Ed. Comment: let us see what the price per pound turns out with these new systems and then add in what that would be if you add the ARM and EVA capability. Also, what can they return with a parachute landing plus add the cost of landing operations.
Newt Gingrich offered an audacious plan last week for a lunar base by 2020, but is he—and the other candidates—taking into account potential sharp reductions in launch prices? (credit: Newt2012)
Not evolution—revolution
by Sam Dinkin
Monday, January 30, 2012
Comments (15)
This week, Newt Gingrich gave a speech on space that was visionary. Gingrich may be winning supporters among people who consider space policy an important election issue. There is evidence of this in an online poll about space policy where the Gingrich policy is favored over the Romney policy two-to-one. Yet Gingrich may lose far more supporters than he wins. Mitt Romney has been portraying Gingrich’s moon base as unaffordable and Gingrich as lunatic for wanting one. In the two days after Gingrich’s speech, which included a debate where the space issue came up again, the probability of Romney winning in Florida shot up from 40% to 90% according to the political prediction market intrade.com:
Light between the candidates
Ironically, Gingrich, Romney, and Barack Obama are not advocating that much difference in policy and not that much difference from George Bush’s policy as implemented. The Obama policy as articulated by the Augustine Committee continued a policy of gently encouraging domestic commercial alternatives to NASA self-supplying vehicles or obtaining them from Russia. Obama’s policy of go as you pay and building capabilities is the result of a meta-policy similar to Romney’s: appoint a panel of experts and do what they say. In Obama’s case, the composition of the panel resulted in a pro-commercial, decentralized policy that is in many ways a polar opposite of the administration’s health care and energy policies. The Obama space agenda ran into difficulty in Congress and the resulting compromise provides only limited reform.
Ironically, Gingrich, Romney, and Barack Obama are not advocating that much difference in policy and not that much difference from George Bush’s policy as implemented.
Romney’s meta-policy appears to be the same as Obama’s with the exception of the composition of the expert panel. The people who wrote an open letter in support of Romney seem like a likely group of people to pick to form the panel. They include Scott Pace, Michael Griffin, Gene Cernan, and Eric Anderson. It’s unlikely that Anderson, founder and chairman of Space Adventures, can bring Griffin around to supporting commercial space even now that Griffin is on the board of Stratolaunch (see “Stratolaunch: SpaceShipThree or Space Goose?”, The Space Review, December 19, 2011). Optimists might predict the experts will recommend limited evolution, but pessimists might predict frustration of recent limited evolution.
Neither the Obama or Romney policy rates to be very different from the Bush policy. While the Bush vision for commercial space was almost as clear as Obama’s, the Bush administration chose Griffin to implement the policy. This resulted in the vision being refocused as a more traditional NASA self-supply project before it was even proposed to Congress.
Gingrich’s policy differs little financially from the others. Devoting 10 percent of NASA’s budget to prizes is a very tiny change in proportion to the overall federal budget, comparable to the adoption of decentralizing welfare via block grants in 1996 instead of a more centralized Aid to Families with Dependent Children (about $2.4 billion/year). In contrast, Gingrich’s 15% optional flat tax proposal would put everyone in Romney’s tax bracket and shift hundreds of billions per year.
This imminent price change in space access has not been taken advantage of in the Gingrich or Romney space policies and is only being considered for replacing Russian flights to the International Space Station in the Obama policy.
That Gingrich’s prize proposal, to which he devotes less than $2 billion a year to prizes out of $3,500 billion in federal expenditures, can evoke such a heated debate (even for a few days) demonstrates both the outsize importance of space in the American psyche compared to its economic relevance and how closed space policy makers and the electorate are to large evolutionary changes in space policy. This latter tendancy is not surprising considering that our space policy for the last 40 years has been a series of homages to the Apollo years. The recent Bush attempt at recapitulating the glory years left NASA in danger of becoming a cargo cult that would take a revolution in spaceflight to shake up.
