SFF planning Capitol Hill campaign for February

The Space Frontier Foundation is planning a campaign on Capitol Hill during the week of February 7-12, 2010: Take Back Your Space Program! - The Campaign to Open the Space Frontier is Ready for First Flight.

The agenda will include:

* Legislation to provide matching funds to fly 200 teachers per year into space and to create a professional-development program that provides teachers with realistic spaceflight training experiences and knowledge they can bring back to their classrooms;
* Full funding for NASA’s innovative Commercial Reusable Suborbital Research (CRuSR) program ;
* Increased funding for the Centennial Challenges space prize program; and
* Restoring NASA’s focus on research and exploration while turning space transportation over to the private sector, through:
*** Ending Ares I launch-vehicle development and other NASA-unique vehicles;
*** Securing commercial crew and cargo transportation services to meet the needs of NASA research and exploration programs, and
*** Pursuing the “Flexible Path” for exploration of the Moon, Mars, asteroids, and beyond.

Update: A reader points out to me that the Take Back Your Space Program! is actually a year-long campaign. The First Flight event in D.C. is just the initial mission.

Posted 12/14/09 | 12:46:57 by TopSpacer | Filed under: Space Activism

Comments

if there are two camps (one which thinks the US should spend $100B on the biggest rocket ever built, and you can guess what the other side thinks), we definitely know which side these guys are on

a noble venture, citizens bothering to make their own fate

Posted by donnie at 12/14/09 14:03:48

Flex path.... never!!!! I'll ride the failed Ares to the firey end before I'll support that gutless goalless wonder. No boots no support! Flex path why even have a manned space program we can do "no boots" exploration with robotics. These guys are just in it to fill there pockets they could care less about expanding mans presence into the cosmos. That flex path thing just really totally turned me off on the foundation. No boots, no support, flex path... I'll just get my telescope out and fly model rockets its more exciting and interactive than that. Flex path NO! Just cancel the whole manned space program then and chuck it all.

Posted by Doug at 12/14/09 14:28:42

Actually, Flexible path is the best option to get commercial entities to actually push beyond LEO. Because it means you can utilize emerging companies and vehicles, like the ones being built by Blue Origin, Masten, Armadillo (and any others who might come) as your lunar lander, instead of having NASA develop its own.
I am sorry you can't see that Doug

As for just filling their pockets - you are really insulting some of the major people involved in moving us to a spacefaring society, Doug

Posted by Ferris Valyn at 12/14/09 15:22:26

what doug doesn't see is that there isn't money for anything else

what the US debt means right now is that anything the country buys is being paid for by the chinese, not you... yet

Posted by donnie at 12/14/09 16:01:37

I'm trying to figure out the purpose of flying 200 teachers "into space", on one of the "Zero-G" flights, or anything else that has to do with anything getting off the ground?

All that looks like is pure pork and wasteful spending that would deserve one of Senator William Proxmire's Golden Fleece Awards from back elsewhen. Seriously, this makes absolutely no sense to me.

Why not simply have a general lottery for any American citizen to have a chance to "win a trip into space"? Why are teachers as a profession so much better than say aeronautical engineering students or flight surgeons (where there might be a defensible reason to "train" in weightlessness)? What aspect of going up into space, besides some publicity and perhaps getting the backing of the all important teacher's unions to push this through congress can the argument be made for making this kind of commitment?

I realize that there is real politiking going on here that must try to do things that perhaps is akin to making sausage, but as a lead-off item to start a campaign of space advocacy seems a bit over the top and "proof" to the opponents of manned spaceflight that this is simply more pork and needless spending.

I'd rather see advocacy of reducing the cost for going into orbit that a high school physics teacher could afford to board a flight heading into space on his salary he earns with the public school system.

Posted by Robert Horning at 12/14/09 16:44:32

Seems to me, it would be worthwhile to
provide funding for all the NASA Astronauts or Candidate's to get a ride
on commercial suborbital vehicles as an "Orientation/Stress" experiment.

If the ASCAN doesn't do well phsyiologically, you can stop their training.

Expand that program to K-12 for them then.

