Wingo Op Ed: Establishing the VSE

[MarkWhittington]

One other thing on Wingo's piece. He seems to assume that a plan to go back to the Moon can somehow be crafted that will have a broad enough political consensus that opposition to it will be nil or at least minimal. Political sustainability, as a lot of VSE critiques keep saying. This is folly, IMHO. No matter what kind of plan one comes up with, no matter what the justifications, there will be opposition. Barney Frank, whom Wingo quotes as the voice of the people, is a case in point. He would not care if it were proven that VSE contributes to the economic well being of the country. He would oppose it anyway because a pot of money would be spent on it that, in his mind, would better go to social welfare programs. There are just some people who are impervious to reason and, alas, many holds seats in the Congress. So sustaining VSE is going to be a constant effort. And sniping at it is not going to help very much.

[renclod]

MarkWhittington - 23/4/2008  9:16 PM

psloss - 23/4/2008  1:08 PM
Didn't some "anti-Mars" language make it all the way to the President's pen in the FY 2008 omnibus appropriations bill?  If so, that implies there is likely bipartisan "support" for this particular position.  

On the Mars language, it actually originated with House Democrats. While annoying, it did not rise to the level of being a sufficient reason to veto the bill and cause a government shut down.

For the record (my transcript, unofficial of course):

April 3, 2008 - Hearing

House - Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
NASA's Exploration Initiative: Status and Issues

1:21:50 into the podcast

Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R - CA) :


I just want to make shure that people [who] read this record ... of this hearing ... that they do not come a way thinking that there is any type [of] consensus that we should be making Mars the driving force for prioritizing the spending that is about it... That would be perverse ! That would be giving up what we can accomplish today for something that is a majestic dream as we march to the future . But that's not the way to have a realistic and a responsible policy for America's space exploration.

Let me just for the record say that I'm one hundred percent in favour of that limitation saying that we should not be spending money on things that exclusively are for accomplishing a future manned Mars mission... that we have other things we need to do ...

Do we need to fix the Hubble telescope ? The chairman of this subcomitee took the leadership on insuring that we did not let that asset go. That costs us some money. Quite frankly I supported that...

Should we be making shure that we have a very robust system for identifying Near Earth Objects that may indeed be a threat to the Earth ? And should we establish a system on how to counteract those threats if we find something headed in our direction ? The answer is yes !

Should we be utilizing Space so we can put a greater effort into conserving and utilizing the Earth's resources for the benefit of human kind ? Yes !

All of those things cost money. It would be a horrible deservice to the people of the world - and especially to the taxpayers [in] the United States - for us to start prioritizing our spending based on the ideea of stepping human foot on Mars 30 or 40 years down the road. That would be a horrible misuse of the money when we have other things that we need to do, that can help people right now ... So let me make shure that that's thoroughly on the record.

[kraisee]

But that was followed up a while later by comments to the exact opposite by both Dr. Hinners and (IIRC) by Rep. Nick Lampson.

Rohrabacher's comments were not the only opinions presented at that hearing.

Ross.

[psloss]

kraisee - 23/4/2008  5:29 PM

But that was followed up a while later by comments to the exact opposite by both Dr. Hinners and (IIRC) by Rep. Nick Lampson.

Rohrabacher's comments were not the only opinions presented at that hearing.

I think the point is -- and hopefully renclod will correct me -- that the opinion expressed by Rep. Frank isn't necessarily unique to Rep. Frank.  I'll accept the point that it's not necessarily a consensus view, but I think it's the opinion that we should critique rather than the personality.  (Although now we have two polarizing figures, Frank and Rohrabacher, just at what are conventionally viewed as being on opposite ends of the political spectrum.)

But I'm aware that politics is as much about personalities as it is about ideas (I just spent a good portion of a cross-country drive listening to talk radio)...I'd rather the discussion be on the latter, but that's just my preference.

[khallow]

MarkWhittington - 23/4/2008  11:13 AM

The main fallacy of the article, and that seems to be a common one for critics of VSE, is that it assumes that it is NASA's job to create a commercial transportation infrastructure. Does anyone remember how the space shuttle came to be? The proper way NASA could help enable a translunar transportation system is through a lunar version of COTS. But, of course, that can't happen until there is an actual lunar base to go to.

According to the The National Aeronautics and Space Act

The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (as established by title II of this Act) seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.

