June 21, 2011
Midwinter
One hundred years ago: Robert Falcon Scott and the crew of the Terra Nova enjoy a celebratory dinner, Midwinter's Day, Antarctica, 1911
“Now is the winter of our discontent” – Richard III, Act 1, scene 1
There is a good piece in today’s Telegraph UK by David Robson of a fateful one-hundredth anniversary – the Midwinter Dinner — June 22, 1911 held in Robert Falcon Scott’s Ross Island hut. A year earlier, Scott and the crew of the Terra Nova had set off for the Antarctic and the south pole. It was a carefully planned and perilously financed expedition, a classic journey of the “golden age” of polar exploration. At the time, Scott had no idea that Roald Amundsen, the famous Norwegian polar explorer, had turned his north pole-bound Fram due south and unknown to Scott and his men, was at that moment camped on the opposite side of the Ross Sea, carefully planning a summer dash to the south pole.
Of what relevance is this story to space and the Moon? To me, it encompasses and restates several themes I have developed on this blog about the nature of exploration and sustainable presence in a hostile environment. The theme of the Telegraph article is that Scott’s expedition was all about science. His team included geographers, geologists, biologists and meteorologists. They collected specimens, documented phenomena, made observations, and conducted experiments. Scott’s expedition was organized like a carefully planned military campaign. Although conducted under the command structure of the Royal Navy, it was a civilian expedition, funded by subscription. No tax money was used and financing was always a major headache for Scott.
A theme running through Robson’s article has been a recurring motif in polar literature for many years – that while Scott and his team were honorable scientists, conducting true “exploration,” Amundsen and his men were publicity-seeking interlopers, cads and bounders who treacherously misled the noble and long-suffering Scott about their true intentions, and who then had the cheek to actually race ahead to beat Scott to the south pole. This theme has long been a part of British polar exploration literature – the sting of Amundsen’s victory in the race to the south pole still hurts. A book and television series on the polar race published over 20 years ago attempted to deconstruct this myth and was roundly blasted in the British press at the time.
But the Telegraph piece contains a fundamental contradiction. It takes great pains to show Scott’s expedition as a scientific, scholar’s investigation, as opposed to the “PR stunt” of Amundsen’s polar dash. If this is true, then of what importance was priority in attainment of the south pole anyway? The pole is merely one more data point on a string of measurement stations. Scott’s purpose was science, not stunts. He led a carefully planned and documented expedition to unravel the secrets of the Antarctic. By arriving at the pole after Amundsen, what could it matter? He still had his fossils, rock samples and observations, did he not?
Obviously there was much more at stake than admitted, both then and now. The great age of polar exploration was not about science, any more than Apollo to the Moon was about our first visit to another world. Large public spectacles like polar exploration were both theater and geopolitical struggles. In the decades leading to the Scott and Amundsen efforts, many had tried (and failed) to take the north pole. An entire subculture of polar explorers had developed, each group knowing of the other groups’ efforts in the desperate competition to be the first to stand on top of the world. Establishing priority became an obsession with many and proof was difficult to obtain (the Frederick Cook-Robert Peary controversy over who was the first at the north pole continues to this day).
Both Scott and Amundsen lived in this milieu. But they were also Edwardian gentlemen and sporting conduct was natural and expected behavior. Amundsen’s “sin” was that he discarded the fig leaf of “science” and exposed to public view the raw power politics involved in exploration. In the words of the President of the Royal Geographic Society Leonard Darwin (son of Charles), Amundsen had not “played the game.”
The idea that exploration is for scientific purposes stems largely from this golden age of polar exploration. In part, the conflation developed because of the need for Britain to attribute a noble and uplifting rationale to Scott’s polar trip. His tragic death on the way back from the south pole was made especially bitter by the loss of priority – when Scott arrived at the pole, he found that Amundsen had beaten him there. One way to make this unpleasant pill more palatable was to assign noble motives to Scott and base ones to Amundsen. Hence, a mythos developed, sanctifying Scott as a martyr for science and depicting Amundsen as a crass interloper. An unnoticed side-effect of this storyline was the simultaneous sanctification of science as the rationale for exploration. This attitude is typified by a comment from an astronomer in the early days of implementation of the Vision for Space Exploration in 2004 that “exploration without science is tourism.” Scott’s hagiographer could not have put it better.
But this concept, developed one hundred years ago to salve the outrage and hurt feelings of a disappointed nation, does not serve us well as we contemplate the exploration of our Solar System. Exploration traditionally has a much broader meaning. Columbus, Balboa and Magellan did not undertake their expeditions for science. They sought wealth and power; they envisioned new lands for settlement and the spread of their own culture. In short, the view of “exploration” prior to being redefined during the golden age of polar exploration had little to do with science and much to do with wealth creation, power projection and settlement.
