…from Senator Hutchison and Congresswoman Kosmas:
One alternative we have proposed would be to slow the flight rate of the remaining space shuttle missions and move those flights into next year and possibly 2012 while manifesting the planned backup flight with an available cargo capability. We can use this time to complete a detailed assessment of the spare and replacement equipment needs and provide for carriage to the space station if our analysis shows limits in other cargo vehicles. This modest measure would not call for increases to the number of shuttle flights, but instead would simply space them so the gap for America to deliver people and critical cargo to the space station under our own power would be narrowed considerably.
There is a tempo to processing the vehicles. If it is exceeded (trying to fly too fast) safety will be compromised. What these people apparently don’t understand is that you can also process too slowly, to the point at which the personnel will lose their edge. On top of that, each flight would end up costing two or three billion dollars. Each.
What I think you are missing is the national security implications. From that perspective, the President’s plan makes about as much sense as the Air Force deciding to not operate transport planes but rather buy tickets on commercial flights. Actually less sense, in that the airlines actually exist and have operating vehicles.
What’s needed is an explicit discussion of the risks of not having an independent manned space program (low, mostly prestige) and the risks of waiting on Constellation (high, mostly due to longer gap and the risks of an expensive, single vehicle with a low flight rate).
Chris, the military doesn’t launch satellites on the Shuttle any more and hasn’t for about 20 years. What then are the national security implications that justify spending several billion dollars per flight? If you’re talking about the ability to make large solid rocket motors for some potential future ICBM, let the military pay for it instead of dumping that burden on NASA.
Besides, the military contracts a great deal of their transport to civilian ships and airliners.
Larry J – yes, I am aware that the military is no longer using the Shuttle. There are still “prestige” and “defense” connotations to manned spaceflight.
Yes, I also know that the military contracts with civilians. I met a ship that way once. But they also maintain air transport wings, specifically to go to places civilians can’t or won’t.
Larry – you may also be laboring under the misapprehension that I disagree with Rand on this. I actually think he’s correct, but not addressing part of the argument.
Hypothetical:
If China landed on the Moon at Tranquility Base, desecrated our flag and put up their own, would that constitute an act of war? What would be our response?
At some level, prestige IS defense.
txhsdad – since we don’t have territorial claims to the Moon, technically that’s not an act of war. As a practical matter, it would get everybody exceptionally pissed off.
The odds of that happening before we can get back to the Moon seem slim to none. Going with private orbital access makes those odds even more in our favor.
So, a technologically advanced society that WANTS to go to the Moon won’t make it there until AFTER a technologically advanced society that has decided not to even TRY to go back?
What makes you so sure?
If things keep going in their present direction vis a vis America’s presence and prestige in the world, I can see something very much like this happening in the next ten to twenty years. And we will do nothing, because we will have resigned ourselves to hitching rides on Yugos to LEO and reading travel brochures sent to us by our clever robotic probes from all the places we’d actually VISIT if we only had the cajones to try.
Commercial beyond LEO ain’t happening, y’all. Not for another hundred years, at least. And frankly, I don’t trust this regime to follow through with anything that creates commercial opportunity farther than I can spit in a space-helmet. This policy is fool’s gold.
If the USAF needs a manned space access capability they could easily upgrade the EELV. for the cost of 2 new pads and some minor engineering upgrades the two vehicles would easily close the deal. Worst case this can’t cost more then a billion dollars. Then you need a capsule, a Gemini MK2
wouldn’t cost much, say a billion worst case?
extending shuttle is a dead end, when the next shuttle is lost, as it will be,
there won’t be enough parts to keep flying.
I think this is a political strategy, but on a different level. I’m sure Kay Bay would really like to keep JSC fully funded and accept their votes. But the technical reality will probably give her a close enough win by just advancing a suggestion that sounds close to what is happening anyway.
