Yesterday’s Senate hearing on Artemis: It’s all a game!
Ted Cruz, a typical Congressional porkmeister
The Senate hearing that was held yesterday, entitled “There’s a Bad Moon on the Rise: Why Congress and NASA Must Thwart China in the Space Race”, was clearly organized by Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) to promote a continuation of the SLS, Orion, and Lunar Gateway parts of NASA’s Artemis program. And he was able to do so because senators from both parties felt the same way. They all want to continue this pork, and don’t really care whether those expensive assets can really accomplish what they promise.
Furthermore, the hearing was also structured to allow these politicians to loudly proclaim their desire to beat China back to the Moon, using this pork. They want the U.S. first, but they are almost all want to do this through a government-run program.
As such, the choice of witnesses and the questions put to them were carefully orchestrated to push this narrative. To paraphrase: “We have to beat China to the Moon! And we have make sure a NASA program runs the effort! And above all, we mustn’t let Donald Trump cut any of NASA’s funding, anywhere!”
It was therefore not surprising that the most newsworthy quote from the hearing was the comments by former NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine about Starship and how its choice as a manned lunar lander was a bad one, and that it was likely going to the prime reason China will put humans back on the Moon ahead of us.
Jim Bridenstine at yesterday’s hearing
He started by stating bluntly, “”It is highly unlikely that we will land on the moon before China.” He then went on to criticize the decision of NASA, after he had left the agency, to pick Starship as the manned lunar lander.
Instead of buying a moonlander, we’re going to buy a a big rocket. … The architecture is [complicated]. We need to launch Starship. That first Starship is a fueling depot that’s in orbit around the Earth. Then we need … up to dozens of additional Starships to refuel the first Starship. So imagine launching Starship over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, dozens of times, no delays, no explosions to refuel the first Starship. Then once it’s fully refueled, then that Starship has to fuel another Starship that is in fact human rated, which that process hasn’t even started yet.
He then outlined the complexity of launching SLS and Orion and having it rendezvous and dock with that manned Starship in lunar orbit, all of which seemed to him a bad idea. “This is an architecture that no NASA administrator that I’m aware of would have selected had they had the choice.”
What was fascinating about Bridenstine’s comments was that while he questioned Starship extensively, he said nothing about the significant questions about SLS and Orion. SLS did have overruns in the past but that’s “behind us. It’s done.” Orion meanwhile was “a shiny object … usable today.” No mention of its questionable heat shield or its as yet untested environmental system that must keep its astronauts alive.
Other witnesses lauded the medical research on ISS, without noting that none of that research produces products for sale on Earth. None mentioned the new commercial sector that is doing the same, but actually providing those products to Americans while making a profit. Over and over both senators and witnesses proclaimed the need to fund NASA, because without NASA nothing would happen at all.
The expected real per launch cost of SLS and Orion
The bottom line is that there will likely be no cancellation of SLS, Orion, or Lunar Gateway in the near future. Congress wants all three, and is willing to throw money at them for years to come to keep them alive. Though Starship might delay things a bit, as Bridenstine claimed, the reason China will get its lunar base built first will be because of SLS, Orion, and Gateway, not Starship. SLS and Orion are inefficient, cumbersome, and too expensive, and Gateway puts our assets not on the Moon but in space. You can’t build a manned lunar base with a rocket and capsule that only launches at best once a year, carrying four people. Nor can you do it building a lunar space station in an orbit that makes landing on the Moon more expensive and difficult.
Yet Congress wants them, and it held this hearing expressly to convince the country that these projects should be funded forever. And unless something dramatic happens, such as Orion failing during its first manned mission next year, or SpaceX leaping ahead with its own manned missions to Mars, we should expect Congress to fund SLS, Orion, and Lunar Gateway endlessly for many years to come.
There was at least one small hope during this hearing. One witness, Lieutenant General John Shaw, former deputy commander of the U.S. Space Command, made it a point to repeatedly advocate for a wider view outside of funding a government-run NASA program to plant a flag on the Moon.
John Shaw
My bottom line up front for the committee today is that I am an advocate for and a champion of a unified grand space strategy for our nation for the earth-moon system and beyond. Yet such a grand strategy which would unify and synergize our national efforts across civil, commercial, and national security activities in pursuit of common goals, opportunities, and capabilities does not currently exist. And I believe our mission to return Americans to the moon can be a powerful and a central driver as well as a beneficiary of such a strategy.
In his testimony he consistently focused on encouraging many different capabilities by the private sector across a wide spectrum, not on simply funding SLS, Orion, and Lunar Gateway, noting that by doing so the government would be enabling its goal of establishing a lunar base far more effectively. This is the concept I put forth in December last year. And though a majority of the senators seemed uninterested in this approach, there were more than a few that appeared to agree with it.
Thus, though the boondoggles will go on, it does appear Congress is also willing to shift focus away from them, albeit with some reluctance.
We can only hope that given time and events, this reluctance will eventually fade and be replaced with a more coherent approach, focused not on funding NASA but helping the American people themselves colonize the solar system.
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The print edition can be purchased at Amazon or from any other book seller. If you want an autographed copy the price is $60 for the hardback and $45 for the paperback, plus $8 shipping for each. Go here for purchasing details. The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
The problem is politics.
Ted Cruz is a good conservative, but he also seems to feel strongly about serving the people in his home state of Texas. If he believes funding NASA’s Artemis program will mean jobs and/or investment in Texas, he is going to advocate for it.
Unfortunately, voters will vote for their own interests over the overall interests of the country. This is why budgets have been, are, and will continue to be, busted.
Until the advent of Pres. Trump, the US didn’t do show trials, but we have always done Senate hearings. This one was, in essence, a show trial of SpaceX and NewSpace in general put on for the benefit of the Lifer Caucus at NASA, the legacy parasite contractors combine and a few opportunistic ex-officials looking to curry favor with both of the latter. In the fullness of time, I think this farce will be seen as one of the last hurrahs of the ancien regime of American aerospace and its Congressional enablers.
Bridenstine’s choice to prostitute himself in this way was particularly disappointing. Exactly what alternatives to SpaceX’s HLS lander were on offer in 2021, Jimbo? Blue Moon at $6 billion and ALPACA at $10 billion. And how likely were either of those to be ready in time to Beat the Chinese[tm]? The indictment of the SpaceX HLS is farcical – especially anent the refilling required. Blue Origin’s second lander proposal – the one that actually got accepted – also includes refilling as a core aspect of its logistics.
It is not yet flagrantly obvious to the the normative member of the American public, but the American “space program” now consists mainly of what SpaceX does and, secondarily, what the rest of NewSpace does. NASA will continue to keep the lamps twinkling behind the windows of its false-front Potemkin “program” for as long as it can obtain Congressional help, but rather less than a decade hence – perhaps even a half-decade – I expect the jig to be decisively up. By the 2030s, NASA will look increasingly like those post-WW2 Japanese hold-outs that kept turning up over a period of years, each looking more antique and bewildered than the last.
As of today, I can’t reply… this is a test to see if it’s fixed
Yay! My first reply was basically a one-sentence version of Dick Eagleson’s (minus the great writing). What I’m thinking now is… and agreeing with what I imagine are Dick’s sentiments… Who cares? Let Congress splash the water in its playpool. SpaceX is on track to financing its own private space program, using the very outdated and frowned-upon methods of simple capitalism. This explains why Musk has been quite dismissive-by-omission of Artemis lately. SpaceX will fulfill its Artemis obligations then further focus on its own business. Others (Rocket Lab, Stoke, Firefly…) will follow. All good. Ignore the circus and watch the symphony.
F,
Sen. Cruz is early in his third term and is in his mid-50s. At this point, I think we can safely assume he intends to stay in office for as long as he can manage. Should he manage to match, say, former Sen. Richard Shelby in tenure, he would serve three additional terms and complete his sixth term near mid-century when he would be in his late 70s.
Given the advantages of incumbency and his generally good standing with the MAGA-fied Republican Party, it’s hard to see him being primaried out anywhere along this notional career trajectory. Given the rapidly collapsing state of both the TX and national Democratic Party, it is even harder to see any real possibility of his being ousted electorally by a Democratic opponent. The Dems no longer have any significant “bench” in TX from which to draw. The best they ever did against Cruz was putting up the farcical “Beato” O’Rourke – or, as I prefer to call him, the Shanty-Irish… word that rhymes with “mick” and constitutes the first half of the name of a well-known powdered cleaning product. :)
I doubt seriously that Mr. Cruz’s stands on space-related matters are likely to prove crucial in any future runs for re-election. He takes the stands he does on SLS, Orion, Artemis in general and the Gateway because he’s looking out for what he perceives to be the best interests – mainly the continued existence – of the Johnson Space Center in Houston.
