The Marshall Institute is going to have a forum on the subject. However, considering that all the panelists (not to mention the moderator) have a dog in the SLS/Orion fight, I’m not encouraged that the discussion will be very interesting, when SLS/Orion are actually the biggest barriers.
42 thoughts on “The Barriers To Deep Space Exploration”
Comments are closed.
I don’t think you need to be particularly skilled with the crystal ball to predict that this will degenerate into a “just send more money, provide less oversight (in the form of cancelling bad programs), and give us a destination that allows us to keep raking in the profits from uncompeted contracts that our Congressional lap-dogs helped write into the laws”…
~Jon
Biggest barrier to actual deep space* exploration: Nobody’s invented faster-than-light travel yet.
Without that, deep space exploration is going to be pretty back-burner, low-budget stuff – because it’ll take so damned long to get any returns – which means we’re not getting a whole lot of it.
Near space, though, that’s another thing.
(* Using the normal definition of “outside the solar system”.)
If you mean “normal to 12 year olds”, then yes.
FTL is not required. That’s the basis of the Fermi paradox.
Giving people freedom to pursue their own happiness fills the entire galaxy long before the age of it.
It says “panelists include” and then several people from legacy aerospace companies, but it does not say that that is all of the panelists. Presumably there could be others from NewSpace on the panel as well who were simply not mentioned in the press release.
Assuming “deep space” means something akin to “beyond cislunar space” or “no longer orbiting the earth-moon barycenter”, what are the barriers to a manned presence in these locations? These will likely fall into several categories: economic, political, technical, to name a few. This could actually turn out to be a useful exercise, as once the barriers are identified they can be methodically removed.
There is only one barrier which certainly is not technical, that’s simply a challenge to overcome. It’s not political since government at this point is no longer required. Government has already done all it needs to do. It can help or hinder but it can’t really change the course we are on.
It’s not economic. The barrier is thinking it’s economic. The barrier has already been overcome. Now all it requires is patience. Unless this mindset is not overcome in which case we wait until the sun swallows our planet and we all die with a handful of people having ring side seats… and dying as well.
Governments may eventually send probes to the nearest stars, but the way we expand into the galaxy is by families changing stars in the comingled Oort cloud of stars over many generations… not by any intentional plan to explore the galaxy. Unless of course FTL does get discovered.
Hopefully medical too.
I think the medical barrier is mostly in our minds. Zero G is definitely harmful but that gives us no reason to believe that 0.38g is not in a range humans can adapt to. It’s a bit like those that wring their hands about plants being to adapt to 10 psi. I’m at 7000 ft. I can walk out the front door and show you plants for as far as the eye can see that not only adapt to 10 psi but feed herds of animals as well… but they still wring their hands???
Why is it suddenly humans must have Standard Temperature and Pressure when humans have never all lived in STP?
Radiation? Large doses in short duration can kill and that’s what must be avoided. Otherwise, radiation is required for life and we shouldn’t be afraid of controllable amounts spread over a lifetime, especially when we can mitigate it easily in most cases.
Toxic chemicals? Everything is toxic at some level. We know how to protect ourselves. We just need to do so. Dust? Dust!? We are going to be living in sealed environments always (most likely) so the only problem is when we leave those environments. Since we already do this type of thing right here on earth (I worked for a year in Tucson for a company that kept positive pressure in the building 300 people worked in and filtered all the air within every few minutes.) We will not need that level of protection which only existed because of the potential for law suits. Not because it was really required to mitigate the toxicity.
Perhaps deadly microbes that will kill us all exist out there? Perhaps the aliens will get us? So do we cower and never attempt to go? You do your best and take your chances. That’s living. Anything else is dying.
I can comment on two of the issues; pressure, and dust.
Pressure; living at 10 PSI is not a problem. I’m at about 10 point 5 PSI right now due to the altitude of my home, and so far as I’m aware, I’m still alive. (So yes, I totally agree, 10PSI is fine).
