Griffin on Loss of U.S. Space Leadership

Stephen Horgan wrote:

Interesting article; however, it does seem to assume that the US is the
only nation on the planet, or at least the only one interested in
space. Neither is true, and allowing that the argument that the current
costs of launch to LEO are a function of US government policy is
weakened somewhat. If there was another much simpler and cheaper way to
get mass to orbit then what is stopping everyone else?


To me the big problem seems to be he

"What would a truly dynamist space exploration culture look like?

Imagine, instead of launching a few government employees once every few
months, daily trips into space by hundreds or thousands of private
citizens by multiple vehicle types, just as our airline industry today
uses Boeings and Airbuses. Some conduct research at private orbital
laboratories, some head to orbital resorts, others board cruise liners
for trips around the Moon. There are hotels in high inclination orbits
for spectacular views of Earth, and vehicle assembly hangars in low
inclination for departure to points beyond Earth orbit. There are huge
radio telescopes on the far side of the Moon, protected from the
incessant radio noise of our industrial planet, and at the poles are
research facilities and tourist spots, using the water ice hidden in the
craters there. The vast majority of the funding comes from private
expenditures made by people seeking their own adventures off-planet, and
NASA has little involvement, other than to take advantage of the
dramatic reductions in cost and dramatic improvements in technology to
do those things that only it can do, such as expeditions to the outer
planets."

This assumes that if you cut the costs of space access way down,
suddenly a giant demand will arise for spaceflight that doesn't exist
today, and the high flight rates will lower the cost of each individual
flight. In short, it becomes a self perpetuating system.

Let's go through this point-by-point:

"daily trips into space by hundreds or thousands of private citizens by
multiple vehicle types, just as our airline industry today uses Boeings
and Airbuses."
The reason that we have so many people moving around via airliners is
that they want to go somewhere fairly quickly, be it a near or distant
location. In some cases, such as transoceanic destinations, getting
there by airliner is the only economically viable means of travel as
well as the only one that doesn't take days to accomplish. In short,
airline travel is a means to an end, not generally and end in itself.

"Some conduct research at private orbital laboratories, some head to
orbital resorts, others board cruise liners for trips around the Moon.
There are hotels in high inclination orbits for spectacular views of
Earth, and vehicle assembly hangars in low inclination for departure to
points beyond Earth orbit."
The "private orbital laboratories"- I assume are being used in some way
to generate profit for people earthside, such as the production of
exotic alloys or crystals, or perfectly spherical ball bearings.
Unfortunately, the only two things that one has in orbit that one
doesn't have on Earth are a very hard vacuum (and not even that at LEO)
and a microgravity environment. Having people on board these
laboratories means that people will move around, and that will screw up
the microgravity environment by imparting their movements to the
laboratory's structure. So these laboratories would probably be unmanned
most of the time while they perform automated functions with people only
showing up at the end of the process to pick up the finished results and
deliver new raw materials; and if that's the case you may want to
automate the the whole raw material delivery/finished product return
process also as it could save a lot of weight over the need to use
spacecraft with human accommodations on them.

The "orbital resorts" have the advantage of a great view of the Earth
and weightlessness. But weightlessness has generally resulted in
spacesickness among astronauts, so unless you want to make your stay
long enough to overcome a few days of nausea you might want to consider
staying on Earth's surface. As for the view of the Earth's surface from
orbit, it will by spectacular- as is the view out of an airliner's
window as you look down at the world passing below you. But after a few
flights you start noticing that you are watching the in-flight movie
more than what's out the window, as it's the final destination that's
the point of the flight, not what you see while going there. In this
respect, the orbital resort may actually be inferior to the aircraft-
at least on the aircraft you see different things on trips to different
locations, whereas the view of Earth's surface is going to get awfully
repetitive after a dozen orbits or so. Unless you are looking out of a
big window at the Earth you might as well be watching it on TV- and that
could be done from the Earth's surface with far less expense.
As for the cruise liner flights around the Moon, looking at the Moon
close-up is going to be infinitely more boring than looking at Earth as
it's color is monotone, and with no clouds or weather to cause changes
to its surface appearance it's going to be about as exciting as looking
at a large boulder. You want to see an interesting moon, take a cruise
around Io instead.
Unless you are planing a mighty long trip, your only other likely
destination on a "departure to points beyond Earth orbit" is going to
be the Moon. See above.

