Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

The way that the X Prize foundation is running the Lunar Lander competition is wrong. It is basically being run as a consolation prize for the X-prize contenders. There is absoulutely no possible way that a new team, starting from scratch could possibly compete for that prize.

If it is the case that there is no way that a new contender could compete then why would any fair prize competition have its first run this October?

Peter up to his old tricks again.

Posted by Max Q at May 15, 2006 01:10 PM

I've looked very seriously at entering the challenge,and the way it is shaping up with AST and the xprize cup it's impossible in the allowed time frame.

The entire prize is a gift to people already developing the capability.

The AST reccomnded date to submit a experimental license application is April 23rd, the legal drop dead date is June 22, but AST strongly hinted that any application dropped at their door step that late will be rejected.

They also want to see you fly the full 90 or 180 seconds before the actual event, so you will need to get TWO ast permits one for XPC and one for where ever you intend to fly before that.

If the first contest was one year from october then there is a chance, but as it is it's not going to be much of a contest.

Posted by Paul Breed at May 15, 2006 01:23 PM

'I'm sure that Mark Whittington will now attack Newt as an "Internet rocketeer."'

And, as you are from time to time, you would be wrong. Newt is a serious guy, unlike some folks. He does not, for instance, make a political issue out of rocket design choices or attack space entrepeneurs for their business plans.

I think Newt is wrong when he suggests that NASA just ought to be replaced with prizes and tax breaks. It's not only politically unlikely, but is unsound in the sense that there is a use for a government agency that does cutting edge exploration and research. I am, however, very much in favor of increasing prizes and enacting tax breaks, like Zero Gravity, Zero Taxes, for example.

Posted by Mark R Whittington at May 15, 2006 01:37 PM

> Newt is a serious guy, unlike some folks. He does not, for instance,
> make a political issue out of rocket design choices or attack space
> entrepeneurs for their business plans.

You mean, Newt doesn't behave like Mike Griffin or Mark Whittington?

Is this Mark's defense for his past behavior? That he was not serious when he made a political issue out of defending ESAS?

Stick booster and Shuttle-derived were just bad jokes?

> I think Newt is wrong when he suggests that NASA just ought to be replaced
> with prizes and tax breaks. It's not only politically unlikely, but is
> unsound in the sense that there is a use for a government agency that does
> cutting edge exploration and research.

Rebuilding Apollo is cutting edge exploration and research??? I guess this removes all doubt. Mark must be joking.

> I am, however, very much in favor of increasing prizes and enacting
> tax breaks, like Zero Gravity, Zero Taxes, for example.

Unlike Bush and Griffin, who decrease prizes in their current budget and are completely uninterested tax breaks?

Has Mark turned against big-spending "compassionate conservatives" or is this another joke?

Posted by Mock Whittington at May 15, 2006 03:29 PM

You know, I really wish that "Mock" (and I think I know who he is; his style might as well be a signature) would have the courage the make his jibes under his own name. But then he and likeminded folks always did lack seriousness.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at May 15, 2006 03:37 PM

or attack space entrepeneurs for their business plans.

This taboo seems kind of strange to me. Why would you not discount someone without a business plan? If you do not have a business plan, then you don't know how to create value using your effort. If you don't create value using your effort, any impact you might make would be short lived at best.

Now I can understand nebulous business plans (we aren't sure about the details, but we think there is money in X), or hopefull business plans (we are going to assume that the X market will appear) - but no business plan (we are going to do this for fun) is essentially a hobby, that will most likely die with you.

Or am I missing something important?

Posted by David Summers at May 15, 2006 07:57 PM

David, people with bad business plans (or none at all) will fail regardless of what the Internet Rocketeer Club says about them. Of course, since I've seen some of the most successful space entrepeneurs (Rutan and Musk) attacked, I'm not sure your point applies.

