SpaceX to NASA: Don't 'Fly Russian'

[AJ Dual]

Yes, but in the long run it would save billions or trillions.  Look how long the B-52 and C-130 have been flying.

The Space Shuttle was supposed to save billions with it's reusable components too. I think in a nutshell it's that you can't look at a B-52 and decide to make a good air-breathing reusable first stage, make it have twice the payload, twice the operational ceiling, and twice the speed (if any of those doublings is even enough...) and then hope and pray that it would be even ten times the cost.

The problem is that such an aircraft would still have an enormous logistical trail, and need constant inspection and maintenance between each flight. The more you pour into the "up front" development costs of the air-breathing mother craft, you just get uber-expensive bleeding edge technology that needs ever more upkeep. Rutan and Scaled Composites have a good start, but once you re-size the concept to get a multi-person crew into orbit, or a Space Shuttle bay-sized payload, it scales really badly.

I think the main problem has been political, at least as far as NASA is concerned. 

We're in absolute agreement there. 

I remember reading somewhere (don't know now if this is true) that the original plan for the shuttle was something air launched, but the up front development costs were so huge that they fell back to "off the shelf" type vertical launch technology.  (I've also read that all the 1950s air launch technology was just tossed aside in order to race to the moon :( )

The earlier 50's and 60's Shuttle on a Shuttle concepts with winged first-stages may well have been worse than the final form the Shuttle took. At least with the External Tank, and SRB's, one fails some step of the refit process, another can be put into it's place. If the Shuttle sucks, why put it on an even bigger one?

The shuttle, by any reasonable cost and time analysis, has been an unmitigated failure.  It has never been "operational" in the true sense of the word, and the per pound cost for payload for the "re-usable" shuttle exceeded multi-stage throw away rockets.  :rolleyes:

Given enough time and free enterprise funding, Rutan and Co. are going to get there.  Right now they are about where we would have/should have been about 1963 if NASA hadn't started doing the human cannonball approach.  By now, we probably would have had routine civilian orbital space stations, "shuttles" to the moon, and trips to Mars.

I hope so, I just want any of these ventures to succeed, a few of them to foster even more competition would be even better. As far as "McDonald's on the Moon", it's always been a cart-n-horse problem. There's been a lack of space exploitation due to a lack of cheap launch access, but there's a lack of cheap launch access due to a lack of space exploitation. Round and round we go...

[Tallpine]

Part of where I think they went wrong is making the shuttle a cargo vessel.  It's probably a lot cheaper to just blast tonnage into space, without first wrapping in a huge aircraft structure.  How often do we need to bring cargo down from orbit ? 

A little 6 or 8 seat commuter might make some sense.

[agricola]

Part of where I think they went wrong is making the shuttle a cargo vessel.  It's probably a lot cheaper to just blast tonnage into space, without first wrapping in a huge aircraft structure.  How often do we need to bring cargo down from orbit ? 

A little 6 or 8 seat commuter might make some sense.

Low Earth Orbit and the unhealthy focus on it bears a lot of the blame here.  IMHO its probably best to either purchase or just licence Soyuz or Jules Verne for the purpose - they are both (Soyuz especially) proven technology and to waste any more money on what is basically showboating would be as criminal as the switch to LEO originally was.  Getting a proper heavy-lift capacity back would allow at least some orbital assembly of craft.

Whats needed is to refocus on manned exploration of the solar system, starting with the moon.  If you are going to throw billions and billions of dollars / euros / roubles into space exploration then it really should be aimed at stuff that seizes the imagination.  Robots are helpful but they are not the be all and end all of space exploration.

[Manedwolf]

Whats needed is to refocus on manned exploration of the solar system, starting with the moon.  If you are going to throw billions and billions of dollars / euros / roubles into space exploration then it really should be aimed at stuff that seizes the imagination.  Robots are helpful but they are not the be all and end all of space exploration.

I think what is needed is to make it pay for itself. Once we reach the asteroids, it sure as hell will. Many out there are incredibly rich in platinum group metals, and whoever gets there first can stake a claim.

At this rate, China's going to get there first.

[agricola]

I think what is needed is to make it pay for itself. Once we reach the asteroids, it sure as hell will. Many out there are incredibly rich in platinum group metals, and whoever gets there first can stake a claim.

At this rate, China's going to get there first.

