Category Archives: Space

Popular Culture, Social Commentary, Space

Goat Meat

24 Comments

It’s not what’s for dinner, generally, in the US, but it’s pretty popular in the rest of the world. I’ve only had it a couple times myself (in Ethiopian restaurants).

But an interesting space-related point is that goats are a lot better for space colonies than beef, being easier to manage, more efficient producers of meat from carbs, needing less room, having more protein (and good milk). Keith and Carolyn Henson raised them in Tucson (in town) in the seventies, along with rabbits. They wrote an early paper on space colony agriculture, presented at the first Princeton Conference, based on their own experiences.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Space

More Crazy Cost Numbers

34 Comments

The New York Times has a story on yesterday’s Augustine hearing, and this jumped out at me:

In an interview, Steve Cook, manager of the Ares Project at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., said that the cost estimate for developing the Ares I and seeing it through its first manned flight was $35 billion. Contrary to the claims of critics, he said, costs have not spiraled out of control.

Let’s ignore the tragic hilarity of that last statement, when we consider what the original cost estimate was when it was “simple, safe, soon.” He is admitting that the development cost, for Ares I alone, through first crewed flight, is thirty-five millibaracks. So how can that be reconciled with the Aerospace study which seems to imply that the total life cycle cost for fourteen flights is nineteen billion? If development alone is thirty-five, then using the assumptions I used in that other post, the LCC for fourteen flights would be over forty billion (almost three billion dollars per flight, for people who know how to divide). That compares to a cost of sixteen billion for the Delta option, or a little over a billion a flight (still ridiculous, of course). Why is it that we accept these kinds of numbers as though they’re perfectly reasonable, perfectly affordable? Particularly in light of the fact that SpaceX has gone a long way toward developing both the Dragon capsule and Falcon 9 for (at a guess) a percent or so of forty billion?

Anyway, I find that the most interesting thing about the Times reporting is that there is no mention of SpaceX or commercial alternatives. I guess they’re not worth covering. As for the “dueling power points,” my vote is “none of the above.”

[Update a while later]

OK, I was digging around to try to find what the original promises were for Ares I development costs, and I stumbled on to this. “Safe, Simple, Soon” is still up! And apparently being maintained and updated by someone (no doubt funded by ATK).

And it’s hilarious. It’s like reading Pravda in 1988.

Comrades! All is well!

The potato and beet crops were a record this year! Steel production is exceeding the Gorbachev five-year plan!

I’m going to save that page for posterity.

Anyway, does anyone have a link to an initial Ares I cost estimate, circa late 2005?

[Friday morning update]

“Rocket Man” has the numbers:

“In September 2005, NASA authorized the Ares I project to proceed with the development of a new human-rated crew launch vehicle with a 24.5-metric ton lift capability and a total budget of $14.4 billion for design, development, test, and evaluation (DDT&E), and production.” (GAO-08-51)

So the development cost estimates (including production? Of how many vehicles?) have more than doubled in less than four years. But the program is “under control.” And now the Aerospace numbers make sense. They were using the original DDT&E estimate for their trade, which (as usual) puts a NASA thumb on the scale in favor of Ares. The Aerospace study is now either worthless, or makes Ares look even worse; it does nothing to aid its cause.

Space

Eggs In A Basket

3 Comments

Today’s scheduled Atlas V launch illustrates one of the problems with a heavy lifter that people fail to recognize. If that launch fails today, we will lose not one, but two lunar science missions critical as a precursor to lunar bases. If they were going on separate rides, we’d have a high level of confidence that at least one would be successful.

If you have a heavy lifter, unless it’s carrying mostly propellant, its payload is going to be hugely expensive, because space hardware tends to cost thousands of dollars per pound to manufacture. It’s an all or nothing throw of the dice, with an expendable vehicle, which will never be reliable in any sane sense of that word. Putting up smaller pieces might increase the chances that one of the pieces doesn’t make it, but you won’t lose billions of dollars on a single launch. And if it’s carrying mostly propellant, there are lots of ways of getting cheap payload up, and propellant is almost infinitely divisible onto smaller vehicles.

