Orbital and sub-orbital… the distinction makes all the difference and it’s not just a question of private enterprise versus government… March 15, 2008
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Science.trackback
As you’ll probably know, I’m a regular reader of Prospect magazine. But, I’ve got to take issue with the current issue, or rather one column, Lab Report. This covers science related topics. Anyhow, science writer Philip Ball, proposes under the heading Nasa bows to the market that
Privately funded research and development has driven scientific advances in many fields. But some of the most costly areas of science, such as high-energy physics and space exploration, lack obvious commercial potential and have traditionally relied on the public purse. For space, that looks set to change. Billionaires can buy their way on to the International Space Station (ISS), which now looks like an expensive advertising hoarding, disowned by scientists and prey to publicity stunts like the $1m delivery of a Pizza Hut pizza in 2001.
Trueish. Not all scientists have disowned the ISS. No matter. He continues:
Yet bigger things are afoot. In 2004 SpaceShipOne skimmed the ionosphere to win the $10m Ansari X prize offered for the first privately funded manned spaceflight. The ship was built by Scaled Composites, an American company headed by entrepreneur Burt Rutan. Scaled Composites was not the only contender for the prize, but it has beaten the competition to win the backing of Richard Branson, who wants Rutan to supply the spacecraft that will launch his Virgin Galactic space tourism business in 2009. Branson has announced the design of SpaceShipTwo and its launch vehicle WhiteKnightTwo, the next stage in development of a spacecraft that will take passengers to the stars…And Branson says the flights will be up for hire for launching satellites too.
Perhaps. Perhaps. He continues further…
The commercial prospects have stimulated an engineering inventiveness that exposes the antiquated design and shabby management of Nasa’s space shuttles, arguably a classic example of the inefficiencies that free marketeers decry in state-funded enterprises. Nasa seems to tacitly accept this. Aware that its planned replacement for the shuttle, the Orion spacecraft, won’t be ready until at least 2015—leaving the ISS wholly dependent on Russian rockets—it is contracting out a stopgap solution to private companies. This is part of a Nasa programme to, in its own words, “encourage, support and stimulate the development of a commercial market for space transportation.”
Ah. Now we encounter a problem. Two things. Firstly, and I say this with considerable respect for Rutan and Scaled Composites, we’re simply not comparing like with like if the proposition is that SpaceShipOne or Two are the equivalent of the space shuttle. Firstly, SpaceShipTwo will, at best (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceshipTwo), only able to heft 6 passengers and two crew 68 miles above the Earth on a sub-orbital flight that lasts some two and a half hours. That’s it. There’s no shame in that, it provides at least some publicity for spaceflight. But it is merely dipping toes in the water.
The space shuttle – by contrast – can carry 5 to 7 crew members and can actually reach orbit, carrying 50,000 lb (22,700 kg). It can remain in orbit for days on end. It is, and it’s worth noting this, specifically designed for scientific experimentation (let’s ignore, shall we, the military potential).
And to argue that it is in some sense ‘an antiquated design’ shown up by the ‘engineering inventiveness’ of SpaceShipTwo is to completely misunderstand, or misrepresent the two. It’s like comparing a LearJet and a 747. Two entirely different aircraft with two entirely different purposes. Moreover, it simply doesn’t tell us anything as regards some dubious comparison of ‘free market’ endeavour and ’state-funded enterprises’. Rutan isn’t out to do science. He’s out to make money from passengers. $200,000 per passenger as it happens. No shame there either. But still not like and like.
SpaceShipOne and Two simply don’t represent, as some would suggest, a massive step forward. They are more like a consolidation, of previous smaller steps, steps achieved by NASA and the Soviets in the late 1950s and early 1960s. And an indication of how little progress has been made. To blame ’state enterprise’ for this is wide of the mark. I think it is more accurate to see this as a general lack of societal will to push forward in this area.
As regards Orion, which to my mind is a sensible step if one wants to get back to the Moon, which is one of the stated objectives, well that too is really just a reboot of the original Apollo missions, albeit on a wider scale. Having followed the space programme for almost four decades now I’m becoming more sceptical of how this is going to pan out.
