Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

This isn't the long term flight rate, but just the flight rate for the first two years which we should expect to be slow. If they do 2 flights per year over the life of the program, then it will indeed be a waste, even by Space Shuttle standards. I don't see a good reason for the Ares I's existence now, but let's be realistic. No launch vehicle will ramp up instantly to full volume. The early manifest doesn't indicate that the long term will be so poorly utilized.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at February 18, 2007 02:25 PM

Sorry about that, I don't know how I managed to post twice.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at February 18, 2007 02:27 PM

Karl, I've seen nothing in NASA's plans to indicate that they'll exceed four flights per year in any foreseeable time frame. Most plans I've seen indicate two lunar missions and two ISS missions at most. And the two ISS missions would be stealing business from a COTS competitor. If COTS works out, and there's an orbital space tourism business going in that time frame (the latter of which I consider likely), then NASA's going to have a tough time justifying continuing to operate this system, or explaining why the spent so many billions in developing it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 18, 2007 02:32 PM

I recall that the Shuttle was supposed to be a start-slow-and-ramp-up deal too. We all know how well that worked out.

Posted by Dick Eagleson at February 18, 2007 04:02 PM

Rand is right, there is no call in the manifesting that has been made public as of this date that Orion will ever fly more than twice a year.

This is a farce. The Ares 1 will cost $8 billion to develop and even over a thiry year period the cost to develop that vehicle and Orion will never be amortized. As much as the Shuttle is pilloried, it will be sorely missed when it is gone, especially as its replacement will neither lower the cost of human access to space, nor improve the operability of human spaceflight systems.

Posted by Dennis Wingo at February 18, 2007 08:22 PM

Orion ISS missions can carry up to 6 crew. You should remember this Rand, you worked Orion requirements for NG/Boeing.

Posted by anon at February 18, 2007 08:26 PM

Rand, I'm definitely not an expert here. The best I was able to come up with was that the Ares V might fly four times a year, and some vague rumor that the Ares I might achieve a dozen launches a year. But the latter rumor ignores whether there's any reason to use the Ares I that much.

Does sound a lot like the Space Shuttle where it flew a few missions that might be considered to have value (like the Hubble repair missions or the first few flights that demonstrated RLV viability), and then more than a hundred that seem to be some sort of pork barrel projects (ie, where the value of the public funds expended is far greater than the return garnered).

My take is that even at a dozen launches a year, the Ares I just sets back US interests in space. At some point, NASA needs to start promoting US space development. A key way to do that is to use existing commercial capibility. Currently, the EELV programs have capabilities are that pretty close to the Ares I. My take is that NASA's share of the cost of "man-rating" (here, I mean the cost of meeting at least one current NASA specification, which do exist, for a manned flight) the Atlas V and Delta IV would have to be a lot more expensive than the development costs of the Ares I before the latter would be preferable. The reason is that any improvements made to these platforms can readily be applied to commercial applications, like space tourism. And *vice versa*. I think the economies of scale have been discussed many times before.

But the Ares I will never be a tourist platform. It's a special vehicle made for special people.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at February 18, 2007 08:40 PM

It is all very sad that it is all kind of ending. Maybe (grin)

Between now and Jan 20,2009 a few things will occur or fail. These are the "private efforts" to get to space.

If (pick one) is successful and they manage to develop a rocket for "cheap" or "sort of space stations" for cheap...then the question is going to cross someone's mind...why are we spending billions just so NASA can do it?

If none of these things happen then the story is different. But whoever is taking the oath on Jan 20,2009 if any of them succeed their "space people" will have new realities to deal with.

If there are new space realities in 2009...it will have taken forty years and how many hundreds of billions for the agency to "wind down".

Robert

Posted by Robert Oler at February 18, 2007 10:16 PM

The counterargument is that NASA will be going to the Moon, which is more interesting than ISS.

But is that really true? VSEers diss anything in LEO as "going around in circles." Of course, the Moon is going around in cirlces, too.

The first Orion mission to the Moon may attract a lot of public interest, but what happens after that? Apollo landed at a different site, with different scenery, each time. ISS offers the constantly changing background of the Earth. Orion will be landing at the same base every time. How long will people keep tuning in to watch astronauts walking around the same landscape?

