Terry Savage, a long-time space activist (and friend of three decades) is running to renew his term on the National Space Society board of directors. Here is his campaign statement, at his blog.
I link it because I find a strange cognitive dissonance within it:
Like any entity, NSS has limited resources, and the rules of “opportunity cost” apply. Any resources we invest in one activity, are not available for other activities. From my personal perspective, there is only one mission for the society that really matters: minimizing the time from this moment to the creation of thriving human communities in space. Space settlement. Space industrialization is essential to that result, as are many other supporting activities, but at the end of the day, space settlement is the bottom line. All activities should be tested against how well they support that core objective.
The problem isn’t primarily technological. Humanity is capable, right now, of creating self-sustaining human settlements in space. We simply choose not to do so.
On this note, I’ll say explicitly that the Obama proposal for NASA is a barely mitigated disaster. It has some good elements, like the emphasis on private sector development, but it has no clear focus of ANY KIND for the American manned space program. As a practical matter, Obama is proposing to kill the American manned space program. I think that’s wrong for the country, and I don’t like it.
There is a contrast between grafs one and three. Graf one is great — it matches up with the Space Frontier Foundation’s “Frontier Enabling Test,” (which, ironically, is not part of the NSS, but rather, part of the Space Frontier Foundation, which arose from the ashes of the L-5 Society/NSI merger, after the L-5ers realized that they’d been absorbed into the NASA-lobbying borg).
But the new policy meets that test much better than the previous one. There was little or no hope that Constellation would have opened up the frontier, even if fully funded. This is something that NSS generally, and Terry specifically, have never really understood. There is no plausible path from NASA’s “NASA uber alles” policy, in which billions are spent to send a few astronauts to a planet for some vague purpose, and space settlement. But NSS continually (despite occasional refreshing support for private activities) supports whatever NASA wants to do.
Well, until now, anyway. Which is doubly surprising and ironic, given that the people who came up with the new policy are former heads of NSS, including the Deputy Administrator, who said just last week:
Defending NASA’s new plans on both charges was deputy administrator Lori Garver. “We plan to transform our relationship with the private sector as part of our nation’s new strategy with the ultimate goal of expanding human presence across the solar system,” she said in a luncheon speech at the conference Thursday. “So don’t be fooled by those who say we have no goal. That is the goal.”
Turning to the private sector to launch both cargo and crews to LEO, she continued, actually lowered the risk to the agency in the long run by keeping it from relying on a single system for human access to orbit. “We will diversify our risk by funding a portfolio of highly-qualified competitors instead of a high-risk approach in which we fund only one system,” she said. “We’re going to see the most exciting space race that NASA’s seen in a long time, and there’s likely to be more than one winner.”
Does this sound like a policy to “kill the American manned space program”?
If so, I think that Terry owes an explanation of why, to NSS members he expects to vote for him, other than a belief in the Apollo Cargo Cult.
Rand,
Well it looks like organized labor is opposing President’s Obama’s new space policy.
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2010/02/organized-labor-attacks-obamas-space-plan.html
Organized labor attacks Obama’s space plan
posted by robert block on February, 16 2010 4:29 PM
[[[Add organized labor to the voices angry at President Barack Obama’s decision to scrap NASA’s moon program.]]]
I tell you this is truly historical. I never thought I would see Rush Limbaugh and organized labor on the same team… I guess President Obama really has a magical way of bringing people together from all walks of life 🙂
This is shaping up to be an interesting battle in Congress. Especially with Democrats like Senator Bayh threatening to split the party in the next presidential election…
Time to pop some popcorn.
First, I appreciate the opportunity that Rand has provided to have this discussion. It’s been floating around in the background of the space community for a long time, and the main reason I put my campaign statement up know was to catalyze that discussion out into the open. My hope is that it is a lively, but respectful, discussion from all sides.
TCS
==================================
But the new policy meets that test much better than the previous one. There was little or no hope that Constellation would have opened up the frontier, even if fully funded. This is something that NSS generally, and Terry specifically, have never really understood.
RS
=================
I’ve never understood it, because it isn’t true. The model is really quite simple: the government pays to develop advanced manned space techniques that make no sense to do commercially. In other words, the program does things faster than private industry could, not because they are better at it (they aren’t) but because they can do it before it makes commercial sense to do so.
