AirSpaceMag.com

Dr. Spudis,

Wow that was a depressing way to start the day.

The Michael Lind article in Salon was indeed vacuous (full of unsubstantiated assumptions), but about what would be expected from the old 1960s leftist perspective. I have never really comprehended their distaste for human spaceflight – perhaps a rejection of the concept of a frontier – because it doesn’t fit their idea of a controlled future “Shangri-La”. The only thing that scares me about this is that I fear there are powerful people in the Obama Administration who agree.

The other article (in spite of the error about robotic vs. human spaceflight funding) is more informative and also contains the following quote: “A 2009 Gallup poll found that most Americans—when told the actual amount spent by the space program—continue to express support for the current level of funding for NASA (46 percent) or an expansion of it (14 percent).”

I do not wish to seem unrealistically optimistic, but I do not think the situation is as hopeless as you imply. The SLS/MPCV are well funded for this fiscal year now and the authorization levels in future years would make progress possible. There is plenty of room for more mischief from the Administration and Congress will have to constantly vigilant, but the game isn’t over yet.

Comment by Joe — April 19, 2011 @ 9:54 am

that was a depressing way to start the day.

Wasn’t meant to be — I was commenting on the current “wave of doom” that I see being articulated in the space press and blogosphere.

Lind is actually a former conservative turned neo-liberal. He has spent his apostate career largely repudiating his former beliefs.

My point on the robotic vs. human spaceflight is that, by virtue of circumstance, we have a practical experiment in the premise that “expensive” human spaceflight eats the lunch of “good science” robotic spaceflight. The results of that experiment are not supportive of the basic hypothesis; human space funding is going down, but so is the funding for robotic missions. Guess the “myth” isn’t such a myth after all.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 19, 2011 @ 10:10 am

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 19, 2011 @ 10:10 am
“Lind is actually a former conservative turned neo-liberal. He has spent his apostate career largely repudiating his former beliefs.”

Interesting information. Converted Infidels are usually the most anxious to establish their purity.

“My point on the robotic vs. human spaceflight is that, by virtue of circumstance, we have a practical experiment in the premise that “expensive” human spaceflight eats the lunch of “good science” robotic spaceflight. The results of that experiment are not supportive of the basic hypothesis; human space funding is going down, but so is the funding for robotic missions. Guess the “myth” isn’t such a myth after all.”

Understand the point. A long time ago I read an article by Dr. James Van Allen (unfortunately do not have a copy) that tried to make the case that “human spaceflight eats the lunch of “good science” robotic spaceflight”. He, apparently without noticing, included a graph of NASA funding over a number of years and it clearly showed that every time Human Spaceflight Funding went down, so did Robotic Spaceflight Funding.

Comment by Joe — April 19, 2011 @ 10:45 am

Most people tend to lose interest in space travel once you remove the human element from space exploration. Why? Because humans instinctively believe that the world and the universe is all about us:-) Instinctively we we tend to view robotic adventures to other worlds as simple precursor programs leading the way towards later human journeys to those same worlds.

Humans were originally confined to the warm tropical regions of our planet. But fire and other technologies eventually enabled our species to live in the hostile environments of Europe and North America during the cold seasonal winters and even during the frigid glacial periods.

Most humans today realize that we currently live on an overpopulated planet within an extremely fragile environment. So putting all of our eggs in this one fragile basket called Earth is probably a very bad idea.

Fortunately, we now appear to have the technological know how to live permanently off the planet. Even if hypogravity environments on the Moon and Mars turn out to be inherently deleterious to human health, we can always bring along portable centrifuges that we can utilize a couple of hours per day to stay in good health. And someday we may even build enormous rotating artificial worlds from extraterrestrial materials orbiting the sun.

But there is no doubt in my mind that we are at the beginning of the permanent expansion of the human species beyond our planet of evolutionary origin. Expanding to new worlds and to new environments has been part of our cultural evolution since tool using hominins first emerged in Sub-Saharan Africa nearly 2.6 million years ago. And its clear from the extreme popularity of movies and TV shows like Star Trek, Star Wars, Avatar, and many others that we are ready to take the next step in our cultural evolution.

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — April 19, 2011 @ 1:59 pm

Paul:

Actually, I think that Lind has one or two valid points. If we sincerely and realistically wish to ensure the survivial of the human race then yes, more “mineshafts” would be in order. Instead, the survival of the species argument is a weak excuse used to justify space exploration.

Even with the most aggressive colinization efforts using ISRU, for any space colony to be able to survive and prevail, independent of Earth, would take centuries of development. One metric will be when a space colony can manufacture all needed spacecraft components, entirely using local materials. Think about electronics…a locally-manufactured semiconductor fab with SEMs, CVD, furnaces, high-purity gas supplies,…) That is not going to happen overnight.

Personally, I feel that because it is going to take a long time, we should get started sooner, rather than later. And at this early stage, it is far more important that we learn everything that we can about the resources of the Moon, and conduct lots of ISRU experiments. Many of these can be done with robots, now. Our objective should be to be able to support lots of boots on the lunar surface in the medium future. How soon we deliver the first dozen boots is probably secondary…

Comment by Nelson Bridwell — April 19, 2011 @ 2:06 pm

Nelson,

Clearly, extension of humanity into space is a long-term goal, not something directly in NASA’s critical path. However, having said that, creation of multiple locations of human culture in space is probably not so far off as you seem to imply. The basic physics and chemistry are known. A fundamental difference between space colonies and mine shafts is that the former are basically unlimited in materials and energy while a mine shaft has only what you’re able to drag down into it with you.

Hmmm… maybe there’s a closer analogy here than I had originally thought!

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 19, 2011 @ 2:17 pm

Comment by Joe — April 19, 2011 @ 10:45 am

“He, apparently without noticing, included a graph of NASA funding over a number of years and it clearly showed that every time Human Spaceflight Funding went down, so did Robotic Spaceflight Funding.”

I agree with those that say our perceptions of the our national space program has been skewed (or informed) by the Apollo program, which had a focus and a large budget, and delivered huge results. Since then, I think we’ve been coasting.

It doesn’t surprise me that robotic funding would fluctuate with human spaceflight, and in some ways it’s surprising that it gets much money at all, since you can’t shake hands with a robot out in space.

The lack of vision for what we want to do in space, whether it’s the Augustine version or some other, is partly to blame on the way NASA is structured & funded, and the way our government works with Congressional fiefdoms deciding many things. The Department of Defense has a clear mission statement, and there are daily reminders of why we spend so much on defense, but the same is not true for NASA. Where is the sense of urgency?

Well there isn’t, at least not until a global-scale catastrophe threatens us, or a new race to space is declared. I think we may be in for a slow migration out into space, likely lead by a small amount of commercial activity and with NASA tagging along as it can afford to.

Grand plans only coalesce when there is a national vision that everyone buys into, and there isn’t one at this time. If lunar robotic explorers are going to get funded, and I hope they do, they will have to find a friend in one of the Congressional fiefdoms.

Comment by C. Adelphia — April 19, 2011 @ 2:24 pm

The other argument that he did not mention, which is highly-speculative, is that, according to some, our understanding of the functioning of the human brain will advance enough over the next few decades that we will be able to create synthetic minds in software that are as capable as, and possibly much faster and more knowledgable than, the human brain.

If that is true (certainly has not happened yet!), and depending upon exactly how it plays out, our long-term need to keep human bodies warm, oxygenated, and nourished in the unwelcome confines of outer space might diminish. Initially, keeping rovers and spacecraft happy and health on the Moon might be a much simpler case of generating enought electric power and propellant, although long-term, a challenging independent manufacturing infrastructure would need to be established.

By the way, that is a wonderful quote from Shakespeare…

Comment by Nelson Bridwell — April 19, 2011 @ 2:29 pm

These are two good essays, discussing something that really needs discussion. See, the problem isn’t that we’re arguing about how best to insure species survival, the problem is that these arguments don’t enter in to the federal/legislative perspective on human space flight. Nope, you won’t see any legislation or agency/national policy telling us that we need to have human space flight in order to save the species. The Augustine committee sort of hinted at it, but their report isn’t formal national policy. You, Paul, may see that as the reason for human space flight (and I think I do too), but our space agency, and the Congress that funds it, doesn’t.

Now, is it any surprise that our government doesn’t want to posit the rationale for human spaceflight as being for species survival? Well, frankly, species survival isn’t a big issue for our government. We’re the ones who maintain arsenals of atomic weapons that guarantee mutually assured destruction, and we’re the ones who are comfortable with human-induced climate change, with what are possibly catastrophic consequences. We’re satisfied to take the risk, which we believe to be small, that MAD will never happen, and that climate change won’t be that bad. By the same token, we’ll cross our fingers about big asteroids that might be headed our way. Stupid? Yes, but that’s the way we do it.

The bottom line is that our nation has not yet come up with a really compelling reason for human space flight. Oh, we talk about the importance of “exploration”, a word we think we understand, or “inspiration”, which is another one of those squishy things that is good by definition. I’d like to believe there is such a compelling reason, but we’ve largely avoided talking about it. Kudos to Lind for challenging us on it, and to you, Paul, for responding to him.

Comment by Heinrich Monroe — April 19, 2011 @ 4:24 pm

Warning: somewhat off-topic:

Consider an equatorial launch site on the Earth launching people to an equatorially-orbiting space station in LEO. Such launches could occur 16x per day. If there were multiple equatorial launch sites, then it would be possible to have 32x or 48x or 60x or … launches per day to the station, depending on the number of launch sites.

Eventually it will be possible for a person to take a commercial airline flight from wherever they live to some near-equatorial airport, take some king of transfer flight to the launch site, launch to LEO and arrive at the space station within a day of leaving home.

Such a station would be integrally linked to the global economy. People could go to the station to attend conferences, have business meetings, recreate, watch sports, etc.

Question: Would the bulk materials from which to build such an equatorial LEO station be better sourced from the Earth’s surface or from the Moon’s? If it were cheap enough so that there would be enough demand for people to willingly purchase tickets and launch 16x or 32x per day to the station, then would that imply that the launching means were cheap enough so that the bulk materials from which to build the station should be sourced from Earth?

Comment by Ron Menich — April 19, 2011 @ 5:22 pm

The Lefties think they are going to live forever.
I don’t think so.
Even if Lefties tended towards large families, they not going to survive very long.
Currently, they are like chickens with the head chopped off- exciting to watch perhaps, but dead.
Not that I would underestimate the amount damage they can do in their death throes.
But I think if you going to talk about the future, one can safely ignore them. They are precisely, old news.

I spent a long time wondering why the hard Left disliked Space Exploration. I think there are a lot of reasons- none of them realistic/practical [but that ain't news for them]. I think one reason is because we beat their pals, the Soviet Union, to the Moon.
The Apollo was sort of a treason to the Lefties- a socialist program to beat their favorite Socialists.
A similar reason they *HATED* President Bush- a Republican who started a major war. To save an oppressed people! Unbearable! Unforgivable!

Obviously it was heartless for Bush to do that to the Lefties particularly when they were still in mourning over their sudden and terrible loss of the Soviet Union.

Comment by gbaikie — April 19, 2011 @ 5:47 pm

Heinrich,

I want to make sure that everyone here understands that I am not advocating species survival as the rationale for NASA’s current program. What Augustine and I agree on is that in terms of an “ultimate rationale” (whatever that means) for human spaceflight, species propagation and survival is a long-range goal.

I agree completely that we need a more immediate and tangible rationale. I attempted to do that in my previous post:

http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/2011/04/a-rationale-for-cislunar-space/

In brief, my argument is that extending human reach beyond LEO is desirable for the tangible benefits that routine access to all satellite assets provides. The Moon enables the creation of such a system by providing the refueling point needed to build an extensible, maintainable space transportation system. Such a system changes the spaceflight paradigm from one-off, throw-away assets to expandable, maintainable distributed systems. This is an appropriate task for a federal civil space program because our national security and economy benefit from it.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 19, 2011 @ 6:19 pm

gbaikie,

I spent a long time wondering why the hard Left disliked Space Exploration

I think there are two principal reasons. First, money spent on space doesn’t go to disadvantaged interest groups, and so it doesn’t serve their primary political constituencies. Second and even worse, the money that is spent goes to “unacceptable” recipients: the hated “military-industrial complex” of aerospace and high-technology companies. That money could be spent instead on various social welfare programs.

The old right and libertarians also hated human spaceflight on the grounds that it was “big government technocracy.” They favored a minimal amount of federal spending on technology — defense was more acceptable, but they thought Apollo was a PR stunt.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 19, 2011 @ 6:27 pm

Ron,

I would suspect that for the near term, such station mass is best launched from the Earth, mainly on the grounds that you don’t need much total mass in LEO to create a lot of habitable volume. My advocacy of lunar outposts and resource processing is tied to cislunar access, i.e., points in space beyond LEO.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 19, 2011 @ 6:30 pm

You shouldn’t assume that the point of “moving into the solar system” is just about survival. Even if we could be completely assured that humanity would survive on earth for a million years, we should still move out into the solar system now – because we can. The resources of the entire solar system dwarf those of our planet alone. I think John Marburger (former OST Director under Bush) said it best:

“As I see it, questions about the vision [VSE] boil down to whether we want to incorporate the solar system in our economic sphere, or not.”

Comment by Bill Hensley — April 19, 2011 @ 7:03 pm

Well, for a conversation that started off about whether or not there was any future at all for Human Space Flight on a Website basically advocating the near term use of lunar resources to begin the development of an expansion into (at least) Cislunar Space this has certainly gone far afield.

Too many different post to address them all, but I will pick one (and Nelson I am not picking on you, it’s just that your posts are – to me at least – the most interesting).

Comment by Nelson Bridwell — April 19, 2011 @ 2:06 pm “Even with the most aggressive colinization efforts using ISRU, for any space colony to be able to survive and prevail, independent of Earth, would take centuries of development.”
Comment by Nelson Bridwell — April 19, 2011 @ 2:29 pm “The other argument that he did not mention, which is highly-speculative, is that, according to some, our understanding of the functioning of the human brain will advance enough over the next few decades that we will be able to create synthetic minds in software that are as capable as, and possibly much faster and more knowledgable than, the human brain.”

So you think long term human habitation of space may take “centuries”, but developing sentient machine intelligences that can exceed human intellectual capacity and physical dexterity can be achieved “over the next few decades”. Hypothetically (only) granting these assumptions would not these same AI’s be able to replace us here on Earth as well? Also, why would “Skynet” (forgive the Terminator Movie reference) care to have anything to do with us “Meatbags” in space or on Earth? Why would they keep us around?

This is all very far out speculation, but it is where this kind of talk inevitably leads.

Comment by Joe — April 19, 2011 @ 7:38 pm

“The bottom line is that our nation has not yet come up with a really compelling reason for human space flight.”

One could argue that at the present your nation doesn’t have compelling reason for Human spaceflight. But it *did* have a compelling reason for human space flight, namely it wanted to beat the Soviets by have the first man on the Moon. It wasn’t about the first robot on the Moon.

And Clinton redirected ISS to be about international relations- and you sort of need humans involved if you talking about relations. You could do it with a bunch tele-operated robots from various nations- but sort of lacks “the significant”.

Comment by gbaikie — April 19, 2011 @ 9:23 pm

I appreciate the distinction between a long-term goal (species survival), and something in the shorter term. But while “routine access to all satellite assets” is a good thing for the short term, it isn’t clearly a rationale for human space flight. Especially because the time delays from Earth orbit to the surface of the Earth are so short, what we need to do with those satellite assets is largely what we can do from the ground. DARPA is making major investments in telerobotic servicing vehicles for exactly that purpose, and not in human space flight. But to ensure species survival, you simply have to send species!

That the Moon may provide a “refueling point needed to build an extensible, maintainable space transportation system” is a fine idea, but it skips around the reason for having that system. That’s where we first need that more immediate and tangible rationale.

I think it’s a proven fact that our economy and national security can benefit from a civil and military space program, though these in no way obviously require human space flight. Human space flight is a miniscule portion of our present investment in space.

It’s sleight-of-hand to make credible arguments for access to and control of space resources, and then tack human space flight on to those arguments. That, I think, is Lind’s point. Let’s send humans into space to do things that really require humans (and species protection sure seems at least to us to be one of them!) and not make artificial connections between human space flight and things that don’t. Lind’s challenge is for immediate and tangible rationale. We’re not meeting that challenge yet.

We should welcome discussion on this, as Congress has formally asked for in the last NASA Authorization bill, and not waste time making policy-thin and somewhat inane pronouncements about the motives of “lefties”.

Comment by Heinrich Monroe — April 19, 2011 @ 10:02 pm

Heinrich,

It’s sleight-of-hand to make credible arguments for access to and control of space resources, and then tack human space flight on to those arguments. That, I think, is Lind’s point.

Lind is all over the map. First he’s against humans in space because they are too expensive. Then he’s against it because we can do science with robots (even if true, irrelevant). Then he claims that because we sometimes have difficulty adapting to zero-g easily, “God didn’t intend us to be there” (that’s rich). There is no coherent thread of argumentation in Lind’s piece — he’s just against it.

what we need to do with those satellite assets is largely what we can do from the ground. DARPA is making major investments in telerobotic servicing vehicles for exactly that purpose, and not in human space flight.

