…to the moon. Thoughts from Dennis Wingo (who I’ll probably see in Anaheim this week — maybe even today).
This reminds me of Mike Griffin’s ridiculous comparison of Constellation to the Interstate Highway System (not to imply that Dennis’ analogy is in any way ridiculous).
Honestly, no. I hadn’t even heard of you until a couple of months ago.
And yet you feel you can represent my opinions.
However, I can’t let this slide. What the hell does sniping from DIRECT or anyone else have to do with the current state of either Project Constellation or private sector spacelift?
Wow, so now I have to explain to you how poisoned Constellation was from the start and how much better it could have been if NASA wasn’t full of dissenting assholes who would rather see the death of the agency than have an imperfect architecture advanced over their own (apparently perfect) ideas for government funding?
I have to explain to you that COTS only got as far as it did because it was a side-show for scraps and didn’t threaten the status quo?
Spinning its wheels? It’s the friggin’ budget cycle.
And now you’re indicating how completely oblivious you are of how damaging even the indication that the white house was against the program.. I gotta wonder, do you even read anything that Rand writes? I think he’s done a great job summarizing what is going on in the space industry right now, yet you seem to be oblivious to even the overall picture.
When Obama came in, there was serious consideration to just cancelling all human spaceflight and ending the program. Why? Because there was no credible message of progress.. one bunch of experts were saying everything was going swimmingly and the other group of experts was saying everything is fucked. The policy makers, thankfully, decided to put together a panel to synthesize some sort of consensus. Did you catch any of that or were you off in dreamland making up stories of your own?
I don’t know what this fabulous treasure is that I’m supposedly looking at
Exactly.
I’d really like to know what “it” is.
A new world and is potential.
Your argument is twofold. It can’t be done.
No, I never argued that is couldn’t be done. In fact, I stated quite clearly that it could be done.
You can’t make any money doing it.
I never said that, either. You can make money doing — *if* and *only if* you spend less money than you are able to take in. That’s why CATS is important. I don’t understand why Moonies and Marsies can’t see that. You guys are own worst enemies.
Also, no. But I can certainly read what you’ve written, and bottom line you are for:
1. for cancelling Constellation, and
2. for Flexible Path.
Let me know if I got it twisted.
I don’t recall asking you to explain a damn thing. I did ask you what you were willing to sacrifice in order to move commercial crew and cargo forward. I’m still waiting for the answer.
Not sure how you get that from a point made about budget cycle in response to your claim that NASA’s been spinning its wheels for eight months, but hey…you’re on a roll.
I’m pretty positive you’re well past the point where you read anything someone writes before replying to it.
I’m at complete loss here. Where are you headed with this?
For the love of God, already. Please, please…point out anyone here arguing against cheaper spacelift or that commercial is the way to get there. At most, there’s only two areas of serious disagreement (at least in this part of the blogosphere:
1. whether destinations matter, and
2. where to get the money to bring commercial through to the last mile.
For the first step beyond low orbit, I think the answer to 1 is clear. The Moon is by far has the most accessible configuration of minerals, volatiles and sunlight. For 2, I say go for the low-hanging fruit–a clear half of NASA’s budget has no real constituency on the Hill.
Presley Cannady,
If your definition of economic and engineering “practicality” boils down to maintaining these least expensive, yet still survivable, quality of life, you might could consider houses to be impractical luxuries given the ubiquity of cardboard boxes.]]]
[[[If that’s the case, why aren’t we all content to live on oil rigs? Settlement requires a standard of living more adequate than that you’d provide to temporary or rotational inhabitants. It doesn’t have to be ostentatious, but it most certainly provide its inhabitants with more modality in life than you’d find cooped up in a small apartment building. We aren’t going to space to live in more Spartan conditions than even our settler ancestors.]]]
You really have no idea what Asimov proposed do you? Please read the articles I cited. Both are available in major libraries, especially university ones. Asimov habitats are not cardboard boxes nor are they oil rigs. The are fully functioning communities with plenty of space for raising kids. The difference is that unlike Dr. O’Neill, Issac Asimov realized that in space there is no limits to the size of a movable object but energy which is abundant in space. So why anchor something in a single orbit like a city stuck on Earth when you are able to make it mobile, and mobility opens up huge economic advantages?
