Or if there is, it wasn’t at the administrator’s request. And I think that Andy Pasztor should have done a little more digging before running his original story.
I think that all these rumors and leaks are just guerilla warfare by Ares/Constellation dead enders. And the end is growing near. If you look at the Senate Authorization language, it essentially buys into the new policy, for all intents and purposes.
It’s worth noting that this was the same Andy Pasztor from the WSJ who completely misrepresented Burt Rutan’s remarks, trying to make it seem like Rutan was opposed to NASA using commercial crew for LEO access, when he said no such thing:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30293
Pasztor also has the annoying habit of misleadingly referring to commercial cargo/crew as “outsourcing” in his headlines.
I’ve known Pasztor for more than a decade ‘professionally’ and…well, let’s just say he’s going to hear from me.
Is there a Plan 9?
There wasn’t much of a Plan A either.
Rand must be reading some other Senate bill than the legislation being offered by Senator Hutchison. The Hutchison bill mandates a shuttle extension, a heavy lifter by 2018 for beyond LEO missions, a space craft that is in essence Orion, something to launch Orion to LEO (though not necessarily Ares 1) by 2013, and somewhat stringent safety rules for commercial space craft.
None of these are in the Obama plan. One suspects, though, most (I have doubts about shuttle extension, though stranger things have happened) will likely be in the final authorization language.
“The Hutchison bill mandates… a heavy lifter by 2018 for beyond LEO missions, a space craft that is in essence Orion, something to launch Orion to LEO (though not necessarily Ares 1) by 2013”
The bill mandates none of this. It asks NASA to develop a National Space Transportation System plan (really just NASA human space transportation plan), and in the process of developing that plan, the bill asks NASA to:
“include consideration of the degree to which alternative vehicles may be developed in an evolutionary fashion with the objective of upporting initial crew and cargo transportation to the International Space Station by the end of 2013 and missions beyond low-Earth orbit by the end of 2018”
The bill doesn’t mandate 2013 or 2018. It asks NASA to consider those dates in the process of developing its plan.
And the bill doesn’t mandate an Orion derivative by 2013 or an HLV by 2018. It asks NASA to consider “alternative vehicles”, which could be anything, in the process of developing its plan.
Don’t spread lies.
“somewhat stringent safety rules for commercial space craft”
How does directing NASA to develop a first draft of commercial human-rating requirements (which NASA is doing already) within 60 days of passage of the bill mandate “stringent safety rules”?
Don’t spread lies.
Ugh…
I have the awful feeling that if congress has it’s way NASA will only do STS and ISS. Unless congress is willing to spend a few extra billion per/year for NASA, and what is the chance of that?
The harsh reality is that with a flat budget, hard choices have to be made. Though Obama choose to let Shuttle die, he also extended ISS. That doesn’t leave enough budget to do much else aside from LEO ops.
“Major Tom”
Why don’t you crank down the attitude from your normal level of eleventy. Stop flinging around accusations of “lies” for what are differences of opinion. That behavior only lowers the tone of debate and doesn’t convince anyone of your opinion’s validity.
You may be used to spamming the comment section of spacepolitics, but that doesn’t mean such behavior is welcome everywhere.
You can do ISS to 2020 and other things. It is not a zero sum game/either or. I think that the SDHLV can be done as well. The Bolden Study said that a SDHLV test article could be ready by 2013. That is a lot faster than Dr. Griffen or the Augustine Commission. If we cancel a SDHLV then 5 years from now we will be regretting the choice we make today. We might save a cents today in having no HLV, but it will cost the US plenty more when we want that capability back.
Brad,
I second that and hope Rand does a clean up here. I would hate to see Transterrestrial descend to the level of Jeff’s SpacePolitics.com site which has become such a troll pit via posters like Major Tom, Rober Oler, etc. as to be completely worthless.
Thomas Matula, if you bother to read Major Tom’s posts over at SpacePolitics you’ll see that he’s about as far from a troll as you can get.
Why do you think Major Tom’s rebuttal of Mr Whittington’s post would makes Rand’s blog worthless?
Phillip
“You can do ISS to 2020 and other things. It is not a zero sum game/either or.”
I beg to differ, and so did the Augustine committee. If ISS is continued to 2020 the only way NASA can pursue a vigorous campaign of beyond LEO manned exploration is with an infusion of billions of dollars extra money per year. Without that extra money it is a zero sum game.
As for SDHLV…
The current Obama/Bolden plan does not contain any SDHLV, quite the opposite in fact. It does plan on spending billions over the next five years on R&D for HLV technology. Bolden when directly questioned about HLV availability has stated that he hopes an HLV will first fly sometime between 2020 and 2030. Hopes.
Perhaps that clears up some questions about the time scale under the current plan for beyond LEO manned missions.
I tend to agree with you that the type of HLV that makes the most sense is a near term SDHLV. But you can forget about any such thing under the Bolden/Obama plan. Instead NASA gets stuck with a clean-sheet-design sometime-in-the far-off-future HLV, which is the worst possible option. Better to have no HLV at all than what Bolden plans for.
“Stop flinging around accusations of “lies” for what are differences of opinion.”
It’s not a difference of opinion. The other poster made claims about the Senate authorization bill that are flatly false. I copied the language from bill that shows that. The other poster’s statements were lies — and ignorant ones at that.
“That behavior only lowers the tone of debate and doesn’t convince anyone of your opinion’s validity.”
Again, I didn’t express an opinion. I was correcting a false statement, mistruth, i.e., a lie.
In fact, it was the other poster who first implied that the owner of this site was lying when he said that the owner must be reading another Senate authorization bill when there is no such bill.
“You may be used to spamming”
“has become such a troll pit via posters like Major Tom”
How is calling a spade a spade, setting the record straight, and backing it up with the relevant quotes, “spamming” or being a “troll”?
Oy vey…
And so it begins…
Get used to it folks. There’s a new self-appointed Sheriff in town, I give you the one, the only (thankfully!) Major Tom.
