Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

And this is exactly why we need non-taxpayer based revenue sources. More demand.

Tourism is one basket, just not big enough all by itself, in my opinion.

Lunar platinum & nickel is another potential revenue source. Heh! What about lunar LOX sold at oxygen bars in airports? $25 for a tiny whiff of lunar O2 mixed with Terran O2. Smell the Moon!

The more revenue baskets the better.

Posted by Bill White at November 15, 2005 12:01 PM

Yes, we know it's your opinion, Bill. There's no need to keep repeating it, particularly when you can offer no basis for it.

Fortunately for the rest of us, you're mistaken.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 15, 2005 12:09 PM

I'm a little puzzled how we get from Iraq to space my own self. However, Rand's citing of polls abour priorities in a little misleading. Of course things like "education" poll better than "space." But that doesn't matter because we are not and do not need to spend as much on publicly funded space as we do on education. (Of course a lot of "education" spending is waste, fraud, and abuse, but that is a different issue.)

I also find Bill's argument compelling. It constitutes my one current and major criticism of NASA and its plan to return to the Moon. Not enough is being articulated about the economic benefits of doing so. Of course, NASA public relations has been dysfunctional since the birth of the space agency.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at November 15, 2005 12:13 PM

Lunar nickel? The market price of nickel here on Earth is currently $5.35/lb. No way in hell you could deliver lunar nickel here for anywhere close to that. Future terrestrial prices of this metal are limited due to large supplies in laterites, ultramafic rocks, and manganese nodules.

Posted by Paul Dietz at November 15, 2005 12:20 PM

Lunar nickel? As a prestige item, of course.

If folks will pay $200,000 for a 10 minute ride in the sub-orbital equivalent of a Six Flags adventure ride why won't folks will pay thousands of dollars per pound for genuine lunar artifacts, like maybe switch plates for their light switches or faucets or door knobs.

In the novel Holy Fire wealthy celebrities pay thousands of dollars for lunar ice to cool their drinks.

Compare with the 16th century fur trade. Fur clothing on the streets of London and Paris was a huge status symbol.

= = =

We can bash NASA all day every day and we can assert that changing human nature to be more libertarian is a necessary first step for entering space or we can figure out how to make money in space with the society we have, not the society we wished we had.

= = =

Might the luanr nickel souvenir idea fail to work out? Sure.

Got a better one?

Posted by Bill White at November 15, 2005 02:18 PM

> If folks will pay $200,000 for a 10 minute ride in the sub-orbital equivalent
> of a Six Flags adventure ride why won't folks will pay thousands of dollars per
> pound for genuine lunar artifacts like maybe switch plates for their light
> switches or faucets or door knobs.

1) Because most people know a space flight is not equivalent to a Six Flags ride.

2) Because most people consider a space flight to be more exciting than a door knob.

3) Because transporting door knobs back to Earth on Constellation capsules would not cost "thousands of dollars" but many millions of dollars.

Next wife-beating analogy, please?

Posted by Edward Wright at November 15, 2005 02:28 PM

Edward, who said Constellation? Why would NASA's plan prohibit other plans?

At $1000 per pound to LEO (available today from Russia) and using lunar LOX and a re-useable lunar lander the cost to deliver methane fuel to the Moon translates to less than $400 per pound for material lifted from the Moon.

A re-useable lunar lander would be a nice stepping-stone to a re-useable Earth-to-LEO vessel just as a lunar space elevator would help the learning curve with a Terran one.

= = =

Lunar materials are lifted by RL-10s fueled by lunar LOX & Terran methane / LH2 (unless easily harvested luanr water is discovered). Deliver methane via Dnepr, Proton or Falcon with last mile landing padded with air bags.

We can do that with current technology and without a massive industrial presence IF intact metallic Ni-Fe asteroid fragments are located.

Posted by Bill White at November 15, 2005 02:36 PM

PS - why are diamonds valuable? Because deBeers controls the market and has promoted the belief that diamonds should be valuable.

Hire top flight marketing gurus to persuade rich people that they NEED genuine lunar materials to adorn their houses and offices.

Madison Avenue has already accomplished stranger things than that.

Posted by Bill White at November 15, 2005 02:40 PM

Mark says...But that doesn't matter because we are not and do not need to spend as much on publicly funded space as we do on education. (Of course a lot of "education" spending is waste, fraud, and abuse, but that is a different issue.)

We can cut over half of the money going to education by taking administration out of the picture. We've been throwing money at education for years, most recently, Bush siding with Kennedy and giving the keys to Ft Knox to education....all these years of government spending and no one notices ITS NOT WORKING. I agree Mark that a lot of waste, fraud, and abuse...but I absolutely oppose further spending on education because the system has failed.

Posted by Mac at November 15, 2005 04:06 PM

> Edward, who said Constellation? Why would NASA's plan prohibit other plans?

What "other plan"? You've been arguing for is NASA's plan (Constellation). If you have another plan, please reveal it.

Constellation would prohibit most other plans because it soaks up all available money (and then some). Tom Matula's notion of creating a Lunar Development Authority is a nonstarter. Congress is not going to pay for two huge civilian space agencies doing the same thing.

> At $1000 per pound to LEO (available today from Russia) and using lunar
> LOX and a re-useable lunar lander the cost to deliver methane fuel to the
> Moon translates to less than $400 per pound for material lifted from the
> Moon.

