March 24, 2010
Value for Cost: The Determinate Path
In contrast to the claims of the Augustine committee report, use of existing launch assets and infrastructure permit us to return to the Moon within the projected budget guidelines
The report of the Augustine committee analyzes America’s space program through a very narrow prism. Much of their report argues that the existing program of record (more specifically, the Ares I and V launch system) is not affordable, a fact already apparent to most observers. Thus, the committee advocates human missions to destinations without deep gravity wells, eliminating the need to develop a lander spacecraft. The pertinent question about the original intent of the Vision for Space Exploration is not considered or addressed: Is a program to return to the Moon and create a permanent space faring infrastructure possible within the projected budgetary envelope?
So once again we have a space policy gap, a technical base mired in uncertainty and a citizenry that believes its once-heralded space agency has faltered – that NASA simply cannot send people on missions beyond low Earth orbit (LEO) because the government no longer has the interest or the money to support such efforts.
The administration’s budget proposal has directed NASA to concentrate on developing leap-ahead technology that will enable human exploration at some non-specific point in the future – “when we are ready” so as to excite and engage the public. As the shutdown of the Space Shuttle quickly approaches, people are surprised to realize that seats must be purchased on a Russian Soyuz to reach the International Space Station that we’ve been building for twenty years. And we must continue to do this until commercial space transportation (seeded with NASA money) develops hardware certified for human flight. It is impossible to escape the sinking feeling that something just isn’t right about this state of affairs.
The cost estimates of the Augustine committee report made by the Aerospace Corporation perforce assumed certain developmental and operational scenarios, some of which could be seriously questioned. One of the most interesting points about the Augustine costing exercise was that it focused almost entirely on launch vehicles and not deep space systems. No scenario examined by the committee looked at the leveraging possibilities provided through the use of off-planet resources, apparently because they believed that the technology was too far out in concept and too far off into the future. “When we are ready” apparently didn’t apply here.
In the committee’s view of the future, human missions beyond LEO will remain staged and launched from the bottom of Earth’s gravity well, along with all the required consumables for multi-week and multi-month duration missions of their Flexible Path exploration option. For any significant effort, the enormous mass is launched using either existing expendable vehicles or a new, to-be-developed heavy lift rocket (for which their cost models estimate many billions of dollars). Is it any wonder that the committee’s principal conclusion was that human spaceflight beyond LEO is “unaffordable?”
The cost estimates the Augustine committee relied upon are unrealistic, bloated and artificially high. Although there is always uncertainty in estimating program costs, a system can be developed within the existing budgetary framework that gives us a heavy lift vehicle and human lunar return on reasonable timescales. The key is to keep new developmental costs low by maximizing the use of existing assets. A launch vehicle derived from the existing Shuttle system can be developed from existing pieces while retaining virtually unmodified the existing VAB and pad infrastructure at the Cape. A single Shuttle side-mount can put 80 mT into LEO; two launches can mount a lunar mission. As shown in the accompanying illustration, this launch vehicle solution fits within the projected budgetary envelope of NASA, the very same budget profile assumed by the Augustine costing exercise.
Digging into the details of the cost numbers of alternatives suggests that Augustine assumed both significant developmental costs associated with the new launch system, along with relying on inflated recurring costs (as has been pointed out previously by others). But more significantly, they also assumed we would continue indefinitely the current paradigm of launching everything we need in space directly from the surface of the Earth. Again, no consideration was given to using space-based consumables – specifically, LOX-LH2 propellant made from lunar water – to improve access and reduce total costs for missions beyond LEO. And yes, the committee was thoroughly briefed on the benefits of the Moon’s extensive and accessible water; they were apprised of the dynamically unfolding knowledge involving the enormous quantity of lunar water (both current knowledge and findings soon to appear in print) before, during and after their hearings. They simply ignored its significant impact and consigned the discussion of space resources to a few paragraphs describing technology development.
An affordable return to the Moon is possible under the existing budgetary profile. Such an affordable architecture based on Shuttle-derived assets was understood and in hand prior to the Exploration Systems Architecture Study. But the better became the enemy of the good enough. The needed incremental build up of cislunar spaceflight capabilities through the use of lunar resources was discarded and a system was designed based on the assumption that mega-sorties and Earth-staged missions to Mars were the future of human spaceflight beyond LEO.