My prediction is that the second Orion landing, if it ever occurs, will get lower teevee ratings than Apollo 12 and will soon be followed by statements that NASA is "stuck on the Moon," the Moon is "going in circles," and NASA "needs to go someplace" cooler than the Moon.

The irony of those comments will be completely lost on the people making them.

Posted by Edward Wright at February 19, 2007 03:21 AM

I don't consider it very sensible to measure the effectiveness of VSE by its TV ratings, like Edward does above. This goes back to something that Rand touched many times on the blog, what we are doing there.

Posted by Pete Zaitcev at February 19, 2007 03:49 AM

Yes the Shuttle can carry seven sometimes - the current flight only has six astronauts because of the heavy payload - Orion will carry SIX to the ISS. Yes the moon missions are planned with four crew, Mars missions will probably have six.

$104 billion buys: a safe reliable Shuttle replacement for crew, real heavy lift, a lunar exploration access system together with several moon landings, and the primary elements for human Mars missions. Less than either Enron or AOL lost recently.

Posted by cIclops at February 19, 2007 04:37 AM

I'm sorry if this is a dumb question, but: Why does the development of a new system cost so much?

When we did the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo programs we were learning as we went along, discovering the requirements and researching material properties. But we did that. We have a 40+ year knowledge base and a million times the computing capability of the 1960's. We know how to do this. We've built a heavy lift rocket. We've built several space capsules and service modules. We've built lunar landers. Why does it cost as much now and take twice as long to develop a new system as it did when we had no knowledge, no experience, and essentially no computing power? It's as if a new aircraft design team at Boeing were to go back to the Wright's bicycle shop and start from scratch every time they wanted to design a new plane.

Posted by lmg at February 19, 2007 06:18 AM

followed by statements that NASA is "stuck on the Moon," the Moon is "going in circles," and NASA "needs to go someplace" cooler than the Moon.

The problem with manned flight to LEO isn't that it isn't 'cool'. The problem has been that it hasn't been worthwhile. Proponents of NASA's moon base need to explain why it (not just moon bases generically, but this moon base in particular) is worthwhile. My take is that it would be so small and limited that it has little chance of doing any worthwhile, vague 'next step' arguments notwithstanding. It'll be like ISS, but in a more difficult to reach location.

VSE appears to have been based on the notion that NASA needs a new destination, without sufficient consideration paid to justifying that new destination. This has led to the current vague laundry list of justifications for the moon base, none of them compelling, some eye-rolling.

Posted by Paul Dietz at February 19, 2007 07:04 AM

Yes, all very well and disingenuous about the flight rate and "per ticket" cost, Rand. But look at the alternative. NASA has. Mike Griffin has taken a hard look at what it takes to get into space -- can commercial efforts really do what they claim for 1/10th of our cost estimates to do the same thing -- and said "probably not." So NASA's risking about 1/10th of their new vehicle development budget through 2012 on a risky alternative that NASA probably assesses as only having a small chance of succeeding.

Like a good venture capitalist, however, NASA is also spending the real money in ways that it knows have a concrete payoff. Two flights a year may not sound like much. But it's a whole lot more than zero.

There's no evidence whatsoever that RPKistler will successfully get off the ground at all, which is why they are raising private funds at about the speed of pouring molasses. There's a much better chance that SpaceX will get their vehicle into orbit--though at what price and schedule is still to be determined. Based on their Falcon 1 schedule, I'd guess 2015 the first Dragon will launch.

BTW, I estimated in 2005 that Falcon 1 would not successfully launch until 2007 and that Falcon 5 would not launch until late 2008. Although Falcon 5 is now no more, Falcon 9's first demonstration launch is now scheduled for late 2008.

Posted by tom at February 19, 2007 07:37 AM

Orion will be landing at the same base every time.

Nope. First, to be pedantic, Orion won't land. The initial Orion/LSAM missions are planned to be to several different spots. After they find a good spot for the base, they'll be going there 2x year.

Posted by anon at February 19, 2007 07:46 AM

Rand,

If the Ares program, as presently envisioned, isn't your cup of tea, what do you propose in its place? How could the shuttle program be improved enough to justify keeping it going? I like the fact they put an escape system in for Ares. I don't like the fact that it isn't completely reusable. The bigger problem to me is that they need to do something on the moon to justify going there. They need to figure a way to make money. The Tennessee Valley Authority and the US Army Corps of Engineers built hydro-electric dams, I don't see why a Lunar Power Authority can't be set up to beam PV power back to earth. Lunar Science I am sure will be great, but it usually doesn't pay the electric bills at first.

