Paul Spudis isn’t very happy with the NASA authorization bill. I don’t think it’s great, myself, but it’s much less disastrous than the House version would have been. I agree with Clark Lindsey’s critique of Paul’s post (and not just because he quoted me).
27 thoughts on “More Lost Moon”
Comments are closed.
More whining from the Spudisi.
The current bill is much less disastrous than Mike Griffin’s Constellation program, which Paul was a whole-hearted cheerleader for — right up until the moment when Griffin cut the big, noncompetitive set-aside that Paul’s lab was getting.
Paul had no sympathy for his fellow planetary scientists whose budgets were gutted to pay for Paul’s vision of space exploration, but when the tables were turned, he expected them to support him and was shocked when they wouldn’t. As one of his colleagues said, “Paul made a deal with the devil, now let him live with it.” (I suspect that his subsequent attacks on LCROSS were payback for that lack of support.)
We should not forget that Paul signed Aldridge the report that declared human spaceflight would “remain the providence [sic] of government” for the foreseeable future. That report was released just days after Mike Melvill flew SpaceShip One and earned the first FAA commercial astronaut wings — an event that was on the front-page of every newspaper but was apparently unknown to Aldridge, Spudis, & Co.
Now, Paul says that “the efficacy of “New Space” efforts to provide routine and inexpensive access to LEO is touching, but unsupported by any evidence.” Obviously, he missed the news about SpaceX, too.
To Paul, the developments taking place right now are “magic beans” and anyone who believes in progress is “technically illiterate.” He says that “NASA had a track record of building and flying spacecraft, under a variety of difficult technical and fiscal conditions.” He seems unaware of the fact that current NASA employees (those hired since the 1970’s) have never built a manned spacecraft. And he once again ridicules the notion that, “The commercial sector will develop new, ultra-affordable launch vehicles to allow the movement of humanity into space!”
Meanwhile, Space Adventures is offering manned circumlunar flights for $100 million, which seems “ultra-affordable” compared to Paul’s $2 billion robot landers and $500 million orbiters.
But such low-cost ventures get no support from Paul. They are “magic beans” because they don’t dramatically inflate the size of the NASA budget (a goal that seems to be much more important to Paul than human lunar exploration).
In regard to his claim about other people being “technically illiterate,” someone ought to ask Spudis why he thinks a geologist is more “literate” about space transportation than real rocket engineers.
I don’t expect Jeff Greason, Elon Musk, or Dallas Bienhoff to be an expert on lunar rocks — and I wouldn’t expect an oceanographer to be able to design a cruise ship or an atmospheric scientist to be an expert on aircraft design.
Why does Spudis think that studying rocks makes him more knowledgeable about space transportation than Greason, Musk, or Bienhoff?
As a reply to Clark’s article, Trent Washington mentioned in passing an interesting thing about scientific missions on the Moon. It’s been more than three decades after the end of Apollo yet there’s still little interest in building on the scientific output of the Apollo missions.
I think there’s two observations to make about that. First, that the Apollo missions generated so much scientific output about the Moon, that it’s killed most US unmanned lunar science missions (aside from a few relatively cheap orbiters) for the past thirty years. And second, that this indicates some deep flaws in how NASA and the US scientific community prioritize space science missions.
I just want to note that Paul’s post was written yesterday. As of close of White House business today, the bill has not been signed. There is no discussion at WhiteHouse.gov of a signing nor schedule of it to be signed. The bill is still shown as pending legislation.
I just want to note that Paul’s post was written yesterday. As of close of White House business today, the bill has not been signed. There is no discussion at WhiteHouse.gov of a signing nor schedule of it to be signed. The bill is still shown as pending legislation.
I suppose the President could pocket veto this bill (apparently Congress has either adjourned or will do so shortly), but this seems pretty dumb. At best, Congress will probably vote for the bill again (possibly with a veto proof supermajority this time). At worst, Obama is both revealing his hand with a strategy that could have been used more effectively and showing bizarre behavior before an election (which isn’t going to improve confidence in his or his supporters’ judgment).
Karl,
The bill passed the Senate via unanimous consent. It passed the House 304-118. That’s a veto proof majority from what I understand. But it doesn’t matter. If the bill isn’t signed by Wednesday, it could be pocket vetoed as the House has adjourned, and in that case, it can’t be sent back. However, the Senate is still technically in session every Monday and Friday to prevent recess appointments. An interesting case would be the Senate to have activity on Wednesday, thus technically being in session with the House adjourned.