A modest implication is that that it is NASA's job to encourage though not necessarily "create" commercial transportation infarstructure. As I see it, by developing and using Ares I in place of existing commercial launch providers, NASA has both failed to take advantage of a unique opportunity and to deliver on one of its obligations.

[Steven Pietrobon]

I think Wingo's article is as equally as flawed as NASA's Ares-I/V program. Wingo argues that NASA's priority in Lunar exploration should be focussed on using Lunar resources and arguing this to Congress as the major reason for going there.

"The point is that there is virtually no plan at all to carry out the truly remarkable plan to use resources derived from the Moon for further exploration."

What resources are there that could be used for further exploration? Oxygen and metals derived from rocks. Perhaps water and hydrogen from the Lunar poles. The most useful is oxygen, but it does not make sense to land your Mars spacecraft on the Moon, fill it up with oxygen, and then send it on its way to Mars. You have to carry the oxygen to land on the Moon, plus carry the hydrogen to lift you out of the Moon. Launching to Mars direct from Earth orbit is much more efficient.

What about launching the oxygen to a Lagrange point where the Mars spacecraft rendezvous and fills up? That's better, but you have to carry the hydrogen to the Moon in order to get the oxygen from the Moon. Even at a 6:1 oxygen to hydrogen ratio, this is very expensive to do and may not be worth it. Something to study though.

However, what I believe is useful is using the oxygen to launch a Lunar spacecraft from the Moon back to Earth, to help lower the costs of Lunar exploration. This has a very real and substantial benefit. Compared to direct ascent, returned payload mass increases by about 70%. A further benefit can be obtained by carrying the LOX to Lunar orbit (or Lagrange point) for use to land the spacecraft. My study shows that payload mass returned from the Moon increases by about 20%. The cost though is a doubling of lunar oxygen required, so it may not be worth it. Being able to use Lunar water only increases returned mass by 15% compared to using oxygen alone, since hydrogen is only a small component by mass.

Sure, we can make use of Lunar resources to lower the cost of going and returning from the Moon. Is that enough of a reason to argue for going to the Moon in the first place? I don't think so.

The first step though is getting there, and the high cost and complexity of Ares-I/V is as much of show stopper as anything. Lowering the cost of getting to Earth orbit should be the priority. Direct halves the cost compared to Ares-I/V and so is a good start. It is certainly affordable for the US, and other governments via propellent transfer, which could be used for other applications.

If you want to argue about making space more accessable, then money directed at reusable launches and space elevators would be much more beneficial then throwing money at the Moon or Mars. This is what happened to the Space Task Group. NASA tried to to make a reusable launcher, and only succeeded in making spaceflight even more expensive at the cost of 14 lives. This is a really hard problem.

[gospacex]

Steven Pietrobon - 23/4/2008  8:49 PM
What resources are there that could be used for further exploration? Oxygen and metals derived from rocks. Perhaps water and hydrogen from the Lunar poles.
...
What about launching the oxygen to a Lagrange point where the Mars spacecraft rendezvous and fills up? That's better, but you have to carry the hydrogen to the Moon in order to get the oxygen from the Moon. Even at a 6:1 oxygen to hydrogen ratio, this is very expensive to do and may not be worth it. Something to study though.

Stop for a second and realize that non-hydrogen fuels also exist, and for the Moon it can turn out that it's much easier to produce and use those instead.

Granted, they are less efficient than hydrogen-containing fuels, but Moon liftoff is far less demanding than Earth one.

[Lampyridae]

Steven Pietrobon - 24/4/2008  11:49 AM
If you want to argue about making space more accessable, then money directed at reusable launches and space elevators would be much more beneficial then throwing money at the Moon or Mars. This is what happened to the Space Task Group. NASA tried to to make a reusable launcher, and only succeeded in making spaceflight even more expensive at the cost of 14 lives. This is a really hard problem.