Posted by tony rusi at February 19, 2007 08:22 AM

The problem with NASA and a lot of space advocates is that they have never really figured out, in the words of the song "the music has died".

NASA cannot come up with a reasonable explanation of why it needs "billions and billions" of dollars to do projects for which there is NEVER any pay back in line with the dollars and effort spent.

Every project (shuttle, station, now go back to the Moon) is going to do "wonderful things" for "not a lot of money" and yet when push comes to shove the only thing that keeps it going is pure pork.

If the US lost the shuttle and station capability RIGHT NOW, it would lose nothing that would change the national life.

Apollo and the moon was a one time, really one mission thing. JFK and events managed to gear the country up for "a moon landing" and ever since then, it has been downhill.

Human spaceflight has become a "cancer" on aeronautical and aerospace research. It is like most welfare programs, it eats but doesnt work.

Supporting the crewed space program as it exist right now, is like the Rev HMM Jacksons call for slavery reperations...it is a cash machine.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at February 19, 2007 08:49 AM

NASA knows how to increase cost,
they rarely know how to increase capability
They don't know how to do engineering research

Posted by anonymous at February 19, 2007 09:22 AM

cIclops,
The problem I see with your comment is that $104B is a *huge* amount of money. The items you list (at least the valuable ones) would be worthwhile, if the pricetag were say $10B. But $104B and 15-20 years?

~Jon

Posted by Jonathan Goff at February 19, 2007 09:33 AM

We should just turn our backs on NASA and their way of doing business. Lobby to get them changed to an agency which funds research and not develops systems.

To engage a larger class of people and provide opportunities for direct participation we should look at the history of microcomputers and develop sub-kilogram interplanetary spacecraft as is being done at Microlaunchers.

Posted by Charles Pooley at February 19, 2007 11:04 AM

Sadly for NASA.
The above political design games are not likely to get the votes they need to survive. When those programs are canceled. I don’t think NASA has the credibility to even propose something affordable.

Posted by Kelly Starks at February 19, 2007 12:55 PM

Last post cut out the center. If at first...

Sadly for us.
The only thing about NASA that really interests Washington is jobs in districts. NASA could develop vastly better launchers for a laughably smaller amount of money (all the major areo firms offered maned RLVs for $5-$8 billion, operating costs under 1/10 shuttle direct costs, no funds owed if they couldn’t deliver.), but if NASA did that they would depopulate KSC, Marshall, and JSC – as well as huge lay-offs for shuttle support contracts. That is not acceptable in Washington. So the new LVs are optimized for heavy retention of existing workforces, not cost effective operation.

Posted by Kelly Starks at February 19, 2007 12:57 PM

Rand,

There is another purpose to Ares 1.
It is supposed to be simple enough that
MSFC and the current contractors -- few
of whom actually worked on developing
the shuttle -- can build it. Then, having
relearned rocket science, they will be
able to develop Ares 5.

It is a pricey sacrifice to the Gods
of Heavy Lift and Mars Direct, but it is
one that Dr. Griffin is willing to make.

- Jim

Posted by Anon3 at February 19, 2007 01:40 PM

> I don't consider it very sensible to measure the effectiveness of VSE
> by its TV ratings, like Edward does above.

How else would you measure the effectiveness of a program that offers nothing but the chance to watch astronauts on TV?

Posted by Edward Wright at February 19, 2007 04:43 PM

> $104 billion buys: a safe reliable Shuttle replacement for crew

If you call a vehicle that blows up 1-5% of the time "safe."

If air travel were that "safe," every major airport would experience several major accidents during every shift.

Posted by Edward Wright at February 19, 2007 05:04 PM

"will get lower teevee ratings than Apollo 12"

"If the US lost the shuttle and station capability RIGHT NOW, it would lose nothing that would change the national life."

There is a prestige that comes with having your nations flag draped over the side of 1.2 million kilos of propellant lofting 7 brave souls into space. Take that away and I think you'd make a dent in our pride and honor. That actually still means something to some people these days.

The Shuttle has other notable services that it has performed: Galileo, Magellan, Chandra, and radar topography - to name a few.

