Space Plan Details and Fiscal Data

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-01-14 07:39pm

Commentary: The Reasonable Cost of Putting Humans on the Moon and Mars wrote: Commentary: The Reasonable Cost of Putting Humans on the Moon and Mars
By Robert Roy Britt
Senior Science Writer
posted: 06:00 am ET
13 January 2004

President Bush's trial balloon for sending humans back to the Moon and on to Mars is, naturally, becoming politicized. Critics question whether America can afford a bold new space initiative at a time of fiscal disarray back home.

"It is not worth bankrupting the country," said Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean.

Of course it isn't. And it need not.

Setting up a permanent base on the Moon -- Bush is expected to call for a return in about 10-15 years -- and then reaching for Mars does not require any outlandish hike in NASA's budget.

Beyond a modest 5 percent increase that Bush will reportedly announce Wednesday, getting people beyond Earth orbit means shifting the existing budget from arguably ineffective and unpopular programs -- crippled shuttles and a leaking space station -- into building a new generation of space taxis and otherworldly habitats.

Severe change needed

To be successful, the reorganization plan should be swift and severe.

Instead of spending billions each year to circle the Earth, Bush should quickly redirect the same billions to an effort singularly focused on getting to Mars, with the Moon as an important step.

Unfounded fears of a money pit abound. An editorial in the Washington Post, for example, faults Bush for thinking of ambitious spaceflight plans at a time when there are serious social and economic concerns.

But comparing the value of human spaceflight to the need for jobs or improved healthcare looks at the whole issue of how to spend federal money from an absurd perspective. It's like asking whether schools should offer sports programs or focus entirely on reading, writing and math.

The question of whether to put humans on the Moon and Mars should be viewed strictly in terms of how best to spend a reasonable chunk of science and exploration dollars, not in comparison to other important government programs. All the while NASA's budget must remain reasonable -- not much more than the tiny fraction of overall federal spending that it is today.

The money is there

The 2004 federal budget is $2.2 trillion. NASA's is $15.5 billion. Reasonable estimates suggest the space agency's share of the pie would need to rise gradually to $20 billion within a few years if footprints are to be made in Martian dust within a generation.

First, Bush aides say, the plan will call for a return to the Moon, in part so new technology critical to a Mars mission can be tested.

In 1995, NASA scientists and engineers developed a plan to put astronauts back on the Moon by 2001 for $3 billion or less. Other estimates nowadays put the cost at around $15 billion over five years.

That's $3 billion a year. NASA has the money.

About half of the agency's budget is already spent directly on human spaceflight. Nearly $4 billion is earmarked annually for the shuttle program. The cost of the space station is elusive, but it exceeds $1 billion each year. Another $2 billion or more goes to supporting research and maintaining the infrastructure needed for all human spaceflight activity.

Drop the ISS

Bush's new plan reportedly will phase out the shuttle program in favor of a new Orbital Space Plane over the next decade.

The fate of the space station is less clear, but remaining planned components would apparently be delivered before costs would drop. The sooner the better. Like the Edsel, the orbiting outpost might be a technologically wonderful machine, but it is not worth the minor science return or lack of inspiration it provides. How many people can name a single member of the eight crews that have lived there? And who can name a single discovery that's resulted from its science operations?

Good science is not necessarily popular science, but NASA knows better than any institution that it doesn't hurt when you are working with public funds.

Bush's exact plans aren't known. But many experts hope the space station will ultimately be supplanted by a new one that would sit about 80 percent of the way toward the Moon, in a gravitationally balanced spot called a LaGrangian point. Getting to and from that station -- and onto the Moon or Mars -- would be cheaper than using bigger rockets to make direct flights.

Reasons to go

"There's no real rationale for colonization of the Moon, so it's hard not to be cynical and conclude this is the space-age equivalent of bread and circuses," Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a Democratic research group, said in The New York Times the other day.

Marshall's criticism is either uninformed or patently political, or both. Scientists and space visionaries can quickly tick off several practical reasons:

Solar energy could be collected on the atmosphere-free Moon from properly located sites 24/7, then beamed to Earth. Some advocates say all the world's power needs could be met. Realistically, it could at least augment strained energy resources for many countries, both industrialized and developing.
Lunar minerals could be mined and shipped back to Earth or used for Moon-based manufacturing of lunar hotels and science facilities. A whole new economy would support scientists, colonists and lunar tourists.
Huge telescopes on the Moon would offer an unprecedented view of the cosmos, unhampered by atmosphere or light pollution. Think Hubble on steroids.
The Moon contains rocks that were blasted from Earth billions of years ago by asteroid impacts. Things don't weather much on the Moon, so these rocks hold the only available clues to Earth's earliest geologic history.
Share the cost

NASA does not have to foot the entire bill for setting up a Moon base. Other nations will want to play, and they will pay. As an additional benefit, some space policy analysts note, such a cooperative international effort could bring nations together as never before. China, with its own lunar ambitions, is an obvious target for cooperation.