And having a specific objective, where it becomes obvious if you slip or slow down and fail, is critical to making sure that actually happens.
TCS
=====================
There is no plausible path from NASA’s “NASA uber alles” policy, in which billions are spent to send a few astronauts to a planet for some vague purpose, and space settlement. But NSS continually (despite occasional refreshing support for private activities) supports whatever NASA wants to do.
RS
=====================
As long as NASA pushes the edges faster than they would be pushed “naturally”, I don’t have any great bias about the right direction. For example, I’ve never had an interest in the Moon/Mars debate, because the purpose is to go somewhere, and do something, that we haven’t done before. Faster than can be justified on a commercial basis. And that’s the key.
Despite having seen it live on television, at this point, in practice, we haven’t been to the Moon before.
TCS
============================
Defending NASA’s new plans on both charges was deputy administrator Lori Garver.
“We plan to transform our relationship with the private sector as part of our nation’s new strategy with the ultimate goal of expanding human presence across the solar system,” she said in a luncheon speech at the conference Thursday. “So don’t be fooled by those who say we have no goal. That is the goal.”
LG
=============================
I respect Lori a great deal, but this is mostly fuzzy. It’s a good thing to do, but it’s not a goal, in the sense of going somewhere.
And, let me be clear about this. If the budget had said:
“We’re going back to the Moon, and we’re hiring Branson and Rutan to get us there,” I’d be perfectly fine with that. In fact, I’d be ecstatic. That would be the best possible result. But it didn’t say that, or anything dimly like that.
And this, perhaps, explains a lot of the difference of opinion. I don’t give a damn about having the government do the development work. In general, I think that’s a bad idea. But I want the government to pay for a real project, to go somewhere, sooner than would be justified by simple commercial requirements.
Doing that would develop technology and capabilities faster than it would be developed naturally. In my judgment, we need to get the species established in space sooner than the natural course of commercial events will cause that to happen. I’m not pushing to have the government develop technology (although I’m content with that, if that’s the only way to get it funded); I’m pushing to have the government pay to fund that accelerated development, and go somewhere.
I’m have no problem having the actual work privatized. In fact, I think that’s the right thing to do.
TCS
================================
Turning to the private sector to launch both cargo and crews to LEO, she continued, actually lowered the risk to the agency in the long run by keeping it from relying on a single system for human access to orbit.
RS/LG
================================
I completely agree with that. That’s a good thing.
But it’s not enough.
TCS
=============================
Does this sound like a policy to “kill the American manned space program”?
RS
=============================
In the sense of “Boldly Going Where No One Has Gone Before,” absolutely. Absolutely. Privatizing LEO work is good to do. It’s the right path for that task. But it’s not enough.
TCS
==============================
If so, I think that Terry owes an explanation of why, to NSS members he expects to vote for him, other than a belief in the Apollo Cargo Cult.
RS
============================
Actually, the fact that I’m running unopposed gives me a little latitude to be even more controversial than usual…
🙂
TCS
The model is really quite simple: the government pays to develop advanced manned space techniques that make no sense to do commercially. In other words, the program does things faster than private industry could, not because they are better at it (they aren’t) but because they can do it before it makes commercial sense to do so.
That is oxymoronic. If the government pays private industry to go develop “advanced manned space techniques,” commercially, then it will make commercial sense to develop advanced manned space techniques, commercially. So, why is that a bad thing?
For example, I’ve never had an interest in the Moon/Mars debate, because the purpose is to go somewhere, and do something, that we haven’t done before. Faster than can be justified on a commercial basis. And that’s the key.
It doesn’t matter where NASA astronauts go, or how, or why — as long as the trip can’t be justified on a commercial basis?
Does that make sense to you, Terry? There’s no commercial justification for flying T-38s from Texas to Wyoming just to pick up burgers and fries — does that mean astronauts should fly their T-38s from Texas to Wyoming to pick up burgers and fries?
In the sense of “Boldly Going Where No One Has Gone Before,” absolutely. Absolutely.
Do you think no one has gone to the Moon before?
The flexible path to the asteroids, the LaGrange points, the moons of Mars, etc. seems to fit that definition much better.