Space

First Day

15 Comments

Clark Lindsey has been live blogging the Augustine Commission hearings in DC. Just keep scrolling. Little editorializing other than a “sigh…” when John Shannon disses reusability.

[Thursday morning update]

Alan Boyle has a summary and link round up of yesterday’s festivities.

[Update a few minutes later]

A couple days ago, I noted my hope that the Augustine Commission wouldn’t just look at alternative launch architectures, but rather take a big-picture, systems approach, and look at exploration architectures overall (which I assume that Jeff Greason was trying to do with his depot question to the DIRECT team). That means reexamining all of the assumptions, including what the lunar lander would look like. Jon Goff has some thoughts today.

[Late morning update]

A day-after summary from Jeff Foust.

Business, Economics, Political Commentary, Space

A Response To Derbyshire

47 Comments

He gets a letter from an astronaut in response to his anti-manned-space piece. Of course, it should be noted that it was anti-NASA manned space, not anti-manned space in general.

He remains unrepentant:

I would give everything I have, ten times over, to have been where Greg has been and see what he has seen. I don’t see any reason why U.S. taxpayers should fund my enthusiasm, though.

Neither do I.

He is obviously not opposed to human space flight. I think that he might think differently had the taxpayers’ money done more (and a lot more) to allow him to go. And, to forestall the usual trolls, that doesn’t mean paying for his trip. It just means doing the kinds of things that made aviation successful.

[Wednesday afternoon update]

Mark Whittington imagines that I am “misreading” Derb’s attitude:

He is obviously not opposed to human space flight. I think that he might think differently had the taxpayers’ money done more (and a lot more) to allow him to go.

Actually Derbyshire makes it clear that he is opposed to all government funded pace exploration, such as Apollo.

So sayeth the Derb today (though not in response to Mark’s own misreading — I’m quite confident that he never reads Mark’s scribblings):

…even if I grant your argument, the role of government remains to be decided. Stuck as I am with the rooted conviction that government does everything badly and in a spirit of financial irresponsibility, I’d keep government involvement to a mimimum, with just perhaps a modest subsidy here or there to encourage entrepreneurs. Shuttle missions at half a billion dollars per, though? No thanks. Not unless I’m on board!

I’m a little more principled than Derb — I’d object to billion-dollar shuttle flights (just as I object to billion-and-a half-dollar Ares I flights) as a national policy even if I were on board.

I’m sure that Mark will continue to misread it, though. It’s what he does.

[Bumped]

Space

Forget The Missile Gap

9 Comments

We should be worried about the space toilet gap:

The menu of the Russian crew has over 300 dishes…

…It just so happens that the consistency of fecal matter turns out to be rather thick against the background of such a diet.

The menu of US astronauts is nutritious as well, but it looks more like a diet ration and presumably consists of exotic fruit, vegetables, sea food and low-fat meat. That is why, their waste is much softer. Engineers took account of these peculiarities when designing the sewage system for the ISS. It just so happens that the solid Russian waste ruined the US toilets in space.

The astronauts were sick and tired of toilet breakdowns and unpleasant odors. NASA was eventually forced to order a toilet system from Russia. US tax payers paid $19 million for the space toilet. The new construction was installed in the US department of the ISS.

Russia designs best space toilets in the world.

Assuming it’s true, I prefer the robust Russian solution myself. This is really a critical issue for deep space missions. The food can’t just be nutritious, it has to taste good and have enough variety to maintain crew morale over a period of months. I wonder how tough it would be to eat the NASA rations for years?

Political Commentary, Space

The Agenda

7 Comments

The agenda for tomorrow’s first meeting of the Augustine commission has been posted. Clark Lindsey has it over at Space Transport News. I found this interesting:

3:30 pm – Alternative Architectures
DIRECT
Shuttle Side-mount Options

I understand that they have limited time for this first meeting, but I hope those aren’t the only alternatives they consider.

[Update a few minutes later]

The “alternate architectures” described above are alternate launch architectures. They need to broaden their thinking to alternate exploration architectures.