Only 7 years away — book your passage now!
Recent events have focused our attention yet again on the gap between promises made and the reality of our national civil space program’s performance. It’s easy to see, if one cares to look at the big picture, that while our space effort is slowly sputtering to a halt, many steadfastly hold to an unsustainable, unworkable program. So convinced are they that this stark reality, though patently true and verifiable, isn’t staring them in the face, that they ignore the obvious gaps, or worse, dismiss them out of hand and work against a knowable course correction that could fix the problem.
In September 1962, then-President John F. Kennedy gave a stirring speech at Rice University in Houston. In it, he called for (and outlined) the need for a national determination to put a man on the Moon. Clips of his speech are often re-played, as it is thought to epitomize the spirit of the Apollo program. Indeed, there was a national “spirit” and “right stuff” in that distant era – one not concerned with the Moon or with space per se, but rather, driven by the desire to defeat the Soviet Union’s goal of conquest here on Earth, by winning a technology race in space. A comparable zeitgeist does not now exist.
This week, Dava Newman, the Deputy Administrator of NASA, will also appear at Rice University. While reading the description of Newman’s forthcoming appearance, I was struck by how much of what is asserted in the text is simply untrue. There is no “Journey to Mars” except in the minds of some agency bureaucrats. The supposed three-stages of the “Journey” – low Earth orbit (LEO), the cislunar “proving ground,” and traveling to Mars – hypes new technology and capability development, exemplified by the existing LEO phase featuring missions to the International Space Station (ISS); missions currently gathering data on long-term spaceflight, particularly in terms of deconditioning of the human body. But the time required for a round-trip to Mars will not be simulated; the recent “Year in Space” by astronaut Scott Kelly covers roughly only a third of the expected total duration of a human Mars mission.
Along with important questions remaining about how people will survive long-duration missions in space, there also is a lack of knowledge and experience in long-lived, reliable operating systems (as evidenced by continual breakdowns of equipment on ISS). Some problems are fixable (and fixed) by its occupants, but the more serious ones require parts and re-supply from Earth, an option not available to those on their way to Mars. If a system cannot be fixed en route, or if the parts needed for a fix are not onboard, the crew is left without options. Don’t expect them to turn around and come home in a heroic “Apollo 13”-type scenario, as an abort-and-return mission would likely involve weeks to months, putting crew survival in grave jeopardy.
NASA claims to be developing spaceflight to Mars in which “explorers will be practically independent of spaceship Earth.” In fact, they are pursuing exactly the opposite architectural approach. All pieces – equipment and supplies – of NASA’s “Journey to Mars” are to be launched from Earth. NASA states that the forthcoming Space Launch System (SLS) heavy lift rocket will enable and provision this journey. What they do not make clear is that even as large as this SLS rocket will be, multiple launches will be required to conduct a single human Mars mission (at least 8 and possibly as many as 12). This orbiting hardware is then assembled in space into a spacecraft before departing for Mars (launch windows occurring only every 26 months). To assemble and fly such a massive, complex (and as yet not fully understood) space system is a non-trivial problem for whatever entity attempts it.
Some say NASA needs to get out of the space transportation and launch business and buy commercial, but what of these “New Space” promoters, those intrepid entrepreneurs and capitalists boldly pioneering business in space? Here too, there is less than meets the eye. It’s been almost 12 years since SpaceShipOne flew twice to the edge of space and won the coveted Ansari X-Prize for flying the first repeatable, private spaceflight. And though we hear a lot about “space tourism,” the only paying customers flown into space to date got there aboard a Russian Soyuz. It was said at the time (and continues to be believed in many quarters) that prizes are the incentive needed to get the ball rolling – by seeking a monetary trophy and garnering technical acumen and business credibility, a torrent of innovation and industry activity will bring a new era of low cost, personal spaceflight. Yet, here we sit, still dreaming of that golden age.
Despite battling these business profile headwinds and entrepreneurial wind sheer, the salesmanship of New Space continues apace, with all of its variety and ferocity. The public is inundated with articles describing what the New Space sector will achieve in the next few months-to-years – promised future breakthroughs that are greatly outstripped by endless promotional hype. There are no hotels for space tourists on orbit and no way to get any inhabitants there if there were. The Google Lunar X-Prize has had its deadline extended three times (currently to the end of 2017), but no launch date for a first attempt to win the prize has been set. Some promising New Space companies have had significant layoffs (possibly as prelude to going out of business) or have suffered devastating technical setbacks.
Which brings us to Space Exploration Technologies Corporation – SpaceX, billed as the company endowed with the vision, drive and capability required to lead humanity to its second home in the universe – Mars. Yet, as with most New Space claims, what has been promised is much greater than what has been delivered. SpaceX’s Falcon 9 launch system suffered another setback this week when their vehicle and payload exploded on the pad. Accidents happen (and have happened) to the best of those who work in the business of space, and each time these accidents (and subsequent investigations) happen, we are reminded why leaving Earth isn’t routine – because it’s hard and expensive.
Much of the accomplishment of SpaceX is incremental rather than transformational. The development of a flyback booster receives endless press coverage, but to date, none of the company’s used stages have re-flown. Billed as lowering costs (and building clientele), reusability is marketed as a breakthrough approach to affordable space access from Earth (though SES, based in Luxembourg, may want to reconsider their announcement about being the first to fly a payload on a used Falcon 9 first stage after this week’s accident). By SpaceX’s own estimates, if recovery of booster stages becomes workable as a complete end-to-end system, they envision a reduction of “up to 30%” in the price of launch. (That “up to” is always significant in public pronouncements – usually, it can be translated as “a lot less.”) Another SpaceX innovation is the use of super-cooled propellant (“slush liquid oxygen”) to boost performance. It does, but only at about the 8% level. It is not clear whether either of these innovations will revolutionize space access through a reduction in cost or an increase in performance, and of course, at what cost to reliability.
What is clear is, to gain the lion’s share of the market, it’s vital to have and keep positive media attention focused on your business by heralding the most insignificant of events (or plans for future events) in order to drive business your way and squeeze out your competition. An example is the unveiling of the manned Dragon 2 spacecraft in 2014 (which was a mock-up, not a piece of flight hardware). This event was carried live on streaming video – passionately and professionally praised in a wide variety of media. Yet we have heard little about it since. Instead, we get reliably favorable news stories about forthcoming SpaceX PR events – next up is Musk’s presentation this month (at the International Astronautical Congress being held in Mexico) about his just-around-the-corner plans for a human colony on Mars. One story promotes Musk’s corporate claim that the first flights for this milestone in human history will occur in the year 2024 (this from a company that has yet to announce the date of its first manned mission to LEO). Simultaneously, we also have NASA’s “Journey to Mars” being advanced by the media.
Ordinarily, ludicrous and ridiculous public claims are mercilessly disassembled and destroyed by that watchdog of freedom – the American press. So we need to ask, has the media bungled their job when questioning the viability of SpaceX and Musk’s promotional strategy with breathless, softball coverage of virtually anything they announce? Like the fictional FBI agent Fox Mulder on the TV show “The X-Files,” New Space fans “want to believe” – and apparently, many reporters in the space media are fans. “We love SpaceX,” begins the honest headline of a recent story by Eric Berger of Ars Technica, who then wisely advises Elon Musk to focus on the near-term and the achievable in space, and to cut back on the hype and the grab for glory.