The other point is that life is much more livable in small towns then mega cities. So instead of designing for tens of thousands of inhabitants in a habitat like O’Niell did (and bringing all the social and political problems of big cities with you…) you baseline around a population of 500 to 1000. Small enough everyone knows everyone, but large enough to cover the critical skills needed. In doing this you produce a much higher quality of life then you will ever get in an O’Neill habitat.
[[[Depends on the size of the rock you intend to fling back. To build livable settlements, you’re going to need big ones. The geology of the rock matters insofar as how you arrange your pusher plates, and the more massive the rock the less you even have to worry about it.]]]
You won’t be shipping rocks back, you will be shipping processed metals and manufactured products back. Standardized goods in standardized sizes.
Why do you want to ship mega tons of waste products around the Solar System. Think of it in terms of commercial logistics not just moving rocks around. Even the highest grade asteroids will likely to be more then three quarters waste. or more. Why do you want to ship waste millions of miles when there is no need to?
Presley Cannady,
[[[That’s precisely the problem. ISS cost $100 billion over a decade and a half, and yet there isn’t a cent of quantifiable return for the effort.]]]
Of course that decade was spent building it. The Large Hadron Collider didn’t produce any scientific results while it was under construction.
Of course one of the problems with ISS is that now its been completed NASA decided to scrape the Shuttle, eliminating the system most suited to delivering scientists and experiments to the ISS and returning them to Earth. The Soyuz will be lucky to provide the support needed to maintain it even with the help of the new cargo carriers, when they come online. And even in the best case Soyuz will be it for the next few years. Its hard to do quality science when the experimenters have no practical way to reach their lab or transport their experimental gear.
The more I review the CAIB results, the more I believe their recommendations were based on emotions and politics and not on reason.
Where are you headed with this?
The solar system and all the rocks in it (out to about one L.Y.)
So why anchor something in a single orbit like a city stuck on Earth when you are able to make it mobile, and mobility opens up huge economic advantages?
Because, unless you have a Dean drive, you need reaction mass. Reaction mass means you do not have an economic advantage, quite the opposite. That doesn’t mean you can’t do it, people live on ships right here on earth; but most people don’t.
There are many niches and filling them all is to the greatest advantage; but there’s a reason populations gather in cities.
Ken,
Cost of reaction mass is only an issue if you are lifting it out of a gravity well. Once you start asteroid/comet mining it will be a byproduct of your production process. Also ion and plasma drives are very efficient. Not to mention nuclear rockets…
BTW if cost of reaction mass is a factor it makes even more sense to do your processing at the asteroid/comet then shipping mega tons of waste rocks around the Solar System.
Reaction mass has to be processed to be suitable for use by specific engines. It also has to be many multiples of the mass of your ship. Neither of those is insignificant even in zero G.
Yes, mining operations will likely produce more byproduct than product, but that doesn’t make it all useful as reaction mass. Again, I’m not saying it can’t or wont be done (I’m hoping it is and relatively soon.) I’m just saying, economically it’s a drag.
if cost of reaction mass is a factor it makes even more sense to do your processing at the asteroid/comet then shipping mega tons of waste rocks around the Solar System.
Agreed. But even more sense to locate operations close to all the diverse minerals you need. Name a place besides earth or mars where that’s true. Asteroid resources will seldom be less than a day away.
Honestly no, but I infer that it’s similar to what you’re proposing. I strongly suspect that Asimov didn’t propose a sweet volume for habitat. Of course, you could always just summarize his ideas.
To minimize transit energy and time between your communities.
1. Tens of thousands is hardly a mega-city.
2. I don’t recall arguing that habitats should necessarily and always be large. I do argue that they should be near to one another to facilitate mutual growth, “near” defined by the expedience of the most commonly available engine.
Manufactured goods? With transit times that expand to months on outset? There’s a reason there wasn’t an oak rocking chair leg to the Atlantic triad during the age of sail.
