Logic alert in Kathy Sawyer's WaPo piece this morning on the new space initiative.

There are also serious unknowns about how, physically, the mandate will be carried out. There is no mention of money for a big rocket that could replace the shuttle's heavy cargo-carrying capacity. One congressional space expert speculated that the development of such a vehicle might be taken out of NASA hands and given to the military or done in partnership with the commercial sector -- a course that has led to multiple costly failures in the past with such experimental projects as the National Aerospace Plane and the X-33.

The implication is (I assume) that this isn't a good approach, because it's failed in the past.

Two problems.

First is a logical one--the implied conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. That is, even if this approach was followed in the past, and failed, one cannot conclude that all such approaches will fail. In order to determine that, we have to evaluate all of the factors that made it fail--we can't simply assume that it was the approach itself that was flawed.

The second is that the premise itself is false. Neither NASP, nor X-33 used the approach described above. NASP wasn't "taken out of NASA hands and handed over to the military"--it was a joint program between NASA and the Air Force. And X-33 wasn't done "in partnership with the commercial sector," because Lockheed Martin is not part of the commercial sector--it's a government contractor. Lockmart hasn't done anything commercial since the L-1011 fiasco, and their "business plan" for the Venture Star, the vehicle that was supposed to follow on from the X-33, was a joke, and a bad one, because it ended up costing the taxpayers a billion dollars.

NASP failed because it was a con job, a technical chimera initially foisted on DARPA by someone who was at best naive, and at worst a charlatan.

From neither case can we conclude that the concepts of either the military developing space vehicles, or commercial partnerships with the government, are in any way inherently flawed.

The issue of logic that causes me the most grief is that they propose one vehicle for the Moon, then start over on another design for Mars. I presume, perhaps incorrectly, that a vehicle designed to land on Mars would likely include the capability of landing on a significantly smaller (albeit airless) mass. While in the short term this may cost less, in the long term I would think it greatly increase program costs.

The issue of Mars being a flags and footprints redux of Apollo often comes up (with the assumption that going directly to Mars would be such a mission) but I disagree. I think the mentality of let's go to the Moon, then think about what comes after is EXACTLY the mentality that leads to what I might call the, "Ok, what now, let's reevaluate, fumble, then do nothing" attitude.

The counter argument, which I don't buy, is that if a Moon base is established it could somehow be a launching point... but do we really expect manufacturing on the Moon to reach that capability anytime soon? That's really thinking ahead... too far ahead for anything practical.

To me, a Moon base is the ISS version two, with the same results. The key advantage Mars has is it's ability, No, it's requirement, that it be mostly self sustaining. So much so, that I would actually propose (although somebody beat me to the punch) that the first Mars crew, not be a return mission (at least, not immediately.) I'd like to see a multi-mission plan in which multiple crews are on Mars at the same time and close enough to support each other.

The vision is that we become a space faring species. The goal that I believe most encourages that would be a second, mostly autonomous growing colony, far enough from the Earth that it's not thought of as camping in our own backyard. This post is much longer than I intended... got carried away again. ;-)

Rand,

Thanks for the comment you made on that article,
I was thinking along similar lines myself. I
think that trying to blame X-33 and NASP on the
private sector is a joke, and a lousy one at that.

Also is the implicit assumption that a new heavy
lift vehicle needs to be made to do this mission.
No attention is payed to EOR or anything else.

As for Ken's post, I have to say that if your
ultimate goal is going to mars (mine is to make
space development commercially sustainable, which
makes me focus more on cis-lunar and suborbital
space than Mars), the moon still makes sense.

Even if manufacturing isn't up to the point of
making a ship on the moon, the Moon could ship
LUNOX (which is relatively straight-forward and
simple to extract compared to pretty much almost
any other material other than elemental iron)
to wherever the Mars ship is based. If you're
using something like LOX/LH2 propulsion, about
60-70% of the mass of the entire mars mission
will be LOX. Getting that from the moon might
well be cheaper if done right than shipping it
up the gravity well. Also, if you launch from
LUNO, you can use (and abuse) what I believe
is called the Oberth Effect to greatly slash your
outbound trip time. Basically you use the earth's
gravity well in your favor. John Hare made a
comment that using such a trick at the right time,
and using chemical rockets, you could easily slash
the trip time to 4 months one way (compared to
the normal 6-9months).....

But I'm of the opinion that such a return to the
moon, and the extraction of LUNOX, etc is a goal
much better pursued from the private side instead
of via NASA. There's definitely money to be made,
so why not?

~Jon

Ken,

I don't think a lunar outpost would be a repeat of ISS for a few reasons. 1) Astronauts would be able to learn how to build and operate for extended of periods of time on a planetary surface. 2) A lunar settlement will never need to be deorbited! Scuttling Mir was such a waste. 3) In-situ resources. (ignoring the electromagentic teather that ISS'll never fly) 4) Exploring the moon on foot is a lot more fun than starring out of those small station windows!

Why does Sawyer assume we will need a new launch vehicle to carry the CEV and cargo? Aren't we looking at multiple Delta/Atlas launches, with final assembly of in orbit?