To unlock our Earth-bound budgetary shackles, we must employ the keys at hand. We must use existing flight assets to the maximum extent possible. We must use robotic missions and teleoperations to emplace surface infrastructure on the Moon prior to human arrival. We must begin water production from lunar resources as soon as possible using these robotic assets, with an eye toward integrating lunar propellant production into a reusable and extensible cislunar space transportation system.
To go forward, a determinate path to the Moon and beyond is required. The Moon is where humans will learn how to arrive, survive and thrive in space. To live and expand into the universe, we must take bold action to identify, access and harness those resources that are within easy reach. In order for America to remain a leader in space technology development – charting the way for human space flight – we need an objective to design and cost out, not just a budget to spend.
28 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
The web editors have closed comments for this blog.
There is also the water in vapour form that ISRO’s CHACE instrument found. This has been reported in Planetary and Space Science Journal. This is really exciting because it means that the moons atmosphere may contain more matter in it than previously thought.
Comment by lvs — March 24, 2010 @ 10:40 am
The scenarios painted here sound like science fiction. But it is exciting to think that this could be the reality tomorrow!
Comment by lvs — March 24, 2010 @ 1:09 pm
[...] Paul Spudis argues that when estimating the cost of in-space transportation and operations the Augustine panel did not take into account the large cost reductions possible via resource utilization on the Moon: Value for Cost: The Determinate Path – The Once and Future Moon/Air & Space Magazine. [...]
Pingback by Costs with and without lunar resources | Yooxe — March 24, 2010 @ 4:53 pm
Flex has one main purpose. And that is to fill the pockets of a select few “new space” companies fielding backwards splash down capsule cold war era technology. Flex is about easy quick money funneled to commercial companies to field big dumb boosters, even dumber splash down capsules and deep space projects that simply look-but-don’t touch. Nothing concrete beyond flying to LEO ISS until 2020-2030. Then maybe think about landing somewhere. Easy money at the expense of our national manned space program.
Certainly Flex is no worse than Griffin’s bumbled attempt to fulfill VSE through the ill fated Constellation program. So why would we want to be restricted to choose only among these two flawed programs. We need a rational, worthy, goal oriented program that embraces commercial development, while forwarding our national interest and searching for resources to spur new space based markets. Those resources are to be found on the moon, not LEO. This overstating of landing based programs demonstrates how slanted and one sided the Augustine panels finding were. Due to the vagness ofteh Flex plan it now appears NASA’s future rest with congress…and that is a long shot.
I must commend the likes of Rutan for steering clear of this subsidized quick easy money fray. Rutan has chosen to remain free market and to field worthy innovative advanced technology. Between the “New Space-X NASA” and Rutan my money is on Rutan and XCOR. Gods speed Burt!
Comment by Doug Gard — March 24, 2010 @ 8:56 pm
I agree with Paul’s goals regarding the moon, but I’m a little fuzzy on your budget numbers.
On NASA TV last week, a Shuttle official (the Program Manager?) was talking about the costs associated with extending shuttle flights. He said that the operations overhead was $200M/month, regardless how many flights they flew. For an SDHLV, I would imagine it would be less, but still a lot. For that kind of money, we can build & launch a lot of 5 meter wide cargo on existing launchers (Atlas, Delta, Falcon) until we start seeing a true need for heavy lift.
I’m not against heavy lift. I tend to look at the need for heavy lift from a supply/demand standpoint. Until you get to the point that you would need too many 5 meter wide payloads to accomplish your goal, you don’t need a 10 meter wide heavy lifter. It would be nice to have one, but from a mission & economic standpoint (that pesky deficit), I think we can get the moon program going earlier without one.
Comment by Coastal Ron — March 24, 2010 @ 9:43 pm
The Sidemount is probably the cheapest and the fastest HLV we could develop. And there’s no doubt in my mind that we could get to the Moon before the end of the decade using directly shuttle derived technologies.
Unfortunately, NASA never put any effort in promoting Constellation as a Moon base program. And Bolden seems hostile to the whole idea of a Moon base.
Most people just don’t seem to realize that once there is a permanent base on the Moon where people are mining the regolith for oxygen and water and other resources that our cultural universe will change forever! It will be the beginning of a new level of economic growth and will probably insure the long term survival of our species. I also think it would be culturally inspirational for our youth to see that they have an exciting future with new worlds to visit, colonize, and to explore!
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — March 24, 2010 @ 10:16 pm
Ron,
the costs associated with extending shuttle flights. He said that the operations overhead was $200M/month, regardless how many flights they flew. For an SDHLV, I would imagine it would be less, but still a lot.
