Today’s NYT reports that Iraq and Afghanistan if they drag on for another five years will comprise, “The Trillion Dollar War”. World War 2 was a multitrillion dollar war. Every war with more than a million casualties is a trillion dollar war if you take the value of a life at a million dollars. That might not be reasonable some time and place where the median income is less than ten thousand dollars, but I would call for measuring by purchasing power parity. While the article is a pretty poor analysis considering opportunity costs. First, that veteran’s health costs would have been big without the war. Second, that salary and so on would have to be paid without the war. Third, that there would be some major price to pay in blood and coin keeping the prior regimes in place in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Seen in that light, a trillion dollar war is a bargain. Especially if it results in friendly economies (if not friendly polities) in Iraq and Afghanistan going forward.

As I have stated before, we should step up to the plate and spend the next trillion colonizing the Moon and Mars. $50 billion a year could launch 20 times as much stuff into orbit as was launched last year and colonists could pay for their own payload. With the long bond rate at 5%, the net present value of $50 billion a year forever is a trillion dollars.

There are a bunch of good reasons why the Moon would be a better bet than Iraq. Colonizing the Moon would not face any guerilla warfare. There are no existing users of Lunar resources. There is no government worthy of note to displace. There are no Lunar sympathizers that would start violent revolution if we went. (If you are out there, keep quiet until after the colonization gets going so you can have your fifteen minutes while I have my colonization.)

No air on the Moon? Oxygen is there and nitrogen costs $0.50/gallon on Earth. Let’s say we imported 11,000 liters of air a day and just vented it into space. A liter of air weighs about 1.25 grams. Importing your 14 kg of air a day is not a big deal. $50 billion a year could deliver enough air for 1,000 people to just vent every single breath to space at today’s launch rates. Don’t you think a thousand people could work out a way to recycle and replace air from local materials? There are 4000 kilograms of nitrogen in every 1000 tons of regolith. At 1300K, some of it will come out as Nitrogen gas (a ton worth of various gases). If I could get $50 billion a year for selling air on the Moon, I would sure as heck work hard to figure out how to do it for less.

So we could have our lunar colony and if people consumed two pounds of earth imported food per day (which should be plenty) and we can get air and water recycling down pat, we could support 7,000 folks. If we can get food production going then we can support a lot more for $50B/year. We would need to get the cost of the mass to the Moon down to $100,000 per year if we wanted to support 500,000 on the Moon like we have in Wyoming for $50 billion/year. That would either mean just 5 kg in Earth imports at $20,000/kg to the Moon or about 20 kg at $5000/kg to the Moon which is roughly what Elon Musk is promising by 2010.

By Sam, not Rand

I wish that someone would explain just what is meant by “microgravity technology” in this encouraging article about progress in stem cell production. It could be inferred by an uncareful reader that this research occurred in space (the only place that we can get sustained microgravity), but that doesn’t really seem to be the case. Rather, it is apparently a spinoff of bioreactors that were originally developed for use in orbit (presumably aboard the ISS), but perhaps never used there. The reactions seem to be occuring down here, in a full gravity.

This is often the case with all of the predictions of space manufacturing. By the time someone gets around to doing it on orbit, someone comes up with a cheaper and more practical way to do it down here (unsurprising, considering how expensive and time consuming it is to even do an experiment with NASA in space, let alone set up an actual production facility).

Nonethess, this is presumably a spinoff of NASA spending that arguably (though by no means certainly) wouldn’t have occurred in its absence, and that’s all to the good. But while this is a great benefit, it’s not at all obvious that it was worth the cost, or that it couldn’t have been achieved in some other (perhaps less costly, with more benefits) way. As I noted a couple years ago (just before the loss of Columbia, in fact):

Certainly there is some spinoff technology benefit from the [space] program–it’s impossible to engage in any high-tech endeavor without occasionally coming up with serendipitous results. And of course, there’s occasionally some cross fertilization with military space activities (though from a taxpayer standpoint, disappointly little). But neither of these facts is reason, in itself, to either support or oppose it.

Proponents [of the ISS] need to come up with real goals, and real reasons, that can resonate with the American people–something difficult to do with the program as currently planned, in which we spend billions for a Motel 6 in space that can support only half a dozen people, even if current plans come to fruition.

Opponents need to get their facts in order, and come up with good reasons to end it (and perhaps replace it with something more useful for getting humanity off the planet). The manned space program has, so far, been very lucky in its enemies.