We got a flight about to occur next week. After that, the next couple of flights are slipping out primarily due to payload issues, and certainly not for political concern. At least one has slipped into fy2011. There’s talk it may slip even into the 2nd quarter.
So now you go from a launch last November, a launch in February, a launch in April, and now one in May. Then you see 4 months until your next flight, and maybe 4 more to your next. Wow, it looks like we have slowed operations. From a casual observer, say someone who works in a bank and not in the space industry, it may look like the Senator successfully used her clout to keep people employed an extra 6 months or more. No one will know for certain until after the elections.
Of course Rand is correct about the tempo affect, and more over the additional cost to each mission for maintaining the workforce that much longer. But hey, it’s better than a shovel ready jobs program. It’s more like a turn key jobs program! Everybody in Washington is happy with it!!!
The United States controls access to space from it’s shores, so it’s funny to hear people say that we “need” the Shuttle for National Security reasons. The U.S. already has programs like the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) and Military Sealift Command (MSC), and a space version would a logical addition.
No matter what, the licenses that any launcher would operate under could easily spell out that, under certain conditions, the U.S. could commandeer their services. End of concern. Typically the CRAF & MSC rely on a certain level of funding from the government, so I doubt any crew or cargo providers would feel bad about the arrangement.
I also agree with the comments many have made, stating that we should proceed with funding ULA for at least one crew launch vehicle. Which one (Atlas/Delta) doesn’t matter to me, as does the capsule, but the goal should be to produce a simple system that is ready to take over from Soyuz before the end of their contract. I think a declaration of National Security needs would be enough to get around competitive bidding rules, and there are no other U.S. launchers available today that could compete anyways (Falcon 9 needs some launch history).
I think we actually need three independent ways to get crew into space, and I think Falcon 9/Dragon will ultimately be one of those, and I hope the Dream Chaser (or something like it) is another.
For now, there is no overriding reason to extend the Shuttle, other than it being a big jobs program. All good things must come to an end…
txhsdad, so many Americans have made this stupid “oh no, the Chinese are going to steal our Moon cheese!” argument now that I’m really starting to think you’re all paranoid delusional. Please, I know the cold war was hard on you guys, but this is beyond a joke. Seek help.
Wait — a minute ago you were talking about China.
@ McGehee: Are you suggesting China has no lunar aspirations?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Lunar_Exploration_Program
@ Trent: Stay classy. My point is that we’re leaving ourselves without a US-owned, US-controlled means of human space flight should we need it or want it in a contingency. We’re trading a bird in hand for a promise of a bird sometime in the future, from a guy who’s already broken every promise he’s ever made, and from an industry that barely even exists. But hey, you guys keep haulin’ water for The Won and his dismantling of everything that symbolizes American achievement and success. We’ll see who’s left standing in 2012 and beyond.
txhsdad,
China is unlikely to go to Tranquility Base. The poles are potentially far more valuable scientifically, economically, and strategically.
Second, you’re not relying on Obama’s promises. SpaceX has a rocket on the pad right now, due to launch its test flight any day now. This Falcon 9 rocket is built to deliver cargo and passengers to the international space station, among other missions.
Space is probably very low on Obama’s priority list. It is the Vice-President’s responsibility, not the President’s. Support for NASA in particular is broad but very shallow – for most voters, what happens at NASA is not enough for them to change their vote, with the exception of a handful of congressional districts.
So, this policy is most likely left up to a handful of people within the Administration who do understand that NASA cannot continue awarding commercial contracts on a cost-plus basis like they have for decades, but instead have to do their commercial outsourcing like everyone else.
It isn’t as though the commercial space industry has no experience – Boeing and Lockheed have been involved with space since the Mercury years. There’s a ton of new players coming on the scene all the time.
Commercial rockets to LEO is one thing. SpaceX and their ilk aren’t going to take you to the Moon, Mars, a threatening NEO or anywhere else interesting for many many years to come. Those are things only a government will do, because there’s insufficient capital to cover the risk involved and insufficient ROI because the objective is defense, prestige and exploration, not trade.
