[FPSPACE] The next 50 years

[E.P. Grondine]

An analysis by E.P. Grondine of

HUMAN SPACE EXPLORATION: THE NEXT 50 YEARS
BY MICHAEL D. GRIFFIN
March 14, 2007
Aviation Week's Space Blog: Human Space Exploration: The Next 50 Years

""PREDICTION IS DIFFIFULT, ESPECIALLY THE FUTURE," SAID QUANTUM PHYSICIST 
NIELS BOHR,"

Wasn't that Yogi Bera?

"THE FIRST QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED IS, WHERE TO BEGIN? WHAT IS THE GLOBAL 
VIEW THAT CAN BEST SHAPE OUR THINKING?"

Begin with the impact hazard, as it is the key hazard facing mankind. 
Continue on to the environment, energy systems, and dwindling resources. Or 
on to our inability to restrain armed conflict, if you really want to be 
really dark.

"IT IS SO VERY EASY TO BE COMPLETELY WRONG,"

Yes, it certainly is.

"SINCE A VARIETY OF RADICALLY DIFFERENT FUTURES IN SPACEFLIGHT CAN BE 
PRESUMED WITH EQUAL APPARENT CREDIBILITY TODAY."

Yes, they certainly can. It's sad the level what public discourse has sunken 
to. I think attack politics is responsible for a lot of it, as is the 
general decline in the standards of education.

"FOR EXAMPLE, IT MIGHT BE THAT, AFTER COMPLETING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE 
INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION (ISS) AND RETIRING THE SHUTTLE, THE EXCITEMENT 
INHERENT IN A NEW REACH OUTWARD FROM LOW EARTH ORBIT (LEO) WILL APPEAL TO 
THE NEXT GENERATION, LEADING TO A VIGOROUS, TECHNOLOGY-DRIVEN PROGRAM, A 
PLAN TO REACH THE SURFACE OF MARS BY THE LATE 2020'S, AND THE WILL TO 
SUSTAIN AND BUILD UPON THAT EARLY PRESENCE."

Actually, given the reluctance to use the Ares 5 to launch large nuclear 
reactors over Florida, this "future" is pretty much moot. Another problem 
with it is that it is unlikely that it will be demonstrated conclusively in 
the next 15 years that Mars harbors no pathogens which would present a 
problem if returned to the Earth. So you can prettty much pitch this future 
out.

Finally, do the taxpayers really want to pay that much to send a few people 
to Mars?

"OR, INTEREST IN HUMAN SPACE EXPLORATION COULD ONCE AGAIN BE MOTIVATED BY 
COMPETITION AMONG SPACEFARING NATIONS, LEADING TO A MODERN VERSION OF THE 
"SPACE RACE" OF THE 1960S, PRODUCING SUBSTANTIAL PROGRESS BUT FOR REASONS 
UNSUSTAINABLE IN THE LONGER TERM."

It takes at least 2 to race, and no other space capable nation has any 
desire to do so.

"IT COULD BE THAT THE UNCHECKED GROWTH OF ENTITLEMENTS, THE GENERATIONAL 
COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES NECESSARY TO COMBAT TERRORISM, AND A CONTINUED 
DOWNWARD TREND OF INTEREST BY AMERICAN STUDENTS IN MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE, AND 
ENGINEERING EDUCATION, WILL COMBINE TO MAKE THE CIVIL SPACE PROGRAM AS WE 
HAVE KNOWN IT IRRELEVANT TO THE LIVES OF OUR GRANDCHILDREN'S GENERATION."

Actually, since devastating impacts have occured about once per 100 years, 
that will never be true. We're already in space, like it or not.

"OR THE TRUTH COULD LIE IN SOME OTHER DIRECTION ENTIRELY"

Yes, it most certainly does. See above, "impact hazard".

"MAYBE HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT IN THE NEXT 50 YEARS WILL BE DOMINATED BY TOURISM, 
FIRST SUBORBITAL, THEN ORBITAL, WITH RELATIVELY LITTLE IN THE WAY OF 
INDEPENDENT GOVERNMENT ACTIVITY."

Not likely unless the laws of physics are revoked, which means a high cost 
to orbit even with the most efficient systems.

"THE ONE THING OF WHICH WE CAN BE CERTAIN IS THAT IN TRYING TO ENVISION THE 
WORLD OF 2057, TWO GENERATIONS IN THE FUTURE, WE WILL BE WRONG.  WE WILL BE 
WRONG IN OUR ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE LARGER CONTEXT OF WORLD CULTURE AND 
CIVILIZATION IN WHICH SPACE EXPLORATION EXISTS, AND WE WILL BE WRONG EVEN IN 
THE NARROWER CONTEXT THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF OUR ATTENTION HERE."

Speak for yourself...

Since the NASA Administrator is oblivious to the impact hazard, even after 
having the Congress specifically direct his attention to it, his vision is 
limited.  If the recent impact rates hold, there will be another Tunguska in 
the next 100 years, and if it hits a population center... then the world of 
2057 will be very different indeed.

"EVEN THE MOST CURSORY REVIEW OF SOME OF THE KEY EVENTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT 
OF SPACEFLIGHT SHOWS THE NEED FOR GREAT HUMILITY BY ANYONE WRITING AN ESSAY 
ON THE LIKELY STATE OF SPACE EXPLORATION IN 2057.

"FOR EXAMPLE, WHO WOULD HAVE SUPPOSED IN EARLY 1957 THAT THE SOVIET UNION, 
AND NOT THE UNITED STATES, WOULD LOFT THE FIRST ARTIFICIAL SATELLITE INTO 
EARTH ORBIT,"

President Eisenhower, as he wanted the Soviet Union to establish a right to 
space overflight.

"THE FIRST ROBOTIC LUNAR PROBE, AND THE FIRST MAN, INTO SPACE?"

S.P. Korolev and N.S. Krushchev.

"AND WHO WOULD EVER HAVE PREDICTED THAT THE UNITED STATES, STUNG BY LOSSES 
IN A COMPETITION IN WHICH IT HAD NOT EVEN KNOWN IT WAS ENGAGED, WOULD, OR 
EVEN COULD, RESPOND BY CARRYING OUT THE FIRST LUNAR LANDING EIGHT YEARS AND 
TWO MONTHS AFTER DECLARING THE GOAL?"

von Braun, Gardner, Schreiver, Dornberger... Korolev, Glushko, Chelomei, 
Yangel...

"MOST THEN-KNOWLEDGEABLE OBSERVERS BELIEVED THAT SUCH A FEAT WAS UNLIKELY TO 
BE ACHIEVED MUCH BEFORE THE END OF THE 20TH CENTURY, IF THEN.  NOT EVEN THE 
MOST VISIONARY OF HARD SCIENCE FICTION AUTHORS ASIMOV, CLARKE, HEINLEIN 
IMAGINED THAT IT COULD OCCUR AS EARLY AS 1969.  AND THEN, HAVING SPENT $21 
BILLION (IN MID-60S DOLLARS) TO DEVELOP THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM TO MAKE 
SUCH A THING POSSIBLE, WAS IT EVEN CONCEIVABLE THAT SUCH HARD-WON CAPABILITY 
WOULD BE UTTERLY DISCARDED WITHIN A FEW YEARS?  WHO WOULD HAVE IMAGINED IT?"

The Congress of the United States, shortly after their voters learned what 
the Moon was really like, and shortly after it was realized by those voters 
that Mars was simply not like the Earth, and therefore neither held little 
immediate value for them.

"AND YET IT HAPPENED.

It sure did, at the first economic crunch.

"WITH THOSE THOUGHTS IN MIND TO ENCOURAGE AN APPROPRIATE HUMILITY, IT IS 
NONETHELESS NATURAL TO WONDER HOW WE MIGHT DEVELOP A VISION OF THE FUTURE 
THAT IS THE LEAST LIKELY TO BE TERRIBLY WRONG.  HOW CAN WE EXTRAPOLATE 
TODAY'S WORLD IN SUCH A WAY AS TO AVOID THE MOST OUTRAGEOUSLY WRONG 
PREDICTIONS?"

By studying the past.

"MOST OF THE PRESENT DISCUSSION WILL FOCUS ON THE U.S. GOVERNMENT CIVIL 
SPACE PROGRAM.  I WILL HAVE SOME COMMENTS ON THE INTERNATIONAL SCENE AND ON 
THE POSSIBLE ROLE OF COMMERCIAL SPACE, BUT FOR MUCH OF THE NEXT FIVE 
DECADES, THE U.S. GOVERNMENT WILL BE THE DOMINANT ENTITY IN DETERMINING THE 
COURSE OF HUMAN SPACE EXPLORATION."

Not really. The dominant entity in the immediate future will be the people 
of the United States, acting through their elected leaders.

20 years from now, it may be the 1.2 billion people of China.

"WE WILL, I HOPE, DEVELOP ROBUST INTERNATIONAL PARTNERSHIPS THAT WILL 
ENORMOUSLY ENHANCE THE VALUE OF SPACE EXPLORATION."

That's nice to know. Now how do you define "value"? Flying a few people to 
Mars?

"AND WE MUST DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO PROVIDE AN ACCEPTING ENVIRONMENT FOR 
COMMERCIAL SPACE ENTITIES, STANDING DOWN GOVERNMENT CAPABILITY IN FAVOR OF 
COMMERCIAL SUPPLIERS WHENEVER IT BECOMES POSSIBLE TO DO SO."

Well, one might want to start with the existing EELV manufacturers then. 
Last time I checked they were commercial suppliers.

"BUT WITH THAT SAID, THE U.S. TODAY IS SPENDING MORE THAN TWICE AS MUCH ON 
CIVIL SPACE, PER CAPITA, AS ANY OTHER NATION, AND I BELIEVE THIS SITUATION 
IS UNLIKELY TO CHANGE SIGNIFICANTLY FOR SOME TIME."

Don't get your hopes up. And remember, through careful thought, wise 
planning, and focused programs, other nations may be able to do far more 
with much less.

"COMMERCIAL SPACE FIRMS OFFER GREAT PROMISE BUT, SO FAR, LIMITED 
PERFORMANCE.  FOR A WHILE YET, IT IS THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, THROUGH NASA, THAT 
DETERMINES THE MAIN COURSE OF HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT."

Actually, it appears that ATK (hereinafter Thiokol), lobbying with money 
made from the sale of grains for Iraq and the ABM, is determining the main 
course of US spaceflight right now.

"OF COURSE, MANNED SPACEFLIGHT IS BROADER THAN EXPLORATION, AND OVER THE 
NEXT DECADES IT IS TO BE EXPECTED THAT OTHER ENTITIES BESIDES THE U.S. 
GOVERNMENT, BOTH COMMERCIAL AND INTERNATIONAL, WILL BE CONDUCTING HUMAN 
SPACEFLIGHT ACTIVITIES."

That's pretty much a certainty.

"A SPACEFARING CIVILIZATION CANNOT BE THE REALM ONLY OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES 
AND GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS,"

Yes it can, if one is refering to true manned space flight, due to its high 
cost. If one wnats to, one can pretend that sub-orbital lobs are manned 
space flight...

"THOUGH A BIAS TOWARD SUCH GROUPS IS CLEARLY ONE ATTRIBUTE OF A FRONTIER 
ACTIVITY."

Once again, the "frontier" was the frontier, and settlers and traders were 
usually there ahead of their governments. Space is space, while the 
"frontier" was on the Earth. Life suuport systems were always immediately at 
hand, and transportation costs were very low.

