Reader's Favorites
Media Casualties Mount

Administration Split On Europe Invasion

Administration In Crisis Over Burgeoning Quagmire

Congress Concerned About Diversion From War On Japan

Pot, Kettle On Line Two...

Allies Seize Paris

The Natural

Gore Book Sales Tank, Supporters Claim Unfair Tactics

Satan Files Lack Of Defamation Suit

Why This Blog Bores People With Space Stuff

A New Beginning

My Hit Parade
Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds)
Tim Blair
James Lileks Bleats
Virginia Postrel
Kausfiles
Winds Of Change (Joe Katzman)
Little Green Footballs (Charles Johnson)
Samizdata
Eject Eject Eject (Bill Whittle)

Space
Alan Boyle (MSNBC)
Space Politics (Jeff Foust)
Space Transport News (Clark Lindsey)
NASA Watch
NASA Space Flight
Hobby Space
A Voyage To Arcturus (Jay Manifold)
Dispatches From The Final Frontier (Michael Belfiore)
Personal Spaceflight (Jeff Foust)
Mars Blog
The Flame Trench (Florida Today)
Space Cynic
Rocket Forge (Michael Mealing)
COTS Watch (Michael Mealing)
Curmudgeon's Corner (Mark Whittington)
Selenian Boondocks
Tales of the Heliosphere
Out Of The Cradle
Space For Commerce (Brian Dunbar)
True Anomaly
Kevin Parkin
The Speculist (Phil Bowermaster)
Spacecraft (Chris Hall)
Space Pragmatism (Dan Schrimpsher)
Eternal Golden Braid (Fred Kiesche)
Carried Away (Dan Schmelzer)
Laughing Wolf (C. Blake Powers)
Chair Force Engineer (Air Force Procurement)
Spacearium
Saturn Follies
JesusPhreaks (Scott Bell)

Biting Commentary about Infinity, and Beyond!

« Compare And Constrast | Main | A Very Impressive Article »

More Thoughts On The Aldridge Report

I've had a chance to read through the Aldridge Commission report, and I've made some notes along the way. I have no doubt that much of this is duplicated by other blogging spacehounds, but I haven't yet surveyed the blogosphere. After the usual suspects take a shot at it perhaps we can compare notes and put together a canonical list of kvetches, comments and compliments.

First, an observation that's long overdue. It's been around in the activist community for decades, but it's nice to see it getting some traction with people who might actually be listened to:

NASA’s relationship to the private sector, its organizational structure, business culture, and management processes – all largely inherited from the Apollo era – must be decisively transformed to implement the new, multi-decadal space exploration vision.

In the executive summary this recommendation stands out:

(We recommend) the Administration and Congress work with NASA to create 3 new NASA organizations:

• a technical advisory board that would give the Administrator and NASA leadership independent and responsive advice on technology and risk mitigation plans;

• an independent cost estimating organization to ensure cost realism and accuracy; and

• a research and technology organization that sponsors high risk/high payoff technology advancement while tolerating periodic failures;

The three items are all necessary, but it's the second one which is most important. The powers that be within NASA will struggle mightily to retain some control over it precisely because an *independent* cost estimating organization won't fall for the kind of rubbish that gave us the litany of overbudget hangar queens of the last decade. The cost estimation arm has to be truly independent in order to be effective. If the people working there have any kind of conflict of interest it will endanger the whole operation.

The ideal cost estimation organization should not even be in the NASA hierarchy. It should be outside NASA, reporting directly to Vice President or whoever the administration gives the space portfolio to. It should consist of a small permanent staff, with people drawn from academia, government, and industry as they are needed. Where the report gets into details it pretty much says exactly that, with concrete examples of other such organizations.

The third organization, the R&D sponsorship group, is also going to be very hard to get right. There have to be a certain number of failures, or you're not pushing the envelope. As long as the sponsorship organization is kept separate from the teams actually performing the research the fallout from those failures ought not affect the organization's mindset too much. Presumably there will be political pressure to fund research in the home districts of powerful politicians, but it's not like that's new. Because the funding power is separated from the research institutions, the funding organization can push the research in more productive directions even if politics make it an imperative that at least some money be spent at a particular institution. This will only work if the funding agency is held accountable for the usefulness of the work in some manner. In the worst case all the funding is parceled out to institutions for the pet project du jour, and the funding organization is not accountable for the value of the research performed. This is a separate issue from the success or failure of the individual projects. It's quite possible to hit 100% of project goals within budget on a research project that does nothing at all of any use to anybody.

