AirSpaceMag.com

Good article Paul, not to nitpik but the link you gave for the founding charter for NASA the space act of 1958 is for the ammended version. The unammended version is here:
http://history.nasa.gov/spaceact.html

The one part that really stands out for me between the original and the ammended versions is:

“(c) Commercial Use of Space.–Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the Administration seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.”

This comes BEFORE the objectives of NASA.

“seek and encourage” For me that is pretty clear, NASA is not supposed just sit around and wait for commercial firms to come up with something. They are ordered to actually SEEK out opportunies, for me that means thinking outside the box and not just the status quo. They are also ordered to ENCOURAGE to the MAXIMUM extent possible the FULLEST use of commercial space.

Now many can disagree with that but for me there is no way around it that NASA is not doing this. I know I seem to be dragging out that dead horse and beating it again but for me NASA should be the enabler and the pump primer for getting more commercial space operations in place and then buying those products and services off the shelf as turn key systems.

I know it is not as glamourous and heroic if a NASA astronaut rides a commercial airline flight from California to Kennedy in Florida or riding a commercial flight to their workplace at a space station but transportation in and of itself should not be the focus, in my opinion. The focus should be what the astronauts do when they get to the destination, regardless of how they get there.

Paul wrote:

“Another problem with “settlement” as an objective is that the metrics for success are difficult to define.”

You might have missed it, it only showed up on one of this charts but he did provide a metric. It was are more or less people traveling and working in space. It was stated that the goal is have an increasing population doing this.

So for me it is a pretty clear metric. When the shuttle flew 9 times in a single year about 60 people flew into space. Using his metric how has America fared since that year. Are more or less going to space? Since the answer is less it would say we are failing in that goal.

Once the shuttle was gone and we were going to be doing two lunar missions a year and 8 people traveling to space and 4 more going to the space station again this is going in the wrong direction we are not increasing the traffic to space but reducing it. The more people that America can put into space using dual use NASA/private systems the cheaper it will become for NASA.

Paul wrote:

“Finally, settlement is a poor goal for a federal space program because it is so distant. No one seriously believes that humans will live in space or on another world permanently within the next several decades. ”

Greason did not say we were going to be doing anything on a permenant basis right out of the blocks. So it wasn’t as distant as you suggest. He said we start out with acknowledging that fuel is the key and we start in LEO and EL1 then move to the moon, mars moons etc.

We conquer the needed abilities we need, taking commercial with us every step of the way, from the closest places near term moving towards the farthest places last.

Comment by Vladislaw — June 3, 2011 @ 1:43 pm

Vlad,

We conquer the needed abilities we need, taking commercial with us every step of the way, from the closest places near term moving towards the farthest places last.

I don’t disagree with this and I said that there were many parts of Greason’s talk where I found myself in agreement. The point of this piece is that he was talking about establishing “settlement” as a strategic goal for our national civil space program and I think that such a goal is politically unpalatable to too many people. However, building a system that than routinely access all points within cislunar space (including the lunar surface) returns value (in terms of national capabilities) for expenditure and is potentially much more palatable, particularly in times of budgetary stress (i.e., now). And it is the cornerstone of eventual settlement.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 3, 2011 @ 1:57 pm

I agree with Mr. Greason that humanity’s ultimate goal should be the settlement of our solar system’s extraterrestrial environments. Whether that will mean the Moon or Mars or titanic O’Neil type space stations will probably largely depend on whether or not our species can adapt to hypogravity or artificial gravity environments without any deleterious effects to human health and reproduction.

My view of Greason’s speech, however, was that he was simply advocating that NASA play the limited but extremely important strategic and economic role of– pioneer– while private industry would play the riskier and more expensive role of– entrepreneur and settler.

The most logical use for our new space launch system should be for establishing a small permanent base, or bases, on the Moon. Utilizing NASA and NASA astronauts to find out if humans can remain completely healthy under a 1/6 lunar gravity environment for months or for years at a time and whether we can eliminate or mitigate potential health problems like cosmic radiation and lunar dust pollution should be as much of a priority, IMO, as mining water and other volatiles from the lunar poles. And both should be of vital interest to private companies wanting to settle the lunar environment for water mining, fuel processing and exportation, and for space tourism.

Water has always been the lifeblood of human civilization. And I think the same will turn out to be true for lunar settlements.

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — June 3, 2011 @ 2:15 pm

Paul wrote:

“The point of this piece is that he was talking about establishing “settlement” as a strategic goal for our national civil space program and I think that such a goal is politically unpalatable to too many people”

I believe he was trying to make the point, that if you read America’s space policy by the last few Presidents, settlement is the obvious goal but, as he said, we never use the “S” word. Which goes to your point about the politics of actually using that word to describe our actual long term goal. If we just acknowledge openly that is our goal we can then better define the objectives, strategies and tactics to achieve the goal.

He is saying we are arguing and fighting over a tactic, which launch vehicle, before we have defined the strategies and objectives.

Something like this?

Goal: increasing population traveling and working in space.
Strategy: approaches taken to get more population in space.
Objectives: Fuel? water? Breathable oxygen? located and produced starting in LEO ultimately moving to Mar’s moons?
Tactics: Space contests? first team to generate 10 gallons of water on luna?

Wouldn’t that fall, generally, in your outline for Luna? With yours being an objective?

Comment by Vladislaw — June 3, 2011 @ 2:20 pm

He is saying we are arguing and fighting over a tactic, which launch vehicle, before we have defined the strategies and objectives.

Nothing new to that insight. I’ve made the same point here for the last 2 years:

http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/2010/02/confusing-the-means-and-the-ends/

I do not think that previous presidential space policy declarations, with the possible exception of the 2004 VSE, had anything to do with “settlement,” unless you count simple trips to space by people as “settlement” (I don’t). The VSE was different (even if NASA didn’t understand what it meant — and still doesn’t) in that it made resource utilization a key enabling feature of lunar return. But President Bush was careful not to say “settlement” — he said that the object of going to the Moon was to learn how to live and work there for increasing periods of time. I am saying the same thing. I am also saying that the object of such a program is not simply to do it, but to create the capability to access those space-based assets that we depend upon. Initially, that does not require settlement, but creates a system that ultimately enables it.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 3, 2011 @ 2:29 pm

Vlad begins with same false premise private space advocates usually do; space has to make money.

It will not make money flying humans except to one place.

“NASA is assessing the risk to spacecraft posed by the upcoming 2011 Draconid meteor shower, a seven-hour storm of tiny space rocks that has the potential to ding major Earth-orbiting spacecraft like the crewed International Space Station”

All it takes is a couple holes in the space station in the right places and it would be written off. I am not a fan of the space station but it does have a nice window now. I would hope the crew are ready and able to abandon ship.

This is the thin strand that the entire private space enterprise hangs on. And even if it does not fail it will still get nowhere near the moon- at least not with any amount of useful payload soft landed.

Now we send an excavation system of some kind to the moon and start a base that will ultimately go down many miles, and we have a protected environment that keeps expanding (the capitalists will like that since capitalism requires constant expansion to stay “healthy”). An environment with plenty of room (think hundreds of miles of chunnel), plentiful energy (thank you solar) and of course the resource that makes it all possible- water. Can it support itself?

In my opinion the secret is lots of energy and plasma reformers. Reformers are those handy machines that rip molecules apart into their base atoms. They require alot of power but solve the main problem in a closed ecosystem- metabolite build up.

Low gravity debilitation can also be solved by another power consumer in the form of “sleeper trains” that are just a big circular train running in a circular tunnel to create one gravity. This is where people would sleep and exercise when not in the low g environment.

What is missing from this nice scenario? I do not know what critical resources the moon does not have that would have to come from the outside. And then there is the initial problem of how to get greatest amount of equipment there in the shortest time so it does not take a century just to prepare a small habitat.

Sidemount Cargo would allow a stream of robot landers to build up this infrastructure by sending hydrogen EDS on a regular schedule. Could half the launches be dedicated to the moon and the other half to satellite launches to help defray the cost? With ten launches a year that would be five annual payloads of 70 tons initially with block 1 vehicles. Then building up to the maximum payload of possibly 130 tons in later blocks. How much of that 70 ton earth departure vehicle would be lander? How much of the lander would be payload? I have not thought about it much.

“So for me it is a pretty clear metric. When the shuttle flew 9 times in a single year about 60 people flew into space.”

That is probably the most worthless metric possible. The first number that drives everything else is the total number of tons orbited in a year. Not the number of launches or people or what kind of vehicle.

The second number is how many tons of payload can be sent on a lunar trajectory- not how much the EDS masses but how much it’s payload does. The third number is how many tons of payload a lander can deliver to the pole where the water is.

These three numbers work against private space in just about every phase. An HLV with hydrogen upper stages, a hydrogen EDS, and consequent of the first two, the largest most efficient lander vs. a small lander that can only land small components compared to what lands starting with a 70 or 130 ton launcher.

The numbers for kerolox cult hobby rockets and hypergolic EDS (since, despite deceptive advertising, there is no way to store hydrogen in space) result in an absurd number of launches of very small payloads, a phenomenal amount of orbital docking magic, and ultimately very small scale equipment landed that would have to be pieced together robotically.

Comment by GaryChurch — June 3, 2011 @ 4:01 pm

Gary Church wrote:

“Vlad begins with same false premise private space advocates usually do; space has to make money”

So ATK developed the SRB’s on their own dime and then sold them to NASA at a loss?

So Boeing developed and built systems for NASA on their own dime and sold them to NASA at a loss?

So Lockheed Martin developed and built systems for NASA and sold them to NASA at a loss?

So Pratt & Whitney developed and built systems for NASA and sold them to NASA at a loss?

These companies prefer fixed priced, milestone performance contracts over cost plus contracts?

Which system has historically provided higher profits to those businesses winning the contracts?

Name me some NASA suppliers involved in space that are not in the business to make money?

I guess you are right Gary NO company involved in space is trying to make a buck if they are involved with a Heavy Lift vehicle, including your sidemount. ALL those companies are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts and their desire for America to have inexpensive space systems.

It is only those evil “new space” companies who are trying to make a profit from space operations.

AGAIN … silly.

Comment by Vladislaw — June 3, 2011 @ 5:57 pm

What is needed in order for astronauts to be able to stay for extended periods on the Moon? Aren’t they:
1) Shelter
2) Power
3) Air
4) Water
5) Food
A thick shelter could either be dug or regolith could be piled onto a hab. Hardened solar panels can provide power for years. If you can obtain water on the moon, then it can be drunk, broken into oxygen, and used to grow plants. Sending humans to the Moon no longer requires an Apollo-sized program. SpaceDev’s rocket chair illustrates the lower end of what’s possible.

Using recycling, the amount of ice processed can be kept down such that ice mining operations could keep up with the demands. Until the ammonia and methane are separated and concentrated from the ice, quantities of CNPK could be delivered to replace losses during recycling.

My point is this, very quickly we could create a manned base on the Moon which would be more self-sustaining (even if not entirely self-sufficient) than the ISS. People stay on the ISS for up to six months. People could stay on the moon for potentially years. With reduced need to return people home, the population of the base could keep steadily growing. The ISS proves that you can have commitment to a base across administrations. The ISS wasn’t going to be permanent because it consumed far more than it produced. With access to off-Earth water, a lunar base will maintain support because it will be seen as critical to any further progress in space.

When do we first achieve settlement? When you have a growing population becoming more independent of Earth resources. I think that it would be generally agreed that we are settling space when a lunar base passes about 20 people and the base is beginning to produce it’s own carbon and nitrogen and melting and machining it’s own metals using solar concentrators.

I believe that settlement is the right strategy and I believe that it is not too far a goal once we set people down on the Moon to repair water harvesting equipment,

Comment by JohnHunt — June 3, 2011 @ 7:01 pm

I don’t think the idea that space settlement is too long-range an objective is a good one. US government is dominated by programs and agencies which have already spanned multiple presidential administrations. For example, the Bureau of Mines, the Army Corps of Engineers, the US Army itself, the Agriculture Department, Housing and Urban Development, the Social Security Administration, even something called the National Aeronautical and Space Administration.

What makes space settlement problematical as a goal from the government’s perspective would seem international politics. The world is filled with 3rd world nations whose citizens have dire historical memories of being dominated by the USA and various European powers and who would not be happy to see the same set of exploiters grab control, for their own selfish benefit, of the undoubted wealth of the solar system. Space buffs here may think this rather… overstated …. but I suspect ordinary Bolivians and Africans and Indonesians or Chinese do not. There are reasons all those countries — other than the USA — ratified the Moon Treaty almost 50 years ago and insist on its current valdity. And I also suspect several dozen high level State Department officials start rushing into Hillary Clinton’s office going “Eep! Eep! Eep!”, thinking of future lost votes in the UN and other horrors, whenever they encounter views such as Greeson’s. Pity!

Long run, I think Greeson is correct. Space settlement should be our goal and our program. Along the way, we need to come up with an international agreement better than the Moon Treaty that accommodates both our dreams of settlement and the interests of nations which are not space powers. I suspect this might be difficult.

Comment by mike shupp — June 3, 2011 @ 7:23 pm

Paul:

I have to agree!

My impression of Greason’s speech is that it was an attempt to come up with an excuse for why taxpayers should subsidize a few shakey business ventures.

Just like those who used unrealistic accounting to argue that the Shuttle would lower launch costs to $100/lb, and that the ISS would cure cancer, Greason wants us to have blind faith that if taxpayers spend billions to buy unnecessary products and services from him and his associates, we will magically become an interplanetary civilization.

Jeff needs to fill in the details. Instead, Greason’s takes the opportunity to attack Mike Griffin, HLVs, and Congress.

He would need to show us exactly how it would work, in kilograms, dollars, and votes. If he could show us a realistic plan to make it happen, we would seriously consider it. However, genuine, substantial settlement is not going to happen in the next 50 years.

Until then, NASA can lay the scientific foundation. We can learn more about the composition and origin of the Moon and Mars, which we will need. Along the way, it can conduct trial ISRU efforts that can support exploration missions and some GEO/LEO markets.

Comment by Nelson Bridwell — June 3, 2011 @ 9:26 pm

Thanks Vladislaw for that quote from the original founding charter of NASA:

“(c) Commercial Use of Space.–Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the Administration seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.”

A key implementation of this would be the encouragement of reusable, commercial crewed space vehicles. The point I’ve been emphasizing is that this capability exists for small, low cost manned vehicles. By small, low cost I’m estimating in a cost range of say a Gulfstream business jet at a few tens of millions of dollars unit cost. The passenger/crew size would be in a range of the SpaceX Dragon capsule at 7 passengers/crew. The gross mass would be at or below that of the first stage of the Falcon 9 vehicle, ca. 300,000 kg.
So it would be affordable like a business jet by most large corporations and national governments.
How to accomplish this can be summarized in one line: use BOTH the most efficient engines over the entire trajectory to orbit AND the most weight optimized structures AT THE SAME TIME.
It really is that simple. This fundamentally obvious principle has been used for upper stages since Apollo. But for upper stages since they will be operating in near vacuum you use engines only optimized for vacuum use.
What I have been arguing for is to use this principle also for first stages. In this case you have to use the most efficient engines optimized for the entire flight to orbit. If you do this then what you will wind up with will be a single-stage-to-orbit stage whether you intend it to or not. This is true whether you use kerosene or hydrogen fueled stages.
For the kerosene fueled engines, these most efficient entire trajectory optimized engines will be the Russian NK-33, being marketed by Aerojet as the AJ26, and the Russian RD-180. And for hydrogen fueled ones they will be the SSME’s or the Russian analogue RD-0120.
For weight optimized structures use the Falcon 9 first stage sans the Merlin engines, which are rather low efficiency. Or use the Lockheed Atlas II or Boeing Delta II first stages, again switched out to use the more efficient kerosene engines.
For hydrogen fueled stage use the Ariane 5 core, but with the Vulcain engine removed for the SSME or RD-0120.
The aerospace companies are unlikely to spend the development money on their own to do this since they are too tied up in their own engines and structural designs. What NASA needs to do is force the issue. Since the structures and the engines are already designed and built the only thing needed is to integrate them together. I estimate then that unmanned, prototype test flights can be made for less than $50 million.
Then NASA should offer to the various aerospace companies to pay them to make these test flights. And not just open up competitive bids, but offer to pay for each of the companies to perform the test flights. That’s the best way to maintain the competition.
These will be for small size manned launchers. Once these become wide spread the natural progression will be for large size orbital passenger transports to be developed. This is analogous to what happened with aviation. Obviously you didn’t have aircraft carrying hundreds of passengers at the earliest stages of aviation. Initially it was for only one or two passengers. The large size aircraft carrying many passengers came later with increased technology development and most importantly market development.

Bob Clark

Comment by Robert Clark — June 4, 2011 @ 3:34 am

Mike Shupp,

US government is dominated by programs and agencies which have already spanned multiple presidential administrations.

Except that we’re not discussing bureaucratic survival, we are talking about program duration. Moreover, the examples you cite all have political imperatives (e.g., national defense, flood control) and my point is that settlement of space may appeal to us, but is deemed irrelevant by 98% of the voting public. The Moon Treaty is the last thing I worry about.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 4, 2011 @ 4:19 am

A good take on Greason’s talk. Indeed, NASA can’t be handed a mission of space settlement. That’s not what NASA does. But what NASA needs to be handed is an implementation strategy that is directed toward a larger goal, which is what Greason is calling space settlement, or expansion of humanity. As it is, NASA has been handed pieces of what could be called an implementation strategy, but with no connection with any overriding goal.

Yes, what our nation has to accept is that this is WHY we do human space flight. Our administrations and our congresses have not formalized that overriding goal. Why? Well, as you say, because it’s a far future goal, and one that won’t help get politicians elected. But instead we use words like “exploration”, “inspiration”, and (sigh) “jobs” to justify what NASA has been handed.

The solution to this quandry is not to rephrase the goal as a “reach”, but to articulate how that reach sets us on a path to the ultimate goal. By the way, it’s not completely self-evident why “settlement” should be an overriding goal. So “settlement” and “expansion” that should be clearly connected with species protection, which is certainly an overriding goal. Now, fundamentally, it’s an overriding goal for the species, and not for our country, but that’s another issue.

Comment by Heinrich Monroe — June 4, 2011 @ 11:01 am

@Mike Shupp

“Long run, I think Greeson is correct. Space settlement should be our goal and our program. Along the way, we need to come up with an international agreement better than the Moon Treaty that accommodates both our dreams of settlement and the interests of nations which are not space powers. I suspect this might be difficult.”

Fortunately no space faring nation has signed the Moon Treaty! However, the US and most other space faring nations have signed the Outer Space Treaty. Since the Moon and other celestial objects are considered by treaty as part of the Common Heritage of Humankind, no nation can own territory on the Moon.

But that doesn’t mean that territory on the Moon or Mars can’t be leased by the international community to individual countries, perhaps through the UN, as long as all nations are fairly compensated monetarily.

I think allowing countries to lease territory on the Moon for about $1 million per square kilometer would be fair as long as the revenue from those leases is equally divided amongst every nation on Earth. Countries leasing lunar territory could sub-lease some of their territory to private industry.

If the US, for instance, was paying $100 million annually to lease one hundred square kilometers of territory on the lunar surface, that would only represent about 0.5% of NASA’s annual budget. Of course, the government would probably get all of that money back, and more, by sub-leasing significant portions of the leased territories to private industry.

And what country on Earth, especially poor countries, wouldn’t want to receive annual checks from wealthy space faring nations paying to lease hundreds or perhaps thousands of square kilometers of extraterrestrial territories?