Space may be low on Obama’s priority list, but if it is then why trust him to follow through on his plan? I believe Obama’s priorities to be the deconstruction of American exceptionalism in all its forms, and there’s no denying that our accomplishments in space have stood for decades as beacons of American achievement and symbols of the success of the American model that he wants to “fundamentally transform”. In that sense, yes, I believe it is a priority — just not in a good way.
It’s clear the big O hates NASA so much he’s increased it’s budget by $6B.
But hey, let’s not let the facts stand in the way of a good hate session. Shuttle costs about $3B a year to fly. Historically it has cost between $1B and $1.3B per flight. That’s a lot of money to find. Where does it come from?
Of more concern to me is that Shelby’s addition to the bill to protect his constellation pork means NASA can’t cancell constellation until the new act is passed. The side effect of that is that NASA can’t redirect funding to start commercial crew until the new bill makes the money available. If the bill isn’t passed and a continuing resolution is put in place then commercial crew could be delayed by up to another year…
This is called closing the gap.
Not.
SpaceX and their ilk aren’t going to take you [beyond LEO] for many many years to come. Those are things only a government will do, because there’s insufficient capital to cover the risk involved and insufficient ROI because the objective is defense, prestige and exploration, not trade.
What SpaceX and others will do is put people, supplies and components into orbit at a profit. Using that capability some may decide to put a transterrestrial spaceship in orbit for a few billion opening up the entire inner system. How much would the government be willing to pay for a ticket to ride? Initially the ROI might not be what you could get putting the money somewhere else, but being first could position the owners to a huge ROI within a decade. Establish bases and colonies and you will need fleets of ships to service them… at a profit. All the time bringing the costs down.
Somebody will be first to take the risk. I suspect a private venture (Bigelow’s cislunar concept for example) will get there before a government program does. It may take a group of investors but it will certainly cost less than the numbers the government throws around.
@Fred
Unless you’re projecting, nobody here is “hating” anything. I agree with you that Teh Precedent sure does love to spend him some money — it’s what he spends it on that makes the difference. I can give my son $1mil, but if he’s only allowed to spend it on socks and underwear, it ain’t much of a gift, is it?
Anyhow, I never said he hates NASA, I said he finds evidence of American greatness to be distasteful. You may somehow find amazing conservative virtue in this new policy — perhaps it’s the proverbial blind squirrel’s nut? — but I do not. What I find is more of what we’re getting in every other facet of this administration’s policies. If America were to succeed at VSE, it would serve as a direct contradiction to the narrative PBHO wants to construct: That America is a nation in decline, that we’ve had our day in the sun and it’s somebody else’s turn, that Americans should learn to accept less. So what’s a progressive to do? Cancel any real efforts at success and replace them with empty promises that he knows will never reach potential until well after he’s made his mark. It’s a win-win for him: he gets to rack up more debt, buy a few votes on the floor and put another notch in his deconstructionist belt.
Meanwhile I’m surprised at the blind faith some of you seem to have in commercial space. What, the Great Prophecy is about to bear fruit because Falcon 9 is on the pad? What if Falcon 9 blows up and sends SpaceX back to the drawing board for another decade? What then? And then (according to Ken) if they finally do succeed, somebody’s going to magically get a wild hair and spend countless fortune to build a fleet of “transterrestrial spaceships” and colonies, just because! What, Green Mars will just suddenly appear because private industry orbits a capsule?
Get real, fellas. This policy is fool’s gold.
> Fred Willett Says:
> May 6th, 2010 at 1:12 am
> It’s clear the big O hates NASA so much he’s increased it’s budget by $6B.
Though cut funding to maned space flight operations adn development.
>== Shuttle costs about $3B a year to fly. ==
Almost true. Shuttles billed about $3B a year for the care adn feeding of maned space flight related parts of NASA – even when the shuttle program has no use for them.