He will call people liars at whim, while at the same time complaining that people treat him unfairly. And always making sure that people know that he is looking down his nose from his lofty perch in heaven.
This is the last time I will ever address the problem that is Major Tom. I do not intend to get in a flame war, no matter how many times he will directly attack anything I post here (and believe me, he will.)
Major Tom, I here and now make this request to you, don’t bother to directly respond to me here at Transterrestrial Musings, ever. I fully intend to ignore you.
Though I expect you will ignore my request just as you did over at spacepolitics.
Brad, grow up!
Major Tom tends to back his statements by hard facts/references, where as you and many others simply spout opinion.
If you cannot stand constructive criticism, please think before you post.
Brad,
110% agreement. If Major Tom wants to be a Blog Sheriff he should start his own instead of hijacking others…
While I agree that Mark does tend to make false and even delusional statements, I do prefer, in the interests of civility, that no one accuse anyone else of lying. It’s one thing to point out misstatements of fact, and another to be a mind reader and infer that they are doing so knowingly. In the old days, calling someone a liar would have been considered “fighting words.” So I do welcome Major Tom’s corrections here, but would also request that he tone it down a notch, though I know how frustrating it is to have to deal with all of the ignorance and illogic at times.
Dave,
Major Tom is like the global warming scientists, using a selective choice of “facts” to take a “science is settled” approach that insults everyone else in the discussion and derails it into trivial pursuit…
Those are the worst trolls of all because they won’t admit it to being one even while hiding behind false names because they don’t have the courage to take personal responsibility for their posts or opinions.
Hopefully Rand will take action so this Blog doesn’t go the way of spacepolitics.com
Dave Salt
Dude, I’ve been commenting at Transterrestrial Musings for years and I have to admit I don’t recognize you. Have you just begun posting here?
And, I apologize beforehand should this not be true, but…
are you a Major Tom sockpuppet?
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, one of the last of the honest, Reagan Republicans, said this the other day: “Let me commend you and the Administration for taking a bold step to deal with space issues.The fact is that Republicans love to talk about cutting down government waste but whenever it comes down to actually cutting something, or redirecting resources away from government bureaucracy in the areas of space or defense, we end up not being on the side of the angels. I would suggest that your Administration has tried to take an honest approach to looking at what NASA is all about. The goal of NASA should not be maintaining the NASA science bureaucracyP. We just spent $9 billion on the Constellation project and have almost nothing to show for it, and there about five or six other projects that can say the same thing.”
Those who profess to be Republicans but put pork and partisan politics before principles should be ashamed. It’s disgraceful that mainstream Republicans are less supportive of private enterprise in space than Barack Obama is.
We need a Tea Party for space, based on principles and common sense, not political hackery.
Thomas, in all the years I’ve been regularly reading Space Politics, I’ve never read a post where Major Tom (a.k.a. Anonymous) has behaved in the manner you describe.
I get the impression (s)he works for NASA in DC and holds a reasonably high level management position. As such, his/her comments are always very insightful and show that there are people in the agency who really do understand the problems it faces and the political nature of the decision making process.
Of course, I can understand that some of the facts presented may not align with your view of how things should work, but that’s no excuse to shoot the messenger. Moreover, given the ‘poor’ debating skills of many who post on Space Politics, I can understand why some of his/her replies are sometimes rather terse.
Having said all that, I do agree that Robert Oler and the like have ‘polluted’ most of the Space Politics threads this last year.
Brad, I too have been visiting here a here for many years and have posted most recently on Rand’s AWG related threads.
If you’re really interested in who I am, maybe you should ask Rand. Better still, come to next month’s Space Access conference and we can talk face-to-face.
Dave,
See the effect of Major Tom? Here we are burning bandwidth discussing his/her impact on a blog instead of something more productive…
And then the debates Major Tom starts attract other trolls, like sharks to blood in the water, and so the downward spiral begins. I wonder how soon the rest of the spacepolitics.com trolls follow Major Tom here…
Which is why I won’t post anymore here on Major Tom. I just hope (s)he doesn’t hijacks Rand’s blog like he did Jeff’s blog.
Andy Pasztor uses the phrase “military rockets” interchangeable with “EELVs” enough to be misleading.
Thomas, as you Brad and I are the only ones discussing this, which of us do you consider to be the troll?
OK, that’s my last comment on the subject.
I don’t see anything except for politcs and favoritism here, so I’ll share. I’m a liberal Democrat. My favorite space commenters, in ranked order, are Clark Lindsey, Jon Goff, Rand Simberg, Major Tom, Robert Oler, and, oddly, Edward Wright. I hope they all keep posting whatever they want, and I’m very thankful to the first three mentioned people for continuing to host them!
Major Tom is like the global warming scientists, using a selective choice of “facts” to take a “science is settled” approach that insults everyone else in the discussion
ROTFL.
Tom, are projecting? That sounds like your argument for a government-owned Lunar Development Corporation. “The economics is settled, and anyone who disagrees with me is a Clueless New Space Idiot.”
Why are you suddenly attacking global warming? Wasn’t that the whole justification for your Moon scheme — to mine platinum in order to stop global warming?
If you acknowledge that global warming might not be real, what are you going to do with all that platinum?
Of course, you won’t answer because lunar platinum mining is settled and I’m an idiot. 🙂
Edward,
Ah, the usual Red Herrings…
FYI.
The purpose of an International Lunar Develop Corporation is not to mine lunar PGM or REE, but to create the infrastructure (communication, navigation, transportation) so the cost barriers to PRIVATE firms to do so will be lowered.
Buzz Aldrin discusses its functions here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/buzz-aldrin/a-different-kind-of-moon_b_317786.html
And PGM/Rare Earth demand is not driven by global warming, but simple demand for PGM and Rare Earth Metals by industry, including that computer screen you are looking at.