People all over the country may not stop down their work day to huddle around the TV to watch a launch like they used to. However, a great many people sit in their cars for hours and huddle up along the Florida coast to witness a launch in person.

Posted by Josh Reiter at February 19, 2007 08:04 PM

these things hardly seem worth the billions that are spent on them. And in the shuttle's case it is the tens of maybe hundreds of billions.

I like to think that our prestige as a Nation is something more then a few "brave" souls intentionally doing dangerous things for little or no value.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at February 19, 2007 08:44 PM

I would add one more thing Josh and please this is not to "beat" on you or your post. I do this with the 'kindest' intentions.

"our pride and honor". Thats a little touchy subject to me because of the Nowak thing...but to say this.

The sad thing about this administration is that our "pride and honor" are left to events like the shuttle. And thats not just "this" administration, but well this is an administration that has a shooting war going on.

I've never understood why this administration has relinquished the PR battle to the likes of John Murtha. There are brave men and women right now doing heroic almost unfathonaamble things in Iraq and Afland and a lot of other places...and what most Americans see of that is the bad stuff the guys who screw up.

For some reason this administration has let the stories of honor, duty and courage in those combat theaters...go dark. I dont get it.

I've gotten A LOT Of email replies about my op ed...and it is just amazing to me...how badly those words of "Honor and duty" have been just maligned...

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at February 19, 2007 08:48 PM

Josh:

Sure, the Shuttle has lifted several valuable and important missions to orbit; notwithstanding the fact that there had to be at least a second-stage engine in the bay to actually launch those missions on their way.

But many other launchers could have done the same; Titan III probably, for one. I believe there were designs for Titan IV, simply a Titan launcher with as many SRBs as would fit; but it was scrapped in favour of Shuttle.

For that matter, if NASA hadn't scrapped Saturn V, scrapped the dies and burnt the blueprints, that one would have served; I believe that the Saturn series, after development was finished, never had a failure. If memory serves, Saturn V could loft four hundred tons to LEO. There were even tentative plans to strap SRBs on this as well.

I can well imagine a thousand-ton load to orbit in one lift, for less than the cost of one shuttle flight.

So NASA spends billions on every flight, and risks astronauts' lives in essentially unmanned missions, in order to keep Congressmen in jobs.

There needs to be a mix. Small, light, simple and easily reusable spaceplanes, with a ground crew of hundreds rather than tens of thousands, for the crew and BIG dumb boosters for the heavy lifting; not forgetting that the safety standards for cargo don't have to be as good either. Which is cheaper.

But none of this will happen, because NASA isn't a space agency, but a welfare agency for congressmen.

Never mind; China or India will do the job that America won't. Or can't, given the fact that democracy means government by popularity contest.

"No democracy long survives the realisation by the electorate that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury."

Posted by Fletcher Christian at February 20, 2007 02:14 AM

scrapped the dies and burnt the blueprints

Stop propagating urban myths, please.

Posted by Paul Dietz at February 20, 2007 06:14 AM

> I believe there were designs for Titan IV, simply a Titan launcher with as many SRBs as would fit;
> but it was scrapped in favour of Shuttle.

No, it was scrapped because the Air Force didn't have enough big payloads to justify continuing it. The USAF had already abondoned the Shuttle by 2005, when the last Titan IV flew.

> I believe that the Saturn series, after development was finished, never had a failure.

If you don't count engine shutdowns on Apollo 6 and 13, the Apollo 1 fire, and the Apollo 13 explosion.

Apollo-Saturn never had a failure that resulted in loss of a crew or payload in flight, but it didn't fly very much, either.

> There needs to be a mix. Small, light, simple and easily reusable spaceplanes, with a ground
> crew of hundreds rather than tens of thousands, for the crew and BIG dumb boosters for the heavy
> lifting; not forgetting that the safety standards for cargo don't have to be as good either. Which is cheaper.

This paragraph combines a couple of misconceptions that are common in the space business.

First, safety standards for cargo DO have to be as high for cargo as they do for crew. NASA might believe an astronaut's life is worth more than a $200 million cargo, but the insurance companies don't. Anyone who slacks off on safety will pay for it through increased insurance costs.

Second, slacking off on safety does not reduce costs, it increases them. Having the best maintenance and safety in the airline industry doesn't prevent Southwest from having the lowest cost structure. It enables it.

