Reader's Favorites
Media Casualties Mount

Administration Split On Europe Invasion

Administration In Crisis Over Burgeoning Quagmire

Congress Concerned About Diversion From War On Japan

Pot, Kettle On Line Two...

Allies Seize Paris

The Natural

Gore Book Sales Tank, Supporters Claim Unfair Tactics

Satan Files Lack Of Defamation Suit

Why This Blog Bores People With Space Stuff

A New Beginning

My Hit Parade
Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds)
Tim Blair
James Lileks Bleats
Virginia Postrel
Kausfiles
Winds Of Change (Joe Katzman)
Little Green Footballs (Charles Johnson)
Samizdata
Eject Eject Eject (Bill Whittle)

Space
Alan Boyle (MSNBC)
Space Politics (Jeff Foust)
Space Transport News (Clark Lindsey)
NASA Watch
NASA Space Flight
Hobby Space
A Voyage To Arcturus (Jay Manifold)
Dispatches From The Final Frontier (Michael Belfiore)
Personal Spaceflight (Jeff Foust)
Mars Blog
The Flame Trench (Florida Today)
Space Cynic
Rocket Forge (Michael Mealing)
COTS Watch (Michael Mealing)
Curmudgeon's Corner (Mark Whittington)
Selenian Boondocks
Tales of the Heliosphere
Out Of The Cradle
Space For Commerce (Brian Dunbar)
True Anomaly
Kevin Parkin
The Speculist (Phil Bowermaster)
Spacecraft (Chris Hall)
Space Pragmatism (Dan Schrimpsher)
Eternal Golden Braid (Fred Kiesche)
Carried Away (Dan Schmelzer)
Laughing Wolf (C. Blake Powers)
Chair Force Engineer (Air Force Procurement)
Spacearium
Saturn Follies
JesusPhreaks (Scott Bell)

Biting Commentary about Infinity, and Beyond!

« Wolverines In Glendale? | Main | I Like It »

The Impossible Dream

Jon Goff explains why the ESAS windmill is worth a tilt:

How are we going to find investors willing risk the money to develop on-orbit propellant transfer when they're being told that multi-launch architectures are too unreliable? That the best way to get back to the moon is building Ares I and Ares V, and that any EELV or light launcher based system would require too many launches to be practical?

Who's going to fund a commercial lunar transportation system if we've abandoned the field to those who claim the only way you can do lunar transportation is using HLVs?

Ideas matter.

Honestly, as much as I would like to see NASA change to a more commercial aligned position, I don't really think it is likely to happen. But if we can sway the conventional wisdom that these other, more commercial approaches really are not only technically feasible, but technically and economically superior, it doesn't really matter. In the end, NASA will do what NASA will do, but if we can convince potential investors that there really are more cost effective ways of doing things, it will have been worth it.

But if we abandon the field of ideas, and stick to our knitting, we're setting ourselves seriously up for failure.

It's impossible to even begin to estimate the staggering amount of damage that has been done over the past decades to our prospects of opening space, by NASA-driven public perceptions about the difficulty of doing various things in space, in terms of decimating investment prospects. The false lessons from Apollo, the Shuttle and ISS continue to haunt us today, and this current irrational fear of orbital operations just continues that destructive legacy, in my opinion.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 03, 2006 05:53 AM

Comments

It's only rocket science. All of the really tough work has already been done, by smart guys working with slide rules half a century ago. Given the tools and hard data that we have available today, surely we can do better than Apollo on Viagra.

Posted by Ed Minchau at December 3, 2006 07:56 AM

Rand,

Have you been following the discussion over on
nasaspaceflight.com on the thread "Direct Goes
Live" under "Orion (CEV) Ares I (CLV)"?

And yes I agree with Jon Goff. Good commentary.

Posted by Mark Amerman at December 3, 2006 07:58 AM

Have you been following the discussion over on
nasaspaceflight.com on the thread "Direct Goes
Live" under "Orion (CEV) Ares I (CLV)"?

No, I haven't. Is that subscription required?

Posted by at December 3, 2006 08:05 AM

No. It does not require a subscription. They have
an area that does but this particular forum isn't
in that.