"BUT IF WE UNDERSTAND THAT BROADER PARTICIPATION IS DESIRABLE, U.S. HUMAN 
SPACE EXPLORATION PROGRAMS CAN BE CONDUCTED SO AS TO ENCOURAGE, RATHER THAN 
MINIMIZE, SUCH.  DOING SO WILL, IN MY OPINION, BE A KEY TO ITS SURVIVAL AND 
PROSPERITY, A POINT THAT I WILL MAKE AGAIN IN WHAT FOLLOWS."

Actually, given the costs of manned spaceflight, there is no reason for the 
average citizen to subsidize larks for the wealthy few. Call me cheap, if 
you want, but I'd rather spend the money elsewhere.

"BUT LET US NOW FOCUS OUR ATTENTION ON MORE SPECIFIC MATTERS.  THE MOST 
STRAIGHTFORWARD EXTRAPOLATION IS TO ASSUME THAT THE FUTURE WILL, ON AVERAGE, 
BE MUCH LIKE THE PAST IN REGARD TO KEY ASSUMPTIONS.

That's a pretty big assumption.

SINCE NO ASPECT OF GOVERNMENT CIVIL SPACEFLIGHT IS MORE CRUCIAL THAN THE 
FUNDING ALLOCATED TO IT, LET'S CONSIDER NASA'S FUNDING HISTORY FOR THE LAST 
50 YEARS, AND TRY TO MAKE A REASONABLE YET CONSERVATIVE PROJECTION AS TO 
WHAT WE MIGHT RECEIVE IN THE NEXT 50.  AND THEN LET'S CONSIDER WHAT THAT 
FUNDING MIGHT ALLOW US TO DO, SETTING ASIDE UNFORESEEABLE POLITICAL 
UPHEAVALS.  TO UNDERSTAND WHERE WE MIGHT GO, WE MUST UNDERSTAND WHERE WE 
HAVE BEEN, AND I THINK WE NEED A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF OUR HISTORY THAN IS 
COMMONLY THE CASE.

"ANY ASSESSMENT OF HISTORICAL OR PROJECTED BUDGETS NECESSARILY MUST BE DONE 
IN CONSTANT, INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS.

It also has to take into account the developed technological base.

"THIS FACT LEADS INEVITABLY TO THE QUESTION OF WHAT INFLATION INDEX SHOULD 
BE USED, BECAUSE LONG-TERM ASSESSMENTS ARE SENSITIVE TO THAT CHOICE.  MANY 
CHOICES ARE POSSIBLE; THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS MAINTAINS THE FAMILIAR 
CONSUMER PRICE INDEX (CPI), APPLICABLE TO THE U.S. ECONOMY AT LARGE; I.E., 
THE GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT (GDP).  HOWEVER, THE CPI IS NOT THE BEST MEASURE 
OF INFLATION FOR GOVERNMENT SPENDING, PRIMARILY BECAUSE THE 'MARKET BASKET' 
OF GOODS AND SERVICES APPLICABLE TO THE PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SECTORS OF THE 
ECONOMY ARE VERY DIFFERENT.

Yes, inflation goes up with the amount of money wasted.

THE BEST USE OF THE CPI IN CONNECTION WITH GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS IS IN THE 
ESTIMATION OF THE CONSTANT-DOLLAR 'OPPORTUNITY COST' OF GOVERNMENT 
ACTIVITIES TO CITIZENS.  GOVERNMENT SERVICES ARE PURCHASED BY TAXPAYERS WITH 
CPI-ADJUSTED TAX DOLLARS; MONEY PAID IN TAXES IS MONEY NOT AVAILABLE TO 
CONSUMERS TO PURCHASE OTHER GOODS AND SERVICES."

Yes, and I think that minimally those taxpayers expect the NASA 
Administrator to take the steps necessary to ensure their continued 
survival.

"THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET (OMB) PUBLISHES SEVERAL INFLATION 
INDICES APPLICABLE TO DIFFERENT PORTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT SECTOR.  FOR 
GOVERNMENT R&D ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING THOSE AT NASA, THE OMB PRESCRIBES THE 
USE OF THE SO-CALLED 'GDP (CHAINED) PRICE INDEX' 
(HTTP://WWW.WHITEHOUSE.GOV/OMB/BUDGET/FY2008/SHEETS/HIST10Z1.XLS).  WITHOUT 
DELVING INTO THE MERITS AND SHORTCOMINGS OF VARIOUS INDICES, OUR DISCUSSION 
OF INFLATION-ADJUSTED NASA FUNDING WILL EMPLOY THIS INDEX.  WHILE FISCAL 
ANALYSIS ACROSS SEVERAL DECADES IS SENSITIVE TO THE CHOICE OF INFLATION 
INDEX, THE PRESENT DISCUSSION IS NOT SIGNIFICANTLY INFLUENCED BY THE CHOICE 
OF THE GDP CHAINED INDEX VS. OTHER OMB INDICES.

"UNLESS SPECIFICALLY STATED OTHERWISE, ALL FISCAL DISCUSSIONS IN THIS ESSAY 
ARE COUCHED IN TERMS OF FISCAL 2000 DOLLARS, WITH INFLATION ADJUSTMENTS 
ACCORDING TO THE OMB GDP (CHAINED) PRICE INDEX.

"FIGURE 1 SHOWS THE CONSTANT-DOLLAR BUDGET FOR NASA'S FIRST 50 YEARS, 
1959-2008, IN FISCAL 2000 DOLLARS, AND INCLUDES THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE 
AGENCY WILL BE FUNDED IN FISCAL 2008 AT THE LEVEL OF THE PRESIDENT'S 
REQUEST."

Actually, given the current state of things, a better assumption is that 
NASA will be budgeted with specific earmarks, i.l. instructions, as it was 
in the last resolution.

"DATA FOR OTHER FISCAL YEARS IS HISTORICAL.  THE ANOMALOUS FUNDING BUMP IN 
FISCAL 1977 IS DUE TO THE INCLUSION OF A FIFTH 'TRANSITION QUARTER' IN THAT 
YEAR, SINCE IN 1976 THE FISCAL YEAR BOUNDARY WAS SHIFTED FROM 1 JULY TO 1 
OCTOBER, WHERE IT REMAINS TODAY.  MAJOR EVENTS IN NASA'S HISTORY 'THE APOLLO 
PEAK', THE POST-APOLLO AEROSPACE DEPRESSION, AND THE SUPPLEMENTAL PROVIDED 
BY THE CONGRESS IN RESPONSE TO THE CHALLENGER DISASTER, ARE ALL CLEARLY 
VISIBLE IN FIG. 1. (CLICK ON IMAGE TO SEE FULL SIZE.

"AS SEEN, NASA TODAY IS FUNDED AT A CONSTANT-DOLLAR LEVEL SLIGHTLY HIGHER 
THAN THE AGENCY'S HISTORICAL AVERAGE.  WITH PROPOSED GROWTH IN THE 
PRESIDENT'S BUDGET FOR FISCAL 2008-12 ROUGHLY MATCHING THE ANTICIPATED RATE 
OF INFLATION OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL YEARS, AGENCY FUNDING IS EXPECTED TO 
REMAIN SLIGHTLY ABOVE THE 50-YEAR AVERAGE.

Don't get your hopes up. There's a war in the mid-east to pay for.

"IN AN ATTEMPT TO OFFER A REASONABLE, BUT CONSERVATIVE, VISION FOR 
GOVERNMENT CIVIL SPACE ACTIVITIES, LET US ASSUME THAT NASA CONTINUES, IN 
FISCAL 2013 AND BEYOND, TO BE FUNDED IN CONSTANT DOLLARS AT THE AVERAGE 
LEVEL OF THE PRESIDENT'S REQUEST FOR FISCAL 2008-12.  THIS IS ILLUSTRATED IN 
FIGURE 2, WITH THE AVERAGE OUT-YEAR BUDGET ASSUMED TO BE $14.2 BILLION IN 
FISCAL 2000 DOLLARS.  WE IN THE SPACE COMMUNITY WILL CERTAINLY HOPE FOR 
MORE, BUT WE SHOULD NOT EXPECT LESS.

Don't get your hopes up.

MORE PROPERLY, WE SHOULD EXPECT TO PERFORM IN SUCH A MANNER, ACTUALLY 
DELIVERING A BOLD, EXCITING, EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE SPACE PROGRAM, INSTEAD 
OF POWERPOINT CHARTS WITH HOPES AND DREAMS, THAT POLICYMAKERS DO NOT WANT TO 
PROVIDE LESS!

Yeah, and the policymakers also told you what minimal performance they 
expected from you in dealing with the impact hazard, within the existing 
budget... and they don't like being held hostage.

"THE YEAR-TO-YEAR BUDGET PROFILE WILL SHOW SOME VARIABILITY, OF COURSE, BUT 
WE SHOULD EXPECT CONSIDERABLY MORE STRATEGIC AND FISCAL STABILITY THAN WAS 
EVIDENCED IN THE AGENCY'S FIRST FEW DECADES.  MINOR ANNUAL VARIATIONS SHOULD 
NOT AFFECT THE LARGER PICTURE; ON THE FIVE- TO 15-YEAR CYCLE OF 
DEVELOPMENTAL SPACE PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS, IT IS THE AVERAGE LEVEL OF 
FUNDING WHICH IS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT PARAMETER.  THE TOTAL FUNDING RECEIVED 
BY THE AGENCY OVER A SIGNIFICANT PERIOD, A DECADE OR MORE, TOGETHER WITH 
STABILITY OF STRATEGIC GOALS, LARGELY DETERMINES WHAT CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED.

Actually, its how that money is spent.

"FIGURE 3 OFFERS A DIFFERENT VIEW OF HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED NASA FUNDING 
FOR THE PAST AND FUTURE 50 YEARS.  FUNDING IS AGGREGATED BY DECADE, AND 
INCORPORATES THE ASSUMPTION OF A STABLE CONSTANT-DOLLAR BUDGET EMBODIED IN 
FIGURE 2.  FIGURE 4 PROVIDES A SIMILAR VIEW, WITH FUNDING AGGREGATED IN 
15-YEAR INTERVALS AND CONSTANT INFLATION-ADJUSTED FUNDING ASSUMED THROUGH 
2063.  THIS 15-YEAR ASSESSMENT PERIOD IS PARTICULARLY CONVENIENT, SINCE 
ESSENTIALLY ALL MERCURY, GEMINI, APOLLO AND SKYLAB DEVELOPMENT AND 
OPERATIONS ARE CAPTURED WITHIN THE FIRST 15 YEARS OF NASA'S HISTORY.

"FIGURES 3 AND 4 OFFER WHAT MIGHT BE A NEW PERSPECTIVE FOR MANY.  FROM A 
DECADAL VIEWPOINT, THE 'APOLLO PEAK' IN NASA FUNDING, REGARDED BY SO MANY AS 
THE AGENCY'S HALCYON PERIOD, IS A MYTH.  IN TRUTH, NASA RECEIVED FUNDING 
WELL ABOVE ITS HISTORICAL AVERAGE LEVEL FOR ONLY FIVE YEARS, 1964-68, 
FOLLOWED BY A LENGTHY AND DEBILITATING REDUCTION.  BUT WHEN AVERAGED OVER 
DECADAL OR FIFTEEN-YEAR TIME SCALES, THE NATION'S CIVIL SPACE PROGRAM HAS 
EXPERIENCED NO PARTICULARLY NOTEWORTHY FUNDING PEAKS.  THE HIGHEST 
HISTORICAL FUNDING PERIOD WAS ACTUALLY IN THE DECADE (OR 15-YEAR INTERVAL) 
CENTERED ON THE EARLY 1990S, NOT DURING APOLLO.

