Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

One thing I found interesting about Marburger's statements was his observation that justifying space exploration by its connection with other goals (scientific, military, and economic), instead of treating exploration itself as the fundamental goal, is a radical departure from how space policy has previously been made. It's not clear to me if this shift has really been made in the public perception of VSE/ESAS.

Posted by Paul Dietz at March 21, 2006 11:47 AM

This demonstrates that VSE is simply a small (but vital) part of a larger vision, which is to open up the Moon and then the rest of the Solar System as a true new frontier.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at March 21, 2006 11:55 AM

Then what is that larger vision called, if not VSE? I think that, as many do, you're confusing VSE with ESAS.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 21, 2006 12:04 PM

If NASA deploys a robust LSAM capable of being upgraded to a re-useable vehicle, that would be worth the whole VSE all by itself.

Earth to the Moon involves several very different legs or segments:

(1) Earth to LEO
(2) LEO to LUNO
(3) LUNO to regolith
(4) Regolith to LUNO
(5) LUNO to LEO
(6) LEO to Earth

If NASA can accomplish legs (2) to (6) that will create demand for alt-space / NewSpace to lower the cost of leg (1). Without legs (2) to (6) there isn't enough money to be made in LEO for the private sector to finance t/Space, etc . . .

Robert Heinlein is right. LEO is halfway to anywhere, but if we stop halfway we really are no-where exactly as ISS has proven.

NASA builds / funds the LSAM and the lunar LOX production and even if NASA grossly overpays for Earth-to-LEO the private sector can fill in behind, afterwards.

Posted by Bill White at March 21, 2006 12:42 PM

Ooops, the whole ESAS, as Rand correctly notes.

Posted by Bill White at March 21, 2006 12:43 PM

Without legs (2) to (6) there isn't enough money to be made in LEO for the private sector to finance t/Space, etc . . .

This is utter unsupported (and unsupportable) nonsense, Bill. The strength with which you insist on believing mistaken notions doesn't increase in any way their validity.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 21, 2006 12:47 PM

> One thing I found interesting about Marburger's statements was
> his observation that justifying space exploration by its connection
> with other goals (scientific, military, and economic), instead of treating
> exploration itself as the fundamental goal, is a radical departure from how
> space policy has previously been made.

Not really. Every program since Apollo has been accompanied by grand descriptions of the glories that will result, if NASA just gets unlimited funding.

It would have been a radical departure if Marburger had actually considered the cost structure necessary to do the things he talks about. He thinks the preconditions are merely "long range planning... science studies... clever ideas."

Posted by Edward Wright at March 21, 2006 12:49 PM

Prove me wrong, Rand and I will be thrilled. A crow supper eaten with glee.

If LEO-only tourism is a sufficient and viable commercial market all by itself why hasn't it happened yet? Why does t/Space say they need ISS missions to close their business case?

Posted by Bill White at March 21, 2006 12:58 PM

Not really. Every program since Apollo has been accompanied by grand descriptions of the glories that will result, if NASA just gets unlimited funding.

I think you are confusing the policy framework (VSE) with NASA's specific implementation (ESAS). What's interesting here is the explicit listing of scientific, security, and economic justifications as the fundamental goals. Quoting Marburger:

As I see it, questions about the vision boil down to whether we want to incorporate the Solar System in our economic sphere, or not. Our national policy, declared by President Bush and endorsed by Congress last December in the NASA authorization act, affirms that, "The fundamental goal of this vision is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program." So at least for now the question has been decided in the affirmative.

The wording of this policy phrase is significant. It subordinates space exploration to the primary goals of scientific, security, and economic interests. Stated this way, the "fundamental goal" identifies the benefits against which the costs of exploration can be weighed. This is extremely important for policy making because science, security, and economic dimensions are shared by other federally funded activities. By linking costs to these common benefits it becomes possible, at least in principle, to weigh investments in space exploration against competing opportunities to achieve benefits of the same type.

You should be looking at this as a good thing, Edward, since you are constantly weighing NASA's plans against your proposed alternatives, and since (I presume) you are all in favor of expansion of the US economy into space.