Space settlement is not going to be done by the NSS or NASA. I can’t think of any justification for it that holds up under scrutiny, especially the “killer asteroid” scenario. If there was a killer space rock headed for our planet the best scenario to save the maximum amount of humanity would still be on this planet, not in space. A nuclear-powered submarine underwater would be much cheaper and able to save more of humanity than a moon base on the far end of a tenuous resupply line.
Terry (ignoring the other multitudinous issues with your response), we’re still awaiting an explanation as to why increasing the number of ways to get people to orbit, at lower cost per person, is “killing the American manned space program.”
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20546.0
This kind of stuff makes eventual space development happen. The new policy supports and emphasizes precisely that kind of stuff, the old one really did not.
Thas all i care about.
Rand,
The assumption you are making is that the new policy will increase the number of ways people get into space, instead of killing off by killing off New Space and not even leaving the promise of a NASA alternative.
One of the statements Lori Graver made was that NASA DRC was going to develop safety standards for sub-orbital vehicles NASA would contract for. I believe the statement was “certify them for airworthiness” although I sure someone here will correct me if the wording was different.
But the key point is that is what the FAA is now suppose to do and they have had a good relationship with New Space.
Now suppose the FAA signs off on SpaceShip Two, then Richard Branson follows up by seeking some NASA contracts for astronaut training. As advertised NASA evaluates Spaceship Two. But then NASA rules its Not Airworthy or safe for astronauts. Where does that leave the FAA, except with egg on its face? And Branson’s tourist business?
The new policy is really going to put New Space between a rock and a hard place. If firms like ULA and Boeing get the commercial crew contract, and I bet they will, it sends a message that the New Space firms are not good enough, or not safe. And unfortunately, if NASA now backs away now from the current policy it also sends the message that New Space firms aren’t ready. So this may well be a lose-lose for New Space instead of the win everyone is celebrating.
I remember how well RLV work was going in the 1990’s until NASA got involved. I was at NMSU at the time and saw the DC-X fly and was working on the spaceport proposal for WSMR, the old Southwest Regional Spaceport. Then NASA came in, picked the worst RLV design possible, it failed and now not even many New Space firms are proposing RLVs to orbit. NASA’s venture into RLV development basically killed financing for it, at least the orbital versions. It is quite possible that the new policy will do the same for the emerging New Space human spaceflight market.
This is the problem I see with the new policy. Yes, the Ares I was a bad design and bleed money. But it kept NASA out of the critical path for New Space, allowing to it develop on the fringes for ISS resupply where the big hungry dinosaurs didn’t notice it. Now its front and center and in the cross hairs be called on to do a job against a stacked deck. It is in the middle of the political meat grinder.
It may well be that when the smoke clears the only U.S. access to ISS will be Orion lite on the Atlas. And so expensive due to safety ‘improvements” no one but NASA will afford it.
Look at SpaceX. Before the new policy they could afford to have a failure or two and no one would think anything of it. After all some problems are normal in the development of a new rocket. It would probably not even endanger their COTS contract. Now Falcon 9 MUST succeed on the first launch or opponents of the new policy will be crying for blood while the “images of failure” will be use to make fun of the idea of commercial crew to orbit. The stakes have gone up 10-fold.
No that is not fair, but that is the consequence of the new policy.
I believe the Chinese have a curse -“may your wishes come true” that may be appropriate here….
The aim is get a reasonable number of humans (in the thousands, minimum) off this mudball, right? Incidentally, there is undoubtedly a critical number of humans in space that will solve the rest of the problem of space colonisation with no further input from Earth.
All the solutions so far are rather brute-force. Maybe the real answer is to put some really serious effort into developing nanotech materials and manufacturing; after all, the best solution for getting stuff up and down to and from orbit is a Beanstalk, and carbon nanotubes are just about strong enough.
The Lock-Mart X-33 design was not the worst possible design. It was probably the best. But the best SSTO design is still bound to be a failure. The objective itself was essentially impossible from an engineering perspective. It made little difference what they chose to build–any one of them would have failed.
But the best SSTO design is still bound to be a failure.
From what I’ve read it’s a question of mass fraction. The author pointing out that a soda can has a mass ratio of something around 0.92. The point being many people feel it’s quite doable. The DC-X was a success that surprised NASA so they made sure the full scale orbital follow-on never got built.
For reasons I don’t really understand, NASA killing things as Thomas suggests seems to be the normal NASA response.
