The School of "If Only"

Dr. Paul Spudis, most recently from the Lunar and Planetary Institute, paid a visit to Marshall Space Flight Center yesterday and gave a lunch-and-learn presentation entitled "Using the Resources of the Moon to Create a Permanent Cislunar Transportation System." This was the sort of talk that one normally hears at an International Space Development Conference or other space advocacy event. It contained everything a space advocate could hope to hear: technical feasibility, visionary ambition, and a sense of political realism. It's been awhile since I've heard such talks--I was working during most of my ISDC--and it was a pleasure to hear Dr. Spudis's speech. Nevertheless, I had a few reservations, which I'll share after I summarize the talk.

Spudis began his talk by providing some background on the space industry, specifically its three "ages," the "Space Race" age (1957-1972), the "What now?" age (1972-Present), the "Beyond LEO" age (hopefully, from now into the future). He made the case early in his talk that if we lack an overarching beat-the-other-guys reason for space exploration, we need to find more pragmatic reasons, including national security, economic, and scientific, all of which space justifies in spades.

He next went on to discuss the operational challenges space efforts have faced, including a long habit of building customized, one-time-use platforms, which are then abandoned after one use. Spudis argues for a new template for human space activities, one involving incremental, extensible building-block components and systems that can be reused. He also argued (as his title suggested) for the use of space resources--but not for use here on Earth, but rather in space.

Another template or paradigm Spudis asked the audience to consider was a shift from an "Space Air Force" model, where there are small vehicles and small-scale, temporary visits to destinations to a "Space Navy" model where you see a large-scale, permanent presence in space and at destinations. It's sort of like the difference between The Right Stuff and Star Trek. However, instead of Star Trek, Spudis pointed to Arthur C. Clarke's Profiles of the Future.

It didn't surprise the audience that Spudis, a lunar scientist, advocated for using the moon as a base of operations and resources. As his PowerPoint bullets put it, the moon is "close, interesting, and useful." He got a little incensed by President Obama dismissing the moon with "been there, done that." Citing recent discoveries by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) and Lunar Crater Observation Sensing Satellite (LCROSS), Spudis emphasized the usefulness of lunar resources, including local metals and most importantly water ice. For those unschooled in the matter, scientists have determined that under the rims of craters near the moon's north and south poles there are permanently shadowed areas where volatile materials such as water would not be able to boil off. This water, in the form of ice, comprises as much as 10 percent of lunar soil in these regions.

Water, as Spudis points out, is just about the most useful material available for human space exploration, as it can be used to drink, it can be split into hydrogen and oxygen for fuel, it can be used to provide oxygen for breathing, and it can be used as an insulating material for surface habitats. In short, water matters, and where we once thought the moon was bone-dry, we now know that there's enough water ice there to meet the needs of human settlements there for hundreds of years.

Having set the stage for "why the moon," Spudis next moved on to his architecture, which was developed in cooperation with Marshall Space Flight Center project manager Tony Lavoie. This incremental set of hardware includes (in order) communication and navigation satellites, polar prospecting rovers, in situ resource utilization (ISRU) demonstrator, digger/hauler rovers, water tankers, electrolysis units (for transforming water into hydrogen and oxygen), supporting equipment, and space-based assets, such as fuel depots in lunar and Earth orbit. Total price tag, about $5.5 billion per year for 16 years. That's an easier figure for Congress to swallow than the total pricetag, $88 billion, but it's MUCH easier than the $450 billion estimated for the Space Exploration Initiative, proposed by President George H. W. Bush in 1989.

The Spudis/Lavoie approach has several advantages:

• It is "vehicle neutral," meaning it is not dependent on any new or existing rockets to get its equipment into space (they start with the existing Delta IV as their baseline, but any existing rocket would do.
• Because the early missions--heck, the first 16--are robotically based, they can be developed more quickly, on shorter timelines than human missions. Multiple, short-term milestones and accomplishments are important because Congress runs its budgets one year to the next and is impatient with programs that they feel are not accomplishing anything.
• It allows transportation to be customized by function, much as Robert A. Heinlein envisioned it: Earth to LEO handled by one type of vehicle, LEO to the moon with another type of vehicle, and a reusable vehicle of another type to handle the lunar orbit to Moon run.
• It can identify an economic "break-even" point. In the case of water resources, any surplus above 150 metric tons of water extracted from the moon  would be sufficient for a lunar settlement to start paying for itself.