Posted by Paul Dietz at March 21, 2006 12:59 PM

If LEO-only tourism is a sufficient and viable commercial market all by itself why hasn't it happened yet?

For many reasons. Is it your strange belief that the mere existence of a potential market is a sufficient condition that it should therefore be satisfied, now, and at all times in the past?

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 21, 2006 01:03 PM

This feels a bit like deja vu.

Conceptually, there were lots of plans for mining the moon back in the 80s. It's just that most of them had no real plan for how to get there, and included things like multi-kilo-ton mass drivers from the get-go to get regolith to orbit for construction purposes and huge soil-cracking monsters to eke out small amounts of O2 from the dirt.

The concepts haven't completely changed, it's just that the proposers are more serious and realistic now and technology, economics, and demand are evolving to make it feasible.

Posted by Big D at March 21, 2006 01:19 PM

> If NASA deploys a robust LSAM capable of being upgraded to a re-useable vehicle,
> that would be worth the whole VSE all by itself.

Why is it worth that much? A lunar lander could be deployed for far less than $100 billion, Bill -- if NASA had any interest in doing so.

> If NASA can accomplish legs (2) to (6) that will create demand for alt-space
> / NewSpace to lower the cost of leg (1). Without legs (2) to (6) there isn't
> enough money to be made in LEO for the private sector to finance t/Space, etc . . .

That's the Bill White religion. You haven't shown us a single number to justify that claim.

Is that the real purpose of VSE, Bill? To fund trash talk about the emerging spaceflight industry?

Of course, another part of the Bill White religion is that t/Space, etc. are *NOT ALLOWED* to participate in legs (2) through (6). Only NASA is allowed in the "critical path."

> Robert Heinlein is right. LEO is halfway to anywhere, but if we stop
> halfway we really are no-where exactly as ISS has proven.

Don't you ever get tired of red herrings, Bill?

We don't want to "stop" anywhere. We want to make it possible for *more* people to go into space, to *more* destinations, with *more* safety*, at *lower* cost.

It's your chums at NASA who want to stop progress and go back to flying Apollo capsules on ELVs because "it's the only thing we know that works."

> NASA builds / funds the LSAM and the lunar LOX production and even if NASA
> grossly overpays for Earth-to-LEO the private sector can fill in behind, afterwards.

So, you admit that NASA is going to grossly overpay Boeing, Lockheed, and ATK? Thank you for that admission, Bill.

Now, can you please explain *why* the US government should grossly overpay for dangerous, unreliable, antiquated ELVs?

Posted by Edward Wright at March 21, 2006 01:46 PM

Earth to the Moon involves several very different legs or segments:

(1) Earth to LEO
(2) LEO to LUNO
(3) LUNO to regolith
(4) Regolith to LUNO
(5) LUNO to LEO
(6) LEO to Earth

LEO to Earth is easier than Earth to LEO. So if alt-space can get 1), they certainly can nail 6).

Posted by Karl Hallowell at March 21, 2006 01:49 PM

>> Our national policy, declared by President Bush and endorsed by Congress
>> last December in the NASA authorization act, affirms that, "The fundamental
>> goal of this vision is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic
>> interests through a robust space exploration program."

> You should be looking at this as a good thing, Edward, since you are constantly
> weighing NASA's plans against your proposed alternatives, and since (I presume)
> you are all in favor of expansion of the US economy into space.

There's a difference between the US economy and the NASA budget.

Why is it a good thing that the Presidential science advisor equates national space policy with the NASA authorization, overlooking DoD, DoT, DoC, and the commercial sector?

Posted by Edward Wright at March 21, 2006 02:14 PM

Having (2) through (6) in place makes (1) more profitable. If NASA wants to spend money on lunar LOX and LSAMs why stop them?

Otherwise, please do (1) as fast and as cheaply as humanly possible.

Posted by Bill White at March 21, 2006 03:44 PM

So, you admit that NASA is going to grossly overpay Boeing, Lockheed, and ATK? Thank you for that admission, Bill.

