Some thoughts on the meaning of “mining” in the context of lunar return over at the other blog at Air & Space magazine. Comment here if you want.
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Gary Church on An Architecture for Direct Lunar Return Using SLS and Orion
- Joe on An Architecture for Direct Lunar Return Using SLS and Orion
- Ben on An Architecture for Direct Lunar Return Using SLS and Orion
- Joe on An Architecture for Direct Lunar Return Using SLS and Orion
- Paul Spudis on An Architecture for Direct Lunar Return Using SLS and Orion
Archives
- August 2018
- July 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
Categories
Blogroll
- America's Uncommon Sense (Jack Schmitt)
- AmericaSpace
- Apollo Image Archive
- Apollo Image Gallery
- Apollo Lunar Surface Journal
- Astronaut Tom Jones – Flight Notes
- Coalition for Space Exploration
- Curmudgeon's Corner – Mark Whittington
- Dennis Wingo
- Leading Space
- Leonard David's INSIDE OUTER SPACE
- Letters to Earth – Don Pettit
- Lunar and Planetary Institute – Lunar Exploration
- Lunar Exploration Analysis Group (LEAG)
- Lunar Networks – Joel Raupe
- Lunar Photo of the Day – Chuck Wood
- Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC)
- Mini-RF Experiment
- NASA Space History Page
- NASA Watch
- NASAspaceflight.com
- National Space Society
- New Papyrus
- Out of the Cradle
- Portal to the Universe
- Roger Launius
- Space News
- Space Policy Online
- Space Today
- Space.com
- Spaceflight Insider
- The Once and Future Moon – Air and Space magazine – Paul Spudis
- The Planetary Society blog
- The Space Show
- Unmanned Spaceflight
- Wayne Hale
Subscribe to the SLR Blog via Email
“There are many reasons to believe that those costs have already fallen about as much as they will,-”
Or……there is no cheap.
I find it interesting the Chinese, who have a fully functioning space program with a rover on the Moon, have previously stated they do not believe Musk can launch rockets for the quoted price.
While the private space “entrepreneurs” go retro at a glacially slow pace -mostly on the taxpayers dime- re-developing half century old technology to get tourists into LEO, the Chinese have a rover looking for a place to set up a Moonbase.
The 7 Ships of the New Space Age:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/rockets/the-7-ships-of-the-new-space-age?click=pp#slide-1
None of them are Chinese.
Though the list doesn’t include the Falcon-9 and sure one could make a different
list.
And if Falcon-9 becomes reusable it would have belong on such a list.
Though the degree it goes to top of list is how successful it is as reusable- does
it lower costs of payload by a significant amount, rather just be this first “serious” attempt at being “reusable”. And also the re-usability of Dragon can’t really be said to be achieved yet, even if one dragon capsule is used twice. And likewise, one can really say
Shuttle was re-usable. Rather probably better to say Shuttle was experimentally reusable. So SpaceX has not gotten even to point of experimentally being reusable, but it could achieve experimentally being reusable in the coming year and if accomplishes this and becomes operationally reusable that should get it at top of
a list.
Anyhow, to not really about hardware, this Information Age which may also become a Space Age {I suppose the use of satellites already makes it a Space Age, but it could become more of Space Age].
The 7 Ships of the New Space Age:….None of them are Chinese.
And none of the “seven” have yet flown anybody into space. The Chinese have.
“And none of the “seven” have yet flown anybody into space. The Chinese have.”
Yes. But if Ford designs a new truck for 2016, and call it the Beetlejuice, then one could say such a truck has not hauled a ton material yet. Or driven a single person anywhere.
And your requirement is similar to not flying across the Atlantic. And once they have flown to space, you can change requirement to none have flown to the Moon.
So one of seven is NASA, which has flown into space, landed humans on the Moon, and has had a few rovers on Mars.
So what saying is NASA is building a new model which will fly into space and could fly to the Moon. But it’s true this particular design has not flown in space.
Xcor is first of the seven. It’s flown rocket planes- a couple versions. Though none reached space. But have done quite significant development goals, which are related to firing an rocket engine in terms starting and stopping, and long duration
rocket operation, flying a rocket plane seven times in a day:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XCOR_Aerospace
And developed methane rocket rocket, and are developing H2&LOX engine which using piston pump to feed the rocket engine which could be promising approach for many reasons.
So XCOR has flown a rocket plane, which takesoff and lands, routinely something Chinese nor most nations have never done, nor really done as routinely by anyone before, in terms of aircraft- rather than cars, or boats.
The second of 7, Blue Origin/Jeff Bezos project is a bit like the Chinese, as in they both are not very forthcoming about what they are doing.
Which related to another point. What is value of Chinese exploring the Moon if Chinese on less forthcoming relating scientific information related to such exploration.
With all exploration and broadly “all business to related to space”one has a degree [varying amount] of information being withheld or delayed- scientists involved want “first exclusive use” with idea that within some period [say 6 months] one needs some time to “wrap the present” or one needs time to get the work done, or want to insure the data right, or however one want to explain it.
But such delay is not issue, what important is scientific data
which eventually having wide access.
So my point is if one doesn’t get point having wide access [within decades or a time typical de-classifying state secrets]
it’s value is de-valued.
Or without enough timely access it’s effectively merely a stunt.
“Yes. But if Ford designs a new truck for 2016, and call it the Beetlejuice, then one could say such a truck has not hauled a ton material yet. Or driven a single person anywhere.”
But Ford has built other trucks that perform similar services, none of the companies to which you are referring (Space X,. Sierra Nevada, Blue Origin) that are attempting to develop passenger carrying orbital vehicles has built anything with those capabilities.
If you were referring to Boeing (the CST-100) you would have had a point, interestingly the CST-100 was left out of the article to which you linked.
“I believe that the real game-changer for mining the planets is water.”