You do have a point where it concerns processing mineral resources on site, though I question whether the effort to return the entire prospect is costlier than the effort to sustain the plants needed to mine it. I imagine that’ll depend on when man starts conquering the rocks and the tools he’ll have at his disposal.
Don’t necessary want to; my understanding though is that nukes are cheap–far cheaper than trade with far flung settlements.
Ken Anthony
You are thinking in terms of chemical rockets with high G acceleration. You need to think in terms of advanced propulsion and low G (1/100) acceleration.
1. ISS has boarded full scientific expeditions for a decade.
2. Not sure what scientific result has to do with the complete and continuing failure of ISS to show a return on the $100 billion sunk into it. And we pretty much know LHC is running down the same road.
Presley Cannady,
[[[Honestly no, but I infer that it’s similar to what you’re proposing. I strongly suspect that Asimov didn’t propose a sweet volume for habitat. Of course, you could always just summarize his ideas.]]]
Hmmm, then you really should look up one of those articles. I have basically summarized, design your space communities so they are mobile. Use asteroids resources to build new ones.
[[[Tens of thousands is hardly a mega-city.]]]
No compared to Earth, but big enough to start bring on the problems of large cities.
[[[Manufactured goods? With transit times that expand to months on outset? There’s a reason there wasn’t an oak rocking chair leg to the Atlantic triad during the age of sail.]]]
Both Rum and molasses are classified as manufactured goods, as were most of the trades goods used to buy slaves.
Even today it often takes toys, electronics and clothing 2-3 months to make it from Asia to Europe by ship, then they are often stored in their containers for months longer until Christmas sales start. Most manufactured goods are not very time sensitive. The key is to have a steady pipeline.
[[[Don’t necessary want to; my understanding though is that nukes are cheap–far cheaper than trade with far flung settlements.]]]
Nuke may be cheap in space, but far less predictable. And if you make a mistake it may be hard to stop that big rock heading towards you…
As for cheap trade between far fling settlements, in space you don’t think in terms of time, but in Delta Vee and its cost. In the 17th Century it often took tea and other goods a year or more to make it from Asia to Europe. But trade and traders prospered. Integrated circuits shipped from the asteroid belt will create wealth just as well. And cost a fraction to ship compared to even a small asteroid using nukes.
in terms of advanced propulsion
Yes, I realize you can grind it all into dust, ionize it and get high efficiency. Which is fine for a small probe, but moving a human habitat? It would be great to get a hundredth of a G but you won’t. A few oz or lb of acceleration will take forever to go from one place to another. Time is the limiting factor even if you had one G torch ships. All that time traveling is time humans will not be available to maintain the equipment (which for industrial applications tend to break down rather frequently.)
Oh, and some of that ground up dust might be too valuable to eject as reaction mass except for emergency use. You really do have to process some of it further.
in space you don’t think in terms of time, but in Delta Vee and its cost.
A business person has to consider all the variables and it matters. However, I do agree that many products are not as time sensitive (especially those with a futures market.)
Ken,
[[[All that time traveling is time humans will not be available to maintain the equipment (which for industrial applications tend to break down rather frequently.)]]]
Its a mobile space settlement. That means the humans are in it as it transitions from one location to another. And will be available to fix any equipment which needs it.
Also time is a factor of how long you accelerate. 1/100 G adds up nicely if you are not crawling out of a deep gravity well or descending into one. That is why VASIMR is able to cut a trip to Mars to weeks from the months required for chemical rockets. And it uses hydrogen as the propellant, not dust.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2007/11/vasimr-engines-plus-200-mw-of-nuclear.html
You’re making my point Thomas. If it’s not using dust, it isn’t using all the byproduct. If hydrogen or any other element is your fuel, it has to be processed.
Week does not equal hours… big handicap.
If all humans and equipment stay with the habitat… that’s weeks of nonproductive down time.
If they leave equipment behind to keep humming… that’s breakdowns.
If they leave humans behind to keep the machines going… that’s quite a life away from friends and family. I know, you’re captain and the margaritas keep a coming but think about those poor guys.
Yes, 1/100 G does add up, but you can’t get away with less mass than a particular Isp allows. Assume hydrogen is your fuel and you’ve got a nice comfy (massive) habitat. You won’t be able to see your ship because of the huge bag of hydrogen you’ll need for the dV.