That does not appear to be a good marketing strategy though, because fortune and fame hinge on continually selling the dream of space. And in that sense, SpaceX fits perfectly with the mindset of their governmental predecessor and current business partner, NASA. Both remain bound to a similar blueprint of promoting a distant dream (humans on Mars) rather than doing what is necessary in our national interests (“not because it is easy but because it is hard”) – the work required to build and perfect real systems (reliable flight hardware to LEO and cislunar space) that will allow us to achieve a permanent foothold off planet, while maintaining and challenging our important technology sector. They are also alike in their apparent disinterest in pursing a return to the Moon – a place both known and reachable – where building a true Earth-independent architecture through the use of lunar material and energy resources, holds the promise of giving us affordable and routine access to space beyond LEO.
So, regardless of the details Elon Musk announces in Mexico later this month or Dava Newman’s comments on NASA’s “Journey to Mars” next week at Rice University, color me dutifully skeptical.
“By SpaceX’s own estimates, if recovery of booster stages becomes workable as a complete end-to-end system, they envision a reduction of “up to 30%” in the price of launch. (That “up to” is always significant in public pronouncements – usually, it can be translated as “a lot less.”) ”
Another interesting point. SpaceX has also stated (in a separate comment of course) that the ability to recover the first stage for reuse reduces the boosters payload capability by 30 %.
I am an engineer not a CPA, but that would seem to make the cost per pound to orbit the same even if they can produce the 30% cost reduction.
True, but often launch vehicles do not use their full capacity in a launch.
Hi Ben,
That is true, but as discussed below, that is for launches of satellites; not cargo, fuel or most of the other things that Spacex fans associate with SpaceX revolutionizing launch costs and ushering in “cheap” and common spaceflight.
The hype is that reusability will reduce launch costs and up flight rates dramatically (Musk talks orders of magnitude cost reduction and flight rates of 1,000’s/year).
With a sales pitch like – Reuse of the Falcon 9 first stage may allow SpaceX to reduce launch cost for satellites (of some limited mass range going to some orbits) by 30% (or less), thus allowing SpaceX to undercut their competition and make Elon Musk even richer.
It is doubtful there would be all the “enthusiasm” (not to mention government largess) for SpaceX.
Perhaps of note,
A recent SpaceX webcast indicated that they reserved 5% of fuel for recovery.
I did some basic rocket equation estimations with that and other available data to see how reasonable it is and how much of a payload penalty it is.
Firstly I assumed that 5% fuel is near the absolute minimum needed for recovery.
Thus, I assumed a max weight GTO mission for my calculations.
I used a 5500kg satellite (+1750kg fairing).
I assumed all stage 1 burns are at sea level ISP of 282s. Stage 2 burn is at Vacuum ISP of 345s.
This means approx. 11 km/s delta-V is given to satellite.
Stage 1 separates at ~ 3.3 km/s.
News reports state that the reentry burn slowed the stage to 2km/s.
This means that the reentry burn must have used 87% of the remaining propellant or 17800 kg. (delta V of ~ 1.3 km/s)
Air resistance slows the stage to terminal velocity (I’ve seen estimates that place this at ~150m/s)
Leaving only 2700 kg of propellant left for the landing burn.
This 2700kg gives a delta V of 271 m/s.
Crosschecking with the published burn times of the reentry and landing burns for the JCSAT 14 mission.
reentry ~15s w/ 3 engines
landing ~6s w/ 3 engines
to match the above numbers, the landing burn needs to be at ~50% throttle
and the reentry burn needs to be at 100% throttle for ~19s. (or >100% throttle)
The calculated delta-V values seem tight, but not impossible.
Now to the point:
Assuming the above estimates are reasonably close to accurate,
How much larger payload could a falcon 9 launch to a 11km/s GTO if the rocket is expended? It could launch ~7000kg instead of 5500kg to 11km/s GTO.
1-5500/7000 = at least a ~21% payload reduction.
cheers.
Ben,
Interesting analysis.
SpaceX actually claims:
(1) A 30% Payload Penalty for a return to launch site landing attempt.
(2) A 15% Payload Penalty for a barge landing attempt.
The difference is undoubtedly in the fuel for the retrograde maneuver required for return to site.
I got someone (who does that sort of thing for a living) to run numbers on an LEO mission and return to launch site, their answer was a penalty in the 35 – 40% range.
However, granting SpaceX their numbers and assuming your calculations are for a barge landing your numbers are in the general range (better than the ones to which I refer and worse than SpaceX claims).
Trouble with the barge landing is that the maximum 30% cost savings SpaceX asserts would have to be assumed to be for the launch site landing. The extra expense for the barge landing (the barge itself, extra handing, etc.) would have to be subtracted from that.
In any case, this goes back to what I was saying previously. The hypothetical savings may make sense if the goal is to undercut ULA, ESA, Russia, China, etc. in the satellite launch market, but it is not anything like the paradigm shifting (sorry about the cliché) breakthrough the SpaceX hype claims.
It is that hype that is responsible for SpaceX PR success and the undercutting of any attempt at reestablishing a serious space program.
That was one of the points of the article.
Joe,
Indeed I was assuming a barge landing. (no boost-back burn)
(I was also using a very simple model with conservative assumptions. They reasonably could be able to do better than I predicted.)
If (and I freely admit that it’s a big IF) SpaceX succeeds in reducing refurbishment costs of landed boosters to routine maintenance, the actual benefits to $$/kg show up. Distributing the cost of the booster over a small number of launches before it wears out or crashes only provides a rather small cost benefit. If the cost is distributed over a large number of launches then the marginal cost of a launch decreases. This in turn, reduces the $$/kg.
After SpaceX re-launches a few used stages, we may get a better idea how much money (if any) it is actually saving them.
If it turns out that in the end for LEO payloads they take a 30% performance to achieve a 30% cost reduction (even with a large number of re-uses), then I agree they have effectively gotten nowhere with respect to $$/kg. Other than, perhaps getting a good $$/kg for that size of rocket. (Smaller rockets tend to have higher $$/kg).
Another aspect that may be relevant is that we don’t know how much of the actual savings SpaceX is intending to pass on to their customers. (i.e. if it actually saves SpaceX 30m and they pass on 18m to their customer (launch cost of ~42m), they increase their margin on launches by 12m)
They could be passing all/nearly all to make reuse appear more viable and to under-cut their competition. Or they may be using it as an opportunity to make more on each launch.
The direct costs of Commercial space are relatively small compared to the amount spent on the SLS and Orion.
The other thing with respect to the hype, is if that hype causes the public to be more interested in space, NASA’s budget may be able to be increased.
I would prefer that we set up a Base with ISRU on the moon first. NASA’s current “Journey to Mars” can be changed to a “Return to the moon to stay” by the next administration if they choose.
Although, I agree that excitement/hype about SpaceX/Mars may reduce the chance that the new administration changes NASA’s “Journey to Mars”.
SpaceX launches currently cost less then ULA launches. That has allowed SpaceX to get a number of commercial launches that ULA simply is too expensive for.
Bringing foreign money into the US space sector seems like a good thing to me.
Are SpaceX’s low launch costs due, at lease in part, to NASA/gov’t money? Definitely.
