But no matter how you want to idiotically mischaracterize it, “Flexible Path” is not “Look But Don’t Touch.” It is a plan to allow us to go affordably and sustainably wherever we (and our inheritors) wish in the (or at least the inner) solar system, including planetary surfaces, if we can raise the money and motivation for the additional hardware necessary to do so. And we’ll certainly be able to touch Phobos, Deimos, and near-earth objects, whether to move or mine them.
[Wednesday morning update]
If you follow the above link, you’ll see that Mark continues to fantasize that I have a “chain,” and that I “leap the length” of it. He should really broaden the range of his clichés, not to mention finding some that have some basis in objective reality. It’s of a part with his imaginary friends in the “Internet Rocketeer Club.”
Whether to move them or mine them? Here is my preferred description for an NEO operation
Tag ’em
(with a radio transponder)
Snag ’em
(make contact and gain control)
Bag ’em
(If small enough, an NEO could be completely enveloped in something like Bigelow fabric to facilitate mining and capture outgassing materials)
Then . . .
Drag ’em
(To avoid another Tunguska)
Frag ’em or Slag ’em
(Harvest materials)
Thus a motto for NEO miners.
We Tag ’em, Snag ’em, Bag ’em, Drag ’em, Frag ’em and Slag ’em.
Additional rhymes encouraged.
Where in the documents released by Augustine 2.0 does Look but Don’t Touch specifically allow for landings on the Moon or Mars? I read that landings on bodies with “large gravity wells”, that is to say the Moon and Mars, are specifically precluded. Even for you, this snarky post is a big reach.
If people aren’t excited about the possibilities of Flexible Path than they just haven’t thought enough about it. At Mars, for example, you could increase the quantity of exploration by at least an order of magnitude by longish-term human presence in orbit or on one of the Moons enabling virtually instantaneous telepresence observations on the surface (to say nothing of the ability of humans to generate completely new observation data of the planet itself based on close familiarity. Once you have that capacity, sample return looks a hell of a lot more do-able–you can build robotic stations piecemeal in interesting locations and use humans to rendevous with samples launched from the surface.
Telepresence is fine and certainly should be included but if we don’t land and develop a new home it’s just like flags and footprints… easy to abandon at any moment. We need to develop a new economic sphere if we want to see expansion. We need to be doing things that are not so easy to abandon.
We nearly lost hubble. Why? Because it’s only money. But a living society is not so easy to abandon.
Our goal in space should be families and babies. Or is that too visionary for some folk?
“Our goal in space should be families and babies. Or is that too visionary for some folk?”
What planet are your family and babies living on?
Ken,
Adults can’t even survive in zero-g for very long. We have no idea whether a pregnancy is even possible in zero-g, let alone what the long term health effects to that child would be. The Isle of Doctor Moreau is less visionary than your idea.
—
Mark,
You can call Flexible Path “Look but don’t touch” if you want, but I get to call Constellation “Get there (maybe), but don’t stay and never go back”, okay? Thanks.
Flexible Path builds a foundation that can be built up later. Constellation builds nothing that will last. Behold, for NASA is Ozymandias – look on their works, Ye Mighty, and despair!
“Thus a motto for NEO miners.
We Tag ‘em, Snag ‘em, Bag ‘em, Drag ‘em, Frag ‘em and Slag ‘em.
Additional rhymes encouraged.”
I supposed the Snoop Dogg inspired crowd of spacefarers would appeal to:
We fo’shizzle drag’sizzle yo’ asteroid’nizzle.
Brock, I’m not suggesting zero-g. I’m suggesting 0.38 g which is as close to Earth normal as we are going to find outside of a centrifuge.
Granted, Mark is silly, but his post does highlight a potential line of political attack against Flexible Path. In their final document (and Obama’s announcement speech, if his administration chooses Flexible Path) the committee should be certain to make abundantly clear that Flexible Path leads naturally into exploration of planetary surfaces, and would make such exploration much more sustainable than it would be otherwise.