That’s a bunch of bull, Ken. I was on the program and saw things first hand. You and your conspiracy theories have nothing on that. NASA MSFC made all kinds of efforts to support X-33 development and so did Lockheed.
The MacDac version of X-33 would have been an even worse failure than the Lock Mart one. But it didn’t really matter–SSTO would fail no matter what.
Ken,
Its not a mystery, its NASA’s culture. That emerged out of an R&D agency that did basic research and that is how they approach problems. When it was NACA this was fine. NASA would spend years doing very basic studies, like airfoil design, or design of control surfaces. Research that took years and which industry couldn’t justify the ROI on.
Then the engineers from the aviation industry who actually built aircraft would take the basic data away from the NASA researchers, giving them something else to focus on, and make it work in an actual operation design.
Apollo was an anomaly where a team of design engineers, Von Braun’s rocket team, for a while held sway to apply their 30 plus years experience designing the Saturn-V for industry to build. Expensive, yes, but they were on a deadline and it worked. They then repeated it with the Space Shuttle before most of them retired and NASA culture went back to the old basic research approach, which it has been doing for “shuttle” replacements since. This is what happened with X-33, they picked the design they felt would teach them the most about SSTO, the X-33, which, if I recall had a half dozen or so of “breakthrough” technologies it was testing….
You could also see the same culture at work in Constellation.
And in terms of commercial crew you will see the same ‘research” culture apply as well. They won’t simply look for a quick simple solution like Falcon 9/Dragon or Atlas V/Orion lite with minimum modifications. They will look for commercial designs that advance “safety”, increase “reliability”, lower “costs”. And the end result will be an expensive system only NASA will be able to afford.
Its what I mean when I state that after commercial crew is poured through the NASA cultural filter it will be completely unsuitable for commercial human spaceflight. ULA/Lockheed may own the spacecraft and be paid “per seat”, but the total cost and result will be no different then if they were NASA owned and contractors were just hired to operate them. And the sky will not be opened to thousands of space travelers, just a few NASA astronauts. And everyone with money will say, well NASA tried, but commercial human spaceflight is just too expensive to be practical…. Just as the case now with RLVs.
That is also why I am especially sad to see Blue Origin pulled into the NASA sphere with the new policy. They were the best hope for a path that would eventually lead to an orbital RLV….
Rand,
The reference to popcorn above was to watching the Democrats split and President Obama having to run against one or more strong Democratic candidates in the presidential primary. Its what happens when Presidents try to rule rather then govern.
Kirk,
My favorite was the Rockwell design, since it was based on their operational experience with the Shuttle Orbiter, especially since it might have led to a practical TSTO. But it was just too simple a design to make the cut…
Maybe, and maybe not. You’re proposals appear to be to try to “manage” the risks involved. I would argue (and I believe Rand would agree) that there are going to be catastrophic failures, and that we should accept that fact up front and support multiple efforts to avoid single points of failure.
I disagree. If Falcon 9 fails on the first launch, they will examine what happened and fix it. As they’ve done before. Maybe the stakes have gone up, but i’m thinking Elon accepts that. I doubt he’s overly concerned with being made fun of.
Elon Musk certainly won’t care if he is “made fun of” however a catastrophic failure could be used by the other aerospace companies to persuade Congress to forbid SpaceX from receiving a commercial crew contract from NASA.
What is needful is a non-NASA destination in LEO, sooner rather than later.
killing off by killing off New Space and not even leaving the promise of a NASA alternative.
Tom, assuming that is true, why should you care?
Didn’t you just get finished telling us that the Moon was the only place where it was possible to create new industries, and nothing of value could be done in LEO or suborbit because there are no raw materials to mine there?
Didn’t you also say it was impossible for NASA or private enterprise to open the frontier — that a government-owned “Lunar Development Corporation” was the only PC way to do that?
If that’s true, what is there to “kill”?
A couple weeks ago, you were saying you didn’t want NASA to do anything for you. Yet, here you are, once again complaining that NASA is not doing what you want?
You Moonies are so goofy. 🙂
If there was a killer space rock headed for our planet the best scenario to save the maximum amount of humanity would still be on this planet, not in space. A nuclear-powered submarine underwater would be much cheaper and able to save more of humanity
I know I’m going to regret asking this, but how do you think a nuclear submarine would stop a killer space rock?