I am completely convinced of the importance of water as radiation shielding for spaceships on long duration voyages. But long before any such missions are launched the water on the Moon will support human habitats as Dr. Spudis details; cleaning the air and replenishing the oxygen in a water dependent life support system and also hydrogen and oxygen as propellents.
But if all the oxygen is better used in other processes then hydrogen by itself is also the highest performing mono-propellent for Nuclear Thermal Rockets and possible future microwave beam propulsion systems. Of course for cislunar satellites operating in the Earth’s magnetosphere the NTR’s would not be appropriate. The beam propulsion might never work right but I think otherwise.
Indeed China is moving on ahead of the U.S., in terms of current, 21st century deep space capabilities. All of what American spacemen were capable of doing 41 years ago, is lamentably, being seen as a reason for complacency & a resting-on-our-laurels thing for the country. Yet, read that again: 41 years separate the America of today, from the last time it sent its men & equipment to deep space! It’s too bad that the Chinese have been progressing at such a slow pace. I truly don’t understand why they have to wait till 2017 to launch their lunar sample-return lander-probe.They could get that technology demonstration out of the way, by next year.
But even more mystifying, is why they’d even bother with an interlude of LEO stations at all: Why not just proceed to, step-by-step, get their spacemen to the point of doing Moon expeditions & eventually intermittently-occupied bases there? Remember that there wouldn’t be any problems of having to de-orbit it later, nor would there be any dangers of it crashing down uncontrolled to the Earth, unlike Skylab in the 1970’s. I would hope that China does NOT re-do the ISS, especially NOT to the same extent, because then they’d be just as bogged down in LEO as we are now!
Far better it’d be, that if China still would feel the need to deal with LEO a bit more prior to launching manned lunar craft, that it limit its efforts to smaller, part-of-the-time occupied stations, resembling the Skylab, maybe. Such a less-complex, intermittently crewed, LEO mega-module or space-lab, would give them additional experience with operating spacecraft for longer spans of time, WITHOUT having to put their country into any strong LEO-only commitment lasting two decades or so——–which would only lead America to duplicating the same exact thing, for an even longer stretch of time. Admittedly, China could use the practice at rendezvousing with a parked-in-orbit deep-space-designated vehicle, and mastering the art of activating & re-activating it, plus flying it under-crewed and/or in an un-crewed dormant-in-waiting state——things they’d have to learn how to do to execute the lunar orbiting phase of their lunar expeditions.
I truly don’t understand why they have to wait till 2017 to launch their lunar sample-return lander-probe.They could get that technology demonstration out of the way, by next year.
Their space program is moving at light-speed compared to ours.
But even more mystifying, is why they’d even bother with an interlude of LEO stations at all: Why not just proceed to, step-by-step, get their spacemen to the point of doing Moon expeditions & eventually intermittently-occupied bases there?
It makes complete sense to demonstrate and learn the technical skills needed for lunar habitation in LEO. It’s close and relatively safer than the lunar surface and if things go wrong, better to be an hour away than 3 days away. Moreover, all the skills they will need (rendezvous, docking, EVA, in-space habitation) can be practiced and perfected in LEO. They seem to have a logical path plotted, so why accelerate it (especially as they seem to have no competition)?
Dr. Spudis, I’ve been trying to find out more about the lunar water extraction process that you and Lovie have proposed. But there doesn’t seem to be a lot of details about what this machine or machines would actually look like– except for the mass.
But the rather small units that you propose deploying on the lunar surface appear to be very efficient in producing a lot of water. So I’m assuming that you’re contemplating using some sort of mobile machine that utilizes microwave energy to heat the lunar regolith and then deposit the water vapor within a cold trap container attached to the vehicle.
Are we going to get more details about how this machine works in the near future– or do you have a lot more details on the machine or machines elsewhere?
Marcel
Marcel,
We only have conceptual ideas at the moment, not designs. For our paper, we assumed that icy regolith would be excavated to depths of a meter or so, then hauled into sunlight for solar thermal heating, vapor production and water capture. Distance and power figures were estimated on the basis of that scenario. It is very likely that more efficient and/or better methods would be developed for actual use.
I guess it can’t get much simpler than that:-)
I assume you’d be prioritizing excavating areas that are almost pure water ice. Since liquid water couldn’t exist on the Moon, I guess this water ice would be in the form of ice pebbles or tiny granules of ice mixed in with some other substances.
Sure would be nice to have a sample retrieval mission to those shadowed areas to find out exactly what volatiles are in there and what other interesting elements are also there– and in what proportions!
The lunar poles are going to be– science heaven!
Marcel
Sure would be nice to have a sample retrieval mission to those shadowed areas to find out exactly what volatiles are in there and what other interesting elements are also there– and in what proportions!
Actually, I favor doing an in situ analysis first — I fear that a returned sample might devolatilize during transit back to Earth, no matter what preservation steps we take.
One of the things we tried to do in the architecture is to recognize that we are missing some critical data, viz. detailed knowledge of ice concentrations and locations, environmental conditions, and geotechnical data on soils, rock abundance etc. Thus, the first missions in our lunar return are prospecting and environmental characterization missions that gather the data we need to pick the best site and optimize the architecture. We picked what we thought were reasonable, conservative estimates of lunar conditions, but readily admit that hard data are needed before we deliver the big machines.
“Sure would be nice to have a sample retrieval mission to those shadowed areas to find out exactly what volatiles are in there and what other interesting elements are also there– and in what proportions!”
Actually, I favor doing an in situ analysis first — I fear that a returned sample might devolatilize during transit back to Earth, no matter what preservation steps we take.-
I can’t see why this is the case. Granted the earth gravity [not mention gees of re-entry] will alter it’s pristine condition. Keeping at 50 K would be somewhat difficult. One can’t do anything for the different gravity. And one say the process of measuring will alter it. But simply keeping it airtight
should not be too taxing a task.