JSC does a number of things, but mainly it does astronaut training, “controls” manned space missions and “operates” the ISS. ISS is going away in 2030 – if not before – and Gateway, ridiculous and superfluous as it is, is a space station, of sorts, and would give JSC’s ISS cadre something to continue to “operate.” How one would justify JSC’s current ISS “operations” headcount for a “station” that would be occupied, at best, for two weeks every couple of years I will leave as an exercise for Mr. Cruz. Even if he gets his way and Gateway becomes a thing, the question is going to be raised by somebody.
“Controlling” manned space missions looks nearly as problematic, in future, as “operating” Gateway. Right now, manned space missions of US origin consist entirely of twice-yearly jaunts to, and returns from, ISS – ignoring the one-time “3-fer” last year pursuant to Starliner’s failure to thrive. Given that the manned vehicles stay at ISS as lifeboats, I suppose that justifies pretty much full-time “work” for JSC “controllers.” Perhaps the plan is to also exercise this type of “control” over NASA-funded missions to post-ISS commercial LEO destinations. Gateway, by itself, certainly won’t provide any such rationale.
Nor, I suspect, will those LEO destinations once SpaceX starts running regular Starship-based “bus service” to and from them with dedicated lifeboat vehicles replacing Crew Dragons in long-term parking. The same will be even more true of SpaceX-only and – eventually – Blue Origin-only lunar missions. Other than buying tickets for NASA personnel on such routine flights, NASA won’t have anything to either “control” or “operate” unless it can actually establish some kind of NASA lunar surface station with crews there doing reasonably long-term stays – perhaps even the six-month types now standard on ISS.
We shall see. The one thing extant bureaucracies are always very good at it is seeing to their own future existence.
Patrick Underwood,
Thank you for the kind words. Here’s hoping this comment make it through the alligators in the moat too. I have also been having some difficulty making posts.
All: I need to know the specific troubles people are having posting comments. We started using a new spam filter because the old one, while doing a good job, was causing serious memory issues and slowing the website down significant.
If the new spam filter is preventing commenting, I need to know. If you can’t post a comment to tell me, email me using the address listed in the tip jar for donating using Zelle.
Politicians are… not you and me. I’ve always respected Cruz, and Gingrich before him, as intelligent, educated, “based” conservatives. But politicians are not like us. I’m a high-IQ (yes, I know!! believe it or not!!) INTJ, and I surmise there are no, or very few, INTJs in public office anywhere on the planet. Cruz is one of those people you expect to behave rationally. But an INTJ’s idea of “rational” is a very rare, and outnumbered, concept. Rare because communal survival dictates it, sadly. Okay, so much for frustrated, drunken, self-serving philosophizing! Carry on.
Even the quote, from “Bad Moon Rising”, is cringeworthy. They are entirely out of step not only with modern reality, but with the modern electorate.
I wish I could email Sen. Ted Cruz, but I live in N.C. What I think should be done, is this. NASA should offer prizes, and purchase launch flights. How about a $500 million prize, for the first salvage yard in Earth? They could remove old satellites, and old rocket boosters.
$250 million for second place, and $125 million for third place.
And there should be lots of other prizes. I will post them tomorrow.
Ted Cruz… anyone remember the 2016 RNC convention when Trump graciously invited Cruz to speak and Cruz went up and said “vote your conscience” – basically announcing he’s voting for Hillary? That cemented him in my mind as an arrogant, irredeemable slime worm.
”It is highly unlikely that we will land on the moon before China.”
Hey, Jim I got a piece of news for you. We already beat China to the moon over 50 years ago.
So what if China rushes together a program and gets some of it’s people on the moon before we return.
The key at this stage is being able to have a sustainable presence. That’s not going to happen with a NASA rocket that costs $4 billion/launch and will struggle to launch more than a couple of times a year.
Jim can’t “imagine launching Starship over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, dozens of times,”
He probably can’t imagine launching Falcon dozens of times, but I got news for him.
And as Musk said in an interview SpaceX played during last week’s launch countdown, Starship/SH isn’t only the biggest rocket, isn’t only the first fully reusable rocket, but it’s the first rocket designed to be mass produced.
Hey Ted, did you forget SpaceX operates a large facility in Texas? Guess that doesn’t count unless you can shake some dollars out of Musk’s pockets.
PS Politics is still politics so yeah, I’d rather have slimy Ted as a senator than a Dem like Beato.
I think we all agree that the problem with the first race to the moon was that it was nothing but a race and now the top leadership at NASA and Congress want to run the race again to beat China? Who cares? We won. Let us insist that we do more than step on the moon again. Let there be some point to doing all this other than to beat someone there. We did that already. If there is no compelling reason to go to the moon, let us leave it the likes of SpaceX who wants to get to Mars. It might be nice if NASA could defray some of the costs of learning to refuel in orbit or many of the other tasks we need to get a handle on but I think we all probably agree that NASA would not just get in the way, they would get sideways and jam up the whole business so it’s probably best to just terminate NASA involvement in manned spaceflight and let them stick with robot missions and faking climate data.
Not sure SpaceX even wants to be tied down with long term ferry service to the moon. Ok maybe for further Starship testing but, with limited windows (every 26 months), would probably want to concentrate on getting Starships ready to send to Mars once they ace a test landing/takeoff from the moon. Only interest in the moon would be if it somehow assists getting 100 or more Starships loaded with materials and/or people to Mars every two years.
Imagine how pathetic NASA (and it’s money wasting cheerleaders) will appear if Starship can send large numbers of people to Mars every two years for a tiny fraction of what NASA spends to send a few to the moon in the same timeframe not using Starship? And that’s assuming NASA manages to fix the Artimis heatshield and ensure the environmental system is actually safe before adding people (Starliner has entered the chat with it’s faulty thrusters).
Just took a quick break to watch my 4th Falcon9 launch/landing in 6 days (with another currently scheduled for tomorrow).
Here are some more prizes.
The first company to land a spacecraft on the Moon, dig up 100 tons of lunar dirt, and rocks, transport them to the surface of the Earth, and repeat the mission in three weeks, with the same spacecraft, should win a prize of $500 million. The second place company would win $250 million. Third place would get $125 million.
More later on.
Robert Zimmerman,
The specific problem I was – and still am – having was that, even after entering comment text, name, e-mail address and getting a “Success” checkmark from that Cloudflare widget, the “Post Comment” button stayed grayed-out and unresponsive. After saving my comment text to the Windows clipboard and refreshing the tab I still couldn’t post the comment after pasting the text back into the text box and re-entering name and e-mail address and getting a thumbs-up from Cloudflare. I had to close the tab entirely, regenerate it from your home page and then paste everything back in to get the “Post Comment” button to take a click and post the comment. I hope this proves helpful to you and Shane.
Patrick Underwood,
You write pretty well yourself, IMHO.
Anent Myers-Briggs categories, I used to think there was something to them as the “test” is widely used in business. But the more experience I accumulated in business settings, the more I came to notice that businesspeople are perhaps even more inclined than Average Joes to fall for fads, latch onto trendy buzz phrases and otherwise act like impulsive teenagers seeking to be seen as “cool.”
The nearest analogy I now see to Myers-Briggs categories are the astrological signs. And there may well be more people who ascribe significance to those – even in business – than there are those who are devotees of Myers-Briggs. Any given individual can likely find at least a half-dozen M-B categories that fit them as well as whatever category the actual test slots them into. The same is true of astrological signs. Like M-B categories, the descriptions of people born under the various signs are uniformly flattering and nicely elide any potential dysfunctions or personality defects.
There are psychological categorization paradigms that don’t leave out our dark sides, especially for personality types where these predominate. There definitely are narcissists, psychopaths, sociopaths and borderline personalities out there and the M-B test does nothing to identify them.
I don’t put much stock in fortune cookies either.
David Ross,
The political class, even Republicans, have always operated in a “reality” significantly different from that of ordinary citizens. Democrat “reality,” of late, has become positively extraterrestrial in its disconnect from everyday life.
That said, it is the various electorates who keep returning these folks to office so there is self-evidently a considerable tolerance by at least a significant fraction of the general public for public figures plainly divorced from reality. My own House representative, for example, is Maxine Waters. ‘Nuff said.
Robert,
Any prizes offered for space activities should originate in the private sector, not from NASA. NASA will have less and less consequential influence over space activities as time goes on and handing it money to fund prizes will simply retard this natural progression and skew space efforts toward goals ginned up by career bureaucrats, not by people who wish to pursue genuinely sustainable projects.