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — June 4, 2011 @ 1:57 pm

“-my point is that settlement of space may appeal to us, but is deemed irrelevant by 98% of the voting public.”

That is a good point and the only path I see is to appeal to the emotion that most governs large numbers of distracted people; FEAR.

A fireball exploded over Georgia (the U.S. Georgia) and if it had been a little bigger it would have killed tens or tens of thousands of people. A little bigger and hundreds of thousands or millions. A little bigger and…..so on.

It is not a question of if, it is a question of when. It is easy to say it will probably be 10,000 years from now but “probably” is the key word. Being a random event it could happen tomorrow, and again the next day, and it would be a little blip in that convenient curved line signifying millions of years. There might not be anyone left to ask “WOW, what were the odds of that?”

Defend the earth from this doomsday threat that is not an ultimate probability- it is, in fact,an ultimate certainty. An inconvenient truth.

We have the technology to not only deflect impact threats, but also to have separate populations off world that guarantee the survival of life. Nothing says our colonies cannot be repositories for other species.

We do not know what the earth is going to do- we could have massive volcanic activity that would darken the sky for years and kill most of the worlds population by starvation (no sun, no food). People are actually doing genetic engineering in very modest labs around the world and that Vinter or Vintner or whatever his name is has created an alien life form. Alien means nothing has evolved to keep it in check. That could be the end of us the day after tomorrow.

The government would rather keep us on our toes fearing another terrorist attack that kills several thousand people. And ignores the other threats that could kill our entire civilization. Threats we can defend against by going into deep space.

The DOD budget is monstrous- how about a few percent of that to set the public’s mind at ease?

The problem is the public does not really know, or rather, is not afraid because of the people who are betting it will not happen in our lifetime.

I discussed this last year on another forum with a guy that said he and others were “hoping for a small event” that would convince the public of the danger.

Not a good thing to hope for but what else would work?

Comment by GaryChurch — June 4, 2011 @ 3:35 pm

“because of the people who are betting it will not happen in our lifetime”

Sorry, I did not specify who is betting on this. Because I really cannot name anyone or even any group who I can pin the blame on for this denial of a clear and present danger.
I wrote a letter to Obama a couple months ago.

No answer yet.

Comment by GaryChurch — June 4, 2011 @ 3:45 pm

I agree with your points, Paul. If settlement were declared as the goal for NASA, then there would be pressure to put humans on the Moon as soon as possible. But as you know, I think we have a lot of telerobotic work to do there first.

I also agree with your points surrounding metrics. I think that it would be crystal clear to aim for a goal of, say, “Produce 100 metric tons per year of rocket propellant on the lunar surface from lunar materials”. That’s straightforward and quantifiable, and doesn’t say whether the goal is to be achieved via robots, humans or some combination. Settlement, by contrast, is mushy.

Comment by Ron Menich — June 4, 2011 @ 4:23 pm

@Vlad

“It is only those evil “new space” companies who are trying to make a profit from space operations.”

You did not argue any of my points. Try again.

Comment by GaryChurch — June 4, 2011 @ 5:03 pm

@Mike Shupp:

Country A is primary consumer of resource X. Country A has a history of invading foreign countries over the mineral resources it needs. Resource X can be found in country B and on the Moon. In such case, it is in B’s best interest that A secures an extraterrestrial supply of X.

Resource wars are a reality already. The Moon Treaty is dead.

Comment by Kris — June 4, 2011 @ 5:34 pm

“A fireball exploded over Georgia (the U.S. Georgia) and if it had been a little bigger it would have killed tens or tens of thousands of people. A little bigger and hundreds of thousands or millions. A little bigger and…..so on. ”

Such a space rock is small, and detecting small rocks is harder than bigger rocks. And that fireball could have been man made satellite. And don’t even know if such an object was detected, and plotted to around where it would impact, but was deemed not dangerous. Though if space rock, we should be given heads up so people could look for pieces of it falling to earth.

“It is not a question of if, it is a question of when. It is easy to say it will probably be 10,000 years from now but “probably” is the key word. Being a random event it could happen tomorrow, and again the next day, and it would be a little blip in that convenient curved line signifying millions of years. There might not be anyone left to ask “WOW, what were the odds of that?” ”

We have a program to detect space rocks, and some military assets are used for this. One could argue we need more money spend detecting and tracking space rocks- but this doesn’t require much money [and why more should be done]

Comment by gbaikie — June 4, 2011 @ 6:24 pm

Oh, suppose I should say I agree completely with Paul Spudis’ article.

I guess I am speechless:)

Comment by gbaikie — June 4, 2011 @ 6:38 pm

“We have a program to detect space rocks, and some military assets are used for this. One could argue we need more money spend detecting and tracking space rocks- but this doesn’t require much money [and why more should be done]”

Do you mean, “why should more be done”?

It would be good to know we are going to die but it would be better to know we will most probably survive. Just detecting one coming is the first case.

“Resource wars are a reality already”

War has been defined as theft on a grand scale. Nobody starts a war unless they think they can win it. Unless you have an advantage like oceans shielding you or vast distance, you will have to match what your possible enemy is building for war and that can bankrupt you. The enemy does not care because he is going to make up his expenditures by taking what you have- the reason for the war in the first place. Nuclear weapons have prevented any superpower wars and will continue to do so. Stealing from a house is no good if you burn the house down first. The threat is not war- it is something like a virus or impact or earth change. That is not what the world is used to dealing with over the centuries civilization has existed and that is bad news. Technological civilizations may all self-destruct. That would answer the Fermi Paradox neatly.

That is the new threat humanity should be dealing with- extinction.

The only foolproof solution is to establish as many off world colonies as possible as far away from earth and as isolated as possible.

Comment by GaryChurch — June 5, 2011 @ 3:36 pm

“It is not a question of if, it is a question of when. It is easy to say it will probably be 10,000 years from now but “probably” is the key word. Being a random event it could happen tomorrow, and again the next day, and it would be a little blip in that convenient curved line signifying millions of years. There might not be anyone left to ask “WOW, what were the odds of that?” ”

Nice try, but …

If we had a choice of protecting our species by moving a goodly piece of it elsewhere, or protecting our species by carefully mapping every dangerous rock in the solar system well enough that deflection would be a straightforward exercise, which is the better strategy? Which would be cheaper? BTW, moving a goodly piece of our species somewhere else protects our species, but sure doesn’t protect people. Whose mind are you going to put at ease? Deflecting incoming rocks, on the other hand, does protect people. In the grander scheme of species protection or people protection, what do you think gets the money?

So the argument that “bad things can happen” is a good one, but it’s simplistic to assert that we don’t have other choices in mitigating some of them.

Right now we have the technologies to do this mapping. It ain’t cheap, but is hugely cheaper than colonizing Mars, and giving those lucky people front row seats in the destruction of the Earth.

Re space settlement, the point that the taxpayer has to be convinced of is that expenditure in species expansion is a long term investment. Very clearly a go-as-you-pay endeavor. Are there any other goals we set out for our nation that won’t be realized for a century or two?

Comment by Heinrich Monroe — June 5, 2011 @ 4:18 pm

This is an interesting and wide ranging discussion. I was wondering if had anything to add to it and finally decided I might.

The philosophical debate seems (to me at least) to be over the reasons to pursue extensive space activities that would eventually lead to space settlement. This is not a new discussion, three examples:

(1)Dandridge Cole (Islands in Space) wrote about the uses of NEOs. This was in the 1960’s and was heavily slanted towards settlement for settlements sake. He did however talk about return to the ‘Mother Country’ (Earth) mostly in terms of precious metals.

(2)Gerard O’Neill (The High Frontier) wrote about building Space Settlements (primarily in the 1970’s) from Lunar materials. At first O’Neill’s work was centered only on settlement for settlements sake, though he later began to work toward Solar Power Satellites as a justification for the effort. The problem with that is that jumping directly to Solar Power Satellite manufacture is quite a jump.

(3)Krafft Ehricke (Krafft Ehricke’s Extraterrestrial Imperative) wrote extensively on the subject throughout the 1960’s though early 1980’s. His approach was to develop space as a resource (initially lunar resources) to support and improve life on Earth, while at the same time this effort would cause more and more people to be doing useful activities off planet; leading eventually to Space Settlements (which he called Androcells).

My first exposure to these ideas was from Cole’s writing. Since then I have come to believe that Ehricke’s approach is more practical.

I believe that Dr. Spudis’s ‘Rationale for Cis-Lunar Space’ can be looked on as the beginning of a long overdue updating/refinement of Ehricke’s approach.

Comment by Joe — June 6, 2011 @ 1:19 pm

“So the argument that “bad things can happen” is a good one, but it’s simplistic to assert that we don’t have other choices in mitigating some of them.”

The “simplistic” thing to do is say we have other options. In other words, “don’t worry about it.” I have posted this particular argument on several forums over the last couple years and of the responses, yours is by far the most common. Many of them use your exact words “bad things can happen” as if that makes it just a common occurence like someone having cancer or a murder.

Deflecting impacts is a worthwhile endeavor that starts with detection. Buy while we are going into space we might as well set up some colonies. The public has been conditioned to think of space flight in terms of less than 10 people per expensive launch. That is not necessarily so. If you google “Chrysler SERV” I believe you will find a PDF about it and many nice diagrams and charts. SERV was an impractical SSTO concept but it did who exactly how large a reentry vehicle can be. So an HLV with such a capsule and an escape tower could put up, perhaps, a hundred people at a time.

So sending several hundred women to the moon is not such a crazy idea. With a sperm bank you have the ability to replace the human race should “something bad happen.”

Genetic modification and engineering is dead even with impacts as a destroyer of humankind. So having a colony while you are defending against impacts is the way to go.

The big piece of equipment to put on the moon is a tunneling machine like the ones that built the chunnel. Or an alternate technique using explosives and excavators. I once posted an idea for using an H-bomb to blow a huge cavern into existence on the moon. Let it cool down a couple months, send in robot excavators to remove the radioactive rubble, add water and you have a huge habitat. Dr. Spudis did not like the idea.
He would know better than me of course but I really like the idea of using nuclear weapons for useful purposes like spaceship propulsion, deflecting impact threats, etc.

Comment by GaryChurch — June 6, 2011 @ 1:39 pm

A “tactical” implementation of this strategy is a robotic ISRU architecture, which will create our first foothold on another world.

Perhaps an “X” prize, like $50M for the first team who can set up a remote robotic H2O ISRU at the Lunar North Pole?

That might literally “prime the pump” so to speak.

Nice post Paul.

Comment by Bryan A. Brown — June 6, 2011 @ 1:42 pm

Joe,

I believe that Dr. Spudis’s ‘Rationale for Cis-Lunar Space’ can be looked on as the beginning of a long overdue updating/refinement of Ehricke’s approach.

Yes, I think that Ehricke’s rationale is the one most appropriate for a government-sponsored space program. Initially at least, human presence in space must support some pressing national need (in this case, to build, service and maintain satellite assets of all types), but as access and capability improve over time via the increasing incorporation of extraterrestrial resources, commercial and private activities can benefit from both the technical knowledge gained and space faring infrastructure created. In effect, this is how the commercial comsat market developed.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 6, 2011 @ 1:43 pm

Getting the space advocacy community to agree on anything is like herding cats. However, Jeff Greason’s speech seems to have received general agreement from most.

Paul, I think that you’ve got some good ideas about one aspect of the overall strategy, but what you’re proposing here is subsumed within the structure outlined by Greason. You call settlement the ultimate rationale for human spaceflight – well, that’s the goal. What you’re calling the goal (“to expand human reach beyond LEO, first into cislunar space and then into interplanetary space”) is part of the strategy in support of the goal of settlement.

The difference is that the goal is a value in and of itself, whereas the strategy has value when in support of the goal.

What you refer to as the strategy (“establish a resource-processing base on the Moon to make fuel for a cislunar space transportation system”) is an objective. You’re on the same page as Greason, just using slightly different terms.

The one thing that Greason didn’t talk about (but was briefly mentioned at the end of Robert Bigelow’s ISDC speech) is property rights. Bigelow said that the US should exercise Article 16 of the Outer Space Treaty (i.e. withdraw). I agree with him. Here’s why:

Suppose there is a moon base of sorts producing pure water and shipping it to LEO and L1. Who owns that water? Or, if it has been broken down into LOX and LH2, who owns that? When NASA buys it or SpaceX buys it, who do they pay?

This is important. If that water (or LOX and LH2) is the common heritage of all mankind, then everybody owns it – or at least every signatory nation to the OST is going to claim a slice of the pie. What company would invest in such a facility in that case? There would be none, not even if the technology is thoroughly proven. Not without massive subsidies to offset the loss, which defeats the purpose of getting cheap propellant.

Similarly, no company will go further as NASA pushes out into the solar system. When it comes to mining asteroids, no company will invest if at the end they don’t own the product they extract.

The Outer Space Treaty might be worked around, but it is better if it isn’t applicable at all. Let’s face it, the first resource processing base on the moon will only prove the technology, it won’t be capable of doing the entire job by itself. Once the technology is proven, commercial companies can step in and build other bases using lessons learned from the first – but they’re only going to do that if they own and can sell what they produce.

Comment by Ed Minchau — June 6, 2011 @ 5:40 pm

Ed,

You’re on the same page as Greason, just using slightly different terms.

No. Actually, Jeff and I have a substantive disagreement.

Jeff claims that the “goal” of NASA should be “settlement.” I do not agree — too many of the Congress and the tax-paying public have no interest in settling space at best and are against such an object at worst. Thus, you are trying to sell a program whose objective is not subscribed to or even respected by the people from whom you are asking money.

In contrast, I contend that my “subset goal” of establishing a system for routine access to cislunar space to access and tend to all of our national satellite assets is a “sellable” goal as it clearly contributes to national interests, capabilities and wealth. Moreover, it is a goal that is achievable on reasonable timescales (a decade or so), much closer in time and money than colonies on other worlds.

Establishing settlements of people off planet is a much more distant and nebulous goal, one that appears to be fantasy to most people. My alternative relates to pressing national needs, can be accomplished under existing budgets and with available technology and lays the ground work for eventual settlement.

In short, I contend that my objective is politically realistic while space settlement has to prove its practicality before people will take it seriously.

If the space cadets choose not to believe this, so much the worse for them. We are very close to getting nothing at all for a national space program, which would apparently suit some people just fine.

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

Let me quote myself from my blog:

To Space Advocates, having a space program requires no justification other than it exists. Space Advocates dream of the day that interplanetary travel or even interstellar travel is routine. Whether they are a Star Trek utopian or a Browncoat libertarian, they see a space program as the necessary and natural course of events.

But to other people, they look at the billions of dollars spent on the Shuttle and the International Space Station (ISS) as a waste of money. They see the United States spending billions of dollars so that an elite few can float around in the ISS and they ask, “How about spending that money here on Earth to help the veterans, the elderly, and the homeless?” http://lupussolusluna.blogspot.com/2011/02/do-we-need-space-program.html

My justification for being in Space:

A Planetary Defense System against a rogue asteroid would give mankind a definite, recognizable, and defendable purpose for being in Space and, at the same time, it could breath new life into moving humanity beyond LEO in a continuous and maintainable manner in the near future.

Comment by LoboSolo — June 6, 2011 @ 7:17 pm

Comment by Ed Minchau — June 6, 2011 @ 5:40 pm
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 6, 2011 @ 6:30 pm

Okay here I go again jumping off the high dive.

The rationale to use human/robotic operations in Cis-Lunar Space to benefit the current terrestrial civilization can be both practical and long range visionary. It is needed to sell the prospect to the current political establishment (and the public), but it is also true; the promised benefits can really be made to happen.

In the process of doing that, the capability (in fact the probable inevitability) of causing Space Settlement to occur will happen.

If the process can be put into motion, everybody wins.

Comment by Joe — June 6, 2011 @ 7:22 pm

Paul,

You said, “Yes, I think that Ehricke’s rationale is the one most appropriate for a government-sponsored space program. Initially at least, human presence in space must support some pressing national need (in this case, to build, service and maintain satellite assets of all types), but as access and capability improve over time via the increasing incorporation of extraterrestrial resources, commercial and private activities can benefit from both the technical knowledge gained and space faring infrastructure created. In effect, this is how the commercial comsat market developed.”

This rationale has economic merit in today’s environment, but if and when SKYLON reaches operational status in the next decade, $10 million SKYLON missions may put it at an economic disadvantage. I’m really not sure whether a lunar base would maintain an economic advantage in servicing cis-lunar assets when SKYLON’s mission costs get factored into the equation. It’s true that SKYLON would need a secondary vehicle to retrieve and service GEO satellites. However, SKYLON has the technological and operational advantage of launching from Earth, while a lunar base would presumably be much more limited in its earliest phases. So, if SKYLON does indeed become the most economical way of servicing cis-lunar assets, is there a second rationale for establishing a lunar base that would be as persuasive?

Perhaps space tourism could be that second rationale, maybe? A lunar hotel would likely be a very popular resort destination. But, of course, that would play into the commercial profit goal, not something persuasive to NASA.

As far as I’m concerned, if there is a profit objective, it will get this thing done faster than if NASA does it. I really don’t care whether it’s something government or private interests achieve, personally. It just needs to be one of those steps in the checklist that gets ticked.

Comment by Bob Carver — June 7, 2011 @ 3:18 am

Bob,

if and when SKYLON reaches operational status in the next decade, $10 million SKYLON missions may put it at an economic disadvantage.

I know that it is an article of the NewSpace faith that launch costs will plummet to a few dollars per pound to LEO in the next few years, but the rocket equation is what it is and I have serious doubts that launch costs will ever decline to the point where it still pays to launch everything from the Earth. You can believe that if you want, but the history of spaceflight does not support such expectations. Moreover, it’s not simply satellite servicing that we want — we want to assemble large, distributed space systems. The ISS demonstrated that this was possible; it would permit the establishment of satellite facilities much larger and more capable than can be launched from even the largest launch vehicle.

As far as what NASA should do, we are going to spend money on space anyway. I contend that we should get something for that expenditure.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 7, 2011 @ 3:56 am

Lobo.

A Planetary Defense System against a rogue asteroid would give mankind a definite, recognizable, and defendable purpose for being in Space and, at the same time, it could breath new life into moving humanity beyond LEO in a continuous and maintainable manner in the near future.

The problem with asteroid defense as a justification for a federal space program is that statistically, it is extremely unlikely to happen within the next couple of hundred years or so; you have a much higher chance of getting struck by lightning than by an asteroid. I think that such a low probablity event would be largely dismissed as a threat by the very people you contend it would appeal to.

On the other hand, millions of people use global comsats, the internet, GPS systems and satellite TV every day. They might be attracted to the idea of 1000′s of channels of global wireless HDTV on their handheld or laptop. Such is possible with a new generation, distributed aperture communications system, built in space by people and robots at GEO. And that is enabled by a lunar outpost making fuel for export to cislunar.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 7, 2011 @ 8:28 am

Joe,

The rationale to use human/robotic operations in Cis-Lunar Space to benefit the current terrestrial civilization can be both practical and long range visionary. It is needed to sell the prospect to the current political establishment (and the public), but it is also true; the promised benefits can really be made to happen. In the process of doing that, the capability (in fact the probable inevitability) of causing Space Settlement to occur will happen.

In a nutshell, that is my contention. If we do cislunar access as I advocate, we plant the seeds for future settlement, without making what some view as a wild fantasy our “mission statement.”

