Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

What a remarkable statement, Rand, on par with "fake but accurate."

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at April 13, 2006 01:26 PM

Hypergolics not methane remains a problem.

Posted by Bill White at April 13, 2006 01:28 PM

No, it's not on a par with that at all. We know that there are problems with ESAS (we've know that from the day it was announced, and NASA admits it in the sense that they continue to make changes to it). But this document didn't substantiate that, or necessarily provide any insight into them. I'm not surprised that you don't understand the distinction, though.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 13, 2006 01:31 PM

A work in progress does not translate into a problem plagued project on the brink of collapse. I am not surprised that you don't understand the distinction. You are as guilty as Dan Rather in wanted a story to be true so badly that you still believe it even when it has been retreacted by the people who first published it. Pathetic.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at April 13, 2006 01:34 PM

A work in progress does not translate into a problem plagued project on the brink of collapse.

When did I call this a "problem plagued project on the brink of collapse"? All I said is that ESAS has problems, just as I've always said. It remains true.

You are as guilty as Dan Rather

That's slandererous. Dan Rather continues to believe that the fake document is accurate. I believe that Bergin was correct to retract the story, which, as the post title indicates, was published too hastily, and was apparently being put out by someone with an axe to grind.

Again, I'm not surprised that you fail to see the distinction.

You're the one who wants to live in a fairy world where all is fine with NASA, Mark. The fact that this particular story isn't necessarily true doesn't make the problems go away.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 13, 2006 01:40 PM

Now you're parsing words--again. You admit that the document was not true, but still persist in believing that the underlining conclusion of it is true, even though you admit that there is no evidence.

As for me "living in a fairy tale", that jibe is beneath even you. You know better than that That snarky remark was something worthy of an Edward Wright. But then, it goes to show why the Internet Rocketeer Club can never be taken seriously.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at April 13, 2006 01:48 PM

You admit that the document was not true, but still persist in believing that the underlining conclusion of it is true, even though you admit that there is no evidence.

I don't know what you mean by the "underlining conclusion of it." If you mean that there are weight problems with ESAS, that's not news, and there's abundant evidence of it. If you mean that they're going to revamp the architecture to go with the Walmart LSAM or go through L-2, that's apparently not (yet) true.

I simply don't understand what you're whining about this time, Mark, but I deeply resent being compared to Dan Rather, with zero basis.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 13, 2006 01:52 PM

What "abundent evidence" is that? And if so, how serious?

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at April 13, 2006 01:56 PM

They've had to go to a five-segment booster for the stick, and reduce the diameter on the CM, because they didn't have the performance they needed. When you go from a higher-ISP system, like LOX/methane to a lower one like hypergolics, it doesn't take a rocket scientist (OK, well, maybe it does) to realize that the weight is going to grow, and they were already having problems hitting their mass properties targets, with little or no margin. This has been going on for months, Mark. Some of us have been paying attention.

Just because one piece of evidence is invalidated doestn't mean you throw out all of the rest. Or do you believe that OJ is innocent?

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 13, 2006 02:04 PM

We all know about that. But you have not demonstrated that the CEV has exceeded weight margins as a result. It looks like the proper adjustments have been made.

But then again, maybe there's a conspiracy to hide the truth that only you know. Anything is possible. But I don't see proof, either in the document or in anything you've posted.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at April 13, 2006 02:10 PM

Actually Mark, there's plenty of corroborating evidence that the general conclusion "ESAS is having problems" is true. We know from other sources that the decision to drop Methane and go with hypergolics caused a substantial increase in weight. Anyone who knows anything about the rocket equation could tell you that. We know that like some of us said, an air-startable SSME was a bad idea, and that NASA now wants to use a J-2S or J-2X for the job instead. We also know that the high cost of expending SSME's has been driving NASA toward RS-68s for the CaLV. Once again, anyone with engineering experience can tell you that going with a lower performance engine without increasing the propellant volume significantly is going to reduce your payload.

So we pretty much knew already that there was good evidence that the payloads were growing and that NASA's boosters were being deceasing in performance compared to the original plans. While the specific details in the retracted story are suspect, the general conclusion that ESAS is having a weight program that could impact cost or performance substantially is still quite solid.

So yes Mark, there's plenty of evidence other than this article that ESAS is a bad idea that's going to have a rough time accomplishing all that they claim it will in spite of spending as much money as it will. Even if every last thing in this article were bogus, the other evidence that we have does go to show that the politically motivated solution they picked is not very robust and is likely going to cost more and give less than what was originally claimed.