I think in site analysis and sample return have problem
in terms broad of survey. So I think we need a 1 km resolution before less than 1 meter. Once can say something about 1 km square area, then do a sample
or in site test.
Though one could do a sample return or in site test so as to calibrate a survey down 1 km resolution or better. But such examination on the ground [site analysis and/or sample return] for this purpose does not seem to require high levels of exactness.
Yes, indeed it would appear that they have NO competition. True, just like America at the time that the Mercury program ended, China would have to master several spaceflight skills, prior to breaking orbit & going out into the void. But in a similar mode to the Gemini project and perhaps the Skylab project also——-I would surely NOT want to see them build up such a high presence & commitment to LEO, that they are unable to leave it, for the next big stage outward. America has got itself so bogged down in LEO, with the ISS, that any thought of doing anything else brings on the sticker shock of just how much money we’d have to spend——-all the while when we are spending multi-billions per year, just maintaining the ISS.
Worse still, if China duplicates in full extent, the ISS, then neither nation will ever leave LEO, because of the enormous commitment & expense to staying there. Hence, all the U.S. will then supposedly “need” will be ISS space taxis, for launching up millionaire tourists! THAT would be an awful scenario for the next 15 years!
My point was, that if China plays their LEO-only-for-now cards right, they’ll limit their activities to the things that’ll give them that edge in possible deep space capabilities. A Skylab-like station or a mega-module spacelab——-intermittently, but not permanently, crewed——-would be ideally suited for that overall purpose. Don’t you think, so?
Right now the Chinese are using hypergolic technology for all it’s worth. We did the same with the Titan launcher for Gemini and there were proposals to go to the Moon with Gemini and also to build a “Big Gemini” instead of the shuttle that would carry 8 or 10 people.
The problem with hypergolic propellants is the ISP numbers mean not nearly as many tons can be sent to the Moon as with cryogenics. The Chinese seem to be taking their time with developing cryogenic rockets instead of taking a shortcut with docking hypergolic boosters like we did for a few missions with Agena. They have probably figured out (unlike others) that there is no substitute for a Heavy Lift Vehicle with hydrogen upper stages.
And since they are not in a race to the apocalypse with Russians they are not throwing tons of gold bars at it like we did- or burning people out as our Moon program famously did. And the result is relative just as Dr. Spudis said, “Their space program is moving at light-speed compared to ours.”
People do not seem to realize the United States may never have another launch vehicle capable of carrying humans into space. We do not have a human-rated vehicle right now and there is no guarantee that we will have one in the near future.
In the meantime another player is obviously taking over in the human spaceflight arena and may develop such a lead that no future administration will spend the large fraction of a trillion dollars or so needed for a Moonbase and spacecraft to play catch-up.
But if you think that is ridiculous then imagine idea of the U.S. paying the Russians to fly astronauts into space 40 years ago; ridiculous then.
In this new era crafting space strategy in the form of US – led cooperation rather than US directed and US funded missions may be able to achieve objectives relating to US interests in space faster, with greater payback, and at less political and financial cost.
In the late 1970s US led negotations resulted in the Moon Treaty providing a structure of general principles for the next step – an international regime for the exploitation of the natural resources of the Moon. Regretably the Moon Treaty was sunk in the political fight involving the Law of the Sea and the doctrine of the common heritage of mankind. The US championed the idea of the common heritage of mankind in the face of strong opposition from the Soviet Union, which saw no reason to share gains earned with Soviet labor with other countries. For the US the idea of space exploration for the benefit of all mankind is enshrined in NASA enabling legislation: “The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.”
What if instead of a Vision for Space Exploration whose architecture includes the Moon as a building block in a broader strategy the vision concentrates for now on the exploitation of the natural resources of the Moon?
The President of the US could call for an International Lunar Decade without affirming US signature of the Moon Treaty but with the expectation that a workable international regime would be one of the results of the ILD. Other results would be systematic assessment of Lunar resources as well as development of the necessary procedures among nations to work and operate on the Moon. I would also propose a business incubator on the Moon so that firms / labs can concentrate on the technical tasks of developing technology to extract and process lunar resources without having to worry about infrastructure including energy and habitat for staff and getting to the Moon. The “tenants”of the lunar business incubator could be winners in some future competitive process picking from the best solutions offered worldwide that recognizes the excellence of their technical concept and its fit with the strategic roadmap to develop the resources of the Moon. The ILD process would include development of the roadmap spanning R&D to commercial development. The international regime would cover how to choose the firms that have demonstrated technical capabilities in the incubator phase to actually extract and process lunar resources in a commercial scale. A draft of the ILD concept can be found at http://vidbeldavs.wordpress.com/2014/01/01/108/ .
I completely agree that water is THE commodity of the future in space exploration, commerce, and settlement (with electricity generated by photovoltaic cells running a close second). But, too often people glibly say “we can use electrolysis to separate the oxygen from the hydrogen and then breathe the oxygen”. The challenge here is that what we breathe here on earth is only 20% oxygen (the rest is mostly nitrogen), and 100% oxygen environments are very flammable (i.e., the Apollo 1 fire) and difficult to manage properly. We will still need some sort of inert gas to make up the bulk of the ‘air’ in any lunar or space habitat where people will be working and living for long periods of time. While we can pump most of the gas out of an airlock before it is opened to the vacuum of space, there is always that small amount, or ullage, that gets lost. Most of that ullage will be the inert components. As I understand it, nitrogen is rare on the moon, but available at Mars (roughly 3% of the martian atmosphere). Helium might be an alternative on the Moon, as it is a constituent of the solar wind, and is used on earth in deep underwater working environments. Though we would have to get use to people on the Moon talking like Alvin and the Chipmunks. It is these ‘unsung’ resources on the Moon, such as inert gases (Helium), fertilizers (Phosphorus and Potassium), chemical reactants (Sulfur), etc., that will make a big difference in how successful we are in living long term on/under the lunar surface. Unfortunately, besides Helium, most of these resources are tougher to produce and require more complex resource production complexes and machinery. So, lets go for the water first and figure out the rest as we acquire our ‘moon legs’.