But the question is:
Do the launches cost SpaceX more than they charge?(effectively using gov’t money to artificially reduce the launch costs)
Or:
Did the gov’t money simply allow SpaceX to get started and the prices they charge reflect a reasonable profit on top of their costs?
I think this question will be answered in the next few years. They have gotten only a certain amount of gov’t money and that money is supposed to be used to fulfill the contracts it is payment for. If SpaceX is pulling money from them, I expect it to become apparent.
Hi Ben,
Wow, three lengthy posts covering a lot what if’s and philosophy all posted in less than an hour, I gave up coffee recently so I will stick to a couple of points.
(1) The analysis to which I referred was based on an experienced individual’s (not me) work. That 35 – 40% payload penalty is almost certainly valid, therefore granting SpaceX their 30% estimate is already giving them a considerable benefit of the doubt.
(2) Refurbishment of stages for reuse is at least partially dependent on selection of fuel. Kerosene is a great choice for a first stage engine for performance, but not for maintenance for reusability (that is at least one of the reasons Blue Origin selected LNG for the BE-4 and the Russians – with all their financial problems – are also working on an LNG engine). Just the need for cleaning the coking from the fuel lines will probably be enough to keep Falcon 9 reuse from ever being a “kick the tires and light the fires” operation.
Note I am not saying that a truly beneficial reusable booster is impossible, just that it is unlikely to be the Falcon 9.
(3) The money allocated to commercial crew is less than that for SLS/Orion (but still not insignificant), but that is not the point. The point is that if people (including many politicians in a position to affect Space Policy) buy the hype that SpaceX is going to put a colony on Mars by 2030 (as Musk has asserted) they will not wish to support any program at all, Why “waste” the money when you “can just let Elon do it”. You will find comments liked that many places (including from people who should know better).
Last, but not least.
(4) The hype may cause some people to be more interested in Space, but if they really buy that “Elon is already doing it”, that will not translate into support for a real program. Additionally, when the hype turns out to be just hype it will cause many to become even more cynical about promises of future accomplishments in Space and make getting a real program in place even more difficult.
This has been a fun discussion, but I would suggest we have reached the point of clogging up the comments section with a discussion of booster design (however fascinating we may find it) and should adjourn for now.
In contrast to SpaceX’s attempt to reach up from Earth with greenhouse-gas emitting rockets, the ULA is seriously proposing to reach down from the Moon with lunar propellants. I was at the 7th joint meeting of The Space Resources Roundtable (SRR) and the Planetary & Terrestrial Mining Sciences Symposium (PTMSS) was held on June 7-9, 2016 at the Colorado School of Mines, in Golden, CO. There George Sowers made a concrete bid for lunar propellant: although they are not necessarily interested in the mining business themselves, they would be willing to take delivery of lunar-produced propellant at the Moon’s surface for ~$500K/mT (but it’s gotta be mass ratio 5).
They want it for their proposed, reusable, ACES space tugs for boosting satellites from LEO to higher orbits; consequently, ULA would be willing to pay progressively more for lunar propellant the closer to LEO it can be delivered. (Thus, if one could come up with a propellantless launch system from the Moon, one could significantly increase one’s sales margin, or tolerate higher production costs.)
To my knowledge, this is the first time a potential customer has put a dollar figure on the price of lunar propellant that they’d be willing to pay. While the announcement certainly isn’t a formal contract, it does at least provide a “Design-to-Cost” dollar figure that would-be Moon mining design engineers can use to guide potential architectures.
If you think about it, $500/kg for propellant on the Moon’s surface is a daunting figure. But that’s what it would take to be competitive with Earth-launched propellant, and using fully propulsive delivery techniques. The ability to mine and refine lunar water cheaply is going to be the key to opening up the translunar economy IMO. YMMV.
“-to mine and refine lunar water cheaply is going to be the key-”
Any human presence Beyond Low Earth Orbit (BLEO) will require massive water shielding. The present paradigm of trying to do everything on the cheap makes this simple admission verboten. The Parker minimum (described by Eugene Parker) works out to well over a thousand tons of water shielding for even a small crew on a long duration mission. Nothing can push that much mass around the solar system except…..a certain form of nuclear propulsion.
So while chemical is the only appropriate propulsion system inside the Earth’s magnetosphere the only way humans can go Beyond Earth and Lunar Orbit (BELO) is with nuclear energy. The Moon is the singular location to acquire shielding, assemble, test, and launch nuclear missions. LEO is the worst place.
The SLS is presently the only Super Heavy Lift Vehicle being built and the only way to effect such missions.
“So while chemical is the only appropriate propulsion system inside the Earth’s magnetosphere the only way humans can go Beyond Earth and Lunar Orbit (BELO) is with nuclear energy”
I know you often repeat this, but there is a contradiction to this, as I’ve tried to present before.
“Having a propellant depot at the mid-point of a round-trip mission cuts the required delta-V in half. Instead of the spacecraft having to lug enough propellant to go to Mars then return to Terra, it only carries enough for half the trip but re-fuels (re-propellants, or re-remasses) at the halfway point. And when you are dealing with exponential growth, cutting the delta-V in half cuts the propellant amount much more than half.
Indeed, Rick Robinson noticed that with access to an orbital propellant depot, most cis-Lunar and Mars missions are well within the delta-V capabilities of a sluggish chemical rocket engine. You do not have to use a nuclear thermal rocket. Hop David noticed this as well. Dr. Takuto Ishimatsu’s ISRU optimization algorithm calculated that NASA’s Mars Reference Mission was more optimal with no NTR but with ISRU (“optimal” defined as “requiring less mass boosted from Terra into LEO”).
This is also an argument for orbital propellant depots in Low Earth Orbit. Remember that once the rocket has traveled from Terra’s surface into LEO, you are “halfway to anywhere”. This means for a one-way trip, LEO is the mid-point of the mission.”
Also, I’ve not seen the figures you mention for what counts as adequate shielding anywhere else.
How certain are you that those figures are accurate?
“I know you often repeat this, but there is a contradiction to this, as I’ve tried to present before.”
No, there is no “contradiction” and you don’t seem to have a clue about what I “often repeat.” Not going to write a thousand word essay to explain it to you. Dr. Spudis has allowed me to post my views over and over again for years. If you really want answers just go to the archives.
I have read your posts.
To tell me that I have no clue about what you say is reminiscent of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
I’ve had too many arguments along those lines.
The figures for radiation shielding you give are closer to what has been proposed for interstellar generation ships, in which the goal is to reduce the exposure to the equivalent of what humans are exposed to on Earth.
For voyages in the inner solar system, the amount can be smaller, especially when the sun’s magnetic field is at its peak.
The contradiction is when you say nuclear propulsion is the only way to travel BEO.
The use of depots as described on the site I obtained the quote from demonstrates otherwise.
Grand Lunar,
Here is a link to the article that has previously been noted as the source for the figures.
https://engineering.dartmouth.edu/~d76205x/research/Shielding/docs/Parker_06.pdf
It is an article by Dr. Eugene Parker that was published in Popular Science.
Now you can evaluate the source for yourself.
Parker’s article was not published in Popular Science. Try again.
“Parker’s article was not published in Popular Science. Try again.”
I believe it was, but do not really care.
If you are saying the article is not your source for your statements on the subject, then it would be both useful and polite to list the source.