~Jon

Posted by Jonathan Goff at April 13, 2006 02:12 PM

Jon, all that being true, I still do not see any proof that the point has been reached (as implied by the article and embraced by a lot of people, including Rand) that the current plan has become unworkable. Maybe it has. Maybe it will. But what I do see is a number of people who are jumping to a preconceived conclusion based on idealogy. Maybe it will turn out in the end to be the right conclusion, but so far I see no evidence that it has yet.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at April 13, 2006 02:17 PM

I still do not see any proof that the point has been reached (as implied by the article and embraced by a lot of people, including Rand) that the current plan has become unworkable.

Please point to where I made that claim. Another man of straw. All I said is that ESAS has problems, and this particular story going away doesn't make the problems go away.

But if it is unworkable, I'd sure like to know that now, instead of five or ten years and billions of dollars from now (which was the case with both Shuttle and station). And it doesn't take an ideologue to point out the problems with it--space engineering experience is sufficient.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 13, 2006 02:25 PM

Mark,
Even the original article didn't say that ESAS was completely impossible, just that if they didn't substantially increase the performance of their LVs, or increase the performance of their landers, that they were going to have to descope a bit. That's not too surprising. Now, the specifics from that article were exaggerated, that doesn't mean that ESAS as currently planned is going to happen without significant changes. I'll go on record as saying that I don't think that the 1.5 Launch with a 2 SRB CaLV is going to be able to deliver 4 people to the moon for a 1 week stay.

The 1.5 Launch idea is a really low-margin inflexible way of handling things. Something like the dual launch some have mentioned, or gasp on-orbit assembly or drylaunch with refueling like others have championed would be much more flexible to inevitable future problems.

The problem with your dismisal of all ESAS problems is that just because something "isn't final", or is a "work in progress" doesn't mean the thing will work in the end. One could have handwaved away reports of X-33's problems or SLI's problems, or OSP's problems, or NASP's problems, or Shuttle's problems in the same way.

For entirely political reasons NASA has wedded itself to a welfare queen of a launch architecture, and while they may yet get some sort of hobbled lunar program out of the mess, it'll likely be even weaker and less useful than the pathetic offering Griffin was giving anyway with ESAS. But anyway, all of this is irrelevant to commercial space, and that is where the action is going to be, not centrally managed publicly funded moondoggles.

~Jon

Posted by Jonathan Goff at April 13, 2006 02:33 PM

"But if it is unworkable, I'd sure like to know that now, instead of five or ten years and billions of dollars from now (which was the case with both Shuttle and station)."

I certainly agree with that statement.

"And it doesn't take an ideologue to point out the problems with it--space engineering experience is sufficient."

It's not sufficient to answer a request for evidence with something that sounds like, "I'm the expert, so shut up!" What is required is soilid evidence as to why the current plan must inevitably fail despite what you call "problems" and what others might call process. (To me it's not really a problem if the solution is at hand--but may I'm being like you and parsing words (g).)

It seems to me that the real problem some people have with the current plan is not what fuel or engines it uses, but the fact that they don't find it sufficiently "commercial." That's why the same people keep bringing up the EELV lauinchers as the prefered answer, not because they are necessarily better but because of the quaint notion that a launch system developed under the auspicies of DOD is somehow "commercial."

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at April 13, 2006 02:33 PM

My problem with the current plan isn't that it's not commercial (though that is a problem, at least in the sense that it doesn't lend itself to outsourcing much, if any of it to commercial entities). My problem is that it's expensive, with high marginal cost, and extremely brittle, just as was the plan to use the Shuttle for everything back in the seventies. We need flexibility, redundancy and resiliency in our space transportation infrastructure. ESAS, as currently planned, has exactly the opposite characteristics.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 13, 2006 02:38 PM

Jon, I'm not dismissing anything. I'm well aware things could go terribly wrong at any time. I just don't see any evidence that it has or is on some kind of road to doing so.

By the way, I'm on the record as disdaining LockMart's X-33 from almost the beginning.

"For entirely political reasons NASA has wedded itself to a welfare queen of a launch architecture, and while they may yet get some sort of hobbled lunar program out of the mess, it'll likely be even weaker and less useful than the pathetic offering Griffin was giving anyway with ESAS. But anyway, all of this is irrelevant to commercial space, and that is where the action is going to be, not centrally managed publicly funded moondoggles."

Now we get to the real reason. ESAS is a government program, which is inherently evil and unworkable. Despite government's tendency to be wasteful and ineffecient, I have to disagree.

