Eric Hedman has concerns about the VSE (really, ESAS--I wish that people would be more careful to make the distinction). This is a new one that I hadn't previously considered:

Michael Griffin recently said two things that significantly bother me about the Ares architecture. He said that the Ares 5 is being designed with the requirements of a Mars mission in mind. He also said that he didn’t foresee sending humans to Mars for at least twenty years. By deductive reasoning, the first journey to Mars would take place using twenty-year-old (if not older) technology. Isn’t old technology one of the reasons there are problems maintaining the shuttle fleet? If a Mars base is going to require a nuclear reactor and the Ares 5 architecture isn’t deemed safe enough to launch it, are we just adding a cost for capabilities that may never be needed? Are we committing NASA to using circa 2006 concepts and technology for two to four decades from now? Are we so arrogant that we think we know now what will be the preferred technology for possibly the next half century?

Well, "we" aren't, but those running NASA right now obviously are. It's a normal trait for someone in charge of a major long-term government program. Taking a dynamist approach to developing the future is outside the comfort zone of bureaucrats. There is too great a need for control.

Well, either we fly to Mars with 20 years old technology or we fly to Mars with new, untested technology.

The F-15 & F-18 are 1970s aircraft and they work just fine. B-52s? 1950s, right? When did the B-1 enter service?

And when was the 737 first introduced into service? Southwest is one of more efficient, safe airlines out there.

Flawed logic here:

By deductive reasoning, the first journey to Mars would take place using twenty-year-old (if not older) technology. Isn’t old technology one of the reasons there are problems maintaining the shuttle fleet?

The shuttle fleet includes old equipment not merely old designs.

> Well, either we fly to Mars with 20 years old technology or we fly to
> Mars with new, untested technology.

So, you think it's impossible to develop or test any technology in the next 20 years???

Amazing.

> The F-15 & F-18 are 1970s aircraft and they work just fine. B-52s? 1950s,
> right? When did the B-1 enter service?

Those vehicles are upgraded with new technology all the time, Bill. You're confusing the technology with the outward design.

Building reusable vehicles requires new designs. It does not necessarily require a lot of new technology. Reusable vehicles do not require any more new technology than Ares I, Ares V, LSAM, and CEV do.

If you're opposed to relying on new technology, fine -- there are plenty of new vehicle designs that can be built with existing technology. Many of those could be far more economical than Ares, CEV, etc.

If you're opposed to developing any new vehicle design based on existing technology, again, fine -- but please be consistent. That means you should oppose Ares, CEV, LSAM, etc. as well.

Unfortunately, Bill, you are not consistent. You want NASA to develop new technology and new vehicles -- very, very expensive new vehicles. You only trot out that objection when someone advocates a *cheaper* vehicle.

> Flawed logic here:

> The shuttle fleet includes old equipment not merely old designs.

Flawed logic indeed, Bill. You don't think the Air Force is still building B-52s, do you? Once again, you contradict yourself.

The reason the B-52's still in service is not because it's new equipment (or old equipment) but because it was a good design.

The problem with the Shuttle is not that it's old equipment (or an old design) but that it was a bad design.

You want to replace one bad design (the Shuttle) with a newer bad design, and you say that bad design should remain in service for decades, because the B-52 stayed in service for decades.

The fact that *some* designs are successful and fly for 40-50 years does not mean *all* designs are successful and should fly that long.

Wanting to resurrect Apollo is like saying we should rebuild the Hughes flying boat, call it "the Spruce Goose On Steroids," and fly it for the next 40 years. There were good reasons why the Spruce Goose and the Apollo/Saturn were retired. Good designers should learn from those failures to produce something better, not repeat the mistakes of the past.

If you want to argue for Ares and CEV, please tell use why Ares and CEV are *good designs*. Don't give us bogus arguments about how the B-52 flew for 40 years, so we have to build Ares and fly that for 40 years.

Edward, what cheaper, better vehicle do you propose?

> Edward, what cheaper, better vehicle do you propose?