But as regards science and engineering it is the poor old Space Shuttle ,with the characteristics of spaceship and aircraft, still flying decades after it was introduced which represents the truly innovative step forward. Not sub-orbitals, however interesting they may be, nor the glorified Apollo capsules of Orion.
And curiously the argument is undercut entirely by the final paragraph where we are told.
But in late January the US Government Accountability Office authorised a contract severance with one of Nasa’s commercial partners, Rocketplane Kistler, after targets were not met.
So much for our brave free market future. And further…
The replacement will be announced very soon. There’s no sign that Nasa has been talking to Branson, but it could do worse.
No, it would be entirely pointless if one wishes to have a serious orbital space programme.
‘an antiquated design’
Those ‘antiquated designs’ work. There’s a reason why NASA still is (very recently) still in the market for ancient Pentium chips – the damned things are known to work, and this is recognised by an organisation which has accomplished some of the greatest engineering triumphs of mankind’s history.
I entirely agree. Orion, as the basis of a return to the moon makes sense. To extend your point, that technology, rooted in Apollo is known to work. The Shuttle, for all it’s limitations, as an Earth to orbit workhorse makes sense. We know it to work. SpaceShipTwo, as a limited tourist vehicle, makes sense. It appears likely to work. But the article makes a futile and inappropriate comparison between them… Bah! Humbug!
You may remember an old 1950 sci-fi film called “Destination
Moon” produced by George Pal from a Robert A. Heinlein novel.
In it,the first moon landing is funded by a private company.
While the film was wrong about the economics of the first
Russian and US space journeys, the Philip Ball article
suggests the film might have been prophetic about 21th
century space travel.
Interesting however on one point about state and the shuttle. The space shuttle is a massive waste of money. The original design for the space shuttle was quiet similar to that of the Spaceshipone designs. The reason the design of the space shuttle was changed was that when looking for money to build the shuttle NASA looked to the airforce too help fund it. In return they asked that the shuttle be massively bigger to take spy stuff to space. The space shuttle was never really used for this purpose and the costs of running it and building it soared. For what they space shuttle is for it is total overkill and does not make sense. For the functions that it is required to do it is far to big. Many of the bigger satellites would be more economically orbited by rockets (which is the method the airforce use for spy satellites) For a work horse the spaceshipone idea (orginal shuttle idea) is far Superior
While NASA have probably produces the greatest engineering triumphs of mankind history they have spent billions while possible the most revolutionary invention of the 20th was invented by a company. Bell Labs and the transistor
I’m not entirely convinced by your thesis here Simon. Firstly, the final configuration of the shuttle was very much a pig in a poke due to political considerations and the slow strangling of funding through the 1970s (and the necessity to do everything military/NASA/other functions rather than a more limited number). I’m not sure if you’re referring to the Dyna-Soar project when you mention original design. If so, that actually wasn’t the original design, but a military only development programme which was considerably earlier – which was sort of orbital. But Dyna-Soar was vastly superior in both concept and projected payload etc to SpaceshipOne/Two. As regards the military component of the Space shuttle, I beg to differ. There was a military component with dedicated flights until 1992. But that makes sense because that was the point just after the end of the USSR when there was a serious strategic threat to the US (and indeed the USSR was also pushing towards a shuttle like vehicle). Afterwards the necessity diminished and smaller vehicles could be used.
As for Spaceshipone being superior as a workhorse I’d respectfully disagree. It simply isn’t, not as a sub-orbital. It can’t dock with – say – the ISS or orbiting satellites or Hubble. It’s only good for bringing wealthy tourists into space. No harm per se in that, but certainly nowhere near a manned spaceflight programme. As regards engineering triumphs, that’s a bit of a zero sum argument. One could as easily argue that the capability to lob satellites into orbit which was pioneered by states has made the modern world from communications, weather monitoring, international security etc, etc. Transistors played their part, no doubt, but it certainly needed the big brush strokes. Or, what about nuclear weapons… again state developed because you need states to do that sort of massive project. But as I say that’s zero sum. We could argue all evening over which was more important in the scheme of things…
As regards a waste of money. Difficult to know. The Shuttle allowed a manned presence in orbit across three decades. Not bad really. On a scientific level (or indeed a cultural one) I think its servicing of Hubble was worth all the money full stop. Now it can be argued they could have put up multiples of Hubble for the cost of the entire programme, and that would be true, but unlikely, and all in all money well spent.