The next objectives needs to be things like 100 people living in orbit, 100 ton of extraterrestrial resources returned to LEO for space based mining process development, closed cycle orbital green houses, large orbital assembly hangers, orbital depots, high ISP drives.
This is a complete shift in focus from the current destination emphasis, and I have to suspect that the world at large will not do so – that it will be left to a few smaller splinter groups to actually do the hard work. Unfortunately I see this lack of infrastructural goal orientation greatly slowing down our progress out into space.
We first need the tools and the base camp, nothing else much matters until we have them. People talk of space infastructure, but it is not as well defined as a destination, does not grasp the imagination to the same extent – this needs to be remedied in the public eye.
A prize for the first 100 person space station might be a good start – something to make the space infrastructure objective more tangible and motivating.
Bringing say 100 ton back to a LEO space station where we can start developing space refining and manufacturing systems might be another big one. Developing these space resource refining and manufacturing systems is probably the hardest development project required to become a space fairing civilization. As such we need to start as soon as possible and we need to create an environment where as many people as possible can get their hands dirty solving it – that means doing it in LEO where we might prototype and test every day with daily deliveries from Mcmaster. This will require a Manhattan style program based in space – and that is what we need to now build.
But how to change the world focus away from flags and footprints to space settlement? Flexible path is good – but it needs teeth.
Pete.
Centrifuges are pretty cheap in space. A habitat module, a piece of string, a counter weight and a lift. Unlike an Earth building the habitat module is all in tension – much lighter. Indeed one would have to go fairly large before a standard habitat module would even require additional reinforcing (beyond floors and a tether attachment point). And we will likely want to develop rotovators anyway. There is a huge amount of stuff to develop, we really need to get up there, set ourselves up, and start doing it.
Space infrastructure is a space development program, not an Earth development program, it has to be led from space.
Pete.
Re: The beyond LEO subcommittee’s charts:
1. Doesn’t the “Flexible Path” make sustained Mars expeditions MORE likely? I mean, I like the idea of building sand castles on Mars as much as the next person, but I like even MORE a base anchored to Phobos and / or Deimos (lots less delta vee) from which one can (perhaps) do insitu production.
I would further like those two moons to have tethers stabilized with gravity gradients to demonstrate the benefits of non-propulsive momentum transfers to / from spacecraft.
I would like tele-operated insitu propellant production and storage on Mars. THEN I would like a reusable, refuelable Mars / Phobos shuttle.
THAT, it seems to me, is a more sustainable option. Out of all that, what technology would we need, that we would not need for a Mars surface only mission? And its marginal cost would be?
I’m not sure even that will be enough. I would not even rate it likely.
The only place in our solar system where I think we might have a chance (other than an O’Neil cylinder) is Venus. The upper cloud deck is the same temperature and air pressure as Earth with 0.91 g. A very large geodesic sphere (miles across) with Earth normal air pressure inside would float at just the right altitude and you could build a city on the inside with breathable air.
Of course that’s not any closer than an O’Neil cylinder, but I think it’s more likely to work than a city on Luna or Mars.
I would say “Yes”, as long as you’re okay with a one-way trip for the people. It would certainly easier to keep dropping more supplies onto them as they build up the settlement until it can make its own food and power.
The “Flexible Path” is true Lewis-and-Clark style exploration.
Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say, James T. Kirk style exploration: boldly going where no man has gone before.
This is the sort of exploration NASA did in Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo.
The current Constellation plan calls for astronauts to build a base and sit there. Like ISS, this base would have no purpose except to build itself, and like the ISS astronauts, its crew would not be going anywhere NASA hadn’t gone decades before.
The “Scenario E” timeline shows:
* A lunar flyby in year 2,
* A 21-day mission to the Earth-Moon L1 point in year 3,
* A 30-day mission to the Sun-Earth L2 point in year 4,
* A 90-day mission to the Sun-Earth L1 point in year 5,
* A 190-day mission to a Near Earth Asteroid in year 6,
* A 304-day mission to another Near Earth Asteroid in year 7,
* A 440-day Mars flyby in year 8,
* A 780-day mission to Phobos/Mars orbit in year 10, and
* A 491-day Venus flyby in year 11.
Except for the lunar flyby, which is obviously a warmup, all of these are destinations “where no man has gone before.”
There are repeats, either, thus avoiding the let-down that NASA experienced after the first Moon landing.
If NASA is going to be doing exploration, this is the type of exploration it should be doing.
Brock said, with regard to Earth normal gravity and atmospheric pressure The only place in our solar system where I think we might have a chance (other than an O’Neil cylinder) is Venus.
Although not germane to the near-term, this isn’t really true. There are other places in the solar system where you can find Earth normal gravity or pressure or even both. Look up the stats on what it would be like in the clouds of Uranus and Neptune. And here’s what Robert Forward said about
Saturn at the end of his unfinished autobiography:
“www.robertforward.com/Fast_Forward_Fifty_Years.htm”
Saturn Rukh is the name of my last novel. It is primarily an exercise in the possiblity of life on Saturn. Back in 1961, I wrote my very first story on the planets in their order. I was intrigued, even then, by Saturn, which is two-and-a-half times the size of earth, but is mostly gaseous. I learned that something the size of humans could float comfortably in balloons in the upper atmosphere of the planet. Further, if clad in a wet suit and with an adequate supply of oxygen, a human could dive into the interior of the planet and eventually reach a stage of equilibrium in which the gravity would be just like earth’s, and so would the temperature. The atmosphere, of course, would be mostly ammonia and other harsh substances, so the explorer would need full space-suit equipment.
Edward said “There are repeats, either, thus avoiding the let-down that NASA experienced after the first Moon landing.” Presumably you meant no repeats. I’m not against this path, but I’d guess that the visits to the different Lagrange points will seem like repeats, and I’d also guess that they would seem like let-downs — with the exception of one or two somewhat novel views of the Earth (for a crewed mission), they’ll seem a lot like space station missions. Unless a) there is either something interesting at the Lagrange points — dust or even small rocks might make things “interesting”, and maybe not in a good way or b) if they do something interesting at the Lagrange points, but what?
Regarding the “look but don’t touch” stupidity, given the flexible architecture, it wouldn’t be difficult to add a small lunar lander like the Gemini “bug” or the JSC Human Lunar Return lander.
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/lmllight.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/z/zhlrllv.jpg
Such a vehicle is closer to the LLC competitors than the ginormous Altair lander, so I would be surprised if NASA or someone else didn’t do it at some point. (Of course, the concept of NASA doing a joint mission with the private sector will also be foreign to Mark’s mindset.)
Nevermind the dust/rocks idea — I was thinking L4 & L5, which I note aren’t on the schedule to be visited.
Edward Wright writes:
If NASA is going to be doing exploration, this is the type of exploration it should be doing.
Whoa! We agree! When has that ever happened?
With something as unusual as this happening maybe I can hope for a Chicago Cubs versus Chicago White Sox World Series.
White Sox in four, of course.
Unless a) there is either something interesting at the Lagrange points — dust or even small rocks might make things “interesting”, and maybe not in a good way or b) if they do something interesting at the Lagrange points, but what?
A mission to the Earth-Moon L1 could make detailed observations of the local space environment, verify its suitability for as a node in future Earth-Moon transportation systems, deploy a test article for a future propellent depot, deploy a prototype communication or navigation satellite for future lunar explorers, etc.
A mission to the Earth-Moon L2 point (not listed, but another obvious possibility) could make observations of the lunar farside as well as deploying an additional communication node.
The Sun-Earth L1 and L2 points are home to many astronomical satellites including the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, Advanced Composition Explorer, Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, Plank Observatory, and the future Herschel Space Observatory, Gaia probe, and Webb Space Telescope.
The Sun-Earth L1 and L2 missions might inspect, repair, or upgrade any of those satellites; conduct additional astronomical observations using their own instruments; or deploy a subsatellite with new astronomical instruments.
The Sun-Earth L1 point is also of interest to environmentalists as the site for the Deep Space Climate Observatory (Triana) and Roger Angel’s proposed Sun Shield. An L1 mission might deploy and test a prototype sunshield component.