This may seem like a nit – but the point is NASA needs those facilities funded even if it doesn’t need them – so expect any future maned program (like commercial crew carry) to get the same bill.
> Ed Minchau Says:
> May 5th, 2010 at 7:07 pm
> China is unlikely to go to Tranquility Base. The poles are
> potentially far more valuable scientifically, economically,
> and strategically.
We never went to (or even proposed to go to) the moon for those reasons – Why assumne China will?
Pictures of Chineese astrounauts walking around Tranquility Base, after NASA maned programs been virtually eliminated, especially given Tranquility Base likely looks like a trashed abandoned ruin, would symbolicly show they are the worlds technological leaders, and the US’ day has passed. Same way our gonig to the moon when the soviets couldn’t was to signal we weer technologically superior to them.
Thats why we went to the moon, its likely thats why China would to. Just so they could take a picture of the flag we planted, lienig in the dirt where the LEM ‘s luanch blew it down — or a chinese astrounaut threw it for a photo op.
>==
> Support for NASA in particular is broad but very shallow – for
> most voters, what happens at NASA is not enough for them
> to change their vote, with the exception of a handful of
> congressional districts.
Certainly true.
> So, this policy is most likely left up to a handful of people
> within the Administration who do understand that NASA
> cannot continue awarding commercial contracts on a
> cost-plus basis like they have for decades, but instead
> have to do their commercial outsourcing like everyone else.
False on 2 points. NASA not that important, but its very hgh visability – and not embarsing yourself as a pres IS important.
2nd most gov agencies do do big projects no cost plus, adn theres little reason to think NASA will be able to change that for space launch.
Crew transfer to the ISS isn’t like mailing something via FedEx, where FedEx has a estabilshed and commercially viable operation doing things like that, with a long service history of success. There is no commercial maned operations. Worse, NASA isn’t proposing to buy enough flights to support a viable commercial operation.
So NASA are going to need to pay all the cost to develop and field a launch system, then to operate it for the 5ish years they are proposing. Right now about the only viable bidders are Boeing and L/M. (Yeah I know about SpaceX. They are not a credable bidder in DC land. To carry the grocveries, yes. To carry the astruonauts, no.)
Figure with normal NASA and federal “oversignt” and contracting laws and processes – a couple billion or more to field a capsule or two on EELVs. Add a billion or two per year for other NASA overhead to support the program (Obamas proposed $6 billion for KSC for this from 2010-2015, and thats before any flights with it!).
15-20 flights, $10B + for the program. Over half a billion per flights. My gosh, even the old Russian government ticket price per pasenger is cheaper. “Obviously” the commercials have failed.
Meanwhile I’m surprised at the blind faith some of you seem to have in commercial space.
That’s ok, we are surprised at the blind faith you have in the Chinese Space Program or, for that matter, Wikipedia.
I’m no fan of the President, but VSE’s failure is not his. Maybe you could argue some votes as a Senator, but there was plenty of missteps done by the Agency on its own. Obama didn’t choose to a single solid rocket first stage. That decision alone caused years of delays in just getting a first flight. The lack of purported performance and problems with linear oscillation did even more to push the return to the moon far into the future. Last year, which is to say before Obama called for the cancellation of CxP, we were already cutting crew capacity to ISS. Apollo on steroids was headed towards being just another 3 person vehicle.
If you want to call that “real efforts at success”, that’s your opinion. Compared to the X-33 and OSP, the might be a fair statement. But you are pointing to the Chinese, who are hoping this October to launch their second probe capable of orbiting the moon. If that’s your guideline of success, then you may want to consider that we’ve already beaten them back to the moon with LCROSS and LRO.
