AirSpaceMag.com

LEO on the Cheap is one of my space bibles! If anyone would like to read it, an online pdf copy can be found at:

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0BzLX4wxxT-QNODIyOGEyNTAtNzJhMS00ZTZhLTkwYjEtZWVkODQxOTYwNTRm&hl=en

Manned spaceflight is expensive because the demand for such flights is extremely low. There were only 5 manned shuttle missions last year. Compare that with the the US airline industry where there are over 87,000 airplanes up in the air each day. Its extremely difficult to make spaceflight less expensive with so little demand!

Space tourism, however, has the potential to dramatically increase the rate of manned spaceflights. There are about 100,000 people on the planet who could afford to fly into space for about $20 million. Polls suggest that 7% of those wealthy individuals would be willing to do so. That’s 7000 people! If just 10% of that group flew into space each year, that would require at least 100 to 200 flights. If NASA ran a space lotto system that would allow average Janes and Joes a chance to fly into space too then then potentially even more billions could be created to fund space tourist flights.

Once the demand is high enough for companies to start mass producing rocket vehicles, then the price of rocket engines that formerly cost tens of millions each to produce will finally start to fall dramatically. There’s really no reason why the price of an expendable space shuttle main engine, which will cost tens of millions each, shouldn’t eventually fall below the million dollar mark someday if the demand for such engines is extremely high during an age where there are hundreds of manned spaceflights every year which could grow to thousands of flights as the price of rocket vehicles and spaceflights continues to fall due to ever increasing demand.

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — August 24, 2010 @ 10:53 pm

Marcel,

You can also download a copy of LEO on the Cheap at the link I put in the post above:

http://www.dunnspace.com/leo_on_the_cheap.htm

I will add this link to the cover illustration that I am using at the top of this post.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — August 25, 2010 @ 4:42 am

Dr. Spudis -

If we assume $5,000 kg to LEO, have you calculated target estimates for $$ per kg to the lunar surface?

Over at Clark Lindsey’s site they are saying $25,000 per kg delivered to the lunar surface, however, I believe that number could be much lower if we use EML-1 staging and “slow boat” trajectories for cargo delivery. Even before lunar ISRU comes on-line.

And, we wouldn’t even need solar electric propulsion if single impulse ballistic trajectories were employed for slow boat cargo delivery, although large scale electric propulsion for cargo would certainly be a “nice to have” technology.

= = =

The question, of course, is whether we do ISRU to lower the cost of lunar access or whether we attempt to lower the cost of spaceflight in order to do ISRU.

And if we go to a NEO, we won’t be doing either of these.

Comment by Bill White — August 25, 2010 @ 10:02 am

Bill,

If we assume $5,000 kg to LEO, have you calculated target estimates for $$ per kg to the lunar surface?

It all depends on how you go, your general architecture and the specific features and vehicles you incorporate into it. For just launching everything that you will need from Earth (the current model), you need about 6-7 kg in LEO to put one kg on the lunar surface. So if one follows that program logic, then lunar surface presence is enormously expensive.

I advocate something quite different. The goal of lunar return is to “cut the cord” of Earth-based logistics as soon as possible. We now know that substantial amounts of free water are available on the lunar surface. As propellant, energy storage media and consumables make up large fractions of the needed mass on the Moon and in cislunar space, the use of local, lunar resources (specifically, water) can make the mass needed to be launched from Earth in LEO much less. The quantity of equipment needed on the Moon to begin harvesting this lunar water is quite modest, on the order of a few metric tonnes.

What I find amusing about some of the arguments against my position is that de facto, they are defending the current paradigm of launching everything out of the deep gravity well of Earth. If there is to be significant future human activity in space, we must start to learn how to extract and use what we find in space to make what we need. If we are not doing that mission with people in space, why are we doing human spaceflight at all?

Incidentally, I and some colleagues are working on a paper that outlines a lunar resource-based architecture that addresses many of these points. I’ll abstract it for this column when I submit it for publication.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — August 25, 2010 @ 10:25 am

I totally agree that using off-planet resources is the way to reduce the cost of going beyond LEO, but at first I was confused by the last paragraph. How are off-planet resources going to reduce the cost per kilogram to LEO?

Then I realized that you are suggesting not trying to reduce the cost per kilogram to LEO and instead minimizing the amount of stuff launched from Earth to LEO by making everything in space. The last paragraph could be clearer about that.

I don’t think that’s the best solution. Even if you launch just people to LEO, a minimalist Earth to LEO taxi might weigh 500 kg/person. At $5000/kg that’s $2.5 million per person. That won’t exactly open up space to the masses. And if you are suggesting that there should be various space manufacturing colonies that make everything we use in space, but people have very little chance to travel to space unless you were born there then I don’t see that as the most desirable long term goal.

It’s interesting that you have correctly identified the means of reducing launch costs: amortize development costs over more flights, reduce the touch labor per flight, and establish a record of reliability to reduce insurance costs. But then you seem to think this isn’t possible and give up.

Comment by Bob Steinke — August 25, 2010 @ 11:33 am

Bob,

At $5000/kg that’s $2.5 million per person. That won’t exactly open up space to the masses. And if you are suggesting that there should be various space manufacturing colonies that make everything we use in space, but people have very little chance to travel to space unless you were born there then I don’t see that as the most desirable long term goal.

I am saying something slightly different. My number one priority is not to move people off Earth into space but to establish a space faring infrastructure that supports many different activities with new capabilities. By returning to the Moon and establishing a presence there with the object of harvesting its resources (water initially), we create that system for not only the Moon, but all of cislunar space, where virtually all of our space assets reside. Because the creation of such a system has significant national implications, it is an appropriate endeavor for the federal government to undertake. And as we are already spending ~$20 billion/yr on space, why not use that money to create something lasting and useful?

It’s interesting that you have correctly identified the means of reducing launch costs: amortize development costs over more flights, reduce the touch labor per flight, and establish a record of reliability to reduce insurance costs. But then you seem to think this isn’t possible and give up.

More accurately, I think it is a desirable end point, but is not reachable in the near future. At least, none of the current players seem to be working towards it. It’s the classic “chicken or egg” dilemma — launch costs are high because there’s not enough volume but the reason that there’s not enough volume is that launch costs are high. We’ve been talking about cheap launch for over 50 years and it keeps receding into the future. So my answer is to leap-frog the issue and change the rules of spaceflight by addressing and solving the space logistics problem first. Once we establish routine access to cislunar space, activity there will greatly increase and launch costs will go down.

The current path isn’t working, so why not try something new and fundamentally different?

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — August 25, 2010 @ 12:08 pm

I find it a bit strange that you put up “LEO on the Cheap” in this post along with a discussion of the sources of space launch cost, yet you skip over what I consider to be the most important discussion in the book: the underlying rocket design philosophy.

The book has a very interesting discussion comparing the American and Russian/Soviet design philosophies. Russian rocket designs tend to be comparatively simple, having fewer parts and being easy to manufacture. Fewer parts = less bureaucracy in quality control = fewer people = lower cost. If the rocket is reusable, the cost savings get further amortized and maintenance is much easier. American rockets tend to feature many custom-made parts requiring specialized manufacturing techniques to achieve extremely fine tolerances, all of which increase complexity and drive up cost.

Furthermore, Russian rockets have been developed incrementally over time. The Soyuz launchers employed today are not so different from the R-7 rocket that launched Gagarin. Contrast this with the design-build-fly-discard model that prevails in American rocketry. (I refer here to the rocket design, not the rocket itself.) The exception to this rule is EELV program, which has evolved the Atlas V and Delta IV into reasonably low-cost machines.

Another point emphasized in the book is the tendency of American designers to focus too much on absolute performance. My favorite quote in the book is the need to “spend weight to save money” in space launch.

While I agree your points on mass production and frequent flights, low cost needs to be designed into the rocket from the very beginning. Here’s hoping that someone can achieve that soon.

Comment by Andrew Lambe — August 25, 2010 @ 1:43 pm

Andrew,

Russian rocket designs tend to be comparatively simple, having fewer parts and being easy to manufacture.

They also pay their engineers and technicians a pittance compared to salary rates in the USA. Ditto for the Indians. If it were all as simple as you say, we could just outsource launch services and forget about an American launch system.

Oh wait… I guess that’s exactly what we’re doing for transport to ISS.

Here’s hoping that someone can achieve that soon

Amen. However, while we’re waiting for this, I think that going to the Moon to learn how to use local resources is a worthwhile goal.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — August 25, 2010 @ 2:05 pm

Ok, I think I understand better now. It’s not an unreasonable plan if you really think significant launch cost reductions are not achievable in the near future but are achievable in the far future. It’s certainly better than doing something like constellation that leaves behind no lasting infrastructure.

I would just worry that we would get stuck in a rut where we have a lot of capability to do things in space, but no one gets to go there except a few professional astronauts.

On the other hand, I would challenge your argument that the current path isn’t working. Space-X uses significantly less labor than ULA to launch a rocket, and they chose a very conventional design to attract customers from existing markets. I think companies like XCOR and Armadillo will be able to achieve another significant step down in labor per flight by making it a priority in their design from the beginning. When I think of specific details of cost reduction, like amortizing fixed costs over more flights, I see lots of opportunity and now a significant set of companies are working on it with the right focus.

Also, it begs the question what would allow launch cost reductions in the long term that can’t be done in the short term? If the answer is just that no one is applying the right methods with enough funding right now then if you can muster the political/organizational will to apply funding and focus on building the lunar infrastructure then why not apply it to launch cost reduction instead?

Comment by Bob Steinke — August 25, 2010 @ 2:38 pm

The author said:

“Spaceflight costs remain high because it requires complex machines, with millions of parts working together in a precise order and in perfect coordination to put a payload into space.” and “It requires almost 10,000 people to operate the U.S. Space Shuttle launch vehicle system.”

You are describing why a multi-purpose reusable spaceplane is expensive for putting payload into space, but other than building the ISS, no one else is using the Shuttle for large payloads to space. This part of your argument is not valid.

I do agree that there seems to be a plateau that is being reached around the $5,500/kg amount. This is actually something fairly recent in the space industry, outside of Russia. I think this new lower price point will spur some new uses for commercial payloads, but there is a lag time between being comfortable with a new supply system, and building your business plan around it.