"There are huge radio telescopes on the far side of the Moon, protected
from the incessant radio noise of our industrial planet, and at the
poles are research facilities and tourist spots, using the water ice
hidden in the craters there."
As we all know, Arecibo is one of the hottest tourist destinations on
the surface of the planet, and one must book reservations months in
advance to see "The Big Dish".
For a space entrepreneur, Rand has just found a way of spending money
building giant radio telescopes on the Moon that is going to have zero
potential of making a buck for investors in them. These things have
government pork barrel science project written all over them.
I note that that polar lunar ice is taken as a given here, although we
aren't by any means sure it exists, or that if it does exist it is in
quantities and concentrations to make it cheaper to use than bringing
water up from Earth.
As to what exactly the research facilities at the poles are researching,
I have no idea; maybe the effects of sensory deprivation and loneliness
on their occupants as they watch the lunar tourists jumping twenty feet
into the air..er...sky outside the base window and realize that those
lucky SOBs will soon be back on Earth where you can step outdoors in a
swimsuit without exploding.

"The vast majority of the funding comes from private expenditures made
by people seeking their own adventures off-planet, and NASA has little
involvement..."
Now this is a very telling statement. Note that it doesn't say: "The
vast majority of the funding comes from companies entering the lucrative
world of space investment" and that the main reason for doing this is
supposed to be adventures, not making a buck by entering a new frontier.
If I had a billion or two of spare cash burning a hole in my pocket,
would I be wiser to spend it on having an adventure, or investing it
into something that might make me yet more money? I note it's been a
while since Bill Gates has gone into the Amazonian rain forest on an
exotic butterfly collecting expedition, even though he could easily
afford to do it.
Even Steve Fosset's adventures in air travel are probably starting to
bore him, as well as the media and general public.
In short, this basically presupposes that space is supposed to be a
playground for the idle rich with nothing better to do with their money.
The extrapolation of the Russian ISS tourist flights into becoming the
future of spaceflight.
But remember, this is supposed to be done by "daily trips into space by
hundreds or thousands of private citizens by multiple vehicle types" so
apparently there are a hell of a lot more idle rich in the future than
nowadays, and the "Jet Set" has been replaced by the "Rocket Riche".
As for myself, if I ever became wealthy, I'd still enjoy the simple
things in life; the good bottle of wine, the fine aged cheddar, inviting
my friends on quail hunts and "accidentally" shooting them, and
occasionally being the power behind the throne of a weakling president.
Who needs space adventures when you can do stuff like that? But that's
just me.
Now about that evil NASA having little involvment...who the hell do you
think built those giant radio telescopes on the far side of the Moon?
Paul Allen as a way to try and score with Dr. Fiorella Terenzi?

"...other than to take advantage of the dramatic reductions in cost and
dramatic improvements in technology to do those things that only it can
do, such as expeditions to the outer planets."
Hell, Bill Gates could probably finance a manned Mars mission right now
if he felt like it. Steve Fosset and Paul Allen could lead the
expedition, and Burt Rutan could build a giant Martian glider for them
all to land with. Jeri Hall and Dr. Terenzi could have the first Martian
catfight, and Richard Branson could be the first gay man on Mars.
And I still think that we should move Io into Earth orbit so that space
tourists will have the equivalent of an exotic south seas island with a
active volcano on it to go to. :-)

Pat

..

On 19 Feb 2006 09:08:35 -0800, "Ed Kyle" wrote:

Russia has launched and returned from orbit an 18 seat
capacity (some unoccupied on six manned flights during
2003-2005, as well as launching 11 separate Progress
supply missions. The U.S. managed only one semi-successful
mission during the same period carrying six astronauts.