Reusability is a concept that seems to be taking root in the commercial sector. LockMart is working on demonstrators for a flyback booster, and SpaceX in theory will make some reuse of their launch vehicles. I think the flight of SpaceShip One was an important psychological watershed moment; "outlandish" ideas like flyback booster stages are starting to appear. In this, I think we have to also acknowledge the USAF as quiet and solid supporter of low-cost space access. They want nice spaceplanes and by jimminy they'll get them in the end.  :bleh:

[Norm Hartnett]

What I found most thought provoking about Dennis’ article was his link to Thor Hogan’s Mars Wars book. I’ve only read about a third of it so far but the applicability of this kind of analysis to the VSE is obvious. From the overview that Mars Wars gives of the numerous studies conducted within and without NASA since 1969 the general sense of an Agency without a clear mission that has endured in that state for decades seems pervasive. The VSE is yet another attempt to address that vacuum and is as likely to fail as all the others.
Dennis’ argument that NASA’s ESAS is focusing on the means and not the goals seems valid and is certainly valid in terms of what we see from NASA’s public outreach to date. For sure no four-man outpost is going to be able to fulfill the stated vision of mounting the Mars missions from the Moon. As to whether it is actually desirable to do so is open to some question but I note that at least two major previous studies supported that architecture. That architecture does drive the founding of a lunar colony sufficient to support some major industrial development that should lead to some understanding of the processes needed to do the same thing on Mars.
However, Dennis’ argument presupposes some form of transportation to the moon that simply does not exist. Neither Dennis’ beloved Shuttle-C, Constellation, nor Direct provide the kind of cost effective lift required for such a massive effort. Virtually every study sited in Mars Wars presupposes some form of aerospace plane as a precursor to Lunar or Mars exploration and we still do not have that key building block.
We are continuing to put the cart before the horse and, while I have every faith that NASA could design a cart that would work with the horse in the rear, I believe that until we have assured low cost access to LEO exploration and settlement of other planets will be impossible.

[renclod]

Norm Hartnett - 24/4/2008  9:10 AM

What I found most thought provoking about Dennis’ article was his link to Thor Hogan’s Mars Wars book. I’ve only read about a third of it so far but the applicability of this kind of analysis to the VSE is obvious.

Lazy reader you are, Norm !

I read the book 3x by now. I agree, Dennis' repeated links to the book are provoking. However my own view on this issue differs, in that I think the SEI demise is not necessarily predicting the future of the VSE.

And here are my arguments:

MARS WARS - Thor Hogan
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070031234_2007032394.pdf

On 25 May [1989], Mark Albrecht called Admiral Truly to ask whether NASA could return to the Moon by the end of the century—in preparation for a Mars mission early in the next century. Albrecht was stunned by Truly’s response. ‘“His first reaction was 'don’t do it.’ NASA cannot handle this.” The NASA Administrator was unsure whether this request was simply Albrecht playing ‘what if’ games, or whether this was a serious proposition. As a result, he called Vice President Quayle, who confirmed that both he and President Bush wanted to know whether this was something NASA could accomplish. After consulting with Frank Martin, Director of NASA’s Office of Exploration, Truly concluded that there was no way he could rebuff a presidential initiative. Albrecht recalled later “his initial impulse turned out to be quite revealing, because in the end, NASA couldn’t handle it.” What is equally revealing, however, is the fact that nobody at the White House reconsidered the wisdom of announcing a new initiative given the agency’s reluctance.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1111/1
The wisdom of NASA’s elders
by Jeff Foust
Monday, April 21, 2008

NASA did get some sympathy from Truly, who was administrator during the abortive Space Exploration Initiative (and who lost his job because of the conflicts that stemmed from it.) “I think this time around it’s much better thought out,” he said of the Vision for Space Exploration. Announcing plans to phase out the shuttle, he said, provided a “theoretical” way for help paying for the program that didn’t exist during SEI. He also credited O’Keefe for his work putting the Vision together in the aftermath of the Columbia accident. “My hat’s off to him"

Edit: Yes, I know VSE != ESAS but a 1.5 architecture is the way to go IMHO.

[tankmodeler]

The strength in Dennis' article is that it focusses on the fact that NASA isn't, hasn't and shows no sign of trying to make the lunar effort sustainable. They have ignored Congress' specific requirements on that subject. If they were to refocus their efforts on sustainability and, dare I say it, economic profitiability, right from the start then a lot of things would be very, very different.

The actual hardware and architecture NASA is building would be very different as the underlying requirements would force a number of changes on pretty much all of the systems.

The funding battles would be different and, I believe, much easier, as NASA would be able to point to a business case and show how they were marching down the road to close that case. A case that would eventually show the space effort paying for itself and taking the burden off the US public. Congress has frequently been well disposed to providing seed money to new industries, espeicually if that seed money can garner a leading positin for US industries in that area.