The Chinese are still (admittedly they have a lot less unknowns to encounter) around where the USSR was in 1965 - they are not that much of a threat now, though if NASA keeps being gutted (Obama was at once stage suggesting a five-year hiatus in the Constellation programme, which would effectively kill the US manned space programme) then they (or a resurgent Russian space programme) will be. 

I would also disagree that the belt is that much of a goldmine - it is nowhere near as dense as portrayed in films (all of the trans-belt probes have negotiated it easily). IMHO the planetary bodies will be where the money is made, after all you have an entire world to mine in. 

[MechAg94]

The planets might also provide some method of being self sufficient. 

[Manedwolf]

The Chinese are still (admittedly they have a lot less unknowns to encounter) around where the USSR was in 1965 - they are not that much of a threat now, though if NASA keeps being gutted (Obama was at once stage suggesting a five-year hiatus in the Constellation programme, which would effectively kill the US manned space programme) then they (or a resurgent Russian space programme) will be. 

I would also disagree that the belt is that much of a goldmine - it is nowhere near as dense as portrayed in films (all of the trans-belt probes have negotiated it easily). IMHO the planetary bodies will be where the money is made, after all you have an entire world to mine in. 

Belt? There's plenty of near-earth asteroids that may well be easier to get to than the Moon. Send sampling probes to those, mine the ones with platinum group metals.

[agricola]

Belt? There's plenty of near-earth asteroids that may well be easier to get to than the Moon. Send sampling probes to those, mine the ones with platinum group metals.

Even the closest near-earth asteroids would be considerably more difficult to get to than the Moon, which is after all reasonably close and a reasonably big target. 

[AJ Dual]

Even the closest near-earth asteroids would be considerably more difficult to get to than the Moon, which is after all reasonably close and a reasonably big target. 

The problem with the Moon is that it's somewhat light on the periodic table. A lot of Titanium and silicates. And no tectonic activity to keep churning up the heavier stuff to the surface as on Earth. The great thing of course is what everyone knows, the moon is prime real estate. As they say, "Location, location, location."

Rendezvous with an asteroid is no problem, NASA/JPL already has a great deal of experience with that. I have no idea if anyone's realistically tackled the technical challenge of how to dig, or refine/smelt ore in zero-g. Then, moving either the ore or the asteroid to a commercially lucrative orbit can easily wipe out any profit, or take years of waiting.

It may be possible to send an automated probe that constructs mining and refining facilites out of the asteroid material itself, and/or builds solar panels and an electromagnetic mass-driver to either launch ore pellets back to Earth or wherever it's desired, or act as a rocket to move the remainder of the asteroid itself.

However, now we're talking both pie-in-the-sky technology, and huge sums of money and a long period of time to realize a return on the investment. Also, such an asteroid so outfitted would not only be a mine, but a rather potent weapon. Either the launched ore pellets, or the whole asteroid itself.  :|

Although, such high levels of automation, engineering, and materials handling may be post-Singularity technology, so the current crop of economic and military paradigms may not even be applicable anymore.

[agricola]

The problem with the Moon is that it's somewhat light on the periodic table. A lot of Titanium and silicates. And no tectonic activity to keep churning up the heavier stuff to the surface as on Earth. The great thing of course is what everyone knows, the moon is prime real estate. As they say, "Location, location, location."

Rendezvous with an asteroid is no problem, NASA/JPL already has a great deal of experience with that. I have no idea if anyone's realistically tackled the technical challenge of how to dig, or refine/smelt ore in zero-g. Then, moving either the ore or the asteroid to a commercially lucrative orbit can easily wipe out any profit, or take years of waiting.

It may be possible to send an automated probe that constructs mining and refining facilites out of the asteroid material itself, and/or builds solar panels and an electromagnetic mass-driver to either launch ore pellets back to Earth or wherever it's desired, or act as a rocket to move the remainder of the asteroid itself.

However, now we're talking both pie-in-the-sky technology, and huge sums of money and a long period of time to realize a return on the investment. Also, such an asteroid so outfitted would not only be a mine, but a rather potent weapon. Either the launched ore pellets, or the whole asteroid itself.  :|

Although, such high levels of automation, engineering, and materials handling may be post-Singularity technology, so the current crop of economic and military paradigms may not even be applicable anymore.