Some articles from the real world, beyond the space advocate community.
http://www.moneymorning.com.au/20100115/platinum-the-commodity-story-of-2010.html
Platinum, the Commodity Story of 2010?
by Dr. Alex Cowie on January 15, 2010
[[[First of all, the supply of platinum is really tight.
When the world asks for more of the stuff, the industry is stuck in first gear and just can’t increase the supply. For instance, it’s taken the industry thirty years to just double production.
This is partly because it’s so rare. For every trillion particles in the earth’s crust, just three parts of them are platinum. Last year the entire industry managed to squeeze out just six million ounces, which would fit in a box measuring two metres on each side!]]]
Yep, there are just so many metal rich asteroid impact craters accessible on the Earth’s surface. Time to find more 🙂
http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/027ns_005.htm
Earth’s natural wealth: an audit
23 May 2007
NewScientist.com news service
David Cohen
[[[Platinum is a vital component not only of catalytic converters but also of fuel cells – and supplies are running out. It has been estimated that if all the 500 million vehicles in use today were re-equipped with fuel cells, operating losses would mean that all the world’s sources of platinum would be exhausted within 15 years]]]
Yep, its definitely time to find more impact craters rich in PGM.
And we must not forget looking for KREEP of course while looking for PGMs on the Moon.
http://www.livescience.com/technology/rare-earth-elements-innovation-100212.html
Shortage of Rare Earth Elements Could Thwart Innovation
TND-InCoop-Logo.jpg
By Jeremy Hsu, TechNewsDaily Contributor
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE57U02B20090831
[[[As hybrid cars gobble rare metals, shortage looms]]]
BTW demand for hybrids is driven by the price of oil, driven of course by oil supply and demand that is indifferent to global warming.
While demand for advance electronics (computers, mobile phones, GPS, HDTV, LCD, etc.) is independent of global warming.
Of course if policy decisions are made because of government perceptions of global warming the demand for wind turbines and hybrids goes up even more then that generated by high oil prices 🙂
The business case is not there Yet for lunar mining. That is where a lunar development corporation comes in by creating the infrastructure, and lunar knowledge needed, to reduce the gap.
“calling someone a liar… So I do welcome Major Tom’s corrections here, but would also request that he tone it down a notch,”
Just to be clear, despite what other posters wrote, I never called anyone a liar in this thread. I told a poster who wrote a blatant misrepresentation of the Senate authorization bill not to spread lies.
But on the few occasions that I post here, I’ll abide by the spirit of your direction, Mr. Simberg, and not use the word “lies”. Your blog, your rules.
Mr. Matula: “become such a troll pit via posters like Major Tom”
Brad: “a new self-appointed Sheriff in town… Major Tom.”
Mr. Matula: “Major Tom wants to be a Blog Sheriff”
Mr. Matula: “Major Tom is like the global warming scientists”
Let me set this straight.
I make one post correcting another poster’s blatant misrepresentation of a Senate authorization bill. And I post another correction when one of you claim that I was expressing an opinion when I wasn’t. And nowhere in any of this do I engage in namecalling or ad hominem attacks against either of you.
And that’s somehow provocation for you two to proceed to call me or classify me as a troll, a blog sheriff, and a scientist who falsifies evidence?
What is wrong with you guys?
Brad: “are you a Major Tom sockpuppet?”
It’s one thing to call me names. Now you’re calling another poster names?
Ad hominem attacks against one poster aren’t enough for you? You have to add another?
Seriously, what is your major malfunction?
Mr. Matula: “using a selective choice of ‘facts’ to take a ‘science is settled’ approach that insults everyone else in the discussion and derails it into trivial pursuit”
This isn’t a debated issue with multiple lines of evidence. It’s bill language. The language either says “X” or not.
So prove it. If that’s true that I bend facts, then show me that the Senate authorization bill that I quoted does not say what I said it did.
Brad: “Major Tom, I here and now make this request to you, don’t bother to directly respond to me here at Transterrestrial Musings, ever.”
What do you expect? If you don’t want to hear a response, then walk away and don’t post one of your own, especially one that engages in namecalling and ad hominem attacks.
Lawdy…
The purpose of an International Lunar Develop Corporation is not to mine lunar PGM or REE, but to create the infrastructure (communication, navigation, transportation) so the cost barriers to PRIVATE firms to do so will be lowered.
Fine. The question still remains, why should mine platinum to stop global warming if you now acknowledge that global warming may not even be real?
And why would want to do it on the Moon? Contrary to your predictions, we have not run out of platinum on Earth and it is likely to be cheaper to mine platinum here than on the Moon for a long time to come. (And citing a commodities trader who’se trying to scare people into buying does not help your case.)
Also remember that whatever platinum you mine on the Moon will have to be cost-competitive not only with platinum mined on Earth but also with any platinum substitutes that are developed. There are a number in development right now, all of which are likely to be cheaper than platinum if they are successful.
And PGM/Rare Earth demand is not driven by global warming, but simple demand for PGM and Rare Earth Metals by industry, including that computer screen you are looking at.
How much platinum is in a computer screen, and how many are manufactured annually? How does that compare to the $130 billion a year you say your Lunar Development Corporation needs for heavy lift rockets alone? Without numbers, your statements are meaningless.
The price of computer screens is going down, not up, so obviously they are not affected by any shortage of platinum or anything else.
Yep, there are just so many metal rich asteroid impact craters accessible on the Earth’s surface. Time to find more
Is the cost of finding more craters on Earth more or less than $130 billion per year?
BTW demand for hybrids is driven by the price of oil, driven of course by oil supply and demand that is indifferent to global warming.
Not really. If not for global warming, it would be pretty trivial to convert automobiles over to natural gas.
The business case is not there Yet for lunar mining. That is where a lunar development corporation comes in by creating the infrastructure, and lunar knowledge needed, to reduce the gap.
At last, a statement that makes sense! The question is, will it close the gap *enough*? Until you start producing real numbers, it’s impossible to tell — and sorry, Tom, but since you’re the person asking the government for money, the burden of proof is on you to provide those numbers.