Seven. And Shuttle delivered more cargo to ISS on STS-114 than all of
the Progress flights in 2005.

I hate
to say it, but we cannot ignore the fact that the U.S. shuttle
killed all of the astronauts it launched in 2003 - more astronauts
in one accident than have ever died in all Russian space
disasters combined.

However, the Shuttle has also launched several times more people into
space than Russia ever has.

Zvezda is the core propulsion module, the engine, for ISS.
It, along with Russia's Progress ships, provide the bulk of
the station's Delta-V.

Actually, the Shuttle peformed more reboost than Progress did prior to
2003, and likely will again once regular flights resume.

Brian

On 19 Feb 2006 07:13:29 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Stephen
Horgan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/6/simberg.htm

Interesting article; however, it does seem to assume that the US is the
only nation on the planet, or at least the only one interested in
space.

No, it doesn't. But no other country is doing anything sensible with
regard to space transportation, either.

Neither is true, and allowing that the argument that the current
costs of launch to LEO are a function of US government policy is
weakened somewhat. If there was another much simpler and cheaper way to
get mass to orbit then what is stopping everyone else?

Everyone else tends to follow either the US, or Russian lead, and
assume that if there were a better way, one of them would be doing it.
That was in fact what Russia did, briefly, with Buran, when people
still imagined that the Shuttle was a good design.

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 13:08:46 -0600, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

To me the big problem seems to be he

"What would a truly dynamist space exploration culture look like?

Imagine, instead of launching a few government employees once every few
months, daily trips into space by hundreds or thousands of private
citizens by multiple vehicle types, just as our airline industry today
uses Boeings and Airbuses. Some conduct research at private orbital
laboratories, some head to orbital resorts, others board cruise liners
for trips around the Moon. There are hotels in high inclination orbits
for spectacular views of Earth, and vehicle assembly hangars in low
inclination for departure to points beyond Earth orbit. There are huge
radio telescopes on the far side of the Moon, protected from the
incessant radio noise of our industrial planet, and at the poles are
research facilities and tourist spots, using the water ice hidden in the
craters there. The vast majority of the funding comes from private
expenditures made by people seeking their own adventures off-planet, and
NASA has little involvement, other than to take advantage of the
dramatic reductions in cost and dramatic improvements in technology to
do those things that only it can do, such as expeditions to the outer
planets."

This assumes that if you cut the costs of space access way down,
suddenly a giant demand will arise for spaceflight that doesn't exist
today

It does exist today--it's just not being satified.

and the high flight rates will lower the cost of each individual
flight. In short, it becomes a self perpetuating system.

Yes. It's called virtuous circle.

Let's go through this point-by-point:

"daily trips into space by hundreds or thousands of private citizens by
multiple vehicle types, just as our airline industry today uses Boeings
and Airbuses."
The reason that we have so many people moving around via airliners is
that they want to go somewhere fairly quickly, be it a near or distant
location. In some cases, such as transoceanic destinations, getting
there by airliner is the only economically viable means of travel as
well as the only one that doesn't take days to accomplish. In short,
airline travel is a means to an end, not generally and end in itself.

So? That doesn't mean that there isn't demand to enter space.

"Some conduct research at private orbital laboratories, some head to
orbital resorts, others board cruise liners for trips around the Moon.
There are hotels in high inclination orbits for spectacular views of
Earth, and vehicle assembly hangars in low inclination for departure to
points beyond Earth orbit."

The "private orbital laboratories"- I assume are being used in some way
to generate profit for people earthside, such as the production of
exotic alloys or crystals, or perfectly spherical ball bearings.

Or more likely, do research that can't safely be done on earth.

strawman about microgravity snipped

The "orbital resorts" have the advantage of a great view of the Earth
and weightlessness. But weightlessness has generally resulted in
spacesickness among astronauts, so unless you want to make your stay
long enough to overcome a few days of nausea you might want to consider
staying on Earth's surface.

Or use good medication, which astronauts can't for performance
reasons. Or spin the hotel.