Posted by Mark R Whittington at May 15, 2006 08:51 PM

> This taboo seems kind of strange to me. Why would you not discount someone without a business
> plan? If you do not have a business plan, then you don't know how to create value using your effort

Perhaps because Mark doesn't have a business plan, or any idea how to create value in space. He wants bread (Shuttle jobs) and circuses (Moon landings), and he wants the taxpayers to pay for it. Anyone who suggests better uses for the money threatens Mark's ability to get bread and circuses, which makes them evil in Mark's view.

For all his talk about "seriousness," Mark does not appear to have any genuine, serious interest in space. He boasts of having "a BA in History" -- which he seems to consider an impressive degree -- and no one I have spoken to in the space community can recall ever having met him in person. His sole contact with space seems to be trolling Internet groups and insulting people who are actually involved in space.

Posted by Edward Wright at May 15, 2006 08:57 PM

> If it is the case that there is no way that a new contender could compete then why would any fair
> prize competition have its first run this October?

Because they need something this year to keep the crowds coming.

It's not entirely clear to me that they expect either prize to be won this year. If the Level 1 prize is won, it would be a significant improvement over last year's showing and probably attract a lot of people for 2007.

Posted by Edward Wright at May 15, 2006 09:02 PM

>Because they need something this year to keep the crowds coming.

Mr. Wright if this is the case then this is not an appropriate use of prizes and if a winner takes the prize this year then it will cast a shadow on all future efforts by that particular group and on NASA's funding of prizes.

Mr. Wright as a prize proponent do you not see anything damaging to the prize concept by this effort to "bring crowds" as you say, rather than provide an even playing field for all entrants?

Just wondering, you seem to be one of the leaders in this area.

Posted by Max Q at May 15, 2006 09:47 PM

If the prizes are won this year, make harder prizes next year. What's the big deal? Anyway, momentum is what is needed. Besides the rockets needed for suborbital and lunar hoppers are very similar in performance. Why not re-cycle old X-Prize people?

The current lunar hopper challenge is simply fabulous in my opinion. And with Masten seeking to sell logo space on their hopper, I am pulling for them extra. Maybe the space bloggers should pool some money and buy a space of a logo. Heck ask Glenn "new book" Reynolds to chip in.

If Armadillo sells logo space buy space with them, also.

= = =

If a new guy wins after developing an engine suitable for a genuine LSAM (on a smallish budget) the major aerospace primes will be annoyed and some small company might find itself acquired for big bucks.

Which may be a win-win-win scenario.

Posted by Bill White at May 15, 2006 09:48 PM

DARPA could have made "the playing field even" for Grand Challenge and set the first competition for 2010 for instance, as obviously there were no players with sufficiently advanced machines out there. The best made it to barely ten miles the first time around.
They didnt, they didnt award the prize, and made next years entrants taking the thing much more seriously. And next year, voila, five competitors pulling over the finish line. DARPA got their capability they were looking for, made much better show and publicity for it than on first time, and as a result everybody benefitted.

So this year we have basically two hopefuls trying to get the prize, Masten and Armadillo. Judging by Armadillo's track record, expect a loose wire there or software setting here, and bang, no prize this year for them. Masten hasnt flown anything, and with just a summer to prepare, i doubt they pull a successful entry. Maybe there will be one more half-serious player but i doubt it, look at how many teams actually _attempted_ the X-Prize....

So i think the prize purse will be definitely safe this year, making next years compo much more exciting. There will be more experience actually running such competition, probably teams that have attempted before, and hopefully new "underdogs" who everybody likes to root for. Also, due to publicity this year, much more attendance and public interest.

Posted by kert at May 16, 2006 12:53 AM

> if a winner takes the prize this year then it will cast a shadow on all future efforts by that particular
> group and on NASA's funding of prizes.

NASA funding for prizes might be a moot point, given the parabolic trajectory CC funding requests seem to be on.

NASA requested $35 million for Centennial Challenges in FY 06, but only $10 million in 07. Anything that isn't on Griffin's "critical path" is a candidate for extinction.