That's a poor translation. First of all, if methane costs $1,000 per pound, it will cost about 10 times as much when it's delivered to the surface of the Moon. Second, lunar launch costs are not going to be just the cost of methane. Producing LOX on the Moon is not going to be free. Neither is maintaining a reusable lunar lander, building and maintaining a Moon base, building and maintaining facilities to mine and process metal, etc. All of those things will require equipment and supplies shipped from Earth, which is effected both directly and indirectly by launch costs.

> A re-useable lunar lander would be a nice stepping-stone to a re-useable
> Earth-to-LEO vessel just as a lunar space elevator would help the learning
> curve with a Terran one.

It is much easier to design a vehicle that can be reused and maintained on Earth, with nice comforable hangars and easy access to parts and labor, than a vehilce that must be maintained in an austere facility on the surface of the Moon, Mars, or Beyond.

A lunar lander is not a "stepping stone" to reusable launch vehicle, but RLVs could be a stepping stone to the development of the reusable lander you and Dennis want. The delta-vee requirements for suborbital vehicles are similar to those for lunar landers, and it is much, much, much, much easier to test vehicles on Earth than on the surface of the Moon.

As for the space elevator -- sorry, that requires fundamental breakthroughs in materials science.

> We can do that with current technology and without a massive industrial
> presence IF intact metallic Ni-Fe asteroid fragments are located.

Yes, and we can turn lead into gold with current technology. The gold would cost millions of dollars an ounce and be radioactive to boot. Just because you *can* do something with current technology doesn't mean you should do it, regardless of the cost.

On the other hand, we can build reusable vehicles to dramatically reduce launch costs with current technology. It does not require space elevators, laser rockets, scramjets, or other "magic" technology. Reducing the cost of space transportation would enable all the things you and Dennis say you want. Insisting that we must postpone anything that could reduce space transportation costs until after NASA has gone to the Moon, Mars, and Beyond is self-defeating -- like insisting that you *must* set out on a 20,000-mile trip to every state in the union before obtaining a car tha works affordably and reliably.

Posted by Edward Wright at November 15, 2005 04:28 PM

> PS - why are diamonds valuable? Because deBeers controls the market
> and has promoted the belief that diamonds should be valuable.

Is this a trick question? It's because deBeers is a foreign cartel that engages in predatory monopoly practices that would be illegal under US anti-trust laws.

Since you're a lawyer, I'm sure you know that.

> Hire top flight marketing gurus to persuade rich people that they NEED
> genuine lunar materials to adorn their houses and offices.

> Madison Avenue has already accomplished stranger things than that.

Madison Avenue operates on the basis of market research, not handwaving.

Posted by Edward Wright at November 15, 2005 04:35 PM

I think in a couple weeks Bill is going to announce his company's shares being traded on the pink sheets and scrounge up some suc... investors.

Posted by Brock at November 15, 2005 04:39 PM

we can build reusable vehicles to dramatically reduce launch costs with current technology.

Yup, okay. But you need demand, users to buy those flights. An RLV with low flight rates will still be very, very expensive.

Therefore, what if the demand from tourism is not sufficient to sustain sufficient flight rates?

I am saying we need to find revenue streams beyond tourism and tax dollars. New users to buy flights on that RLV.

Posted by Bill White at November 15, 2005 05:02 PM

>> we can build reusable vehicles to dramatically reduce
>> launch costs with current technology.

> Yup, okay. But you need demand, users to buy those flights.

So? You're calling for NASA to spend $100 billion developing a Constellation capsule and Shuttle-derived boosters, not buying flights.

I guess we're left with the millions of people who want to go into space. Oh, well. :-)

> An RLV with low flight rates will still be very, very expensive.

Who's advocating an RLV with low flight rates?

The only people I see advocating low flight rates are supporters of big expendable rockets.

> I am saying we need to find revenue streams beyond tourism and tax
> dollars. New users to buy flights on that RLV.

No, you're asking for tax dollars to subsidize your revenue stream -- in the most expensive way possible, developing new NASA-unique ELVs instead of buying flights on RLVs (or even commercial ELVs).

Posted by Edward Wright at November 15, 2005 05:31 PM

I guess we're left with the millions of people who want to go into space. Oh, well. :-)

The millions of people who want to go into space should get together, found a company, and build that RLV. If even one million people (not millions) invested $1,000 each that would raise $1 billion to build an RLV. Who needs NASA?

Don't waste time whining about ESAS, gather together a million people, collect $1,000 each and build that RLV.

Like Mr. Nike says, "Just Do It!"

= = =

The NASA budget exists (IMHO) just in case the alt-space RLV dream fails to materialize. If you are wrong about RLVs I do not want America to have lost the ability to put people in space.

Taylor Dinerman explains the point here:

For the moment, NASA and the Defense Department have given up on developing RLVs that can launch from the surface of the Earth to LEO. One reason that is often given is that they did not see how anyone could, in the near term, overcome the mass fraction problem. Unfortunately for the space launch industry, any rocket that wants to reach orbit must begin its ascent with 90% of its weight in fuel and oxygen. They overcome this by having the stages of their vehicles drop off on the way up. This process is sometimes referred to as “feeding very expensive bits of metal to the fish.”
On the Moon things are different. The ascent stage of the Apollo-era Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) weighed about 4,500 kg and its fuel weighed about 2,300 kg, i.e. a mass fraction of about 50%. This is far more manageable than the 90% needed to escape from Earth’s gravity. The designers of a Lunar RLV will have more available mass for the vehicle’s structure and payload than those working on its terrestrial equivalent.