Mitch S.,
Fair point about Sen. Cruz’s ungracious comment in 2016. Definitely not one of his better moments.
I agree that it would be unfortunate, but hardly catastrophic, were the PRC to get people to the Moon before we return. That is especially so given that the PRC is all but certain to collapse well before its 2049 centenary. Any claims it might make on the Moon will become nugatory post-crack-up.
The SLS-Orion stack would be doing miraculously to ever manage even two launches per year. Right now, the plan for its first decade of operation falls well short of even one launch every two years.
Also agree that complaints about the necessity of many Starship launches utterly fail to deal with even what SpaceX is doing now, never mind what it will be capable of a couple of years down the road. The march of events will not be kind to those making such assertions.
Anent SpaceX and TX, the company operates at least three large facilities there – Starbase, McGregor and the Starlink ground terminal plant near Bastrop. That simply reinforces your point, of course.
Curtis,
Agree with you and Mitch S. that US space endeavors should not be driven by some Beat the Chinese[tm] imperative.
NASA actually is helping to “defray some of the costs of learning to refuel in orbit or many of the other tasks we need to get a handle on” via its HLS contract with SpaceX.
NASA will soon have relatively little to do with manned spaceflight as most of those going to the Moon and Mars in coming decades will not have NASA patches on their jackets.
Hello Dick-
Thanks for your note above. As a longtime web guy I would love nothing more than 100% compatibility with everything I do but that’s not reality. This plugin module is from Cloudflare, pretty much one of the biggest anti-bot technology providers around. These plugins have to deal with an extreme amount of variability on the client side, among them:
* browser privacy toggles
* browser plugins
* DNS based blocklists, ISP blocklists, customer firewall IP & Domain blocks & filtering
* browser settings in general
* vpns on the client side
* antivirus and anti-malware software on the client side
There are a lot more factors as well. In my testing environment I use chrome/edge/firefox to test things and those are all using pretty vanilla settings. I also use a separate “consumer” internet connection to view things like an end user.
Since that is a free module we aren’t likely going to get any support for it, but on your end you could try some things such as a different browser, browser with no extensions loaded, not in privacy mode, etc. However, in any event, your specific setup and problems are likely different than mine, and different than other users…
These sorts of issues are extremely difficult to troubleshoot.
Thanks for your detailed comments, I appreciate them.
Dick Eagleson,
While Cruz may not have a concern about facing a potential primary opponent, I believe he DOES have concerns about general elections. His last election had him winning fairly convincingly, but the prior two victories were much closer than one might have expected. Texas is not as strongly “red” as is generally believed.
I would note that I am a regular listener to the “Verdict with Ted Cruz” podcast. Most of the topics are national in scope, but Cruz often speaks about how his policy position would benefit the people of Texas.
By the way, the podcast is a good one. Even if you do not agree with Cruz politically, he provides a lot of insight into the workings of the Supreme Court and the Senate. His experience as a clerk for the Court, and as a Senator, allows him to share information of great interest.
There is an enormous amount of talent in JSC flight operations, saddled to an organization that seemingly can’t transition away from the way it has always done things. FOD is slowly putting itself out of business as commercial space entities can’t see the value proposition for using FOD, relative to standing up their own flight operations in-house.
The problem is that in-house-developed legacy operations capabilities act as a ball and chain preventing anything but tweaks to the aged ISS operating model. Artemis and other new mission programs all want to meet their schedules by reusing capabilities developed for ISS, meaning FOD has little capital budget to modernize / fix / refactor mission operations for doing business within future-year funding constraints alongside increasing federal IT mandates. And facilities prone to 60-year-old building problems are difficult to revamp while in constant operational use.
I find this article credible
https://spacenews.com/we-led-nasas-human-exploration-program-heres-what-artemis-needs-next/
People can lambast SLS all they want–but the fact remains that it is ahead of Lunar Starship..
Dynetics should have gotten the ALPACA contract: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynetics_HLS
They were addressing the mass concerns…
This is why America needs to support in-house work without regard as to what SpaceX does with regards to BEO exploration.
Falcon/Dragon is far ahead of Starship–even with the more recent test that did better than the previous attempts.
Going back to the idea of “beating the Chinese to the moon,” here are a few simple points / questions. OK, perhaps not so simple, but I am not an engineer, and there are a lot of things that I only dimly understand along these lines.
Point one. Isn’t SLS-Orion capable of going to the moon, entering lunar orbit, and then returning to earth, *all without refueling*? And isn’t this pretty much what Artemis II is supposed to do? If so, then this is basically a replay of all of the Apollo missions. Not exactly anything “new.”
Point two: Thinking back half a century — yes, it’s really been that long — we used this ungainly little contrivance called the LEM to carry two astronauts to the surface of the moon and back, along with (later) a lunar rover and some lunar samples on the return trip. (It worked as a pretty good lifeboat, too.) So, OK — inquiring minds want to know — why not carry along a *larger* LEM on the Artemis mission that could carry four or more astronauts? (Or even borrow an original model from a museum, and just send *two* astronauts back to the surface of the moon this time. Right, the female and the black one.)
That way, we “beat the Chinese to the moon” (again), and everybody is happy, even Senator Cruz. Meanwhile, after beating the Chinese, we figure out some more rational, cost effective ways of colonizing the moon on a long term basis with or without Starship. Case closed, and billions and billions saved. At some point, learning to do refueling in orbit is a MUST if we want to send humans to Mars, and as Mitch and others have observed, this is all about *mass producing* hardware — and servicing techniques — that will finally make it possible to colonize the Solar System.
Or — here’s an idea — If a Starship could be put into lunar orbit — with or w/o refueling — to rendezvous with the Orion capsule, why couldn’t it simply carry a 4-person LEM as its payload? Are you telling me that as big and as powerful as Straship is supposed to be, it CAN’T carry that much of a tiny payload to lunar orbit? REALLY? And why use a Starship to land on the moon in the first place? What’s the point of that?
Oh, wait. I forgot. In those fifty plus years, everyone in the aerospace industry has grown more STUPID, not smarter, our technology is not as good, and it is impossible, now, to replicate, what we did back in 1968. Today we can’t build a LEM that holds four people, especially if two of them will be female / people of color. Or, as a NASA functionary once opined, “going back to the moon is just too hard,” and we can’t do it today.
OK engineers, I’m listening.
Booster Bunny,
I don’t think it makes any more sense to describe running Earth-to-Moon passenger and logistics services as “tying down” SpaceX than it would to apply the same description to its Starlink launches. The latter are done to make money and so would be the former.
Mars, as you correctly note, will require Starship activity to peak at 26-month intervals, but that leaves a lot of time in between for doing other applications of Starship including running an Earth-to-Moon passenger and logistics operation.
It’s going to take awhile to get enough depot ships into orbit to support the 1,000-ship armadas Elon eventually wants to be running to Mars every Hohmann transfer window. It’s also going to take a lot of tanker flights to fill them. Ideally, one would like to spread all the launch activity required out as evenly as possible. One would also like to have the depots be in frequent use and not gathering dust and cobwebs – metaphorically – between Martian armada departures. Using these assets to support lunar and cis-lunar activity between Mars expeditions would serve these leveling and staying loose goals.
You are definitely correct about even the fairly near-term absurdity of SLS-Orion-based lunar missions vs. all-Starship – or even all-New Glenn – missions. NASA is the Pony Express in this comparison and SpaceX and Blue are the Morse telegraph.
Robert,
You illustrate one of the potential problems with prizes – they need to have a rational point. What is the rational point of a capability to fetch 100 tons of lunar regolith back to Earth every three weeks? Science can get by with a few pounds – or even ounces – at a time and would place a premium on diversity of acquisition sites rather than mass quantities repeatedly obtained from the same site. Even potential business cases involving lunar regolith, such as He3 mining, make far more sense done in situ with only the extracted/refined end-product transferred back to Earth.
Back to the drawing board my friend.
“Fair point about Sen. Cruz’s ungracious comment in 2016. Definitely not one of his better moments.”
On the other hand, Trump had recently accused Cruz’s father of being involved in the Kennedy assassination. So it’s understandable if Cruz was still feeling a little miffed.
I sent Ted Cruz an email, and I emailed Sen. Thom Tillis, and told him about it. Here is the email I sent.
==========================================
Dear Sen. Ted Cruz,
I’m writing to you, about your support for SLS. SLS is not needed. Each launch will cost $4 billion, and will only be launched twice a year at most. Starship is much cheaper, and will have faster turn around. Just going to LEO, and back, it will be able to launch about three times a day, 20 times a week, or about 1,000 times a year.