Gingrich also calls for subsidizing commercial providers the way that the Kelly Airmail Act of 1925 subsidized the early aviation industry. This is not that big a change from the Bush and Obama policy of COTS. Propellant depots and propellant subsidies might spark energetic fervor that Gingrich hopes for, but it rates to be a moot point. The cost barrier the energetic fervor is hoped to break through is going to be breached imminently.
Fighting the previous war
The policies of Gingrich, Romney, Obama, and Bush are all predicated on a cost environment that is on the brink of major change. The cost per pound and per flight to orbit has been in the tens of thousands per pound delivered for the Space Shuttle. Using the estimate of $1.5 billion in 2010 dollars per launch, that works out to $28,000/lb ($62,000/kg) of payload bay capacity to LEO. The NASA self-provided rockets under the Bush and Obama policies do not improve this situation.
In contrast, SpaceX is quoting delivering 2.2 times as much payload to LEO per launch. Using the Falcon Heavy for $80–125 million would offer a cost per pound of payload 25–40 times lower than the Space Shuttle. Further price drops may occur if Falcon Heavy becomes more reusable or other players begin low-cost competition. In an interview in September, Jeff Greason, an Augustine Commission member who until recently has been known for his conservatism in predictions for the future, challenged entrepreneurs to “start thinking about the business plans for—what if we DO have a way to get things up and down to space for, say, $500 a pound?”
This imminent price change has not been taken advantage of in the Gingrich or Romney space policies and is only being considered for replacing Russian flights to the International Space Station in the Obama policy. The change in cost is radical and opens up the technical and cost feasibility of missions that previously would have been considered way too heavy to be affordable. For example, the cost of hefting Von Braun’s 1952 70-person, 82-million-pound (37-million-kilogram) Mars mega-mission into LEO would only be $41–82 billion, or perhaps much less given the bulk discount for buying hundreds of launches. The current NASA budget is about $20 billion/year, so going to Mars is affordable for what is currently being spent in the name of space.
Alternatively, a bold president can ask the partners in the International Space Station for permission to put the ISS on a trajectory to Mars. It only weighs one million pounds (450,000 kilogams) and is already in orbit. Imagine that rockets and tanks to propel the space station would weigh one million pounds. Add 38 million pounds (17 million kilograms) of propellant to achieve Von Braun’s mass fraction of 95 percent.
So what is the killer app that will settle the Moon? Is it surviving a disaster? Is it luxury condos? Is it platinum mining?
At per-pound price levels to LEO of $500–1000, getting a pound to the Moon might be $2500–5000. Columbus’s voyage cost about 1.8 million maravedis, which was enough to buy 600 ounces of gold at 1492 prices; 600 ounces of gold costs about $1 million today, which might just be the cost of delivery of 400 pounds (180 kilograms) to the Moon. So if you can raise $1 million and so can 79 of your friends, you might be able to use a Groupon to buy a one-way trip to the Moon. $1 million may seem like a lot, but that’s just 25 years’ work at the average wage. For the top one percent of engineers or doctors, one can imagine working for passage to the Moon by agreeing to a three-year indentured servant contract with or without Gingrich’s proposed Northwest Ordinance for the Moon.
So what is the killer app that will settle the Moon? Is it surviving a disaster? Is it luxury condos? Is it platinum mining? The World Wealth Report 2011 details “investments of passion” of high net worth individuals (over $1 million) as 29% luxury collectibles; 22% art; 22% jewelry, gems, & watches; 15% other collectibles; and 8% sports investments. How soon until the rich are wearing jewelry made from Lunar material? When will a Moon rocket join yachts and jets as luxury collectibles?
When will the Moon become a destination for settlers and the wealthy? The first Spanish mission in California was 1769 and the Gold Rush was in 1849. It was 1946 when “Bugsy” opened the Flamingo hotel in Las Vegas. Will the first Moonrush be 2049? Is a revolution in space development on the way? Or has it occurred already without anyone noticing and getting on with space settlement?