As for the view of the Earth's surface from
orbit, it will by spectacular- as is the view out of an airliner's
window as you look down at the world passing below you. But after a few
flights you start noticing that you are watching the in-flight movie
more than what's out the window, as it's the final destination that's
the point of the flight, not what you see while going there. In this
respect, the orbital resort may actually be inferior to the aircraft-
at least on the aircraft you see different things on trips to different
locations, whereas the view of Earth's surface is going to get awfully
repetitive after a dozen orbits or so. Unless you are looking out of a
big window at the Earth you might as well be watching it on TV- and that
could be done from the Earth's surface with far less expense.
As for the cruise liner flights around the Moon, looking at the Moon
close-up is going to be infinitely more boring than looking at Earth as
it's color is monotone, and with no clouds or weather to cause changes
to its surface appearance it's going to be about as exciting as looking
at a large boulder. You want to see an interesting moon, take a cruise
around Io instead.

Your assumption is defied by every single person (that I know of) who
has flown in space, who universally find looking out the window
fascinating, and never tire of it.

"There are huge radio telescopes on the far side of the Moon, protected
from the incessant radio noise of our industrial planet, and at the
poles are research facilities and tourist spots, using the water ice
hidden in the craters there."
As we all know, Arecibo is one of the hottest tourist destinations on
the surface of the planet, and one must book reservations months in
advance to see "The Big Dish".
For a space entrepreneur, Rand has just found a way of spending money
building giant radio telescopes on the Moon that is going to have zero
potential of making a buck for investors in them.

I didn't say that anyone would invest in a radio telescope as a
tourism venture. Nice (well, actually no, it's kind of dumb)
strawman, though.

"The vast majority of the funding comes from private expenditures made
by people seeking their own adventures off-planet, and NASA has little
involvement..."
Now this is a very telling statement. Note that it doesn't say: "The
vast majority of the funding comes from companies entering the lucrative
world of space investment" and that the main reason for doing this is
supposed to be adventures, not making a buck by entering a new frontier.

It's making a buck by selling adventures.

If I had a billion or two of spare cash burning a hole in my pocket,
would I be wiser to spend it on having an adventure, or investing it
into something that might make me yet more money?

That depends entirely on whether or not you think you have enough
money, or enough excitement in your life.

I note it's been a
while since Bill Gates has gone into the Amazonian rain forest on an
exotic butterfly collecting expedition, even though he could easily
afford to do it.

Am I supposed to extrapolate the market from Bill Gates? This is
dumb, Pat. One does it by performing market research.

Even Steve Fosset's adventures in air travel are probably starting to
bore him, as well as the media and general public.

Yes, that must be why he continues to do it. Not a very good attempt
at reading his mind, Pat.

In short, this basically presupposes that space is supposed to be a
playground for the idle rich with nothing better to do with their money.
The extrapolation of the Russian ISS tourist flights into becoming the
future of spaceflight.
But remember, this is supposed to be done by "daily trips into space by
hundreds or thousands of private citizens by multiple vehicle types" so
apparently there are a hell of a lot more idle rich in the future than
nowadays,

There will be, of course barring some planetary catastrophe.

and the "Jet Set" has been replaced by the "Rocket Riche".
As for myself, if I ever became wealthy, I'd still enjoy the simple
things in life; the good bottle of wine, the fine aged cheddar, inviting
my friends on quail hunts and "accidentally" shooting them, and
occasionally being the power behind the throne of a weakling president.
Who needs space adventures when you can do stuff like that? But that's
just me.

Yes. It is just you.

Now about that evil NASA having little involvment...who the hell do you
think built those giant radio telescopes on the far side of the Moon?

I didn't say NASA had no involvement (though in fact, I suspect that
it would be NSF that builds them, rather than NASA).

"...other than to take advantage of the dramatic reductions in cost and
dramatic improvements in technology to do those things that only it can
do, such as expeditions to the outer planets."
Hell, Bill Gates could probably finance a manned Mars mission right now
if he felt like it.

He could. He obviously doesn't feel like it. What's your point?