Next, a little bit that's 100% right:

( We recommend) Congress increase the potential for commercial opportunities related to the national space exploration vision by providing incentives for entrepreneurial investment in space, by creating significant monetary prizes for the accomplishment of space missions and/or technology developments and by assuring appropriate property rights for those who seek to develop space resources and infrastructure.

Property rights! wohooo! Probably the single most important thing in the entire report. If only one recommendation is implemented, let's hope it's this one. It's also nice to see the prize meme propagating back into the mainstream. Thank you Peter Diamandis.

Unfortunately they follow up with perhaps the worst recommendation in the entire report:

(We recommend) NASA pursue international partnerships based upon an architecture that would encourage global investment in support of the vision.

Those wonderful international partnerships that place the project concerned at the mercy of every election, every shift of political power and every economic downturn, in every major participating nation. Yay! sublinear accretion of benefits, and nonlinear compounding of pitfalls. What's not to like about that?

Regarding the implementation of the recommendations for structural change within NASA, the report says:

Suffice to say that NASA must fully explore and use the long list of available lessons, and fully internalize those lessons to manage what will surely be mankind’s most complex technical undertaking.

I wholeheartedly agree with this, but I worry that NASA has a particularly severe case of 'Not Invented Here' syndrome, which makes it hard for them to learn lessons from outsiders. Perhaps a top level purge followed by an infusion of people from DARPA, DOE, and industry might help. Incidentally, the NASA org chart on page 24 speaks volumes about what's wrong with the status quo.

The list of enabling technologies is unremarkable, apart from the fact that they list the need for affordable heavy lift, which isn't rightly NASA's business. I firmly believe we can do everything that's needed with cargo in the class of Delta IV Heavy and lower. We need to really suss out one orbit assembly, but that's the case anyway, so why bitch about heavy lift? What needs to happen is prices need to come down, but that just means flight rates need to go up, as Rand has said here and elsewhere on many occasions.

In section III there are a few home runs, in particular the need for regulatory relief (this is an issue that directly affects the suborbital launch services industry, and has been raised by the SubOrbital Institute in our lobbying tours of Congress), and property rights, which I've already discussed.

The science agenda is fairly solid, though dropping the word 'evolution' might be politically savvy. 'Development' might be a better term. For some people evolution is a hot enough button that they're going to react instinctively against it. I have little respect for those people, but I'd rather not have them oppose what is basically a good idea just because they can't understand part of it.

The final set of recommendations has to do with inspiring future generations, which has been a part of the space program from the beginning. I happen to think that if we're doing genuine exploration we don't need a program element specifically aimed at inspiring people. The simple fact of doing real exploration is inspiration enough. Wood's Hole Oceanographic Institute has a small budget devoted to outreach and education, but even if they didn't, kids would still be inspired by the activities of Alvin and the bizarre lifeforms of the abyss. All that's really needed in order to make inspiration more accessible is a little training of the explorers themselves in how to communicate complex information to technically unsophisticated audiences, and making some video available on a website.

Overall, the report is nearly exactly what the doctor ordered. The main objections I have are to the suggestion we need heavy lift, and to the recommendation that international partnerships be pursued. Of these two, the heavy lift suggestion may be the more harmful, since at least it's possible to pursue international cooperation without putting the partners on the critical path (in fact they suggest how to do this in the report). Heavy lift, on the other hand, will inevitably end up on the critical path if it's seriously pursued at all. This leaves the whole enterprise at the mercy of a single program of exactly the sort that NASA and its contractors have so thoroughly hosed in the past.

It's a good report, and well worth reading. The Commission did an excellent job.

Posted by Andrew Case at June 16, 2004 06:12 PM

Comments

I agree with most of this, and I'll have some further comments, but possibly not until this weekend, because I'm getting swamped by consulting on the BAA for exploration.

By the way, Andrew, did you notice in the latest RFP that JPL has changed the requirements to imply that JIMO will require a heavy lifter (i.e., they specify that the launch vehicle give it a C3 of zero before turning on the reactor).

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 16, 2004 07:18 PM

A space property rights regime without international cooperation and consensus means World War Three.

Chirac and Putin versus the USA. Why do you think the Frenchies are letting Soyuz fly from Kouru?

Imagine that happening before the Berlin Wall fell.

Posted by Bill White at June 16, 2004 07:25 PM

By the way, Andrew, did you notice in the latest RFP that JPL has changed the requirements to imply that JIMO will require a heavy lifter (i.e., they specify that the launch vehicle give it a C3 of zero before turning on the reactor).

Not good. Is on-orbit assembly of JIMO realistic? I know they briefly consider it for Cassini went they had problems with Titan, launching the spacecraft and the injection stage on separate shuttle flights.