It doesn’t matter where the Parker article was published: it’s out of date. The definitive reference is “Measurements of Energetic Particle Radiation in Transit to Mars on the Mars Science Laboratory” by Zetlin et al. (2013) pubished in Science. They estimate about .66 Sv for a roundtrip radiation dose, which is toward the lower recommended career dosage for female astronauts.
Thus, while there are many reasons Mars should not be the top exploration priority for NASA at this time, radiation is not one of them. Certainly, there is no need for nuclear propulsion to go to Mars. billgamesh/Gary Church is the only person on this planet that thinks that.
The one common ground for Moon and Mars boosters is that cheap lunar water could make possible an abundant, high-energy chemical architecture. E.g., a reusable single-stage MTV launched from L2 with an 11 km/sec delta v could half the transit time to Mars to about 90 to 100 days, and do it fully propulsively. In which case the roundtrip radiation dosage would be more like .33 Sv (or even less, since the LH2 in the fuel tanks is an excellent radiation barrier).
Very few people purchase launch by the pound, though NASA should, for propellant.
That is true for satellite launches, but not for cargo as well as fuel.
Lost count of the number of times I was told (during the COTS Program) how SpaceX was going to deliver cargo to the ISS for some very low figure (usually in the range of $950/kg.).
Then when the CRS Contract was signed it was 20 Metric Tons for $1.6 Billion ($80,000/kg.).
So there are several key types delivery cost that should be of interest to people sincerely interested in Space Development for which cost/kg. is a very key metric.
SpaceX also doesn’t deliver cargo to ISS by the pound. The payloads are generally fluffy, and volume limited.
“SpaceX also doesn’t deliver cargo to ISS by the pound. The payloads are generally fluffy, and volume limited.”
Yes, have heard that one before.
Facts are:
(1) SpaceX signed a contract to deliver 20 Metric Tons for $1.6 Billion to the ISS by the end of 2015. You might wonder why if SpaceX did not intend to deliver by the pound they signed a contract to do so, but that would require you to have the slightest skepticism where SpaceX is concerned.
(2) By the end of 2015 SpaceX had delivered less than half the contractual obligations, so NASA extended the terms of the contact to the end of 2017 to give SpaceX a chance to appear to be meeting the contract.
(3) Then came the CRS-7 anomaly and now the most recent incident.
Somewhere in there the new talking point became SpaceX was not meeting the contractual obligations because NASA was giving it the wrong kind of payload. It is an interesting new slogan for “Commercial” Space – The Customer is always wrong!
The fact remains that SpaceX can only deliver as much mass as NASA requests it to on a given flight. Do you expect them to ballast with depleted uranium? NASA made a contract for an amount of total mass delivered. AFAIK, it did not specify in how many flight that would occur.
Like all devout NewSpacers you will blather and obfuscate, mislead and misstate, dissemble and deceive…..and always try to fill up the page with anything to crowd out the obvious. So sick of it.
Like Joe stated:
20 Metric Tons for $1.6 Billion to the ISS ($80,000/kg) and they failed to do it on time.
“NASA made a contract for an amount of total mass delivered. AFAIK, it did not specify in how many flight that would occur.”
Actually the contract SpaceX signed specified exactly that.
The 20 Metric Tons would be delivered in 12 flights by the end of 2015.
And SpaceX failed to meet those terms (in both mass and number of flights) by a wide margin.
Again, SpaceX can only deliver what NASA puts in their vehicle. I don’t understand why this concept is so difficult for you. The contract was for them to have the capability to deliver X tons, not a demand that they do it even if NASA didn’t provide them with the tonnage.
“The contract was for them to have the capability to deliver X tons, not a demand that they do it ….”
The Contract specifically called for the delivery of a minimum of 20 Metric Tons. If SpaceX did not want to sign up to that they would not have signed the contract.
I do understand why you will not acknowledge that simple straightforward fact.
I am sure you will keep repeating this bravo sierra until you get the “last word” (the internet version of “winning”), but you will still be wrong and laughably so.
“Again, SpaceX can only deliver what NASA puts in their vehicle.”
It would appear SpaceX is not that capable: the payload on CRS-7 was not delivered- it blew up.
I don’t understand why this concept is so difficult for you Rand.
Y’know, I’ve been in this space field for 42 years now; and, in 2016, there is no one group of people/corporation/agency, actually working harder to bring a concrete, solutions-and-capability based improvement in our ability to do anything in space, than the folks at SpaceX (I’m I’m including my agency, NASA, in that). Paul, for you to equate them with NASA’s false J2M unjustified meme, is simply counter-factual. You’re just lobbing stones at the one group working the hardest to bring the future forward across the board; and you’re lobbing stones when you perceive they are ‘down’. (They’ve taken a blow; but they aren’t down. And, for perspective…..when today’s most reliable launch vehicle, Ariane 5, was at this point in its career as Falcon 9 is, it had a worse failure rate than Falcon 9 does now – even including this past week). As a policy, we need to help jump-start the creation of more companies like SpaceX – not less.
Dave Huntsman
Well, y’know Dave, I’ve been in this business as long as you have and I know grifting when I see it. You are free to believe all the SpaceX nonsense you want to. I was “lobbing stones” at what I consider to be BS long before this week’s accident (which, as I say in the post, could happen to anyone). I shall continue to call them like I see them. Feel free not to read what offends you.
” And, for perspective…..when today’s most reliable launch vehicle, Ariane 5, was at this point in its career as Falcon 9 is, it had a worse failure rate than Falcon 9 does now – even including this past week). ”
If that is true, how is anything about SpaceX nonsense?
Is it true?
You are free to believe all the SpaceX nonsense you want to. I was “lobbing stones” at what I consider to be BS long before this week’s accident (which, as I say in the post, could happen to anyone). I shall continue to call them like I see them. Feel free not to read what offends you.
Really? Only people who agree with you on every point need comment? Do you follow that same guideline when other planetary scientists critique your papers et al? I read your blog, even though I sometimes disagree, to tease out the useful bits; and, hopefully, to engage in some intelligent back and forth. I try to bring data and perspective with regards to spaceflight systems, et al; and assume/expect anyone who disagrees to also bring data and perspective. Simply dismissing anyone who disagrees doesn’t help any of us – or the effort for Earth to develop a rationale long-term sustainable space effort.
I try not to believe anyone’s “nonsense”, no matter what the source – Paul. And devoting what, essentially, is an angry screed against one, and only one, company – and the one trying the hardest to improve spaceflight, no less – deserves critique, for it seems emotion based – not fact-based. So-called “Mars One’ , for example, is all hype, no work; a company like SpaceX, for one, is not; it’s a ton of work, apparently pouring every penny of their income into RDT&E and capability development (e.g., multiple launch pads), more than Boeing/LockMart/others, combined, from all that can be inferred.
Is SpaceX doing ‘evolutionary’ vs. ‘revolutionary’? Sure; not only because that’s what’s needed now, but also because unlike Bezos (as one example), Elon wasn’t a billionaire when he jump-started SpaceX, Tesla, Solar City. They had to bring income sooner, rather than later, or else they wouldn’t have survived – at all – or have money to do the ‘evolutionary’ work that NASA/USAF/Boeing/LockMart et have have stubbornly refused to do the last couple of decades.
