Two Presidential Science Advisors: John H. Marburger (2001-2009) and John P. Holdren (2009-present).
Of those who’ve paid attention to developments in the nation’s civil space program in recent years, few would argue that we have a stable program with regular accomplishment. There are many reasons for this, some of which I have discussed in previous columns, but in this post, I want to address a factor that’s flown below the radar of most people.
Some see space as a laboratory, an exotic, hostile environment in which we send transient, short-lived probes that gather data and then are discarded. Others see space as a frontier, a place not only to be explored and studied, but one to be used and inhabited – a place that generates wealth, drives new technology and spawns new industry. Forty years ago, physicist Gerald O’Neill was a strong advocate of space settlement for just these purposes.
The last two occupants of the office of Presidential Science Advisor (who also holds the position of Head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy) embody diametrically opposing viewpoints on the nature of society and progress and on the relevance of human spaceflight. Dr. John H. Marburger held this office during the presidency of George W. Bush. Dr. John P. Holdren currently occupies this position under the presidency of Barack Obama. Their published works on society and space reveal a fundamental dichotomy in their underlying philosophies. I submit it is this difference in worldviews that is responsible for the current malaise in space policy and the apparent lack of direction of our civil space program.
John H. Marburger (1941-2011) was a nuclear physicist from Brookhaven National Laboratory. A Democrat, in 2001 he was appointed to the position of Science Advisor to Republican President Bush. Marburger was respected by politicians from both parties and could readily defend the administration’s science policies on the basis of fact. After Shuttle Columbia was lost in 2003, the civil space program underwent a major White House review, a process in which Marburger became intimately involved. He was a key ally of then-Administrator Sean O’Keefe in developing a new strategic vision for the U.S. space program, the 2004 Vision for Space Exploration (VSE). Although this new strategic direction was patently clear in both intent and direction, some within the agency subverted its purpose, leading to years of waste, confusion and stasis.
When it was clear that the Vision was not unfolding as intended, Marburger stepped forward. The most compelling statement of his interpretation of the meaning of the VSE was his speech to the 44th Robert H. Goddard Memorial Symposium in 2006. Marburger first outlined some of the considerations that went into the formulation of the Vision. Then, going to the heart of the rationale for our space program, he posed a simple question: Should we make the Solar System part of our economic sphere or not?
Marburger outlined the limitless possibilities of harvesting the material and energy wealth of the universe. In space, he knew that if we are always limited to what we can bring with us from Earth, we will always be mass- and power-limited and hence, capability-limited. In his mind, that was what the VSE was all about – not to go to the Moon to re-create the glory of Apollo, but through human innovation and discovery, to assess and use what the Moon has to offer to create new capabilities, new knowledge and new wealth.
Marburger’s successor as Presidential Science Advisor is John P. Holdren (1944 – present), also a physicist and the former Director of the policy think-tank Wood’s Hole Research Center (not to be confused with the scientific research organization Wood’s Hole Oceanographic Institution). Holdren’s bureaucratic resume is a testament to a variety of fashionable causes, including nuclear weapons control, human-caused climate change, overpopulation and “green energy” development. Most relevant to this discussion is his apparent adherence to Malthusian theories of population and resources. In brief, Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834) postulated that human population would grow to levels that could not be supported by the available resources of the world. Hence, as a species, we are doomed to death by disease and starvation. In the view of Malthus, “The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the Earth to produce subsistence for man.”
Holdren describes himself as a “neo-Malthusian” in his 1977 textbook Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment, a book co-written with Population Bomb author, Paul Ehrlich. Certainly his adherence to the various dogmas of scarcity and ecological catastrophe are congruent with such a categorization. Holdren supports a variety of policy initiatives designed to make future human life less consumptive, less impacting on the environment, and more “equitable” in wealth distribution. This worldview sees life as a zero-sum game where in order for some to win, others must lose. A key aspect of any zero-sum game is that like entropy, the system is closed; nothing is either added to or subtracted from the balance of resources within the game.
And so we come to the nexus of the philosophical division in visions of the future: one based on unlimited resources and opportunities and the other based on scarcity and the need for professional “management.”
Holdren’s role in the development of the current state of our civil space program is not completely clear, but his hand was clearly at work in the elimination of the Vision for Space Exploration through executive fiat in 2010 by President Obama. The new space policy of the United States (2010) emphasizes environmental monitoring. It has shifted our national capability toward supposedly “commercial” spaceflight (with the meaning of the word “commercial” being subtly re-defined in the text (p. 10) to classify contractors largely subsidized with federal grants as “commercial” entities), and most notably, the elimination of the lunar surface as a destination. While the rest of the world’s space faring countries are enthusiastically pushing to exploit the Moon, why was this specific destination removed from the critical path of America’s future human spaceflight?
Unlike flights to distant asteroids or human Mars missions, the Moon is achievable on time-scales congruent with the current administration. In other words, no one will remember the non-achievement of a human mission to a near-Earth asteroid in ten years, but if we had been striving to return to the Moon and had not achieved it, someone might be held accountable. But as John Holdren, a strong proponent of American de-development, advised graduate students during a talk at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, “We can’t expect to be number one in everything forever.”
The Moon contains resources that are both useable and accessible. Those two qualities are important – asteroids also contain usable materials, but those objects are much less accessible than the Moon and they present numerous operational difficulties and unknowns. A trip to orbit around Mars offers nothing in the way of usable resources. In short, the alternate “destinations” articulated in our official space policy have the virtue of appearing to be reachable and reasonable but in truth, offer nothing in the way of expanding human capabilities and opportunities in space. This fits in well with the neo-Malthusian philosophy of the current Science and Technology Advisor.
Two visions – an O’Neillian one based on accessing and learning to use the limitless resources of space and a neo-Malthusian one based on scarcity and the need for control. One should be careful when betting on scarcity, as the current Presidential Science Advisor should know well.
In 1973 Holdren wrote:
“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States,” Holdren and two co-authors wrote. “De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation. Resources and energy must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses of overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries.”
Compare this with O’Neill’s vision of space colonization one year later in 1974 which he stated began with questioning his students on what could and should be done with the money being spent on the Vietnam war:
“-at least five of the most serious problems now facing the world can be solved without recourse to repression: bringing every human being up to a living standard now enjoyed only by the most fortunate; protecting the biosphere from damage caused by transportation and industrial pollution; finding high quality living space for a world population that is doubling every 35 years; finding clean, practical energy sources; preventing overload of Earth’s heat balance.
—Gerard K. O’Neill, “The Colonization of Space”
So Dr. Spudis has written a very enlightening article and I will be chewing on this one for awhile. When considering why we have a Holdren as the science advisor instead of an O’Neill we need only read the infamous 1977 statement of Senator William Proxmire on beaming solar energy to Earth from space colonies;
“it’s the best argument yet for chopping NASA’s funding to the bone …. I say not a penny for this nutty fantasy”. He successfully eliminated spending on space colonization research from the budget.
I would say we do not need another Marburger- we need an O’Neill. Ironically, O’Neill is just as concerned about the problems of the human race as Holdren but proposes a solution 180 out; instead of de-development O’Neill proposed super-development out of this world.
