April 10, 2011
A Rationale for Cislunar Space
Hughes communications satellite HGS-1, left in a useless transfer orbit by launch vehicle failure in 1997, finally reached GEO in 1998 by using lunar flyby gravity assists, the first commercial use of the Moon in history.
At a recent workshop on lunar return, a critical part of the discussion focused on the need for a statement of purpose – a value proposition for the Moon. Over the years I’ve attempted to distill my rationale for lunar return (my “elevator speech” if you will) into a clearly stated and persuasive argument about the need for enabling human reach beyond low Earth orbit – into all the areas between Earth and Moon (cislunar space) where all of our satellite assets reside. So, as the elevator doors are closing, I will state my Rationale for Cislunar Space:
1. Space satellite assets in orbit beyond LEO benefit society. Modern industrial life depends on satellites of various types and purposes – space assets for global communications, weather monitoring, scientific exploration and national security.
2. Earth’s deep gravity well is a significant cost deterrent to expanded activities in space. Beyond LEO mission launch mass is mostly propellant. We remain mass- and power-limited and therefore capability-limited as long as we are tied to the current spaceflight template of launching everything we need from Earth’s surface. Regardless of launch costs, the size and capability of a given space asset is dictated by the size of available launch vehicles.
3. Human- and machine-assembled satellites can be as big and as capable as needed and unlimited by launch vehicle size. The advent of human servicing and assembly in space, for which we now have documented proof (after 30 years of the Shuttle program and construction of the International Space Station) gives us options and frees us from launch vehicle constraints on volume and mass. Once we are able to get people and machines to those places in space where assets are needed, we can build expanding, maintainable and extensible space systems on site.
4. Currently we cannot routinely access orbits beyond LEO with people and machines to build and maintain such satellites. We use all the propellant of a given launch vehicle just getting people to LEO. At LEO, a new vehicle – already fueled – will be needed to reach various “high” orbits of cislunar space (home to current and future satellites) including geosynchronous orbit, the 36,000 km high orbits at which communications and other global monitoring satellites orbit. At these spots, a single orbit takes 24 hours, the same time as the rotation period of Earth. Such satellites appear to “hover” over one spot on the ground and a dish antenna pointed at their location in the sky never has to be moved to track it.
5. The manufacture and use of propellant made from lunar materials allows for a system that will lower the cost for new space activities, enable routine access to and from the surface of the Moon – give access to all other points in cislunar space, including GEO and other orbits useful for space assets – and open up an avenue for routine human interplanetary flight (i.e., to Mars and beyond). Making propellant from water retained at the lunar poles permits us to set up a logistics base on the Moon, creating routine access throughout cislunar space. In terms of energy, there is very little difference between going from LEO to the aforementioned geosynchronous orbit and lunar orbit.
6. The Moon offers other material and energy resources needed to create new space faring capability, including regolith aggregate, glass and ceramics, metals and solar cell fabrication. We can make composite and ceramic materials from lunar soil by sintering the regolith into parts and structures. Metals can be extracted from lunar rocks and used for construction on the Moon and in space. Engineers have created a roving vehicle that uses lunar soil to make in-place solar cells for the generation of electricity. This ability allows us to create vast photovoltaic arrays for the generation of gigawatts of electrical power. These resources, in addition to the water used for propellant production, are all present and available on the Moon.
7. Both robotic and human presence is required on the Moon to enable and maintain production from lunar resources. I’ve worked in “unmanned” spaceflight for over 30 years. While a firm believer in the utility and possibilities of robotic operations controlled from Earth, I also know that sometimes these robots require human ingenuity and interdiction to work properly. The servicing of the Hubble Space Telescope by Shuttle astronauts has shown us how important people can be to the success of space operations. We can start a lunar return through the use of teleoperated robots, but ultimately people will be necessary to creatively manage operations as well as for getting them back on track when they falter.
8. By establishing a permanent presence on the Moon, we create a “transcontinental railroad” for cislunar space – a reusable, extensible and maintainable (thus, affordable) transportation system. Virtually any scenario for human missions beyond LEO requires a spacecraft carrying hundreds of tons of propellant. This propellant can be made off-Earth from lunar resources and launched from the Moon’s weak gravity well to depots in cislunar space. No rational technical argument can be made that the Moon is a roadblock. And from a monetary perspective, building an extensible cislunar transportation infrastructure gives us both capability and return on our investment.
