Mike Griffin wants to shut down government use of commercial space companies

[JB47394]

I heard about "we have to beat China back to the Moon", and Mike Griffin is of that mindset. In the comments, somebody observed that he must be lobbying for traditional aerospace companies because they're the companies that would benefit by going back to the old way. Certainly "we have to beat China" is the classic cold war stuff that gave us Apollo.

Former NASA administrator hates Artemis, wants to party like it’s 2008

"In my judgment, the Artemis Program is excessively complex."

arstechnica.com

 

[Grendal]

"One of the ironies of the career of Mike Griffin is that, at the direction of the George W. Bush administration, he helped launch the commercial space revolution. Griffin created the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services, or COTS, program in 2006; it funded the development of cargo spacecraft by SpaceX and Orbital Sciences. It is no exaggeration to say that this program and its successor in 2008 to fund cargo supply missions to the International Space Station saved SpaceX. Without them, the company founded by Elon Musk would probably not exist today.

But even before he left NASA in early 2009, Griffin was already turning on the commercial space industry. He did not support NASA's funding of companies because he did not believe they were putting enough "skin in the game" as a part of their fixed-price contracts. Griffin ended up opposing the creation of the "commercial crew" program that ultimately led to the Crew Dragon vehicle that broke NASA's dependence on Russia for rides to the International Space Station."

This is easy to understand. He supported commercial space when it was part of his political administration's position to save money. When he was close to leaving the position then he "got lobbied" into supporting Old Space. He is not incorrect that the current concept for "getting back to the Moon" is a complex one. The difference is that it is a lot more than a repeat of footprints on the Moon with a few rocks. It could possibly beat China there but that would be it. I'm sure the Old Space contractors would charge an arm and a leg. Safety would be of minimal concern as it was in the good 'ol days. The reality is that the Apollo program was extremely dangerous and if the Chinese program is trying to do something similar then there is a decent chance that they could lose some of their people trying to get there. The current NASA thinking, while still quite expensive, is planning to do a lot more than a quick visit. The fact the current plan gives SpaceX some development money for Starship will be the more important action that the future will look back on as the critical step for advancement in space. SLS and Orion are just a small step forward from Apollo. A fully reusable Super Heavy launch system is a game changer. We can see the huge impact Falcon 9 launching almost 100 times in a year has had on basic orbital launches. The impact of a Super Heavy booster and Starships launching 100+ times a year opens up space in a really meaningful way. The Old Space way of doing something is great for waving a flag or two but Starship is a way to actually get important work done in a big way.

 

[ecarfan]

I’ve put Mike Griffin on “ignore”.

 

[JB47394]

I’ve put Mike Griffin on “ignore”.

I was so happy when Mike became NASA Administrator. He was one of us. He was an engineer.

It turns out that he's just a lobbyist for Northrup Grumman and Boeing.

 

[spacerfc]

This is easy to understand. He supported commercial space when it was part of his political administration's position to save money. When he was close to leaving the position then he "got lobbied" into supporting Old Space.

He's always been an old space supporter, he thought up the Constellation architecture before he was appointed as NASA administrator. As for COTS, many in the new space community thought it's just his way of giving new space enough rope to hang themselves, i.e. he expects new space to fail at COTS and thus proving it doesn't work (one of the two original winners did have to be terminated). Even if COTS worked, his Constellation plan would require ISS to be deorbited by 2015 so there wouldn't be much work left for new space companies anyway.

 

[scaesare]

I also get the impression that he feels there is some glory in "Nasa doing it", rather than farming the program out to commercial space companies. Of course, all the Apollo stuff was contracted out to companies as well, but that was more Nasa driving it seems.

Berger also points out:

here are some huge fictions in Griffin's plan. One is that there would be two SLS Block II rockets ready to launch in 2029. Recall that it took 12 years and $30 billion to develop the Block I version of the rocket. The earliest NASA expects an interim version, Block 1B, to be ready is 2028. But magically, NASA will have two builds of the more advanced Block II rocket (with more powerful side-mounted boosters) ready by 2029.

Then there is the lunar lander. It has not been designed. It is not funded. And if it were built through the cost-plus acquisition strategy outlined by Griffin, it undoubtedly would cost $10 to $20 billion and take a decade based on past performance. A reasonable estimate of Griffin's plan, based on contractor performance with Orion (in development since 2005) and the SLS rocket, is that if NASA's budget roughly doubled, humans might land on the Moon by the late 2030s.

So it's not clear he'd really meet his own goals anyway.

I do agree with the article and @Grendal that the current plan(s) to get back the moon are complex. I suppose it remains to be seen if the complexity is worth the increase in safety, sustainability, reusability, etc... It wouldn't surprise me to see some simplification, at least initially....

 

[JB47394]

So it's not clear he'd really meet his own goals anyway.