The idea that you can do everything you would ever want to do in space with machines is popular primarily among those who have had no practical experience with such machines. I love robotic spaceflight and have worked in the field for most of my career, but I know that machines have limitations and cannot achieve all that we want to do in space. One of the things that the Shuttle-ISS program showed us was the practical value of having people on site to fix, build and maintain things. The Hubble telescope would never even have worked at all, let alone worked so well, had we not been able to get to it and then fix and service it.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 20, 2011 @ 2:55 am

“but they thought Apollo was a PR stunt.”

And it was a PR stunt.

And everyone knew it.
But there was also hope it would be a start, a first step.

First time heavier than air airplanes flew it was also a stunt.
And first flight flying across the Atlantic was intended solely as a PR stunt.
And they were first steps.

Does it matter whether a govt does a stunt as compared when private citizens do it?

Comment by gbaikie — April 20, 2011 @ 5:36 am

I guess my point was that they also had philosophical reasons for opposing human spaceflight, stunt or not. Anyway, Apollo was never intended to create lasting capability, regardless of what Von Braun dreamed about.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 20, 2011 @ 6:38 am

An interesting conversation.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 20, 2011 @ 2:55 am
“The idea that you can do everything you would ever want to do in space with machines is popular primarily among those who have had no practical experience with such machines.”

Yes, thank you.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 20, 2011 @ 6:38 am
“I guess my point was that they also had philosophical reasons for opposing human spaceflight, stunt or not. Anyway, Apollo was never intended to create lasting capability, regardless of what Von Braun dreamed about.”

Anytime you reach a successful political consensus the various factions consenting will have varying motives. I am not pretending to be an Historian but, Von Braun (and at least most of the engineers who worked on Apollo) did want to “create lasting capability”. The Kennedy Administration (and the Congress’s that supported it) saw Apollo as a way of demonstrating American technological superiority at a time when they considered that important. That produced a consensus (unfortunately a transitory one) that lasted only to the early Apollo landings.

Dr. Spudis will know far more about this than I do (he was, I think, directly involved in the whole VSE process). My understanding is that the original VSE concept (from the technical team) was very similar to what we have been discussing here, but by the time of President Bush’s presentation it had been significantly altered in to more of a “flags and foot prints” concept (with a few then confusing references to using the moon as a launching point). I have always assumed this was because the Presidents political advisors convinced him he could not talk about ISRU or some people would think he was crazy (and certainly his political opponents would try to paint him as such).

What about it Dr. Spudis, how close am I? And if I am close, what do you think can be done to get past that political “giggle factor”?

Comment by Joe — April 20, 2011 @ 9:58 am

We are currently witnessing a perfect storm of folks with wealth, technology literacy who were raised in the 60′s and 70′s and inspired by our US one-off to the moon. They have the means thanks to internet and real estate earnings, to implement their own manned space programs. I will bet that every one of them is disappointed that Kubrick’s 2001 never materialized with Pan Am Clippers to a giant spinning space station and lunar bases. I have no doubt that Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Robert Bigelow and others are going to do as they say and while government seed money is helpful, they have the business savvy and the desire to make it happen. The good news is that government will be one customer. Others will want resources extracted, scientific data and their stake in the vast unclaimed lunar and martian landscapes.

Comment by James T. Kaidy — April 20, 2011 @ 10:46 am

“Well, we’re about to test this particular storyline because human spaceflight is going to be suspended at NASA”

Wrong. The ISS will still be flying. American astronauts will still be in space. Moreover, the point you are making ( the budgetary one ) is wrong..because money is still being spent, hand over fist, on manned spaceflight. We will see a gap in domestic manned access to space, but money will still be spent, hand over fist, on manned spaceflight.

I am not against this spending, I think we should have a robust manned space program. However, trying to suggest that ‘the gap’ is in someway a golden opportunity for robotic spacecraft is just wrong. Indeed, the shrinking planetary science budget mentioned in this very article demonstrates that the opposite is true.

Comment by Doug Ellison — April 20, 2011 @ 11:52 am

I have accepted this fact. Life goes on. You’ll get over it in time as well.

You lost me when you zoomed out so far using fear and planetary ultimatums which is a common theme for all types of fear mongerers these days. People have become desensitized to fear mongering. Fear mongering doesn’t have the effect it used to when people believed they had value in their saved up money. The odds of getting hit by a huge meteor are greater than aliens openly visiting us and taking us to their planet to live. If you haven’t noticed, the wagons have been circled and we are in the midst of Custer’s Last Stand.

Everything will settle down after gold crashes and people start believing in a thing called paper money again. In the meantime, try golf or yoga.

Comment by Joe — April 20, 2011 @ 12:02 pm

>we must learn how to extract what we need in space from what we find there.

Uhmm… isn’t this an oxymoron? Considering one definition of space is area of blank, not to be factious but maybe it is this phrase “space exploration” that shoots us in the foot from the start.

Maybe stay with phrases like moon bases, mining asteriods, colonizing Mars, etc. What this illustrates for me is developing industrial means to accomplish this (Constellation, other proposed hardware and everything else is far too meager to do this things).

Comment by Michael Wright — April 20, 2011 @ 1:01 pm

Joe,

the original VSE concept (from the technical team) was very similar to what we have been discussing here, but by the time of President Bush’s presentation it had been significantly altered in to more of a “flags and foot prints” concept (with a few then confusing references to using the moon as a launching point). I have always assumed this was because the Presidents political advisors convinced him he could not talk about ISRU or some people would think he was crazy

It may be crazy, but if you read the original Presidential VSE speech here:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=13404

and then OSTP head John Marburger’s exegesis of the VSE two years later here:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19999

You will see that the transformation of the Vision from a sustainable, resource utilization-enabled lunar return to “Apollo on Steroids” was neither part of the original Vision nor was it intended as such by the administration. NASA is the one that never “got it.”

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 20, 2011 @ 1:08 pm

Amazed by the perception her that the “Left” does not embrace space exploration. Such perceptions of each come from both sides of the political aisle. criticism of conservative space policies usually founded on a lack of imagination of at least a failure to embrace alternatives. Which is only good to a point.

The future of Human space flight lies with ‘new commercial’ and the cost controls they are willing to implement. The ‘old commercial’ space companies will either adapt or fall by the wayside.

The current SLS being demanded by several well-fed congressman is not essential to America’s future achievement in space. In fact it detracts by pulling vast sums of money out of other projects we could be launching right now on the Delta or Atlas. I’d like to have a heavy lift (without SRBs) but this Congress has cheaper alternatives that will achieve more in the near term if space was their goal.

Congress, courtesy of Senator Shelby among others, has chosen to put NASA as a job provider on the ground for this entire decade with the Shelby-Lift heavy launch vehicle. Senator Shelby’s actions may well prove to have been the embracer of the end of human space flight.

Comment by Thomas S Rudder — April 20, 2011 @ 1:09 pm

Doug,

However, trying to suggest that ‘the gap’ is in someway a golden opportunity for robotic spacecraft is just wrong. Indeed, the shrinking planetary science budget mentioned in this very article demonstrates that the opposite is true.

I guess you missed the part where I was quoting another article. In fact, I cited this decline specifically to refute the “myth” alluded to.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 20, 2011 @ 1:10 pm

You lost me when you zoomed out so far using fear and planetary ultimatums which is a common theme for all types of fear mongerers these days.

How is citing potential rationales that many have advanced in print and elsewhere and then discussing them along with my own opinion “fear mongering”? If discussion of the topic offends, you are welcome to seek enlightenment elsewhere.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 20, 2011 @ 1:12 pm

Michael,

Considering one definition of space is area of blank, not to be factious but maybe it is this phrase “space exploration” that shoots us in the foot from the start.

“Space resources” is a commonly accepted and understood term in space circles. It refers to the material and energy resources available for exploitation in free space (solar power) and solid body surfaces (materials, including air and water).

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 20, 2011 @ 1:14 pm

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 20, 2011 @ 1:08 pm
“It may be crazy, but if you read the original Presidential VSE speech here:”

Thanks for the links, I had read Marburger’s comments before, but had accepted press accounts as to what Bush actually said. The speech is far more specific than what I had been (mis)lead to believe.

By the way I see someone else is posting here under the screen name “Joe” (Comment by Joe — April 20, 2011 @ 12:02 pm). Just to make sure we all understand each other, I have no idea who this other “Joe” is; but he is certainly not me.

Comment by Joe — April 20, 2011 @ 1:37 pm

The only compelling reason to push human spaceflight is that evil “profit” motive. I feel NASA should be an enabler to commercial activities and not the end all be all for human spaceflight.

For me, space is a place, not a program. I want NASA out of the transportation business, just like I do not want NASA designing, developing, having built at cost plus and operating trains, planes, ships, bicycles, helicopters etc etc etc etc.

NASA should be on the cutting edge, and for me that means developing and pushing into the commercial market fuel stations/depots and instead of worrying about “pop & drop” shots to LEO they should focus on nuclear powered, space based, reusable space craft.

Competition and the profit motive will do more for human spaceflight that any congressionally mandated “Senate Launch System”

The long pole in the tent that planet Earth has to finally tackle is ownership of non terrestrial objects in space. Until we develop this human spaceflight is pretty limited to those areas that ownership protocals have been established, like LEO and GEO. You can “own” a slot in GEO and the satellite industry refers to GEO as real estate. Luna is a 9 billion acre asset waiting to happen. If we can come to terms with ownership.

Comment by Vladislaw — April 20, 2011 @ 1:58 pm

I have a little nit in the article. To answer the question of whether robotic spaceflight (RSF) thrives or shinks when human spaceflight (HSF) programs are diminished, one has to prove causality, not just correllation. In today’s years of economic hardship, it’s no surprise that robotic spaceflight is expected to shrink (along with human spaceflight). It’s a natural consequence of a poor economy, where the government priority has become to reduce our national debt. This is a correllation, but does nothing to prove that RSF does not suffer from the demands of HSF costs. As you wrote, if government HSF does not stand up again in the next decade, we may have a chance to see how RSF fares, with a greater market share, in a prosperous economy. That said, let’s hope that we don’t see that experiment play out. I, for one, am happy to spend what we do (and more) to put humans into space, as long as the programs are well-managed. We absolutely need both RSF and HSF to extend our reach into space.

Comment by Paul T — April 20, 2011 @ 2:23 pm

Comment by Paul T — April 20, 2011 @ 2:23 pm

It is frustrating that I cannot find the article by Dr. James Van Allen that I referred to earlier, but I think the chart showing the track of HSF vs. Robotics funding clearly illustrates that their funding (up and down) tracked over a period of decades. What Dr. Spudis refers to is another example. Those are not parametric studies, but combined they are extensively anecdotal, and (as I once heard) the plural of anecdote is evidence.

Comment by Joe — April 20, 2011 @ 3:03 pm

If humans are to return to the moon and explore deep space I don’t see how commercial space can lead that effort. NASA or some other government entity (China perhaps) will have to pave the way. I cannot imagine a commercial company, Space Ex for example, going to the capital markets and asking to borrow money for a lunar or asteroid mission and actually getting the money. They would only get money if NASA had already proven the technical viability of exploiting the extraterrestrial resources. Commercial space could follow NASA to BEO just as they soon will to LEO. The fastest way to move out into the solar system is to give NASA a specific destination and fund it with whatever amount the new federal budget realities will allow. If it makes economic sense NASA could buy launches and equipment from commercial suppliers, but the mission will be NASA’s.

Comment by Roush — April 20, 2011 @ 3:08 pm

I agree with you that Lind’s thoughts about what God would have wanted are laughable. I mean, if God had wanted us to be having intelligent conversations on the internet, he/she would have given our brains wifi.

But I’ll say it again. He’s challenging us to come up with an explanation that we don’t yet have.

As to robotics, I’ll beg to differ. It’s not that clear that the ISS could not have been assembled telerobotically. Well, not two decades ago, but maybe now. C’mon. For the cost of all our human space flights? Your experience with space telerobotics has NEVER been exposed to the kind of monetary investment that has been lathered on human space flight. You have no clue what $5B/year could buy in telerobotics.

HST? Well, as of less than a decade ago, GSFC engineers had a borderline credible plan to do robotic servicing of that observatory. That was, by the way, an observatory that had never been designed for robotic servicing. So HST is a poor example you’re using to illustrate the importance of humans. In the tired human-versus-robot bashing, HST is always brought up in this way, for reasons that aren’t sensible.

Also, and this is key. Telerobotic capabilities are just going to get better and better. Terrestrial industry drives that development strongly. We can do now much better than we could ten years ago, and we can now do better than we ever dreamed we could forty years ago. This is a business with time measured in decades. Want to make some bets about where it’s going to go?

And please, I’m taking telerobotics, NOT autonomous robotics. For work in LEO and GEO, autonomy is, in principle, not very important, and terrestrial industry isn’t driving it very hard.

I really do believe that human spaceflight is defensible and, perhaps just in the long term, because expansion is in the interest of species survival and development. But I’m going to be hard to convince that human spaceflight is really a near term need, especially because we don’t have a good plan for doing it.

Comment by Heinrich Monroe — April 20, 2011 @ 5:30 pm

[Michael,

Considering one definition of space is area of blank, not to be factious but maybe it is this phrase “space exploration” that shoots us in the foot from the start.

“Space resources” is a commonly accepted and understood term in space circles. It refers to the material and energy resources available for exploitation in free space (solar power) and solid body surfaces (materials, including air and water).]

It seems to me that we do need better PR- dire need poets/artists. The term “space exploration” may be problematic. BUT vast emptiness is the nature of this universe- and this solar system. Or just CIs-Lunar space. Or even LEO. Space is big, really big.
And the emptiness [or vacuum] of space is sort like the emptiness of living as land creatures compared to living in the Ocean. The vacuum of space is the environment- and this environment has advantages/benefits- or loosely, it can thought as a resource.
One aspect of a vacuum is you can go fast, if Mach 2 is too slow, then space is the answer.

Modern air travel *could* be called space travel, one is flying airplanes in the stratosphere, which is an unbreathable vacuum. So as far a human or any animal is concerned their isn’t a lot difference between the Earth’s stratosphere and LEO or lunar surface.
People seem to forget this aspect of airline travel as compared to say fast trains- airline travel has a definite advantage.
There is an enormous difference between 40,000 ft and say 100,000′. If you want to go more than mach 3, you need to be higher than 40,000′. And there is enormous difference between 100,000′ and LEO. 100,000′ on Earth is the same as Mars on it’s surface- it’s 1/100th of earth’s sea level atmosphere.
No one is going to travel 55 mph on Mars- travel will be supersonic- it’s easier.

Comment by gbaikie — April 20, 2011 @ 5:52 pm

I think that a survival-of-the-human-species rationale in fact should be our primary motivation for HSF. First, I believe that risk from our own self-replicating/accelerating technology poses existential risks orders of magnitude greater than a humanity-destroying impact. Every day we get closer to an individual being able to accidentally destroy humanity with biotech, self-replicating chemical, nanotech, and seed AI. Although unthinkable, it is not implausible. I could show you articles on each one of these areas where researchers are inadvertantly trying to achieve this.

Secondly, a self-sufficient lunar polar colony isn’t as difficult as one might imagine. I largely accept the ability to produce rockets as an example of the level of technology needed for self-sufficient. But (am I wrong?) with 1/6 gravity and no atmosphere, couldn’t one make a rocket not requiring integrated circuits? And couldn’t celestial navigation be done with lower tech? Likewise, what else in a lunar colony needs chips?

Comment by JohnHunt — April 20, 2011 @ 6:08 pm

Joe (the first one),

Just to make sure we all understand each other, I have no idea who this other “Joe” is; but he is certainly not me.

Understood. I see people’s e-mails when they post so I knew it was a different Joe, but thanks for clarifying it for the casual readers here.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 20, 2011 @ 6:12 pm

Addendum: The Langly Lander is an example of a simple rocket which could probably be built by lunar colonists without the need for integrated circuits.

Comment by JohnHunt — April 20, 2011 @ 6:18 pm

In comment (21) from Dr. Spudis:
Apollo was never intended to create lasting capability
On this point I would disagree with you, Dr. Spudis, or at least suggest that your comment sweeps too broadly.

James Webb, in a interview conducted on May 15, 1969 (excerpts of which are in “Before This Decade is Out” edited by Swanson), stated

“What we had in mind was to try and build all the elements of a total space competence… The lunar project to us was little more than a realistic requirement for space competence… I always stated [in his congressional testimony] we were developing the full range of space capabilities and demonstrating them with the lunar landing.”

So, at least the guy who ran Apollo (a pure democratic technocrat if there ever was one) thought that Apollo was actually ALL about developing a lasting capability, not about a one-off PR stunt. That the shuttle & ISS programs are still using that capability/competence (KSC, JSC, etc) is (I think) a testament to that original vision.