Regarding your estimated amount of ISRU payload that you think you’ll need landed on the Moon to start operations, that will be interesting to see when you have finished your study. Certainly anyone wanting to consider a business on the Moon would need to understand the logistics costs that would need to be supported while no revenue is coming in, and your mass estimates will influence that.

However I still don’t understand how ISRU operations on the Moon can become profitable when there is no external demand. In essence, you are suggesting spending $Billions on creating a supply system, but well before there is $Billions in demand for that supply. It’s been done before on Earth, but it requires deep pocketed investors who take the extreme long-view for ROI.

What’s more likely – finding a small amount of people/companies that purchase $20M rides to LEO for work or play, or finding an really small amount of billionaires that are investing their fortunes for multi-generational payoff? Both, of course, would be good to have…

Comment by Coastal Ron — August 25, 2010 @ 2:43 pm

Bob,

Space-X uses significantly less labor than ULA to launch a rocket, and they chose a very conventional design to attract customers from existing markets

SpaceX hasn’t yet launched a commercial payload and already they are quoting $5400/kg to LEO (link in article above). India’s PSLV does that right now and has a proven track record. Does that make SpaceX revolutionary? I think not.

if you can muster the political/organizational will to apply funding and focus on building the lunar infrastructure then why not apply it to launch cost reduction instead?

If I go to the Moon with the object of learning how to extract resources, there are metrics for my success or failure at that activity. What’s the metric for “launch cost reduction”? How cheap is cheap enough?

The point I am trying to make is that we’ve been trying to lower launch costs for the last 40 years and have essentially nothing to show for that effort. It’s time for a different approach.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — August 25, 2010 @ 2:51 pm

I still don’t understand how ISRU operations on the Moon can become profitable when there is no external demand.

I don’t claim that they will be — my claim is that: 1) we will be spending $20 B/yr on civilian space anyway; and 2) by using that money to develop a transportation system based on lunar resource utilization, we create a reusable, extensible transport system that can reach any point between Earth and Moon. If we have that, we can reach satellites in MEO, HEO and GEO for servicing, maintenance, and extension.

At a minimum, the federal government will be an initial major customer, including and especially the Dept. of Defense. Other agencies and existing space commercial entities would follow.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — August 25, 2010 @ 3:22 pm

Paul D. Spudis — August 25, 2010 @ 2:51 pm

“The point I am trying to make is that we’ve been trying to lower launch costs for the last 40 years and have essentially nothing to show for that effort. It’s time for a different approach.”

You make it seem like launch costs have remained the same over the last 40 years, when in fact they have been steadily falling for cargo. Just in recent history the Titan IV was superseded by the Delta IV Heavy, which is significantly less expensive. Falcon 9 advertises prices that will be less/kg than Delta II/V or Atlas V. And that is just in the U.S.

Launch costs do not drop like GB or Mhz do, but then few things in the hardware manufacturing world do without new designs or major reductions in touch labor and material costs. You did touch on this in your article, but it looks like you are writing off any future advancements.

The main driver for lowering costs is competition. In the space transportation business, competition so far has not been very robust, and thus prices have not had much pressure to drop. In the U.S., United Launch Alliance (ULA) pretty much focuses on the domestic market, with the DOD as one of their primary customers. Without competition for the DOD market, ULA does not need to work on advancements that will lower prices, since it’s not in their corporate best interests to reduce revenue.

Companies like SpaceX and Orbital Sciences have the potential to force the market into responding to their prices, both from a demand and supply standpoint. If both are successful with their cost targets, the Falcon 9 and Taurus II could instigate competitors to invest in new products that further lower costs. This is the factor that you appear to be ignoring, that of demand and supply forces continuing to work going forward.

Maybe they won’t get to some mythical, magical $/kg, but the steady reduction of costs for payload to space will further expand the market, and eventually reach an economic inflection point that allows significant increases in payloads and services. That can only help efforts to start ISRU businesses on the Moon or BEO.

Comment by Coastal Ron — August 25, 2010 @ 4:31 pm

(Reply to #8)

While I admit that I simplified my description of Russian rocketry somewhat, my basic premise is that important properties of the rocket like low cost, low complexity, and high reliability are built into any design early. (This was beaten into me in a space systems design course in undergrad.) Unfortunately, the powers that be in NASA don’t seem to have this completely figured out yet, hence the cost spiral and rapid demise of the Constellation program.

My personal feeling is that SpaceX is on the right track. They don’t have high flight rates or reusability yet, but for the most part, they’ve kept their designs simple and their organization lean. The next few years should be interesting.

Comment by Andrew Lambe — August 25, 2010 @ 4:43 pm

Labor rates are lower in India (as you noted in a comment above) so if SpaceX can match the price of PSLV using American labor they probably are using fewer labor hours per launch. If SpaceX were located in India maybe they could get to $2000/kg.

But I actually think SpaceX isn’t very revolutionarty. They are taking a traditional rocket design and traditional operations and eliminating some overhead. So I wouldn’t doubt if 2x is the best price reduction that they could do. My point is that there was some reduction there, and I think there’s a lot more available for organizations that do things even more differently from traditional practices.

Also, I would disagree with the claim that we’ve been trying to lower launch costs for the last 40 years. Certainly, ideas like those from “LEO On The Cheap” have been around for 40+ years, but most serious funded rocket development project haven’t followed them. NASA, DOD, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin have never developed a rocket using those principles. The serious projects I can think of that did follow those principles are: Beal, Kistler, Roton, Armadillo, Masten, XCOR, and to a lesser extent Virgin Galactic and SpaceX.

I say a lesser extent for Virgin Galactic because of their hybrid rocket, which will have more per-flight labor than an all liquid, and for SpaceX because of a general sense I get, the best example of which is that they used NTO/MMH for the dragon capsule ACS system. That’s definitely not thinking outside the box and putting a priority on low operations costs and it seems like that attitude applied to other parts of their design as well. (turbopump engine, launching from traditional high cost ranges)

I’ll note that for Beal, Kistler, and Roton they did not field a system with high per-flight costs. They didn’t field a system at all. We could talk about a lot of possible causes for their failures, but it was not the case that they succeeded in building a rocket but couldn’t get the launch cost below $5000/kg so to me that’s not convincing evidence that it’s an unbreakable price floor.

For Armadillo, Masten, XCOR, and Virgin the jury is still out. If all of those guys field orbital rockets and all of their prices are on the order of $5000/kg then I’ll agree that it can’t be done cheaper.

But currently that leaves SpaceX as the lone data point, and as I’ve already said they did achieve some cost reduction and they didn’t attempt the more revolutionary cost reductions.

I’m not convinced that significant cost reduction can’t be done, down to the range of $1000/kg to LEO. And we’ll be better off focussing efforts on launch cost reduction first and then using those lower cost launches to build significant in-space infrastructure.

btw, I do feel that NASA should be doing pilot projects now for things like propellant depots and ISRU. And I don’t think there’s any fixed value for “cheap enough”. We should just do more and more in-space development as prices come down.

Comment by Bob Steinke — August 25, 2010 @ 5:07 pm

The main driver for lowering costs is competition. In the space transportation business, competition so far has not been very robust, and thus prices have not had much pressure to drop.

Not in this field it isn’t. Otherwise, the arrival of commercial launch services from Russia, Europe, India and other players would have significantly lowered costs over the last 20 years. They have not; in constant dollars, launch costs have hovered between $5-10K/kg.

Companies like SpaceX and Orbital Sciences have the potential to force the market into responding to their prices, both from a demand and supply standpoint. If both are successful with their cost targets, the Falcon 9 and Taurus II could instigate competitors to invest in new products that further lower costs. This is the factor that you appear to be ignoring, that of demand and supply forces continuing to work going forward.

I just showed in my article that the costs for India’s PSLV and SpaceX’s Falcon 9 are identical (Around $5.4K/kg). So how does that “change the picture by competition”? Even if Falcon 9 is successful, it only achieves parity with the international launch market.

the steady reduction of costs for payload to space will further expand the market, and eventually reach an economic inflection point that allows significant increases in payloads and services.

And we’ve heard exactly that for the last 30 years.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — August 25, 2010 @ 5:39 pm

I’m not convinced that significant cost reduction can’t be done, down to the range of $1000/kg to LEO

I’ll believe it when I see it.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — August 25, 2010 @ 5:41 pm

Paul D. Spudis wrote: August 25, 2010 @ 5:39 pm

“I just showed in my article that the costs for India’s PSLV and SpaceX’s Falcon 9 are identical (Around $5.4K/kg). So how does that “change the picture by competition”? Even if Falcon 9 is successful, it only achieves parity with the international launch market.”

First of all, you’re comparing two different sized launchers, since the PSLV maxes out at 7,200 lbs to LEO, whereas Falcon 9 is 23,050 lbs to LEO. Second, other than one Israeli satellite, all of the PSLV’s other commercial payloads have been groups of misc. small satellites – valid space payloads to be sure, but not indicative of the commercial market SpaceX is targeting with Falcon 9, and certainly not a robust competitor to SpaceX, ESA or Russia.

You’ve also mentioned ESA’s Ariane 5, and it looks to be about 25% higher in $/kg than Falcon 9, although here again these are two different sized launchers, with Ariane 5 sized between Falcon 9 and Delta IV Heavy. ESA has been public about the price advantage SpaceX has with Falcon 9, so they at least see competition (and concern).

To truly understand the economic forces involved here, you have to be able to determine certain standards of need, or fungibility. For instance, Atlas V and Falcon 9 would both be able to launch Dragon or CST-100 commercial capsules, so that creates one level of comparison. In this case, exclusive of their capsule payloads, Falcon 9 costs $56M and Atlas V costs $130M (per ULA CEO after man-rating). That is a significant difference in price, especially considering that Atlas V just went through a redesign. But they redesigned it for the captive U.S. market, and not for capturing additional market share (i.e. lack of competition).

SpaceX could have priced Falcon 9 at $100M and still been perceived as a bargain in the U.S., but instead they offered a price that allows them to compete both domestically and internationally.

Another comparison would be for payloads in the range of 21,000 kg to LEO. By one measure, the actual cost of each Shuttle flight has been around $1.5B, or $71,000/kg. For Titan IV (now retired), it was around $20,000/kg. For Delta IV Heavy, which replaced Titan IV, the cost is about $14,000/kg. I don’t know about you, but these are significant reductions in cost over time.