A Shuttle-derived heavy lift system would be significantly lower in cost than the Shuttle proper, largely because much of the high fixed costs of flying the Shuttle are spent in orbiter refurbishment and preparation, especially the time-consuming Thermal Protection System (heat tile) overhauls. This work requires a large “marching army” of the Orbiter Processing Facility. A Shuttle HLLV involves stacking the large pieces in the VAB, a much less labor-intensive set of operations.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — March 25, 2010 @ 4:11 am
Paul, as I explained in private correspondence, you can’t plan a mission around technologies that have not been demonstrated. If you watch the proceedings you’ll see Jeff Greason making the case for in-space propellant transfer.. which is why the smaller heavy lift vehicles were even considered.. he goes on to say that propellant storage is not mature and cannot be considered, even though he would very much like to explore infrastructure which includes it. ISRU of lunar ice is even less developed.
To me, your position at this point in time should be advocating robotic rovers to characterize the lunar ice and pushing ISRU and Propellant transfer/storage to be the focus of the initial Flagship Technology Demonstration missions. Developing a human beyond-LEO transportation system, now, will be a transportation system that does *not* utilize this technology and there will be no motivation to switch over to using the new technology if and when it becomes available.
Comment by Trent Waddington — March 25, 2010 @ 5:00 am
Trent,
Your reading comprehension skills need some work. I do not propose planning a mission around lunar surface ISRU; determining how to do ISRU is the mission of lunar return. But we cannot do that mission unless we are on the Moon, which the Augustine Flexible Path discards (and they do discard it, regardless of their subsequent claims to have retained it as an “option”). What this post focuses on is the claim in the Augustine report that Project Constellation is “unaffordable.” Perhaps the current configuration of it is, but they did not seriously consider options to change Constellation so that it could be affordable. My other point is that money given to NASA for technology development in the absence of any specific strategic direction and destination will produce nothing and that will make the program a ripe target for cancellation in the future.
I have already advocated in this blog new robotic missions to the lunar surface to prospect for resources and demonstrate ISRU techniques. Again, such missions have little value unless they prepare for future human lunar return.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — March 25, 2010 @ 5:57 am
One possible problem in the side-mount budget chart is that the exploration and Shuttle accounts in the NASA budget are smaller than the ones in this chart, even if those were the budget guideslines. That funding is probably going to other things (ISS, Earth observations, Aeronautics, general space technology) that are probably going to get higher priority.
Another is the opportunity cost. If this budget chart is implemented, I think one sacrifice would have to be the commercial spaceflight line. That leaves us without ISS crew support and with less capable commercial cargo support. Side-mount could step in, but those ISS missions and capabilities could be expensive, and could have safety issues if side-mount supports crew (which block II could). Possibly more important are the lost non-ISS opportunities presented by these potential services. For COTS cargo, examples might be DragonLab, Taurus II filling the otherwise lost Delta II niche, and the Falcon 9 attempt at reducing launch costs somewhat. Crew support could have even bigger “side benefits”. Could commercial crew be fit in the budget?
I’m not sure if it’s counted in the chart’s “surface systems”, but you might also lose items in the new NASA budget like the robotic precursors, demos for things like accurate landing, ISRU, propellant depots, automated docking, inflatable habitats, and closed-loop life support, a U.S. version of RD-180 (which would be useful beyond exploration or HLV), and so on. I guess the question becomes can we fit enough of this sort of thing into that side-mount chart to make the exploration effort cost-effective and worthwhile?
Comment by red — March 25, 2010 @ 6:47 am
Paul you said,
“But we cannot do that mission unless we are on the Moon, which the Augustine Flexible Path discards (and they do discard it, regardless of their subsequent claims to have retained it as an “option”).”
I wonder about YOUR reading comprehension skills because it’s sounds like you read a completely different Augustine Report from what I and others read. As Jeff Greason just restated on Clark Lindsey’s Hobby Space website,
“It is false to suggest flexible path avoids planetary surfaces; it simply reaches low-gravity destinations *prior to* higher-gravity ones, while landers (which are expensive) are developed.”
Comment by Rick Boozer — March 25, 2010 @ 7:27 am
Rick,
“It is false to suggest flexible path avoids planetary surfaces; it simply reaches low-gravity destinations *prior to* higher-gravity ones, while landers (which are expensive) are developed.”
It’s not a question of reading comprehension — it’s a question of credibility and acceptance of the value proposition. I simply do not buy what they claim. The committee members may well believe that FP will lead to lunar surface missions. I don’t.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — March 25, 2010 @ 7:35 am
red,
but you might also lose items in the new NASA budget like the robotic precursors, demos for things like accurate landing, ISRU, propellant depots, automated docking, inflatable habitats, and closed-loop life support, a U.S. version of RD-180 (which would be useful beyond exploration or HLV), and so on.
One cannot lose what one never had. All that you list here are in the new budget as “technology development” projects. One of my points is that historically, this agency has never produced any flight hardware from a technology development line. It’s the other way around — they develop technology by designing and building flight hardware. The new budget proposal trades in a spacecraft development program (irrespective of its fiscal and technical issues) for Powerpoint promises.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — March 25, 2010 @ 7:40 am
Suppose there was a mission to mine and store 1 ton of lunar water.
How much would such a mission cost?
Could 500 million dollar prize be enough for such a task?
Or perhaps, one would first need more information about where precisely on the moon that one could mine a ton lunar water. How many missions would this require? Could one mission have a reasonable chance of successfully doing this?
Perhaps this type of mission could also be a prize- say something added to Goggle X-prize, if one finds minable water then you get in addition 50 million.
And if there was a known location where lunar water could be mined, could the prize to mine it be significantly less than 500 million- say 300 million?
And once ton of water is mined then you could have missions which used the water.
One way to use the water would having facility that made fuel which can be used to power larger machinery which mined larger amounts of water. Other uses could be used to power lunar vehicles fly around the general area doing further exploration- for more water or other types of resources.
With such an approach it’s possible that before a NASA manned mission the the Moon one already has commercial lunar water mining, NASA may at that point modify it’s manned mission or perhaps even bypass the Moon and go to Mars- and use lunar water which been processed into rocket fuel for this Mars manned mission.
Comment by gbaikie — March 25, 2010 @ 8:26 am
perhaps, one would first need more information about where precisely on the moon that one could mine a ton lunar water. How many missions would this require? Could one mission have a reasonable chance of successfully doing this?
Based on what we now understand about the Moon, probably we could. What is needed is a carefully thought out plan to characterize and demonstrate ISRU on the lunar surface first with a series of robotic precursor missions, building up knowledge and capability with time, and ultimately supporting and provisioning human presence on the Moon. Such an architecture is possible within the proposed budget envelope.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — March 25, 2010 @ 8:44 am
Think of all the machinery needed to mine materials on the moon, together with the cost of getting them there. Instead, think of a “Base Camp” in LEO, where vehicles can be docked together for journeys beyond. Energy to get to LEO is about four times energy needeed to go from LEO to moon or Mars. (delta v squared). Propellant transfer may not be needed, only relatively short times of propellant storage.
Comment by O Glenn Smith — March 25, 2010 @ 9:21 am
With our experience operating rovers on Mars, I think this points the way for how we should exploit water resources on the Moon.
We already struggle to keep a small contingent of humans aboard the ISS in LEO, and supporting humans on the Moon will require a large supply infrastructure. Until that happens (i.e. commercial cargo + crew), we should pursue landing robot exploration and mining equipment.
There is a lot of work we can get done from afar, especially with the low communication latency (seconds to/from the Moon versus minutes to/from Mars). We can overcome the lack of human maintenance by use of modular design and sending a constant stream of additional equipment. Without the need of an ascent system, we can put large pieces of equipment on the surface. The Altair lander ascent module weighed 20K lbs, which would give you a huge vehicle to drive around the Moon. I’m all for human exploration, but this to me is low hanging fruit.
All of this can be done using existing launchers, which postpones the need for funding an HLV until it’s needed for human exploration needs.
Comment by Coastal Ron — March 25, 2010 @ 12:20 pm
Think of all the machinery needed to mine materials on the moon, together with the cost of getting them there.