9. Developing a program to utilize off-planet resources will drive new technology, expand economic growth and assure democratic pluralism survives on the frontiers of space (neither totalitarianism nor corporatism). For fifty years the U.S. civil space program has served national prestige, launched massive economic and scientific growth through technological innovation, and nurtured international cooperation in many areas. We cannot however, continue to assume that free market capitalism will remain the dominant political paradigm in space. There are space powers who do not share our views about individual freedoms and economic opportunity, nor do they necessarily care about the importance or need for property rights and contract law – values needed to maintain free societies. There may be no individual liberty or free market enterprise if America does not maintain a strong leadership presence on the growing space frontier.
The report of the Augustine committee concluded that human expansion into space was the ultimate (and in fact only) rationale for manned spaceflight. I agree. The elevator doors are opening now so I hope my argument for lunar return has persuaded you that America has the opportunity to prosper, to create a space economy and help shape humanity’s future by utilizing the Moon to develop cislunar space.
38 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
The web editors have closed comments for this blog.
Nice write-up Paul. Thanks.
Comment by Trent Waddington — April 11, 2011 @ 4:26 am
*A member of the choir says*
AMEN
You put it in a nutshell. Interesting the conclusion of the Augustine Commission. I agree with their finding. That expansion into space is the ultimate rationale for going to space. While it is possible to have revenue streams of various extraterrestrial sources, I do not think they will break even. Perhaps yes by governmental institutions that work on the behest of the taxpayer. Less so for those that might want to “do it themselves.”
For awhile I thought SPSs(from lunar or asteroidal materials) would be a multi-trillion dollar industry which could make a commercial space plan work. However doing research into thorium based nuclear reactors tells me that they would be the better investment to power human society for the next few thousand years. SPSs have only one drawback. That being, their ability to be knocked out by a solar storm. Everything else about them is “kosher.”
However I agree with space expansion for other reasons. Getting away from it all, and starting a new beginning comes to mind. I am a content and proud American. However that could change with a wave of a senator or judges hand. I dislike where the state of the nation is. Things seems to be much less just than they used to be. Much more corrupt. If history does repeat itself, then I think the US might be ripe for its own dynastic succession. A time when the unjustly mistreated masses do rise against the oppressors and do reboot the system.
Comment by Rhyshaelkan — April 11, 2011 @ 6:23 am
Another voice from the “choir”. I am particularly interested in point 1.
“1. Space satellite assets in orbit beyond LEO benefit society. Modern industrial life depends on satellites of various types and purposes – space assets for global communications, weather monitoring, scientific exploration and national security.”
Do you know of any activity to define in greater detail the types of application satellite capability that would be benefitted by this scenario? Being able to list detailed potential advantages to life on Earth that would be made possible by use of Lunar Resources would make for great “talking points”.
Comment by Joe — April 11, 2011 @ 10:28 am
Joe,
Do you know of any activity to define in greater detail the types of application satellite capability that would be benefitted by this scenario?
The biggest commercial possibility I can think of is for global high-bandwidth personal communications. Large, distributed aperture comm systems in GEO could make cell towers obsolete. Instant high-def TV and streaming megabit/second internet. Six hundred channels to your iPad or telephone. No “black” zones on Earth. All possible with the kinds of large systems that people and machines could construct if we could get them there routinely.
But even from a societal viewpoint, we would benefit. Right now, we cannot protect and extend our strategic means satellites. With a cislunar servicing system, we could repair, maintain and protect those systems.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 11, 2011 @ 11:34 am
What?! No mention of Helium-3?! I’m shocked Dr. Spudis!
Joking aside I think the Moon would be critical for the asteroid mining industry, as it would allow us to “blow off” chunks of irradiated metal and process them in a gravity friendly environment (since humans perform better there).
As far as helium-3 goes, it’s a long shot but one that seems to be motivating China to conquer our nearest neighbor.