In the meantime, there are plenty of space industries that don’t have $130-billion-a-year startup costs.
Oh, yes, Tom — I just read the Buzz Aldrin article you linked to.
Buzz is talking about mining LOX for in-space propellant depots, not mining platinum group metals for shipment back to Earth.
Edward,
[[[Fine. The question still remains, why should mine platinum to stop global warming if you now acknowledge that global warming may not even be real?]]]
Clearly you didn’t understand a word I wrote or follow any of the links.
The demand for PGM and REE is expanding faster then supplies, and reserves on Earth are limited. The is regardless of what happens with global warming. Global warming policy would drive it more, but is not needed. Simple consumer demand is good enough.
Again, and I will go slow, so you understand….
A Lunar Development Commercial doesn’t mine PGM or REE. It builds infrastructure that will be needed by private and governments for lunar missions.
A lunar communication system, a lunar navigation system, transportation elements like a Earth-Moon L1 station. They won’t cost $130 billion, a number you seem fixated on and picked up somewhere out of context. A $ 5 billion investment would get it started building the communication and navigation systems. And it would have the flexibility for private firms to become partners in building and operating both. You know, Non-NASA contracts for New Space firms like SpaceX…
Again, think Comsat, Intelsat, not NASA… Buzz Aldrin is right, NASA should have little role in a lunar return…. They need to focus on goals beyond it.
So think government bonds as with TVA and BPA, not the funding model for NASA. And stock as with Comsat…
Yes. Bigelow would probably be more then happy to cut a deal with an International Lunar Development Corporation to build, own and operate an EM L-1. And it wouldn’t cost 130 billion… And would be a Non-NASA destination for commercial HSF.
But before you are able to mine the Moon, you need to map, understand and have reliable human access to it. An International Lunar Development Corporation lowers the barriers to make this happen, so the necessary science and technology is done, so in 30 to 40 years, when Earth supplies of PGM and REE are peaking, it will be a mining option.
For you see Edward, if there is NO economic case for space, No value added to the Earth’s economy, space will never be anything but scientific research. And that will never be sustainable…
Unlike you Edward I am not interested in an Antarctic model for the Moon where all you have are a few scientists and some tourists. That is why I care little about what NASA does or New Space since it has developed a NASA fetish.
What I want to see is the start of a Solar econsystem and to achieve that you need to move beyond NASA and New Space, to an economic development approach to space. That is how you create a true space frontier, not by begging NASA for subsidies.
The demand for PGM and REE is expanding faster then supplies, and reserves on Earth are limited.
According to a commodities trader. Hardly an unbiased source.
A lunar communication system, a lunar navigation system, transportation elements like a Earth-Moon L1 station. They won’t cost $130 billion
$130 billion was the number you used, Tom — “At $300′lb the Sea Dragon would cost $360 million a launch to put 550 mt in LEO and about 40 mt on the Moon. If you launch it daily that would be around 132 Billion USD annually.”
If you’re spending $132 billion annually for launches alone, your total budget must clearly be well over $132 billion annually.
A $ 5 billion investment would get it started building the communication and navigation systems.
Indeed, but that is a very different project, on a vastly different scale, than what you asked for in the (very recent) past.
But before you are able to mine the Moon, you need to map, understand and have reliable human access to it.
Yes, and before you have reliable human access to the Moon, you need to have reliable human access to Earth orbit. That is where all these overnight get-rich-quick schemes to develop the Moon/Mars/Epsilon Eridani III fall down. You’re like a guy standing on Plymouth Rock telling the Pilgrims they ought to forget about New England and head straight for California.
For you see Edward, if there is NO economic case for space, No value added to the Earth’s economy, space will never be anything but scientific research.
There are economic cases that can be made far more easily than lunar platinum mining, Tom. As appealing as that goal might be, the Moon is still a planet too far.
Unlike you Edward I am not interested in an Antarctic model for the Moon where all you have are a few scientists and some tourists. That is why I care little about what NASA does or New Space since it has developed a NASA fetish.
I suppose that’s why you spent five years cheeleading for the BVSE/Constellation/Ares/Orion. 🙂
What I want to see is the start of a Solar econsystem and to achieve that you need to move beyond NASA and New Space, to an economic development approach to space. That is how you create a true space frontier, not by begging NASA for subsidies.
Refresh my memory, Tom, who are you begging for subsidies again? The last time I heard, government bonds came from the same place NASA gets its money from.
Edward,
For the thousand and one time, that is the transportation market for a mature lunar settlement, not a start up. If you have hundreds of people living on the Moon and viable commerce going on between them you are not going to be shipping things back and forth in row boat size vehicles like the Dragon. You need a logistic systems that will be robust…
And its still a far smaller amount of revenue then the annual comsat industry. You got to start thinking beyond NASA’s nickel and dime approach to space.
[[[According to a commodities trader. Hardly an unbiased source.]]]
And who knows better where demand is going then someone who makes a living at it? But only one source was to a commodity trader website. The others were to science news websites as you well know.
But spin it all you want, future supply of PGM and REE is bumping up against some hard limits. That is why China announce it won’t be exporting REE in the near future. And already firms are reopening abandoned mines, even in regulation heavy California, and starting to pick over old ore dumps, a sure sign of a coming shortage in a metal.
[[[Refresh my memory, Tom, who are you begging for subsidies again? The last time I heard, government bonds came from the same place NASA gets its money from.]]]
The is a big difference between bonds for an ILDC and NASA. Bonds are a loan not a gimme like NASA is giving New Space. The ILDC will be required to pay back the money people invest in its government bonds with tax free interest. Just as comsat did.
Whereas the New Space firms won’t be paying back the taxpayers money being given to them as subsidies for commercial crew. Unless of course the New Space firms want to give NASA a discount on their seats for funding them up front like the railroads did in the 19th Century. Hmmm… A 50% discount to NASA for funding them would really encourage the firms to watch costs… It might even encourage them to design systems that are really are commercially viable and counter the negative effects of the new policy.