Posted by anon at 12/14/09 17:23:53

If ULA can come up with an innovative plan that supports boots, builds lunar and mars bases, fuel depots including EML1 locations within the existing NASA budget and get boots on the moon by 2020 why can't SpaceX etc... ?

I think I know why becuase SpaceX and others fear the ULA Delta or Atlas will get more of the commercial pie reducing their cut. So they are willing to forgo boots and manned exploration to ensure ULA gets edged out.

And that really cuts it deep for me. Now I see SpaceX and others are just in it for the bucks. ULA has shown FLEX IS NOT THE ONLY VIABLE OPTION.

Yes I feel betrayed by the new space commercial industry...not all but some of them. I never thought they sell out but they have.

Should boots go away then I would much rather put my tax dollars towards a larger unmanned rover based Mars and Moon exploration program than a mere fly-around manned program what a bore.

If not to land then why even go lets just put some Bigelow stations up there and let SpaceX fly back forth to LEO for the next twenty years. If not to land then why even go??? Without boots the deep space manned program has no justification for me. Just a waste of billions. A facade for the public... and I don't think they will bite.

Please show me how a narrow funded Flex plan expands man's presence outward into the universe. I would really like to get it cause right now what I see just stinks of limited LEO self profit.

What is wrong with ULA plan?

Posted by Doug at 12/14/09 18:55:02

Is an elementary education degree one of the new pathways to join the astronaut corp?

It seems like astronaut candidates already get to ride the "Vomit Comet" as a part of their training, so a quick jaunt into space aboard SS2 would just be more of the same to me... just a bit more time in "weightlessness" and a nice view of the Earth, at least a better view than what can be seen from a KC-135 (if you dare to look out during the parabolic arcs).

Posted by Robert Horning at 12/14/09 18:59:49

Doug

First, doing flexible plan doesn't preclude doing something like the ULA plan. IN FACT, it lends itself to using something like that. The real issue that we are debating, right now, is whether NASA is going to be building Altair, or whether we do a Lunar Lander more like how we did COTS. Because that is IN the flexible plan. What we are honestly dicussing with the flexible plan is whether we fund ALtair or not - not whether land on the moon, or not.

And landing on the moon is not the only thing, nor do I think it will capture significant public excitement.

Posted by Ferris Valyn at 12/14/09 19:32:07

I agree with Doug. Having failed to find private funding for teachers to space the SFF in now looking to Uncle Sugar to fund it, along with suborbital science missions on VG. 200 teachers is almost as many "customers" (300)as VG has that have put down real deposits to fly. Same with the suborbital science funding for VG instead of letting Branson earn the business on his own.

The end result is that it looks like more and more like the suborbital launch industry, which was a beacon for free enterprise, is following the orbital industry into being dependent on government funding. How sad. I remember when the SFF stood for getting the government out of space instead of making the government the major source of funding for new space ventures.

More and more its looks like new space firms are just becoming the new space contractors even if the contracts are not cost-plus - yet.

Posted by anon at 12/14/09 19:55:28

Ferris keep trying... I'm listening, I'm trying to be open minded about Flex. But now what you mention is confusing me. Cause what I get from flex is go look but don't touch, don't waste development time and money on venturing into the G-well. Yet flex is discussing Altair replacement? Sorry that sounds vague and confusing lacking focus. So maybe land maybe we don't it sounds to vague to me lacking clear focus.

I keep coming back to the ULA plan it replaces Altair with 1999 like DTAL, puts boots on the moon by 2018 within the current budget and makes no bones about it. So why not just do the ULA plan? Why flex what does Flex offer that is better than the ULA plan? ULA dumps Ares, HLV, Altair and gets us to the moon by 2020.

Show me how Flex is better than the ULA plan and I'll buy in.

What I see from Flex is it gives NASA a warm and fuzzy by maintaining some form of shuttle derived HLV, opens up a big door for SpaceX, COTS based lander etc... to edge out ULA Atlas, Delta, Dream Chaser, DTAL.

To me ULA is a commercial entity. So why not give ULA a shot at it. Why is the ULA plan not getting its just consideration in all of this? Seems to me like its do only Ares based Constellation or Flex no discussion or consideration given to the ULA plan.