Challenger.

FURTHER, IF WE ASSUME FUNDING STABILITY IN CONSTANT DOLLARS AS SHOWN IN FIG. 
2, THE TOTAL IN EVERY SUBSEQUENT DECADE WILL MATCH THAT OF THE APOLLO 
DEVELOPMENT DECADE, 1959-68.  EXPRESSED IN A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT WAY, NASA 
COULD CARRY OUT A COMPLETE APOLLO-SCALE EFFORT EVERY 15 YEARS BETWEEN THE 
PRESENT DAY AND THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF SPUTNIK.

Ummm, using 15 year periods hides a wealth of information. After the "Apollo 
peak" Cocoa Beach's real estate market collapsed.

"LET US NOW ADDRESS ANOTHER TIME-HONORED BELIEF ABOUT THE APOLLO ERA.  WHEN 
WE TALK ABOUT AN 'APOLLO-SCALE EFFORT,' IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT, 
CONTRARY TO CONVENTIONAL WISDOM, WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT AN AGENCY DEVOTED 
EXCLUSIVELY TO HUMAN EXPLORATION.  THE FUNDING RECORD CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE 
'APOLLO ERA' WAS ACTUALLY QUITE A LOT MORE THAN JUST THAT.

"IN THE APOLLO DEVELOPMENT DECADE OF 1959-68, HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT RECEIVED 63% 
OF THE BUDGET.  FUNDING SPECIFICALLY FOR APOLLO FROM ITS INCEPTION IN FISCAL 
1961 TO ITS COMPLETION IN FISCAL 1973 WAS ABOUT $105 BILLION IN FISCAL 2000 
DOLLARS.  IF MERCURY ($1.9 BILLION), GEMINI ($5.1 BILLION) AND SKYLAB ($12 
BILLION) ARE INCLUDED, THE ENTIRE HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT PROGRAM FROM 1959-73 
RECEIVED ABOUT $125 BILLION, OR 61% OF THE $206 BILLION ALLOCATED TO NASA 
DURING THIS PERIOD.  LITTLE HAS CHANGED IN THIS REGARD; TODAY, THE 
PRESIDENT'S FISCAL 2008 BUDGET REQUEST ASSIGNS 62% OF NASA'S FUNDING TO 
HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT.

"THE LIST OF ACHIEVEMENTS IN BOTH AERONAUTICS AND SPACE SCIENCE FROM 1959-73 
IS LONG AND IMPRESSIVE.  AERONAUTICAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THIS ERA INCLUDE 
199 RESEARCH FLIGHTS OF THE THREE X-15 ROCKET PLANES, THE DEVELOPMENT AND 
FLIGHT TESTING OF A HALF-DOZEN LIFTING-BODY DESIGNS, GROUNDBREAKING WORK IN 
COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS, DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUPERCRITICAL WING AND THE 
DIGITAL FLY-BY-WIRE FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEM, AND (IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE AIR 
FORCE) MAJOR ROLES IN THE XB-70 AND YF12A PROGRAMS.  THE 'APOLLO ERA' WAS A 
TRUE GOLDEN AGE FOR AERONAUTICS RESEARCH, WHICH WAS ALLOCATED 6% OF THE NASA 
BUDGET FROM 1959-68.

Yeah, the US economy had a manufacturing sector which actually made things 
then. It had engineers too. And DC ended at Southern Avenue, and Mt Vernon 
was a distant suburb.

"IN SPACE SCIENCE THE LIST OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS IS, IF ANYTHING, EVEN MORE 
IMPRESSIVE.  THE 'APOLLO ERA' SAW DOZENS OF EXPLORER MISSIONS INCLUDING THE 
RADIO ASTRONOMY EXPLORER AND ATMOSPHERIC EXPLORER SERIES; A DOZEN PIONEER 
MISSIONS INCLUDING PIONEERS 10 AND 11 TO JUPITER AND SATURN; RANGER 1-9; 
SURVEYOR 1-7; MARINER 1-10; THE ORBITING SOLAR OBSERVATORY, ORBITING 
GEOPHYSICAL OBSERVATORY, AND ORBITING ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATORY SERIES, AS 
WELL AS MOST OF THE MONEY FOR TWO VIKING MISSIONS TO MARS, LAUNCHED IN 1975. 
  THE TIROS, NIMBUS, AND ESSA SERIES PIONEERED THE DEVELOPMENT OF WEATHER 
SATELLITES.  THE "APOLLO ERA' WAS ALSO A GOLDEN AGE FOR SPACE SCIENCE, WHICH 
RECEIVED 17% OF THE NASA BUDGET FROM 1959-68.

Yeah, the US economy had a manufacturing sector which actually made things 
then...

"ABOUT 10% OF THE 1959-68 BUDGET WAS DEVOTED TO SPACE TECHNOLOGY 
DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING SPACE COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY, AND 4% WAS DEVOTED 
TO 'OTHER'; I.E., UNIVERSITY SUPPORT AND CROSS-AGENCY ACTIVITIES.

"THE SUMMARY BELOW SHOWS A 'THEN AND NOW' COMPARISON.  IN CONTRAST TO 
OFT-REPEATED CLAIMS, HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT IS NOT GROWING RELATIVE TO OTHER 
PORTIONS OF THE NASA PORTFOLIO, AND IS NOT €ŒEATING EVERYONE€™S LUNCH.€

CATEGORY                   1959-68        FY08 REQUEST
HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT           63%               62%
SCIENCE                      17%               32%
AERONAUTICS                   6%                3%
COMM & SPACE TECH.           10%                0%
CROSS-AGENCY SUPT.            4%                3%

"THE HISTORICAL RECORD PROVIDES CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT IT IS POSSIBLE TO HAVE 
ROBUST, CO-EXISTING PROGRAMS OF HUMAN EXPLORATION, SPACE SCIENCE, 
AERONAUTICS, AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT IN A SINGLE AGENCY FUNDED AT A LEVEL 
ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS WE PRESENTLY RECEIVE.  SO, WHAT MIGHT THE FUTURE 
OFFER?

An entirely devastating impact event, with a certainty of 100%, if NASA 
continues on its present course.

"LET US ASSUME FOR THE PRESENT DISCUSSION THAT OVER THE LONG TERM, MANNED 
SPACEFLIGHT WILL CONTINUE TO RECEIVE 62% OF THE NASA BUDGET.  AGAIN ASSUMING 
INFLATION-ADJUSTED FUNDING AT $14.2 BILLION/YEAR ON AVERAGE, IT FOLLOWS THAT 
HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT WILL BE ALLOCATED $8.8 BILLION ANNUALLY, OR $132 BILLION 
IN EACH 15-YEAR PERIOD, IN FISCAL 2000 DOLLARS.

"NEXT, WE MUST RECOGNIZE THAT 'THE FUTURE' REALLY DOES NOT, AND CANNOT, 
START UNTIL AFTER 2010.  "

'The future' started a long time ago.

"UNTIL THEN, WE ARE ENGAGED IN COMPLETING A LONG-STANDING COMMITMENT TO THE 
INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION, WITH NO OTHER OPTION BESIDES THE SPACE SHUTTLE 
TO DO IT."

And whose fault is that? The EELVs were in place, and a CEV variant for 
servicing ISS with them could have been (and can be) developed.

"AT PRESENT FUNDING LEVELS, WE CANNOT AFFORD TO DEVELOP NEW HUMAN 
SPACEFLIGHT SYSTEMS WITHOUT THE MONEY WHICH BECOMES AVAILABLE FOLLOWING 
SHUTTLE RETIREMENT.

Let's see. The plan was to use the EELVs to service the ISS, and develop a 
heavy launcher using shuttle technologies at its retirement. Whose idea was 
it to have Thiokol develop a new medium launcher instead?

"DESPITE THE CONCERNS OF THOSE, EMPHATICALLY INCLUDING MYSELF, WHO WORRY 
ABOUT THE GAP IN HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT BETWEEN THE RETIREMENT OF THE SPACE 
SHUTTLE AND THE AVAILABILITY OF THE NEW CONSTELLATION SYSTEMS, ORION AND 
ARES, WE MUST STAY ON OUR PRESENT COURSE

Stay the course, eh? Actually, we can still man rate the EELVs at any point, 
and kick in development of the Ares 5.

"AND RETIRE THE SHUTTLE IN 2010, IF THERE IS TO BE A FUTURE FOR HUMAN 
SPACEFLIGHT."

Oh, there'll be a future for manned spaceflight. What the US's role in it 
will be is the question at hand.

"THE SHUTTLE OFFERS TRULY STUNNING CAPABILITY, GREATER THAN ANYTHING WE WILL 
SEE FOR A LONG TIME, BUT THE EXPENSE OF OWNING AND OPERATING IT, OR ANY 
SIMILAR SYSTEM, IS SIMPLY TOO GREAT.  ANY NEW SYSTEM, TO BE SUCCESSFUL, MUST 
OFFER A MUCH, MUCH LOWER FIXED COST OF OWNERSHIP."

"THE SPACE SHUTTLE WAS DESIGNED TO BE COST EFFECTIVE AT A WEEKLY FLIGHT 
RATE,"

Yeah - and then the military stepped in to make demands on the launch 
system.

"A GOAL THAT WAS NEVER CREDIBLE, IF FOR NO REASON OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT 
THE FUNDING FOR SO MANY PAYLOADS TO FLY ON IT WAS NEVER REMOTELY AVAILABLE.

Yes, there is a limited demand for medium launchers.

"AND, IF THERE WERE A PREDICTABLE REQUIREMENT FOR 50-60 GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED 
PAYLOADS TO BE FLOWN ANNUALLY, THAT FACT SHOULD BE TREATED AS A MARKET 
OPPORTUNITY FOR A PRIVATE, NOT GOVERNMENT, SPACE TRANSPORTATION ENTERPRISE.  
A GOVERNMENT HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT SYSTEM MUST BE DESIGNED TO BE COST EFFECTIVE 
AT THE HALF-DOZEN OR SO FLIGHTS PER YEAR THAT WE CAN EXPECT TO FLY."

If that's about right, why will we have Atlas, Delta, Ares 1, Space X, and 
Kistler (supposedly) providing those 6 flights? 1 manned realted flight per 
company per year?

"BUT, IF THE BAD NEWS IS THAT 'THE FUTURE' DOESN'T START UNTIL AFTER 2010, 
THE GOOD NEWS IS, THAT IS ONLY FOUR YEARS AWAY.

Oh boy. I can hardly wait.

"AND IN THE 45 YEARS THEREAFTER, BY THE CENTENNIAL ANNIVERSARY OF SPUTNIK, 
WE CAN EXPECT TO RECEIVE AT LEAST AS MUCH MONEY AS WAS NECESSARY FOR APOLLO, 
THREE TIMES OVER."

Don't get your hopes up.

"AND DESPITE THE LIMITED FUNDING FOR EXPLORATION IN TODAY'S NASA BUDGET, WE 
WILL HAVE A BIT OF A HEAD START, BECAUSE WE'RE MAKING CONSIDERABLE PROGRESS 
TOWARD THE DEPLOYMENT OF ORION AND ARES, EVEN WHILE FLYING OUT THE 
SHUTTLE/ISS MANIFEST.  SO WHAT WILL WE DO WITH THIS MONEY?

"MOST OF THE NEXT 15 YEARS WILL BE SPENT RE-CREATING CAPABILITIES WE ONCE 
HAD, AND DISCARDED."

No, if for no other reason than simply because current NASA Administrator 
will leave office by early 2009.