Incremental reductions will continue as long as there is competition. And there’s no question – prices are dropping, and that will encourage more demand, and more competition (you see the circle here).

Comment by Coastal Ron — August 25, 2010 @ 7:24 pm

Marvelous essay as always. I certainly look forward to the lunar resourced based architecture. If there is a silver lining to the Obamaspace fiasco, it is that people can take a step back and rationally consider how one actually gets back to the Moon, why, and what we can do when we get there without the usual yelling, screaming, and arm waving that sometimes passes for analysis in the Internet.

Comment by Mark R. Whittington — August 25, 2010 @ 10:29 pm

Paul,

I am very excited to hear that you are working on a paper about harvesting lunar water. I don’t think that it can come fast enough. I wish the paper had already been published to inform the NASA budget debate this last year.

Will your paper include the need for further prospecting to confirm the specific locations and concentrations of water ice in polar lunar regolith?

In your plan, will all of the components (within cis-lunar space) be reusable or will certain components of the architecture be expendable?

Now, would you agree that lunar-derived water ice to LEO for fuel would need to be more economic than a low-cost Earth to LEO launcher of consumables such as the Aquarius Launch Vehicle if properly funded? Can you make that argument?

> (NASA’s) budget is about $19 billion. That’s a nice chunk of change

Do you have an estimate of how much it would cost to achieve your plan? Could it be done in the place of the cost of developing an HLV?

> The quantity of equipment needed on the Moon to begin harvesting this lunar water is quite modest, on the order of a few metric tonnes.

Is this for a demonstration project or for, say, EDS-level operations?

—–

For the record, let me say that I too believe that the sustainable development of space will start with harvesting lunar-derived resources, especially water ice initially. I personally believe that this can largely be accomplished for the price of the development and ongoing launch costs of the heavy-lift vehicle. If we can get EDS-level quantities of lunar-derived water to LEO then the HLV becomes unnecessary. I just hope that NASA heads this direction and is not set on a 30 year expensive detour.

Comment by JohnHunt — August 26, 2010 @ 12:33 am

JohnHunt,

The answer to most all your questions is “Yes” — our object is to lay out an architecture that gives first-order estimates about how we could return to the Moon to harvest resources under the existing run-out budget, as the VSE always assumed. Part of the reason we can only do this now is that we have only recently obtained reasonable estimates of how much water is at the poles and how it is distributed.

As far as your point about NASA heading in a productive direction, I can only agree and hope. But I won’t hold my breath.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — August 26, 2010 @ 4:03 am

Mark,

Thank you for your kind remarks and the link to this post at your blog. By the way, your commentary on Bob Werb’s column was outstanding:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5719762/how_obama_space_policy_supporters_do.html?cat=15

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — August 26, 2010 @ 4:28 am

It was enjoyable to read this page, both the initial work, and the comments.

If you could please include in your paper, Dr. Spudis, the ability to do more, and faster. I have read papers about astro-operations, however they all seem to take a minimalist approach.

For an example, VASIMR is highly efficient, but horrifically slow.

I see the purpose of technology to do more, better, faster. So that the short time that we humans have on this plane of existence is magnified.

To that end I hope you include extensibility to your lunar water paper. “For 4000kg of mining/power/purification/cracking/storing equipment we can yield X Kg of LH2/LOx in Y amount of time. However if you increase said power supply to B level, and expand your cracking volume by C amount. You then can produce Z Kg of LH2/LOx fuel per amount of time.

“Lunar fuel station by 2012!* Comprising two 32mT to LEO launches.
Launch 1 will include an OTV/lander and much fuel.
Launch 2 90mins later will include say 14mT of payload to lunar surface and more fuel.
Estimated cost $190M for two Falcon 9 Heavy launch vehicles.

Goal: To put onto Luna a facility to produce 64mT of LH2/O2 every two lunar-cycles. To eliminate the costs and fuel requirements of moving payload from LEO to the lunar surface.”

*Disclaimer: All numbers pulled out of the air by a dreamer.

I do not see why it cannot be done now. It would not take generations to see results with proper application of resources. Follow up missions at 32mT payload to Luna could rapidly expand operations. So much so that, half a year and three payload runs down the line, we have a habitat built from lunar materials ready for the first group of human occupants to put in the finishing touches. Airlock, wiring, ventilation, creature comforts I think will require a human touch as opposed to tele-operated ‘bots.

Granted little of this will generate revenue. Besides video feed sold to various broadcasting groups.

*Rhy shrugs

Comment by Rhyshaelkan — August 26, 2010 @ 10:31 am

Paul, Can you take a moment to explain how lunar-derived resources would be more cost-effective than an Aquarius-type of commodities launch system?

Comment by JohnHunt — August 26, 2010 @ 2:18 pm

explain how lunar-derived resources would be more cost-effective than an Aquarius-type of commodities launch system?

Ultimately, launching water out of the gravity well of the Moon is a lot easier than launching it out of the gravity well of Earth, on a per unit mass basis.

But “cost-effectiveness” is not my principal criterion for “success.” My argument is that NASA gets federal tax money to explore and to push the technical envelope. Learning to use the material and energy resources of space is something that has not been done to any great degree, yet is an essential skill for space faring and human expansion into space. The Moon offers both materials and energy and in forms that are readily accessible and usable. I believe that it is an appropriate activity for NASA to return to the Moon in order to understand how to extract and process resources, how difficult it is, how such resources might be integrated into a transportation system, and to create such a system in order to advance exploration activities in cislunar space and beyond. In other words, the “mission” of going to the Moon to learn how to use its resources is an engineering R&D effort that, if successful, will completely change the spaceflight paradigm.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — August 26, 2010 @ 2:44 pm

Space would be much cheaper if the reusable part of the vehicle was the first stage and not the final stage. What a stupid idea that was, making the stage that goes to orbit the reusable part. That stupidity kept us in low earth orbit for 3 decades.

The first stage should be an air breather. Why fight your way though an oxidizer while carrying an oxidizer on board? That too makes no sense at all. Rockets waste 75% of their energy getting to altitutde when only 5% of their energy should go to that part, the rest should go to gaining the velocity required for orbit.

Finally, why use a VTOL first stage? VTOL vehicles are notoriously unreliable because they depend on their engines for lift. Winged vehicles are much more reliable and always have been. Here’s an idea, why doesn’t NASA bring back the position of “rocket designer”. It’s just possible someone who does that for a living could do a better job at it than a NASA committee. Sure, that’s hard to believe, but it is possible. Makes me weep.

Comment by Dfens — August 26, 2010 @ 5:12 pm

Moonrush by Wingo – http://www.amazon.com/Moonrush-Improving-Earth-Resources-Apogee/dp/1894959108/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1282862776&sr=1-1

And the classic for all the rest – Mining the Sky by Lewis – http://www.amazon.com/Mining-Sky-Untold-Asteroids-Planets/dp/0201328194/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_c

Comment by IcePilot — August 26, 2010 @ 6:52 pm

BTW – an amusing line from Moonrush, p223 (2004): “A very conservative number for a heavy-lift rocket for the new exploration vision is $5-$10 billion dollars.”

Comment by IcePilot — August 26, 2010 @ 7:00 pm

Dfens said: August 26, 2010 @ 5:12 pm

“Space would be much cheaper if the reusable part of the vehicle was the first stage and not the final stage. ” and “The first stage should be an air breather.”

That’s a really good question, and kind of germane to this topic (launch costs).

Compare the max payload of an A380 at 330,000 lbs, to the take off weight of the smallest Delta IV at 250,000 lbs. I also did a quick look at the Delta IV Payload Planners Guide, and the Delta IV is going Mach 1.05 at 32,000 feet. As a reference, SpaceShipTwo separates from it’s White Knight Two mothership at 50,000 feet.

I don’t know if it’s a matter of “because we’ve always done it that way”, or that our technology for building airplanes over the last 30 years has finally caught up to the realm of air launched payloads. Remember there has not been much money focused on new launch vehicles since the Shuttle was built, so here is another example of where competition could have played a part in pushing this technology further.

I’m sure it would require a specialized aircraft, but imagine taking an A380 and stripping out all the pressurized passenger volume, and mounting an RP-1/LOX launcher like Atlas V (less cryogenics) on top. Add wings to the launcher body, or a wing structure that drops off after the launcher attains the right attitude, and you could probably get at least 10 tons into LEO with a reusable 1st stage. Kind of like a scaled up Orbital Sciences Pegasus launcher, which right now only gets 443 kg to LEO.

The Air Force is going to be spending some money looking into flyback boosters, so it will be interesting to see if they also look at this alternative. It would definitely take government money to get a study going, and I know our author Paul would rather have all available funds go towards ISRU on the Moon. Choices, choices…

Comment by Coastal Ron — August 26, 2010 @ 8:54 pm

[...] of the blog The Once and Future Moon, has once again written a very insightful essay titled “The Moon: Creating Capability in Space and Getting Value for our Money“, which discusses the factors contributing to high launch costs and how a continuation of [...]

Pingback by A Case for the Lunar Space-Based Economy « AmericaSpace — August 27, 2010 @ 12:58 am

“Finally, why use a VTOL first stage? [snip for compactness] Sure, that’s hard to believe, but it is possible. Makes me weep.”

I do want to see a space-plane one of these days. They would be good for rotating crew to and from LEO and beyond. However for right now, sinking more money into design and development is bad in my opinion.

Space industry on Earth is well developed. We need to develop the space side of space industry. We can talk efficiencies of delta/V to asteroids till doomsday. However the proximity of Luna, the resources of Luna, the lighter demand for human space flight due to teleoperation, all tell me that Luna should be our first destination in space. We have the vehicles necessary. We just need to do it.

Comment by Rhyshaelkan — August 27, 2010 @ 10:58 am

A lunar tanker that exploits lunar oxygen and hydrogen resources actually has two significant advantages:

1. Substantially lower delta-v requirements to supply fuel depots with oxygen and hydrogen at L1 and even low Earth orbit.

and

2. Its a lot simpler and cheaper to build a reusable lunar vehicle than a reusable Earth to orbit vehicle.

Lunar water and even lunar hydrogen should also be looked at as possible lower weight shielding resources against galactic radiation for beyond LEO space stations at the Lagrange points and for manned interplanetary vehicles.