Again, I think there are solutions and hope to see it happen, but a whole lot more people will choose to live in marsport.
Ken,
[[[If hydrogen or any other element is your fuel, it has to be processed.]]]
Yep, a waste product from cracking water to get Oxygen for other processes. And from other industrial process.
[[[If they leave humans behind to keep the machines going… that’s quite a life away from friends and family.]]]
Its a space settlement, not a space ship or an oil rig. Your family is with you. Your friends are with you. Think of it as a town, not a ship.
[[[You won’t be able to see your ship because of the huge bag of hydrogen you’ll need for the dV]]]
Again its not a ship, its a settlement. And why do you want to see it? To take pictures for PR? Yes, the fuel may well “block the view”, but it will already be blocked by the radiation shielding… or are you still thinking terms of Dr. O’Neill’s crazy glass palaces?
[[[Again, I think there are solutions and hope to see it happen, but a whole lot more people will choose to live in marsport.]]]
Marsport depends on finding solutions to prolonged exposure to low gravity and to the toxic Mars soil. And radiation since the water on Mars will make underground habitats difficult. Asimov Habitats don’t need breakthroughs, just straight engineering. And they give us the entire Solar System, not just one small planet.
The bigger the ship (sorry, settlement) the more reaction mass you need to get around. They aren’t going anywhere at 1/100 G. We can start mars colonies with off the shelf stuff today. Your settlement is a scaling up that is way down the road.
It also seems your eyes are bigger than your stomach. One small planet will keep us busy for hundreds of (or much more) years while at the same time creating the economics that allow you to build your Asimov RVs.
Toxic soil just gives us a challenge to work on. Radiation is a challenge everywhere (but easier when you have that toxic soil handy to work with.)
Not just off the shelf… already in orbit. A Bigelow habitat and a SpaceX upper stage is 95% of a complete ship.
Back. Had to finish the move to the new apartment.
Yes, I know. Yet I’m not convinced that a settlement model in which the population is distributed across wildly differing orbits through the solar system compares favorably to one in which they are concentrated and expand spherically outward. At this point, we need to go to numbers.
Depends on the population density, which is still going to pretty damned high in these small colonies. On the other hand, I really don’t think this is a terribly important point to consider in deciding a strategy’s feasibility. People will make do.
I’ve never heard of a food product being classified as a manufactured good. What did transit were luxury items and weapons from a developed node to an undeveloped one (i.e., New England to Africa); in other words, things that the undeveloped partner lacked the industry to provide for itself.
Commodity trading in space is a dicey enough proposition as it is; your largest export market for the foreseeable future is Earth. You’re competing against dirtside manufacturers that already meet demand with orders of magnitude worst transportation costs. Even if you could identify some killer commodities in space, your far flung factory loses to anyone who buys the raw material and processes them in an Earth orbiting facility material.
Try three to eight weeks for trans-Pacific transit along a shipping line between Shanghai and Los Angeles. And that’s just the prepositioning pipeline you mentioned. Exporters combine normal shipping lines with fast sea and air freight to deal with buzz demand, in which case their median turn around can fall as short as two weeks. For raw resources–say crude–the prepositioning pipeline is probably all you need. The margins for overstocking on supply near refineries is much lower than say over-ordering a bunch of Taiwanese Barbie dolls, which is one reason why crude is such a fungible commodity.
Now I’m not envisioning affordable next-day freight in space, but there is a continuing opportunity cost to *transit time* you need to take into account. Unless the cost of moving raw resources near Earth is absurdly high, then you should expect processing resources near Earth is more economical than transiting finished commodities.
That’s an engineering problem, and as best as I know not a prohibitively expensive one to solve or otherwise insurmountable.
Because 17th century trade was principally agricultural, typically pre-Green Revolution in character. Today, you can grow tea, soy, wheat, etc., damn near anywhere, increasing the fungibility of the commodities markets. That is why traders as saw their prosperity skyrocket over the years.
Really? So Earthers will buy ICs from Belters as opposed to Californians?