Posted by Mark Amerman at December 3, 2006 08:53 AM

Question:

Who's going to fund a commercial lunar transportation system if we've abandoned the field to those who claim the only way you can do lunar transportation is using HLVs?

Answer:

Russia

Posted by Bill White at December 3, 2006 09:11 AM

Both SDV and EELV-only will be "too expensive"

Therefore, Griffin needs to play them against each other. Neither EELV nor SDV should be allowed to become too comfortable yet neither should be completely eliminated. If LM got the CEV contract for Atlas then it would make zero business sense for LM to sell flights to Bigelow at Bigelow pricing.

Recall that Boeing withdrew Delta from the com-sat launch market rather than lower pricing. They make more money selling Deltas to DoD and NASA at higher prices rather than face global price competition.

As for the private sector these simply is NO private sector until checks start being written by people other then Uncle Sugar. Once checks start being written by private investors, what NASA does becomes irrelevant.

Posted by Bill White at December 3, 2006 09:31 AM

Once checks start being written by private investors, what NASA does becomes irrelevant.

The problem is that while NASA remains relevant, it makes it harder to get the checks from the private investors.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 3, 2006 09:34 AM

Once checks start being written by private investors, what NASA does becomes irrelevant.

The problem is that while NASA remains relevant, it makes it harder to get the checks from the private investors.

= = =

True, but going all-EELV will not solve that. If you disagree read Elon Musk's lawsuit.

Even if his lawsuit had no legal merit, that does not mean it lacked political or business merit.

Posted by Bill White at December 3, 2006 09:39 AM

True, but going all-EELV will not solve that.

I'm pretty sure I've never claimed it would. But then, I've never been a proponent of an all-EELV architecture (except as modestly preferable to ESAS).

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 3, 2006 09:41 AM

I'm pretty sure I've never claimed it would. But then, I've never been a proponent of an all-EELV architecture (except as modestly preferable to ESAS).

Again true. :-)

This is why Direct combined with a COTS-like program to facilitate a low cost LEO crew taxi may be a good way to go.

Posted by Bill White at December 3, 2006 10:19 AM

There would be other rockets than EELV if NASA was a customer buying the huge amounts of launches for a propellant depot architecture...

Posted by mz at December 3, 2006 01:34 PM

Mark, what part of that thread do you wish to draw attention to? It's more than 900 posts.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at December 3, 2006 07:22 PM

This is why Direct combined with a COTS-like program to facilitate a low cost LEO crew taxi may be a good way to go.

But what we really need is a low cost EELV, and spending $15B development + $3B a year on Direct fixed costs isn't going to do that.

Posted by Adrasteia at December 4, 2006 11:44 AM

But what we really need is a low cost EELV, and spending $15B development + $3B a year on Direct fixed costs isn't going to do that.

Giving Boeing and LM the CEV contract won't accomplish a lower cost EELV either. Freeze LM out of CEV money and get them to crew-rate the Atlas V for that Bigelow tourist taxi, using private sector money.

Then, NASA can buy EELV by the dozens at Bigelow pricing.

Posted by Bill White at December 4, 2006 02:54 PM

> True, but going all-EELV will not solve that. If you disagree read Elon Musk's lawsuit.

Bill, here's what you are unable to grok.

A small-payload architecture based on orbital assembly might be "all EELV" initially, but it does not have to remain so indefinitely. It would be (relatively) easy to develop a small RLV that could do the same job.

A large-payload architecture (based on either Shuttle derived or EELV derived) will remain so for a long time, if not indefinitely. It would be very expensive to develop a big RLV that could take over those tasks.

The former is a flexible, open architecture, that can accomodate new vehicles and components. The latter is an inflexible, closed architecture that cannot easily accomdate new vehicles or components.

This is not really a complex concept. I don't understand why it continues to elude you.

Posted by Edward Wright at December 4, 2006 06:44 PM

> How are we going to find investors willing risk the money to develop
> on-orbit propellant transfer when they're being told that multi-launch
> architectures are too unreliable? That the best way to get back to the
> moon is building Ares I and Ares V, and that any EELV or light launcher
> based system would require too many launches to be practical?

These are good points, but I would add:

How are we going to convince Congress to provide a fair but flexible regulatory environment, favorable tax treatment, and market-based incentives for commercial space, when they're being told that everything of importance must be done by NASA while the private sector can only be trusted with unimportant "non-critical path" activities?