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — August 27, 2010 @ 1:16 pm

Marcel,

Exactly right. Finally and in addition to your points, water is an excellent medium of energy storage for space power systems, viz., the use of rechargable fuel cells, which crack water into H2 and O2 during sun illumination periods and use the gases to make electricity during night periods.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — August 27, 2010 @ 1:38 pm

Dear Paul,

Thank you for another well-reasoned and thoughtful essay. I hope NASA can be persuaded to develop a space-based, reusable spacecraft to access both Moon and NEOs, and tap into the resources from both.

TJ

Comment by Tom Jones — August 27, 2010 @ 1:52 pm

Hi Tom,

Thank you for the kind remarks. I took a stab at comparison of the Moon and near-Earth asteroids as resource destinations in a recent post that you might find interesting:

http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/2010/07/23/space-resources-asteroids-and-the-moon/

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — August 28, 2010 @ 6:56 am

But “cost-effectiveness” is not my principal criterion for “success.” My argument is that NASA gets federal tax money to explore and to push the technical envelope.

I’d just point out that you apparently do hold “cost-effectiveness” in high regard. For indefinite future, lunar prospecting is the only other space activity other than telco likely to offer a decisive return on investment. Everything else depends on dubious optimism about future demand for cut rate launch services to otherwise empty orbital space. Satellite TV is competing with cable in pricing now, and DirecTV pulls in $1 billion in profit a year with an average single launch of 4,000 kg to GEO, yet the specific launch costs to GEO are falling relative to consumer take (and apparently you see costs falling absolutely as well–converging on $5,000/kg). If putting up an unmanned hunk of mass isn’t profitable enough to push satellite consumers to seek out new launchers, what does that tell us about the future demand for commercial manned spaceflight?

Comment by Presley Cannady — August 28, 2010 @ 9:24 am

First of all, you’re comparing two different sized launchers, since the PSLV maxes out at 7,200 lbs to LEO, whereas Falcon 9 is 23,050 lbs to LEO. Second, other than one Israeli satellite, all of the PSLV’s other commercial payloads have been groups of misc. small satellites – valid space payloads to be sure, but not indicative of the commercial market SpaceX is targeting with Falcon 9, and certainly not a robust competitor to SpaceX, ESA or Russia.

Paul brought up PSLV to highlight a trend in specific transportation cost, not to suggest that PSLV competes in GTO launch. I’d note though that Falcon 1e as presently priced costs twice as much per kilogram than PSLV in the light payload to LEO arena.

Comment by Presley Cannady — August 28, 2010 @ 9:56 am

Hi Presley,

I didn’t say that I don’t care about cost effectiveness — I’m just saying that it is one criterion among many. We are going to spend money on NASA and I want to see us get something for that expenditure. My concern with the anti-Vision is that we’ll still spend ~$20B/year on space but get nothing for it. Another point is that a cislunar transportation system serves many different important national interests, so commerce, cost-effectiveness and profit making — while important — are not the only considerations in setting objectives, goals and missions for our national space program.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — August 28, 2010 @ 10:06 am

Paul,
Great article, and your referencing a good little intro guide to how to get to LEO – But.

The cost of space flight is due to low market size. A good LV cost is similar to a similar cargo capacity trans pacific range aircraft. Engines are cheaper per cargo ton. Design and production cost similar. But virtually no flight rate. No launch market.

Claudio Bruno and Paul Czysz pointed out in a presentation (search for Future_of_Space_C. Bruno_P._Czysz.ppt ) that if 747’s were built and operated at the low rates of space shuttles or current launchers, their costs per cargo pound delivered would be similar. So if you want costs to LEO to migrate down toward trans pacific air freight costs; you don’t need new technology, you need to be flying hundreds if not thousands of flights a year. Course then your talking about a market demand for at least thousands of tons of cargo delivery to orbit a year. Which is more then all the tonnage lifted in human history so far. So you need a good salesman.

As for “…launching water out of the gravity well of the Moon is a lot easier than launching it out of the gravity well of Earth, on a per unit mass basis…” That’s not as obvious as you might think – though launching in a vacuum does simplify some design issues. The need to include enough delta-V to boost back down to the Lunar surface, means your craft needs a similar delta-V capacity as a Earth to LEO craft. So likely similar development costs. However I have to think servicing and launching a craft from the Moon would be more difficult, and cost more, then launching from Earth surface. Hell operating a aircraft out of any remote location cost more then a more urban area.

Comment by Kelly Starks — August 28, 2010 @ 11:28 am

I usually cringe when I hear the words “national interest,” because beyond a few very general truisms it inevitably devolves into a laundry list of things diverse elected officials and agencies are currently doing and/or would like to do–often with no measure taken to vet for appropriateness, let alone set priorities. Is preserving ATK’s SRM supply pipeline in the national interest? The Utah congressional delegation alone has at least 2,000 reasons to say yes. Is outreach to the Muslim world in the national interest? Taken component by component, each “program” is small enough potatoes that no one in position of responsibility is willing to waste the political capital necessary to oppose–so the whole damned apple cart transforms into “the national interest.”

Aside from seeing to the national defense, promoting commerce are two areas where there’s widespread agreement, but even these all too often break down into programs of dubious value. As NASA is the civilian space program, we’ll let her off the hook for defense. Still, she spends at least three quarters of its budget on anything not even tangentially related to expanding space enterprise. Certainly, Big Science benefits, but isn’t that why we spend 8 billion a year on the National Science Foundation? Do we really need a permanent government shop for that sort of work?

Comment by Presley Cannady — August 28, 2010 @ 11:45 am

Kelly,

The cost of space flight is due to low market size. A good LV cost is similar to a similar cargo capacity trans pacific range aircraft. Engines are cheaper per cargo ton. Design and production cost similar. But virtually no flight rate. No launch market.

You left out operations and personnel costs, which are enormous in space launch compared to terrestrial flight systems.

My argument is that we should try a new tack. The reason that volume is low is because costs are high. Costs are high because volume is low. So how do we break the stalemate? By trying something new and different.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — August 28, 2010 @ 3:57 pm

Presley,

I usually cringe when I hear the words “national interest,”

Cringing makes the assertion no less true nor does it make it irrelevant.

All of our space assets are in cislunar space. We currently have no alternative to the design-build-launch-operate-abandon paradigm. By going to the Moon and establishing a permanent presence there to harvest its resources, we create an expandable, permanent transportation infrastructure, one that has the ability to routinely access all of our cislunar space assets with people and machines. I contend that such would fundamentally change the entire premise of spaceflight. And that has relevance to national strategic, commercial and scientific interests.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — August 28, 2010 @ 4:02 pm

“My argument is that we should try a new tack. The reason that volume is low is because costs are high. Costs are high because volume is low. So how do we break the stalemate? By trying something new and different.”

This is why I argue that the Federal government should be promoting Space Tourism through a Space Lotto system in order to increase the demand for spaceflights without having to burden the tax payers. There’s no doubt in my mind that there are billions of people on this planet who would be willing to risk a couple of dollars every year for a chance to travel to orbit or maybe even to the Moon aboard private commercial space craft. That could mean several billion dollars every year generated for transporting people into space. Then add to that the thousands of super wealthy individuals who would be willing to pay for a space trip out of their own pocket.

Space tourism may sound trivial but tourism on Earth is a $900 billion a year global industry. There’s no doubt in my mind that Space Tourism could be a multi-billion a year industry in the near future. And this could be the key for dramatically lowering the cost of space travel for both private and government space programs– if the government purchases that same rocket engines or space vehicles that private industry does.

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — August 28, 2010 @ 10:49 pm

> Comment by Paul D. Spudis — August 28, 2010 @ 3:57 pm
>
>Kelly,
>
> You left out operations and personnel costs, which are
> enormous in space launch compared to terrestrial flight
> systems.

Not really. You ever think what the operations costs of running a airport that can support transcontinental airliners is? The supply chain of pars suppliers etc?

Granted NASA porks out their programs with orders of magnitude more people then needed for political reasons. But thats not a space need.

>== The reason that volume is low is because costs are
> high. Costs are high because volume is low. So how
> do we break the stalemate? =

The $64,000 question. Really you need a market for transport that needs a bigger scale. You not going to lower the costs on this trivial scale of operations.

Comment by Kelly Starks — August 29, 2010 @ 2:11 pm

Outsource America’s space program to India …. great thinking, just a wonderful idea.

Comment by David Davenport — August 29, 2010 @ 9:44 pm

Presley Cannady said:

“For indefinite future, lunar prospecting is the only other space activity other than telco likely to offer a decisive return on investment. ”

You’re ignoring the industry that is already making money on space activities, the transportation companies. ULA is flying once a month putting mass into space, and imagine how busy they are going to be in order for Spudis to land and support his Moon mining operation.

If you think all they’ll need is water, then I challenge you to do your job with only an unlimited supply of water. Go stand outside of a mining operation, and you’ll see a constant stream of people coming and going, as well as supplies, spare parts, repair companies, and the many other necessities of life. And that’s on Earth, where you can survive for days on just water, and they know what equipment is needed for extraction. We don’t know what the mining equipment is for the Moon yet, and other than the mining operation itself, there is no demand for just water. No demand, no ROI.

“Paul brought up PSLV to highlight a trend in specific transportation cost, not to suggest that PSLV competes in GTO launch. I’d note though that Falcon 1e as presently priced costs twice as much per kilogram than PSLV in the light payload to LEO arena.”

I suggest you look up “fungibility”, which is the property of a good or a commodity whose individual units are capable of mutual substitution. PSLV and Falcon 1e are not in the same weight class, so you can’t equally compare their costs. I already gave two examples that clearly show when you compare specific payloads (i.e. 10,000 kg & 21,000 kg), that launch costs are going down significantly.

And you would think that this is cause for celebration, since it means that Moon mining is becoming potentially cheaper. ULA did a study on how to build and supply a Moon colony (no mining), and they estimated 52 launches in the first two years – 52 launches! Unless we can drive down the cost of transportation to the Moon, we’ll never be able to afford doing anything on the Moon, no matter how “valuable” we may think it is.

Comment by Coastal Ron — August 29, 2010 @ 11:42 pm

ULA did a study on how to build and supply a Moon colony (no mining), and they estimated 52 launches in the first two years – 52 launches!