Posted by Duncan Young at June 16, 2004 07:53 PM

I think it is, but JPL has never done it, and the RFP certainly doesn't imply it as written. I suspect that Casani had a fit, but was given orders by Steidle or OSTP, because they're worried about the politics of a nuclear reactor in earth orbit. He may have gone along just to get the RFP out, and will try to fix it in Phase B. If not, the program may have just died.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 16, 2004 07:59 PM

The JIMO program director stated that they needed an HLV back in February at the Goddard Symposium in Greenbelt. I don't know if it was mentioned by the press, but I clearly heard it. I believe that the justification was that they would not have a reactor go critical in earth orbit. This requires a powerful upper stage atop the HLV.

Posted by at June 16, 2004 08:24 PM

My largest concern isn't in any specific detail, its actually the lack of it with respect to the verbage around "privatization". Even with the report being out many have read that section and assumed it meant United Space Alliance style contracting. It would have been nice if they'd given an example of how it should work. As its written there's to much wiggle room.

Posted by Michael Mealling at June 16, 2004 08:37 PM

I believe that the justification was that they would not have a reactor go critical in earth orbit. This requires a powerful upper stage atop the HLV.

But even if that's a requirement, there are (in the words of the FAA in getting a launch license) alternative means of satisfying it while demonstrating an equivalent level of safety (i.e., orbital mating with an upper stage before the reactor has been activated).

The RFP was written pretty much to preclude this.

Posted by Rand SImberg at June 16, 2004 08:53 PM

If it helps, I've extracted the findings and recommendations into several posts at my site for convenience.

I don't mean to blogwhore here -- it seemed a useful discussion starter, and I don't have time for the next few days to do any more than that.

As for JIMO requiring a heavy-lifter, I heard that rumor about a year ago.

Posted by T.L. James at June 16, 2004 09:10 PM

I firmly believe we can do everything that's needed with cargo in the class of Delta IV Heavy and lower. We need to really suss out one orbit assembly, but that's the case anyway, so why bitch about heavy lift? What needs to happen is prices need to come down, but that just means flight rates need to go up, as Rand has said here and elsewhere on many occasions.

There is nothing we can accomplish with Delta IV H that the Russians cannot accomplish with Proton and Zenit at a significantly lower cost. Granted, the Russians currently have NO money yet I personally doubt the rest of the world will want America to have exclusive access to the solar system. If the Russians partner up with some other nations, our lead in space starts looking mighty thin.

Especially as we waste billions on ISS completion.

President Bush says its not a race, but it is a race whether he (or we) likes it or not. And so long as we remain committed to ISS completion the rest of the world has nothing to worry about.

Its a race to determine who will write the property laws for ownership of celestial resources, asteroids, the moon, Mars, stuff like that. We tend to assume it will be America yet I believe the rest of the world will not like that idea very much.

America has a current advantage in our ability to deploy heavier lift than anyone else. If we abandon that and scrap Pad 39, the VAB abnd the crawler then we are betting all our chips on alt-space.

IF alt-space comes through, well great, but I am nervous about betting our future in space on that because it very well might not come through.

Who will eventually own the Moon and Mars?

Whoever gets there "fust-est with the most-est" to quote Civil War general JEB Stuart.

IF alt-space delivers, okay cool. But if NOT we US-ians have a whole glorious future at risk.

Posted by Bill White at June 16, 2004 09:25 PM

I suspect Rand would suggest if alt-space fails, there is no glorious future. And he would have a point.

Anyone have any opinions on the suggested 7-CBC version of the Delta IV? I hear some variants get near to the Saturn V range.
A sci.space discussion here.

Posted by Duncan Young at June 16, 2004 10:00 PM

I suspect Rand would suggest if alt-space fails, there is no glorious future. And he would have a point.

Zenit is $1500 per pound. Today.

In the 1600s, very, very few Europeans could afford to travel to America.

Because the North American economy grew and grew and average per capita income exploded over the past 400 years, most people in Western Europe and the North America can afford to fly across the Atlantic. Maybe not every day or on the defunct Concorde but at least once in a while.

Heck, even I have gone to Hawaii which would have been astonishing 100 years ago.

So what does that mean? We expand human presence in the solar system however we can. Even if its only a handful of people. A few hundred or a few thousand.

They learn to live on Mars and the Moon and harvest asteroids and maybe our grandchildren can travel between the Earth and Mars as easily as I could fly to London tomorrow (if my wife let me and I could get off work).