> do you not see anything damaging to the prize concept by this effort to "bring crowds" as you say,
> rather than provide an even playing field for all entrants?

It doesn't seem to have harmed NASCAR. However, it's not clear to me how much of the prize money is actually available this year. The Lunar Lander Analog Challenge was included in the FY 07 budget, but that budget hasn't been passed by Congress yet and, in the worst case, may not be passed before the competition in October.

Posted by Edward Wright at May 16, 2006 12:54 AM

Glad to see that Edward Wright is now being nasty under his own name. Just to address his points.

"Perhaps because Mark doesn't have a business plan, or any idea how to create value in space. He wants bread (Shuttle jobs) and circuses (Moon landings), and he wants the taxpayers to pay for it. Anyone who suggests better uses for the money threatens Mark's ability to get bread and circuses, which makes them evil in Mark's view."

Actually, I've advocated cancelling the shuttle program immediately. I support VSE and also using it as an engine to enhance commercial space. The Lunar Landing Challenge is a perfect example of how the two can mesh. Unlike some, I think that the public and private can compliment one another.

"For all his talk about "seriousness," Mark does not appear to have any genuine, serious interest in space. He boasts of having "a BA in History" -- which he seems to consider an impressive degree -- and no one I have spoken to in the space community can recall ever having met him in person. His sole contact with space seems to be trolling Internet groups and insulting people who are actually involved in space."

Boasting? Not really. Also it's true that I'm usually too busy to attend conferences, but I would suggest Edward's circle of friends may be a bit limited. I'm published in USA Today, among other large circulation op-ed pages, I've been interviewed by the BBC, quoted by Reuters, and I've defended folks like Elon Musk and Burt Rutan when they've come under attack in the blogosphere. This is not to boast, but to set the facts straight

I'm not sure what Edward does for a day job, but I run into his posts (sometimes under his own name, sometimes not) a lot in a variety of venues and they all seem to be nasty and negative. They seem to take up a lot of his time. That may, in his own mind, constitute a "contribution to space", but I'm pretty sure only in his own mind.

Just to touch on an issue here. I'm not sure that it matters as much how many participate in a prize competition as how soon someone wins it. The XPrize officially had about two dozen participants, but I suspect that only a handfull were "serious" in the sense that they had a reasonable chance to make hardware fly. And of course only Rutan actually won. That's the thing about competitions. There can only be one winner.

Posted by Mark R Whittington at May 16, 2006 05:05 AM

Brant and co. do appear to be rushing many prizes without regard to how competitive they will be. This is only counterproductive in my opinion if the money they would have spent assuring the prizes are competitive is less than the prize money spent on non-competitive prizes. That is, a proposal to spend the money on program administration rather than prizes. I think it is refreshing for a NASA office to admit that it does not have expertise in judging competitiveness of prizes, outsourcing and just leaving it to private industry to seek the best prizes.

Once the flow of prize money gets going, I am confident that private industry will want competitive prizes. They attract more attention (for firms like XPrize Cup that want attention) and more technology development than non-competitive prizes.

Everyone can posit their own prize instead of the Lunar Lander Challenge and seek funding and many are being approved so at this point the only alternative proposal is to not spend the money which I find inferior.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at May 16, 2006 06:12 AM

Mark writes:

Actually, I've advocated cancelling the shuttle program immediately.

That decision can only be made at a higher pay grade than the one Mike Griffin holds. I agree with that policy however and by February 2004 I was saying that President Bush should have called for orbiter cancellation in January 2004 as part of the VSE.

One more flight to Hubble, then off to the Smithsonian, or elsewhere. How much money would we have saved already?

= = =

Use the hopper challenge to help develop a truly re-useable lunar lander (and use NASA money for the rest of the r-LSAM development) and then let a thousand NewSpace companies find a way to rendezvous with those re-useable LSAMs either in LUNO or at EML-1 or EML-2.