Dave Salt
Would you mind posting a link to any comment you have made at Transterrestrial Musings before 3-6-2010? Before my first response to you, I tried looking and I couldn’t find any of your comments before that date. Of course I only tried the search function, and then back through the comments of just the last couple days. Since you have been commenting here for years there should be lots of stuff that would come to your mind that you could link to. Anything at all will do. Thanks ahead of time!
Rand if you will, please delete my post of 1:02 am
Dave Salt
I apologize for accusing you of being a Major Tom sock puppet. But my suspicions were aroused when I didn’t recognize you and I couldn’t easily find an earlier comment you had made at Transterrestrial Musings, plus most importantly the plainly unbelievable support you voiced for MT.
Within this very comment thread MT has exhibited some of the reprehensible tendencies that I found so objectionable in most of the comments he has made in the last month over at spacepolitics. If you can’t see what MT did that compelled Rand Simberg to chasten MT, I can’t make you see it.
If you have hundreds of people living on the Moon and viable commerce going on between them you are not going to be shipping things back and forth in row boat size vehicles like the Dragon. You need a logistic systems that will be robust…
Yes, I know — anything smaller than the Queen Mary is a “rowboat” to you. Nothing in between. You should have been a computer programmer, the way your mind operates in binary 0/1 fashion.
Do you think the Pilgrims should have stayed in England until they had a robust fleet of a hundred luxury liners to cross the Atlantic?
Successful businesses start at the bottom and work their way up. You only want to start at the top. Pick the Moon, because it’s the hardest destination to get. Overinvestment in a huge transportation system, because you will need it some day in the distant future when you have hundreds of people. The problem is, when you start at the top, you have nowhere to go but down.
And its still a far smaller amount of revenue then the annual comsat industry.
No, it isn’t. You’re still confusing the satellite industry with the entertainment and information industries that simply use the satellites to distribute their content. It’s the content that generates those huge revenues, not the satellites.
But spin it all you want, future supply of PGM and REE is bumping up against some hard limits.
Like that “peak oil” limit you told us about?
And already firms are reopening abandoned mines, even in regulation heavy California, and starting to pick over old ore dumps, a sure sign of a coming shortage in a metal.
No, that’s not a sign of a shortage. It’s a sign of a market adjusting to changes in commodity prices.
The ILDC will be required to pay back the money people invest in its government bonds with tax free interest. Just as comsat did.
Comsat didn’t just walk into Congressional offices and tell stories about the Erie Canal and the Transcontinental Railroad. Comsat had a real business plan with real numbers. I’m still waiting to see yours. Just saying you’re Comsat doesn’t make you Comsat.
Edward,
Which is the role of an International Lunar Development Corporation, to start the process by building infrastructure. Before you work up to a viable level of commerce you need infrastructure. The fur trappers in the west observed a number of valuable deposits of ore, but before the government funded the transcontinental railroad (using bonds that the railroads paid off…) those deposits were too expensive to mine effectively.
The western mining industry was made possible by government funded railroads, military forts, postal roads and routes, and telegraph systems. The goal of an International Lunar Development Corporation if to provide a means to create the same infrastructure in the cislunar system so the cost barrier of lunar resources drops to make commercial mining feasible just as in the case with the government funded infrastructure in the west.
Space advocates like referring to the wild west as a model, but really don’t understand the economics of western development or the public-private partnerships that created it. The pioneers didn’t go out there for the fun of it, they went out there to make money, homesteading land so they could produce horses, cattle and produce to sell to the government forts or ship back east on the government subsidized railroads. Why do you think space will follow a different economic path?
Unless you create a similar infrastructure, and market, for lunar development it will not happen. But NASA is not the one to create it. It has neither the culture, organizational structure or resources to do so. At most, like its relation to comsat, it will just supply some technology.
In terms of getting it past Congress, as with all legislation, its based on how it fits with government policy. The business case of comsat only makes sense base on what we know now, which is why the government needed to fund its development. In 1962 the political driver was to create a global satellite communication system before the Russians did so. That is why building a global telecommunications system was stated as one of President’s Kennedy’s key goals in his “Moon Speech”.
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/JFK/Urgent+National+Needs+Page+4.htm
[[[Third, an additional 50 million dollars will make the most of our present leadership, by accelerating the use of space satellites for world-wide communications.]]]
When it was realized this would over task NASA because it needed to focus on the Moon, as well as realizing NASA wasn’t a suitable agency to implement an economic development policy objective, they partnered with industry to create a public-private partnership, comsat. Comsat that led the way in creating Intelsat in 1964. And now we have a $200 billion space commerce industry built up on that foundation.
Today the political justification for an International Lunar Development Agency is the same basic one that has driven space policy since 1961. Ensuring the U.S. remains a global space leader. There is interest in China, India and Russia to reach the Moon. As Buzz Aldrin’s Op-ed noted the International Lunar Development Corporation would provide an international mechanism to do so.
As for the business case. It depends greatly on how much each nation takes part in it, just as with comsat, and the organization’s structure and how fast you want to go. And if the infrastructure is out sourced or not. And a dozen other variables.
But for New Space, it would break what Bill White refers to as the monopsony of NASA with a new institution more in tune with the New Space movement then NASA is or ever will be.
Just to be clear, despite what other posters wrote, I never called anyone a liar in this thread. I told a poster who wrote a blatant misrepresentation of the Senate authorization bill not to spread lies.
It’s not an unreasonable inference that when you accuse someone of spreading lies that you are calling them a liar. Many spread disinformation — fewer do so knowingly, and it’s not really possible to get into their head generally to know which is which, so I prefer to simply talk about falsehoods, rather than lies, which is much more pejorative, and harder to back up.
Which is the role of an International Lunar Development Corporation, to start the process by building infrastructure. Before you work up to a viable level of commerce you need infrastructure. The fur trappers in the west observed a number of valuable deposits of ore, but before the government funded the transcontinental railroad (using bonds that the railroads paid off…) those deposits were too expensive to mine effectively.