Of course it may not matter, as you suggest. I remember someone saying that a certain commercial space outfit would be on the Moon to greet NASA with a CNN crew.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at April 13, 2006 02:39 PM

Actually, Rand, wuite wrong. There will be quite a lot of comemrcial aspects to ESAS, particularlly in supporting the lunar base once it is established. The problem with right away relying on a commercial vehicle to go to the Moon is two fold. (1) There is no such thing. (2) Not is there likely to be in the time frame required. Ask any serious commercial entity to invest hundreds of millions (or likely billions) in a space vehicle for a program that might be cancelled by President Hillary Clinton, you might not like the reaction.

Nevertheless, if the ISS COTS succeeds in jump starting a Earth to Low Earth Orbit transportation infrastructure, I foresee (and will support) a similer arrangement for Earth to Moon transportation once the lunar base gets established. Then there would be something tangiable for commercial companies, many of which will already have experience in operating space vehicles, to shoot for.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at April 13, 2006 02:45 PM

The problem with right away relying on a commercial vehicle to go to the Moon is two fold. (1) There is no such thing. (2) Not is there likely to be in the time frame required.

No one proposed a "commercial vehicle to go to the moon," but do go on, since you seem to have a limitless supply of straw.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 13, 2006 02:49 PM

>>But then, it goes to show why the Internet Rocketeer Club can never be taken seriously.

ok .. ive always been puzzled by this. I have three simple questions.
1) can you name three members of this IRC club ?
2) is Rand part of that club ?
3) is Jon ?

Posted by kert at April 13, 2006 03:23 PM

Mark can't actually name people that he slanders, because then he'd have to actually defend the slander. It's easier to talk in vague terms about all of the nefarious things that those "internet rocketeers" do. I think that the "Internet Rocketeer Club" is sort of like the Elders of Zion.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 13, 2006 03:28 PM

> I still do not see any proof that the point has been reached (as implied
> by the article and embraced by a lot of people, including Rand) that
> the current plan has become unworkable. Maybe it has. Maybe it will.

That's a remarkable admission, Mark.

For many months now, you've been saying that ESAS is not just workable but the *only* plan that was workable. You claimed that not just as opinion but "fact."

You lambasted anyone who proposed any alternative. Dissidents were labelled as evil libertarians, fiscal conservatives, anti-human spaceflight, anti-GOP, anti-American, etc.

Yet, now you admit ESAS is "maybe" unworkable?

Wow.

Of course, you still don't place any burden on the big spenders to prove their plan is workable.

Instead, you still insist that those who favor cheaper approaches must prove the big spender's plan is *not* workable.

Wow, again. :-)

> But what I do see is a number of people who are jumping to a preconceived
> conclusion based on idealogy.

Are you looking in the mirror, Mark?

No matter how many changes NASA makes to its VSE plans, you insist that the latest version is the only plan that good Americans can support.

If that isn't a preconceived conclusion, I don't what is.

Why don't *you* provide some specifics, Mark? Tell us what changes *you* think NASA should make to ESAS.

My prediction -- there will be no specifics from Mark Whittington until *after* NASA announces the changes it wants to make. Then you will once again tell us that all good Americans must support those changes, no questions asked.

Anyone want to bet on it? :-)

Posted by Edward Wright at April 13, 2006 03:40 PM

"Mark can't actually name people that he slanders, because then he'd have to actually defend the slander. "

And yet Rand accuses me of slandering him.

"I think that the "Internet Rocketeer Club" is sort of like the Elders of Zion."

While implying that I'm an antisemite. Very droll.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at April 13, 2006 03:43 PM

And yet Rand accuses me of slandering him.

Well, OK, you do occasionally slander specific individuals, as well as the vast internet rocketeer conspiracy.

While implying that I'm an antisemite.

No, implying that you're a conspiracy monger.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 13, 2006 03:47 PM

Nope, you used a very specific term, which was not "conspiracy monger." I will own that you likely were not doing so consciously, but if I were you I would be careful about what insults you fling around.

The latter jibe about "conspiracy monger" is not true as well. The "Internet Rocketeer Club" is merely my way of short hand for people who like to bloviate on the net, taking shots at people who actually do build rockets (whether in the public or private sector), but who have not (in some cases yet, in other cases never will) build one themselves. People will a similer attitude do not constitute a "conspiracy." Unlike an implication I've heard from several people that a certain NASA manager was plotting to enrich his former company by making what they consider unwise hardware decisions.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at April 13, 2006 03:55 PM

It's threads like this that remind me why advanced USENET news readers had a plonkfile.

(Yes, fellow old f+rts, I know that wasn't the name, but I've seen claims in the past that the *real* name constituted a threat.)