I don't think Sawyer is making this mistake, but several reports appear to confuse the notion of the CEV with a new launch vehicle. It's distressing that voters will be making up their minds based on such ill-informed reporting.

John,

I certainly hope you are right, but I'm afraid you are wrong. The comparison of lunar outpost to ISS is not with regard to the different capabilities that you point out, but with regard to the history of spending for no result then abandoning (a common problem with tax dollars.)

All four of your point address capabilities but make no mention of why or why not a commitment of continuity would result. In other words, so what if it's fun and you can do things, when playtimes over there will be other distractions.

A real colony, on the other hand, implies a significant commitment; but because a Martian colony can be (actually must be) somewhat self-sufficient, that commitment will not be as big a strain as even a Moon base. Comparing each by itself, Mars would cost more to get started, but not significantly so if we avoid the battlestar Galactica mentality. Whereas, over time, Mars will actually contribute to it's own costs with no new technology required (Helium-3 is not a viable product as yet.)

I do hope I am wrong.

Good post that I'm really hoping I can do more than 'skim' over real soon now :o)

I've also only 'skimmed' the article itself, but I've a comment on the X-33 program. (Actually 'fall-out' from it :o)

I have gotten some pretty thick skin from being bombarded on various message boards for my stand that the X-33/V* was too much. And that LM failed to meet technial and other goals because they were 'too optimistic' about many of the challenges.

I get slammed for the X-33 failure as being no one but NASAs fault and that LM offered a better, cheaper full-up RLV to NASA which they would have produced with thier own money if NASA would just buy a few. (This is also harped on for all the other aerospace companies. NASA doesn't want them and no on is interested in buying them. But the 'company' could do it for 'pennies-on-the-dollar' if there was interest :o)

I've even pointed out, (as you did :o) that LM doesn't make commercial vehicles, ('oh ya? what about the Delta? :::sigh::: :o)and that their business 'plan' stank.

My point? I'm thinking that, while much can be laid at NASAs feet, they are not all to blame. The contractors, (though your correct in that they are government contractors they are STILL supposed to be a business. Most contractors make money by giving the customer what they want, but they make MORE money by giving the customer more than what they asked for for less cost to themselves and the customer :o) are not really NASA, (the argument I hear most often is that they ARE NASA, followed by if NASA would let 'LM/Boeing/whoever' do what they wanted...)any failures, over-charges, (OSP anyone?) or short-falls are blamed on NASA and not the company that made the promises.

Yet NASA continues to do what the 'contractors' don't seem interested in. I don't suppose you caught the article at Hobbyspace?
>http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.mhtml?d=50764

On Northrop Grummans work on a non-autoclave composite fuel tank?

What I find most interesting is a follow up article defending the 'usefullness' of the tank, (and explaining a bit more about the process) for ELV vehicles. (Under the assumption that the new inititive is going to go with pretty much all ELVs)
>http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_aerospacedaily_story.jsp?id=news/rlv01144.xml

Most relevent part of this article?
"NASA's vision for a reusable launch vehicle called for a tank up to 27.5 feet in diameter and 80 feet long, which would be too large to cure in any standard autoclave, Northrop Grumman says."

So NASA has been working on an idea for an RLV. Which hasn't hit the news anywhere.

(Maybe they learned from DARPA about keeping below Congressional radar :o)

Speaking of DARPA, it's interesting to note that they have been working on two of the 'problems' with the NASP technology.

A non-hydrogen scramjet:
(Under an Air Force program)
>http://www.pratt-whitney.com/pr_011304.asp
Powered and cooled by hydrocarbon fuel. Standard JP-7.

And advancing the work done in the 1950s with the RASCAL project.

I may be off, but it seem to me that at least SOMEONE in NASA, (and other agencies) is working quitly and behind the scenes to 'prove-out' some of the technologies that are supposed to take us "20 years and billions of dollars" to develop. I think that 'someone' works for NASA :o)

Private enterprise HAS to get involved in space to make it actually 'doable' but for the near future NASA is going to be the major customer.

Randy

I get slammed for the X-33 failure as being no one but NASAs fault and that LM offered a better, cheaper full-up RLV to NASA which they would have produced with thier own money if NASA would just buy a few.

That's the first time I've heard that. I don't believe it.

Another critically important reason to think of the moon-base as more than ISS 2 is the legal impact of setting up a manned presence on the moon. One of the primary roadblocks to private activity in space is the lack of international consensus on the property regime in place on the moon and other celestial bodies. I know Rand is aware of this issue because he wrote some of the first articles on this topic, but Bush's plan offers the chance to leapfrog all the current debate on lunar property rights and establish a precedent for the use of lunar materials which would arguably be beyond the use for scientific purposes allowed by the Moon Treaty (of which the US is not a party but some other states might use as a basis for objecting to our activites). The Bush plan could do for lunar property rights what sputnik I did for the question of overflight rights. If private actors are involved with the plan, then all the better, but either way, someone has to actually go to the moon and use the resouces there before most private industry will feel comfortable to do the same.