"THE NEXT LUNAR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM WILL OFFER SOMEWHAT MORE CAPABILITY 
THAN APOLLO.  IT WILL CARRY FOUR PEOPLE TO THE LUNAR SURFACE INSTEAD OF TWO, 
AND FOR A MINIMUM DURATION OF A WEEK, RATHER THAN A MAXIMUM DURATION OF 
THREE DAYS."

Actually the next lunar transportation system will have a whole lot more 
capability than that - see Perimov's architecture, which China will most 
likely adopt.

"BUT IN ALL FAIRNESS, THE CAPABILITIES INHERENT IN ORION, ARES I, AND ARES V 
ARE NOT QUALITATIVELY DIFFERENT THAN THOSE OF APOLLO, AND CERTAINLY ARE NOT 
BEYOND THE EVOLUTIONARY CAPABILITY OF APOLLO-ERA SYSTEMS, HAD WE TAKEN THAT 
COURSE.  BUT WE DID NOT,

Yes, and some people still can't understand why.

"AND THE PATH BACK OUT INTO THE SOLAR SYSTEMS BEGINS, INEVITABLY, WITH A 
LENGTHY EFFORT TO DEVELOP SYSTEMS COMPARABLE TO THOSE WE ONCE OWNED.  IT 
WILL COST US ABOUT $85 BILLION IN FISCAL 2000 CURRENCY TO GET TO THE SEVENTH 
LUNAR LANDING BY 2020.

Who knows what will happen after 2009?

"THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT IS, FOR MANY, A BITTER PILL TO SWALLOW.  NOT ONLY IS 
IT DEPRESSING FOR ADVOCATES OF HUMAN EXPLORATION TO FACE THE FACT THAT SO 
MANY YEARS WILL BE SPENT PLOWING OLD GROUND,

Since that field was abandoned long ago because it was not productive, i.l. 
had "value", it is a wonder why anyone is plowing it again.

"BUT THERE IS ALSO THE QUESTION OF WHY IT WILL TAKE SO LONG. AGAIN, THE 
ANSWER IS CAPTURED IN THE FUNDING PROFILE.

Actually, the answer lies more with who is spending that money, and what 
they are spending it on.

"WE ARE INDEED RECEIVING TODAY, IN ANY GIVEN 15-YEAR PERIOD, THE SAME 
REAL-DOLLAR FUNDING AS IN THE 15 YEARS OF THE APOLLO ERA, BUT WE ARE NOT 
RECEIVING IT ON THE SAME SCHEDULE.  THE BRIEF, ENORMOUS, FUNDING PEAK OF 
MID-1960'S ALLOWED THE APOLLO SYSTEMS TO BE DEVELOPED AND PROCURED IN 
PARALLEL.  TODAY'S SYSTEMS MUST BE DEVELOPED SERIALLY."

First off, Apollo development started in 1957.

"AND THAT IS WHY THE JOB WILL NOT BE DONE, THIS TIME, IN EIGHT YEARS."

Once again, the answer may lie with who is managing the "job".

"BUT THAT IS ALSO WHY WE WILL NOT INCUR THE DISASTROUS DIVESTITURE OF TALENT 
AND TECHNOLOGY THAT OCCURRED IN THE 15 YEARS AFTER APOLLO, BETWEEN THE EARLY 
'70S AND THE LATE '80S.

The 15 year model is not all that relevant after all, then?

"IN THE LONG RUN, TO RETURN TO THE MOON OR GO TO MARS AND BEYOND, STABILITY 
IS TO BE VALUED MORE THAN GOING IN THE SHORTEST POSSIBLE TIME."

Oh yeah, like the stability of the ISS. Oh yeah, I forgot, Tumlinson and 
Zubrinn and their followers view ISS as a waste of money.

"AS WE MOVE FORWARD INTO OUR NEXT 50 YEARS, THIS MUST BE FULLY UNDERSTOOD BY 
BOTH POLICYMAKERS AND THE PUBLIC, OR WE WILL FOREVER BE ANSWERING THE 
QUESTION AS TO WHY WE WORK SO SLOWLY COMPARED TO THE APOLLO GENERATION.  
CIVIL SPACE EXPLORATION BEYOND LEO MUST HAVE THE STABILITY IN STRATEGY AND 
FUNDING THAT WAS LACKING THE FIRST TIME AROUND.  THIS WILL ONLY BE PROVIDED 
BY POLICYMAKERS IF A CLEAR LINK IS ESTABLISHED BETWEEN PREDICTABLE RESULTS 
AND PREDICTABLE PURPOSE, STRATEGY, AND FUNDING.  I BELIEVE WE WILL SUCCEED 
IN FORGING THIS NEW PARADIGM - THE OPPOSITE OF THE APOLLO MOON DECADE 
PARADIGM - BUT WE MUST DEVOTE CONSIDERABLE ATTENTION TO DOING SO."

Well, it has been said that he who does not learn from the past is doomed to 
repeat it. But then that doesn't take into account new stupidities.

"WHAT WILL BE DONE WITH THE LUNAR TRANSPORTATION CAPABILITY THAT IS BEING 
DEVELOPED?

Yes, and now what exactly is that outpost supposed to do? Any idea at all, 
except for testing a manned Mars lander? If you don't have any idea what you 
want to accomplish, and why it needs to be done, then certainly you won't 
have any idea how to do it.

"BY 2020 WE WILL HAVE THIS CAPABILITY, AND WITH IT CHOICES TO MAKE.  WE CAN 
CHOOSE BETWEEN A LUNAR PROGRAM DEVOTED TO SORTIE MISSIONS, OR ONE DEVOTED TO 
BUILDING UP A LUNAR OUTPOST. AND WE CAN CHOOSE BETWEEN THE LEVEL OF EFFORT 
WE INTEND TO FOCUS ON LUNAR ACTIVITIES VS. INITIATING DEVELOPMENT FOR MARS 
MISSIONS.  IN COMPANY WITH OTHER SPACE AGENCIES AROUND THE WORLD, WE AT NASA 
HAVE FOCUSED ON AN OUTPOST-CENTERED LUNAR EXPLORATION STRATEGY."

Then since Russia and China have announced the same goal, why not consider 
their architectures, instead of simply first testing a manned Mars lander?

"I BELIEVE THIS WILL BE PREFERRED OVER A SORTIE-ONLY STRATEGY FOR THE 
REASONS THAT IT PROVIDES A MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE AVENUE FOR INTERNATIONAL 
PARTNERSHIP, AND BECAUSE IT PROVIDES THE GREATEST OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN ON 
THE MOON WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW TO GO TO MARS. BUT, OF COURSE, NOTHING 
PREVENTS A SORTIE MISSION (for which read a flags and footprints test of a 
manned Mars lander) TO ANY LOCATION ON THE MOON THAT IS OF SUFFICIENT 
INTEREST TO JUSTIFY THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS.

Someday he may actually figure out what needs to be done on the Moon.

"SO AGAIN, LET US LOOK AT WHAT IS FISCALLY POSSIBLE.

"IT IS TO BE HOPED AND, I BELIEVE, EXPECTED THAT THE NEXT ERA OF SPACE 
EXPLORATION WILL BE INTERNATIONAL IN SCOPE, IN MUCH THE SAME FASHION AS THE 
DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION TODAY.  WHATEVER MIGHT BE 
SAID OF THE ISS PROGRAM AND THERE CANNOT BE MUCH THAT HAS BEEN LEFT UNSAID 
IT HAS PIONEERED A PATH TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MAJOR INTERNATIONAL SPACE 
FACILITY.  THERE ARE LESSONS LEARNED IN SO DOING THAT WE WILL TAKE WITH US 
OUT INTO THE SOLAR SYSTEM.  THESE LESSONS WILL BE THE MOST ENDURING, AND 
ULTIMATELY MOST VALUABLE, CONTRIBUTION THE ISS CAN MAKE.  WE WILL BE 
APPLYING THEM ON MARS, FIFTY YEARS FROM NOW.

i.l., Mars in 2057, internationally. The chances of a Tunguska type blast 
between now and then are about 50%.

"THE UNITED STATES IS DEVELOPING THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM WHICH WILL ALLOW 
ACCESS TO THE LUNAR SURFACE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN A HALF-CENTURY."

Yeah, but the manned Mars lander test item is so limited in its capabilities 
that it can't do what needs to be done.

"THIS IS THE HIGHEST 'BARRIER TO ENTRY' FOR EXPLORATION BEYOND LEO, ONE 
WHICH ESSENTIALLY EXHAUSTS THE CONTRIBUTION THAT WE CAN MAKE TO A LUNAR 
OUTPOST IN THE NEXT 15 YEARS."

I'm glad no one else is going down the path of using the Moon solely as a 
test bed for a manned Mars lander.

"IF THERE IS TO BE A LUNAR PRESENCE SIGNIFICANTLY BEYOND MERELY GETTING 
THERE AND GETTING BACK, IF THERE IS TO BE A HUMAN TENDED OUTPOST, MUCH OF 
THE EARLY CAPABILITY MUST BE DEVELOPED BY INTERNATIONAL PARTNERS."

"capability" likely will be developed by them.

"BUT OUTPOST SUSTAINABILITY, AT LEAST IN THE EARLY YEARS, WILL LARGELY 
DEPEND UPON ORION AND ARES."

Once again, the current NASA Administrator leaves office early in 2009.  
Perhaps a new architecture will be adopted after that.

"I BELIEVE THAT BY 2021-22 WE WILL HAVE REGAINED ENOUGH EXPERIENCE IN LUNAR 
SPACEFLIGHT OPERATIONS"

In other words testing a manned Mars lander will be finished.

"THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO UNDERTAKE A MODEST, BUT SUSTAINED AND SUSTAINABLE, 
PROGRAM OF LUNAR OUTPOST DEVELOPMENT AND UTILIZATION."

Well, that will take the cost of developing and building an entirely new 
architecture designed to do what needs to be done on the Moon, instead of 
the testing of a manned Mars lander.

"I WILL ALSO VENTURE TO SAY THAT BY 2022 THE ISS WILL BE DEFINITELY BEHIND 
US.  WE WILL HAVE LEARNED FROM IT WHAT WE CAN, BUT THERE WILL COME A TIME 
WHEN THE VALUE OF THE WORK BEING DONE ONBOARD THE FACILITY WILL BE JUDGED 
NOT TO BE WORTH THE COST OF SUSTAINING ITS AGING SYSTEMS, AND IT WILL BE 
BROUGHT DOWN."

Once again, the ISS power supply could be moved to orbit around the Moon, 
used as a test bed for solar electric powered ion drives. Or as a test bed 
for micro-wave power beaming. Or perhaps some industrial uses will emerge by 
then.

If the "space tourists" want their own power supply, they can damn well pay 
for it themselves.

"I DON'T KNOW WHEN THIS WILL OCCUR"

Never. No one is simply going to pitch out a power supply built and orbited 
at a cost of 10's of billions of dollars.

"AND I AM NOT SURE IT IS PREDICTABLE OTHER THAN IN A STATISTICAL SENSE, BUT 
I BELIEVE THAT BY 2022 OR THEREABOUTS IT WILL HAVE HAPPENED.  AND WHEN IT 
DOES, THE RESOURCES WHICH HAVE BEEN USED FOR ISS SUPPORT CAN BE APPLIED TO 
THE SUPPORT OF A LUNAR OUTPOST.

I think you're right there.

"FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT AND NOTHING MORE, LET US SAY THAT IN 2022 WE WILL 
BEGIN A SUSTAINED LUNAR PROGRAM OF EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF 
THREE MANNED MISSIONS (TWO OUTPOST CREW ROTATIONS AND ONE SORTIE) AND ONE 
UNMANNED CARGO MISSION PER YEAR, UTILIZING THREE ORION/ARES I VEHICLES AND 
FOUR ARES V LAUNCHES."

So let's see, that's 10 large Thiokol grains per year, up from 4 now. 
Anybody here have any doubts that that income stream is not already included 
in Thiokol's powerpoints and spreadsheets?

Of course, as Apollo was cancelled entirely with only 6 landings, that 
income stream may become limited.

"PRESENT PROJECTIONS ASSUME A CARGO CAPACITY OF SIX METRIC TONS ON A LANDER 
CARRYING FOUR CREW MEMBERS, AND TWENTY METRIC TONS ON A CARGO LANDER, AT A 
MARGINAL COST OF ABOUT $750 MILLION FOR A HUMAN MISSION AND $525 MILLION FOR 
A CARGO MISSION.  THE MARGINAL COST IN FISCAL 2000 DOLLARS FOR THIS NOMINAL 
LUNAR PROGRAM WILL THUS BE ABOUT $3 BILLION.

Split 3 ways, $750 million is $250 million apiece. But that $750 million 
can't be split.

$750 Million is about twice the cost of the same mission using 4 mediums and 
a lunar orbiting fuel transfer facility. And using mediums, you have 
economies of scale.

It looks like the CEV is pricing out at about $750 million - $525 million = 
$225 million per copy, with each Ares 1 going for nearly $450 million = $525 
million-say $80 million per cargo module or so.

"THESE MARGINAL COSTS DO NOT INCLUDE AN ALLOCATION OF THE FIXED COSTS OF 
PRODUCTION AND OPERATIONS WHICH WILL BE ASSIGNED TO EACH FLIGHT.

I got a question. If Thiokol wanted to enter the medium lift launch market, 
why didn't they do it on their own dime? Or why not DoD's, as for the 
existing medium EELVs? Why NASA's dime?

"LET US ASSUME A FIXED-COST SUPPORT BASE OF $1 BILLION ANNUALLY, ABOUT A 
THIRD OF THAT FOR THE SHUTTLE TODAY, EQUIVALENT TO ROUGHLY 6,000 FULL-TIME 
EMPLOYEES AT AVERAGE FISCAL 2000 LABOR RATES.  WE SHOULD ALL WORK TO MAKE IT 
MUCH LESS,

I don't know how people feel about their home districts.

"BUT THIS IS AN APPROPRIATELY CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE FOR THE PRESENT.  THIS 
YIELDS A SUSTAINED LUNAR PROGRAM COSTING NO MORE THAN $4 BILLION/YEAR, 
LEAVING $4.8 BILLION ANNUALLY IN THE HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT ACCOUNT TO BE APPLIED 
TO NEW DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES.

Let's see.  Assume 2 CZ5 and 2 Angara at about $80 million per launch, or 
perhaps as low as $60 million per launch. About $400 million, split several 
ways, for each mission?

"BY THE 2020'S WE WILL BE WELL POSITIONED TO BEGIN THE MARS EFFORT IN 
EARNEST."

That is, if the taxpaying public wants to spend any money at all on manned 
flight to Mars, which is highly unlikely, given that they can see about all 
of Mars that they want to with rovers.

"THE LUNAR CAMPAIGN WILL HAVE STABILIZED; A HUMAN-TENDED OUTPOST WILL BE 
WELL ESTABLISHED; WE WILL HAVE EXTENSIVE LONG-DURATION SPACE EXPERIENCE IN 
BOTH ZERO- AND LOW-GRAVITY CONDITIONS, AND IT WILL BE TIME TO BUNDLE THESE 
LESSONS AND MOVE ON TO MARS WHICH DOES NOT IMPLY THAT WE WILL BRING LUNAR 
ACTIVITIES TO AN END.  QUITE THE CONTRARY; MY PREDICTION IS THAT THE MOON 
WILL PROVE TO BE FAR MORE INTERESTING, AND FAR MORE RELEVANT TO HUMAN 
AFFAIRS, THAN MANY TODAY ARE PREPARED TO BELIEVE.

Agree with you on that.

"BUT BY THE EARLY 2020S, IT WILL BE TIME TO ASSIGN A STABLE LEVEL OF SUPPORT 
FOR LUNAR ACTIVITIES, AND SET OUT FOR MARS.

See above.

"THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ORION/ARES I/ARES V TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IS BEING 
DONE IN A WAY THAT PROVIDES A SUBSTANTIAL CAPABILITY FOR SUBSEQUENT MARS 
EXPEDITIONS."

That's certainly an understatement.

"IN PARTICULAR, WE EXPECT THE ORION CREW VEHICLE (OR A MODEST UPGRADE OF IT) 
TO PROVIDE THE PRIMARY TRANSPORTATION FROM EARTH TO WHATEVER TRANSPORTATION 
NODE IS USED FOR THE ASSEMBLY OF THE MARS SHIP, AND TO BE THE REENTRY 
VEHICLE IN WHICH THE CREW RETURNS HOME AT THE END OF THE VOYAGE.  THE ARES V 
CARGO VEHICLE WILL PROVIDE, WITH NO MORE THAN A HALF-DOZEN LAUNCHES, THE 500 
METRIC TONS OR SO WHICH IS THOUGHT TO BE NECESSARY FOR A MARS MISSION, BASED 
ON PRESENT-DAY STUDIES.  AS A PERSPECTIVE ON SCALE, THIS MASS IS ABOUT 25% 
GREATER THAN THAT OF THE COMPLETED ISS.

Yeah, if you don't launch wings and a body, and their heat shielding, you 
can put up a lot more mass. Since the performance numbers are as they are, 
why wasn't the development of the Ares 5 undertaken instead of the 
development of the Ares 1? Oh yeah, I forgot. Thiokol wanted to enter the 
medium launch market on NASA's dime.

"IT IS DIFFICULT TO ESTIMATE THE NON-RECURRING COST OF DEVELOPING A MARS 
MISSION THAT IS INITIATED SOME 20 OR MORE YEARS IN THE FUTURE, AND 
ESPECIALLY SO WHEN A SPECIFIC MISSION ARCHITECTURE HAS NOT YET BEEN 
FORMULATED.

Well, if you throw out any option using a large nuclear electic power 
generator launched over Ft. Lauderdale, that pretty much leaves solar 
electric and solar thermal architectures, now doesn't it?

"BUT REASONED ESTIMATES CAN BE MADE.  A SMALL GROUP CO-CHAIRED BY SKYLAB AND 
SHUTTLE ASTRONAUT OWEN GARRIOTT AND ME MADE AN ATTEMPT TO DO SO IN A STUDY 
CONDUCTED FOR THE PLANETARY SOCIETY IN 2004.  WHILE NECESSARILY OMITTING 
MANY IMPORTANT DETAILS, A REASONABLE APPROACH BASED ON MISSION MASS, 
CONSISTENT WITH MODERN COST ESTIMATION ALGORITHMS, WAS OUTLINED.  IT WAS 
CONCLUDED THAT, FOLLOWING A DECADAL HARDWARE DEVELOPMENT CYCLE, NINE MARS 
MISSIONS COULD BE CONDUCTED OVER A 20-YEAR PERIOD FOR A TOTAL COST OF 
APPROXIMATELY $120 BILLION IN FISCAL 2000 DOLLARS, OR $6 BILLION/YEAR, 
SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN WE ARE SPENDING ON SHUTTLE/ISS TODAY.

It was just my 'magination... running away with me....

(IF THIS SEEMS LOW, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE DEVELOPMENT COST OF THE 
HEAVY-LIFT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IS ALLOCATED TO THE EARLIER LUNAR PROGRAM. 
THE MARS PROGRAM WOULD PAY ONLY THE MARGINAL COST OF TRANSPORTATION.)"

As a lunar program using a different architecture could be done entirely 
with mediums, for which see Perimov's architecture, op. cit., clearly this 
is a rationalization and the entire development cost for the Ares 5 should 
be assigned to the manned Mars effort.

"ALLOCATING AN ACROSS-THE-BOARD 30% RESERVE AT THIS STAGE PUTS THE COST OF A 
30-YEAR MARS EXPLORATION PROGRAM AT $156 BILLION IN FISCAL 2000 DOLLARS.  OF 
THIS, APPROXIMATELY $70 BILLION CONSISTS OF DEVELOPMENT COST, WITH RESERVE.  
IF $4.8 BILLION/YEAR IS AVAILABLE IN THE HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT ACCOUNT, THEN THE 
MARS MISSION DEVELOPMENT CYCLE WILL REQUIRE ABOUT 15 YEARS.  THUS, IF WE 
BEGIN DEVELOPMENT WORK IN 2021, WE WILL BE ABLE TO TOUCH DOWN ON THE MARTIAN 
SURFACE IN ABOUT 2037, WITH FOLLOW-ON MISSIONS EVERY 26 MONTHS THEREAFTER 
FOR THE NEXT TWO DECADES."

Let's see, follow on missions every 26 months for the following 20 years? I 
wonder how many Thiokol grains that works out to...

"SO THERE WE HAVE IT, AT LEAST FOR THE U.S. CIVIL SPACE PROGRAM.  AT PRESENT 
LEVELS OF REAL-DOLLAR FUNDING, BY 2057 WE CAN CELEBRATE THE 35TH ANNIVERSARY 
OF A LUNAR BASE,

2022 - but only the test of the manned Mars lander has been detailed so far.

WHICH WILL BE GROWING IN CAPABILITY AT THE RATE OF 30 METRIC TONS PER YEAR, 
EVEN WITHOUT ASSUMING ANY INTERNATIONAL PARTNER CONTRIBUTION TO LOGISTICS, 
WHICH I BELIEVE IS OVERLY CONSERVATIVE."

You can not assume that anyone will give you money simply to fly to the 
Moon, test a manned Mars lander, step out and raise a flag. You can assume 
that no one overseas will pay you to do it. Choose an architecture which 
makes international participation difficult, and you can expect it to be 
shut down due to the expense...

Even as early as Kennedy, he was considering "co-ordinating" the US and 
Soviet Moon projects shortly before he was assassinated.

Some people, and I include Zubrin and Tumlinson here, don't learn because 
they just don't want to. Unfortunately, the rest of us end up picking up the 
tab...

"WE CAN CELEBRATE THE 100TH SPUTNIK ANNIVERSARY IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE 20TH 
ANNIVERSARY OF THE FIRST HUMAN MARS LANDING.  AND WE CAN DO ALL OF THESE 
THINGS EVEN WITH WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER THE PESSIMISTIC ASSUMPTION THAT WE 
RECEIVE NO MORE MONEY, IN CONSTANT DOLLARS, THAN WE DO TODAY.  INDEED, THERE 
SHOULD BE MONEY AVAILABLE FOR MISSIONS TO INTERESTING NEAR-EARTH OBJECTS, A 
SEPARATE CHALLENGE WHICH WE WILL COME TO UNDERSTAND OFFERS HUGE 
OPPORTUNITIES FOR THOSE SEEKING TO DEVELOP A SPACEFARING CIVILIZATION."

My g*d, you can get an act of Congress passed, and the man still does not 
understnad.  These NEOs have hit sometimes, and there's these big holes left 
in the ground where they did.

"THAT'S WHAT I SEE AHEAD FOR THE AMERICAN SPACE PROGRAM.  WHAT ABOUT THE 
REST OF THE WORLD?  BOTH RUSSIA AND CHINA HAVE DOMESTIC HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT 
CAPABILITY TODAY; INDEED, THE ISS PROGRAM WOULD BE IN VERY DIFFICULT STRAITS 
WITHOUT RUSSIAN CREW AND CARGO SERVICES.