Why is that?

Posted by Doug at 12/14/09 20:18:04

> puts boots on the moon by 2018 within the current budget
> and makes no bones about it. So why not just do the ULA plan?
> Why flex what does Flex offer that is better than the ULA plan?
> ULA dumps Ares, HLV, Altair and gets us to the moon by 2020

No, Doug, it won't get *us* to the Moon by 2020. Not unless you happen to be a government astronaut and "us" means you.

What's the big deal about putting bootprints on the Moon, anyway? NASA did that 50 years ago? As Burt Rutan said, "If all you want to do is go the Moon in a capsule, why don't you do that next Tuesday"? Space Adventures is already offering circumlunar flights for $100 million. Adding a minimal lander shouldn't cost more than a billion dollars or take more than a few years. Why do you want to spend the better part of a decade and hundreds of billions of dollars doing it?

NASA's job is not to build cities ("bases") in space, anymore than it was the NACA's job to build your local airport or the town you live in. NASA tried to do that with ISS, and they didn't do a great job. What makes you think they will be more successful trying to do the exact same thing on the Moon and Mars?

NASA's job is deep-space exploration. To "boldly go where no man has gone before," like James T. Kirk.(Did you ever notice how the insignia on Kirk's shirt was a stylized version of the NASA meatball? That's no coincidence.)

That's what the Flexible Path is about. Developing technology and systems that are *broadly* applicable to *multiple* destinations, not narrowly focused on one mission and one destination.

The ultimate goal is not just bootprints but expanding human civilization (as the Aldridge Commission said), but if all you want to see are bootprints, the Flexible Path will allow NASA to put more bootprints in more places, rather than just going back to the same place every 50 years. Why is that a bad thing?

> What I see from Flex is it gives NASA a warm and fuzzy
> by maintaining some form of shuttle derived HLV,

Where do you see that, Doug? "Pursuing the Flexible Path" comes two paragraphs after "Ending Ares I launch-vehicle development and other NASA-unique vehicles." Ending Shuttle-derived vehicles is not the same as maintaining them.

> to edge out ULA Atlas, Delta, Dream Chaser, DTAL.

What makes you think the Flexible Path couldn't include any of those things? The Flexible Path is not a specific architecture, as you seem to think. The Flexible Path is... flexible.

Posted by Edward Wright at 12/14/09 21:19:44

"I'm trying to figure out the purpose of flying 200 teachers "into space", on one of the "Zero-G" flights, or anything else that has to do with anything getting off the ground?"

There are more than a few billion dollars and endless amounts of rhetoric going in to enhancing science and technical education and making it attractive to young people. I doubt much of that will have any effect on the young who live night and day in a culture that relentlessly depicts science and technology careers as boring and only for geeks and nerds.

A program like teacher-in-space won't change that culture but it can make a huge impression on individual students when they see their own science teachers doing something incredibly exciting. Spaceflight becomes very real and genuine when someone you know does it, not when you read about some astronaut super-hero doing it.

A single teacher will impact thousands of students over a career. If only a few percent follow science and engineering careers because that teacher impressed them with a spaceflight experience, then the program will have been quite a bargain.

- Clark

Posted by TopSpacer at 12/14/09 21:36:24

"No, Doug, it won't get *us* to the Moon by 2020. Not unless you happen to be a government astronaut and "us" means you."

I get your point but to me $100 million isn't much different than sending a government astronaut because either way I won't qualify to go.

When I say boots I mean boots to stay, not just a visit. Boots to me signifies a specific goal and a permanent presence of humankind. That human presence demands resupply support and support drives the outward expansion of commercial development.

For me look but don't touch just doesn't get there. It leaves the space program adrift for far to many years without a defined goal or destination.

I've lived through nearly forty boring years of NASA being adrift and do not want to experience another twenty years of that scenario. The only exciting events during that time that had me glued to the TV for hours has been the Mars rover landings. Nothing matches the excitement of watching boot prints live. ISS coverage puts me to sleep in short order.

But having witnessed boot prints live perhaps my view has been distorted. So be warned witnessing boot prints live on an alien surface will ruin you for life. Nothing will compare not even a live launch.