Third, NASA doesn't have infinite funds. If it builds its Big Dumb Boosters, it won't have any money to build payloads to fly on reusable spaceplanes. Just launching Ares two or three times a year will sap its entire budget.

Posted by Edward Wright at February 20, 2007 10:53 AM

While I agree with the principle, this is not really true. Suppose it costs $500M to launch a $200M payload (on the Orion, for example). Insuring a launch vehicle with a 99% failure rate would cost only $200M. At a 50% falure rate, insurance is $100M. If you can launch at roughly fuel cost only (using disposable paper bag rockets, for example), you can just keep launching until it makes it - and still come out ahead ($700M for a single launch and payload vs. $400M and change for an average of two launches per sucess).

To me, that says nothing about the need for reliability - but it does say a lot about the current launch prices...

Posted by David Summers at February 20, 2007 11:48 AM

Neither the Apollo I fire nor the Apollo 13 explosion were Saturn failures. And the other two didn't cause mission failure; ergo, they weren't failures either.

Existing commercial launchers are quite good enough for the existing commercial satellite business, and when they need to be bigger Ariane V will almost certainly be working. You didn't expect America to keep all the business, did you?

A big booster would allow cheaper (because less finely engineered) orbital hardware. Most of the cost of a satellite is the parts measured in carats.

To use a really extreme example, the Orion programme (the real one) was going to allow space vehicles made of welded steel; very extreme, but it makes the point.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at February 20, 2007 11:54 AM

In addition to that last, think of this:

If you have a 90% failure rate and just require multiple copies of everything you want launched you will have 10x the flight rate. Sort of. Is a boom a flight? Anyway, the $200M payload cost is a bit of a red hering anyway. Copies made for successor flights are no where near the first item cost.

That said, of course I really believe in safety and event-free rides all the way. It just may not be the best approach if each launch costs a significant fraction of a billion $.

Think of it this way: if NASA was logical it would see that the problem with their "business model" is that successful flights are boring (common) and booms are interesting (rare). That makes it so that booms cause them no end of headaches as Congress, State officials and every pundit takes over the agency personally to "set it right." On the other hand, if the rockets went boom far more often than they made it then the booms would be ignored as business as usual and the sucesses would make the news! Money would flow in, and all would be well!

And besides, we all know that you learn far more from failures than sucesses anyway.

Posted by David Summers at February 20, 2007 12:08 PM

To use a really extreme example, the Orion programme (the real one) was going to allow space vehicles made of welded steel; very extreme, but it makes the point.

Heh, should I mention that I am currently working on a space vehicle made from bolted steel? Even heavier!

Posted by David Summers at February 20, 2007 12:30 PM

Reading David and Edward, the thought occurs to me that if we use low reliability paper bag rockets for things like fuel (CH4 & LOX) and an RL-10 deep space propulsion stage and a high reliability RLV for crew and fancy electronics we have the best of both worlds.

If the Centaur kick stage plus fuel makes a fireball as Sealaunch did recently, just launch another.

Dry launch only works (it seems to me) if the lift needed to loft the fuel is "paper bag" cheap.

Posted by Bill White at February 20, 2007 01:40 PM

> If you can launch at roughly fuel cost only (using disposable paper bag
> rockets, for example), you can just keep launching until it makes it -

Disposable rockets do not operate at "roughly fuel cost." They operate at hundreds or thousands of times fuel cost.

> Anyway, the $200M payload cost is a bit of a red hering anyway. Copies
> made for successor flights are no where near the first item cost.

No, $200M is not a red herring. Just go price communication satellites. Or ISS modules.

> That said, of course I really believe in safety and event-free rides all the
> way. It just may not be the best approach if each launch costs a significant
> fraction of a billion $.

It doesn't have to cost a significant fraction of a billion dollars. The reason it costs so much today is the labor and hardware that's thrown away. Make the hardware reliable and reusable and costs go down.

Posted by Edward Wright at February 20, 2007 04:01 PM

> the thought occurs to me that if we use low reliability paper bag rockets
> for things like fuel (CH4 & LOX) and an RL-10 deep space propulsion stage
> and a high reliability RLV for crew and fancy electronics we have the best of both worlds.

No, just the combination of one good world and one bad one.