I add with some amusement that, when I was googling for that old Fox piece I found this “critique” of it, in a breathless paen to space spinoffs, over at the “Ethical Atheist” web site. Note the logical shredding of my arguments:

Many of you are familiar with the highly-biased commentary of Fox News. In researching for this article we found the following commentary on NASA’s space program. At first, we were surprised and outraged. But, considering the source, it no longer surprises us. Fox is known for its highly-conservative, pro-religious, liberal-slamming, uneducated opinions…

[repeat poster’s list of “benefits”]

…We hope the “Benefits” listed above ‘resonate with the American people’ more than the small-minded opinions presented by the Fox News Channel!

Which is to say, of course, note the absence of logic or argument. It’s pure ad hominem against Fox News (which of course neither wrote or even solicited the topic–it was purely mine). And I’m “highly-conservative” and “pro-religious”? And “uneducated”? Who knew?

Doing some baby-sitting blogging, Jon Goff asks how NASA is going to reconcile two apparently conflicting memes. I’m glad he has time to write this stuff, because I don’t right now.

There was a bit of discussion about dry launch in the space blogosphere in the last day or two. It seems to have started with Jon Goff’s piece at Selenian Boondocks, which Clark Lindsey picked up and expanded on (see the “Fueling a Space Town” post), and was followed up with a post on agile space development by Dan Scrimpsher.

This is an important topic, and I wish that there was some sign that the new management at NASA is paying attention to it.

I would also add, as a response to the commenter who asks in Jon’s comments section, why deliver propellant that has to be transferred as a fluid on orbit, rather than easier-to-handle propellant tanks? It’s because delivering tanks doesn’t offer the possibility of refueling them on orbit, so they’d only be single use. And in-space refueling is a critical technology in becoming a truly space-faring civilization, and the sooner we get on with developing and becoming comfortable with it, the sooner we’ll reach that desirable (at least to me) destination.

[Update at 9 AM EDT]

I was imprecise above. As Paul Dietz points out in comments, delivering tanks doesn’t preclude the possibility of refueling them later, but that wasn’t what the the commenter was suggesting. What I should have said is that it doesn’t advance us toward that (in my opinion) worthy goal, and it was clear from the commenter’s question that he didn’t have in mind tanks designed to be refueled (and it is a significant design issue).

[One more update]

I should have written “…preclude us from refueling from them later,” to respond to Paul’s most recent comment about mischaracterizing what he said.

Boy, it’s all Thomas James, all the time, at least this morning. He also writes that potential future Martians are too focused on science, and central planning.

At Astronautix, it says that:

The propellant combinations WFNA/ JP-4 and later IRFNA/JP-4 were the first storable systems given serious consideration in the United States. Problems which caused the abandoning of these propellants were the absence of reliable hypergolic ignition and unstable combustion. IRFNA/UDMH and IRFNA/JP-X finally did prove satisfactory.

By the late 1950’s it was apparent that N2O4 by itself was a better oxidiser. Therefore nitric acid was almost entirely replaced by pure N2O4 in storable liquid fuel rocket engines developed after 1960.

Apparently it was so apparent that they have no need to explain why it was so apparent. What was the benefit of going from nitric acid to tetroxide for hypergolics? What was “better” about it? Anyone know?

I’m back in DC, and busy, so I don’t know how much posting there will be, but I did want to note on reconsideration one problem with the New York Times editorial advocating ending Shuttle and ISS. Jorge Frank, over at sci.space.policy, pointed out last night that they seem to want to eat their cake and have it too.

They call for an end to any more ISS missions, but want a Hubble repair. Well, if they do that, they should realize that a) they won’t get the forty billion in savings that their editorial states, and b) that Hubble repair mission will cost at least six billion or so (more than launching multiple replacement telescopes). This is because the soonest that a Hubble repair mission could be mounted is probably about a year and a half from now. That means that the infrastructure to support the Shuttle would have to be kept in place for another year and a half. It also means that, since there would be no ISS missions against which to charge these fixed costs, these would all be debited against the Hubble mission (the only reason that the system remained in place, accruing those costs).

So they can phase out Shuttle and ISS, but it’s hard to then make an argument for Hubble. And if they’re going to keep it alive for Hubble, then they might as well figure out some way to maximize the utility of it for getting station as far toward completion as possible while the system is still operating. In the latter scenario, it just means figuring out the minimum number of flights that should be done with Shuttle, and how to manage without it for the rest. Which (almost surely not coincidentally) is exactly what Mike Griffin’s NASA is planning to do.