What did they use — an Estes Big Bertha? Even if I believe this ludicrous statement, throwing out factoids such as this without any context is meaningless. How big a base? How many people? For what purpose? I can show you a study for a lunar base that uses 2 launches a year. What does such a statement prove?

The summation of my points: 1) launch costs are declining by factors of 2 or 3 at best, not orders of magnitude, the rates one needs to create a true space-faring infrastructure; 2) such an infrastructure is needed to go anywhere beyond LEO; 3) we had the ability to create that under the VSE by going to the Moon to develop its resources; 4) since the VSE was cast away for the anti-Vision, now we don’t.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — August 30, 2010 @ 11:13 am

While not orders of magnitude cheaper to fly. SpaceX’ F9H will fly 32000 kg for $95M(current rates till 9/31/2010). Giving the F9H the cost of $2968.75/kg.

If that performance and cost rate can be maintained. It could cut launch costs by 40%(from $5000/kg to $3000/kg). Really helping any group wanting to make a go at Luna. Perhaps if we contract enough launches from SpaceX, they will sell us 6 a year for $90M each.

As time progresses though the tonnage of imported goods should drop some. Main reason for a launch might be to rotate out crews. Six month stay with launches every three months so you have old crew helping new crew get adjusted.

Paul just needs to drum up a billion a year for the next 5 or so years. By which time we should have industry rolling on Luna. When we can stamp out solar cells and structural members we can start taking orders for SPSs.

Comment by Rhyshaelkan — August 30, 2010 @ 3:46 pm

SpaceX’ F9H will fly 32000 kg for $95M (current rates till 9/31/2010). Giving the F9H the cost of $2968.75/kg.

We’ll see. Falcon 9 Heavy has not yet flown.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — August 30, 2010 @ 3:58 pm

Here’s the patent Boeing had for just such a vehicle. It probably formed the basis for the Blackstar vehicle rumored to exist in an article in Aviation Week. When those of us at Boeing’s Space Center in Kent, Washington tried to use this patent as a basis of a proposal for NASA’s Advanced Launch System (ALS) in ’87 or something like that both NASA and Boeing management rejected the idea. ALS was a bust without it. No matter what else we tried to propose, conventional rockets just couldn’t get to the $2000/lb target in any realistic way. The concept in the patent with a cargo module instead of an orbiter got the number way below the target value, but NASA wasn’t interested then and they aren’t interested now.

Want to build a good, innovative airplane? Hire an airplane designer to design it. Want to build a good, innovative rocket? Hire a rocket designer. The problem is, there hasn’t been a rocket designer position in the US since Von Braun was shut out of the shuttle program. Since then everything has been designed by committee. Design by committee is crap. Even the ex-Soviet states don’t use that approach anymore. We call it “systems engineering”. It’s an aerospace euphemism for “the taxpayer taking up the butt again”.

Comment by Dfens — August 30, 2010 @ 4:03 pm

You’re ignoring the industry that is already making money on space activities, the transportation companies. ULA is flying once a month putting mass into space, and imagine how busy they are going to be in order for Spudis to land and support his Moon mining operation.

No, I’m not. I’m speaking as if I were in the launch industry looking for customers. Shippers aren’t all that useful without something to ship.

ULA accounts for almost all, and sometimes all, non-shuttle US launches in a given year–19 our of 20 in 2009. But still, not sure how noting ULA flies changes the fundamental calculus of the market; that orbital space is not attracting substantial commercial interest beyond telco and that the Moon is the next logical opportunity for development.

Comment by Presley Cannady — August 30, 2010 @ 6:30 pm

Paul D. Spudis said:

“What did they use — an Estes Big Bertha? Even if I believe this ludicrous statement, throwing out factoids such as this without any context is meaningless. How big a base? How many people? For what purpose? I can show you a study for a lunar base that uses 2 launches a year. What does such a statement prove?”

I’m surprised that you haven’t read the study yet – it’s on the ULA website. The file is called “Affordable Exploration Architecture 2009″, and the study is titled “A Commercially Based Lunar Architecture”. Don’t you think that is relevant to lunar ISRU?

Being ULA, they use Atlas V and Delta IV Heavy class launchers in their study, and their ACES family of vehicles are built on the Delta IV tooling, so there is lots of commonality and cost savings. It is very detailed, and they show their assumptions. I assume your paper on lunar resource-based architecture will be as detailed…

“We’ll see. Falcon 9 Heavy has not yet flown.”

No, but Falcon 1 is operational, and Falcon 9 has flown a successful orbital test flight, so it’s not a huge leap of faith to see how Falcon 9 Heavy could be as workable as Delta IV Heavy, which uses the same triple-body design. SpaceX also guarantees their prices, so no matter if you believe their cost structure or not, as long as it works, that’s the price you pay. That’s one of the benefits of a commercial company.

I know SpaceX does not fit into your theme of “we have only marginal improvements in the cost numbers for launch”, but at some point next year you’re going to have to concede how their prices are lowering the cost to access space. And since competition is good, this should help you do your stuff on the Moon by lowering costs, especially since you want the U.S. Taxpayer to foot the bill for the whole shebang…

Comment by Coastal Ron — August 30, 2010 @ 8:30 pm

Rhyshaelkan,

I didn’t know that SpaceX had the Falcon 9 Heavy price on their website ($95M), so I’m glad you pointed it out. My earlier comparison of launcher costs for a 21,000 kg payload can now can be updated, and it definitely shows a decrease in $/kg over time – significant decreases:

$71,000/kg – Shuttle flights are estimated to be around $1.5B/flight (full program costs)
$20,000/kg – Titan IV (now retired)
$14,000/kg – Delta IV Heavy, which replaced Titan IV
$ 4,524/kg – Falcon 9 Heavy (advertised price, not operational)

That shows a good trend, and it’s going to make doing things in space a lot less expensive.

And as you also pointed out, if you max out Falcon 9 Heavy on payload (32,000 kg), then the cost falls to $2,969/kg.

Comment by Coastal Ron — August 30, 2010 @ 9:10 pm

> Outsource America’s space program to India …. great
> thinking, just a wonderful idea.

> Comment by David Davenport — August 29, 2010 @ 9:44 pm

Already outsourced it to Russia for the next 5-10 years.

Comment by Kelly Starks — August 30, 2010 @ 10:00 pm

> Comment by Coastal Ron — August 29, 2010 @ 11:42 pm

>> Presley Cannady said:

>> “For indefinite future, lunar prospecting is the only
>> other space activity other than telco likely to offer
>> a decisive return on investment. ”

> You’re ignoring the industry that is already making money
> on space activities, the transportation companies. ULA is
> flying once a month putting mass into space, and imagine
> how busy they are going to be in order for Spudis to land
> and support his Moon mining operation.

Its all just pork unless you develop something paying on the moon, or do something on a big enough scale to eat the upfrount costs to field some real infastructure.

==
>== ULA did a study on how to build and supply a Moon colony
> (no mining), and they estimated 52 launches in the first
> two years – 52 launches! ==

That’s as information free a statement as you can get.

What kind and scale of a colony? What kind and scale of launches?

>==Unless we can drive down the cost of transportation
> to the Moon, we’ll never be able to afford doing
> anything on the Moon, no matter how “valuable” we
> may think it is.

Catch 22. You can’t drive costs down unless you fly a lot. But your not fly alot without a big project – or market.

Really though, whats on the moon that on any scale of operations would be cheaper then Earth sources?

Comment by Kelly Starks — August 30, 2010 @ 10:26 pm

Marginal launch costs for delivery to an L2 depot could conceivably fall to the several hundred USD/kg range using an ACES-71 reusable SSTO tanker/lander–launchable from a conventional EELV–even if you could only get around 10-12 reuses out of the thing (about 10,000 seconds total burn time). For comparison, Earth-launched propellant costs $12,000/kg by the time it gets to L2–assuming you can launch it to LEO for $5,000/kg.

The DC-X experiment shows that it is possible for a small crew (they used 7 guys) to turn around an RL-10 based vehicle in less that 2 weeks. One launch per lunar cycle would render the lunar base self-sufficient (300 tons to the L2 depot per year).

Get the ice using conventional earth-moving equipment made out of nickel alloys like Inconel 825 or Nickelvac 625. These are excellent metals that retain their strength and ductility down to cryogenic temperatures.

People often imagine gigantic strip mining operations would be required; in reality, the mining operation would be more the size of a local mom ‘n’ pop gravel pit. Depending on the density of the ice, a pit about the size and depth of a standard Olympic-sized swimming pool would have to be excavated per year in order to supply an aggressive lunar “coaling station”.

These are the cargo launches you would need to get started:

1 hab module
1 launch for the water cracking plant
1-2 launches for the earth-moving equipment
2-3 launches for the solar arrays
———————————————
5-7 cargo launches total to achieve sustainable self-sufficiency

The station would have an initial overhead costing on the order of $5-7 billion USD per year–but since at least half of this cost is propellant that must be shipped all the way from Earth, then providing that propellant locally will cut the cost of lunar exploration in half. This would then free up funds for other projects–like a Mars mission that would also find its cost cut in half by the availability of lunar ISRU propellant at an L2 depot.

Some people would say I’m neglecting to include the cost of the base itself into the per kilogram cost of propellant to L2; but this is unfair because the lunar station will serve multiple purposes including pure planetary science and astronomy, and providing skin in the Great Game for its own sake as well as for the sake of national prestige. However, even if we take the overhead cost into account, that still works out to about ~$10,000 USD/kg–still less than importing propellant from Earth–and we get a permanently manned, scientific research station on another planet out of the deal.

Comment by Warren Platts — August 31, 2010 @ 8:08 am

Warren Platts said:

“Some people would say I’m neglecting to include the cost of the base itself into the per kilogram cost of propellant to L2; but this is unfair because the lunar station will serve multiple purposes including pure planetary science and astronomy, and providing skin in the Great Game for its own sake as well as for the sake of national prestige.”

I guess I’m one of the “some” people, because full cost accounting (FCA) principles would tell you that if you’re doing mining, then you need to allocate the appropriate amount of your base costs to mining, and the appropriate amount to the science team. The GAO (and Congress) is not going to let you allocate all your overhead and infrastructure costs to the science team.

Just as Paul Spudis challenged me on the number of launches that ULA was estimating it would take to set up and sustain a Moon colony for one year (see earlier post), I’m sure he would challenge you on the lack of support equipment and infrastructure in your estimates.