According to the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS), the Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM) will ascend using a new liquid oxygen/methane power engine designed to be “ISRU compatible”. A few of the ideas and technologies developed for the Suborbital Lunar Lander Analog Challenge may find their way into the LSAM. Certainly some of the people involved in the teams that will compete for the prize will gain valuable expertise that will feed into the whole Lunar exploration technology development process.

Right or wrong, DoD and NASA has decided. By 2025 there will be ISRU and a re-useable lander and a lunar hopper. Persuade the White House and Congress to scrap ISS and we can do that sooner.

That gives the private sector somewhere to fly.

Okay, raise money from your million(s) of prospective space tourists and prove me wrong. Edward, to be frank, if you do that I will eat metaphorical crow and cheer.

If alt-space fails, I will be grateful NASA had a back-up plan.

= = =

Who's advocating an RLV with low flight rates?

No one said you advocate low flight rates. Without adequate demand, what you wish for and what you get will be very different.

I simply do not believe space tourism (all by itself) will generate sufficient demand to lower the cost to LEO. Prove me wrong (by actually flying folks - not with Intarweb chatter) and I will be one very happy space enthusiast.

Space tourism as one essential piece of a bigger puzzle? Sure, absolutely, no argument.

Posted by Bill White at November 15, 2005 06:17 PM

Lunar LOX leverages everything.

If its 5 to 1 for air bag crash delivery to Luna ($1000 to LEO & $5000 to Luna) then lunar LOX in LEO changes that to a 1.5 to one ratio ($1500 plus the cost of the LOX for lunar delivery)

This suggests lunar LOX is JOB #1. Everything else is secondary.

Posted by Bill White at November 15, 2005 07:26 PM

> The millions of people who want to go into space should get together,
> found a company, and build that RLV.

If you really believe that, all I can say is, you don't understand division of a labor. Do you get together with millions of other other lawyers to produce all those yellow notepads?

> Don't waste time whining about ESAS,

Okay, so you don't believe citizens should have the right to petition government for redress of grievances. The Founder Fathers did, however, so the Constitution guarantees it.

> Like Mr. Nike says, "Just Do It!"

I think you mean, "Just ammend it!" :-)

> The NASA budget exists (IMHO) just in case the alt-space RLV dream fails to
> materialize. If you are wrong about RLVs I do not want America to have lost
> the ability to put people in space.

You're a little late, Bill. America would have lost the ability to put people in space after Columbia crashed, if not for Burt Rutan and the "alt-space RLV dream."

You overlook the fact that government can also fail. By putting all of NASA's eggs into the Shuttle-derived basket, you practically guarantee that it *will* fail. And when it does, what? There is no backup plan, just as there was no backup plan for the Shuttle.

> Right or wrong, DoD and NASA has decided. By 2025 there will be ISRU
> and a re-useable lander and a lunar hopper.

Bill, you are a lawyer. You *must* know the difference between fact and opinion. You don't *know* that NASA will accomplish any of those things; you simply believe it. Your evidence for that belief is very thin. NASA hasn't promised a reusable lander or a lunar hopper, and even if they did, NASA doesn't always deliver on its promises. The Suborbital Lunar Lander Analog Challenge isn't announced or funded, it's merely under discussion between NASA and the X-Prize Foundation. Again, as a lawyer, you surely know the difference. As for DoD -- I can't imagine what you think they have to do with VSE.

> If alt-space fails, I will be grateful NASA had a back-up plan.

Why do you want to spend 100 times as much money on your "backup plan" as your primary?

What is the value of having a backup plan that doesn't do anything useful?

Why are existing ELVs not good enough as a "backup plan"?

> No one said you advocate low flight rates. Without adequate demand,
> what you wish for and what you get will be very different.

> I simply do not believe space tourism (all by itself) will generate sufficient
> demand to lower the cost to LEO. Prove me wrong (by actually flying folks
> - not with Intarweb chatter) and I will be one very happy space enthusiast.

Flying does not demonstrate "demand," it demonstrates "supply." Demand is demonstrated by numerous market studies, cash deposits, etc. -- not "Intarweb chatter," whatever that may be.

You haven't supported any of your claims with market data. You just tell us people will buy things because you "believe" they will, at prices you "think" they will pay.

Why should we ignore the data (evidence) and rely on your personal belief?

Dennis Wingo likes to say we all share a common dream. Here's the thing he misses. Dennis says it will take 40 years to generate enough demand for 350 rocket launches a year. Less than one launch a day. Worldwide. Carrying just 3000 passengers. That is his "optimistic" scenario."

We may all share that dream, but for some of us, that's a *bad* dream. 350 launches a year is not a large demand. That's stagnation. If we only have 350 launches a year, worldwide, 40 years from now, then we will have *failed*.

Posted by Edward Wright at November 15, 2005 08:04 PM

> Lunar LOX leverages everything.