If space is a “nutty fantasy” than what about the billions spent on military wonder weapons and fusion energy reactors and tax breaks for ethanol and wind energy and so on?
The recurring outstanding themes in the debate concerning funding for space are commercial exploitation and cheap lift. In other words, how to get something for nothing. The question of the ages. The question right now is how to just get something, let alone cheap lift. There are three possible “somethings” we can get from space with our present technology; telecommunications, security from asteroid or comet impacts, and solar energy.
Telecommunications can be viewed as stagnant and impact interdiction is considered too remote a threat to spend a penny on (we may go extinct) which leaves solar energy. The showstopper for solar energy is cheap lift. But as with many industries the infrastructure must be invested in before any profit can be realized. Interestingly, cheap lift would be a benefit of a Lunar
Solar Power system because the beamed energy could be utilized for single stage to orbit microwave powered launch vehicles.
So cheap lift can be had but only after the most expensive project in human history- the construction of a space solar power infrastructure- is complete. Beam propulsion can also launch extremely high velocity interceptors from the Moon to interdict impact threats and to complete the list the manned relay stations for beamed energy in geostationary orbit can effectively replace all unmanned satellites.
We have the choice of not spending money on accomplishing the goal of becoming a space-faring nation or doing so and past administrations never funded this project adequately. The problem is that it will require much of the funds presently being gobbled up by the DOD.
Too much change.
Brilliant article, I think a number of people (myself included) have thought that it was Holdren’s Malthusian philosophy (no doubt backed by President Obama) that was driving this whole fiasco; but nobody else had written it down until now.
I certainly share the sense of severe disagreement with Mathusian logic and conclusions, and a feeling that people around the world should be left alone by his disciples and their schemes and judgements. However, I fail to understand the mechanism by which Holdren, who no doubt persists in these views, is motivated to affect space policy. What is it about previous space goals (e.g. VSE) that threatened the Maltusian agenda or accelerated the calamity that Holdren thinks is coming as a result of population and scarcity. What is it about Holdrens current space policy that furthers the agenda and might help to mitigate his I=PAT nonsense?
I admire Dr. Spudis’s writings on policy, including this article. But I wish it would spell out the, even speculatively, the Holdren logic that is being attacked. I share the instinct to try and cut down the current policy and current OTP philosophy that undergirds it. And I support any attempt to reinstate the previous philosophy of ‘incorporating the solar system into our economic sphere’, which deserves a place in the history books. But a more detailed analysis of the current administrations motives is required. I’m not holding my breath for them to help in a honest appraisal of themselves, now or ever. It will take historians and FOIA to figure out why we are being led to nowhere. In the meantime, I would enjoy even deeper speculation on the subject by Dr. Spudis and others who are technical experts as well as wise policy shapers.
What is it about previous space goals (e.g. VSE) that threatened the Maltusian agenda or accelerated the calamity that Holdren thinks is coming as a result of population and scarcity.
The original VSE was about learning to how to use the materials and energy resources of space to create new capabilities, new markets and new wealth in space. Philosophically, it is the direct opposite of neo-Malthusianism. From that perspective alone, it was antithetical to his inclinations and beliefs.
What is it about Holdrens current space policy that furthers the agenda and might help to mitigate his I=PAT nonsense?
By using his influence to support the cancellation of the VSE and substituting in its place a space program in which we go nowhere and do nothing, he has helped to de-rail the effort to break the “zero-sum game” boundaries of spaceflight. Such ensures the continuation of the current paradigm — limited access to space, dictated by the Tyranny of the Rocket Equation. In other words, business as usual as far as the eye can see.
Additionally, even if you grant Holdren does not believe something like the VSE can work (and for the record I do not); he would still worry that others (less accomplished than he considers himself) might believe it. Therefore, to him, it must be stopped to support his “Limits to Growth” agenda.
I don’t agree with your logic, either the interpretation of the philosophies as being ‘direct opposites’, or the conclusion that VSE was antithetical. I am quite comfortable with the presumptive analysis that Holdren is anti-VSE.
The notion that Malthus would reject an infusion of resources into a resource limited world seems irrational to me. Also, a Mathusian would continue to argue that the world is resource limited, even if there was a step change in the sphere of resources. To intentionally refuse a freely available second-source of resources would be to open the zero-sum basis of their prescriptions to more critisism. This is not logical.
Therefore, the argument is not helped by simply restating the two assertions, a) the zero-sum and exploration mindsets are antithetical, and b) this supposed conflict is the motive for antipathy of exploration. Rather, a more complete analysis of motives would be helpful.
The idea that the administration would promote null exploration so that the decline of humanity is all the more inevitable is cynical in the extreme.
The more rational motive for Holdren would be related to environmentalism, which is a prominent piece of the anti-humanist mindset. The logic would be: Budget is restricted, earth science is crucial to humanity, kill exploration to protect it as the higher priority. Normally I would think such a small minded scheme would be doubtful. But these days …..
The notion that Malthus would reject an infusion of resources into a resource limited world seems irrational to me.
It is not irrational if your aim is control.
Rather, a more complete analysis of motives would be helpful.
Then go make your own. It’s a free country. For now.
Well played. I agree with both your statements, and even with your last quip (“for now!”)
To my ear, the statement about control boils down to politicals. You have much more insight into the personality of Holdren than I, so I trust you that he is susceptible to the same over-revved manuevering as the administration as a whole. I find it easy to conclude that almost every policy decision is motivated less by the logic of the thing and more by how it affects the long term strategy of the administrations agenda. Which, I sadly believe, is rooted in the belief that the only way to improve the good of the USA and of the world is to increase the level of control over the people and businesses in our country.
Malthus disciples commonly display this insane strategy. It is sad that even space engineering, which should be so logical and objective even while philosophical, is made a prisoner of a more sweeping idealogical agenda.
“It is not irrational if your aim is control.”
That is exactly the point. Circa 1980 the “climate researchers” were predicting a new Ice Age. There was even a cover of Time Magazine saying that in the future glaciers would be moving across the American/Canadian Border. Holdren had a part in all those “scientific” predictions.
Now he “believes” in Global Warming.
Curiously, both Global Warming (and the previously predicted Global Cooling) had the same cause (the life styles of the developed world) and the same solution (drastically reduce the life styles of the developed world – except of course for the ruling elites, like Holdren).
Convenient the way that works out, isn’t it?
“Joe says:
October 7, 2013 at 3:22 pm
“It is not irrational if your aim is control.”
That is exactly the point. Circa 1980 the “climate researchers” were predicting a new Ice Age. There was even a cover of Time Magazine saying that in the future glaciers would be moving across the American/Canadian Border. Holdren had a part in all those “scientific” predictions.
Now he “believes” in Global Warming.
Curiously, both Global Warming (and the previously predicted Global Cooling) had the same cause (the life styles of the developed world) and the same solution (drastically reduce the life styles of the developed world – except of course for the ruling elites, like Holdren).
Convenient the way that works out, isn’t it?”
Any excuse will do.
The large American middle class is a serious problem for these types.