A couple of questions for Dr. Spudis.
I was under the impression that (in addition to water) significant amounts of both carbon and nitrogen had been found at the lunar poles.
Is that correct?
Are these amounts sufficient to address the issues raised above?
Yes, compounds of both N and C were observed, generally in cometary abundance (few weight percent each). As breathing air uses the least amount of the produced oxygen (most will be for propellant, some for energy storage), we should be able to produce enough total volatiles to make a two-gas (N2-O2) atmosphere for the habitat.
Since we don’t really breath nitrogen, its loss from the air of a habitat would probably be due to leakage. But we’re certainly also going to need nitrogen as fertilizer for space farming.
But even this can be recycled.
Studies conducted in Sweden suggest that an adult’s urine contains enough nutrients to fertilize 50-100% of the crops needed to feed one adult.
Link: http://www.goveganic.net/article217.html
Marcel
The key to any closed cycle ecosystem is energy; if you have abundant electricity you can use plasma reformers to tear apart the molecules of metabolites and turn them into base materials. Without this energy the pathogens, toxins, mutagens, and waste products inevitably build up and start degrading the system. Microwave arcs require a huge amount of power though, which is why we have worldwide garbage dumps instead of giant reformer facilities. One day there will be no more room for all the garbage! Space has that huge and abundant solar energy resource to exploit and thus such ecosystems can function (once we learn how to do it).
Initially the water will be used for fuel, so the need for nitrogen or other inert gas for the atmosphere in the habitats to be constructed can in the long term be addressed through trade – if nitrogen is present in comets on other bodies already in space the lunar resources can be traded to those that capture suitable comets or asteroids. Such trade adds to the imperative to expand into the Solar System. Closed cycle ecosystems tend to conserve most of the material in the system so relatively little will be lost over time.
Since the water and the peaks in perpetual sunlight are the identified high value resource on the Moon and at least five countries appear to have the capabilities to get there isn’t it time to start working out how to work together on the problem? The Moon Treaty refers to an “international regime” to be developed when it looks like exploiting the resources of the Moon is going to be feasible. Feasibility looks like it has arrived. What are we to do?
“-water is THE commodity of the future in space exploration-”
Absolutely.
As for what to breathe, helium may not be the best choice; it has health effects besides just talking like Donald Duck- one of which being your body loses heat much faster when breathing helium and over a long period this and the other effects are probably not acceptable.
IMO, which I express often and the regulars here are tired of I am sure, human beings evolved in a certain environment and changing that environment is just asking, no!; it is BEGGING for trouble. One Earth Gravity, Earth Radiation, Earth Air at Earth pressure and Room Temperature; these are the conditions humans thrive in and the way to succeed is to provide this environment. The way to fail is to go cheap and send people out there to debilitate in a zero G radiation bath.
I do not think Moon gravity is going to be good enough. While radiation shielding and the other factors are not too difficult to manage, gravity is different. But it is not an impossible problem to solve. In fact, the less gravity there is, the easier it is to create centrifugal devices capable of generating artificial Earth gravity. So in this case, the Moon may have too much gravity.
“I do not think Moon gravity is going to be good enough.”
That’s one of the important reasons why we need a small lunar outpost to find out if a 1/6 gravity is deleterious to human health– and reproduction. If it is harmful then there’s the possibility that a 2/5 Mars gravity could also be harmful. But if it turns out not to be harmful then at least the Moon, Mars, and Mercury will be open to human surface colonization.
So what we can learn in just a few years from a small lunar outpost– as far as low gravity environments are concerned– could have enormous long term implications for human civilization and the human species.
Marcel
@Marcel Williams;…..Absolutely. A second round of Moon landings, and an eventual surface outpost, would yield very valuable biological & physiological data on this issue. The Mars zealots seem to ignore the much-lower-gravity issue, altogether. (This, along with the deep-space radiation hazards, and a myriad of others.) Farther into the future, it might be possible to create giant space structures, with artificial gravity, based on a spinning inertial force. Even then, it may turn out to be more efficient to utilize a somewhat smaller “gravitational” level, on board such a platform. Maybe a mildly lower “gravitation” would be sufficient, to maintain an Earth-ready physical condition of health.
I have always lamented, that the planet Venus had the misfortune of forming in the solar system where it did. Had it been located where Mars now is, can you imagine how automatically much-more fortuitous the prospects for human habitation would then have been? (Venus might even have retained a more denser atmosphere, in this counter-factual scenario.) Perhaps in the farther future, terraforming scientists will have come up with an ingenious way for making Venus more Earth-like. Until then, we have the Moon, Mars, & the gas-giant planetary satellites: with their rather Moon-like gravities, to deal with. Until giant, artificial-gravity space-ark structures are eventually built. (Maybe inertia spinning of a space-colony structure, could be built into a below-ground asteroid location; as an asteroid has a near-negligible gravitation pull of its own. But of course, I firmly favor us dealing with an outpost on the Moon first, before doing any asteroid or Martian moon exploits.)
“Perhaps in the farther future, terraforming scientists will have come up with an ingenious way for making Venus more Earth-like.”
Perhaps. We would have to have some kind of giant sunshade station to limit the energy hitting the planet and also crash comets into it to give it oceans. That is a long long way down the road. I am worried about the human race surviving long enough to get there. One outbreak of some engineered virus and alien archaeologists investigating yet another extinct species will be translating our conversation a million years from now. We need women on the Moon and then in space in self-sustaining permanent colonies. Why just women? If there is one woman and a hundred men left we are done. But a hundred women and a sperm bank and like several species, we could make a comeback. We almost went extinct once according to genetic scientists.