- How are you storing your intermediary and end product, and what do you need to do that?
- Where are your estimates for transportation assets to deliver your products?
- Where are you doing maintenance on your RL-10′s & other equipment, and storing your spares and spare parts?
- How many people are needed for support, repair, operations?

Your cargo estimates seem pretty light, and they also seem to ignore all the launches and vehicles it takes to get the cargo from Earth to the Moon.

Your list may be OK for a short-term proof of concept mission, but it lacks the necessary robustness that external customers would need in order to depend on the Moon for fuel and water. One way to appreciate this is to watch the show “Ice Road Truckers” on the History Channel – mining, as well as the miners themselves, do not survive on water alone.

Comment by Coastal Ron — August 31, 2010 @ 11:58 am

I guess I’m one of the “some” people, because full cost accounting (FCA) principles would tell you that if you’re doing mining, then you need to allocate the appropriate amount of your base costs to mining, and the appropriate amount to the science team. The GAO (and Congress) is not going to let you allocate all your overhead and infrastructure costs to the science team.

ISRU is a science in itself, and the Space Act directs NASA to research new ways to make spaceflight more efficient.

Just as Paul Spudis challenged me on the number of launches that ULA was estimating it would take to set up and sustain a Moon colony for one year (see earlier post), I’m sure he would challenge you on the lack of support equipment and infrastructure in your estimates.

The amount and mass of equipment was based on the old NASA LUNOX study conducted in the 1990′s, as well as on research by Dr. Spudis himself and colleagues (cf. “Challenging the Status Quo in Space” by Wingo, Woodcock, and Spudis)

1. How are you storing your intermediary and end product, and what do you need to do that?
2. Where are your estimates for transportation assets to deliver your products?
3. Where are you doing maintenance on your RL-10’s & other equipment, and storing your spares and spare parts?
4. How many people are needed for support, repair, operations?

1. The leftover descent modules will make comprise a ready-made tank farm.
2. An ACES-71 SSTO tanker/lander would have a dry mass of about 7.7 tons; it would cost in the ballpark of $200 million USD; it would be capable of delivering 20+ tons of propellant to an L2 depot per flight.
3. Obviously, such maintenance as would be necessary would be conducted on the Moon; there would be no need for a hanger, since there is no weather on the Moon to be protected against; the RL-10′s would be beefed up enough to run for 10,000 seconds or more between major refurbishments. That’s enough for about a dozen round trips. At that point, it might be more cost-effective to simply send in another ACES-71 rather than attempting major refurbishments/replacements on the Moon.
4. Like I said, the DC-X had a team of 7 people. The ULA paper you cited proposes a base manned by 8 people initially.

Your cargo estimates seem pretty light, and they also seem to ignore all the launches and vehicles it takes to get the cargo from Earth to the Moon.

The same ULA paper states that their proposed landers will be able to drop off 15-20 tons of cargo per flight. That is plenty of capacity.

Your list may be OK for a short-term proof of concept mission, but it lacks the necessary robustness that external customers would need in order to depend on the Moon for fuel and water. One way to appreciate this is to watch the show “Ice Road Truckers” on the History Channel – mining, as well as the miners themselves, do not survive on water alone.

The list is more or less sufficient to provide a sustained capacity for launching 300-600 tons of propellant to an L2 depot per year. This is enough to supply NASA’s beyond Earth exploration needs for the intermediate future. Meanwhile, cargo launches to the Moon will continue at a rate of at least one or two per year, thus continuing to increase the robustness and capability of the lunar “coaling station”. Also, NASA is not in the business of selling propellant to external customers. Eventually, however, the industry would be privatized and taken over by a company like Raytheon or Halliburton, who would then be free to sell lunar propellant to whomever could afford to buy it.

Comment by Warren Platts — August 31, 2010 @ 1:44 pm

Warren Platts said:

“ISRU is a science in itself, and the Space Act directs NASA to research new ways to make spaceflight more efficient.”

And the Space Act also says “developing energy and petroleum-conserving ground propulsion systems, and of minimizing the environmental degradation caused by such systems”, so your justification for not allocating costs across each activity still makes no sense, and would not be allowed by the GAO anyways. If ISRU is going to prove itself, then it should not need to be shielded from public view of how much it costs. Transparency is good.

Thanks for pointing out the two studies you mentioned, they do provide a good view into the future possibilities of the Moon. But like all studies, they also showed a disconnect between academic studies and what companies working in harsh environments actually experience.

The question about hangars was not for “weather”, but for breathable work environments for maintaining critical equipment like the RL-10′s. Visit any A&P shop, and you’ll see a lot of hours being put into the routine stuff that ensures things don’t go “bang” or fall out of the sky. In the harsh environment of the Moon, which we’ve never operated in, maintenance and inspection will be absolutely necessary until we understand how things fail, and how to keep them from failing. Ask any tanker company how much effort and money they put into safety and maintenance – it’s not not cheap here on Earth, and it won’t be cheaper on the Moon.

My last comment is about getting to the Moon. I think the ULA study is much more realistic than your estimates, and they also take into account moving people off the Moon, which NASA has determined recently we’ll have to do to keep people from loosing too much muscle tone (i.e. melting). If we want to land any appreciable payload mass on the Moon, we should be focusing on lowering the costs first, not spending all that money on getting to the Moon.

The U.S. Government will never want to spend more than $5B/year on any single space program, so you may want to adjust your plans accordingly. The Moon is a great goal, and I want to see it done, but we can’t go from A to Z without doing a bunch of letters in between.

I think I’ve tapped out this subject comments wise, so thanks Paul.

Comment by Coastal Ron — August 31, 2010 @ 5:24 pm

the two studies you mentioned, they do provide a good view into the future possibilities of the Moon. But like all studies, they also showed a disconnect between academic studies and what companies working in harsh environments actually experience.

A curious assessment, considering that both studies mentioned above had co-authors with real operational and design experience in space flight systems. The ULA study you embrace lays out an interesting architecture that I have linked in a couple of previous columns. However, their architecture is not directly comparable to what I am advocating as they still launch all of their propellant to depots from Earth’s surface and mention lunar ISRU export only in a single paragraph near the end of the paper. No lunar propellant figures into their presented launch manifests.

The U.S. Government will never want to spend more than $5B/year on any single space program, so you may want to adjust your plans accordingly.

The other point I would make is that we are under no specific time deadlines in lunar return. We go as we can, as fast as we can, but we don’t worry about a specific end date. But we go. We craft an incremental, yet cumulative architecture, one that builds capability with time. We use robotic systems to create lunar presence and surface capability early; people come when they are able to. Such is not only possible, but essential. That’s another thing Augustine got wrong.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — August 31, 2010 @ 6:13 pm

“ISRU is a science in itself, and the Space Act directs NASA to research new ways to make spaceflight more efficient.”

And the Space Act also says “developing energy and petroleum-conserving ground propulsion systems, and of minimizing the environmental degradation caused by such systems”, so your justification for not allocating costs across each activity still makes no sense.

Ron, you’re confusing yourself because you’re making this way too complicated. Let me spell it out for you:

base + ISRU = $3-4 billion USD/yr << base + ~ISRU = $5-7 billion USD/yr

Thanks for pointing out the two studies you mentioned, they do provide a good view into the future possibilities of the Moon. But like all studies, they also showed a disconnect between academic studies and what companies working in harsh environments actually experience.

Sir, I’m a geologist employed in the oil and gas industry. Unlike you apparently, I didn’t get my experience working in harsh environments from watching Ice Road Truckers…..

The question about hangars was not for “weather”, but for breathable work environments for maintaining critical equipment like the RL-10’s.

If breathable air was the only issue, then hangars wouldn’t be needed on Earth. ISS and Hubble prove that humans can do maintenance and inspections in the vacuum of space.

My last comment is about getting to the Moon. I think the ULA study is much more realistic than your estimates, and they also take into account moving people off the Moon

Dude, my estimates are taken straight out of the ULA paper. As such, they also take into account returning people to Earth and anticipated budgetary constraints….

Comment by Warren Platts — August 31, 2010 @ 7:34 pm

The ULA … architecture is not directly comparable to what I am advocating as they still launch all of their propellant to depots from Earth’s surface and mention lunar ISRU export only in a single paragraph near the end of the paper. No lunar propellant figures into their presented launch manifests.

Paul, in fairness to the ULA guys, their study was published a few months before your group published the Chandrayaan results on the new lunar ice fields. The relatively pure ice will be much easier to extract and process compared to 10% permafrost soil or 3% oxygen out of ilmenite-enriched regolith. Also, their manifest only extends out 3 years, and it would probably take at least that many years to get to the point where hundreds of tons of propellant could be delivered to an L2 depot. Sometimes I get the suspicion that the ULA architecture is actually an attempt to do an end run around the New Space companies by exporting lunar propellant to LEO cheaper than anyone can launch it from Earth! We may see the day when lunar propellant will be banned from LEO in order to protect fledgling Earth-based launch companies.

Comment by Warren Platts — August 31, 2010 @ 8:00 pm

Warren Platts said:

“Sir, I’m a geologist employed in the oil and gas industry. Unlike you apparently, I didn’t get my experience working in harsh environments from watching Ice Road Truckers…”

Well, I was going to refrain from any additional comments, but since you asked, my career has been in manufacturing, specifically in operations management and project management. DOD, commercial, new product introduction, high volume production – pretty much from concept to shipping it out the door.

Because I’ve had to focus on what is required to do each step of a process, what the costs are, and what the potential schedule constraints will be, I bring that same perspective to space related topics. And yes, I watch “Ice Road Truckers” (and the documentary episodes that spawned it) because it deals with logistics, amongst other things, and it provides good life lessons about operating production facilities in harsh environments – sound familiar? You never know when you’ll find analogies that help you solve problems…

“If breathable air was the only issue, then hangars wouldn’t be needed on Earth. ISS and Hubble prove that humans can do maintenance and inspections in the vacuum of space.”

Now, neither of us is a wrench turner, but they are the ones that will need “hangers”, because Hubble type repairs took years to prepare, and even the ISS has to scramble lots of brainpower on the ground when something goes wrong. Those are not the models you want to follow for fixing engines or repairing mining equipment on the Moon. Next time you’re at a mine, ask the foreman what his equipment maintenance schedule looks like, and keep in mind that his equipment is the product of 100+ years of evolution here on Earth, not on an airless barren moon. Prototypes and 1st gen products break – sometimes frequently, and there is only so much you can do through gloves that don’t keep your fingers completely warm.