And if the rest of world would become like this, is a real problem.
They need a “reasonable reason” to hate it.
So flip it upside down, and blame .3 billion people for rest of the world.
It’s about as rational as the action of being happy is making other people depressed.
Over the past ten thousand years, the history of human civilization has always been a struggle between overpopulation in relation to resources. No matter how fond some of us are of the simple life of our tribal ancestors, we live on a planet that can really only accommodate a few million hunter-gatherers. But the agricultural revolution that began more than ten millennia ago combined with the scientific-industrial revolution that started just a few hundred years ago now allows this fragile world of ours to accommodate more than seven billion people.
Still our numbers continue to grow, especially amongst the poorest and least educated people on our planet. And the other animal species that inhabit our world are under a constant threat of extinction thanks to the relentless exploitation of our planet’s resources necessary to accommodate our ever growing human population.
Overpopulation is a serious threat to the environment and to the quality of human life on Earth. And this will always will be true as long as our species continues to confine our civilization solely to our planet of evolutionary origin.
So you would think that an environmentalist like Dr. Evil (the term I teasingly use for Dr. Holdren) would enthusiastically endorse the idea of setting up permanent human outpost on the Moon and Mars and throughout the solar system as a necessary beginning towards eventually reducing human population pressures on the environment of our home planet. You would think!
Unfortunately, it was pretty obvious during his 2008 campaign for president that Obama had a rather cynical view of manned space travel. And Dr. Holdren seems to have encouraged the President’s cynical views with enthusiasm when the administration tried to shut down NASA’s beyond LEO program.
While I applaud President Obama and former President Bush for helping private companies to develop their own private manned spaceflight capability for their own private purposes, using Commercial Crew development and the ISS to undermine NASA’s beyond LEO efforts is not only a threat to the immediate and long term health of America’s public and private aerospace industry but is also a threat to America’s long term economic future. And its also a threat to the long term survival of humanity!
To quote a much smarter man than I: “It is important for the human race to spread out into space for the survival of the species,” Stephen Hawking.
Marcel
“Overpopulation is a serious threat to the environment and to the quality of human life on Earth.”
I lived in Alaska for seven years and traveled the state by air and if you want to see underpopulated then go there. I have also driven across South Dakota. “Overpopulation” is a deeply flawed simplification by equating a fewer number of human beings to a higher standard of living in a global context.
The numbers say we will not go the way of Easter Island and slowly self-destruct. Our population will level off sometime this century because of increasingly higher standards of living.
I am more of a catastrophist that is worried about a virus that is a little too virulent or a comet that is a little to big. If we do not go out into space then we are going extinct sooner or later. I think what people like to ignore is that it could just as likely be sooner than later.
Overpopulation has always been a problem for the human species even when there was less than 100 million of us on this planet. That’s because its not simply about geography but mostly about how much food you can produce in order to keep people from starving to death.
Half the Earth’s human population lives in poverty with an income of less than $2.50 a day. 80% of the Earth’s human population lives on less than $10 a day. Approximately, 22,000 children die as the result of impoverished conditions– every day!
Over 800 million people don’t have enough food to eat, a severely malnourished population nearly as large as North and South America combined. And over one billion people on our planet have inadequate access to clean water.
Our increasing demand for fossil fuels is currently creating an atmospheric environment that is– alien to our species– with levels of CO2 in the atmosphere now higher than before our tool using genus (Homo) first emerged in Africa, 2.6 million years ago. And it looks like we’re rapidly on our way towards creating CO2 conditions in the atmosphere that haven’t existed on Earth in more than 20 million years.
Don’t kid yourself, the enormous number of people occupying this planet does have a significant effect on our environment and on the other plant and animal species that we share our planet with.
Marcel F. Williams
The thing is, the economic window we are in that can allow us to get up into space and leverage its resources may only be temporary. As cheap, easily accessible minerals and fossil fuels become a thing of the past, the real economy could wind up shrinking. We could be faced with a Catch-22 situation where we can’t grow the economy without the resources of space, but we can’t develop space because the economy is too small be able to afford it. If we choose to let Neo-Malthusianism run the show now, it could become a self-fulfilling prophecy in the future.
Of course, its a myth that our investment in space is expensive. The NASA budget represents less than 0.5% of annual Federal expenditures. And our manned space program all by itself represents less than 0.2% of annual Federal expenditures. So there is no evidence that NASA even approaches being a significant burden to the US budget.
NASA budgets are slashed by Congress not because that can significantly reduce the US deficit but because some in Congress view– any NASA expenditures– as a waste of tax payer dollars. So it doesn’t matter if the annual NASA budget is $16 billion or $16 million, Congress is not in the mood for any wasteful government expenditures.
However, I think there is tons of evidence that NASA has created a substantial amount of wealth for the US and global economy. There would be no $200 billion a year satellite based global telecommunications industry in the Western world if it weren’t for NASA’s investment in space. Satellites now play a part in our daily lives from cable and satellite television to GPS devices.
But the American people are also not in the mood to waste money– no matter how little. So public support for our Federal space program will depend on how rational and progressive it is.
Dr. Holdren and the Obama administration have given us a government manned space program that is so cynical about our future in space that their only policy is to just turn space travel over to private corporations and eccentric billionaires– who have absolutely no loyalty to the American people.
Most Americans love space travel and appreciate what our investment in space has already given us. So I’m not surprised at all that a motion picture like ‘Gravity’ is currently so popular in the US.
There’s no doubt in my mind that most Americans will support a rational and adequately funded manned space program (at the spending levels that President Obama originally inherited from George Bush) to gradually and progressively establish a permanent human presence on the surface of the Moon and eventually on the surface of Mars over the next 25 years.
Marcel
“-a government manned space program that is so cynical about our future in space that their only policy is to just turn space travel over to private corporations and eccentric billionaires– who have absolutely no loyalty to the American people.”
There is no way to make money off space without mega-projects that take decades- something corporations and billionaires find unattractive. I do not think private space will succeed- it is going to fail and if we do not continue with a HLV and a plan for going to the Moon we will be at square one.
I believe that private industry could make money transporting people into orbit to private space stations– if they focus on space tourism– and stop trying to undermine NASA’s beyond LEO efforts with their silly anti-government propaganda.
There are more than 50,000 people on this planet worth more than $100 million. Even if a tiny percentage of these super wealthy individuals decided to spend the $25 to $35 million for a flight into space to a private space station, that could mean dozens of launches into orbit every year, enough to sustain several private launch companies.
Plus I think there are billions of people on the planet who would love to risk a dollar or two for the chance to travel into space through a space lotto system– especially if you added a monetary prize of a couple of hundred thousand dollars for their time off from work for astronaut training.
People around the world already spend more than a billion dollars every year virtually traveling into space through Hollywood movies, television programs, and video games:-)
Marcel
Opponents to “commercial space” keep saying it will fail, yet it keeps succeeding:
http://spacefrontier.org/2013/09/cygnus-berthing-delivers-on-newspace-promise/
Bob Clark
Opponents to “commercial space” keep saying it will fail, yet it keeps succeeding:
What does this have to do with what I wrote?