Just because the government gave someone else bonds to build a railroad does not mean the government has an obligation to give *you* bonds to build a railroad. Or anything else.
The men who built the transcontinental railroad justified the project on its own merits, based on sound financial projections. They did not rely solely on historical analogies.
Bonds need to be paid off. As you say, $5 billion is not nearly enough to build a full-scale mining base and get to the point where you can make money by shipping platinum group metals back to Earth. So, how are you going to pay off those bonds?
Without a near-term revenue stream, you can’t. And unfortunately, you have no interest in incremental near-term revenues because in your mind they aren’t “real” markets like platinum mining.
The western mining industry was made possible by government funded railroads, military forts,
LOL. Tom, please correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t military forts built by the military? If you really believe that analogy, then you should have spent the last five years arguing for Military Space Plane, not Constellation.
Why do you think that every government project is analogous to the military — except the military? The logic escapes me.
to sell to the government forts or ship back east on the government subsidized railroads. Why do you think space will follow a different economic path?
I have no problems with selling to the military, Tom, but I’ve never seen you support anything even remotely connected to the military. You seem to be committed to the old “space for peaceful purposes only” schtick. The International Lunar Development Corporation is not the military.
In 1962 the political driver was to create a global satellite communication system before the Russians did so. That is why building a global telecommunications system was stated as one of President’s Kennedy’s key goals in his “Moon Speech”.
No, AT&T was already building a communication satellite system — and had already orbited a communications satellite. Kennedy’s goal was to prevent a private company from getting a foothold in space, not the Russians. And the communications satellite industry didn’t take off big until the Comsat/Intelsat monopoly was finally broken.
The problem with your analogy is that it’s not analogous.
Today the political justification for an International Lunar Development Agency is the same basic one that has driven space policy since 1961. Ensuring the U.S. remains a global space leader. There is interest in China, India and Russia to reach the Moon.
Why does the US need to help China, India, and Russia reach the Moon to “remain a global space leader”? This sounds more like the Peace Corps or the Olympic Games than military forts in the American West. (Neither the Olympics nor the Peace Corps make money, by the way.)
I have no interest in paying higher taxes just to help China, India, and Russia get ahead. I don’t think many Americans do.
As for the business case. It depends greatly on how much each nation takes part in it, just as with comsat, and the organization’s structure and how fast you want to go. And if the infrastructure is out sourced or not. And a dozen other variables.
In other words, you have no idea how you’re going to pay the bonds back, but you still want the taxpayers to guarantee the bonds?
Rand, please delete this if you prefer I don’t pimp myself here (I don’t wish to offend) and I won’t do it again, if you ask me not to.
I am fascinated by the above exchange between Thomas Matula and Edward Wright as I have very recently released an ebook novel that features many of these same topics and issues. I also portray potential revenue streams that may or may not work however I believe my novel will facilitate thinking outside the box.
And this week it is 50% off at Smashwords during “Read an ebook week!” Half off $8.99 list price is $4.50.
http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/9415
Discount code: RAE 50
For a Kindle edition click through Rand’s amazon link first and search Bill White Platinum Moon
Quick summary:
http://www.platinum-moon.com/
Edward,
[[[LOL. Tom, please correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t military forts built by the military? If you really believe that analogy, then you should have spent the last five years arguing for Military Space Plane, not Constellation.]]]
One of my major disagreements with the New Space advocates is their focus on NASA instead of DOD. One of the big mistakes that killed the RLV efforts in the 1990’s was when NASA took over DC-X from DOD. If the USAF had been the lead on X-33 a better choice would have been made and the project would have likely succeeded. I would have more faith in COTS bringing in a golden age if it was DOD funded rather then NASA.
The needs of DOD spacelift are far more in line with New Space then NASA. Its funny seeing New Space advocates like yourself are now, finally, claiming that DOD is the way to go. Pity New Space didn’t feel that way in the 1990’s when it would have made a difference in RLV funding. At least we got the EELV out of DOD needs. And the X-37 may well lead to better things if President Obama doesn’t kill the OTV like President Clinton did the Military Space Plane…
really, in my mind the only bigger problem then New Space’s focus on NASA funding is the pacifist thread that seems to cause many New Space advocates to steer clear of focusing on the DOD, something that only has only started to change in recent years. DOD and New Space should have been partners from day 1, while NASA should have been ignored…
Personally I believe the root cause of most of the problems with U.S. space policy was the decision to create a civilian agency, NASA, instead of giving the HSF mission to the USAF. I understand the political reasons for it, but if the USAF had been given the lead in HSF I expect RLVs would be routine now and we wouldn’t be thinking of HSF as science driven.
[[[No, AT&T was already building a communication satellite system — and had already orbited a communications satellite.]]]
Check you dates. President Kennedy’s speech was in May, 1961. Telstar was launched on a Delta, by NASA, on July 10, 1962. BTW Bell labs who built Telstar often worked closely with the government. And AT&T was one of the biggest backers of Comsat because it made it much easier to get the global agreements necessary to build the system.
[[[Just because the government gave someone else bonds to build a railroad does not mean the government has an obligation to give *you* bonds to build a railroad.]]]
Unlike many New Space advocates I don’t have a space company seeking government funding. Nor would I want to be part of the management of an International Lunar Development Corporation. So how could I be asking for money for myself when I don’t have a financial interest in it?
I know, its a difficult idea for New Space advocates to grasp, that someone doesn’t want government money for their New Space company…
What I am pointing out is that IF New Space advocates really want to create their a golden age in space then they need to learn from history how industries emerge and how the human econsphere is expanded instead of following the faith base models (COTS – build it they will come, Markets are always the answer…., the demand is there somewhere, I just know it…) most space advocates are hooked on.
The International Lunar Development Authority is based on what has worked in the past. Especially what worked when free enterprise failed, as with the Panama Canal, TVA, BPA and building a railroad to open the Alaskan frontier….
