No surprises. They picked the two bidders:

Phase 2, covering final CEV design and production, was scheduled to start with a down-selection to a single industry team in 2008. To reduce or eliminate the gap between the Shuttle's retirement in 2010 and an operational CEV, the Phase 2 down-selection is planned for 2006.

Results of NASA Administrator Michael Griffin's Exploration Systems Architectural Study will be incorporated into a Call For Improvements later this year to invite Phase 2 proposals from the Phase 1 contractors.

While, as I said, not a surprise, based on all the scuttlebutt, this really turns up the heat on the contractors. They don't have four years to convince NASA as to who has the better concept and ability to execute it--they have (possibly less than) one. There will be no fly off, and they'll now basically write new proposals under contract.

Good. One year is enough for paper studies, no need to drag this out until 2008. It would be nice if there was a competition between real world prototypes though.

Could someone (Rand?) point me to information as to why building a second Apollo on a budget is such a good idea? As opposed to, for example, spending the money on research relevant to creation of an access to space infrastucture? You know, like NACA used to do for aircraft manufacturers. This plan is kind of like sending out a new Lewis and Clark expedition every ten months instead of building a transcontinental railroad.

You mean like the money spent on DC-X, X-33, X-34, etc?

Personally, I think this sort of research should happen, but for making scaled demos at low costs (think DARPA here). Likely funding should also go for several systems required for space access (propulsion, heat shields, materials, etc). But government is not just supposed to fund R&D, it is supposed to point or push policy. Making a Moon base is a policy I suppose, although from what I have heard, I suspect it is not a sustainable policy.

The whole plan seems to make little economic sense, even if you give it a long timescale.

Mining LOX, as I heard in old NASA proposals, makes little sense, because the argument for it is circular. i.e. you need LOX for travel to/from the Moon base, and you need the Moon base for the LOX.

The lunar solar power idea is probably the only thing I have heard of interest.

One year is enough for paper studies, no need to drag this out until 2008. It would be nice if there was a competition between real world prototypes though.

It wasn't supposed to be paper studies. The original plan was to have a flyoff of two prototypes in 2008. Now they will select a single contractor much sooner. Let's hope they don't make as big a mistake as they did with X-33 through a premature selection.

Mining LOX, as I heard in old NASA proposals, makes little sense, because the argument for it is circular. i.e. you need LOX for travel to/from the Moon base, and you need the Moon base for the LOX.

The purpose of the LOX (and possibly hydrogen, if water is mined as well) is to help enable voyages to Mars and points beyond.

The question that ought to be asked is not "Is it the second Apollo?" Apollo, after all, was a success and if done again would provide something to build on. No, the haunting question is, "Is it a reprise of the shuttle?" Or, worse, "Is it X-33?"

We'll see if they've learned the lessons of both fiascos.

So what happens to t/Space and the CXV project now? Do they end up as another historical footnote in Encyclopedia Astronautica, or will they find enough money from somewhere to actually build something?

Lunar LOX will readily leverage lunar-only operations including Earth return flights. For example, to fully combust 16 tons of methane (CH4) 64 tons of oxygen (O2) is required.

C at 12 plus O2 at 32 gives CO2

2xH2 at 4 plus 2 O = 32 for 2H2O

2 tons of liquid hydrogen also needs 16 tons of oxygen.

= = =

A lunar LOX plant would allow us to reduce the mass of the fuel we must deliver to the Moon by 80% for methane and 88% for H2 which will lower net launch costs from Earth substantially.

Assume $1000 per pound to LEO. Assume 5 to 1 leverage (5 pounds in LEO is needed to place 1 pound on Luna). Lunar produced oxygen is "worth" $5000 per pound or $10 million per ton.

I assert lunar LOX should be integrated into any return to the Moon scenario from day #1, if the goal is to go with the intention to stay. No need to think Mars for the viability of lunar LOX.

= = =

To involve the private sector, NASA could choose a landing site and then commit to buy lunar LOX at $10,000 per pound (Heh! Its government work) to load on the CEV when it arrives there.

Oh, and on this point:

= = =

Mining LOX, as I heard in old NASA proposals, makes little sense, because the argument for it is circular. i.e. you need LOX for travel to/from the Moon base, and you need the Moon base for the LOX.

The purpose of the LOX (and possibly hydrogen, if water is mined as well) is to help enable voyages to Mars and points beyond.

= = =

Mining LOX makes return to the Moon easier. If you have good reasons to go to the moon, that is. ;-)

Lunar resources will not leverage access to Mars.

Lunar resources will not leverage access to Mars.

Hate to tell you this, but your simply stating something doesn't make it so. Propellant delivered from the moon to EML1 can enable a Mars mission using that as a departure point.

It's hard for me to see the Moon exporting industrial quantities of anything in the next ten years. Lunar LOx is probably going to be used on the Moon almost exclusively until we get a mass driver or something. It may work great on paper, but the lead time is too long.

Mars exploration is a capital acquisition problem. It would probably pay for itself through the media and movie rights.

If the capital requirements drop into the realm of a major media project (e.g., $2 billion) by lowering Earth to orbit costs, no one is going to want to wait around for five years doing lunar development to make it $1.5 billion. They will just raise the LOx from Earth and go.