Science is great and knowledge always has both practical and intangible value, but it is a small part of the motivation for exploration. The Antarctic is a continent for science but only by mutual agreement of the international community. The riches of Antarctica remained locked up as scientists hunt its surface for fallen asteroids and evidence for global warming. Some think this is a template for space exploration; others find such an idea anathema. Science stagnates when exploration stalls. If we were exploring the Moon, scientists would find a bounty of extraterrestrial samples and have an unparalleled opportunity to study the record of Earth’s climate locked in eons of undisturbed solar wind in the lunar regolith. Once humanity and technology are able to utilize the Moon’s resources to break the tyranny of the rocket equation, the vast riches of our Solar System will open to explorers, entrepreneurs, settlers, and scientists alike.
We explore for many reasons. There are many valid and important national interests of which science is but one. Scott understood this; hence, his disappointment at his own failure to reach the pole first. As we prepare to leave the Earth on a more permanent basis, it is well to look back at this curious and (I would say) singular interval in history – a time (so we are told) when science became the rationale for exploration. It wasn’t true then and isn’t true now.
Related side-note: Videos of my Space Pioneer Award talk at the recent 2011 International Space Development Conference in Hunstville AL have been posted in two parts, HERE and HERE. This talk touches on several of the themes I mention above. The slides from my talk are available for download HERE.
32 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
The web editors have closed comments for this blog.
Excellent article.
Comment by Joe — June 21, 2011 @ 1:57 pm
I agree with everything except the emphasis you place on the profit motive Dr. Spudis.
After watching what underfunding did to the space shuttle and then the private space circus of fools- complete with clown, I think profit motive is toxic to space exploration.
But….you are the one taking this on and if trying to get rich is one of the motivators in your plan then so be it.
If you could just find some amazing military advantage the DOD money would flow into your project like a tsunami.
Maybe satellites placed outside of any anti-satellite weapons in a super high orbit way past geo? Or in a libration point? A “stealth satellite” way out there? Kind of hard to be stealthy in space though.
I have been expecting hi altitude solar powered airships to start taking over the telecommunications satellite industry for awhile. They can stay up there for years like a satellite while coming down once in a while for maintenance and their limited line of sight can be made up for with numbers and other advantages.
This would put the space industry out of business. The only thing left would be military or science missions.
Where would the moon base be then?
Comment by GaryChurch — June 21, 2011 @ 2:40 pm
I agree with everything except the emphasis you place on the profit motive…..I think profit motive is toxic to space exploration.
Revenue from communications satellites exceeded $144 BILLION in 2008 (SOURCE). It may be run by clowns, but that’s not a number to laugh at.
The only thing left would be military or science missions. Where would the moon base be then?
In my scenario, still operative. We need permanent presence on the Moon to enable routine access to cislunar space, required for a variety of national interests, including commercial but not limited to it.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 21, 2011 @ 2:56 pm
Sorry Dr. Spudis, I should have been more specific. The clown remark was referring only to space tourism and certain companies who are making unrealistic claims about privatizing human space flight.
I agree with the lunar architecture plan completely. It is the motivations that will lead to funding that I have doubts about.
The Space Launch System is going to be announced in July supposedly. All the noise is that it will be inline using shuttle derived components with a competition to build liquid side boosters to eventually replace the solids. And a J-2 upper stage.
I was hoping they would do the logical thing and go full speed ahead, complete with specific funding, for Sidemount.
But it looks like many years and wasted time and a huge amount of money developing a new configuration to do exactly what Sidemount would do in a few years. With the possibility of it being canceled by a different administration. Gingrich wants to privatize NASA. Scary.
Comment by GaryChurch — June 21, 2011 @ 3:07 pm
Beam propulsion has been on my mind for awhile and guess what? This was last month and I did not know about it till just now surfing. Very Exciting!
Perhaps this might work on the moon really well. As I said before, I might have to recant my atomic bomb propulsion advocacy and start promoting this concept. “Beaming power to a space rocket was first suggested in the 1920s by the father of rocketry, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky.”
http://callcenterinfo.tmcnet.com/news/2011/04/30/5477779.htm
“May 06, 2011
NASA’s Ames Research Center has recently spent $2 million on a powerful microwave source to be used primarily for propulsion research. Kevin Parkin’s team is collaborating with Escape Dynamics in Broomfield, Colorado, which is likewise dedicated to developing microwave-based rockets. High-power microwave sources called gyrotrons have been developed for nuclear fusion research-
-thruster covers the underside of a rocket aeroshell with a lightweight microwave absorbent heat exchange layer that may double as a re-entry heat shield. By illuminating the layer with microwaves directed from a ground-based phased array, an Isp of 700–900 seconds and T/W of 50–150 is possible using a hydrogen propellant. The single propellant simplifies vehicle design, and the high Isp increases payload fraction and structural margin-”
900 seconds through the atmosphere would translate to a lot more in space I bet.
