Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

The problem is that there are so many "alternatives" that even if it were decided that the current approach was non functional, it might take a long time to argue over which is best. My prediction: if it's decided to go some other direction, no matter which is chosen, there will be complaints and second guessing on the internet.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at November 9, 2006 07:34 AM

Well, the alternatives presented broadly speaking are

1)shuttle-derived heavy vehicle
2)eelv-derived heavy vehicle
3)depot where you can use any rocket or rockets and don't need a heavy vehicle.

The third makes a lot of sense in robustness, flexibility, low cost and future improvability.

Most of the mass of a lunar expedition is liquid oxygen. Then there's three pieces of hardware that are each less than 25 metric tons without the lox.

ESAS analysis (6.4.something) of multi-launch scenarios is bogus because it assumes only one launch pad launching one type of rocket. Delays and scrubs make that schedule-vulnerable. I wonder why it was done so narrowly...

I did a draft document in august describing an architecture with a propellant depot:
http://www.hut.fi/u/tmaja/flex/flex.htm

Posted by mz at November 9, 2006 08:37 AM

Personally I would love to see NASA go with the Direct proposal. And then see the LEO function taken over by a commercial vehicle (Falcon would be my hope) as soon as practical.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at November 9, 2006 09:15 AM

if it's decided to go some other direction, no matter which is chosen, there will be complaints and second guessing on the internet.

Of course. This is characteristic of programs of (at best) marginal utility.

If manned space were really worth doing, the notion of 'choosing the best approach' would fall away, since multiple paths would be taken at once, by multiple actors.

Posted by Paul Dietz at November 9, 2006 10:20 AM

Very well said:

If manned space were really worth doing, the notion of 'choosing the best approach' would fall away, since multiple paths would be taken at once, by multiple actors.

"Why" is the first question. Answer that sufficiently well and answers to "how" will present themselves.

Posted by Bill White at November 9, 2006 10:28 AM

Paul, Mark,
The comment about people always second guessing things is quite right. Especially with centrally planned government projects like this. Sure there's a bit of sniping and second guessing of private projects too, but you see a lot more of what Paul is talking about--multiple providers trying multiple solutions, and letting luck and the market decide.

Hayek mentioned just such an issue with central planning in his Road to Serfdom. Look at slide 4 on the "cartoon version" here: http://www.mises.org/TRTS.htm

I'm not suggesting that it'll lead to disenters being shot. :-) I'm just saying that it's part and parcel in a government run program that since the government is a representative one, if they insist on picking winners, they should get use to the fact that the citizens will demand oversight and a say in how their money gets spent.

~Jon

Posted by at November 9, 2006 10:52 AM

That's the beauty of the free market, Mark. You don't have to figure out beforehand which *one* method is best and then put all your eggs in that one basket. The market tries them all, and the superior ones make a profit, while the inferior ones do not.

Posted by Ed Minchau at November 9, 2006 10:58 AM

With respect to the notion of finding the "best" path and discussions about how/why in a higher demand environment, there are two developments worth noting.

First, there is not a huge amount of debate on the "best" approach to providing a vehicle for space tourism. A market has been identified and the concept has been demonstrated, so there are a number of people trying different approaches - not all of which will work, and many of which will prove to be economically unviable. We are also seeing such behaviors starting to creep into more ambitious projects, with Kistler, Space-X, t/Space, et al.

Second, on the broader question of manned space exploration, with the announcement of an Indian manned space program, we are seeing an increasing number of national approaches to human spaceflight.

The question that these two points raise is how to hybridize both sets of dynamics, and I think that the discussions on the validity of ESAS reflect, on some level, the particulars of that debate.

Further, the debate as a whole has implications for concepts of interoperability and intermodality and how they play a role in developing a broader, more robust network-centric "architecture-of-architectures".

Posted by G. Ryan Faith at November 9, 2006 11:36 AM

The problem is, speaking as someone who has sung the praises of the free market and commercial space in far more conspicuous venues than this, there is no commercial solution for going to the Moon at this time. There cannot be until there is a market incentive for doing so. And the best way to achieve that (and this will come as a shock) is a evil old big gummit return to the Moon project that establishes a lunar base that in return can be resupplies and so on commercially.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at November 9, 2006 11:49 AM

And the best way to achieve that (and this will come as a shock) is a evil old big gummit return to the Moon project

Yes, going to the moon is so important and valuable that only NASA can do it.