Sam Dinkin lives in Austin, Texas and can’t afford his own Lunar villa—yet. He can be reached at sam@dinkin.com and 888-4-Dinkin (888-434-6546).
Login
Follow the discussion
Comments (15)
Sort by: Date Rating Last Activity
0
neutrino78x · 3 days ago
This article makes me feel like a 100% privately funded Mars Direct mission is possible. What do you guys think? :)
Report
Reply
2 replies · active 1 day ago
0
Dick Morris · 2 days ago
Elon Musk seems to think it's possible. SpaceX reportedly developed the Falcon 9 and Dragon for about $300 million each, and at that rate, the hardware for a "Mars Direct" style flight could be developed for something on the order of maybe $5 billion.
Report
Reply
0
John · 1 day ago
Well the actual amount was $300 million in SpaceX money plus about $500 million from NASA as of around the middle of last year. Still if you see my reply below, what SpaceX is really doing is leveraging NASA and DoD money to build a Mars capable launch system. In addition SpaceX relied on DARPA to help fund the Falcon I and Merlin engine that makes the larger Falcon 9 a reality. So in the end SpaceX looks like its plan is to get DoD/NASA to help fund development and operation of the basic system capabilities, e.g. Falcon Heavy, Dragon, and other system, and hopefully find a very rich investor to fund the rest of the systems necessary for a private Mars landing. Who knows if SLS falls apart as is likely a COTS style Mars program wouldn't be out of the question.
Report
Reply
-1
Charles Pooley 8p · 3 days ago
"So what is the killer app that will settle the Moon? Is it surviving a disaster? Is it luxury condos? Is it platinum mining?"
Microlaunchers can lead to settling the Moon, by creating a culture with hands-on experience with launching, conducting flights to near Earth asteroids, etc for many, with the microcomputer analog of launch system.
We all know what the Altair and progeny led us to. This can happen with space. Small. Incremental, not by trying to leap directly to large scale unaffordable projects few have a chance to participate in.
First build a culture, then to the Moon...
Report
Reply
1 reply · active 3 days ago
0
Katibu Maduka · 3 days ago
The culture is here. Safety regulations is a problem to over come.
Report
Reply
+2
Tim · 2 days ago
Nice article. In ten years people will be scratching their heads wondering, either why has nothing happened, or OMG! I can hardly believe this was possible.
Report
Reply
3 replies · active 1 day ago
+2
StratoCumulus 39p · 2 days ago
OMG is right. It's going to be awesome.
Report
Reply
+1
Dick Morris · 2 days ago
I've been scratching my head for decades, wondering how NASA could be so incredibly stupid! We've had the technology to build affordable lunar bases for over 40 years, but every time NASA gets the chance to go back to the Moon, they essentially try to repeat the Apollo program. When Bush Sr. proposed his Space Exploration Initiative, NASA responded with their "90-Day Report" mega-boondoggle, which reportedly would have cost about $450 billion. When Bush Jr. proposed his Vision for Space Exploration, NASA responded with "Constellation", which NASA itself characterized as "Apollo on steroids". What were they thinking???
Report
Reply
+1
John · 1 day ago
A major purpose of any space plan hatched by NASA is employment. Both Bush Sr. and Bush Jrs. plans were ultimately focused on maintaining existing Apollo/ Shuttle legacy jobs. Either plan could have been done cheaper but they had to provide work and money for every one of the existing main players. E.g. can anyone describe an actual need for the Ares I other than as a make work project for ATK. When Obama tried to wonder off the reservation and go with a more privatized approach congress quickly passed the amendments requiring Obama to build the SLS and guess what give the money to ATK, Boeing, Lockheed and all of those institutions such as MSFC, Cape Kennedy and Houston that depend on large government sponsored space programs.