Posted by Bill White at June 16, 2004 10:15 PM

PS - - I do believe alt-space will work. It just may take many, many decades more than some of the more optimistic types believe. Besides, as the world economy grows, $1000 per pound starts getting cheaper and cheaper relatively speaking.

Now, let us suppose someone had a crystal ball and knew that in July of 2038 a fabulous new invention would allow Earth to LEO for $50 per pound.

If you knew that today, then getting to the Moon or Mars ASAP - - however you could, and no matter what it cost - - to stake your claim and build your settlement would be a darn good investment.

That is why I believe America needs heavy lift. We need to get out there NOW "fustest with the mostest" before alt-space gets invented.

Because when alt-space gets invented its going to get stolen by the Chinese and the Russians and the Ukranians. By definition, alt-space is inexpensive to manufacture and operate, so its "Katie bar the door - - humanity is racing to the stars" and where is OUR advantage in that?

Posted by Bill White at June 16, 2004 10:23 PM

PPS - - I forgot the Indians. Those IT guys in Bombay doing outsourced secretarial work for the patent attorneys will probably steal alt-space first. And the hungry Indians will build DH-1s faster than we can build Chevys.

Posted by Bill White at June 16, 2004 10:25 PM

If you knew that today, then getting to the Moon or Mars ASAP - - however you could, and no matter what it cost - - to stake your claim and build your settlement would be a darn good investment.

That is why I believe America needs heavy lift. We need to get out there NOW "fustest with the mostest" before alt-space gets invented

Sorry, but this fails any kind of logic test. There's no reason to think that heavy lift is the key to being the first to the moon. Ignoring all the other logical misfires and non-sequiturs in your postings, you're missing a few steps in the syllogism here.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 16, 2004 10:35 PM

If Ares existed today, we could put people on the Moon within the year.

If I had my way, we would start building SeaDragon.

Moving mass is the key.

But my original point stands. The Russians can use Zenit and Proton to do anything Delta IVH can do, for a far lower cost.

And alt-space is a wonderful thing to hope for but its not a sure thing at least for a while.

Posted by Bill White at June 16, 2004 10:42 PM

If Ares existed today, we could put people on the Moon within the year.

Utter nonsense. That's an interesting opinion, but you shouldn't expect anyone to take it seriously. What's your basis for it, and why do you state it with such unjustified confidence?

And even if it were true, it doesn't meet the criteria of affordable and sustainable.

I really tire of people pontificating on subjects of which they apparently know absolutely nothing.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 16, 2004 10:53 PM

Rand, if alt-space is feasible, why did Boeing throw in the towel on commercial launches and partner with Zenit for SeaLaunch?

Why isn't Boeing pursuing alt-space rather than admitting in public that they just cannot beat the Russians on price?

Posted by Bill White at June 16, 2004 10:55 PM

Bill,

I have to agree with Rand. There are tons of ways to get back to the moon without needing Heavy Lift. And most of them make a heck of a lot more sense.

You can deliver a three man crew to the lunar surface and bring them safely home using as little as a total of only four or five Falcon V equivalent launches (or Dnepr if Falcon V fails to pan out or two Delta IV or Atlas V mediums if both of those won't work). You don't need heavy lift.

And that's just one way of skinning the cat. I've looked at dozens of approaches, and there are several that could work quite well.

Heavy Lift isn't an advantage, its an Albatross.

~Jon

Posted by Jonathan Goff at June 16, 2004 11:19 PM

Bill,

> Rand, if alt-space is feasible, why did Boeing
> throw in the towel on commercial launches and
> partner with Zenit for SeaLaunch?
>
> Why isn't Boeing pursuing alt-space rather than
> admitting in public that they just cannot beat the
> Russians on price?

Boeing wouldn't know alt-space if it jumped up and
bit it in the rear. What Boeing can or can't do has little if anything to do with the alt-space community.

~Jon

Posted by Jonathan Goff at June 16, 2004 11:21 PM

Guess what, the campaigning for HLV has already begun :

http://www.flatoday.com/news/space/stories/2004b/spacestoryN617MOONSIDE.htm
"NASA needs launch vehicle with heavy-lift capabilities"

Posted by at June 17, 2004 03:51 AM

I just read Dana Rohrbacher's comments. Here:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14407

I was pleased by his statement that he thought America's civilian space needs could be met by American companies forming partnerships with the Russians and Ukrainians.

=IF= American private companies can freely outsource lift needs to the Russians, I am less concerned about the need for shuttle derived boosters.

Again, there is nothing Delta IV H can do that Zenit and Proton cannot do for much less money.

In summary:

Shuttle Derived beats Delta IVH;

Russian/Ukrainian beats shuttle derived;

alt-space trumps all when (or IF) it comes on-line.