Comment by GaryChurch — June 21, 2011 @ 3:42 pm
Comment by GaryChurch — June 21, 2011 @ 3:07 pm
“I was hoping they would do the logical thing and go full speed ahead, complete with specific funding, for Sidemount.
But it looks like many years and wasted time and a huge amount of money developing a new configuration to do exactly what Sidemount would do in a few years.”
I am inclined to agree with you that the Sidemount would have been a better selection. But, given the current leadership that was not going to happen. The fact that the Administration has (it seems – hopefully) been forced to accept a SDHLV is good news (at least the best that could realistically be hoped for). The Inline configuration will cost more to develop/deploy, but maybe not by a prohibitive amount. Give it a chance.
Comment by Joe — June 21, 2011 @ 7:22 pm
I’m not sure what the administration’s obsession with hydrocarbon boosters is since this nation is supposed to trying to end its dependence on foreign fuels and on fossil fuels that create climate change and global sea rise.
Once you build a shuttle derived LOX/LH2 core booster, you already have the boosters needed for a heavy lift vehicle by just configuring the boosters the same way the ULA does with its Delta IV heavy.
The only problem I have with developing private manned spaceflight in America is forcing NASA to use these private services. So I was glad when Congress required that NASA still develop its own crew launch capability. But I don’t like private companies like Space X or the ULA trying to use the Federal government and tax payer money as a cash cow in order to maintain their existence!
But I love the idea of space tourism! In fact, I found space tourist going to the ISS far more interesting than American and Russian astronauts going to the space station. That’s because I believe that the New Frontier is not just for an elite few, its part of the destiny of our species.
I believe that there are billions of people on this planet that would be willing to annually risk a dollar or two for a chance to travel into space aboard one of these private rockets through some sort of a lotto system. And I think the lunar surface will turn out to be a major multi-billion dollar a year tourist destination– if NASA establishes a permanent human presence there first.
Accessing and developing America’s water rights on the lunar surface should be NASA’s principal focus. It should also be the central focus of our new Space Launch System, IMO. And this would be mutually beneficial for both our Federal space program and for America’s emerging private space programs.
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — June 21, 2011 @ 7:23 pm
For us to survive on the Moon, science is a necessary first step. We will want to understand as much as possible about the surface geology and resources. And in order to expedite that, we will will an accurate theory about how the Moon was formed, and the nature of the bombardment that it has been subject to.
Beyond that, because living on the Moon will initially be so very expensive, some of the first justifications for lunar outposts will be in order to conduct science.
But I have to agree with you that in the end, science alone is not the mission. The Moon will be our stepping stone to the rest of the universe.
Comment by Nelson Bridwell — June 21, 2011 @ 8:31 pm
“While studying the Hermite crater near the moon’s north pole, LRO’s Diviner Lunar Radiometer Experiment found the coldest spot in the solar system, with a temperature of minus 415 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 248 degrees Celsius or 25 kelvins). ”
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/jun/HQ_11-192_LRO_Success.html
Think any crater in the moon have been cold [below 50K] for millions of years?
Argon gas freezes at -189 °C- could there be argon snow?
Comment by gbaikie — June 22, 2011 @ 1:14 am
Excellent historical retrospective! Nearly one hundred years to the year. After the South Pole was reached, there was NO moronic Planetary Society-types condemning future polar exploration, and actively seeking to sabotage any plans for it. There was NO science-fiction-smitten President of the United States declaring that no one ever go back there again, because Amundsen & Scott had already been there. No folks: when the 1950′s came, an International Geophysical Year was proclaimed, and the grand Operation Highjump was put into effect,—-no matter what the “been there, done that” cretins were thinking! Advanced exploration ALWAYS requires returning back to where past explorers had already been! PROJECT CONSTELLATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO FLY! The next President should be reminded about the historical significance of the polar expedition of Admiral George Dufek; an American South Polar trek which built upon & expanded upon the prior surveying acheivements of the two first successful polar ventures, in 1911 & 1912. The new President should then re-instate & re-create Project Constellation, as the next manned Lunar venture. Perhaps under a different name…? But with NO APOLOGY as to the importance of re-opening the Lunar frontier. A Lunar-centric program is extremely important. Sortie missions at the begining, will be needed, because there are a myriad of fascinating potential landing sites on the Moon, which need to be visited by astronauts. The later, subsequent outpost missions will yield tremendous dividends in teaching us all of the basic surface operations & techniques necessary for long term manned occupation, on another world.
Comment by Chris Castro — June 22, 2011 @ 1:36 am
Nelson,
I’m not saying that science isn’t a part of exploration — I am saying that as a justification for exploration, it is “necessary but not sufficient.” I am also saying that the idea that we explore only for science is a relatively new concept and that traditionally, exploration was about expansion, wealth creation and settlement.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 22, 2011 @ 4:05 am
gbaikie,
Think any crater in the moon have been cold [below 50K] for millions of years?
Our best guess is that the obliquity of the Moon has been constant for at least the last 2 billion years, so polar dark areas have existed at least that long. That’s a long time to accumulate volatiles.
Argon gas freezes at -189 °C- could there be argon snow?
If there were a sufficient source of argon. However, lunar argon comes from potassium decay and solar wind implantation, so we are talking about very tiny, trace quantities.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 22, 2011 @ 4:07 am
Paul, you write
“Large public spectacles like polar exploration were both theater and geopolitical struggles.
* * *
“Amundsen’s “sin” was that he discarded the fig leaf of “science” and exposed to public view the raw power politics involved in exploration.”
I agree. I also agree with the following as being a correct assessment of history:
“Columbus, Balboa and Magellan did not undertake their expeditions for science. They sought wealth and power; they envisioned new lands for settlement and the spread of their own culture. In short, the view of “exploration” prior to being redefined during the golden age of polar exploration had little to do with science and much to do with wealth creation, power projection and settlement.”
Throughout history, exploration has usually been done for “wealth creation, power projection and settlement” and yet there usually was some form of “maskirovka” associated with those efforts, as well.
As another example, the Spanish conquest of South America was clothed with the fig leaf of a mission to convert the heathen natives to Christianity. Gold? What gold? No, we Spanish are here to save souls!
It seems to me that you are advocating that the United States government openly and explicitly undertake to extend its presence to the Moon and exploit its resources.
Fair enough. That is a worthy goal, IMHO, and I would much prefer that Americans be in the forefront of such efforts.
However, what maskirovka should we use to minimize conflict with the other 97% of the world’s population who might not wish to see an American dominated Moon any more than we wish to see a Chinese dominated Moon?
Or do you believe we can accomplish this goal without maskirovka? Or without any semblance of a fig leaf to conceal the underlying motivations for this plan?
Comment by Bill White — June 22, 2011 @ 1:30 pm
“SDHLV is good news (at least the best that could realistically be hoped for). The Inline configuration will cost more to develop/deploy, but maybe not by a prohibitive amount. Give it a chance.”
Roger that Joe, thanx for cheering me up.
“because living on the Moon will initially be so very expensive,”
Not expensive at all compared to what the DOD is spending. I am just about burned out on hearing this over and over again ad infinitum Nelson. We have the money and are spending it on wars of dubious necessity. Space flight is inherently expensive and so is blowing up illiterate tribesman with drones and laser guided missiles. Which would you rather have your tax dollars spent on? Would you rather have our young people trained to clear buildings with automatic weapons or trained to build spaceships?
“-a chance to travel into space aboard one of these private rockets through some sort of a lotto system.”
Subsidized by tax dollars? A great deal for SpaceX. I completely disagree with the whole concept of space tourism. So make that solar sails and space tourism. And the criticism of burning kerosene is…..I don’t know. We should worry more about other sources of pollution instead of rockets- don’t ya think?
“The new President should then re-instate & re-create Project Constellation”
I would not vote republican if I was a space advocate; Gingrich wants to privatize NASA- and everything else.
“-as a justification for exploration, it is “necessary but not sufficient.”
I agree with Dr. Spudis on this. We only need look at what happened to the supercollider in Texas. I was ashamed to be a democrat (for about 30 seconds). So many random factors have to come together to fund a super project like Apollo that science plays a small part. It is more important that the science gives us the means to explore and in so doing satisfies it’s own goal. Scientist’s consistently side against human space flight without understanding they are working against their own best interest. A “dollar or two annually” is what taxes for space flight are all about. Even those dollars will not be spent unless space can capture the popular imagination.
Unfortunately the popular imagination considers human space flight to be a three ring circus right now. All the wailing and gnashing of teeth about NASA spending and not a word about DOD is the present circumstance that is proving to be the end of U.S. human space flight.
Why did Apollo not continue and build a moon base? Vietnam.
Comment by GaryChurch — June 22, 2011 @ 2:13 pm
“Sortie missions at the begining, will be needed, because there are a myriad of fascinating potential landing sites on the Moon, which need to be visited by astronauts.”
I have to disagree with you on that Chris.
A cargo HLV to send robots to the lunar pole to verify water availability and ease of exploitation is the first incremental goal.
If the water is there in a form we can easily process then the next step is doing so till there is a large amount available for the first astronauts who arrive at the base. This also means large solar arrays for electricity.
After the water and electricity comes a place to live away from the radiation- either on the surface shielded by all that water or by way of a robot excavator that can dig tunnels.
That would be my take on Dr. Spudis architecture plans.
Then come the Astronauts. I would worry about an HLV more than anything else right now- without one it will be a very slow process. With one and a high flight rate it could happen possibly like apollo in a decade. Landing back on the moon and walking into a fully functioning permanent base is about the only goal I can imagine that would be worthwhile.
Comment by GaryChurch — June 22, 2011 @ 2:31 pm
Bill,
what maskirovka should we use to minimize conflict with the other 97% of the world’s population who might not wish to see an American dominated Moon any more than we wish to see a Chinese dominated Moon? Or do you believe we can accomplish this goal without maskirovka?
OK, I had to look up what “maskirovka” means!
That done, I do not advocate any deception or misleading of anyone about our intentions. No one knows if the harvesting and use of off-planet resources is possible in practice; we only know that it is possible in principle. We go to the Moon — and use our civil space program to do it — in order to understand how difficult/easy/valuable/worthless it might be. It is an engineering research and development project. We find out the break points, the choke points, the payoffs and the leveraging. Once we know these things, then we worry about who owns what.
I believe that the resources of space belong to whoever takes the risk of developing them. Others may believe differently, but it’s not a problem that we have to worry about now, when we don’t even know how difficult it is to do it.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 22, 2011 @ 2:55 pm
“OK, I had to look up what “maskirovka” means!”
Me too:)
I think NASA should focus on markets- markets are and have always been [even before there was nations] “international”.
And America even as when it was british colony, a international country. The key to America continued succuss is being international. America was build by other nations- in terms international investment.
The Moon should also be build by international investment.
Comment by gbaikie — June 22, 2011 @ 5:28 pm
If . . .
The goal is to demonstrate the feasibility of lunar ISRU and if ownership of those resources should eventually be awarded to whoever takes the risk of developing such resources,
then . . .
It would seem desirable to take steps to maximize the number of agencies and/or investors (both public and private) who might be willing to undertake such efforts.
I suggest that the deployment of an EML Gateway depot and reusable lunar landers combined with a willingness to ferry to/from the lunar surface anyone (within reason) willing to pay the incremental cost needed for that travel would facilitate efforts at lunar ISRU.
Also, deployment of an EML Gateway depot and reusable lunar landers would allow lunar ISRU advocates and “cheap lift to LEO” advocates to join forces, at least for these initial steps. After all, an EML depot can be filled from either direction, either with lunar harvested fuel or fuel lofted from Earth by low cost RLVs and then ferried to the EML points.
And, once lunar ISRU fuel comes on-line we will need those same EML depots to allow that lunar fuel to be used for missions beyond cis-lunar space (NEOs, Phobos, Mars, etc . . .)
Therefore it would seem to make architectural sense to employ an EML depot for the initial delivery of the materials and personnel needed to harvest lunar fuel.
Comment by Bill White — June 23, 2011 @ 10:39 am
Bill,
Therefore it would seem to make architectural sense to employ an EML depot for the initial delivery of the materials and personnel needed to harvest lunar fuel.
That’s an architectural option. In fact, I use depots in my robotic ISRU architecture. But depots and rockets are implementation details; the first requirement is to define the mission. I would define it as the creation of permanent cislunar transportation system based on the harvest and use of propellant made from lunar polar ice.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 23, 2011 @ 11:42 am
@Bill White
“I suggest that the deployment of an EML Gateway depot and reusable lunar landers combined with a willingness to ferry to/from the lunar surface anyone (within reason) willing to pay the incremental cost needed for that travel would facilitate efforts at lunar ISRU.”
I really don’t think NASA should be operating any commercial ferries. Its up to private industry, IMO, to take advantage of what NASA and its vendors have learned and developed in order to operate their own commercial systems.
On the Moon, NASA’s focus should be on:
1. Mining and process lunar ice (mutually beneficial for NASA and private industry and the technology might be useful for processing water on the moons of Mars)
2. Synthesizing lunar water into hydrogen and oxygen for air and fuel (mutually beneficial for NASA and private industry)
3. Utilizing a lunar fueled reusable lunar shuttle to transport astronauts between L1 and the lunar surface (mutually beneficial for NASA and private industry)
4. Transporting lunar LOX/LH2 to L1 and LEO fuel depots (mutually beneficial for NASA and private industry)
5. Finding out how effective water and liquid or slush hydrogen is in protecting humans from cosmic radiation and potentially brain damaging heavy nuclei (knowledge necessary for long journeys to Mars and beyond).