Ideology aside, why you use a low-reliability expendable to launch propellent for thousands of dollars per pound if you had a high-reliability RLV that could do it for hundreds or tens of dollars per pound?

> If the Centaur kick stage plus fuel makes a fireball as Sealaunch did
> recently, just launch another.

Bill, your lack of concern for other people's money is truly astounding.

Would you advise Federal Express to cut back on maintenance, on the theory that unreliable airplanes are cheaper to operate?

And if they crash, so what, Fedex customers can just replace whatever they were carrying (which is almost certainly less costly than a Centaur)?

Posted by Edward Wright at February 20, 2007 04:21 PM

"Ideology aside, why you use a low-reliability expendable to launch propellent for thousands of dollars per pound if you had a high-reliability RLV that could do it for hundreds or tens of dollars per pound?"

Agreed entirely. But that's not the choice we have, at least not now.

Disposable rockets don't have to have components with a long service life, which all other things being equal means the rocket can be made from cheaper materials or be lighter or both. In addition, if the volume of launches is high enough then the cost per launch goes down, because the birds can be mass-produced.

If you have a 20% failure rate on boosting cheap stuff like fuel and structural members and it costs 100M$, and the alternative is a 5% failure rate on a booster costing 500M$, and the payload is worth 10M$, then what is the cheaper way to get X amount of stuff into orbit?

We need, as soon as possible, a way of getting large amounts of stuff into orbit as cheaply as possible. We don't have it and Shuttle won't do it, and neither will its successor. Maybe in 50 years' time it will be possible, but we need the resources space can provide NOW.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at February 20, 2007 05:16 PM

Provide me with this:

and I would agree.

However obtaining a high-reliability RLV that could do it for hundreds or tens of dollars per pound is rather like my winning a date with a Victoria Secret's model. It would be nice but I won't be planning on it.

Are such things possible? A high-reliability RLV that could do it for hundreds or tens of dollars per pound?

I will not deny they are possible however it seems to me that the burden to prove they are probable rests with you, not me.

Posted by at February 20, 2007 05:17 PM

> If you have a 20% failure rate on boosting cheap stuff like fuel and
> structural members and it costs 100M$, and the alternative is a 5% failure
> rate on a booster costing 500M$, and the payload is worth 10M$, then
> what is the cheaper way to get X amount of stuff into orbit?

Neither. Your question does not correspond to the real world. Increased reliability reduces operating costs.

The choice is not between a booster with a 95% reliability and a booster with an 80% reliability.

The choice is between expendable boosters with 95-99% reliability and reusable vehicles with >99.99% reliability.

So, let me fix up your question: If you have the choice between a 1-5% failure rate on an expendable costing over $100 million per flight or a 0.01% failure rate on a reusable costing $1 million per flight, what is the cheaper way to get stuff into orbit?

> We don't have it and Shuttle won't do it, and neither will its successor.
> Maybe in 50 years' time it will be possible
but we need the resources
> space can provide NOW.

No one said the Shuttle could do it or the Shuttle's successor. Ares is a step in the wrong direction. But it can be done, and we don't need to wait 50 years.

As for "needing" lunar resources, building expendable rockets to get to the Moon will consume more resources than you could hope to return. Any rocks that are brought back will go straight into government vaults and treated as priceless national treasures.

Posted by Edward Wright at February 20, 2007 05:57 PM

Edward, as of today, reuseable space vehicles consist of:

(a) Space Shuttle; and

(b) Viewgraph programs.

SS1 is at the Smithsonian (and was deemed unsafe for additional flights).

IF genuine RLVs get built we all should use them however I am unwilling to put ALL of our space-exploration eggs in one basket.

The real mission critical task? Figure out how to send people into space without using a single dime of tax revenue. Do that and NewSpace can start selling RLVs as fast as they can make them.

Posted by at February 20, 2007 06:11 PM

> Are such things possible? A high-reliability RLV that could do it for
> hundreds or tens of dollars per pound?

Yes.

To put a pound of payload into orbit takes around 10-20 pounds of propellant, which costs around $0.20-1.00 per pound depending on the propellant combination. That puts propellant costs in the range of $2-20 per pound.

All mature transportation systems operate at around 3x fuel cost. Even at 10x propellant cost, which is quite bad,

Posted by Edward Wright at February 20, 2007 06:17 PM

Disposable rockets do not operate at "roughly fuel cost." They operate at hundreds or thousands of times fuel cost.