Comment by Darnell Clayton — April 11, 2011 @ 2:00 pm
The first nation, or nations, that start to actually produce large quantities of extraterrestrial water within cis-lunar space will strategically and economically dominate cis-lunar space and the rest of the solar system, IMO. Water can be used to produce air (oxygen) and rocket fuel (hydrogen and oxygen) and can be utilized to protect space stations and interplanetary travelers from the dangers of solar and galactic radiation. Water, of course, can also be utilized to sustain human life in space and the life of other animals and to grow plants and crops in extraterrestrial environments.
This is why I like the Spudis and Lavoie idea of focusing on the production of lunar water. And it doesn’t even matter if the water produced on the Moon is immediately utilized because water will always be of commercial value in extraterrestrial environments. Water is gold, even on Earth, and will always be of life sustaining and commercial value!
If NASA starts to produce large quantities of water (thousands of tonnes annually) on the lunar surface then a new age for humanity will dawn that will rapidly usher in reusable orbital commercial space tugs to cheaply place satellites from LEO to GEO and beyond. In case of a nuclear EMP attack, space tugs could be utilized to move satellites out of harmfully radioactive regions until it is safe to return them. Lunar water will also make it cheaper for governments and private industry to set up permanently manned facilities on the Moon and within the rest of cis-lunar space.
Its time for NASA and the Federal government to use our future– space launch system– to start producing water on the Moon so that we can continue to grow our economy and expand both the public and private American presence in the New Frontier.
Of course, we could always just wait around for other nations like China, Japan, Russia, or India to do it and then have our government and private commercial companies dependent upon foreign countries for extraterrestrial water– outsourcing another American industry while creating lucrative jobs in other nations instead of right here at home!
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — April 11, 2011 @ 3:49 pm
Of course, I agree with your article.
But one minor nit,
“Engineers have created a roving vehicle that uses lunar soil to make in-place solar cells for the generation of electricity.”
I think it is more accurate to state they have “devised” or “invented” this vehicle rather than “created” since creation implies that they actually have built this interesting devise.
Comment by James Fincannon — April 11, 2011 @ 3:53 pm
Jim,
creation implies that they actually have built this interesting devise.
They’ve built a prototype that works in the lab. Does that count?
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 11, 2011 @ 4:05 pm
Nice piece.
I like the fact that the Moon is viewed here in the context of cis-lunar space. That is, what you can do in cis-lunar space is really what fundamentally justifies what you do on the Moon. That wasn’t the path taken by Constellation, which was essentially all about the lunar surface – living, working, and producing there.
Comment by Hilda — April 12, 2011 @ 9:28 am
Yes! I gotta see that report!
Comment by James Fincannon — April 12, 2011 @ 9:34 am
Lots of good ideas here. Has anyone done the math? Make sure you have truly defined the mission and then do the math…
Comment by Ron — April 13, 2011 @ 4:43 am
Ron,
Has anyone done the math? Make sure you have truly defined the mission and then do the math
The mission definition, payload elements, sizing, sequence and cost have all been estimated and presented here:
http://www.spudislunarresources.com/Papers/Affordable_Lunar_Base.pdf
I discuss the results of this study in outline form in a previous post:
http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/2010/12/can-we-afford-to-return-to-the-moon/
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 13, 2011 @ 9:10 am
I was waiting at the barbershop yesterday for a haircut, when a conversation on space exploration started up (I live in the Houston area, and we were just hammered again by the the Obama administration giving away space shuttles to Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein in California, Chuck Schumer in New York, and Bill Nelson in Florida). One of the first things that popped out of the mouth of one of the guys was He3 and how it was going to solve all of our problems. So, I had to educate him that while He3 is theoretically a good source of fuel for fusion reactors, fusion technology is still stumbling along and may never happen,at least in the near future. I then started talking about the more near-term resources that we know are on Moon-sunlight, mountain tops, and water. Any near term lunar exploration needs to focus on the poles, as that is where entrepreneurs have the easiest payback. Electricity for use on the moon and communication services on the moon and back to earth for teleperation, etc. is a market just as important as water, oxygen, regolith, metals, etc. for use in cis-lunar space. By the way Paul, if you could come up with just one more talking point, you would have the 10 Commandments of cis-lunar exploration.