Regarding the VSE’s original (obviously stated) purpose and NASA’s getting derailed from that purpose… I was wondering if you, Dr. Spudis, have any inkling as to how this happened since it occurred while Bush was still in the White House. Did the WH administration stop paying attention? How DID one person successfully pull off such a huge (and damaging) shell game?

Comment by Bob Mahoney — April 20, 2011 @ 6:38 pm

Bob,

In regard to Apollo, I have already said that many within the agency had great space dreams, but JFK and the Congress saw Apollo simply as a challenge to Soviet space dominance that had to be won. They supported it to that end, but when the lunar landing was accomplished, there was no need to continue it.

Many in NASA had grandiose dreams, but Saturn V was not a vehicle that lent itself well to mass production (each S-II second stage was almost literally hand made; see Angle of Attack: Harrison Storms and the Race to the Moon).

how this happened since it occurred while Bush was still in the White House. Did the WH administration stop paying attention? How DID one person successfully pull off such a huge (and damaging) shell game?

It wasn’t “one person” — it was many within the space agency. I started hearing briefings in Feb. 2004 (one month after Bush’s VSE speech) about how the Moon was merely a “touch-and-go” on the way to Mars. The analogy was that the Moon was Gemini to the Mars Apollo. That mindset — flags and footprints, PR stunts, and no permanence on the Moon (or anywhere else) — was integrated into NASA’s implementation of the VSE from the beginning. Some within NASA understood the real meaning of it and did their best to get it started on the right foot, but they were fighting a rear guard action.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 20, 2011 @ 6:50 pm

“This is a correllation, but does nothing to prove that RSF does not suffer from the demands of HSF costs.”

In a finite budget, higher costs of HSF, will certainly affect RSF.
But there is an obvious correlation, between manned and unmanned. There nothing particularly “interesting” about Mars as compared to other solar system destinations unless one includes the idea of manned exploration. Venus is thought by many not to be a possible manned destination.

Since after Apollo, the Moon has had very little RSF- only because many thought Mars was the next manned destination.

Now, the Moon is getting more RSF. Pre-Apollo, the Moon had more RSF than any other body in the solar system to date.

What is the most significant body is this solar system?
With any doubt it’s the Sun. Not only is it the largest body, it can have a huge direct effect upon Earthlings.
There some RSF regarding the Sun, not much compared to it’s importance and in relation to how much we don’t understand about the Sun.

In terms of accounting/budget it’s cheaper cut from RSF than from HSF. In terms of politics, there more voters involved with HSF.
But more importantly in terms of the size of entire NASA budget, HSF, is generally what congress want to spend any amount time discussing and arguing about- hence in their eyes the most important.
Politicians may appear hideously stupid, but they probably on average more aware of what their voters want than non-politicians.

Comment by gbaikie — April 20, 2011 @ 6:55 pm

“You lost me when you zoomed out so far using fear and planetary ultimatums which is a common theme for all types of fear mongerers these days.

How is citing potential rationales that many have advanced in print and elsewhere and then discussing them along with my own opinion “fear mongering”? If discussion of the topic offends, you are welcome to seek enlightenment elsewhere.”

Fear mongering? Tell the Japanese that. It may end up that their entire norther part of their island and the surround sea life will be uninhabitable and uneatable in the near future. Their population will have to occupy half the space they used to (south part of the island) or go elsewhere.

If you had brought up that scenario a few years ago in Japan they would have said it was “fear mongering.” But, it’s happening and things can happen to our entire planet that would require us to leave. Nice to have a way to leave if needed don’t you think?

Comment by Rocketman — April 20, 2011 @ 9:33 pm

While I disagree with Mr. Lind, I must point out that one of his arguments is quite valid. If you look at human spaceflight as a means to help assure mankind’s survival in the face of a extinction level event, then government sponsored spaceflight has been a dismal failure. In the fifty years of human spaceflight approximately 500 people have left Earth; even if all of that count could somehow be lofted and supported all at the same time it wouldn’t be enough. In the study of endangered species, the minimum viable population is generally considered to be around 4500 individuals. No plan placed before any of the world’s space agencies anticipates this number of astronauts within this century. So, by one very important long term social measure, the world’s current and proposed space exploration efforts fall completely flat on their faces.

Even the Joe Sixpack who considers NASA an acceptable diversion along with football and beer derives roughly the same personal experience from an astronaut floating around with a video camera and a planetary rover or orbiter. Sure, first of kinds make a big difference in the societal mindset, but beyond that ol’ Joe has zero prospect of himself traveling in space, so his sensory experience is limited to what he sees on the TV, newspapers and internet. A robotic probe can deliver his media experience just as good as an astronaut, and by the virtual of being far cheaper can deliver a more novel and varied experience far more often.

What we have been doing in human spaceflight is not working. If you want more people in space, then the government must stop doing it. You should work for the incentives that propel society as a whole into space, and that means turning over the majority of manned efforts over to private hands and then providing them the tools and incentives to explore space. Individuals will take risks that government won’t, and will find the paths that make large populations living space possible or die trying.

First thing that must happen is the World needs to recognize property rights on the Moon and planets. Only then can long term investment be considered. We already have slot rights for GEO orbits, and we’re practically building a ring of metal around the planet already. You know as well as I do the long term value of certain chunks of the Moon — well, if you set up a property system that forces short term investment in lunar colonies in order to lock up a property’s title and resources, you can then go to large investors to have them fund a Moon base. These sort of investments are indeed difficult for private industry to make yet they make them all the time. For example, about $500B dollars was spent last year in the exploration for oil — imagine what could be done if we could somehow harness even a sliver of that sort of energy and money.

That is only possible with property rights in space. Don’t be bitter about the state of human spaceflight. An internationally known and respect expert as yourself should take the long term view and be working at the world level to change the Treaty on Outer Space.

Comment by Jim Gagnon — April 21, 2011 @ 12:58 am

“that was a depressing way to start the day.

Wasn’t meant to be — I was commenting on the current “wave of doom” that I see being articulated in the space press and blogosphere.”

I wonder what would be a sign of real doom.
Or it’s opposite, some real hope?

Could tell by looking at NASA yearly budget?
Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget

In 2006 dollars: 1965 peaked at 33.5 billion, then dropped each year until 1975 it 11.1 billion, then slowly climbed to a peak of 19.6 billion in 1991, then declined and then rose but hasn’t quite yet reached the 1991 level.

If in the next few years it remains around 20 billion, would mean anything.
Or in same period it drops by say 5 billion, would that mean something?
I would hope the budget stays about the same or rises, but we are ending the Shuttle program- all things considered it seems it could drop by some amount.

And if it stay at around 20 billion, it could lose a few billion from at spike in inflation.

Adjusted for inflation does anyone imagine it could drop anywhere near the low levels of the Ford-Carter administrations, say within the next 10 years?
And if it did, would be actual sign of Doom?

Looking at yearly numbers, and fairly recently we had about 4 billion one year drops in 1988 and 1992- did they mean anything?
But in any case I don’t pay much attention to NASA budget announcements until after the summer.

Comment by gbaikie — April 21, 2011 @ 3:07 am

If you look at human spaceflight as a means to help assure mankind’s survival in the face of a extinction level event, then government sponsored spaceflight has been a dismal failure.

Depends on how you look at it. What the federal government space program has documented is that people can leave the Earth and survive the experience of space for documented lengths of time. That’s a long way from space settlements, but it is a necessary first step. The next necessary step is to learn how to use the material and energy resources that exist there. We haven’t done much in that regard yet, but that was to be the goal of lunar return. Now that’s been set aside indefinitely.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 21, 2011 @ 6:42 am

Unrelated, but…

I just found out that the Moon spends 1/3 of it’s orbit within Earth’s magnetosphere:
http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/WebImg/geomagField.jpg

What implications does this have for radiation exposure of astronauts on the lunar surface. If it is significant, then outdoor work schedules could be made to take this into account.

Comment by JohnHunt — April 21, 2011 @ 8:17 am

Ok, two things: embracing the end of HSF and the end of Lunar exploration.

I see no evidence of either of these things.

If HSF is the same thing as the shuttle program- ok I embraced that years ago.
Not many people are clinging to idea of continuing the Shuttle program, so it’s mostly a non issue.
Decades ago some people wanted a ShuttleII. It didn’t happened.
Maybe, some people still want a ShuttleII, but I don’t
think at this point there much rational behind making another ShuttleII.

The effort to make ShuttleII, was the X-33 program. It was a mistake and you can blame Al Gore.

The Shuttle is an experimental spacecraft, which was intended to become operational spacecraft.
It failed.
The selected X-33, may have become another experimental spacecraft, but other some possible marginal benefit it didn’t have much more chance to become an operational spacecraft.
[Lesson not learned.]

Main thing the people involved didn’t realize was that fundamentally the Shuttle was a failure.
One could say it had merits as experimental spacecraft.
And the Shuttle got into space, NASA could find many uses for it.
But it was sort of like an atomic aircraft- but instead ending the program in development, it would have been as though they tried to make the atomic airplane “operational” or pretend it was operational when it wasn’t.

So, a space agency could *perhaps* make a shuttle which could become operational, but apparently NASA could not do this.

Making a shuttle which was operational would have been a good thing for NASA to do.

But NASA going back and making Gemini type launch vehicle or a some smaller launch than the Saturn V- doesn’t make any sense.
What is the purpose of doing it?
The only purpose I can see would be that NASA would be trying to prove that it could a better launch company than what was in the private sector.
And that is dazzlingly stupid- it just indicates they have no clue what NASA’s job is.
So, Shuttle doesn’t equal HSF.
And btw, ISS is HSF.

Now, exploring the Moon.
I have no clue what NASA is doing regarding exploring the Moon. But they are “suppose to” have a crew land on the Moon by 2020.
So, NASA could start the Manned part, by say around 2015? Or even later?
But NASA should be doing robot mission to Moon- soon. Like, now or next year???
NASA focus regarding lunar exploration at this point, should be “robotic”.
But I see no indication that they are doing this.

But if NASA is focusing a lot attention on Shuttle “re-organizing” and doing ISS. I don’t have too much problem with this [If they did an good job at doing that, it would be excellent]. Unless “re-organizing” becomes a long term bad habit- which of course doesn’t fit definition of a good job.

Comment by gbaikie — April 21, 2011 @ 9:07 am

John,

The lunar surface is a hard radiation environment, so crew exposure will always have to be limited and monitored. However, the radiation hazard comes in two forms. Crews will have to take shelter under significant shielding mass during solar particle events (SPE), but we see those coming and there is time to take cover. The other exposure is to galactic cosmic rays (GCR), which hit the Moon constantly from all directions at low intensity. GCR isn’t really affected much by the Earth’s magnetosphere.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 21, 2011 @ 9:57 am

Depends on how you look at it. What the federal government space program has documented is that people can leave the Earth and survive the experience of space for documented lengths of time. That’s a long way from space settlements, but it is a necessary first step. The next necessary step is to learn how to use the material and energy resources that exist there. We haven’t done much in that regard yet, but that was to be the goal of lunar return. Now that’s been set aside indefinitely.

My point is that if we can get other forces in society to push for manned spaceflight, then if one player such as the government stumbles, then the effort continues. Right now the only ways we’ve found to exploit space is to do things that are impossible in space. Colonization is one of those things — whether it be for scientific, political, economic or religious reasons. It’s how mankind has expended its range in the past, and we must harness these forces if our efforts to reach out will ever have any meaningful breadth.

“40 acres on the Moon, you bring your own mule.” Without property rights, we’ll never have more than a handful of professionals in space, dependent upon the flawless execution of a large and troubled government organization.

Comment by Jim Gagnon — April 21, 2011 @ 10:19 am

I highly recommend a presentation by Launius, McCurdy & Matula, “Historical Analogies for Space Commercialization” (2005). The PowerPoint is here: spaceinvestmentsummit.com/lcr1/presentations/PPT-Launius.ppt

This presentation touches upon many of the themes in this discussion. My take-away from the presentation is that a mixture of government incentives (e.g. bonds, land, legal/regulatory framework) and private investment is the approach that has worked for the United States in the past, particularly where government derives a benefit from its incentives/participation (e.g. mail delivery, troop transport, income from commercial activity that funds development or preservation of a public resource).

Comment by Wayne White — April 21, 2011 @ 10:31 am

Paul, one of your more effective posts (and following discussions).

When we tell a story, there’s basically a beginning, middle, and end. If one is writing a “page turner”, one interlocks/forshadows in the middle/end the beginning/middle of the next. No matter the past stories, or the agendas of the right/left/whatever … they still don’t understand this.

With Apollo/NASA beginnings, over and over again there’s been this presumption that if we overcome a threshold of some level … then the rest will follow as a kind of logical conclusion (modus ponendo ponens). Then they spend everything on achieving the threshold, and … it goes nowhere. Which is unfortunately Apollo, Shuttle …

Some don’t even get that far.

This is the “unsustainable” that we don’t collectively get. It is frequently ignored by the otherwise intelligent because it is inconvenient.

It is because we cannot constrain any/all agendas to fit within these bounds to begin with. This is what the “end of human spaceflight” means right now – the restrictions on how we address this frontier. I don’t think its a bad thing that we must become more deliberate with what we do. And it is reasonable to fear that an ignorant culture surrounding might presume this to mean that HSF is too complex for its patience, checkbook, or envy to continue. For whatever political rationalizations employed.

Comment by nooneofconsequence — April 21, 2011 @ 5:09 pm

“The other exposure is to galactic cosmic rays (GCR), which hit the Moon constantly from all directions at low intensity. GCR isn’t really affected much by the Earth’s magnetosphere.”

Which is exactly why the lunar ice is the key to any real space program. The heavy nuclei component is 300 times more damaging to DNA than other types of radiation- though no one wants to say it, it is the showstopper for any long duration missions to other planets or moons. Because nothing will stop this type of radiation except mass and distance, moon water is the only practical source. I must have posted this 30 times in various places but no one wants to touch it. It just boggles the mind to consider a 500 ton 14 foot water shield as the minimum protection required. But if that’s what it is…..that’s what it is. It can be dealt with if we ever get past the denial phase. We just have to reconsider things like nuclear propulsion and Nova size rockets. Considering what we spend on cold war weapons and the threat from asteroid or comet impact- it is just a matter of doing it.

Comment by GaryChurch — April 21, 2011 @ 8:35 pm

“GCR isn’t really affected much by the Earth’s magnetosphere.”

I think that is wrong. There is a difference between being at ISS and lunar surface in regard to GCR.

“Galactic Cosmic Radiation: GCR comes from outside of the solar system. It is made of ionized atoms that travel very close to the speed of light and can produce intense ionization when they pass through matter. The magnetic field protects us from most cosmic radiation except over the north and south poles.”
http://www.aboutnuclear.org/faq.cgi?fC=Space

I don’t if that is good definition.
I would say, both our atmosphere and Earth’s magnetic field, reduces GCR.
Also being on a planetary body [or in orbit] blocks about half of it. GCR is a significant problem in regards to long travel times [such as to Mars].

Hydrogen [or compounds such a water] are the best material to reduce radiation affect from GCR- steel plate or lead plate {etc] can significantly increase the radiation affect from GCR. This because GCR can pass right thru a human body without any affect, but if they hit something like metal they will create secondary radiation which is more harmful to the human body.
GCR is passing thru your body at this moment- the issue is how much and how long.
Here another ref [hope link works:)

http://books.google.com/books?id=CzOCvY7AWwMC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=Space+GCR+%2B+secondary+radiation&source=bl&ots=KWwh41soe_&sig=nlLmSqn4vd5g1cjBUKTzl71PGiQ&hl=en&ei=3dOwTYHMO4e8sQOThKzpCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA

Bottom line- I don’t think we know enough about GCR

Comment by gbaikie — April 21, 2011 @ 9:15 pm

I think that is wrong. There is a difference between being at ISS and lunar surface in regard to GCR.

At lunar distances (60 Earth radii), there is little difference in the GCR flux whether you are in or out of the geotail. ISS orbits beneath the Van Allen Belts, so LEO is a radiation benign environment. Even so, high energy cosmic rays are largely unaffected by the Earths magnetic field.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 21, 2011 @ 10:54 pm

“At lunar distances (60 Earth radii), there is little difference in the GCR flux whether you are in or out of the geotail”

Oh, right, my bad.
If anything the geotail would add radiation [Not GCR, though].
Hmm, if there is a solar flare, with Earth between the Moon and the Sun- would reduce the affect of flare on the Moon, or possibly intensify it?

Comment by gbaikie — April 22, 2011 @ 1:36 am

Oh no, human spaceflight is ending..

well, US human spaceflight..

well, US human spaceflight on US vehicles..

well, US human spaceflight on US owned vehicles..

well, US human spaceflight on US government owned vehicles.

oh, I guess human spaceflight isn’t ending.

Comment by Trent Waddington — April 22, 2011 @ 7:24 am

The Lind article concentrates mostly on the long-term evolutionary and survival aspects of space colonization, whereas most of the current opposition to manned space flight seems to revolve around NASA’s spectacular lack of accomplishment with manned spaceflight since the can-do, glory years of Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo. When asked to list NASA’s accomplishments with manned spaceflight in the last 30 years I mention the Hubble servicing flights, then quickly draw a blank. The history of manned spaceflight post Apollo is mostly a long and dismal litany of missed opportunities.