Yes, indeed. After Columbia, the ISS would have been in the ocean without 
Progress/Soyuz.

OTHER NATIONS OR ALLIANCES EUROPE, JAPAN, INDIA, BRAZIL, OTHERS COULD 
DEVELOP SIMILAR CAPABILITY WITHIN A FEW YEARS OF A DECISION TO DO SO."

Yes, but when they do so, it's highly likely that they won't be spending 
money simply to test a manned Mars lander.

China will make its decision around 2016.

"FOR ADVANCED NATIONS TODAY, POSSESSING THE CAPABILITY FOR HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT 
TO LEO IS A POLITICAL, NOT A TECHNICAL, DECISION.  BUT GOING BEYOND LEO, TO 
THE MOON, IS A PROBLEM OF A DIFFERENT ORDER.  AND YET, THE MOON IS A 
NECESSARY FIRST STEP OUTWARD FOR ANY NATION SEEKING A SPACEFARING FUTURE.

Their space leaderships agree with this.

"SO LET US LOOK AT THE RESOURCES REQUIRED TO PURSUE SUCH A FUTURE.

"THE DEVELOPMENT PHASE OF APOLLO REQUIRED ABOUT $80-85 BILLION IN FISCAL 
2000 CURRENCY, ABOUT THE SAME AS WE PREDICT WILL BE REQUIRED TO REDEVELOP 
SIMILAR CAPABILITIES."

As its not likely that anyone else will use the current US architecture (See 
Perimov's study) their development costs will be at least an order of 
magnitude less. As a matter of fact, one can break it out launcher by 
launcher, korabl by korabl ("spaceship by spaceship" seems so awkward; 
"capsule by capsule" doesn't work too well either; SZ by SZ?) if one wants.

"CONSTELLATION SYSTEMS WILL, AS STATED EARLIER, OFFER SUBSTANTIALLY MORE 
PERFORMANCE THAN APOLLO, BUT IT DOES SEEM AS IF AN EFFORT OF APPROXIMATELY 
THIS MAGNITUDE IS NECESSARY, NO MATTER WHAT.

Jeezus, you have the blind, and then you have the willfully stupid.

THERE IS AN INHERENT OF THE COST VS. PERFORMANCE CURVE; IT TAKES A LOT OF 
EFFORT TO GET TO THE MOON,"

Only if you're using the Moon to develop a manned Mars system.

"AFTER WHICH ADDITIONAL CAPABILITY CAN BE ADDED AT SOMEWHAT LESS MARGINAL 
COST.

Yeah. For example, once you've developed a medium launcher (CZ5) and fuel 
transfer faciility (space station - 2014) then you can place them wherever 
you want.

"SO LET'S ASSUME A MINIMUM REQUIRED EFFORT OF ABOUT $80 BILLION IS REQUIRED 
TO DEVELOP A BASIC LUNAR CAPABILITY."

Once again, you only need to make that assumption if you're trying to use 
the Moon to test manned Mars systems.

"IN THE U.S., AT APPROXIMATE AVERAGE AEROSPACE LABOR RATES FOR FISCAL 2000, 
THIS IS EQUIVALENT TO AN EFFORT OF ROUGHLY 600,000 MAN-YEARS, OR 40,000 
PEOPLE FOR 15 YEARS.  OTHER NATIONS WILL LIKELY OPERATE IN A SOMEWHAT LEANER 
FASHION THAN IS CHARACTERISTIC OF THE U.S. AEROSPACE CULTURE;"

Yeah. I don't think anyone else in the world is wealthy enough to afford 
this level of stupidity.

"I WILL ALWAYS REMEMBER MAX FAGET'S COMMENT TO ME THAT 'WE COULD HAVE DONE 
APOLLO WITH A LOT FEWER PEOPLE, BUT WE COULDN'T HAVE DONE IT WITH ANY MORE.' 
  BUT IT REMAINS LIKELY THAT AN EFFORT SIMILAR TO APOLLO WILL BE REQUIRED 
FOR ANY NATION OR SOCIETY ATTEMPTING TO REACH THE MOON FOR THE FIRST TIME, 
PROVIDED IT HAS ACCESS TO THE NECESSARY INDUSTRIAL BASE AND AN ADEQUATE 
WORKFORCE."

Once again, one can look at the other architectures and price them out.  
It's really not all that hard.

"MANY NATIONS OR ALLIANCES CAN, AS A MATTER OF POLITICAL CHOICE, DECIDE TO 
MOUNT SUCH AN EFFORT.  EUROPE HAS A POPULATION 50% GREATER THAN THAT OF THE 
U.S., YET SPENDS ON A PER-CAPITA BASIS ONLY ABOUT A FIFTH OF WHAT WE SPEND 
ON SPACE."

It's even less than that when one considers the massive US spending on DoD 
space systems.

"A FUTURE EUROPEAN GENERATION COULD CHOOSE TO DO OTHERWISE.  INDIA HAS A 
MIDDLE CLASS POPULATION EQUAL IN SIZE TO THE ENTIRE U.S. POPULATION, AND 
PRODUCES ENGINEERING GRADUATES EQUAL TO THE BEST ANYWHERE.  CHINESE SPACE 
AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES HAVE REMARKED PUBLICLY THAT, TODAY, SOME 200,000 
ENGINEERS AND TECHNICIANS ARE ENGAGED IN SPACE-RELATED WORK.  AND OF COURSE 
RUSSIA COULD BEGIN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A LUNAR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM TODAY, 
ESSENTIALLY AT ITS DISCRETION, GIVEN ITS EXISTING SPACEFLIGHT CAPABILITY AND 
THE RECENT AND CONTINUING FLOW OF ENERGY MONEY INTO THAT COUNTRY.

"BY THE MID-TO-LATE 2020'S, AT THE LATEST, SEVERAL NATIONS WILL HAVE THE 
INDEPENDENT CAPABILITY TO REACH THE MOON, AND WILL BE DOING SO.  MY HOPE IS 
THAT THE VARIOUS PROGRAMS CAN BE BENT MORE TOWARD A COOPERATIVE THAN A 
COMPETITIVE AGENDA.

Its likely they will, regardless of any US effort to "bend" them. As a 
matter of fact, go in with that attitude and they're likely to tell you to 
get bent.

I BELIEVE THAT NATIONS WILL FIND IT TO BE IN THEIR INTERESTS TO COOPERATE IN 
LUNAR EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT, AS THEY DO IN ANTARCTICA TODAY."

That's true.

"BUT IT WILL ALSO BE TRUE THAT EACH NATION TO DEVELOP KEY ELEMENTS OF SPACE 
INFRASTRUCTURE, ESPECIALLY TRANSPORTATION BUT ALSO NAVIGATION AND 
COMMUNICATIONS ASSETS, WILL BE UNLIKELY TO SET THEM ASIDE IN FAVOR OF 
RELIANCE ON OTHERS."

Actually, what will probably come about will not be single source "reliance" 
but rather mutual interactions with multiple countries, all providing medium 
lift launchers - see Perimov's architecture.

"FOR THE NEXT GENERATION, MAYBE AS MUCH AS TWO DECADES, THE U.S. MAY WELL BE 
THE ONLY NATION CAPABLE OF REACHING THE MOON ON ITS OWN."

Actually, as was stated earlier, Russia is capable of reaching the Moon, but 
can not afford to go alone and is unlikely to go unless there is a really 
good reason for going.

China will make its decision around 2016.  The world will be different then. 
  Who knows? Will China and India be co-operating by then? Who knows? Why'd 
you leave Japan off your list?

"BUT MUCH BEYOND THAT, AND I SUSPECT THAT WE'LL BE THERE WITH OTHERS. THE 
MOON WILL BE WITHIN THE GRASP OF A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF ADVANCED NATIONS.  
IT WILL BE THE NEXT BIG LEAP, A VOYAGE TO MARS, WHERE INTERNATIONAL 
COOPERATION IS A REQUIREMENT, RATHER THAN AN OPTION."

Actually, due to its cost, sustained working on the Moon is likely to 
require international cooperation, so choose an architecture which makes 
that possible.

"WHAT WILL BE THE ROLE OF COMMERCIAL SPACE ENTITIES IN HUMAN EXPLORATION?  
BY 'COMMERCIAL SPACE', I MEAN SPACE BUSINESS ENTERPRISES WHICH DEVELOP A 
MARKETABLE CAPABILITY WHILE DEALING AT 'ARMS LENGTH' WITH THE GOVERNMENT; 
I.E., LARGELY WITHOUT THE FINANCIAL BACKING AND CLOSE GOVERNMENT SUPERVISION 
WHICH HAS HISTORICALLY CHARACTERIZED THE SPACE INDUSTRY.  THE GOVERNMENT 
WILL, AT LEAST INITIALLY, STILL BE THE MAJOR CUSTOMER FOR SUCH ENTERPRISES.

Funny how that works. Maybe it has something to do with the engineering 
realities imposed by  the laws of physics.

"WHETHER OR NOT AN ENTERPRISE IS PART OF THE COMMERCIAL SPACE ARENA DEPENDS 
NOT ON THE IDENTITY OF ITS CUSTOMERS, BUT ON THE NATURE OF ITS INTERACTIONS 
WITH THAT CUSTOMER.

Maybe with enough bs, one can "hide" reality.

"I EXPECT THAT THE ROLE OF COMMERCIAL SPACE IN HUMAN SPACE EXPLORATION WILL 
BE SIGNIFICANT, AND POSSIBLY TRANSFORMING, OVER THE NEXT FIVE DECADES AND 
BEYOND."

Well, we could always shut down NASA and hire WalMart to buy the CAPS 
services from China.

"WE AT NASA ARE PRESENTLY ENGAGED IN AN EFFORT TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT IS 
POSSIBLE FOR A COMMERCIAL FIRM TO DEVELOP ORBITAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION 
CAPABILITIES WITHOUT THE CLOSE SUPERVISION OF THE GOVERNMENT.

Let's all pray to our deity that Space X's Falcon works. (Atheists can 
simply take a minute to hope if they like.)

THE LATTER APPROACH, THROUGH WHAT ARE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 'PRIME CONTRACTS' 
WITH INDUSTRY, HAS BEEN THE TRADITIONAL APPROACH OVER THE LAST FIVE DECADES 
FOR STATE-OF-THE-ART PROJECTS IN THE DEFENSE AND AEROSPACE INDUSTRY.  IT 
PRODUCES SUCCESSFUL OUTCOMES WITH REASONABLE CERTAINTY AND AT GREAT 
EXPENSE."

Its funny how much those "prime contract' expenses have risen in recent 
years. Which is to say, its sad how much those "prime contract' expenses 
have risen in recent years.

"I BELIEVE IT IS OBVIOUS TO MOST THAT, IF A DESIRED PRODUCT LIES WITHIN THE 
STATE OF THE ART, IT CAN BE PROVIDED WITH SUBSTANTIALLY GREATER EFFICIENCY 
BY THE COMMERCIAL SECTOR THAN BY THE GOVERNMENT.  THERE IS LITTLE 
COMPARATIVE DATA OBTAINED UNDER CONTROLLED CONDITIONS TO SUPPORT THIS CLAIM 
OR TO ESTIMATE THE EFFICIENCY FACTOR INVOLVED.

You left out the costs of all the "consultants", and the costs of the 
"bidding" processes, etc.