Interesting that you guys are talking about possible veto of this bill. After all the lobbying to get it passed through the house I suggested that the fat lady hasn’t sang yet and the lobbying should continue to the WH. Just about everyone and their dog took the opportunity to tell me that this was unnecessary.. that the WH was clearly backing this bill.. that Lori Garver was the WH spokesperson and she has nothing but good things to say, etc, etc. And here we are, talking about the possibility of veto. Keep making the calls!
And second, that this indicates some deep flaws in how NASA and the US scientific community prioritize space science missions.
Full disclosure : i don’t care much about science, i care about engineering. Or applied science, perhaps.
I find it incredible that we have not bothered to answer a few very basic, fundamental questions about our nearest neighbor in space with a few engineering missions ( not science missions ).
Ground truth on water ice ?
What are the real engineering challenges of doing robotic ISRU from regolith ( oxygen, aluminium ) ?
Can space vacuum epitaxy really work and produce solar photovoltaics in situ ?
Perpetually lit polar peaks, can we get continous power from there ?
These, IMO, are engineering questions, not scientific questions.
None of these need ginormous budgets, far less than a NEXT Mars rover searching for long dead microbes. And have been in reach of telerobotic technologies since .. pretty much Apollo, i guess.
focus on developing the technology and building the hardware that’s necessary for all BEO
Which means?
1) NASA needs a spaceship, but can use what is already being put in orbit (for less than $2b I’ll park a cool ship in orbit for ya… 7.15 delta V, 2300 m^3 internal volume.)
Or some commercial vendor can put that ship in orbit and sell tickets to NASA. There are a few hundred billionaires and many corps large enough. We only need one (more preferred.)
2) The spaceship needs refueling.
3) Depending on destination, they need landers (or at least get HAL to open the pod bay doors.)
4) They need supplies and habitats prepositioned for any long duration mission (if off the spaceship which never lands.)
5) For a settlement they do not initially need any accent vehicle. Settlers stay (lots of volunteers for this.)
What they don’t need is another launch system. Earth orbit transfer of people and cargo is a routine operation.
For the record, i think Lunokhods were the best moment of soviet space program, and i suspect very impressive bang for the buck.
Pity that they did not follow up with more advanced teleoperated robot versions.
The practical effect of this….
A friend of mine, still working on the Shuttle program, has been given a couple of extra months before she’s given the boot. She’s just finished her second Master’s degree, in aerospace medicine.
But the job offers she’s had from Nasa Research, and X-space, they’ve both been rescinded as the result of these political shennanigans. No money now.
She’s been told she’s over-qualified to work at McDonalds (literally, she applied in desperation) and there’s nothing else on the horizon. She’ll be joining America’s homeless in a few months.
Another aerospace engineer just got her 578th rejection. Many firms have a policy now of only considering job applications from those not unemployed.
Zoe, am I supposed to care that your friend can’t get a government job?
Here’s a wild idea: go work for a startup company.. and if you can’t find one, start your own. If you really can’t make it in the real world, at least go back to academia and try not to screw up the next generation.
Zoe, am I supposed to care that your friend can’t get a government job?
Wad,
Are we supposed to care about anything you write, when you are unable to comprehend others comments? Or are you delusional enough to think McDonald’s is a government job?
It is sad that highly qualified people can’t find work. I remember one thing in “What Color is your Parachute” about getting together with other highly qualified unemployed as a group and working the problem together.
I wonder what did all the highly qualified airship crews and captains do after 40-ies ..
It is unwise for anyone to think that they can go to college, get a degree in something, and then work in a job which is directly applicable to their degree from graduation to retirement. Life and economics simply don’t work that way for everyone, or even the majority.
There are always jobs available for those who are willing to work, whether for someone else or on their own. A little humility goes a long way in that regard, even for rocket plumbers.
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.” — Robert A. Heinlein
G’day,
Zoe, President Bush’s plan was always to kill the Shuttle in 2010. That decision was made in 2004. So she had six years to find another job. Why is she still working for the Shuttle program?
ta
Ralph
Leland, I see your concern now. Obama pocket vetoed a bill on October 7 that probably would have survived a regular veto. It’s bizarre the amount of unconstitutional and incompetent nonsense that comes out of this administration. I can’t imagine what it’s going to be like once Obama no longer can count on Democrat majorities in Congress.
Obama seems to have no trouble making law without congress. When a bureaucrat makes rules with penalties that’s just a law by another name.
Getting back to what reader said, the cost of space is fuel. A cislunar spaceship is not that complicated. $300m would put a perfectly good gas and go vehicle in orbit right now with existing launchers using existing parts. Add a reusable lunar lander (how much for that?) and we could start practical engineering on the moon to answer practical questions about what can be done there.