NASA claims that they haven't ignored the congressional directives towards sustainability, but that these things will come in some far off and "to be wished for" future _after_ we get back to the moon. As Dennis states, what they fail to realise is that the US public and, therefore, Congress, no longer care about just going someplace. They want and need to see what good it will do to go there and what will be the effect on "my" life when this event happens.

Going to the Moon or to Mars no longer resonates with the public of any country as a goal in and of itself. Part of the problems is that we actually have done it before (conspiracy theorists notwithstanding). Everyone thinks if we did it before and nothing really came out of it other than some cool photos, then if that's all we're going to do ths time, why bother?

If going to the moon would help find platinum for cheap alcohol fuel cells, then, hey, that's different, useful and might actually turn a profit. Sure, lets go!

If going to the moon will allow us to create Earth environment observatories that help monitor & reduce Man's impact on the world, then, hey, that's different and may make a difference to me in my life. Sure, Let's go!

If going to the moon will allow us to mine materials on the moon and then use them to sustain a colony there at greatly reduced costs or to build/supply a Mars voyage on the cheap, then, OK, that sound's cool. Yeah, I suppose it would be cool to go but it better not cost much. (note the difference)

The generation that was galvanised by "Ask what you can do for your country" no longer exists. It has been replaced two generations later by one that really believes in "Ask what your country can do for you." If there isn't something in it for the individuals, they no longer care. Really. They don't. Doing something for some other person's or organisation's benefit has absolutely zero resonance with 99% of the population and Congress reflects this. NASA and their exploration plans MUST engage people and must return a benefit to the majority or no plan or program will survive for long. NASA appears to not have learned this lesson. They, as an organisation, are still focussed on the technology and the destination and not on why they are going there and how it will benefit, as directly and as immediately as possible, a large portion of the public who is expected to pay for it all.

It's unfortunate, but the public today is a low attention span, needy and selfish beast. If you want something from them, the quid pro quo has to be significant and quick. NASA hasn't cottoned on to this yet and we're not going to go anywhere significant in space until they do.

Paul

[Gene DiGennaro]

Norm Hartnett - 24/4/2008  1:10 AM

while I have every faith that NASA could design a cart that would work with the horse in the rear,

Ferdinand Porsche and his children did a pretty good job of designing a cart with the horse(power) in the rear! :laugh:

[Gene DiGennaro]

Quite actually, I thought Dennis' piece was quite brilliant. Like others have said, it's a strategic view rather than a tactical one. I do see Constellation rapidly changing from a Grand Vision to Apollo Mk. II and I don't like it.

I just helped my son do a research paper on the merits of Constellation. We looked at newspaper articles and media opinion polls. The majority of newspaper articles written around 2004-2005  were positive and mostly spoke of a Grand Plan to explore the Moon and Mars for science and resources. However from about 2006 on, those articles changed in tone. Most of the articles referenced either China's lunar ambitions, the shuttle's ongoing issues, or NASA's budget. It seemed like the good old 1970s cynicism had returned to space reporting.

NASA needs to sell ESAS as more than just Apollo revisited. Dennis' opinion piece says it better than anything I could write myself.

[HIP2BSQRE]

I agree with Wingo on this one.  Why do people invest in their children and spend thousands of dollars on college?  They want things to be better for them.  The parents are spending for their kids future and in most cases there will be a payback in able to command more money when they seek a job.  

What kind of payback are we expecting to see from ESAS?  Eight people to the moon?  If people think Apollo got canned fast--wait to see how fast ESAS will be canned--It will not last 3 years!  Make the program relevant in people's eyes and people will support it.  Don't make it another ISS but on the moon. If people could buy moon dust, scupltures, anything from the moon---you would have a market.  

People want to touch the next forntier, that is what makes us Americans---looking over the horizion.  What opened up the west?  The ability to get there!  What opened up CA and NV?  The highway system.  Govt--NASA needs to build that system.  As people have said 'Build it, and the will come".  If NASA tries to build a billion dollar football stadium (Moonbase) in the middle of the desert without the highway or roads to get there..what do you think will happen to that plan? People will vote it down, since it does not bring or brings too little to their lives.

[Eerie]

HIP2BSQRE - 24/4/2008  8:30 PM
 If people could buy moon dust, scupltures, anything from the moon---you would have a market.

Are you serious? Because that suggestion is so stupid it is not even funny. You think a f%#$ing Moon Base can be made sustainable by selling souvenirs? :laugh: