AirSpaceMag.com

You know, I’ve had this same kind of intuition for some time now — that something is actively preventing (via. distraction and discouragement) the development of the next logical step (return to the moon as a basis for further explorations). Its nice to see the intuition expressed openly and more coherently than I could possibly do.

So what do we do? I would personally need more details on the nature and motivations of the opposition before I could mount an individual response.

Comment by Hybrid Web — December 1, 2011 @ 7:57 am

You’ve succeeded in saying what I could only express as a classic “face palm” gesture after reading the DOA Venus suggestion in SciAm.

Am I correct in my tally, in discovering Altair to be the only component of the Constellation program truly cancelled, after all?

It appears every other part of that program (the total costs for which the Treasury today spends every few hours) either still remains or has by now reappeared under different names.

Comment by Joel Raupe — December 1, 2011 @ 8:58 am

So what do we do?

Ask candidates for office about their position on the direction of the U.S. civil space program and vote accordingly.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — December 1, 2011 @ 9:20 am

Am I correct in my tally, in discovering Altair to be the only component of the Constellation program truly cancelled, after all?

Not quite. The most critical cancellation was that of eliminating a genuine strategic direction or goal. Dropping the Moon created confusion and uncertainty and freed up no resources.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — December 1, 2011 @ 9:22 am

I was just lack of strategic direction for NASA with my sister yesterday morning. A watered down Ares V rocket with no destination or mission. This musical charade of destinations kind of reminds me of a certain political race going on right now.

Comment by Gary Miles — December 1, 2011 @ 10:24 am

While I agree that a human flyby of Venus seems to be of little use, the Human Exploration Using Real-Time Robotic Operations (HERRO)concept for either Mars or Venus seems to be worthy of investigation. In brief, the astronauts never set foot on the planet, but are there in orbit to increase scientific throughput by reducing the communications lag/latency with robotic assets. These assets can be rovers of various types, aircraft of various types (balloons, airplanes). Of course, the date these might be ready is in the 2030′s!

I support returning to the Moon prior to this.

“HERRO Missions to Mars and Venus using Telerobotic Surface Exploration from Orbit”, AIAA SPACE 2011 Conference and Exposition, Long Beach, California, Sep. 27-29, 2011 is available at the AIAA web site.

Comment by James Fincannon — December 1, 2011 @ 10:40 am

I am sure that Mr Bennet of Pride and Prejudice would have immensely savored reading the Venus mission proposal.

What do we live for, but to make sport for our neighbours, and to laugh at them in or turn.

Comment by Nelson Bridwell — December 1, 2011 @ 10:47 am

I has the impression that the whole Venus thing was to take place after a return to the moon or an asteroid or wherever we’re headed this week.

Comment by Mark R. Whittington — December 1, 2011 @ 11:21 am

The very name “Human SpaceFlight” (HSF) program tells us what is wrong with it and why it leads to such idiocies as a proposed crewed flyby of Venus: if having humans in space is the goal, then what matter where they go? If the goal of HSF is to have humans in space doing new things (aka, “firsts”) and planting flags and talking to the President long distance and “inspiring students”, then it doesn’t really matter where it is that they do that. A crewed flyby to Venus would indeed be a first! It would be challenging and dangerous and so forth. (Hmmm… not much heroic scenery of guys in spacesuits planting flags and hopping around, though. Bummer… Now wait a sec… Mars looks more like Earth; hey, let’s go there instead! We can plant flags there and have guys hopping around picking up rocks…)

These types of goals and visions worked for politicians in the past, so they continue to pursue them. Firsts, heroic astronauts, planting of the U.S. flag, patriotic music, politicians giving speeches.

I always love the concept of inspiring students by creating high-cost programs to send humans on stunt missions that accomplish nothing long-term. Very inspiring indeed…

Comment by Ron Menich — December 1, 2011 @ 12:21 pm

One of the original reasons for the ‘Flexible Path’ and alternates destinations like an asteroid, Venus, or even a Mars flyby was that is was viewed as cheaper than returning to the Moon. But this is a fallacy, IMO, that solely looks at delta-v requirements while ignoring the probability that its going to require at least several hundred tonnes of mass shielding in order to protect the human brain from several months of constant exposure to heavy nuclei.

So these are just fantasy voyages, IMO, until nuclear rockets or titanic light sails can be developed that can transport several hundred to a few thousand tonnes of mass shielded habitat modules between the planets.

I think the second fallacy is the belief that establishing and sustaining a Moon base would be appallingly expensive. But there’s no logical reason for that to be true if at least $6 to $8 billion of the NASA budget is dedicated to such a lunar base program on an annual basis and especially if lunar water resources are exploited for drinking, bathing, growing food, and for the production of air and rocket fuel for reusable lunar shuttles.

President Obama inherited an $8.4 billion a year manned spaceflight related budget (Space Shuttle/ISS/Constellation) from George Bush so there’s no logical reason why such funds can’t be prioritized for a lunar base program once the SLS is developed and fully operational.

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — December 1, 2011 @ 1:09 pm

Am I correct in my tally, in discovering Altair to be the only component of the Constellation program truly cancelled, after all?

No, thankfully Ares I is gone as well.

Comment by Rand Simberg — December 1, 2011 @ 1:20 pm

Ideas of sending astronauts on otherwise pointless missions (e.g. Nowhere=L1, a dinky asteroid, or Venus flyby) are proposed for a couple of reasons:
1) as a stepping stone to long-duration missions leading eventually to Mars and
2) because free space missions could be done with just in-space hardware and not also require the development of a lander.

Constellation, the SLS launch, and maybe Human Lunar Return all seem to have reached the point where it was felt that you could have the monster rocket or a lunar lander but not both. The monster rocket (including the Shuttle) was/is so expensive that you can no longer afford a lunar lander and so that is (one of the reasons) why the Moon was cancelled. Yes, certain people in NASA preferred Mars over the Moon but it was the costs of the monster rocket that was the final nail in the coffin.

I think that the same holds true for the Spudis/Lavoie plan. It won’t be taken seriously unless there is enough money to fund it. And until the SLS is killed, there won’t be enough money. The monster rocket is, IMO, the single biggest obstacle to opening up space permanently. Kill that one thing and it’s easy to imagine how we would be able to open up the solar system.

Comment by JohnHunt — December 1, 2011 @ 2:08 pm

> I think the second fallacy is the belief that establishing and sustaining a Moon base would be appallingly expensive.

That is true. But I would go further and say that it needs to be less expensive than even $6-8 billion per year. If we build the SLS, that money won’t be available for quite some time and I am concerned that the cost of maintaining that system won’t allow the full $6-8 billion to be available recognizing the rest of NASA’s priorities.

If lunar astronauts mine their own water and oxygen, grow their own food, live under ground, get good exercise, repair teleoperated equipment, and even construct bulky equipment parts, then they could stay on the lunar surface for a year or more. Flights to the Moon would be minimized as would the costs.

Comment by JohnHunt — December 1, 2011 @ 2:22 pm

1) as a stepping stone to long-duration missions leading eventually to Mars

I agree with you that this is claimed, but objectively speaking, exactly what about a human Venus flyby is a “stepping stone” to Mars? ISS crews will spend longer lengths of time in space to address the physiological issues and they can experiment with closing the life support loop and developing long-lived, fault-tolerant systems. True enough, on a Venus mission, the crew will get a nice dose of GCR and maybe even a solar flare event. Damn dangerous work for having no real accomplishment to show for it.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — December 1, 2011 @ 2:45 pm

“The monster rocket is, IMO, the single biggest obstacle to opening up space permanently. Kill that one thing and it’s easy to imagine how we would be able to open up the solar system.”

Amazing. IMO it is the only way to open up space and it is hard to imagine how to do it without it. There is no substitute for a HLV with hydrogen upper stages.

The depot scheme is the single biggest obstacle because going anywhere BEO with inferior lift vehicles depends upon it. Liquid Hydrogen does not store well in space despite the strident sermons by so-called aerospace experts. It is an incredibly complicated mess while launching the SLS is certain to succeed considering the 100 plus heavy lift vehicles we have launched.

No free lunch. It is becoming more and more obvious that the flexible path is just a way to direct tax dollars into a private tourist industry for the ultra-rich.

Consider the escape systems that-are-not escape systems on the dragon and CST. They are a cheap and nasty way of keeping a blow up tent in orbit.

The private space cult is the worst thing that has ever happened to space exploration.

Comment by GaryChurch — December 1, 2011 @ 4:02 pm

Excuse me. If forgot it’s not HSF any more. It’s “Human Exploration and Operations” (c.f., http://www.nasa.gov/about/directorates/index.html).

“Exploration” is another loaded term. What most of the folk on this thread want, myself included, is “Lunar and Cis-Lunar Infrastructure Development” and not “Exploration”. (Exploration is a necessary part of lunar and cis-lunar infrastructure development, but the goal is development not exploration).

But infrastructure development is not as sexy as exploration.

Comment by Ron Menich — December 1, 2011 @ 4:33 pm

“Exploration” is another loaded term.

Not loaded — just not understood, especially by people at NASA.

Have We Forgotten What Exploration Means?

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — December 1, 2011 @ 4:58 pm

A manned flight to orbit (or fly by!) Venus makes even less sense than a landing on a small NEO. There is nothing that the astronauts could do that cannot be done robotically, and given the hellish conditions on Venus, there isn’t much that robots can do either before being fried. The astronauts wouldn’t even be able to see the surface from their orbit or fly-by trajectory. The usual rationale is that such an expedition would be preparation for an eventual landing on Mars, but if the astronauts don’t actually accomplish something it’s hard to see how that constitutes preparation for anything.

It would just be a test flight of some of the hardware required to make a manned landing on Mars. But there are better ways to accomplish that, such as by landing the initial elements of a lunar base on the Moon, followed by a manned landing to integrate all the elements and activate the base. We already have an extensive data-base of the effects of 6 months or more of human exposure to zero-g from ISS and MIR, and some work has been done on ISS for the long duration life support systems required for Mars flights.

The best way to learn how to go to Mars is by going to Mars. If the systems are designed to permit the same hardware to be used for both manned lunar and Mars exploration, as with Mars Direct, then we can get all the experience that we need with the Mars hardware on the Moon and in cislunar space. Launch windows to Mars are about 2.2 years apart, so that leaves a lot of time to devote to lunar exploration and development. Once the initial base is activated, and the next Mars launch window opens, we can insert the first Mars flight(s) into the launch manifest, and as soon as they are enroute we can return our attention to the Moon. The base crew can continue with their base activation/expansion, and exploration, activities during the relatively short Mars windows every 2.2 years.

There is absolutely no excuse for wasting the next quarter century, or more, on useless stunts as NASA seems to want to do. It has been reported that when Zubrin’s team made their first presentation on Mars Direct to a group at NASA HQ(?), they were told that NASA is not interested in Mars Direct, thank you very much, because “it’s over too soon”.

NASA seems to want to take as long as possible to accomplish as little as possible, preferably with all new technology every step of the way, in order to spend as much money as possible. NASA itself sees human spaceflight as primarily a jobs program, so getting things done quickly with existing technology is anathema.

Comment by Dick Morris — December 1, 2011 @ 5:10 pm

“NASA itself sees human spaceflight as primarily a jobs program”

Hi Dick,
I keep hearing this repeated ad nauseum. NASA launched over a hundred heavy lift missions. This get’s disputed to no end by private space advocates- they really dislike it. But the fact is the orbiter weighed close to a hundred tons and that puts the hardware in the Saturn V class.

If that is a jobs program then I am all for it (without the orbiter slowing everything down). What is happening now though is the question mark. W

The moon is the place to go to assemble and launch nuclear powered spaceships and that is the only way to get to the outer solar system IMO. Chemical propulsion just will not do it because of the mass of radiation and zero G solutions.
I have put this up so many times and nobody has ever given me a reason not to stick to it;
Sending humans out for years based on how much radiation they can survive on average and accepting permanent loss of bone mass and marrow is going to fail. Drugs will not stay viable and mutated pathogens would easily overwhelm their compromised immune systems. They could all die because there is no way to turn around and come back on short notice. Unacceptable. Again, I really think earth radiation and earth gravity is required and that is going to mass so much that nuclear propulsion is a must. The place to assemble and light off anything nuclear is NOT LEO. I do not think that is going to fly. But the moon is OK and also has water for shielding.

The SLS is the only vehicle that is going to land worthwhile payloads on the moon. The ceiling on the space flight budget has to be raised or we are not going anywhere. God knows the DOD has plenty of money.

LEO is a dead end.

Comment by GaryChurch — December 1, 2011 @ 6:09 pm

I don’t see anything wrong with this idea, although the characterization that a trip to Venus would replace a trip to the Moon is somewhat of a stretch. I think the author is just pointing out that our space program is really deficient in credible destinations, and this is one that really hasn’t been well considered. Scientifically, such a trip would probably be more useful than crawling around on a small rock or rubble pile that might (and might not) represent the thing that is someday going to threaten the Earth.

It is simply untruthful that the Moon as a destination for human space flight by NASA has been “dropped”. The Moon remains on the list of priority destinations in the NASA budget and strategic plan. But what has been dropped is the idea that a near term foray to the lunar surface with humans is affordable. It is not, and getting less so in the last few years.

So don’t give me that. Landing humans on the Moon within the decade certainly would bust the latest budget. At least the way NASA was going to do it. That’s a fact. Actually having those humans do something useful there would just multiply that budget bust.

The point is, making trips where we would remain in space, as opposed to landing on a surface, are vastly more affordable. To the extent that human colonization of the cosmos needs to happen, yes, the Moon may play an important role in that, but it ain’t going to do it soon. The other important role to be tested is survival in deep space, outside of the supply chain that we’re used to in LEO. Those efforts can, however, be mounted soon. Let’s do it.

Comment by Heinrich Monroe — December 1, 2011 @ 6:23 pm

The author said “but in reality because it [the Moon] was a destination that could be reached on reasonable timescales for affordable amounts of spending.”

I don’t know what program you’re thinking of, but it wasn’t Constellation. 20 years and $100B is too long and too much money just to get the next person back to the Moon.

We are doomed to mediocracy every time our exploration plans start with the phrase “first we build the biggest rocket in the world”. The SLS rocket continues this trend, and until Moon advocates vocally reject this approach, we’ll never get back to the Moon with vehicles that have NASA painted on their sides – we won’t be able to afford them.

Comment by Coastal Ron — December 1, 2011 @ 6:25 pm

The Orbiter is not counted as payload, so the Shuttle doesn’t really qualify as heavy-lift. The Shuttle was limited to about 25 tons of payload, but my 2-stage, VTOL RLV would have a lift capacity of about 40-50 tons to LEO with a GLOW less than that of the Shuttle. Design it so that each stage contributes about 4.5 km/sec and the orbiter stage can send that 40-50 tons to the Moon or Mars, after being refueled at an LEO propellant depot. So chemical propulsion is up to the job.

As for radiation, Zubrin calculated, based on published data, that an astronaut would receive, on average, about 50 REMs in a 2 1/2 year Mars round trip. That’s not enough to cause radiation sickness even if received all at once. It would cause a few percent increase in their chance of a fatal cancer later on. For the cost of carrying the hundreds of tons of shielding mass required to eliminate even that relatively small risk, you could save an awful lot of lives here on Earth.

Comment by Dick Morris — December 1, 2011 @ 7:31 pm

@John Hunt

$8.4 billion over the next ten years would give NASA about $84 billion to spend on manned spaceflight. Because of the unnecessary extension (IMO) of the ISS program, about $30 billion of that will be consumed by funding the ISS. So that leaves about $54 billion.

The development cost of the SLS and MPCV is estimated to cost about $38 billion over the next ten years. Development cost of the Altair lunar lander has been estimated to be about $12 billion. So that’s about $50 billion in total over the next ten years. But, in theory, a single stage reusable lunar shuttle should be a lot cheaper to develop than a two stage vehicle and that could perhaps shave off a few billion dollars in development cost.

Launch cost for the SLS (not including payload) is estimated by NASA to have cost close to that of the Space Shuttle at around $500 million per launch if there are about 6 launches per year ($3 billion). That leaves another $5.4 billion a year in manned spaceflight money for payloads such as lunar landers and lunar habitat modules and water mining manufacturing facilities. That’s plenty of money for a Moon base program, IMO.

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — December 1, 2011 @ 11:09 pm

35 years since anything man-made made a controlled landing on the moon. tick tock. ( I’m 33 )

Comment by kert — December 2, 2011 @ 2:48 am

It is simply untruthful that the Moon as a destination for human space flight by NASA has been “dropped”. The Moon remains on the list of priority destinations in the NASA budget and strategic plan. But what has been dropped is the idea that a near term foray to the lunar surface with humans is affordable.

It is not untruthful. The lunar surface does not appear in any of the HAT road maps or scenarios; hovering over the lunar far side at L2 accomplishes nothing in terms of creating space faring capability. “Near term” in your parlance means within the next 25 years.

So don’t give me that.

Nobody is “giving you” anything. You came here and commented.

The point is, making trips where we would remain in space, as opposed to landing on a surface, are vastly more affordable

Just because something is “affordable” does not make it desirable or useful. On the basis of that logic, we can all just stay here on Earth — that’s the most affordable solution of all and one that appears to be the favored one of this administration.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — December 2, 2011 @ 4:49 am

Dick Morris says “A manned flight to orbit (or fly by!) Venus makes even less sense than a landing on a small NEO. There is nothing that the astronauts could do that cannot be done robotically, and given the hellish conditions on Venus, there isn’t much that robots can do either before being fried. The astronauts wouldn’t even be able to see the surface from their orbit or fly-by trajectory.”

I ask that you read the paper on manned orbit of Venus. Here is the abstract:
“This paper presents concepts for human missions to the orbits of Mars and Venus that feature direct robotic exploration of the planets’ surfaces via teleoperation from orbit. These missions are good examples of Human Exploration using Real-time Robotic
Operations (HERRO), an exploration strategy that refrains from sending humans to the surfaces of planets with large gravity wells. HERRO avoids the need for complex and expensive man-rated lander/ascent vehicles and surface systems. Additionally, the humans are close enough to the surface to eliminate the two-way communication latency that constrains typical robotic space missions, thus allowing real-time command and control of surface operations and experiments by the crew. In fact through use of state-of-the-art telecommunications and robotics, HERRO could provide the cognitive and decision-making advantages of having humans at the site of study for only a fraction of the cost of conventional human surface missions. HERRO is very similar to how oceanographers and oil companies use telerobotic submersibles to work in inaccessible areas of the ocean, and
represents a more expedient, near-term step _prior_ (my underline) to landing humans on Mars and other large planetary bodies.”

As to Venus robots being fried, there are clever approaches to avoiding that, even for rovers. Its hard not impossible. See the paper.

As for astronauts needing to see the surface, the need is not for astronauts to “see” the surface but for astronauts to reduce the communications lag to get more scientific throughput before the eventual lifespan of the surface assets are expended. Communications “seeing” is handled via the orbit selection (although radar of Venus surface could provide more standard “seeing”).

All this said, I am still in favor of a lunar base prior to such far future missions.

Comment by James Fincannon — December 2, 2011 @ 11:24 am

“We are doomed to mediocracy every time our exploration plans start with the phrase “first we build the biggest rocket in the world”.

Saturn V was mediocre?

“a small rock or rubble pile that might (and might not) represent the thing that is someday going to threaten the Earth.”

It is not a question of if, it is when, and they are plenty of big rocks out there. This thread is not specifically about the asteroid mission- but you would obviously like it to be. Tell it to the Dinosaurs.

“The Orbiter is not counted as payload, so the Shuttle doesn’t really qualify as heavy-lift.”

The orbiter weighed a hundred tons. That was heavy. It was lifted.

“It would cause a few percent increase in their chance of a fatal cancer later on. For the cost of carrying the hundreds of tons of shielding mass required to eliminate even that relatively small risk, you could save an awful lot of lives here on Earth.”

Zubrin does not know what the effects are. Nobody does. And you are not going to characterize spending money on shielding as equating to murder. The truth is Solar events require heavy shielding. Cosmic rays turn that shielding into a radiation hazard due to secondary radiation. The astronauts have to stay fully exposed until an event and then retreat to a sanctuary to survive. It is a no-win situation. The ONLY solution is completely shielding the crew. And that is heavy- and that will require nuclear propulsion- and that will require doing it BEO- and the moon is the only place to make it happen.

“-can send that 40-50 tons to the Moon or Mars, after being refueled at an LEO propellant depot. So chemical propulsion is up to the job.”

No it is not. HLV’s are proven to be up to the job but depots will take decades, if ever, to be practical. It is the big lie that has been told often enough.

Because of the unnecessary extension (IMO) of the ISS program, about $30 billion of that will be consumed by funding the ISS.”

WE HAVE A WINNER! That 100 billion in tin cans going in endless circles is the problem, not SLS.

“Just because something is “affordable” does not make it desirable or useful. On the basis of that logic, we can all just stay here on Earth — that’s the most affordable solution of all-”

So speaks a trained scientist. We might as well stay home. I do not want tax dollars going to LEO space tourism thank you.

To state the obvious once again;
Sending humans out for years based on how much radiation they can survive on average and accepting permanent loss of bone mass and marrow is going to fail. Space Flight is inherently expensive; there is not cheap.

The ceiling has to go up on the spaceflight budget or we are not going anywhere. DOD is burning up mountains of thousand dollar bills every day. Impact defense and colonies for insurance is the mission that should get funding. And that means going to the moon first.

How about that Flu virus they engineered as a contagion?
There goes 60 percent of the human race. Engineer it a little more and we are extinct- like the dinosaurs.

Comment by GaryChurch — December 2, 2011 @ 3:43 pm

The author said: “Of all the idiocies that make up our current lack of a genuine policy for civil space, the imperative to find some destination that is not the Moon is the most telling sign of an absence of thoughtful leadership.”

You’re assuming that all destinations must wait until we go back to the Moon? Interesting.

It does seem that some people still cling to the idea that the Bush Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) is more than the aspirational document that it was. It wasn’t. In reality it was a wish list that lost relevancy when Michael Griffin let the Constellation program go out of control and Congress agreed to cancel it. Time to let it go.

I would agree that going to Venus next is not a good idea, but then again the author of the Scientific American article has no more pull in directing our space program than any other civilian, so there’s no need to fret.

What seems to be part of the intellectual limitation on this type of discussion is the view that space is a “program” instead of being lots of destinations. For myself, I’d eventually like us to go everywhere, and it’s more important to me how we go everywhere than when or which one first. For instance, if we’re doing initial exploration of someplace (like the Moon), then I wouldn’t expect that we have the infrastructure in place to stay there. But if we’re planning to stay someplace, then we need to have the most efficient infrastructure possible in place to support it, because I don’t want us to have to abandon a base somewhere because it’s become too expensive.

Many of the current plans advocated by “Moon First” groups seem to assume that NASA is going to be getting a big budget boost in order to cover the cost of adding the Moon to it’s list of ongoing operations. I think that’s pretty unrealistic. And while the SLS is being built over the next decade, NASA won’t be able to afford to build any exploration equipment, so I hope no one is impatient about getting back to the Moon.

That’s why I don’t understand why so few “Moon First” types support exploration proposals that use existing launch vehicles. Every major space organization has stated that we can get back to the Moon quicker using existing rockets, and that it would cost less too. What’s not to like?

That to me is the “absence of thoughtful leadership”, that people would insist on using a single-point-of-failure future rocket instead of the plethora of proven ones that are ready today.

Comment by Coastal Ron — December 2, 2011 @ 5:07 pm

“The orbiter weighed a hundred tons. That was heavy. It was lifted.”

The Orbiter did the lifting. It deposited it’s payload in LEO then returned to Earth. It is payload, and only payload, which counts toward the definition of lift capacity.

“Zubrin does not know what the effects are. Nobody does.”

“Nobody” would include Eugene Parker I believe. You may well be right, but that obviously leaves open the possibility that the effects will be less than some people fear. Zubrin’s numbers were based on data published in peer-reviewed journals, like “Science” and “Nature” (IIRC). I have not seen better numbers, so if you have any feel free to present them.

“The truth is Solar events require heavy shielding.”

Solar particles are many orders of magnitude less energetic than GCRs, so they don’t require what I would consider “heavy” shielding. The hull of the spacecraft itself would provide a substantial amount of shielding, and the spacecraft could have a “storm shelter”, shielded largely by life support consumables, to block the rest.

“HLV’s are proven to be up to the job but depots will take decades, if ever, to be practical.”

Expendable Super Heavy Lift Launch Vehicles (ESHLLVs) are physically up to the job, but history has proven to my satisfaction that they are economically hopeless as far as long-term human lunar and planetary exploration is concerned. Apollo died because it accomplished it’s goal of beating the Soviets to the Moon, and it simply cost too much to throw away a Saturn-V to land 2 men on the Moon for a few days just for science.

NASA has been given 2 golden opportunities to restart it’s manned lunar and planetary exploration program – Bush Sr.’s SEI and Bush Jr.’s VSE – and they blew both of them by assuming the use of ESHLLVs, because that’s how they did it with Apollo. Some members of congress are attempting to resurrect Constellation with SLS and MPCV, but in the current economic climate, it is very uncertain if that is going to last much longer.

Based on my 50+ years of study, and 30+ years of aerospace industry experience, I am convinced that the LEO propellant depot is the critical enabling technology for an affordable and sustainable manned lunar and planetary exploration program. Couple it with my fully-reusable, 2-stage, VTOL launch vehicle, and we can establish a fully-reusable transportation system between the Earth and the Moon or Mars which could, eventually, reduce transportation costs by up to two orders of magnitude below what can be achieved with ESHLLVs.

The depot would consist largely of some tanks and plumbing, a cryostat or two to re-liquefy propellant boil-off, and a solar array or two to power the cryostat(s). That doesn’t require any technology breakthroughs, so we could start development tomorrow morning with complete confidence of success. It could be deployed with no more than a few launches of the 2-stage RLV.

The depot permits the use of a much smaller launch vehicle (than the ESHLLV) which would have many other uses, including LEO, and eventually lunar, tourism. That will greatly increase the flight rate, which will further reduce the cost per flight for all users, including lunar and planetary exploration.

“I do not want tax dollars going to LEO space tourism thank you.”

I don’t think anybody is proposing to do that, but I, for one, would not mind. LEO tourism is the only foreseeable market which is potentially big enough to make an RLV development pay off economically: It is the key to the solar system.

Comment by Dick Morris — December 2, 2011 @ 9:55 pm

The most worrisome problem with human exposure to cosmic radiation is the fact that humans have extremely limited experience with exposure to potentially brain damaging heavy nuclei. Only astronauts that traveled beyond the Earth’s magnetosphere during the Apollo missions were constantly exposed to the deeply penetrating heavy nuclei (less than two weeks). Missions to Mars, Venus, and the asteroids are going to expose the human brain to months and possibly even a few years of constant irradiation from heavy nuclei.

In just 6 months of continuous exposure to interplanetary cosmic radiation, one third of all the neurons in the human brain (which tend not to repair themselves) will receive at least one direct hit from heavy nuclei. One third of the human brain!

I guess we could test how well the brain survives such constant bombardment by placing a habitat module at one of the Lagrange point and keeping humans there for a year– if we’re willing to risk the possibility that these individuals could end up suffering from severe brain damage.

Or we could properly shield the habitat modules with several hundred tonnes of liquid hydrogen and utilize nuclear or light sail technology to transport such heavy payloads across the gulf between the planets. Being able to transport hundreds or even a few thousand tonnes through interplanetary space could also be economically advantageous once the age of asteroid mining begins.

The cheapest source for such large amounts of hydrogen mass shielding, by the way, would be from the lunar poles which would require less than 2.6 km/s of delta-v to reach the Lagrange points vs 13 to 14 km/s of delta-v from Earth. Lunar tankers carrying liquid hydrogen for shielding interplanetary spacecraft would also probably have the advantage of being able to utilize reusable single stage vehicles which should further reduce cost.

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — December 2, 2011 @ 10:37 pm

You’re assuming that all destinations must wait until we go back to the Moon?

No, not that they must wait; simply that it makes more sense for them to wait until we have developed a reusable, space-based transportation system, fueled by water extracted from the lunar polar deposits.

It does seem that some people still cling to the idea that the Bush Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) is more than the aspirational document that it was. It wasn’t.

It was.

it’s more important to me how we go everywhere than when or which one first.

What if by going to one first you enable all the others? The real issue is not which destination first; it’s which path creates the most space faring capability. I contend that an incremental stepwise move into cislunar space, using lunar propellant, is the way to the planets. Launching everything you need from the bottom of the deepest gravity well in the inner Solar System (the “Apollo-to-Mars” mode) keeps us chained to the existing paradigm.

Many of the current plans advocated by “Moon First” groups seem to assume that NASA is going to be getting a big budget boost in order to cover the cost of adding the Moon to it’s list of ongoing operations.

Not true. Our robotic lunar architecture uses existing launch vehicles and establishes a resource-processing base on the Moon within 16 years, all within the existing exploration budget.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — December 3, 2011 @ 5:21 am

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — December 3, 2011 @ 5:21 am

“What if by going to one first you enable all the others? The real issue is not which destination first; it’s which path creates the most space faring capability.”

I don’t think you have to go to one place first in order to establish the path, but I do agree with the need to establish the path for all. Kind of like building a freeway with off-ramps – you don’t need to build the shopping centers in order to have an off-ramp, but you need the off-ramp for the future shopping center.

“I contend that an incremental stepwise move into cislunar space, using lunar propellant, is the way to the planets. Launching everything you need from the bottom of the deepest gravity well in the inner Solar System (the “Apollo-to-Mars” mode) keeps us chained to the existing paradigm.”

You have been a good advocate for the Moon as the source of propellant, and I don’t disagree that some day it can be one of the sources – maybe even the major one.

I think the most debate on this is really centered on what the initial efforts should be to get started (i.e. SLS or existing rockets) and how the “stepwise move into cislunar space” unfolds – as a “Moon program”, or as a space equivalent to the interstate highway system (i.e. transportation infrastructure that anyone can use to explore).

The lack of consensus on what approach to use is, in my opinion, what’s holding us back from leaving LEO to anywhere, since the politicians don’t have a clue who to back and what the consensus is. Until the space community reaches consensus, don’t be surprised to see more half-finished programs cancelled in the future.

Comment by Coastal Ron — December 3, 2011 @ 12:05 pm

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — December 2, 2011 @ 10:37 pm

“The cheapest source for such large amounts of hydrogen mass shielding, by the way, would be from the lunar poles which would require less than 2.6 km/s of delta-v to reach the Lagrange points vs 13 to 14 km/s of delta-v from Earth.”

While the transportation costs would be less from the Moon as opposed to from Earth, the cost of acquiring the propellant in the first place on the Moon is HUGE. Let’s use a little math to see where the least costly propellant can come from.

According to the Spudis/Lavoie plan, they estimated that it would cost about $87B, and about 17 years, to get to the point where lunar propellant was able to be produced in quantity. I may be a little off in my figures, but I should be close (tell me if I’m not). So that means that you’d have to wait at least 17 years and spend at least $87B in order to test out mass shielding technologies using hydrogen.

If you didn’t want to wait that long, you could use existing rockets today to get what you need. Delta IV Heavy can deliver 28,620 lbs to GTO, so let’s assume 25,000 of that is fuel. You assumed we would need ~200 tonnes, which is 200,000 kg, or about 440,000 lbs, so that would be 18 launches. If we assume $450M/launch, which is the price you pay when you buy one, not 18 launches, that works out to a high number of $8.1B. So that’s 1/10 the cost of getting fuel from the Moon, and it’s available far earlier.

Now remember, that’s a high number. For a much lower price, let’s see what it would cost if we used the SpaceX Falcon Heavy. They are advertising it for $125M in it’s largest capacity, and Musk said that it could deliver 40,000 lbs to the Moon, so we’ll use that number. Assume 30,000 lbs is fuel, which is 15 flights, and that would cost $1.9B. WOW! For about the price of one SLS launch, you get get 440,000 lbs of propellant close to EM-L1.

Now maybe when a lunar propellant facility gets up and running, and gets all the kinks out of their supply system, propellant from the Moon will start to compete with propellant from Earth, but that will take decades. And if we don’t want to wait on exploration, then the least costly place to get propellant will be Earth.

Comment by Coastal Ron — December 3, 2011 @ 12:27 pm

The SA article makes me gnash my teeth in frustration.

I left my 2¢ in the comments section.

Comment by Hop David — December 3, 2011 @ 1:11 pm

Wow, go away for a few days and you miss a party.

“Simple – by a deliberate act of programmatic destruction. The Moon was to be our first destination on the long road into the Solar System. But that goal was discarded, allegedly on the grounds that “we’ve been there,” but in reality because it was a destination that could be reached on reasonable timescales for affordable amounts of spending. Thus, a failure to return to the Moon could not be blamed on factors other than program mismanagement or agency incompetence. In other words, it was a realistic goal against which progress could be assessed.”

I would add one more reason: It allows politicians above the NASA level to “talk a big game”, but not provide adequate funding. I suspect this has more to do with the current lack of practical plans than mid-level NASA employees trying to escape accountability (even if they want to, they do not have the power to make policy – or in this case lack of policy).

Comment by Joe — December 3, 2011 @ 1:30 pm

“It is payload, and only payload, which counts toward the definition of lift capacity.”

I disagree. The shuttle propulsion system- 2 SRB’s and 3 SSME- is heavy lift hardware. Those wings, landing gear, cargo bay, and flight deck are part of the payload. And that adds up to a hundred tons.

Because it makes the “plethora of existing vehicles” look pathetic, flexible path “types” will not tolerate anyone stating this. Which is why whenever I comment about the shuttle being a heavy lift vehicle it will be denied.

Comment by GaryChurch — December 3, 2011 @ 4:41 pm

The single point failure is not the SLS; it is the depot scheme. It is a mess, and since the inferior lift vehicle plans to go anywhere depend on it working, the HLV is the way to go. It is certain to succeed while depots will most probably fail. The simplistic assurances that cryo transfer and storage will be easy is a dead give away.

The radiation hazards are never talked about or simply denied citing people who know nothing about heavy nuclei or space radiation. Shannon Lucid once commented that staying in MIR is the equivalent of 8 chest X-rays a day and during a solar event in 1990 the crew absorbed a years worth of that in one day. Heavy nuclei hits metal and creates secondary radiation and solar events in deep space do not have the protection of LEO.

HLV’s with hydrogen upper stages, not faux heavy brands, are the only way to land people on the moon. The moon is the only place to launch nuclear missions from and also has water for shielding.

It is as simple as that and I will just keep restating as many times as the disinformation about getting out there and surviving keeps being put up.

Comment by GaryChurch — December 3, 2011 @ 6:29 pm

Comment by GaryChurch — December 3, 2011 @ 4:41 pm

“I disagree. The shuttle propulsion system- 2 SRB’s and 3 SSME- is heavy lift hardware. Those wings, landing gear, cargo bay, and flight deck are part of the payload. And that adds up to a hundred tons.

Because it makes the “plethora of existing vehicles” look pathetic, flexible path “types” will not tolerate anyone stating this. Which is why whenever I comment about the shuttle being a heavy lift vehicle it will be denied.”

I have to agree with Gary on this one.

Comment by Joe — December 3, 2011 @ 7:49 pm

@Coastal Ron

Since I don’t expect any human journeys to Mars until the late 2020s or early 2030′s, 17 years is not a long wait– especially since our priority should be establishing a base on the Moon first. The Spudis/Lavoie scenario is still not that expensive since $87 billion over 17 years is only about $5.1 billion a year (the Space Shuttle/ISS program was about $5 billion a year when President Obama came to power).

I expect that mass shielding even the simplest human transport vehicle for an interplanetary journey from brain damaging heavy nuclei is going to require at least 500 tonnes of liquid hydrogen. Water shielding would require at least three times as much additional mass.

The priority for a Moon Base program, IMO, should be to simply manufacture water for drinking, bathing, growing food, manufacturing air, and for manufacturing cryogenic fuel for the lunar shuttles. And water manufactured on the Moon should be substantially cheaper than importing it from Earth. But NASA should have no inhibitions about manufacturing and storing as much water on the lunar surface as possible since water will always be a valuable commodity on the Moon and within cis-lunar space.

SLS launch cost to L1 will depend on how much demand there is for the SLS.

No one should take any of Elon’s numbers seriously until Space X actually routinely launches objects into Earth orbit without a lot of NASA infrastructure help. Its easy to brag about what you could do in the future when you haven’t done it yet! Space X has a long way to go before it can reliably launch objects into space as routinely as the ULA.

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — December 3, 2011 @ 11:07 pm

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — December 3, 2011 @ 11:07 pm

“Since I don’t expect any human journeys to Mars until the late 2020s or early 2030′s, 17 years is not a long wait– especially since our priority should be establishing a base on the Moon first.”

That’s an OK strategy if you knew that someone was going to fund establishing a base on the Moon that also has ISRU production facilities. However that’s a lot of money, and so far there is no interest (i.e. none) in Congress to pay for that. So in reality you have to start that 17 year clock from when it gets funded, which could be decades.

I also find it interesting that you wouldn’t want to test out shielding theories well before you commit to building the full up vehicles that would need them. For instance, I don’t think that Venus should be our next HSF destination, but if it was I would want them doing lots of test runs outside of the Earth-Moon system to test out not only the radiation shielding, but all the other systems.

“I expect that mass shielding even the simplest human transport vehicle for an interplanetary journey from brain damaging heavy nuclei is going to require at least 500 tonnes of liquid hydrogen. Water shielding would require at least three times as much additional mass.”

Again, lots of guessing, and why wouldn’t you try to test out those theories with something on a much smaller scale to make sure the theories, and the technology, actually works? And whose to say that alternative technologies couldn’t be developed that require less water? Bigelow says that his inflatable material provides better radiation protection than aluminum, so wouldn’t that lessen the need for water right there?

“SLS launch cost to L1 will depend on how much demand there is for the SLS.”

Which right now is zero. Congress hasn’t funded any payloads or missions for it.

“No one should take any of Elon’s numbers seriously until Space X actually routinely launches objects into Earth orbit without a lot of NASA infrastructure help.”

SpaceX uses Air Force facilities, not NASA ones.

Regarding numbers, at least SpaceX posts their specs and prices for all to see. How much will the SLS cost to put payload into LEO and beyond? No one knows.

Oh, and regarding waiting to see if SpaceX does what they say they will, that’s the same situation NASA is in too. Will they be able to get the SLS to fly, safely, and for a price that leaves money left over for payloads? NASA’s budget is shrinking right now, so until they free up more money there is no use for the SLS, and no money for a Moon base. Hope you don’t mind waiting.

Comment by Coastal Ron — December 4, 2011 @ 12:49 pm

“-even the simplest human transport vehicle for an interplanetary journey from brain damaging heavy nuclei is going to require at least 500 tonnes of liquid hydrogen. Water shielding would require at least three times as much additional mass.”

Eugene Parker is about the only authority I take seriously on space radiation issues. Everyone else has a definite agenda to minimize the hazards in support of their own particular plan.

Parker cites 400 tons of water for a small capsule. That is 14 feet of water- which equals the protection of the earth’s air column at 18,000 feet above sea level.

Marcel, I appreciate the very small club of people who are facing reality concerning deep space prolonged exposure to heavy nuclei but…..think about this.

Liquid hydrogen is a better shield than water because the space between atoms intercepts more heavy nuclei. But 14 feet of water stops almost all of it. The water is very useful while the LH2 is burden. It is a seriously complex operation to transfer into or out of your vehicle. If you expend it as propellent you lose your shield. You cannot grow anything in it to support a closed loop life support system, you cannot drink and recycle it, and you cannot even use it to dampen out oscillation in a tether generated artificial gravity system. LH2 has no utility at all compared to water and adds a great deal of weight in equipment and insulation. And it does not store well because of the very radiation it shields against interacting with it.

It makes no sense at all to use it when it requires so much trouble to maintain and you can just pour water into a secondary hull layer of any shape you need. A larger crew compartment means more water of course but it also means more liquid hydrogen.

Transferring water in space between two spaceships when needed is easy. Liquid hydrogen is anything but easy.
The entire plumbing and receiving tank has to be pre-cooled with liquid helium. Partially filled recieving tanks actually make the transfer more difficult. Transferring creates boil-off that must be liquified and that introduces the exothermal form of hydrogen which generates more boil-off. It takes alot of time to get the system stable. We have been through this many times before.

Why don’t you change your mind on this?

I have no problem with the Spudis Lavoie plan using hydrogen propellent in vehicles supporting a cislunar space infrastructure. The space craft just have to be fueled and maintained in an underground hangar on the moon and launch from the surface. These multi-purpose vehicles can make the rounds as tugs moving whatever needs to be moved wherever but transferring LH-2 to other vehicles is not going to happen. The best they can do is replace complete storage tanks and return empty ones. The hydrogen does not store well so the tanks will have to be used for a burn within a short period.

Does that make sense?

Venus….hmmm.
Read somewhere high in the atmosphere of venus a “cloud city” could be constructed. And if it is earth like I would guess there are minerals to be had beneath the surface.
But a human fly-by?

Is there any intelligent life on earth?

My latest post on BEO-HSF.

http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/12/space-travel-talking-points

Comment by GaryChurch — December 4, 2011 @ 5:29 pm

“Bigelow says that his inflatable material provides better radiation protection than aluminum, so wouldn’t that lessen the need for water right there?”

“How much will the SLS cost to put payload into LEO and beyond? No one knows.”

Inflatable material? How much will SLS cost?

Anyone that believes “inflatable material” provides any protection is gullible enough to believe spaceX prices.

SLS will cost more than blow up tents going in endless circles. You get what you pay for. There is no cheap.

Comment by GaryChurch — December 5, 2011 @ 2:30 pm

Comment by GaryChurch — December 5, 2011 @ 2:30 pm
“Anyone that believes “inflatable material” provides any protection is gullible enough to believe spaceX prices.”

HI Gary,

Just so you do not believe what some people say Bigelow says, as opposed to what he actually says: he does say (accurately) that his inflatable materials provide more protection than aluminum, but not that that protection is sufficient. The Bigelow designs with which I am familiar actually use a circumferential water shield around their LEO Modules. Very similar to the system you describe above (not 14 feet thick, but it is for LEO only).

Comment by Joe — December 5, 2011 @ 4:23 pm

Comment by GaryChurch — December 5, 2011 @ 2:30 pm

“Anyone that believes “inflatable material” provides any protection is gullible enough to believe spaceX prices.”

Bigelow says this on their BA-330 website:

“Bigelow Aerospace’s shielding is equivalent to or better than the International Space Station and substantially reduces the dangerous impact of secondary radiation.”

What you believe about radiation protection is immaterial, since the only way we’ll know what works is to spend money on significant amounts of testing. And in the case of Bigelow, they have already been doing testing in space with Genesis I & II, so I would tend to believe them when they say something – they have real test results.

But just as there is no money for payloads and missions for the SLS, there is little money for solving the hurtles we face for going anywhere beyond LEO for long stays, so adjust your hopes and dreams accordingly.

Comment by Coastal Ron — December 5, 2011 @ 6:02 pm

Coastal Ron: “I also find it interesting that you wouldn’t want to test out shielding theories well before you commit to building the full up vehicles that would need them.”

@Coastal Ron

The cheapest place to test hydrogenous mass shielding is at a Moon base since there is plenty of frozen water there for producing hydrogen. Since the Lagrange points are probably going to be the launch ports for manned interplanetary travel via nuclear rockets or light sails, fully shielded habitat structures can be tested at the Lagrange points using hydrogen exported from the Moon. This can’t be done at LEO because humans are still protected by the Earth’s magnetosphere and are only infrequently exposed to heavy nuclei.

A polyethylene shield would be about 20% lighter than water, but pure hydrogen would be about three times lighter than water as a mass shield against cosmic radiation. Otherwise, the only way we can test to see if heavy nuclei really causes significant brain damage without shielding is to place humans or some other primate at one of the Lagrange points for about a year. But there was an uproar down here on Earth when NASA proposed radiation experiments on primates.

Since the long term goal is not for humans to merely play around in space but to actually be able to live there permanently, it would be prudent, IMO, to properly shield in humans in space from the start. Bigelow space stations are not going to protect the human brain from deeply penetrating heavy nuclei unless they’re filled with a surrounding layer of water or plastic about 5 meters thick.

If the funding levels for NASA stay at the current levels then there should be plenty of money for SLS lunar missions– especially if NASA finally allows to the $3 billion a year ISS program to end in 2020.

The SLS is Congress’s baby, so I assume that they will properly support their baby. NASA currently has no shuttle program ($3 billion a year) and no Constellation program ($3.4 billion a year). So there’s plenty of money for the SLS/MPCV program. And any significant NASA budget reductions are likely to hurt funding for NASA’s unmanned space program and the commercial crew program– not the Congress’s manned spaceflight baby which also creates jobs and wealth for their States.

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — December 5, 2011 @ 10:10 pm

@GaryChurch

The advantage of liquid hydrogen (or slush hydrogen) is that its approximately three times less massive as a radiation shielding material as water. Hydrogen’s primary advantage over other materials is that it contains no neutrons to enhance spallation.

I agree that externally powered cryorefrigerators will probably be required to recycle ullage gases, but such refrigeration devices have already bend developed and tested by NASA. The biggest problem with liquid hydrogen storage is the weight of the tanks which could increase mass shielding weight by more than 50%. But even with the heavy tanks, hydrogen would still require half the total weight of water shielding.

Plus there is strong support for building cryorefrigerators for recycling ullage gases for orbiting hydrogen space depots. So it is likely to be a mature technology by the time such devices might be used for recycling hydrogen for mass shielding manned interplanetary vehicles.

I would agree, however, that habitats permanently in orbit around Mars or permanently placed at one of the Earth-Moon Lagrange points should probably be water shielded.

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — December 6, 2011 @ 12:28 am

I am a great advocate of returning to the Moon. In fact, I find it astounding that today, forty years after our last visit there, we still don’t have the capability to return. However, I think that the real problem is that nobody has yet expressed a reason for returning that is sufficiently strong for our politicians to consider it to be a priority.
The fact that the Moon is a good source of helium 3 is irrelevant, since we haven’t yet come close to sustaining a fusion reaction. And similarly, talk of sourcing rocket fuel there also makes no political sense because it would be prohibitively expensive to launch the equipment to the Moon that would enable this. And even if we did, what would we then use the fuel for?
Can anybody actually think of a reason for returning to the Moon that is sufficuently strong to gain political support. Until we can do this, we’re not going back there-or anywhere else beyond LEO.

Comment by Lee Fenney — December 6, 2011 @ 3:46 am

nobody has yet expressed a reason for returning that is sufficiently strong for our politicians to consider it to be a priority ….. talk of sourcing rocket fuel there also makes no political sense because it would be prohibitively expensive to launch the equipment to the Moon that would enable this.

Actually, that’s not correct. My colleague Tony Lavoie and I have developed an architecture to return to the Moon and set up a resource processing base using existing launch vehicles and technology, all within the current and projected run-out budget of the agency. Note well that this money will be spent regardless of what we are trying to do in space. Our claim is that we can spend it so as to gain a permanent space faring infrastructure, a system that can access all levels of cislunar space, where our national economic, scientific and security assets reside.

As far as convincing the politicians, in the seven points of the preamble to the new (and current) NASA Authorization act, “cislunar” is mentioned in four and “lunar surface” is in three of them. Doesn’t sound to me like the politicians have abandoned it.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — December 6, 2011 @ 4:41 am

Lee Fenney:”Can anybody actually think of a reason for returning to the Moon that is sufficuently strong to gain political support. Until we can do this, we’re not going back there-or anywhere else beyond LEO.”

@Lee Fenney

Actually, there are too many scientific, economic, strategic, and social reasons for establishing a permanent human presence on the surface of the Moon:

1. Hydrogen/oxygen fuel extracted from lunar ice could be used to fuel reusable space tugs that could transport satellites placed into low Earth orbit into geosynchronous orbit. This could potentially be a multibillion a year industry.

2. Multiple large telescopes could be deployed on the lunar surface for optical astronomy that could actually be superior that of the Hubble and could easily be maintained by personal or robots from a nearby lunar base.

3. Lunar water could be exported to orbiting private commercial space stations for drinking, growing food, and air. This could potentially be a multibillion dollar a year industry.

4. The Moon is likely to be one of the primary destinations for space tourism which could be another multibillion dollar a year industry. Having a permanent presence there could accelerate such commercial activities.

5. The Moon could be an excellent place to bury the cremated remains of loved ones. Most folks will probably never be able to afford to travel to the Moon. But they could afford to have their ashes buried there. And loved ones could look up at the Moon at night a think about a parent or grandparent who has past and is now buried on the lunar surface– the heavens! This could be a multibillion dollar a year industry.

6. One of the best ways to move a potentially dangerous asteroid heading towards the Earth would be through nuclear detonations nearby the asteroid. Launching such nuclear devices from the surface of the Moon might be safer than from Earth.

7. If America’s Earth orbiting satellites should come under attack by nuclear, laser, or particle beam weapons, etc., back up satellites previously placed on the Moon could be rapidly deployed into Earth orbit from the Moon. And the Moon itself could serve as a back up to satellite communications for Earth.

8. Thanks to the Moon’s low gravity well, the first nation or nations to have a large industrial presence on the lunar surface (possibly within the next 50 years) will probably totally dominate the manufacturing, launching, and repair of satellites which are at the core of the the $100 billion a year satellite based commercial telecommunications industry plus the military satellite industry.

9. The Moon would also be the cheapest place to manufacture and launch geosynchronous orbiting satellites for producing clean solar energy on Earth. This alone has the potential to be a trillion dollar a year industry.

10. Before the end of the century, the Moon could end up being the wealthiest economic region that humans occupy even though most of its workers may actually live on Earth, operating machines on the lunar surface telerobotically from their bedrooms on Earth.

11. We need to know if the human species can survive and reproduce beyond the Earth in hypo gravity environments such as the Moon and Mars just in case humans on Earth become threatened by some event that could cause a global catastrophe or even human extinction. Today, we live in a world where only two or three nations may have the nuclear capability of wiping out the planet but by the end of the century, several nations could have the nuclear capacity to destroy the planet several times over. If would be extremely foolish to confine our species solely to our planet of evolutionary origin.

12. It would be hugely inspirational for our society and especially for our youth if they could look up at the Moon and know that humans now live there, in the heavens, on the lunar gateway to the rest of the solar system and someday even to the rest of the galaxy. And our children desperately need to be inspired to look towards an exciting and better tomorrow!

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — December 6, 2011 @ 1:48 pm

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — December 5, 2011 @ 10:10 pm

“The cheapest place to test hydrogenous mass shielding is at a Moon base since there is plenty of frozen water there for producing hydrogen.”

That is not the cheapest as of today, nor is it the easiest or quickest. The Moon is also not the best place to test spaceship shielding, open space is (i.e. where spaceships will spend most of their time).

If you’re going to say “cheapest”, provide your reasoning, facts and figures. I have, as have Spudis/Lavoie, and though there may not be complete agreement on the details they serve as a point of reference and comparison. Otherwise it becomes a war of verbs, and that doesn’t persuade anyone.

Comment by Coastal Ron — December 6, 2011 @ 2:18 pm

“Bigelow Aerospace’s shielding is equivalent to or better than the International Space Station and substantially reduces the dangerous impact of secondary radiation.”

If it is equivalent then it is not any better- more false advertising. Which is it?

“What you believe about radiation protection is immaterial”

Uh-huh. Whatever you say Ron.

“-so I would tend to believe them when they say something – they have real test results.”

Uh-huh. Whatever you say Ron.

“-adjust your hopes and dreams accordingly.”

And go nowhere with the space tourist wannabe club?
No thanks.

Comment by GaryChurch — December 6, 2011 @ 2:56 pm

Marcel, are you for real here? Tell me honestly, which of points 1 to 12 do you really think is a vote winner that will appeal to our politicians?

To respond to your comments individually…

1. How much will it cost to ship the H2O separation and purification equipment, plus the launch to LEO facilities, to the Moon in the first place?

2. NASA has massively overspent the JWT’s budget before the hardware’s even been built. Do you really expect Congress to support a programme to build an even bigger system on the Moon’s surface?

3. Drinking water for private space stations..? Are you sure the water’s there? And even if it is, where are the private space stations that need it? This is certainly not a vote winner.

4. What space tourism? Even Richard Branson’s sub-orbital programme is slipoping behind schedule. Are you now proposing we need to build sophisticated Lunar facilities in order to stimulate the growth of this industry?

5. So now you’re thinking of asking Government to pay for a system to scatter cremated remains on the Moon. This is somewhat far fetched.

6. Unproven. Frankly, it would be cheaper to allow the (theoretical) asteroid to hit the Earth than to build a Lunar-based system which might (hopefully)push it off course. No politician will support this one.

7. By the time a Lunar defence backup system had come on line, the war would already be over. The nuclear holocaust, if it comes, will be quick and rather unforgiving.

8. Agreed. But it isn’t going to happen within the next two or three voting cycles, so it’ll never be a budget winner.

9. Do you really think this is a sensible suggestion to put to Government to attract funding? It would take an extraordinarily sophisticated Lunar-based infrastructure to manufacture and launch geostationary satellites from raw Lunar materials. Even making a single electronic compenent from a Moon rock would require a small town’s worth of people and facilities – let alone building satellites, rockets, launch pads, etc. And every component would have to be lifted there from the Earth. I doubt the whole Earth’s annual economy could afford this one!

10. No.

11. Well, we’re wondering a little far off subject with this one. However… not a vote/funding winning argument.

12. Totally agree, well done! In fact, watching humans walk on the Moon inspired me, as a child, to study hard and eventually gain an engineering PhD. As a result, I have a wonderful life. However, once again, this argument absolutely will not persuade politicians to allocate funds for a Lunar return.

So, to repeat my earlier question, can anybody think of an argument for a Lunar return which will persuade governments to sponsor such a programme?

Cheers,

Lee.

Comment by Lee Fenney — December 6, 2011 @ 3:04 pm

“The Bigelow designs with which I am familiar actually use a circumferential water shield around their LEO Modules.”

Hi Joe, thanks for the clarification.

I am trying not to play the private space game; which ultimately returns to space clown town. It goes like this-

———————————————————

There is no money so it must be their cheap junk or nothing.

NASA does nothing but waste money and spaceflight should be privatized because private space is doing so much better than NASA ever has.

Everything must happen in incremental steps starting with their LEO space stations business.

Heavy Lift and anything having to do with it such as SRBs are unsafe and doomed to fail.

The Falcon and Dragon and Bigelow modules are perfect creations and the only path to space travel.

———————————————————

And it goes on but those are the main infomercial themes.
It is all……I want this comment to go up so I cannot use the correct term. I reject everything they are pushing. It is transparent to people who are on to their game but the public is an easy mark for their technobabble and handwavium.

Private space disgusts me.

LEO is a dead end. Aluminum does spray secondary- just like everything else. Even hydrogen. The whole point is a shield that stops both solar and galactic radiation to allow deep space travel. They do not want to go there.

Comment by GaryChurch — December 6, 2011 @ 3:17 pm

So, to repeat my earlier question, can anybody think of an argument for a Lunar return which will persuade governments to sponsor such a programme?

I already responded to you in post #48 above, which you choose to ignore.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — December 6, 2011 @ 3:33 pm

Reply to Paul D. Spudis.

Sorry Paul, it was quite late when I logged-on last night (I’m in the UK) and I didn’t have time to read your paper thoroughly.

I think your paper’s excellent. It describes a systematic, incremental route to creating a sustainable Lunar infrastructure. At first read, I feel you may have underestimated some of the financials because I feel the development cost of the equipment will be greater than your estimates, but you’re not orders of magnitude away so it’s a plausible concept. If we are to go back to the Moon, then yours is probably the optimum method.

Having said that though, I still can’t see anything in there that will say to a politician “this is a vote winner.” You certainly describe how “how” we can do it, but there are only a few lines about “why.”

Having said that, though, your concept wins my vote! Thanks for sharing.

Comment by Lee Fenney — December 7, 2011 @ 3:41 am

You certainly describe how “how” we can do it, but there are only a few lines about “why.”

In a nutshell, we go to the Moon to create a permanent, space faring infrastructure. A transportation system that can access the lunar surface can also access all of cislunar, where our satellite constellation resides. The experience with Shuttle and Station have shown that people and machines can build and maintain distributed space systems, but right now, we have no way to get them there. Building a system based around the production and use of lunar propellant creates new capabilities on the Moon and in cislunar space. And once we have this system, we can travel routinely to the Moon and planets.

To my mind, that sounds like more value than a flags-and-footprints super-Apollo to Mars.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — December 7, 2011 @ 4:10 am

@Coastal Ron

Since continuous exposure to heavy galactic nuclei can only be experienced beyond the Earth’s magnetosphere, your only choices are the Earth-Moon Lagrange points or the sun-Earth Lagrange points, or the lunar surface. 

Testing mass shielding at the Lagrange points from heavy nuclei would require shipping several hundred tonnes of hydrogen or water from Earth by rocket. Testing hydrogenous mass shielding at a base located at one of the lunar polls would  only require the on site manufacturing of hydrogen or water. Plus only half as much shielding would be required for such test on the Moon since half of the habitat test module would be inherently shielded by the lunar surface that it’s sitting on. 

Comment by Marcel Williams — December 7, 2011 @ 7:16 am

Just a reminder to readers of this comment thread — it is not a chat board or general forum. Please confine your comments to what I wrote or they will be deleted. Do not post discussions of SLS vs. commercial because: a) they bore the hell out of me; and 2) it’s been hashed to death on multiple boards across the net and we all know where you stand individually.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — December 7, 2011 @ 8:12 am

“So we are talking about undertaking a months-long trip through interplanetary space, fully exposed to cosmic radiation and solar particle events, for a momentary view of an extremely hot planet of bright, featureless cloud tops.”

I do not think it is possible. One solar event and they are dead or close to it. Like all BEO fantasizing (except the moon) it does not face the reality. It is about the radiation. I have read just about every response imaginable when the radiation hazards are brought up. No one seems to be able to get past the denial stage.

It is not like the problem is impossible to solve. I figured it out in 2006, or rather Dr. Eugene Parker figured it out for me. I just put his guaranteed solution and the chandra discovery together.

Nuclear energy is the only way to move such massive shielding. And the moon is the place to assemble and launch any nuclear mission. It is certainly not going to happen in LEO.

And it does not have to happen over the course of decades or for any more than the space shuttle launches cost. With no orbiter and using the same SRB’s and SSME’s and an EDS it is completely possible. It could happen very quickly as long as we do it before the infrastructure degrades too much.

Why go? I can only come up with one reason that over rules all other calls on public funds; the impact threat.

And there is also the matter of engineered contagions. The canned answer for that threat is that pathogens naturally evolve to always leave a percentage alive.

Like the casual dismissals of heavy nuclei, this is also not valid. An engineered virus does not follow any rules.

Comment by GaryChurch — December 8, 2011 @ 8:13 pm

Yes, it is mindboggling to me, why the Flexible Path people persist in their silly, folly-filled goal of avoiding the Moon. This article is right on the money! The Moon absolutely, positively should be re-visited! There are a vast array of engineering activities which could be feasibly carried out, both in Lunar orbit & the Lunar surface that warrant a human return. Marcel Williams just brought up the great possibility of testing radiation sheilding for Lunar crews. In a solar flare event, such sheilding, emplaced in a shelter zone, would be a valuable exercise for future interplanetary voyages. In addition, the life support systems & electrical power systems & dust management systems could be all tested and perfected, over the course of manned landing missions, which would last anything from a fortnight to six months. When astronauts are on or near the Moon, they are in effect dealing directly with all the hazard of being outside the Earth’s ionosphere. The ISS does NONE of this: it is squarely inside of the Van Allen Belts. What is needed is NOT anymore flimsy & downright wimpy Low Earth Orbital testing; no, what is needed is a second round of manned expeditions to the Moon, to figure out, piece-by-piece, all of the engineering & technological systems, that will eventually be required for any farther deep space forrays. The Moon is where we should be doing all of this! NOT some dinky, bitty asteroid!!

Comment by Chris Castro — December 12, 2011 @ 1:27 am

There is no reason not to go to the moon even if not an economic winner. We start with the premise that at some point people will live off the earth (otherwise, we really don’t have a discussion at all.)

The moon provides practical training of people and testing of equipment. I advocate mars because it really is the best earth analogy in our solar system. Does anyone refute that?

The only thing stopping us is not technology or cost… it’s will and the realization that real estate (144 million sq. km. on mars) pays for everything TODAY. All we need are bankers willing to make a profit at today’s costs. Costs which will come down but are not the obstacle it’s being made out to be. A single company could and will afford to settle mars soon. It may not even be the one we all think. I’m hoping dozens of companies and banks see the light and soon (within this next decade and beyond.)

Comment by ken anthony — December 22, 2011 @ 1:59 pm

“- the best earth analogy in our solar system. Does anyone refute that?”

I do.
One gravity and earth radiation is easier to engineer on a moon in the outer system- not at the bottom of a gravity well as deep as Mars. I have never understood the attraction to Mars. Ceres is better. Mars is not much different than our moon really- except it is much harder to land on.
Most of the icy moons you can almost land on in a spacesuit.

Comment by GaryChurch — December 25, 2011 @ 2:39 pm

[...] near-Earth asteroids, L-points, the tiny, asteroid-like moons of Mars, lunar orbit, and even a human Venus flyby.  All of these imagined missions require knowledge, hardware and technologies that we do not now [...]

Pingback by Annus Horribilis: Space in 2011 | The Once and Future Moon — December 27, 2011 @ 9:31 am

The Moon..? Like, when we used to go REGULARLY..!! And even brought our CARS..!! Well, if you’ve got some time & are really interested – check up on the NSF. Go back and dig DIG deep. See who these people were & are. Also, look up the back issues of: The “Bulletin of Atomic Scientists’. See who THEY were & of course, still are. You will begin to understand. You will see why we were totally stopped. All of our superb equipment.. trashed. Saturn V.. Skylab (we had 2 flight ready) The SSC. Oh.. the horror of it.. so much more to list. It is sickening – worse, it points to why we are being crushed.. like they did to Germany. And Babylon. And the great Roman empire, et al.. Read Cicero.

Comment by Russ Stern — January 3, 2012 @ 12:28 am