6. Finding out if the Moon’s 1/6 gravity is deleterious to human and animal health and reproduction over months or years on the lunar surface (this might also be a problem on Mars). If it is a problem, then we have to find out if small portable centrifuges can alleviate the problem on the lunar surface (mutually beneficial for NASA and private industry).
7. Finding out if lunar dust is a serious problem to human lungs and human health on the lunar surface and if it can be mitigated (mutually beneficial for NASA and private industry). This might also be a serious problem on Mars.
8. Finding out if humans can remain sane living in an artificial environment on the Moon away from Earth for two or three years (necessary for long duration missions to and from Mars and on the Martian surface)
9. Finding out how well we can grow and raise food in lunar habitats (mutually beneficial for NASA and private industry and for long duration missions on Mars)
At least, that’s my opinion since we really don’t know much about any of these things, and we should, even though we first went to the Moon more than 40 years ago.
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — June 23, 2011 @ 3:42 pm
“-employ an EML depot”
Bill, since fuel transfer in space has become popular as a solution to all problems, it has, as far as I have seen, been depots of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen being hyped. As I have stated, I do not think storing and transferring liquid hydrogen in space is practical.
That said, it may seem I am a shrill naysayer of this concept but that is not necessarily so.
I have a question; what other kind of fuel can be manufactured from lunar ice and regolith?
The only practical storable propellant combination I am aware of is N2O2 and some form of Hydrazine. This is the combination that is accepted as storable and I would consider it as a unique formula just like H2 and O2. One has the highest exhaust velocity and the other is storable with a lower exhaust velocity.
It may be that trying to make one out of the other is what is impractical, not fuel depots and fuel transfer in space as a concept.
For achieving orbit and escape velocity and initial space probe departure there is no substitute for hydrogen upper stages. But as I said, storing it is a problem that may have no practical solution. It may be said for long duration missions and intermittent firing there is no substitute for Hypergolic storable fuel. It has a lower ISP and is nasty in some ways but if that is all there is, that is all there is. I can accept this, can anyone else?
So is there a storable fuel to be had starting with lunar water and available lunar resources?
(-fuel lofted from Earth by low cost RLVs)
Bill, I do not believe there will ever be such a thing as low cost or reusable launch vehicles using chemical propulsion. But I am not so conservative that I rule out another technology that may become available in the very near future. Beam propulsion is the only candidate I see as providing low cost RLVs.
I am now wildly optimistic about beam propulsion just like I was about the moon after the new evidence of water was publicized. Before the new hardware in the form of cheap (relatively) megawatt gyrotrons started being experimented with seriously I thought it was several decades away if at all.
Another sea change has come in my worldview. I am very adaptable and this has happened several times with-
Atomic bomb propulsion
Impact defense
Subsurface oceans in the outer solar system
Radiation threats in space
Water on the Moon
And now it seems that Beam Propulsion may make human space flight in deep space practical. At least outbound anyway.
The moon seems like the perfect place to launch beam propelled spaceships from with solar energy and hydrogen fuel available. Even if it does not work well launching from earth, it may be great on the moon.
Comment by GaryChurch — June 23, 2011 @ 3:44 pm
“The key to America continued succuss is being international.”
Call me a shrill naysayer again GB but I think moving our industry overseas for cheaper labor has punched our nation in the….gut.
Comment by GaryChurch — June 23, 2011 @ 3:50 pm
“small portable centrifuges can alleviate the problem”
sorry for that really long post and now a third in a row.
Centrifuges are another one of those gimmicks you see in computer graphics pitches like the “Nautilus” proposal. A small centrifuge is probably the worst solution to low gravity debilitation. Completely impractical either on a spaceship or on an offworld base.
I think human beings will need some space and private areas, close to sea level radiation levels, and one G for a large part of the day. Providing this may be expensive but putting human beings in other environments without a couple million years of natural selection to allow adaption (or extinction) is…stupid. People wax sublime on living in space without any of these things as if we can do it with just the will to power or some magic pills. No.
A tether is by far the most practical solution for a spaceship. Splitting a ship in two and having them spin on a thousand foot or more tether would provide full gravity with the least penalty. Offworld the best solution I can come up with is a circular sleeper train in a circular tunnel. Bouncing around in a spacious underground low grav environment half the day and then retiring to small apartment living the other half is what I think would work on the moon and other colonies. This means some big tunnels or spaces underground and that is a problem on rocky bodies but much less so on Icy ones or in subsurface oceans.
Comment by GaryChurch — June 23, 2011 @ 6:08 pm
“The key to America continued success is being international.”
Call me a shrill naysayer again GB but I think moving our industry overseas for cheaper labor has punched our nation in the….gut.
American investment overseas has been a successful thing for those oversea countries to permit/encourage- they are copying what America did. And predictability these countries are doing much better than countries which inhibit international trade [foreign investments].
So the point you are bringing up, is did it help European countries in the past to invest in America. Or similar issue, did it help European countries “allow” their citizens to immigrate to America.
The reason Europeans left Europe or European money left Europe was they were seeking opportunities in American.
Which also indicates there was a lack of opportunity in Europe.
Same applies today with the American money going elsewhere- but foreign money is still pouring into America at the present time.
A reason for some American dollars leaving the US is because numerous laws Americans have passed which interfere too much.
The problem is having laws like outlawing light bulbs- a blatant example of obviously criminal law passed by our congress.
Comment by gbaikie — June 23, 2011 @ 10:42 pm
Comment by GaryChurch — June 23, 2011 @ 6:08 pm
“I think human beings will need some space and private areas, close to sea level radiation levels, and one G for a large part of the day.”
Hi Gary,
Maybe I can cheer you up again. I am not at all sure that a full one G is required, but for the sake of argument let’s assume it is.
The large spin diameters that are assumed in most studies assume a rotational rate of about 1 RPM. That is based on studies done in centrifuges on Earth in the 1960’s. The problem was that for spin rates higher than 1 RPM a substantial number of people had what amounted to motion sickness problems.
A couple of years ago, I had the opportunity (at a Human Factors Conference) to talk to Joe Kerwin (Medical Doctor and one of the Skylab Astronauts). In that discussion he said his research and experience indicated that the motion sickness problem was related to the test being run on Earth. He and the other Astronauts on Skylab (after adjusting to 0 G itself – which takes a day or so) became what he called “lead heads”. That is they could not be made motion sick no matter how fast you spun them. He was convinced 5 RPMs would be an acceptable rate. Since the centrifugal force generated for rotation increases by the square of the rotation rate that would decrease the spin diameter by a factor of 25. You could therefore (theoretically) produce a 1 G gravity equivalent with a spin diameter less than the current length of the ISS Truss.
Comment by Joe — June 24, 2011 @ 9:57 am
“Hi Gary,
Maybe I can cheer you up again.”
Hi Joe, well, I was not really bummed about it. In fact, I am more bummed about your post (not that I do not appreciate it). In the last couple years of my lurking on space sites I have found very roughly three categories of people; ones that have made up their minds- most often the private space sycophants, ones that are very uninformed except for what other people post- which often leads to the first case, and the ones who are authentically interested in space in the larger scope of things- like you I think.
The private space crowd are all about their dream of Joe the space plumber conquering the universe. They worship hobby rocket enthusiasts like Musk and detest anything the government does. They want everything to be cheap and follow the principle that if you cannot build it in your garage it is no good.
Some months back a “proposal” called Nautilus started making the rounds and it showed this groovy airplane cockpit wingless airliner sized spacecraft with a ring around the fuselage. The ring was a centrifuge that was supposed to solve the zero G debilitation problem. The response from the private space groupies was enthusiastic. It was a “see, SEE!” hue and cry proclaiming we did not need all the heavy design features usually cited for deep space travel.
The solution to zero Gravity was well thought out back in the 1920′s. Take a cable and attach two sections of equal weight at either end and spin for 1G. Of course it is not that simple but it is still the most elegant and practical design. There is no reason to make the cable shorter and spin the sections faster- longer is better.
A centrifuge is a whirling mass you strap a person or two into. Are they supposed to sleep during their centrifuge time and get their “dose” of gravity? Take a larger ring and put a circular cabin inside and whirl that for some living space. But what is most practical? In space there is no reason not to spin everything at a slow rate and spinning an attached large section just to make a small part of the whole spacecraft 1G or partial G is actually more trouble in my opinion.
So the centrifuge solution is on my gimmick list. Maybe it would work like it is presented. I prefer to ask why go there in the first place? What advantage for a spaceship compared to splitting the ship in two and spinning with a tether? In fact, the tether has several advantages the centrifuge does not. But I am not writing a book here and Mr. Lavoie seems to disagree with me on this point so I will end my argument here.
Lately I have been posting several talking points almost to magazine article size. I apologize to Dr. Spudis. And it has been my experience that I myself skip over lengthy posts and I am sure others do also. So probably no one is reading this anyway. But I think it has polished my ability to explain.
Another concept on my gimmick list is fuel depots and fuel transfer in space. This is so hyped it is now taken as fact on space sites. I did some research and found some problems with it. Big problems. But that is only with cryogenic propellants. What about the standard storable hypergolic combination of some form of hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide? Can some form of storable propellant be manufactured on the moon? Hydrogen Peroxide is another possibility.
