Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I find this quote from the Aerospace Daily report depressingly amusing, talking about why he thinks China would be able to beat the U.S. to the Moon: "If one is willing to make use of multiple Earth-orbit rendezvous, a really big rocket is not required," Griffin wrote. "It's pretty cumbersome, but it can be done."

What again was the official NASA reason for using a really big rocket, instead of Earth-orbit rendezvous?

Posted by Neil H. at September 19, 2007 12:24 AM

The obvious possibility is that it's part of a strategy to protect or increase NASA's funding. Exaggerate Chinese capabilities, hint that American prestige and technological supremacy is at risk, and then ask for more money to combat the alleged threat.

Of course, what Griffin should really be worrying about is whether a private company will beat NASA to the moon.

Posted by Andrew Zalotocky at September 19, 2007 05:19 AM

This reminds me of that old Chinese saying,

Even a journey of 238900 miles, begins with one subterfuge.

Posted by Steve Fu Young at September 19, 2007 06:18 AM

There is zero evidence that China has a manned lunar program underway at all, let alone one that will get them there before 2020.

It may be true that China will not land people on the moon by 2020, but there is no reason to believe that the US will either. The dates in the VSE speech are all bullshit. With the possible exception of retiring the space shuttle in 2010 --- depending on the next president, that one deadline might be real.

Posted by at September 19, 2007 06:20 AM

When the Chinese reach the moon, and NASA astronauts return there, I hope they're greeted by a teen-aged kid saying, "Welcome to McDonald's. May I take your order?"

Posted by Kevin Adams at September 19, 2007 07:19 AM

Kevin--please, no. I'd much rather eat at, say, Chick-fil-A.

Posted by Rick C at September 19, 2007 07:24 AM

The obvious possibility is that it's part of a strategy to protect or increase NASA's funding. Exaggerate Chinese capabilities

That posture has worked quite well for the Pentagon. NASA needs cash to build massive Ares rockets for Apollo II while the Pentagon wants funds to buy fast attack subs and air superiority fighters for a hypothetical WW III with China. Both are stuck in a Cold War paradigm.

Posted by John Kavanagh at September 19, 2007 07:51 AM

I agree with Andrew. Griffin has been pointing out for awhile now that there is a long gap between end of Shuttle and first manned flight of Constellation. Seemed a bit odd for an Administrator to make such a big deal about this, but it got no traction.

Now he's hitting at US prestige as the only nation to make it to another celestial body, but unable to get back there before others can... I think with 2020 being the timeframe, he might just have to worry about being beat by the US private sector before being concerned with China.

Posted by Leland at September 19, 2007 07:55 AM

Then again Griffin, who has been to China and is a serious guy, may be speaking the truth. China is emerging as a future threat, just as the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were in the past. Oddly enough I can see the same pattern of appeasement and denial rearing its ugly head as well.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at September 19, 2007 09:30 AM

At nasaspaceflight there is speculation that Griffin is seeking to prepare the ground to transition to Direct V2.0 and to ditch Ares 1. A little Chinese smoke might help distract from too many Congressional questions about the (alleged) inadequacy of da' Stick. Cancel it and move along quietly, without too many questions.

With BOTH the Republican and Democratic Senators from Florida worried about FL jobs (and the GOP Senator being a leading official of the party and Florida electoral votes potentially in play in 2008) I just do not see outright cancellation of the shuttle without a shuttle derived follow on being approved by Congress.

Thus, Stick cancellation and a move to Jupiter as a single launcher would be a major step forward.

Whether or not China is a threat.

Posted by Bill White at September 19, 2007 12:03 PM

Griffin smoking something? Oh come on. People here all the time (even in this section, see above) talk of private companies getting humans to the Moon before NASA and there is truly ZERO evidence of that happening. Who has put a man in orbit, China or a private company?

As I have said continuously in this argument If China wants to beat the US to the Moon, they certainly have time to do so. And there is no guarantee that we will realize that they are headed in that direction in time to do anything about it.

As far as that goes, a private company could do the same. I won't rule it out. But there's no more evidence (less even) to support that claim than there is to support a claim of China sending men to the Moon, yet only one side is accused of smoking anything.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at September 19, 2007 12:49 PM

I think that it is the direct guys that are smoking something if they think that Mike is going to go their way.

