Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I still think it would be beyond 'cool' to have a lander waiting for NASA mission to touch down and then have it lift up a sign saying;

"Welcome NASA. What took you so long?"

Take pictures of course. Live web feed for a subscription, snips available for free download ...

Posted by Brian at October 26, 2005 11:15 AM

Much as I like private enterprise, all of this boasting about "We'll be there to greet you" (To quote Nikita Khrushchev) smacks of a kind of bravado that would be best left off until it can be matched with deeds.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at October 26, 2005 11:30 AM

Also, dare I mention that the "government-copycat Chinese space program" has already beaten private enterprise to low Earth orbit? Just thought I'd mention that.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at October 26, 2005 11:35 AM

Depends on your definitions ... Dennis Tito beat the Chinese to orbit.

Posted by Fred K at October 26, 2005 11:54 AM

Private enterprise? Who? The suborbital stuff is waaay cool, its just a long way from orbit.

t/Space is the only credible Earth-to-LEO alt space enterprise anywhere near flying real hardware and David Gump's people have openly stated they need NASA dollars to close their business case.

However, I suppose there could be some Ayn Rand loving blacksmith who is busy building an honest-to-god Earth to LEO RLV in the backwoods of Montana - - someone we just haven't heard about yet. Or maybe we should just steal one from Area 51. ;-)

= = =

However, if a business tycoon were to buy Russian or Chinese stuff off the shelf (except for a lunar lander which no one has today) they probably could beat NASA back to the moon by several years.

Posted by Bill White at October 26, 2005 12:04 PM

Who gets there first isn't very interesting, Mark. It's who gets there most affordably and in quantity that matters. Governments will never do that.

And Bill, when you write: t/Space is the only credible Earth-to-LEO alt space enterprise anywhere near flying real hardware, I have to wonder what you think is sitting on the pad in Kwajalein right now?

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 26, 2005 12:13 PM

Just because Elon Musk hasn't laid out detailed plans for a capsule does not mean they do not exist.

I am sure his talk of 'man rating' (Yes, I know that term is meaningless for the most part) kind of tips his hand. If SpaceX gets off to a good start, I feel confident he will find the necessary funds to put something on top of that Falcon IX.

Posted by Mike Puckett at October 26, 2005 12:25 PM

Fred makes an interesting point, though Dennis Tito did travel on a government developed vehicle and stayed in a government built facility. Rand actually makes a good point too, revising and extending his earlier remarks. Of course, if the Chinese occupy and claim some of the prime parts of the Moon (say the poles) it will not matter how cost effective and efficient the private sector is. The Chinese will own the future.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at October 26, 2005 12:28 PM

if the Chinese occupy and claim some of the prime parts of the Moon (say the poles)

And the notion that they are going to do that in any effective way in the next two decades, given their technical approach, is utterly laughable.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 26, 2005 12:38 PM

And Bill, when you write: t/Space is the only credible Earth-to-LEO alt space enterprise anywhere near flying real hardware, I have to wonder what you think is sitting on the pad in Kwajalein right now?

My bad - - I was thinking people not cargo. SpaceX & t/Space, are we missing anyone else having legitimate Earth-to-LEO prospects?

And yes, SpaceX may indeed have more than viewgraphs for a capsule for Falcon V or IX or maybe not. But SpaceX must survive BoLoMart since Musk didn't file that lawsuit because things were going peachy.

As for Mike Puckett's comment, If SpaceX gets off to a good start, I feel confident he will find the necessary funds to put something on top of that Falcon IX.

I agree concerning Musk's intentions. That is clearly what he is aiming for. But again, Gump's people have said they need NASA money to close their business case. If David Gump can't find the private money to do an his air launch CVX where will Musk find the money to put a crew capsule on SpaceX Falcon IX?

That said, I really do hope both Musk and Gump find money. If I had a spare billion or two . . .

= = =

And both Musk and t/Space come in close to current Russian prices. Americans should buy American but if US alt-space can beat NASA to the moon, EU-nik tycoons can also do it today flying Russian and Chinese.

Posted by Bill White at October 26, 2005 12:45 PM

Mark: If the Chinese occupy and claim some of the prime parts of the Moon (say the poles)

Rand: And the notion that they are going to do that in any effective way in the next two decades, given their technical approach, is utterly laughable.