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 7, 2011 @ 9:37 am

Paul,

Re: SKYLON projected performance and the rocket equation

Looking at the projected SABRE engine air-breathing mode specific impulse vs. Mach number chart in the ESA assessment report on page 32, we have Isp around 2800 up to about Mach 0.9, then rising to circa 3200 at Mach 2, at which point it tapers off gradually to around 1500 at Mach 5, at which time the switch to pure rocket mode occurs. This would be at an altitude of about 26 km.

Looking at the thrust-to-weight ratio vs. Mach number chart, also on page 32, thrust-to-weight rises from almost 9 to almost 14 at Mach 2, then tapers to 6 at Mach 6.

Once the switch to rocket mode at 26 km altitude and Mach 5+, SABRE’s Isp has been said by its designer to drop by a factor of 3 to 6 compared to air-breathing mode. I have seen one reference to an Isp as high as 750, but I suspect something closer to 500 is more reasonable.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, obviously, but the technical assessment by ESA concluded these numbers are feasible.

Comment by Bob Carver — June 7, 2011 @ 10:15 am

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, obviously, but the technical assessment by ESA concluded these numbers are feasible.

Fine, but what does any of this have to do with $10 million missions, which you mentioned in your first post?

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 7, 2011 @ 11:56 am

$10 million is an estimate of what each mission will cost. Quoting from the ESA report, page 18:

“REL presented an analysis of operator economics, again with a pessimistic view of trying to capture the existing market without looking at the new and expanded markets that this vehicle could establish. They showed that the estimated operating costs for 70 flights per year could be as low as $9.47M per flight (Jan 2009 prices).”

London Economics, an economic consulting firm, did an independent assessment (page 20):

“The results of the analysis showed that except for high discount rates and low final numbers of production vehicles (<10) then the cost recovery figures are less than $2bn per vehicle which is the target price used in the analysis. In fact if 30 vehicles are produced and using the official UK government discount figure of 3.5% the cost recovery per vehicle is $0.81bn. (It should be kept in mind that this is the total per vehicle and each vehicle has a design lifetime of 200 flights hence this recovery cost is actually $4.05M per flight not including inflation).

"The main conclusion from this analysis was that the cost results are robust to the “stress testing’ and the main factor driving the cost recovery is the number of vehicles produced and sold."

Comment by Bob Carver — June 7, 2011 @ 1:18 pm

Cost estimates are just that. And for new technology, especially for a flight system with yet to be demonstrated feasibility, we have no basis for assuming that this analysis is an accurate estimation of the real cost.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 7, 2011 @ 3:17 pm

“-when SKYLON reaches operational status in the next decade, $10 million SKYLON missions”

I think atomic bomb propulsion is the way to go for deep space and the only cheap access to orbit we are likely to see will come by way of new beam propulsion technology. That being said, concerning any kind of chemical propulsion scheme making big promises I am extremely skeptical. The NASP was such a debacle I do not understand how anybody can fall for these SSTO schemes anymore. Everything revolves around exhaust velocity. Liquid Hydrogen and Liquid Oxygen are the best that can be had. Any air-breathing schemes are a minus that start by having to accelerate the air they take in to however fast the vehicle is going. It is a case of finding either some unobtanium for fuel or wishalloy for structure or both.

Equipping rocket stages with parachutes and the other necessary weight for ocean recovery eats into the payload a surprising amount. This is why many of the Von Braun concepts of the 50′s have such poor payloads- not because he was badly mistaken about any numbers. Making a rocket engine that is reusable is only have the problem; with the upper stage(s) you need a heat shield for reentry. Or you can attach it to the back of a space plane and bring it down to a runway. We know from the space shuttle orbiter that eats up most of the payload and causes a host of other problems.

Twin SRB’s are about the only practical lower stage boosters to recover and reuse. Engines like the RS-68 that are made just well enough to fly once and then are junk are the most economic solution for upper stages right now. And due to a very obvious phenomenon called economy of scale, the larger the launcher, the more goes up for less weight.

Which is why there is no substitute for an HLV with hydrogen upper stages.

As for it being more likely of dying by getting hit by lightning than by a meteor; that is pretty much the same “don’t worry about it” argument I described in an earlier post. The problem is only one person dies with a lightning strike- an entire planet dies when a big enough asteroid or comet strikes. I am sure there is some natural or mathematical principle that says we should worry more about planet killers than lightning bolts. And saying it probably won’t happen for several hundred years does not stop it from happening today and again tomorrow- it would just be a blip on that billion year probability curve.
Bad things happen.

Comment by GaryChurch — June 7, 2011 @ 5:14 pm

The problem is only one person dies with a lightning strike- an entire planet dies when a big enough asteroid or comet strikes.

There has not been a planet-killing extinction since the fossil record began. Even the great Permian extinction left 10% of species alive; otherwise, we would not be here.

Don’t oversell impact as a societal threat. It is real, but of extremely low probability. Pointless fear-mongering to drum up support for space doesn’t make you any political allies.

Bad things happen.

That’s for sure — look at the current space policy.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 7, 2011 @ 6:55 pm

“Pointless fear-mongering to drum up support for space doesn’t make you any political allies.”

It has a point.

Fear mongering about terrorism before 911 was suddenly not fear mongering was it?

On the off chance something very big makes a splash somewhere and scares the hell out of everyone, I would like to have as many people as possible ready to stand up and say, “people have been talking about this for years and we can defend ourselves.”

Before Lindsay Lohan get’s arrested and everyone forgets about it the next day.

It is the only way I see of getting any DOD money Dr.Spudis; and they have all of it.

Comment by GaryChurch — June 7, 2011 @ 8:04 pm

New nuclear arms races during the rest of the century might be the most dangerous threat to human civilization, IMO. A world economically dominated by a non-democratic China might ignite an arms race between China and Japan. A nuclear armed Iran might ignite an arms race between Israel and Iran. Tensions between India and Pakistan might ignite an arms race between those two countries.

So before the end of the century, we might have nearly ten nations on Earth with the power of life and death over the entire planet. So it might be nice if we have a few significant human colonies located off the Earth: the Moon, Mars, etc. that could possibly recolonize the Earth in case a worse case nuclear scenario should happen.

See the film, The Road, if you want to know what kind of worst case scenario I’m talking about1 The book, oddly enough, mentions a child’s questions about flying to Mars.

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — June 7, 2011 @ 9:50 pm

It is the only way I see of getting any DOD money Dr.Spudis; and they have all of it.

They have only about 20% of it (United States Budget FY 2010). Entitlements and interest on the debt make up the vast bulk of the federal budget.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 8, 2011 @ 4:22 am

I agree with Paul regarding NEO or cometary impact threats. If one keeps an eye on http://www.minorplanetcenter.net/iau/lists/Unusual.html, one can see that the number of discovered and tracked NEOs is steadily rising. This means that residual impact risk is continually being punched downwards.

There are some new and very powerful NEO-hunting scopes in the oven: full PAN-STARRS, LSST and so forth. Once these are fully online, the number of NEO discoveries will shoot through the roof and residual NEO impact risk will drop through the floor.

Comment by Ron Menich — June 8, 2011 @ 9:07 am

(P.S. I’ve been disappointed with the discovery rate from the PS1 scope at PAN-STARRS. It’s theoretically been online for quite a while now, but they report NEO discoveries only sporadically.

I guess they’re still struggling with software issues.
)

Comment by Ron Menich — June 8, 2011 @ 9:08 am

I even less likely to be affected by “Global Warming” … But look at all the money being spent on that!

It’s all in the marketing …

Comment by LoboSolo — June 8, 2011 @ 10:42 am

I even less likely to be affected by “Global Warming” … But look at all the money being spent on that! It’s all in the marketing …

I refuse to participate in the “selling” of a good idea for bogus or fraudulent reasons. It debases the intellectual discourse.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 8, 2011 @ 11:44 am

Marcel,

I share your concern about the future threat of nuclear arms. But it is actually fairly dificult to exterminate 100.0% of human life using nuclear arms. Rather, I think that the inevitable development of self-replicating technology (biotech, chemical, & nanotech) poses a more likely threat of full human extinction. So we share motivation for off-Earth colonization. Unfortunately, these risks don’t get as much discussion as improbable K-T asteroids, national pride, economics, etc rationales.

Comment by JohnHunt — June 8, 2011 @ 12:55 pm

“See the film, The Road, if you want to know what kind of worst case scenario I’m talking about”

There are only two superpowers with enough nuclear weapons to cause a nuclear winter- The U.S. and Russia. The rest of the nuclear weapons on this planet added together does not come anywhere remotely close to what either we or the Russians have.

I do not think China is going suck tax dollars like the USSR did in the last century. That kind of fear mongering is not going to work anymore. As for “The Road”, the un-named catastrophe resembles a massive impact more than a nuclear war. An asteroid impact on a fault line or on the ring of fire could potentially darken sky for decades and cause earthquakes like in the movie.

“They have only about 20% of it”

Yes, and not counting entitlements and debt interest- that would be about all of it. Like I said. And a few percent would be several times NASA’s budget and would get us BEO-HSF. I doubt anything else will. Certainly not the private space comedians.

“-residual NEO impact risk will drop through the floor.”

Two things wrong with that- first, it has nothing to do with deflecting an asteroid, just detecting. Second, the NEO is only part of the threat. As I said before, long period comets also pay us visits. Good luck tracking them- there are millions.

“Rather, I think that the inevitable development of self-replicating technology (biotech, chemical, & nanotech) poses a more likely threat of full human extinction. So we share motivation for off-Earth colonization.”

Yes, I said that. Added on to the impact threat it is what I am talking about. But no one is listening. All they want to hear is “don’t worry about it.” Because it is not on their agenda for facing down China or taking care of satellites with moon fuel or making money off private space or any other project different parties are focused on.

Much more convenient to ignore it.

If you had been living in Tunguska in 1908 you would not be able to ignore the several megaton blast that leveled 40 square miles of forest. And the other 11 significant airbursts recorded between 1930 and 2008 measured in kilotons and megatons of explosive force would be hard to ignore if you happened to be underneath them.

Selling colonization on the basis of national defense is not fraudulent. It is just not a known money maker so it is ignored.

Comment by GaryChurch — June 8, 2011 @ 6:03 pm

“Even the great Permian extinction left 10% of species alive; otherwise, we would not be here.

Don’t oversell impact as a societal threat.”

Only 10 percent of life left on earth kind of sells itself.

Comment by GaryChurch — June 8, 2011 @ 6:08 pm

Paul, I read that we’ve identified 90% of the NEOs that could cause damage … That 10% still leaves a rather large number. It doesn’t have to be an end of the world event, but even small one could cause significant damage regionally.

Yea, the odds are small that any one, particular person will get struck by one but asteroid impact is like a nuclear weapon, it only needs to be close.

There already seems to be significant interest in a planetary defense against asteroids among some of the powers to be. So its not like we’d have start from ground zero.

OTOH, in the age of austerity, selling space settlements as mankind’s manifest destiny is going to fall on death ears.

The planetary defense is insurance. We may never need but we’ll be glad that we have it if we do.

Comment by LoboSolo — June 9, 2011 @ 2:49 pm

in the age of austerity, selling space settlements as mankind’s manifest destiny is going to fall on death ears.

I am saying exactly that in this post. My alternative is not to appeal to the long-odds danger of catastrophic impact (which I think is similarly falling on deaf ears) but to advocate instead the building a “transcontinental railroad” in cislunar space, fueled by propellant manufactured on the Moon. It’s purpose is to allow us routine access to both existing and future satellite assets there.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 9, 2011 @ 3:40 pm

“OTOH, in the age of austerity, selling space settlements as mankind’s manifest destiny is going to fall on death ears.”

Not if the public realize that such a venture will create jobs and wealth!

If there was a colony of 100,000 people on the Moon predominantly or solely sustained by lunar resources then that colony would be one of the richest human communities anywhere in the solar system– including communities on Earth.

Because of the Moon’s low gravity well, they’d easily dominate the satellite manufacturing and launching business which today is at the core of a $100 billion a year telecommunications industry.

The Moon’s low gravity well might also make space solar power satellites much more economical, allowing the Lunarians to potentially produce hundreds of billions of dollars of clean energy every year for the people of Earth.

Lunar tourism could also be a multi-billion dollar a year industry.

And I suspect that even having the ashes of the deceased buried on the Moon might be an attractive multi-billion dollar a year industry.

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — June 9, 2011 @ 4:19 pm

@LoboSolo re your post #52.

The number of discovered NEOs increases by 700 per year. Thus, even at current rates of discovery, the remaining risk of really big NEO impact is being rapidly retired.

That number is set to shoot through the roof as new scopes such as PAN-STARRS, LSST, The Discovery Channel Telescope and others come online in the next few years.

Planetary Defense as a justification for Human Space Flight is a losing proposition that grows ever more losing with each passing month.

Comment by Ron Menich — June 9, 2011 @ 5:53 pm

“Planetary Defense as a justification for Human Space Flight is a losing proposition”

When Dana Rohrbacher speaks in congress about asteroid defense, it is not a losing proposition. This guy is no friend of the space program and if he is concerned, people will listen.

Ron, you just keep saying we are detecting all of them so it is not a problem. That is not any kind of argument when we have events like Tunguska that were probably long period comets- which come from all angles and can be very difficult to detect until it is far too late to do anything about it. Your “losing proposition” pronouncement sounds a little arrogant and is not informed by realities. Detection is not deflection.

A combined effort to get into space by all interested parties is what is lacking. Everyone has their own game plan and does not want anyone else getting a piece of the possible pie. Witness the private space crowd’s adamant hatred of anything smacking of an HLV. They go ballistic whenever the Space Launch System is brought up.

An integrated, standardized, upgradable family of platforms supported from the moon is a revolutionary concept.

A system of nuclear defense against impacts is a mission the DOD can take on (even if they don’t want to) and would compliment a moon base and a system of super satellites.

Scientists could piggyback projects they cannot even imagine right now onto spaceships capable of traveling to the outer planets with human crews. Anything that can carry a human crew can carry a massive robot payload. Payloads that also compliment impact detection and deflection and also compliment a family of moon supported super satellites.

It can all fit together if there is public support. Everyone will have an interest- from aerospace workers to the defense industry to the tree huggers to the science community.

But it is not going to happen while private space is happily dismantling our heavy lift infrastructure so they can rape the human space flight budget. It is not going to happen while the defense industry is happy making billions blowing up illiterate tribesman in Afland. And it is not going to happen while the people who understand the importance of going into space are busy bickering about their supposed piece of the pie.

Comment by GaryChurch — June 9, 2011 @ 7:16 pm

Paul,

Have you or anyone done a study which identifies the potential cost savings compared to the current Earth-based method for a lunar base whose primary function is to service cis-lunar assets?

There seems to be substantial support for missions to Mars. A lunar base could be a key driver in making that mission a reality if it provided fuel for a depot at a “convenient” location, such as an Earth-Luna L-point, or in a near Earth orbit.

A third goal would be the construction and maintenance of a network of lunar power stations to provide Earth with solar energy. A network would be needed to support continuous generation. The network would include both near-side and far-side stations with power transmitted to the near side via superconducting cables, then to Earth.

A fourth goal could be mining Lunar resources. As we are currently estimated to be using 1.5 Earths’ worth of materials, we are going to have to expand into the rest of the solar system or drastically change the way we live.

I suspect that these main goals (and others yet to be added) are economically sound reasons to justify the base. It would be nice if a sensible study backing that up were available to quote. Do you know of any?

Comment by Bob Carver — June 9, 2011 @ 11:17 pm

When Dana Rohrbacher speaks in congress about asteroid defense, it is not a losing proposition. This guy is no friend of the space program

Wrong. Rohrabacher has been a big supporter of the space program his entire career. Jim Muncy, who now works for the Space Frontier Foundation, was his principal staffer for many years.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 10, 2011 @ 4:30 am

Have you or anyone done a study which identifies the potential cost savings compared to the current Earth-based method for a lunar base whose primary function is to service cis-lunar assets?

There have been many studies on the leverage provided by making propellant from lunar materials. The most recent detailed study was by a group led by Mike Duke from the Colorado School of Mines:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20157683/Case-for-Commercial-Lunar-Ice-Mining

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 10, 2011 @ 4:31 am

@GaryChurch re post #56

My reply was to LoboSolo’s original post #52. LoboSolo was specifically mentioning NEO impact risk. NEO impact risk will be driven through the floor within the next decade by the advent of the highly-capable new scopes I mentioned.

Your note touched on long-period comet risk. Sure, that is risk that is more difficult to reduce than the NEO impact risk. But just be aware that that is all the Planetary Defense folk have to hang their hat on: the NEO risk will be eliminated shortly.

Comment by Ron Menich — June 10, 2011 @ 9:54 am

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20157683/Case-for-Commercial-Lunar-Ice-Mining

A reusable OTV (orbital transfer vehicle) would be a major game changer, in my opinion.

And lunar propellant is needed for these to make sense. If the OTV’s propellant is delivered via an expendable upper stage from earth’s surface, it makes more sense to use the expendable upper stage carrying the propellant for the orbital transfer.

However lunar propellant could be delivered to OTVs using reusable tankers. In my opinion, this is the most viable killer app for space resources that’s been proposed.

I find the delta Vs on page 22 optimistic, though. For example, GEO-LEO with aerobraking would take about 1.5 km/sec. That’s how much you’d need to lower the perigee to an atmosphere grazing altitude. I suppose 3.15 km/sec LEO-L1 is possible if you use time consuming Belbruno paths. However, if you’re transporting a commodity, time is a very important consideration. A direct route from LEO to L1 is more like 3.8 km/sec.

L1 to Moon’s surface is given as 2.39 km/sec. This is just a hair over lunar escape velocity. At a 0 km altitude perilune from L1, the ship will be moving nearly escape velocity. To do a soft landing, the ship will incur gravity loss. And there is also a burn needed to drop an object parked in L1 to a lunar orbit. I believe 2.5 to 2.6 km/sec is a more realistic delta V budget.

Comment by Hop David — June 10, 2011 @ 12:16 pm

“Have you or anyone done a study which identifies the potential cost savings compared to the current Earth-based method for a lunar base…”

Do you mean compare a NASA lunar base which can done two different ways:
Mine lunar water. As compared to delivering water and/or rocket fuel from Earth.

I don’t think NASA’s goal should to have a lunar base. But if NASA were to have this goal, there could be different objectives to having a lunar base.
One objective could be to mine lunar water- I think this was basically Jeff Greason suggestion.

One could have other objectives, such as having a research type base. Have a place crew could stay and conduct experiments- similar to ISS. And/or conduct exploration of lunar surface.

One have a whole host different things: you explore for various deposits, water, and other “ores”. NASA could mine water, mine iron ore, silicone, etc. And it could make rocket fuel, iron and steel components, and very pure silicone for solar panels. This would require huge NASA budget.

Or NASA could have base on the Moon which instead researching on the Moon, it could enable research on Earth- send samples back to earth. Perhaps doing some research on the moon, but “out-source” a lot of the research.

Or a NASA lunar base could instead be mostly about understanding the “geology” of the Moon. The Moon provide a record of history of this solar system. One could explore lava tubes, and/or possible underground caverns.

NASA could explore the moon for a century and learn all kinds of things. And cost trillions of dollars.

I think NASA should try to keep it’s focus limited, and if it must have a permanent lunar base it should have a cost of about 1/2 billion dollars per year. Something it can afford, while doing other exploration- such as Manned Mars.

And if it had such a modest base, I think importing rocket fuel and water from earth would cheaper than NASA trying to mine and make rocket fuel on the Moon.