It’s not going to stop the rock, it’s going to survive the impact. It would be a lot cheaper to build hundreds of submersible “Noah’s Arks” and fill them full of people and animals and plants and wait out the devastation after an asteroid impact than to count on a moonbase or Mars base having enough genetic and biological diversity to perpetuate humanity and the biosphere.
Kirk, if an asteroid impact is so devastating that it wipes out whatever is on land, the oceans would suffer a similar fate – I am reminded of the Japanese animation that shows the oceans boiling off completely.
Also, SSTO != RLV.
No, most of the destruction on land would be from the blast. There’s no where near enough energy to boil off the oceans, and they will shield a submersible from the blast quite nicely. With nuclear power and the ability to distill water and artificially illuminate plant growth, much larger numbers of humans, animals, and plants would survive a catastrophic impact than in any sort of space-based scenario. Within a few years the dust will clear and the land surface can be repopulated.
The whole point I’m trying to make is that you don’t need a space program as a life insurance policy against a catastrophic asteroid strike. It is a rather poor one, with high costs, low coverage, and very low returns.
Ah, yes: SSTO == RLV, because there’s absolutely no point whatsoever in building a non-reusable SSTO if you just mean to throw the whole thing away. Now RLV != SSTO, but that’s another equation.
Let me amend a previous statement: you don’t need a HUMAN space program as a life insurance policy against a catastrophic asteroid strike.
I’m all in favor of space-based telescopes to detect incoming asteroids and interceptors to divert or destroy them. None of that requires or desires human presence in space though.
Thomas Matula Says:
I tell you this is truly historical. I never thought I would see Rush Limbaugh and organized labor on the same team… I guess President Obama really has a magical way of bringing people together from all walks of life
=======================
When you add me to that coalition, it gets even stranger still. How many of you have run an anti-government political party at the state level? I also ran a state Cabinet agency for seven years, but that’s another story…
TCS
==============================
This is shaping up to be an interesting battle in Congress. Especially with Democrats like Senator Bayh threatening to split the party in the next presidential election…
===================
Not anymore.
He’s said no way, no how, is he going to run in 2012. Too bad, really. If he did, it would be the first time I’ve considered voting for a Dem Prez candidate in many decades.
TCS
=====================
Edward Wright Says:
For example, I’ve never had an interest in the Moon/Mars debate, because the purpose is to go somewhere, and do something, that we haven’t done before. Faster than can be justified on a commercial basis. And that’s the key.
It doesn’t matter where NASA astronauts go, or how, or why — as long as the trip can’t be justified on a commercial basis?
======================
Basically, yes. I want the government to push the limits, preferably far beyond what would happen naturally. Having some destination matters, to focus the development efforts. I’m less concerned with the specific destination selection, although the Moon seems like the obvious choice to me.
TCS
=============================
Does that make sense to you, Terry? There’s no commercial justification for flying T-38s from Texas to Wyoming just to pick up burgers and fries — does that mean astronauts should fly their T-38s from Texas to Wyoming to pick up burgers and fries?
============================
Silliness, unrelated to what I’m saying. There’s no new technology development that results from your suggestion. Although…if they want me to fly one of the T-38s, I’ll support the proposal in a heartbeat!
TCS
===============================
In the sense of “Boldly Going Where No One Has Gone Before,” absolutely. Absolutely.
Do you think no one has gone to the Moon before?
The flexible path to the asteroids, the LaGrange points, the moons of Mars, etc. seems to fit that definition much better.
================================
All that’s fine. As long as there’s a specific destination and a timeline, and most importantly, funding, I’m pretty flexible on the destination itself. I just think the Moon would be the easiest sell.
TCS
================================
1. Rand Simberg Says:
February 16th, 2010 at 9:30 pm
Terry (ignoring the other multitudinous issues with your response), we’re still awaiting an explanation as to why increasing the number of ways to get people to orbit, at lower cost per person, is “killing the American manned space program.”
=================================
You’re not waiting; you just missed it. What you describe is a good thing, and I said so. What’s bad (terrible, in fact), is the absence of a funded destination. That is what’s killing the American manned space program.
What you seem to have missed is that flushing Constellation/Ares doesn’t bother me excessively. What bothers me is flushing the return to the Moon mission. I’d prefer to have private industry do it, as long as the mission is funded, with completion dates.
It’s not. And that’s my objection.