True, NASA has built a space station, but I frankly cannot point to a single accomplishment that has resulted from it. NASA justified the space station as “the next logical step”, conveniently ignoring the fact that in order to take the “next” logical step one must previously have taken the “first” logical step which was, and remains, to develop a practical, low cost launch vehicle to deploy and service it, which the Shuttle emphatically is not. NASA has recently finished the station to the point where it can house a full crew, which will allow more research to be conducted there, rather than spending such a high percentage of crew time simply maintaining the facility. I still have hopes that ISS will eventually turn out to have been worthwhile.

The Hubble servicing flights, on the other hand, rather spectacularly demonstrated the value of humans in space. I am frankly amazed at what the astronauts were able to accomplish, especially on the last flight I am an automatic control systems engineer with 35 years experience in aerospace, but the thought of developing robots to do what those astronauts did is the stuff of nightmares. I would not be at all surprised if it would have cost more to develop all the robotics that would have been required, and launch them on one or more expendable launchers, than the Shuttle flight cost, even if it’s possible for robots to do all of that.

Robots do a perfectly adequate job of measuring particles and fields and taking photographs from orbit by remote control, but lunar and planetary exploration is much more than that. The Apollo expeditions returned orders-of-magnitude more science from the Moon than all of the unmanned landers put together, and I think that one could make a good case that the Apollo Program was more cost effective than it’s unmanned predecessors.

Spirit and Opportunity are wonderful little machines, but a manned expedition to Mars could have accomplished as much exploration in a couple of weeks as the rovers have accomplished in all of the years that they have been there, and returned actual samples as well. The fact is that robots do not do “science”, they collect data. The “science” is done by scientists back on Earth who analyze the data and try to figure out what it means. A manned expedition can return far more, and higher quality data than any robot.

Comment by Dick Morris — April 22, 2011 @ 8:24 pm

“Which is exactly why the lunar ice is the key to any real space program.”

It doesn’t matter where the ice comes from, if we have to carry 500 tons of it to Mars, brake it into Mars orbit, then accelerate it back onto an Earth-return trajectory, it simply will not happen. Ever. And if we cannot allow astronauts to absorb even one cosmic ray particle going to or coming back from Mars, then we certainly cannot allow them to walk about on the surface in a space suit, or ride around in a pressurized rover for that matter, for a year and a half.

Comment by Dick Morris — April 22, 2011 @ 8:43 pm

“Robots do a perfectly adequate job of measuring particles and fields and taking photographs from orbit by remote control, but lunar and planetary exploration is much more than that. The Apollo expeditions returned orders-of-magnitude more science from the Moon than all of the unmanned landers put together, and I think that one could make a good case that the Apollo Program was more cost effective than it’s unmanned predecessors.”

With all due respect to human spaceflight. This is nonsense.

Apollo was vastly — VASTLY more expensive than any robotic explorer ever sent to the Moon. It’s just not fair to compare the two. Our astronauts on the Moon set up equipment, they collected rocks, and looked around. You mean to tell me that, telerobotically (and especially with the funding that human spaceflight gets) we can’t now do exactly what they did on the Moon? The business of robots not “doing science” is correct. But Apollo astronauts did (apologies to Harrison Schmidt) virtually no science either.

Yes, lunar and planetary “exploration” is more than science, and to the extent that sending people to other worlds constitutes a kind of exploration that is useful to a nation then by all means do it. But especially with the relatively modest light-time delays between the Earth and Moon, don’t tell me what we’re incapable of doing there telerobotically.

Comment by Heinrich Monroe — April 23, 2011 @ 11:58 am

I hope this is not considered off topic, but Congressman Posey of Florida has proposed H.R.1641 — REAL Space Act (Introduced in House – IH) which among other things states:

“In accordance with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005, which established as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s priority goal: `To develop a sustained human presence on the Moon . . . to promote exploration, commerce, science, and United States preeminence in space as a stepping stone for the future exploration of Mars and other destinations.’, and in accordance with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2008, which endorsed `the broad goals of the space exploration policy of the United States, including the eventual return to and exploration of the Moon and other destinations in the solar system and the important national imperative of independent access to space’, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall plan to return to the Moon by 2022 and develop a sustained human presence on the Moon, in order to promote exploration, commerce, science, and United States preeminence in space as a stepping stone for the future exploration of Mars and other destinations. The budget requests and expenditures of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall be consistent with achieving this goal.”

Comments.

Link

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1641:

Comment by Joe — April 23, 2011 @ 3:58 pm

“This because GCR can pass right thru a human body without any affect,”

This and a couple other comments shows how little the public knows about GCR and how much in denial space enthusiasts are. It really messes up the private space fantasy of hobby rockets to Mars and homesteading the new west. The sarcasm of one ray hitting an astronaut is not appreciated. The surface of the moon and mars can be explored by humans but it has to be realized that the explorer will build up a lifetime dose eventually and will be courting a certain very early death from cancer and also experience cognitive deficits from brain damage. Explorers will have to choose their excursions wisely- they will only get so much time on the surface of bodies with no natural shield. I do not know what the radiation environment of titan is but it might not be too bad because of the dense atmosphere. If these under ice oceans exist on one or more moons- or ceres, then there will be unlimited underwater exploration. And on ice bodies all it takes is heat to carve out tunnels at a steady rate till in a few years a new environment can be created. So that leaves the two favorite places, the moon and mars, difficult to colonize because of the need to build underground.

There are a couple completely valid reasons to go into space. Humans can travel in deep space and colonize the solar system but it will require far more resources than private space is advocating. Starting with a lunar water base.

Comment by GaryChurch — April 23, 2011 @ 4:04 pm

“The CO — a gas that is poisonous to humans — was detected using the 15-meter James Clerk Maxwell Telescope in Hawaii, extending the height of Pluto’s known atmosphere from around 100 kilometers (62 miles) thick to over 3,000 kilometers (1,860 miles) thick.”

And what do ya know? I went to the news and there is this article! I wonder how much that 1860 miles of very thin carbon monoxide blocks GCR? Space is full of surprises. Who would have thought such a small body might offer protection on it’s surface from radiation? Maybe.

Comment by GaryChurch — April 23, 2011 @ 4:25 pm

Heinrich,

Our astronauts on the Moon set up equipment, they collected rocks, and looked around. You mean to tell me that, telerobotically (and especially with the funding that human spaceflight gets) we can’t now do exactly what they did on the Moon? The business of robots not “doing science” is correct. But Apollo astronauts did (apologies to Harrison Schmidt) virtually no science either.

With all due respect, you do not know what you are talking about. Field geology is more than picking up rocks. Yes, you can make a robot pick up a rock. You can direct it to pick up a specific rock. But geologists in the field do much more than that. The goal of field geology is to understand context, process and history. To do so, one must examine field relations of samples to understand their context. In the field, we mentally create a four-dimensional (4th=time) mental model of the structure of the field site geology. This model undergoes simultaneous testing, revision, and extension constantly as the field exploration proceeds.

It is incorrect to say that the Apollo crews just “collected rocks and looked around.” All of the Apollo astronauts were extensively trained in geology and field observation. Field work entails not only observation and sampling, but mentally reconstructing the geological setting of the sample. I can cite many examples of where this was critical on all of the Apollo flights, including even the first one (Apollo 11), but I’ll save time and space by naming two. On the Apollo 15 mission in 1972, Dave Scott and Jim Irwin recognized in-place bedrock at the edge of Hadley Rille and specifically directed their efforts toward sampling the best outcrop they could find. Because of this effort, we know which basalts are the surface ones at Apollo 15 and can correlate basalts collected elsewhere at the site to reconstruct the local stratigraphy. Similarly, on the Apollo 17 mission, the astronauts had to recognize, document, trench and collect samples of the orange soil, a deposit of volcanic glass erupted from hundreds of kilometers deep within the Moon 3.7 billion years ago. Because Jack Schmitt knew the critical importance of understanding the context of these samples, he knew exactly how to allocate his time and efforts to maximize the science return. He not only recognized the orange glass, but saw that it was intimately related to the accompanying black glass and that both deposits were found in the ejecta from Shorty crater. In these cases, it is entirely problematical that the field relations recognized and acted upon by the astronauts would have been similarly recognized by a robotic rover. My evidence for this claim is that no similar relations for martian stratigraphic units have been recognized to date by the MER rovers, as productive as they have been.

The “cost” of Apollo was largely in establishing the capability to go to the Moon, not conduct geological exploration. But once we had that capability, the people who went to the Moon did a superb job in maximizing the scientific return from field geological exploration. Robots can do a lot and I have great expectations for future telerobotic exploration, but in my opinion, people will never be replaced by machines.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 23, 2011 @ 5:43 pm

When I said the Apollo astronauts collected rocks, I was saying exactly what you’re saying. I didn’t mean they collected random rocks. They collected rocks in the context of what they saw, and on the basis of their training. My point simply is that with a well financed and capable rover, with cameras that we already have that are vastly better in resolution and spectral response than the human eye, highly trained scientists on Earth probably could have collected the same rocks on the Moon, especially in the two weeks that these rovers would be operating. It’s not that hard to then take the best of those samples and return them to Earth for further analysis.

By “doing science”, I meant doing quantitative analysis and in situ interpretation of these samples. The Apollo astronauts did none of that, largely because they didn’t have the necessary equipment nor the time.

I’m certainly not being critical of what the Apollo astronauts accomplished, but just that in the case of the Moon, with a relatively modest time delay to the Earth, I’m guessing that for science, people WILL eventually be replaced by machines for most work.

Really, there is some naivité in branding them “machines”. What they are really are sensory extensions of scientists back on Earth. It’s not about astronauts-versus-machines. It’s about scientist-astronauts in heavy space suits versus scientists in shirt sleeves 1.2 light seconds away. The word “robot” has unfortunate connotations of autonomy that are out of place here. Those shirt sleeved scientists, properly equipped, will have no trouble developing four dimensional mental models that are as good as what in situ scientists could get. The fault in your reasoning is that you’re comparing field geologists with terrestrial telerobots that we simply don’t use. Why don’t we use them? Well, because on the Earth, field geologists are really really cheap.

Comment by Heinrich Monroe — April 23, 2011 @ 8:29 pm

“Yes, lunar and planetary “exploration” is more than science, and to the extent that sending people to other worlds constitutes a kind of exploration that is useful to a nation then by all means do it. But especially with the relatively modest light-time delays between the Earth and Moon, don’t tell me what we’re incapable of doing there telerobotically.”

I think you could thoroughly explore the moon with tele-operated robots.
But I think if you exclude any manned aspect of this lunar exploration, you could get two things: higher total costs and/or a tendency not to thoroughly explore the moon.

So whether you use robots or humans and robots depends upon how you defining the exploration mission.

The main reason I think NASA should explore the Moon, is to determine, not, if the is lunar water, but if is there minable lunar water.
In other words if NASA can provide the answer of whether or not there is minable lunar water- then as far as I’m concerned NASA will completed it’s lunar mission.
But I think other people might be interested in other stuff in addition to whether or not there is minable lunar water. There lunar science in general, there could be other resource on the Moon which could minable, etc. All these kinds of things have to be assessed.

Another different aspect of Lunar exploration, is preparing for other destination other than the Moon- one problem with this is one can sort of get carried away with too many things- “all things connected to Mars exploration, and/or NEO exploration”. In other words we shouldn’t going the Moon SOLELY as test bed for Manned Mars, but getting ready for Manned Mars should part of it.

So as far as Tele-operation goes, could we mine lunar water commercially with no humans on the Moon?

One aspect of mining lunar water is you going to make it cheaper to get to the Moon and to get off the Moon.
One advantage of robots is they don’t have to come back to Earth. So if you make it cheaper to leave the Moon, you making it cheaper to involve humans.

Would it make economical sense, for a company to use only robots, until they mined 10 or 20 tons of water before any human are send? Perhaps.
Could it be hundreds or thousands of tons of rocket made before any humans showed up. Also possible.
But on earth nobody does this. They use tele-operated systems, but they don’t the whole operation with robots.

And if you thought this was possible, could you test this on earth? Drive a truck somewhere [you can use a human for this], then have robots leave truck and do tasks similar to lunar operation. Let’s say the similar task is extracting oil from sand/shale. And drive the truck to known oil deposit.
The designers and operators can be shown pictures and video of area before the mission.
Would they be successful it no humans were allowed in the area. How many trucks of robots do you need?

Comment by gbaikie — April 23, 2011 @ 10:06 pm

Heinrich,

By “doing science”, I meant doing quantitative analysis and in situ interpretation of these samples. The Apollo astronauts did none of that, largely because they didn’t have the necessary equipment nor the time.

Field mapping and study is science, one that is done in real time in the field. It is not sample analysis or computer modeling or “quantitative analysis”, but the reconstruction of process and history using the studied environment. My point previously was that the Apollo astronauts did “do science” and did it quite well, given the limitations of the system they dealt with. The idea that teleoperated machines will be able to replace people as field geologists is a statement of faith, not fact. I have participated in field tests on this problem and I know that the two experiences are quite different; this is not merely a question of the fidelity of the remote experience, but points to the existence of missing pieces of perception in real presence that we have not yet detected or measured.

That said, it is certainly true that many simple, repetitive manual labor tasks can be done efficiently by teleoperation. I have advocated exactly this in regard to setting up a lunar outpost and beginning to harvest and process lunar water:

http://www.spudislunarresources.com/Papers/Affordable_Lunar_Base.pdf

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 24, 2011 @ 5:52 am

To do or not to do Human Space Flight?

Most people generally think anything regarding space is all about NASA. And the Michael Lind piece seems hold this idea, so the actual question for these people is, should or should not NASA be involved in Human Space Flight.

Of course ISS is human space flight, so if we were decide that NASA shouldn’t do Human Spaceflight, does that then mean NASA should end ISS program?
Btw, one of major mission of ISS is to study the biological problems involved with Human Space flight, and after years of building up the station, the ISS program has just begun to focus more on this issue [because they have built up the capacity of the station so that it now allows this].
If NASA were to end it’s involvement with ISS, it possible the Russians could continue with ISS, it also possible the Russians would abandon ISS. And/or since the European space agency is developing a manned capsule they take over a larger share operating ISS. Or perhaps China could also become involved.

Or if NASA should continue to be involved with Human Space flight, it do so only until around 2015- when ending ISS is currently planned.

[Perhaps instead of NASA ending all human space flight, it could end just all human flight beyond LEO [or not start it:).]

If we exclude all NASA human spaceflight, what is the rationale for NASA. Why do we use tax funds to support this government agency. NASA currently research development for airplanes, that assists American airline business, could NASA just mainly do this?
Do need agency that sends landers and orbiters to various planets? If so why? Why should all American be forced to pay for this.
Or if NASA should do this, how long should to it for. Do we what explore all planet in system, all the rocks, too?

Perhaps, the idea is that NASA shouldn’t use humans, but be trying to open markets and open the space frontier.
Same goals as we have now, but do it exclusively with robots?
If so, and if one going to do tele-operated robots [at least until such time as we have AI- or have faster than light communication], then we going to be mostly limited to the Moon.

So, now let’s look at why shouldn’t have humans traveling beyond LEO. What is the reason for prohibiting it?

There could number of reasons, but main reason seems to be the claim that human space travel costs more than using robots.
For example, when Geostationary satellites were first envisioned, it was thought that they would need to be manned. This turned out to be not needed, and today we hundreds of satellites in GEO, and none have human crew.
These satellites costs hundreds of millions to build and general stay operational for 10 to 15 years, and then moved into graveyard orbits- and eventually we going to a lot discarded satellites up there.
There a number of reasons why people once thought Geostationary satellites would need to be manned.
Once upon a time TVs needed to be repair- they had bulbs instead semi-conductor. I guess some people might still repair a broken TV, but mostly they are thrown away- it’s cheaper to buy a new one and TVs are always getting better. Same with computers, and same with satellites. Another thing is satellite are generally like ground relay stations- and these type of stations on earth are also more or less “unmanned”.
So these satellites cost hundreds of millions to build, and the rocket take them to orbit are a fraction of their costs.
The various Orbiter and landers send to planets also cost hundreds of millions of dollars build and the rockets that get them there a fraction of this cost.
Mars Opportunity rover: Mass 185 kg (408 lb) (Rover only)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_rover
Both cost about 1 billion for entire program [two landers]- so price per rover I would guess about 200 million each- their launch about 100 million [I couldn't find exact costs].

Now if you were to have lunar exploration program that costs in total say 100 million- probably far less than 10% of the total cost will due to launch costs.
Or 10 billion dollars will get a lot tonnage to lunar surface- hundreds of tons of payload.
If had robots like the Opportunity rover the costs of the robot could easily cost more then cost to launch them to the Moon- whereas same mass in human and their life support is far less per ton shipped to the Moon- but human unlike a robot has to be returned to earth.
With humans involved most of tonnage shipped to the Moon will rocket fuel to to get the human back to earth.
But tonnage shipped to the Moon isn’t a major cost of entire mission. For instance how many years the program takes would be a larger factor in total costs.
The shuttle program cost billions a year even if the shuttle stays grounded, launching it isn’t the major cost of the program- same would apply to lunar program- delays in program can be costly.
So, roughly speaking if your lunar program was 10 years with robots, or 5 years with humans- the human mission would probably be cheaper.
So if the only reason you against human space flight was costs, you not really addressing the issue- a program which takes the least time and gets all you need done, will cost less.