The Moon's usefulness will probably be more as a launchpad to the rest of the solar system than a place that gets mined, but even so I would wager that it holds more mineral wealth than all the systems asteroids combined.  Mars probably holds several orders of magnitude more than that.

As for the technology, mining on a planetary body (asteroid mining is as you note currently pie-in-the-sky) should not be that much more different than it is on Earth for the most part (excepting Venus, Mercury and the gas giants for the moment), nor should refining.  Transportation would be the problem - unless you were talking about especially rare or expensive items one cannot imagine at current prices moving the stuff about being worthwhile.  It would probably make more sense to use it on site.

As an aside, did you know that Paulson's bailout would have paid for three full Apollo programmes? 

 

[AJ Dual]

The Moon's usefulness will probably be more as a launchpad to the rest of the solar system than a place that gets mined, but even so I would wager that it holds more mineral wealth than all the systems asteroids combined.  Mars probably holds several orders of magnitude more than that.

As for the technology, mining on a planetary body (asteroid mining is as you note currently pie-in-the-sky) should not be that much more different than it is on Earth for the most part (excepting Venus, Mercury and the gas giants for the moment), nor should refining.  Transportation would be the problem - unless you were talking about especially rare or expensive items one cannot imagine at current prices moving the stuff about being worthwhile.  It would probably make more sense to use it on site.

As an aside, did you know that Paulson's bailout would have paid for three full Apollo programmes? 

 

Mining on some of the other moons or planets might be easier than Earth in some ways, no pesky Oxygen to screw up your metals. And while mass is mass is mass wherever you go in the Universe (I hope...) everywhere you or a machine can stand in the solar system has lower gravity than Earth, which means machines won't have to lift as hard, and assuming sufficient fuel or energy, launch costs are less too.

Mercury, it's no worse than the Moon if you make some shade, and there's tons of solar power to be had. Venus, making machines last down on the surface is problematic, but OTOH, you have a 900 degree head start on whatever it is you're trying to smelt.

The asteroids have certain economy too. If there are simple ways to refine and smelt ores in microgravity, the launch costs are almost nothing if you're willing to wait. A slug of ore certainly will be patient, it certainly won't spoil. And you can make mylar mirrors of most any size you care to, so perhaps a solar smelter is possible.

And planetary destinations with atmosphere do confer some savings. I see no reason the ore or refined metals couldn't be fashioned into flat aerodynamic frisbee shapes, and aerobraked at Earth, Mars, Titan, or into orbit about any of the gas-giants.

As far as measuring bailouts in Apollo programs... meh. It's fiat money anyway. And an average nickle-iron earth crossing asteroid is worth something on the order of four trillion dollars on the world's metal markets, assuming you can get it to market for less than that. 

[Regolith]

Unless the ore is available as rather large nuggets (which seems unlikely), refining is going to have to take place on sight out of sheer necessity.  Right now you have to process almost 7 tons of rock to get a single troy ounce of gold, for instance,  and you have to go through almost 210 tons to get a troy ounce of platinum.  Although platinum exists in higher concentrations on the moon and asteroids, you're still going to have to go through a LOT of rock to get to the metal, and it'd be extremely inefficient to haul all of that rock to earth in order to do smelting.

It'd be easier to do the operation on asteroids, I think, simply because you won't need massive amounts of rocket fuel to get the refined ore back to earth.  The moon is a little worse, but due to its low density and proximity to earth it wouldn't be all that bad.  Mars would be difficult simply due to it's distance from earth along with its higher escape velocity.  Venus I think would be more trouble than it's worth, and require some pretty far out technology.

[mfree]

Hrmm. It's a vacuum; all you'd need to do as far as smelting goes is heat the rock to a temperature where the bonds break and keep it there a while until outgassing is done.

Your main heat transfer method out of anything in space is radiative, it'd take far less energy to keep something molten out there than it would on Earth.

[Tallpine]

The moon is a little worse, but due to its low density and proximity to earth it wouldn't be all that bad.

Plus you would have all these neat tunnels when you were done

[mfree]

Speaking of tunnels, anyone know how to do the math to figure out how deep a tunnel in Mars would have to be before the atmosphere packed itself in to a habitable level?