To keep the costs down, such a base would have crew of, say 2, that live on the Moon for varying periods. So with budget of 1/2 billion, that means less than one trip to the moon per year.
You could possibly have periods of time where no one is living there. And periods when one crew was staying there, or overlapping stays- allowing one, 2, 3 or 4 crew staying at one point in time.
A size of the base could quite large with potential of holding many crew, but to keep cost down you limit crew size transported and how many times one has a trip per year to the Moon. Oh, also you probably want to experiment with longer time stays- same as ISS studies long duration stays in zero gees.

One could also have other nations paying the cost to transport their crew to lunar base. So perhaps as few as 1/3 of crew is NASA, so NASA has one 2 crew trip to the Moon and back to earth per 2 year period, and three times this includes all nations sending crews.

And so with such a base it would consume less than 10 tons of rocket fuel and perhaps 5 tons of water per year. [one could recycle water and/or use gray water for various things].

So first NASA explores moon to determine whether there is minable water. During this phase you could sending say as much as 8-12 crew per year for a time period of a few years, and has living quarter for this exploration.
And it is this living quarters which continues to be used by much smaller yearly crew size of NASA crew and crew from other nations.
So any equipment used in main phase lunar exploration can continued to be used. And small amount more could be added.

So in all phases of this lunar mission, from start to couple decades later the total rocket fuel used should less than say 200 tons.

And probably a commercial operation would need to make somewhere around ten times this amount rocket fuel and sell it, to pay the costs of capital investment- and make a profit.
And so therefore I would say it’s cheaper to send 200 tons earth rocket fuel than to make 200 tons of lunar rocket fuel.

And any commercial lunar water mining operation would need to export the lunar water [as water or as rocket fuel] to Cislunar space- to get enough market in order to pay for it’s capital costs.
For NASA to try to do the same thing would bust it’s budget- and be a unnecessary distraction.
Bust it’s budget, waste the public’s time, and be pointless- even if they could be as successful as a commercial venture would need to be.

Comment by gbaikie — June 11, 2011 @ 1:16 am

For NASA to try to do the same thing would bust it’s budget- and be a unnecessary distraction. Bust it’s budget, waste the public’s time, and be pointless- even if they could be as successful as a commercial venture would need to be.

That’s because you are looking at this through too narrow a prism.

The nation as a whole has significant collective interests in cislunar space. We not only have scientific and commercial assets above LEO, we have important and critical national security and defense assets there. At this time, we do not have any way to protect those assets, maintain and augment their capabilities, and construct the large, distributed aperture, high-power systems required in the future. A reusable space transportation system based on the use of lunar propellant can provide this access.

This is where lunar return contributes directly to compelling national interests. Yes, we do want to commercialize lunar propellant production, but government is the first customer, for the reasons I mention. If government is both customer and producer, that’s fine, at least in the initial stages. Once we are up and in production, surplus propellant can be sold to other international partners, commercial users and eventually, private individuals.

Attempts to estimate production costs at this stage are pointless. Although we know there is water in quantity on the Moon, we do not know the actual concentrations, states, and variability of ice at the poles. We do not know the physical characteristics of the polar cold traps. This ignorance is why we send two rovers to prospect the poles before we decide on a site for the resource processing facility. Such exploration is entirely within scope for NASA and in fact, is a much more appropriate sphere of activity than their current path.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 11, 2011 @ 4:47 am

“This is where lunar return contributes directly to compelling national interests. Yes, we do want to commercialize lunar propellant production, but government is the first customer, for the reasons I mention. If government is both customer and producer, that’s fine, at least in the initial stages. Once we are up and in production, surplus propellant can be sold to other international partners, commercial users and eventually, private individuals.”

Perhaps you correct, but I would think it depends upon easy it is to mine lunar water. If it difficult [costly] then perhaps no one can mine it. If it’s easy, why does NASA have to do it? And I am afraid NASA will do it because it is hard, and that lousy reason to do this.
I think the private sector has more access to talent and knowledge than NASA has. And see little reason why NASA should be capable mining anything- efficiently. But even if that assumption is incorrect- it still a waste of time for an agency with a 20 billion dollar yearly budget. And if you are correct, why not have the military do it. It has a bigger space budget and has some experience with doing stuff like this. And as you say, it directly affects them.
Another other aspect of having some other party do it [military or private] is it’s a reality check. Wouldn’t it be good for NASA have convince some other party that such a thing is workable?
I see an urgency to explore the Moon to determine whether it has minable water, but not necessarily an urgency to mine lunar water. I see more urgency in starting markets in space. NASA mining lunar water doesn’t mean we have a market in space.

And it has to cost NASA more money to mine lunar water and make rocket fuel, then compared to NASA not doing this. It’s going add at least 10 billion, and it won’t save 10 billion in costs.
[Now, shipping rocket fuel to the Moon and EML-1, could save tens of billions in program costs.]

You can ship 100 tons rocket fuel to lunar surface, cheaper than you make 100 tons rocket fuel on the lunar surface. You can choose to get 100 tons delivered to the Moon far faster than trying to make 100 tons.

So how much is NASA going to spend per year on it’s lunar exploration- 6 billion? If the program merely takes 2 years longer then it needs to, you have added 12 billion. Plus then you have the additional costs [all the stuff needed to mine water and process it] to add to this.
If NASA does lunar mining on small scale- as demonstration or proof that this is something possible, it doesn’t have much added cost nor added time. Therefore I don’t have any problem with it.

NASA should let the private sector lower costs, this is what the private sector does well, it’s not something NASA has done well.
The usual practice of NASA is, let’s spend 10-100 billion dollar to lower costs [only a government can think this way] and it doesn’t work.
Obviously economies of scale gives certain advantages- but it is a bit more complicated than this.

Attempts to estimate production costs at this stage are pointless. Although we know there is water in quantity on the Moon, we do not know the actual concentrations, states, and variability at the poles of ice. We do not know the detailed physical characteristics of the polar cold traps. This ignorance is why we send two rovers to prospect the poles before we decide on a site for the resource processing facility. Such exploration is entirely within scope for NASA and in fact, is a much more appropriate sphere of activity than their current path.”

Yes I agree it is somewhat pointless, and as I said if it’s easier to mine lunar water than I expect, it will matter less if NASA mines hundreds of tons it, if mining 100 tons takes less a couple weeks, it’s not going to be a huge cost or take any significant amount of time.
But how can NASA plan to mine lunar water, if doesn’t have enough knowledge to do so. Wouldn’t be better to explore the Moon, determine what is there, then make plans to mine it based on what is known?

Comment by gbaikie — June 11, 2011 @ 6:44 am

Perhaps you correct, but I would think it depends upon easy it is to mine lunar water.

Which we don’t know right now — that’s why our architecture has a step-wise approach to determine the difficulty, the problems, the breakpoints, and benefits of lunar water harvesting.

If it difficult [costly] then perhaps no one can mine it. If it’s easy, why does NASA have to do it?

Their job is to begin to do it so that we can understand how difficult it is. It is an engineering R&D research program, the principal reason we have a space agency.

And I am afraid NASA will do it because it is hard

You do have a rare sense of humor.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 11, 2011 @ 8:34 am

(-When Dana Rohrbacher)

From Rohrbacher speech “Getting the private sector more involved in space efforts will free up NASA to explore the solar system and the universe beyond.”

In other words, Rohrbacher is on the private space train. That train has left the station and he is not getting off. He makes noises about certain NASA projects that support his district, but in the end, he is one of the politicians what will strand us in LEO for many decades to come. I have to support his impact defense advocacy, but that does not change his friendship status in my opinion.

“that is all the Planetary Defense folk have to hang their hat on: the NEO risk will be eliminated shortly.”

Detection is not deflection. If “that is all” is not enough for you that is your own don’t worry about it opinion. As I said about Dr.Spudis’ Permian extinction comment- 10 percent of life left on earth- kind of sells itself.

“Sure, that is risk that is more difficult to reduce than the NEO impact risk.”

I am sure you and others will figure out some way to “reduce the risk” that does not involve funding anything.

“A reusable OTV (orbital transfer vehicle) would be a major game changer”

Sure it would, but you have to remember what the word “reusable” entails in space- a pressurized area big enough for maintenance to be performed. It is not like a space probe- a vehicle like that will need mechanics and technicians to keep it running. Because of radiation exposure such a hangar would need to be beneath the moons surface. A moon base.

“To keep the costs down, such a base would have crew of, say 2, that live on the Moon for varying periods. So with budget of 1/2 billion, that means less than one trip to the moon per year.”

Rare humor indeed. There is no cheap. Space flight is inherently expensive.

A human base on the moon will necessarily be underground. It will have to be big to be self-supporting with agriculture, foundries, factories, and a very large electrical budget to manage the closed ecosystem. And it would all start with a way to mine water and then an excavating system.

We will need HLV’s to do this and building them from scratch a couple decades from now will be incredibly expensive compared to building on the present heavy lift infrastructure. That infrastructure is being dismantled. It is nice to say we can do everything cheap when the time comes but that is yet another “don’t worry about it” way to avoid reality. Rocket fuel, Engines, and materials will not change significantly because the laws of physics will not change.

There is no substitute for an HLV with hydrogen upper stages.

Comment by GaryChurch — June 11, 2011 @ 3:09 pm

“NASA should let the private sector lower costs, this is what the private sector does well, it’s not something NASA has done well.
The usual practice of NASA is, let’s spend 10-100 billion dollar to lower costs [only a government can think this way] and it doesn’t work.”

This is the circular reasoning that private space advocates use to sell their snake oil. The private sector builds the spacecraft and contracts most of the ground support. The Saturn V was not developed further because of underfunding. It would have become cheaper and cheaper to operate. The Space Shuttle was underfunded- combining a cargo vehicle with a crew vehicle was an attempt to cut costs. The space shuttle program was never funded properly to begin with and this continued with loss of NASA quality control inspectors (cutting costs) pressure to launch (cutting costs) and other factors which led to the loss of two crews.This wailing and gnashing of teeth over NASA waste and austere budgets is a a giant FARCE!

If you want to see waste take a look at DOD programs. I have said this many times- the people working DOD projects probably break down in manic laughter when they hear complaints about NASA overspending.

Comment by GaryChurch — June 11, 2011 @ 3:21 pm

“NASA should let the private sector lower costs, this is what the private sector does well, it’s not something NASA has done well.
The usual practice of NASA is, let’s spend 10-100 billion dollar to lower costs [only a government can think this way] and it doesn’t work.”

[This is the circular reasoning that private space advocates use to sell their snake oil. The private sector builds the spacecraft and contracts most of the ground support.]

I meant private sector as everything other than government- such as the guys that do all mining in the US and the only guys presently doing tele-operated mining.

Comment by gbaikie — June 11, 2011 @ 7:59 pm

To keep the costs down, such a base would have crew of, say 2, that live on the Moon for varying periods. So with budget of 1/2 billion, that means less than one trip to the moon per year.”

Rare humor indeed. There is no cheap. Space flight is inherently expensive.

500 million dollars is still a bit of money. It might too much money for other nations such as Japan, Canada, India, Saudi Arabian, Chinese, and Europeans to pay. Though don’t know.
But that’s for one crew per trip per year. One might get lower costs if crew only stays a few months, and depends upon how many seats are in lander. If such could hold 3 or 4 crew- that reduces per seat costs.
To add a crew, may mean not bring something which weight about 300 lb to the Moon and not bringing back 300 lbs in lunar samples.
300 lb at 20,000 per lb is 6 million. So instead 20 k per lb, it could be twice as much or five times as much and still give room for other costs

“A human base on the moon will necessarily be underground. It will have to be big to be self-supporting with agriculture, foundries, factories, and a very large electrical budget to manage the closed ecosystem. And it would all start with a way to mine water and then an excavating system.”

You wouldn’t need to be underground. You could sleep underground and have daily activity be in crater. So say have base near a crater wall. Say from crater floor to rim is 20-40′- crater is 200′-300′ in diameter. And this crater could be in much bigger crater, or not. So say rim wall is to your north. Sleeping quarter could buried in rim wall and connected to sleeping area you have living area/kitchen which isn’t buried. Perhaps, this living area is excavated [you could use dynamite, and level and make ramp going up 5′ to level of crater floor and do this with something like bobcat.
If sunken then sleeping quarters are higher- a loft/split level. Then to south one could natural terrian- such as very big rock, you make say 10-20′ high berm. So have solar panels up on crater rim. landing zone on other side of rock or berm. Pave landing zone and “sidewalk” to quarters. So in sleeping quarter should receive about same radiation level as you would on earth, and living quarter should be higher levels but shouldn’t dangerous for 5 year or longer stays. And probably no or few crew will stay for more than 2 years. Working outside would have significant higher level than living area, but seems unlikely you going spent more 4 hrs per day on average outside.
Apollo 17 spend 12 days in space- more half traveling there in back. I would guess most of there radiation exposure occurred in transit. And probably crew spend 6 month on the moon most radiation exposure will come from transit and time spent outside. Can’t do much about transit, though could reduce time in the spacesuit.

Comment by gbaikie — June 12, 2011 @ 12:21 am

“Perhaps you correct, but I would think it depends upon easy it is to mine lunar water.

Which we don’t know right now — that’s why our architecture has a step-wise approach to determine the difficulty, the problems, the breakpoints, and benefits of lunar water harvesting.”

Well it seems to me your approach is best I have seen. And something that NASA should appreciate and perhaps adopt as their policy. Using robots first could be argued about, but when you consider NASA doing it one can’t have much of an argument about it.
Why I think it’s good in regard to NASA is it’s seems the quickest way for NASA to move in this direction of exploring the Moon. I see no reason why NASA couldn’t start doing the robotic aspect right now. And I don’t know even if they started with robotic part this second, if they have enough time to develop it fully.
If NASA was ready to do the manned aspect at this moment, then one argument for more Manned is you could do it quicker.
I mean in terms mostly manned vs mostly robot- there is no reason to do just one or the other.
So the robotic part will take some time to develop, and NASA in terms of budget can’t spend much money. So the development of robot can start now with little in terms of “start up costs”- and then we get some robots that launch in a few years. Then develop more for follow up, and then by this time perhaps we could start manned part of it- or maybe not:)

Comment by gbaikie — June 12, 2011 @ 1:33 am

And something that NASA should appreciate and perhaps adopt as their policy.

Just as an aside, I have it on good authority that our lunar return architecture has been noticed at NASA and some are studying its implications and possibilities in detail. Of course, that’s a long way from them “adopting it as policy” but at least it is drawing some attention.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 12, 2011 @ 9:56 am

Just saw this on Hobbyspace.com:

Boeing proposes SSTO system for AF RBS program.
“The new issue of Aviation Week has a brief blurb about a Boeing proposal for the Air Force’s Reusable Booster System (RBS) program: Boeing Offers AFRL Reusable Booster Proposal – AvWeek – June.13.11 (subscription required).
Darryl Davis, who leads Boeing’s Phantom Works, tells AvWeek that they are proposing a 3-4 year technology readiness assessment that would lead up to a demonstration of a X-37B type of system
but would be smaller. Wind tunnel tests have been completed. Davis says the system would be a single stage capable of reaching low Earth orbit and, with a booster, higher orbits. The system would return to Earth as a glider.
Davis says “that advances in lightweight composites warrant another look” at single-stage-to-orbit launchers.” http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=30110

I don’t have a subscription to AV Week. If anyone does perhaps they could look it up.
I’m curious about the statement it would be “smaller” than the X-37B. I did some preliminary calculations that if you switched to kerosene fuel and a high efficiency engine such as the NK-33, and filled every scrap of internal volume with propellant, then a vehicle twice the size of the X-37B could be SSTO. I would be surprised they are able to get it to work with a smaller vehicle than the X-37B.
Perhaps they mean it would be smaller than the booster, Atlas V, and X-37B system, as the Atlas V weighs upwards of 300,000 kg.

Bob Clark

Comment by Robert Clark — June 12, 2011 @ 12:27 pm

“-our lunar return architecture has been noticed at NASA and some are studying its implications and possibilities in detail.”

Congratulations Sir.
It would be a dream come true (for me, not private space of course) if the administration forced the military to fund a Sidemount Cargo Vehicle for a planetary defense system. Separated from NASA budget might make it happen. Considering the military has tacitly approved criminal diversion of funds in the past from the space shuttle program to a DOD program (B-2 bomber) this should not be too hard to swallow. And since it might be advisable to have nuclear weapons officers on board any deep space intercept vehicle, the air force might jump on it. They and the other services will be losing all their combat pilots to drones and such prestige might appeal to them.

And…..Since launching such intercept missions from earth or earth orbit with nuclear weapons assembled will raise howls of protest, the moon is the proper scramble point. Fissionable material can be sent on a direct lunar trajectories in specially prepared capsules with an escape tower using the shuttles human rated components for the lest risk transportation scenario (the orion sidemount concept). Then the weapons and other nuclear systems get assembled in lunar orbit and eventually in underground moon bases.

And….since there is a base, why not build that family of supersatellites supported from the moon?

Why not? Because private space wants their kerolox tourist taxi to a space station vacation? Because the golf course deals awarding tax dollars to the appropriated cronies takes priority?

I hope Dana Rohrbacher reads this- I am going to email his website after I post this.
Why not? At least I, unlike so many others, will have done something to defend our race from the threat of extinction.

Comment by GaryChurch — June 12, 2011 @ 4:11 pm

“-the system would be a single stage capable of reaching low Earth orbit and, with a booster, higher orbits. The system would return to Earth as a glider.”

And so Boeing will get a government contract worth millions to see if they can make SST0 work. This sounds familiar.

Oh that’s right! They tried and failed a couple decades ago, I almost forgot. And they must believe everyone else has forgot.

Insulting the rocket equation will not succeed. Composite technology is not wishalloy. Even if the structure weighed next to nothing (wishalloy), it would not work. It all revolves around exhaust velocity, not weight. That means they need unobtanium, not wishalloy. Actually they need both but they are not going to get it because the laws of physics are not going to change.

I suspect their is a cadre of officers who want to replace some soon to be retired Boeing exex and this is their ticket.

“You wouldn’t need to be underground. You could sleep underground and have daily activity be in crater.”

I think that means you would be underground GB.

“So in sleeping quarter should receive about same radiation level as you would on earth, and living quarter should be higher levels but shouldn’t dangerous for 5 year or longer stays.”

“-seems unlikely you going spent more 4 hrs per day on average outside.
Apollo 17 spend 12 days in space- more half traveling there in back.”

GB, I think two years of 4 hours a day adds up to more than 12 days. Surface excursions on the moon or any other body, except maybe Titan, would be for critical observations and appropriately brief sightseeing. Radiation is not good and characterizing a certain level of exposure as being OK is….a deception. The exciting prospect of exploring the surface of the moon like a mysterious island is not even science fiction- it is fantasy. You could look out onto landscapes or up at the stars through 14 feet of water and bunny hop all you want in 50 foot diameter pressurized tunnels and excavated caverns but outside is only cumulative damage resulting in elevated levels of cancer and brain damage. Think about that saltmine where they keep document archives- over 150 miles of tunnels to wander through. The moon might eventually have thousands of miles or very large underground open spaces. Be happy.

Comment by GaryChurch — June 12, 2011 @ 4:35 pm

“Just as an aside, I have it on good authority that our lunar return architecture has been noticed at NASA and some are studying its implications and possibilities in detail. Of course, that’s a long way from them “adopting it as policy” but at least it is drawing some attention.”

Well that is good news.
I hope they take the approach coming up with preliminary plans, publish them. Get feedback, and work towards a more solid idea.
Rather then go for some master plan which is “done”.
And even with well conceived plans, expect it to change over time.