The space shuttle is a massive waste of money.
As are, now, a manned airforce (drones being much cheaper and without pesky – on a number of fronts – human beings being in autonomous control of them).
The point being the ‘now’.
While NASA have probably produces the greatest engineering triumphs of mankind history they have spent billions while possible the most revolutionary invention of the 20th was invented by a company.
But I’m not talking about ‘inventions’, I’m talking about feats of engineering. Getting people into and out of orbit – never mind to Luna and back! – is a staggeringly important milestone in our development as a species.
It simply isn’t, not as a sub-orbital. It can’t dock with – say – the ISS or orbiting satellites or Hubble.
My point was not spaceshipone persay but for instance spacecshipthree is planned to be able to achieve orbit and maybe even dock with the ISS. The idea for a work horse space vehicle would be of a small size rather then the cumbersome space shuttle. The reason for manned flight in space is that humans are need to preform specific tasks that cannot be done by machines. Simply putting satellites in orbit are doable by rockets. For instance the successor to hubble will be launched by an ariane 5 rocket.
Also the ISS was been maintained by rocket based soyes capsules while the Shuttle was laid off. Likewise MIR did quiet well with Soyes Capsules.
As for the scientific benefit of hubble. Well yes they could have put mulitple hubbles up for the cost of the space shuttle. Also hubble based papers have 15 times bigger impact then ground based observatories papers but cost 100 times more. Also with advances in Adaptive Optics as they are going the improvement it gives is not what it was and diminishing. So if that is the justification of the shuttle.
But SS3 is years away, not even on the drawing board IIRC. Again, I disagree that the ideal workhorse would be smaller. Consider the latest ESA module which is resupplying the ISS which is in fact pretty large. Again, I don’t disagree that the shuttle was a pig in a poke, but across a wide range of areas it has functioned remarkably well and without doubt is the shape of medium to long term future orbital space vehicles.
Adaptive optics are great, no dispute but space based telescopes will always have an edge because of inbuilt limitations within AO telescopes.
But space based telescope are always going to be smaller then ground based scopes indeed recent images by keck of pluto were of better resolution then that of hubble. There is certainly a place for space based telescopes but not enough to justify the massive space shuttle development costs alone considering the JWST is being launched by a rocket as is I am pretty sure the ESA module was on the back of an arianne 5.
I don’t think the need for the shuttle to launch satellites rather then just send people up to hands on stuff is that great. Also that considering the next gen of shuttle that NASA is thinking of are going to be very much smaller then the shuttle I think they are thinking the same way.
“SpaceShipOne and Two simply don’t represent, as some would suggest, a massive step forward.”
As the first customer to sign up with Rocketplane to go into space, and as far as we can determine, the first person to sign with a non-government company to do this, I feel this is, in fact, “a massive step forward” as, when this occurs, this will be the first time anyone goes into space on a non-government owned vehicle. Admittedly, the first passengers will be a few hundred rich adventurers. (I prefer to think of them as pioneers, certainly not tourists.) Yes, it’s costly initially, but when the price comes down dramatically, as it must or the companies providing this service will go out of business, masses of the general public will be taking rides for possibly $20 or $30,000. Still sounds high? An automobile costs more. A year in college costs that. The memories of this experience will be incomparable and last a lifetime.
According to Frank White’s book, The Overview Effect, to a person, the astronauts who have gone to space, say it was a life changing experience. The dive to the Titanic which I did July 15, 2005 was $30,000. It was a life changing experience. You can never look at your world the same after experiencing these events. There’s no better way to promote space than to actually go to space.
I don’t for a second deny the utility on a certain level of SS1 and 2. And I’m certainly far from suggesting that on a personal level this doesn’t represent a life changing experience. But my broader point is that we’re still not comparing like with like. SS1/2 are not science based, or even military. They’re ultra-high end tourist. As I said in the original post, no harm there. I’m certainly entirely supportive of Rutan’s efforts. I agree with you completely that this does promote space. But it’s far from the sort of endeavours I hoped would be extant at this point in time in the very early 21st century. We’ve slipped back, not forward. Good for Rutan for doing something, but in the broader picture he and Scaled Composites can only do so much. What incidentally is the situation with Rocketplane?