Comment by JohnG — April 13, 2011 @ 11:10 am
if you could come up with just one more talking point, you would have the 10 Commandments of cis-lunar exploration.
I certainly agree that ten is a nice round number. Maybe I’ll ask my readers to suggest a Number Ten. :^D
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 13, 2011 @ 11:35 am
Paul still doesn’t get it.
The transcontinental railroad wasn’t built and run by the North American Railroad Administration.
No one objects to developing cislunar space. No one objects to assembling big satellites, manufacturing propellent, etc. In fact, all of those things are part of the New Vision of Space Exploration which this blog is constantly trying to undermine. That’s a strawman Paul’s created.
The real question is whether the space development should be dominated by a monolithic state monopoly, as the old Kennedy/Von Braun/Bush vision called for, or whether we should embrace a more capitalist, free-enterprise model. Do we want the socialist “Once and Future Moon” or do we want a historically American model?
In a free society, it is not the job of government to build and operate mines, factories, housing, stores, and so on. Those are roles for the private sector. Government’s role is limited to unique essential functions such as national security and Lewis and Clark type exploration of the far frontier.
Paul wants NASA to give up on Lewis and Clark exploration. He does not want NASA to boldly go where no man has gone before — to new destinations like the asteroids, the Lagrange points, Mars, and beyond. Almost 50 years after NASA landed men on the Moon, he wants NASA to land men on the Moon and keep them there to become miners and shopkeepers on the Moon.
Building and operating settlements and stations is not something the government does well. The history of the International Space Station should prove that. Paul thinks it will be different on the Moon. It won’t. Just publishing a viewgraph saying a socialist lunar base will be “affordable” doesn’t make it affordable. There were plenty of viewgraphs saying that ISS would be affordable, too. The laws of economics don’t operate any differently just because you’re on the Moon.
Industrialization and colonization should be left to the private sector, with appropriate incentives such as tax incentives, prizes, etc. from the Federal government. NASA, meanwhile, should concentrate on what it does best, fulfilling its first best destiny on the far frontier.
It’s important that the United States develop the capability to go beyond cislunar space, not only for exploration but also for planetary defense. As a lunar geologist, Paul may not be interested in anything beyond the Moon, but there are objects out there that may already have us in their sites. A single near-Earth asteroid could wipe out civilization, the way an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs. Even a smaller asteroid could wipe out a city or trigger a war. To ignore that threat would be almost criminally negligent.
We do not need to choose between developing cislunar space and exploring the solar system. That is “the Spudis fallacy.” We can do both, if we do things intelligently. Let NASA do what it does best, and let private enterprise do what it does best.
Comment by Friends of the Frontier — April 13, 2011 @ 1:24 pm
You’ve gotten just about everything completely wrong.
I advocate returning to the Moon to learn how to use lunar resources as our national civil space goal on the grounds that it will create new and real capability. My goal is not to “settle and mine the Moon” but to determine if the Moon can be settled and mined. The “New Vision” that I am allegedly “undermining” doesn’t do anything – it shovels money to some commercial companies for their vehicle development program and spends time and money on paper studies of imaginary human missions, but it doesn’t actually go anywhere or do anything for at least the next decade and probably longer. In the mean time, we are discarding and abandoning real spaceflight capability for the promise of a capability that may or may not appear in the commercial sector.
As for asteroids wiping us out, pray tell: exactly what investigations and studies will you conduct on a human asteroid mission that will mitigate this potential disaster? In any event, let us all hope that asteroid with our number on it doesn’t come before 2030, the earliest possible date for such a mission under the administration’s proposed space policy.
My complaint about the “new direction” is that we trade an achievable goal with incremental milestones for no goal and vague designs for technology development, that we discard real, existing capability for empty promises of imaginary future capability, that we still spend essentially the same amount of money for a federal space program but we get nothing to show for it.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 13, 2011 @ 2:02 pm
Paul:
I think it comes down to asking exactly what we want to do when we get there, the answers to which can provide us with direction as far as where we should be heading. Your analysis provides a sound argument for reurning to the Moon.
No matter where we decided to head, we will want to return to the Moon, sooner or later. Hopefully, sooner.