Going to the Moon, or to Mars, it will be able to carry 100 passengers. Starship is reusable, and can be used over, and over. Going to the Moon, it would take three days to get there. So it could make about 50 trips to the Moon a year. Each trip carrying 100 passengers.
So what NASA should do, and what the US should do, is to purchase launch flights to LEO, the Moon, and beyond. This would save the government money, and would help to establish an Earth to LEO transport industry, and Earth to Moon transport industry.
I also think that the US should have prizes. Just like the X-Prize back in 2004. Below is some prizes that I think the US should have.
1. How about a $500 million prize, for the first salvage yard in Earth? They could remove old satellites, and old rocket boosters.
$250 million for second place, and $125 million for third place. This could handle the orbital debris problem.
2. The first company to land a spacecraft on the Moon, dig up 100 tons of lunar dirt, and rocks, transport them to the surface of the Earth, and repeat the mission in three weeks, with the same spacecraft, should win a prize of $500 million. The second place company would win $250 million. Third place would get $125 million. This can be done for $500 million.
3. The first company to build a space station, capable of producing artificial gravity, that produces 1/6 of Earth’s gravity. Have it occupied for two, and a half year, by four, or more crew members. They will also need to plant, and harvest food crops. Growing eight different crops, and there should be four, or more plants, for each different crop. Should win a prize of $500 million. Second place $250 million, $125 million for third place. There is a company that plans to build space stations. They can build one that can house 10 people, for $100 million.
4. The first company to build a solar power satellite, capable of producing 10 MW of electric power, convert that power into microwaves, and beam that power to a rectenna farm on Earth, where it would then be converted into electric power. Should win a prize of $1 billion. Second place would be $500 million, and $250 million for third place. Both China, and Japan are looking into SPS. Back in 1964, a small unmanned helicopter was powered by microwaves.
I have been a member of the National Space Society since 1987. So I am very knowledgeable about space matters.
One note about Spacex, and Elon Musk. Elon Musk might not be interested in operating a transportation service to the Moon. Musk is more interested in Mars. He plans to build about 100, to 200 Starships a year. I think he should sell Starships to other companies. Companies like Virgin Galactic, Virgin Atlantic, Delta, and other companies. There is talk of using Starship to transport passengers, and cargo from one place on Earth, to another. And it would be cheaper than the Concord.
I would like to hear from you, about my views. I don’t live in Texas, but in N.C.
Bridenstine is mostly correct about how the Starship choice as a manned lunar lander was a bad one, but he is wrong about the reason. Starship is the farthest along of all the lunar lander concepts, but it is way oversized for the mission. That is why it takes so many other launches to refuel it. Blue Origin’s lander does not require nearly as much refueling.
Shaw is right that commercial space should be a major player in this whole lunar mess, as well as in the exploration and utilization of space. Government has done a terrible job of both, but commercial space is beginning to excel, beginning to bring us the benefits of space.
___________
F is right. The problem is politics. Ted Cruz has suffered from the same problem as Senator Paine in the movie Mr. Smith goes to Washington.
“Unfortunately, voters will vote for their own interests over the overall interests of the country.”
This is why the Senate is not supposed to be elected by We the People but by the state legislatures. The Senate is the more thoughtful, less emotional part of government and is supposed to be more rational than the people of the country. Unfortunately, the Seventeenth Amendment destroyed this special nature of the Senate.
___________
Milt wrote: “OK engineers, I’m listening.”
There is a lot of interesting commentary by several people.
Starship was designed as a quick way to inexpensively get into space and to Mars. It is not being optimized for specific missions, although the choice of a relatively inefficient fuel like methane over hydrogen allows for other companies to find better efficiencies. We may lament the multiple launches in order to refill propellant tanks in Earth orbit, but that — Earth orbit rendezvous — was the likely choice for going to the Moon in the 1960s, until some lone voice in the wilderness suggested the unthinkable lunar orbit rendezvous. Earth orbit rendezvous was going to require a fair number of launches, too. I really don’t see why everyone is so upset about the multiple launches in order to get around the solar system.
Space is difficult. It always has been and it always will be. Delta-v is not free.
SLS is not the Saturns. It was never intended to perform like Apollo, because it just does not have the lift capacity to carry its own lunar lander. It cannot get an Orion into low lunar orbit, which is why we have the stupid Gateway station in that bizarre orbit around the Moon. SLS was not designed for a mission to return to the Moon. It was not designed for any mission, except to put a certain amount of mass into low Earth orbit. Low cost was not a requirement, so it does not do its job inexpensively. In fact, as a jobs project (kind of like the WPA in the 1930s), low costs are counterproductive.
However, it looks like Starship does have the capacity of a Saturn V, but it does not have the same leftover delta-v to get an Apollo Command-Service module with a Lunar Module into a trans-lunar orbit, like the Saturn V’s third stage (Saturn-IVB) could. Starship was not designed for that mission, either.
It isn’t that the people in the aerospace industry have grown stupid, it is that no one was ever tasked with building a rocket to take us back to the surface of the Moon and return us back safe again. Congress designed the SLS from Shuttle parts, just so that those folks didn’t lose their jobs, so getting to the Moon was not on Congress’s collective mind. Starship was designed to get a lot of men and materiel to Mars, not to the Moon. It may seem like the Moon would be easier, but Mars has an atmosphere that reduces the delta-v needed to land on the surface, and the Moon does not.
NASA’s choice of Starship to land on the Moon was a decision based upon cost, not efficiency. SpaceX believes that they can do the many launches needed for a cost that is less than the other companies thought they could design their landers and get them to the Moon and back off the surface. SpaceX has to make a few changes to its Starship design in order to do this task, and it is so early in the development that they they can build Starship in a way that the changes are easy to make; no severe and expensive retrofitting necessary. Eventually, we will figure out a much more efficient way to get to the Moon, but if we are to Beat the Chinese™, then we are going to have to kluge together some Frankenstein’s monster in order to do it fast rather than do it smart.
So, is Cruz right? Should we spend huge amounts of money and waste precious space resources in order to go to the Moon sooner rather than later, just so we Beat the Chinese™ and so that Cruz can say that his daughters have been to the Moon (in the same way we old fogies say that we have been there)?
After all, we now have a new National Goal that everyone is behind and that we are willing to spend huge amounts of money on just so that we can beat someone to the Moon, but this time without the technological developments that we had in the 1960s and without developing the hardware and methods needed to sustain a lunar base that will be used for generations to come. Do it quick! Do it expensive! Do it without long-term goals in mind!
Isn’t that exactly where we went wrong with Apollo? After we achieved Kennedy’s goal, everyone lost interest, and Nixon chose to put space as yet another domestic jobs program, leaving us with no goal in space and no way for commercial companies to compete with NASA for the benefits to mankind that were promised in the Outer Space Treaty — and no other government was willing to bring us the promised benefits, either.
What the [expletive] does Cruz think he is doing? What benefit will a repeat of the 1960s space race bring us? And once Cruz and his government have given us another Apollo-like victory with a another top-down, marxist-like space project, are we once again going to end up with another [expletive] mediocre manned space program, because everyone has figured out that the NASA project was way too [expletive] expensive for no [expletive] lasting benefit? [Expletive]! Did we learn nothing from history?
At least this time we have a booming commercial space industry that can continue its own plans for sustaining manufacturing and other benefits from space. The government failed to be beneficial, but commercial space companies must bring us benefits, or else we will not support them enough to keep them going. Just like NASA was not supported after Apollo, because NASA had no plan to bring us tangible benefits from space.
Unfortunately, we will have to let government piddle away a bunch more taxpayer money on this Beat the Chinese™ boondoggle, but we will be saved by the commercial space industry, this time. We can save ourselves, but it is too late for NASA, as it is already caught in the tentacles of Congress’s lousy priorities. Yup. F is right. The problem is politics.
_____________
Dick Eagleson,
Thank you for the workaround to the inability to post comments. It worked for me when I had a similar problem.
Meh. Too many folks aren’t paying attention to what Musk says. He says it won’t take that many refueling flights. Folks may not want to believe that, but it is certainly possible to launch a much stripped down HLS that will do the mission, and fulfill what Musk says.
It’s all in the rocket equation. Less mass means less fuel. It adds up fast as everyone seems to realize, but how do you know what the final configuration of HLS to be? Maybe I’m missing something. That fact is, even if Musk won’t do it that way, that you can launch a lot less mass and do the mission. It won’t take anything big for Musk to do differently, so I’m thinking that he already has that in mind, and will demonstrate it at the appropriate time.