The quantity and sizes of robotic machines needed to begin resource processing are not large. A small rover (MER-sized), dirt-moving equipment (drag line), and a processing center (about the size of a large office desk) can produce several metric tons of water per lunar day. The required infrastructure investment can start small and build up both size and capacity with time.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — March 25, 2010 @ 12:34 pm
Ron & Paul, Sidemount or DIRECT operational cost could be further reduced if the SRBs were expendable and no longer had to be refurbished. This might also add several tonnes of additional payload per launch which might also lower cost.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1177
http://ghostnasa.blogspot.com/
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — March 25, 2010 @ 4:19 pm
Hi Paul,
Thanks again for an interesting and rational article. Always gets me thinking. Just wondering about your thoughts on the following hypothetical situation: in comparison to the moon’s surface, if for less delta V (from LEO) we could reach a low gravity object in a Helio-centric orbit – one that contained useful compounds such as water – would this make the moon less attractive as our resource supply for cis-lunar space? Just wondering this scenario would give support to the flexible path idea.
Phil
Comment by Phil Backman — March 26, 2010 @ 1:26 pm
Phil,
if for less delta V (from LEO) we could reach a low gravity object in a Helio-centric orbit – one that contained useful compounds such as water – would this make the moon less attractive as our resource supply for cis-lunar space?
If delta-v were the only consideration, perhaps. But a big advantage of the Moon is that it is both close and accessible. Its closeness means that round-trip light-travel time is < 3 seconds, meaning that near real-time telerobotic control from Earth is possible; we can do much of the resource prospecting and processing by robot machines. Such telerobotic control is not possible for NEOs because they are usually much more distant (delays of many light-minutes). By accessible, I mean that we can go to and come from the Moon pretty much at will; there are always abort options that permit return to Earth within a few days at most. Some NEOs have very few windows in which they can be accessed or from which you can return to Earth easily.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — March 26, 2010 @ 1:51 pm
if for less delta V (from LEO) we could reach a low gravity object in a Helio-centric orbit – one that contained useful compounds such as water – would this make the moon less attractive as our resource supply for cis-lunar space?
No, it would make more attractive.
The problem with NEO’s is time. But there is a lot of water and other resources in NEOs. If you need large quantities of resources in cis-lunar space then NEOs will be the place to get them. In other words if need somewhere in the order of hundreds of thousands of tonnes of water- and at a price of somewhere around $10 kg [$10,000 per ton or $1 billion per 100,000 ton].
I would say by the time you mining NEOs, you will be on the verge or in process of powering the world with electrical power shipped from Space.
The problem is we don’t need a lot of stuff in cis lunar in near future- less than a hundred tons to thousands of tonnes within a decade or so. Once you at the point of having a demand for thousands of tons per year, then NEOs will be an obvious place to get it cheaper [which makes getting to the Moon even cheaper].
A way to look at it. Put a thousand tons of water in a barrel on best rock you can find. And put thousand of water in barrel on the Moon. Which is worth more money?
One aspect is the water on the rock has to moved to cis lunar to have a market and the one on Moon doesn’t need to be move off the Moon to have market. In other words lunar water has a market on the lunar surface and cis space, and water on the rock has it’s market in cis space [though by time you are actually mining NEOs the market will be in cis lunar, LEO and maybe Mars and the lunar surface {and or cyclers going between Earth and Mars or other places and etc}].
Comment by gbaikie — March 26, 2010 @ 7:19 pm
Paul: “All that you list here are in the new budget as “technology development” projects. One of my points is that historically, this agency has never produced any flight hardware from a technology development line. It’s the other way around — they develop technology by designing and building flight hardware. The new budget proposal trades in a spacecraft development program (irrespective of its fiscal and technical issues) for Powerpoint promises.”
I think the 2011 budget line for things like inflatable or light-weight habitats, closed-loop life support, ISRU, fuel depots, and other items is mainly a technology demonstration line. These missions are intended to be real flight hardware in space. I’d compare them to DS-1 or EO-1: real space missions whose main purpose is to demonstrate new technologies in space so later “production” missions can comfortably use these technologies.
The robotic precursors (the line of larger robot precursors and the line of smaller “robotic scouts”) are also flight hardware.
The RD-180 equivalent development is different. It has an implied mission focus (improved equivalent to the RD-180 on the Atlas V and ultimately HLVs that is made in the USA) that I suspect may flounder as a tech project unless NASA gets DoD to contribute budget and mission focus – but the 2011 budget implies that NASA is looking for that DoD focus.