After the breakup of MA BELL, the FAA built their own phone network, fourth largest in the country at one point. This replaced a single person at a desk ordering services from AT&T. Now they have contracts so they’ve basically gone back to an ordering desk. NASA should be doing the same thing. They should be buying tickets on spaceships that others design, build and own. They should be leasing landers that others design, build and own. They should be doing research on lunar and martian real estate privately owned and leased to them.
They should be doing public domain research for the benefit of all commercial operators with no preference. NASA should be cutting staff so they can work for private ventures. Staff should be department heads with contractors that come and go for various projects. Have we learned nothing from the wild west that is the internet?
If all we want to do is explore space then you really don’t need humans to do that. Robots can do it a lot faster and cheaper! The primary scientific purpose for sending humans into space is to see how well humans can survive beyond the Earth and if its possible for humans to live permanently beyond the Earth.
We already know that a microgravity environment aboard a space station is inherently deleterious to human health. What we don’t know is if the macrogravity environments of the Moon and Mars are also inherently deleterious to the human body which might make the colonization of such worlds impossible.
The only way to find out, of course, is to establish a base on the lunar surface that is appropriately mass shielded so that a few astronauts can remain at the lunar facility for a year or more. Then we’ll finally know!
If the 1/6 gravity of the Moon turns out to be harmless to human health then obviously the 4/10 gravity of Mars should also be harmless to the human body.
Finding out whether or not the human species is trapped on Earth because of our adaptation to the Earth’s gravity would, obviously, be an extremely important discovery as far as the future of our species is concerned.
A manned mission to an asteroid, however, wouldn’t tell you anything about the ability of humans to adjust to lunar or Martian gravity. Its also wouldn’t tell you much about the human ability to travel to Mars since a Mars mission would require substantially more radiation shielding than a trip to an asteroid. A manned mission also wouldn’t tell you as much about asteroid geology and potential danger to the Earth as far cheaper and far more frequently launched– unmanned– missions to asteroids would!
The only way to find out, of course, is to establish a base on the lunar surface that is appropriately mass shielded so that a few astronauts can remain at the lunar facility for a year or more. Then we’ll finally know!
It isn’t the only way. Imagine a Bigelow station connected to a counterweight by a tether, with the entire structure rotating fast enough to give 1/6 gee.
@ Ed Minchau
“It isn’t the only way. Imagine a Bigelow station connected to a counterweight by a tether, with the entire structure rotating fast enough to give 1/6 gee.”
In order to produce a 1/6 simulated gravity environment would require a tether at least 160 meters from the central axis in order to avoid the Coriolis effect. You’d also need to have a counter weight of equal mass with the station. And the individuals would have to exist continuously within that environment for a year or more. Plus you’d have to substantially increase the mass shielding for such a station in order to avoid reaching career limits in radiation exposure over a years time. Plus you’d have to further increase the mass of the counter weight. .
Just deploying a base on the Moon would be a lot simpler plus you could use lunar regolith for mass shielding instead of having to import it from Earth.
I’m strongly in favor of deploying artificial gravity space stations. But I haven’t heard about any NASA plans or even private plans for creating such facilities.
…two Bigelow stations a mile apart connected by a tether…
Ralph – she’s 26. Two master’s degrees is pretty good at that age, especially since she was working during that period.
Trent – she had a job offer from SpaceX – that was rescinded when the Congress didn’t pass the NASA budget. That’s the point – space start-ups aren’t hiring now.
Starting up your own firm at that age while servicing the educational debt is tricky, to say the least.
She’s also in a minority with a >40% unemployment rate. I don’t think that’s a factor here though, most firms in the tech area don’t care about things like that. But it does make getting a job outside the tech area difficult, and nigh impossible in 38 states.
26 two year old double masters cant find a job WITHIN 6 YEARS ? Hello, VSE and the demise of the shuttle was announced 2004.
reader – until this week, she was working on the Orion project – the shuttle work was a stopgap.
“Lost my job on Orion (the moon program) today… it keeps hitting me harder as the day goes on. *sigh* I am still on Shuttle, but its for a limited time only. Both my job offers fell through, so I will officially be jobless and homeless in about 3 months…
08 October at 16:08”
” Packed up my desk over on Orion today, the last time I shall ever see my darling moon capsule. She sat there in the dark, half finished, her pieces scattered about the floor like the shattered dreams of those that built her. Good bye my darling, I hope one day you will fly among the stars like you deserve. *sigh*
Yesterday at 12:23 · ”
I guess Geek Girls like us invest more than our intellect in these things. We give our hearts too.
But you know what? I think the guys do too. They just don’t feel comfortable expressing that. We have more freedom there.