Let’s see if this posts. People having trouble posting comments, I see.
This is a pretty harsh indictment of Kathy Lueders, the woman Jim Bridenstine personally selected (in June 2020) to take over as the associate administrator of the Human Exploration and Operations (HEO) Mission Directorate, which in turns would sure seem to be an indictment of Bridenstine himself for picking her in the first place! And more to the point . . . the implication seems to be that Kathy was only able to sneak this selection of Starship through because there *was* no NASA administrator in place at the time. So, if this is so, how did Jimbo so badly misread Kathy?
Or . . . is this an awkward and self-serving rewriting of history by Bridenstine?
What is driving all of this, beyond the surge in resentment of Elon Musk inside the Beltway, is, as our host Mr. Zimmerman rightly observes, a wrong-headed but all-too predictable mania with “beating China back to the Moon.” Granted, this is what Congress seems to want, and NASA has to answer to Congress, but . . . here is the harsh truth: A crewed lunar lander contracted out in 2021 was going to struggle to reach completion before the end of the decade no matter how simplified it was, even on crash program spending. And Congress, of course, has never showed any sign of being willing to approve that kind of spending. It took Grumman (back when both it and NASA were lean, mean, fast-moving organizations) over 7 years to deliver an operational (and, uh, highly risky) Lunar Module to NASA in the 1960’s with crash program funding. Which, by the way, was about $25 billion in 2024 dollars, which in turn is probably not far off what it would cost NASA to build a simple crewed lunar lander using traditional procurement contracting in the 2020’s.
But no one in NASA or at Starbase had any confidence that an HLS could be ready in 2024 — or 2025, or 2026 — no matter how much midnight oil Elon’s (or Jeff Bezos’s!) engineers burned, and everyone at NASA knew it. They picked it because it was the best option by the best company, and schedule was a less urgent concern.
Richard M: “Or . . . is this an awkward and self-serving rewriting of history by Bridenstine?”
That’s it, in a nutshell. Bridenstine is doing what DC swamp creatures always do, deflect blame for their failures to others, and in doing so try to change the facts to fit their new narrative.
Bridenstine did make a point of saying repeatedly that Starship is needed and will be great for the nation and NASA, but his overall statement clearly tried to pass the blame to others.
Unfortunately, I am compelled to agree with Dick Eagleson. This is not the sort of thing that is going to get Ted Cruz primaried, or cost him the race in a general election.
The answer to such parochial Congressional politics, as always, must be presidential leadership — the willingness to articulate a vision and spend political capital to make it happen. But most presidents simply do not prioritize space policy, or even know much of anything about it. In this respect, Donald Trump is no different from any of his post-LBJ predecessors.
Zero chance. And Jim Bridenstine has to know that as well as anyone. The Source Selection Statement is quite candid about the lack of technical work that had been done on either lander proposal by those bidders.
Mr Zimmerman: Humble typo catch: “….it was likely going to the prime reason China will humans back to the Moon ahead of us. Suggest sticking “take or bring” between will & humans.
Robert: I have emailed Senator Cruz my observations about the whole Artemis mess. I AM a voter in Texas. I got back the standard “Thanks for your interest in this matter” reply. Perhaps I should have included a Venmo for $400,000.
I fully agree with your “X prize” idea. If our host allows it, put all your prize thoughts in an integrated post and I will happily forward it as a Texas voter to both of my Senators (even that useless twit Cornyn). See above for expected result. Anybody got a spare $400 grand lying around?
It is a mess, that is just the way elective politics goes. That is why I agree with Robert on the prize approach and hope that expanding commercial space allows consortiums of the willing and able to start achieving some real things in space.
Greg wrote: “It’s all in the rocket equation. Less mass means less fuel.”
This is a major reason that the Starship is not the best choice for a lunar lander. Its structure is more massive.
I have the impression that people are disappointed that Starship needs any refilling on orbit and are disappointed that SLS does not do the job alone, like the Saturn V did. If this were 1960, I suspect that many here would be disappointed that we weren’t going to use a V2 to get to the Moon and to return from it, too (I might have been among them). Science fiction, back then, made space seem easy, but in reality it is difficult.
It is that darned rocket equation. If only the rocket scientists had written it differently, then we would have an easier time getting around the solar system, and maybe the galaxy, too, as in Asimov’s Foundation series.
I see the future differently than I think most people here see it. I expect that in a couple of decades or so we will have space-based lunar landers that operate from a space station in lunar orbit to the lunar surface. These would have landing gear and other heavy equipment needed for that task. The propellant needed to move all that equipment only needs to be enough to get it to and from lunar orbit. Between lunar orbit and Earth orbit would be other “shuttles” that have no landing gear and minimal heat shielding for aerobraking (aerocapture) into Earth orbit, and they only operate between two space stations, the one in lunar orbit and the other in Earth orbit. This one is light weight (or rather low mass). Both of these types of spacecraft would need continual retanking, and those propellants may have to come from the Earth, depending upon the availability of water at the Moon’s poles.
Then there would be the shuttles from the Earth’s surface to orbit, similar to the one in the movie 2001: a Space Odyssey. These shuttles may have to be fairly heavy, with beefy landing gear and full heat shields for atmospheric reentry, but they would be refilled on Earth and they need only a little propellant to change to their reentry trajectories.
No matter the future methods and infrastructure, we will need tanker rockets just as we have tanker trucks and tanker ships here on Earth, even if only to retank the Earth-orbit to lunar-orbit shuttle. We will need more of these tankers if they can carry 100 tonnes and fewer if they can carry 200 tonnes. And the need for these really increases if there isn’t enough water at the lunar poles.
But for now, we are still fairly primitive in our spacecraft and their operations, we may have taken a step backward to worse than Apollo and the Saturns that lifted it. Hopefully, commercial space will find efficiencies and methods that improve the use, cost, and safety of space travel.
I agree in full, Bob. Alas, there’s no other way to read this. I am very disappointed in Jim Bridenstine this week.
P.S. In case others missed it, Eric Berger tweeted this out on X the other day:
“Jim Bridenstine still hates Starship. He complains about the lunar lander selected for Artemis without offering an alternative, or acknowledging NASA had no exploration funding after spending it all on SLS and Orion.”
https://x.com/SciGuySpace/status/1963241862409392299
And to Eric’s credit, he pushed back when challenged in the replies:
Scott Thorpe: “The number of launches for Starship to get to the moon is a problem.”
Eric Berger: “It is. But what’s the alternative? It’s still almost certainly the fastest way to get humans to the lunar surface for the United States.”
Thanks to Edward in his last several posts for helping with my cognitive dissonance with respect to the “beating the Chinese to the moon thing.” (Dim little light bulb flickering on in my head.) The way in which the Artemis program is configured has never seemed to make sense, and for the first time ever, I think that I finally have a fairly solid grasp of what is wrong with this picture. As Edward relates:
“… no one [at NASA] was ever tasked with building a rocket to take us back to the surface of the Moon and return us back safe again. Congress designed the SLS from Shuttle parts, just so that those folks didn’t lose their jobs, so getting to the Moon was not on Congress’s collective mind. Starship was designed to get a lot of men and materiel to Mars, not to the Moon. It may seem like the Moon would be easier, but Mars has an atmosphere that reduces the delta-v needed to land on the surface, and the Moon does not.”
and
“SLS was not designed for a mission to return to the Moon. It was not designed for *any* mission, except to put a certain amount of mass into low Earth orbit. Low cost was not a requirement, so it does not do its job inexpensively. In fact, as a jobs project (kind of like the WPA in the 1930s), low costs are counterproductive. (emphasis added)
and, finally
It is that darned rocket equation. If only the rocket scientists had written it differently, then we would have an easier time getting around the solar system, and maybe the galaxy, too, as in Asimov’s Foundation series.”
So, paraphrasing, we have a lot of parts kluged together that were not optimized — indeed, not even designed for — an extended lunar mission, and their delta-v capacity is at best marginal for the job. Thus workarounds like the lunar Gateway. But now under the mandate to “beat the Chinese,” we must somehow do the best that we can with what we’ve got. Even if SLS-Orion-Starship-Gateway is so ugly that it makes Frankenstein’s monster look like a movie star. Sigh.
But why — and this lament is directed at Robert — hasn’t all of this been better explained both to Congress and to the public at large? Instead, we are treated to one story after another about “NASA taking us back to the moon” using “new, cutting edge technology,” and
“ain’t it wonderful” to the Nth degree. The real story is all here within the posts on Behind the Black, but where has this more factual and insightful narrative appeared anywhere within the popular press? Or, at this point, are there any credible “popular” sources to even present such an uncomfortable truth?
