Comments on: The Moon is Again Within Reach – Let’s Grab (and Hold On To) It

By: billgamesh

billgamesh — Thu, 02 Jun 2016 22:43:30 +0000

“I don’t see how “NewSpace” launch companies “want nothing to do with [the moon]”-”

“We are not Moon people.”
Gwynne Shotwell, CEO SpaceX.

By: Grand Lunar

Grand Lunar — Thu, 02 Jun 2016 21:48:33 +0000

The NewSpace entrepreneurs have little say in what direction NASA’s human spaceflight plans are to be, so I don’t see how they threaten it.
Indeed, politicians are calling for support for lunar missions despite SpaceX’s dreams of Mars.
And if the development of cislunar infrastructure becomes manifest, then SLS will be leaving SpaceX choking on its rocket exhaust while they’ll still screaming how much better their paper rockets are.

As has been posted before (even in this article, I believe), LEO is not to be abandoned.
Rather, LEO is just one part of a much larger tapestry.
If we develop cislunar space as described by Dr. Spudis, then we’ll have service vehicles in LEO as well as other Earth orbital locations for our satellites.
We’ll still go to LEO, as we have for the past few decades.
We just won’t be limited to LEO, that’s all.

By: Ben

Ben — Thu, 02 Jun 2016 21:23:35 +0000

Never the less,
I don’t see how “NewSpace” launch companies “want nothing to do with [the moon]” any more than non-NewSpace companies do.

If paid they are just as will to launch a mission there as ULA.

Without being paid none of them are very likely to unless its a tech demo or some such.

By: billgamesh

billgamesh — Thu, 02 Jun 2016 20:51:35 +0000

The first reality the public must be made to understand concerning space is the rocket equation. Because of the finite amount of energy derived from burning oxygen and hydrogen, or other chemical combinations, escaping Earth gravity requires several separate vehicles, or “stages”, strapped together and/or stacked on top of each other. It may be possible to adopt a single stage, an airliner to space, by using microwave energy to accelerate hydrogen propellant to a much higher velocity than simple combustion, but that will require an immense space solar energy infrastructure. The best engineering solution proposed to date are the pressure-fed ocean recovered boosters originally specified for the space shuttle. In one of the worst wrong turns made by NASA after Apollo these giant reusable boosters were rejected and cheaper Solid Rocket Boosters (SRB’s) selected. This mistake must be corrected to effect a practical Super Heavy Lift Vehicle program. The present pursuit of landing back inferior lift lower stages with a gang of low thrust or single pump-fed engine(s) is a dead end.

The second reality the public must be made to understand is that concerning Human Space Flight Beyond Low Earth Orbit (HSF-BLEO) radiation is square one. This is the elephant in the room NASA will not discuss. While racing back and forth across cislunar space is hazardous, it can be managed for the time being. For any space stations above LEO and any Human Space Flight Beyond Earth and Lunar Orbit (HSF-BELO) massive cosmic ray shielding in the form of lunar water and nuclear propulsion to push shielded spaceships will be required. To build the previously mentioned airliner-to-space solar power infrastructure nuclear energy will also be required to lift millions of tons of solar power components off the surface of the Moon. While GEO telecommunications are the first and presently the only real revenue generator, the future engine of expansion into space will be space solar power. This was foreseen in the early 1970’s by the prophet of space colonization, Gerard K. O’Neill.

The third reality the public must be made to understand is that only vast governmental resources can build a cislunar infrastructure that will enable human expansion off-world. The promises being made by internet billionaire hobbyists are empty and lead nowhere. I believe the damage done by this ruinous idea of Ayn-Rand-Space libertarian state-haters taking humanity to the stars has been greatly underestimated and has set back space exploration decades. The coming change in administrations, lunar water shielded GEO space stations as the future of telecommunications, space solar power as the solution to climate change, and moving the nuclear arsenal into deep space as the cure for the hair trigger deterrence situation on Earth, all point to the Moon as the place the U.S. must commit to and in doing so lead humankind into space. The present designs for LEO and “horizon goal” of Mars are dead ends.

By: billgamesh

billgamesh — Thu, 02 Jun 2016 17:27:11 +0000

“-any company self-funding space missions is a good thing in my opinion.”

While the fairy tale of a for profit company selflessly making humankind a multi-planet species is good P.R. it is unfortunately not a “good thing” for space exploration. It is in fact the worst possible scam the cause of space exploration could be afflicted with. The space agency has made many wrong turns in the last half century but the worst ones have beyond any doubt been adopting Mars as their hook while aiding SpaceX in undermining their own leadership in space. Nothing less than organizational suicide.

And thanks for yet another SpaceX advertisement.