Ain't no admission. I've believed this for years and this is fully true for EELVs as well.

= = =

To deploy an LSAM and lunar LOX will give alt-space and New Space a market for MAKING MONEY. Why is that bad?

(2) through (6) is much easier than (1). Maybe NASA can actually do that, leaving the hard part to Musk and Rutan, et. al. Why is that bad?

Posted by Bill White at March 21, 2006 03:49 PM

Let's be clear.

If Congress proposed giving Burt Rutan $10 billion or $50 billion and said "Do what you want, impress us" I personally would support that. We could add lots of milestones and stuff like but I'd trust Burt with my share of that money.

Congress WON'T do that. So we get what we can from ESAS, like lunar LOX and a LSAM.

Congress WON'T abolish NASA, either.

Posted by Bill White at March 21, 2006 03:57 PM

Yes, Bill, we know. Congress won't abolish NASA. Neither will Congress demand that NASA provide results, other than jobs (while maintaining a facade of progress to be trumpeted by PAO, in their pathetic but good-enough way), because what NASA does is not fundamentally important to Congress or the nation, other than the job creation. That's why we can't depend on either Congress, or NASA.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 21, 2006 04:01 PM

My original post:

= IF = NASA can give us lunar LOX and an LSAM, it will make it easier for the private sector to make money in space.

What's the argument with that?

= = =

I also agree that we cannot and should not = rely = upon Congress or NASA. Get what we can (lunar LOX & a working LSAM) but do not rely upon them.

Now, if some wealthy Americans bought Soyuz and Proton carrier rockets and beat NASA back to the Moon, U.S. public opinion pressure to unleash America's NewSpace entrepeneurs would be quite substantial, in my opinion.

Good plot for a novel. ;-)

Posted by Bill White at March 21, 2006 04:16 PM

Soyuz and Proton?

I don't think that would go over quite as well domestically. There would also be ITAR issues.

Besides, I don't think it's necessary to use those to beat NASA to the moon. I've seen a few ideas sketched out already based on F9S9s, which should be available in a few years as long as nothing blows up before then--and that probably won't be the only alt-space orbital lift option by then.

(1) through (6) aside, (1) is big because succeeding in it builds the foundation for everything else, and brings confidence and imagination and investor dollars into the picture. Successful independent cheap launches will tend to open up some possibilities (just not as many as the Field of Dreamers expect).

Posted by Big D at March 21, 2006 04:27 PM

> Having (2) through (6) in place makes (1) more profitable.

Bill, would it be too much for you to write real sentences instead of legal gobbledy-gook?

Having ESAS in place makes Earth-to-LEO launch more profitable? For whom?

How does it do that when ESAS does not allow private enterprise to do *any* Earth-to-LEO launches?

First, you declare that political correctness demands NASA do the launches itself. Then you quack about how "profitable" this is going to make private launch companies.

Are you really unable to see the contradiction there, Bill, or do you think you're pulling a sly one?

Posted by Edward Wright at March 21, 2006 04:50 PM

>> So, you admit that NASA is going to grossly overpay Boeing, Lockheed,
>> and ATK? Thank you for that admission, Bill.

> Ain't no admission. I've believed this for years and this is fully
> true for EELVs as well.

Sounds like an admission to me.

Now, could you please answer the question? Why do you support "gross overpayments" to NASA contractors rather than competitive launch services?

> To deploy an LSAM and lunar LOX will give alt-space and New Space a market
> for MAKING MONEY. Why is that bad?

Because ESAS will not allow New Space companies to deploy LSAM or any other payload. Only NASA's Shuttle-derived launchers would be used for that.

Do you really not understand that, Bill, or are you being deliberately dense?

If you honestly think ESAS would allow private companies to launch lunar landers, you need to do some more reading to find out what you're supporting.

As for "deploying lunar LOX" -- I don't understand what that means.

> (2) through (6) is much easier than (1).