Comment by gbaikie — April 24, 2011 @ 9:26 am

Spudis > …the radiation hazard comes in two forms… (SPE)… (GCR)

What about the continuous flow of protons from the sun? Does that account for a significant percentage of the cumulative radiation exposure to astronauts?

The specific question I have is how much total surface time could a life-long lunar colonist have if they were taking reasonable precautions such as being indoors during an SPE? Let’s say that the dose limit would be that already set for career astronauts.

Comment by JohnHunt — April 24, 2011 @ 12:02 pm

I think we can agree to disagree about exactly what constitutes doing science. Your points are good ones. I would go farther than you, however, in suggesting that such telerobots will be merely capable of repetitive manual labor tasks. With “vision” far better than a local astronaut would have, and time-on-station far exceeding that of an astronaut doing EVA, a scientist running a telerobot will do some marvelous, and very non-repetitive things. Modern industrial and military terrestrial telerobotics certainly go far beyond what I would call repetitive manual labor.

And yes, I am very impressed with the strategy that you and Tony Lavoie came up with to telerobotically set up a lunar outpost for future human habitation. It is an article of faith, though not a far reaching one, as you and Tony concluded, that such telerobotic efforts will prove to be of very high value.

Comment by Heinrich Monroe — April 24, 2011 @ 3:37 pm

JohnHunt,

What about the continuous flow of protons from the sun? Does that account for a significant percentage of the cumulative radiation exposure to astronauts?

Solar wind protons are continuous, with high flux on the sunlit portion of the Moon, but they have very low total energy (~1-3 keV). Solar flares (SPE) are much more energetic (1-100 MeV) with very high fluxes, but much rarer and large SPE correspond to solar maxima and hence, are relatively predictable. The constant GCR are extremely high energy (1->10 GeV), but also extremely low flux. So dangerous radiation is (in order), SPE, GCR, and solar wind, the last being of negligible radiation hazard. Crews will have to take cover during an SPE under significant mass shielding, but GCR will be negligible in buried habitats, leaving only the question of total integrated lifetime exposure to crews on the lunar surface; this should be no greater than for crews in deep space above the van Allen belts.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 24, 2011 @ 4:40 pm

“costs in total say 100 million”
I meant 100 billion.

Well, I’m at it. Let’s look at costs of delivering something to lunar surface.
If NASA were to buy a lot of rockets to deliver stuff to the lunar surface, it could expect to pay less per launch.
It could cheaper than what SpaceX is saying it will charge per launch. And it wouldn’t need to be SpaceX, it could Delta-IV, Altas V, Ariane V, Proton, or a launch company that doesn’t even exist at this moment- the prospect of having a launch contract from NASA could be all “business plan” it needs- could pay all the costs to develop the rocket and build them.
100 million should be able to buy 5000 lb to lunar surface-
$20,000 per lb. It could be cheaper- it could be half this price, and/or no doubt NASA could pay twice this amount.

The cost to put couple humans on lunar and to have them live for couple weeks is about 100 million. Returning them safely to earth cost another 100 million. Give the crew a rover some other useful gear and that tacks on about 50 million. This is marginal costs, per crew 50 million one way, 100 million round trip ticket. This doesn’t include all the other costs- which could easily be 1 billion or more per year.
You could probably send a Bobcat to the Moon for about 100 million- the Bobcat company might even pay you to use their
vehicle- great PR moment for them, and very cheap. Leave the details of how their vehicle would function on the moon- to them. They don’t want their bobcat failing- bad PR. A lot of the stuff send to the moon could be free, other than the cost shipping it [20,000 per lb]. But even if it’s designed and made by NASA these things can quite cheap- all the Apollo rovers cost less than 50 million in total costs.
The high cost of GEO satellites or Mars rovers is mostly due to there not being any possible human there to fix it- a “helpful” human kick, could make it easier.
There a difference between having a tele operated bobcat without humans being around and if there are humans within shouting distance. This difference could on the order of about 1/2 the cost of the robot

Comment by gbaikie — April 24, 2011 @ 7:07 pm

Paul,
Your comment “The argument for this motivation is simple – some day, some how, a global-scale catastrophe will make the surface of the Earth uninhabitable, possibly for hundreds of years” makes the process sound much too easy. To survive on the Moon for a hundred years without anything from Earth would require an enormously large and complex technological capability on the Moon. What if a critical component fails (and in 100 years many will), how does one replace it? How does one keep the return rocket to Earth functional? Should abundant spares of everything be taken to the Moon, or does one build the capability of making things needed on the Moon? How much effort would be required to construct the infastructure on the Moon to manufacture ANYTHING that might be needed to survive for 100 years ansd return to Earth? Might this lunar solution be more difficult and more expensive than developing the capability here on Earth for some humans to survive a catastrophy for 100 years. After all, even after the KT asteroid strike that killed so many species on Earth, the environment was still far more benign for life support than the lunar environment.
I conclude that this argument, which others have also made, is not sound.

Comment by Donald — April 24, 2011 @ 10:27 pm

OK, so by my calculations, if a lunar colonist would spend an average of 2 hrs each day outdoors on the lunar surface, during a total of 75 years living on the Moon, they would receive 300 rem which is approximately the total max recommended for a career astronaut. This presumes an average Apollo day which didn’t include solar flares (600 rem). So the colonists would certainly need to be underground at those times. My feeling is that an average of 2 hrs/day should be sufficient to drive around, taking care of special maintenance needs. Other work such as underground mining & processing, growing food, sleep, & recreation would be done indoors (i.e. underground). Also, astronauts could initially spend 8 hrs a day above ground for 5.6 years if they then came out for an average of only one hour per day from then on. So, for me, GCR is very manageable for colonists.

Math:
Between 100 – 400 rem total allowed for career astronauts. Let’s say 300 rem.

Approx avg rem exposure for Apollo astronauts = 2 rem = 6 days full exposure & 3 days of 1/2 exposure. So 2 rem / 7.5 = 0.267 rem for full exposure. So 0.133 rem/day for lunar surface.

(X hrs (ourdoors) / 24 hrs total) x 0.133 rem/day x 365 days/yr x 75 yrs (birth to avg death) = 300 rem total. X = 1.977 = 2 hrs/day.

Comment by JohnHunt — April 24, 2011 @ 11:24 pm

I’d like to comment to some of you who think we can mine water on the Moon in a sustained manner completely without humans, even if the robots are teleoperated. In our architecture, a completely robotic base for mining lunar water is still a bridge too far. The extreme temperature variation between the shadowed regions and the sunlit areas, the nature of the regolith fines, the technology challenges and new TRL systems that we would employ, the potential difficult and slopy terrain, and the harsh radiation environment are too challenging to overcome without expected maintenance and repair. I would expect the same thing in any mining operation here on Earth in that the humans maintain the systems that do the work. We are hoping we can get enough robotic lifetime to jump start the water production just enough. That is, sufficient to bring humans there to maintain the systems and perform general maintenance and repair, in addition to the host of concurrent activities and objectives appropriate for humans once they are there. Even so, we think in modular terms for our robotic architecture, not relying upon single units for an entire functionality to partially compensate for possible problems when there is no local human support.

While it would be nice to assume that we have long-lived, multi-function robots that can live through such a harsh environment without difficulty for long periods of time, that is not proven out. The mechanism task difficulty that we need is, i would say, greater than an order of magnitude more difficult than anything we have done on a solid body (other than earth) thus far.

We envision an architecture that takes best advantage of the skill sets and benefits of both humans and robots. You can’t do nearly as much with either one or the other.

Comment by Tony Lavoie — April 25, 2011 @ 12:25 am

Don,

You misunderstand this argument. I do not advocate preparing a sanctuary for humanity on the Moon. I am saying the the skills that a space-dwelling and space faring people must learn and develop include extracting what is needed from the material and energy resources that we find in space. I am further saying that we can begin to learn those skills on the Moon and in fact, this was the intention of the original Vision for Space Exploration. NASA never understood this mission, despite that fact that it was explicitly articulated in the VSE’s founding documents and statement.

The near-term objective of establishing a lunar resource-processing outpost on the Moon is to create a refueling and logistics depot for cislunar space. I contend that by creating a system that enables routine access to the lunar surface, we create routine access to al of cislunar space, where virtually all of our satellite and space assets reside. This permits us to use people and machines to create much larger and more capable space systems than would be possible under the existing paradigm.

I lay out this rationale here:

http://www.spudislunarresources.com/Rationale.htm

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 25, 2011 @ 3:51 am

We are hoping we can get enough robotic lifetime to jump start the water production just enough. That is, sufficient to bring humans there to maintain the systems and perform general maintenance and repair, in addition to the host of concurrent activities and objectives appropriate for humans once they are there.

You know, under the ULA Lunar architecture, over 10 mt of residual propellant (LH2/LO2) would be delivered with each crewed lander and be available for consumption (well over 2000 gallons). On their view, ISRU water need not be placed on the critical path for human landings….

Comment by Warren Platts — April 25, 2011 @ 8:55 am

Warren,

On their view, ISRU water need not be placed on the critical path for human landings….

Their mission goal is to land crews on the Moon for brief periods and return them to Earth. Our mission goal is to establish a permanent robotic/human presence on the Moon with the aims of harvesting and using lunar water to open up cislunar space.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 25, 2011 @ 9:48 am

Mr. Lavoie,

It is a pleasure to converse with you.

First let me say I agree 100% with your post.

I do not want to complicate things, but I believe that your plan may actually need direct human activity earlier than it currently allows (wouldn’t you know some ‘trouble maker’ would show up ). I am not talking about a permanent base for scores of people, more of an outpost for 2 – 4 people to inhabit for weeks at a time during crucial parts of the assembly sequence. The Side Mount SDHLV can meet those requirements (thus greatly increasing the projects chances of success), while at the same time maintaining critical skills for future development.

“The extreme temperature variation between the shadowed regions and the sunlit areas, the nature of the regolith fines, the technology challenges and new TRL systems that we would employ, the potential difficult and slopy terrain, and the harsh radiation environment are too challenging to overcome without expected maintenance and repair.”

Robots (even tele robots) have problems with some specific tasks (stringing power/data cable for instance) especially over “sloppy” terrain. That is one of my concerns with the initial assembly of your infrastructure without Human intervention being, at least, available.

“I would expect the same thing in any mining operation here on Earth in that the humans maintain the systems that do the work.”

Exactly.

None of this is intended to be negative. If the current SLS/MPCV development is correctly implemented, then we can be well on our way to supplying this limited ‘early’ human support.

Above I noted proposed H.R.1641 — REAL Space Act (Introduced in House – IH). These guys hearts are in the right place, though there language could use some fine tuning. I wonder if any of their constituents (who post around here) might want to send them a link to Dr. Spudis’s “Rationale for Cislunar Space”.

Comment by Joe — April 25, 2011 @ 10:14 am

Their mission goal is to land crews on the Moon for brief periods and return them to Earth. Our mission goal is to establish a permanent robotic/human presence on the Moon with the aims of harvesting and using lunar water to open up cislunar space.

Hi Tony,

Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate all the work you and Paul did trying to figure out all the nuts ‘n’ bolts a Lunar propellant station is going to need. My little comment was intended to be constructive, not critical. I am fully onboard, and hope the new H.R. 1641 gets passed ASAP.

That said, I think the ULA proposal does in fact contemplate “continuous”, “permanent” human presence on the Moon. From Zegler et al. (2009, 20):

“The intent was to have continuous human occupation of the lunar base once it was established. This allows maintenance to be done on the increasingly complex life support and scientific equipment on the lunar surface. It is never left unattended. This leverages one of the most powerful attributes of a human crew- the ability to rapidly address contingencies with minimal preplanning.”

Granted, this comes from the section that describes their “aggressive” option, with 3 crewed flights per year. However, the “conservative” option still has two crewed flights per year; so under that more realistic option, instead of 120-day tours, the crews would have to do 180-day tours–but that’s what ISS crew members are already doing.

And here’s an idea of mine that I think could save a lot of time and hence money: scale way back on the robotic precursors, and send in a human precursor mission to scout the site. Looking at your figure 1. there is only one potential landing site that fairly leaps out at you when one first glances at it: the plateau of permanent sunshine adjacent to the crater of permanent darkness immediately to the right of the pole. This is the place, as Brigham Young would say if he looked at it. So there’s no need to investigate a half dozen other sites to find the best one.

Send in Lunar Polar Volatiles Explorer to ground-truth the crater; this will increase our confidence from 99% to 99.9% that abundant water will be available. Then send a month-long sortie mission to the plateau of sunshine. The humans would have 3 jobs: (1) prove that the lander works; (2) scout out the 8 km^2 yellow ellipse and find the best site for the processing plant and man camp; (3) scout out likely routes for roads down into the crater.

As Paul said above, one lesson learned from Apollo is that we need to trust astronauts on the ground to make decisions because they have better information than the people back on Earth. Let them choose the site, since they will have to live there. Another lesson, as Paul pointed out above, is that field geology (and hence prospecting) is exactly the sort of job that humans are better suited at than teleoperated robots; so let astronauts do the prospecting: they will do it faster and more effectively than robots; this will save money: it costs X amount of dollars to design and build the life-support infrastructure whether it’s spent early or late in the process; there is nothing to be gained by moving this expenditure to the right. And yet another lesson–this one from ISS–that Paul talks about above, is that humans excel at assembling big, complex structures. Another lesson that Paul mentions–this time from Hubble–is that humans are great at fixing and maintaining things in space. So when robots break down and need maintenance, there will be a guy with a screwdriver who can fix it.

These are four lessons we have learned from the history of human space flight, and yet–inexplicably–your architecture does not incorporate these lessons to not nearly the full extent possible! Instead, robots for 10 years do jobs that humans do better, and don’t do jobs that only humans can do, in order to build a “turn-key facility” (your term)–quite the opposite approach used to build ISS.

In any case, if a Lunar propellant station gets built under the auspices of H.R.1641, there is no way your timeline can meet the the 2022 deadline in its current form. Politics reigns supreme. For once I like that idea! Moving in humans ASAP is an aspect from the ULA architecture that’s worth borrowing IMHO.

Comment by Warren Platts — April 25, 2011 @ 3:45 pm

Warren,

Looking at your figure 1. there is only one potential landing site that fairly leaps out at you when one first glances at it: the plateau of permanent sunshine adjacent to the crater of permanent darkness immediately to the right of the pole. This is the place, as Brigham Young would say if he looked at it. So there’s no need to investigate a half dozen other sites to find the best one.

I do not agree. There are too many unknowns with the existing data. The map we prepared is based on our best guess now and our best guess is hampered by the fact that we have no ground truth for the remote sensing data from orbit. We do not know the lateral and vertical distribution of water, its physical and chemical make-up, the environment of the cold traps, and how machines work down there. All of these pieces of information are critical to create systems that can extract, process and store the water.

We tried to design an approach to lunar return that is flexible to any current and future circumstance, constrained in resources or not. If you want to get on the Moon sooner, we can accelerate the schedule. But right now, there is no lunar return program and hence, no deadline. If the new House bill becomes law, I’ll worry about it. Until then, I’ll stick with a logical, incremental approach.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 25, 2011 @ 4:17 pm

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 25, 2011 @ 4:17 pm
“There are too many unknowns with the existing data. The map we prepared is based on our best guess now and our best guess is hampered by the fact that we have no ground truth for the remote sensing data from orbit. We do not know the lateral and vertical distribution of water, its physical and chemical make-up, the environment of the cold traps, and how machines work down there. All of these pieces of information are critical to create systems that can extract, process and store the water.”

“We tried to design an approach to lunar return that is flexible to any current and future circumstance, constrained in resources or not. If you want to get on the Moon sooner, we can accelerate the schedule. But right now, there is no lunar return program and hence, no deadline. If the new House bill becomes law, I’ll worry about it. Until then, I’ll stick with a logical, incremental approach.”

Dr. Spudis,

Based on what you say, isn’t this the time to try to affect the goals to be set? H.R.1641 is a draft (with no companion Senate Bill at this moment). It does have, however, Congressman Frank Wolf as a co-sponsor. He is the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee responsible for NASA’s Budget. So I think it is fair to say these folks are serious.

If they align this potential law to produce a transportation system for a minimal crew transport system (2 – 4 people for 3 week sortie missions twice a year?) to support the buildup of a lunar propellant processing capability and a robotic survey operation of the general site ( to select specific locations for landing and deployment), would not that be a good thing?

Comment by Joe — April 25, 2011 @ 4:51 pm

“With all due respect to human spaceflight. This is nonsense.”