For the people who think China is looking to go to the Moon, pay attention to actual official statements. There are plenty of government employees talking about going to the Moon, but none of them were speaking in an official capacity at the time. The Chinese government itself has never said that it will send people to the Moon. In comparison, both the US and Russia have numerous official statements for all sorts of ambitious stuff over the years. I can’t be bothered to look, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see official Russian statements (especially over the past decade) indicating an intent to send people to the Moon.
This doesn’t mean that China doesn’t have such intent. Certainly their space program is chomping at the bit to do far higher levels of space activity. But it shows a very risk adverse side to the Chinese leadership that some people just choose not to see. IMHO they will do anything, including scuttling their human spaceflight program, to avoid having Chinese astronauts die on TV. That’s because saving face is more important to them than going to the Moon. In comparison, it’s worth noting that neither of the Shuttle accidents had any significant effect on the fortunes of the contemporary presidents.
Commercial beyond LEO ain’t happening, y’all. Not for another hundred years, at least. And frankly, I don’t trust this regime to follow through with anything that creates commercial opportunity farther than I can spit in a space-helmet. This policy is fool’s gold.
Why not? It’s much harder to get to Earth orbit than to leave Earth orbit. Anyone who can put people and significant payload in Earth orbit, can do things like Apollo 8 (which looped around the Moon and returned to Earth) without requiring significant further technological development (launch a crew on a vehicle that can survive for a few weeks, launch a man-rated upper stage to get them on the right trajectory, only major technology issue is reentry which needs to shed more velocity than usual). And there are already commercial satellites in GEO, which is beyond LEO.
Yeah, right. PBHO cancelled VSE because it was performing poorly. I’m sure that’s the same rationale he’ll use for cancelling Soc Sec and Medicare, right? Or the “stimulus”? Because he’s such a stickler for cost and schedule, that’s it. /rolleyes
I’m not saying VSE execution was perfect but it was a clear direction for our space program that would have maintained a national HSF capability and kept us in the race, laps ahead of everybody else. It would have been something every American could be proud of, and I’m positing that that’s exactly why PBHO scrapped it. And you’re saying that instead of an active national HSF program with a clear goal of Moon and Mars, I’m supposed to be happy with an empty promise of more LEO, someday, when it becomes profitable.
Show me one single other example of where PBHO has valued private enterprise over statist solutions. Geez, he doesn’t think America can build a decent car without the government, why should I believe he thinks we can build spaceships? Why shouldn’t I believe instead that he’s putting us on this path precisely because he DOESN’T see a future in commercial space, he knows it’s a dead end and therefore another way to take us down a notch without creating too much public fuss. Heh, joke’s on us, I guess. Or you, anyway.
But I’ll grant you, for arguments’ sake, your wild fantasies of a booming commercial market for colonies and fleets. What glory is there for America in the achievement of some multi-national corporation? Does it make you proud to be American when Ford builds a good car, or GE a decent television, or Microsoft a workable OS? Hell, if anything in today’s climate a successful space business would be demonized for “excessive profits”, not lauded as brave explorers, and subject to vicious witch-hunts when they lose their first crew (and they will, eventually, have mishaps).
No, I want America’s space program to be an object of pride and prestige, a symbol of American ingenuity and greatness. It’s not just a tool for science, or commerce, it’s a tool for foreign affairs, for defense, for diplomacy, for education. It sends a clear message to the world that America is #1 and the rest should come on board or get in line. It’s telling that so many here are so narrow as to not see this. You guys all seem to think those ends are somehow meaningless or outdated.
I want America to continue to lead the world, not rent seats from it.
txhsdad Says:
May 5th, 2010 at 9:20 pm
Commercial rockets to LEO is one thing. SpaceX and their ilk aren’t going to take you to the Moon, Mars, a threatening NEO or anywhere else interesting for many many years to come. Those are things only a government will do, because there’s insufficient capital to cover the risk involved and insufficient ROI because the objective is defense, prestige and exploration, not trade.
