Space news /comments

[red_elk]

Even Elon Musk - the hero and god of all the NewSpace believers - has repeatedly said that mining stuff in space makes very little sense. He believes that the only export a Mars colony could offer in the short/medium term is information - software, data obtained from research there, that sort of stuff. Information can be exported to Earth very cheaply and at the speed of light, unless pretty much everything else.

And he's right. Unless something big happens (we invent anti-gravity - aka magic, build very efficient and cheap space elevators, enact global ban on mining certain stuff on Earth, etc.), it will always be cheaper to get all the elements we need here on Earth. Earth is made of the same stuff as asteroids, but geological processes have created concentrated deposits of certain elements/minerals, which makes them more accessible.

Mining stuff for import to Earth on Mars or the other planets makes even less sense than mining the asteroids.

IMO, mining stuff on other planets will be useful only in far future, when there will be bases, established on those planets which would require such resources. Or if we find something very expensive which cannot be obtained on Earth. Drilling water on Moon, for Moon base (if it will be possible) is probably the most realistic project for space mining in mid-term future.

What do you think about private space companies then? It looks like they cannot be profitable in near future, except maybe if they will offer relatively cheap space tourist trips.

 

[dot80]

I don't think we're even at the Viking level yet. The vikings actually technically made contact with Native americans (or so I've heard, and yes it was violent contact) and we have not made contact with any other intelligent life. Further more, we've only been to the moon. That would be like England going to Ireland, not Greenland. And the vikings had COLONIES on Greenland, and we are nowhere near to the point where we we can colonies on the Moon, forget anywhere else.

No we are not in the viking time, we are in the early middle ages.

That part about meeting Native Americans is where the analogy becomes a fallacy. It is much different to meet another intelligent species than it is to meet another man. The rest I can agree with.

 

[Winner]

Is there any way a sub orbital flight and a full on orbital flight will ever become affordable in my lifetime?

The two are about as different as recreational sailing is from transoceanic cargo shipping. I generally tend to see it as a blind alley, but I am willing to let myself be surprised.

As for going to space in your lifetime, petition your government to give more grants to the Reaction Engines Ltd., the company behind SKYLON. If Cameron find some 10 billion pounds in the budget, you should be much closer to getting to orbit in 10 years time (If everything goes according to plan, which almost never happens in the space business ).

I disagree that using the European settlement of the Americas as an example is fallacious. Though there were quick riches to be made for Spain and Portugal the English did not have such an easy time of it. The only quick return the English could get out of colonization is lumber, but they could have gotten that in the old world. The English came up with inventive ways to use the land to make the venture profitable. For example, Jamestown almost went to ruin, and was only saved by the start up of the Tobacco industry. The south was made profitable off the farming of Rice and Dyes, and later Cotton. The north only off of fishing and shipbuilding. Mars could be used in similar respects. Maybe the mining of an abundant metal, or a natural gas. Or maybe even the large amount of unclaimed, unregulated land could be used for automated factories. This of course would need a large advancement in technology. Right now we can be compared to the Vikings, who with great difficulty were able to make it to Greenland. With more advanced technology it became more viable and more profitable.

The problem with these analogies is that wherever people went in the Americas, there was breathable air, water, plants and animals. Even if there were no natives, gold, silver or other resources to be economically exploited, settlement would have been relatively easy.

This is not the case in space, where it is bloody difficult in almost any place we can realistically go to. (And BTW, the English only began colonizing North America some 100 years after the Spanish. Apply that experience to space and you'll see why I am something desperately pessimistic.)

...oil...

No sorry, it doesn't make sense and it cannot make sense. Some other material perhaps, but you could probably synthesize 1000x more oil from simple biomass here on Earth with the energy it would take to transport the same amount from Mars assuming there was some, for which there is ZERO evidence.

It all has to start somewhere is where I am saying. And besides government programs are only becoming increasingly more marginalized because of economic downturn and loss of public interest so then where is it going to come from? Is it not? Then what is the point of tracking news about Space if you think space exploration is ending?

I don't think that, I am merely trying to be realistic. I've been following these news for about a decade, so I believe I was exposed to a healthy dose of caution. It serves no purpose to hype things and be too optimistic, it only makes the inevitable disappointment worse.

IMO, mining stuff on other planets will be useful only in far future, when there will be bases, established on those planets which would require such resources. Or if we find something very expensive which cannot be obtained on Earth. Drilling water on Moon, for Moon base (if it will be possible) is probably the most realistic project for space mining in mid-term future.

Agreed. Water (and oxygen from the lunar soil) could potentially be a valuable export if a lunar base is constructed. Other materials from the Moon could also be exported to the Lagrangian points or to low Earth orbit. (I think I need to include a small glossary to the opening post...)

What do you think about private space companies then? It looks like they cannot be profitable in near future, except maybe if they will offer relatively cheap space tourist trips.

My opinion is this: it's a very good thing in principle to try to reduce costs by engaging truly private, independent companies instead of the same old heavily subsidised aerospace contractors with lobbyists everywhere, who will charge you $1000 for every nut and bolt and pretend that's "cheap". Yes, space agencies should be more like customers - they should define what they want to accomplish, and then buy/order the necessary hardware in an open bid from someone who offers the lowest price. That's the only way to kill the cost spiral of death that's been stifling space exploration for decades.

On the other hand, if anybody thinks a private company will invest billions from its own pocket to send people to Mars for no profit whatsoever, that somebody is delusional. The government(s) need to provide money to generate the necessary impulse to do things, the drive to go somewhere. Without it, it will take centuries for us to really go beyond LEO.

Just my two eurocents.

 

[Leoreth]

Even if there was gold bars stacked up on the moon it wouldn't be worth it to send someone to retrieve them (although there will probably be one of these gold nuts doing it anyway, then).

 

[Zelig]

In case anyone has a Windows Phone, Space Weather is one of my favorite apps.

 

[Winner]

Even if there was gold bars stacked up on the moon it wouldn't be worth it to send someone to retrieve them (although there will probably be one of these gold nuts doing it anyway, then).

At the risk of making this thread look less serious than I want it to be, someone proposed to move Salma Hayek (or her functional substitute) to the Moon and promise her to the first guy who can retrieve her.

Worth a shot, I'd say.

---

Seriously now, a lot of people propose a system of "prizes" to spur private sector investment in space development. I think it is a good idea that should be used, although it cannot do miracles.

 

[dot80]

The problem with these analogies is that wherever people went in the Americas, there was breathable air, water, plants and animals. Even if there were no natives, gold, silver or other resources to be economically exploited, settlement would have been relatively easy.

This is not the case in space, where it is bloody difficult in almost any place we can realistically go to. (And BTW, the English only began colonizing North America some 100 years after the Spanish. Apply that experience to space and you'll see why I am something desperately pessimistic.)

That is not true though. The first English colony Roanoke disappeared between its last shipment of supplies and the next which would be delayed by something like two years. Theory is that the people, lost and starving, joined the Native American tribes in the area. Ignoring the fact that they went to the natives for survival, that is very similar to what would happen to a group of colonist stranded without supplies on the moon or mars. Settlement was not easy because they did not no how to survive in the wild North American environment, however close it was to Europe. It was actually quite hard, even Jamestown had a huge problems during early settlement.

Also you must take into account the change in technology and the economy. Other planets are our uninhabited continents. It was a great cost and risk to joint-stock companies that they sent settlers to the new world. It is at great cost and risk that we sent astronauts to the moon. If ships were broken or they ran out of food or water they would die. If spaceships malfunction the astronauts will be stuck in the middle of space. It took months of travel to get across the atlantic, and even then they had to make use of currents. The same can be said for going to the mood, accept instead of currents they have to launch at times when the space station/planet/moon/ect is closest and in best position to be reached. Ships must watch out for storms. Spaceships have to watch for solar flares and radiation. A lot of connections can be drawn between space travel and ocean travel at that time. They are all somewhat tenuous, and they all have to be stretched, but it can help us understand and predict a little of possibilities and situations that could arise. Afterall it is the only historical event we can use as an example.

I think the problem with the analogy is that some people don't know where it is just stretched to thin too be useful anymore. The thought that meeting Aliens would be anything like native Americans and settlers is preposterous. Its completely and totally different. The way I was using it was to try and show how the private sector shouldn't be underestimated in its ingenuity and buying power.

No sorry, it doesn't make sense and it cannot make sense. Some other material perhaps, but you could probably synthesize 1000x more oil from simple biomass here on Earth with the energy it would take to transport the same amount from Mars assuming there was some, for which there is ZERO evidence.

Yes I admitted that it was a small flight of the imagination, and in retrospect it is a little ridiculous. By the time technology is at the point to make oil viable to get from mars we will probably already be using a different type of energy anyway.

I don't think that, I am merely trying to be realistic. I've been following these news for about a decade, so I believe I was exposed to a healthy dose of caution. It serves no purpose to hype things and be too optimistic, it only makes the inevitable disappointment worse.

Getting hyped up encourages us to try and get there, and it is more fun than being overly cautious.

Agreed. Water (and oxygen from the lunar soil) could potentially be a valuable export if a lunar base is constructed. Other materials from the Moon could also be exported to the Lagrangian points or to low Earth orbit. (I think I need to include a small glossary to the opening post...)

I know this is going to sound dumb, but what makes lunar Oxygen and Water valuable? The only way I could see that it would have any value is if there were a colony on mars that used it to sustain itself.

My opinion is this: it's a very good thing in principle to try to reduce costs by engaging truly private, independent companies instead of the same old heavily subsidised aerospace contractors with lobbyists everywhere, who will charge you $1000 for every nut and bolt and pretend that's "cheap". Yes, space agencies should be more like customers - they should define what they want to accomplish, and then buy/order the necessary hardware in an open bid from someone who offers the lowest price. That's the only way to kill the cost spiral of death that's been stifling space exploration for decades.

On the other hand, if anybody thinks a private company will invest billions from its own pocket to send people to Mars for no profit whatsoever, that somebody is delusional. The government(s) need to provide money to generate the necessary impulse to do things, the drive to go somewhere. Without it, it will take centuries for us to really go beyond LEO.

Just my two eurocents.

But the government, atleast the American Government, has already invested the most it will invest, and is only going to reduce spending on space programs. The only way we can get into space is if there is something valuable there. That is why I think the future is in the private sector. Currently the companies creating cheaper and more reliable ways to get to the International space station, or to let people fly really really high in the Atmosphere, are the best hope for the refinement and cost reduction of the technology used to go into space. So when some value is found on mars or on the moon, that technology will be there to help make the final push to really get things going.

 

[Quackers]

**reads winner's response**

Looks like I will never get to space then

But if I do rescue Salma Hayek, i mean....I am allowed to keep her forever rite?

 

[red_elk]

Agreed. Water (and oxygen from the lunar soil) could potentially be a valuable export if a lunar base is constructed. Other materials from the Moon could also be exported to the Lagrangian points or to low Earth orbit. (I think I need to include a small glossary to the opening post...)

Yes, just to clarify I didn't mean drilling water on Moon for exporting it to Earth - that would be strange.
I meant getting water (and oxygen, as you said) for people's needs on Lunar base, in case it will be manned.
That can be realistically cheaper than supplying those materials from Earth.
In any case, the main purpose of such base would be scientific, not industrial.

Even if there was gold bars stacked up on the moon it wouldn't be worth it to send someone to retrieve them (although there will probably be one of these gold nuts doing it anyway, then).

This is almost exactly an example which I was about to provide.
I was thinking that if people found on Mars something like 100,000 tons of diamonds, already packed in containers, ready for transporting to Earth - then maybe there would be some incentive for private companies to invest in gathering materials in Space.

 

[Veles]

Sounds cool. Our first step is to try to locally recreate Earth conditions on the Moon with oxygen and water as a minimum. Then we could invent something to make Moon's gravity capable of holding an atmosphere. We could bring junk from Earth and use thermonuclear synthesis to turn it into water. There will be rivers, seas and oceans. We'll bring plant seeds, they would adapt and produce humus, mutating in the process into something new and awesome. Human bodies would adapt to lunar conditions too, so we would have entirely new subspecies of human race. Eventually moon would be a flourishing gem of our star system. It's gonna be soo awesome

But what if Moon's increased mass would cause disturbances and huge tides will destroy coastal cities on Earth? Omg, we better think something up, before it's oo late

 

[Winner]

Other planets are our uninhabited continents.

But they are not, that's my point. You can probably make an analogy between the early modern transoceanic voyages and today's interplanetary travel (both took months and were dangerous), but you can't make the same analogy between planets and Earth's continents.

The most inhospitable continent on Earth is still a lush tropical paradise compared to the most habitable planet besides Earth in this solar system. Other places are even worse. And as you well know, Antarctica has never been permanently settled - exactly because there was nothing there that would attract settlement.

This really is something we need to understand before we make our case for humans expansion in space, because this argument is and will continue to be thrown in our face. Ignoring it won't help.

Getting hyped up encourages us to try and get there, and it is more fun than being overly cautious.

Nah, overly optimistic expectations just lead to major disappointment, which is followed by anger an apportioning of blame. That isn't a good basis for a sustained efforts in space. In my opinion.

I know this is going to sound dumb, but what makes lunar Oxygen and Water valuable? The only way I could see that it would have any value is if there were a colony on mars that used it to sustain itself.

Water can be electrolysed into hydrogen and oxygen, the most powerful propellant mixture for use in conventional rockets.

Oxygen itself is useful, because oxygen is by weight the greater part of most propellant mixtures. You usually need 3 to 6 times more oxygen (by weight) than the stuff you're burning it with (hydrogen, methane, kerosene, etc.).

Now, launching stuff from Earth to low Earth orbit requires roughly 3 to 4 times as much energy as it takes to transport the same amount of stuff from the Moon to low Earth orbit. It's more economical. Thus, if you need 100 tonnes of propellant to send a spaceship from low Earth orbit to somewhere else, it makes sense to bring ~80 tonnes of oxygen from the Moon, while you only have to lift ~20 tonnes of hydrogen from the Earth. You will save a lot of energy this way, and thus lots of money.

But the government, atleast the American Government, has already invested the most it will invest, and is only going to reduce spending on space programs. The only way we can get into space is if there is something valuable there. That is why I think the future is in the private sector. Currently the companies creating cheaper and more reliable ways to get to the International space station, or to let people fly really really high in the Atmosphere, are the best hope for the refinement and cost reduction of the technology used to go into space. So when some value is found on mars or on the moon, that technology will be there to help make the final push to really get things going.[/QUOTE]

The only reason private companies in the US are developing orbital vehicles is that NASA (=US government) has offered them contracts to transport cargo and people to the ISS (the COTS programme). Without this government spending, there would be no private orbital spaceflight. That's the reality I am afraid.

I don't share your pessimism concerning governments. In democracies, governments do respond to public wishes. If space advocates make their case publicly and do it right, then NASA might be allowed to do what it should be doing again.

 

[red_elk]

I'm optimistic, I hope to live long enough to see a Moon base (perhaps automatic, without people).
And manned spaceflight to Mars, maybe even with return trip.

 

[dot80]

I'm not sure about a Moon base, but I do think I'll live long enough to see a manned flight to mars.

 

[Crezth]

@dot80

SpaceX has spent hundreds of millions on failed rockets and employs NASA for consultation extensively. It is literally a non-example of private enterprise replacing NASA.

The basis for the private sector to take over is still lacking. The role of governments is hardly exhausted and will remain necessary for some time to come. Private enterprise won't do anything with the technology before them because the gap between "private space shuttles" to hard profit is astronomical.

I'm personally of the persuasion that NASA and like bodies need the support and capital required to continue blazing forward and jump the last few hurdles between our current situation and cheap, profitable space flight. I've maintained in other threads that the perceived failings of NASA (and they are plenty) are due largely to a lack of support from Capitol Hill, and can be reversed through a significant change in our country's political priorities (aka a miracle).

I'm glad to Crezth here. I have a question about part of the Mars landing challenge.

What is it about the transition from Mach 5 to <1 that is so tough? Is there something unique about crossing the sound barrier(s?), or is it simply the technical challenges of automating the deceleration of that magnitude in that environment?

Winner hit the nail on the head with this. The thinner atmosphere is what really does it.

Is there any way a sub orbital flight and a full on orbital flight will ever become affordable in my lifetime?

Absolutely, but the way is not clear.

 

[dot80]

That wont happen. Why should we prioritize space when there are a ton of other issues that need prioritization? Healthcare, economic recession, and the increasing number of wars we are involved in are just a few of the issues that must take priority over space. I doubt constituents will support a candidate who wants to sink more money into a program that nets no gain for the general population. Atleast in the cold war we were beating communism, now what are we doing?

 

[kramerfan86]

That wont happen. Why should we prioritize space when there are a ton of other issues that need prioritization? Healthcare, economic recession, and the increasing number of wars we are involved in are just a few of the issues that must take priority over space. I doubt constituents will support a candidate who wants to sink more money into a program that nets no gain for the general population. Atleast in the cold war we were beating communism, now what are we doing?

Knowledge is power, the amount of money properly funded NASA needs in still miniscule relatively speaking. Its a low risk high reward potential.

 

[Whomp]

The university I went to, University of Arizona, has always been a top notch space research school. It has to be enormously depressing for the professors, students and state to see how things have developed. Can you guys comment on the contribution the school has made and a little about these current programs?

U of A's Lunar and Planetary Laboratory is actively involved in five spacecraft missions: Cassini; the Phoenix Mars Lander; the HiRISE camera orbiting Mars; the MESSENGER mission to Mercury and OSIRIS-REx, the first U.S. sample return mission to an asteroid, which was just selected by NASA.

 

[pi-r8]

One thing space cadets need to understand is that any comparison or analogy between exploring/settling space and the European settlement of the Americas are largely fallacious.

Why? Well, America offered a pretty fast return on investments. Simply put, anyone who invested into colonization, be it a government (Spain, England, France) or a non-governmental subject, could expect to get something out of it relatively quickly.

And of course the New World already had people living there, proving that it was easy for humans to live there. A colony in outer space would be more like starting a colony in the middle of the arctic ocean... only much colder and without any seafood or breathable air or liquid water or gravity.

 

[History_Buff]

That wont happen. Why should we prioritize space when there are a ton of other issues that need prioritization? Healthcare, economic recession, and the increasing number of wars we are involved in are just a few of the issues that must take priority over space. I doubt constituents will support a candidate who wants to sink more money into a program that nets no gain for the general population. Atleast in the cold war we were beating communism, now what are we doing?

We should prioritize space because it's really cheap, and it has an amazing ROI. Absolutely amazing ROI. Think of all the things that came out of the funding for the space program. Then realize that the full lifetime budget of NASA is about $850B. Over 50 bloody years. That's nothing. Right now, NASA gets less about 0.1% of the budget, which is a travesty.

Go watch some NDT videos. He'll set you straight.

Link to video.

Edit: even better video, with article: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137277/neil-degrasse-tyson/the-case-for-space


Link to video.

 

[Crezth]

That wont happen. Why should we prioritize space when there are a ton of other issues that need prioritization? Healthcare, economic recession, and the increasing number of wars we are involved in are just a few of the issues that must take priority over space. I doubt constituents will support a candidate who wants to sink more money into a program that nets no gain for the general population. Atleast in the cold war we were beating communism, now what are we doing?

I don't know. What are we doing by incorporating tax-breaks for the very wealthy?

The university I went to, University of Arizona, has always been a top notch space research school. It has to be enormously depressing for the professors, students and state to see how things have developed. Can you guys comment on the contribution the school has made and a little about these current programs?

Around here, anyway, the University of Arizona is considered a well-respected institution for its contributions to the field of aerospace and a go-to for space research. But I'm not sure if that's what you wanted to hear.