> If its 5 to 1 for air bag crash delivery to Luna ($1000 to LEO & $5000 to Luna)
> then lunar LOX in LEO changes that to a 1.5 to one ratio ($1500 plus the cost of the
> LOX for lunar delivery)

No, it's $1500 plus the cost of the LOX plus a huge investment in capital equipment (vehicles, habitats, mining equipment, processing equipment) and labor that must be fed, clothed, and maintained at very, very high cost (given your addiction to high-cost Shuttle launches).

Even the cost of lunar LOX production is unlikely to be negligable.

As I suspected, your calculations include only the tip of the iceberg.

> This suggests lunar LOX is JOB #1. Everything else is secondary.

If that were true, launches to LEO would cost a few dollars a pound, because LOX is very cheap on Earth. It's everything else (most of which you ignore here) that makes it so expensive.

Posted by Edward Wright at November 15, 2005 08:15 PM

Edward, you assert a low cost reliable RLV can be built for a fraction of NASA's budget. If true, why does no one in Congress listen?

Posted by Bill White at November 15, 2005 08:23 PM

If that were true, launches to LEO would cost a few dollars a pound, because LOX is very cheap on Earth. It's everything else (most of which you ignore here) that makes it so expensive.

Now that is funny. :-)

Posted by Bill White at November 15, 2005 08:24 PM

> Edward, you assert a low cost reliable RLV can be built for a fraction of NASA's budget. If true,
> why does no one in Congress listen?

Bill, have you considered the possibility that Congress is imperfect and sometimes makes mistakes? That said, if you do a bit of research, you will discover that Congress funded DC-X. So, obviously, it is not true that "no one in Congress listens."

Posted by Edward Wright at November 15, 2005 11:24 PM

I wouldn't be too concerned. NASA has such high recognition value (15% in one Paula Poundstone simple experiment) that even if you devalue it by a factor of 15 in Congress, there is still good money there. Dept. of State has the same problem.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at November 16, 2005 07:27 AM

I think I find myself leaning more toward Bill arguments. I think that we maybe having a bit to much pride about private accomplishment. Sure a private company was able to get into space one year while NASA wasn't. But haven't there lots of private players that have been promising a lot of things for a long time and haven't really delivered. I believe that a natural progression for things is partly derived of what you know and where you know you should go. Sticking with Apollo at least to a degree gaurantees a capability in space of attaining some level of accomplishment. Then, lets not discount that fact that now we finally have a NASA administrator that doesn't giggle when he mentions the use of private space launch services for ISS. That to me shows that we have come a long way from every other administrator that has stuck hard fast to the notion that "space is hard". Also, I think Mike Griffin has done wonders in compromise. We have have the pork to extend the use of proven design and materials. People have called for a more robust launch architecture and now we have a plan that has not one but 2 launchers incorporating a mixture of proven systems.

Quote from Edward: "What is the value of having a backup plan that doesn't do anything useful?"

What is the value of having a backup plan that just doesn't do anything. In regards to private space flight, I'm still in the "show me what you can do and how well you can do it stage." Otherwise, all I have to go on from experience is a majority of aerospace startups that never get beyond design and mock up and only one that has come along so far to launch 3 people into sub orbit. No, I'm not willing to bet the farm on private launch just yet, till then its business as usual.

Quote from Rand: "But when it comes down to actually setting priorities, NASA is always way down the list..."

And it is because of this I think, whether it in reality true of false, it is not a bad idea to incite some good ole' fashion competition to the project. Whether China really fits the bill or not as a true competitor the average person that answers one of those polls really isn't going to be informed enough to know the difference. So, if perceptions can be tweaked to incite a greater priority then by all means I say we go for it.

Posted by Josh Reiter at November 16, 2005 08:02 AM

I had to bail out on this thread when I started imagining store shelves lined with little boxes labelled Pet Moon Rock® as a way of helping to fund private-sector space development.

Seems to me the best place to sell large quantities of space souvenirs is a store at a tourist attraction in space.

Posted by McGehee at November 16, 2005 09:29 AM

I had to bail out on this thread when I started imagining store shelves lined with little boxes labelled Pet Moon Rock® as a way of helping to fund private-sector space development. Seems to me the best place to sell large quantities of space souvenirs is a store at a tourist attraction in space.

It's not either / or. It's both.

My ideas about selling "Pet Moon Rocks®" - - nice one, that - - are crass, tacky and profoundly capitalistic. There is a terrific marketing essay titled "How to Brand Sand" on how brand name sand is better than generic sand. Go figure. Darn illogical if you ask me, but Wall Street loves brand value.

For better or worse, that is the American way.

= = =

How do we fund baseball stadiums? Folks cobble together a wide variety of funding sources. Ticket sales, tax breaks, beer sales, parking fees and advertising are only a few. No one "killer app" - - every revenue stream is vital.

So why say tourism -OR- PGM mining? I say BOTH. On orbit souvenirs or souvenirs at K-Mart? BOTH.

Steinbrenner breaks even (or loses money) on the Yankees but his cable network buys the media rights for a pittance and that company makes big bucks. Money not always disclosed to the player's union. ;-)

Once again, the American way.

= = =

Rand has written that US public support for space exploration is a mile wide and an inch deep. He is 100% spot on, IMHO, and that exact point is one of the main points of his original post.

Let's try this metaphor: sailing faster than the wind. Rather than a mile wide & an inch deep lets use the metaphor that public support for space is like a 5 knot puff of wind. But, your sailboat needs to sail at 7 knots to get where you want to go.