I do think we should have a robust robotic exploration program for the Moon, and I know Paul has been vocal on that too. But unfortunately Congress does not think that is a priority, so we need to make a lot of noise on this. We need to make sure Congress funds this part at the level Obama requested ($3.0 billion over five years). For me, I would want that money shifted from the proposed SLS, which is a launcher without a mission – we can already launch 21,000 kg payloads to the Moon using existing launchers, so I would hope that all the “Moon First” people would want to get behind this.

“base + ISRU = $3-4 billion USD/yr << base + ~ISRU = $5-7 billion USD/yr”

You’re formula does not make sense to me, but maybe it’s because you assign a lot of meaning to the “~” symbol. In manufacturing, it’s “+” and “-”, and if they don’t add, then you have to stay late until you figure it out. I take the same view on costs to do stuff in space – if it doesn’t add up, it doesn’t make sense. Your numbers don’t add up yet, so that’s why I challenge your assumptions. Luckily for you I don’t have any say over space programs, but I am a taxpayer, and I don’t want my money frittered away like so many other NASA dead-end programs (like Ares I).

“Sometimes I get the suspicion that the ULA architecture is actually an attempt to do an end run around the New Space companies by exporting lunar propellant to LEO cheaper than anyone can launch it from Earth!”

Maybe it’s just me, but when you guys talk about stuff like that, it makes it seem like you think ISRU makes you completely independent from the Earth. The reality, of course, is that just like the Antarctic research stations can be independent for short periods of time, they are dependent on the outside world for everything – except water. Sound familiar?

Comment by Coastal Ron — September 1, 2010 @ 12:16 am

Well, I was going to refrain from any additional comments, but since you asked

Actually, I didn’t ask….

my career has been in manufacturing, specifically in operations management and project management. DOD, commercial, new product introduction, high volume production – pretty much from concept to shipping it out the door.

In other words, you have direct, practical experience in neither resource extraction nor transportation….

Now, neither of us is a wrench turner

Speak for yourself. I have my own equipment to maintain and fix when it breaks. I do turn wrenches, and yes, I wear gloves while doing that, and yes, when it’s 1:00 AM and 40 below and the wind is howling across a Wyoming desert, it can be hard to keep one’s fingers warm, but guess what: we get ‘r done anyways, year after year.

ISS has to scramble lots of brainpower on the ground when something goes wrong.

A lunar research station would also have access to the brains of groundpounders.

Prototypes and 1st gen products break – sometimes frequently

The RL-10 has been in continuous production for 50 years. It is the most reliable 3rd-stage rocket motor ever built. Current off-the-shelf RL-10′s are conservatively rated for 10-25 restarts and over 4000 seconds of burn time with no maintenance required–even in the cold, barren vacuum of space.

I do think we should have a robust robotic exploration program for the Moon

I never said we shouldn’t.

“base + ISRU = $3-4 billion USD/yr << base + ~ISRU = $5-7 billion USD/yr”

You’re formula does not make sense to me, but maybe it’s because you assign a lot of meaning to the “~” symbol. In manufacturing, it’s “+” and “-”

More evidence of your narrow background. FYI, in formal logic “~” means the same as “not”.

Your numbers don’t add up yet, so that’s why I challenge your assumptions.

The ULA paper calls for about 300 tons of propellant to L2 in year 3 under the “aggressive” option they explored. This 300 tons is supposed to provide for landing the cargo and crew flights, and returning 3 crews to Earth per year. Optimistically, total cost for that propellant is going to be $3.6 billion USD if the to-LEO launch cost is $5,000/kg ($12,000 to L2); crazily optimistic: assuming the to-LEO cost is $3,000/kg ($7,200/kg to L2), then the total cost is still $2.2 billion USD. If an ACES-71 SSTO tanker costs $210 million USD and 13 launches can be got out of it without major maintenance, then the per kilogram marginal cost to L2 is $700–an order of magnitude savings.

To get 300 tons to L2, about 1,000 tons of propellant would have to manufactured on the Moon. Since propellant has an oxidizer/fuel mass ratio of 5, then 1,500 tons of water would have to cracked per year. Assuming a density of 0.75 gm/cc for lunar ice, then a pit 2,000 cubic meters in volume would have to excavated–per year. For comparison, an Olympic-sized swimming pool has a volume of about 2,500 cubic meters. This amount of volume to be excavated is so small, it is not even properly termed a mine–a medium-sized excavator can easily dig out 100 cubic meters per hour.

Bottom line: the new ice fields discovered by Dr. Spudis and his colleagues entail that it will be far, far easier to produce significant quantities of ISRU propellants than ill-informed, FUD-based intuitions have hitherto imagined.

Luckily for you [everybody] I don’t have any say over space programs

For once, you’re right about something….

Comment by Warren Platts — September 1, 2010 @ 11:03 am

Warren Platts said:

“In other words, you have direct, practical experience in neither resource extraction nor transportation”

And geologists are going to build the hardware that will take us back to the Moon?

I would say that I’m a little closer to the space hardware issue than you are. I’ve helped set up and run production lines for electronic products that had to work in harsh environments (engine room displays, field computers, etc.). Oh, and they had to be built on schedule and budget – something that is sorely lacking at NASA right now. My perspective & background is on how to actually do stuff, not imagine them. So while you and Paul are out there finding the good places to go, people like me are making sure the hardware gets built. Everyone has their part to play.

“The RL-10 has been in continuous production for 50 years. It is the most reliable…” …until it breaks.

I don’t know any system that has 100% reliability in harsh environments, and there is more to a lunar fuel depot/delivery service than one engine. LRU’s will play their part, but once you swap them out you have to do something with them – fix them, send them back for repair, replace them, etc. Continuous operations means continuous repairs, and again, no prototype or 1st gen product ever lasts long. The lesson that many have learned is to plan for the worst, and hope for the best, especially if it’s something critical. That means more transportation than you have outlined.

“More evidence of your narrow background. FYI, in formal logic “~” means the same as “not”.”

Ah, the inability to understand that other worlds exist outside of yours. When you’re speaking in public, usually it’s a good thing to “know your audience”, which means you may have to assume not everyone uses the same vocabulary. Apparently you forgot that this was “Air & Space”, and not “Geology Today” or “Esoteric Math Symbols Monthly”. Now you know…

“Bottom line: the new ice fields discovered by Dr. Spudis and his colleagues entail that it will be far, far easier to produce significant quantities of ISRU propellants than ill-informed, FUD-based intuitions have hitherto imagined.”

Good. Let’s get the robotic precursor missions going, and test out equipment for future extraction. Oh, but wait, that pesky Constellation program sucked up all the robotic money, so oops!

See, that’s why people like me worry about hardware and costs. Because when they are not defined, they go out of control, and then nothing happens. So excuse me if I challenge your assumptions, but the history of space programs is littered with wonderful plans that didn’t make it, and I want to find and promote plans that work, and expose ones that don’t. Your’s, in my mind, is still TBD.

Comment by Coastal Ron — September 1, 2010 @ 4:12 pm

See, that’s why people like me worry about hardware and costs. Because when they are not defined, they go out of control, and then nothing happens. So excuse me if I challenge your assumptions, but the history of space programs is littered with wonderful plans that didn’t make it, and I want to find and promote plans that work, and expose ones that don’t. Your’s, in my mind, is still TBD.

You would like to be able to challenge my assumptions, but you don’t have the wherewithal to do so. That’s why you can’t be specific. You can’t specifically point to a showstopper that I’m unaware of; you can’t tell me the RL-10 is POS motor that will never work; you can’t say whether 300 tons in L2 is not enough or way more than is necessary because you don’t know. All you have is a vague feeling that the capacity to produce 1,000 tons of propellant annually after half a dozen cargo flights cargo flights must be too good to be true–but you can’t say specifically why. Although you want to promote plans that can work, you don’t know how to recognize one when it’s placed in front of you. You’ve been beat down so long, you figure that any plan that looks like it could work is practically by definition too good to be true.

Comment by Warren Platts — September 2, 2010 @ 9:22 am

Warren Platts said:

“All you have is a vague feeling that the capacity to produce 1,000 tons of propellant annually after half a dozen cargo flights cargo flights must be too good to be true–but you can’t say specifically why.”

Actually my concerns have nothing to do with the production of fuel, just the amount of infrastructure and support that you see is needed to create and maintain a manned fueling station. Although I do think issues will come up in the production process that will take time to work out (Cernan’s “do not yet know what they don’t know”), but with time and money I’m sure it can be solved.

But if you look at how much time the ISS crew has for experiments, you’ll see that prototype & 1st gen systems need abundant care and resources, and you seem to be skimping. That is not a plan for success, that is a bait & switch scam – with the U.S. Taxpayer having to pick up the tab for over-runs.

“you can’t tell me the RL-10 is POS motor that will never work”

And in fact I haven’t. All I have pointed out is that you assume perfection in their operation (and everything else apparently), and that perfection does not exist in harsh environments. Thus my “plan for the worst, hope for the best” comment, which means you overbuild your ability to repair & replace equipment. Excess capacity is consumed as the facility grows, so if it was excess, it won’t be for long.

“you figure that any plan that looks like it could work is practically by definition too good to be true”

It’s funny you say this, when you know I have been promoting the ULA “Affordable Exploration Architecture 2009″ plan, which you apparently like too. Although that plan is a set of hardware solutions, the real issue is how much money should be invested in any ultimate Moon mission.

So far the congressional response has been so-so over time (and mainly against it), and the general populace has not been inspired. Why? Because space is becoming something we do all the time. That means the motivations for going anywhere in space have to change from “because it’s there” to something different. Maybe a mix of exploration and commerce, but it needs to have quick payoffs, and it can’t be seen as a money pit.

So getting back to the theme of Paul’s article, it gets back to cost. Paul believes that launch costs have not and will not change, so give up trying, and head straight to the Moon for ISRU. I disagreed regarding launch costs, and I showed facts to back up my assertions. That doesn’t mean I think lunar fueling stations will never be needed, but I think we’re a long way from needing them, and that a lot of work can be done on a number of fronts before we need to invest in manned lunar fueling stations (I’ve already mentioned my support for robotic precursor missions).