Sigh. Will the party of the first part please desist from writing like a legal twerp? :-)

That's another interesting admission, Bill. Griffin's argument for not allowing private enterprise to do beyond-LEO transportation said that it was harder and only the government could do it.

Now, since you say beyond-LEO transportation is easier than Earth-to-LEO transport, why shouldn't private enterprise be allowed to do all of it?

> Maybe NASA can actually do that, leaving the hard part to Musk and Rutan,
> et. al. Why is that bad?

Let me get this straight. You're arguing that NASA should do beyond-LEO transportation because they aren't competent enough to do Earth-to-LEO transport???

Even if that makes sense, ESAS calls for NASA to build not one but *two* Shuttle-derived Earth-to-LEO vehicles.

Posted by Edward Wright at March 21, 2006 05:10 PM

First, you declare that political correctness demands NASA do the launches itself. Then you quack about how "profitable" this is going to make private launch companies.

I do not declare this. In fact I oppose this.

Flying lunar tourists will be a huge profit source. No lunar LOX, no re-useable LSAM? No lunar tourists. No lunar LOX, no re-useable LSAM? No exploitation of lunar resources as described by Marburger, which was the original point of the post.

I support NASA doing something, anything beyond LEO and just as soon as Elon flies, NASA should buy Falcons. As many as it needs. If SpaceDev flies its HL-20, NASA should buy that also. But NASA needs to get back to the Moon whether or not alt-space produces.

= = =

Earth return at lunar velocities is a whole other problem. A NASA return to the moon solves that.

Of course the private sector can do that.

But who will pay for it? Not allowing and not giving tax dollars are very different things. I firmly OPPOSE all legal restrictions on private sector Americans flying beyond LEO.

Posted by Bill White at March 21, 2006 07:19 PM

Space tourism demand requires that space tourism prices be 1) affordable, 2) financable (not necessarily the same thing). That in turn requires breakthroughs in economics of space which in turn requires funding of new businesses and R&D. There having been very little market research at any price point other than $12 million to $20 million, it is not unreasonable to belief that there could be ten times as many or ten times as few passengers as Futron projects. $700 million/year in 20 years will be less than 1/100,000 of the global economy. There are plenty of other things to invest in (like real estate and SPDRs) that are less speculative. I believe a test by doing is only a little more expensive than an awesome market study of same.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at March 21, 2006 07:57 PM

> First, you declare that political correctness demands NASA do the launches itself. Then you quack
> about how "profitable" this is going to make private launch companies.

> I do not declare this. In fact I oppose this.

Huh? You now oppose Griffin's ESAS plan?

I had hoped you would recover your sanity, but this seems so -- sudden.

> Flying lunar tourists will be a huge profit source. No lunar LOX, no re-useable LSAM? No lunar tourists.

I suspect that lunar tourists are more likely to use a vehicle that comes out of NASA's Lunar Lander Challenge than LSAM.

> No lunar LOX, no re-useable LSAM? No exploitation of lunar resources as described by Marburger,
> which was the original point of the post.

Again, I think you attach too much importance to a NASA acronym.

> I support NASA doing something, anything beyond LEO and just as soon as Elon flies, NASA should
> buy Falcons. As many as it needs. If SpaceDev flies its HL-20, NASA should buy that also.

Why does NASA need to buy HL-20s? Why can't NASA buy rides, and let private enterprise run the airlines?

> But NASA needs to get back to the Moon whether or not alt-space produces.

Okay, the sanity is slipping again. Why does NASA "need" to go back to the Moon, if no one else gets to go?

Why are NASA employees more deserving of cool vacations than, say, Bill White?

> Earth return at lunar velocities is a whole other problem. A NASA return to the moon solves that.

Now you've lost it entirely. How does making it a NASA mission solve the reentry problem? What makes you think it is an unsolved problem, anyway? Didn't NASA do that 40 years ago?

> Of course the private sector can do that.

> But who will pay for it? Not allowing and not giving tax dollars are very different things. I firmly OPPOSE
> all legal restrictions on private sector Americans flying beyond LEO.

I'm confused. Are you saying you're against giving tax dollars, or that you aren't against it?