[Update a few minutes later]

Mark Whittington disagrees with me. Well, actually, as he often does, he disagrees with a strawman argument he pretends is me:

…the fact of the matter is that the first people to return to the Moon and then go to Mars will be employees of some government (hopefully including the American one). The private sector will have a very big role, especially once people start living off the planet in significant numbers. But big bad government will also have a role in opening up the high frontier, just as it has with every other frontier. That’s the truth, supported by history and common sense, whether one wants to believe it or not.

their role would be, and I don’t think that it will be anywhere near as large as most conventional thinking about the space program would have it. The issue is not whether or not government will be involved, but which branches of it, and how. The monocultures that NASA’s manned space centers tend to produce will continue, I think, to be evolutionary dead ends (just as Shuttle and ISS have turned out to be). But because they generate so many jobs, they will continue until (like Shuttle and ISS) they become untenable in the face of clear private (and other government, such as the DoD) alternatives.

[Update again]

Now Mark trots out a new straw horse in response:

I must admit to a little confusion. What other government agency besides NASA would take the lead government role in space exploration?

I expect NASA (until costs come down quite a bit) to continue to lead “space exploration” (though much of that will be done out of Pasadena, and will be unmanned). But of course, until now, I said nothing about space exploration. I thought we were talking about humanity moving out into space, which is much less about space exploration than space development. And space development will occur with the help (and hindrance, and connivance) of a number of government agencies, including the FAA, the DoD (including DARPA), DoE, and perhaps even Commerce. NASA building small and expensive capsules launched on equally-expensive heavy-lift expendables from Cape Canaveral may provide some entertainment to the masses for a while, but it will have little to do, ultimately, with the development of space, any more than Shuttle and ISS have.

I went to read the NYT editorial that Sam pointed out, in which they advocate cancelling Shuttle and ISS. I assumed that if it was the right recommendation, it was probably for the wrong reasons, given their history, but I actually could find very little with which to disagree. Really, the only reason to keep Space Station Albatross going has been the diplomatic one. Unfortunately, that’s probably been enough, given that the administration has been loathe to give its enemies one more club with which to bash them over our relations with our “allies.” But as the Times points out, even they would probably be relieved to get out from under this white elephant themselves (though they’d know doubt spout crocodile tears about this latest unforgiveable breach in international relations).

Some are complaining in Sam’s post that the only reason that the Times is doing this is because they hate “the manned space program.” Well, if they do, it’s partly because there’s a lot to hate there, and little to love at this point. But they also have to reconcile this charge with the Times’ argument that killing off these deadweight programs could accelerate outward human exploration. In fact, usually the argument from NASA manned spaceflight enthusiasts whenever it’s suggested that we end the Shuttle (and/or ISS) program is that it will toll the end of manned spaceflight in the US, and that a bird in the hand is better than two in the…errrr…Bush.

That argument may have had some resonance prior to January 14th, 2004, when the only human-in-space policy was Shuttle and ISS, but it doesn’t any longer. Yes, some new president could come in and cancel the exploration initiative in 2008, and if that happens, it would be impossible to resurrect the Shuttle and station if they’re ended now. But barring some major political earthquake, I find that scenario unlikely. For better or worse, the public does seem to have some intrinsic desire to see human spaceflight at NASA continue, and I don’t think that it’s in the cards politically to end it. In fact, with the new program having been bought into by both the administration and Congress, I’d think that NASA manned space program proponents would be eager to shed these deadweight programs so they can get on to the more exciting activities of returning to the Moon and going on to Mars. Unless, of course, they’re getting their paychecks from the status quo…

And of course, this all ignores the vast potential for much more interesting private human spaceflight activities, which I’m quite confident will make almost everything that NASA is doing in this area irrelevant by the end of the decade.

Anyway, as I said, I could find little in the editorial with which to disagree. I’ll toss in my concurrence as well, though from a long-term policy standpoint, I don’t really think that it makes much difference to our future in space whether we end these dinosaurs now or later. Either way, humanity’s expansion into the cosmos will have little to do with anything happening at JSC, Marshall and the Cape now. They did some noble and needed pioneering things there forty years ago, but I’m afraid that when it comes to the future, they continue to represent the past.

In tomorrow’s New York Times, they call for the cancellation of Shuttle and ISS. I called for it last June. Seems like a long shot still.

Jeff Foust points to a memo that indicates agreement between NASA and the DoD on new launch systems. Read the comments, too (not just my continuing frustration with the man-rating myth, but the last one by Jim Muncy).