I should add that the point as to whether it is government owned or not is – to at least some degree – irrelevant when we’re actually considering function. If the commercial sector were able to build a hotel in orbit that would be fine. But equally so would it be if it were state sponsored. The point is to get a hotel (or whatever) into orbit, to get a continual and expanding orbital human presence and from there on see where it takes us. And let’s consider what the private sector isn’t interested in. Deep space probes. Manned exploration. And I don’t blame them because you need, so far anyhow, states to support these sort of activities (well perhaps not the first). In that regard this is almost precisely like the development of nuclear weapons. The sort of physical infrastructures cannot be achieved without government sponsorship. If SS3 gets off the ground. Well, that’ll be a different kettle of fish. But that’s years away.
Simon, as regards the next generation shuttle. Look back ten or fifteen years and consider what was proposed then. An elaboration and sophistication of the current one. But again due to funding/political issues its been cut to pieces so we wind up with as noted before a reboot of Apollo. That sure isn’t what I wanted to happen over the past two decades. I think our lack of ability to progress on this front is dismal. And I’d point the finger of blame at governments and private enterprise (not, though Rutan, who has fought long and hard to do something useful and has actually succeeded).
Another problem with the space shuttle is that it has limited range. One of the reasons that hubble space walks were not preformed recently was because the shuttle once at hubble would not be able to go on to the ISS. Also considering that the shuttle cannot leave orbit to get out of orbit to go back to the moon or beyond does require something more powerfull. Like the Aries 1 they are planning to replace the shuttle with. It is simply a matter of power. The amount of fuel need to launch the shuttle out of earth orbit would be massive. To get the shuttle to the moon would require 43 times more power then the Saturn 5 the most powerful rocket ever.
The orginal purpose of the Shuttle was a truck that could go nearly every week to space and be cheaper then rockets this is not the case.It can not go up that often and is pretty much the same launch price for satellites. The only real use it has is sending people up, which could be done in a smaller craft and done quiet successfully with a soyez.
I don’t think we are going to agree on this. So I will leave you with this.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2005-09-27-nasa-griffin-interview_x.htm
As regards there being “no harm” from the development of an ultra-high end space tourism and the prospect of trips for “$20 or $30,000″ for the vaingloriously wealthy. At a time when we need drastic reductions in aviation ( of ~90% ), that really would be a great leap for greenhouse gas reduction. What a fantastic way to appreciate our planet while tis still around…
Pax, I know where you’re coming from, but to be honest I can’t think of a better signifier of the perilous situation the planet is in than the image of the earth rising above the Moon. Secondly, while there is clearly a sort of ultra-conspicuous consumptive element to the space tourists I’m not certain that it’s simply vainglorious. Finally, on this issue, in order to maintain a serious monitoring of climate change and our impacts on the planet we need a presence in space, full stop.
Simon, you’re right, we won’t agree, but part of that is that you keep maintaining the Shuttle should have a role it was never designed even in its most utopian versions to carry out. The purpose of the Shuttle was never to go to the Moon, it was about Earth to orbit. It actually isn’t just a matter of power, it’s about suitability for the job at hand. It’s true that it was envisaged as having a more regular role, but part of the reason why the use went down was due to safety concerns – which again were directly linked to funding cutbacks across the programme. The point being not that Orion won’t do a good job, but that the Shuttle was meant to be part of a much more elaborate programme with the express purpose of first gaining an orbital foothold and then expanding outwards. And remember, Soyuz wasn’t part of the equation until after the fall of the USSR, a decade after the Shuttle went into service.
wbs wrote:”Pax, I know where you’re coming from, but to be honest I can’t think of a better signifier of the perilous situation the planet is in than the image of the earth rising above the Moon.”
Very true. In that the global conscious raising and awareness might mitigate certain policies or lead to a change in mindset. Unfortunately I think that’d be of less tangible benefit than the consequences of a rapidly increasing space aviation sector at a time when regular aviation needs to be reduced. I’m not sure but I think the damage to the stratosphere from these flights would be much worse than regular lower level flights?