In terms of what you feel is “SpaceX nonsense” – which I take you to mean includes being the most open spaceflight company on the planet currently (can you pick another one?), who also is public about its horizon goals – I think it’s obvious what Elon does: By picking goals for SpaceX (and, Tesla) that are ‘not impossible’ – and then making them (gasp!) public, he drives both companies farther and faster than anyone else is going; and damn the sticks and stones. To say that’s non-conventional is putting it mildly (particularly at Tesla).
But NASA’s policy, on this subject area, is basically intelligent: to help jump start economic, competitive (American-based) space industries– starting with LEO cargo transport up and down, then crew; and hopefully LEO on orbit is next, among others. And that’s a hell of a lot better than a single monopoly provider of US launches which had close to zero innovation, no even evolutionary improvements, and skyrocketing costs just a few short years ago. It turns out that SpaceX – by far – has taken the bit NASA gave it and is running the fastest and farthest with it. (I also have great respect for Sierra Nevada; which, not coincidentally, like SpaceX, thinks long-term, and is privately-owned).
I’ve got to wonder, to be honest, whether this private organization that is trying so hard to bring spaceflight into the late 20th century (!), is on your shit list because it’s big horizon goal – Mars – is not yours (or, mine, by the way). If so, it’s unfortunate; because significantly increasing launch rates, bringing down costs, increasing resiliency over time (e.g., multiple launch facilities)…. these things are all in the direction ‘goodness’, no matter which goals any of us may support.
Let’s have intelligent back and forth based on facts and perspective, not screeds and emotion. It’s important.
Only people who agree with you on every point need comment?
Obviously not, since I’ve posted your comments. I have consistently pointed out where promise and reality fail to meet, for both NASA and New Space. If you find my analysis a “screed and emotion”, then don’t bother with it.
Mr. Huntsman,
“Is SpaceX doing ‘evolutionary’ vs. ‘revolutionary’? Sure; not only because that’s what’s needed now, but also because unlike Bezos (as one example), Elon wasn’t a billionaire when he jump-started SpaceX, Tesla, Solar City. They had to bring income sooner, rather than later, or else they wouldn’t have survived – at all – or have money to do the ‘evolutionary’ work that NASA/USAF/Boeing/LockMart et have have stubbornly refused to do the last couple of decades.”
The article only mentions whether or not SpaceX activity might revolutionize anything once: “It is not clear whether either of these innovations will revolutionize space access through a reduction in cost or an increase in performance, and of course, at what cost to reliability.”
Your rather strident defense of SpaceX (really Musk – or as you call him Elon) goes far beyond that to Bezos, Tesla , Solar City (none of which are even mentioned in the article). You seem to be bringing in other debates you may be having elsewhere to this discussion in order to defend Musk.
Since you say you want to have: “intelligent back and forth based on facts and perspective, not screeds and emotion”.
Perhaps you could stick to the topic under discussion..
Additionally Dr. Spudis is not alone in being skeptical of SpaceX PR vs. SpaceX performance.
Though in many venues those skeptics are drowned out by the hype there are numerous technical people who share that skepticism and it began well before the most recent SpaceX anomaly which by the way according to Musk was not an explosion but a “really fast fire”.
http://gizmodo.com/elon-musk-says-it-wasnt-an-explosion-that-took-out-spac-1786112682
The best quote in the comments section reads something like – “it was actually not even a fast fire, the air just got really hot.”
I’m sure you are aware there are technical reasons why a deflagration is not referred to as an explosion except by the tendentious and the ignorant.
They are distinct events with very different brisance profiles.
Yes I am very aware of the technical differences.
I am also very aware when a con artist is trying to deflect his audience’s attention, from the fact that his his rocket went up in a big loud fireball which rattled housed for miles around.
There is an old expression – I was born at night, but it wasn’t last night.
What deflection? Where do you think he was trying to say anything but that the, “rocket went up in a big loud fireball which rattled housed for miles around”.
It blew up.
Trying to restate, re-brand, or otherwise mislabel the event is…..pathetic and laughable.
The NewSpace Tony Stark cult icon is being laughed at and devotees cannot tolerate that. Bizarre is the best word to describe it.
“Where do you think he was trying to say anything but that the, “rocket went up in a big loud fireball which rattled housed for miles around”.”
If you do not recognize it, it will do no good to try to further explain.
I do, however, have some great Louisiana bottom land I would be willing to sell you at a terrific bargain.
Here, Here, nobody has been trying to change the way rockets have been launched and make them reusable and cheaper except SpaceX and Blue Origin. It is obvious the shuttle was a complete failure in that it cost more than most ordinary rockets. When people like SpaceX keep trying in spite failures with their own money you would think Paul would be pleased because initiatives like Apollo and Aries are never going to happen again. They are just too expensive. The public has a right to demand less expensive alternatives. You are living in the past Paul.
When people like SpaceX keep trying in spite failures with their own money
“Their own money”?? You guys do have a great sense of humor.
you would think Paul would be pleased because initiatives like Apollo and Aries are never going to happen again. They are just too expensive. The public has a right to demand less expensive alternatives. You are living in the past Paul.
You clearly haven’t read anything I’ve been writing about here for the past several years or else you would know that I am the last guy to pine for the return of the Apollo paradigm.
Scathingly harsh: yes
Blunt honest: yes
Appreciated: yes
But, Paul, you are dealing with a sci-fi tsunami, and tsunamis real or imagined have impact. ‘People’ are not interested in reality, they want greatly crafted stories that, like a great movie, makes you feel better than you did two hours ago; of course, if sci-fi crosses over into reality all the better.
There is a world of diffrence between (honest) wanna-dos and wanna-bes, the latter are hard-grounded in reality. Presently, the lanscape is filled with a very, very few of yhe latter. The 30″ test difference between them is the paragraph-long CV of the former, with maybe two real-deal accomplishments in 30 years and the +2 page CV of the latter; serious, transformatinal big things require producing somethingness from nothingness, i.e., it’s hard. It is crystal-clear evident that NASA is stumped-clueless; I don’t mean it in a derogatory manner, just as the words are defined. But they must continue to inspire, otherwise it’s dead.
However, having very recently travelled to China, I can bluntly say, the CNSA is much more clever on their approach to the human biomedical astronautics problem, the major weak-link in doing Mars. This is further supported by the rather ramp-increases of publications by their Academy of Sciences, here and there, and in rather obscure journals involving biometics. Briefly, they’re going Spartan a bare-bones super-low tech but bio-logically super-sophisticatedtried-and-tested. I think NASA is going to experience they’re own Sputnik moment.
PS: By the way, there’s another Earth-Mars transfer beside the Hommann, one that relaxes the 26 month-only window (cf. Belbruno transfer). It’s a little longer around, but judging on the biomimetics I saw it reduces the issue to inconsequence. Actually, the ‘nature innovation’ pretty much collapse the problem of humans, well, being human. I’m not talking about SpaceWorks approach, talking, real-deal.
SpaceX has already done 3 things of interest.
Designed a rocket that is cheaper to operate than ULA
Designed a rocket that recovers the first stage at least a fraction of the time
Achieved NASA crew re-supply cert
In the pipeline are
Mars Colony technology life support etc.
Mars Colonial Transport
Mars unmanned mission
Mars manned mission
Outside of NASA who else even claims a pipeline like that?