Posted by Dennis Wingo at September 19, 2007 02:57 PM

Maybe he's feeling the pressure of a prospective 2nd year under a continuing resolution.

Oh, I forgot, he can always continue to strip the rest of NASA for the Apollo II idiocy.

(On the other hand, he's pretty well stripped the house already...)

Posted by Charles Lurio at September 19, 2007 03:58 PM

So, Griffin believes multiple Earth-orbit rendezvous is too difficult for NASA -- but not too difficult for China???

How did China get so far ahead of the US, technologically? :-)

Posted by Edward Wright at September 20, 2007 12:56 AM

A simple lunar-flyby stunt wouldn't be that hard for China to do right now.

Posted by Brad at September 20, 2007 03:18 AM

How did China get so far ahead of the US, technologically? :-)

Simple. They don't have to keep ATK happy.

Posted by Phil Fraering at September 20, 2007 07:48 AM

"Who has put a man in orbit, China or a private company?"

Space Adventures has put five or so into orbit and have a standing offer to fly people around the Moon. Does a Russian space program financed by a US firm facilitating paying tourists count as a private company? Does Google/XPrize's lunar lander count as a private company? When we are talking about 13 years from now acceleration counts more than velocity and position. Look how far we've come in the less than 13 years since the Internet became commercial.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at September 20, 2007 10:10 AM

"Does a Russian space program financed by a US firm facilitating paying tourists count as a private company?"

Absolutely not, no more that my buying a ticket on an airliner would make me an aeronautical engineer.

"When we are talking about 13 years from now acceleration counts more than velocity and position. Look how far we've come in the less than 13 years since the Internet became commercial."

Exactly. And just what can China do in the next 13?

Why is belief that China might put humans on the Moon within 13 years evidence of "smoking something" but belief that a private company might do the same not evidence thereof?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at September 20, 2007 10:49 AM

So, Griffin believes multiple Earth-orbit rendezvous is too difficult for NASA -- but not too difficult for China???

How did China get so far ahead of the US, technologically? :-)

Technology is not the issue. Economics is.

Proton and/or Long March can be purchased for far less than Delta IV and/or Atlas V.

And even the Russians would prefer to do the Moon with their (now non-existent) Energia launch vehicle than with a program that cobbles together a number of Proton launches.

Posted by Bill White at September 20, 2007 11:58 AM

Oh, and politics.

Both the GOP Senator from Florida and the Democratic Senator from Florida would be upset if an all EELV program caused a loss of Kennedy Space Center jobs.

Direct 2.0 accommodates a number diverse concerns including some that should not be concerns, but are.

Posted by Bill White at September 20, 2007 12:27 PM

"there is zero evidence that China has a manned lunar program underway at all, let alone one that will get them there before 2020."

unless you count numerous google "china manned lunar" articles which repeatedly refer to 2017-2024 as a goal.

I think it's a mistake to look at low GDP allocation and late start as the primary indicators.

What's Elon's GDP in relation to the U.S.?

I prefer Pournelle's orbit is half way to anywhere concept. ...and the Chinese have already accomplished that.

We're way ahead of the vaccuum tubes of 1969. It should take less than the eight years of Apollo, not more. The 'race' factor seems to be the deciding issue. If we see it as a race (I don't) that could change time tables.

Posted by at September 20, 2007 12:51 PM

Proton and/or Long March can be purchased for far less than Delta IV and/or Atlas V.

No, Bill, they can be purchased for slightly less.

To cost "far less," they would have to be reusable -- although that violates another of Griffin's religious taboo.

And even the Russians would prefer to do the Moon with their (now non-existent) Energia launch vehicle than with a program that cobbles together a number of Proton launches.

So, if the Russians are stupid, that's sufficient reason for us to be stupid, too?

Shakespeare's Captain Fluellen said it best, "If the enemy is an ass and a fool and a prating coxcomb, is it meet, think you, that we should also, look you, be an ass and a fool and a prating coxcomb? in your own conscience, now?"

If the Russians do what you claim, they have no chance of accomplishing anything significant in space. And neither will NASA, if they do as you advise.