It should be painfully obvious that even had the Constellation fiasco been “fully funded” (giving NASA money hand over fist), it would’ve been many years before they were going to go to the moon, a NEO, or to Mars. They were looking at 2015-17 just to launch astronauts to LEO on the Ares I with the Orion capsule for a cost of $35-50 billion. There was no money to do anything else like develop the Ares V, a moon lander, transfer stage, etc. In reality, it would’ve taken NASA from 2025-2030 just to be able to return to the moon and the cost would’ve been horrendous. “Apollo on Steroids” was a massive failure. Failure does not deserve to be rewarded.
Again, this is obviously not the reason PBHO cancelled it. There no other example of him using this rationale to cancel anything. If anything, he seems to love to waste money and humiliate America.
Since when did this administration start caring about what stuff costs? And just how much will we spend in the future bailing out floundering commercial space corporations because they’re “too big to fail”, once we’re beholden to their services just to get to LEO? Will that be money well spent?
Point is, with VSE we would have gotten there, eventually. Before anybody else. And as a NATION, not as shareholders.
That matters to some of us.
What if Falcon 9 blows up and sends SpaceX back to the drawing board for another decade?
It may blow up and there’s not any chance at all it will significantly delay SpaceX (six months at the very outside. They are already manufacturing more vehicles.)
…somebody’s going to magically get a wild hair and spend countless fortune to build a fleet of “transterrestrial spaceships” and colonies, just because!
Yep …the because is profit. Wild hair is a good description and I imagine it will fit whomever is first to do it.
You could put a BA330 in orbit for a total cost of about $200m. A usable ship might require several providing a good volume discount. $2b would be more than enough to put a ship in orbit, fueled with passengers, ready to go. Then pick any destination the government may want to send passengers to.
How much would the government pay for the ride? Consider how much they would pay if the ride didn’t exist and they had to produce their own vehicle. Consider they will be paying much more for the additional equipment needed at the destination. One trip and the government would pay the total cost of the vehicle. Every additional trip is 90% profit. Fleets? You bet. A stampede even. If the government does decides to go ANYWHERE. A ship ready to go lowers the cost of any other project. If we are contemplating them now without a ship, with a ship we have a whole new ballgame.
BTW, that ship in orbit is a destination in itself. They can work out the systematic bugs in orbit while selling time on board to tourists. A quick trip around the moon with ticket paying passengers to shakeout more bugs. If nobody dies, they can then offer their services to the government.
I’m not sure that private enterprise is going to be building the first generation of interplanetary ships. They may build a generation of Lunar-capable ships, since this is a comparatively easier challenge, and an immediate market in Lunar tourism presents itself.
But we don’t need private enterprise for the first-gen interplanetary ships. Once getting to orbit goes from being an expensive drain on NASA’s budget to a more manageable number, NASA and/or other governmental agencies can build the ships.
@Ken: “The because is profit.”
How so, exactly? How do they stand to profit by going to Mars? Or Europa? Or Titan? The cost to get there and back exceeds the value of any raw materials that could be gathered in any sort of quantity, and that we don’t already have much more cheaply here on Earth. You really think the first humans to an asteroid are going to be tourists? Policy backers keep pulling out this canard about commerce chasing profits as the engine of space exploration, but I’ve yet to see anyone point to a widely marketable product or service these companies (the ones buying the travel, not the ones doing the launches) are going to profit by.
How do they stand to profit by going to Mars?
Simple. The overall project does not have to be profitable for the guy selling seats on his spaceship to make a profit.
You really think the first humans to an asteroid are going to be tourists?
No. I think the tourist will go after the first run pays for the ship and lowers the ticket cost.
Economies start in bits and pieces and not all of those pieces are profit centers. If the government doesn’t go anyplace, then obviously they won’t be buying tickets. It just means the economy will take a bit longer to get started.
They may build a generation of Lunar-capable ships, since this is a comparatively easier challenge
Which is a bigger step? Nothing to Lunar ship, or Lunar ship to more capable ship?