Out of luck? Nah. Modern sailboats sail faster than the wind all the time. I've even done it myself, before I traded in my boat for a second child. ;-)

Good technique & good equipment can harness 5 knots of air and produce 8 or 10 knots of boat speed. Cutting edge yachts do even better.

Space advocates should NOT follow public opinion polls or marketing surveys. We should SHAPE public opinion polls using the same techniques used to elect Presidents and sell soap.

Public support that is a "mile wide and an inch deep" is all we need if we properly engineer the marketing.

Posted by Bill White at November 16, 2005 11:15 AM

You haven't supported any of your claims with market data. You just tell us people will buy things because you "believe" they will, at prices you "think" they will pay.

Great statement Ed...where's the supporting data for your next claim?

350 launches a year is not a large demand. That's stagnation. If we only have 350 launches a year, worldwide, 40 years from now, then we will have *failed*.

Just to be fair. Those numbers as success/failure is based on what?

Posted by at November 16, 2005 11:34 AM

Above post was by Mac

Posted by Mac at November 16, 2005 11:37 AM

Marketing data (or lack thereof) is not a sufficient reason not to sell something.

The folks trying so darned hard to get into space seem to be disasterously bad at doing anything than preaching to each other and then getting into fistfights over dogma. Which is all well and good, provided you don't want to get into space.

For example, the ESAS boat has sailed. It's going to a good long time before the political forces are in alignment to actually suggest *anything* that implies *any* sense of direction. It doesn't matter that it's over expensive and whatnot, it's very much a matter of dancing with the girl that brung ya.

Put it another way, if we've got the ESAS - how the heck do we make it work best? The commercial ISS flights are a good start - how can make more use of the opportunities available.

At the very least, trying to repackage the ESAS as something like "The Apollo for the New Millenium" has a bit more panache than the VSE-ESAS.

Posted by G.R. Faith at November 16, 2005 02:20 PM

You haven't supported any of your claims with market data. You just tell us people will buy things because you "believe" they will, at prices you "think" they will pay.

Mac, let me shill for Bill. :-)

Consider the price that people are willing to pay for meteorites. Apparently prices range from around $0.50-$1.00 per gram for common meteorites to hundreds or even thousands of dollars for extremely rare variants.

It seems reasonable that you could get people to pay, for example, prices in the tens to hundreds of dollars for near term lunar soil (depending on quality and until the market gets glutted) and certainly for meteorites obtained on the Moon. The obvious obstacle is the cost of obtaining the lunar material in the first place.

The public's penchant for buying souveniers is well known. The questions rather are how much are they willing to spend, and will that cover sample return costs?

A secondary market is the scientific market. While there's no obvious market for mass quantities of genuine lunar soil (lunar regolith simulant apparently can be had for cents per gram). But good quality lunar soil that has been obtained under sterile conditions should sell reasonably well.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at November 16, 2005 02:47 PM

The scientific market for luanr samples is very real.

At "Return to the Moon" in July 2005 Dr. Taylor from U of Tenn showed us how JSC-1 is wrong in at least one key attribute. Seems that nanophase iron (deposited by long periods of bombardment) allows microwaves to do cool stuff (hot really) to lunar regolith.

Try it with JSC-1 and nothing because there is no nanophase iron. But Taylor microwaved a tiny sample of the real McCoy and got some very interesting results.

Posted by Bill White at November 16, 2005 02:53 PM

> Consider the price that people are willing to pay for meteorites. Apparently
> prices range from around $0.50-$1.00 per gram for common meteorites to hundreds
> or even thousands of dollars for extremely rare variants.

Where did those prices appear?

On Ebay right now, I see a 100-g meteorite for a fixed price of $20 -- $0.20/gram -- with no takers. A 632-g meteorite going for $15.59 -- just over $0.02/g -- with less than two hours left to bid. 239-g going for $11.61 -- $0.5/g -- which also has less than two hours left to bid. A 6.36 kg piece for a fixed price of $375 -- $0.06. (Note for Bill: that last rock contains 0.25% platinum. :-)

I didn't do a search for bargains, those are just the first prices I came across. Common meteorites appear to go for $0.02-0.10/g on Ebay, not $0.50-$1.00/g.

There is a Men's Role-x Platinum Meteorite Diamond Masterpiece Watch listed for $178,350 but no one's bidding on that, either. (Rand's spam filter won't let me spell Role-x correctly. :-)

> It seems reasonable that you could get people to pay, for example, prices
> in the tens to hundreds of dollars for near term lunar soil

Yes, but how *many* people would pay that? Numbers matter. If hundreds of dollars gets them a microscopic fleck of dirt, the number is likely to be quite small.

Posted by Edward Wright at November 16, 2005 05:07 PM

> Which is all well and good, provided you don't want to get into space. For
> example, the ESAS boat has sailed.

What makes you think ESAS will get anyone who's reading this board into space???

> It's going to a good long time before the political forces are in alignment
> to actually suggest *anything* that implies *any* sense of direction.

Rand asked this once already -- what reason is there for believing that? So far, no one has answered.

The Republican Study Committee is calling for numerous offsets including the cancellation of Moon, Mars, and Beyond -- and Dennis Hastert has agreed to go along with them.

Surely, the Speaker of the House is part of the alignment of political forces. What makes you so sure that 1) ESAS can survive in Congress, and 2) nothing else could?

