[FPSPACE] Goodbye, Mike, Part 1

[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.


_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™ Hotmail®:…more than just e-mail.
http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_more_042009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.friends-partners.org/pipermail/fpspace/attachments/20090430/baae02ad/attachment.html