Posted by Edward Wright at December 4, 2006 06:55 PM

Edward, if NASA buys EELV for CEV the price charged for EELV will go up, not down. No way Boeing and LM will lower EELV prices so long as they can invoice Uncle Sugar.

But if CEV is carried on a big rocket such as Direct then small lift for ISS re-supply, ISS crew taxis and Bigelow tourist taxis can come from innovative private players like SpaceX, RpK and LM if they choose to crew-rate Atlas V. If Atlas V is crew-rated on LM and Bigelow's dime, they will do it efficiently meaning less overhead to recover from future paying customers.

COTS is the best deal NASA has offered the innovative private sector, like ever. But if EELV carries CEV then Boeing and Lockheed ask Congress to cancel COTS and buy smaller versions of EELV for ISS re-supply "for efficiency" and the new players are frozen out.

= = =

Anyway, getting a Bigelow hotel up and running ASAP will do more for low cost LEO access than anything NASA can do.

Posted by Bill White at December 4, 2006 07:01 PM

Edward, there also is media money to be made proving NASA wrong.

If you are correct and an EELV strategy can defeat the NASA strategy back to the Moon, then Boeing and Lockheed need to petition Congress for the freedom to try (on their own dime) with TV rights and advertising as the financial pot of gold if they can indeed beat NASA.

That would be a WIN-WIN for space exploration.

Posted by Bill White at December 4, 2006 07:25 PM

If a private consortium were formed to beat NASA back to the Moon using EELVs and funded with media revenue and NASCAR style advertising, that group should perhaps make every effort to hire Admiral Steidle as a significant corporate player.

Steidle v Griffin in a race to the Moon. That would generate publicity (which equals marketing dollars).

Posted by Bill White at December 4, 2006 07:37 PM

> If you are correct and an EELV strategy can defeat the NASA strategy back to the Moon,

I NEVER SAID THAT, Bill.

How can you be a law school graduate and not comprehend simple English?

Posted by Edward Wright at December 4, 2006 10:50 PM

Someone has been saying NewSpace will beat NASA to the Moon and have a hotel and chilled martinis waiting for that arriving LSAM.

If Boeing and LM are frozen out of EELV contracts for CEV then they are free to find alternate means to sell rides and if they join forces with NewSpace and helps sell TV rights and NASCAR style marketing maybe a race back to the Moon can be like Mickey Mantle and Roger Maris -- no matter who wins, America wins.

I predict Griffin would be thrilled if this actually happened because then NASA can head of to Mars sooner. He'd probably agree to share technical data provided his own program funding wasn't threatened.

Mantle and Maris -- a friendly rivalry -- one paid for with tax dollars and the other tinged with a NewSpace pirate flair financed with the sale of TV rights and marketing to major corporations. America wins either way.

Posted by Bill White at December 5, 2006 05:26 AM

> Someone has been saying NewSpace will beat NASA to the Moon and have a hotel
> and chilled martinis waiting for that arriving LSAM.

Maybe "someone" said that, Bill, but there is a difference between "NewSpace will beat NASA to the Moon" and "NewSpace will beat NASA to the Moon using EELVs."

If your reading comprehension was really that bad, you never would have gotten into law school. So, I guess you must be doing this deliberately.

> If Boeing and LM are frozen out of EELV contracts for CEV then they
> are free to find alternate means to sell rides

No one can afford to buy rides on CEV, Bill.

You don't get it. Price matters. The private sector can only sell rides for what people are willing to pay. Not what Bill White thinks people should pay.

People will not be able to buy rides to the Moon until the cost of those rides goes down. That won't happen because of Shuttle-derived or EELV. It will require a new generation of vehicles.

> Mantle and Maris -- a friendly rivalry -- one paid for with tax dollars
> and the other tinged with a NewSpace pirate flair financed with the sale
> of TV rights and marketing to major corporations.

Roger Maris and Mickey Mantle were willing to compete on an even playing field, Bill. You aren't. You want your team to have a $17-billion headstart and all the umpires on your side.

Posted by Edward Wright at December 5, 2006 07:37 PM


Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?