchor customer. The ILDC might even have provided a low cost or guaranteed loan to build it in exchange for a favorable rent or special rights on a long term agreement. Similar opportunities for creative business models would exist for other elements of the lunar infrastructure.
the huge advantage is by creating it from scratch you now only get to tailor its structure to meet your goals you also get to shape the organizational culture in the direction you want. That is one of the problems with NASA. Its organizational structure and culture were created during Project Apollo and its unlikely to ever change, even with the traumatic experience it is under going now with the lost of VSE, Constellation and retirement of the Shuttle. Administrator Bolden’s recent comments on Mars as NASA’s ultimate goal should make the clear to every one.