I'm feeling a little about flex now but still far from being sold on it.

Posted by Doug at 12/14/09 22:12:45

Doug - Constellation, as is, doesn't get you a permanent presence. It never did. Even fully funded, right now, it would not get you a permanent presence.

Constellation, as is, gets you Ares I, Orion, Ares V, and Altair, and a few government employees on the moon. It does not get you a moonbase, or anything like that.

Just because some politician claims it creates a permanent presence, don't believe it.

Further, even assuming we had a lunar base, like ISS, would that really glue you to your seat? If ISS doesn't, why should this?

Finally, the flexible path, allows for true in-space infrastructure, that needs to be re-supplied (like propellant depots)

Posted by Ferris Valyn at 12/14/09 22:28:37

"A single teacher will impact thousands of students over a career."

Clark I was also was questioning the teacher in space. However you just nailed it for me now I see the light...thanks.

Posted by Doug at 12/14/09 22:53:52

> I get your point but to me $100 million isn't much different than sending
> a government astronaut because either way I won't qualify to go.

Doug, that's like saying you'll never own a computer, or use a telephone, or fly in an airplane.

People said all those things -- and they were wrong.

The natural evolution of technology is to become cheaper over time. Why should space travel be an exception?

> When I say boots I mean boots to stay, not just a visit. Boots to me signifies a
> specific goal and a permanent presence of humankind. That human
> presence demands resupply support and support drives the outward expansion
> of commercial development.

Yes, I understood that. Again, it's not NASA's job to build and operate hotels, and ISS showed that they do not do a very good job at it. I don't want NASA to be hotelkeepers, I want them to be explorers.

The problem is, you're equating "humankind" with NASA. They are not synonymous. Just because humans need to do something does not mean NASA ought to be doing it. We now have permanent human presences through the Lewis and Clark territories. That didn't mean Lewis and Clark had to build them or set up a government agency to supply them.

You want NASA to give up exploring so it can build another ISS on the Moon? That's like saying Lewis and Clark should have stopped to build a government base in St. Louis. It makes no sense.

> For me look but don't touch just doesn't get there.

There is no "look but don't touch." That's a calumny fabricated by one woefully ignorant blogger. The Flexible Path will allow NASA explorers to touch many destinations.

> It leaves the space program adrift for far to many years without a defined goal or destination.

Goals and destinations are not synonymous. A goal is a mission that you set out to accomplish. A destination is simply a place. It is not a goal.

On Star Trek, the Enterprise didn't have a fixed destination it went to every week. It had a goal: "To explore strange news worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldy go where no man has gone before."

You say NASA has been boring for the last 40 years. I guess that means since Apollo 11, and the tv ratings show that most Americans agreed with you. What makes you think Constellation missions won't become boring just as quickly? The Apollo missions were at least landing in different spots, so the scenery varied somewhat, but if NASA starts building a Moon base, they will be landing in the same spot each time. How often do you think people will want to watch astronauts walk past the exact same rock or crater?

Additionally, should we measure the value of the space program purely in terms of its tv entertainment value? Shouldn't we be getting more out of it than that? If it's nothing more than entertainment, shouldn't NASA be a division of PBS or (better yet) Disney?

> The only exciting events during that time that had me glued to the TV for
> hours has been the Mars rover landings. Nothing matches the excitement of
> watching boot prints live.

Do you really mean that the most exciting thing in your life is watching radio-controlled cars drive around on tv? I know, we've raised a generation of tv addicts but talk to anyone who's actually flown in space. Or even flown an airplane. Watching television just doesn't compare -- and we shouldn't spend $17 billion a year just to get television pictures.

Space shouldn't be something people only see on television. What you see on television should be like the Travel Channel: pictures of places you can go to. America should have a space program that helps make that possible.

Posted by Edward Wright at 12/15/09 00:39:16

"The natural evolution of technology is to become cheaper over time. Why should space travel be an exception?"

Because you are not able to shrink the mass of a human being. Computers fell in price because you were able to stick more information in less space. That doesn't work with humans.

Posted by anon at 12/15/09 00:55:30

"Because you are not able to shrink the mass of a human being. Computers fell in price because ..."