Comment by gbaikie — June 12, 2011 @ 7:16 pm

“GB, I think two years of 4 hours a day adds up to more than 12 days. Surface excursions on the moon or any other body, except maybe Titan, would be for critical observations and appropriately brief sightseeing. Radiation is not good and characterizing a certain level of exposure as being OK is….a deception.”

I said 6 month rather 2 years at 4 hours each day. One reason you want long stays is to study affects over long periods. We don’t know the affects- that why it needs to be studied. We have low gravity, and various types of radiation which could harmful. I was broadly speaking about GCR.
GCR has two different elements- direct affect of high energy particle, and GCR causing secondary radiation by hitting something other than human body and then this secondary radiation hitting the human body. This latter is probably more dangerous. In other words, if Apollo astronaut weren’t in vehicle they would received less harmful radiation from GCR- no kind of shielding is better in terms of GCR. Or one inch of water is better than 1″ of metal- in regards to GCR [not other types of radiation].

So 4 hr a day means, one could have 8 hr one day and zero hrs the next day. We are not going to expect crew to work every day for 6 months. Though the crew probably won’t get 2 days of each week “off”. So the idea of 4 hour per day outside, is about much as would possible- if they constantly doing “outdoor work”.
Perhaps, if the crew were private sector workers, they could do more the 4 hr per day, but these govt crew will have more responsibilities than just being “outside” working. So the 4 hrs per day is a maximum, that would have per week or maybe month- not 4 hr per day for 6 month or 2 years.

Comment by gbaikie — June 12, 2011 @ 8:10 pm

“You wouldn’t need to be underground. You could sleep underground and have daily activity be in crater.”

I think that means you would be underground GB.

Well if sleep in your bedroom, it doesn’t mean you live in your bedroom. And another thing if you basement in your house, does that mean you living underground?

But I actually wanted to talk about this point:

“And so Boeing will get a government contract worth millions to see if they can make SST0 work. This sounds familiar.

Oh that’s right! They tried and failed a couple decades ago, I almost forgot. And they must believe everyone else has forgot. ”
So here link:
http://www.space.com/8239-details-secretive-37b-space-plane-revealed.html

They mention it is like a mini-shuttle. The shuttle wasn’t Single Stage to Orbit.
It seems they talking about a reusable rocket. With 2 stages or something.
Getting 9.5 km/sec of delta-v from one stage rocket is difficult- if you want any payload. But if instead you trying to get say 7 km/sec from a single stage, it’s not as hard.
Not saying I know enough about the program.

But instead let talk about a SSTO. I think SSTO could be possible with assisted launch. In other words take the design of X-33- use aluminum tanks [which heavier than the planned composite tanks]. But use say a Maglev “0 stage system” to launch it.
Add 300 to 400 mph [.13 km/sec] to it’s launch.
Such a modest addition could be enough to make a X-33 “work”. Or could make up for the added weight, and lack of performance which the X-33 got from going to plans to more detailed testing results.
It’s possible with Mag Lev or other systems which add a modest amount of delta-v make single stage needing 9.5 km/sec to reach orbit work.
Assisted launch which added much more velocity say 1-2 km/sec, would give an even higher payload fraction.

There two main advantages of an assisted launch- get the rocket to vacuum quicker, and reducing gravity losses. Add performance and lower needed delta-v. So in case X-33 or the VentureStar of which X-33 was it’s prototype, it’s rocket nozzle was designed to work at sea level and vacuum conditions, but it still paid a penalty for it’s sea level performance. Reducing the time it pays this penalty would increase the amount delta-v that rocket could produce.
And with gravity losses most of your rocket gravity loss occurs before it attains a significant velocity, therefore adding .13 km/sec in the beginning would greatly reduce the gravity loss.

Comment by gbaikie — June 12, 2011 @ 9:41 pm

“just as an aside, I have it on good authority that our lunar return architecture has been noticed at NASA and some are studying its implications and possibilities in detail. Of course, that’s a long way from them “adopting it as policy” but at least it is drawing some attention.”

Good good news, IMO. The thing I like best about you and Mr. Lavoie’s architecture is that its compatible with space fuel depots! Space fuel depots should be compatible with our new heavy lift vehicle since HLVs can place fuel into orbit most cheaply.

And the same fuel depots that could be deployed by heavy lift vehicles to LEO and L1 to reduce the cost of traveling within cis-lunar space could later be refueled with LOX and LH2 from lunar resources to further reduce cost and to start the first extraterrestrial enterprise on another world.

If NASA is seriously interested in developing and utilizing space depot technology, they should enthusiastically be helping the ULA, Boeing, and Lockheed to develop ACES fuel depot technology for both their rocket systems and for NASA’s new SLS architecture while also focusing on developing lunar water resources as ultimately the cheapest source of LOX and LH2 for such depots.

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — June 12, 2011 @ 10:16 pm

$87 billion is large enough that, I’ve got to imagine, it would come from funds normally used for HSF. Largely, those funds have targeted “inspiration” such as with Apollo, Obama’s NEO, or Zubrin’s Mars. The Shuttle and the ISS was supposed to be for building capability but it looks like that wasn’t sustainable. My concern is that enabling cis-lunar operations makes sense but it might not be sufficiently inspirational and so will not be considered the appropriate use for HSF funds. But, we’ll see if the proposal changes NASA’s direction.

Since a plan for learning how to live and work on the Moon will involve landing cargo and people there and producing life support from lunar ice, at that point we are likely able to produce more life support than is being consumed. It would not take much more to continue to land more astronauts and to be able to sustain them for pretty long periods of time. With more people, we would logically begin to expand the number of different capabilities needed to support operations such as metalurgy and machining. As we continue down the list of items necessary for self-sufficiency, it would become tempting to see if we could go all the way to a fully self-sustaining colony.

A self-sustaining colony as one of the benefits of a cis-lunar infrastructure could provide the needed rationale for why HSF funds should go towards the development of such a system.

Comment by JohnHunt — June 13, 2011 @ 1:34 am

My concern is that enabling cis-lunar operations makes sense but it might not be sufficiently inspirational and so will not be considered the appropriate use for HSF funds.

What is more “inspirational” — a real, operating lunar base developed in 16 years or a stack of paper studies for some future Mars mission that never flies, scheduled sometime in the indefinite future?

The “inspire and excite” model of space funding is idiotic. The first financial difficulty to come along takes precedent and funding from it. In my view, the ONLY way we are ever going to build up a sustainable, consistent effort for spaceflight is by linking the human space program to something of national significance and importance. A cislunar space transportation system is a way to do that.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 13, 2011 @ 4:38 am

Comment by JohnHunt — June 13, 2011 @ 1:34 am
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 13, 2011 @ 4:38 am

I am not so sure you guys are debating on this one.

The use of Lunar Recourses, as Dr. Spudis proposes, would lead directly to the capability to support increasing numbers of people in Cis-Lunar Space (whether on the lunar surface or in orbit). Those people in turn would be needed to support the expanding types of production desired (tankage, etc.). That would lead to the large bases/settlements.

As to inspiration, I can only answer for myself. The things that inspired me as a kid were the images of eventual large extraterrestrial settlements and the steps to get there. Just a single example, but a true one.

Comment by Joe — June 13, 2011 @ 9:46 am

“And so Boeing will get a government contract worth millions to see if they can make SST0 work. This sounds familiar.
“Oh that’s right! They tried and failed a couple decades ago, I almost forgot. And they must believe everyone else has forgot.”

Actually, it was not Boeing it was Lockheed, using a completely different design.
Saying that SSTO attempt failed means any attempt must fail is quite analogous to saying prior to the Wright brothers that “all attempts at heavier than air flight failed, so that means all attempts must fail.”

Bob Clark

Comment by Robert Clark — June 13, 2011 @ 9:47 am

“Insulting the rocket equation will not succeed. Composite technology is not wishalloy. Even if the structure weighed next to nothing (wishalloy), it would not work. It all revolves around exhaust velocity, not weight. That means they need unobtanium, not wishalloy. Actually they need both but they are not going to get it because the laws of physics are not going to change.”

This isn’t correct. The two components of the rocket equation involving the exhaust velocity and the lightness of the structure compared to the propellant load are both important for determining if you can reach orbit.
It has been commonly said for a SSTO, that IF you have a high efficiency engine, then for kerosene fuel you need a 20 to 1 mass ratio, and for hydrogen a 10 to 1 mass ratio.
The key fact is we have had rocket stages with mass ratios this high, BUT they didn’t have the high efficiency engines over the entire flight to orbit. However, such engines do exist. So swap out the low efficiency engines for the high efficiency ones on these weight optimized stages.

Bob Clark

Comment by Robert Clark — June 13, 2011 @ 10:49 am

“This isn’t correct.”

Well, I said, “actually they need both”
That said, materials will not change radically, rocket fuel will not change radically, but exhaust velocity can change radically by using either nuclear (not feasible anywhere near earth because of possible contamination) or beam propulsion (where the exhaust velocity can be far above chemical reaction velocities). That is why I said everything revolves around exhaust velocity- weight of structure cannot change much but propulsion has one probable cheap access to orbit concept. The only practical deep space nuclear propulsion system is atomic bomb propulsion (we have atomic bombs). Beam propulsion can greatly advance while chemical reaction rocket engines cannot. If you know another way I would be very interested.

Lockheed, Boeing, are big aerospace corporations. Different concepts? Not very.

“quite analogous to saying prior to the Wright brothers that “all attempts at heavier than air flight failed, so that means all attempts must fail.”

It is more analogous to basic high school physics. Hydrogen and oxygen generate a certain exhaust velocity and not much more. Materials weigh a certain mass and not much less. Your analogy is not correct.

Comment by GaryChurch — June 13, 2011 @ 3:56 pm

“they should enthusiastically be helping the ULA, Boeing, and Lockheed to develop ACES fuel depot technology”

Fuel depots are a money hole many parties would like to cash in on just like SSTO.

The problem is liquid hydrogen is some pretty wild stuff. Everyone ignores how cold it is and all the problems with storing it in space. I do not think it is practical any more than SSTO. The best fuel depot would be underground on the moon close to a launch silo for an HLV.

There is no substitute for an HLV with hydrogen upper stages.

The problem with all these schemes is simple- we are trying to go cheap and somehow avoid paying for lunch.

There is no cheap. Space flght is inherently expensive.
Which not such a problem when the monstrous DOD budget is scrutinized.

Comment by GaryChurch — June 13, 2011 @ 4:02 pm

“One reason you want long stays is to study affects over long periods. We don’t know the affects- that why it needs to be studied.”

We know one effect of heavy nuclei on DNA- it is 300 times more damaging than any other form of radiation.

We do not want to study the long term effects on human beings GB. Unless you would like to volunteer.

I strongly suggest you read “Shielding Space Travelers” by Eugene Parker, Scientific American 2006. It is the best article I have come across explaining GCR to the public. It is excellent.

Dr. Parker also explains the most effective shield against heavy nuclei; 14 feet and 400 tons of water. No one seems to be able to wrap their heads around this. But as I have said before- if that is the only solution then…..that is the only solution. We better move past denial and start dealing with it.

And it can be dealt with. The water on the moon is a fantastic discovery in this regard. That shielding no longer has to be lifted out of earth’s gravity well. Lunar orbit is far enough away from earth so no fallout from nuclear propulsion will be trapped in the magnetosphere. The moon is the gateway to the solar system.

Comment by GaryChurch — June 13, 2011 @ 8:24 pm

“Fuel depots are a money hole many parties would like to cash in on just like SSTO.”

It’s possible, NASA will waste money on fuel depots. It should be rather simple. NASA simply buys rocket fuel from any one who will sell it.

I favor my idea of having govt buying water payloads and giving the water to any party who will “mine” it and make rocket fuel. My idea is cheap. But my idea would take some time.
Making a fuel depot seems simpler and quickier. Though when comes to doing it, it could far more complicated and much more expensive than what I have proposed.

My idea of Water in orbit is sort of like a prize like thing, and unless radically altered, it does not cost the govt much money and sort of “makes money” for the govt.
A govt simply offers to buy up to a certain quantity of water delivered to some location in space [LEO or l-1]. LEO would be cheaper, but L-1 might be better. Both might be a good idea. The govt offer to buy water payload at what could be called a ridiculous cheap price- I suggested $500 per lb in LEO and $1000 per lb in L-1. If govt wants to buy at twice that price, it wouldn’t matter much. And suppose if they were in a hurry they might buy at 5 times that price. But I think the plan works better if the govt isn’t in a hurry. So govt simply offers to buy a fixed amount during a time period of 5 to 10 years. The offer could be limited to only US launch companies. If they paid 5 times more then I suggest, politics would probably require it be US launch companies. If it was at prices I suggest, perhaps it wouldn’t seen as subsidy and more like a prize and therefore more likely all launch companies in the world might be allowed to do this. And this gives more possible players and more competition- which is minor good point about it. Now, generally what this is intended towards is water test payloads- a company want to test a rocket before offering it to the market.
The more any rocket is tested the higher the value of the rocket and by paying 500 per lb, one paying 500 per lb more than if rocket company launched a normal test payload.
And this program could encourage more test payloads than a company normally does. And this is how a govt can “make money”- because govt lose payloads from rocket not successful delivering their payloads. Govt has and will lose billions of dollars in payloads for rockets failing to deliver their payloads.
To keep it brief, after getting 100 tons in orbit, the govt offers this to anyone who will mine it. And thereby possibly “getting” a gas station “for free”.

“The problem is liquid hydrogen is some pretty wild stuff. Everyone ignores how cold it is and all the problems with storing it in space. I do not think it is practical any more than SSTO. The best fuel depot would be underground on the moon close to a launch silo for an HLV.”

If you have a gas station that can make LH&LOX from water, storing the liquid hydrogen is capability you already have.

The universe is 4 kelvin- if adequately shaded from the Sun, Earth and/or the Moon, one can passively keep it cold enough.
To make LH&LOX from water in orbit would probably require active refrigeration. You need electrical power to split the water, you probably use some of this electrical power to refrigerate H2 and O.

Though one can use heat to refrigerate [if not splitting water and therefore already having lot of electrical power] coupled with passive cooling. Meaning one could do this without using any PV panels. Heat engines could give mechanical energy for compression of gases, and also provide some electrical power for control systems.

As for underground on the Moon, not sure what temperature would be. Near the surface of the Moon it’s below 0 C, and at some depth it’s going to be above 0 C. I would guess more than mile below the surface- and this depth would vary depending on mineral composition.
It seems the coldest place on the Moon is top layer in dark craters in polar regions [which is as cold as Liquid Hydrogen -240 C at critical pressure {188 psi}]. Would guess in dark craters a meter or more below the surface should warmer than at surface. And 100 meters down, more warmer.

Comment by gbaikie — June 14, 2011 @ 2:23 am

“The universe is 4 kelvin- if adequately shaded from the Sun, Earth and/or the Moon, one can passively keep it cold enough.”

If you say so GB

Comment by GaryChurch — June 14, 2011 @ 11:00 am

@Gary Church

Slush hydrogen could reduce the mass for heavy nuclei shielding by more than three times relative to water. The boil-off rate for liquid hydrogen (without sun shades) is about 3.8% per month. Slush hydrogen boil off would be 30% less. And there’s also the possibility of using solar power to recycle and refrigerate the ullage gases from the hydrogen boil-off.

So a Moon base could export liquid or slush hydrogen for mass shielding a manned interplanetary vehicle stationed at a Lagrange point.

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — June 14, 2011 @ 9:44 pm

“We know one effect of heavy nuclei on DNA- it is 300 times more damaging than any other form of radiation.”

Any harmful radiation damages DNA. 300 times more damaging has no meaning.
And GCR isn’t heavy nuclei. It’s mostly protons:
“Galactic cosmic radiation (GCR)) is composed mostly of protons (~85 %) and helium ions (~12 %),
the rest includes nuclei of all known elements and some electrons.”
http://www.irpa12.org.ar/KL/III.5.4/KNL_Spurny_fp.pdf

GCR can be heavy nuclei, but it’s rarer. And obviously the heavier the nuclei have more energy. The most common heavy nuclei is iron. And btw, water wouldn’t be effective against heavy nuclei- water is effective because it has 2 hydrogen nuclei, it’s due to the same weight of the nuclei which reduces the effect [85% being high speed protons]- so a near light speed iron nuclei hitting hydrogen would cause secondary radiation [as metal shielding does against the near light protons [GCR]].
And of course any compound with hydrogen atoms is effective- more effective if it has more hydrogen such methane, CH4, if comparing to equal amount of molecules.

“We do not want to study the long term effects on human beings GB. Unless you would like to volunteer.”

We are already studying the long term effect of GCR and other radiation on ISS.
Earth’s magnetic shield only reduces the amount of GCR. And for that matter the earth atmosphere only reduces the amount of GCR. If you living in Denver, or doing a lot flying you also part of the study of the long term affects of GCR.
I am living near sea level so I am part of the group one does comparisons against- though GCR are also reaching sea level.
If you look at above reference, during Solar min [right now and last 5 years or so] ISS receives twice as much GCR as compared to solar max periods. Also mentions that 20 to 30 cm of water in ISS environment reduces the amount by about 3 fold.

Comment by gbaikie — June 15, 2011 @ 2:59 am

It sounds great Marcel and it seems simple enough which is a great selling point to advertise, but…..It is not that simple. Storing liquid hydrogen is not a one dimensional ideal problem. Zero gravity lets it move around chaotically, any ullage or vapor spaces will allow this to happen. When the stuff is transfered to a space craft the entire transfer system and the space craft tank has to be pre-cooled and this is extremely difficult because you cannot insulate that system well at all. So every time it is transferred a whole host of effects are generated and every one of them does not favor keeping the stuff stable and cold. The effects of radiation going into the tank are ignored; this will heat it up. Every time you liquify the boil off to put it back into the system you generate exothermic forms that cause more heat to be introduced into the tank.

From Wiki;

“The uncatalyzed interconversion between para and ortho H2 increases with increasing temperature; thus rapidly condensed H2 contains large quantities of the high-energy ortho form that converts to the para form very slowly.[24] The ortho/para ratio in condensed H2 is an important consideration in the preparation and storage of liquid hydrogen: the conversion from ortho to para is exothermic and produces enough heat to evaporate some of the hydrogen liquid, leading to loss of liquefied material.”

Storing it in a large facility with a little gravity to keep it settled and plenty of equipment to monitor and deal with it’s difficult nature- especially when transferring it is one thing- but putting it in space and using it to fuel other space craft is another thing entirely. The ideal boil off rate is not reality anymore than the ideal mass fractions that are supposed to make SSTO work.

In my opinion it will not be practical. In your opinion it will be. So we can agree to disagree.

“And btw, water wouldn’t be effective against heavy nuclei-”

GB, a world recognized authority on what is flying around out there- and through astronauts bodies- disagrees with just about all your points. GCR is mostly protons but a small percentage is heavy nuclei so…..GCR is heavy nuclei and protons. Don’t try to be sneaky; you do not hold a candle to the piranha on space politics.

It is the standard to ignore GCR on space forums and when someone brings it up it gets blown off with another “don’t worry about it” line that boils down to “there is no data so there is no problem.” Several scientists who specialize in space radiation say it is THE showstopper for deep space human space flight. There are certainly enough sources saying it is not but they are not the ones studying it.

I will go with Parker and the people studying it, thank you.

I must have posted these remarks twenty times over the last couple years. Maybe I should just make up a list of canned responses to all this private space propaganda.