PS — I do not know if Edward is a science writer, but he should be, and the better that all this is understood, the better our chances of making some changes in Washington.
PPS — In my mind’s eye, I can picture Edward testifying before Congress about this so that even the dimmer animals there can understand, but after watching Sec. Kennedy’s recent appearance before this august body, I am not so sure. For too many members, it’s invincible ignorance allied with greed and the main chance, and no amount of exposure to reality is going to change things.
Milt asked, “But why — and this lament is directed at Robert — hasn’t all of this been better explained both to Congress and to the public at large? Instead, we are treated to one story after another about “NASA taking us back to the moon” using “new, cutting edge technology,” and
“ain’t it wonderful” to the Nth degree. The real story is all here within the posts on Behind the Black, but where has this more factual and insightful narrative appeared anywhere within the popular press? Or, at this point, are there any credible “popular” sources to even present such an uncomfortable truth?”
I think I have written more than a few posts over the years explaining this. Two in the last few weeks addressed it directly:
Junk science now dominates the reporting of the propaganda press
The Cracker Barrel kerfuffle proves the now powerful reach of the alternative/conservative press
The first article outlines the terrible state of science reporting. Except for a very few exceptions (of which BtB is one), science journalism today is nothing more then propaganda, reprinting press releases.
In the second, I note how this aspect of political reporting has now so discredited the propaganda press that the alternative/conservative press is now become influential.
The problem is that in science reporting this same process has not happened. Worse, very few people appear to want my kind of reporting, especially about the government’s destructive role in science and space. Cruz and the gang from both parties at that Artemis hearing last week certainly don’t like what I have to say. Neither do the big space contractors who benefit from SLS and Orion. And the public is mostly interested in shiny objects, so the reporting of junk science generates far more hits than my reporting of uncertain results.
This last point is the most important. As always, it is the audience that counts, and the audience today, the American public, seems largely uninterested in in-depth reporting. This might be changing for the better, but if so, the change has been slow and uneven.
Milt,
Thank you for the kind words. I’m glad my point was clear.
“But why — and this lament is directed at Robert — hasn’t all of this been better explained both to Congress and to the public at large?”
Robert’s point is good, “Except for a very few exceptions (of which BtB is one), science journalism today is nothing more then propaganda, reprinting press releases.”
I think it was Tom Wolf who pointed it out in The Right Stuff. The American news tends to report what the government wants reported. I don’t remember how Wolf phrased it, but NASA was good news at a time when Americans needed good news, so the papers, radio, and television tended not to report the reality but the fantasy. The news conference where the original seven astronauts were announced and paraded before the public may have been Wolf’s example. These seven were heroes before they flew. Their flaws were largely ignored.
It has been four decades since I read the book, but this point stuck.
The press today is not that much different, although they are much more extreme in taking sides in politics.
Where science is concerned, well, I think that Penny on The Big Bang Theory demonstrates how little interest there is among the public for any kind of science or even for any kind of technology. The water comes out of the faucet and the electricity comes from the outlet. Make sure that you put gas into the car, and if the “check engine” light comes on then. if you don’t have the money for proper maintenance, it is just a suggestion. Penny can identify the Kardashians (it turns out that there are more than two, Kim and the other one), but all Penny knows about a Higgs Boson is that it was in the news for a while (come to think of it, that is all there is to the Kardashians, too).
Because the science has become so complicated, and because we can live happy lives without understanding or even knowing it, science is not the shiny object that interests most people. Instead, everyone else wants to know how Brad and Angelina are doing, but we nerds don’t care (are they still a couple?).
Edward writes, “Because the science has become so complicated, and because we can live happy lives without understanding or even knowing it, science is not the shiny object that interests most people.”
In this, he is echoing Carl Sagan’s famous observation on the problem of maintaining responsible representative government in a technology-based society when most of the electorate — and many of its elected leaders — don’t understand / care how anything actually works:
“We’ve arranged a society on science and technology in which nobody understands anything about science and technology, and
this combustible mixture of ignorance and power sooner or later is going to blow up in our faces. I mean, who is running the science and technology in a democracy if the people don’t know anything about it?
Science is more than a body of knowledge, it’s a way of thinking. If we are not able to ask skeptical questions to interrogate those who tell us something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then we’re up for grabs for the next charlatan political or religious leader who comes ambling along.
It’s a thing that Jefferson lay great stress on. It wasn’t enough, he said, to enshrine some rights in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the people had to be educated and they have to practice their skepticism and their education. Otherwise, we don’t run the government, the government runs us.”
Carl Sagan
From https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/10716565-we-ve-arranged-a-society-on-science-and-technology-in-which
Also, in this short video with Charlie Rose: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/PL7bvG5sbwY
This problem has got to be fixed. What can be done to create something better than today’s worse than useless propaganda press? This is probably a topic for a whole different forum, but we are watching things “blow up in our faces” everywhere that we turn.
Milt wrote, “It’s a thing that Jefferson lay great stress on. It wasn’t enough, he said, to enshrine some rights in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the people had to be educated and they have to practice their skepticism and their education.” [emphasis mine]
Re the highlighted words above: To be an essay later this week. The question isn’t “getting educated.” The question is what you teach.
To Dick Eagleson,
I chose 100 tons, to demonstrate that a company can dig up lunar dirt, and rocks, and bring them back to Earth. I would prefer that they be brought to a facility in LEO. But we don’t yet have facilities in LEO that can handle resources from the Moon. I also prefer that iron, and aluminum be brought back from the Moon. But that would require more equipment sent to the Moon.
As far as 3 weeks, I think within 7 days would be the best. But we are talking about the beginning. And the lunar dirt can be used for more things than just science. Artist could use lunar dirt in their artwork. People that make jewelry can use it in their jewelry. The lunar dirt would be sold for about $5.00 a gram. Some body will buy a large amount, and then resell it in small plastic tubes for $10.00 a gram. So for $10.00, you can own one gram of lunar dirt.
The first few companies that bring back 100 tons of lunar dirt, will have lots of investors, willing to invest billions of dollars. It would be like the 1990s, with the internet. It would also be a game changer. This is not a government doing this, but a company. And most likely a new space company. I want to see lots of game changers.
As for prizes being offered by the private, while I somewhat agree, I don’t see any billionaires
willing to put up any money right now. And Musk, and Bezos don’t count. They have their own space companies. I might email The X-Prize.
I got the idea for prizes from Robert Zubrin, and from the late Jerry Pournelle.
To Doubting Thomas,
It might be tomorrow before I post any more prizes. A couple are not about space. One is for nuclear fusion, and the other is for molecular nanotechnology.
Sorry to all for being out of the loop for awhile. My cable modem went toes-up early Saturday and I have only just now gotten it replaced.
Shane the BtB Web Guy,
I did a bit of Web stuff myself back in the Pleistocene Era of the Web in the mid- and late-90s. Even then, it was obvious that meta-stability was about the best one could ever hope for as the tech was evolving far too quickly to permit any sort of universal Lego-like standard interfaces to be defined. Entirely new functions, apps and foundation bits were appearing daily and that has only gotten far worse in the intervening decades. Every non-trivial web presence now seems to be an improvisation built from Lego, American Brick, Lincoln Log, Tinker Toy, Meccano and Erector Set parts with new, mutually-barely-compatible globs of self-referential functionality appearing by the long ton pretty much by the day. My compliments to anyone who can even mostly stay upright while surfing this maelstrom of techno-mess.
For whatever it may be worth, I’m using the Opera browser these days with straight-out-of-the-box settings and no add-ons. I have no idea what percentage of BtB’s followership also uses Opera, but I suspect you can determine this, at least approximately. If that portion is 5% or more, it may be worth adding Opera to your existing rogues gallery of test browsers.
Best wishes going forward.
F,
All of the partisan statewide elective offices in TX are currently held by Republicans and I suspect the same is true of the notionally non-partisan ones as well, but I lack both the time and level of curiosity to confirm this. The TX state House is 88 – 62 R vs. D. The TX Senate is 20 – 11 R vs. D. TX may not be quite as red as CA is blue, but it’s pretty damned red. After the in-process redistricting, TX seems likely to skew even further red in future. A 2030 census that doesn’t count illegals for purposes of reapportionment will simply extend this trend. No US Senate seat is utterly safe, but Cruz’s appears to be about as close as any to that condition.