Thereafter, sell additional copies of an r-LSAM to any private business venture that wants one and that will add tremendous incentive to develop and deploy low cost Earth-to-LEO as soon as possible.

Posted by Bill White at May 16, 2006 08:22 AM

> Actually, I've advocated cancelling the shuttle program immediately

Actually, you've advocated Griffin's plan to fly the orbiter until 2010 and the rest of the Shuttle system for another 40 years.

Continuing the Shuttle is not "cancelling" it, no matter how you try to spin your words.

> I'm published in USA Today, among other large circulation op-ed pages,

So, you write letters to the editor? That does not make you a "journalist" any more than paying a vanity press to publish your book makes you a professional novelist.

> I've been interviewed by the BBC, quoted by Reuters,

Art Bell has been interviewed and quoted, also. That doesn't prove that Art Bell is to be taken seriously.

> I've defended folks like Elon Musk and Burt Rutan when they've come under attack in the blogosphere

Actually, you trashed Burt and Elon when you said that without NASA, American spaceflight would come to an end.

And yes, you said that *after* the flight of SpaceShip One.

> I'm not sure what Edward does for a day job, but I run into his posts (sometimes under his own name,
> sometimes not) a lot in a variety of venues and they all seem to be nasty and negative

Negative? You mean I want to see America advance in space, rather than retreating to the 60's?

Among other things, I've founded and run one new space company, invested in a couple others, participated in NASA workshops, organized the first Space Enterprise Symposium, contributed the original concepts behind two of the prizes now being offered by Centennial Challenges, and provide flight services to military and commercial customers.

Most people in the space community know that.

As for my "limited circle of friends," I have met with hundreds of offices on Capital Hill will sit in front of your computer and spout off about what you think's going on in Washington.

It's a hoot that you complain about people not using their real names and demand people reveal their occupations, while you hide your real identity behind phony occupations.

Posted by Edward Wright at May 16, 2006 11:13 AM

Edward - Thanks for making my point for me. Cheers.

Posted by Mark R Whittington at May 16, 2006 12:35 PM

Bill - Agree about the shuttle, though I also understand the administrion's reasoning for keeping the thing around until 2010. They reason no shuttle, no completion of ISS, hence very angry international partners who would then be less likely to be partners in the exploratioin of the Moon, Mars, etc. I wonder, though, that if we must "complete" ISS for political/diplomatic reasons if expendables and commercial space tugs might do the job. I suspect there could be arguments either way.

As for the rest, I think a more realistic idea would be to start a Lunar COTS program once the lunar base is established (though some have argued that it might suit to do that even before.) I suspect that if the current COTS succeeds, NASA wilol have the confidence to apply the same princible to lunar transportation. One step at a time.

Posted by Mark R Whittington at May 16, 2006 12:53 PM

What point is that, Mark?

That your social-science degree makes you more "serious" than "internet rocketeers" who have real experience, knowledge, and qualifications?

That we should ignore folks like Burt Rutan and Newt Gingrich who have interesting ideas and listen to someone who has no contact with space or politics apart from trolling the Internet? Or "spin" (i.e., alter) their words to make it sound like you agree with them?

Posted by Edward Wright at May 16, 2006 02:14 PM

Edward, the entire premise of your last post is fancifull. Cheers.

Posted by Mark R Whittington at May 16, 2006 02:54 PM

> Thereafter, sell additional copies of an r-LSAM to any private business
> venture that wants one and that will add tremendous incentive to develop
> and deploy low cost Earth-to-LEO as soon as possible.

Bill, the LSAM is a *huge* payload -- 28 metric tons (61,000 lb.) launch weight.

A 61,000-pound LSAM will not "add tremendous incentive to develop and deploy low cost Earth-to-LEO as soon as possible." It will only create an incentive to develop and deploy a 61,000-pound heavy lifter -- and that heavy lifter will not be low-cost.