TCS
==================================
2. Fletcher Christian Says:
February 17th, 2010 at 4:18 am
The aim is get a reasonable number of humans (in the thousands, minimum) off this mudball, right? Incidentally, there is undoubtedly a critical number of humans in space that will solve the rest of the problem of space colonisation with no further input from Earth.
================================
If we can get 50 people, that will be good enough. Not from a gene pool perspective, perhaps, but if we get that far, we’ll keep going.
TCS
=================================
3. Thomas Matula Says:
February 17th, 2010 at 7:28 am
Rand,
The reference to popcorn above was to watching the Democrats split and President Obama having to run against one or more strong Democratic candidates in the presidential primary. Its what happens when Presidents try to rule rather then govern.
===================================
Obama is toast. He has chosen the Carter path, rather than the Clinton path.
TCS
================================
4. Edward Wright Says:
February 17th, 2010 at 10:12 am
If there was a killer space rock headed for our planet the best scenario to save the maximum amount of humanity would still be on this planet, not in space. A nuclear-powered submarine underwater would be much cheaper and able to save more of humanity
I know I’m going to regret asking this, but how do you think a nuclear submarine would stop a killer space rock?
=================================
In the short term, from a species survival standpoint, the purpose of a space colony is to make sure we survive at all. It won’t take many people to do that. But then, species survival is only one of many reasons. The cultural reasons are far more compelling.
TCS
====================================
Destinations are a completely different goal to space settlement, and infer ulterior motives. If a goal is extra terrestrial resources, then let that be a goal (not destinations), but even that likely does not infer destinations.
For the price of a bridge to nowhere or two (Ares launch vehicles), one could literally settle hundreds if not thousands of engineers in LEO, and get them working on the practicalities of the space settlement problem (closed cycle life support, centrifuge habitats, high ISP engines, space hanger workshops, etc). This first step does not even require extra terrestrial resources.
Robotic resource retrieval to LEO (asteroids? Moon?), where we might actually have some hope of creating an R&D infrastructure to process them, is probably the next phase. Maybe also skim some volatiles from the Earth’s atmosphere from orbit. None of this requires that people leave the comparatively benign environment of LEO.
Yes private explorers might set out beyond LEO, and that would be great, but it would have nothing to do with the goal of space settlement for the next few decades at least. For now a destination focus is a NASA focus, it is specifically not a space settlement focus. We need to first learn how to settle space before spending precious money on destinations (they are no one in the same).
Kirk’s subs would probably work but that doesn’t mean other options are not worthwhile as well. Especially since getting life beyond Earth is a worthy goal in itself.
Kirk, would you explain what was it I said that was bull? My understanding is that the X-33 program was a new program rather than the planned ship the DC-X folks had in mind. Are you saying that because NASA couldn’t make the X-33 work, nobody could make a SSTO work?
For biodiversity, artificial insemination is probably the best route to go in a off world colony.
Settling engineers in LEO to do research on space technologies has to be one of the least-cost-effective ideas (by several orders of magnitude) that I’ve ever heard of.
Ken, you said that NASA (MSFC) was sabotaging X-33. That is pure bull.
Your understanding of X-33 is incomplete. MacDac’s design for X-33 was evolved from their Delta Clipper work and was inferior to the LockMart design that was selected. Neither their X-33 design, nor their original Delta Clipper, nor the LockMart Venture-Star would have ever been a feasible SSTO, because reusable SSTO simply isn’t feasible. At least not on this planet.
It’s not going to stop the rock, it’s going to survive the impact. It would be a lot cheaper to build hundreds of submersible “Noah’s Arks”
This isn’t “Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea.” Real submarines don’t work that way. Building pressure hulls that are large enough to contain all the plants and animals you imagine. but strong enough to stand the pressures of the ocean depths, would be a severe technical challenge, and certainly not as cheap as you imagine. The major loss of life after an impact would not come from the blast, as you imagine, but from famine due to the loss of agriculture — and you would still face that when your “arks” surface for resupply. Who would pay for all these “arks”? How many decades would it take to build them? How much notice do you expect the asteroid to give you?
Other than that, it’s a he’ll of a plan. Right up there with climbing into a refrigerator to survive an a-bomb.
It doesn’t matter where NASA astronauts go, or how, or why — as long as the trip can’t be justified on a commercial basis?