I believe I once watched a clip from Cruz’s podcast and it was interesting. Alas, the world is full of interesting podcasts I entirely lack the time to watch and my priorities don’t include any such that star political figures. I can’t even seem to squeeze in all of the space-related podcasts I would watch if I had the time. Vita brevis, tempus fugit.
Craig,
I don’t disagree with any of what you said, but it all goes toward underlining my point about increasing NASA irrelevance. Small wonder the commercial outfits want nothing to do with any potential “mission control as a service” thing from NASA. The commercial outfits know their hardware best and, most crucially, see no point in being shackled to an organization that is absurdly overstaffed. Looking at NASA control rooms during a mission, one sees dozens of stations, each occupied. The SpaceX control room at Hawthorne has about a dozen chairs and on a typical mission – a Starlink launch – only about half are occupied. The other half are presumably for the increasingly common times when two missions are in-process at once.
The general decrepitude of NASA physical plant is simply a product of NASA’s long-time bureaucratic preference for increasing its headcount at the expense of facilities maintenance. Rot is a choice.
Jeff Wright,
I can’t comment on the linked SpaceNews article because I can’t reach the site. Probably because that site recently went behind a paywall and I am not – and will not ever be – a subscriber. Even before that, I was unable to comment there since 2023 due to the site not liking my then-new computer for some reason. If the article, as seems likely based on the title, is an op-ed by a bunch of retired NASA lifers, I can pretty well imagine what it says – leave it to us older and wiser heads, stay the course, pay no attention to that upstart madman in TX. Am I right?
Update: It looks as though SpaceNews has taken down its paywall as I can now read your linked article. It wasn’t quite what I thought, but close enough. After admitting that SpaceX’s HLS Starship lander is the only way the US might Beat the Chinese[tm], and lamenting its lateness in appearing, the three worthy co-authors then go into an extensive case-making exercise for ginning up an “impartial” review panel of “experts” to barge into SpaceX’s kitchen and minutely interrogate its chefs about every aspect of their ingredient choices, prep procedures, cooking details and plating and presentation. Yeah, that will sure be a big help.
SLS-Orion’s “readiness” position anent HLS Starship is quite debatable – especially given that, without the latter, the former has no job it can do except perhaps rehash a rough approximation of Apollo 8. It’s slated to do so next year. If it manages that trick without also killing the crew in the process, we will all breathe a big sigh of relief. Meanwhile, Starship progresses.
ALPACA got the worst source selection scores – among the HLS bids that were not simply dismissed on arrival – and for good reasons. The design, while it certainly had features I liked – and said so at the time – was also the “least-baked” of the offered alternatives and by far the most costly – over three times the SpaceX bid. Had it been selected four years ago, I think we’d still be at least a decade away from deliverable hardware. The HLS choice made was the best at the time and nothing occurring since has dented that case at all.
I presume that by “in-house work” you mean things designed and managed by MSFC and built by the usual suspect crew of greedy, aged and infirm, incompetent, parasite contractors. Good luck with that. They have labored for two decades and produced nothing but hyper-expensive throw-away hardware that can only barely get into cis-lunar space – generously defined. SLS-Orion will have absolutely no role to play BEO except that. Were these institutional and corporate wheelchair cases to be entrusted with the job of building an actual lunar lander it would not be ready until mid-century at best. Putting them in charge of going to Mars would ensure we didn’t arrive until at least the US Tricentennial.
Falcon/Dragon are in operational service. Starship is in development and test. Whining about this disparity is about like pissing on the B-29 in 1942 because the B-17 and B-24 were already dropping bombs on the enemy.
Milt,
Re: Point one.
You’ve pretty much got that right. One difference is that SLS can’t get Orion anywhere near as close to the Moon as Saturn V could get the Apollo CSM and LM. Strictly on its own, SLS-Orion can support an inferior re-do of Apollo 8 – that’s it. It is scheduled to do so next year. That will be the Artemis 2 mission.
Re: Point two.
Nonstarter. SLS can’t get both Orion and an LM to the Moon in its current Block 1 configuration – never mind an even bigger 4-person version. There’s nowhere to put an LM and the whole stack lacks the necessary oompf.
The planned Block 1B upgrade to SLS, with a bigger upper stage and room for an element of the Gateway station on each mission, could get Orion and an LM to the distant retrograde halo orbit intended as Gateway’s orbit and the waypoint for missions starting with Artemis 4.
Given that LM weighs less than the planned Gateway modules, the stack might be able to get Orion and an LM closer to the Moon than this but I’m not sure it could get the LM close enough to be able to descend to the Moon and still get back up to rejoin Orion. The LM was never designed as a long-haul vehicle and didn’t have a lot of propellant margin even for the low lunar orbits it descended from and ascended back to in the 60s.
There is also the matter of there being no LMs in a flyable state or easily restorable to same. As with classic cars, parts are hard to get. Building a new one would take longer than it took to both design and build the originals.
So Orion+LM is not a way to Beat the Chinese[tm]. Either SpaceX will have a tested and usable HLS Starship in time to do that or it won’t. There is no alternative.
Having a Starship carry a 4-person LM to lunar orbit is not an alternative. Such an LM would have to be designed and built from scratch starting now or later. There’s neither money nor time to do that.
The point of landing an entire Starship on the Moon is to vastly expand the scope of the missions that can be undertaken relative to more modest approaches.
The legacy aerospace industry is more stupid and slow than it was in the 60s. The development history of SLS, Orion and Starliner make that abundantly clear to even a casual observer.
Edward,
“This is a major reason that the Starship is not the best choice for a lunar lander. Its structure is more massive.”
More massive than what? The Apollo LM? What makes the Apollo LM the canonically correct size for a lunar mission? The best the LM could do was support two people on a three-day weekend camping trip. Is that to be the extent of US lunar ambitions? I think not.
Starship HLS’s structure is vastly more massive than that of the Apollo LM because it is intended to support massively larger and longer missions. Even the first, relatively mingy, Artemis landing mission is intended to spend about three times as long on the lunar surface as all six of the Apollo lunar landing missions combined. And from there, the missions can just get even larger and more consequential – larger crews, more landed mass, longer durations. The “correct” size for a lunar lander depends entirely upon the nature of the mission one intends to accomplish.
“We may have taken a step backward to worse than Apollo and the Saturns that lifted it.”
Because Starship HLS has to refill in LEO before going to the Moon? It only has to do that once. Once it is on the Moon, it can go from there back up to lunar orbit, refill, and go back down any number of times. Propellant to do this will, initially, need to be brought from Earth, but, even in the complete absence of any “water” at the lunar poles, the oxygen part of the propellant needed – which is most of it – can be gotten from smelting regolith into metal and yeeted into lunar orbit by SpinLaunch-style centrifuges in metal Dewars built from the smelted and rolled metal.
The Apollo architecture was able to do “everything” in one launch only at the cost of expending nearly the entire launch stack. Starship allows Earth-to-Moon logistics that expend nothing but propellant. And much of that needed at the lunar end of the route – perhaps even all – will be producible locally there in fairly short order.
This is not a step backward, it’s giant leap forward to paraphrase Armstrong.
Update: There are actually three Kardashian sisters, plus a brother and two younger half-sisters. There’ve been rumors that one of the three sisters is also actually a half-sister – the alleged product of an affair by their mom. The family reproduces at well above replacement rate in every generation. Elon should give them all an “attaboy” for fighting underpopulation on X.
Brad and Angelina, alas, ceased to be a thing some years ago. The same is true, though more recently, of Ben Affleck and JLo.
There’s no good reason I should know any of this.
Richard M,
Couldn’t agree more – and not just because you quote me.
Robert,
Fun’s fun, but one-week turnarounds on consecutive 100-ton lunar sample returns are never going to be a thing. It takes a minimum of four days to get from Earth to the Moon and another four days to get back. And that’s allowing for essentially no time to scoop up the notional 100 tons of regolith in between.
I think your posited use cases for 100 tons of regolith might be possible once but not repeatedly. The value of a thing is inversely proportional to its commonality after also allowing for the cost of gathering/producing it. Open-ended deliveries of 100-ton masses of lunar regolith to Earth would quickly drive the market value of the stuff down to barely above that of Earthside rocks and dirt.
There is no case for ever importing iron and aluminum to Earth from the Moon. The stuff will be far more valuable for engineering purposes of all sorts on the Moon, or in lunar orbit.
Dick Eagleson,
You can go to the Moon, with Starship, in 3 days. Search for these words in Google.
“how long will it take starship to get to the moon”
Now it did take Apollo 4 days to reach the Moon, but it wasn’t refueled.
Yep, there is no business case, in bringing back several hundred tons of lunar dirt to Earth. It is mostly to show that it can be done, and you can make some money on it.