One question Spudis asked toward the end of his talk was, "Can NASA change the way they do things? That's one thing I just don't know." This sort of begs the question: what does need to change if NASA is to execute this vision?

And I should point out that this is very much a NASA type of vision, with the agency leading the activities. Why? Spudis's thoughts are much like mine on this: there is very little business justification for exploring the moon or building infrastructure. Basically, if this vision/architecture were left to the private sector, "it wouldn't happen." So another advantage of Spudis's architecture is that it concentrates government on activities that are unlikely to generate much initial commercial interest.

*

It sounds like a cool, ingenious plan. But then so do a lot of the plans I've heard from the space advocacy community over the past 15 years. My comment (one seconded by Michael Doornbos when I mentioned the talk on Facebook) was, "All they need is an affordable launch vehicle." Other plans are equally ingenious, but they always have some missing unobtainium that hasn't been developed yet. All our problems would be solved if only we had...

• An affordable launch vehicle
• A reusable launch vehicle
• An ultra-light alloy that would make a reusable launch vehicle possible
• A new, high-energy propellant
• A new, high-strength material capable of building a space elevator
• A space station orbiting at the L5 Lagrange point
• A base on Mars
• Access to a nickel-iron asteroid with a trillion dollars' worth of platinum-group metals
• A Helium-3 reactor
• The political will to do [X]
• A heavy-lift launch vehicle
• A robust, low-cost commercial space industry

The U.S. is in the process of developing those last two, anyway. I wish Spudis well. It's a clever vision he has, and one of the more realistic visions I've heard articulated in recent years. Will it hold up? I guess it all depends on how many people stand up and start advocating for it. Being a lunar-centric guy myself, I suppose you could count me among them. What happens next is anybody's guess. If only.

Potpourri CXII

First, I need to get this out of my inbox because it hit there about 12 times. For those of you not in the know--or not Time Magazine subscribers--the Ares rockets were named Time's Invention of the Year. Apparently there's a voting process, though, so go to the site here and work with their system and cast your vote. Nice to have a little moral support, even if the aerospace press is trying to write off Ares as dead on arrival.

*

From Lin, several articles on the "progress" of nationalized healthcare and other activities by the Obama administration. I must confess I've stayed tuned out from the news and even talk radio for awhile now. It improves the mood, and I've got more fun things to do with my free time like exchange text messages with Dr. OZMG. Anyhow, if you are interested in such things, here you go:

• An editorial by Thomas Sowell (part 4--no doubt parts 1-3 are available online as well).
• An Investor's Business Daily article on the state of the financial industry.
• A Michelle Malkin editorial on the tactics used by ACORN.
• A Forbes.com editorial on the state of capitalism.

*

This might actually be a bigger story than Ares I-X, but what the heck, my work priorities come first: the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) impactor has produced data indicating the presence of water ice on the Moon. This is HUGE. As I indicated in a previous posting on the day of the impact, if we find water ice on the Moon, we can build long-term bases and permanent settlements there. Human civilization can expand this one world with its limited resources and at-risk biosphere. Bravo to the LCROSS team for this historic find!