> It doesn't matter that it's over expensive and whatnot, it's very much
> a matter of dancing with the girl that brung ya.

You miss the point, G.R. ESAS didn't bring us. She came with Mike Griffin and Paul Spudis and Dennis Wingo -- and now, even Dennis says she's ugly.

Why are people who not even consulted when this policy was put together obligated to support it now?

> Put it another way, if we've got the ESAS - how the heck do we make it work best?

You don't. In insurance terms, the program's a total loss. The only rational thing is to write it off and buy a new one.

> The commercial ISS flights are a good start - how can make more use of
> the opportunities available.

That has nothing to do with ESAS. NASA could have bought commercial resupply years ago.

> At the very least, trying to repackage the ESAS as something like "The
> Apollo for the New Millenium" has a bit more panache than the VSE-ESAS.

An unfortunate analogy. :-) The panache is a style made famous by Rostand's Cyrano de Bergerac, who dreamed of going to the Moon. But as you will recall, he died when his political enemies dropped a log on his head. The panache did not save him. Must NASA wait for political foes to drop a log on its head before considering any possible reform?

Posted by Edward Wright at November 16, 2005 05:32 PM

Look at this! Earlier today, Jim Muncy writes at spacepolitics:

The most important decision Mike Griffin could make regarding creating a government market at ISS he has already made: the Space Shuttle will be retired in 2010, and the remaining flights will be focused on element assembly, not logistics. That creates an immediate demand, to quote Alan Lindenmoyer the new CCC Program Manager at JSC: We would buy it today if we could.

Now, also today SpaceDev announces plans to build DreamChaser, an HL-20 derived crew vehicle apparently to be lifted to LEO by Delta IV. Apparently, it will be built with private money seeking profit from tourism (suborbital and orbital) and NASA contracts to ferry crew to ISS on a price per seat basis.

If NASA had announced a government order for a low cost crew lift vehicle and agreed to fund the R&D with tax dollars and if that NASA funded vehicle was financially competitive, there isn't any way imaginable a private investor will fund this project at SpaceDev.

Why would the private sector spend money on their own systems if NASA was handing out R&D tax dollars to the people Ed Wright wants Griffin to give tax dollars to?

But! Since CEV is too expensive for routine ISS crew transfer (if useful for lunar missions) a market niche is created for SpaceDev & t/Space.

Why compete with NASA? Because CEV+CLV at $400 million per launch CANNOT compete (on price) with commercial Earth-to-LEO systems either for tourism or ISS crew transfer. This leaves a wide open playing field for private sector players to compete with each other.

ESAS creates a niche for alt-space to fill - - > ISS re-supply and crew transfer.

CEV+CLV is simply too big and too heavy to do the job economically and therefore once SpaceDev actually flies their HL-20 or t/Space actually flies their CXV NASA can buy the better product off the shelf and NO tax dollars were spent on research & development.

Genuis!

= = =

PS - - Go to the SpaceDev site for details. The address includes letters deemed questionable by Rand's filter and fillers would ruin the link.

Posted by Bill White at November 16, 2005 09:43 PM

> Jim Muncy writes at spacepolitics:

> That creates an immediate demand, to quote Alan Lindenmoyer the new CCC Program
> Manager at JSC: We would buy it today if we could.

Which is obviously false, since NASA could buy today, but isn't doing so.

Jim is praising the NASA office that his company hopes to win a contract from -- and you find that surprising?

> today SpaceDev announces plans to build DreamChaser, an HL-20 derived crew vehicle apparently
> to be lifted to LEO by Delta IV. Apparently, it will be built with private money seeking profit from tourism

Which is the type of commercial development we've been arguing for.

You've been arguing for superexpensive government Constellation capsules instead -- or don't you read your own posts?

> If NASA had announced a government order for a low cost crew lift vehicle and agreed to fund the R&D
> with tax dollars and if that NASA funded vehicle was financially competitive, there isn't any way imaginable
> a private investor will fund this project at SpaceDev.

No one said NASA should "fund the R&D with tax dollars." Congratulations, Bill. You're making stuff up.

> Why would the private sector spend money on their own systems if NASA was handing out
> R&D tax dollars to the people Ed Wright wants Griffin to give tax dollars to?

Why would a noted attorney like Bill White beat his wife? On a Sunday? In front of church? With a baseball bat?

You've won the Mark Whittington Award for Strawman Construction. Congratulations.

> But Since CEV is too expensive for routine ISS crew transfer (if useful for lunar missions)

If it's that expensive, why would it be useful for lunar missions?

Because it's politically correct to believe that lunar missions should be expensive and done only by the government?

> a market niche is created for SpaceDev & t/Space.

Ignoring the fact that JSC-CCCP has said it will *not* allow companies to propose crew transfer at this time -- and that NASA plans to stop funding flights to ISS after 2015, which means that the market disappears.

So, what we have is a small market for unmanned ISS payloads between 2010 and 2015. That's not much to justify the development of a vehicle. t/Space knows that, which is why they are asking NASA to fund the entire development (contrary to what you say). The last time I spoke to Jim Benson, he was looking for NASA to fund the development of DreamChaser, also.

> ESAS creates a niche for alt-space to fill - - > ISS re-supply and crew transfer.