= = =

Bill: If the Chinese occupy key points on the lunar surface using Old Tech and buy New Tech off the shelf ($100 per pound to LEO) when it comes on line the Chinese will still possess those key lunar positions.

True alt-space capability ($100 or less per pound to LEO) will be a proliferating technology we in the US will be unable to keep only to ourselves. That is why we need to get out there now, not later.

Posted by Bill White at October 26, 2005 01:02 PM

Bill is quite right. The Chinese are very adroit at acquiring (i.e. stealing) technology that other develop. If the United States is not on the Moon in a big way, the Chinese will be and will keep out all but the favored private entities (probably those that are actually owned by the PLA.) Libetarian anarchist fantasies aside, the private sector needs the government as much as the other way around.

Posted by Mark R Whittington at October 26, 2005 01:19 PM

They are adroit at stealing technologies in which we have the lead. I'm not aware of any instance in which they've somehow stolen our technologies and gotten ahead of us thereby. If the technology is mature enough that the Chinese can steal it, we'll already have used it to get to the moon ourselves. I continue to amused by those who wistfully fantasize about Red Moons and new moon races.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 26, 2005 01:23 PM

t/Space technology can be "stolen" today. Pressure fed propane LOX rockets are hardly bleeding edge. The Japanese, Chinese, Indians and Russians could build the CVX today if they really wanted to.

SpaceX? Russian engines (even the kerosene ones) are not inferior to what Musk is building.

Other than t/Space & SpaceX who is there?

Posted by Bill White at October 26, 2005 01:43 PM

t/Space technology can be "stolen" today.

Yup. And guess what? They're not stealing it. They're doing things the same dumb way that every government has done it from time immemorial.

Pressure fed propane LOX rockets are hardly bleeding edge. The Japanese, Chinese, Indians and Russians could build the CVX today if they really wanted to.

Yes, but they won't want to until it looks like a promising approach to them. By that time, they'll be too late to get anywhere ahead of us.

Other than t/Space & SpaceX who is there?

The emerging space tourism industry, which will get to orbit in plenty of time to beat the Chinese, given their antique and slow approach.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 26, 2005 01:47 PM

"I agree concerning Musk's intentions. That is clearly what he is aiming for. But again, Gump's people have said they need NASA money to close their business case. If David Gump can't find the private money to do an his air launch CVX where will Musk find the money to put a crew capsule on SpaceX Falcon IX?"

The same place he got money to develop the Falcon series and from investors like perhaps Richard Branson when they go public and from profits from the Falcon series.

Who says a capsule system has to be insanely expensive? T/space seems to think it doesn't. They are proposing a 4 man capsule and launcher and mothership for $400 million.

I will bet SpaceX could make a deal with someone like T/Space and build a much larger capsule based on the same design that does not compete directly with the smaller T/Space capsule/air launch system. With the addition of an LES, that basic Corona type design should also work on a conventional booster. The throw weight of the Falcon IX single should be able to loft someting on the order of a "Big Gemni" class capsule with ten or so crew/passengers.

Posted by Mike Puckett at October 26, 2005 02:11 PM

I think coming from Griffin this 'estimate' of the current Chinese capabilities should be taken with a bucket of salt. He's just hoping, and it's been for some time an obvious underappreciated leverage, to use "the Chinese are about to take over the moon" as a beating stick to get Congress to cough up more dollars for the ESAS plan, or at least not to make any cuts.

The actual acknowledged and funded Chinese plans are reflecting firmly their capabilities and they all culminate with the Changhe-3, a robotic sample return mission to the Moon in 2020 along the line of the Luna-1, a Lunakhod lunar rover, and a small visited Salyut-like space station in LEO. Beyond that… lies mythology, and speculation.

Posted by MaxL at October 26, 2005 02:16 PM

"t/Space technology can be "stolen" today. Pressure fed propane LOX rockets are hardly bleeding edge. The Japanese, Chinese, Indians and Russians could build the CVX today if they really wanted to."

And it's concievable that one or more of them will (or, like Shenzhou or Buran, do their own , not-very-subtle variation) *after* seeing it work a few times. The whole point of this sort of stealing, is letting someone else do most of the risky R&D 'grunt' work...

Posted by Frank Glover at October 26, 2005 02:32 PM

Bucket of salt, agreed. Keep throwing stuff out and maybe something will stick. Heh, I said Stick.