Until enough infrastructure exists, nobody is going to be able to predict timelines. This is one thing that Elon understands - you've gotta get serious about assembly lines. You cannot keep building bespoke hardware and software. It all needs to be commoditized and standardized. That sort of thing usually adds mass (generalized parts), and that's why mass production of super heavy lift rockets is at the core of everything - it reduces the consequences of mass.

 

[Grendal]

So it's not clear he'd really meet his own goals anyway.

I do agree with the article and @Grendal that the current plan(s) to get back the moon are complex. I suppose it remains to be seen if the complexity is worth the increase in safety, sustainability, reusability, etc... It wouldn't surprise me to see some simplification, at least initially....

Let's be clear that Starship will change everything. Sure it may take a while to get to where the Falcon program is now but Moon landing missions, Mars missions, Space Stations, and everything deep space as well will be very different if Starship can do anything close to what Elon envisions. Fundamentally, just the Raptor engine is game changing if it can be reused similar to the Merlin. We're just in a wait and see time until Starship gets working.

 

[scaesare]

Let's be clear that Starship will change everything. Sure it may take a while to get to where the Falcon program is now but Moon landing missions, Mars missions, Space Stations, and everything deep space as well will be very different if Starship can do anything close to what Elon envisions. Fundamentally, just the Raptor engine is game changing if it can be reused similar to the Merlin. We're just in a wait and see time until Starship gets working.

Absolutely, but even though it's 2+ times as powerful as the Saturn 5 which launched astronauts directly to the moon, the current lunar mission plan requires orbital refueling, multiple launches, rendez-vous, etc... I understand that the ultimate capability at the moon will be greater, and that reusability is in play, but even with Starship operational there's lot's of moving parts ...

 

[JB47394]

Absolutely, but even though it's 2+ times as powerful as the Saturn 5 which launched astronauts directly to the moon, the current lunar mission plan requires orbital refueling, multiple launches, rendez-vous, etc... I understand that the ultimate capability at the moon will be greater, and that reusability is in play, but even with Starship operational there's lot's of moving parts ...

What would you change?

 

[scaesare]

What would you change?

I'm not entirely sure, but perhaps a simplified initial version that reduces the tonnage needed therefore eliminating the need for SLS and Starship w/ multiple refuels, having 2 craft arriving separately and docking in Lunar orbit, the transfer of crew to/from the HLS, transfer back to Orion, etc...

Now I understand the Apollo command module and LEM needed to have crew xfer back and forth, re-dock in lunar orbit etc... but there is additional complexity with the seperate vehilce launched at different times, etc...

So, I'm wondering, with more than 2X the power of a Saturn V, what could we get to the moon and back with just a Starship launch?

 

[JB47394]

I'm not entirely sure

I expect a full presentation in an hour.

So, I'm wondering, with more than 2X the power of a Saturn V

Remember that the extra power of Starship is consumed by being reusable. Saturn V could put 140 tons in LEO. Starship is supposed to be somewhere between 100 and 150. So even if you only duplicated the Apollo 11 mission, it would likely take more than one Starship launch to get the pieces to LEO.

what could we get to the moon and back with just a Starship launch?

If you mean LEO-Moon-LEO, nothing. Even with no payload, it can't make that round trip. The mission would require 11.32 km/s of delta-v, and a flapless, cargoless Starship can only summon about 9.5 km/s.

I've shown this calculator before, but it's really interesting to see how the rocket equation works out.

Untitled Graph

www.desmos.com

Playing with that calculator, I gave Starship 1900 tons of propellant and it only gets it to 11.0 km/s. Bump it to 2900 tons (almost 2.5x Starship V1) and you get 12.5 km/s. That's with no payload. Just barely making it back to LEO would allow a 40 ton payload.

This is also assuming that all the engines are the vacuum variant, so some slight loss for using the sea level Raptors. With full tanks, you'd probably want to fire the sea level engines for the extra thrust. Later on, when the ship is lighter, you wouldn't need all that thrust, so you could rely on your more efficient vacuum engines.

 

[Unclepaul]

Believe the ultimate plan is to get a fully fueled and loaded up Starship into orbit, with a full to the brim payload. Then fly out of orbit to the Moon and land with lots of equipment that can be left behind to build a future Moon Base. Then have enough fuel to take off again and return to Earth.

 

[adiggs]

I'm not entirely sure, but perhaps a simplified initial version that reduces the tonnage needed therefore eliminating the need for SLS and Starship w/ multiple refuels, having 2 craft arriving separately and docking in Lunar orbit, the transfer of crew to/from the HLS, transfer back to Orion, etc...

Now I understand the Apollo command module and LEM needed to have crew xfer back and forth, re-dock in lunar orbit etc... but there is additional complexity with the seperate vehilce launched at different times, etc...

So, I'm wondering, with more than 2X the power of a Saturn V, what could we get to the moon and back with just a Starship launch?

Oh this will be easy(er) then. I think we can be nearly count on the SLS missions needing to be flown by Starship, when it comes time.