I wouldn’t argue that NASA will be successful with all of these technology flight demonstrations, since there will undoubtably be failures. There is also a lot of non-flight technology research and development in the budget of the sort I think you’re critical of. I also think there could well be a case for shifting the balance somewhat so NASA is doing more “production” rather than “demonstration” flight hardware, since there are probably cases where we don’t need new technology. However, I’m a lot more optimistic that the technology demonstrations will be valuable, so I wouldn’t want to shift the balance too far in the other direction, either. I think there’s a balance where we could make progress on developing actual beyond-LEO missions while at the same time doing robotic precursors, technology demonstrations, and maybe some tech R&D … but that balance probably wouldn’t satisfy either “camp”.
Comment by red — March 27, 2010 @ 11:36 am
We need a Moon base. And we’ve needed a permanently manned lunar facility since the end of the Apollo program.
So we need to develop the architecture to establish that Moon base. But no break through technologies are really required to do this. And the simpler and faster we do it, the better.
And once this new space architecture is developed, everything that we attempt to do– beyond the Moon– will be a lot easier and a lot cheaper and a lot faster to develop.
But first we need a Moon base!
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — March 27, 2010 @ 5:55 pm
red,
I think there’s a balance where we could make progress on developing actual beyond-LEO missions while at the same time doing robotic precursors, technology demonstrations, and maybe some tech R&D … but that balance probably wouldn’t satisfy either “camp”.
This may be right, but it’s not my point. My contention is that NASA as an entity has shown itself unable to wisely spend technology money and then produce flight hardware from it. Such a condition is independent of your hypothetical program balance.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — March 28, 2010 @ 5:05 am
EML-1 and EML-2 lie at the crossroads of cis-lunar space and the NEOs. A depot and/or transfer station and/or warehouse at EML-1 or EML-2 would be immensely valuable.
24/7 global lunar access without concerns over orbital inclination or launch windows, easy on-ramps to favorable trajectories to beyond cis-lunar space, and the ability to accumulate supplies, equipment and propellant delivered from LEO by “slow boat” — high delta t, low delta v trajectories.
These “slow boat” routes include ion propulsion and ~100 day single impulse ballistic trajectories. See Jeffery S. Parker’s paper, here:
http://ccar.colorado.edu/nag/papers/AAS%2006-132.pdf
It’s all about the gravity . . .
Comment by Bill White — March 28, 2010 @ 12:53 pm
“Put a thousand tons of water in a barrel on best rock you can find. …”
I will say a bit more about that.
Let’s say it’s 1991 VG [which btw instead of being a rock could actually be a spent Saturn V stage].
According to http://www.spacewhatnow.com/id37.html
They roughly calculated the delta-v was 833 m/sec and next lowest delta-v rock they considered had 1,686 m/sec.
I assume this is from an escape trajectory, so from LEO it would be around another +2500 m/sec added to this.
So getting to 1991 VG would require about the same delta-v as compared to what is required get to a low lunar
orbit- and from low lunar orbit it requires about another 2.0 km/sec to get to the lunar surface.
Or from high lunar orbit or High Earth orbit or any of the Earth’s L-points it’s less than 2500 m/sec to go directly
to the lunar surface and it’s about 800 m/sec to get to 1991 VG.
If you are willing to allow many years for travel time there are ways one could have significantly less delta-v than 800 m/sec.
OR if need to get there in only a few weeks it could require much more than 800 m/sec.
And then you have consider the launch windows, which is similar to launch windows to Mars- something like
every two years and similarly, of these times, some are better in terms of travel time and/or lower delta-v than other times.
And you can widen the window or have more launch windows if you add more travel time or delta-v
So every few years it can take as little as about 800 m/sec delta-v and it will take a month or so to get
there and/or a month or two to get back [though if you can use the earth's atmosphere for aerobraking you could
get back quicker and/or with less delta-v].
And that is about a good as it gets as far going to any space rock.
The only way it could get better is if you have some rock slowly approaching earth, meaning it would not be in a
stable orbit- ie, it would probably hit the earth or the moon, go into orbit around earth, or get some type of gravity assist and leave the earth/moon system. As it is 1991 VG is probably not in a stable orbit- one which lasts for thousands or up to a million of years.
This barrel of water placed on this rock and on the Moon {by space aliens or mythical creatures}.
Each has the same quantity and quality of water. And question is which would be more valuable.
Or you can place different quantities of water in the barrel- smaller quantities will be less likely to be minable in either location and larger quantities could make the rock more attractive.
But my premise is based on the idea that the location most desirable in the *NEAR* term requires the least amount
needed to be mined, in order to have the investment become profitable. And the “barrel idea” is to disregard
[for the moment] all the various complications regard “how” you mine water and focus on what kind market you would have if you could successful mine the water.