MarsOne?
Who else even has people being paid to colonize Mars?
NASA?
If we are at the point that we are saying SpaceX isn’t good and the entire effort of the American Government and their 15 billion dollars a year then thats one thing.
But I seriously doubt that ULA, Boeing, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic, et al have the same level of engineering work as Space X has towards the most interesting issues regarding Mars colonization.
Does SpaceX get all the attention? Yes.
Does SpaceX deserve all the attention? Mostly Yes.
In the pipeline are
Mars Colony technology life support etc.
Mars Colonial Transport
Mars unmanned mission
Mars manned mission
The only “pipeline” these things are in is that of the crack pipe. You can put yours down now.
Can’t top that reply and will not try. Since everything from there on down in the infomercial is just reiteration of the same talking points the only thing to be added is the following.
(1) “Designed a rocket that is cheaper to operate than ULA”
SpaceX is certainly trying to undercut ULA and other providers. Whether or not the Falcon 9 is really cheaper to fly or if this is a “loss leader” in an attempt to take over the military satellite launch market (using the NASA CRS and Commercial Crew payments as off setting revenue – out one government pocket, into another) remains to be determined.
(2) “Designed a rocket that recovers the first stage at least a fraction of the time”
And it is a remarkable technical achievement. However, as discussed in the article and comments above it is far from determined if this is a useful capability or the aerospace equivalent of a circus stunt.
(3) “Achieved NASA crew re-supply cert”
So did Orbital Sciences. Given that SpaceX has drastically under performed on its first CRS contract, it is an “interesting” accomplishment. Also due to their most recent “anomaly” ( or is it – as Musk says – just a “really fast fire”) it will be interesting to determine how much more they will underperform and how NASA will react.
Having blown up twice in as many years I find it hard to believe NASA will allow astronauts a “cheap ride” to the soon-to-die-of-old-age space station to nowhere on the hobby rocket. Failing any multi-billion dollar investment in LEO strip clubs this would indicate SpaceX is now out of the human space flight business.
“Designed a rocket that is cheaper to operate than ULA”
At the cost of a less efficient upper stage and less efficient engines.
Ask yourself if SpaceX used a LH2/LOX upper stage in place of RP1/LOX and a staged combustion first stage engine in place of a gas generator cycle engine if the rocket would still be lower cost.
“Designed a rocket that recovers the first stage at least a fraction of the time”
Not impressed.
First, why only a fraction of the time?
Second, a flyback booster was already done with testing of the DC-X well before SpaceX even existed. SpaceX just copied the feature into their rocket.
“Achieved NASA crew re-supply cert”
Not impressed. Just another player in the game.
“Mars Colony technology life support etc.
Mars Colonial Transport
Mars unmanned mission
Mars manned mission
Outside of NASA who else even claims a pipeline like that?”
So far, all of that exists on paper.
Boeing has a Mars plan called Six (Not So) Easy Steps to Mars.
To have plans for something is one thing.
To actually work on making it happen is something else.
So far, SpaceX is far from making the listed pipeline a reality.
“Who else even has people being paid to colonize Mars?
NASA?”
No one is being paid to colonize Mars.
SpaceX is being paid for their services to launch payloads.
Mars colonies are just cheap talk to excite people.
“But I seriously doubt that ULA, Boeing, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic, et al have the same level of engineering work as Space X has towards the most interesting issues regarding Mars colonization.”
First, Boeing is part of ULA.
Second, SpaceX has no engineering work on any issue of Mars colonization, interesting or not. This was written about on this blog a couple of posts ago.
SpaceX still has to figure out how to keep its rockets from exploding.
ULA seems to have done that with the Atlas V. So far, SpaceX is facing a steep learning curve.
“Does SpaceX get all the attention? Yes.”
Agreed on this.
“Does SpaceX deserve all the attention? Mostly Yes.”
No, it does not.
Nor does Mars colonization deserve all the attention.
What we really need is a sustainable, space based transport system, as has been outlined many times on this blog.
THAT is what needs the attention.
Having commented regularly for several years on this blog I would like to remind the readers the following weeks will decide the future of space exploration. It will be the closing of a chapter in history only a fairly well-read amateur space historian can appreciate. The scenario playing out is extremely disappointing for any space advocates expecting some logical plan to miraculously develop. The story of the first space age, that ran from 1968 with Apollo 8 to 1972 with Apollo 17, holds all the lessons needed for the U.S. to lead humankind off the home world and into deep space. It does not appear any of those lessons have been imparted to our leaders.
The first lesson being, of course, there is no cheap.
The pernicious influence of NewSpace has likely ruined any chance of the public supporting a realistic space program and the beginning of a second space age. The Ayn-Rand-in-Space libertarian Musk worshipers have turned out to be the worst possible enemy of progress in space exploration. NewSpace fans have cyber-bullied any critics into silence for years and completely hijacked public discourse.
They are the worst bunch of creeps I have ever had the misfortune of interacting with.
The sooner the NewSpace house of cards collapses the better. Unfortunately that collapse will probably not occur soon enough to make any difference. The two-faced double agents in the space agency promoting the twin dead ends of LEO and J2M will almost surely succeed in destroying any hope of a real space program. Very few citizens even realize what that “real space program” would consist of. The basic tenet being radiation is square one and the ice on the Moon as shielding the only arrow out of that first block in the flow chart.
I would like to again thank Dr. Spudis for this blog and commiserate with him on the failure of the American press. Good luck to all the true space enthusiasts out there.
is there a specific launch or something happening in the next few weeks to which you’re referring billgamesh? I know the OSIRIS-REx launch is imminent. is there any thought that the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing may provide the perspective necessary to open the second space age you envision?
“-something happening in the next few weeks to which you’re referring-”
It is what is not happening.
The best example I can give is the F-22 fighter. Obama and McCain both made a campaign promise to end production of this super-expensive aircraft. No matter who was elected it was a dead duck. Any hope of a change in direction for the space agency depends on a highly visible campaign issue like this that favors abandoning the dead end programs involving the space station to nowhere, the J2M, and the ARM.
And of course, a campaign promise from both candidates to return to the Moon to stay.
While I believe that Space X will be a viable company for crew launches in the long run. The latest pre-launch Falcon 9 explosion is a serious set back, IMO. Two serious Falcon 9 malfunctions in the last 11 launch attempts is a very serious matter.
The Space Shuttle program was eventually ended by NASA because of two serious (and fatal) malfunctions in 135 launches. The Falcon 9 has had two serious malfunctions in launches or pre-launch preparations in just 29 attempted missions. That’s way too high of a failure rate for crewed missions!
The ULA’s Atlas V, on the other hand, has had only one partial failure in 64 launches.
So right now, it looks like NASA astronauts will be riding aboard spacecraft that are launched by the ULA and Russia in the near future.
Marcel
“So right now, it looks like NASA astronauts will be riding aboard spacecraft that are launched by the ULA and Russia in the near future.”
Hi Marcel,
I hope you are correct, but never underestimate the power of crony capitalism,
“I believe that Space X will be a viable company for crew launches in the long run.”
There is no reason to believe that.
It is far more likely the NewSpace flagship company will go out of business. Their competition seems to be proving you get what you pay for after 100 launches in a row while the whole concept of “cheap lift” is…being shot down in flames.