So, which is more important, Bill? Opening the space frontier or mindlessly copying the Russians (or the Chinese or whichever country you want NASA to copy this week)?

Posted by Edward Wright at September 20, 2007 05:12 PM

Both the GOP Senator from Florida and the Democratic Senator from Florida would be upset if an all EELV program caused a loss of Kennedy Space Center jobs.

Like many space fans, you greatly overestimate the importance of space policy in Federal elections.

Your argument was used to sell VSE to Bush and Rove. What did the GOP get in return, Bill? Did the NASA employees union cross over to support Bush in 2004? Did Keith Cowing? Did you?

Why should politicians believe voters who didn't care enough about space policy to cross party lines in 2004 will care a lot more in 2008?

On the other hand, fiscal conservatives care about runaway spending and they are willing to cross party lines because of it. They did so in 2006, voting Libertarian, and the Republicans lost the Senate as a result.

Who do you think politicians are going to pay more attention to in the future, Bill? Millions of fiscal conservatives in 50 states, who swung the last election, or thousands of Shuttle workers in Florida who'll continue to vote for Democrats no matter how much money NASA gets?

Posted by Edward Wright at September 20, 2007 06:46 PM

Like many space fans, you greatly overestimate the importance of space policy in Federal elections.

Actually the reverse.

If the Senators from Florida want X, Y or Z there is no one else in Congress or the White House who cares enough to tell them no.

Edward, the EELV people had their chance to fight for their vision when O'Keefe and Steidle were running the show. For whatever reason, other options were chosen and Griffin waltzed in with nary a shot fired in political defense of an EELV architecture for VSE.

Mel Martinez (R-FL) is the current Chairman of the Republican Party. He does not want Kennedy Space Center to lose jobs. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) has expressed interest in flying shuttle orbiter past 2010.

NO ONE with any meaningful political clout has risen to advocate an EELV approach since O'Keefe left and Steidle was eased out and NO ONE in Congress has stood up to tell Mel Martinez (R-FL) "NO!" and I predict no one will.

= = =

NASA is a TINY drop in the federal budget bucket and I predict no Senator will want the blame for pulling the plug.

Thus, the train will roll on.

With Direct V2.0 we can get a little more for our money than with ESAS.

Posted by Bill White at September 20, 2007 07:02 PM

Oh, and Edward you should note that the new Direct V2.0 paper presented at AIAA calls for "a reusable and refuelable Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM)" to be deployed to EML-1.

jez sayin' :-)

Posted by Bill White at September 20, 2007 07:52 PM

calls for "a reusable and refuelable Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM)" to be deployed to EML-1.

The plan could be made even better if it also called for everyone to get a pony.

Posted by Paul Dietz at September 21, 2007 06:53 AM

Paul, speaking of ponies, a fully reuse-able LSAM strikes me as being far less technologically demanding that a fully resuse-able Earth-to-LEO RLV. Far less expensive, too.

No need for heating shielding combined with considerably lower delta v to travel from Luna to EML-1 or 2 versus Earth to LEO.

Perhaps a reuseable LSAM is a bridge too far (perhaps not) but if you are correct then pretty much all of NewSpace is aiming to cross a bridge that is even farther away.

Posted by Bill White at September 21, 2007 08:25 AM

NO ONE with any meaningful political clout has risen to advocate an EELV approach since O'Keefe left and Steidle was eased out

Bill, you embarrass yourself with statements like this. If you read the news, you would know that Congress has been pressuring NASA to use EELV instead of the Stick.

You assume that Congress agrees with all of your ideas because that's what you want to believe. That's called wishful thinking and has no relationship to reality.

As for your belief that Martinez is in NASA's hip pocket, in 2005-2006, Martinez received $331,702 in PAC contributions. He got only $3500 of that came from aerospace industries and nothing at all from the big NASA contractors (Boeing, Lockheed, or USA).

Worse still, for you, Martinez has seldom even spoken about space, has never introduced any space legislation, and has seldom even spoken about space. On the one recent occasion when he did talk about space, he said he wanted to minimize the gap between Shuttle and Orion -- which your approach maximizes. He also said he wants to do it within the existing budget.

So there's no evidence that Martinez will come riding over the hill on a White House to save you, Bill.

Also, "Direct V2" is not a real NASA program, as you seem to believe. It's fan fiction.