I didn’t say that the Apollo program cost less than any unmanned predecessor. It cost vastly more, but then it returned vastly more science than it’s predecessors. It also returned different kinds of information than the unmanned landers, such as core samples, heat flow information, and active seismic information. It returned hundreds of pounds of carefully collected samples from 6 widely separated areas on the Moon, vs. a few ounces of regolith from the Soviet Lunas.

Comment by Dick Morris — April 25, 2011 @ 4:52 pm

“I hope this is not considered off topic, but Congressman Posey of Florida has proposed H.R.1641 — REAL Space Act (Introduced in House – IH)”

Not only is that not off topic it is precisely on target. That’s the best news I have seen in months. I intend to contact Congressman Posey with my profound gratitude, and offer whatever assistance I can.

Comment by Dick Morris — April 25, 2011 @ 5:10 pm

Warren,

Please remember that what Paul and I did was to take the funding profile that was given to the Augustine Committee as a year-to-year constraint for the architecture that we developed. With a different set of funding profiles, different architectures will emerge. Accelerating human missions, given our funding profile, is problematic. An early sortie mission, without infrastructure development to allow use of lunar propellant for a return trip, is very expensive and cannot be sustained withon our cost profile. We did not find a way forward within the profile other than the one that we published. I’m pretty sure that the ULA proposal is not cost-consistent with the funding profile that we assumed.

Regarding HR 1641, unique instructions from Congress require unique budgets and budget commitments beyond the yearly budget horizon. The critically important thing that Paul and i are trying to communicate is that “A path exists for the US to establish a cislunar propellant capability using lunar water by 2025, and in so doing, also establish a human outpost on the Moon to further investigate the degree by which humans can survive and eventually thrive using lunar resources.” This examination of the use of lunar ISRU for propellant, then metals and ceramics, and possibly to foodstuffs is an end in and of itself because it is important for NASA to spend government investment (we’re going to spend our tax money even if it is not worthwhile!) to grow the country’s future wealth where normally the risk versus benefit is too high for private industry to invest in themselves.

Comment by Tony Lavoie — April 25, 2011 @ 5:38 pm

Joe,

If they align this potential law to produce a transportation system for a minimal crew transport system (2 – 4 people for 3 week sortie missions twice a year?) to support the buildup of a lunar propellant processing capability and a robotic survey operation of the general site ( to select specific locations for landing and deployment), would not that be a good thing?

Of course it would. But until such comes to pass, I shall continue to advocate for our incremental robotic architecture on the grounds that it gets us what we need at an affordable cost on a reasonable timescale. What more do you want from a space program?

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 25, 2011 @ 6:18 pm

Teleoperated robots today can do much more than they are being given credit for in these discussions. Please search YouTube for: Humanoid Robot Learning To Fix Satellites. You don’t need an astronaut to operate a screw driver, teleoperated robots can do that quite well. Let’s not forget that patients trust their lives to telerobotic operations every day. Also understand that a NADA team was fully working towards the operation of the teleoperated Robonaut on the lunar surface (Project M). Technologically, we are there.

Secondly, I don’t think that reasonable engineering solutions are being given enough credit either. Equipment can be designed with quick releases. Worn parts don’t have to be fixed. They could be replaced with spares. For example, imagine a Martian-style rover were operating on the Moon. Say it’s wheel becomes stuck. A hermetically sealed Justin teleoperated robot reaches our stranded rover, pulls the quick release lever, off pops the wheel with it’s motor. Justin takes out a brush, cleans up the joint, takes out a spare, puts it in place, relatches the quick release lever and done!

Now, the path to the ice-bearing crater floor is more of a legitimate concern in my opinion. One of the Martian rovers was able to make it down into the floor of a crater. But Shakelton is a much, much larger crater and walls of larger craters might be much more hazardous. I question how a prospecting rover could make it down unless it were to land inside the crater.

Regarding hot/cold transitions, also a legit issue. But I would question if humans and their equipment might also be in danger.

I personally think that we need to consider goals other than the VSE or the Flexible Path. Establishing a self-sufficient colony on the Moon SHOULD become a main objective. If we are already going to have a sustained, even permanent presence on the Moon, why not try and go the next step to make it self-sufficient. An off-Earth colony would go a very long way to ensuring the survival of the human species. It is not at all unreasonable to fear our own self-replicating technology around mid-century. I feel entirely comfortable saying that our near-term space goals should include the establishment of a self-sufficient lunar base.

Comment by JohnHunt — April 26, 2011 @ 1:15 am

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 25, 2011 @ 6:18 pm
“Of course it would. But until such comes to pass, I shall continue to advocate for our incremental robotic architecture on the grounds that it gets us what we need at an affordable cost on a reasonable timescale.”

I never meant to imply that you should not continue to advocate for your plan, I would be disappointed if you did. But, tumultuous times it is usually best to have a Plan B (And Plan C, D, E – if you can come up with them).

What I was trying to say is that the initiators of HR # 1641 are trying to do a good thing and could use some help phrasing their goals. If you notice they imply (by use of terms like commerce) the use of ISRU, but do not explicitly say it. They also talk of the Moon as a stepping stone to further exploration, but make no mention of support for Satellite assembly and repair in Cislunar Space (to support applications and benefits – as anti-space politicians used to phrase it – “right here at home on Earth where we live”.)

It would therefore, I think be a good idea to introduce them to what you called your “elevator speech” in “A Rationale for Cislunar Space”. If this Bill were to eventually to become law and include the intent of your “elevator speech”, then it would be much harder for anyone President or NASA Bureaucracy to ignore or alter.

Comment by Joe — April 26, 2011 @ 10:10 am

Comment by JohnHunt — April 26, 2011 @ 1:15 am
“Teleoperated robots today can do much more than they are being given credit for in these discussions. Please search YouTube for: Humanoid Robot Learning To Fix Satellites. You don’t need an astronaut to operate a screw driver, teleoperated robots can do that quite well. Let’s not forget that patients trust their lives to telerobotic operations every day. Also understand that a NADA team was fully working towards the operation of the teleoperated Robonaut on the lunar surface (Project M). Technologically, we are there.”

I am not directly involved in the Robonaut project itself, but I have worked alongside and know people who are. Their main goal for the Robonaut on the ISS is to eventually be able to have it act as a sort of EV2 to a human EV1 for Assembly/Maintenance work. This would not eliminate Human EVA crews, but increase their productivity (a goal very much in line with what Spudis/ Lavoie are proposing). There is currently a Robonaut on the ISS (for IVA testing) to assure mission safety.

Comment by Joe — April 26, 2011 @ 10:23 am

Joe,

If this Bill were to eventually to become law and include the intent of your “elevator speech”, then it would be much harder for anyone President or NASA Bureaucracy to ignore or alter.

Oh, I don’t know about that. The original articulation of the mission and goals of the VSE was as clear and definitive a statement of intent and purpose as I have ever seen in any space policy document, yet NASA not only ignored them, but went off and implemented instead a program of their own desire, only tangentially and remotely related to the original purpose of the Vision.

Never underestimate the power and ability of the entrenched to thwart changes in direction or purpose.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 26, 2011 @ 10:29 am

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 26, 2011 @ 10:29 am
“Oh, I don’t know about that. The original articulation of the mission and goals of the VSE was as clear and definitive a statement of intent and purpose as I have ever seen in any space policy document, yet NASA not only ignored them, but went off and implemented instead a program of their own desire, only tangentially and remotely related to the original purpose of the Vision.”

I may need a little education here, but was the specific language of the VSE ever voted on by both houses of congress and signed off by a sitting president (thus making it a law) or was it a ‘Presidential Directive’?

“Never underestimate the power and ability of the entrenched to thwart changes in direction or purpose.”

Believe me I never would, but in the words of Jack Burton (the Kurt Russell character from “Big Trouble in Little China” :
“Hey, you never know unless you try.”

Comment by Joe — April 26, 2011 @ 10:45 am

Joe,

I may need a little education here, but was the specific language of the VSE ever voted on by both houses of congress and signed off by a sitting president (thus making it a law) or was it a ‘Presidential Directive’?

The original Vision for Space Exploration was codified into law twice, by two different Congresses under the control of different parties, in the NASA Authorization Acts of 2005 and 2008.

The problem is that the agency is traditionally given a high degree of latitude to implement a given strategic direction, largely on the grounds that (allegedly) the agency understands the technical issues and the policy makers don’t. However, I think that trust is significantly eroded now, as witness the recently enacted new NASA Authorization, which specifies a design for a Heavy Lift vehicle. This is unheard of in agency authorization language and I think is included because Congress has no confidence that the agency will do what they have been told to do unless the steps are explicitly identified.

In the Aldridge Commission report, we recommended that the National Space Council be re-established, not to create another bureaucratic entity, but to ensure that the national strategic objectives of the VSE were being pursued as intended. That recommendation was a non-starter (no Administrator enjoys being second-guessed), but I believe that if it had been implemented in 2004, we never would have found ourselves in the Constellation box that we ended up in by 2009, leading to the Augustine committee fiasco and the subsequent utter chaos that the agency currently finds itself in.

“Hey, you never know unless you try.”

I’ve been trying now for about 28 years (and counting.)

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 26, 2011 @ 11:13 am

“Also, astronauts could initially spend 8 hrs a day above ground for 5.6 years if they then came out for an average of only one hour per day from then on. So, for me, GCR is very manageable for colonists.”

I am sorry that is not how it works. Radiation is not something you can count like calories. All exposure is cumulative to some degree and the heavy nuclei of cosmic radiation is over 300 times more damaging to dna than the lighter particles. 8 hours a day for 5 years taking a radiation bath is…..not going to work. Just because most human cells have some ability to repair damage the cells of the brain are far less capable. This makes them less likely to become cancerous but also less able to repair actual tissue damage. Cognitive deficit and cancer rates will be elevated for all and for a certain percentage- a much higher percentage than on earth- devastating and incurable.

Human beings are not supposed to live that way; and they won’t. Explorers will get their time in rad sauna so they can do the critical observations and minimum sightseeing appropriate to the whole lunar or other community. It will not be like letting people smoke 3 packs a day because the consequences will drag everyone down.

Spaceships will require earth level radiation and probably earth gravity and I would guess colonist not living in space stations will need some type of gravity compensation for most of the day. An underground circular sleeper train generating one G is the most likely remedy. Or frequent rotation to one G space stations.

Comment by GaryChurch — April 26, 2011 @ 8:16 pm

Gary, I don’t think that you supported your comment sufficiently. Could you clarify? It seems as though the lifetime allowable rem exposure is a cumulative amount. And when one calculates how many rems previous Apollo astronauts were exposed to on average each day and you extrapolate, my figure is what you come up with.

Now you mention that GCRs are different in nature than slower protons. Can you refer me to any evidence that the rem calculations don’t take his into account? For example, has anyone ever said that (for cancer rates) that Apollo astronauts received a greater proportional risk than their rem exposure would indicate?

Now regarding damage to brain tissue, this may be a legit issue. I would find it odd that safety regs would only take into account cancer risk when a person’s cognitive quality of life would be dramatically reduced before they achieved the 3% increased risk of cancer. If so, that would be a considerable oversight on the part of the committee that set the standard.

Comment by JohnHunt — April 27, 2011 @ 9:55 am

Joe, I am aware about how the Robonauts are being (and planned to be used) on the ISS. The difference is that the ISS already has humans. So the Robonaut is relegated to a support role. I’ve got to imagine that, if there were no humans on the ISS, that the Robonaut would be used to it’s max ability. Again, I think that the video link that I posted illustrates that teleoperated robots have the dexterity necessary to conduct repairs especially if that means simply replacing parts.

Now, having said that, I’m not so sure that there is a fundamental disagreement about the timing and relative mix between robots and humans in lunar mining operations. I think that there is agreement that teleoperated rovers, excavators, and haulers will form the initial wave. We do have a disagreement about the reason for why humans should be in the second wave but we don’t disagree that they should be in the second wave. So, in practice, it makes no difference. Tony says that they’ll be needed for understanding the situation, quick response, and maintenance. I believe that teleoperated Robonauts can do this adequately, for less cost, and for longer. But it doesn’t matter because I would have humans arrive at the same time for a different purpose which would be to begin to establish a permanent human colony as an insurance policy against human extinction. Like on the ISS, if they are already there, why not use them to do repairs? But one human can be servicing a fleet of robotic equipment. So I see the ratio being I favor of teleoperated robotic equipment. This is different than on Earth where transportation to the job sit is nowhere as expensive or dangerous nor requiring as much life support as do humans on the Moon.

Comment by JohnHunt — April 27, 2011 @ 10:24 am

There are too many unknowns with the existing data. The map we prepared is based on our best guess now and our best guess is hampered by the fact that we have no ground truth for the remote sensing data from orbit. We do not know the lateral and vertical distribution of water, its physical and chemical make-up, the environment of the cold traps, and how machines work down there. All of these pieces of information are critical to create systems that can extract, process and store the water.

Hi Paul,

Actually there is one component of the system that does not directly depend on the exact nature of the ice deposit: the human component. And there has been a ground-truth of sorts: LCROSS.

I guess the questions is How confident are you that the hi-CPR-inside-low-CPR-outside = water ice results aren’t going to turn out to be the next cold fusion fiasco? If you’re 90% percent sure, I say that’s good enough for us to press ahead at full speed. The very worst case scenario is that the water content will be at LCROSS levels.

And one thing we know for sure is that we want to locate the processing plant and man camp on a plateau of quasi-perpetual light for the thermal environment if not for the extra solar power that will be available, right? But there aren’t too many of those, so that narrows down possible locations.

Yes, of course we need ground truth—and we’re going to get it with the Lunar Polar Volatiles Explorer. So the next question is, Given that we’re probably only going to get one of them, if it was up to you and the launch was scheduled for tomorrow, exactly which crater would you send it to? Surely, you would send it to the one that ideally we would like to develop first. And from your map, there is only one crater that is within 2 kilometers of a plateau of perpetual light.

I wouldn’t worry overmuch about the uncertainty over whether this crater has the very highest quality ice deposit. I would draw an analogy with the current Marcellus Shale gas rush. The thickest part of the formation is in northeast Pennsylvania—this is the so-called sweet spot. But I’m out here in Clearfield County, and although the formation is only 60% as thick, we’re still producing wells that are making millions of USD for each one. If anything it’s better out here because the formation is so much more well behaved. I can tell you from personal experience that the guys out in Bradford County are drilling a lot of wells that aren’t even in the Marcellus half the time. Meanwhile, we’re sticking it 100% of the time. My point is that we don’t want the very best crater. What we really want is the easiest crater. That crater is obvious from your map. Whether it possesses the very best ice deposit doesn’t matter. Whether it has a billion tons or only a million tons doesn’t matter. The main thing is that it’s close and it has enough water ice to get us started.

If it’s obvious to me, then it’s obvious to others as well. IMHO we need to get men up there on that ridge ASAP in order to establish use and occupation whether we’re ready to begin mining operations or not, and then declare a 15-kilometer safety zone around the landing site, per the terms of the OST—before somebody else does….

So let’s send the LPVE into the indicated crater (does it have a name?) just to prove to the world that you’re not crazy, and then let’s get rolling. Just my 2-cents worth. YMMV

Comment by Warren Platts — April 27, 2011 @ 12:25 pm

Warren,

Yes, of course we need ground truth—and we’re going to get it with the Lunar Polar Volatiles Explorer.

That mission has not yet been selected for flight and it’s not clear that it will be. In any event, in our architecture, this information and the capability to prospect are critical, so we would build and fly our rovers even if LPVE were to fly.

Given that we’re probably only going to get one of them

I do not accept the proposition. Two rovers, one at each pole, is our baseline architecture. If the plan for a lunar resources outpost is adopted, it simply doesn’t make sense to select “the place” before we have all the information we need to make an intelligent decision.

My point is that we don’t want the very best crater. What we really want is the easiest crater. That crater is obvious from your map.

The map is an incomplete abstract of current understanding, which is itself incomplete and inadequate. You can pick the best locale on this map but that doesn’t mean it’s the best locale.

Whether it possesses the very best ice deposit doesn’t matter. Whether it has a billion tons or only a million tons doesn’t matter. The main thing is that it’s close and it has enough water ice to get us started.

And that’s what the two polar rovers will verify.

So let’s send the LPVE into the indicated crater (does it have a name?)

It’s Whipple. But we do not know the nature of the deposits within it yet. We need to also measure dark areas near the light peak to measure their ice content — if there is high concentration in those regions (invisible to radar), it would be easier to mine those deposits than trek into and out of the crater.

The biggest unknowns are the nature of the ice and regolith deposits. We don’t know how physically tough and coherent or loosely bound they are; that data is critical to designing an excavation and hauling scheme that allows us to get the maximum amount of feedstock for the minimum amount of effort. It simply makes good engineering sense to get that data up front.

I contend that we are not yet in the position to pick a good site yet — too many unknowns. In our architecture, we incrementally and systematically reduce and eliminate unknowns to the degree possible. This maximizes our chances for success and ultimately, maximizes our operational efficiency.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 27, 2011 @ 12:52 pm

Comment by John Hunt — April 27, 2011 @ 10:24 am

First of all let me say that I agree that is not a fundamental disagreement about long range goals and objectives and I really appreciate the civil/constructive tone around here.