What is wrong with this picture?

Posted by Paul Dietz at November 9, 2006 12:55 PM

I believe Mark is trying to say the private sector won't do it without da' gummit because there is no profit in doing so.

Classic "pump priming" -- the gummit gets the ball rolling.

I think we all would prefer finding a way to make money on the Moon without NASA's involvement, but if we did, the Russians could make that same money at a far lower cost, at least until NewSpace gets lift price below Soyuz and Proton.

And, is there a business case for return to the Moon that closes without government subsidy?

Posted by Bill White at November 9, 2006 01:05 PM

Paul, I suspect that the Chinese and maybe even the Indians are going to give it a try too.

But, I suspect, you are pleding for another commercial solution that doesn't exist. I wish people who talk that way would name a commercial enterprise that could accomplish a return to the Moon, especially on its own dime. But they can't, because even if a commercial firm had a sensible plan (and by that I mean technically) for sending people back to the Moon, no venture capitalist in the world would put up the money. Why, the only reason that there's even a serious commercial effort toward getting people to LEO is that NASA is putting up half the money. And that's with a tangible market (i.e. the ISS.) There is no tangible market on the Moon to attract venture capital. That's the sad truth.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at November 9, 2006 01:09 PM

Mark,
The point you continually insist on missing is that while there may not be a commercial solution for going to the moon (at least for landing on the moon), there *are* a whole bunch of commercial solutions for getting to orbit. Ares I and Ares V don't go to the moon, they deliver stuff to orbit.

Over half of the exploration budget out through 2020 is slated just for developing and fielding those two vehicles. My only point is that there are other vehicles that do exist (unlike Ares I and V), are up to the task, and don't require any development money from NASA.

NASA can do whatever it wants after LEO (and if it went the on-orbit propellant transfer route, it really could go almost anywhere it wants to), I just think that they ought to follow the law and use existing commercial vehicles instead of spending $35B and 10 years building vehicles that they don't need.

~Jon

Posted by Jonathan Goff at November 9, 2006 01:11 PM

Jon, taking five or nine or whatever number of launches it would take current commercial vehicles to loft each lunar expedition to LEO is not a solution. It is a plan for disaster. Also, I wonder, considering the cost in ground infrastructure that kind of arrangement would take, whether it is even cheaper than the current plan.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at November 9, 2006 01:18 PM

Classic "pump priming" -- the gummit gets the ball rolling.

Ah, good old 'industrial policy'. We all know how well that works. Its primary effect is to suck tax dollars into the pockets of the rent-seeking sector.

No, if going to the moon were as wonderful and important as it is supposed to be, the private sector would be chomping at the bit to go there. Lack of profit defines lack of importance, when it comes to activities that are not inherently free-riderish (like science or national defense).

But, I suspect, you are pleding for another commercial solution that doesn't exist.

No, I am quite willing to believe that no commercial solution will exist anytime soon. I just draw a difference inference from that proposition -- not that NASA should do it, but that NASA should also not do it.

Posted by Paul Dietz at November 9, 2006 01:21 PM

Paul, leaving aside the obvious national security and science reasons for returning to the Moon--neither of which have commercial solutions, do you imagine that if the private sector does not want to do something it is not worth doing? I'm sorry, but I cannot agree to that kind of extreme libertarianism.

Posted by Mark R Whittington at November 9, 2006 01:33 PM

Mark: yes, that is the default assumption, and it's not just a libertarian one. It's why we have private steel companies, and airlines, and so on in most sectors of the economy. Countries that tried the other approach have done less than wonderfully.

If the goal is to push society as a whole into space -- which means, pushing economic activities into space -- this will inherently due to the actions of the private sector, simply because most of society *is* the private sector.

BTW, I consider the scientific rationale completely inadequate to justify return to the moon (the scientific value/dollar would stink compared to science done down here, or even compared to other space science), and as for military -- well, is DOD pushing for this? I think not.

Posted by Paul Dietz at November 9, 2006 01:42 PM

Mark,
Taking five or nine or whatever number of launches it would take current commercial vehicles to loft each lunar expedition to LEO is not a solution. It is a plan for disaster.