Getting from Earth orbit to Lunar surface is at least one order of magnitude easier than from Earth orbit to Mars surface. You’re talking a trip of a few days vs. months going into years. The later vastly increases your life support issues, which increases mass, which increases energy needed.
Also, the longer time commitment of a Mars run decreases the tourist market. A billionaire might be able to slip away for a few weeks to dash to the Moon, but 1 or 2 years on the wrong end of a 20 minute speed of light lag cuts the market significantly.
In short, you could take a ship capable of getting to Earth orbit, refuel it, and send it to the Moon. That same ship would probably not have the life support endurance for a Mars trip.
@txhsdad:”PBHO cancelled VSE ”
This is incorrect. The Vision for Space Exploration is NOT Constellation. That was Mike Griffin’s particular implementation architecture, and in no way resembled the target set by President Bush – and the Ares-1 is such an extraordinarily bad design that any decent program manager would have discarded the napkin on which it was drawn.
Getting from Earth orbit to Lunar surface is at least one order of magnitude easier than from Earth orbit to Mars surface.
The $2b spaceship that I propose would operate at a profit selling tickets to anyone going anywhere. It goes to orbit, not to any surface. The idea is it simplifies any project once it exists and in it’s environment operates at a profit regardless of other economic elements of a project. It makes projects more likely to happen.
The difference between a lunar and mars spaceship is not even a single order of magnitude. It just has more of the same components. Going to a surface is a separate issue.
Also, the longer time commitment of a Mars run decreases the tourist market.
Agreed. Mars will be for colonists more than tourists. Once a foothold is established people may sell all there assets to move permanently to mars. Property rights would be part of the incentive.
An order of magnitude is 10x. A mars ship would cost about 4 to 6 times a lunar ship with similar components. I assume the mars ship to cost from $2b to $3b at most, in orbit ready to go.
I’m assuming the lunar ship to have about 300 cubic meters of space where the mars ship has about 2000 cubic meters. Why settle for less when you don’t have to?
Ken Anthony – I was thinking primarily in terms of mission duration. A Lunar mission is a matter of weeks, while a Mars mission is a matter of years. So it’s not just size of ship but durability and repairability.
> ken anthony Says:
> May 6th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
>> How do they stand to profit by going to Mars?
> Simple. The overall project does not have to be profitable
> for the guy selling seats on his spaceship to make a profit.
You want to fill in a few details there Ken?
Folks go places to make money, have a vacation, or plant the flag and do a photo op. (Ok there are missionaries and scientists – but they are generally hangers on rather then trailblazers.) So who and for what reason, will someone buy a ticket on a space ship to somewhere?
> Ed Minchau Says:
> May 6th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
>> @txhsdad:”PBHO cancelled VSE ”
> This is incorrect. The Vision for Space Exploration
> is NOT Constellation.
Constellation isn’t VSE, but Obama did cancel both.
I was thinking primarily in terms of mission duration.
Instant gratification, eh? People used to make long term commitments. I know it’s out of style, but we are still capable of it. I think having sufficient internal volume is a much bigger issue.
who and for what reason, will someone buy a ticket on a space ship to somewhere?
The assumption is we are going someplace for whatever reason. If that’s not true, then game over. However, if the assumptions is valid and I know I’m not alone in believing it is; then having a ship ready to go just about guarantees a profit. Why? Because it eliminates a large measure of uncertainty. If you have a ship of proven capability (because you’ve had shakedown missions) you can charge for more than it’s cost because the alternative is more expensive and more uncertain.
The moon is not such a good destination for the ship since a lander going from earth orbit to lunar surface and back is quite likely. Longer duration trips are more suited to this idea. Although a ship would contribute to even a lunar mission because of the increase of consumables that could be put into lunar orbit. A smaller capacity lander might make repeat trips to the ship to transfer some of that to the surface.