What I find amazing is all the hand-wringing over how to get to ISS between the Shuttle and the 2012 (or is it 2014? 2016??) first flight of the multi-$B CEV--as if t/space's CXV proposal didn't even exist. It's like Griffin's trying not to make eye contact or something.

Posted by Patrick at October 26, 2005 03:26 PM

Is there any proof that Griffin said any of this? All we have is this cryptic comment: "Michael Griffin spoke at JSC today, and is reported to have said that the Chinese are "five or six years closer to the Moon than we are"."

"Reported" by whom?

The blogger does not say that he was there, and does not say who he heard it from. And there seem to be no other reports of this on the web. Did it actually happen?

Or is that an unfair question to ask?

Posted by William Berger at October 26, 2005 03:55 PM

No, William, it's a perfectly fair question to ask. I'd certainly like to know if he really said it, and if so what he meant by it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 26, 2005 03:58 PM

I think we do need a little kick in the ass though, and if the Chinese play beat the clock on it we'd better not get caught holding our you-know-whats.

Echoing a point Rand made, it doesn't matter how or when the Chinese get there, its who gets there with the will and infrastructure to stay and stay for a while. Their history is not exactly chock-full of their leaving territory they've staked a claim to...once they're there, they're there for the long haul.

Higher risk tolerance, willingness to magpie anything technological that makes sense, and finally a willingness to make a Whole Bunch of anything they want to deploy. They've got surge capacity coming on this...much like everything else in their large industrial base...so a turning the FOC (fear of Chinese) factor up makes sense.

Posted by Rick at October 26, 2005 04:16 PM

"The same place he got money to develop the Falcon series and from investors like perhaps Richard Branson when they go public and from profits from the Falcon series."

He got the money from himself. And he has been rather candid in his ability to keep funding things. For instance, he has said that he can survive three failures, but that is it.

At some point Musk has to start making serious money on Falcon, or he will simply burn up all his cash and shut down. Maybe if he gets a few successes he will also find investors. But it's a little glib to simply say that because the money magically appeared for his rocket, it will also magically appear for a capsule to stick on top of it.

Posted by William Berger at October 26, 2005 04:35 PM

...it's a little glib to simply say that because the money magically appeared for his rocket, it will also magically appear for a capsule to stick on top of it.

Nothing "magic" about it. I don't in fact expect Elon to invest in a capsule. I do know others who will if Elon has a launch system that lives up to its promises...

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 26, 2005 04:41 PM

What Rick said. Yup.

= = =

As for permanent settlement of the Moon, Mars and beyond, there was this Confederate general who had a simple battle strategy:

Git 'dar fust-est with the most-est

But too often Americans try to win wars with air power when boots on the ground are what we need. We westerners need settlers on the ground on Luna and Mars and the asteroids. Price per pound to LEO will take care of itself easily enough thereafter.

Building national will to settle space (not just visit as tourists) will create the demand needed to justify private sector investment to achieve low cost access to LEO.

Posted by Bill White at October 26, 2005 04:42 PM

I don't in fact expect Elon to invest in a capsule. I do know others who will if Elon has a launch system that lives up to its promises...

Why SpaceX and not t/Space? Why will your investor wait for Elon?

$400 million and Gump flies. Will the development costs for Falcon V & Falcon IX plus a new capsule be less than $400 million?

Posted by Bill White at October 26, 2005 04:45 PM

Why will your investor wait for Elon?

What a bizarre question. Elon has development funding, and a vehicle on the pad, almost ready to launch. t/Space has vehicle concepts and little funding. A better question would be, why wait for t/Space?

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 26, 2005 04:52 PM

Among other reasons, SpaceX is apparently in the crosshairs of BoLoMart and BoLoMart has been accused playing dirty tricks with Elon's launch range access. Alleged at least.

Where would Falcon V or IX launch from? Is there an existing pad to accomodate a Falcon V or IX? Builidng one takes time.

t/Space can fly from the Mojave and launch over the Pacific and doesn't need access to any established launch facility whatsoever.

Posted by Bill White at October 26, 2005 05:04 PM

"Among other reasons, SpaceX is apparently in the crosshairs of BoLoMart and BoLoMart has been accused playing dirty tricks with Elon's launch range access. Alleged at least."

So that makes them true, huh? Because they're alleged.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the problem that Falcon was going to launch _over_ an Air Force rocket on the pad at Vandenberg and the Air Force has rules that forbid that? (In case of things like 'splosions.)

I seem to remember that the problem was that the Air Force launch kept slipping, meaning that it was still going to be on the pad at the time that Falcon was scheduled to launch.

If true, then this alleging requires that BoLockMart held up a national security payload simply so that they could inconvenience Falcon. So was the Air Force in on this collusion to screw over Falcon?

Or do I have the story wrong?

Posted by William Berger at October 26, 2005 05:10 PM

SpaceX has filed a RICO lawsuit which alleges BoLoMart has wrongfully conspired to harm the company. Sounds like cross-hairs to me.

Whether true or not, my question is why is SpaceX the obviously superior investment choice to t/Space.

If (as Rand has asserted) people are ready to invest substantial private money in a SpaceX crew capsule why won't those same people invest private money in t/Space?

Posted by Bill White at October 26, 2005 05:22 PM

Of course the "real question" is whether SpaceX and t/Space are in a position to beat NASA back to the Moon. If not, are any other alt-space companies even remotely close to private sector LEO capability?

If not, then the quote attributed (accurately?) to Mike Griffin may well be correct. China (& Russia presumably) might be several years closer to being able to send people back to the Moon than the US.

Posted by Bill White at October 26, 2005 05:27 PM

Ya know what's funny. Even though SpaceX appears to be leading the alt space pack on launch technology, everyone is still trying to compete with Elon Musk. Why don't people focus on the thing we don't have, a spacecraft, and reuse the stuff we do have, launch capability? t/Space have created a capsule and they have drop tested it.. but have they looked at the manouvering thrusters that are available off the shelf for orbital burns? Do they know where they can pick up an ISS docking module, and is it for the Russian side or the US side? My biggest grievance with t/Space is that they're looking at a water landing. The logistics of which are a bitch for any private company to manage. It's not surprising though, as all the alt space companies that are trying to make VTVL craft are aiming for 100km+ launch capability! Why don't these companies aim for "drop from a helicopter and land in a designated drop zone" capability? Then you could build a t/Space style capsule with VL capability, put it on a SpaceX rocket and send it to dock with the ISS. Take up three passengers and you'll recoup your development costs on the first flight.

Posted by Trent Waddington at October 26, 2005 05:31 PM

William Berger, there are launch pad issues unrelatd to the delay of Falcon I at Vandy. there have been efforts to evict SpaceX from its pad.

Might be settled now, but read Elon's quotes in this article:

After spending an estimated $7 million on its Vandenberg Air Force Base facilities, the private rocket company is being told to get out of its Complex 3 West launch site.

= = =

Next, I concur with this:

Why don't these companies aim for "drop from a helicopter and land in a designated drop zone" capability? Then you could build a t/Space style capsule with VL capability, put it on a SpaceX rocket and send it to dock with the ISS. Take up three passengers and you'll recoup your development costs on the first flight.

Also, the going to the Moon effort needs a lunar lander more than a new Earth-to-LEO booster.

Posted by Bill White at October 26, 2005 05:39 PM

"t/Space have created a capsule and they have drop tested it"

No, according to their own website, what they drop tested was not an actual capsule.

Posted by William Berger at October 26, 2005 05:42 PM

"there are launch pad issues unrelatd to the delay of Falcon I at Vandy. there have been efforts to evict SpaceX from its pad."

Thanks for the link. However, the story does not say anything about this being "dirty tricks" as you alleged. It seems a little hard to believe that Boeing would shift to a different launch pad _simply_ to screw over Falcon. And not even Musk claims that. In fact, the article hints that it's the Air Force's fault.

Posted by William Berger at October 26, 2005 05:47 PM

"If not, then the quote attributed (accurately?) to Mike Griffin"

I think that remains to be proven. The blogger wrote his claim on October 24. It has been several days now and there has been no confirmation of this claim.

Don't you think that if Griffin had indeed said that, a lot of e-mails would have flown out of JSC?

I suspect that what _really_ happened was that Griffin was asked about China and he said something that somebody interpreted that way. For instance, maybe they were discussing China's robotic lunar program, not their human spaceflight program.

Posted by William Berger at October 26, 2005 05:50 PM

To William Berger:

Of my personal knowledge, I cannot and do not assert Boeing or Lockheed Martin have done anything illegal or unethical against SpaceX. However =IF= the critical allegations in the SpaceX lawsuit are proven =THEN= to pressure a local range officer to deny SpaceX a launch facility is small potatoes.