Plan for disaster? It's a heck of a lot more robust than ESAS. If there is any sort of delay or problem with the CLV flight after the CaLV is launched, the mission is scrubbed and you pretty much have to write off the LSAM and the EDS. If on the other hand you do it the right way, the system is actually more robust.

But don't let your lack of engineering expertise stop you from parroting the standard NASA line. ESAS was based on the assumption that you couldn't transfer propellant on-orbit. If you change that fact, ESAS's analysis is no longer valid. If you add multiple launchers and/or multiple pads, the analysis is no longer valid.

And in the real world (ie the one where Delta IV and Atlas V exist, but Ares I and Ares V don't yet), there are multiple launchers available, and they have separate pads, and Lockheed has demonstrated most of the technology needed for on-orbit propellant transfer. Which means that ESAS's analysis is fundamentally flawed.

You keep admitting that you aren't an engineer, but why do you insist on making declarative engineering statements that you apparently have no way of verifying?

Also, I wonder, considering the cost in ground infrastructure that kind of arrangement would take, whether it is even cheaper than the current plan.

Um...hate to break it to you, but almost all of the ground infrastructure needed to support a lunar program based on existing US boosters already exists, and is far less expensive than the Shuttle or Ares infrastructures. But once again, don't let facts or numbers get in the way of a good ideology.

~Jon

Posted by Jonathan Goff at November 9, 2006 01:42 PM

Paul,
If the goal is to push society as a whole into space -- which means, pushing economic activities into space -- this will inherently be due to the actions of the private sector, simply because most of society *is* the private sector.

I've been trying to think of a clear way to phrase that idea for a while. Thanks.

It's not so much that I think that the private sector is smarter than the NASA guys, or more talented, or more accomplished. The reason I say that the private sector will have to lead the way if space is ever going to be settled, is simply because as you put it, most of society is the private sector. There is no way that a purely government run program is ever going to result in more than a couple dozen people off-planet at any given time, without the private sector having already paved the way.

~Jon

Posted by Jonathan Goff at November 9, 2006 01:47 PM

And we come full circle to Paul's excellent point.

"Why" do we want to do this. If the "why" is strong enough the "how" will solve itself.

Posted by Bill White at November 9, 2006 02:07 PM

> Yes, going to the moon is so important and valuable that only NASA can do it.

> What is wrong with this picture?

Mark is playing dumb, that's what's wrong.

He disses the private sector because "There is no commercial solution for going to the Moon at this time," but...

Space Adventures has a commercial solution for going to the Moon a decade sooner than VSE would, and Mark knows that. (He's admitted it, in other forums.)

CSI has a commercial solution for going to the Moon in the near term. Again, Mark knows that.

SpaceX has a commercial solution for going to the Moon. Flights to the Moon and Mars are what the Dragon capsule was originally intended for.

SpaceDev has proposed a commercial solution for going to the Moon.

Right there, you have four commercial solutions that could send Americans on the Moon in the near future, for a fraction of what Mark wants to spend on VSE.

Granted, none of those companies can send humans to the Moon "at this time" if "this time" means November 9, 2006. But neither can NASA.

Mark doesn't advocate sending humans to the Moon at this time. Or even in this decade. He doesn't want to send humans to the Moon until 2019.

There's plenty of time to develop a transportation system to send humans to the Moon before 2019. The question is, which system is better at developing and operating transportation systems -- private enterprise or state socialism?

If socialism is more efficient, where's the evidence? How much progress has NASA made in space transportation over the last 40 years?

Forty years after Project Apollo, Mark wants NASA to rebuild Project Apollo. That's like being in 1949 and having Mark tell us that the next trans-Atlantic airplane flight can't possibly occur 1962, that it will carry only four Army aviators and four bags of mail, and it will use a replica of the NC-4 biplane because no one could possibly develop a better airplane in so little time. And Mike Griffin proudly states the new NC-4 on Steroids will remain in service as the National Trans-Atlantic Airplane until 2002.

Some progress. Some efficiency.

Posted by Edward Wright at November 9, 2006 05:29 PM

Touche, Ed.

The NASA plan is classic socialism with all the panache and creativity and high cost that implies.