BUT, TO ME, THE LIMITED DATA AND MY OWN EXPERIENCE POINTS TO AN EFFICIENCY 
FACTOR OF THREE TO SEVEN IN FAVOR OF THE COMMERCIAL SECTOR.  WHATEVER THE 
FACTOR, THE LIKELY COST BENEFIT TO THE GOVERNMENT OF COMMERCIAL PROCUREMENT 
OF SPACE GOODS AND SERVICES, ONCE IT IS POSSIBLE, CANNOT AND WILL NOT BE 
IGNORED.  BUT, AGAIN, THE CRUCIAL ASSUMPTION IS THAT THE INTENDED PRODUCT 
LIES WELL WITHIN THE STATE OF THE ART.  WHEN THIS ASSUMPTION CANNOT BE MET, 
CLOSE GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT WILL CONTINUE TO BE REQUIRED.  COMMERCIAL FIRMS 
SIMPLY CANNOT BE SUCCESSFUL IF ENGAGED IN A RESEARCH UPON WHOSE SUCCESS 
THEIR REVENUE DEPENDS.

Huh?

SOME HAVE OPINED THAT THE SCALE AND DIFFICULTY OF SPACEFLIGHT IS SUCH THAT 
IT WILL REMAIN AN INHERENTLY GOVERNMENTAL ENTERPRISE FOR THE FORESEEABLE 
FUTURE.  I DO NOT SHARE THIS VIEW.

Then why the hell are you subsidizing Thiokol's entry into the medium launch 
market?

FOR ME, THE QUESTION IS MORE PROPERLY WHEN, NOT IF, THE STATE OF THE ART IN 
ASTRONAUTICS WILL PERMIT A PRIVATE ENTERPRISE TO DEVELOP A SUCCESSFUL 
ORBITAL TRANSPORTATION CAPABILITY WITHOUT THE DIRECT SUPPORT AND THE 
ACCOMPANYING ONEROUS AND EXPENSIVE OVERSIGHT OF A GOVERNMENT PRIME CONTRACT.

You left out the costs of all the "consultants", and the costs of the 
"bidding" processes, etc.

WE AT NASA ARE ATTEMPTING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THIS DATE HAS IN FACT 
ARRIVED.

Actually you've tied ISS to COTS, two companies whose rocket have yet to 
work. Little less not dealt with docking problems, etc.  And you have no 
contingency plan.

But then Tumlinson and Zubrin think ISS is a waste of money, so I guess that 
doesn't matter... to you.

BY PROVIDING SEED MONEY IN THE FORM OF SPACE ACT AGREEMENTS FOR TWO 
COMMERCIAL ORBITAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES (COTS) ENTITIES,

Subsidizing Kistler. Space X still has enough money left to go it alone. For 
your subsidies to Thiokol, see above.

WE HOPE TO STIMULATE THE ATTAINMENT OF ENTREPRENEURIAL COMMERCIAL SPACE 
TRANSPORTATION.

Its all simply too wonderful. The existing launcher manufacturers are simply 
not defined as "commercial entities", which will certainly come as a 
surprise to their stockholders.

IF SUCH CAPABILITY IS SUCCESSFULLY DEMONSTRATED, WE CAN THEN PROCURE SUCH 
SERVICES IN A MANNER MORE CHARACTERISTIC OF THE ECONOMY AT LARGE THAN IS THE 
USUAL CASE IN THE GOVERNMENT-DRIVEN AEROSPACE SECTOR.  WE AT NASA ARE 
PREPARED TO STAND DOWN GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS AS AND WHEN COMMERCIAL CAPABILITY 
BECOMES AVAILABLE.

Better check with Thiokol about that.

WHETHER OR NOT THE SPECIFIC COTS INITIATIVE IS SUCCESSFUL, THE COMMERCIAL 
SPACE BUSINESS MODEL WILL EVENTUALLY BECOME SO.

Space technology generally has high development costs, high risk, and a long 
pay back period.
That's why the government has a role.

A LONG-TERM GOVERNMENT SPONSORED SPACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM CARRIES WITH IT 
THE IMPLICIT DEMAND FOR MANY TONS OF CARGO LOGISTICS AND CREW TRANSPORT, 
OFFERING A STABLE AND TEMPTING MARKET NICHE FOR INDUSTRY.

What the hell for? What goods or services will allow them to make money? And 
won't the ultimate buyer still be the government, at least in the case of 
manned space flight? And ultimately, exactly what services will those manned 
spaceflights provide to the taxpayer?

SOME ENTERPRISES WILL BE SURELY SUCCESSFUL IN THEIR ATTEMPTS TO SERVICE THIS 
MARKET, AND FROM THERE COMMERCIAL SPACE ACTIVITY WILL BLOOM.

Let's all pray (or hope) that Space X's pressure fed liquids work.

IN ADDITION TO TRANSPORTATION, SPACE EXPLORATION IMPLIES THE NEED FOR 
COMMUNICATIONS, NAVIGATION, POWER SYSTEMS, AND OTHER SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE. 
  THESE REQUIREMENTS WILL BE TARGETED BY SPECIFIC FIRMS AS SERVICES TO BE 
PROVIDED COMMERCIALLY, RATHER THAN BY GOVERNMENT.

As there are firms today that provide those goods and services, what the 
hell is the man talking about here?

I BELIEVE THAT THE FUTURE FOR U.S. CIVIL SPACE EXPLORATION THAT I HAVE 
OUTLINED HERE CAN BE ATTAINED WITH THE RESOURCES THAT WILL BE AVAILABLE TO 
NASA BY MEANS OF CONVENTIONAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS AND ACQUISITION 
STRATEGIES.

Well, there is some good news indeed. At least he understands that he can't 
spend more than the Congress appropriates.

BUT I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THIS IS JUST ABOUT AS MUCH AS WE CAN ACHIEVE WITH 
THOSE RESOURCES, UNLESS WE CAN EFFECT REAL CHANGES IN OUR METHODS OF DOING 
BUSINESS.

Try changing your architecture.

IF WE WANT TO DO MORE, IF WE WANT A RICHER FUTURE, IF WE ARE UNSATISFIED BY 
THE RELATIVELY MODEST PROGRAM OF INNER SOLAR SYSTEM EXPLORATION I HAVE 
ENVISIONED HERE, THERE MUST BE A CHANGE IN HOW WE GO ABOUT IT.  EMBRACING 
THE POSSIBILITIES INHERENT IN COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSACTIONS IS ONE SUCH 
METHOD.

PS - keeping your existing space firms in business is a good idea.

WHAT ELSE DO WE HAVE TO DO TO BRING ABOUT THIS FUTURE?

Try preventing a country from being blown off the face of planet Earth.

MOST OF WHAT WE NEED TO ACCOMPLISH THE GOALS SET FORTH HERE HAS ALREADY BEEN 
DISCUSSED, IMPLICITLY OR EXPLICITLY, IN CONNECTION WITH BUDGETARY ISSUES, 
BUT IT MAY BE HELPFUL TO CONCENTRATE SOME ATTENTION ON THE MATTER.

THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR FOR FUTURE SUCCESS IS STABILITY IN PURPOSE, 
STRATEGY, REQUIREMENTS, AND FUNDING.

Stay this course?

APOLLO FUNDING WAS UNSTABLE IN BOTH DIRECTIONS.

Actually, once the voters found out how bleak and barren the Moon and Mars 
were, few thought Flags and Footprints on the Moon was worth the cost. Why 
expect the current generation to conclude any different?  The decline in 
education?

THE HUGE RATE OF EARLY GROWTH ALLOWED THE APOLLO GOAL TO BE MET; THE ABRUPT 
CESSATION OF FUNDING AS THE GOAL DREW WITHIN SIGHT PRODUCED STRATEGIC DAMAGE 
THAT REMAINS UNTO THE PRESENT DAY.

Again, actually, once the voters found out how bleak and barren the Moon and 
Mars were, few thought Flags and Footprints on the Moon was worth the cost. 
Why expect the current generation to conclude any different?  The decline in 
education?

The shuttle caused the "strategic" damage.

TO BE SUCCESSFUL, PROGRAM MANAGERS (WHETHER IN GOVERNMENT OR INDUSTRY) NEED 
STABILITY.  ADDITIONALLY, THEY NEED THE KNOWLEDGE THAT THERE WILL BE SUCH 
STABILITY; DEFENSIVE PLANNING IS INHERENTLY WASTEFUL.

Okay, What you going to do with ISS if neither the Falcon or K-1 work?  And 
what are you going to do if they do? You still haven't covered docking and 
fuel transfer.

STABILITY OF PURPOSE, A RESULT OF AGREEMENT UPON PRIORITIES, IS AS IMPORTANT 
AS FUNDING STABILITY.

Well, actually the Congress told the NASA Administrator that impactor 
detection was a priority, and he simply ignored them.

MANAGERS MUST HAVE REASONABLE AND EFFECTIVE CONTROL OF WHAT IS DONE WITH THE 
RESOURCES PEOPLE, MONEY, AND TIME ENTRUSTED TO THEM.  IF FUNDING IS IN FACT 
STABLE, THEN ADDITIONAL MONEY WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE TO SOLVE PROBLEMS WHICH 
ARE, INEVITABLY, ENCOUNTERED IN ANY STATE-OF-THE-ART DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.  
MANAGERS MUST HAVE THE LATITUDE TO SACRIFICE OR DEFER LOWER PRIORITY EFFORTS 
IN ORDER TO PROTECT MORE IMPORTANT ONES.  THIS IN TURN REQUIRES, AT A 
MINIMUM, BROAD AGREEMENT ON WHAT THOSE PRIORITIES ARE.

Well, actually the Congress told the NASA Administrator that impactor 
detection was a priority, and he simply ignored them.

WHEN THIS CANNOT BE OBTAINED, EVERY PROGRAMMATIC OVERRUN AND EVERY MINOR 
BUDGET VARIATION PRODUCES DIVISIVE POLITICAL INFIGHTING OVER WHAT WILL BE 
SACRIFICED, AND WHAT WILL NOT.

Actually, the disgust with NASA over their failure to adequately deal with 
the impact hazard is pretty much bi-partisan, and no politically divisive 
infighting has occured over who is more disgusted, as everyone is. Pretty 
much like the disgust with the way the war in Iraq was handled.

A COMMON RESULT IS THAT NOTHING IS SACRIFICED AND ALL PROGRAMMATIC CONTENT 
IS PRESERVED, BUT AT A SLOWER PACE.  THIS PRODUCES AN INHERENT INEFFICIENCY 
IN THE EXECUTION OF ALL PROGRAMS, RESULTING IN MORE OVERRUNS, ETC., IN A 
DEGENERATING SPIRAL.  IT IS DIFFICULT, AND HUGELY WASTEFUL, TO CARRY OUT A 
PROGRAM IN SUCH AN ENVIRONMENT.

It is wasteful to spend money on a dead end architecture.

THERE IS ANOTHER ASPECT OF STABILITY THAT IS EQUALLY CRUCIAL TO BRING ABOUT 
THE FUTURE OUTLINED HERE.  IT INVOLVES, ONCE AGAIN, A LESSON TO BE GAINED 
FROM THE PAST.  THIS IS THE ABSOLUTE NECESSITY OF FULLY UTILIZING THE 
SYSTEMS WE DEVELOP, AT HUGE EXPENSE, RATHER THAN DISCARDING THEM IN FAVOR OF 
SOMETHING WHICH IS APPEALING BECAUSE IT IS NEW.

Then why the hell are the EELVs not being used to service the ISS?