Lunar LOx becomes interesting for orbital tourism and Mars tourism only after Lunar tourism and colonization slows down enough for industrial capacity to be sufficient for export. Before that, why waste your $10 million per ton backhauling capacity on LOx when you could spend it on tourists, postal covers and Apollo memorabilia at $20 million per ton.

"Apollo, after all, was a success..."

Yes, it was a success at beating the Soviets to the Moon. Is it the goal of the VSE program? Hereby lies the trap, I believe -- to succumb to the Apollo mindset is to forgo America's future in space (capitalism, resource mining and exploring)

Propellant delivered from the moon to EML1 can enable a Mars mission using that as a departure point.

Fair enough, I agree.

LOX at EML1 would provide leverage for a Mars mission =IF= we refrain from charging the Mars mission any of the amortized or pro rata costs incurred while building the lunar infrastructure in the first place.

There are plenty of good reasons to return to the Moon. Focus on those. Reducing the future cost of a Mars mission by using lunar resources like LOX is extremely far down that list.

Lunar LOX catalyzes lunar development. It can be used in internal-combustion engines to give earth, er, moon-movers more umph than using solar/batteries. It's necessary for many chemical/industrial processes. The cost of hauling stuff to the Moon is so high that it makes sense to rapidly develop as much local industrial capability as possible, so more stuff (initially, low tech, like glass and metal building materials) can be made in place.

Ship the tools to build the tools. Start simple, then slowly eat away at the types of items that have to be hauled from Earth. One of the most useful initial industrial machines might be a rapid prototyper using goop derived from the most easily extracted lunar metals.

To follow up on Patrick, rovers powered by lunar LOX and Terran methane would provide settlers abundant clean water probably for a far lower cost than digging it out of lunar polar cold traps. Also, they can get the CO2 needed for preliminary greenhouses the same way.

Perhaps the lunar polar ice deposits (if any) are just another species of "fools gold"

Patrick is spot on about taking tools that build tools; the rapid prototyper, and I would add a plastic electronics printer for printing out circuits, displays and solar panels.

Even at Shuttle C launch costs (~$1500/kg to LEO) NASA needs to be worrying about minimizing the transported lunar infrastructure mass while maximizing flexibility. The space station environment is simple and predictable compared to the Moon; NASA needs to be worrying about the control and management of a functioning lunar biosphere, and about having the tooling flexibility to manage the unforseen without constant Earth resupply.

Alas, there are no outward signs that NASA has an awareness of this dimension of the problem. We'll see what the coming months bring...

Agreed that lunar LOX extraction brings little benefit to future Mars missions, but may provide some benefit to future moon missions in the future, provided that there is a significantly extended presence there...given the large difference between lunar ISRU and Mars ISRU, I wouldn't lump these two categories together as has been done in the recent past. Both Luna and Mars are worthy exploration targets, but the hardware for lunar missions is not necessarily applicable to Mars missions, unless explicitly designed for that purpose.

> Even at Shuttle C launch costs (~$1500/kg to LEO) NASA needs to be worrying about minimizing
> the transported lunar infrastructure mass while maximizing flexibility.

Who's claiming Shuttle C will cost $1500 per kilogram, and how did he pass the drug test?

Griffin has said NASA's launch costs will be at least $4000 per pound for "several decades."

Ed: I just picked a lower bound cost to illustrate my main point. The figure was from Jess Sponable (of DC-X fame) in an article in the Journal of Practical Applications in Space (1990). In the article Jess suggests a shuttle derived HLV could achieve a payload cost of ~ $1500/kg in 1990 dollars if I remember correctly. And if Jess Sponable were building it, I think he just might have been able to achieve that cost too.

Something like a shuttle C would throw about 50 tons into LEO. For comparison, the Energia EUS launcher could throw 88 tons into LEO at $1745/kg in 2005 dollars.

Given the realities of our aerospace infrastructure in the year 2005 as opposed to 1990, I think Griffin was wise to set the expectation at $4000/kg.

You always have to be careful when talking about launch costs. I suspect that Jess' number is marginal cost, whereas Griffin's is average. It's the same difference as between the two-hundred (or less) million per flight for a Shuttle launch, and the more-quoted average cost of six to seven hundred million. The latter has to amortize the fixed annual operating costs, and is highly sensitive to flight rate.

> Something like a shuttle C would throw about 50 tons into LEO. For comparison,
> the Energia EUS launcher could throw 88 tons into LEO at $1745/kg in 2005
> dollars.

As I recall, it couldn't throw anything into LEO because it was never built, and any cost estimate for it is suspect, especially one that uses dollars. Soviet-era accounting was worse than Goldin-era accounting, and even the exchange rate between rubles and dollars is suspect: the official exchange rate was very different from the free-market rate. Finally, to make sense of the number, you would need to know how many flights they were amortizing the capital costs over unless (as I suspect) they were simply ignoring those costs.

What's the difference between a space agency accountant and a mafia accountant? The mafia accountant knows that he's lying. :-)

> I think Griffin was wise to set the expectation at $4000/kg.

He didn't set it at $4000 per kg, he set it at $4000+ per pound: "...the present launch costs of $9-11 K per kg will continue for the next 40 years."