If you're against it, doesn't that prevent NASA from going?

If you aren't against it, why not consider alternatives such as the prizes proposed by Newt Gingrich, Pete Worden, et. al.?

Posted by Edward Wright at March 21, 2006 10:03 PM

I really liked Marburgers speech for the following reasons.

This is the first truly substantive description of a "government" space policy since the end of the Apollo era.

In the Apollo era the goal was clear. Beat the Russians.

I have read a lot of papers from the early 70's and NASA dramatically shifted its focus from the policy decisions made at the end of the Vietnam war. NASA shifted into a science agency, tasked to help monitor Earth's climate (that was a far greater priority then than now), and to space science as well as some commercial stuff when the Shuttle comes. The Shuttle program effectively forstalled commercialization by the cost and the lack of reliable, frequent access to space so all that was left was science.

NASA shifted into an agency that used the "science" value of any project as its primary criterion of value. That is to be expected when scientists ran all of the peer review committees. This has continued to this day. Rare is the mention inside of the agency concerning the exploration and development of the "resources" of the inner solar system. There is a disconnect between the operational agency and national policy now. Marburger wants to do a historic shift from science to economic development. This is the key.

What should happen is that a white paper be written describing what a commercial supporting agency that would use scientific instrumnents to do a comprehensive economic analysis of the Moon, Mars, and the minor planets. The result of this survey would inform decision makers on the best way to craft policy in order to incentivise private enterprise to take the risk necessary to make this new policy work.

With Marburgers speech as the foundation of a new NASA policy, the agency would be a technology supporter, developing things that private enterprise can't reasonably raise larger sums of capital to develop on their own.

What would this "new" agency look like and what missions would it fly?

It would support the full investigation of the Moon for resources. This includes instruments to sense many wavebands, particle energies, and magnetic fields. The same thing would happen with the asteriods. We should build a standardized bus for inner solar system exploration inside the orbit of the inner main asteroid belt. Many of these systems would be flown to take an inventory of the resources of at least 100 asteroids in 10 years, building on data from an enhanced ground based astronomy campaign to determine the spectra of at least 50,000 objects from which the 100 most promising for resources will be chosen.

This is just a good start. It is time to get serious about space.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Wingo at March 21, 2006 11:24 PM

Doesn't anyone get it yet?

Nobody is ever going to be able to prove this, but the mission of NASA is to prevent or delay, if at all possible and by any means necessary, large-scale access to space.

Why would the US government want that? Simple. Large-scale space access and space colonisation will eventually, maybe in 20-30 years, maybe a century, mean the end of the American Imperium.

Posted by Ian Campbell at March 22, 2006 01:50 AM

Doesn't anyone get it yet?

We get it. Your tinfoil hat is about half a dozen sizes too tight.

Posted by Paul Dietz at March 22, 2006 06:30 AM

How many people here actually attended any part of the symposium? I was there for both days.

Griffin's address on Tuesday also had some interesting points. He mentioned how Robbert Goddard had, while launching the first liquid fuelled rocket, had also in some ways held up progress in the field. Goddard had this habit of being quite secretive and not sharing his discoveries with others. That meant that other people had to rediscover some of Goddard's accomplishments. Griffin then went on to say that NASA was now committed to being open and collaborative. This is as important as what Marburger said.

What are people's reactions to that?

Posted by Chuck Divine at March 22, 2006 07:16 AM

What are people's reactions to that?

NASA can't set aside ITAR. But anyway, NASA's main problem hasn't been that it's been secretive; its problem has been that it's been ineffective, in both selection of goals and means it has chosen to achieve those goals.

Posted by Paul Dietz at March 22, 2006 07:50 AM

"But anyway, NASA's main problem hasn't been that it's been secretive; its problem has been that it's been ineffective, in both selection of goals and means it has chosen to achieve those goals."

Deliberately ineffective?

The USAF wants to be the only organisation with access to space. The excuse being national security, the real reason being the same sort of empire-building all large bureaucratic organisations indulge in.