Robert Clark says:October 9, 2013 at 4:28 am
“yet it keeps succeeding”
I know this is redundant, but since others keep insisting on saying the same things over and over again. I guess it is required.
I used to be told by “commercial” space supporters that the Space Shuttle cost too much because it costs were $71,000/kg. to deliver cargo to the ISS.
I have nothing against Orbital Sciences because (unlike SpaceX) they have not made grandiose claims about how much they are going to reduce the cost of space transportation. Never the less their contract calls for them to deliver 44,000 lbs. to the ISS for $1.9 Billion ($43,100/lb. – $94,820/kg.).
Nobody who is in anyway interested in real commercial activity would consider spending $100’s of millions of the tax payers’ money to develop a system that is 34% more expensive a success.
I don’t think Dr. John P. Holdren is very effective causing government to go in any direction.
What about is Holdren which is not, tired disproven drek?
Nor do I think Obama has done much. Obamacare was passed because there was enough dems
to pass it, and had been a keen topic for dems for decades.
One could ask why the dems didn’t do something in terms of climate change policy- and seems
quite simply, health care was more important to them.
Obama was there to sign it. And Bush would not have signed it.
But other than that, one can easily say that the President did around zero in terms of bring both houses together. And it’s been a complete disaster.
Obama didn’t do anything about the recession. Other waste large sums of public wealth.
And he got variety of his departments he suppose to manage in hot water.
The media loves Obama. And the media loves Holdren.
The media didn’t love Dr. John H. Marburger.
And would could say Marburger wasn’t effective enough, but it seems he had more effect
upon government policy than either Holdren or Obama.
I mean In terms of good and reasonable effects- rather wandering around lacking of direction.
Though anyone had high hopes NASA was going somewhere, could see the lack of any leadership of Holdren as a effective in slowing down progress.
But there are many people that thought the US government in general could make a lot
progress, and this lack progress and upset many supporters of Obama. They thought
Obama was going to do wonderful things, and are now left with the sad task of making excuses.
So anyhow, it’s up to us, to do something.
So we start with what can NASA do?
I think finishing the projects they have started would a beginning premise.
And one main things is SLS- anything to get it to launch sooner would be
good, but perhaps many people would prefer it launching after Obama leaves
office. I think a serious effort should made to have launch well before Obama
leaves office. It’s better politics in long term.
I think getting fuel depot at KSC launch inclination so it’s launch before Obama
leaves office would also be a very good thing. It seems unlikely.
But it seems the faster SLS launches, the quicker a depot becomes possible.
I think it’s safe to say, that while Obama is in office, we are not going to start
a lunar program. Though a robot mission might occur, particularly more funding
is given for robot mission and general and/or JWST gets finished sooner.
“So anyhow, it’s up to us, to do something.”
You are right GB.
But none of us agree on exactly what that something is. Space advocates are hopelessly divided in their separate visions of how to advance space exploration. It was easier in the beginning when nobody had a clue because whatever worked was built. Now what works is not good enough and it has to be cheap and reusable and profitable and easy enough for any private company to do.
I became interested in spaceflight while helping my wife with a college paper on ethics. While researching nuclear weapons I happened upon “Project Orion, the true story of the atomic spaceship” in the public library and I was hooked. In the years since I have been an avid reader on space and these forums on the internet have taught me that most people are not willing to read up on new technology or change their opinion in light of new data and have made up their mind.
The most glaring failure of people to adjust their worldview when it comes to human spaceflight concerns the issue of space radiation. Space radiation and human factors in general are square one but most space advocates seem to have this idea that floating around taking a radiation bath for months at a time is our bright future.
Because I accept the radiation problem and the path to solving it with the ice on the Moon, massive shielding, and nuclear pulse propulsion I am way out on the fringe.
So anyhow, none of us can agree on anything.
Actually, most of funds are eaten by social programs. The DoD has been reduced in spending as well.
Instead, we spend billions to take care of people that could actually take care of themselves, if the govt didn’t act as a Big Brother.
And it’s going to get worse, if we don’t change how we run things.
“Unfortunately, it was pretty obvious during his 2008 campaign for president that Obama had a rather cynical view of manned space travel.”
Indeed.
And it seems this has infected NASA’s leaders, as they make excuses while they make up mediocre plans that pretend to support Obama’s statement of visiting an asteroid by the mid-2020s.
Remove this, and we might get back on track.
“I would say we do not need another Marburger- we need an O’Neill.”
Agreed.
Visions such as his have been blocked by visionless leaders.
People will try to argue otherwise, but Obama certainly counts.
While the rocket building program that was Constellation was no way to go about it, we had the right idea. And we were ready to make it happen
Who knows how long it might be before we get it right?
“Others see space as a frontier, a place not only to be explored and studied, but one to be used and inhabited – a place that generates wealth, drives new technology and spawns new industry. ”
This should be the driving force behind what NASA does, IMO.
It can do far more for the nation than any visionless and bloated social program.
From O’Neill’s goals, it makes more sense for us, as an advanced species, to be builders of new worlds.
Ben Bova’s Exiled from Earth novel depicts a Malthusian world government who decides to exile some 2000 geneticists and biochemists to a space station due to their groundbreaking research which allows them to modify human genes and create the so called ‘superhumans’. On a heavily overpopulated Earth where the large cities have been abandoned to anarchy, the world government viewed the genetics research as too destabilizing and dangerous. The exiled scientists decide to convert the space station into a starship and set out on a voyage to a system that they believe contains a habitable planet. A fun, short book to read.
More to the point we already live on an overpopulated planet. People often think of overpopulation in terms of living space, but agricultural space and energy resources are also critical elements. My brother-in-law heads a crop insurance program and he sometimes appears on Fox Business Report and CNN to discuss the critical necessity of crop insurance to maintain a stable food supply. A Republican, he often finds himself debating with other Republicans who want a more free market approach. One of the statistics he often brings up is the amount of arable land available for agricultural has been consistently declining over the last 20 years despite technological improvements. He has told me personally that the future for food production is looking very dismal and he worries about cuts in funding for basic agricultural and technology research which he believes is critical to increasing food resources.
Why bring this up? Because it underscores the critical role that government plays in bringing stability and protecting existing resources while providing opportunity for new technological development through R&D funding. It is important that people have a safe and stable planet to live one, but also important to have a future. I often find myself at odds with other liberals who believe we should cut the space program altogether and devote that funding resource to helping those in poverty. They regard the space program as extravagant and wasteful. I agree with them it is important to be able to break the cycle of poverty, but part breaking that cycle is providing the opportunities that allow people to help themselves. The space program provides one such opportunity. I can only hope that the next President is such a person who recognize the need to find a balance between protecting existing resources and developing new resources. We need a new and clearly stated vision for space exploration.
The problem with the left is that they want to pass policies that makes poverty–sustainable– instead of policies that actually eliminate poverty all together. And the problem with the right is they want to pass policies that weaken the rights of working people while empowering wealthy corporations and private businessmen to rule the country as arrogant plutocrats who somehow know what’s best for the rest of us:-) Nations typically ruled by the wealthy are usually some of the poorest and least innovative countries in the world.