That’s just off the top of my head.
Ed, thanks for the thoughtful answer. What strikes me about most of your suggestions is that they could be done unmanned. Manual repairing/refurbishing satellites is good, but from a “wow!” point of view, it has already been done in LEO by Shuttle astronauts. Not that NASA should necessarily be going for “wow”, but that’s the aspect of your comment that I’m responding to (the let-down effect).
Edward said “There are repeats, either, thus avoiding the let-down that NASA experienced after the first Moon landing.” Presumably you meant no repeats.
Yes. Also, “verify its suitability for as a node in future Earth-Moon transportation systems” should be “verify its suitability for use as a node in future Earth-Moon transportation systems.”
My view is that all of the plans presented are easy to subvert. I like the “flexible approach” specifically because it has more trouble defending its funding. My view is that a good part of the problem with the US space program is that too much of the funding has been secured (via international agreement or interlocking support requirements by multiple programs) from change and cancellation. That is, the funding has been “locked in”. Hence, there is less need by the people who run the program to keep the program relevant to US interests.
My view is that the somewhat more precarious nature of the flexible approach makes it superior to other proposed approaches precisely because it needs to exert greater effort to show relevance.
Should not NASA be sponsoring the exploration of the solar system as opposed to doing it itself? Is that not the standard practice? (Columbus, Amundsen, Scott, Lewis and Clark, Hilliary and Tensing, etc.) Private adventurers can take their own risks and run their own exploration missions.
The cost of losing a NASA astronaut is far too high for NASA to be in the exploration game directly. The job of NACA should be one of building infrastructure and sponsoring private exploration. Where are the spaceships private adventurers can buy to go exploring?
It has been suggested “Look but don’t touch” will whet people’s appetites. Once they’ve seen orbital missions, they’ll want landings or so the theory goes.
Should not NASA be sponsoring the exploration of the solar system as opposed to doing it itself?
I don’t disagree with that but as I said — *if* NASA is going to do exploration, this is the kind of exploration it should do.
Not establishing the Lunar Department of Housing and Urban Development and calling it “exploration.”
I don’t want the “Flexible Path.” I want the “Golden Path.” Some NASA dude will cover themselves with “sand trout” and turn themselves into a kind of human-sandworm hybrid, able to leap across the arid surface of Mars without a space suit.
Adults can’t even survive in zero-g for very long. We have no idea whether a pregnancy is even possible in zero-g, let alone what the long term health effects to that child would be.
Brock: On the Moon or Mars, artificial 1G gravity is about as hard to engineer as a carnival ride. It’s the will to do it that’s lacking. As for pregnancy in zero-g, maybe we can test on Earth to see if the womb is survivable under conditions of neutral buoyancy.
You still have a gravity gradient even if you are neutrally bouyant Sam.
Diving and Zero Gee are not completely the same.
When diving you body wants to be horizontal or vertical for the most part. Zero G does not care.
Bob-1,
I hadn’t realized that about Saturn and the further out gas giants. How counterintuitive! They’re so much larger than Earth I had just assumed a crushing gravity like Jupiter, but apparently not.
I still see two major problems with the outer gas giants as colonization targets however. One is much less solar energy, so some sort of local fuel would be necessary. Nuclear is the obvious candidate for now, and fusion later, but it would have been nice to have a “free” source of energy. The other problem is material resources. You have to build the colonies out of something, and the gas giants would need to have anything heavier than their atmosphere imported (probably from an asteroid). Venus at least has a surface to mine, even if by machines only.
But still, very cool. Thanks.
Some additional comments: The atmospheres of the gas giants have enough organics to make all sorts of useful plastics. If you believe in Helium-3 as a viable power source, then it is worth noting that there are ample supplies of it as well. I’m not sure if water can be obtained from the upper atmosphere’s of uranus and neptune (I’m guessing not, although there are “oceans” of it further inward) but in any case, there is ample water in the outer solar system, particularly in orbit around each gas giant.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_the_outer_Solar_System
and look in the references section for clickable links to papers you can read on the subject.