Now having said that a couple of technical comments:

“I am aware about how the Robonauts are being (and planned to be used) on the ISS. The difference is that the ISS already has humans. So the Robonaut is relegated to a support role. I’ve got to imagine that, if there were no humans on the ISS, that the Robonaut would be used to it’s max ability. Again, I think that the video link that I posted illustrates that teleoperated robots have the dexterity necessary to conduct repairs especially if that means simply replacing parts.”

That is not really the case. It is counter intuitive but tele-robotic operation is actually more difficult in LEO than it would be on the Moon. This is because of the complex communications links. The signal time lags are significant and constantly varying in what, to a human operators perception, seems random.

“I think that there is agreement that teleoperated rovers, excavators, and haulers will form the initial wave.”

I very much agree that such devices (tele-operated or fully automated) will do the bulk of the actual work once the system is established. Where I have a friendly (at least I hope it is) disagreement with you (and the Spudis/ Lavoie Plan) is that I believe (based on experience working Space Station Assembly/Maintenance activities) that during initial assembly of the surface facilities direct human action will almost certainly be required no matter how carefully the assembly operations are planned. Maybe you get lucky and it does not happen, but if it does and you do not allow for it; you will find yourself in the same position that SSTO proponents did after the failure of the X-33 project. To this day (some 15 years later) if someone even brings the subject up the reply goes something like “We tried SSTO and proved it doesn’t work”. A failure of assembly of a lunar surface installation (with no human backup possible for the foreseeable future) would be considerably more high profile than the failure of a composite tank to pass a pressure test.

“We do have a disagreement about the reason for why humans should be in the second wave but we don’t disagree that they should be in the second wave.”
“So, in practice, it makes no difference.”

Here is where we get back together. If all the use of lunar resources was about is setting up an initial installation of a fixed size then (even by my reckoning) all that would be required would be crews of 2 – 4 for a few weeks at a time a couple of times a year (first for assembly support then for maintenance). But the goal is to bootstrap the initial installation into a much larger more diverse operation (more and more output of more and more different products – first propellant, then tankage, etc.). Here larger and larger amounts of human intervention will be needed (as a series of end to end factories are established), thus eventually producing the “permanent human colony” we all would like to see happen. This is certainly in line with the Spudis/ Lavoie Plan and while it disagrees with your assessment it still produces (hopefully anyway) a “permanent human colony” on the Moon.

Comment by Joe — April 27, 2011 @ 2:07 pm

“Here is where we get back together. If all the use of lunar resources was about is setting up an initial installation of a fixed size then (even by my reckoning) all that would be required would be crews of 2 – 4 for a few weeks at a time a couple of times a year (first for assembly support then for maintenance). But the goal is to bootstrap the initial installation into a much larger more diverse operation (more and more output of more and more different products – first propellant, then tankage, etc.). Here larger and larger amounts of human intervention will be needed (as a series of end to end factories are established), thus eventually producing the “permanent human colony” we all would like to see happen.”

I think you have two separate things.
You have what could be called an experimental stage.
And you have what could called an operational stage.

And I don’t think you should mix these two stages together.
Nor do I think NASA should be “in charge” of the operational stage.

Before one can get to the experimental stage, you need NASA exploration.
The lunar exploration should be robotic to start, followed by manned.
You could mix exploration with the experimental stage- make a few tonnes of lunar water. Maybe even as much as 50 tonnes of water. And make as much as a few tons of rocket fuel.
Or different way to say this, NASA’ lunar exploration budget, should be say 50 billion max. It’s experimental budget might be say 10 billion [max]. And it’s operational budget could as much as say 10 billion [max].
So these “budgets” could have as start date, when first robotic lunar lander launches from earth- and lands on the Moon and cover next 20 years.
So if total was 70 billion over 20 years that is 3 1/2 billion per year.
That I think is generous or optimistic [optimistic in two ways- that Congress will give NASA this much money and whether NASA could limit itself to such a budget]. And unless NASA entire budget triples, I wouldn’t support more then this.
But I am not saying that the budget is 3 1/3 billion per year- it could peak 7 or 8 billion per year, and it could zero out. I just saying that should be about the “chunk of change” avail over that 2 decades- and that it’s in about the “right” proportions.

Now “the plan” is to go to Mars within this 20 year lunar “budget”. If NASA were launch this robot in 2012 [very unlikely, probably at best a few years later] then this “budget” extends to 2032. And whatever the lunar budget is after this is beyond your knowing at this point, but any NASA budget would be dominated by Mars exploration [or NEOs, or whatever]. So as just wild guess, maybe the entire lunar budget will less than 1 billion per year- and maybe 1/2 of that is “operational” related.

If you kept to this budget, this DOES mean we could have a Lunar colony- a huge lunar colony- even one beyond anything most people seem to imagine as possible.

Whether one “gets” a lunar colony is dependent on the Moon itself, and on how well NASA does in it’s job of exploring the Moon. Not so much, on how well it does in the experimental or operational aspect of the “mission”.

Comment by gbaikie — April 27, 2011 @ 5:19 pm

“If so, that would be a considerable oversight on the part of the committee that set the standard.”

You are using a graph to predict mortality in an environment that has not been experienced by human beings. LEO is not deep space or the surface of bodies with no natural shield. About all we know about heavy nuclei hitting DNA is that it is big and fast and whatever it hits it blows apart into secondary radiation. Shield matter with hydrogen (moon water for example)are lighter and have less space between atoms so they are better at reducing penetration and secondary. Those who do not want to address the problem blow it off by saying there is no data- so there is no problem (or use those convenient graphs for rem exposure). But those who study radiation effects almost all saying that GCR is the showstopper. Of course you can always find a different view- just like global warming.

Comment by GaryChurch — April 27, 2011 @ 6:39 pm

So, let’s look at what I mean by experimental vs operational.
The Shuttle program was “experimental”, not operational.
Lots people were deluded with idea that Shuttle was “operational”.
So over last few decades NASA spend hundreds of billions of dollars on this experimental program called the Shuttle.
We do not want and can not repeat this idiocy with our NASA lunar program. It will without doubt FAIL.

It will fail if you are imagining that NASA personnel will become Lunar miners and farmers.
NASA could do this in an experimental sense, but not in a operational sense.

NASA’s priority goal should be exploring- or most of it’s budget should spent on exploration.
Now, obviously most of the money NASA spends money on is on it’s personnel and on all the infrastructure which on is earth.
How many employees NASA has is determining factor of it’s budget.
The issue is what these people are spending their time trying to get done.
So a NASA janitor, could be working for NASA exploration- assuming NASA is doing exploration.
If much NASA resources is operating a shuttle, then that janitor is working for an agency which may have a minor effort of exploring but mostly concerned running the Shuttle. So the janitor basically working for some “strange airline business”.

Now I agree with Mike Griffin [Space Show] when he essentially says NASA should not doing things related to making a profit. NASA should doing things which private sector can not do- but the only limit on the private sector is the things it can’t do profitably.

There is “profit” in exploration and science in general- but realizing or “capturing that profit” is “difficult”.

Whereas NASA can “profit” from space exploration- in the same sense that the American people could “profit” from space exploration- and NASA exists for the American people.
[Not profit in the sense of making money as in Non-profit vs Profit organization- NASA is outlawed from making this kind of profit- and for VERY good reasons.]

So Mike Griffin is right about the nature of what NASA should do- it’s not “for profit” and isn’t/shouldn’t be interested the same “projects”, “programs”, or “operations” that would “interest” the private sector.
And NASA is not to make some specific company make a profit- crony capitalism- govt “subsidized” programs.
Govt shouldn’t do this, whether the companies are oil companies, wind farms, or rocket companies.

When you mine, generate electricity, or make rockets, you should primarily be concerned with being profitable- in the exact sense of making more money then the amount of money you spend.
And when you running the business and you are losing money, you shouldn’t be allowed to run that business- this is known as going bankrupt.

NASA is govt agency, it given money that it is suppose to spend and this spending of money should benefit the public.

It’s NOT that the public gives money to NASA, so NASA can give back money to public or so very limited part of the public- and NASA isn’t some idiot idea of “social equity” and/or monetary redistribution.

It’s suppose to direct the nation’s “energy” towards things which will benefit the nation- namely, space exploration.
Which btw, is very strongly supported by the America people.

And NASA isn’t lacking public support- no govt agency has more public support than NASA. Few politicans have had as high favorable rating as NASA has- and has had for decades.

But this doesn’t mean the public will fund some idiots dream if somehow related to “space exploration”.

And NASA is not as important as National Security- or doesn’t “deserve” or “require” as much public money as other things- Education, Transportation, etc [which btw are operational type things- years teaching millions of children, roads built, etc].

Should NASA do stunts?

Stunts are PR.
NASA should do PR.
Stunts aren’t exploration.

PR is about communication- stunts gets lots of people
to pick up the phone. And PR is mostly about the talking on the phone.

[Or whatever media- books, letters, lectures, e-mail, news, etc.]

Comment by gbaikie — April 27, 2011 @ 7:34 pm

Comment by gbaikie — April 27, 2011 @ 5:19 pm
“I think you have two separate things. You have what could be called an experimental stage. And you have what could called an operational stage.”

Agreed on that point.

“And I don’t think you should mix these two stages together. Nor do I think NASA should be “in charge” of the operational stage.”

Again agreed, but then you begin to lose me. The experimental stage and the exploration stage to me are part of the same thing. Once it is successfully completed, then the operational stage can begin. I would prefer to see the operational stage be smoothly transitioned to the private sector, but how difficult that can be is illustrated by the current “Obama Space” fiasco.

At this moment I would be deliriously happy to get a credible, politically approved and adequately funded experimental stage in place.

Comment by Joe — April 27, 2011 @ 8:21 pm

Accelerating human missions, … without infrastructure development to allow use of lunar propellant for a return trip, is very expensive and cannot be sustained withon our cost profile. We did not find a way forward within the profile other than the one that we published. I’m pretty sure that the ULA proposal is not cost-consistent with the funding profile that we assumed.

It is important for NASA to spend government investment … to grow the country’s future wealth where normally the risk versus benefit is too high for private industry to invest in themselves.

Hi Tony,

OK, if I understand you correctly, you would like to have humans on the front end, but $5.5 billion USD/year isn’t enough with landers that must use propellant brought from Earth. That’s probably the case with the Apollo on steroids landers contemplated by CxP, but I think the ULA guys would disagree that their proposed DTAL landers couldn’t fit within a $5.5B/year budget profile. They achieve major savings by evolving the lander from their ACES 3rd stage, and eliminating the Orion Service module propulsion, lunar descender, and extremely large payload fairings. According to Zegler and Kutter (2010), they believe that two major crewed missions per year could be done for around $3.5B/year. Thus, for an extra $2B/year ($5.5B/year total), it seems that at least one 20-mt cargo payload could also be sent per year. If they can get ISS costs down to a billion or two per year, the Lunar project budget could be upped to around $7B/year, so for $7B/year, we ought to be able to support 4 missions per year: 2 crewed, and 2 heavy cargo.

I figure 20 20-ton (metric) cargo flights would be enough to set up an infrastructure capable of producing 10,000 tons of propellant per year. Granted, being the first to produce 150 tons of ISRU propellant is nothing to sneeze at, an achievement for the history books to be sure, but in order for the Lunar station to be more than a self-licking ice cream cone, on the order of 10,000 tons/year is going to be needed. That would allow export to L2 of about 4,000 tons of propellant. With the initial phase of construction completed, the number of cargo flights could be scaled back, and the availability of more propellant than you know what to do with could conceivably reduce the overhead of the station down to $2B/year. $2B / 4000 tons = $500/kg in L2!. To get that much Terran propellant to L2 even if all bought from heavily government subsidized 3rd-world launch providers would cost $30 billion USD at a minimum.

In economic geology, the importance of payback time cannot be overstressed. On the aggressive scenario above, if we assume maybe $40B up front DDT&E costs, plus 10 years @ $7B, that’s $110B all told; but once it was done, NASA would realize a $28B/year savings. NASA would be back in the black after 4 short years.

The original VSE did say that the ultimate (as in last) mission is Mars, and that we were to use Lunar rocket fuel to get there. The space community has been paralyzed for decades now due to the split between the Martians and the Lunatics. What we need to unite the community is a Lunar architecture showing how steps A thru Z will not only get us to Mars, but get us there faster and with a quantum leap in enhanced functionality. 4,000 tons in L2 would not only get us to Mars far cheaper, but it would enable a radically different Mars architecture: one based on large, reusable space ships. There would be no need for aerocapturing. DDT&E costs could be slashed both because of the simplification of the architecture and because most of the development costs would have been absorbed by the Moon project. Transit times could be slashed. A permanently manned propellant/research station on could be enabled on the front end. Best of all, the IOC could be as soon as 2032. But it all depends on choosing a cost-effective Lunar lander.

Comment by Warren Platts — April 27, 2011 @ 8:30 pm

“Again agreed, but then you begin to lose me. The experimental stage and the exploration stage to me are part of the same thing. Once it is successfully completed, then the operational stage can begin. I would prefer to see the operational stage be smoothly transitioned to the private sector, but how difficult that can be is illustrated by the current “Obama Space” fiasco.”

What I am suggesting is in NASA’s interest.
I assume that most people in NASA want to open the space frontier.

The question/danger I have is what is NASA going to do if there isn’t minable water on the Moon- mine lunar water anyhow??

I could see them doing this and imagining they doing something important. “We do it, because it’s too hard” sort of thing.

But if NASA spends billions mining lunar water which is actually minable, it is a waste of our time and tax dollars- but the biggest problem is they could have trouble getting the funding from Congress. The “problem” is NASA wasting decades trying to get funds so it can start exploring the Moon.
[Basically NASA has already done this- Bush senior wanted to support lunar exploration- and then NASA presented a huge budget to do this. And of course everyone had a good laugh.]

The reason I want NASA to explore the Moon to determine if there is minable water, is because that would be the easiest path.

If there isn’t minable water on the Moon, I obviously don’t know of an equally good second option.

NEOs have water.
So I would suggest finding very small NEOs with water and moving them to Cis-Lunar space. This option may require NASA to mine the water- or hand this “kind of subsidy” over to some entity in private sector- or maybe do it “cost plus” or something equally foolish.

The task of moving them, could possibly only done by a govt, rather than the private sector. At least in the near term.
So the total time involved could rule out the private sector.

I think if you start a market for water and rocket fuel in Cis-lunar, then Manned Mars could actually make sense.
And also enable mining asteroids for water and/or other stuff.
With a market already in Cis-lunar, the total time involved with asteroids would less daunting for the private sector.

Also if NASA actually got a lot funding and spent a lot time and effort mining water on the Moon, a result might still be that the private sector may start mining NEOs.
Though I suppose it vaguely possible that not only does NASA mine water on the Moon, but also mines NEOs. Or China mines NEOs.
It would weird if bunch Nations had nationalist mining operations on the Moon and NEOs. And there was zero involvement from private sector.
Would they trade with each other?
Besides impossible- it’s too weird.

Comment by gbaikie — April 28, 2011 @ 10:26 am

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 26, 2011 @ 11:13 am
“I’ve been trying now for about 28 years (and counting.)”

Glad to hear the “and counting” part. I have been in the business all most as long and believe me it is extremely frustrating to be a Grunt Engineer once again watching the whole process be derailed. But the only way to assure failure is to not try.

Seriously hope that you (or somebody) will present the elevator speech to the appropriate congress people (or their staffs).

Comment by Joe — April 28, 2011 @ 4:21 pm

> You are using a graph to predict mortality in an environment that has not been experienced by human beings. LEO is not deep space or the surface of bodies with no natural shield.

Gary, I’m confused. In fact humans have been beyond LEO multiple times during the Apollo era. Also, I’ve got to imagine that experiments have been done with accelerators to determine the radiation effect on animals from heavy nuclei. As I have briefly looked it up on the Internet, it seems as though the effect of light and heavy nuclei on people are turned into an apples-to-apples value through rems (Roentgen Equivalent Man). Unless you can explain otherwise, it still seems to me that we can know how much DNA damage would be done by GCRs by astronauts living on the surface of the Moon.

Comment by JohnHunt — April 28, 2011 @ 7:05 pm

> The space community has been paralyzed for decades now due to the split between the Martians and the Lunatics. What we need to unite the community is a Lunar architecture showing how steps A thru Z will not only get us to Mars, but get us there faster and with a quantum leap in enhanced functionality.

Warren, Good comments. I would suggest that Zubrin is not going to be won to the Moon-first which will facilitate a Mars mission approach for several reasons. Nor perhaps will Elon Musk.

The asserted performance of the Falcon Heavy will probably make the Martians more hopeful that a Mars mission can be done first on a modest budget. Why delay the ultimate goal (i.e. Mars) by a costly and “unnecessary” detour to the Moon? But Congress and Obama are not going to satisfy either the Martians or the Lunatics in that they are going to say, “Neither the Moon nor Mars, but rather a not-commercially-needed-and-therefore-costly HLV to an asteroid”.