But its up to the– working people– in this country to finally rise up and to demand their appropriate share of the growing economic pie– not through unions– but through a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And if the Democrats and Republicans don’t listen to working Jane and Joe then I guess we’ll have to put a major scare into them by finally starting to vote for other parties that believe in full employment and understand what America’s priorities should be. Its that simple, IMO!
NASA is the people’s space program. And the American people should demand that our manned space program be focused on pioneering the rest of the solar system so that we can begin to expand our strategic, economic, and colonial realm to the rest of the Solar System. And there’s no reason that this can’t be done with a manned spaceflight budget that’s not too much larger than the current one. But that means that NASA is going to have to prioritize the pioneering the solar system in its manned spaceflight budget!
If expensive LEO programs like the ISS that keep us trapped at LEO are so valuable to the world’s knowledge and economic growth then NASA and its international partners should be willing to rent or to sell the ISS to private companies and private scientific institutions for their use. This would allow NASA to use the $3 billion of annual ISS funds for beyond LEO missions for the development of : outpost on the Moon and Mars, radiation shielded artificial gravity space stations at L4 and L5 and in orbit around Mars and Venus. That should be NASA’s priority right now, IMO– not the ISS.
Also private companies like Bigelow are already poised to accommodate any scientific and commercial needs for microgravity habitats and laboratories at prices I suspect will be substantially cheaper than the ISS.
Marcel F. Williams
A thoughtful post. I cannot find much in it to disagree with except (unfortunately) your optimistic hope for the future.
“I can only hope that the next President is such a person who recognize the need to find a balance between protecting existing resources and developing new resources.”
Currently the capabilities to actually do anything in space are being systematically dismantled. By the time there is a next President their task to build up a new and viable program will be bigger than that Kennedy faced in the 1960’s (Kennedy had the advantage of a number of secret military projects that were already developing technologies and technology bases useful for the civilian projects).
It is hard to picture who such an individual would be or what would motivate them to make the effort.
No bucks, no Buck Rogers mining the moon.
Marburger talked a good game, but the President he worked for wasn’t interested in funding his own vision for space exploration or making sure NASA implemented it properly. By 2009, the lack of funding and the expensive shuttle-based architecture NASA selected (chosen to maintain jobs in Huntsville and other places) had turned the entire project into a bad joke that the Augustine Committee exposed in its report that year.
The problem is not Holdren but rather a fiscal environment that makes doing much of anything beyond low Earth orbit very difficult. Congress wants a return to the moon, but it’s not really doable on the budget they give NASA. They simply don’t want to pay for it. Let’s replicate what Kennedy did, go beyond it by making the base permanent, and do it all on a shoestring budget. And most Congressmen don’t really care what we do up there; they’re mostly interested in how many people a lunar program can employ in certain states and districts.
It is most likely that building a permanent presence on the moon would take decades; once we got it fully staffed and figured out what to do with it, we’d decide that we needed to end the program to fund trips to Mars. The asteroid mission is an attempt to keep NASA from sinking into a gravity well that sucks up billions.
The commercial crew program you criticize is about trying to make LEO more affordable and to build up capabilities. If commercial companies can start making a profit in Earth orbit beyond simply launching and operating comsats and imaging spacecraft, NASA will have better partners to pursue ventures out in deep space and they would be able to do those missions in a different way.
Marburger talked a good game, but the President he worked for wasn’t interested in funding his own vision for space exploration
Not true. In the five years of VSE funding, ESMD got everything it asked for plus some. Even with the Constellation architecture, we still would have made it to the Moon, just not on the original timescale. But there were no deadlines with the VSE; there were milestone guidelines. Then Obama cancelled it, without alerting Congress.
The problem is not Holdren but rather a fiscal environment that makes doing much of anything beyond low Earth orbit very difficult. Congress wants a return to the moon, but it’s not really doable on the budget they give NASA.
That simply is not correct, as I have tried to show continuously for the last four years. It all depends on what your objectives are and how you go about approaching them. We could be on the Moon by 2020 and not for a very large increase in the agency budget. Of course, it would require re-balancing the space portfolio, but that’s going to happen anyway, so why not get something for the money we spend?
The commercial crew program you criticize
I only criticize the oversell, the hype and con of “commercial” New Space. They take government money for development costs, just like all the other aerospace companies. But they pretend to be new and different. Boeing, Lockheed, Northrup make a profit on launching satellites and have done so for the last 40 years.
Another “New Space” Infomercial.
I would like to add one more take down to it (if I might):
“By 2009, the lack of funding and the expensive shuttle-based architecture NASA selected (chosen to maintain jobs in Huntsville and other places) had turned the entire project into a bad joke that the Augustine Committee exposed in its report that year.”
The usual insults to other people’s motives should (at this point) be ignored, but the reference to “the expensive shuttle-based architecture” is inaccurate. The Ares I/Ares V launcher architecture had its problems but none had to do with it being “shuttle-based”. The Side Mount configuration would have worked quite well within the given budgets. An In-Line version (something like the Direct proposals – which the Block I SLS resembles) could have worked as well.
So none of Douglas Messier’s statements hold up to scrutiny.
By the time Bush left office, Constellation had badly slipped in schedule, opening up a large gap between the end of the shuttle program and the first flight of Orion to low Earth orbit. Since getting Orion into LEO was a precursor to getting it to the moon, that matters. Whatever ESMD was asking for, it clearly wasn’t enough.
Not to mention the technical problems and costs of adapting shuttle hardware for both Ares I and Ares V. Therein lies the tragedy of Constellation. We had two relatively new, reliable boosters in the inventory that could have handled LEO launches with some modest alterations.
Instead, let’s build a brand new rocket based on an SRB that was never designed as a stand-alone booster. That shouldn’t be too hard. Let’s build a HLV using shuttle tech so we can keep everyone employed. Great choice by NASA. Way to approve that, White House.
The Augustine Committee found a massive gap in what NASA was being asked to do and its budget outlook for the 2010’s and beyond. That’s a reality. It still exists because Congress decided to bring back most of the Constellation program. Obama’s program, whether you aree with it or not, was actually designed to address that. Congress’s approach ignored reality.
Not for a very large increase in the budget? Try NO increase in the budget. In fact, a declining budget. As I said, Congress wants to go to the moon, but it’s far more interested in tax cuts for its constituents. The Administration has consistently wanted to spend more than Congress. Instead of going after Holdren, put the blame where it belongs.
This is the classic New Space disinformation spiel.
1. The constant refrain that “NASA did not have enough money to complete the VSE” overlooks the fact that the Augustine Report did not say that — it said that while the Constellation architecture was technically feasible, it could not return humans to the Moon by 2020 (an original target of the VSE) but rather, it might not occur until 2028. It did NOT say that we could not return to the Moon AT ALL. Now, in the new and improved replacement space program, we’re looking at a single asteroid mission, but not before 2030 (if then).