======================
Basically, yes. I want the government to push the limits
The limits of what? How much money you can spend for no useful purpose?
Silliness, unrelated to what I’m saying. There’s no new technology development that results from your suggestion. Although…if they want me to fly one of the T-38s, I’ll support the proposal in a heartbeat!
Reenacting Project Apollo was not creating any useful new technology — and you’re opposing General Bolden’s plan, which is
No wonder people think space is a waste of money, when space advocates use arguments like these!
All that’s fine. As long as there’s a specific destination and a timeline, and most importantly, funding, I’m pretty flexible on the destination itself
So, what you object to is the lack of Stalinist central planning?
What evidence do you have that Stalinism *works*?
4. Edward Wright Says:
February 17th, 2010 at 10:12 am
If there was a killer space rock headed for our planet the best scenario to save the maximum amount of humanity would still be on this planet, not in space.
No, he doesn’t. Misquoting me aside, what’s the deal with the weird Fortran-style formatting in all your posts? Are you using a cardpunch machine?
None of that requires or desires human presence in space thoug
You would have more credibility if you presented some facts to back up your statements, instead of just treating your opinions as divine laws.
I thought it was intuitively obvious to the casual observer that you don’t need a human eye looking through the eyepiece of a space-based asteroid detection telescope, but if you need some facts to prove that, I will submit to you pretty much every space telescope since Skylab, which has beamed its images to the ground for examination there.
Likewise, I thought it was obvious that interceptor vehicles that plan to employ nuclear detonations also don’t need a human presence nearby doing who knows what, but if you need a fact to back that up I would submit as evidence Tomahawk launches or guided munitions, all of which are sent to their targets far away from guiding hands.
We can find and stop asteroids without humans in space.
====================
2. Kirk Sorensen Says:
February 17th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
Settling engineers in LEO to do research on space technologies has to be one of the least-cost-effective ideas (by several orders of magnitude) that I’ve ever heard of.
=====================
I’m with you.
TCS
Yes, learning how to implement space technologies in space is definitely something we do not want to do. Instead we should spend tens of billions and decades designing space infrastructure in the mold of ARES I and ARES V which is perfect and will never need any incremental improvement or maintenance, as that will be far more cost effective.
Such engineering hubris, it reminds me of the drunk guy looking for his keys under the street light because that is where the light is better.
This is mostly irrelevant to the discussion. but the talk of SSTO reminded me of something: With the historical rockets I’m familiar with, the first stage always burns for roughly 2 minutes and 15 seconds, give or take a few seconds. This was the case with the early-60s Atlas, the Saturn V, and the Shuttle. Can anybody offer an explanation for that? It’s something I’ve wondered about for a while.
Edward,
Sorry for the delay. I am in Reno attending a seminar on the role of Social Networking in creating viral marketing campaigns, so I will be busy the next couple of days.
[[[A couple weeks ago, you were saying you didn’t want NASA to do anything for you. Yet, here you are, once again complaining that NASA is not doing what you want?]]]
I don’t have an interest in NASA doing anything for me, as I noted I don’t see them being on any path to expanding the human econsphere beyond the comsat belt. I just hate seeing the New Space herd being led to slaughter…
But like in “Lost in Space” New Space appears to enjoy following their Dr. Smiths in the direction of trouble no matter how many times the Robot says “Warning, Will Robinson, Warning”.
I still remember the New Space conferences a few years ago when New Spacers actually believed NASA would fund firms like tSpace to build the lunar architecture…
Kirk Sorensen said “because reusable SSTO simply isn’t feasible”
Perhaps I am taking this out of context but you seem to know different physics to myself. There are many arguments I might make against reusable SSTO, but I could not in good conscience argue that it is not feasible.
Now if you said that it was infeasible for NASA to develop a reusable SSTO, I would probably agree. Although the NASA of 40 years ago might have come close. Not that a reusable SSTO would necessarily be the lowest cost approach.
A derivative of the DC-X (not X-33) could well have been a good successor to the space shuttle, it did look feasible, assuming an appropriately run program (not NASA).
Pete, the physics I know are the ones based on a planet with a gravitational parameter of 398600 km3/s2 and a maximum vacuum Isp based on LOX/LH2 of 450-460 sec. Those preclude SSTO.