*

On a completely personal note, I spent some time with a "planned giving" counselor from my Lutheran church synod setting up an outline for a will. No, I'm not planning to die anytime soon, but then neither did a young couple I worked with at Disney 15 years ago, and their affairs were left entirely in the hands of their respective families as the two died without a will. The end result was that the couple were buried in separate states. Do the deceased care? Probably not, but human beings tend to be sentimental about such things; and the only end result was probably a lot of bad blood between the survivors. Now being a single guy I don't have inlaws to argue with, nor do I have a particularly complicated or dire financial state. But there are things I would like to do for my family and friends in the event I shed this earthly coil. It's really a simple process, so if you haven't done it and you're no longer living in your parents' home, you should probably have a will. Here was a general overview of the items we discussed:

• Assets - what kind I have and what they're worth.
• Debts - what kind I have and how much I owe.
• Beneficiaries - whom I want to get what out of my estate; in my case, members of my family would get the bulk of my estate, with specific items going to other individuals, as I see fit.
• Distribution - which assets it makes most sense to give to whom; for example, it's better to distribute the items with the largest monetary value and lowest tax rates to those highest on your priority list and to work your way down from there.
• Planned Giving - how much of my estate I wish to donate to charitable causes (in my case my local church and the Wisconsin Synod in general).
• Terminal Care Instructions - What sorts of statements I want in my will regarding "terminal care" in the event I'm incapacitated.

No, this isn't particularly fun to think about, but it is useful for assessing the state of your life and your priorities. Next up: talking to a financial planner about increasing my assets so there's more for me on this side of death and more for my inheritors afterward. Jeez, this turning-40 thing is so...adult.

Analysis of New McCain Statement on Space

Okay, for those of you who didn't read this yesterday, here's another opportunity:

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/7366faf9-d504-4abc-a889-9c08d601d8ee.htm

Here's the full text, if you don't feel like clicking:

America's Space Program

"Let us now embark upon this great journey into the stars to find whatever may await us." -John McCain

John McCain: For the past 50 years, space activities have contributed greatly to US scientific discovery, national security, economic development, and national innovation, pride and power (the ultimate example of which was the U.S. victory over the Soviets in the race to the moon). Spurred on by the Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik, the world's first satellite, and the concern that the U.S was falling behind in science and technology, U.S. policymakers enacted several policy actions to firmly establish the U.S. dominance in science and technology. Among them were the establishment of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the national Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), increased research funding, and a reformulation of the nation's science and technology education system.

Today, more than 50 years after Sputnik, the US faces a very different world. The end of the Cold War and the space race has greatly reduced the profile of space exploration as a point of national pride and an emblem of U.S. power and thus created some degree of "mission-rut" for NASA. At the same time, the scientific community views the use of space as an important observation platform for advancing science by increasing our understanding of the solar system and the universe. In addition, our recent comprehension of the Earth's changing climate is based on data that we have received from our weather and Earth observation satellites. Much of our communications infrastructure is dependent upon space based assets that are essential to the quality of our everyday lives and the economy.

China, Russia, India, Japan and Europe are all active players in space exploration. Both Japan and China launched robotic lunar orbiters in 2007. India is planning to launch a lunar orbiter later this year. The European Space Agency (ESA) is looking into a moon-lander, but is more focused on Mars. China also is actively pursuing a manned space program and, in 2003, became only the third country after the USSR and the US to demonstrate the capability to send man to space. China is developing plans for a manned lunar mission in the next decade and the establishment of a lunar base after 2020.

Activity within the commercial sector continues to increase beyond the traditional role of launching satellites. In 2007, the X-Prize Foundation announced a prize of $30 million in a global competition to build the first robotic rover capable of landing on the Moon. Several companies are planning to develop and build spacecraft for space tourism.

Senator McCain understands the importance of investments in key industries such as space to the future of our national security, environmental sustainability, economic competitiveness, and national pride as a technological leader. Although the general view in the research community is that human exploration is not an efficient way to increase scientific discoveries given the expense and logistical limitations, the role of manned space flight goes well beyond the issue of scientific discovery and is reflection of national power and pride.

History provides some guide to this. In 1971, when the Nixon Administration was looking at canceling the Apollo program and not approving the development of the Space Shuttle - then Office of Management and Budget Deputy Director Casper Weinberger stated that such a policy: "would be confirming in some respects a belief that I fear is gaining credence at home and abroad: That our best years are behind us, that we are turning inward, reducing our defense commitments, and voluntarily starting to give up our super-power status and our desire to maintain world superiority." Three and a half decades later this seems equally valid, if not more so given the increased number of countries that are making significant investments in space.

