Likewise, if NASA pursues a more ambitious space program under a new President, both pads could/would be needed for SLS launches. But Obama has given one of them to a privately held corporation.

That stinks!

“In another forum (maybe it was one of Spudis’ articles) someone posted their father worked on Surveyor camera zoom mechanism said we beat the Soviets because “we had an Ace Hardware on every corner. Soviets did not.”

That “someone” was yours truly. BTW, I had a short article about my father’s role on Project Surveyor in the May 2015 issue of AIR & SPACE magazine. I have a more detailed account posted on Harrison Schmitt’s website:

http://www.americasuncommonsense.com/blog/wp-content/pdfFiles/Mellberg_Surveyor1-America's%20First%20Moon%20Landing.pdf

My point about Ace Hardware stores was that American engineers had access to off-the-shelf parts and equipment when designing our rockets and spacecraft. The dry lubricant (Lubeco 905) that I mentioned in connection with Surveyor was just one example. The Soviets, on the other hand, did not have easy access to needed parts and equipment, and they often had to produce them (some very basic) in house. Their problem was directly related to the inefficiencies of the Soviet command economy.

As for John Kennedy’s attitude toward spaceflight and his “offer” to have a joint mission to the Moon, please see what Dr. Spudis wrote in 2013 on his AIR & SPACE blog:

http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/jfk-and-the-moon-180947824/?no-ist

James Harford’s book about Korolev is outstanding.

I would also recommend Sergei Khrushchev’s excellent book, “Nikita Khrushchev and the Creation of A Super Power” (Penn State Press, 2000). I had the good fortune of interviewing Dr. Khrushchev not long after the book was published. His insights about his father’s attitude toward the Soviet space program offer a somewhat different perspective. At the time (early to mid 1960s), Sergei Khrushchev was working as an engineer in Vladimir Chelomei’s design bureau. He provides some interesting anecdotes describing the relationships between Korolev, Glushko and Chelomei. Chelomei was convinced that Korolev’s N-1 Moon rocket would never work because of the 30 engines in the 1st stage. It was too complicated. (BTW, Musk’s Falcon Heavy has 27 engines.) Chelomei proposed his own UR-700 Moon rocket. But the Politburo supported Korolev’s N-1 to the bitter end.

Finally, I remember what my dear friend Jim Floyd (now 100 years old) said about high technology:

“Anyone who imagines that high technology runs cheap doesn’t understand the subject.”

Jim began his career as one of a handful of engineers who turned the Avro Manchester into the legendary Avro Lancaster bomber. After the war, he came to Canada where he was the chief designer for Avro Canada. Jim was responsible for the pioneering Avro Jetliner and the fabulous Avro Arrow. He was talking about the Arrow when he made his comment about “cheap.” After Avro’s fall in Canada, Jim returned to the UK where he played a leading role in the British SST project (which evolved into Concorde).

In any case, I think his remark about “cheap” was right on the mark.

Having read a bit on Apollo it comes up over and over again in personal accounts the people who made it happen essentially had no life- for close to a decade. Most of us have known some people who choose this kind of existence and outwardly perhaps they seem to enjoy it. Maybe some small percentage actually do.

But everybody deserves a life.

As for new generations of machines “getting too expensive” there is no mystery there; materials science and the laws of physics place certain limitations on what can be. For example industry continues to sell new jet engines that are more powerful and fuel efficient than before because so few of the people making the decision to buy know that at some point it is almost impossible to make this a reality. The laws of thermodynamics state there is only so much energy in that gallon of kerosene. Exotic alloys and the expertise to fashion them so as to utilize higher temperatures and pressures cost…..a fortune.

It is the same reason SpaceX does not use hydrogen; turbopumps to push that low density propellent are fiendishly difficult to engineer and have to be about ten times as powerful as one pushing kerosene. But there is no substitute if over-400 seconds of Isp is desired and in an upper stage that number is the magic spell that put us on the Moon.

There is no cheap.

That is quite a sleight of hand statement by itself. Considering the Glory satellite fiasco, the virgin graves, and billions in subsidies and free support given that supposed free market miracle company whose endless infomercials I am so sick of, I would say “commercial space” (I prefer “NewSpace”) is nimble and skilled at “marketing” but little else.

Just like the good Doctor said.

In terms of a cold war campaign you are absolutely correct Joe. No arguing that.

In terms of space exploration in my view it is more akin to that favorite example of mine- the British airship program.

The “captialist R-100 beat the “socialist” R-101 but actually the ultimate goal- the skies of the world traveled by fleets of airships- was lost.

NewSpace fans sometimes compare NASA to the soviets and SpaceX to the U.S. in regards to the present situation and this infuriates me. This toxic NASA hate reaches close to obscene levels on certain forums that review space and present space news.

That is in my view the single most intriguing “what if” concerning the space program because water would have made all things possible instead of nearly impossible.

It was the big mistake and in the best possible parallel universe there are now thousands of people on a parallel Moon setting in motion underground factories to build space solar power arrays to provide all the energy required by civilization on Earth. Projects to build cities in space would be well along.

We have a lot of catching up to do.

Probably early next year, although it is currently being copy edited and should be ready for the press soon. Publishers have their own schedules. This one is being published by the Smithsonian Institution Press. The full title is: The Value of the Moon: Bringing Space into our Economic Sphere.

That changed everything!

It completely changed the entire situation concerning space exploration.

But for years now it has been ignored. Incredible.

The human species may actually be too stupid to survive.

Every imaginable scheme of this kind was studied a half a century ago and the numbers all said the largest possible Saturn V type launch vehicle was the way to go. And that took us to the Moon. Materials science has not changed that much and the laws of physics will not change. Though there are a few kinds of wishalloy they are fantastically expensive and there is unobtainium in the form of Americium 242 which could probably be used in small fission fragment rocket engines- except it is radioactive and would require a trillion dollar new industry be built from scratch.

The 5 segment SRB and the RS-68A are presently the ultimate examples of rocket technology. Both U.S. products and completely tested and proven. Nova class launch vehicles using four (or more) of the SRB’s and multiple RS-68A’s can lift Earth Departure Stages of 500 tons and more. These launch vehicles and the launch pads they would need would cost no more than any DOD project like the Ohio missile submarine replacement program or the F-35 fighter.

The SRB’s are reliable but have significant disadvantages because they are toxic and have to be un-segmented, loaded with propellent, and re-assembled for reuse which makes them cheaper to just throw away. The big dumb booster, probably using methane, would be superior but as I explained in another comment, there is no military R&D to cut costs on such a design and it thus considered too expensive.

In regards to Human Space Flight ULA’s new Vulcan is actually a step down. The money would have been better spent on simply human-rating and increasing the lift-off thrust with SRB’s of the Delta IV heavy.