And it can be a public-private project in which corporations pony up in exchange for access to lunar minerals and the chance to beam power back to Earth, or to build the first extraterrestrial Hilton.

Private citizens with the means would pay dearly for tickets to the Moon.

Sir Martin Rees, the eminent theoretical astrophysicists and space visionary, recently pointed out that the commercialization of space is already underway. It now needs a governmental nudge to get beyond the realm of satellites.

"Space is already commercially exploited for telecommunications and other applications. But the 'glamorous' aspects of space -- science, planetary exploration, and of course astronauts -- have in the U.S. been the prerogative of NASA. It is time for the private sector to expand its role here too."

On to Mars

Continuing on to Mars will be more dangerous and more costly, with the tangible rewards less evident. Yet in the final cost-benefit analysis, we should not shortchange our souls.

"The moment we land on Mars, all the people of the world will weep with joy," science fiction writer Ray Bradbury said last week.

He's probably close to being right. But what might worldwide rapture cost?

Estimates vary greatly. Many analysts say a manned mission to Mars would cost anywhere from $50 billion to $250 billion. Others, like Robert Zubrin of the Mars Society advocacy group, think it could be done for as little as $30 billion if bureaucracy is limited.

If one assumes a NASA-led $100 billion effort and a launch target of 2024, that would be $5 billion per year if we start funding the project now. That's one-third of NASA's present annual budget. Not outlandish, not impossible, and not with any significant impact on other governmental programs.

Again, other countries will be willing to share the cost of the grandest mission ever, if we ask them to.

Pain for gain

Going to Mars, and even getting back to the Moon efficiently, will mean painful reorganization at NASA.

Programs will be cut, offices closed. Humans might be completely absent from space for a few years as momentum is built for loftier pursuits -- though there is no indication the White House will suggest this route. Robotic space exploration might see flat budgets. Perhaps some NASA employees will be laid off. Yet others would be hired as goals are radically shifted.

Do all this and young, bright minds will view the new NASA as a place where they can do great things. School children would see a reason to study hard, a chance to be the first human to visit and explore another planet.

Bush's plan needs to be business-like, rather than business as usual.

NASA is steeped in innovation, but its human spaceflight program is as stale as a sweat-stained Apollo suit. Nothing short of a clear, long-term and tremendously challenging goal can give its human spaceflight program the vitality and relevancy obvious in its robotic pursuits.

A trip to Mars must also promise practical rewards. These are several to expect.

The technology that would be developed over the next 20 years, in preparation, along with the medical knowledge gleaned from long-term low-gravity living and exposure to high levels of radiation, will have unknown but surely significant benefits to those who remain on this planet. In medicine alone, NASA spinoff technology has a solid track record, having given us MRI and CAT scanners, among many other benefits.

Finally, putting humans on Mars -- especially geologists and biologists -- could quickly answer the ultimate question in science: Are we alone? If there is or ever was microbial life on Mars -- and many scientists believe only a human mission will determine the answer -- then everything we humans think about ourselves, our world, about science and religion, will be viewed in a new light.

No small pursuit.

And no small risk. Human spaceflight is very, very dangerous.

You don't need to tell that to the current astronaut corps, who recently lost seven of their own. These brave adventurers know that more will die if NASA is given a directive to go to Mars. And they are itching to get in line.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-01-14 07:39pm

I don't like that "Orbital Space Plane" shit.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-01-14 08:10pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:I don't like that "Orbital Space Plane" shit.

*shoots Illuminatus*

Long live Ronald Reagan and the NASP!

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-01-14 08:13pm

While that article is fairly optimistic, it has a point. It's pretty clear, right now, that NASA isn't giving the US very many substantial benefits, and the potential rewards gleaned from travelling to the moon again are much more promising.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-01-14 09:46pm

The most shocking thing in that article is that Ray Bradbury is still alive

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-01-14 10:43pm

Master of Ossus wrote:While that article is fairly optimistic, it has a point. It's pretty clear, right now, that NASA isn't giving the US very many substantial benefits, and the potential rewards gleaned from travelling to the moon again are much more promising.

IMO, thats because NASA really didn't have a goal. They spread out trying to find a purpose and thats why they have sooooo many little projects. If Bush's plan is anything, its re-focusing NASA to do something.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-01-14 10:57pm

Programs will be cut, offices closed. Humans might be completely absent from space for a few years as momentum is built for loftier pursuits -- though there is no indication the White House will suggest this route. Robotic space exploration might see flat budgets. Perhaps some NASA employees will be laid off. Yet others would be hired as goals are radically shifted.