It’s fun to fantasize about how if EVVUULL NASA just hadn’t stopped virtuous MacDac we’d all be flying around in Delta Clippers today, but it just ain’t so.
Likewise, I thought it was obvious that interceptor vehicles that plan to employ nuclear detonations also don’t need a human presence nearby doing who knows what, but if you need a fact to back that up I would submit as evidence Tomahawk launches or guided munitions
Diverting an asteroid is a lot more complicated than just looking through a telescope and launching an interceptor (which hasn’t been designed, let alone built, still less tested) at a target with unknown composition and characteristics.
Even launching those guided munitions is a lot more complicated than you believe. That’s why fighter pilots have not been replaced by UAVs, no matter what you have heard on the Discovery Channel.
Again, you need to do some research. Spouting uninformed opinion as if it were gospel truth simply harms your credibility.
Thank you, Ed, for sitting on your high horse and assessing my opinion as uninformed. Since in order to make such an assessment you must consider your opinion “informed”, please tell me whether you:
a) believe that an asteroid diversion mission should be manned,
or,
b) do not believe that an asteroid diversion mission should be manned.
That will save a lot of time as we pursue further discussion.
Pete, the physics I know are the ones based on a planet with a gravitational parameter of 398600 km3/s2 and a maximum vacuum Isp based on LOX/LH2 of 450-460 sec. Those preclude SSTO.
Actually, Kirk, if you plug those numbers into the rocket equation, you’ll discover that SSTO is possible, if you can build a structure that’s light enough.
Opinions on the feasibility of that vary, but no one who understands structures would say that multi-lobed tanks are the best way to do it.
Also, using LH2 makes the structures a lot harder. Dr. Max Hunter used to warn against “Isp on the brain.”
Ed, I’d wager I’ve spent FAR more time with the rocket equation than you ever have, and reached a completely opposite result. But I doubt that will have any influence on your opinion since I’ve realized that you consider yourself intellectually superior to me.
Hi All,
The sad thing is that NASA only picked One design for the X-33, so we will don’t know if the other options were feasible for SSTO. The right way for NASA to proceed would have been funding all 3 designs for sub-orbital test flights and then, based on the data generated, determine is SSTO was feasible or if a TSTO approach would work best for a Shuttle replacement RLV.
The key mistake NASA made with the X-33 program was not to fully fund it,and all three vehicles as true X-craft, instead of using the “creative financing” model of requiring the contractor to fund it on the New Space faith based belief that the operational version of the NASA “winner” could be funded commercially. That is why I see the X-33 as the poster child of what happens when you base space policy on philosophical ideology and faith, not a solid foundation of how technology and industries actually develop.
And that, looking at it as analytically, is the root problem with President Obama’s space policy. Its also based on blind faith rather then a solid foundation of developmental economics and the economics of innovation. Its assuming that the COTS experiment will succeed and lower costs for NASA while the jury is still out on it.
Funding all three vehicles would have led to three failures to achieve SSTO instead of one.
I’d wager I’ve spent FAR more time with the rocket equation than you ever have, and reached a completely opposite result
Wagers are for trolls.
If you believe the rocket equation prevents any hypothetical SSTO, regardless of structural weight, then you do not understand the rocket equation. All the rocket equation does is tell you what structural weight you need to achieve. If you’re getting an infinity, then you made an error.
I never claimed intellectual superioity. Lying does not help your case.
“No brag, just fact.”
Kirk:
I haven’t been keeping up with the details of space development in recent years, so if these questions seem off the wall, I apologize:
1. Would you consider quasi-SSTO feasible using a mothership a la Rutan and Branson?
2. Is their any practical way to use a kind of railgun for launch, perhaps not all the way to LEO but at least in place of a first stage?
I’m an engineer. I believe that the rocket equation prevents any FEASIBLE SSTO to be built, you know–like one out of materials that actually exist, with engines that can actually be built, with margins that would allow the non-suicidal to use it, burning propellant that actually exists.
I’m an engineer. I believe that the rocket equation prevents any FEASIBLE SSTO to be built, you know–like one out of materials that actually exist,
It isn’t what you believe, it’s what you can measure.
You might believe that muti-lobed composite tanks are superior to bodies of revolution for lightweight structures, but basic strength of materials shows the opposite. The first time I heard David Urey make that claim, every engineer in the roI’m gasped.