“-there’s the possibility that a 2/5 Mars gravity could also be harmful.”
I would say it is a certainty. Consider an eighty pound kid with a 120 pound back pack. That is what you would be if you came back to Earth. Even if you never came back the effects will most likely be a drawn out version of the debilitation experienced by astronauts on the ISS. Bone mass and marrow loss; permanent.
But, I have to admit, even though I am not a Mars advocate (I am more of a Mars hater), there is the possibility that people will live there.
Marcel and Chris,
Questioning the assumptions about humans adapting to other environments goes back to the 70’s with the person I think really presented the situation accurately; Dr. Gerard K. O’Neill.
from wiki:
“O’Neill became interested in the idea of space colonization in 1969 while he was teaching freshman physics at Princeton University.[3][21] His students were growing cynical about the benefits of science to humanity because of the controversy surrounding the Vietnam War.[22][23] To give them something relevant to study, he began using examples from the Apollo program as applications of elementary physics.[3][6] O’Neill posed the question during an extra seminar he gave to a few of his students: “Is the surface of a planet really the right place for an expanding technological civilization?”[21] His students’ research convinced him that the answer was no.[21]”
I think the answer is no also. But this does not mean that humans are verboten from living on other worlds, it simply means those worlds will have to have some industry or activity to attract people to temporarily work and live there instead of in a one gravity space habitat. And the Moon is obviously that place. All the research so far shows that hypogravity and radiation is deleterious to human health…..period. While sleeping in and sunlight is good for the body on Earth to a very limited degree, there are no redeeming hypogravity or radiation effects in space…….none.
If the human race survives for any significant length of time, I believe Dr. Spudis will go down in history, like O’Neill, as one of those scientists about which people will say, “He was right.” Which is why I spend time posting here and corresponding with people like you two. I have always thought of myself as being on the side of right- part of growing up as an American in the sixties.
If it turns out that low gravity is not a problem for the human species then I think, in the long run, hundreds of millions of people will live on the surfaces of the Moon, Mars, Mercury, and Callisto.
But multi-billions of people will probably live on titanic rotating artificial gravity worlds, in the long run, probably first located at the Earth-Moon Lagrange points L4 and L5 using lunar material for their construction and then the Sun-Planet L4 and L5 Lagrange points for Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune utilizing the local Trojan and Greek asteroids (outer planets) for the construction of such artificial worlds.
I also think that rotating artificial worlds will be located at the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. The asteroid belt will probably be the source material for artificial worlds located at Sun-Mars L4 and L5.
But it all starts, IMO, with a tiny outpost on the lunar surface and then the deployment of a small artificial gravity space station located at Earth-Moon L4 or L5.
Marcel
On another forum it was mentioned Dave Masten of Masten Space Systems in a SpaceVidcast video discussed adapting a Centaur upper stage to serve as a lunar lander. In the video he estimates it to cost in the range of only $50 million(!)
The discussion on the lunar lander takes place about 15 minutes into the one hour video. Masten also mentions this modified Centaur could transport 6 metric tons between a Lagrange point, L1 or L2, and the lunar surface. Such a lander could also be used between low lunar orbit and the lunar surface, as for a manned mission from Earth.
If true, then it is unconscionable that NASA claims a return to the Moon can’t be done because a lander would cost ca. $10 billion, when it can actually be done two orders of magnitude more cheaply than that. In any case NASA needs to do a study to see if this conversion of a Centaur to a lander can actually be done so cheaply.
“On another forum it was mentioned Dave Masten of Masten Space Systems in a SpaceVidcast video discussed adapting a Centaur upper stage to serve as a lunar lander. In the video he estimates it to cost in the range of only $50 million(!)”
Masten appears to be referring to work done by ULA and presented to the AIAA in 2009.
Here are two examples:
– A Commercially Based Lunar Architecture (AIAA 2009-6567)
– Robust Lunar Exploration Using an Efficient Lunar Lander Derived from Existing Upper Stages (AIAA 2009-6566)
You will not find in any of the papers an assertion that the described Lunar Lander can be built for only $50 Million. In fact, while they make a lot of references to reducing cost, they do not attempt to assign cost to any of the components they are proposing. Where Masten got the $50 Million figure I have no idea, but it was not from the ULA papers to which he was referring in his presentation.
“If true, then it is unconscionable that NASA claims a return to the Moon can’t be done because a lander would cost ca. $10 billion, when it can actually be done two orders of magnitude more cheaply than that. In any case NASA needs to do a study to see if this conversion of a Centaur to a lander can actually be done so cheaply.”
The source of the $10 Billion figure is simply the current NASA political leadership attempting to make a lunar return seem impractical because the current administration does not want it considered.
The source of the $50 Million figure as stated above is unknown.
One figure is ridiculously high, the other is ridiculously low.
The truth is somewhere between.
Bolden said it would cost $8 to 10 billion which is really not a lot of money for the 6 to 7 year development of a lunar lander ($1.2 to $1.4 billion a year).
The ISS LEO program is $3 billion a year. That’s $21 billion over 7 years– a lot more expensive than building a lunar lander.
Plus with a single stage reusable lunar lander, you could easily derive space depots, orbital transfer vehicles, cargo landers, and fuel tankers from it. So you’d get a lot more for your money than just a crew lander.
Marcel
“Plus with a single stage reusable lunar lander, you could easily derive space depots, orbital transfer vehicles, cargo landers, and fuel tankers from it. So you’d get a lot more for your money than just a crew lander. “
If the task were actually defined as an SSTO Lunar Lander – complete with all the ancillary R/D to use common elements to also produce space depots, orbital transfer vehicles, cargo landers, and fuel tankers – $10 Billion would indeed be a bargain. But in stating the $10 Billion figure Bolden did not say any of that. The intent of the $10 Billion figure was to give anyone thinking of returning to the Moon “sticker shock”.