Comment by GaryChurch — June 15, 2011 @ 5:48 pm

“GB, a world recognized authority on what is flying around out there- and through astronauts bodies- disagrees with just about all your points.”

My points that we are imagining someone disagrees with is what?

What I regard as important; therefore what could be called my points are:

I think NASA ultimate goal would be human settlement in space. What this human settlement would look like or actually be isn’t knowable. Speculation about what it may be, is fine, but isn’t my point.

I don’t think NASA near term goal should to create human settlement on the Moon. Nor any settlement anywhere in space.
I think NASA should attempt to discover “things” in space or things regarding space, which are valuable or important to citizens of America and people of this world.

NASA has already done this, by it’s involvement the development of Earth satellite and particularly satellites in GEO. The nature of this value, is that satellites can be stationary and be constantly used to rely communication anywhere to the planet earth. Satellites can also be used to monitor the earth- such as weather satellite. Another aspect is satellite can allow one to know the exact location one is at on the earth- GPS.
One could broadly say that this quality of space is giving “high ground”. Space allowing “high ground” was known about, but allowing one to do this in manner which was practical or economic had to be demonstrated before it become the +200 billion market it is today.

So my point is we need more of the above type stuff- meaning finding other aspects of space which can be of use to the inhabitants of this planet.

The Moon has 1/6th the gravity of earth and also has nearly perfect vacuum- a better vacuum than ISS orbit in LEO.
The problem with the moon is getting to it economically. Same problem regarding satellites, before they were demonstrated and developed. The cost of putting satellite into orbit did not lower significantly, instead sufficient market for it was “discovered” and created. Or the demand for the products that satellites could deliver, sort of existed, but also were created to such a degree that satellite are a necessity today, whereas they didn’t exist decades ago- weren’t a necessity at an earlier time. Modern satellite are generally more expensive than earlier satellites, but they also far more capable, and reliable.

So, satellites needed a market. And to use the Moon, we need a market. There was a market and demand for “high ground” before any satellites flew. There is a demand for rocket fuel in space. In terms of tons deliver beyond LEO, or delta-v over 9.5 km/sec, rocket fuel what is most needed in space. It is currently brought up from earth. It is possible rocket fuel could be made on the Moon and sold for same or lower price in CisLunar space as compared to cost of shipping it from earth. So it is possible there could be market for Lunar water/rocket fuel.

So my point is NASA needs to explore the moon to determine whether or not there is minable water.
And my point is I believe using human crew will do better job of exploring the Moon to determine whether there is minable water, rather than only using robots.

A separate but related point is NASA should encourage a market for rocket fuel in space. It should do this two main reasons. It will lower NASA’s costs. And it could create a market for rocket fuel- and mining lunar water could be enabled by such a market.

So finally, we get to “my points” that GaryChurch imagines some recognized authority would think I am mostly wrong about, specifically GCR and deep space human exploration.

First, I don’t think most people regard the Moon as deep space. Some call the Moon, Near Space. But most people regard GCR as problem regarding human lunar exploration and/or lunar settlement.
What I said is you could use lunar terrain to significantly reduce GCR- crater rim wall and a large rock- assuming one could find something like this. A crater is easy- a large rock in right location more rare.

We do not have as priory the elimination of all GCR for all people on earth. Instead we seek to understand the possible danger and try find ways of reducing exposures to GCR. Therefore we don’t require that all airliners have 14′ of water shielding. Or that people living at high altitudes must live in caves. In instead guidelines published and try to make those who could be most affected, aware of the risks and things which should be done to lower them.
The same applies to ISS, and same should apply to lunar exploration.

So my point is NASA shouldn’t try to make a permanent settlement. Since we want crew on the lunar surface more than a day or two, we need somewhere for them to live.
This base should designed to allow crew to live there for months. With the idea that some crew might only stay weeks and future crew may stay as long as a few years.

As said focus of NASA exploration should be to determine whether there is minable water- and where and what of a lunar base would related to this purpose.
NASA going to do more than look for minable water, but it I think it would be better if 25% or more of effort is focused on this rather than 1% or less.
So in regard to lunar exploration which mostly about determining whether there is minable water, I can’t see any reason why crew would need to spend more than 6 months on the lunar surface. I would think you start with week or so, and maybe some stays of couple months.

And finally if NASA felt it needed a permanent base, I thought such a base should have a low yearly cost, and it could use the same base it used for exploring the moon to find minable water. Having a permanent lunar base wouldn’t necessary mean it had crew there all the time, nor does it mean that NASA personnel would be only ones staying at the base. For it to cost 1/2 billion or less per year, it probably require infrequent trips to and from the lunar base.
NASA could send crew there which stayed a short period of time OR if NASA needed long term studies it could keep crew there for a couple years.
So I talking about time which at least a decade into the future, more likely 2 or 3 decades into the future. And can assume we learned something more about GCR at this distant point in the future.
No such a base would not need to be underground.
If one lived 50 or more feet underground on the Moon, you wouldn’t need to worry harmful space radiation while staying there. And if you remained underground it’s no worries.
Unlike most people, I don’t think of space settlements as where people stay the rest of their life. In other words I don’t see people living in space as similar to serfs in the middle ages who could live their entire within a few miles of their lord’s keep.
Instead I see space workers in the beginning, and stay times being around 6 months- maybe a couple years. Maybe a very small minority stay decades or their entire life.
After a decade or three of mostly temporary space workers, rocket fuel gets into the range as cheap in space, as it is on earth. At this point in time getting to LEO isn’t halfway to anywhere, it’s 90% or more the costs of getting anywhere. Therefore, maybe space worker to save costs, are living in LEO, and traveling to other places- Moon or Mars, or Mercury, or wherever. So at that point in time they might live the rest of the lives in space- 50% or more of their lives in LEO.
And not because of radiation worries, just because it’s cheaper- and great view of earth.
And when the cost to leave earth ever gets really cheap- so that LEO is say 25-50% of getting anywhere- space population will highly mobile in regards to returning to Earth.

Comment by gbaikie — June 16, 2011 @ 7:55 pm

Studying space radiation is not the same as studying the biological effects of space radiation. An expert on the former is not necessarily an expert on the later, and saying it requires X meters of water to stop all GCRs and secondaries doesn’t prove that it is necessary to do so. Scare stories do not constitute proof.

Comment by Dick Morris — June 16, 2011 @ 9:13 pm

“Scare stories do not constitute proof.”

I guess you are another one of those “sources” that says there is no evidence so there is no problem. Thanks Dick.

GB, I do not want to get in a combative relationship with you. I say things bluntly and sarcastically only to emphasize my points- it is not personal, it is just the web.

We are both here to express our opinions on space exploration. I believe what scientists with credentials publish (mostly), not advertisements and computer graphics pitches by aerospace and private space. This infomercial type information caters to peoples dreams and desires. Most of it is not practical. It floods the space forums to such an extent that people who have been reading it for years consider it the truth.

Dick Morris wants to reuse rocket stages and he was not happy at all when I challenged that opinion. Sorry Dick. I would like to see reuse as much as anyone but my research led me to the conclusion that it is not practical because it eats up too much of the payload. I am not saying it cannot be done, I am saying it will not be worth the trouble. These kind of conclusions are not popular. A swarm of SpaceX sycophants on other websites attack me on sight and I do not even bother posting there anymore because I just get dogpiled with post after post of incredibly long strings of insults and propaganda. Dr. Spudis has allowed me to post and edits me when I get inappropriate which is fine. I suspect he also edits a large number of other posts by private space fanatics who always try to take over forums like this.

That said, you are on the wrong path with the following remarks;

“What this human settlement would look like or actually be isn’t knowable.”

We know it will not be many things, what is left is speculation. That is why we are here- speculation and debate about what it will actually be.

“-GaryChurch imagines some recognized authority would think I am mostly wrong-”

If you read the source I strongly suggested, and did some fact checking, you would know I am not imagining this. I fact check what other people say and that is how I have learned about most of the issues I comment on.

“I don’t think most people regard the Moon as deep space.”

I don’t think of it as deep space either, It is most accurately described as BEO. I do refer to the moon in the deep space context because it is outside the protection offered by LEO and I believe is the gateway to deep space.

“We do not have as priory the elimination of all GCR for all people on earth.” Thanks.

“-we don’t require that all airliners have 14′ of water shielding.” Thanks.

“I don’t see people living in space as similar to serfs in the middle ages who could live their entire within a few miles of their lord’s keep.” Thanks.

The last three require no reply.

If you read many of my comments, you know I am not very conservative in regards to atomic bomb propulsion, beam propulsion, and Bernal Spheres.

Marcel is really into Solar Sails but I do not think they will work, however I am crazy about bombs.If you want to know about atomic bomb propulsion the best work bar none is “Project Orion” by Dyson. It is out of print so you will have to check it out of the library.

Comment by GaryChurch — June 17, 2011 @ 3:19 pm

“Our ‘goal’ is to expand human reach beyond LEO, first into cislunar space and then into interplanetary space (by ‘reach,’ I mean the routine access of people and machines to any point in space where we need or want these capabilities to do whatever job we need to.)”

I believe the word for this is “settling.”

“The ‘strategy’ to accomplish this extension is to establish a resource-processing base on the Moon to make fuel for a cislunar space transportation system.”

And the word for this is “settlement.”

“A ‘tactical’ implementation of this strategy is a robotic ISRU architecture, which will create our first foothold on another world.”

Which amounts to sticking a shovel in the ground, chopping down a tree, and a number of other activities undertaken during the course of settling new territory.

Comment by Prez Cannady — June 17, 2011 @ 10:32 pm

[...] From “One Small Step” to Settlement At the recent International Space Development Conference in Huntsville, Augustine committee member and CEO of XCOR Aerospace Jeff Greason gave a talk on the goals of human spaceflight. While he discussed many things that I agree with (in particular, making the use of off-planet resources a high priority), one idea in particular stood out. Greason said that we need some type of long-range goal or objective for our national civil space program. Picking up on a statement by his Augustine colleague Chris Chyba, Greason suggested that “settlement” should be the goal of human spaceflight; if not, “what the hell are we doing it for?” [...]

Pingback by Follow Friday & Weekly Stumbles For 2011-06-17 - CosmoBC.com AstroBlog — June 17, 2011 @ 11:11 pm

Prez,

“Our ‘goal’ is to expand human reach beyond LEO, first into cislunar space and then into interplanetary space (by ‘reach,’ I mean the routine access of people and machines to any point in space where we need or want these capabilities to do whatever job we need to.)”

I believe the word for this is “settling.”

We have a navy that can travel anywhere on the Earth’s seas, at any time, with whatever capabilities needed to do whatever job they are assigned. Has the U.S. Navy “settled” the oceans?

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 18, 2011 @ 5:06 am

“The last three require no reply.”

Ok. But not sure how to reply to others.
Don’t see what you mean by me being on wrong path or how your response in contrast could be seen as correct path.

“If you read many of my comments, you know I am not very conservative in regards to atomic bomb propulsion, beam propulsion, and Bernal Spheres.”

I think the chemical expendable rockets are all that is needed to get off Earth.

All that is needed for NASA to explore the Moon and Mars. And all that is needed to get to point opening up space frontier and having settlements.

I think the stuff you mention is significant as examples of future potential of space. I put lunar rail gun in similar category. Perhaps feasible in mid to long term.
Might see a Orion pressure plate used to move asteroids, before it being used on rocket ship:)

Comment by gbaikie — June 18, 2011 @ 7:34 am

“I think the chemical expendable rockets are all that is needed to get off Earth.
All that is needed for NASA to explore the Moon and Mars. And all that is needed to get to point opening up space frontier and having settlements.”

To get off earth rockets do the job but are expensive. The big hype the privates space crowd is pushing is “cheap access.” With rockets there is no cheap. They like to characterize rockets as airliners or space as an ocean. Both these analogies are completely wrong if you are talking about human space flight with expendable rockets and chemical propulsion. Calling space a frontier and “sticking a shovel in the ground” or “cutting down a tree” is also very deceptive. I do not think settlement is a good word to use but it will probably enter the space forum vocabulary now.

After having read so many analogies about space over the last couple years, very few of them good, I try to stay away from them and words like frontier and settlement. Colonize is somewhat more appropriate. These are words about earth from our past. Space is opposite.

We can explore with robot probes and I have nothing at all against these- except when scientists scream blue bloody murder about what a waste human space flight is and how it is limiting THEIR goals.

I am all about loyalty to our species and not going extinct. I strongly feel that colonizing space is the best insurance against the many threats the human race faces. The Fermi Paradox, which asks why we have not found any evidence of other civilizations has only become more mysterious since we have discovered so many solar systems with planets. Shaving with Occam’s razor leads me to believe technological civilizations all self-destruct. Our technology has reached the point where we can easily kill ourselves off with genetically modified organisms. We also face the threat of impacts. And might think this is crazy but Stephen Hawking, who might be considered kind of a smart guy, has warned us about contact with alien civilizations. If there is a race of aliens headed our way trying to find a place to live (for whatever reason) it is first going to take them centuries to get here from wherever they are coming from and second they would probably send faster ships ahead to scout. If you wanted to sterilize a planet to prepare it for your own flora and fauna there is no better way than comet impacts. They do not need any super technology to do this. We are not far away from interstellar slow boat capability.

That said we also do not know what the earth is going to do. We take it for granted we will just keep going on but something as geologically common as volcanic activity could darken the sky for decades and our civilization would melt down like that movie The Road.

“-the stuff you mention is significant as examples of future potential of space. I put lunar rail gun in similar category.”

No, I do not stray far from present technology. Beam propulsion is about as far out as I go. And we could build your lunar rail gun right now (if we had a base on the moon). So I agree with you about a lunar rail gun GB. But not a rail gun on earth for “assisted launch.” The lower atmosphere is just too thick to make it worth the trouble.

And you don’t need a pressure plate to move an asteroid. Properly configured hydrogen bombs would work just fine all by themselves.

Comment by GaryChurch — June 18, 2011 @ 3:02 pm

“To get off earth rockets do the job but are expensive. The big hype the privates space crowd is pushing is “cheap access.” ”
You will notice it’s not cheap rockets, but a funny word, access.
They want a rocket launch market. But prefer to use term cheaper access to space- CATS. Basically, CATS is used for “political reasons”- it appeals to more people. And it states what is important: access.
You could replace “cheaper” with word “more”- MATS or CATS, same thing.

Most people would consider we have a rocket launch market- I would say we closer to what could be called rocket launch market than we were.
In terms of CATS the most significant thing happening is sub-orbital. Which is slower than people such as myself have hoped for, but better than than I feared- hats off to the FAA.

“With rockets there is no cheap. They like to characterize rockets as airliners or space as an ocean. Both these analogies are completely wrong if you are talking about human space flight with expendable rockets and chemical propulsion.”
But as you correctly said, they are analogies. Meaning they aren’t the same but are in some ways similar.

“Horses are to past societies as computers are to future societies”
http://www.greatsongwriting.com/analogy-examples.html

The purpose of analogies or metaphors is to put more meaning into less words. Of course, if used improperly they can just add confusion- or possible confusion if properly used:)

Rockets are expensive. But they are a few million, not hundreds of million or billions. Rocket launches are tens of millions. Rockets use a lot of rocket fuel, but less than 1 million dollars worth of rocket fuel.
Commercial jetliner use a lot of fuel- per mile per passenger better gas mileage than a single passenger in a car. Similar to motorcycle. The cost of the jet fuel is around 20% of the ticket price. Btw the cost of operating car is also around 20% the cost of it’s fuel costs.

Could a rocket launch get to point of having rocket fuel cost 10% of total cost instead of it being less than 1%?
Or could rocket launch cost less than 10 million?
Or say Altas V costs less than 20 million?
It’s possible, you need a robust launch market. Nothing really to do with technology- it’s to do with market.
Of course at this price level one isn’t talking about modern air travel- instead it’s more like 1920 air travel- and similar size markets.
If space travel was same size of market as current airline business- you wouldn’t use the chemical rocket we are currently using- but they could still be chemical rockets- something vaguely like a Sea dragon, perhaps. And probably at that stage of mature market, one use assist stage: Motherships and/or ground launch systems- which could employ beam power in someway, btw:)

If you travel around the world, travel 25000 miles, on an airplane and get 80 mpg, you use about 312 gallons of jet fuel, times 6 is 1875 lbs of kerosene. Which is roughly equal fuel and oxidizer used to get into space. No airplane can fly you 25,000 miles non-stop around the world, but a rocket can.

Comment by gbaikie — June 18, 2011 @ 6:03 pm

“I would like to see reuse as much as anyone but my research led me to the conclusion that it is not practical because it eats up too much of the payload. I am not saying it cannot be done, I am saying it will not be worth the trouble.”

When you are designing a new launch vehicle, the payload is a “given”, so adding the recovery hardware does not “eat up” any payload. The additional mass simply makes the vehicle larger so that it requires more propellants to get the given amount of payload into orbit. Propellants are CHEAP! By far the largest part of the recurring cost of launching a payload on a liquid fueled ELV is the cost of the expended hardware, so it pays to burn a lot of propellants to avoid expending all that hardware.

Comment by Dick Morris — June 18, 2011 @ 7:58 pm

Great replies GB and Dick. No sarcasm. I really have to think about all this and consider what I am going to go to battle against and what I am going to make peace with. For now I can say there is more to airline travel than the price of fuel- the hidden costs are what we pay in taxes for infrastructure, foreign aid to insure a supply of cheap fuel, government oversight like the FAA and of course defense contracts to Boeing and PW and others that insure they have the economy of scale to make airliners “cheap.” And the airline efficiency quotes only work for flying overseas with jumbos. At the edge of their range they really are pretty efficient compared to vehicles like cars.

Dick, I completely agree with the cheap propellant for rockets. And rocket engines can be reused as proven by the RS-25. A truly amazing piece of engineering. And SRB’s can be reused. I have to edit a sermon (really, no kidding, my name is coincident with a family member who preaches). Get back to you.

Comment by GaryChurch — June 19, 2011 @ 1:16 pm

“By far the largest part of the recurring cost of launching a payload on a liquid fueled ELV is the cost of the expended hardware”

As Mark Wade comments on Astronautix; “-the specified weight, reliability, durability, and reusability simply could not be met in a single engine using existing or foreseen technology and materials.”

An RS-68 costs around 20 million and puts out close to what two RS-25′s cost at 40 million each. Very roughly that is 80 million vs 20 million and that is not counting the hidden costs of payload loss in bringing the engine back down from orbit, the cost of multiple inspections and rebuild, and the cost of precisely tracking all the wear and tear and parts inventory and test firing. Even after dozens of missions the RS-68 comes out ahead. Trying to quantify this is difficult and that is yet another practical reason to use expendables; you know one is going up and not coming back so you can concentrate on building another one.

The “foreseen technology and materials” are about the same and will stay the same because, as I have said before, the laws of physics will not change. All the magic tricks in engineering rocket engines are now known just like they are known for steam engines. Not much is going to change and building an engine just good enough to reliably burn once into orbit will probably remain around 5 times cheaper than a reusable one.

I had alot of trouble dealing with this- it just seems intuitive that reusing something is better than expending it. I finally made peace with it by considering it as a conventional engine that flies all those years and millions of miles in orbit in the first 8 minutes.

That said the SRB is a plus to reuse not because it is cheaper (it probably is not) but because inspecting the casings after each flight are insurance they will continue to work right as proven by over 200 flawless shuttle firings. Casings are much easier to inspect than the thousands of parts and turbine and bearing assemblies on an SSME. If the SRB cannot break even you can imagine how much more keeping RS-25′s flying costs.