I wonder if Greasemonkey has a script to perform the same service.

Posted by Glenn at April 13, 2006 03:56 PM

Glenn, this is why I do not permit comments on my own blog, otherwise this sort of thing would be a daily occurance.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at April 13, 2006 04:00 PM

Mark,

Sauce for the goose?

Posted by Glenn at April 13, 2006 04:06 PM

> Actually, Rand, wuite wrong. There will be quite a lot of comemrcial aspects to ESAS,

That depends on what you mean by "a lot."

If you think fewer than a dozen COTS flights to ISS is "a lot," then it's "a lot."

> The problem with right away relying on a commercial vehicle to
> go to the Moon is two fold. (1) There is no such thing.

Delta and Atlas rockets are quite capable of sending payloads to the Moon right now. And Space Adventures is offering commercial flights to the Moon right now.

The problem is not that Delta, Atlas, and Soyuz don't exist, Mark.

The problem is that NASA and its followers refuse to use them and insist on a more expensive approach to -- how do you put it? -- preserve the Shuttle workforce?

That aside, there are no socialist vehicles that can do what you want.

Yet, you have no doubt that NASA can build such a vehicle in the desired time frame.

You seem to have bought into Griffin's belief that government can't fail -- only private enterprise can fail.

There's abundant evidence that's not true.

Griffin himself ought to know that. He was chief technology officer at Orbital Sciences when Orbital spent $150 million of NASA money trying to build a suborbital vehicle and failed.

"Internet rocketeer" Burt Rutan spent only $25 million to build a suborbital vehicle that succeeded.

> (2) Not is there likely to be in the time frame required. Ask any serious
> commercial entity to invest hundreds of millions (or likely billions)
> in a space vehicle for a program that might be cancelled by President Hillary
> Clinton, you might not like the reaction.

Hm. A lunar lander has about the same delta-vee requirements as SpaceShip One. Interesting that you think one of the requirements for such a lander is that it cost billions of dollars. Although, I suppose your "serious" commercial entities would spend that much.

I also thought you believed VSE was going to survive, rather than being cancelled by Hillary.

> Nevertheless, if the ISS COTS succeeds in jump starting a Earth to Low
> Earth Orbit transportation infrastructure, I foresee (and will support)
> a similer arrangement for Earth to Moon transportation once the
> lunar base gets established.

A "similar arrangement"? You mean, an RFP that's rigged in favor of high-cost expendable vehicles? Severe restrictions on flight rates, that prevent any serious cost reductions? Token funding, while NASA simultaneously spends ten times as much money to develop its own vehicle to do the same thing?

Yes, I'm sure you can foresee and would support that.

It's too bad you can't foresee or support a future where private enterprise is more than "Stephin Fetchit" for an overpriced program to put a token number of NASA employees on the Moon.

Posted by Edward Wright at April 13, 2006 04:40 PM

Speaking of retractions, here's an article from 1999 that explains quite clearly what's wrong with VSE:

http://4 dw.net/aerden/marksbooks/spacepolicy1.htm

"The problem with assigning the current NASA with such a mission is that one of the iron rules of bureaucracy would likely come into play. That rule is that a project’s cost and scope would expand to fit the amount of people and resources available for it. Also, by reflex, NASA would want to use the space shuttle, which would burn up at least half a billion dollars from the very start. By designing an ad-hoc group to fit the project costs would be kept down."

"Since building a Saturn V or its equivalent would likely be too expensive and time consuming, existing (or soon to exist) boosters would be used, probably versions of the EELV planned by Boeing and Lockheed-Martin, as well as the BA-2 being build by Beal Aerospace. These boosters would lift individual parts (e.g. a command-service module, a lunar lander, and a booster module) of the lunar vehicle to low Earth orbit and assemble it there. The last of these launches would deliver a crew of two or three and the mission would proceed."

"Clearly recent experience teaches us that simply telling the current NASA to go forth and build a lunar base is the last thing anyone would want to do. For NASA the construction of a lunar base would be the work of decades and at least tens of billions of dollars. If you like how NASA has managed the International Space Station, you’ll love how it would build a lunar base."

Who was this NASA-bashing, fiscally conservative Internet rocketeer?

Believe it or not, it was Mark Whittington.

More proof that Republicans will only oppose pork when there's a Democrat in the White House.

Perhaps the only thing that can save VSE is for Hillary to be elected so Republican party animals can once again say "no" to wasteful excesses.

Posted by Mock Whittington at April 13, 2006 05:21 PM

My favourite is:

"How does one encourage the private sector development and settlement of the Moon? How does one transform a lunar base with its government paid researchers, contractors, and military personnel to the first community of humans beyond the Earth?