No, ESAS does not create that niche. ISS has existed for years. NASA could have awarded commercial contracts any time in the last five years -- as Congress repeatedly *urged* NASA to do. They didn't need a new Moon program in order to do it.

What NASA could create is a much larger market than ISS socks and laundry -- launching propellant and other supplies for Moon, Mars, and Beyond. ESAS takes that market away.

> Why compete with NASA? Because CEV+CLV at $400 million per launch CANNOT compete (on price)
> with commercial Earth-to-LEO systems either for tourism or ISS crew transfer.

Yet, you want the taxpayers to spend tens of billions developing Shuttle-derived vehicles you admit cannot compete?

> once SpaceDev actually flies their HL-20 or t/Space actually flies their CXV NASA can buy the better
> product off the shelf and NO tax dollars were spent on research & development.

$30+ billion for CEV, CLV, and SD-HLV is not "NO" tax dollars, Bill. The development funding SpaceDev wants isn't "NO" tax dollars, either, although it's undoubtedly much less than what you want to spend on Shuttle-derived.

> PS - - Go to the SpaceDev site for details.

Yes, I went there and read the press release. Nothing in it seems to contradict what Jim Benson has told me in the past.

Posted by Edward Wright at November 16, 2005 11:44 PM

> Jim Muncy writes at spacepolitics:

>> That creates an immediate demand, to quote Alan Lindenmoyer the new CCC Program Manager at JSC: We would buy it today if we could.

Which is obviously false, since NASA could buy today, but isn't doing so.

= = =

No, Edward.

Before Griffin, NASA could not buy commercial because Congress wouldn't say okay.

After Griffin (during Griffin) NASA is moving closer to saying yes.

Posted by Bill White at November 17, 2005 05:09 AM

Which is obviously false, since NASA could buy today, but isn't doing so.

Buy what? NewSpace or alt-space has yet to put a payload in LEO. Ain't nothing to buy, yet.

Just fly, and NASA will buy.

Posted by Bill White at November 17, 2005 06:40 AM

Ed -

I'm sorry to do this, but I must split my reply into two seperate parts.

First:

I'm still chuckling about the panache. Well done!

Second:

The other problem is the mechanics of the Hill. Basically, when it comes down to cases, the only people who are particularly engaged in space issues (to the extent they'll actually vote and excercise some leverage - beyond bully pulpit platitudes) are the people who have centers in their districts.

As a result, there is a large contituency inside the agency who are united by work on a family of projects (e.g. the Shuttle). That also means that there are several Congresspeople who have a fairly large number of jobs tied up in that program.

So, if you get rid of the shuttle - that's fine, but you still have to figure out how to keep those Congressfolks happy. Sure, 10 or 15 guys might love NASA, but space isn't going to bring them votes in thier district unless there are already NASA facilities or subcontractors in their district. So the only people who will reliably fight tooth and nail are those who already have a vested interest.

So, sure, you don't *have* to go with the ESAS/VSE layout. But scrapping ESAS is viable only so long as you can keep the same constituencies that you already have on your side happy. Scrapping the VSE, sure you *can* do it, but it's not altogether that often that space shows up in the White House as more than a quick blip on the horizon - so be careful about squandering the little political capital that has been accrued.

In terms of the broader question about whether or not the VSE will get me or you on the moon - it won't. But absent a truly commerically independent alt-space effort, nothing that's going to happen in the next 20 years (space elevator excepted) is going to change that. So the option boils down to something like this, you'll get ESAS and like it, or you'll get nothing and like it.

Personally, I'd rather see *anybody* go to the moon in the next 15 years, than another 15 year repeat of what we've had for the last 15 years - which is a whole lot of nobody going to the moon.

That all being said - it doesn't mean that the ESAS can't be tweaked, optimized, nudged, softsoaped, and otherwise massaged. But killing this thing off in the hopes that a new one will come to the fore is bad news. If you look at any major acquisition program, most of the time if it isn't already in competition with a similar program, getting it axed is not a good way to get it reincarnated later under a new guise - it's just a good way to kill it.

This is a classic example of the best being the enemy of the good.

Posted by G. R. Faith at November 17, 2005 07:27 AM

> A re-useable lunar lander would be a nice stepping-stone to a re-useable
> Earth-to-LEO vessel just as a lunar space elevator would help the learning
> curve with a Terran one.

As for the space elevator -- sorry, that requires fundamental breakthroughs in materials science.

I think you're both wrong. A lunar space elevator would not require fundamental breakthroughs. A space elevator on the moon could be made of steel and be plenty strong enough. Cars ascending a lunar elevator would be able to have much larger energy collectors than would be possible on an earth-based elevator. Therefore, the elevator cars would be completely different, the elevator itself would be completely different, and the lunar elevator would not help with the learning curve on the Terran one.

==================================

NewSpace or alt-space has yet to put a payload in LEO. Ain't nothing to buy, yet.

SeaLaunch has put 16 payloads into GEO, does that count?

Posted by Ed Minchau at November 17, 2005 09:40 AM

SeaLaunch has put 16 payloads into GEO, does that count?

Have they bid on ISS re-supply?

Is Zenit NewSpace or alt-space?

Posted by Bill White at November 17, 2005 10:36 AM

> No, Edward.

> Before Griffin, NASA could not buy commercial because Congress wouldn't say okay.