If space access is so expensive that only governments can afford it, then only governments will have access to space.

The latest rearguard action on this front is the attempt to strangle private passenger space travel at birth, by subjecting it to the same sort of regulation as commercial airlines and refusing to allow even informed passengers to opt out of said regulation.

Never mind, the way NASA is going the Chinese will get there first anyway.

When the world's largest dictatorship has the ability to drop rocks on your heads at escape velocity whenever it wants, what price national security then? I'm glad to be British; they probably won't bother with us.

But the military are not exactly known for being forward-looking, and politicians only look to the next election.

Thus the 21st century will belong to China. And they will deserve it.

Posted by Ian Campbell at March 22, 2006 09:55 AM

Doesn't anyone get it yet?

We get it. Your tinfoil hat is about half a dozen sizes too tight.

Yes, it was a looney post, but not 100% looney. I doubt many people in the State Department are enthusiastic about cheap access to space -- not because of what it would do to "American Imperium" a century from now, but because of US's enemies getting hold of that technology in the immediate future.

Posted by Ilya at March 22, 2006 09:55 AM

Deliberately ineffective?

Only in the sense that local decisions have led to a globally suboptimal outcome. Don't imagine grand conspiracies when simple human selfishness and organizational entropy suffice as explanations.

Posted by Paul Dietz at March 22, 2006 11:24 AM

> Griffin then went on to say that NASA was now committed to being open
> and collaborative. This is as important as what Marburger said.

Is that why the ESAS planning process took place behind closed doors, with no opportunity for outside input? And why no one but NASA is allowed to collaborate on anything in his "critical path"?

Griffin says three contradictory things every morning before breakfast.

Posted by Edward Wright at March 22, 2006 12:05 PM

> We should build a standardized bus for inner solar system exploration inside
> the orbit of the inner main asteroid belt. Many of these systems would be
> flown to take an inventory of the resources of at least 100 asteroids in 10
> years, building on data from an enhanced ground based astronomy campaign
> to determine the spectra of at least 50,000 objects from which the 100 most
> promising for resources will be chosen.

An interesting plan, Dennis, but would NASA be the best agency to implement it?

NASA wants to do "cutting edge" scientific exploration. Their natural interests run toward big, expensive, high-risk missions to spectacular, distant targets: Pluto, Europa, even Mars. How do you sustain NASA's interest in the asteroids (which is slight to begin with) for 100 missions?

The sort of routine mineral exploration you're advocating seems more aligned with the interests of the US Geological Survey. Another possibility, given the potential threat asteroids pose to the United States, would be DoD. These missions could also be used to help develop and test military reconnaissance capabilities. Remember Clementine?

Posted by Edward Wright at March 22, 2006 12:44 PM

I am fully aware of the scientific bent in NASA. That was part of the point.

A "government" policy change that put economic development first would change the nature of the peer review process. No longer would the university or government research lab types run the peer review boards but you would bring in outside people from the mining, energy, and construction industries. This is what ASCE tried to do originally with their "space" series of conferences.

I would say let NASA have their piece of the pie but introduce a data purchase act that is pay on delivery but with enough cash to make it worthwhile to investors. The policy would set up the missions and the peer review teams would certify the instruments on the front side and then review the data on the back end for validity. The the university research community would get the data to reduce and get paid for it.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Wingo at March 22, 2006 07:22 PM

> I would say let NASA have their piece of the pie but introduce a data purchase act that is pay on delivery
> but with enough cash to make it worthwhile to investors.

Dennis, Dana Rohrabacher has already introduced a Space Prize Act that, while not specifically tied to data purchases, could fund such things.

The problem now is how to get it passed into law (and then to get appropriators to fund it).

Posted by Edward Wright at March 22, 2006 10:26 PM

> The USAF wants to be the only organisation with access to space.

Evidence?

> The latest rearguard action on this front is the attempt to strangle private passenger space travel
> at birth, by subjecting it to the same sort of regulation as commercial airlines and refusing to allow
> even informed passengers to opt out of said regulation.