THIS ASPECT OF STABILITY HAS HAD A DIRECT IMPACT ON NASA'S ABILITY TO 
MAINTAIN STABILITY OF BOTH PURPOSE AND FUNDING FOR DECADES.

Yes, it sure does.

WE MUST TREAT OUR SPACE SYSTEMS AS WE HAVE ALWAYS TREATED OUR AIRPLANES.  
SUCCESSFUL AIRCRAFT DESIGNS, FROM GENERAL AVIATION AIRPLANES TO THE 
HIGHEST-PERFORMANCE MILITARY FIGHTERS, ARE EVOLVED, UPGRADED, AND USED FOR 
DECADES.

Then why the hell are the EELVs not being used to service the ISS?

JUST AS WITH DC-3'S, B-52'S, AND MANY OTHER AIRCRAFT, WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND 
THAT ORION AND ARES WILL BE FLOWN BY THE GRANDKIDS OF THE FIRST ASTRONAUTS 
WHO TAKE THEM INTO SPACE.

Thiokol is expecting a long income stream.

WE SIMPLY CANNOT AGAIN AFFORD THE STRATEGIC DISTRACTION, THE WASTED MONEY, 
THE SQUANDERED TALENT, AND THE LOST TIME OF BUILDING A NEW HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT 
SYSTEM, AND THEN USING IT FOR ONLY SIXTEEN MISSIONS.

The taxpayers pretty much determine how much of anything they want to buy.

ONCE AGAIN, A LOOK AT THE BUDGETARY HISTORY PROVIDES A SOBERING LESSON FOR 
THE FUTURE, A SOBERING VIEW OF WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN. LET'S RECYCLE TO THE 
EARLY 1970S, A TIME OF BUDGETARY STARVATION FOR NASA, A TIME WHEN WE DID NOT 
YET HAVE THE SPACE SHUTTLE, BUT DID STILL HAVE THE APOLLO SYSTEMS, THE 
SATURN I-B AND SATURN V, THE APOLLO COMMAND/SERVICE MODULES (CSM), THE LUNAR 
LANDER, AND THE SKYLAB SYSTEM.  ALL OF THESE THINGS WERE IN EXISTENCE IN 
1973, HAVING BEEN CREATED IN THAT SEMINAL FIRST 15 YEARS OF OUR AGENCY'S 
HISTORY.

MAKE NO MISTAKE; THESE SYSTEMS WERE FAR FROM PERFECT.  THEY WERE EXPENSIVE 
TO DEVELOP AND EXPENSIVE TO OPERATE.  OUR PARENTS AND GRANDPARENTS, 
METAPHORICALLY SPEAKING, DID NOT REALLY KNOW QUITE WHAT THEY WERE DOING WHEN 
THEY SET OUT TO ACCEPT PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S CHALLENGE TO GO TO THE MOON.  
THEY LEARNED AS THEY WENT ALONG.

Actually, the people learned then that it was not worth the money,

BUT WHAT THEY EVENTUALLY BUILT WORKED, AND WORKED WELL.  AND IT COULD HAVE 
KEPT WORKING AT A PRICE WE COULD AFFORD.

In other words, they learned that the marginal value of it was not even 
worth the marginal cost.

LET'S LOOK AT SOME RECURRING COSTS IN DOLLARS THEN AND NOW.  ALL COSTS 
INCLUDE BOTH HARDWARE AND MISSION OPERATIONS, AND ARE AT THE HIGH END OF THE 
RANGE OF POSSIBILITIES, BECAUSE THEY TAKE NO ADVANTAGE OF STABLE RATES OF 
PRODUCTION.  FISCAL 2000 COSTS ARE APPROXIMATE, OBTAINED BY INFLATING 
PROGRAMS IN THE AGGREGATE, RATHER THAN TRACKING AND INFLATING SEPARATE 
EXPENDITURES OF REAL-YEAR DOLLARS.

ELEMENT                  REAL-YEAR $ M    FY 2000 $ M
APOLLO CSM                       50           160
AOOLLO LUNAR MODULE             120           400
APOLLO LUNAR MISSION            720          2400
SATURN I-B                       35           120
SATURN V                        325          1100
SKYLAB CLUSTER                  275           925

LET'S ASSUME THAT WE HAD KEPT FLYING WITH THE SYSTEMS WE HAD AT THE TIME, 
THAT WE HAD CONTINUED TO EXECUTE TWO MANNED APOLLO LUNAR MISSIONS EVERY 
YEAR, AS WAS DONE IN 1971-72.  THIS WOULD HAVE COST ABOUT $4.8 BILLION 
ANNUALLY IN FISCAL 2000 DOLLARS.

FURTHER, LET US ASSUME THAT WE HAD ESTABLISHED A CONTINUING PROGRAM OF SPACE 
STATION ACTIVITIES IN EARTH ORBIT, BUILT ON THE APOLLO CSM, SATURN I-B, AND 
SKYLAB SYSTEMS.  FOUR CREW ROTATION LAUNCHES PER YEAR, PLUS A NEW SKYLAB 
CLUSTER EVERY FIVE YEARS TO AUGMENT OR REPLACE EXISTING MODULES, WOULD HAVE 
COST ABOUT $1.5 BILLION/YEAR.  THIS ENTIRE PROGRAM OF SIX MANNED FLIGHTS PER 
YEAR, TWO OF THEM TO THE MOON, WOULD HAVE COST ABOUT $6.3 BILLION ANNUALLY 
IN FISCAL 2000 DOLLARS.  THE AVERAGE ANNUAL NASA BUDGET IN THE 15 DIFFICULT 
YEARS FROM 1974-88 WAS $10.5 BILLION; WITH 60% OF IT ALLOCATED TO HUMAN 
SPACEFLIGHT, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT FUNDING TO CONTINUE A STABLE 
PROGRAM OF LUNAR EXPLORATION AS WELL AS THE DEVELOPMENT OF EARTH ORBITAL 
INFRASTRUCTURE.  I SUGGEST THAT THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN A BETTER STRATEGIC 
ALTERNATIVE THAN THE CHOICES THAT WERE IN FACT MADE, ALMOST 40 YEARS AGO.

It wasn't worth the money then, and that's why the effort began to develop a 
cheaper launch system; the CEV/Ares1 and Ares 5 look to be even more 
expensive.

von Braun's original Saturn 1 medium launcher used parachute recovery, and 
he knew the Saturn 5 was too expensive, and knew it early on. von Braun 
assigned Koelle this ROV task in 1963-1964.

First you had the heat shield problems, then you had the reconfiguration of 
the shuttle by the DoD, and then you had the substitution of the pressure 
fed liquids by Thiokol's solids. And then it was over: A launcher so bad von 
Braun quit, and began to work trying to set up a distributed computer 
network, an internet, using comsats.

Thank g*d that at least stupidity is international.  Brezhnev also wasted 
the Soviet Union's wealth on Buran.

AFTER A TIME, AS NASA BUDGETS ONCE AGAIN IMPROVED, WE WOULD HAVE BEGUN TO 
CONCENTRATE OUR LUNAR ACTIVITY AROUND AN OUTPOST, AND WE WOULD HAVE USED 
CARGO MISSIONS TO EMPLACE THE OUTPOST EQUIPMENT.  A MODIFIED APOLLO LUNAR 
MODULE DESCENT STAGE, WITH EXTRA FUEL AND CARGO REPLACING THE ASCENT STAGE, 
COULD HAVE BEEN USED FOR THE PURPOSE.  THE SATURN V COULD DELIVER TWO SUCH 
VEHICLES WITH A SINGLE LAUNCH.

What for?

SO, OVER TIME, WE COULD HAVE BUILT UP AN EARLY LUNAR OUTPOST, OR SMALLER 
ONES AT DIFFERENT PLACES OF INTEREST.  BY THE PRESENT DAY, USING WHAT WE HAD 
WITH MINIMAL MODIFICATIONS, AND I WILL REMIND US ALL THAT THE SOYUZ SYSTEMS 
OF THAT ERA ARE STILL FLYING, WE WOULD HAVE A VAST STORE OF EXPERIENCE AND A 
SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF LUNAR INFRASTRUCTURE.

Once again, what for?

WHEN THE CIVIL SPACE BUDGET EVENTUALLY IMPROVED, AS IT DID, WE WOULD HAVE 
BEEN WELL POSITIONED TO BEGIN DEVELOPMENT OF A MARS MISSION.

What for?

AND IN THE MEANTIME, WITHOUT DOUBT, WE WOULD HAVE CONTINUED TO MODIFY, 
REFINE, AND INCREMENTALLY IMPROVE THE OLD APOLLO DESIGNS, TO THE POINT WHERE 
THEY WOULD HAVE PROVIDED GREATLY ENHANCED EFFECTIVENESS BY THE PRESENT DAY.

IF WE HAD DONE ALL THIS, WE WOULD BE ON MARS TODAY, NOT WRITING ABOUT IT AS 
A SUBJECT FOR THE NEXT 50 YEARS.

Right. We could have sent a few people to Mars then, but didn't because it 
wasn't worth the money.

WE WOULD HAVE DECADES OF EXPERIENCE OPERATING LONG-DURATION SPACE SYSTEMS IN 
EARTH ORBIT, AND SIMILAR DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN EXPLORING AND LEARNING TO 
UTILIZE THE MOON.

What for?

THIS ESSAY ON THE NEXT 50 YEARS WOULD BE QUITE DIFFERENT THAN THE ONE I AM 
OFFERING HERE.  I THINK MOST OF US WILL AGREE THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A 
BETTER ONE.

The public decided what they wanted - a cheaper manned space program with 
the shuttle. But the shuttle did not deliver that.

NOW, NOTHING IS AS EASY AS PLANNING IN HINDSIGHT, NOR AS PERMANENT AS A LOST 
OPPORTUNITY.

And no one is as dead as a person hit by an impactor. As Pliny put it, "than 
which no more terrible form of death is to be feared."

I OFFER THE ALTERNATIVE HISTORY ABOVE NOT TO THROW STONES AT POLICYMAKERS 
LONG DEPARTED FROM THE SCENE, BUT TO INFORM FUTURE DECISIONS.

You'll get another chance at the Houston oral history debrief.

IF WE IGNORE THESE LESSONS, WE WILL SURELY REPEAT THEM.

Hell, if you didn't learn them the first time, you surely will.

THE VISION OF THE NEXT 50 YEARS IN SPACE THAT I HAVE OUTLINED HERE IS NOT A 
FLIGHT OF FANCY.  IT DOES NOT REQUIRE A COURSE CHANGE FROM PRESENT 
UNDERSTANDINGS, NOR DOES IT REQUIRE EXTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF COSTLY NEW 
TECHNOLOGY.  IT IS A LOGICAL, INCREMENTAL, STABLE, SUSTAINABLE PLAN THAT CAN 
BE EXECUTED WITH REALISTICALLY ATTAINABLE BUDGETS.

I don't think so. For the reasons stated here.

FOR THESE REASONS, I BELIEVE THAT IT WILL BE DONE, AND DONE AS ENVISIONED 
HERE.  WE REALLY CAN CELEBRATE THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF SPUTNIK WITH THE 
20TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FIRST HUMAN LANDING ON MARS.  IT IS UP TO US TO MAKE 
IT SO.

I don't think so. For the reasons stated here.

-- MICHAEL D. GRIFFIN IS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE 
ADMINISTRATION.

E.P. Grondine is the author of
Man and Impact in the Americas

_________________________________________________________________
Interest Rates Fall Again! $430,000 Mortgage for $1,399/mo - Calculate new 
payment 
http://www.lowermybills.com/lre/index.jsp?sourceid=lmb-9632-18679&moid=7581