But 5-10 years, billions of dollars, and delays will start the handwringing and soul-searching once again. But, by that time I anticipate that the Falcon 9 (amongst others) will be transporting people to LEO at a helpful savings, and the Falcon Heavy will have successfully launched around 50,000 kg to LEO. At that point, the temptation to scrap the SLS and just go with the FH and start building some landers will be too great.

I doubt that Elon will go to Mars without NASA funding and I think that by then, Armadillo & Masten landers will be so advanced, any small prospecting mission characterizing lunar lunar ice, and an even more cost-effective and productive plan for harvesting lunar ice will make the Moon irresistable. I just wish we could use that SLS money right now to begin the development of a Lunar Ice To LEO (LITL) system, not have it wasted, and not waste the time either.

Comment by JohnHunt — April 28, 2011 @ 7:35 pm

Exploration, experimental, operational: 50,10,and 10 billion respectively.

What I mean is you don’t want: 10 billion exploration, 10 billion experimental, and 50 billion operational.
Having such a ratio would perhaps be fine for the private sector.
Private sector is all about operational- NASA isn’t the private sector.

NASA is there to do what the private sector can’t do, OR can’t do in near future [if we think that someday humans will be in space, then NASA is about making that reality occur at a shorter time period. And/or instead of it happening by series of "random accidents" that happen to make it possible in the future.]
Or in other words, NASA reason for existence is the opposite of “Let’s just wait, and things will somehow sort out”.

Related issue, if great things happen when we leave Earth’s cradle, what is value of NASA if it made this happen a few decades earlier? In dollar amounts- trillions?
Or “priceless”- as in, saving millions of people from dying and making billions of people happier.]
{One more note: just because NASA is involved in doing something different than private sector [or public in general] doesn’t mean it is different, unique, alien, or some kind of “us vs them”. Quite the opposite- most people spend most of their time and effort towards the exact same thing as NASA is doing- I.e. there is no economic value/profit motive in raising children. NASA is aligned to what most people are doing and have been doing for thousands of years- hence, it’s popular.}

The real question is why have NASA spending any money on operational- in regards to the Lunar program.
Mainly, I am thinking of NASA buying rocket fuel- and various other kinds of things involving long stays on the Moon- NASA infrastructure on the Moon- basically what lots of people think about when talk about of lunar colonies.
NASA presence on the Moon.
And it’s sort of something unavoidable- bad habits can’t be expected to cease completely:). And it is even sort of State Dept stuff- it has merit. [Though if it were *exactly* the State Dept stuff- it comes out of the State Dept budget- not our concern].

Comment by gbaikie — April 28, 2011 @ 8:52 pm

JohnHunt,

I would suggest that Zubrin is not going to be won to the Moon-first which will facilitate a Mars mission approach for several reasons.

Actually, Bob and I are in agreement that the Vision was essential while the current policy chaos is disastrous. We discuss that perspective here:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/31/nasas-mission-to-nowhere/

By the way, the hyperbolic sub-headline was added by copywriters at the Times, not us.

Nor perhaps will Elon Musk.

The recent statements of Musk regarding conducting Mars missions within ten years graphically demonstrate what many of us have suspected for some time — that technically, he doesn’t know what he is talking about.

But Congress and Obama are not going to satisfy either the Martians or the Lunatics in that they are going to say, “Neither the Moon nor Mars, but rather a not-commercially-needed-and-therefore-costly HLV to an asteroid”.

Congress isn’t buying into Obamaspace — if you read the language of the new authorization, they specifically mention cislunar space and the lunar surface, not to mention Posey’s new proposed bill in the House. I think that it is much more likely that we will get nothing at all than a PR stunt asteroid mission.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 29, 2011 @ 4:30 am

“The recent statements of Musk regarding conducting Mars missions within ten years graphically demonstrates what many of us have suspected for some time — that technically, he doesn’t know what he is talking about.”

10 years is a bit unrealistic, but Zubrin’s Mars Direct was also within ten years.

Musk says he will have Falcon 9 heavy built in 2 or 3 years. Maybe he won’t be able to build it, or maybe it will instead take 4 years.
Like all rocket development, his predictions have a bit optimistic- but he seems to me to be closer than compared to other programs.

Let’s also assume Musk is interested in doing a stunt instead something more sustainable.
Could he do this in about 10 years?

Let’s say he had 5 billion dollars to spend on such a project.
And maybe say there was a 10 billion prize for Manned Mars- so Musk got together 5 billion to spend on a manned mission. Not investment capital but a chance to recover some or all the costs- angel capital, similar to SpaceShipOne and X-prizes.

Is Manned Mars stunt is worth 10 billion dollars? Perhaps all it will encourage is dead crews.

But if Musk [or some group] had 5 billion to spend could they do it?
Say 4 billion was spent on launch costs- and all other costs were less than 1 billion.
F-9 heavy is suppose to lift 117,000-120,000 lb. With cost of 120 million. Let’s say it’s average total cost 150 million per launch- so 25 launches is 3.75 billion.

And sends crew of 3 to Mars and uses a lot delta-v to get the crew quickly to Mars and quickly back to Earth- with cargo [non-crew] using the low delta-v trajectories.

Comment by gbaikie — April 29, 2011 @ 10:44 am

It is not the F9 heavy, that was the old model, it is just Falcon Heavy. His retail price of that is 100 million, he can launch them at cost, 80 million? It would take a minimum of 4 launches (musks words) up to 12 launches (doug cooks 600mt model)

So launch costs would probably be closer to 1 billion than 4 billion.

Hardware, 2 – 4 times launch costs? Still looks like it would be doable for 5 billion. I wonder how many people on the planet would do pay per view for a live feed?

I believe if he just tried for an unmanned Dragon landing filled with life support cargo it would be a show stopper. and if NASA funded a landing, they would have tons of food/water/air waiting for them.

Comment by Vladislaw — April 29, 2011 @ 2:51 pm

“So launch costs would probably be closer to 1 billion than 4 billion.

Hardware, 2 – 4 times launch costs? Still looks like it would be doable for 5 billion. I wonder how many people on the planet would do pay per view for a live feed?”

I would say getting a fully fulled vehicle that could get crew back from mars surface to Mars orbit would the easier part- and that by itself would take 4 launches- maybe 3 launches, maybe 5.

I would say getting crew to Mars orbit and getting back to earth is the hard part.
To get crew just to Mars orbit [and back to Earth] would be 60-75% of the total cost of program.

“I believe if he just tried for an unmanned Dragon landing filled with life support cargo it would be a show stopper. and if NASA funded a landing, they would have tons of food/water/air waiting for them.”

I think he should be able to do that for less than 150 million.

Comment by gbaikie — April 29, 2011 @ 4:49 pm

“It is not the F9 heavy, that was the old model, it is just Falcon Heavy. His retail price of that is 100 million, he can launch them at cost, 80 million? It would take a minimum of 4 launches (musks words) up to 12 launches (doug cooks 600mt model)”

Can’t do it with 4 launches- unless you had Saturn V type launcher [100+ tons to LEO]. Or had some non chemical rocket.
12 launches seem reasonable- do you have reference for doug cooks Manned Mars?

I think you could send crew to Mars if using 8-12 of the Falcon Heavy type rockets [about 60 tons to LEO]. So with the right launch window and got the crew to Mars from Earth in about 4 months- about 6 km/sec delta-v from LEO. Or about 3 km/sec from EML-1.

I think it might better to get there faster- something like 12 km/sec from LEO- and use somewhere around 6-7 delta-v of rocket power to decelerate (and use aerobraking) at Mars and at Earth.
Spent a couple billion more to get to and from Mars with crew in fastest time you can- using chemical rockets.
Have it stripped down to just solar flare shelter, and spacesuits airlock. No fancy life support system- use it and then toss it out in space. Though of course, scrub CO2. And use least costly way to exercise [in terms of payload mass]- in order reduce affects of Zero G.

“So launch costs would probably be closer to 1 billion than 4 billion.

Hardware, 2 – 4 times launch costs? Still looks like it would be doable for 5 billion. I wonder how many people on the planet would do pay per view for a live feed?”

I think you should want spend most of money on getting crew to and from Mars orbit as fast as possible.
Man related hardware isn’t expensive. Any robotic type hardware- sent low delta-v trajectory, could be 2-4 times launch costs.
But Mars Ascent vehicle [whether sent ahead of crew or with crew] should cost around same or less than it’s launch cost from earth [I wouldn't send this with the crew on the fast earth to Mars trajectory]

Another way might be to do something like Buzz’s Mars Cycler- build a “brickhouse”- have lots of sheilding- and this never stops at Mars orbit [or Earth's]. Build lots of life support stuff, gyms- whatever and/or spin it up so it has some artificial gravity. Don’t worry too much about travel time- just have constantly going from Earth to Mars.
Then send crew to it and dock, and leave it once you get near Mars. This issomething NASA might consider doing if it does Manned Mars program.

And can sort of apply same thing with idea of going to Mars fast, except this would be single use.
By which I mean have some tiny vehicle- heat shield, parachute, retro rockets, and open cockpit with crew in spacesuits. And this is used *only* to get to Mars surface- so crew “live in it” for about ten minutes. Once they land, they walk, or have some rover already on the Martian surface, take them to a base.

Comment by gbaikie — May 1, 2011 @ 2:05 am

Have it stripped down to just solar flare shelter, and spacesuits airlock. No fancy life support system- use it and then toss it out in space.

See this is the old fashioned sort of thinkiing about Mars missions. But if plentiful Lunar propellant were to become available, an entirely new paradigm becomes possible. E.g., Zegler and Kutter (2010) briefly describe a spacecraft capable of holding up to 16 astronauts with a total delta v of 11 km/sec. They propose sending two of these at a time. If launched from L2, they could do a round-trip to Mars, no refueling nor aerocapturing required. Only problem is they require close to 750 tons propellant to top them off. To get 1500 tons of propellant from Earth’s surface to L2 at $5K/kg would cost about $18 billion USD. If Lunar propellant were available at L2 for $500/kg, however, total cost to fill up both space craft would only run $750 million USD.

But to get 1500 tons of propellant to L2 requires that 3750 be manufactured on the Moon. Throw in prestaging some propellant in Mars orbit, all the cargo and lander shipments that would be necessary, as well as an GEO/derelect satellit work you would like to do, not to mention the Lunar base’s own requirements, and one can rapidly see that a projection level of several thousand tons per year is required of a Lunar propellant station in order to truly reshape the game board.

Comment by Warren Platts — May 1, 2011 @ 11:49 am

But if plentiful Lunar propellant were to become available, an entirely new paradigm becomes possible. “E.g., Zegler and Kutter (2010) briefly describe a spacecraft capable of holding up to 16 astronauts with a total delta v of 11 km/sec. They propose sending two of these at a time. If launched from L2, they could do a round-trip to Mars, no refueling nor aerocapturing required. Only problem is they require close to 750 tons propellant to top them off. To get 1500 tons of propellant from Earth’s surface to L2 at $5K/kg would cost about $18 billion USD. If Lunar propellant were available at L2 for $500/kg, however, total cost to fill up both space craft would only run $750 million USD.

But to get 1500 tons of propellant to L2 requires that 3750 be manufactured on the Moon. Throw in prestaging some propellant in Mars orbit, all the cargo and lander shipments that would be necessary, as well as an GEO/derelect satellit work you would like to do, not to mention the Lunar base’s own requirements, and one can rapidly see that a projection level of several thousand tons per year is required of a Lunar propellant station in order to truly reshape the game board”

Yeah, sort of like that.
But I wouldn’t expect NASA to buy more half of rocket fuel made on the Moon. Might only be around 25% of it. A sizable chunk of rocket fuel would used by the water miners, and power company themselves. Then there other stuff like tourism, other kinds of mining [including PGMs, maybe even Thorium], research facilities, lunar sample return, simple manufacture items needed on the Moon- or in Cis lunar space.

Once you have rocket fuel made on the Moon, people going see that electrical power will be a BIG future market. So they going want to figure out what the best way to make pure silicon- plus other vacuum manufacture techniques which work best on the Moon and/or elsewhere in space.

But I don’t think NASA should necessarily wait for private sector to mine rocket fuel for them to make Manned Mars- should plan on doing without Lunar rocket fuel- but if they get up to speed fast enough that’s gravy. Most important aspect of mining lunar water is for after the NASA Manned Mars- lunar water and space markets in general makes Mars colonies realistic. And that makes NASA Manned Mars more than just some pointless stunt.

Comment by gbaikie — May 1, 2011 @ 9:28 pm

“E.g., Zegler and Kutter (2010) ”

Oh, I looked this up after I posted, I guess you meant:

http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/DepotBasedTransportationArchitecture2010.pdf

I didn’t read all of it. But didn’t know you get more efficient use of rocket power by starting in L1 or L-2. I had thought it would be about the same. A “saving account”, yes, but also in addition a considerable return for that saving???

“The position of L2 allows the use of powered gravity assist exit burns; also called Oberth maneuvers that effectively spend our accumulated energy savings. A propulsive event performed at high velocity near perigee
receives an augmentation of exit velocity. For typical earth departure events, this augmentation is approximately a factor of 2 to 7. A typical Mars departure delta-V of 4.3 km/sec (from LEO) is obtained with a perigee burn of less than 1 km/sec.”

From above link

I don’t know if that is correct, but comforting to see more people talk about the idea in general.
It’s not surprising to me that one “recaptures” the 3 delta-v, and if add 1 km/sec at perigee- you end up with around 4 km/sec, but is that what is meant or something else?

Certainly a ship, which fully fuel in L-1/L-2 has considerably more capability compared with same vehicle fully fueled at LEO.
And I can see why it would work in adding some efficiency- because it’s sort like having more delta-v concentrated at the perigee.

Comment by gbaikie — May 1, 2011 @ 11:59 pm

Would NASA be able to raise funds by selling its expertise to those who may need it in the future? Mining on the moon or an asteroid would require designs and a proof of concept. A mission to titan to quantify the hydrocarbon deposits would satisfy scientists and stockholders of big oil, no?
IMHO a human crew would be required to go on these journeys to verify its technical and commercial feasibility.
In 50 years time we may well have 6 billion people living like westerners, with cars and fridges and air-conditioning so why not go prospecting now to see what’s in our galactic pantry?

Comment by Phil Thomas — May 2, 2011 @ 9:50 am

“Would NASA be able to raise funds by selling its expertise to those who may need it in the future?”

People who once worked for NASA are selling their expertise- as they should, and have this right as any citizen does.

But NASA isn’t a non-profit organization, it’s govt agency as is the State Dept or US military. NASA could charge for things in the same way the Dept of Transportation could charge for train tickets. Or a migration agency could charge for administration fees. Or Post Office charges for stamps.
But if NASA charged for it’s expertise, this could encourage the idea that some people at NASA *shouldn’t* be allowed to give these same types services “for free”- and “policing this kind thing” could have quite horrible results.
In an ideal situation the govt shouldn’t charge any fees- and any thing of that nature [that seems to require it] should be in the realm of the private sector.
This so the public has a choice of the services it buys- not be forced to buy from govt entity that arbitrarily sets a price [even if a price is thought to be too low].

“Mining on the moon or an asteroid would require designs and a proof of concept. A mission to titan to quantify the hydrocarbon deposits would satisfy scientists and stockholders of big oil, no?”

NASA should make this type of information public.

NASA might create some program that encourages it’s employees to more easily leave and return to NASA- and these employees could be paid for their expertise.
But NASA should not let it’s employees “moonlight”- unless that job has nothing to do with NASA.
NASA job should be make the “greedy capitalists” dreams come true. And do so by providing information to everyone and this information is created from space exploration.

If private interests, which are not given tax dollars, wish to explore space, then they can decide whether or not to make that information available to the public- or as you say, sell their expertise.

As far as Big Oil- they should be thinking water in space.

The Moon could have a trillion plus deposit on the Moon- something bigger than any oil deposit they could dream about finding on Earth.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Big Oil has spent more money on “being green” than compared to the cost of mining water on the Moon. Mining water on the Moon make “green projects” on earth seem purple- mining lunar water is very, very, “green”.
Now, I don’t expect Big Oil, to be on the cutting edge, but maybe “small oil” might be involved.

Comment by gbaikie — May 3, 2011 @ 3:28 am

[...] and reflects a basic division within humanity,” Paul notes in a recent post titled Embrace the end of Human Spaceflight. “For any new frontier, there are always those who go and those who stay.  Those who stay [...]

Pingback by SciFiPulse.Net » Blogging the Moon: new thoughts on the future of spaceflight — May 4, 2011 @ 8:14 am

[...] suppose it has come to this. We have no manned space program anymore, Muslim outreach is a NASA priority according to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, and a recent [...]

Pingback by “Apollo 18″ – possibly the worst science fiction film of the 21st century | Watts Up With That? — August 24, 2011 @ 6:01 am

[...] past year was the 50th anniversary of both Yuri Gagarin’s first flight into space and John F. Kennedy’s announcement of the Moon landing goal – two events separated [...]

Pingback by Annus Horribilis: Space in 2011 | The Once and Future Moon — December 27, 2011 @ 5:17 am