Well the administration likes to play political games by spinning numbers. We were spending $10 billion a month occupying Iraq (a great investment!).
All the Congressional reps had to do was ask Bolden how much would it cost to extend the ISS LEO program for another 8 years after 2020 compared to developing a lunar lander. And Bolden would have had no choice but to tell him– three times as much!
But no matter how much or how little NASA spends, it won’t have any significant impact on reducing Federal spending for a Federal budget that greatly exceeds $3 trillion annually– even if we totally eliminated NASA!
We’d still be $17 trillion in debt– but without a space program:-)
Marcel
While we were spending NASA budget equivalents (NBE) per month in Iraq NASA spending is viewed in a different, regional benefits light within Congress than as a national security, existential threat issue. However, Apollo was a different level of spending with a different impact. Apollo created 400,000 direct jobs and over a million indirect jobs.
We have seemingly absorbed much of the cost of the Iraq war estimated by Stiglitz and others as over $3 trillion, and the economy is not bankrupt, although the future remains unclear as to the full impact of the investment in Iraq.
What could be done with a comparable investment to Iraq in space? If Apollo generated 400,000 good jobs with an investment of about $202 billion in current dollars a $3 trillion investment would generate millions of jobs and a cascade of technologies. If such a jobs creation benefit can be realized this by itself could justify such an investment over say a 25 year period, which would be less financially painful than was the Iraq war expense with little in the form of technology output.
What results could we expect from $3 trillion in 2014 dollars invested in cislunar space infrastructure and Moon industrial projects by 2039? Deutsche Bank, Siemens and other German companies contemplated comparable investment in the Sahara desert and towards transmission lines to Europe – see http://www.dii-eumena.com/ . Could we see large scale SBSP facilities constructed from lunar materials within such an investment program? SBSP can provide power to space – based and lunar industries as well as to terrestrial users. Given a cislunar infrastructure and the capacity to produce solar arrays from lunar materials what would be more cost effective – massive solar arrays produced on Earth and deployed in the Sahara or comparable arrays built in space and deployed in GEO?
“But no matter how much or how little NASA spends, it won’t have any significant impact on reducing Federal spending for a Federal budget that greatly exceeds $3 trillion annually– even if we totally eliminated NASA! We’d still be $17 trillion in debt– but without a space program:-)”
On that we agree entirely.
The Congress is currently talking about extending unemployment benefits for another year at a cost of $25 billion. $25 billion for people to sit on their posteriors for another year– while not contributing to the improvement of our society!
Think of all the high quality jobs and wealth you could create if just five billion of that was added to the NASA budget. That would easily give NASA more than enough funds to:
1. set up a water and fuel producing lunar outpost,
2. fund Commercial Crew efforts,
3. continue an aggressive robotic interplanetary program
and
4. continue our international relations LEO program (the ISS:-)
Marcel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiBmE8vlAPs
Grumman video on the lander. At 12:20 you can get an idea why this stuff costs so much. It is not like building an airplane. Airplanes get test flown while a lander gets landed.
It comes from the fact ULA gave him a surplus Centaur and he is building a test version using the horizontal thrusters of his own design:
Katana First Fire | Masten Space Systems.
http://masten.aero/2012/05/katana-first-fire/
Here is another SpaceVidcast video where he discusses it at about the 30 minute point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ4lLTblx5M
Masten mentions such a lander could be used also as a lander for asteroid missions, or for a lander for Mars or the Martian moons, as indicated in the image from the video. Then developing this at such a minuscule cost would allow us to save on costs for these missions as well.
Masten also mentions engineers at several of the NASA centers have taken an interest in it so NASA is aware of it.
Bob Clark
“It comes from the fact ULA gave him a surplus Centaur and he is building a test version using the horizontal thrusters of his own design:”
So Masten receives a “surplus” Centaur stage and is going to redesign it into a completely functional Lunar Lander (including crew module, new landing engines, redesign of lightweight tankage to withstand the loads from the “horizontal thrusters of his own design” for which the tankage was never intended, etc.) for $50 Million of his own money.
I wish him luck. But a couple of questions:
– When was these videos made?
– Has work begun work on this project yet?
– What milestones have (so far) been achieved?
Thanks for posting that video. It was difficult to hear but still quite interesting.
@Marcel Williams;……Agreed: the expansion of humanity’s engineering abilities into the Solar System will begin with renewed manned expeditions to the Moon & the emplacement of an outpost structure there. In my view, so much is riding on exactly what China does, in space, in the next fifteen years. If the Chinese just copy the ISS to the full extent, and get themselves bogged down in Low Earth Orbit, then I can pretty much forsee that neither us nor them are ever going to leave LEO, by the year 2030! But if, on the other hand, China does a limited interlude there, and contains its activities to just a simpler Skylab-type of mega-module, then indeed it could master all the basic mission techniques & procedures that it’d need for a successful Lunar flight with taikonauts on board. Such an intermediate series of manned flights, if done cleverly & efficiently, and that it takes up a time-span of NO more than the next ten years——–it could just be their Gemini-type of interim goal.
I swear to you, that when that future day gets here, and 2,3 or 4 Chinese spacemen have swooped in for a Moon landing, and the Red China flag gets unfurled on that brightly-lit, greyish white surface, and the United States is unable to do the same & is still bogged down in the ISS,————THAT is the day that this nation finally gets its priorities straight, & its act together!!
With the upcoming heads of space agency summit on January 9-10 in Washington among the topics of discussion could be how to move forward to develop the Moon and cislunar space. One approach could be a US-EU (ESA) partnership – to lower the budget and political exposure to both partners so it becomes thinkable to present to the American people and to European governments as a snazzy jobs program. A US led program at this stage may be politically unthinkable due to budget issues until the economy recovers more strongly. Such a partnership would offer relatively low costs to get started. Others could be invited to join and contribute.