What attempt is that? Neither US law nor FAA regulations subject space passengers to the same requirements as commercial airline passengers. No one at AST is advocating that, including the Air Force detailee. (Did they forget to tell him about the conspiracy? :-)

> Never mind, the way NASA is going the Chinese will get there first anyway.

??? So? NASA has nothing to do with commercial spaceflight?

> When the world's largest dictatorship has the ability to drop rocks on your heads at escape
> velocity whenever it wants, what price national security then? I'm glad to be British; they
> probably won't bother with us.

I wouldn't count on that. Britain may have given them Hong Kong, but appeasement only works for so long.

Not that dropping objects from Shenghou capsules is a serious threat (nor would such objects travel at "escape velocity"). That would be a very cost-ineffective way of deliverying weapons.

Orbital bombardment only makes sense if you have routine, low-cost access to space. The fact that the Chinese are wasting money on Shenghou capsules and ELVs is actually encouraging, because that's money they aren't spending on spaceplanes that would be militarily effective.

> But the military are not exactly known for being forward-looking, and politicians only look to the next election.

We had the same problem with aviation in the 30's. We overcame it before, and we can do it again.

> Thus the 21st century will belong to China. And they will deserve it.

It sounds like you've allowed the European disease (anti-Americanism) to color your thinking.

Either that, or you've been reading Comrade Whittington. :-)

Posted by Edward Wright at March 22, 2006 10:54 PM

Edward,

The Americans are, or should be, thirty or forty years ahead of the Chinese. You got to the stage that China is at now in around 1975, maybe earlier. Thirty years is roughly the difference between the Wright flyer and the B-17.

And you have done nothing with it. The Shuttle is a multi-billion dollar boondoggle designed around the needs of the USAF for large single payloads to LEO. And it takes fifty thousand people to get it launched.

And the space program is a creaky mess, because when Kennedy committed the USA to space everyone had to have a slice of the pork, so facilities are scattered thousands of miles apart and you have to transport major components, at enormous expense.

Sure, maybe delivering inert payloads from orbit is ineffective (though I disagree - ever heard of the Thor project?) but if the Chinese do it right, and they get a major presence in space, then they can indeed drop rocks at escape velocity - and there will be damn all you can do about it.

This is not exactly a new idea, either - it was mooted by a science fiction writer in the 1950's! Check out Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress".

Or slightly later, but not much (1980s?) Pohl's "Mining the Oort".

Gerard K O'Neill had a timetable, thought realistic by experts, involving the first orbital construction shack and industrial Moonbase in about 1985. It's now 2006 and we can't even safely get to LEO!

The problem of democracies is that their leaders need to get re-elected, so they can't and don't think past the next election, and they sacrifice the country's interests in order to get votes. Sometimes local votes.

America is not the only country with this problem - witness yesterday's UK budget, packed full of bribes for the proles that will appear just in time for the next election, and that those who actually work for a living will have to pay for.

China is not a democracy, so they can and will make long-term plans to benefit their country.

As for Britain's attitude to space, well, the situation is quite simple. We can't afford it - Britain has much lower GNP than America, and a bloated welfare budget to pay for. As for the European space effort, it's a worse bureaucratic mess than NASA. I get their bulletin regularly, and it's packed full, in every issue, of huge articles about new data-sharing and administrative structures, rather than actual missions.

Posted by Ian Campbell at March 23, 2006 11:17 AM

> You got to the stage that China is at now in around 1975,

And that proves the superiority of the Chinese system???

> The Shuttle is a multi-billion dollar boondoggle designed around
> the needs of the USAF for large single payloads to LEO. And it takes
> fifty thousand people to get it launched.

Actually, it's more like 17,000. If you're going to carry on about how stupid Americans are, you should try to get your facts correct.

> And the space program is a creaky mess,

Burt Rutan would disagree.

Oh, you thought NASA had the only space program in America? How quaint. :-)

> Sure, maybe delivering inert payloads from orbit is ineffective (though
> I disagree - ever heard of the Thor project?) but if the Chinese do it right

Yes, and I know Dr. Jerry Pournelle, who invented. He doesn't advocate dropping them from Shenghou capsules. Far from it.