Ultimately a purely private Mars or Lunar program is not realistic unless Bill Gates wants to dedicate his entire fortune to it, but a stealth private/ public program is. By this I mean look at SpaceX's current program and you will see they are already heading down this path. By getting NASA to foot the bill for the COTS program, SpaceX has sufficient funding and clout to complete the Falcon 9 and develop the unmanned dragon capsule. With the commercial crew development program they are receiving money to develop a manned version of dragon, and a commercial contract with NASA would make a private low earth orbit capsule a reality. The red dragon program with NASA could lead to a Mars capable dragon, and being allowed into the Air Force EELV could lead to billions of USAF dollars to help pay for Falcon Heavies and further development of SpaceX heavy lift capabilities. In other words SpaceX has managed to get it's nose into the tent and provided that they are allowed to compete for both DoD and NASA contracts the government will by default fund a significant amount of the cost for Mars or Moon capable system through their regular business activities.
Now if we could only get Bill Gates to throw in a couple of Billion we might just have a manned landing on Mars by the middle of the next decade!
Report
Reply
+4
Arnie T 47p · 2 days ago
Way to go SAM!
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm absolutely sick of "Leaders" who don't lead. I'm tired of having a Government that seeks to find ways for us (USA) to less painfully slip into the bottom of the pit.
Audacious plans? Darn Right! Bring 'em on! Lets get back to Living!
Hey! Aren't we visiting this Forum because we want to go "where no one has gone before"?
I always wanted to, even had the small chance to do it; I was part of a Line Item, in a NASA Budget that might have provided me that opportunity... it was cut... But, I can still dream, and I hoped that my kids could go. Now I hope that my grand kids will actually get the chance; though I may never see it happen... I can still dream.
I still WANT to dream! Don't you?
Report
Reply
1 reply · active 2 days ago
+1
StratoCumulus 39p · 2 days ago
Hell Yeah.
Report
Reply
+3
Arnie T 47p · 2 days ago
Oh BTW those numbers posted by the Debate Watchers? They don't necessarily represent the way actual voters will respond. The highest approval was for Ron Paul's stupid response. Most of these Debate Watchers (those 'plugged in') are there for the 'Reality TV' thrill. And to see how much they personally can push the curve one way or another. Also, don't discount the possibility that the very Media that strongly supports O-bama could be manipulating them too.
{{Hmmm If I were an Alabama fan, I think I'd be getting pretty upset by the misuse of my favorite School's nickname.}}
Report
Reply
-1
BraneTheory · 2 days ago
Did Stephen Colbert ghostwrite this essay?
Report
Reply
+2
@ponder68 · 2 days ago
With all the angst and mockery from the media over Gingrich's vision, one has to wonder how JFK's challenge that led us to the Moon would have been met if he gave that speech in today's media environment. My guess is that we never would have made it to the Moon.
Report
Reply
1 reply · active 2 days ago
+2
Dick Morris · 2 days ago
A lot of the mockery is based on a - perhaps deliberate - misunderstanding of what Gingrich actually said. Romney claims, falsely, that Gingrich wants to spend "hundreds of billions of dollars" in this decade to establish a 13,000 person colony by 2020, but Gingrich never said that. What he proposes is to begin the establishment of a permanent base by 2020. The base may have a crew of a half-dozen or so at that point, and that hardly qualifies as a "colony".
I think Gingrich may have erred by confusing the issue with talk of colonies, and, especially, statehood. Better to confine his remarks to the reasons for building a base, and what it might accomplish - less opportunity for "misunderstandings". Actually, the most charitable interpretation of Romney's remark is that he was simply lying about Gingrich's proposal. The alternative is that he is totally clueless about space technology and policy, and cannot understand plain English.
Report
Reply
Post a new comment
Comment as a Guest, or login:
Login to IntenseDebate
Login to WordPress.com
Login to Twitter
Login to OpenID
Name Email Website (optional)
Displayed next to your comments.
Not displayed publicly.
If you have a website, link to it here.
Submit Comment
Subscribe to
Home
No comments:
Post a Comment