And no matter where we decide to head, we should be launching unmanned missions to begin the groundwork. LRO is a great start, but we should, at the least, be sending landers to the poles to find out what a manned mission should expect, should we select those destinations.
And if we want to master ISRU on the lunar surface, there is nothing to stop us from trying out the technology here and now. We can used simulated regolith in a vacuum chamber, perhaps with the goal of generating enough fuel to lift the total mass of our “lander” into lunar oribt.
This sounds to me like an excellent NASA centennial challenge event!
Comment by Nelson Bridwell — April 13, 2011 @ 7:10 pm
Also, can I ask your view on the relative merits of a permanent outpost vs lots of scouting missions to different locations on the Moon?
It is my assumption that even with ISRU, keeping people alive on the lunar surface will be twice as expensive as what it costs to keep the ISS going.
Where a permanent outpost might make sense to me is if an ISRU experiment needs constant non-remote human itervention…
Or…if there will be lots of experiments to conduct, and it will be easier to leave a tiny crew on the surface (2?)all of the time, and just transport the equiment there, rather than the cost and risk of sending new crew members each time that a new experiment needs to be run.
We will also want to study long-term human exposure to 1/6 g.
Comment by Nelson Bridwell — April 13, 2011 @ 7:25 pm
“Paul still doesn’t get it”
Actually it is you who does not get it. The surface and vicinity of the Earth’s Moon, along with cis-lunar space, is the next frontier, and the next step for human exploration. I agree with many of Paul’s 9 reasons/justifications for returning to the Moon, that he mentioned in this blog. I also believe there are many other reasons as well. At any rate, we have only explored a tiny fraction of a fraction of the Moon. There is much more to explore, discover, learn, and utilize on the lunar surface.
Comment by Zach — April 13, 2011 @ 9:37 pm
“Paul wants NASA to give up on Lewis and Clark exploration. He does not want NASA to boldly go where no man has gone before — to new destinations like the asteroids, the Lagrange points, Mars, and beyond. Almost 50 years after NASA landed men on the Moon, he wants NASA to land men on the Moon and keep them there to become miners and shopkeepers on the Moon. ”
Lewis and Clark did not go where no man has gone before, nor even, go before no white man has gone before.
The idea that you seem to expressing is you are thoroughly happy with Apollo’s “plant some flags make some footprints, and yeah why not to do some science while we are here” program.
One of Lewis and Clark’s task was determine the general nature of what resources could be used- NASA hasn’t even done that much in regards to the moon.
What is needed is a Lewis and Clark type exploration of the Moon- specifically of the polar regions of the Moon.
Btw, the lunar poles is bigger land area than California and Oregon. And it so happens man has gone there before.
["The Lewis and Clark Expedition (1804-1806) was the first United States expedition to the Pacific Coast.....In 1793, Sir Alexander Mackenzie, a Canadian made the trip by land to the Pacific Ocean; Jefferson read his book about the trip in 1802, and this influenced his decision to send an expedition." wiki ]
Comment by gbaikie — April 13, 2011 @ 10:01 pm
Nelson,
your view on the relative merits of a permanent outpost vs lots of scouting missions to different locations on the Moon?
I favor establishing an outpost over conducting sortie missions. An outpost is the only way to concentrate enough resources at a given location to create capability. A sortie mission uses assets once at widely separated sites and then abandons them, usually permanently.
I have discussed this topic in a previous post here:
http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/2009/05/return-to-the-moon-outpost-or-sorties/
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — April 14, 2011 @ 4:33 am
@ Friends of the Frontier
The unmanned exploration of NEO asteroids is extremely important, IMO. But there’s no logical reason to spend ten times as much on a single manned mission to an asteroid when you could visit a large variety of asteroids, and even return asteroid material to cis-lunar space, through several unmanned missions.
As far as humans traveling beyond cis-lunar space, we’re going to need to find out how effective water and hydrogen mass shielding is for such journeys. Anything less could cause significant brain damage to astronauts from heavy nuclei over several months.