Also why do you assume China, India and Russia would be free loading? As part owners of an International Lunar Development Corporation they would have to pay their share as well….
Personally I believe the root cause of most of the problems with U.S. space policy was the decision to create a civilian agency, NASA, instead of giving the HSF mission to the USAF.
We agree on that, then. So, why haven’t you said this before?
For five years, you’ve been saying the US needed to build Constellation to compete with the Chinese Moon program (which, to whatever extent it exists, has no military significance). I’ve never seen or heard you say anything about the Chinese military spaceplane program (“Divine Dragon”) or advocate that the United States do anything to counter that.
The International Lunar Development Authority is based on what has worked in the past. Especially what worked when free enterprise failed, as with the Panama Canal, TVA, BPA and building a railroad to open the Alaskan frontier….
As I explained before, those projects were justified on their merits, not on the basis of historical analogies. In that respect, they are unlike the International Lunar Development Corporation, for which you haven’t provided any financials whatsoever. I could argue for growing tomatoes on the Moon, shipping them back to Earth, and say it’s just like building the Panama Canal — that doesn’t mean growing tomatoes on the Moon is a good idea or that the government should put money into it.
Unlike many New Space advocates I don’t have a space company seeking government funding. Nor would I want to be part of the management of an International Lunar Development Corporation.
Are you asking us to do the work for you? If you want an International Lunar Development Corporation but aren’t willing to help make it happen, and haven’t figured out how such a corporation would repay its bonds, let alone make a profit, how do you expect it to happen?
> Thomas Matula Says:
> March 7th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
> One of my major disagreements with the New Space advocates
> is their focus on NASA instead of DOD. One of the big mistakes
> that killed the RLV efforts in the 1990’s was when NASA took
> over DC-X from DOD. If the USAF had been the lead on X-33 a
> better choice would have been made and the project would have
> likely succeeded. I would have more faith in COTS bringing in
> a golden age if it was DOD funded rather then NASA.
Big agree. DOD was always more operability focused. NASA really needed to pork out everything for political support – and often sincerely thought you couldn’t do anything without a billion $ in labor hours. The results of the $30 million DC-X program vrs the well over a Billion+ $ X-33 program is a stark example of that. (Also Ideas like BlackHorse, Blackswift, etc)
Also the fact the military space budget is bigger, adn they traditionally were more inovative ni sopace tech development, are strong reason new.space should focus more no them – adn why spaceX etc DID focus more no the Mil.
>=== . And the X-37 may well lead to better things if President Obama
> doesn’t kill the OTV like President Clinton did the Military Space Plane…==
True, but then NASA execs insist reusable space craft are impossible. (Hopefully at a preconference held sitting in front of the frequently reused orbiters.)
> Personally I believe the root cause of most of the problems with
> U.S. space policy was the decision to create a civilian agency,
> NASA, instead of giving the HSF mission to the USAF. I
> understand the political reasons for it, but if the USAF had
> been given the lead in HSF I expect RLVs would be routine
> now and we wouldn’t be thinking of HSF as science driven.
Possibly.
I think NASA being thrown overnight from a new R&D agency, into being a mammoth space spectacular agency, and then needing to find justifications for its huge budgets and staffs. With nothing to do, and a high demand/need to defend their turf, wqe got a NASA forced to be a high cost, low flight rate agency fighting CATS to survive.
>– Unlike many New Space advocates I don’t have a space company
> seeking government funding. –
You should get one, I hear their fun.
😉
>==
> What I am pointing out is that IF New Space advocates
> really want to create their a golden age in space then they
> need to learn from history how industries emerge and how
> the human econsphere is expanded instead of following the
> faith base models (COTS – build it they will come, Markets
> are always the answer…., the demand is there somewhere, I
> just know it…) most space advocates are hooked on. ==
You don’t make money selling what you want to build, you make money selling what others want to buy.
Though I’m not sure what the busness case for the Lunar dev company would be?
Edward,
[[[the International Lunar Development Corporation, for which you haven’t provided any financials whatsoever.]]]
Find some engineers willing to produce free for me a detailed cost estimate and time table for a lunar communication/navigation constellation and I will give you a set of financials for it. But without a detailed cost estimate it would be a waste of effort.
[[[Are you asking us to do the work for you?]]]
No, I don’t really expect any support from you or other New Space advocates. New Space advocates have been focused for too many decades on getting NASA to subsidize their New Space economy to look beyond NASA for other more viable options. I just put the idea out so space advocates tired of the New Space/NASA death spiral that has been going on for the last 20 years will hopefully start to think beyond NASA for options for developing a solar econsystem. But I expect it won’t be until the President’s new policy fails to create the New Space economy envision and only results in creating a few lucky New Space NASA contractors before New Space is ready to move beyond its NASA centric focus.
BTW how are YOU doing with getting NASA money for your teachers in space program? Any nibbles from NASA yet?
Find some engineers willing to produce free for me a detailed cost estimate and time table for a lunar communication/navigation constellation and I will give you a set of financials for it.
Oh, for pete’s sake! You could find out how much communications and navigation satellites cost with five minutes of research in the library, or on the Internet. The cost of the satellites is the least of your problems. Who are your customers? What do they want that you can supply? How much are they willing to pay? How long will it take before the revenues come in? What’s your cost of money? What’s your ROI? Those are the important questions. I shouldn’t have to be telling you this. You’re a business professor.
Right now, your plan looks like this:
1) Get $5 billion in government bonds so you can put up communications and navigation satellites.
2) Then a miracle happens.
3) Launch hundreds of Sea Dragons every year and build a mining colony with hundreds of people on the Moon.
4) Ship platinum group metals back to Earth and use the profits to repay the bonds.
I think you need to be more explicit about Step 2.
Would you accept something like this in a paper from one of your students? Why do you expect people to accept it from you?
No, I don’t really expect any support from you or other New Space advocates.