How many of the launches on their, 10 billion dollar, current launch manifest have been canceled?
How many of the launches on their, 10 billion dollar, current launch manifest have been canceled?
Funny — that doesn’t quite seem to compute. This table from this article seems to imply 11 upcoming launches scheduled for the Falcon 9 (and two for the non-existent Falcon Heavy). At $60 million a launch, wouldn’t that amount to $660 million? Admittedly, a fair chunk of change, but far from “$10 billion”.
Dr. Spudis,
You are using an actual manifest, that’s no fun.
You need to do it the SpaceX way.
They count any payload they have ever had a conversation with anybody about buying a launch for as being a part of their manifest.
Then they report those numbers to credulous reporters who use the numbers in articles
Then their fans spread those numbers all over the internet.
Even the r/SpaceX subreddit (not exactly an unbiased source) only has ~3.7billion in launches on their manifest.
44 falcon 9 @ $63 million each
7 falcon heavy @ $130 million each
Excluding Red Dragon and BFR missions of course…
“So we need to ask, has the media bungled their job when questioning the viability of SpaceX and Musk’s promotional strategy with breathless, softball coverage of virtually anything they announce?”
This, I believe, is THE question to ask.
Look on the entries on most internet based news sites, and one can see endless praises and predictions for SpaceX, articles that are intended to thrash United Launch Alliance and the SLS, and articles that promote the so-called EM Drive.
Skepticism towards SpaceX is regarded as anti-private spaceflight or anti-reusability.
I needn’t name names on where you can find these statements.
We need more reality checks as provided here. We need more skepticism.
People need to be shown what the real issues with SpaceX are and why the enthusiasm that is held for them needs to be held in check.
And, of course, we need to be guided back to the true path of sustainable human spaceflight.
“Skepticism towards SpaceX is regarded as anti-private spaceflight or anti-reusability.
I needn’t name names on where you can find these statements.”
That is a good point.
On other sites I have made comments supportive of the SLS and the “usual suspects” would descend to call me an old-space troglodyte, pig at the public through (all the usual personal insults).
But then when I made comments complementary to Blue Origin’s New Shepard flight test program the same individuals called me a Blue Origin fan boy.
Humorous to witness their reaction when this discrepancy is pointed out.
It is not about private spaceflight or reusability to these types anymore (if it in fact ever was). It is strictly about SpaceX and a cult of personality surrounding Musk.
It is indeed humorous to see people called out for contradictory views.
Going out on a limb, it seems the fans of Musk and SpaceX demonstrate similar mentality to Star Trek fans that believe their series is hard sci-fi.
Yes, I’ve seen that posted at least once on another website.
Replying here, since the other post has no reply link.
Anyway, many thanks for the link to the source material by Bill.
Learned something new now.
It does bring up other questions.
The elephant in the room is shielding and the ice on the Moon is the only practical solution. Due to the mass required to shield a living area for even a minimal crew on a long duration mission the depot solution is a non-starter. Nuclear Thermal Rockets are also a losing proposition because it is hard enough keeping a chemical rocket engine from melting- NTR’s are a dead end.
There is only one viable nuclear system for interplanetary travel.
Depots were always hyped because they were a way to make the evil Super Heavy Lift Vehicle that SpaceX did not have unnecessary. The magical fuel depot made the hobby rocket all that was required to conquer the universe. No cryogenic propellants have ever been stored or transferred in space and, NewSpace propaganda to the contrary, it will not be as easy as putting gas in your car.
No problem, glad to.
After Dr. Parker paints his bleak picture for space travelers (“I’m not saying going into space is worse than stepping into the core of a nuclear reator, but….”), note this caveat at the end of the last page:
“But on the bright side, researchers are only beginning to explore the biomedical side of the problem. Natural healing processes in the cell may be able to handle radiation doses that accumulate over an extended period, and some people’s bodies may be better at it than others’. If so, the present estimates of the cancer incidence, all based on short, intense bursts of radiation, may overestimate the danger.”
Or in the words of comedian Dennis Miller – “But then again that’s just my opinion, I could be wrong.”
–*So, regardless of the details Elon Musk announces in Mexico later this month or Dava Newman’s comments on NASA’s “Journey to Mars” next week at Rice University, color me dutifully skeptical.–
I doubt either media event will be significant.
But Obama is lame duck, and he was ineffective in every thing he tried to do and he was uninterested in space exploration. The NASA Journey to Mars is probably more about electing
Clinton was way to add a third term to Obama’s policies- which of course will fail. Clinton has about
as much interest in space as Obama “Spock” did.
What could be more significant is the presidential debates- such debates tend to waste of time and largely entertainment- but they still higher chance of being significant in terms of future space exploration.
At this point in time Musk has about the same chance as Mars One of sending people to Mars.
But obviously his focus will be mostly about launching commercial satellites to orbit- but it could change if NASA ever develops a realistic space policy and implements it. But one thing NASA has to do is get to point of launching is big and expensive rocket, which continues to be delayed.
“Warren Platts says:
September 4, 2016 at 11:14 am
“In contrast to SpaceX’s attempt to reach up from Earth with greenhouse-gas emitting rockets, the ULA is seriously proposing to reach down from the Moon with lunar propellants.”
“The ability to mine and refine lunar water cheaply is going to be the key to opening up the translunar economy IMO.”
Yep, ULA is pushing a smart and sustainable plan.
Human spaceflights are both risky and costly.
Mining Lunar resources is a huge enabler to efficiently reduce both the risks and costs of Cislunar development and Deep Space missions.
It should be noted that NASA is also developing another– human rated– launch vehicle, the SLS. In fact, legislatively, the SLS was supposed to be the back up crew vehicle to the ISS in case Commercial Crew launch vehicles had some serious problems or delays.
Even if the Orion crew capsule is not ready to launch humans in 2018 (and probably won’t be ready until 2021), commercial capsules such as the Boeing Starliner, Space X Dragon, or Sierra Nevada Dream Chaser should be ready to be utilized by 2018.
Using the SLS with just the core vehicle and twin solid rocket boosters (SRBs) would allow it to carry a commercial capsule plus more than 50 tonnes of supplies to the ISS. That would eliminate at least 16 Falcon 9 supply launches.
Unfortunately, there’s only enough Space Shuttle rocket engines left for four SLS launches. New RS-25 engines will probably not be in production until at least 2021.
Once the RS-25 engines are in production and the SLS EUS (upper stage) is in production, the SLS could also be used as a crew launch vehicle to LEO without the need for SRBs. Such a stripped down version of the SLS would be capable of launching a crewed commercial capsule to LEO plus at least ten tonnes of additional payload.
Marcel
Marcel wrote: “Sierra Nevada Dream Chaser should be ready to be utilized by 2018.”
Did I miss something? Sierra Nevada is working on commercial cargo version of Dream Chaser, not a crewed version?
Sierra Nevada still intends to have a crewed version of the Dream Chaser. After the Orion launch in 2018, there will only be three launches possible for the SLS until 2021. So if NASA decided to use the SLS to launch crews, they would probably have to use the Starliner or the Dragon.
I just added the Dream Chaser as a crew possibility in the 2020s when the RS-25 engines are once again in production.