You dare to deny the power of the paper bag rocket! Infidel! ;-}

That is true of you, and its true of me. It is not true of NASA. No matter what we decide NASA should do, it has a set budget. Let's face it, NASA exists to continue its existence. That's it. End of story. NASA has a budget of X billion dollars per year. NASA only needs/can do 2-5 flights per year. Therefore, NASA cannot fly cheaply - in order for NASA to fly cheaply it would have to lay off people, and as a government entity it cannot do that. Once we face that, then we can try to answer the hard question: What is the best way for NASA to expend its resources?

To me, the answer is to build something really big - so big that it is not comercially practical - and uses cutting edge technology. That way the edge of technology is moved forward an inch, and their end product cannot compete with comercial ventures. You get the best of both worlds!

Just remember, NASA cannot do things cheaply - because a government program's goal in life is to increase the budget next year over this year, not to show a profit.

Posted by at February 20, 2007 06:24 PM

Sorry, that last was mine.

Posted by David Summers at February 20, 2007 06:25 PM

> That is true of you, and its true of me. It is not true of NASA.

Non sequitar. I did not say space transportation systems should be run by NASA.

Perhaps you're confusing me with Bill?

> NASA cannot fly cheaply - in order for NASA to fly cheaply it would have to
> lay off people, and as a government entity it cannot do that.

NASA can (and does) buy airline tickets cheaply. NASA should buy tickets to space, too.

> What is the best way for NASA to expend its resources?
> To me, the answer is to build something really big - so big that it is
> not comercially practical - and uses cutting edge technology.

Using cutting-edge technology to build something impractical is not a good use of resources.

NASA should not build any transportation system. As long as it does, NASA officials will seek to justify it by telling the world it's the only system that can be built with current technology. Adding yet another obstacle entrepreneurs have to overcome when they approach investors.

Posted by at February 20, 2007 06:54 PM

The fastest route to cheap access to space is to locate non-taxpayer sourced revenue.

Edward seems to be looking for Congress to shovel money at NewSpace and if Congress did that, NewSpace would then become bloated and inefficient just like LegacySpace.

The best way for NewSpace to remain lean mean and efficient is to close a business case without using money that passes through Uncle Sugar first.

Posted by Bill White at February 20, 2007 07:16 PM

NASA can (and does) buy airline tickets cheaply. NASA should buy tickets to space, too.

Can Russia play or is this a buy American only rule? If its buy American only do you propose that NASA simply stand down ALL operations until NewSpace flies something?

Posted by Bill White at February 20, 2007 07:22 PM

ChairForce Engineer is very good here:

Today, we can find the money if the market sees a need for an RLV. We're caught in a classic chicken-and-egg dilemma: we need an RLV to open space for commerce, but the market doesn't currently exist to justify spending on an RLV. But a first step has to be the development of a reliable manned spaceplane that can be launched on an expendible rocket and returned to flight in a safe manner.

Except I am not convinced that building an RLV is the ONLY possible first step. If someone closes a business case using Soyuz (such as a Soyuz Apollo 8 mission) and made money at it then it would be easier to attract investors to fund the R&D needed for a genuine RLV.

And if the Russians did something first wounded American pride would attract American investors.

Yuri Gargarin lit a fire under NASA once. Maybe we need a repeat performance.

Posted by Bill White at February 20, 2007 08:57 PM

> Can Russia play or is this a buy American only rule? If its buy American only do you propose
> that NASA simply stand down ALL operations until NewSpace flies something?

You tell me, Bill.

I have repeatedly pointed out that NASA could go back to the Moon sooner and faster if it abandoned Orion/Ares and used Soyuz.

You have repeatedly told me that any alternative to ESAS is politically incorrect.

> Except I am not convinced that building an RLV is the ONLY possible first step. If someone closes
> a business case using Soyuz (such as a Soyuz Apollo 8 mission) and made money at it then
> it would be easier to attract investors to fund the R&D needed for a genuine RLV.

Sounds like a good argument to create government incentives for such ventures.

Now, tell me again why it's better to flush $100 billion on Ares and Orion?

Posted by Edward Wright at February 21, 2007 12:04 AM

Edward, who said anything about the Moon, or about returning Moon rock to Earth as a resource?