Down the road, the answer is anyone that wants to and can afford a ticket. The assumption is destination will be established. Perhaps by a government program or perhaps even a private venture. It doesn’t matter. What matters is any mission plan can include a confirmed and certain ticket price for the ride to orbit of the destination. Other aspects of a mission are subject to the same uncertainty as any mission without the ship available.
Depending on destination and consumables, this ship could make tourism very affordable. What would be the marginal cost of taking 16 instead of 15 people somewhere in a 2000 cubic meter ship?
Ken Anthony – I guess my point is that designing a ship to operate continously and reliably for years is much harder than designing it to operate for weeks. Proving it will in fact operate reliably to a high enough level to get somebody to pay very handsomely to risk their life on it is also much harder.
I don’t think it’s impossible, just saying that if I were to bet money on it, my bet would be that the first manned ship to Mars will be commissioned and operated by a government.
I don’t think it’s impossible, just saying that if I were to bet money on it, my bet would be that the first manned ship to Mars will be commissioned and operated by a government.
Actually, I’d bet the other way, for exactly the reasons you state. Governments are much more risk averse than private individuals.
Rand – governments have militaries, which even in peacetime result in people getting killed. You don’t even have to look at programs like the Osprey (V-22) – every deployment some poor SOB gets swept off the deck of an aircraft carrier. I’m not sure private enterprise would have kept the Shuttle flying after 2 of 5 were lost. Governments are perfectly willing to take risks.
…my point is that designing a ship to operate continuously and reliably for years is much harder than designing it to operate for weeks
Absolutely, but here’s the thing. Unlike a program where the ship design is part of a gantt chart, a general purpose ship will be proven in continuous operation before any tickets are redeemed. It will take perhaps a dozen launches to put the components in orbit, but the initial component is a habitat that can be immediately put to use as a hotel. More habitats are clustered over time to give the final internal volume. More launches for engines, fuel tanks and framework. So it will be in continuous operation right up to it’s first shakedown cruise around the moon. The time it takes to get to this point is probably longer than the years a mars trip will take so continuous operation will be thoroughly understood before the first long duration voyage. It’s even possible that orbital tourism could pay a not insignificant part of it’s development.
PS: This is the second time this week, on two different computers, that submitting has informed me that I need Java and cookies to post (even though I’ve posted several times already.)
People risk their own lives all the time… unless the government steps in and says they can’t. We have not yet become the wimps you imagine. This is actually a good argument for free enterprise to take the lead.
I’m not sure private enterprise would have kept the Shuttle flying after 2 of 5 were lost.
Private enterprise would never have built the Shuttle in the first place. But not because it’s risk averse.
Governments are perfectly willing to take risks.
Not for space exploration.
> Rand Simberg Says:
> May 7th, 2010 at 10:21 am
>=
>Actually, I’d bet the other way, for exactly the reasons
> you state. Governments are much more risk averse than
> private individuals.
Don’t think I can buy that. Look at NASA, they weer quite willing to risk lives adn property — it was oplitical risks they were adverse to.
> I’m not sure private enterprise would have kept the
> Shuttle flying after 2 of 5 were lost.
Private industry recomended against puting the faults, against taking the risks, and recomended upgrades for improved safty at lower costs.
Industries more then willing to take risks when they need to – if theres a reasonably good reason to.
Don’t think I can buy that. Look at NASA, they weer quite willing to risk lives adn property — it was oplitical risks they were adverse to.
No, they weren’t. If that were true, they wouldn’t have shut down the Shuttle for almost three years each time they lost one. They were taking risk, but they didn’t know it. Once they realized it, they stopped.
> Rand Simberg Says:
> == If that were true, they wouldn’t have shut down
> the Shuttle for almost three years each time they lost
> one. They were taking risk, but they didn’t know it.
> Once they realized it, they stopped.
no Rand. Their testimony to Congress was they [NASA] did know, and they weer nicreaing the risk to the crew — they just felt that wasn’t as important as avoiding political risks.