[bk425]

I was thinking the same thing...  :|

-And- while making his "keep those dollars at home" pitch he asks for 300-400 million more in "investment"? Maybe I should be happy that he wants less pork then GM, but, Uhm... no. It turns out I'm not. bk (supports private space development) 425

[AJ Dual]

Speaking of tunnels, anyone know how to do the math to figure out how deep a tunnel in Mars would have to be before the atmosphere packed itself in to a habitable level?

At roughly 1% of Earth's atmospheric density, and roughly 1/3rd the gravity, I think the answer is "way deeper than would be worth it".

[mfree]

Well, the original thoughtline was that if we're doing massive construction on Mars then we've got some awesome technology by then, and a couple miles/tens of miles deep tunnel could be enough to gain habitable pressure... but oxygenated air would be lighter than the native atmosphere so there's be a little J-hook in the tunnel not unlike a plumbing trap.

You wouldn't even need a door. You'll trap a habitable atmosphere on Mars by gravity alone, and can filter in some outside air for a bank of plants to keep the O2 levels up.

I mean, we already have boring machines here that'll run pretty much indefinitely with enough electricity, and there isn't any geological activity to worry about... if there's groundwater and runoff that's even kind of a plus since it's going to make a natural seal for the habitat. Heh, could even just drop far enough so that standing water wouldn't escape the tunnel and then use the habitat's water supply as both the air seal and the pressurization mechanism.

[Balog]

Is there a safe way to use some type of nuclear source to power a space vehicle?

[Manedwolf]

Is there a safe way to use some type of nuclear source to power a space vehicle?

What do you think powers the probes?

Radioisotope decay.

Though actual reactors are forbidden by test ban treaties. That's what killed the Orion design, using sequential hydrogen bombs to get to Mars in a couple months tops.

[Tallpine]

Is there a safe way to use some type of nuclear source to power a space vehicle?

Not for launch, but for interplanetary/stellar travel starting from orbit.

actual reactors are forbidden by test ban treaties. That's what killed the Orion design, using sequential hydrogen bombs to get to Mars in a couple months tops.

Are you serious?  I thought the "Orion" was the Russian nuclear rocket from "Deep Impact"

[MicroBalrog]

Project Orion

[MicroBalrog]

I still think the company is the opposite of Scaled, and is vaporware. Dude, on one of their launches that didn't just blow up completely, the first stage sep HIT the second stage bell and caused an unrecoverable oscillation. They don't have their s__ together and won't for a long time.

I would like to say here that SpaceX had a successful commercial launch yesterday.

[AJ Dual]

I agree, SpaceX is coming along nicely.

And when it comes to their failure record, what I look for as a red flag is repeated failures. As long as they're learning, It's good.

And a few more successful launches, their learning curve is orders of magnitude better than either NASA's or Intercosmos's ever was. 

[HankB]

The shuttle, by any reasonable cost and time analysis, has been an unmitigated failure.  It has never been "operational" in the true sense of the word, and the per pound cost for payload for the "re-usable" shuttle exceeded multi-stage throw away rockets.  :rolleyes:

I wonder how much of that was due to political interference with both the engineering and science . . .

* Various congressmen wanted a space center built on the left coast. NASA spent billions on construction of another shuttle launch complex, which, immediately on completion, they decommissioned. But there were quite a few extra construction jobs for a while out there.

* Woodpeckers started pecking at the tiles on a shuttle. All the bedwetting handwringers in charge couldn't come up with a solution, so they delayed a launch and spent plenty of money on woodpecker abatement programs. (Note that a couple of guys with BB guns would've solved the problem immediately.)

* A Florida company proposed a seamless casing for the SRBs, which would be refilled on the coast and floated down by barge to NASA. This was rejected, as Utah senator Jake Garn (a former astronaut himself) got "rail transportable" written into the requirements. Guess what - Morton-Thiokol (a Utah company) got the contract to make a segmented, rail-transportable SRB. An SRB sprung a leak at a seam, and 73 seconds into takeoff, a shuttle blew up.

* NASA switched to a "green" foam to insulate the fuel tank - a foam that was known to come off in chunks, as reported on NASA's own website. But it was GREEN, so they COULDN'T change back. A chunk hit the heat shield of a shuttle during take off and knocked a hole in an orbiter, and on re-entry . . . scratch another shuttle & crew.

And following the "iceberg principle" (9/10 of an iceberg is below the surface) there's probably a LOT more we'll never hear about.