First the notion, prevalent at NASA, that the future can be micromanaged, should be set aside. Government central planners are very maladroit at forecasting, not to mention accommodating, business development and technological change. No one could have “planned” the current Internet, for example, nor the myriad technologies that support it. The best that government can do is to put into place policies-such as tax incentives-which encourage private sector development, but not shape it."

Wow. I wonder what happened...

Posted by Ken Murphy at April 13, 2006 05:44 PM

Wow. I wonder what happened...

What's to wonder, Ken? A Republican took the White House, that's what happened. As the commenter pointed out, Mark is a Republican first, and a space enthusiast second.

And yet he accuses us of being driven by ideology...

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 13, 2006 05:59 PM

Wow. I wonder what happened...

Where was Mr. Whittington's paycheck coming from then, and where is it coming from now?

Posted by Paul Dietz at April 13, 2006 06:03 PM

There seems to be not only a lot of delibarate confusion about my position on space matters, but on the nature of reality as it now exists.

The position I took in 1999 remains the same this year. My support for private sector space development, though, does not mean that I oppose publically funded space projects. Indeed, it is and has always has been my position that the two are linked and support one another. Therre is no inherent contradiction between the two.

For example, consider ISS. It is now universally conceded, even by NASA, that the project was mismanaged from the beginning. Yet, a facility in orbit exists and is about to be used as a means to enourage the development of a private launch industry, throught COTS. If that happens, we might get some worth out of the albatross after all.

I think that a lunar base will serve a similer purpose, not only for private transportation to the Moon, but in developing a private infrastructure there. NASA seems to be moving in that direction.

As for arguments over this method or that for going to the Moon, I have observed several facts.

First, every concievable idea has it's champions, many of them with a lot of training and experience in designing space systems. All of them will give one convincing reasons why their favorite method is the way to go and why others are, for one reason or another, flawed. So, the argument, "I'm a rocket scientist and you're not, so shut up" is not only fallacious, but down right insulting.

Second, every method of going back to the Moon has it's trade offs. I have noticed that advocates of one method or another will tend to hand wave away the disadvantages of their favorite, leading to endless arguments and even vitreol.

Third, given that NASA has been tasked with going back to the Moon and establishing a base, some method will have to be used. (Now, I know that there are many reading this who don't want that to happen and even wish there were no NASA. Too bad. It's happening. Get used to it.) Any method used will have it's critics.

Fourth, it is true that as a lay person, I lack the competence to thuroughly evaluate such matters as the advantages of one fuel or another, engines, and so on. But I can only listen to those who do and there are a lot of them who think that the ESAS method, on the balance, will work. If that consensus changes, then fine. But people are going to the Moon one way or another, some time or another. The sooner the better.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at April 13, 2006 10:02 PM

"If that happens, we might get some worth out of the albatross after all."

To quote the movie Serenity (I can't provide a link due to Rand's filters): "Way I remember it, albatross was a ship's good luck, 'til some idiot killed it."

The ISS is no albatross. Instead, it is the single biggest argument for disbanding NASA.

Posted by Ed Minchau at April 13, 2006 10:53 PM

Ed Minchau, thanks for bringing in that great philosopher, Captain Mal Reynolds, to set me straight (g). I have to disagree with the latter. It is sort of like saying that Vietnam was the single best argument for disbanding the military.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at April 14, 2006 04:21 AM

This spat is all illuminating and stuff, but can anybody provide a link to an archived version of the original NASA slides? I'd like to see what all the fuss is about.

Posted by Bill Chase at April 14, 2006 06:36 AM

http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/cer_reports.html

Posted by at April 14, 2006 08:43 AM

Mark, if the military spent most of its budget training its soldiers to run around in circles masturbating, then yeah it would be a good reason to disband the military.

Posted by Ed Minchau at April 14, 2006 08:54 AM

the argument, "I'm a rocket scientist and you're not, so shut up" is not only fallacious, but down right insulting.

I suppose it might be, had anyone actually made that argument. Just keep kicking the stuffing out of those men, though.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 14, 2006 08:58 AM

Bill-

I don't believe that "" linked you to the proper documents. I downloaded them so I could give them a bit more scrutiny, (turned out not to be necessary) and I'll send you a copy if you email me. Email address on my web page (click on my name after "posted by".

Also, I'd like to suggest that Rand and Mark stop reading each other's blogs, it will save them both a lot of time razzing each other.

Posted by Tom at April 14, 2006 10:45 AM

Post a comment