With its natural polar ice resources, the Moon would be the perfect place to test small habitat modules covered by several hundred tonnes of water or hydrogen radiation shielding against heavy nuclei. And reusable heavy lift tankers, perhaps derived from the upper stage of NASA’s future heavy lift vehicle, could provide the several hundreds of tonnes of mass shielding for a manned interplanetary vehicle at an L1 launch point destined for Mars.
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — April 14, 2011 @ 1:30 pm
[...] While Russia’s date of visitation is preferable, unless the nation can reinvent itself within the next decade, our hopes of visiting Mars will have to wait until we conquer the Moon. [...]
Pingback by Russia Courting Mars After 2035? | Colony Worlds — April 14, 2011 @ 3:39 pm
I would add a reason #10 which, in my opinion, is of greater importance than the other 9.
We (humanity) need an off-Earth self-sufficient colony as insurance for the survival of mankind. And we need it just as soon as possible. The lunar poles have the elements needed to sustain such a near-by colony and at much less the cost, and so sooner, than such a colony on Mars.
Why is this rationale more important than the others? Simply, if humanity goes extinct, nothing else matters. And the idea that someone might accidentally develop a self-replicating ecophage (biologic, chemical, nanotech, or AI) within the lifetimes of our grandchildren is not unrealistic.
Comment by JohnHunt — April 15, 2011 @ 9:10 pm
“human expansion into space was the ultimate (and in fact only) rationale for manned spaceflight. I agree.”
“We (humanity) need an off-Earth self-sufficient colony as insurance for the survival of mankind. And we need it just as soon as possible.”
“And reusable heavy lift tankers, perhaps derived from the upper stage of NASA’s future heavy lift vehicle, could provide the several hundreds of tonnes of mass shielding for a manned interplanetary vehicle at an L1 launch point destined for Mars.”
This is a great thread. I think the best place for humans in space will be in “Bernal Spheres.” The 1929 version was modified in the 70′s to include artificial gravity on the inner surface at the equator by spinning. With the focused power of the sun we can melt huge quantities of ore and form spheres using a variety of techniques. Like blowing glass bottles. I have no idea what the ideal size would be in relation to the materials being used; it could be as small as a few miles or much bigger. The point being once you make the sphere with a shell thick enough to shield from radiation, you have a very strong structure you can partially fill with comet (or moon) water and establish a closed cycle life support system. It can also be propelled to whatever part of the solar system you want to establish a colony to exploit resources.
Some big mylar mirrors and lots of rocks and you have a hollow moon. Kind of like the death star- except real.
The Bernal Sphere is superior to bases on natural bodies because it will have earth gravity and be able to travel.
But the trick of course it getting from where we are now, to an industry manufacturing artificial worlds in space.
It is perfectly doable, there are no technical showstoppers. A percentage of the DOD budget would pay for it.
Oh well.
Comment by GaryChurch — April 16, 2011 @ 6:25 pm
“I would add a reason #10 which, in my opinion, is of greater importance than the other 9.
We (humanity) need an off-Earth self-sufficient colony as insurance for the survival of mankind. And we need it just as soon as possible. The lunar poles have the elements needed to sustain such a near-by colony and at much less the cost, and so sooner, than such a colony on Mars.”
Not sure what a self-sufficient colony is. Not sure such a creature has ever existed.
Without a connection [trade] to the rest of the human species, I would rate them as unimportant and would guess over the long term at severe risk of extinction.
If you mean a colony economically vibrant and highly interconnected to earth, similar to any decent nation on Earth, that sounds very important to me.
Mars will be more isolated, and could have interesting possibility in terms creating a more diverse social/political society. Mars could be something like N Korea- but that seems highly unlikely.
And it seems to me that the more isolated nature of Mars would only be temporary- a few decades to at most a century.
So generally, I doubt the human species on Earth could go extinct and at same time leave space colonies “healthly” enough to continue the human species.
But the Moon may be a better place to develop technology which has [global] risk- killing every inhabitant on the Moon, would be “better” than having it occur on Earth.
Or even placing such thing outside this solar system could be warranted- though if it could somehow consume the entire galaxy, we really should put that project on the back burner.
It’s not just that we should care less for the lower total population of Lunatics, but rather the Moon environment is more isolated- non connected. There isn’t a web of life interconnecting the planet- so things like genetics development of radically new plants and animals would have less risk as compared to on Earth.
