Ian Fichtenbaum has an op-ed at Space News describing the need to make space activities like other activities. I agree with it. A few years ago, I sat on a panel at Space Access discussing the need to “impedance match” launch with LEO operations, and decouple the two. This is the future.
[Update a while later]
Yes, I understand the confusion about my use of those seemingly contradictory terms, but I’m not using them literally. By “impedance match” I mean providing an interface between the launch system and orbital transportation systems (and space assembly), rather than having the launch system do the whole job of delivering an assembled satellite. This also decouples the launch system, in terms of schedule, from the orbital activities.
[Update a few minutes later]
Meanwhile, with regard to activity on the Hill, Keith Cowing comments about the state of NASA.
[Friday-morning update]
Another article on how NASA is changing for the 21st century. I’m a little skeptical about this:
In the next decade, a typical mission could go something like this: NASA astronauts board a SpaceX Big Falcon Rocket (BFR) along with commercial astronauts and a few wealthy tourists. The rocket stops at the new space hotel circling the globe to drop off the visitors and the NASA astronauts spend a few hours there filming an advertisement and lending their endorsement to the privately owned “microgravity resort.”
From there, the commercial astronauts continue on to service the Lockheed-Martin lunar gateway, a space station in orbit around the moon that functions as a sort of truck stop for traffic between Earth and the moon. The NASA astronauts journey on to the lunar surface to continue building the agency’s new outpost there, where both SpaceX and competitor Blue Origin already have permanent landing pads and the latter provides meals prepared by the only off-planet Whole Foods in the galaxy.
I don’t think the Gateway exists in this timeline. And of course, Bill Nye kicks the stuffing out of the usual straw man:
“It is important to keep in mind that all the money spent in space is really spent on Earth,” Bill Nye, celebrity “Science Guy” and CEO of the nonprofit advocacy and outreach group The Planetary Society, said via email.
It’s only important to keep that in mind for idiots who imagine that we are literally shipping currency into space. I’ve never run into such a person. Of course the money is spent on earth. The issue is how effectively it’s spent, and much of NASA’s budget, particularly for human spaceflight, is wasted.
[Bumped]
[Late-morning update]
Then there’s this:
So what happens if BFR beats SLS to launch and also winds up being more economical and practical? Will NASA be forced to discard over a decade’s worth of rocket development to go with the commercial alternative?
“The fact that we’ve got hardware in the factory, to me, says a lot,” said Rob Chambers, director of human spaceflight strategy for Lockheed Martin, which isn’t involved with SLS, but is building the new Orion crew capsule for NASA that would fly atop it and has been involved with practically every robotic NASA mission to Mars.
Yes. It says that we’ve wasted a metric buttload of taxpayer money, and will continue to do so until it’s finally canceled.
IANAE, but I do not understand what you mean by combining “impedance match” with “decouple.”
“a lot of the cost and time have to do with the toxicity and volatility of the propellants and other energetic materials involved in any spacecraft”
I just looked into this and it’s not true for current spacecraft that cost over $100M. It could become true but only when the price of a spacecraft drops below $20M or so which is not an impossible number to imagine but I have long contended that a spacecraft costs what it does because the launch costs what it does. It doesn’t make sense to put a $1M take-a-chance type of spacecraft on a $100M launch vehicle.
Appreciate the point but the reality is that the industry has your mindset mostly because it does not now value as much time, time management and responsiveness. This is to be expected for large delicate missions flying out of a launch range no more than 12-15 times a year. In a world where the rate rises to 30 launches or more, time at the launch pad becomes a bigger source of variability, delay and havoc to a schedule. Ultimately, I think it is the launch providers more than the manufacturers who will encourage their customers to abandon toxic energetics where possible because it will mean shorter, less variable lead and prep times.
I’m currently reading James Killian’s book “Sputnik, Scientists, and Eisenhower. (Wait for it…) (I’m sorry, I like reading these sorts of memoirs.) Killian was the first presidential science advisor, appointed by Eisenhower in the wake of Sputnik. He was also tasked by Ike to set up what became the PSAC — the President’s Science Advisory Council. And he talks about “impedance matching” up various other science organizations in the government to be able to interface with the PSAC and himself.
A-hem.
Two Hearings Point To A Fading NASA
I don’t think this is true but NASA is entering a transition stage. ISS should stick around until a replacement is operational. The replacement in LEO should be run and owned by a private enterprise. Gateway should be as well. Is LM going to own Gateway or just be the contracted maintenance service? A Gateway that serviced customers other than NASA would be ideal and government can’t/shouldn’t be a business.
SLS/Orion/Gateway is just one track. The other is a COTS-esque series of lunar focused PPP’s that are taking place at the same time companies and researchers are doing their own lunar missions. If the commercial activities flourish in LEO and cislunar space, then NASA’s capabilities and opportunities will expand far beyond their past glories. It will just be a different way of doing things.
The private sector is staged to make some big accomplishments in the near future and there will be a major shakedown in plans and expectations because the industry’s capabilities will be radically different than they are today.
A new Administrator now has to look at his agency’s lackluster performance and, as prompted by Sen. Cruz, answer the question as to why it takes NASA longer to do things it once did much faster
It is because NASA is not equipped with leaders capable of holding themselves and the traditional contractors accountable. You can throw in a congress that isn’t making the best decisions in tasking NASA. When failure is rewarded, you are less likely to see success.
Ugh, Nye’s inanity. It’s dumber than the “CEV is built by me”, slogan. Yes the money is spent on Earth, it is also wasted here. What would be amazing is if space had developed like many of us thought it would as children, such that not all the money spent on space today was spent on Earth. That would be a real achievement.
It’s the usual one-pie theory. There’s only one fixed pie to divide, and nothing can make it bigger. Like, I don’t know, a robust space-based economy.
What would be amazing is if space had developed like many of us thought it would as children, such that not all the money spent on space today was spent on Earth.
That should be an important goal. Instead, we get this colossal waste combined with an attitude that if some part gets used for useful stuff, no matter how minimal or obscure then it’s all justified. One wonders why they can’t be bothered to rationalize wars that way. Somehow it’s only their pet projects that get the preferential treatment.
Bill Nye? Oh, you mean that David Byrne impersonator who used to be an engineer?
Bigelow Aerospace has a much cheaper space station, but that hasn’t stopped NASA from continuing with the ISS. I am hopeful for SpaceX, but it may take an extra decade and another cheap commercial competitor that has better specs than SLS before NASA abandons SLS.
It isn’t operational though. The ISS exists while the alternatives do not exist. That is what’s so frustrating about slow walking commercial crew. Bigelow needs those providers and then we can see how his stations will operate in the real world. Just like with BFR, when the alternative actually exists, then it is a lot harder for NASA and congress to ignore.
Anent Mr. Chambers of Lock-Mart’s comment about having “hardware in the factory” – SpaceX has BFR hardware in their factory too. I’m guessing Mr. Chambers was not among the viewers of the Musk-Maezawa “Dear Moon” press conference. When someone else is kicking one’s butt up around one’s collar it behooves one to pay them some attention.
Yeah, what’s wrong with this picture?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/9j42ur/bfs_at_lopg_cg/?source=images
If the BFR comes into existence then the Gateway will be even more irrelevant than it now is. Why have a Gateway if a vehicle much larger can travel to the surfaces of both the Moon and Mars.
Rather, I think that Elon was right in his original ITS presentation. As the development of the BFR reaches increasing levels of feasibility, support from the decision makers will shift towards a public-private program and SLS will die the death of embarrassment.
How many bushels in a “metric buttload”?