Brian Thorn wrote:
On 19 Feb 2006 09:08:35 -0800, "Ed Kyle" wrote:

Russia has launched and returned from orbit an 18 seat
capacity (some unoccupied on six manned flights during
2003-2005, as well as launching 11 separate Progress
supply missions. The U.S. managed only one semi-successful
mission during the same period carrying six astronauts.

Seven.

Ooops. Seven. Still less than Russia's 2003-2005 total.

And Shuttle delivered more cargo to ISS on STS-114 than all of
the Progress flights in 2005.

Are you sure about that? I've read that STS-114 only
delivered a bit more than 2 tonnes of actual net cargo to
ISS (although it had more than 11 tonnes of stuff in its
payload bay). On the other hand, each Progress M1 can
deliver up to 2.2 tonnes to ISS. There were four Progress
missions in 2005, four in 2004, and three in 2003, providing
more than 24 tonnes of cargo capacity to the station
during a time when NASA apparently only managed about
2 tonnes.

- Ed Kyle

Ed Kyle wrote:
I am puzzled by Griffin's House committee statement of 2/16/06.

There is not much to be puzzled about. The entire idiotic city
of Washington D.C became GM obsolete 50 years ago when
nuclear power, solar power, bio-power, and composite materiials
werre developed, but the sand-walkers just don't have vision
beyond Wal-Mart.


And the entire idiotic Boeing Aerospace Corporation became
an AT&T Coop institutionalized relic of the 19th Century
when holograms, Turing Machines, and Robotics were invented and they
just
can't accept the end.




In it ("http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19658")

He says:

"There are several reasons not to delay the CEV further. First and
foremost is increased risk to the Vision due to an extended gap
in our Nation's ability to launch humans into space. ... A longer
gap in U.S. human spaceflight capabilities will increase risk and
overall costs and lead to even more delays. In addition, the U.S.
may risk a perceived, if not a real, loss of leadership in space
exploration if we are unable to launch our astronauts into space
for an extended period when other nations are establishing or
building on their own abilities to do so."

During the same presentation, Griffin said:

"NASA needed to take budgeted funds from the Science and
Exploration budget projections for FY 2007-11 in order to ensure
that enough funds were available to the Space Shuttle and the
ISS. Thus, NASA cannot afford the costs of starting some new
space science missions, like a mission to Jupiter's moon Europa,
or the nextgeneration space astrophysics missions beyond the
James Webb Space Telescope, at this time."

In my opinion, the only "leadership" that the U.S. currently
provides in space is in the unmanned science and exploration
efforts that Griffin is proposing to gut. The U.S. long ago lost
its leadership position in manned spaceflight to Russia, which
for the past several years has provided the only seat-rides to
orbit. The International Space Station itself is built around a
Russian core.

It seems to me that Griffin's plans will simply eliminate U.S.
unmanned space science leadership for the return of only
getting NASA back on a par with the Russians in manned
flight.

A better approach, IMO, would have been to shut shuttle
down three years ago. A slightly less better approach
might be to shut it down now.

- Ed Kyle

On 19 Feb 2006 17:30:06 -0800, "Ed Kyle" wrote:

Brian Thorn wrote:
On 19 Feb 2006 09:08:35 -0800, "Ed Kyle" wrote:

Russia has launched and returned from orbit an 18 seat
capacity (some unoccupied on six manned flights during
2003-2005, as well as launching 11 separate Progress
supply missions. The U.S. managed only one semi-successful
mission during the same period carrying six astronauts.

Seven.

Ooops. Seven. Still less than Russia's 2003-2005 total.

And Shuttle delivered more cargo to ISS on STS-114 than all of
the Progress flights in 2005.

Are you sure about that? I've read that STS-114 only
delivered a bit more than 2 tonnes of actual net cargo to
ISS (although it had more than 11 tonnes of stuff in its
payload bay).

Well, the STS-114 Press Kit is irritatingly vague, focusing instead on
all the post-Columbia safey mods. But it does say Rafaello weighed
18,166 lbs. at launch. Considering that an empty MPLM weighs 9,000
lbs., it looks like about 9,000 lbs. of cargo in the MPLM to me. Plus
all the water Discovery offloaded to ISS and the replacement CMG in
the payload bay.