If you going create dinosaurs, the Moon would probably be a better place than on Earth. And it could do wonders for their tourism industry.
Comment by gbaikie — April 17, 2011 @ 1:13 am
“I doubt the human species on Earth could go extinct and at same time leave space colonies “healthly” enough to continue the human species.”
I think you have it backwards. Space would isolate the colony population. I think you are just nay saying because for your own reasons you just do not like the idea.
Comment by GaryChurch — April 17, 2011 @ 2:48 pm
Comment by gbaikie — April 17, 2011 @ 1:13 am
“Without a connection [trade] to the rest of the human species, I would rate them as unimportant and would guess over the long term at severe risk of extinction.
If you mean a colony economically vibrant and highly interconnected to earth, similar to any decent nation on Earth, that sounds very important to me.”
This is, I think at least, exactly what this thread is about. If you noticed Dr. Spudis answer to my question above there is one of (I hope) many examples of the service such a trade between Earth and Cislunar Space can provide.
“So generally, I doubt the human species on Earth could go extinct and at same time leave space colonies “healthly” enough to continue the human species.”
Maybe so. Maybe not. I hope we never find out, but If we follow the course being discussed we will produce settlements (I actually like Krafft Ehricke’s term Androcell) as independent as they can be and its better to try than not.
Comment by Joe — April 17, 2011 @ 2:54 pm
I’d like to second Jim Fincannon’s request for the report on a working prototype of Ignatiev’s rolling solar cell factories.
I’ve seen reports of lunar regolith simulant being melted with mirrors concentrating sunlight. And I acknowledge vapor deposition would be easier in lunar vacuum.
But achieving a substrate smooth and pure enough for photovoltaic cells? Making a chunk of lunar real estate level and smooth enough to play soccer on would take some serious heavy equipment. That these golf carts could make the moon’s surface into nice, flat solar arrays seems far fetched.
And what about the feed stock for the materials being vapor deposited? The aluminum, silicon etc. would need to be mined on the moon or imported from earth. The pages I see singing the praises of Ignatiev’s paver often don’t mention that the cell materials must be mined.
Comment by Hop David — April 17, 2011 @ 5:47 pm
“This is, I think at least, exactly what this thread is about. If you noticed Dr. Spudis answer to my question above there is one of (I hope) many examples of the service such a trade between Earth and Cislunar Space can provide.”
I agree, it’s great value is in it’s relatively immediate benefit to the “average consumer” and it’s an addition to an existing market.
Compare: that space could provide most of our energy needs, this is more distant prospect. And that providing electrical power from space to the military operation and/or such disasters as the Japanese earthquake, are also distant prospects- but with one advantage being the US military has a track record of successfully doing such things. Not because the military is “better”, but because it’s part of it’s job to look into the future and find ways of doing it’s job, cheaper.
Power from space, may eventually cut a consumers electrical bills, but having something like a big screen TV, is more interesting- more valuable- at the moment.
“Maybe so. Maybe not. I hope we never find out, but If we follow the course being discussed we will produce settlements (I actually like Krafft Ehricke’s term Androcell) as independent as they can be and its better to try than not.”
I didn’t know what Androcell was so I did a search:
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1978/jan-feb/ehricke.html
I didn’t read the whole thing, but I now have general idea of what you meant.
It seems Ehricke does a good job of destroying this silly notion we have had for centuries of nature vs man.
One thing I was reminded of while reading it, is the common perception of space. I suggest you ask anyone who not interested in space: How far is space from where they are.
Or what I asked someone, “During the day, how far would you need to go up, before you saw a black sky and could see stars.”
The international definition of when space starts is 100 km up- you go that high and you are an “official” astronaut.
But it’s a rather arbitrary definition.
You begin to see a black sky at about 23-25 km up [about 70,000'] and one typically fly on an airline at 12-13km.
So in terms of distance, space is a shorter distance then a morning commute.
Anyhow the person thought it was about 3000 miles.
Of course, getting into orbit or “getting 1/2 way to anywhere”, is all about how fast you are going.
