comparing VSE to a "many small missions" program

From my point of view, some peripheral aspects of the VSE are
potentially positive, such as Shuttle retirement, Centennial
Challenges, commercial ISS resupply, and robotic lunar scout missions,
but the main components seem to have some drawbacks. An alternate
approach to post-shuttle NASA (based on ideas discussed in this
newsgroup) might be to concentrate on many smaller, more achievable,
and immediately relevant missions. For example, assume for comparison
that the VSE takes an average of $8 billion per year starting now to
achieve 2 human moon missions per year starting in 2018. The
alternative to the VSE could:

- Leave the planetary science, astronomy, Earth science, and other NASA
programs not related to Shuttle/ISS as they were before the VSE.
- Split up the VSE's $8 billion per year. For example, allocate $2
billion per year for human spaceflight, and $2 billion per year more to
planetary science, astronomy, and Earth science ($6 billion total).
- Concentrate the new efforts almost exclusively on small spaceflight
missions: science probes, technology demonstrators, and so on. Rely as
much as possible on existing facilities, management structures, and
science analysis capabilties to single-mindedly focus on building and
flying actual missions.
- Use the large number of missions to experiment with varying mission
managment approaches, such as prizes, data purchases, traditional
contracts, and Discovery missions.
- No NASA launchers would be developed. NASA could influence
commercial launchers by offering prizes for demonstrated launcher
improvements.
- On the assumption that not all prizes will be won at all, prize
values (plus overhead costs) could exceed the budgeted amount for a
given year.

For example, a sustained yearly breakdown could be something like the
following, split among the 4 areas (human, planetary, astronomy, and
Earth science missions).

# missions/year cost (millions) # missions/area
----------------------- -------------------- ------------------------
1 1000 1 each 4 years
2 500 1 each 2 years
8 250 2 each year
12 100 3 each year
16 50 4 each year
24 20 6 each year
60 10 15 each year
120 2 30 each year
280 1 70 each year
400 0.4 100 each year
800 0.25 200 each year

The bottom of the scale might consist of missions like current
Centennial Challenges, suborbital flights on launchers that have
already been demonstrated, and similar small missions. If space flight
missions aren't feasible, related projects such as small observatories,
software advances, or sensor technologies could be demonstrated on the
ground along the lines of the current Centennial Challenges. The
middle of the scale might involve missions like the X-Prize, very small
satellites, or piggy-backing sensors or technology demonstrators on
non-NASA missions. The top of the scale could allow missions akin to
Discovery missions, Deep Space 1, ISS resupply, or a series of missions
to a small "man-tended" space station.

To compare this approach to the VSE, I looked at a number of criteria
for evaluating a space program, ignoring the peripheral aspects of the
VSE that would be similar to the small program approach, such as
Centennial Challenges, ISS resupply, and robotic lunar precursors. My
thoughts are that this approach is better than the VSE for all of the
criteria I thought of (listed below). I won't go into a case-by-case
justification. However, I'd be interested in comments or analysis from
others on how this approach compares to the VSE based on any of these
criteria, or others. I'd also be interested in suggestions on how the
VSE could be adjusted to better support any of these criteria:

exploration - visiting new parts of the solar system, or charting parts
of the solar system (or beyond) at better resolutions or in different
ways
science - planetary science, astronomy, geology, geography, atmospheric
science, ocean science, astrobiology, space weather, lunar science,
physics, chemistry, biology, cosmology, etc
access to space - cheap access to space, reliable access to space,
subareas including transporting humans, delicate cargo, bulk cargo,
different payload sizes
support commercial space - does the program help commercial payload
launchers, commercial satellite builders, new space businesses, etc?
space technology development - how much does the program develop better
or cheaper space vehicle components or capabilities - propulsion,
sensors, tethers, guidance systems, thermal control, power beaming,
life support, communication, radiation hardening, etc
support satellite programs in (or used by) non-NASA government agencies
- ie DOD, NOAA, USGS, Agriculture, FEMA, EPA, state and local GIS
users, etc - For example, does the program help lower launch costs for
these agencies? Does it provide economies of scale to allow satellite
builders to provide them cheaper or better products on time? Does it
test space technologies these agencies might want to use in operational
systems?
support existing NASA planetary science, astronomy, Earth science, and
ISS programs - Again, does the program help lower costs or improve
capabilities for these areas?
support education - this includes inspiration to join
math/science/engineering fields, projects for academic departments
(including students) to work on, content for museums, etc
assist in cases of natural distasters - Does the program help forcast
natural disasters (like Katrina, etc)? Does it help in damage
assessment after a disaster? Does it provide services that can help
after a disaster (communications, location services, power, etc)? The
help could be indirect - eg: the program lowers launch or satellite
costs so a new commercial service is deployed and used in a disaster.
support war on terrorism - This is similar to the natural disaster and
other agencies criteria.
engaging the public - How much entertainment value is returned to the
public, including museums, TV shows, classes, launch viewings, air
shows, astromaut talks, books, "prize" races, etc. How much variety is
there? Can the public participate with a mechanism like SETI@HOME?
Are there prizes that groups like the NSS, Planetary Society, Mars
Society, astronomy/rocketry clubs, or academic departments could
reasonably aspire to win?
international cooperation - Does the program provide mutually
beneficial opportunities for international cooperation? Does it
enhance overall international relationships (eg: perhaps more US Earth
observation missions would be viewed favorably in the international
community)?
chance of success - Does the program contain serious technical,
political, or managerial risks?
chance of delay - Does the program contain risks or safety issues that
could cascade into other parts of the program and delay the whole
thing?
chance of cost overrun - Does the program contain risks that can result
in serious cost overruns? How well can cost overruns be managed? How
have similar programs' cost estimates fared in the past?
expected time to results - How long will it take to gain the benefits?
Will they be relevant by that time?
expectations of improvements to program over time - How difficult is it
for the program to improve itself over time (technically and
managerially)? How easy is it to incorporate external improvements
(computer improvements, etc)?
chance of this program harming existing NASA programs - eg: will it sap
funds from existing planetary science, astronomy, Earth science, and
aeronautics programs?

red_nodak wrote:

[snip dreaming]

Our collective goal in space is to deflect asteroids
and create a more sustainable planet earth,
via the colonization of space.