Low-cost launch requires building vehicles that can fly often, not hangar queens which are only rolled out a few times a year to launch a Shuttle-size payload.

Griffin knows that, which is why he says LSAM will be launched on Shuttle-derived for the next 40 years.

If you really want to create a market for low-cost launch, you should be calling for NASA to cancel LSAM and build a small low-cost lander. In other words, you should join the ESAS critics.

*Do* you want to create a market for low-cost launch, Bill? Or are just prepared to use any argument, however flawed, to justify ESAS?

Posted by Edward Wright at May 16, 2006 04:21 PM

Edward, I desire a re-useable LSAM capable of dozens or hundreds of lunar landings in its service life. You only need a small handful of them to service dozens or hundreds of Earth to LUNO missions.

An r-LSAM gets parked at EML-1 and/or EML-2 and/or somewhere in LUNO between missions. Launch it once - - repeat ONE launch per LSAM - - and thereafter rendezvous with a small crew taxi for crew transfer.

Use lunar O2 (and H2 or CH4 if the good Lord has provided us some - - Michael Duke has a nice paper about how you can extract CO2 and H2 from the klunar regolith and make CH4 the Zubrin way) and re-supply the r-LSAM with Terran H2 or CH4 if we cannot harvest it.

Toss bulk goods by tether or solar ion tugs.

Build Earth-to-LEO and LUNO-to-lunar surface in parallel.

Posted by Bill White at May 16, 2006 06:48 PM

PS - If someone else manages to get an r-LSAM to LUNO before NASA, that might change things.

Maybe riding on a Proton carrier rocket? ;-)

Posted by Bill White at May 16, 2006 06:57 PM

> Edward, I desire a re-useable LSAM capable of dozens or hundreds
> of lunar landings in its service life.

We've been through this before, Bill. I'm talking reality, not fantasy. NASA is not building what you desire.

> An r-LSAM gets parked at EML-1 and/or EML-2 and/or somewhere in LUNO
> between missions. Launch it once - - repeat ONE launch per LSAM - -
> and thereafter rendezvous with a small crew taxi for crew transfer.

"Small crew taxi" -- do you mean CEV? That's not a small payload, either, Bill. Even without the LSAM, it will take a one-billion dollar SD-HLV to get it into orbit.

Why should I be excited about spending a billion dollars to send four astronauts to the Moon? There's nothing they can possibly do on the Moon that's worth that much money.

As long as Moonies oppose anything that would allow humans to get into space (and to the Moon) affordably, I have no interest in your church.

> PS - If someone else manages to get an r-LSAM to LUNO before NASA, that might change things.

> Maybe riding on a Proton carrier rocket? ;-)

There are two commercial companies offering cis-lunar flights right now, Bill, for about $100 million. For a small multiple of that, they can even take you to the lunar surface. I'm sure they'd even let you name their lander "r-LSAM," if it matters that much to you.

I would rather see NASA do that than ESAS. But then, I value human spaceflight more than simply spending tax money. What about you, Bill?

Posted by Edward Wright at May 16, 2006 08:16 PM

Edward, if the ESAS LSAM ends up using hypergols, I will jump ship and withdraw my support for the plan. Hypergols are not on the critical path to either ISRU or re-useable lunar landers.

NASA funds being added to the lunar hopper challenge tells me hypergols are not what Griffin wants.

= = =

I would very much prefer that the very first LSAM be a single stage vehicle. No descent engines left on the lunar surface. If littering the Atlantic with hardware is dumb, leaving disposable engines on Luna is double dumb.

If the ESAS LSAM ends up being two stage yet the goal is to transition to single stage as soon as possible, I will grumble but still say okay. As for the LSAM launch vehicles, we could launch a genuine r-LSAM on the shuttle for all I care IF the LSAM was truly re-useable and could rendezvous with t/Space or SpaceDev or a SpaceX capsule. The ability of an r-LSAM to dock with a NewSpace vessel is what will create demand for low cost Earth-to-LEO and EML-1 or 2.