For crying out loud, microelectronics are not the first technology to become cheaper over time. A cross country airline flight on a Boeing Stratoliner in 1940 cost $10k in today's dollars. You can buy a $15k Hyundai sedan today that is superior in most every way to a 1960s Mercedes. The whole history of the industrial age is of technologies becoming cheaper and/or offering increasingly better performance/cost. This is a fundamental driver for increasing our standard of living.

- Clark

Posted by TopSpacer at 12/15/09 01:20:35

doug and anon should consider their confidence

consider how they got so much smarter than norman augustine and sally ride

because if I was contradicting such smart and experienced people, I would be thinking hard about how I got so much smarter than them

if I couldn't think up a reason I might consider I might be wrong

Posted by donnie at 12/15/09 01:52:19

Donnie - Read Thomas Kuhn sometime and you will see that college degrees and intelligence doesn't always equal insight. Or look at how Enron, known for hiring the best and the brightest, failed.

Posted by anon at 12/15/09 13:18:51

"You can buy a $15k Hyundai sedan today that is superior in most every way to a 1960s Mercedes."

Most of which are due to the use of computer chips in its systems. Your average car has far more computer power then the Apollo spacecraft.

A more suitable comparison would the cost of a WWII fighter like the P-40 (a couple of hundred thousand)with a modern fighter like the F-22 (a couple of hundred million).

But we will see if SpaceX results in a revolution or simply prove the futility of it.

Posted by anon at 12/15/09 13:27:12

"Most of which are due to the use of computer chips in its systems. Your average car has far more computer power then the Apollo spacecraft."

Chips definitely contribute to better cars just like they contribute to better rockets. But they are far from the only improvements. Everything from higher performance tires to rust resistant alloys in the body and wheels to the use of statistical quality control has led to huge improvements in performance/cost for automobiles.

"A more suitable comparison would the cost of a WWII fighter like the P-40 (a couple of hundred thousand)with a modern fighter like the F-22 (a couple of hundred million)."

That's not a suitable comparison, that is a silly comparison. You have to either compare how much it would cost to build an equivalent vehicle to the P-40 today or how much it would have cost to build a vehicle with performance comparable to the F-22 in 1945 or compare the performance/cost ratios between the two vehicles. In any of those three comparisons, today's technology comes out vastly superior.

"we will see if SpaceX results in a revolution or simply prove the futility of it."

SpaceX is just one project. Technology advances most effectively when there are multiple competing efforts and survival of the fittest selects the best approaches. SpaceX has already demonstrated a number of ways to lower component and development costs and other firms will learn from what they have done. SpaceX will lower launch access costs but some other firm may end up being the firm that really revolutionizes costs.

- Clark

Posted by TopSpacer at 12/15/09 14:14:26

> A more suitable comparison would the cost of a WWII fighter
> like the P-40 (a couple of hundred thousand)with a modern
> fighter like the F-22 (a couple of hundred million).

Based on that "suitable comparison," I suppose you think SpaceShip One cost a thousand times as much as the X-15?

Posted by Edward Wright at 12/15/09 14:26:13

"Based on that "suitable comparison," I suppose you think SpaceShip One cost a thousand times as much as the X-15?"

The X-15 was a Mach 6 research rocket plane that flew for 10 years. Spaceshipone flew a dozen flights over 10 months.

Also you are off a few orders of magnitude on costs. The X-15 cost around 500 million. Spaceshipone cost 30-40 million depending on who you listen to. Who knows, if you divide the costs by the total number of flights the X-15 may well come off cheaper per flight then Spaceshipone.

Posted by anon at 12/16/09 16:15:00

Wow, I'm dizzy from watching you do triple back flips trying to make X-15 costs equivalent to the SS1. The X-15 was carried out in the best of the low cost X project style, which NASA & AF no longer seem capable of doing, but it was still very expensive.

The est. cost of the X-15 program by 1969 was $300M and est. operational cost per flight was $600k according to this document.
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-...
But you have to correct for inflation as Sam Dinkin does here
http://www.thespacereview.c...
He says this sets the project cost at $1.5B in 2004 dollars, which is the type of dollars used to pay for SS1. The est cost per flight is $3M.