Won’t happen. America’s absence of plans for cislunar development is not a question of money, but rather, a deliberate policy choice.
The policy choice appears to be highly irrational. I have read several of your articles on this topic. In your December 27, 2005 Washington Post article you refer to “Although the reasons for undertaking the program were clearly articulated in the president’s speech, it is important to reexamine why the moon is its cornerstone and what we hope to achieve by returning there.” I believe the policy decision was on the overall mission of President Bush’s “Vision for Space Exploration” with its emphasis on getting to Mars through a muscular government driven program and not on the Moon as the cornerstone of a strategy for expanding into the solar system. As such your proposal appears to fit well with with Augustine’s flexible path. You propose building the cislunar infrastructure step by step, to reuse technology as much as possible. This seems very much consistent with the new policy direction. If we can ignore Mars for the time being and focus on building the capacity to do more in space it would seem the heads of space agencies and their bosses should buy into the idea. Especially with the potential to develop fuel depots utilzing the water present on the Moon that is so favorably endowed with solar energy that can be gathered on nearby peaks in perpetual sunlight. Doing this as a joint effort would cost the partner countries relatively little, but the payback with infrastructure in place to lower the cost of all subsequent missions should be very attractive and sellable to Congress.
The policy choice appears to be highly irrational
It is — take that up with the current administration. They are the ones who declared the Moon off limits on the grounds that “we’ve been there.”
President Bush’s “Vision for Space Exploration” with its emphasis on getting to Mars through a muscular government driven program and not on the Moon as the cornerstone of a strategy for expanding into the solar system
You have this exactly backwards. The original purpose of the VSE was to use the Moon to create new space faring capability; Mars was only an eventual additional goal, not in any way the ultimate goal. I discuss both the original concept behind the VSE and how it got de-railed here:
http://spudislunarresources.nss.org/blog/the-vision-for-space-exploration-a-brief-history-part-1/
http://spudislunarresources.nss.org/blog/the-vision-for-space-exploration-a-brief-history-part-2/
http://spudislunarresources.nss.org/Papers/The%20Vision%20and%20the%20Mission.pdf
As such your proposal appears to fit well with with Augustine’s flexible path. You propose building the cislunar infrastructure step by step, to reuse technology as much as possible. This seems very much consistent with the new policy direction
On the contrary, the Augustine “Flexible Path” is no strategy, just a technology widget program with no destinations. I discuss this here:
http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/2009/12/arguing-about-human-space-exploration/
We could follow a logical, incremental path into space using the Moon as an enabling asset but there is no desire on the part of the current agency to do so. This is not an issue of money; the path of non-accomplishment that we are on was deliberately chosen.
Thanks for the in depth response! Clearly I misunderstood VSE. When it was announced I was deeply involved in other matters. It looked like a bold, underfunded initiative that from newspaper accounts emphasized getting to Mars, which was not a vital national interest at the time. None of the 2008 presidential candidates had a space policy. But now it is 2014. China has landed on the Moon. Russia talks of returning to the Moon, ESA, India and Japan have Moon oriented programs. And the Administration no longer has to show that it is different from the Bush Administration, but needs to be concerned with its own legacy, what kind of America it will be leaving. The presence of large amounts of apparently recoverable water at the poles with several major spacefaring powers in competition appears to be a game changer not considered by the present Administration. They could take a wait and see attitude, because nothing major is likely to take place prior to 2016. Perhaps this is why China’s plans call for the next landing in 2017, after the American election to avoid a “Sputnik moment” and not awaken the sleeping giant to gain more time for rapid progress after the American election? If an American-led cislunar strategy makes sense, a China-led cislunar strategy should also make sense. A future of space development with America increasingly on the sidelines is thinkable. US billionaire investors could still invest in ventures that use the cislunar infrastructure and NASA could still lease the space infrastructure possible created by China and others much as Russian launch capacity has been paid for by NASA to reach ISS. There are negative consequences to such a future where the US no longer provides space leadership. Two scenarios are thinkable: 1. – America takes the lead to the development of cislunar infrastructure and lunar development or 2. – Leadership passes to China or other spacefaring powers. Present inaction may dramatically increase the cost of achieving American leadership increasing the innevitability of scenario 2. For an Administration increasingly concerned about its legacy Scenario 2. must be a concern.
The problem is that the Obama administration has a ‘Anything but the Moon policy’!
Congress imposed the SLS on the President and then tried to corner the President into using the SLS for lunar missions with legislation requiring him to propose near term missions for the SLS– within cis-lunar space.
But the President wiggled out of that mandate by proposing a– meteoroid– retrieval program in order to have a non-lunar place for the SLS to visit within cis-lunar space. But I’m not even sure if the current administration really takes any of its own proposals very seriously.
The SLS was conceived for lunar missions using a two launch scenario (one launch for the lunar landing vehicle and a second launch for the MPCV).
But the President has tried to undermine NASA’s ability to launch two SLS vehicles by developing– only one– launch pad for SLS launches– instead of two. This could prevent a second SLS launch from happening for up to six months– according to Bolden– which he used as another excuse why the SLS won’t be able to take astronauts to the Moon:-)
This administration silliness on this issue is rather entertaining! And I’d probably laugh if it wasn’t for the fact that their policies on space are undermining America’s technological and economic future while, ironically, politically undermining their efforts to develop a private Commercial Crew capability in the US.
Congress needs to be the responsible adult in this situation by mandating a water and fuel producing lunar outpost as the primary role for the SLS heavy lift vehicle over the next ten years while also fully funding the Commercial Crew program.
Marcel
“While no one would suggest exporting simple, low-processing materials such as bulk soil (regolith) and aggregate (concrete and adobe) back to Earth, they have uses and thus enormous value on the Moon and in space for local building and other engineering requirements.”
I think it would good to have cheap lunar regolith on Earth.