How goddamn hard is that to figure out?

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

red_nodak wrote:


Is there actually another North Dakotan around here?

Pat (amazed)

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


red_nodak wrote:


Is there actually another North Dakotan around here?

Pat (amazed)


North Dakota!

I hear you folks are partial to prairie oysters?
They say it's really cold up there, but it shouldn't be
so bad, it's a dry cold~


s

Actually I've never been to ND. The computer I use is there, though.

red

jonathan wrote:
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


red_nodak wrote:


Is there actually another North Dakotan around here?

Pat (amazed)


North Dakota!

I hear you folks are partial to prairie oysters?
They say it's really cold up there, but it shouldn't be
so bad, it's a dry cold~


s

Actually I've never been to ND. The computer I use is there, though.

red

jonathan wrote:
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


red_nodak wrote:


Is there actually another North Dakotan around here?

Pat (amazed)


North Dakota!

I hear you folks are partial to prairie oysters?
They say it's really cold up there, but it shouldn't be
so bad, it's a dry cold~


s

I'd like to see colonization of space, too. Since I'm just comparing
this "small missions" approach to the VSE, and I figured colonization
is way beyond the ability of either approach, I didn't bother
mentioning it. However it would be interesting to compare how many
inches closer either approach might get us toward this goal in, say, 20
years.

One of the (many) things I'd like to hear opinions on is how the "small
missions" approach might compare to the VSE in the area of natural
disasters. The asteroid/comet Earth impact scenario is a particular
case of natural disaster worth discussing. Here's my take:

1. Finding the asteroids/comets in the first place - There is already
work being done to find them, including NASA-sponsored work. I don't
see the VSE helping with this aspect. The "small missions" approach
would include a lot of small astronomical work. The smaller funding
chunks would be too small for a space mission at current launch costs,
so they would have to go to things like small ground observatories -
but big enough to do good asteroid/comet detection work. Prizes might
also help. Prizes for discovery of any asteroid or comet above mass X
where the orbit is obtained and shown to intersect that of the Earth
might provide an extra incentive for amateur astronomers.

2. Understanding the asteroids/comets - Obviously there are already
ground studies and robotic missions from several space agencies to do
this. The small missions approach would probably include additional
science missions and technology demonstrators along the lines of NEAR
and DS-1 to better understand these bodies and be able to work near
them.

3. Actual deflection - The relative (de)merits are tougher here. The
VSE's HLV/CLV/CEV might be useful here, or the better small missions
that actually get practice around asteroids might be better for this
job.

4. Disaster assessment and relief after an impact (that leaves
civilization largely intact) - Here the remote sensing and comsat
improvements likely with the small missions would have the same kinds
of benefits they would have after a tsunami, hurricaine, fire, or other
disaster.

red

red_nodak wrote:

I'd like to see colonization of space, too. Since I'm just comparing
this "small missions" approach to the VSE, and I figured colonization
is way beyond the ability of either approach, I didn't bother
mentioning it. However it would be interesting to compare how many
inches closer either approach might get us toward this goal in, say, 20
years.

One of the (many) things I'd like to hear opinions on is how the "small
missions" approach might compare to the VSE in the area of natural
disasters. The asteroid/comet Earth impact scenario is a particular
case of natural disaster worth discussing. Here's my take:

1. Finding the asteroids/comets in the first place - There is already
work being done to find them, including NASA-sponsored work. I don't
see the VSE helping with this aspect. The "small missions" approach
would include a lot of small astronomical work. The smaller funding
chunks would be too small for a space mission at current launch costs,
so they would have to go to things like small ground observatories -
but big enough to do good asteroid/comet detection work. Prizes might
also help. Prizes for discovery of any asteroid or comet above mass X
where the orbit is obtained and shown to intersect that of the Earth
might provide an extra incentive for amateur astronomers.

2. Understanding the asteroids/comets - Obviously there are already
ground studies and robotic missions from several space agencies to do
this. The small missions approach would probably include additional
science missions and technology demonstrators along the lines of NEAR
and DS-1 to better understand these bodies and be able to work near
them.

3. Actual deflection - The relative (de)merits are tougher here. The
VSE's HLV/CLV/CEV might be useful here, or the better small missions
that actually get practice around asteroids might be better for this
job.

4. Disaster assessment and relief after an impact (that leaves
civilization largely intact) - Here the remote sensing and comsat
improvements likely with the small missions would have the same kinds
of benefits they would have after a tsunami, hurricaine, fire, or other
disaster.

Well now that you put it that way, I agree wholeheartedly. We desperately
need advances in space on a broad front. Everybody needs to participate, at
all levels, especially governments. What else are you gonna do with 6
billion humans on a small, unstable, terrestrial planet whizzing through a
minefield. Fight to the bitter end for the last vestiges of oil, gas, food
and water? I don't think so. I don't hope and pray, it doesn't seem to
yield the desired results. I use scientific methods.

Space .It's all good.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

"red_nodak" wrote in news:1136951067.990025.77520
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

Actually I've never been to ND. The computer I use is there, though.

I drove through ND in 1992 and through SD in 1995; REALLY
boring for the most part. I regret not knowing of Pat back
then, would have been fun to drop in and pester him. (I
did stay overnight in Pierre.)

--Damon