You also do the same exercise in terms the Mars surface or it’s moons.
First, it it should be noted that if there wasn’t a way to make rocket fuel on the Moon [or the nearest space rock] and you had a stack gold bricks which were worth about one billion dollars on earth [about million troy oz- 31 metric tons] and these were on the lunar surface it could cost more than 1 billion dollar to bring them back to earth. Or one could also say that 31 metric tons of lunar dirt is worth more brought back to earth than compared to bringing back the 31 metric tons of gold.
1000 metric tons is one million kg. If you believe that it cost 10,000 per kg to deliver it to the Moon from Earth then 1000 tons water isn’t worth more than 1 million times $10,000 which is 10 billion dollars. And same goes for on the rock- it should not cost more than compared to what it costs to be delivered from earth. So for both rock and the
Moon it could said to be somewhere between 10 billion dollars and 10 cents.
What is needed in space at the moment is rocket fuel, so one question is how much would it cost to convert the water into rocket fuel- on the Moon and on the rock?
It could be solar power or nuclear power. I am going to assume solar power- but it doesn’t really matter because I am going to buy kw/hour from whoever can deliver it no matter how they do it.
Let’s say I am willing to pay $50 per kw/hr and assume that for 1 million kg of water I would need 5 million kw/hr in total, so that is 250 million dollars- it might not be enough, maybe it will have to be twice this much or more- but let’s just assume $50 per k/hr for the moment.
Let’s say I want this million kg converted into rocket fuel within a 5 year period- probably want less in beginning and more later on. But let’s do a straight average. There are 8760 hr per year and 43800 hr per 5 years. So on average there needs to be a electrical power generation of 114 KW. Which is about the amount electrical power generated on ISS. Or somewhere around 1/10th the electrical power that various commercial communication satellite have.
Or in term of total electrical power generated in space at the present time, all the various satellites are creating
several times more solar energy than compared to ISS.
And as a SWAG the total solar energy generated in space presently by all parties is somewhere around 500
to 1000 KW.
In terms of physical dimensions, assuming 20% efficiency, and 1400 KW of solar flux, one has 700 watts per sq
meter, so needs about 163 square meters- a 13 meter square. About the area of a 2 or 3 bedroom house.
With a space rock one could assume that well over 80% of water or rocket fuel created will be shipped to cis-lunar
space. With lunar surface it could be about 30% shipped into orbit- about 30% used in order to ship this 30% water
or rocket fuel to orbit and with about 30% used to ship things other than water or rocket fuel off the Moon. And less than 10% used for other domestic uses- such as running machinery and transport to other locations on lunar surface.
As I said above lunar dirt is worth about as much or more than gold. So if there is rocket fuel on the lunar surface, even if the rocket fuel cost more than $10,000 per kg, one could expect lunar dirt to be exported to Earth.
Assume say 10% of the 1000 tons of water will be used to ship lunar dirt- or over period of 5 to ten years a total
of about 100 tons of lunar samples will be returned to earth- on a global market still making lunar samples rarer than cut jewelry diamond.
We could also expect that if there is rocket fuel on the Moon, that humans will go to the Moon- whether they are paid explorers/scientists, tourists, or lunar workers- how much could be charged hourly for numerous kinds of services performed on the moon?
Could the going rate be about 1 million dollars an hour- is that too much or too cheap?
How many worker would want to go to the Moon if they could just break even on paying the expenses of getting there
by working say 100 hrs on the Moon? How much would a tourist pay per hour to use a vehicle, a “hotel room” or whatever.
Places to work, play, or rest could rented on the Moon.
So, as far selling electrical power on the Moon, selling power to to make rocket fuel could use say 75% or more of
the total power. It could use all the power which created from solar panel, but you also delay applying the power to
making rocket fuel in order to use electrical power for some other task- such using an electrical furnace. Using
electrical motors for vehicles or winches. Or the many uses of electricity as it’s used on earth.
On earth large consumers of constant or flexible electrical power use [such as for certain industry] get electrical power at a discount rate, whereas residential rates are much higher rate and higher still if during peak hrs.
So a lunar electrical company could view selling power to rocket fuel maker as a way to pay some of it’s expenses
and rely on “making it’s profit” on selling at higher prices to other consumers to which are provided power anytime they need it and in whatever small quantity they want.