Currently there is no lunar regolith to buy on Earth and I think there could be wide range of prices
for different types of lunar regolith, just as we have wide variation for diamonds.
I think short term goal of having as much lunar regolith available on Earth as gem diamonds would be very good, and then getting to point of having as much as all types diamonds, including industrial diamonds would be better than lower amount available.
So bring back to Earth, 1 ton of lunar regolith, to be sold to anyone want them to keep for various reasons, would be a very important event in history. Far more important than bringing back 1 ton of He-3.
Now to do all the mining and processing required to bring back 1 ton He-3 would be quite impressive, but having 1 ton he-3 on Earth would be of little importance. Or few people would have much interest in having this lunar He-3.
If did have such interest they don’t need the lunar He-3, Earth He-3 is available and there is no advantage of having lunar He-3 compared to Earth He-3.
So I think the day, 1 ton of lunar regolith is brought back to Earth would be important and day regular shipment of 1 ton of regolith would also be important.
And it seems there room for vast improvement in terms of bring back 1 ton of regolith- from different locations, and and kinds lunar soil and rock which brought back.
It seems that if there was wide selection of lunar samples this would quite important to lunar science, but it not just limited to a benefit to professional lunar scientists.
So I think if lunar material were in range less than price silver per gram to price of highest quality gem diamonds or rubies that this day would be one milestones of opening the space frontier.
Whereas He-3 might a be folly in such a history.
After the first ton is brought back and the novelty has worn off, the value of future shipments declines dramatically. The principal value of bulk regolith and aggregate is for building structures on the Moon.
How much would be needed for testing various schemes for recovery of resources from lunar regolith? The book The Moon: Resources and Future Development had a chapter on lunar ilmenite, which has a significantly wider band-gap 2.54 eV compared to 1.12 eV for silica making for the possibility of more efficient solar collectors and I believe a claim was made for higher radiation resistance. The book claims that 20% of regolith is ilmenite but that lunar ilmenite differs from terrestrial ilmenite “Lunar ilmenite is formed under reducing conditions, and consequently its iron is in the 2+ valence state. On Earth, the iron in ilmenite is only partially in the 2+ state, because there was more oxygen available during its formation. The iron in the 2+ state is responsible for the good semiconducting qualities of ilmenite, thus lunar ilmenite would be preferred for semiconductors. In the 2+ valence state, the atom has lost two of its (negatively charged) valence electrons, and thus has a net positive charge of 2.” So processing methods for lunar ilmenite cannot be readily be tested unless we secure enough from the Moon. Other materials may be similar. The initial quantities will have value beyond novelty until process testing facilities can be developed on the Moon.
Depends on what you are working with, but bench-scale ISRU demonstrations could be flown to the Moon on small lander spacecraft (few hundred kg payloads).
Lunar iron is always Fe2+. I do not see any immediate value in mining and returning lunar ilmenite for any commercial purpose. Ultimately, it may be useful on the Moon to support local industry, but that would be in the distant future. Water alone is value enough to jump start lunar mining.
The proposal in the The Moon: Resources and Future Development was to use the plentiful ilmenite (20% of the regolith in many regions – according to the book) to produce semiconductors and photovoltaics rather than for its oxygen or iron value. If PV cells can be produced from lunar regolith that could make large-scale space-based solar power feasible providing additional reasons to industrially develop the Moon.
You don’t need ilmenite to manufacture solar arrays — we can make amorphous silicon cells bringing the doping materials from Earth. Low efficiency, but who cares since we can make thousands of them.
Ilmenite is typically only a couple weight percent in mare soils and is virtually absent in highland soils. Only a few locales around the Moon have the high concentrations of ilmenite mentioned in that book.
I am re-reading The High Frontier (1976)
Still amazing 37 years later. This book is really about using the Moon to build space colonies and financing the whole operation with solar energy satellites. “A typical Apollo sample contains, by weight, more than 20 percent silicon, more than 12 percent aluminum, 4 percent iron, and 3 percent magnesium. Many of the Apollo samples contained more than 6 percent titanium by weight-” (page 58 of the illustrated paperback version).
Still the best path for humanity.
Undoubtedly Billgamesh will be glad to read this:
Is there life on Ceres? Dwarf planet spews water vapor into space.
Alan Boyle, Science Editor NBC News.
[i]
Infrared readings from a space telescope confirm that water vapor is rising from the surface of Ceres, and that discovery is likely to heat up interest in a strange world that’s the biggest asteroid as well as the smallest known dwarf planet.
The find comes just in time. Next year, NASA’s Dawn spacecraft is due to go into orbit around Ceres and is likely to address some of the questions raised in Thursday’s issue of the journal Nature: Where is the water vapor coming from? How is it getting into space? And what are the implications for Ceres’ place in the solar system?
“This is what you might call the ‘smoking gun,'” Mark Sykes, CEO and director of the Arizona-based Planetary Science Institute, told NBC News. “The implications could be huge for the future of astrobiology and planetary exploration.”[/i]
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/there-life-ceres-dwarf-planet-spews-water-vapor-space-2D11970722
Bob Clark
Thanks Bob! So exciting!
Yes I have always (for the last couple years anyway) advocated a human mission to Ceres instead of Mars. My logic being that because of the heavy nuclei shielding and artificial gravity requirements only nuclear energy can get us BELO (Beyond Earth and Lunar Orbit); if a real spaceship is required then Mars becomes far less attractive as being “just close enough.” Ceres becomes by far the best first HSF deep space mission.
But the downside is that it diverts public attention from the Moon, which is bad news. We cannot get to Ceres without a base on the Moon from which to launch a nuclear mission.
The Moon is the only place to get the thousand plus tons of water for space radiation shielding and the only appropriate place to assemble, test, and launch a nuclear mission.
The U.S. Navy should be interested in this as they have experience with many of the elements of a Ceres mission or other icy body; nuclear power plants, ice diving, submersibles, etc.