The Moon isn't going anywhere, I,for one, expect the private rocketeers to beat NASA to it.

Posted by Lee Valentine at November 9, 2006 07:46 PM

> as for military -- well, is DOD pushing for this? I think not.

No, the military wants systems that have military utility, like military spaceplanes, not Orion capsules. Highly operational suborbital and orbital systems that can reach targets on Earth and in space and sustain high sortie rates.

In other words, the sort of reusable vehicles the commercial sector is working on -- and VSEers attack as "barnstorming" and "joyrides" that should be "left to the private sector."

Posted by at November 9, 2006 08:06 PM

"But don't let your lack of engineering expertise stop you from parroting the standard NASA line."

Do you have engineering expertise?

Posted by Bill Hirst at November 9, 2006 09:08 PM

Bill H.,
I was probably being a little more snarky with Mark than I should've. It's just he keeps repeating this line over and over again no matter how many times I call him on it.

As for engineering expertise, I have a little. Bachelors in Mfg Engineering, Masters in Mech Eng (well all but the thesis), and I'm now working with my second alt.space company designing rocket propulsions systems for a VTVL sounding rocket. I can't claim to be the most knowledgeable person on this list by a longshot. It's just for someone who keeps disclaiming any engineering background, Mark seems really keen on making declarative statements about engineering.

I'll be a little more polite next time.

~Jon

Posted by Jonathan Goff at November 9, 2006 11:35 PM

I am getting more and more intrigued by Lockheed Martin's approach, and starting to think they're really serious.

Of course they are. Many of the technologies they are pushing are of great utility to DoD as well as NASA and commercial space. (Hint: why do many satellites need to be retired? It's not due to electronic failures.)

Look, the big aerospace companies are not dummies. They know that if someone comes up with a reliable $500/lb to LEO launcher, they are out of the launch business. That said, the Atlas team tried very hard to wring as many costs out of the system while keeping reliability as high as possible (which is what their customer wanted for their $1+ billion payloads). From what I have heard, the Delta team did the same.

That said, they have a large knowledge base of what works, what doesn't, where the pitfalls are, etc. We're still at the early part of the learning curve on large rockets - only a few thousand have been built and launched.

Posted by at November 10, 2006 08:17 AM

> That said, the Atlas team tried very hard to wring as many costs out of the system while keeping reliability as high as possible

The old cost-versus-reliability fallacy.

In reality. reusable vehilces like the X-15 have proven to cheaper *and* more reliable than expendable rockets with similar performance.

Similarly, in the airline industry, Southwest Airlines has the best maintenance, best reliability, and lowest fares.

It's virtually impossible to reduce costs without increasing reliability. Unreliability does not save money, it *costs* money.

At the same time, it's virtually impossible to get good reliability without operating experience, which you don't get unless you can fly a lot. That doesn't happen if costs are high.

Yes, you can improve the unreliability of an Atlas slightly by spending huge sums on systems engineering, but only slightly. The reliability of an Atlas is terrible, by aviation standards. Airlines don't brag about going 70 or 80 flights without an accident. They expect to go thousands of flights without an accident, and their definition of reliability is much stricter, also. They don't consider a flight successful if they don't return the payload, the passengers, *and* the airframe.

> We're still at the early part of the learning curve on large rockets - only a few thousand have been built and launched.

Exactly, which is why it's a mistake to obsess with building large rockets, which have trivial flight rates.

Posted by Edward Wright at November 10, 2006 10:49 AM

what about space island ,they seem to have a mars plan which seems a good idea to me. besides I always wanted to get into space, but hoped that we would have more inferstrucure,since there is nerly none now. I hope thing inprove in the next 5 or 10 yrs.

Posted by christopher coulter at November 10, 2006 09:55 PM

Right there, you have four commercial solutions that could send Americans on the Moon in the near future, for a fraction of what Mark wants to spend on VSE.

I'd also add Boeing, Lockheed, CALT, Starsem, Khrunichev and Arianespace to that list. If there is a commercial market for lunar transport, they'd all be both capable and willing to fill it.

That makes ten commercial organisations, seven of them western. Why is NASA doing this inhouse again?

Posted by Chris Mann at November 12, 2006 04:13 AM

Post a comment