The SS1 project cost was around $30M. The number of flights was truncated so that they could concentrate on building the SS2. According to Rutan in the above article,

"I do not doubt that the price per flight of X-15 was $3 million, since it was a government research program. The price per flight during the research program of SS1 after 4 powered flights is about $300,000, or $100,000 per seat (less than 4% of X-15 costs)."

The SS1 could carry three people and could fly more often. Clearly the SS1 represented a huge improvement in cost effectiveness. The X-15 team would have expected no less.

- C.

Posted by TopSpacer at 12/16/09 16:46:41

Clark,

You need to figure overhead in your costs. The X-15 fleet made 199 flights. If you use the 1.5 billion figure you provided for the program the total cost per flight is about 7.5 million in 2004 dollars.

BTW its only fair as the overhead of the HSF is used when people talk about the Shuttle costing a billion plus per flight. Without the HSF overhead a shuttle launch would only be 300-500 million.

Now let's look at Spaceshipone. It cost 30 million. It made 12 flights. That works out to 2.5 million per flight. So the cost was only 3 times as much for the X-15 even using your figures. Not the thousands of times as much that Edward Wright claimed. Yes, in theory Spaceshipone could fit three people, but it never flew with three people in it, only a pilot and dead weight. And it barely achieved its goal of winning the X-Prize. By contrast the X-15 flew years beyond its original mission was finished and exceed all of its performance requirements which is why they started going for speed and altitude records.

But really its comparing apples and oranges.

Spaceshipone, like the Spirit of St. Louis, was a one trick pony built only to win the X-prize, while the X-15 was a work horse that defined high speed/high altitude rocket planes in the decade it flew. Just look at the extensive changes needed for Spaceshiptwo. The 150 million plus it cost for those changes.

Yes, Burt did a good job with Spaceshipone, but it was not a reduction in cost a thousand fold as Edward Wright is claiming.

Posted by anon at 12/16/09 23:37:16

"You need to figure overhead in your costs."

I didn't include them because I wanted to compare apples to apples. The X-15 article gave $3M (2004) for the operational cost of a flight and Rutan gave $300k for the SS1 operational costs.

"Without the HSF overhead a shuttle launch would only be 300-500 million."

No problem with that. When I discuss Shuttle launch cost I usually mention that the marginal cost, i.e. the cost of doing one additional flight, is in that range.

"It made 12 flights."

It's not as if it was used up or broken after 12 flights. They simply decided to go on to the next version. If Branson had not shown up with money for SS2 they would have continued flying the SS1. E.g. DARPA offered them money to carry some tech experiments but Burt turned them down. Plus Paul Allen wanted to see it in the Smithsonian ASAP.

"the thousands of times as much that Edward Wright claimed"

I won't defend Ed's hyperbole but I was refuting your contention that the costs were virtually equal. In performance/cost, the SS1 project displayed a tremendous improvement over the X-15.

"Just look at the extensive changes needed for Spaceshiptwo. The 150 million plus it cost for those changes."

Lessons learned from SS1 were certainly applied to the SS2 but the SS2 is also a lot bigger - 8 vs 3 occupants - and so is the WK2 vs WK1. (For most aircraft companies, WK2 alone would be a major accomplishment). Furthermore, SS2/WK2 are production vehicles meant to go into daily commercial operation while the SS1 was a prototype. Developing a production line always adds a lot of cost compared to doing a fast prototyping job. (E.g. a car company can knock out a concept car virtually overnight for a few hundred grand but it takes a couple billion to get a production line going if they decide to mass produce it.)

"Yes, Burt did a good job with Spaceshipone, but it was not a reduction in cost a thousand fold as Edward Wright is claiming."

OK, let's agree on that and end this thread.

- Clark

Posted by TopSpacer at 12/17/09 01:17:25

Ok by me.

Posted by anon at 12/17/09 02:00:22

Add Comment

Note: HTML code will not work except for bare URLs (i.e. http://www...). Also, for postings older than 1 week, comments are filtered manually to prevent spam and so may not appear for a few days.
Note: Trash talking and name calling, especially in anonymous comments, won't be tolerated.