And this is another private space propaganda ploy- that rocket engines can be reused cheaply and solid rocket boosters are the tools of Satan.

So that is why I think Beam Propulsion is the only probable candidate for “CATS” Dick. They are making metamaterials now that can focus transmitted energy much better than previously which makes me think I am correct about beam propulsion. There is no wishalloy on the way that I am aware of that will make rocket engines as cheap as turbofans.

“The purpose of analogies or metaphors is to put more meaning into less words. Of course, if used improperly they can just add confusion- or possible confusion if properly used:)”

So do you guys think my analogy of the 8 minute engine is correct?

Comment by GaryChurch — June 19, 2011 @ 2:28 pm

“So do you guys think my analogy of the 8 minute engine is correct?”

Rocket engines are simple compared to modern car engines.

Lowering the cost of rocket engines is one path of CATS.
The attention paid to the rocket engine rather than “rocket chassis”, indicate some wisdom regarding this business.
For example I think XCOR:
http://www.xcor.com/
Has the rocket engine as their focus. They used rocket engines in “air planes”- as way to develop the rocket engine technology. Another philosophy these guys favor is the value a lot of flying. Do lots tests, fly a lot, learn, fly more. So robust, reusable and cheap to build rocket engine is what they want.

Last thing I heard about SpaceShipTwo is they were rumored to having “engine problems”- you could say they put more focus on the rocket chassis than engine.
Both Galactic and XCOR are doing the suborbital thing, who is going fly passengers first, is hard to guess. And maybe others will beat them to it.
But anyhow, the suborbital market will improve the rocket engine and rocket chassis- and that some reasons why I consider suborbital important in regards to CATS.

Another thing is SpaceX Falcon 9 is using 9 rocket engines, and the planned Heavy will use 27 rocket engines- both are planned to cheaper than rockets using far fewer rocket engines for comparable amount payload to space.
So SpaceX has to make rocket engines much cheaper- which isn’t that hard, actually [you build tens to hundreds of them compared ones to tens of them].
Though recovering those engines, is perhaps way in the future of lowering launch costs [and if engines are recovered and re-used- will learn more about how to build better engines].

Comment by gbaikie — June 19, 2011 @ 6:22 pm

This infomercial has been going around for a couple years also- that rocket engines are actually simple machines and can be made cheaper than jet engines.

A rocket engine is a controlled explosion. The private space guys get upset when this is stated- they constantly cut and paste lines to the effect that it is simpler than a car engine and other very poor analogies. Tell that to the three seriously injured workers blown up testing what is supposed to be the safest possible rocket engine burning Nitrous Oxide and Rubber. Virgin Galactic lost three other people that day in the explosion. Cheap and nasty kills.

The turpopumps that feed a liquid hydrogen engine have to be 10 times as powerful as one feeding a kerosene engine. This is the reason SpaceX is pushing their all kerosene launcher- hydrogen engines are expensive. But 100 seconds of ISP makes a huge difference in space flight. Like I said, it all revolves around exhaust velocity. Centaur has been used all these years for space probes because any other propellants would balloon the EDS and need either a bigger launcher or a smaller payload.

Von Braun did not like hydrogen because he thought it would be impractical. Abe Silverman argued the case for hydrogen and won. Von Braun eventually stated the success of Apollo was due in large part to hydrogen upper stages and presented Silverman a signed print of a Saturn V lifting off in recognition of this. This is recorded history, not infomercial hacks yapping about cheaper and smaller is better.

As for SpaceX reusing their Merlins, I doubt very much they will- they just want everyone to think they are the future and claiming reuse is a great way to hype that. Putting the equipment on their lower stage to allow it to get dropped into the ocean and recovered will eat up a surprising amount of payload. It does not seem like a parachute and some waterproofing would be that heavy but guess what? Every pound you add means one less pound of payload. Adding more fuel and thrust to make up that loss adds yet more structure and weight. Surprise, surprise.

You have to start fact checking instead of regurgitating internet infomercials GB. I suggest you read “Taming Liquid Hydrogen” in the NASA history series. It will give you some idea of what it takes to make a rocket engine.

And I would like to here from Marcel about GCR- he had a source quote from a NASA doctor that I cannot find and would like you to read. Marcel and I have differences over atomic bomb propulsion and solar sails and I suggested a compromise- the Medusa concept which uses a giant woven alloy parachute and atomic bombs instead of a pusher plate. We have the technology to do incredible things in space right now.

Suborbital is a joke.

Comment by GaryChurch — June 20, 2011 @ 3:10 pm

GB,this is my article on atomic bomb propulsion. It did not make me famous. Only 28 people have read it. Oh well.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/7885046/water_and_bombs.html?cat=15

Comment by GaryChurch — June 20, 2011 @ 4:31 pm

“A rocket engine is a controlled explosion. The private space guys get upset when this is stated- they constantly cut and paste lines to the effect that it is simpler than a car engine and other very poor analogies. Tell that to the three seriously injured workers blown up testing what is supposed to be the safest possible rocket engine burning Nitrous Oxide and Rubber. Virgin Galactic lost three other people that day in the explosion. Cheap and nasty kills.”

Rocket engines CAN have very high pressure. High explosive are chemicals which explode at high velocity. Black powder gunpowder has too slow a velocity to be used in rockets- and isn’t considered a high explosive- anything which has chemical reaction that adds heat can used as an explosive.
And because matter goes from liquid state to a gas state when warmed- lots of other stuff can explode- like water heaters [see Mythbusters]. Liquid air would on earth also make good bomb. Explosions are near instant “release” of energy- the faster this energy is release relates to how powerful the explosion. A cannon is a controlled explosion. Bombs require pressure vessels and rockets require pressure vessels as do cannons or guns [as does hot water heaters].

Those workers weren’t killed [or injured] from a rocket- they doing work related to building rockets.
Any kid can build a rocket- few kids could build internal combustion engine. Few adults could build modern car engine- some can assemble the pieces of these engines.

Rocket engines can be very expensive. They can use exotic material and made to operate near the limits of these materials. A rocket engine can be combustion chamber and rocket nozzle, and rocket fuel fed by pressurized tanks.
But for all first stage rocket I am aware of, instead of pressurized tank the rocket fuel is pumped into the engine.
So basically with these rockets you including two jet engines which are supplying the the rocket fuel- around a ton of rocket fuel per second is thrown into and exhausted out of these engines.
In terms of horsepower, nothing is cheaper than rockets.

“The turpopumps that feed a liquid hydrogen engine have to be 10 times as powerful as one feeding a kerosene engine. This is the reason SpaceX is pushing their all kerosene launcher- hydrogen engines are expensive. But 100 seconds of ISP makes a huge difference in space flight. Like I said, it all revolves around exhaust velocity. Centaur has been used all these years for space probes because any other propellants would balloon the EDS and need either a bigger launcher or a smaller payload.”

Per gallon kerosene has a lot more energy. One needs a lot of power in first stage rocket- therefore kerosene is better in first stage. In second you need the most amount amount of delta-v- can have less power and burn longer.

It seems to me [and don't know why it's not done] one should have a first stage with less burn time- like say 60 seconds. Not getting very high nor getting very fast and keep rocket fuel in it, to land it. In other words a cheap assist stage. Not fuel efficient, but you could reuse it.
So this thing accelerating around 1 gee- so, roughly 10 m/s/s for 60 seconds, give 600 m/s and 18000 meters up. When second stage kicks in it’s not space like vacuum but pretty close- a nozzle optimized for space vacuum could/should be used.
Maybe the reason is they want to have stage separation after Q-max. Not sure, it may be a bit a problem but something which I think could be resolved- and I think would reduce Q-max loading.

Anyhow, this is off topic.
I stop now:).

“Suborbital is a joke.”

It’s already getting non passenger payloads. And already has paying passengers.
Do mean it’s a lot easier than getting to orbit?
If so I think everyone is aware of this- and is sort of the point of it.
I check out your link later, got to go.

Comment by gbaikie — June 20, 2011 @ 11:32 pm

“GB,this is my article on atomic bomb propulsion. It did not make me famous. Only 28 people have read it. Oh well.”

It’s an interesting article. As article probably better to keep it more focused. Maybe add more detail and make into book:)
I don’t necessarily agree, but it’s an argument one could make.
Lunar ice probably considered discovered in 1998, with Prospector mission- or early with Clementine mission* [US miltary btw]. Some guy [in NASA??] in 1961 suggested it was possible- don’t have reference handy. And it’s be suspected that Mercury also has ice at it’s poles. I think that possibility that Mercury has ice at it’s poles has generally been longer accepted than the idea of Moon having ice.

* “The “Bistatic Radar Experiment”, improvised during the mission, was designed to look for evidence of Lunar water at the Moon’s poles. Radio signals from the Clementine probe’s transmitter were directed towards the Moon’s north and south polar regions and their reflections detected by Deep Space Network receivers on Earth. Analysis of the magnitude and polarisation of the reflected signals suggested the presence of volatile ices, interpreted as including water ice, in the Moon’s surface soils. A possible ice deposit equivalent to a sizeable lake was announced. However, later studies made using the Arecibo radio telescope showed similar reflection patterns even from areas not in permanent shadow (and in which such volatiles cannot persist), leading to suggestions that Clementine’s results had been misinterpreted and may have been due to other factors such as surface roughness.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clementine_mission

After analyzing result from Lunar Prospector, Paul D. Spudis estimated there could as much a 6 billion ton of water in the lunar poles.

Of course what is important regarding lunar water would an estimate of how much is minable- and defining what is meant by minable.
One could define minable as 5% or more per volume of regolith or about 2 1/2% by weight. Though it’s rather arbitrary- one as easily pick 10% or more. Or other considerations could be considered.
A different way to quantify whether lunar ice is minable is to pick a price it could sold at and be profitable.
This would need to be expressed as dollar amount such as $500 per lb and total quantity which could sold [if one had a buyers] such 1000 or 10,000 tons. At $500 per lb, that would gross value of 1 billion and 10 billion.
If one picked a lower price such as 100 per lb one need larger quantity sold- perhaps as much as 100,000 tons. If consider water could sold for higher amount such $2000 per lb one could also use 1000 to 10,000 tons or perhaps small quantity required to be sold. And total quantity would have expressed over some time period such as few years or less than 10 years.

Comment by gbaikie — June 21, 2011 @ 3:49 am

Those workers weren’t killed [or injured] from a rocket- they doing work related to building rockets.

“So basically with these rockets you including two jet engines which are supplying the the rocket fuel-”

“Per gallon kerosene has a lot more energy”

I do not know how to reply to you GB without getting sarcastic and smarmy. The Kerosene Hydrogen debate has been played out a hundred times and I will not go there except to say the ISP number is what counts more than any other measure. Everything revolves around this and exhaust velocity.

“Getting killed doing work related to a rocket” was a good PR statement. From a press release:”The test that went awry involved the passing of pressurised nitrous oxide through an injector to gauge its performance – a process known as “cold flow”. There was no flame present.” An injector is part of a rocket engine GB.
You seem to be buying into the Private Space propaganda about how simple and easy rockets are.

It is not true.

Brazil found out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Alc%C3%A2ntara_VLS_accident , China found out, and now Virgin found out. Turbopumps and jet engines are not the same thing. Really.

“Maybe the reason is they want to have stage separation after Q-max.”

You are saying many things that are not really appropriate to this thread. If you want to know why rocket stages are designed to separate the way they do you should ask someone like Dick Morris. He is an engineer and could explain the math to you much better than me.

That reusable first stage you are talking about exists in the form of the L-1011 used to launch the Pegasus. I do not know if that is still in service or not.

from wiki: “The maximum velocity that a rocket can attain in the absence of any external forces is primarily a function of its mass ratio and its exhaust velocity. The relationship is described by the rocket equation: Vf = Veln(M0 / Mf).

Lower stages will usually use high-density (low volume) propellants because of their lighter tankage to propellant weight ratios and because higher performance propellants require higher expansion ratios for maximum performance than can be attained in atmosphere. Thus, the Apollo-Saturn V first stage used kerosene-liquid oxygen rather than the liquid hydrogen-liquid oxygen used on its upper stages Similarly, the Space Shuttle uses high-thrust, high-density solid rocket boosters for its lift-off with the liquid hydrogen-liquid oxygen SSMEs used partly for lift-off but primarily for orbital insertion.”

I am not going to do anymore homework for you GB.

Comment by GaryChurch — June 21, 2011 @ 2:23 pm

“Turbopumps and jet engines are not the same thing. Really. ”

True, one is engine and other isn’t.
Something needs to power the Turbopumps.
And rocket engines aren’t normally used to spin things.

“from wiki: …. The relationship is described by the rocket equation: Vf = Veln(M0 / Mf).”

Yes but since it had a short burn time, I was suggesting it wouldn’t be a large stage. Powerful rockets and short/smaller stage. Powerful engines and less rocket fuel- as compared to a normal first stage.
Generally first stages of rocket that go into space have burn time of about 3 mins.
Solid rockets added to a rocket- called 0 stages or assist
stages, generally have shorter burn times.
Here, wiki:
“the first stage is at the bottom and is usually the largest, the second stage and subsequent upper stages are above it, usually decreasing in size. In parallel staging schemes solid or liquid rocket boosters are used to assist with lift-off. These are sometimes referred to as ‘stage 0′.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multistage_rocket

So take any first stage. Add an engine to it, reduce the rocket fuel by 2/3 or 3/4- so it’s shorter. Put that below the first stage and change that first stage engines so instead designed sea level pressure they are designed for vacuum.
This “O” stage will easier to recover- it’s not going as fast nor as high. And a mass of parachute is wasteful in terms reducing payload mass- and takes less rocket fuel to lift it.
In addition on this zero stage you put attachment points for solid 0 stage- which give flexibility to payload launches- and the added weight of these attachment points on the first stage wouldn’t be needed.

Comment by gbaikie — June 21, 2011 @ 6:45 pm

GaryChurch wrote:

“There is no cheap. Space flight is inherently expensive….”

Back in the ’60s, Arthur C. Clarke wrote that “There is no law that says that space must be expensive.” I think it was in “The Promise of Space”. Sorry, but I think I’ll stick with Dr. Clarke.

“It is nice to say we can do everything cheap when the time comes but that is yet another “don’t worry about it” way to avoid reality. Rocket fuel, Engines, and materials will not change significantly because the laws of physics will not change.”

The time came about 40 years ago. The laws of physics do not have to change because we have had all the technology we need for low costs for 40 years. We just have not used it properly.

“The Space Shuttle was underfunded – combining a cargo vehicle with a crew vehicle was an attempt to cut costs. The space shuttle program was never funded properly to begin with…”

The Shuttle was, in essence, designed to launch the Air Force’s heavy reconnaissance satellites into polar orbit from Vandenburg AFB, with enough cross-range to do an abort-once-around. The arbitrary development cost limit imposed by the OMB did not allow NASA to develop such a complex design and make it fully-reusable. Hence the very high cost.

“Insulting the rocket equation will not succeed. Composite technology is not wishalloy. Even if the structure weighed next to nothing (wishalloy), it would not work. It all revolves around exhaust velocity, not weight. That means they need unobtanium, not wishalloy. Actually they need both but they are not going to get it because the laws of physics are not going to change.”

Exhaust velocity determines the mass ratio, and structural weight determines the amount of propellant required to accelerate the given payload to the given delta-V. Both are important factors in the rocket equation, and we don’t need either unobtainium or wishalloy to design a practical launch vehicle. A relatively simple, fully-reusable, 2-stage, VTOL design could have been developed 40 years ago, instead of the current Shuttle design, with 1970′s technology and generous safety factors to ensure a much higher level of reliability. Chemical rockets will work just fine – no need for nuclear or beam propulsion.

“The problem is liquid hydrogen is some pretty wild stuff. Everyone ignores how cold it is and all the problems with storing it in space. I do not think it is practical any more than SSTO.”

I have not had the pleasure of working with LH2, but I, and I bet everyone who posts here, is well aware of how cold it is. The vacuum of space will actually make it somewhat easier to store, since vacuum is a very good insulator, and virtually eliminates the fire and explosion hazard from leaks. As for SSTO, I have some hope that a VTOL design with a truncated aerospike (altitude compensating) nozzle, that re-enters base first, may be possible in the near future.

Comment by Dick Morris — June 24, 2011 @ 8:45 pm

Sorry it too so long to reply Dick, I came back here to see if the thread was dead. Guess it is not.

“A relatively simple, fully-reusable, 2-stage, VTOL design could have been developed 40 years ago, instead of the current Shuttle design”

I have always been fascinated with alternate histories. It is so incredibly fascinating looking at past mistakes and imagining what could have been. The Shuttle Program has so much info available about it’s development it is a great subject for this.

The original winged orbiter designs, the 3 I have seen the most material about, are the Lockheed one with the V tank, the Chrysler Serve, and the piggyback one with both of them winged. Of all of them I liked the SERV- it is a neat design but it needed a second stage and some other alterations to make it practical.

The most foolproof rocket engine besides an SRB is a hypergolic pressure fed. Looking at the SERV it seems plausible that it could have reenter and then slowed somewhat using a drogue- and at a low altitude igniting some of these hypergolic motors for a vertical hover landing. Seems real sci-fi but actually I would think it is more practical than wings and landing gear. If something goes wrong the crew can eject. It could have also using the empty fuel tanks inside for living space for long missions. So with ablative panels replaced after each flight the SERV might have worked better than the orbiter.

The problems with the original design were the ring engine and the turbojet hover engines and…no first stage. The Saturn 1D proposal using the Saturn V first stage would actually have been cheaper than the space shuttle and is a favorite what if of many- but the SERV could have perhaps used a squat recoverable first stage and expendable J-2′s ejected singly or in pairs as second and third quasi-stages and been quite a spacecraft. Fully resuable? I do not think so. Maybe the first stage but the second stage engines would have to go I think.

So there is your VTOL space shuttle.

I have always been interested in balloon tanks and if I recall the piggyback design had a couple drop tanks on top of the wings. Hydrogen balloon tanks or tank in a design would have made resuable (except for the balloon tank(s) more practical.

My favorite what if has always been the AJ-260 monolithic SRB’s built with submarine hull technology in shipyards. Two of those behemoths and another AJ product- the M1 rocket engine, would have easily put a stuffed to the gills shuttle into any orbit with enough thrust to spare that an escape system could have been built into the orbiter.

I am not as skeptical of fully reusable two-stage to orbit as I am of SSTO.

1. SRBs can be ocean parachute recovered.
2. SSME ablative equipped engine return module can be ocean parachute recovered.

3. The ET type tank in an in-line stack could go all the way to orbit like the shuttle ET almost does and be used as a huge wet workshop crew compartment.

4. A capsule with a much cheaper ablative reentry shield can be ocean parachute recovered and reused.

5. Even an escape tower can be ocean parachute recovered and reused.

Counting two SRB’s that is 6 pieces all reused except for the main stage structure permanently used.

So Dick, I have to recant partially and say, yes, we could build a fully reusable TSTO. And we could do it right now with the SLS.

You are right. Mostly.
Happy?

Comment by GaryChurch — June 25, 2011 @ 1:24 pm

I forgot to add; if that AJ-260 and M-1 orbiter had an ocean parachute recovered M-1 main engine it could have been in-line and the orbiter heat shield would have been out of danger. It would have done what it was supposed to- but of course not as cheaply or with as high a flight rate as originally claimed. I do not think it was or is possible to build a system meeting the claims of the shuttle.