That's false. Congress said it was okay when they created and funded Alt Access five years ago. It was funded again in last year's budget. Members of Congress have expressed great frustration at NASA's footdragging.

Either you don't bother to learn the facts, or you know the facts and are trying to mislead people. Either way, I'm losing patience.

If you don't want to learn the facts, why are you here?

> After Griffin (during Griffin) NASA is moving closer to saying yes.

Apologists have been sayng that for five years now. "Moving closer to doing" something is not doing it.

Posted by Edward Wright at November 17, 2005 12:44 PM

Yes, but how *many* people would pay that? Numbers matter. If hundreds of dollars gets them a microscopic fleck of dirt, the number is likely to be quite small.

Good point Ed. As your post of E-bay actions supports, there's not a lot of takers either.

Posted by Mac at November 17, 2005 12:46 PM

> The other problem is the mechanics of the Hill. Basically, when it comes down to cases, the only people
> who are particularly engaged in space issues (to the extent they'll actually vote and excercise some
> leverage - beyond bully pulpit platitudes) are the people who have centers in their districts.

Ken Calvert, who heads the House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, does not have a center in his district. Neither did Dana Rohrabacher, the previous chairman. They exercise a great deal of leverage.

> So, sure, you don't *have* to go with the ESAS/VSE layout. But scrapping ESAS is viable only so long
> as you can keep the same constituencies that you already have on your side happy.

That doesn't necessarily follow. The Republican Study Group is appealling to a different constituency -- Americans who are concerned with overspending and the size of the Federal government.

There are more fiscal conservatives in America than NASA employees. So, if NASA insists on throwing money away, I don't think there's any guarantee that NASA employees will prevail.

> In terms of the broader question about whether or not the VSE will get me or you on the moon - it won't....
> So the option boils down to something like this, you'll get ESAS and like it, or you'll get nothing and like it

"ESAS or nothing" -- there's still no evidence that those are the only two options that Congress would support. Congress has supported NASA budgets for 40 years, while ESAS has only been around for a few months. What has changed in the past few months that makes it impossible for Congress to support anything else?

Assuming you're right -- if those are the only two choices, why should Americans prefer ESAS over "nothing" -- which doesn't really mean nothing but less government spending and lower taxes? That would mean more money for people to spend and invest in things they want (including space travel).

So, if the only choices are ESAS, which you admit will never get me into space, or a tax cut, which might -- I don't think you really want to go there.

> Personally, I'd rather see *anybody* go to the moon in the next 15 years
> than another 15 year repeat of what we've had for the last 15 years - which
> is a whole lot of nobody going to the moon.

You only want to "see" it? On television? Can't you do that right now, just by popping in a DVD? If the purpose of ESAS is simply to enhance the quality of television entertainment, I can think of a good many ways to do that for far less money.

Why should the government spend $17 billion a year just so Americans can see pictures of outer space and nothing to help make it possible for Americans to *go* to outer space?

> This is a classic example of the best being the enemy of the good.

Von Braun used that phrase to justify many things, including joining the Nazi party and working for Adolf Hitler. His Apollo program was expensive and unsustainable. It also helped kill development of reusable spacecraft like DynaSoar, setting us back 20 years. Just something to keep in mind.

Posted by Edward Wright at November 17, 2005 02:00 PM

>> Which is obviously false, since NASA could buy today, but isn't doing so.

> Buy what? NewSpace or alt-space has yet to put a payload in LEO. Ain't nothing to buy, yet.

Bill, you are a lawyer. Are you unaware of something called a contract for future services?

Nobody is going to be stupid enough to develop a vehicle for NASA unless NASA agrees to use it. In advance.

The Launch Service Purchase act says that NASA is to consider a service commercially available if it is currenly offered for sale *or* could be offered in response to an RFP.

If you want NASA should ignore the law and refuse to sign contracts for future services, then there will never be any takers for Alt Access. So, what is the purpose of the program? Just so you can say, "NASA tried but the private sector failed"?

> Just fly, and NASA will buy.

Again, that isn't true. Zero Gee Corp is flying parabolic flights in transport-class aircraft right now. Even when the private sector has a vehicle that's licensed by the FAA, carrying paying passengers, and available for NASA mission, NASA still prefers to buy and operate their own vehicles.

Posted by Edward Wright at November 17, 2005 02:18 PM

Von Braun used that phrase to justify many things, including joining the Nazi party and working for Adolf Hitler.

I call Godwin.

Posted by Ed Minchau at November 17, 2005 06:51 PM

As for the space elevator -- sorry, that requires fundamental breakthroughs in materials science.
Posted by Edward Wright at November 15, 2005 04:28 PM

That might depend on what you mean by 'fundamental'. I am no material expert but Edwards has been waving around a CNT composite that is not nearly strong enough but seems to be one valid way to make the ribbon.

Posted by Brian at November 18, 2005 09:56 AM

A lunar elevator does not require materials breakthrough.

Posted by Bill White at November 18, 2005 11:39 AM

A lunar elevator does not require materials breakthrough.

I understand that.

I also understand that there is no demand to send 'stuff' to the moon. Yes, demand is a problem for a terrestrial SE but .. you can point (without hand wavium) at an existing market for sending stuff to orbit and extrapolate that market if the cost were X. The market demand for 'stuff' on the moon is currently non-existant.

Posted by Brian at November 18, 2005 12:06 PM

Post a comment