A lunar electrical power company might start with say 20 KW capability and within 5 years be generating 10 times as
much energy and within a couple decades be generating more than 100 times as much energy and possibly within a
half century or so be providing as much energy as is currently consumed on Earth.
Obviously a lunar electrical company would have an interest in having solar panels being made on the moon
and at lower cost if it plans generating within the near future more than say 1 MW.
Or it may instead start with solar panels and switch to using nuclear power.
There is also another idea [which I haven't heard anyone talk about] and that shipping electrical power from earth via microwaves. There is some discussion of trying to figure out how to make energy on the Moon and ship it to Earth via microwaves.
But really this makes no sense in the near term. At the moment electrical power on earth is cheap and
electrical power in space is expensive. I am allowing for electrical power to be $50 per kw/hr [which could be argued is too low a price].
You would have make electric power on the Moon around 1 cent per kw/h in order to then begin to “think about shipping it’s power to earth”- and that is btw is the general plan, but it’s long term thing rather something
possible in the near term.
Now, let look at our space rock, 1991 VG with the 1000 tons of water in a barrel. Are we going to process the water into rocket fuel at the rock, or grab the barrel and bring it back to somewhere in cis-lunar space?
The rock might rotate on two axis- therefore one is only going get about 1/2 the sunlight- if it’s only rotating on one axis then one put solar panels at it’s poles and get 24 hr sunlight. One could simply orbit the rock, of course- though this could have various types of complication.
800 meters per sec of delta-v is equal to 2880 kph [or 1788 mph]- you will need some way to move it.
You could go there and bring back say 10 tons of water to cis-lunar space and make the rocket fuel in earth orbit. And repeat this 100 times.
So if this round trip only took 2 months [probably much more] than it would take 200 months- about 16 and half years.
One could also start with 10 tons and increase the amount over time so one could get all of it in less than 10 years.
So, one might ask, how much is say 100 tons of water worth if it is in high earth orbit. I don’t think it could be worth more than $5000 per kg. If you wanted just water rather than the rocket fuel that you could make with, it could be worth as much as $5000 per kg.
Anyway at $5000 per kg, 100 tons is worth 500 million dollars.
Let’s say you have a gas station company which is willing to pay you $5000 per kg for your water and you will pay
$1000 per kg to convert the water into rocket fuel which you need to get more water from the rock.
This would be fantastic deal and I recommend you take it.
Without trying to do the math, let’s say it takes one ton of rocket fuel to deliver 10 tons of water [round trip]- so you make 50 million and pay $6 million for the rocket fuel each trip. So in 4 months you get 100 million minus 12 million so 88 million- but by then the rock is starting to get further away. So instead say after one delivery the 10 tons, you buy all of the rocket fuel which is made so you can bring back a larger amount of water [100 tons] so in less than one year you will make 500 million dollars, minus the 60 million in rocket fuel, minus the cost of making, launching, and operating your vehicle.
But then you have to wait a year or so.
Or use more rocket fuel and more time to get to the
rock and back again.
In the above, I didn’t allow any time to process the water into rocket fuel- which could take months or years
depending upon how much electrical energy is available. In another simplified model, you could spent first few months
to year getting around 100 tons, then wait while that water is being made into rocket fuel then and use the 100 tons of rocket fuel to get the entire barrel in one go.
So the total rocket fuel cost is 600 million, the total
the water is 5 billion dollars, and say 1.4 billion to make, launch, operate, space craft to bring water to cis-lunar space.
So that barrel of 1000 tons of water is worth about 3 billion dollar on that rock. Or if it required only 3 billion dollars to mine 1000 tons of water on this rock and you had a gas station that would pay $5000 per kg of water, then it would roughly seem to work.
Though if no one is going to the Moon or Mars, who is the gas station owner selling his 900 tons of rocket fuel to?
But having lot’s of rocket fuel priced at 6000 per kg would enable going to the Moon and Mars. It would more than 1/2 the cost of going to the moon and would allow getting to Mars quickly and have large payload- without requiring Saturn V type or larger lift- and generally also be cheaper to get to Mars- whether one getting there in 4 months or 9 months. So it could easily half NASA’s cost of a Manned Mars program.
Comment by gbaikie — March 28, 2010 @ 11:35 pm
[...] have written previously that a Shuttle-derived heavy lift vehicle can be built now, with existing piece parts and minimal [...]
Pingback by To do the heavy lifting | The Once and Future Moon — April 14, 2010 @ 1:55 pm