So the fuel depot and transfer issue is tricky. It may be important using non-cryogenic propellants if they can be made on the moon but using cryogenics they may become a money hole and stumbling block.
I wrote a list of talking points last night and will post them separate to this super long post. I hope Dr. Spudis will post it along with this one.
“The problem is having laws like outlawing light bulbs”
GB, The problem is the people who do not understand why they passed that law. I would like to explain to you why Mcdonalds was sued for hot coffee but this post is already gigantic.
Comment by GaryChurch — June 24, 2011 @ 2:23 pm
Gary and others on this thread,
I appreciate your passion, but please limit your comments to the points raised by my article. If you want to have discussions on architectures, rockets, etc., please take it to your own blog.
Thank you.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 24, 2011 @ 3:36 pm
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 24, 2011 @ 3:36 pm
Dr. Spudis,
You are correct, I did wonder pretty far off topic there. My only reason is that Gary brought up a topic of particular interest to me and I gave in to the ‘nerd’ engineer’s impulse to make a post about it (because I consider it interesting).
I would promise you it will never happen again, but I know myself better; so I will promise you to try to never have it happen again.
Joe
Comment by Joe — June 24, 2011 @ 4:21 pm
And thank you Dr. Spudis for the opportunity to post here.
I do not think I have the time to manage my own blog. Or maybe I just do not want to deal with rejection- who would post when I do not agree with anyone?. Sorry for straying so far and wide.
“This theme has long been a part of British polar exploration literature”
There is also a parallel to this in the British airship program of the mid 20′s. The R101 was billed as the people’s airship while the R100 was built with private funding. Like the Polar exploration, there is much more to the story. I am a gear geek so I have an appreciation for the critical design error made with the R101; the engines were locomotive diesels and far too heavy for an airship. But bureaucrats in charge of the project refused to replace them with much lighter gasoline engines.
An interesting theme is playing out now that will be written about by future historians. The people’s rocket and the private rocket. It may be that a critical design error is being made right now by bureaucrats. Instead of a sidemount configuration SDHLV, an inline configuration looks to be selected. The R101 disaster ended the British airship program, also ending the R100. Will a mistake in design configuration ruin the U.S. space program?
Is that a little more on topic?
Comment by GaryChurch — June 24, 2011 @ 5:34 pm
“An interesting theme is playing out now that will be written about by future historians. The people’s rocket and the private rocket. It may be that a critical design error is being made right now by bureaucrats. Instead of a sidemount configuration SDHLV, an inline configuration looks to be selected. The R101 disaster ended the British airship program, also ending the R100. Will a mistake in design configuration ruin the U.S. space program? ”
I doubt NASA errors, will end NASA.
Space exploration is simply too important and everyone knows it.
The consequence instead will be the continued delay of NASA doing any exploration.
The price of this delay is quite exactly immeasurable.
A real problem is that NASA can’t lose, meaning NASA the government agency can’t lose. The people in NASA are losing as well as the American people.
Comment by gbaikie — June 24, 2011 @ 7:42 pm
Speaking of exploration.
NASAWATCH: http://www.nasawatch.com/
Link link to dawn mission:
http://www.onorbit.com/node/3528
This should be very exciting exploration.
Hopeful we get some good pictures soon.
Comment by gbaikie — June 24, 2011 @ 7:52 pm
“The riches of Antarctica remained locked up as scientists hunt its surface for fallen asteroids and evidence for global warming. Some think this is a template for space exploration; others find such an idea anathema.”
The profit motive is so enmeshed in environmental advocacy it is disgusting. The earth is the one place we do not want to contaminate with industrial and radioactive waste.
Ironically, though it is not safe on earth, the moon and deep space seem made for the nuclear industry. Any kind of nuclear material in space seems to be verboten for the time being. Plutonium batteries may be the one exception but nothing else is going up for the foreseeable future.
While the moon does not need nuclear energy as it has plenty of solar (so does Earth), the deposits of thorium could lead to a nuclear reactor factory for spaceships and offworld colonies. Solar is not much of a resource in regards to the outer planets. And again, ironically, if Thorium had been the chosen type of power reactor and uranium had been restricted to weapons production facilities, we probably would not have the proliferation threats and contamination we do now. Thorium reactors can be shut down quickly and generate less waste. A fail safe immediate shutdown would have prevented all of the major nuclear accidents to date.
As for preserving other bodies in their pristine state, that might morally make some sense if there are subsurface ocean moons thriving with life….. but the moon?
It’s dead.
Comment by GaryChurch — June 25, 2011 @ 11:49 am