John McCain has been involved in a number of efforts to improve America's scientific prowess within the space arena. As Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Senator McCain played a major role in legislation to provide funding for space exploration (manned and unmanned), space science, Earth science, and aeronautics research. He also sponsored legislation to support the up and coming commercial space industry, and led the Senate's efforts to implement improvements to NASA after the Columbia accident. Senator McCain has also spearheaded efforts to control costs at NASA and promote a space exploration agenda based on sound management, safe practices, and fiscal responsibility.

Current U.S. space operations policy commits the U.S. to completing the International Space Station (ISS) by 2010 and then terminating the Space Shuttle flights, with the completion of the ISS. The NASA vision for space exploration calls for sending a robotic lunar lander to the Moon in 2008/2009 time period to begin searching for potential base sites and for development and deployment of a new manned space craft for lunar missions. The current policy also calls for new vehicles (referred to as the Orion crew vehicle and the Ares launch vehicle) to be ready for Earth orbit by 2015 and lunar landing by 2020 with an eventual mission to Mars.

As President, John McCain will --

• Ensure that space exploration is top priority and that the U.S. remains a leader;
• Commit to funding the NASA Constellation program to ensure it has the resources it needs to begin a new era of human space exploration.
• Review and explore all options to ensure U.S. access to space by minimizing the gap between the termination of the Space Shuttle and the availability of its replacement vehicle;
• Ensure the national space workforce is maintained and fully utilized;
• Complete construction of the ISS National Laboratory;
• Seek to maximize the research capability and commercialization possibilities of the ISS National Laboratory;
• Maintain infrastructure investments in Earth-monitoring satellites and support systems;
• Seek to maintain the nation's space infrastructure;
• Prevent wasteful earmarks from diverting precious resources from critical scientific research; and
• Ensure adequate investments in aeronautics research.

Here's my primary assessment: it's mostly motherhood and eyewash. It's boilerplate. It's a lot of platitudes strung together to make people think that Senator McCain is taking the issue seriously. It's nearly content free. And I say that with little joy, as a registered Republican (and Eisenhower conservative).

Let's start with the first four paragraphs, which amount to an bland analysis of the current state of the space business. Okay, great: someone in the campaign has done some research and now understands what's going on. That is a step forward from the space debate that occurred at ISDC, albeit a small step.

The statement starts edging toward saying something in the fifth paragraph, when it says, "Senator McCain understands the importance of investments in key industries such as space to the future of our national security, environmental sustainability, economic competitiveness, and national pride as a technological leader." Well, great: a warm, fuzzy statement of support.

The next sentence must give one pause: "Although the general view in the research community is that human exploration is not an efficient way to increase scientific discoveries given the expense and logistical limitations, the role of manned space flight goes well beyond the issue of scientific discovery and is reflection of national power and pride." Interesting. If the McCain campaign believes that "the general view in the research community is that human exploration is not an efficient way to increase scientific discoveries," who are they talking to?

Granted, the science and exploration directorates at NASA are often at odds over funding, but that "general view" is far from uniform. Ask a lunar or Mars scientist whether they'd prefer that only robots get to explore or whether they themselves would get to go, and I wonder what their answers would be. Also, there's this: "the role of manned space flight goes well beyond the issue of scientific discovery and is reflection of national power and pride." Is that the best the McCain camp can do--focus on power and pride? What about technological advancement? What about talk of freedom, frontiers, or future resources? The next paragraph provides historical context and backing for the "power and pride" (symbolism) argument.

Moving on..."John McCain has been involved in a number of efforts to improve America's scientific prowess within the space arena. As Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Senator McCain played a major role in legislation to provide funding for space exploration (manned and unmanned), space science, Earth science, and aeronautics research." This is a given; he was the chairman. Real estate is wastted on describing job duties.