In a non-centralled planned world, NASA would not propose a vehicle. They would put forth their transportation requirements and let the market decide how best to meet them. If that approach isn't politically acceptable, NASA is already funding SpaceX and Kistler to develop two capsules. They could use one or both of them. If a new launch vehicle is considered too high-risk, NASA could give SpaceX and Kistler some extra money to make their capsules compatible with existing ELVs as well. If that's still too high risk, or they want to accelerate the schedule ahead of capsule development, there's always Soyuz.

NASA's Human Lunar Return study proposed a way to get humans to the Moon with four Proton launches. The up-front development costs were estimated at $4 billion -- $100 billion less than VSE. (http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/Station/Slides/sld051x.htm)

There's no shortage of options. Only a lack of motivation for NASA to pursue them.

I endorse this whole-heartedly:

NASA's Human Lunar Return study proposed a way to get humans to the Moon with four Proton launches. The up-front development costs were estimated at $4 billion -- $100 billion less than VSE. (http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/Station/Slides/sld051x.htm)

4 Protons? $4 billion?

Suppose some rich American undertakes this plan and sells the worldwide TV rights to NASA losing the race back to the Moon. $4 billion might not be all that far-fetched for the rest of the world to pay to watch NASA (and their shuttle derived hardware) lose race Round #2. Chinese TV rights? India? France?

Edward, would you subscribe to pay-per-view access to live coverage of Griffin's NASA being beaten back to the Moon?

= = =

If EELVs cost $60 to $75 million each (~ 1 Proton) I'd be an EELV supporter myself.

> 4 Protons? $4 billion?

No, $4 billion was the up-front development costs for the lunar lander, capsule, orbital transfer vehicle, spacesuits, etc.

4 Protons would be more like $300 million.

> Edward, would you subscribe to pay-per-view access to live coverage of Griffin's NASA being beaten back to the Moon?

That would depend on the price, Bill.

> 4 Protons? $4 billion?

No, $4 billion was the up-front development costs for the lunar lander, capsule, orbital transfer vehicle, spacesuits, etc.

4 Protons would be more like $300 million.

>> Yup, that was my understanding. $4 billion gets you boots on Luna with follow on missions at ~ $300/$350 million each

= = =

> Edward, would you subscribe to pay-per-view access to live coverage of Griffin's NASA being beaten back to the Moon?

That would depend on the price, Bill.

>> $480 for the year of the landing (12 month package required at $39.99 per month.

10 million subscribers (world wide) would more than pay the full $4 billion, right? Or did I slide a decimal point? Include a South Asian as part of the first crew and charge $240 in India (more for public places).

Follow on missions at ~$400 million? Follow up by doing "national tourism" - - first Brazilian on the moon; first Japanese; first Korean; or Filipino; or Canadian or Swiss or South African

At ~$400 million per mission and two "tourists" per mission, $200 million for the Japanese TV rights to the first citizen of that nation to walk on the Moon hardly seems excessive. Gosh, the government in Portugal might pony up $250 million for one of their Air Force officers to ride your private sector (well made in Russia private sector) flights to the Moon.

If this private company (that bought Russian lift) helps place 200 national flags on the Moon, one by one, they'd need a re-useable LSAM and would have great demand for logistical support from NewSpace sources.

PS:

>> $480 for the year of the landing (12 month package required at $39.99 per month.

Ad revenue would be additional income for the sponsoring corporation. Tape a Verizon spot moments after landing: "Can you hear me now?"

At ~$4 billion up front and ~$400 million per mission thereafter, advertising and TV revenues will go a long ways towards covering costs.

Bill, 10 million subscribers at $4 billion in annual revenue is highly aggressive. LunaCorp tried to do that on a smaller scale for years.

More importantly, you would need to raise that $4 billion from investors -- and any investor you talk to will have a "brother in law" at NASA who says it can't be done for anywhere near that price. And if you go to Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop, etc. for hardware, they will have to choose between pleasing you and pleasing NASA (a far bigger customer).

Competing with a well-funded government monopoly is not something most investors look forward to. That's why I predict private enterprise will go to the asteroids long before it goes to the Moon.

Edward, I agree with this:

Competing with a well-funded government monopoly is not something most investors look forward to.

MirCorp is an example. I believe that if that had survived they would have filled the thing with Soyuz riding space tourists.

Therefore, some political jujitsu is called for.