On a different blog, you appeared to diss VASIMR as a potential engine technology. But what VASIMR can do is lower the need for fuel in space, which reduces the need for ISRU, so I think I understand your lack of support. It’s been demonstrated on the ground, and NASA will be installing it on the ISS for real life demonstrations. For cargo transportation, it could a real boon, and lower the costs for launches and overall program costs in space. But it doesn’t fit your theme. Pot calling the kettle black?

As a business type guy, I try to look at things from a supply & demand standpoint. Space is just a new marketplace, and the laws of business don’t change. Launch costs are going down for certain fungible payload classes (10,000 & 21,000 kg), and once commercial crew gets established, I think within 10 years we’ll be seeing a determined manned expansion into space. It is around that point that supply & demand pressures will determine where supplies should come from, and a manned ISRU mission is considered. Who knows, maybe our lunar rovers can do it on their own, and it’s cheaper to not send people? We have lots to work out still.

Comment by Coastal Ron — September 2, 2010 @ 12:15 pm

1st gen systems need abundant care and resources, and you seem to be skimping. That is a bait & switch scam.

Bait & switch scam??? You’re handwaving Ron. You literally don’t know what you’re talking about. You are not qualified to judge. Your knowledge regarding space exploration is a about foot wide and a millimeter deep. E.g., your sanguine comments re VASIMR (®); the only semi-practical option on the table is a space tug that would require a solar array larger than the ISS’s and more than six months for a round trip to the Moon. Meanwhile, a reusable ACES-41 could make a half dozen round trips at least in the time it takes for one VASIMR. In other words, you would have to manufacture and launch 6 VASIMR space tugs in order to achieve the cargo throughput of a single ACES-41. The fact that VASIMR makes business sense to you is telling….

Who knows, maybe our lunar rovers can do it on their own, and it’s cheaper to not send people?

If robots were cheaper than humans, nobody would have to work, and we could all retire–and if short-term “cheapness” is the overriding criterion, then the cheapest option is to abandon space altogether.

We have lots to work out still.

Speak for yourself. We have it all figured out–you can rest assured.

Comment by Warren Platts — September 4, 2010 @ 10:33 am

Warren Platts said:

“Bait & switch scam???

Meaning promoting a plan as simple and cheap, while knowing that it won’t be that cheap or simple. NASA has been burdened by too many of these already…

“In other words, you would have to manufacture and launch 6 VASIMR space tugs in order to achieve the cargo throughput of a single ACES-41.”

What VASIMR excels at is not speed, but fuel efficiency, and so for payloads that are not perishable, they make enormous sense. ACES-41 would be like FEDEX compared to sending something by freight train (VASIMR), with the commensurate cost comparisons.

Depending on the year we finally need cargo transportation, you could not only use solar panels for electrical power, but nuclear might be back in the picture. And you have also forgotten that old standby for space power – fuel cells. Even an ACES-41 carrying LH2/LOX could be outfitted with VASIMR thrusters powered by LH2/LOX fuel cells, and then it could deliver more fuel per trip. It all boils down to the supply and demand economics that are in play at that time. You ignore cost – I don’t.

What’s for certain is that any imagined solution today – your “We have it all figured out–you can rest assured” – only addresses the problems envisioned today, and not the actual problems of tomorrow. You and I may have the starting points, but not the final solutions.

“If robots were cheaper than humans, nobody would have to work, and we could all retire–and if short-term “cheapness” is the overriding criterion, then the cheapest option is to abandon space altogether.”

Whoa, I guess we should shut down the robotic exploration program at NASA, and forget about all the lunar robotic precursor missions that Spudis was looking forward to. This is obviously an emotional response to what I wrote, as it doesn’t make sense in real life.

Robotic systems provide the ability to do things in environments that are either not possible or not practical for humans. They can also help us find & overcome problems BEFORE humans set foot on the Moon. I think a lot could be done with robotic systems, and certainly if we are sending a constant stream of them to the Moon for exploration and ISRU. Certainly NASA and the DOD are putting lots of effort into improving robotic systems, and the Moon is a great place to test them out.

All this gets back to cost again – maybe you don’t have a business background (I don’t know), but you keep missing the point. If we’re going to do stuff in space, then “damn the costs” cannot be our guiding principle. The better we are at finding ways to lower costs, the more we’re going to be able to do IN space.

You find resources. I build things. Everyone has their part to play.

Comment by Coastal Ron — September 4, 2010 @ 5:38 pm

Meaning promoting a plan as simple and cheap, while knowing that it won’t be that cheap or simple. NASA has been burdened by too many of these already…

Including the current anti-Vision, promoted by the administration and many in the blogosphere.

I can see that this debate between Ron and Warren has pretty much run its course, so as the author of this blog, I’ll exercise my privilege to have the last word.

Ron’s argument revolves around cost while Warren’s revolves around capabilities. With humans along, costs go up because you can’t take a lot of time getting them where they’re going and then you have to provide life-support when they get there. Robots can be sent w/o regard to how long it takes and they don’t need to eat and breathe and do all those things humans unfortunately have to do — humans are complicated (to us that complication is acceptable because it also makes them a vital asset in ability, observation and real time judgment.)

Warren doesn’t discount robots but understands the critical necessity of ground truth and humans as operational assets. He realizes that you get more in the long run with humans — the upfront expense will be rewarded by mission results. Humans living and working in space is the ultimate goal for many of us — whereas science is the ultimate goal for robotics types who don’t want humans slowing them down.

In this column, I have tried to make my attitude clear that robots are tools and we have to use them. The reason we need to build up capability on the Moon is so that humans can learn how to exploit its resources for commercial and national interests. Does anyone seriously envision a Spirit or an Opportunity rover doing complex resource development?

One’s vision of how the future in space should look boils down to whether they view humans beyond LEO positively or negatively. I contend that humans are critical to the objective and therefore the mission must be structured long term around humans — their capabilities will compensate for their biological needs:

“The key to bootstrapping this capability is the judicious use of robotic precursor missions. Robotic spacecraft are now orbiting the Moon, mapping the distribution of elements such as hydrogen and ascertaining the nature of the environment near the poles. The next steps are to measure the composition and physical properties of the polar deposits from the surface; this requires soft-landers capable of landing payloads on the order of a few to tens of kilograms. Small surface rovers would be able to map out the elemental concentration of volatiles and determine the best places to mine.

After the prospects are mapped, we must experiment with different techniques for harvesting and processing. Again, this work can be done by modestly sized robotic missions, landing small excavators and trucks (Mars rover-sized) and using laboratory bench-scale processing equipment. Landing and experimentation with this equipment will allow us to find out which techniques are most effective, what processing methods use the least amounts of energy and have the highest yields, and determine where the choke-points are in the processing and production stream.

These small initial steps allow us to begin extracting and storing resources immediately. Over time, we can increase these capabilities such that when people finally return to the Moon, they have at their disposal a cached accumulation of consumables, including air, water and rocket propellant. In effect, we are creating the initial phases of self-sufficiency even before human arrival through the emplacement and use of automated, robotic infrastructure.”

http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/2009/06/05/lunar-resources-%E2%80%93-part-2-changing-our-approach-to-spaceflight/#comments

“…A common article of faith in many academic and space circles is that robotic spaceflight is the preferred method of scientific exploration. Many famous space scientists (including James Van Allen and Carl Sagan) preached the superiority of unmanned missions to human ones. Indeed, many phenomena in space (such as plasmas and magnetic fields) cannot be sensed directly by humans or in some cases (e.g., detecting the tenuous lunar “atmosphere”), the presence of people interfere with the property being measured. I agree that some scientific activities cannot or should not be done by people. But in other areas of science, human presence is not merely beneficial, it’s critical.

….A good example of the differences in capabilities between humans and robots is illustrated by the experience with the Mars Exploration Rovers (2003-present). These machines have traversed many kilometers of terrain, examined and analyzed rock and soil samples, and mapped the local surface over the course of five years. Many gigabytes of data have been returned by these rovers, giving us an unprecedented view of the martian surface and its geology. They are truly marvels of modern engineering.

Yet after all this exploration, we are unable to draw a simple geological cross section through either of the two MER landing sites. We do not know the origin of the bedded sediments strikingly shown in the surface panoramas, whether they are of water-lain sedimentary, impact, or igneous origins. We don’t know the mineral composition of rocks for which we have chemical analyses; such information is crucial to determine processes and origins.

After five years of Mars surface exploration, we do not know things about the field site that a human geologist could determine after an afternoon’s reconnaissance. In contrast, we have an incredibly detailed conceptual model, albeit incomplete, of the geology and structure of each of the Apollo landing sites. The longest stay on the Moon for these missions was three days, most of which was spent inside the Lunar Module.

A robotic rover can be designed to collect a sample, but it cannot be designed to collect the correct sample. Field work involves posing and answering conceptual questions in real time, when emerging models and ideas can be tested in the field. It is a complex and iterative process; we sometimes spend years at certain field sites on the Earth, asking and answering different and ever more detailed scientific questions. Our objective in the geological exploration of the Moon is knowledge and understanding. A rock is just a rock, a piece of data. It is not knowledge. Robots collect data, not knowledge.

It has been argued that planetary exploration robots are controlled by people so human intelligence guides the robot explorer. Having done both types of exploration in the field on Earth, I contend that remote teleoperated robotic exploration is no substitute for being there. All robotic systems have critical sensory limitations – important sensory aspects as resolution, depth of field, and peripheral vision. They have even greater limitations in physical manipulation, an extremely important aspect of field work, where picking a sample, removing some secondary over coating and examining a fresh surface is an important aspect of work in the field. The makers of the MER rovers recognized this need by including the RAT (Rock Abrasion Tool) to create fresh surfaces; it became worn down and unusable after a short period of operation.

Ultimately, we need both people and machines to explore the Moon and other planets. Each has their appropriate skill base and limits. Machines can gather early reconnaissance data, make preliminary measurements, and do repetitive or exhaustive manual work. But only people can think. And thinking – and acting and working based upon the results of that thinking – is what field work is all about.”

http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/2009/03/01/human-spaceflight-%E2%80%93-what-value-to-science-part-2/

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — September 5, 2010 @ 6:27 am