Tom, please stop the pity party. If you aren’t willing to put any work into your own ideas, you have no right to complain that other people won’t drop everything they’re doing and work on it for you.
All you do is insult people because they don’t recognize the brilliance of your — and project your behavior onto other people, like Major Tom. Do you really expect that to get you anywhere?
Edward,
There are prices for GEO comsats, but the design required for a lunar communication constellation won’t be the same. But then you know that. Nor will the ground stations cost the same. Nor the launch or ground control….
Also the case for all of the projects mentioned wasn’t a ROI, if any of them would be widely profitable private industry would have done it. But it failed in every case… No those projects were for national security and policy reasons. The same reasons for Comsat and for a International Lunar Development Corporation. And that is how you sell it, not like a New Space firm.
Also when will you understand Sea Dragon is not part of an International Lunar Development Corporation? Its just represents the level of effort PRIVATE firms will have to accomplish to support a commercial lunar settlement. Show me a New Space design capable of putting a semi-trailer load of cargo on the Moon daily? That is probably the minimum to support a commercial venture even with lunar water and agriculture. You inclusion of it on the list is typical of the way you misrepresent people’s ideas.
And how do I insult you? I have put up well with your misstatements of my views and positions. With more patience then most people would.
BTW I think Teachers in Space is a good program, just its not something NASA will ever fund because of the liability involved. If NASA won’t let astronauts fly on a sub-orbital craft before an extensive safety review what makes you think they will pay for non-astronaut teachers to do so? The core of the idea is good, but you need to find a different target for funding then NASA and provide a better case for the value added beyond simple “inspiration” to make it work. And pray the human rating for sub-orbitals NASA is looking at doesn’t kill the industry before its first flight.
And that brings up the next point, how do you know I haven’t put effort into my ideas for a International Lunar Development Authority? Because I haven’t made the New Space conference rounds with endless view graphs? Or because I haven’t provided you with the operational plan on an open forum? You seem to assume those activities would somehow be productive.
No, I am merely pointing out the strategy that would deliver the Moon into humanity’s econsphere, based on a solid foundation of economic history when people are ready to pick up the pieces and move forward after the current battle on space policy is over.
if any of them would be widely profitable private industry would have done it
If your project is not profitable, how are you going to pay off your bonds?
No those projects were for national security and policy reasons.
Oh, boy. There you go again. No, Tom, the International Lunar Development Corporation is not national security. DoD is national security. Military spaceplane is national security — but again, for someone who claims to be in favor of military space, you seem to have very little interest in military space.
Show me a New Space design capable of putting a semi-trailer load of cargo on the Moon daily?
Show me a system capable of putting a semi-trailer load of cargo into LEO, affordably. Or a suitcase, for that matter.
Progress very rarely comes in “giant leaps,” Tom. Usually, it’s the result of many small steps. That’s the problem with schemes like yours and Zubrin’s. You all want to run Olympic marathons before even learning how to walk. There are a lot of things that need to be done before we will see giant space freighters landing semi-trailer loads on the Moon on a daily basis. You can’t ignore all those things just because you don’t find them sexy like landing on the Moon.
Since you like historical analogies, I’ll give you a historical analogy. Right now, it’s 980 AD, the only way you have to cross the Atlantic is in a Viking longboat, and you want to colonize Las Vegas. Bob Zubrin wants to colonize San Francisco. How do you expect to get to Nevada or California when you don’t even have a safe, affordable way to reach the Eastern shore of North America? No matter how much money the Viking Council gives you?
how do you know I haven’t put effort into my ideas for a International Lunar Development Authority?
By your inability to answer simple, basic questions like how you will repay your bonds.
Besides, you told me you didn’t want to be part of the International Lunar Development Authority team, remember? You want other people to do it.
> Thomas Matula Says:
> March 8th, 2010 at 6:10 pm
> Show me a New Space design capable of putting a
> semi-trailer load of cargo on the Moon daily?
Not new space, but the McDonnel Douglas DC-X could. Or rather a fleet of them.
Dev cost to the point of FAA certified craft coming off a assembly line was projected at $5 billion ni todays money.
Cost per craft would be (depending on production rates) $400? M each.
One flight to lift your 20 ton cargo to LEO
20(?) flights to lift enough fuel adn LOx to refuel the cargo craft in LEO to boost to a Lunar landnig and return to Earth surface minus cargo.
Delivery cost to Lunar surface — likely $6,000 ish per pound? Give or take a lot depending on overhead amortorization adn how long you keep this up.
You’ld need dozens of craft though.
Edward,
[[[but again, for someone who claims to be in favor of military space, you seem to have very little interest in military space.]]]
Evidence?
[[[By your inability to answer simple, basic questions like how you will repay your bonds.]]]
If you are referring to the value proposition of a business model (the proper term), its simple the users of the ILDC communication and navigation systems will pay fees that will enable the ILDC to recover the portion of the systems covered by bonds to retire the bonds. This is one of the key differences between the ILDC and NASA. The more lunar activity generated by the ILDC the stronger the organization becomes. NASA has no such direct link to building space commerce.
[[[Besides, you told me you didn’t want to be part of the International Lunar Development Authority team, remember? You want other people to do it.]]]
No, I am just not into enriching my pockets with my space policy ideas like so many in New Space seem to be. Which is why I have donated thousands of dollars on pro bono labor to space policy issues over the years. Besides why would I want to take a salary cut from my day job as a strategic business consultant and online educator just to move to Washington and work in an international agency. Especially when there are so many qualified aerospace executives already living there?
Also you seem to think in terms of the ILDC as a New Space start-up. Its not. It will be an international organization, like Intelsat, created by an international agreement. The national representatives creating it will determine its parameters using a classic Political Decision Model process, not the Rational Decision Model process you should fine in a business start-up. That is also way any Pro Forma Financial Statements would be a waste at this time, because the variables they would be founded on are heavily dependent on the structure of the agreement that would need to be reached.