2. You guys keep insisting that SLS is a “jobs program”, apparently unable to imagine that there are other national, strategic considerations that might be operative here. I have argued previously here and elsewhere that the real intent of SLS is to keep together and preserve the human capital and industrial infrastructure necessary for government spaceflight until such time in the future when it might be needed. Just because you cannot imagine a rational reason for such a thing does not mean that there isn’t one.
3. I agree that we are in dire economic times in this country. The U.S. civil space program is in serious trouble, especially as a result of recent decisions by the agency’s current leadership and decision-makers. But as you guys are always so supremely confident that New Space can take over from NASA, then go do so. And quit asking for federal handouts.
4. Instead of going after Holdren, put the blame where it belongs.
I did — in my blog post.
Now, you’ve had your say here. In future, post this drivel on your own blog.
In 2009, President Obama inherited an $8.4 billion a year manned spaceflight related budget from the Bush Administration: $3 billion for the shuttle program; $2 billion for the ISS; and $3.4 billion for the Constellation program. The Space Shuttle program and later the ISS program were supposed to end in order to provide more funding for the Constellation program.
But then President Obama suddenly canceled the Constellation program and ended the goal of returning to the Moon, later explaining:
“Now, I understand that some believe that we should attempt a return to the surface of the Moon first, as previously planned. But I just have to say pretty bluntly here: We’ve been there before.”
I was a critic of the Constellation program under Griffin because of its backward architecture (Ares I/Orion first then Ares V and Altair development much later) and also because it had begun to stray away from a lunar base program towards a wasteful lunar sortie program (Apollo on steroids).
But President Obama offered no beyond LEO program at all for NASA– forcing both Democrats and Republicans in Congress to step in!
I’m a strong advocate of Commercial Crew development for private commercial purposes. But there is no NASA manned space program now or in the future that will make Commercial Crew launch services sustainable for more than one company. There simply aren’t enough manned space launches planned by the Federal government to sustain more than one company.
Continuous competition amongst several companies is what reduces cost in a capitalistic system– not a monopoly.
The American Commercial Crew launch industry will never be successful unless it stops focusing on trying to get their hands on tax payer dollars and aggressively moves towards investing in space tourism for the super wealthy and for the masses ( through a space lotto system).
Marcel F. Williams
Hi Marcel,
Good points. If I might a couple of comments.
“In 2009, President Obama inherited an $8.4 billion a year manned spaceflight related budget from the Bush Administration: $3 billion for the shuttle program; $2 billion for the ISS; and $3.4 billion for the Constellation program. The Space Shuttle program and later the ISS program were supposed to end in order to provide more funding for the Constellation program.”
Money has been shifted away from American HSF (even when you count in the subsidies for “commercial” crew). But they have not (in any significant amount) gone to either robotic probes or aeronautic research. The bulk of the money has gone to climate change research. It is not my intention to start a side debate on climate change only to note that the NASA research is by and large redundant to that being done by other government agencies. It is a way, however, for the administration to spend less on actual aeronautic/space programs while claiming to be supporting NASA’s overall budget.
“I was a critic of the Constellation program under Griffin because of its backward architecture … and also because it had begun to stray away from a lunar base program towards a wasteful lunar sortie program (Apollo on steroids).”
I worked on Constellation Systems (as a systems engineer) from February 2007 until October 2010. During that time it did not appear to me to so much “stray away from a lunar base program” as stagger around from one goal to the other (depending on the results of the last high level meeting). I guess if there is a lesson to be learned from the experience it is that even a succinct top level objective statement is not enough to avoid bureaucratic drift. There also has to be someone in high management to keep the various internal bureaucracies from seeking to impose their own agendas. That (absent a driving national goal) is a difficult objective.
Unfortunately Joe, we’ve all seen Bolden, Garver, and Holdren before Congressional committees being accused by both Democrats and Republicans in Congress of consistently trying to undermine the development and funding for the SLS/MPCV. Now that she’s left the administration, Garver now admits that the SLS/MPCV program is being underfunded.
Once the SLS is operational, its probably going to require at least two heavy lift launches per year for the program to be sustainable.
Unfortunately, the current administration has heavy lift mission scenarios with multiple year gaps between launches– which is clearly unsustainable. This, again, makes you wonder if the current administration is trying to purposely undermine the development and use of a heavy lift program.
Marcel F. Williams
“Once the SLS is operational, its probably going to require at least two heavy lift launches per year for the program to be sustainable. ”
Well, having 2 or launches of SLS will give the appearance that each SLS is not as costly as it appears.
10 or more launches per year “might” make SLS
appear to be very competitively priced or better.
Or more launches of any launch vehicle will lower the unit costs.
But of course, if NASA does more launches per year it requires more tax dollars per year. And whatever payloads are going on the these launches are generally going to tend cost more money than the launch vehicle itself.
So, one can ask is it desirable for NASA to have launch vehicle which appears to be a as cheap as
a private launch vehicle.
Keep in mind it’s not as cheap- it’s illusion due to the cost of capital is not accounted- 20 billion dollars consumed for development in not counted in the yearly costs.
If Bill Gate did SLS, in terms spending as much on development it would lose money.
So sustainable can’t happen, all that could happen at this point is allowing one to kid yourself that SLS isn’t a expensive launch vehicle it already as proven itself it is and that is about 4 years before the planned maiden test launch.
So, I think NASA should use the SLS when it needs to use SLS. One think of it as expensive insurance.
Don’t care about it’s cost per lb to LEO. Care about NASA mission costs and program cost.
But NASA should care about increasing total US launch in the future. NASA should care about the cost of launch which going to send a NASA lander, satellite somewhere. And also the cost launching for US satellite market.
Because NASA is not a launch company competing with other launch companies. It’s actually forbidden
by law to do this.
Instead NASA will have SLS which is rocket which is said to has unique ability that NASA needs, NASA doesn’t have make private sector build this unique launch capacity.
So NASA can use SLS as core element of say Lunar program and lack of non-NASA launch will not prevent NASA from doing it’s program.
Which is not the same thing as excluding the use of
Non-NASA launch capability.
At minimum NASA can think of SLS as mostly a back-up option. At most, it has potential to handle all NASA needs of hvy launch.
But, I think NASA should do something about the possibility of SLS will only launch once in 2 years.
Instead it should be once a year and perhaps with capability to do 2 launches per year- if this doesn’t cost much.
And also plan to be able get a surge in total launch payload capability from private sector [or other countries].
I think one launch per 2 year or longer is a problem in terms of safety.
So I would think a launch per year, is much better than 2 in one year and no launches the next year, and 3 launches in year after that.
Or plan so to have 1 launch per year, and plan to do this for 5 years or so. And at 5 years, have option this point, to scale up or possibly scale down or terminate, transfer [privatize], or modify/improve rocket in some way.
Which would better than trying to 2 or more launches per year and hope Congress gives you
more money.
Marcel,
“This, again, makes you wonder if the current administration is trying to purposely undermine the development and use of a heavy lift program.”
Unfortunately it does not make me wonder, that is exactly what they are doing.
Look at their “Development Plan” for the SLS.
– First test flight of the Block I SLS in 2017.
– Stand down until 2021 (4 years) and fly an (as yet undefined) operational mission of the Block I SLS.
– Abandon the Block I SLS.