Once a genuine r-LSAM is developed and new copies available for sale on the commercial market, tourists could reach EML-1 or LUNO by Soyuz + Proton and land on the Moon for not all that much more money than the $100 million being advertised by Space Adventures for an Apollo 8 flight. That give NewSpace a target and a market to shoot for.

Yes, I want NASA (or SpaceX) to beat the Russians however a little more fear of Russian capability may help that come to pass. Russia could beat us back to the moon, if only they had the cash. After all there is nothing we can do with a multiple launch EELV architecture that the Russians cannot do with Proton for a fraction of the cost.

Posted by Bill White at May 17, 2006 08:11 AM

I would rather see NASA do that than ESAS. But then, I value human spaceflight more than simply spending tax money. What about you, Bill?

Based on this comment, you should like my first novel. I have crossed fingers that I will have copies available at the Space Frontier gathering in Vegas in July.

NASA is defeated in the race back to the Moon when an American billionaire buys Protons and Soyuz (and Shenzou, heh!) and funds the deployment of an r-LSAM to EML-1. Is he a Yankee Trader or a Yankee Traitor? I wrote the story and will let the audience decide the answer to that question.

Posted by Bill White at May 17, 2006 08:26 AM

> Hypergols are not on the critical path to either ISRU or re-useable lunar landers.

Griffin did not say he's building a reusable lunar lander, Bill.

> If littering the Atlantic with hardware is dumb, leaving disposable
> engines on Luna is double dumb.

So, why do Moonies want to continue littering the Atlantic with hardware for another 40 years???

> As for the LSAM launch vehicles, we could launch a genuine r-LSAM on
> the shuttle for all I care

Okay, I got that. You don't care how much money the taxpayers have to spend on launches. I do.

> all I care IF the LSAM was truly re-useable and could rendezvous with...
> t/Space or SpaceDev or a SpaceX capsule.

Yes, I got that, too, Bill. All you care about is reusable lunar landers, ELVs, and f'ing capsules. I get it.

I *don't* want to spend another 40 years with no way of getting to LEO except for dangerous, unreliable, unaffordable spam in a can. Even if the cans are made by t/Space or SpaceX.

Nor do I want to see a foreign military power gain absolute control of outer space because they built affordable, reusable space systems while the United States neglected military, cancelled aeronautical research, and spent all its money on historical reenactments.

> Once a genuine r-LSAM is developed and new copies available for sale on
> the commercial market, tourists could reach EML-1 or LUNO by Soyuz + Proton
> and land on the Moon for not all that much more money than the $100 million
> being advertised by Space Adventures for an Apollo 8 flight. That give
> NewSpace a target and a market to shoot for.

It's do that right now. I've had that discussion with one of the executives involved. A Soviet-era lander will work just as well as your imaginary "r-LSAM," and it doesn't require $10 billion to develop or a Saturn V-class rocket to launch.

So what? I don't have $100 million. Do you?

I don't *want* NewSpace to shoot for the target of making space travel cost hundreds of millions of dollars. I want to shoot for the target of making space travel *cheap*, so lots of people can go.

> Yes, I want NASA (or SpaceX) to beat the Russians however a little
> more fear of Russian capability may help that come to pass.

"The Russians"? It's sad that self-described "liberals" now try to whip up fear agsint the Russian people. (Guilt over being AWOL during the Cold War?)

The ethnic card won't play here, Bill. I happen to have a Russian middle name and no desire to pay higher taxes just to see Russians "beaten."

You had a *slightly* stronger argument when you were saying NASA needed to beat the Communist Chinese to the Moon -- but now, Griffin's in China trying to help the Communists. I wonder how you will spin that?

Posted by Edward Wright at May 17, 2006 01:31 PM

Post a comment