Posted by Edward Wright at September 21, 2007 10:33 AM

Paul, speaking of ponies, a fully reuse-able LSAM strikes me as being far less technologically demanding that a fully resuse-able Earth-to-LEO RLV.

No need for heating shielding combined with considerably lower delta v to travel from Luna to EML-1 or 2 versus Earth to LEO.

Bill, perhaps you're unaware that an RLV doesn't need to go all the way from Earth to LEO in one stage.

Or perhaps you're simply pretending to be unaware.

You also overlook a more important fact: NASA isn't *trying* to build a fully reusable LSAM. They're trying to build a two-stage LSAM that stages on the lunar surface. The fact that it abandons one stage on the Moon means it's impossible to make it reusable.

You embarrass yourself by seeing ponies that aren't there.

Posted by Edward Wright at September 21, 2007 10:46 AM

Speaking of ponies:

"If wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak" - Jayne Cobb, Firefly.

I'm not sure what point I'm making here, but it seemed to fit into the discussion.

Posted by Ed Minchau at September 21, 2007 10:24 PM

Not sure which Chinese aerospace magazine the astronautix site was referring to (broken link there), but, in the first place, one suspects it was a somewhat dated article. (Judging from the 2005 date provided, it was probably a 2004 or 2005 article.)

The current Chinese lunar exploration program is a bit more on-target than suggested by the anonymous commenter. The lunar orbiter is expected to go up sometime this year (and that has been the official plan for at least the past two years).

The lunar lander/rover is expected to land around 2010. Interestingly, there've been a number of different dates provided by the Chinese regarding a sample retrieval mission, ranging from 2015-2020 (most commonly falling around 2017-2018).

Will the Chinese be able to land a person by 2020? Given their current pace, probably not, but it's not at all clear what happens after Shenzhou-VIII (Shenzhou-VII is scheduled for launch sometime next year).

Are there indications of Chinese interest in a manned lunar mission? Reading the Chinese press, one gets the impression that there's training underway for such a mission, but it's not clear whether it's reliable information or not.

The persistent interest in a heavy launcher suggests a desire to put a larger payload into space, but that has non-lunar (and even non-military) roles.

Low budgetary figures should be used with caution. Just as the Chinese military's budget figures are viewed with skepticism, so should any other Chinese figures. How much of the space budget is hidden within various other programs (e.g., Plan 863, Plan 211, etc.) is anyone's guess.

Posted by Lurking Observer at September 22, 2007 11:11 AM

I am techno-optimistic about the USA beating China to the Moon. Caltech hosted, this week, the "50 Years in Space" www.galcit.caltech.edu/space50/

There was much more inspiration than frustration there.

I was also encourgaed by lengthy private conversations with people that Rand and I knew while at Rockwell Space Systems Transportation Division, such as Edward McCullough, who has continued and expanded first-rate research in Lunar and Mars colonization, via AIAA, Beoing, and NRC.

Competition with China, India, Japan, ESA is very healthy for the USA, as is the growth (I almost wrote "explosive growth" but that has the wrong implications) of Free Enterprise space programs, such as Virgin Galactic and the new Google lunar robot initiative.

I have no illusions about NASA, after my input to the Columbia Accident Investigation Board and the NASA IG's office, with many of the intentionally fraudulent managers who should have been jailed still cluttering the halls of Boeing and other firms, but there are healthy signs that NASA is healing in several areas, including space science (JDEM, LISA), folding in ideas from the Planetary Society, National Space Society, Zubrin's Mars Society and other space advocacy groups.

In the long run, humans are more likely than not to make it back to the Moon, on to mars, the asteroids, comet nuclei, the moons of the gas ginats, and beyond, into the cosmos that is our destiny.

Of course, I'm also a professional Science Fiction author, and that colors my thinking. The complete long version of my poem about solar sails, coauthored with Ray Bradbury, a shorter version of which appeared in a book edited by Sir Arthur C. Clarke, is now available -- "Collaborations", edited by Gene van Troyer, Ravenna Press, ISBN 0-9791921-3-7, $14.95
www.ravennapress.com

Posted by Jonathan Vos Post at September 22, 2007 06:40 PM

Post a comment