I heard from some of my sources that control over many of the weather satellites and other things related to weather and climate will probably be switched to NOAA and that many of the aero-related things NASA does will be moved to the Air Force and other administrations. In other words, NASA will be pruned as well as re-focused. It'll keep the main space-related branches while most everything else is cut away and/or moved.

KrauserKrauser · Post by **KrauserKrauser** » 2004-01-15 12:15am

Good, tell me when it costs less than 10,000 per kilo to get something in orbit.

Maybe 10 or so so I can get my big ass in space.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-01-15 01:07am

Illuminatus Primus wrote:I don't like that "Orbital Space Plane" shit.

Well the orbital space plane is better than shuttles since it fully reusable so it is a good investment in reducing space flight costs.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-01-15 01:10am

evilcat4000 wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:I don't like that "Orbital Space Plane" shit.
Well the orbital space plane is better than shuttles since it fully reusable so it is a good investment in reducing space flight costs.

Except thats the very thing they said about the shuttle.

For the privelage of gliding down from orbit you have to haul the wings up. How much more cargo could you take if you didn't have to take the wings?

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-01-15 02:18am

KrauserKrauser wrote:Good, tell me when it costs less than 10,000 per kilo to get something in orbit.

Maybe 10 or so so I can get my big ass in space.

Per POUND it costs $10,000 to lift into space. Per KILO it's going to be on the order of $22,000. The reason, frankly, is that the shuttle is inefficient, requires massive maintenance, and for safety reasons isn't launching with NEARLY the frequency that NASA had originally envisioned.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2004-01-15 02:34am

The Orbital Space Plane, at least as it exists now, is one hell of a lot smaller than the Shuttle. It doesn't carry cargo, just passengers. And it can be theoretically launched from a Delta-IV.

It's easier to hold a lifting body design together when it's that size than when it's the size of the Shuttle.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-01-15 02:47am

Crayz9000 wrote:The Orbital Space Plane, at least as it exists now, is one hell of a lot smaller than the Shuttle. It doesn't carry cargo, just passengers. And it can be theoretically launched from a Delta-IV.

It's easier to hold a lifting body design together when it's that size than when it's the size of the Shuttle.

Here's a linky for those who haven't seen or heard about OSP or the X-37.

I'm assuming that the CEV will be developed using one of the proposed OSP designs. Here is a pic of some ideas of the OSP.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-01-15 02:57am

Knife wrote:Except thats the very thing they said about the shuttle.

For the privelage of gliding down from orbit you have to haul the wings up. How much more cargo could you take if you didn't have to take the wings?

To be fair, the shuttle was envisioned as doing a LOT more missions than it has done, and the wings would have eventually paid for themselves on that schedule, but poor designs decisions and overly-optimistic financial planning ended up destroying the program.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-01-15 03:03am

Can anyone outline for me the benefits involved in a Moon base in the short term? Alot of folks are saying, yeah its worth it. How? The costs involved would be astromnomical and heaven forbid there should be some accident on the base that kills people, what are we getting out of it?

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-01-15 03:05am

Master of Ossus wrote:
Knife wrote:Except thats the very thing they said about the shuttle.

For the privelage of gliding down from orbit you have to haul the wings up. How much more cargo could you take if you didn't have to take the wings?
To be fair, the shuttle was envisioned as doing a LOT more missions than it has done, and the wings would have eventually paid for themselves on that schedule, but poor designs decisions and overly-optimistic financial planning ended up destroying the program.

It was suppost to go up more frequently but even still, how much more tonnage could have gone up with the 100 plus missions the shuttle has flown if they'd used some sort of rocketry with comprable cargo space. There was just too much shit on the shuttle to make it efficient.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-01-15 03:11am

Knife wrote:It was suppost to go up more frequently but even still, how much more tonnage could have gone up with the 100 plus missions the shuttle has flown if they'd used some sort of rocketry with comprable cargo space. There was just too much shit on the shuttle to make it efficient.

It was originally designed to go up on a WEEKLY basis, and the total cost for lifting a one pound object into space was supposed to be around $100. Costs ended up skyrocketing and the efficiency went down the tube because the shuttle simply could not pull anywhere near that many missions, so the costs per pound were nearly a hundred times what was originally hoped for, the number of missions went way down, and the shuttle program ended up being a huge disaster.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-01-15 03:17am

Stravo wrote:Can anyone outline for me the benefits involved in a Moon base in the short term? Alot of folks are saying, yeah its worth it. How? The costs involved would be astromnomical and heaven forbid there should be some accident on the base that kills people, what are we getting out of it?