Don’t import iron, and aluminum to Earth. Send it to earth orbit. Use it to build solar power satellites, and large space stations. But we need a catapult on the Moon to do that. It would weigh about 20,000 tons. But it would launch about 20 million tons a year. It will probably take about a couple of years to build that.
So we use Starship to transport about 150 tons to LEO. Use 4 Starships to do the job, and you can transport about 30,000 tons a year.
You use those resources, to build up the infrastructure in Cis-Lunar space. Going to need a mass catcher in L2. Going to need a fleet of spacecraft to transport the resources from L2, to LEO. They will need to transport about 10,000 tons in each trip. Also going to need several of these spacecraft. They could be solar powered, and use ion propulsion.
Also going to need fuel tanks in LEO, plus hangers, warehouses, and large solar powered smelters.
So not a small project. It will take time. But it can start small. By bringing back lunar dirt in the first couple of trips. Then after investors have poured in billions of dollars, we can then have the beginnings of a lunar settlement.
And there is one other thing. The company could make money by transporting astronauts to the Moon, and back.
Hi Dick,
Exactly.
If all you want is flags and footprints and a bag of rock souvenirs, then yeah, you don’t need anything remotely as big as Starship.
Unfortunately, it’s become obvious that this is all certain important people within the Beltway want. Well, that and well paid jobs in all the right congressional districts.
Dick Eagleson,
You asked: “More massive than what? The Apollo LM? What makes the Apollo LM the canonically correct size for a lunar mission?”
Since Artemis III is intending to put a total of two people onto the surface of the Moon for a few days, then yes. We really don’t need 100 tonnes or so of structure on the Human Landing System (HLS) to put a couple of people on the Moon. If we were taking modules or heavy equipment, then yes, that large of a lander might be needed. Or it might not, as a smaller lander could be its own module for lunar habitation. If we were to design a human landing system from scratch, then it would not be as large or heavy as Starship. If we were to design a cargo landing system from scratch then it, too, would look more like Blue Moon than Starship.
Starship is vastly overweight for the mission it is being assigned, right now, and that is why so many people are griping that it will take so many retanking flights just to get a couple of guys onto the Moon.
“Because Starship HLS has to refill in LEO before going to the Moon? It only has to do that once. Once it is on the Moon, it can go from there back up to lunar orbit, refill, and go back down any number of times.”
Yet the tankers taking the propellants to lunar orbit to refill the Starship will also need many retankings for each trip, and it will take several trips to lunar orbit to refill Starship HLS. This seems to be crux of the complaining.
If Starship HLS can get back to low Earth orbit, then it may be more efficient just to refill the tanks here, just like the first time. Otherwise, you are again using 100-tonne Starships to haul propellants around.
Unfortunately, that water in the Moon’s shadows is looking more iffy than it used to look. All we know is that there was some unknown quantity of hydrogen that got kicked up when we crashed something in one of these areas, then we assumed that it was water that contained the hydrogen. Looking into these craters has not produced the hoped-for results:
https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/another-permanently-shadowed-crater-on-the-moon-shows-no-obvious-ice/
Sorry that I wasn’t more clear about these two topics.
The step backward is that Artemis has turned into a complicated, kludged together Rube Goldberg made largely from modified designs that have been lying around, rather than having been designed from the beginning for the task that it has been assigned. Even the propulsion module for Gateway is a repurposed communication satellite bus. Starship is being designed to go to Mars, and modified somewhat to be a lunar HLS.
I think that three days ago I described the methods and some hardware that I think are the right way to go. Of course, transferring cargo will take some work in orbit, but I suspect that there will be some light-weight containers involved so that we won’t need many longshoremen lugging stuff up and down the gangplank, like they do in ISS with the cargo coming up in Cygnuses, Dragons, and Progresses.
Hello Edward,
No question. But do remember that the first round of the Human Landing System program *did* have competing bids (Blue Orgin’s National Team and Dynetics) for smaller, lighter landers of the sort of size we are talking about here, and a) NASA could not afford of either of them — BO came in at $5.99 billion and Dynetics at $9.08 billion, b) neither was remotely as technically mature as Starship at that point, and c) NASA had less confidence in the project management of either team.
If NASA had selected the Blue Origin proposal (the runner up), it would indeed have gotten a smaller, lighter, Altair-sized human lander appropriate for the Artemis III mission….and it would have gotten it only by the beginning of the 2030’s. Because the funding would have to be spaced out to fit in the budget, and because Blue Origin and its partners simply do not do anything *fast*.
Starship is unquestionably overkill for Artemis III’s mission. But it is clearly being pursued with far, far more in mind.
Edward,
You seem, for some reason – perhaps a personal aesthetic sensibility – to prefer that bespoke hardware be developed for every mission. That is the most costly possible approach, especially when placed in the hands of cost-plus legacy contractors. Repurposing or adapting things already in-hand is a way to both get hardware produced faster and also at a lower cost.
The reason Blue and Dynetics bid so high was that they were doing exactly what you apparently prefer – designing hardware that was scaled for just an initial mission that would barely exceed mere flags and footprints. HLS Starship, in contrast, was based on technology that – in modestly different forms, was already being developed for a variety of other purposes and so would be produced in far larger quantities as well as being reusable many times. Thus, SpaceX could bid far lower even for a far larger lander because it was not a one-trick pony.
Richard M,
Ditto.
Richard M,
Correct. Starship was chosen largely because NASA did not have the budget for either of the others, and Starship was already farther in development than either of the others and is sure to be available before Blue Origin’s Blue Moon. However, Starship still is not designed for that mission. It is yet another kluge in the Artemis project.
Blue Moon probably should have been somewhere on the development spectrum, by the the time of the bids, because Bezos announced it a few years earlier. I suspect that a version of Blue Moon, or some similar lander, will eventually be a more common lunar lander.
On the other hand, some of the features of the Mars mission may be developed under the HLS contract. That is another advantage for SpaceX in winning the bid.
____________
Dick Eagleson,
You are correct. I do prefer that space hardware be appropriate to the task or the mission. An analogy would be the automobile market.
We could just all drive pickup trucks around. They can carry passengers and cargo. That is all that we need. But for some reason we have.a wide variety of automobiles from motor cycles to sedans to station wagons to vans to box trucks to busses to eighteen wheel semi-trailer trucks to multiple trailer trucks (up to three trailers in Arizona). Different vehicles are designed for different missions.
The same is already true in spacecraft and in launch vehicles. It may seem expensive, but over time we get what we want to get. It is effective and using them over time makes them cost efficient.
For space, we already had Apollo with a lunar lander, so why not just do that all over again? Because it does not fit the mission. Saturn-Apollo and its lander cannot carry enough to make a lunar base or to staff it.
Starship, on the other hand, is overkill for the task. So overkill that it requires several launches just to refill it for the next trip. I doubt that this is the least expensive solution, over time, but Starship can handle the mission. However, it is the eighteen wheel semi-trailer truck version where a sedan for men and a van for materiel are what are best needed for the limited mission of building and sustaining a lunar base. They won’t take as much propellant, and are not overly massive for the job.
It would be nice if many of the Starships used for refilling the tanks could instead be used for other missions. It would be nice if we used spacecraft that didn’t need as many tanker flights to refill their tanks. We could get more done, that way. We cannot eliminate tanker flights as long as we have the more efficient space-based spacecraft. If they don’t land on Earth, they cannot be refilled here. If there is not enough water on the Moon, they won’t be refilled there, either. But if we will have limited Starships, so let’s not use them to refuel other heavy Starships just to go to the Moon. That would be a lost opportunity for other exploration or expansion.
Starship is a solution being used because it is what we have, right now. SLS-Orion is another solution being used because it is what we have, right now. Gateway is a solution being used because SLS-Orion cannot do the job, ever. Blue Moon is on order because it is almost certainly better at the landing mission than the oversized, overweight, fuel-hungry Starship.
I’m pretty sure that I have described, in a comment above, the architecture that I believe will be in use, in a couple of decades:
https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/yesterdays-senate-hearing-on-artemis-its-all-a-game/#comment-1622524
I expect specialized spacecraft for each part of the mission. I do not mention Starship among them, although it could conceivably be the Earth to orbit shuttle. No matter what, it is pretty certain that there will have to be some amount of propellant refilling in space, and again, Starship could be used for that, too.
Starship may be able to take a lot of mass for little cost, and we may not have to worry quite as much about every kilogram of material on a spacecraft, but we still will not want to be wasteful. No one is ever going to launch a Tesla into space just because he can. That will never happen. Mark my words.