 

[scaesare]

I expect a full presentation in an hour.

As long as MS Paint is an acceptable format.

Remember that the extra power of Starship is consumed by being reusable. Saturn V could put 140 tons in LEO. Starship is supposed to be somewhere between 100 and 150. So even if you only duplicated the Apollo 11 mission, it would likely take more than one Starship launch to get the pieces to LEO.

Hmm... That's interesting there's that much of a penalty for Starship/booster. Falcon 9 in reusable mode can do ~75% of what it can do in expendable mode.

So for Starship to be over 2X as powerful than Saturn V, but only be able to put roughly the same mass in to orbit, that seems like a lot lost in the name of reuse, comparatively speaking. Now Starship + booster has much more mass, at 11million lbs vs 6.5million, but I assume that's due to fuel.

And the Raptor at 327s of ISP vs. the F1 at 263 has it beat for efficiency.

So why such a big mass-to-orbit delta vs the Saturn V? Is it because, comparatively speaking, so much more of the total mass is allocated in the 2nd stage (Starship) than on the Saturn V (3rd stage + modules)?

If you mean LEO-Moon-LEO, nothing. Even with no payload, it can't make that round trip. The mission would require 11.32 km/s of delta-v, and a flapless, cargoless Starship can only summon about 9.5 km/s.

I've shown this calculator before, but it's really interesting to see how the rocket equation works out.

Untitled Graph

www.desmos.com

Playing with that calculator, I gave Starship 1900 tons of propellant and it only gets it to 11.0 km/s. Bump it to 2900 tons (almost 2.5x Starship V1) and you get 12.5 km/s. That's with no payload. Just barely making it back to LEO would allow a 40 ton payload.

This is also assuming that all the engines are the vacuum variant, so some slight loss for using the sea level Raptors. With full tanks, you'd probably want to fire the sea level engines for the extra thrust. Later on, when the ship is lighter, you wouldn't need all that thrust, so you could rely on your more efficient vacuum engines.

Thanks for this... I wonder what a 2nd (& 3rd?) stage design that could do it would look like in terms of capability, and I wonder if re-use would even be possible...

 

[JB47394]

So why such a big mass-to-orbit delta vs the Saturn V?

I think you've give the reasons:

1. Starship is 70% heavier
2. Starship is only two stages

I wonder what a 2nd (& 3rd?) stage design that could do it would look like in terms of capability, and I wonder if re-use would even be possible...

I don't know about its capabilities, but it would add a lot of complexity. Falcon 9 requires a SpaceX navy. Starship eliminates it because the booster is RTLS and there are no fairings to recover. The new stage would be recovered farther out at sea than the Falcon 9 booster, and landing such a large stage on a ship would bring in a host of new problems. They'd have to design another unique vehicle for its unique operating environment.

 

[Grendal]

It comes down to the rocket equation. The Saturn V was focused only on the goal. It sacrificed lots of hardware to get the delta V needed for a very small amount of payload to land on the Moon. Stage 1 and stage 2 got Stage 3, the Command Service Module, and the LEM to orbit. Stage 3 got the CSM and the LEM in the TLI to the Moon. Stage 3 is dropped just after the TLI. After the CSM and LEM get to the Moon's orbit, the LEM got only two astronauts to the Moon and jettisoned the descent stage of the LEM to get the ascent stage back to the CSM. The ascent stage was then jettisoned and the CSM fired it engines to get back to LEO. Then finally the Service Module is jettisoned to get the Apollo Command Capsule back to Earth.

So 2,800,000 kg launched to get 5557 kg back to Earth: or .002% of the launch weight is returned to Earth.

https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display.action?id=1969-059A

Apollo Lunar Module - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[scaesare]

Those gravity wells are a harsh mistress.

So to get any significant increase in mass there and back, it seems like orbital refueling is practically required...

So is the simplification simply avoiding the whole separate SLS rendezvous?

 

[JB47394]

So to get any significant increase in mass there and back, it seems like orbital refueling is practically required...

Orbital refueling is required because Starship doesn't stage like an Apollo mission, as @Grendal pointed out. Everywhere Starship goes, it carries 100 tons of tanks and engines. Starship is a stupid way to go to the Moon because when you arrive there, you still have 100 useless tons of tanks and engines. You only need a fraction of that to reach the surface and return, as evidenced by the Apollo LEM (16 tons). Starship will only make sense once there are propellant depots at the destination. Then you can fill your tanks and have lots of lovely delta-v to go places. That's something that the LEM could never provide.

So is the simplification simply avoiding the whole separate SLS rendezvous?

How will you get the astronauts to the Moon and then back again? Orion has to be used because it has the life support and reentry capability. Starship is only providing the ride to and from the Moon's surface, and it does that rather poorly.

 

[scaesare]

It sounds like booster + completely new upper stage(s) would be needed then...