> This is not exactly a new idea, either - it was mooted by a science fiction
> writer in the 1950's! Check out Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress".

I knew Heinlein, too -- and if you read TMiaHM, you won't find any of the characters travelling to the Moon on disintegrating totem poles.

> China is not a democracy, so they can and will make long-term plans to benefit their country.

The United States is not a democracy -- it's a republic.

That aside -- yes, Communist dictatorships are very good at making Five Year plans. So what? The plans are seldom worth the paper they're written on. Centralized planning is much less efficient than you imagine.

> As for Britain's attitude to space, well, the situation is quite simple.
> We can't afford it - Britain has much lower GNP than America

That doesn't follow. You don't need a GNP as large as America's to have a space program. Richard Branson has one. He's British, isn't he?

Posted by Edward Wright at March 23, 2006 02:33 PM

Ed says

Dennis, Dana Rohrabacher has already introduced a Space Prize Act that, while not specifically tied to data purchases, could fund such things.

The problem now is how to get it passed into law (and then to get appropriators to fund it).

______________________________________________________________

You are missing the point. Dana said what he said pretty much in a vaccuum. This can be the beginning of a debate to change national policy which would liberate NASA from being a science driven organization which it has been now for 35 years into an agency who's reason for being is to support the economic development of the solar system. It is also much bigger than NASA in that if it is government policy then laws can be crafted to do data purchase, prizes, and other mechanisms that will work together to support commercial space.

I am extremely wary of transitory programs with the "hoop, hoop, hoop, hammer" result (jump through this hoop, now this one, now this one, now smack! we don't have any money right now) response as is common at NASA.

Marburger's speech is the first substantive shot in changing the culture of how the government (NASA is only a part of the government) deals with space and space development. Congress passing laws like ZGZT, the space prize, data buys, and other non FAR contracts are the only way to support that new sphere of economic activity.

That is the important thing.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Wingo at March 23, 2006 08:18 PM

> This can be the beginning of a debate to change national policy which would liberate NASA

There's been a whole line of messiahs who said they were going to liberate NASA. Goldin. O'Keefe. Spudis. Aldridge. Griffin.

NASA doesn't want to be liberated. As Dennis Wingo once said, "NASA will do whatever NASA's going to do."

Posted by Edward Wright at March 23, 2006 11:46 PM

Yet again thanks for missing the point. Yes NASA is going to do what NASA is going to do. That is the point. Marburger has come out with a brilliant restating of "government" policy on space. NASA is ignoring that. As one scientist told me a couple of weeks ago, "Two years after the VSE came out NASA is still arguing about what it means"

Griffin in a small way is trying to at least pander to the VSE by supporting the COTS procurement and only time will tell how that turns out.

The point is that the only way to change NASA is to change the peer review process. Incorporating, as a core value, economic development and by deliberately choosing peer review teams not only from the science community but from other industries interested in the economic development of space this change can start to happen.

However, it does not even have to go through NASA. What would be just as effective is a congressional law with data purchases, prizes, and other means of fostering economic development. These would be directed to have economic goals and then that sets the criterion by which proposals would be evaluated, maybe by the department of commerce with participation by the DoD strategic materials interests.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Wingo at March 24, 2006 05:03 AM

Griffin in a small way is trying to at least pander to the VSE by supporting the COTS procurement and only time will tell how that turns out.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Wingo at March 24, 2006 05:03 AM

> However, it does not even have to go through NASA. What would be just as
> effective is a congressional law with data purchases, prizes, and other
> means of fostering economic development. These would be directed to have
> economic goals and then that sets the criterion by which proposals
> would be evaluated, maybe by the department of commerce with participation
> by the DoD strategic materials interests.

Dennis, that makes a lot more sense than trying to "fix" NASA.

NASA doesn't want to be fixed. NASA wants another beer. :-)

Posted by Edward Wright at March 24, 2006 12:25 PM

Post a comment