"The MPLM weight at launch, with the cargo it contains, will be 18,166
pounds."

Also, the Press Kit says total payload for STS-114 was 29,725 lbs. not
11 tons.

"Space Shuttle Discovery will carry a variety of payloads. The flight
will carry 29,725 pounds of equipment and supplies in its cargo bay to
the International Space Station. When Discovery lands, it will return
with 25,121 pounds of equipment in its cargo bay."

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote:
On 19 Feb 2006 17:30:06 -0800, "Ed Kyle" wrote:

Brian Thorn wrote:
On 19 Feb 2006 09:08:35 -0800, "Ed Kyle" wrote:

Russia has launched and returned from orbit an 18 seat
capacity (some unoccupied on six manned flights during
2003-2005, as well as launching 11 separate Progress
supply missions. The U.S. managed only one semi-successful
mission during the same period carrying six astronauts.

Seven.

Ooops. Seven. Still less than Russia's 2003-2005 total.

And Shuttle delivered more cargo to ISS on STS-114 than all of
the Progress flights in 2005.

Are you sure about that? I've read that STS-114 only
delivered a bit more than 2 tonnes of actual net cargo to
ISS (although it had more than 11 tonnes of stuff in its
payload bay).

Well, the STS-114 Press Kit is irritatingly vague, focusing instead on
all the post-Columbia safey mods. But it does say Rafaello weighed
18,166 lbs. at launch. Considering that an empty MPLM weighs 9,000
lbs., it looks like about 9,000 lbs. of cargo in the MPLM to me. Plus
all the water Discovery offloaded to ISS and the replacement CMG in
the payload bay.

"The MPLM weight at launch, with the cargo it contains, will be 18,166
pounds."

Also, the Press Kit says total payload for STS-114 was 29,725 lbs. not
11 tons.

Right. 13.48 tonnes in payload bay up. 11.39 tonnes in payload
bay down. I should have said "more than 11 tonnes of additional
stuff".

"Space Shuttle Discovery will carry a variety of payloads. The flight
will carry 29,725 pounds of equipment and supplies in its cargo bay to
the International Space Station. When Discovery lands, it will return
with 25,121 pounds of equipment in its cargo bay."

That is a 2.09 metric ton (tonne) up/down differential, but
no mention of how much mass was brought down from ISS.
Irritating, yes, that NASA didn't bother to mention how much
mass was taken to and returned from ISS. I would be
surprised if they hauled 2 tonnes of garbage down.

- Ed Kyle

"Ed Kyle" wrote in message
ups.com...
Michael Kent wrote:
Russia has launched and returned from orbit an 18 seat
capacity (some unoccupied on six manned flights during
2003-2005, as well as launching 11 separate Progress
supply missions. The U.S. managed only one semi-successful
mission during the same period carrying six astronauts. I hate
to say it, but we cannot ignore the fact that the U.S. shuttle
killed all of the astronauts it launched in 2003 - more astronauts
in one accident than have ever died in all Russian space
disasters combined.

It has also launched more than twice as much in one launch than any Russian
craft has.

These stats are meaningless. Hard the cargo bay been full of passengers it
wouldn't have changed the overall safety of the program at all.



The fact is that the U.S. space shuttle is a flawed system
that has failed to maintain a U.S. human presence in space,
in stark contrast to Russia's Soyuz system.

Yes, too bad the Russians haven't been able to live up to their promises for
number of Soyuz and Progress craft.

"Ed Kyle" wrote in
oups.com:

That is a 2.09 metric ton (tonne) up/down differential, but
no mention of how much mass was brought down from ISS.
Irritating, yes, that NASA didn't bother to mention how much
mass was taken to and returned from ISS. I would be
surprised if they hauled 2 tonnes of garbage down.

I wouldn't. There hadn't been a shuttle to ISS in two and a half years, and
Progress is limited in the amount of garbage it can haul (both hatch
diameter and CG limits).


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.