This has been said in many places by many people more qualified than me, for over twenty years, but here we go again:

Step 1. Moonbase. Get there as cheaply as possible, and as much as possible with off-the-shelf hardware; Proton/Soyuz and Ariane V come to mind. This base to have mining machinery and some engineering equipment.

Step 2. Lunar-surface electromagnetic launcher and solar power plant to run it (which can be as simple as a big mirror and a steam turbine).

Step 3. This is the expensive part; construction shack in space, possibly a lowish orbit (not too low, we don't want to have to use fuel keeping it up).

Step 4. Launch the lunar materials from step 1, using step 2, to a "catcher" in a stable point - L5 has been discussed. Move the stuff to the shack using some of the stuff as reaction mass and solar energy for power; again, no volatile fuels needed.

Step 5. Build a rather larger "shack" using these materials.

Step 6. Expedition to a suitable asteroid with plenty of volatiles, bring said volatiles back.

Step 7. This is where the payback comes. Build a solar power plant in a suitable place (geostationary?) and a big microwave transmitter. Also build a receiver on the ground, which can be built somewhere not much good for anything else - coincidentally, America has plenty of worthless desert for this.

Step 7. Rinse and repeat 5-6.

What do we get out of all this? Huge amounts of power with miniscule marginal cost. A mine on the moon. Really significant space travel and manufacturing capability. And most important of all, somewhere else to live when us upstart monkeys ruin Earth. Which we will. And even if we don't, in the long term, quite a lot of important strategic materials are going to run out before this century ends; what price industrial civilisation then?

"Earth is the cradle of mankind; but man cannot stay in the cradle forever".

And NONE of this is going to be done, at least by Americans, while NASA exists.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at February 21, 2007 02:08 AM

Sorry, mistake in my last post. Step 7 (second one) should be step 8. rinse and repeat 6-7.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at February 21, 2007 02:13 AM

You have repeatedly told me that any alternative to ESAS is politically incorrect.

Uh, no. An all-EELV version of the VSE is unacceptable to me because I want Mars and the people who sell Delta IV will be as opposed to your $100 per pound to LEO spaceplane as ATK.

Sounds like a good argument to create government incentives for such ventures. Now, tell me again why it's better to flush $100 billion on Ares and Orion?

Recall the "Direct" kerfluffle. Ross Tierney was convinced that his Direct launcher wazs superior to Ares 1 & Ares V.

NASA engineers sat down with the proposal and now Tierney acknowledges his proposal had a genuine and serious flaw.

Edward, who is your choice to replace Mike Griffin? I see your plan as being:

1. Fire Griffin.

2. ???????

3. Fly spaceplanes at $100 per pound to LEO.

Fill in the details for step 2 and we can talk.

Posted by at February 21, 2007 06:02 AM

That last was mine.

Posted by Bill White at February 21, 2007 06:04 AM

> Uh, no. An all-EELV version of the VSE is unacceptable to me because I want Mars

So did Von Braun. You're making the same mistakes he did. Building der Great Big Rocket won't get you there.

You're also a bit confused in calling Soyuz as an "all-EELV" plan. Soyuz is not launched by EELV.

NASA should get out of the rocket/spacecraft development business and put out an RFP to buy rides wherever it wants to go. Whether that's ISS, the Moon, Barsoom, or Oz.

If NASA refuses to do that, the only hope is reorganization. Spin off the old NACA centers to a new NACA, as proposed recently by Flight International. Take human spaceflight from NASA and give it back to the Air Force. Move NASA headquarters and the unmanned programs to Pasadena.

Posted by Edward Wright at February 21, 2007 10:51 AM

Edward:

I don't particularly want Mars. We'll get Mars when we want and/or need it, if we tap into the exponential growth possible on the High Frontier.

In a hundred or two years, there'll be enough tech savvy and resources available to set up a Mars landing as a school project.

The _minimum_ timescale I've seen for Mars terraforming is about five hundred years. If we do it right, by then we'll be thinking that we need to dismantle Mars for raw materials.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at February 21, 2007 11:45 AM

I should point out , tha twhile SpaceShip 1 is in the
Smithsonian, SpaceShip 2 is undergoing final
work for a test program this summer.

Posted by anonymous at February 22, 2007 12:35 PM

Post a comment