Read the lawsuit. It accuses Boeing and Lockheed of some pretty serious stuff.

This worries me. Reading the lawsuit in detail has made me realize that if SpaceX loses in court then there is at least the chance that Boeing and Lockheed might be awarded their attorneys fees & costs which could easily total in the tens of millions of dollars. Can SpaceX survive a $30 million award of attorneys fees to the Defendants?

Musk may have bet the company by filing this lawsuit.

Posted by Bill White at October 26, 2005 09:09 PM

WOW!!! I'm on page 11 of the lawsuit so far, and GO ELON!!!!!

I'm not a fan of litigation in general, especially not "competition by litigation", but the behavior of Big Aerospace in the US has long struck me as harmful to the national interest.

So I'm all in favor of them losing their shirts, and space getting a Little Bit Cheaper.

Also, if they sent up a t/space capsule on a SpaceX booster, would it be the XT? :-)

It would be the PC XT of private space, wouldn't it? That'd make me proud to be an American again!

Posted by David Mercer at October 26, 2005 10:09 PM

If SpaceX wins the lawsuit, its David v. Goliath all over again.

If SpaceX loses the lawsuit and Boeing and Lockheed's fees & costs are assessed against SpaceX, SpaceX is history, gone, dead, defunct.

Posted by Bill White at October 26, 2005 10:23 PM

are any other alt-space companies even remotely close to private sector LEO capability?
This recent article over at TheSpaceReview gave a pretty good summary on the knowns and unknowns of it.

Posted by kert at October 27, 2005 03:22 AM

I am not a lawyer, but as I understand it the US doesn't, in general, have a 'loser pays' legal system. To be forced to pay the defendant's legal fees requires that the lawsuit have been frivolous (or some other similarly serious misconduct to have occured during the trial), which is a considerably stronger condition that merely having failed to win.

Posted by Paul Dietz at October 27, 2005 05:19 AM

kert: That article is about the sub-orbital industry.

Paul Dietz: You are basically correct.

However, because SpaceX has accused Boeing and Lockheed of some rather egregious conduct, if they fail to significantly support their case the possibility exists. "Frivolous" can be interpreted in various ways.

Posted by Bill White at October 27, 2005 06:05 AM

The People's Ministry for Space Affairs (NASA) bakes the pie, and the Lockheed-Gurevich and Antonov-Boeing design bureaux carve it up...

Posted by B-Chan at October 27, 2005 07:51 AM

What wrong with inciting the notion that there possibly could be some competition to contend with. Yes the Chinese seem to be going slow but they also were capable of going straight to orbit without the need of a suborbital flight that we know of. Even India and Russia have made announcements that they intend to make Lunar flyby in the near future. Russia even just approved a budget out till 2016 which very well could seriously incorporate that goal into their cost matrix.

Posted by Josh Reiter at October 27, 2005 08:38 AM

What wrong with inciting the notion that there possibly could be some competition to contend with.

Because the notion is silly, and could (if anyone took it seriously) result in another panic like Apollo, which was disastrous for our long-term prospects for actually opening up space.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 27, 2005 08:51 AM

NASA seems perfectly willing to ignore our long term prospects in space even without panic.

Posted by Paul Dietz at October 27, 2005 11:43 AM

Rand: "Because the notion is silly, and could (if anyone took it seriously) result in another panic like Apollo, which was disastrous for our long-term prospects for actually opening up space."

I'm not sure I understand. We don't have the perception of international competition yet NASA intends to spend half the cost of the Apollo program to re-reach the same point Apollo got to with roughly the same approach and hardware. What would renewed competition do to make our recreation of Apollo's dead end more complete? Does it matter to a capitalistic and transformational alt.space community what NASA aims for or whether there is international competition or not?

International competition does however matter to BoLockMart, as this communist-style government design bureau which encompases so much of our national aerospace infrastructure may not stack up so well against the design bureaus of actual communist countries or ex-communist countries (from whom we may soon be buying an increasing share of our aerospace goods and services).

If Griffin's reported comments are true, perhaps he was alluding to the fact that it may be many years before NASA has a capsule system like China's. It matters not that we once had such a system, only what we are capable of doing now and in the future matters.

Posted by Kevin Parkin at October 29, 2005 07:27 AM

Post a comment