But I suspect that such higher-level environmental thinking might be particularly lost on the ultra-high (or orbital) tourists and certainly the industry involved. Which I’d imagine would actively lobby for increased flights.
wbs wrote: “Secondly, while there is clearly a sort of ultra-conspicuous consumptive element to the space tourists I’m not certain that it’s simply vainglorious.”
Well I mean the same people go to soon-to-be ex-islands like Tuvalu. Every year.
So I think it’s a large part of the thinking and mindset. I’m not saying it’s the total but vainglorious status motivation is certainly a part of paying so much to see the earth in orbit for a few hours.
For instance entire islands are taken over in Asia for this extremely wealthy market. At lot of the time without the consent of the native population. The aftermath of the Tsunami was used to move the hardest-hit victims off of their islands and coastal land.
Even environmentally conscious people can be accused of double think with respect to their travel in that they can comparmentalise it and rationalise it. And then there’s the so-called love-miles. At least that’s not likely to exist in space for some time to come!
wbs wrote:”Finally, on this issue, in order to maintain a serious monitoring of climate change and our impacts on the planet we need a presence in space, full stop.”
I’m not against space travel for scientific purposes, or for monitoring and continued study of climate change. I don’t think that’s a waste at all, and should be increased, with more robotics being used… instead of showboating with wealthy Homer Simpsons!
I think it just makes sense to not unnecessarily increase human space travel at this time. Particularly with a market driving it.
Simon wrote: “While NASA have probably produces the greatest engineering triumphs of mankind history they have spent billions while possible the most revolutionary invention of the 20th was invented by a company. Bell Labs and the transistor”
“was invented by a company.” hmm I don’t think a fair statement. I remember an electronics lecturer deriding the simplistic story of the birth of the transistor from the usual US textbooks.
The transistor was actually invented much earlier than this. As regards Bell labs, it was in receipt of considerable public research funding. Bell was using decades of existing publicly funded research (and indeed the Bell team judiciously used existing ‘transistor’ patents and research without actually referencing them…). AT&T Bell was also a huge monopoly. For the first two decades after the MOSFET was invented, the government was practically the only customer. Bell could easily absorb such research costs unlike others. It’s also worth noting that such industrial basic research facilities have withered and died without public funding.
Even at the very same time as Bell ‘invented’ the transistor in 1948, in Paris, two physicists from the old German radar program and directly funded by France’s Secretary of Postes, Télégraphes et Téléphones (PTT) invented a superior transistor to that of the Bell team – the transitron. Despite the French technical advantages in semiconductors they failed to capitalise. In effect, both in the US and in Europe, the extraordinary public funding of R&D and wartime advances in purifying silicon and, in particular, germanium, spawned the invention or more accurately the implementation of existing public basic research.
Generally speaking the vast majority of breakthrough basic research is done in public labs, universities (all funded and regulated largely by the government) or in publicly funded private labs. The US is a perfect example, you have the NIH, NSF, DOE, DOD, -the list goes on- funding research. Vast areas of science would receive zero funding if it were up to the private sector. And as regards space I can’t see a company being interested in the Hubble telescope.
I think it’s clear that US electronic research and resultant miniaturization, has always been driven by US government funding, by defense and space programs with those sometimes being used as a cover. The basic research for the internet, was supported by the government, to create a distributed communications network. Such blue-sky research requires public funding as its a public good.
In fact most of the research which permits me to use this mouse, the GUI and cut and past, was taken by Xerox from Doug Engelbart’s work on the Augmented Human Interface project at SRI (non-profit publicly funded research institute) in the late 1960s, sponsored by DARPA. Englehart moved to Lockheed, when the funding dried up, and his key researchers moved to Xerox PARC. This was then taken on by Apple etc. There are more examples of same elsewhere – again publicly funded.
I agree with you Pax on all that you’ve written in both comments, although with a caveat that I tend to think a human presence in space is a necessity (albeit an expensive one, I’ll readily admit). One of the worrying things is how fragile our ability to tell what is going on on this planet is and how dependent it is on orbital access.