Marcel
http://www.businessinsider.com/space-travel-per-seat-cost-soyuz-2016-9
The space station to nowhere has got to go. The NewSpace cash cow was supposed to end operations this year. It is a disgusting farce that absurdly complements the other two space agency carnival sideshows- the J2M and the ARM.
A 6 mission a year SLS Super Heavy LIft Vehicle program, the wet workshop concept, the ice on the Moon utilized as water-as-cosmic-ray-shielding, and a long term human presence Beyond Low Earth Orbit (BLEO) is the logical course that is never-to-be-and-must-not-be-discussed.
I think we can conclude a number of things:
Elon Musk, for all of his accomplishments, is not a graduate of the Hogwarts School of Magic.
Rocket science is a term for something really hard to do for a reason.
Commercial space certainly has an increasing role to play, but it will have to earn it.
The Moon resides in the middle of the Journey to Mars and is a worthy destination in its own right,
I think “we” can conclude some things:
Humans expansion Beyond Low Earth Orbit is the only “real” accomplishment that has any magic in it for most of “us”.
A rocket with three humans in it flew around the Moon in 1968 and that was the beginning of the first space age and a capsule coming back splashed down in 1972 and that was the end.
The Moon, for a number of reasons, is not just worthy, it is the only destination.
LEO and Mars are dead ends.
The chain of causation is linked in this fashion:
Due to space radiation, massive shielding is required for any long term human presence.
Dipping water out of the shallow gravity well of the Moon is the only practical source for the thousands of tons of water needed immediately and for future needs. Nuclear energy is required to push such water shields anywhere Beyond Earth and Lunar Orbit (BELO) and the Moon is also the only practical location to test, assemble, and launch such nuclear missions. LEO is the worst place.
In terms of colonization, Gerard K. O’Neill ruled out any natural body in this system as an appropriate second home for human kind. Building miles-in-diameter spinning hollow moons from lunar material was, and is, the optimal solution. Not Mars.
Not Vaunted, Not Clever and Not Working – The State of America’s Space Program
Interesting that Donald Trump’s recent diagnosis is not far different:
“Look at your space program: … We’re like a third world nation.”
Am not flacking for any of the current candidates for President, in fact will probably vote the down stream stuff and skip President this year.
But it should be noted Trump has also stated (among other things):
Under a Trump Administration we would not send people into Space again (note not Moon or Mars but even into LEO) until:
(1) Every American has a job,
(2) We have rebuilt our military,
(3) Fixed our potholes,
(4) Solved the problem of our national debt.
Just sticking with (1). The unemployment rate has never been 0. If you make that a prerequisite to doing anything, you are saying you never intend to do that thing.
Would like to proven wrong (about any of the candidates), but does not sound like he intends to do anything to correct the situation.
But it should be noted Trump has also stated [that] under a Trump Administration we would not send people into Space again (note not Moon or Mars but even into LEO) until: (1) Every American has a job
Huh? Trump never said anything like that. What he did say in response to an AIAA questionnaire is “What we spend in NASA should be appropriate for what we are asking them to do.”
When asked specifically about the Mars program he said “A lot of what my administration would recommend depends on our economic state. If we are growing with all of our people employed and our military readiness back to acceptable levels, then we can take a look at the timeline for sending more people into space.”
Since funding for NASA is not appropriate for what we are asking them to do (go to Mars), and since the economy is not growing fast enough to grow the NASA budget to such appropriate levels, then it is clear that Mars will be off the table during the 8 years of a Trump administration. That’s all.
What Trump would propose based on what he has said is that NASA should do SOMETHING within the currently available budget that would distinguish it from the space programs of the likes of Russia, China, Luxembourg and South Korea–which is not far from what Paul Spudis is proposing. IMHO. YMMV.
“A lot of what my administration would recommend depends on our economic state. If we are growing with all of our people employed and our military readiness back to acceptable levels, then we can take a look at the timeline for sending more people into space.”
That sure sounds like (1) and (2).
The potholes thing (number (3))was all over you tube because he almost made a little kid cry and his own crowd booed him (the kid had asked him if he would support the space program).
The national debt comment (number (4)) was in response to another question about support for Space (where he again ridiculed the questioner).
As I said before I would like to be proven wrong.
If you have any instance where he specifically supported any kind of Space effort (preferably Lunar ISRU development not Mars) I would be interested in hearing it. Please note not asking for some vague statement that he would not cut funding for some local facility while making a campaign stop near it (already know about one of those and they are meaningless).
Again I am not prone (for disparate reasons going well beyond Space policy) to support any of the current crop of candidates and none of them have taken any kind of positive stance toward Space anyway.
Latest in the news is the Green Party candidate has an arrest warrant out for her on vandalism charges (the writers for the Onion must be going nuts trying to figure out how to parody this election).
If you really just want to push a political candidate there are plenty of political sites on which to do it.
This will be my last comment on this subject.
AIAA asked: “Would your administration continue planning to send astronauts to Mars in the 2030s? Why or why not?
Donald Trump full answer: “A lot of what my administration would recommend depends on our economic state. If we are growing with all of our people employed and our military readiness back to acceptable levels, then we can take a look at the timeline for sending more people into space.”
Joe’s interpretation: “That sure sounds like (1) and (2). If you want to push a political candidate there are plenty of political sites. This will be my last comment on this subject.”
There is nothing in there, Joe, that says that Trump will stop manned spaceflight to ISS or the Moon.
“Not Vaunted, Not Clever and Not Working”
“they ignore the obvious gaps, or worse, dismiss them out of hand and work against a knowable course correction that could fix the problem.”
Good article Dr. Spudis.
You outlined the wrongs the not clever and not working.
Did I miss the “knowable course correction”?
Are you going to do a follow up article that would outline, in detail, corrections for NASA and then how this should be spilling over into the commercial sector and where their push should be heading?
thank you…
Did I miss the “knowable course correction”?
Not if you’ve been reading this blog for the last four years.
I was here referring to our affordable, logical and completely sane architecture for lunar return.
Well…..before Dr. Spudis shuts this down for another month I guess I should try and make a last meaningful comment about the present situation.
A couple years ago the British airship program was discussed here and I often think about that historical precedent as parallel to the present sad situation concerning space exploration. There are several striking similarities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Airship_Scheme
The U.S. public in a sense has been watching a contest between the socialist rocket and the capitalist rocket. It is not a perfect analogy of course. The shuttle happened before the hobby rocket and the SLS has yet to fly. The shuttle was a Saturn V class launch system that only went to LEO and the hobby rocket is not in the same class though hyped as a do-it-all. But the elements of these stories from many different eras are fascinating.
The regulars here know I am slightly left of center and also a SLS supporter and NewSpace critic.
I have stated several times if Musk and Bezos would stop trying to start a LEO tourist empire and focus on lunar landers I would become a NewSpace fanatic.
So I would like to say I am a space enthusiast that does not let politics bias my advocacy. But that would not be completely true. Unfortunately, if “we” do not put our ideologies aside and present some kind of united front then our common interest in space exploration will continue to go the same place it has gone since 1972.
Nowhere.
I would add that despite the technology and resources and “market” for it, Airships did not travel the sky in the thousands. The airship industry failed because of a lack of resolve and poor leadership. While heavier-than-air was there to fill the niche the same does not hold true for space exploration. This then connects to Zubrin’s example of the Chinese Superships and why the populations of North and South America do not now speak Mandarin and Cantonese.