Comment by GaryChurch — June 25, 2011 @ 1:30 pm

GaryChurch wrote:

“To get off earth rockets do the job but are expensive. The big hype the privates space crowd is pushing is “cheap access”… They like to characterize rockets as airliners or space as an ocean. Both these analogies are completely wrong if you are talking about human space flight with expendable rockets and chemical propulsion.”

Characterizing an expendable rocket as an airliner would indeed be absolutely absurd, but “cheap access” with chemical propulsion is doable. It is not generally known, but, in a maximum range flight, the engines of a 747 generate more energy than the plane and it’s payload would have if they were in LEO, so the energy requirement is not as excessive as is commonly assumed. A 747, of course, does not have to carry it’s own oxygen, but LOX is cheap. Excepting the thermal protection system, a 747 is also more complex than a Shuttle Orbiter.

“As Mark Wade comments on Astronautix; ‘-the specified weight, reliability, durability, and reusability simply could not be met in a single engine using existing or foreseen technology and materials.’”

The key word there appears to be “weight”. Reliability, durability, and weight are conflicting design requirements, and designing for minimum mass will inevitably impact the reliability, durability, and reusability of the engine. The solution, for a reusable engine, is to relax the weight constraints.

“All the magic tricks in engineering rocket engines are now known just like they are known for steam engines. Not much is going to change and building an engine just good enough to reliably burn once into orbit will probably remain around 5 times cheaper than a reusable one…And this is another private space propaganda ploy- that rocket engines can be reused cheaply…”

A bit of an “apples and oranges” comparison there. You’re comparing purchase prices when you should be using the refurbishment cost of the reusable engine. If the engine is designed for durability and reliability, rather than absolute maximum performance with absolute minimum mas (like the SSME), the refurbishment cost will be a small fraction of the purchase price, so the reusable engine will be cheaper over the long run.

“So that is why I think Beam Propulsion is the only probable candidate for “CATS” Dick… There is no wishalloy on the way that I am aware of that will make rocket engines as cheap as turbofans…This infomercial has been going around for a couple years also- that rocket engines are actually simple machines and can be made cheaper than jet engines.”

A modern high-bypass-ratio turbofan is cheaper than a large liquid rocket engine of similar size and weight largely because there is a fairly large, continuing market for the former, with a healthy degree of competition. The airlines can choose between RR, P&W, and GE for the engines on their new 7×7, etc. Hundreds of engines are built per year, so there is an economy of scale at work to reduce costs.

I don’t believe that rocket engines are as simple as any car engine, but I have read that those who have worked on both say that modern jet engines are more complex than rocket engines. I have seen more than a few large rocket engines at propulsion conferences and in museums (Huntsville, KSC), and hundreds of jet engines out on the factory floor with their cowls removed. I can certainly agree that jet engines are more complex, so complexity does not account for the cost difference.

Further reducing the weight of rocket engines will also not make them cheaper. NASA’s obsession for mass minimization is, in fact, one of the factors which drives the cost of space hardware so high.

“The turbopumps that feed a liquid hydrogen engine have to be 10 times as powerful as one feeding a kerosene engine.”

Do you have a reference for this statement? A stage that burns a liquid hydrocarbon like kerosene will burn a much greater mass of LHC per pound of LOX than a LOX/LH2 stage. The chamber pressure is a more important factor in determining the power required to run the turbopumps than the propellant combination.

“Putting the equipment on their lower stage to allow it to get dropped into the ocean and recovered will eat up a surprising amount of payload… Every pound you add means one less pound of payload.”

Not with a booster stage. Add a pound of weight to an existing orbiter stage and it reduces the payload by a pound, but do the same with a booster stage and it reduces the payload by some fraction of a pound because the additional mass does not have to be carried all the way into orbit.

Comment by Dick Morris — June 25, 2011 @ 6:22 pm

Thank you for the reply Dick,

http://www.spaceflightnews.net/special/sp8000/archive/00000153/01/sp8109.pdf

I spent some time looking for the “ten times” quote on LH2 turbopumps and darn it I cannot find it but I know I read it somewhere.

This PDF is engineer stuff and from what I read it talks about the much greater requirements of pumping LH2. Maybe you could do some math and figure out if my 10X quote is bogus or not.

http://www.spaceflightnews.net/special/sp8000/archive/00000153/01/sp8109.pdf

I found a couple other quotes;

From Wiki; Turbopumps have a reputation for being extremely hard to design to get optimum performance. Whereas a well-engineered and debugged pump can manage 70-90% efficiency, figures less than half that are not uncommon. Low efficiency may be acceptable in some applications, but in rocketry this is a severe problem. Turbopumps in rockets are important and problematic enough that launch vehicles using one have been caustically described as a ‘turbopump with a rocket attached’- up to 55% of the total cost has been ascribed to this area.

http://www.rocketdynetech.com/articles/turbopump.htm

Typical propellants include RP-1, LH2, LO2, MMH, NTO, and other liquids with wide density ranges and temperatures. The variations in density produce significantly different pump head rise (pressure) requirements and large differences in volumetric flow, i.e., low density propellants require a much higher head rise to develop the same discharge pressure (head rise=pressure rise/density, DH=DP/p). The variations in the combined propellant available energy have a significant influence on the turbine design.

“Add a pound of weight to an existing orbiter stage and it reduces the payload by a pound, but do the same with a booster stage and it reduces the payload by some fraction of a pound because the additional mass does not have to be carried all the way into orbit.”

O.K. You are right. Happy?

From wiki; unit cost 24 million for GE90

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_GE90

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-68

“-the RS-68 has 80% fewer parts than the multi-launch Space Shuttle main engine (SSME). Simplicity came at the cost of lower thrust-efficiency versus the SSME: the RS-68′s thrust-to-weight ratio is significantly lower and the RS-68′s specific impulse is 10% lower. The benefit of the RS-68 is its reduced construction cost: To build an RS-68 for the Boeing Delta IV program costs about $14 million, compared to $50 million for the SSME.”

So 14 million for an expendable RS-68 compared to 24 million for a GE 90 Turbofan. But 50 million for the reusable SSME.

GE-90= Approx. 130,000 pounds of thrust in latest version.
RS-68= 758,000 in a vaccuum.

I am not sure what you are getting at comparing the cost of Turbofans and Rockets when one cannot do what the other does. Which is why I think such comparisons are worthless.

The main difference I see is that a turbofan is an amazing machine in terms of how little maintenance is required over it’s life. SSME is amazing how much maintenance is required.

RS-68 requires no maintenance.

So we are having a very interesting argument over “apples and oranges.”

That last couple thousand miles per hour is the most inefficient for reaching orbit because of exhaust velocity keeps decreasing in relation to the vehicle velocity and every pound does count big time. So anything having to do with the mass being orbited, such as a heavier reusable engine or a heat shield and parachute to return it to earth- or a propellant with a lower exhaust velocity- eats into the payload.

So you are right about the boosters being not so important but conversely the vehicle mass and engine ISP in the final stages of it’s orbital burn is very important.

Returning the reusable engines via a cargo space plane was a failure. You cannot argue that point. Whether a resuable in whatever form could “break even” with an expendable has yet to be proven.
As I posted before;

“So Dick, I have to recant partially and say, yes, we could build a fully reusable TSTO. And we could do it right now with the SLS.”

And I also posted;

“I do not think it was or is possible to build a system meeting the claims of the shuttle.”

So until a better argument is presented I have to stay with my main point; there is no cheap.

Comment by GaryChurch — June 26, 2011 @ 2:18 pm

“I do not think it was or is possible to build a system meeting the claims of the shuttle…So until a better argument is presented I have to stay with my main point; there is no cheap.”

The Shuttle is a textbook example of how NOT to develop a launch vehicle. Low cost space transportation was NASA’s original motive for developing the Shuttle, but in the end, launch cost was not a major design driver. It was, in essence, designed to launch the Air Force’s heavy reconnaissance satellites into polar orbit from VAFB, with enough cross-range to do an abort-once-around, and to do it within the development cost limit imposed by the OMB.

Any chance that the Shuttle might actually deliver on it’s promises of low cost went out the window the day they froze the design. Selecting a partly-expendable, liquid/solid, vertical-takeoff-horizontal-landing (VTHL) design for the Shuttle was the most spectacular blunder in the history of technology. It has cost us 40 years and, probably, hundreds of billions of dollars. NASA failed to develop a reliable, low cost launch vehicle with the Shuttle (and NASP and X-33) but that doesn’t mean that it can’t be done.

A 2-stage, VTOL RLV could have been developed for about what it cost us to develop the Shuttle, and had we done so launch costs today would be at least 2 orders-of-magnitude below what the Shuttle costs. Would you consider that to be “cheap”?

We have had the technology to do that for over 40 years. The most difficult part of designing a fully-reusable launch vehicle is the re-entry TPS, and the Shuttle TPS, for all it’s faults, has adequately demonstrated that technology. The lion’s share of the problems with the Shuttle TPS arose from the mistake of mounting the expendable external tank adjacent to the re-entry TPS so that foam coming off of the tank during launch could damage it.

Comment by Dick Morris — June 27, 2011 @ 8:04 pm

I described to you my version of a TSTO-RLV Dick. I do not know exactly what yours is but I have to agree with you it would be much cheaper than the shuttle. But how much cheaper? Reusing stuff is not as cheap as it seems. I think Shannon or someone in NASA said a couple years ago that he was of the opinion that “reusability is a myth.”

I do not completely agree with that but there is much about his remark that is true.

In “my RLV”,
Everything gets parachute-ocean recovered and the main fuel tank stays in orbit to be used as a wet workshop.
So everything get’s reused or or stays in orbit.

That would have had small payload like the shuttle because of the parachute and other recovery equipment. But it would have put that huge tank in orbit and every time it went up we would essentially have had the interior room of the ISS in one launch. Launch after launch.

I would have been ginormous- or there would have been a large number of smaller space stations each one several times the size of the ISS.

But that was a quarter century ago and we have the next quarter century to make up for it. I am not very optimistic about what is going to happen.

Comment by GaryChurch — June 28, 2011 @ 10:12 pm

“the mistake of mounting the expendable external tank adjacent to the re-entry TPS so that foam coming off of the tank during launch could damage it.”

“designed to launch the Air Force’s heavy reconnaissance satellites into polar orbit from VAFB, with enough cross-range to do an abort-once-around, and to do it within the development cost limit imposed by the OMB.”

You are leaving out a couple things according to the several books I have read on the shuttle program.

Actually it was not launching air force satellites- it would not have needed a cargo bay for that. I read it was actually the air force plan to kidnap a Russian satellite. The cross range capability was insurance against getting caught. Hard to believe but there it is.

As for the sidemount- to bring the engines back to a runway there was no other way to do it. That was one of the supposed money savers- avoiding ocean recovery.

As for the major problems- it can be attributed to underfunding. That is why I am so skeptical about cheap lift. The segmented rockets were the major restriction that drove everything else. It was ultimately why the shuttle could not take off from Vandenberg. It was also why an escape system could not be installed without lowering the payload even more. The next step up from segmented were larger diameter monolithic solids built with submarine hull technology in shipyards. Aerojet built a factory in Florida betting their monster SRB’s (AJ-260)would be the only boosters powerful and cheap enough for a future space launch system (one dollar per pound of thrust was their pitch). They lost their bet. Politically the boys from Utah were the best bet. So politics won that bet and really messed up the shuttle. Of course there are many denials of all this.

It was not only underfunded but what money there was actually was dipped into for the B-2 bomber program under the table. How much we will probably never know.

Properly funded and thought out the numbers would have prevented a space plane from being built. But a convenient think tank study quoted impossible costs per pound (kind of like SpaceX) and everything was decided quick and dirty. There is no cheap.

Comment by GaryChurch — June 28, 2011 @ 10:40 pm

“O.K. You are right. Happy?”

Quite happy. I’m always happy to be of service.

“I have to agree with you it would be much cheaper than the shuttle. But how much cheaper? Reusing stuff is not as cheap as it seems. I think Shannon or someone in NASA said a couple years ago that he was of the opinion that “reusability is a myth.””

I would take anything said by a NASA official with a grain of salt. The Shuttle orbiter is reusable, and it would have cost far less to reprocess had it been properly designed. It was designed for absolute maximum performance with absolute minimum mass, and to “push the technology”, rather than for durability and reliability.

“But it would have put that huge tank in orbit and every time it went up we would essentially have had the interior room of the ISS in one launch. Launch after launch.”

I have made similar proposals recently regarding the SLS that Congress has directed NASA to develop.

“I read it was actually the air force plan to kidnap a Russian satellite. The cross range capability was insurance against getting caught. Hard to believe but there it is.”

I have seen claims that launching satellites was not the only thing they had in mind. Whatever their intentions, the fact remains that the Shuttle never performed the mission(s) for which it was designed.

“As for the sidemount- to bring the engines back to a runway there was no other way to do it. That was one of the supposed money savers- avoiding ocean recovery.”

The other way to recover a launch vehicle stage is vertically, with rocket braking (like the LM). That requires only a small fraction of the total propellant load. Note that a Vertical TakeOff and Landing (VTOL) launch vehicle would be much simpler, structurally and aerodynamically than a horizontal landing design, and would, therefore, be much cheaper to develop and build.

Comment by Dick Morris — July 5, 2011 @ 5:30 pm

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19770075726_1977075726.pdf

You will like this Dick.

“I have made similar proposals recently regarding the SLS that Congress has directed NASA to develop.”

Outstanding. In case you did not know, it is called a “wet workshop” (skylab was a “dry workshop”).

“the Shuttle never performed the mission(s) for which it was designed.”

I agree completely.

“It was designed for absolute maximum performance with absolute minimum mass, and to “push the technology”, rather than for durability and reliability.”

The caveat to that statement is the railed in from Utah anemic SRB’s were what dictated such a design. The alternatives to the tiles were ablative and exotic metals, one weighed alot more and the other was extremely expensive.

As I said before, the space shuttle might have worked well with a few key design changes like far more powerful SRB’s and and an escape system. But it was underfuned to begin with and never recieved proper funding even after Challenger. The space plane concept was flawed to start with when designed as a cargo and crew vehicle. A neat looking “spaceship” for the public but a poorly thought out design. And never funded to the level required.
There is no cheap.

Comment by GaryChurch — July 5, 2011 @ 10:35 pm

The subject is settlement but has degenerated into squabbles distantly related.

Attacks on private companies are stupid. They survive or fail on their own merits using their own resources. Win or lose I support their courage to compete.

NASA uses tax dollars and comes with government strings. We have a historic opportunity to relieve ourselves from the idiot puppet masters that would control our lives… that’s the reason for settlements.

Who owns the moon? Nobody. Who should? People, not governments. People have the historic opportunity to make claims and see them enforced if they have the vision and will to do it. The law of precedent is on their side.

Who owns the solar system, the galaxy, the universe? It should be individuals making a reasonable claim. One sq. km. is a reasonable claim that can totally finance any space settlement. There’s enough for everyone including those yet to be born. Resell developed hectares at 1% profit provides a lifetime of income. Other income is just gravy. Newcomers will pay that 1% because it saves them months or years of labor.

As our founding documents say, Governments are instituted among Men to secure rights. Property is the right from which freedom is derived. The right to life is a property right. The right of liberty is a property right.

We talk about consent of the governed, but that is exactly what government does not consider. They have replaced that with consent of the mob. Taxation without individual consent is robbery of property (and so life and liberty.)

So NASA has money to spend and the mob all wants their piece, strings and all. This is a trap.

The satellite business is the foundation that will finance settlement. The government will hinder and encourage but ultimately will make no difference. It’s up to people with there own vision and resources to make that happen. The encouraging thing is those people are now out there working toward that goal.

The technical details will work themselves out and it’s silly to argue them when discussing the bigger picture. So I agree that settlement is not an appropriate goal for NASA.

Comment by ken anthony — July 7, 2011 @ 6:41 pm

Ken,

Attacks on private companies are stupid. They survive or fail on their own merits using their own resources.

True for some companies (e.g., Virgin Galactic) but not necessarily true for others (e.g., SpaceX), who get federal dollars to defray their development costs.

We talk about consent of the governed, but that is exactly what government does not consider. They have replaced that with consent of the mob. Taxation without individual consent is robbery of property (and so life and liberty.)

An interesting interpretation of both our history and our Constitution. The “consent of the mob” as you put it is law as expressed by representatives that we elect — and it’s been that way since the republic was founded.

The technical details will work themselves out and it’s silly to argue them when discussing the bigger picture

It’s possible to consider both at the same time. If you think the discussion here is “silly,” why bother to post?

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — July 8, 2011 @ 8:19 am

GaryChurch wrote (many times):

“There is no cheap.”

How do you define “cheap”? How low do prices have to go to qualify as “cheap”?

Comment by Dick Morris — July 12, 2011 @ 5:34 pm

Hi Dick,

I define cheap as inferior thrust engines clustered together in large numbers (over 5), inferior upper stage propellents because hydrogen turbopumps are too expensive, combining crew and cargo vehicles, low thrust dual purpose escape systems that are not really escape systems.

Basically everything about the Falcon 9 I consider cheap and nasty.

I define cheap really as anything that does not use state of the art technology to lift large payloads.

I consider the Saturn V payload to be the start of what should have been incremental growth to around 500 tons by this time- thus taking advantage of economy of scale.

Comment by GaryChurch — July 15, 2011 @ 1:56 pm

The 5 segment SRB is presently the most powerful booster on earth. A pair at 7.2 million pounds of thrust is a nightmare for private space because they have absolutely nothing that can come close- except for that 27 engine monstrosity.

The RS-68 is also presently the most powerful liquid hydrogen fueled engine and though expendable, is the best choice to put large payloads into orbit.

Friction Stir Welding technology allows for the lightest possible Aluminum Lithium tank structures.

This is state of the art Dick. It is what we have right now to put the largest possible liquid hydrogen fueled Earth Departure Stage carrying a lander on course for the Lunar pole ice deposits.

To power the EDS and lander we have the RS-25 in a modified E expendable version and the ancient AJ-10 used last on the orbiter OMS.

I have decided to take Dr. Spudis advice and start a blog and I could sure use some help. You are the engineer so perhaps we would make a great team. Unless you are still mad at me. Contact Dr. Spudis if you would like to contact me.

The theme of the blog will be Beyond Earth Orbit Human Space Flight. I intend to promote using the shuttle hardware to put a base on the moon. The main reason for the base being to support the survival imperative- safeguarding the human species from extinction. I also intend to criticize the everything working against this goal to include the ISS, SpaceX hobby rockets, and the DOD budget.

Regards, Gary

Comment by GaryChurch — July 18, 2011 @ 2:09 pm

If Falcon 9 is “cheap”, then you can’t really say “there is no cheap”. What I was looking for was your definition of “cheap access to orbit”, in terms of dollars per pound of payload.

(Also, please note that 747, and other, freighters combine crew and cargo in one vehicle. Are they cheap? We even built a “Combi” version of the 747 which carried passengers in the front half and cargo in the rear half. And all passenger models carry cargo in the lower lobes.)

Comment by Dick Morris — July 18, 2011 @ 5:11 pm

“If Falcon 9 is “cheap”, then you can’t really say “there is no cheap”.”

Falcon 9 is a poor design and will never be worth what it costs. Since it is not worth it- not a true relatively cheap product of verifiable quality- there is no cheap.

As for 747′s, they do not have to go 17,800 MPH to get to cruising altitude and do not decelerate from Mach 25 for a landing. And they need air. It is a poor analogy.

Comment by GaryChurch — July 27, 2011 @ 4:21 pm