By: billgamesh

billgamesh — Thu, 02 Jun 2016 14:56:07 +0000

“Congress needs to commit NASA to seriously start funding the development of Extraterrestrial Landing Vehicles for the Moon, Mars, and the moons of Mars if we want to start deploying humans-”

A human-rated lander, especially a “reusable” one, is a very different animal than a semi-expendable robot lander. I am all about Human Space Flight and not robots, but in this case the troubleshooting tree indicates going with the robot will quickly exploit lunar ice resources and shuttle the water shielding to allow a long term human presence Beyond Earth Orbit.

As for Mars- it is a bad idea. As I commented, the ocean moons of the gas giants are far more attractive exploration destinations. Mars is wrongly perceived as being “just close enough” and is not suitable for colonization. The true spaceship required for Human Space Flight Beyond Earth and Lunar Orbit (HSF-BELO) will be a spinning nuclear propelled construct with a bare minimum of well over a thousand tons of lunar water for shielding. Such ships will almost certainly bypass Mars in favor of the several dozen low gravity icy bodies with possible liquid oceans in the outer solar system.

By: billgamesh

billgamesh — Thu, 02 Jun 2016 14:32:44 +0000

“What I am afraid of is more building of habitats which have to be staffed and maintained but serve no useful purpose.”

What does that mean? A base on the Moon is what you are afraid of?

“-a logistics and fuel resupply base near the moon, is what we need first.”

Going direct to the Moon with the SLS is what “we” need first. What the NewSpace crowd wants is fuel depots via hobby rockets.

“Once you have a supply of lunar derived propellant at L1/L2, you can reach a lot of places easily.”

You can go anywhere in cislunar space from the Moon just as “easily” as from L1/L2.

By: Ben

Ben — Thu, 02 Jun 2016 14:13:58 +0000

SpaceX is perfectly willing to send missions to the moon if someone pays them to do it.

For example, Google Lunar X Prize team SpaceIL currently has a “verified launch contract” with SpaceX. http://lunar.xprize.org/press-release/israeli-google-lunar-xprize-team-first-sign-launch-agreement-private-mission

On the other hand, they are very excited about Mars, and are willing to self-fund missions to Mars. This seems to be a win-win.

For example, Red Dragon mission. NASA is providing ~$30million worth of Deep Space Network time, consulting support, etc in exchange for Retro-propulsion data. Quite a bargain for NASA. (note: I would be extremely surprised if this mission launches on time. I expect it to be delayed by at least only launch window (~2 years))
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/04/spacex-debut-red-dragon-2018-mars-mission/
http://www.spacenewsmag.com/feature/why-nasa-is-hitching-a-ride-on-red-dragon/

Would it be better if they were really excited about the moon and were willing to self-fund missions there, sure. But any company self-funding space missions is a good thing in my opinion.

By: John Strickland

John Strickland — Thu, 02 Jun 2016 00:32:00 +0000

I agree that the Berger’s analysis of the Apollo program is quite valid if you consider the actual goal of the program. What I am afraid of is more building of habitats which have to be staffed and maintained but serve no useful purpose. A cis-lunar transport system, including a logistics and fuel resupply base near the moon, is what we need first. I favor L1 or L1 since the location is relatively stable and removes the problem of matching orbital planes. Then you can build a lunar polar mining base. Once you have a supply of lunar derived propellant at L1/L2, you can reach a lot of places easily. The mining base gives you direct access to the lunar surface for science in at least one location, and access to the entire lunar surface. Rescue capability from the L1/L2 base within 12 hours would make sortie missions vastly safer than an Apollo mission was. I support multiple space goals, but to reach them we really do need that lunar propellant, as it take about 25 times more propellant to launch propellant to L1 from Earth as it does from the Moon.

By: Marcel F. Williams

Marcel F. Williams — Thu, 02 Jun 2016 00:10:01 +0000

“…unless NASA begins a program to develop landers and surface systems, NASA astronauts will be limited to orbital missions. In the current budget environment, however, it appears unlikely that NASA will obtain significant funding to begin development of this additional exploration hardware anytime soon, effectively delaying such development into the 2020s. Given the time and money necessary to develop landers and associated systems, it is unlikely that NASA would be able to conduct any manned surface exploration missions until the late 2030s at the earliest.”

Developing the Space Launch System, Orion, and Ground Systems Development and Operations Programs

NASA OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

November 14, 2014

Obviously, Congress needs to commit NASA to seriously start funding the development of Extraterrestrial Landing Vehicles for the Moon, Mars, and the moons of Mars if we want to start deploying humans and habitats to extraterrestrial worlds in the near future.

It took approximately seven years for NASA to develop and deploy the first lunar lander to the lunar surface after eleven firms were invited to submit proposals for the development of an LEM in July of 1962. And it would probably take around the same amount of time if this were a commercial crew type of program.

But NASA needs to seriously commit itself to developing reusable landing vehicles that can at least take advantage of extraterrestrial oxygen resources and, hopefully, also extraterrestrial hydrogen resources.

Marcel