Comment by gbaikie — April 17, 2011 @ 8:39 pm
Comment by gbaikie — April 17, 2011 @ 8:39 pm
“I agree, it’s great value is in it’s relatively immediate benefit to the “average consumer” and it’s an addition to an existing market. Compare: that space could provide most of our energy needs, this is more distant prospect. And that providing electrical power from space to the military operation and/or such disasters as the Japanese earthquake, are also distant prospects- but with one advantage being the US military has a track record of successfully doing such things. Not because the military is “better”, but because it’s part of it’s job to look into the future and find ways of doing it’s job, cheaper. Power from space, may eventually cut a consumers electrical bills, but having something like a big screen TV, is more interesting- more valuable- at the moment. “
Agreed. It is the crawl before you walk, walk before you run cliché (but clichés exist because they tell you something valuable). The “global high-bandwidth personal communications” example is a sort of moderate sized (compared to Power Generation) starting point. With a number of those you can (hopefully) justify the beginning of your Cislunar Industry. It can then grow to encompass bigger tasks. As these tasks grow, so would the In-Space populations from initial outposts for 2-4 to eventually Androcells for large populations (that is the idea anyway).
“I didn’t know what Androcell was so I did a search:”
Sorry, should have been more explicit (the first time I did a search on Androcell finding information on the actual concept was quite a task – seems there is a musical group whose lead singer read the article you linked to and named his group after it. Google gave them more hits than the actual concept).
“I didn’t read the whole thing, but I now have general idea of what you meant.”
If you are interested in more information I would suggest a book “Krafft Ehricke’s Extraterrestrial Imperative” by Marsha Freeman. The first half is a biography, but the second is a compilation of technical papers/articles. They are very dated, of course, in no small part due to the discovery of practically usable amounts of water, carbon and nitrogen on the moon. However the general strategies discussed (in the articles from the 1970s on) are still interesting and the new found abundance of lunar resource should only make things easier.
Comment by Joe — April 18, 2011 @ 10:23 am
“This ability allows us to create vast photovoltaic arrays for the generation of gigawatts of electrical power.”
This might be a little difficult at a polar base, since the solar arrays will need to be vertical. The areas with nearly continuous sunlight are somewhat restricted, and we can’t place the arrays too close together without shading each other excessively.
Comment by Dick Morris — April 25, 2011 @ 4:35 pm
[...] contrast to Greason’s proposed “settlement strategy,” I have tried to frame a slightly different path for our national space program. Our “goal” is to expand human reach beyond LEO, first into cislunar space and then into [...]
Pingback by From “One Small Step” to Settlement | The Once and Future Moon — June 3, 2011 @ 12:14 pm
[...] awareness, assurance of service, and the defense and maintenance of space-based assets. Control of cislunar space – meaning in this case the ability to routinely travel throughout its extent and to all the [...]
Pingback by China’s Long March to the Moon | The Once and Future Moon — January 14, 2012 @ 7:52 am
[...] He needs to think carefully about how to incentivize the development of space and about the critical national needs served by our civil space program. Prizes seem attractive because of their historical role in stimulating a nascent aviation [...]
Pingback by Everybody has won and all must have prizes | The Once and Future Moon — January 25, 2012 @ 5:33 am
[...] Resources Inc. plan) but the legal ones are no less so. In part, this is why I favor making the determination of how to extract and use off-planet resources a central goal of the American civi…. Note well: I do not say that we should turn NASA into a space mining company. Rather, the role [...]
Pingback by The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers* | The Once and Future Moon — May 1, 2012 @ 1:50 pm
[...] are seen as having limited value and making no economic sense. On the other hand, the gradual expansion beyond LEO using nearby assets builds a permanent, lasting space faring capability. The Moon fits into such a scheme by virtue of both its proximity and usefulness. In the [...]
Pingback by Everyone's Gone To The Moon | The Once and Future Moon — June 5, 2012 @ 3:15 pm
[...] but inexorably extend their reach and influence in space, first into low Earth orbit and then into cislunar space and beyond. Their approach uses a variety of hardware derived from existing systems while adding [...]
Pingback by China and the Moon | The Once and Future Moon — June 19, 2012 @ 5:57 am