– Another 4 year stand down (until 2025) while they develop the Block II SLS.
– Supposedly fly the Block II SLS only every other year.
It makes no sense at all. However, the rather obvious con-job is (sadly) enough to convince a number of “internet experts”. Note the post by “gbaikie” (October 18, 2013 at 9:38 am).
“Look at their “Development Plan” for the SLS.
– First test flight of the Block I SLS in 2017.
– Stand down until 2021 (4 years) and fly an (as yet undefined) operational mission of the Block I SLS.
– Abandon the Block I SLS.
– Another 4 year stand down (until 2025) while they develop the Block II SLS.
– Supposedly fly the Block II SLS only every other year.
It makes no sense at all. However, the rather obvious con-job is (sadly) enough to convince a number of “internet experts”. Note the post by “gbaikie” (October 18, 2013 at 9:38 am).”
I can’t say I have ever supported NASA building a heavy launch vehicle. But since NASA is doing this my view is NASA should get to the point of it’s maiden launch as soon as it is able.
Which doesn’t mean slowing down the development program so as rush it’s maiden launch.
I would want NASA currently, to be not spending money and time getting to point where it could launch more than one launch per year. As said better to have 1 launch per year, than possibly of 2 launches one year and zero launch the next year, and year after this
have 2 or 3 launches.
Obviously according to what I am saying, having 4 year gap is worse than 1 year gap.
And I don’t support the idea of trying to make SLS appear more economical by planning on having more than one launch per year.
Much better would be to plan to have SLS have lowest yearly program cost, AND not have big gaps between each rocket launch.
And I hope NASA never builds the 130 launch vehicle.
And though don’t think NASA needs build a hvy lift launch vehicle, NASA doing so, and I will grant there
is an argument which could be convincing to people, that NASA needs to “have” a hvy launch vehicle- rather than merely buying hvy vehicles from various American launch companies [Altas V, Delta heavy, Falcon Heavy].
gbaikie says: October 18, 2013 at 5:32 pm
“But since NASA is doing this my view is NASA should get to the point of it’s maiden launch as soon as it is able. Which doesn’t mean slowing down the development program so as rush it’s maiden launch.”
Your first sentence seems to agree with what has been said by Marcel and myself, but that of course is not what the administration is having done. They are dragging out the flight schedule in order to make the SLS look as bad as possible.
Since slowing down the SLS “development program” would further delay not “rush it’s maiden launch”, your second sentence does not make sense.
The rest of your dissertation on launch vehicle costs is a bit off the mark.
As with the Space Shuttle the SLS fixed cost (what you have to spend to be able to fly at all) will be so much larger than the incremental costs (the additional cost for each flight) that the incremental costs are lost in the rounding error.
That is why (when the Shuttle was flying) you would see press accounts from year to year with wildly varying Shuttle launch costs. The reporters were simply taking the total shuttle cost for the year and dividing by the number of flights for that year.
It does not work that way.
The analysis done for the Shuttle Side Mount configuration showed that 8 flights/year could be flown without any increase in fixed cost. The same would be true for the Block I SLS. Therefore, if you build it at all, flying it multiple times a year is not a problem.
“Your first sentence seems to agree with what has been said by Marcel and myself, but that of course is not what the administration is having done. They are dragging out the flight schedule in order to make the SLS look as bad as possible.”
Generally, it wiser as it is more probable to assign stupidity rather than malice.
And it seems rather unlikely Obama cares much about NASA.
And it seems very likely that bureaucracies resemble
glacial flows, rather than rivers.
All bureaucracies have tendency are to focus on slowing or stopping [everything and anything].
It takes creativity to make bureaucracies to flow like a river. And the more stupid, control things solely by trying to stop everything. Neglect and/or stopping are
main factors in all bureaucracies from the beginning of time.
And generally, it seems one could make an argument that neglect has better results.
“Since slowing down the SLS “development program” would further delay not “rush it’s maiden launch”, your second sentence does not make sense.”
I favor shortening the development of SLS. But from the point of view that there is some limit to funding
the development SLS, the idea of one launch per year
rather than 2 or more launches per year, shortens
the development time.
It is also possible that increases in funding could extend the development time.
But if more money is spent to shorten the development time, I favor more money spent.
So favor more money spent to launch sooner, and more money to have launch rate launch one launch per year.
Not more money to have capacity to launch more than 2 launches per year, and not more money to make the 130 rocket launch any sooner [or ever].
So as far as getting to brass tacks. If the only plan is to launch 1 per 4 years- it’s not acceptable.
If it’s 1 every 2 years with idea that latter improvements could increase it to 1 per launch per year, that barely acceptable.
If you get 2 launches per year, and it does not slow development time [most important factor] and also means it does but cost much, that that’s ok. But it means, 2 launches in one year, no launch in next year, 1 launch per year is more valuable.
Of course a 70 rocket launched once per year is same payload as 130 ton launched every 2 years.
The only trigger for possible development of 130 rocket *should be* if NASA ends up *needing* 4 70 ton launches per year.
It’s not clear that if NASA were launching 4 70 ton payloads per year, that NASA should built a 130 rocket, but at least an argument for it.
So let get to NASA launching 1 70 ton rocket per year. See how that goes.
The problem at the moment is any program that actually needs 1 launch per year.
And rather than NASA being insanely obsessed
with trying to justify more NASA rocket launches,
what NASA should focus on [because it’s why we have a NASA agency] is increase of launch from entire US launch industry.
Just in terms of NASA’s budget, NASA should focus on having more America space launch- as NASA uses this industry to lift it’s robotic landers and orbiters. And US government in terms of it’s military
space program also uses this industry.
And if not for US military, there would not be EELV, and quite a few NASA missions have used these
vehicles.
So why should just military be doing something useful for the civilian space industry??
gbaikie says: October 19, 2013 at 5:49 pm
“Generally, it wiser as it is more probable to assign stupidity rather than malice….”
Thank you for the philosophy lesson, but I will stick to my own analysis.
“I favor shortening the development of SLS. But from the point of view that there is some limit to funding the development SLS, the idea of one launch per year rather than 2 or more launches per year, shortens the development time.”
No, that simply is not true. You do not save money in development by trying to limit the number of times any vehicle can be flown in any given period of time. In fact it is not clear how, in development, you could design in a very low launch rate limit. But even if you could, it will not save money or shorten development time. I tried to explain the situation to you in my post: Joe says: October 19, 2013 at 9:15 am .
The rest of your post, while lengthy, appears to be trying to say these same (inaccurate) things over and over again in slightly different wording.
If you choose to restate your same points in yet a third post, that is your privilege. But as far as I am concerned this discussion is completed.
“NASA needs to “have” a hvy launch vehicle- rather than merely buying hvy vehicles from various American launch companies [Altas V, Delta heavy, Falcon Heavy”
GB do you understand the difference between a HLV and a launch vehicle simply labeled “heavy”?
The classic HLV is of course the Saturn V which could put over a hundred tons into LEO.
These inferior launch vehicles cannot land people on the Moon- not without orbital antics that have never been done before and are far more trouble than launching one or two vehicles directly. As for the Falcon “heavy”, it will not have a hydrogen upper stage and this makes all the difference.