Well the way I see it, its the scientific and technological version of an advanced Naval Base. It also serves as a tangible goal. The ISS is designed for up to seven (IIRC) people. A moon base can be developed for infanate number of people. You basicly have a huge globe of dust to build on. And as a goal, it forces some advancement in technology to try to cope with going there.

So short term, focus the spending of funds already going into the Space Program. Also open up the field to inovation to accomplish the goal to make a moon base.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-01-15 03:19am

A moon base serves as both a staging area and as an eventual investment opportunity. As I understand it, the proposed moonbase is designed to eventually break even, or even generate a profit, through a number of industries and by attempting to be self-sufficient. It also serves as a way of testing technology before actually sending it to Mars.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-01-15 07:32am

Additionally, it is entirely plausible that the moon-base will be able to generate it's own power and even *rocket fuel* (

) by mining the lunar soil for water-ice and whatnot. "Why not?" I say. In the 60's it was pure dick-waving. Personally (Though I think he lacks the testicles) I would like to see shrubby literally parrot JFK "We choose to go to the moon in this decade not because it is easy, but because it is hard." Revitalizing the space program (If indeed it pans out, which I doubt.) has given me a permanent erection 8 feet long with a cheeseburger on the end. If we DO go to the moon, I will be O-so-close and when an actualy BASE is established, I will pollute the ocean with metric tonnes of spooge. *FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP*

I'm still no fan of shrubby, since this is being touted as him trying to show that "Me shrub, Me have big idea. Make big rocket, we go sky!" and, I'm inclined to agree. I think, personally, it will take a president with FAR more foreski-er-sight and sticktoitiveness to pull this off. And anyway, he can spew as much horseshit as he wants right now, at the end of the day, the fact is, he won't be in office when any of this happens. so If it turns out to be a 20 pound weight tied to the American's collective dicks with barbed wire, what the hell does he care? He'll be at home watching senators bitch about the budget disaster he created on C-SPAN. Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Until then...
BRING BACK THE SATURN V, RAISE WERNER VON BRAUN FROM HIS LONG SLEEP! UNFREEZE EINSTEIN'S HEAD! WE'RE GOIN' TO THE MOON! YEE-HAW!

Worlds Spanner · Post by **Worlds Spanner** » 2004-01-15 11:56am

I'm sold. GO GO GO!!!

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2004-01-15 12:21pm

Knife wrote:
evilcat4000 wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:I don't like that "Orbital Space Plane" shit.
Well the orbital space plane is better than shuttles since it fully reusable so it is a good investment in reducing space flight costs.
Except thats the very thing they said about the shuttle.

For the privelage of gliding down from orbit you have to haul the wings up. How much more cargo could you take if you didn't have to take the wings?

The space shuttle tried to be everything to everyone. It was a crew transport that could send seven people into space for two weeks. It was also a cargo transport capable of moving large satellites into orbit and conducting the occasional satellite retrieval and repair. It was also an orbiting space laboratory. Because of that, it's big, heavy, and fiendishly complex. It's basically a big disaster waiting for a chance to happen

The only way that an OSP would even be remotely worth the costs of launching it, is if it was designed exclusively as a people transport, with perhaps a limited capability to perform science onboard . . . though once you have the space station fully up and operational, you don't really need that capability.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-01-15 12:25pm

The only way that an OSP would even be remotely worth the costs of launching it, is if it was designed exclusively as a people transport, with perhaps a limited capability to perform science onboard . . . though once you have the space station fully up and operational, you don't really need that capability.

Why should an OSP be expensive since the only costs involved in launch are fuel and maintainence ?

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2004-01-15 03:37pm

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:The only way that an OSP would even be remotely worth the costs of launching it, is if it was designed exclusively as a people transport, with perhaps a limited capability to perform science onboard . . . though once you have the space station fully up and operational, you don't really need that capability.

You missed the point. As I mentioned above, the Orbital Space Plane will NOT carry a regular payload like the Space Shuttle does now. It will carry only crew when they first launch it, and later on, when they mate it to a heavier launch vehicle, they are planning on using it to ferry supplies to the ISS.

But it won't be carrying any scientific experiments as the Shuttle does, nor will it be carrying satellites. And hopefully, this reduced mass (thanks to it not being required to be the jack-of-all-trades vehicle the Shuttle is) should cut down on the complexity and costs. Overhauls should be much faster since it's a smaller vehicle, although I'm not sure if they'll still use the problematic tiles or something else.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-01-15 03:57pm

evilcat4000 wrote:Why should an OSP be expensive since the only costs involved in launch are fuel and maintainence ?

For exactly those things. An OSP has to have a fuel:non-fuel mass ratio of about 9:1, 90% of its mass must be fuel. It must also have complicated heat shielding mechanisms that are inherently more risky and less reliable than ablative shielding, as well as costly to keep working properly.