But to give Boeing a monopoly and call it competition or privatization is just stupid.

Posted by Bill White at June 17, 2004 07:09 AM

I just read Dana Rohrbacher's comments. Here:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14407

I was pleased by his statement that he thought America's civilian space needs could be met by American companies forming partnerships with the Russians and Ukrainians.

=IF= American private companies can freely outsource lift needs to the Russians, I am less concerned about the need for shuttle derived boosters.

Again, there is nothing Delta IV H can do that Zenit and Proton cannot do for much less money.

In summary:

Shuttle Derived beats Delta IVH;

Russian/Ukrainian beats shuttle derived;

alt-space trumps all when (or IF) it comes on-line.

But to give Boeing a monopoly and call it competition or privatization is just stupid.

Posted by Bill White at June 17, 2004 07:09 AM

But to give Boeing a monopoly and call it competition or privatization is just stupid.

Who has proposed that?

Have you ever heard of something called Atlas?

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 17, 2004 08:50 AM

Okay a duopoly. ;-)

Is Atlas that much less expensive than Delta IVH?

What can Atlas do that Zenit and Proton cannot at a much lower cost?

For national security and defense needs, I agree we must keep Boeing and Lockmart viable but lets not claim we are being all free market and competitive if we cannot partner with the Russians for launch services. Using Delta and Atlas for CEV is a form of protectionism.

NASA buying Delta or Atlas to keep production lines running and costs down for DoD is a valid reason for going with Delta or Atlas yet that reason only makes sense if we do not expect alt-space to make Delta and Atlas obsolete, real soon.

Frankly, finding myself on the same side of this issue as Dana Rohrbacher surprises the heck out of me. :-0

Posted by Bill White at June 17, 2004 09:18 AM

What can Atlas do that Zenit and Proton cannot at a much lower cost?

Employ American taxpayers.

...lets not claim we are being all free market and competitive if we cannot partner with the Russians for launch services.

Who's making such a claim?

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 17, 2004 10:10 AM

Employ American taxpayers? So does SDV. At Michoud and with Thiokol.

EELV only will generate mission architectures the Russians can easily copy, at a lower price.

SDV allows mission architectures the Russians cannot copy, except at the very high price of re-starting Energia. Very, very expensive.

Remember, I SUPPORT the Aldridge conclusions.

Moon first, as a stepstone to Mars; and

Heavy lift (see pages 29-30).

SDV is our cheapest, fastest road to heavy lift and since you admit employing taxpayers is a legitimate consideration, it employs taxpayers.

Posted by Bill White at June 17, 2004 10:25 AM

Employ American taxpayers? So does SDV. At Michoud and with Thiokol.

But SDV requires a much larger up-front investment that will never pay for itself.

EELV only will generate mission architectures the Russians can easily copy, at a lower price.

Who cares? They can't afford it at any price. And even if they do, so what?

SDV allows mission architectures the Russians cannot copy, except at the very high price of re-starting Energia. Very, very expensive.

Again, who cares?

I know you support the report. That doesn't make it correct. In fact, based on many other things that you post, it increases the probability in my mind that it's wrong.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 17, 2004 10:29 AM

The shuttle has no future, and throwing away rockets is inherently expensive. The Russians can do it a bit cheaper than we can because labor is cheap there, but the problem remains. We need reusable rockets and markets to use them. Space doesn't get very interesting until launch cost to orbit drops below at least $500 a pound, but expect it to drop well below that with regularly used, properly built reusable rockets. But NASA WILL NEVER BUILD THAT.

I have absolutely no interest in Antarctica-style moon and Mars bases using expensive throwaway rockets. Even if we manage it, what's the point? It won't last. I want to see a growing market in space, with government doing what it should be doing: Buying services and doing basic research.

Posted by VR at June 17, 2004 02:48 PM

Well unfortunately the report says we need heavy lift. NASA says they want it. So thats probably whats going to happen.

We are American's after all and the only way we know how to do anything is by doing it bigger and badder then anyone else on the block. Remember that the next time you see a soccer mom riding her kids around in a Humvee.

Posted by Hefty at June 17, 2004 03:04 PM

"Space doesn't get very interesting until launch cost to orbit drops below at least $500 a pound, but expect it to drop well below that with regularly used, properly built reusable rockets"

Zenit-2 is $1500 per pound. Threefold reduction in ELV price, with from the ground up cost-oriented design is entirely in the realm of possibility.
And Zenit isnt even particularly large.

Posted by at June 17, 2004 03:51 PM


Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?