“And I hope NASA never builds the 130 launch vehicle.”
You might as well say I hope we never build a base on the Moon because it probably will never happen without that 130 ton lift.
-“NASA needs to “have” a hvy launch vehicle- rather than merely buying hvy vehicles from various American launch companies [Altas V, Delta heavy, Falcon Heavy”-
“GB do you understand the difference between a HLV and a launch vehicle simply labeled “heavy”?
The classic HLV is of course the Saturn V which could put over a hundred tons into LEO. ”
I understand that Saturn V was retired in 1973.
Or 40 years ago.
That Saturn V actually lifted about 4 to 5 times more payload than any heavy launch vehicle since or before it.
That next year Elon Musk’s is planning on it’s maiden launch of the Falcon Heavy:
53,000kg to LEO.
And if the Falcon Heavy launches next year, and successful gets to orbit, it will be a vehicle able to deliver largest payload into space [LEO}, since Saturn V.
And if NASA is successful in it’s launch of SLS in 2017, it should be first a heavy launch capable of lifting up 70 tons to LEO, since Saturn V.
NASA says:
“NASA’s Saturn V (5) rocket was the most powerful heavy lift launch vehicle to fly successfully. Other heavy lift launch vehicles include the Titan IV (4) and Delta IV (4) Heavy, Russia’s Proton and Europe’s Ariane 5.”
http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/rocketry/home/what-is-heavy-lift-launch-vehicle-58.html#.UmNZvVNuvzY
“These inferior launch vehicles cannot land people on the Moon- not without orbital antics that have never been done before and are far more trouble than launching one or two vehicles directly. As for the Falcon “heavy”, it will not have a hydrogen upper stage and this makes all the difference.”
SpaceX may not make hydrogen upper stage. SpaceX doesn’t necessarily need to make such a stage. SpaceX can simply deliver whatever the payload of those who buying a Falcon Heavy launch want, and the payload can include hydrogen upper stage which is fully fueled. Some best makers of hydrogen upper stages are American- have these
companies make the upper stage.
Of course another option is lifting a hydrogen upper stage which too large for Falcon Heavy, if fully fueled, so only have the stage 1/2 full of rocket fuel. And fully fuel this stage in LEO.
Since LOX is the most massive element of rocket fuel, the upper stage could be fully fueled with LH2, and one refuels LOX in LEO.
So lets look at Saturn V upper stage:
“The S-IVB carried 73,280 liters (19,359 U.S. gallons) of LOX, massing 87,200 kg (192,243 lbs). It carried 252,750 liters (66,770 U.S. gallons) of LH2, massing 18,000 kg (39,683 lbs). Empty weight was 9,559 kg (20,000 lb).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-IVB
So dry mass 9,559 kg (20,000 lb) and LH2 mass of 18,000 kg.
That’s 28,000 kg.
So, S-IVB:
Diameter 6.6 m (21.7 ft)
Mass 119,900 kg (253,000 lb)
Falcon Heavy payload width: “Total Width11.6m 38 ft”
http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy
It could lift Saturn V upper stage, if you refuel the upper stage’s LOX in LEO.
Assuming you had a S-IVB.
-“And I hope NASA never builds the 130 launch vehicle.”-
You might as well say I hope we never build a base on the Moon because it probably will never happen without that 130 ton lift.
I think NASA should start with building rocket fuel depot at KSC inclination. And I think NASA should focus on depot that starts with storing LOX only.
If we only had depots which stored LOX, NASA could mostly handle going to Mars at such point in time with existing launch capability.
And NASA could explore the Moon with LOX only rocket fuel depots.
But think once NASA gets a LOX only depot in KSC inclination, which is operational, then having depots that also store LH2 or Methane, kerosene, or even things like Xenon, or cryogenic helium and water could later added.
If we have depots that can store and transfer, fuel and oxidizer, then we are essential ready to do Manned Mars.
As for lunar bases. I am interested in NASA exploring the Moon to determine if and where there is minable Lunar water. And I think a protracted and expensive lunar operation which focus on building lunar bases, would be undesirable.
But build bases on Mars [something protracted and expensive] requires about same capability or more capability, and I think doing that is possible if and when there are rocket fuel depots, at LEO, L-1 [or Cislunar/high Earth] and Mars orbit.
Hi Joe,
A quick look at wiki tells me the the lunar lander weighed 16 tons and the command module and service module 32 which is about 50 tons sent on it’s way to the Moon by the S-IVB. I do not know how much fuel it burned for mid-course corrections or lunar orbit insertion or how much fuel the lander burned getting down to subtract from this total.
This very crude math tells me that 100 tons in LEO will send about half of that on it’s way to the Moon. So if this holds for the 130 ton lift SLS then a 70 ton unmanned cargo lander can be sent to the Moon by one SLS launch or a 35 ton lander with the first SLS.
There is a huge difference between a Earth rendezvous of two vehicles and the private space plan of depots and dozens of launches (or more) of inferior lift vehicles to effect the same mission of sending a single cargo lander to the Moon. The most efficient way to set up a base on the Moon is to send the largest one way lander possible by parking that lander in LEO and then launch a second SLS with a EDS to dock and boost the combination out of Earth orbit.
How big of a one-way cargo lander can a 130 ton booster send to the Moon? If it was 50 of the 100 tons the Saturn V lifted then would it be 130 tons sent to the Moon for the 260 ton dual launch mission? There is also the question of how much payload is sacrificed to get to these lunar polar sites compared to equatorial.
Consider as a given 8 SLS missions a year and half of them dedicated to the dual launch scheme; this would put a couple of these large one hundred plus ton one-way cargo landers soft landed on the lunar pole each year. The question then becomes how much cargo can these landers carry?
The first big determining factor in cargo mass is of course the fuel; storable or liquid hydrogen and oxygen? The ZBO (zero boil-off) equipment needed to keep stored cryogenic propellents stable is in development but storable propellents may prove more practical despite their extreme toxicity.
So, say in ten years we start landing cargo on the Moon twice a year for the next 30 years and this is what will build the base on the Moon IMO.
There is no substitute for a heavy lift vehicle with hydrogen upper stages.
I fully agree & concur! The Saturn 5 was the most mightiest of the mighty launch vehicles! I had really high hopes for the potential construction of the Ares 5, while the Constellation Project lived. The paradigm of the giant Heavy-Lift, multi-stage rocket, is a very relevant model for NASA to eventually aim for, in the future. Any serious initiative for cis-lunar & interplanetary human spaceflight is going to need it. I cringe firmly, when I see how the current U.S. administration casts so much faith into all these shaky entrepreneurial ventures, & their minor-league, low-earth-orbit-only rockets. I look forward to a major change in America’s space policy, that’ll include a manned Lunar Return, just as before. Until that time comes, I suppose that we Lunar advocates will continue to be the voices-in-the-wilderness. By the way, I have NO problem with China becoming the first 21st century Moon-landing nation. That’s probably just what it’s going to take: some good old fashioned international competition, to stir America out of its current stupor & complacency!