"He also sponsored legislation to support the up and coming commercial space industry, and led the Senate's efforts to implement improvements to NASA after the Columbia accident." Okay, I can understand this--he's at least talking about experience and specific examples of support for space--which is more than one can say about Obama in his 143 days in the Senate.

"Senator McCain has also spearheaded efforts to control costs at NASA and promote a space exploration agenda based on sound management, safe practices, and fiscal responsibility." As I mentioned in my analysis in the short version of McCain's space policy, he is a big advocate of government accountability and (where necessary) closer congressional oversight of government agencies. This might or might not be good news for NASA. They're under the media microscope as it is right now, at least by the aerospace press and aerospace-related bloggers. Additional oversight from Washington will not make their job easier.

The last paragraph returns to know facts and "no duh" history: "Current U.S. space operations policy commits the U.S. to completing the International Space Station (ISS) by 2010 and then terminating the Space Shuttle flights, with the completion of the ISS."

Here's an error a couple people have noted: "The NASA vision for space exploration calls for sending a robotic lunar lander to the Moon in 2008/2009 time period to begin searching for potential base sites and for development and deployment of a new manned space craft for lunar missions." The error? NASA is sending an orbiter to the Moon (Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter/LRO) to map future landing sites and a lunar impactor (Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite/LCROSS), which will crash into the Moon to look for signs of water ice. The nearest lunar lander (i.e., a vehicle meant to land safely and conduct operations on the surface) has been moved off the planning horizon, so far as I know. Someone in the McCain camp needs to do a little more homework.

"The current policy also calls for new vehicles (referred to as the Orion crew vehicle and the Ares launch vehicle) to be ready for Earth orbit by 2015 and lunar landing by 2020 with an eventual mission to Mars." This is a statement of support for the status quo for the Constellation Program. That is the first concrete thing this statement offers.

Now we can turn to what John McCain will do:

• Ensure that space exploration is top priority and that the U.S. remains a leader;
  Query: How many other "top priorities" does McCain have?
• Commit to funding the NASA Constellation program to ensure it has the resources it needs to begin a new era of human space exploration.
  Comment: This does not state what level of resources or what pace of development.
• Review and explore all options to ensure U.S. access to space by minimizing the gap between the termination of the Space Shuttle and the availability of its replacement vehicle;
  Comment: This might bode well for my friends in the commercial sector, especially if McCain's hard-line attitude toward Russia continues.
• Ensure the national space workforce is maintained and fully utilized;
  Query: What the heck does this mean? How do you "ensure" a fully utilized workforce except via socialism?
  Complete construction of the ISS National Laboratory;
  Comment: The Shuttle could do this--only to turn over access to the Russians? Hm.
• Seek to maximize the research capability and commercialization possibilities of the ISS National Laboratory;
  Comment: Good. However, aside from Tom Pickens at Spacehab, no one else is really gung-ho about the commercial potential of ISS. And if we can't get anyone up there, how the heck are we going to exploit that potential?
• Maintain infrastructure investments in Earth-monitoring satellites and support systems;
  Comment: This is not surprising, given the comments of McCain's representative at ISDC.
• Seek to maintain the nation's space infrastructure;
  Comment: This is practically a "no duh" activity for the government, like keep the roads and bridges repaired (if only!). This is a status quo statement.
• Prevent wasteful earmarks from diverting precious resources from critical scientific research; Query: What the heck does this mean, and how does it relate to space? Is he insinuating that earmarks spent on other things are keeping money from being spent on space? Well, maybe. But earmarks could be keeping money from a lot of things. For instance, if we didn't have any earmarks, private citizens might not be spending as much on taxes.
  and
• Ensure adequate investments in aeronautics research.
  Comments: This is senatorial thinking, but necessary (see my previous commentary on McCain for an explanation). The only things he didn't mention specifically were robotic space and planetary science--is that a message in itself?

So: like Obama, McCain is essentially taking a status-quo approach to space because, again, space is not (yet) a national security priority. We'll see how much attention space gets if the situation with Russia gets worse.