Martian dust; this one does concern me. Our Lunar experience shows us that that kind of dust gets into everything (including spacecraft interiors – it rides in on things like spacesuits that have been outside). An airlock that included a shower to rinse off spacesuits and equipment would solve the issue, as would having the suits remain on the habitat exterior and having the astronaut climb into it via a hatch into the suit. I’m sure there are other ways, but dust is a concern, though one that can be addressed.
Today we don’t see it much in modern construction but houses used to be built not only with porches (sometimes enclosed) but many also had an entry room before you got into the house proper. We can expect something similar to this for houses built on mars which are already at positive pressure relative to the outside. Dust will likely cling to spacesuits electrostatically but these suits wouldn’t normally go into the house beyond the entry and can be cleaned regardless.
A huge difference between martian and lunar dust is that mars dust is fine and soft edged where lunar dust is course and sharp edged. Wetting mars dust may be all that is required to remove any danger.
Remove your galoshes before going into the house proper may be heard on both planets.
We simply have to use our best knowledge to mitigate and oversupply the colonists who will be in the best position to figure out how to deal with the dangers. Mars can kill you. It’s not like we don’t already know that.
The real problem is that the boogie man might getcha.
There are several barriers to deep space (beyond Earth-Moon) right now. I’m primarily focused on manned exploration. One of the barriers is technological. We need better propulsion, life support and other systems that can operate with very high reliability for years. Those can be solved with time and money. There may be medical barriers. Those may be solvable either via more research or better propulsion to shorten travel times. Again, you need time and money.
The biggest barrier, IMO, is the money. Who is going to pay for it? If you’re looking at a government program, then perhaps the biggest barrier is political. It’s hard to get the government to back a long development effort when there doesn’t appear to be much political payoff. Government involvement also just about guarantees that it will cost more. The alternative is private development and the question once again becomes, who is going to pay for it?
It’s hard to get the government to do it, is a good thing. An opportunity of a lifetime. We had that with the government ignoring the internet for a long time. Now they look at it like they look at everything else; a source of money and power (and with the ACA, embarrassment.)
Yes, money is always a barrier but more psychological than real. The day somebody with the resources says ‘I’ll do it’ it disappears. Look no further than Tito and Inspiration Mars for one example of that. The day after our fiat money collapses (the ponzi scheme borrowing is unsustainable. It will collapse.) $100 billion for a mars colony will look like a deal (how much is a planet worth?) Centuries from now it will be the biggest of all deals. But it doesn’t take $100b. Done by the private sector it’s only single digit billions. Something a single (very rich) person could finance. Musk didn’t even spend one billion to get SpaceX started.
A ship in orbit pays for itself as leased space. We are just waiting for a period of uncertainty to pass. Then you will see dozens of habitats in orbit from half a dozen companies… because it will be very profitable. A $200m cost will return that much profit every six month, forever. Operating and interest cost is paid by just one or two customers out of a potential of 36 annual customers (taking the BA330 as an example which is no where near optimum.)
One ship in orbit gives you mars in about a decade. Cost is not the barrier. Uncertainty is.
“There are several barriers to deep space (beyond Earth-Moon) right now. I’m primarily focused on manned exploration. One of the barriers is technological. We need better propulsion, life support and other systems that can operate with very high reliability for years. Those can be solved with time and money. There may be medical barriers. Those may be solvable either via more research or better propulsion to shorten travel times. Again, you need time and money. ”
Why not do the wrong way.
The wrong way would use a lot rocket fuel rather propellent efficient Ion or nuclear which are said
to better than chemical rockets.
So if go to Mars with non-existent fusion rocket in say 3 month travel to Mars in 3 month using chemical rockets [the kind of rocket used].
It seems if going to Mars, as general rule one should start from High Earth orbit rather Low earth orbit. Or when we want to go to Mars, crews on board, all systems check, the path starts with a sort lunar return trajectory back to Earth, except you miss the atmosphere, and you applying the rocket thrust when nearest the earth at the highest orbital speed.
So you “starting” from about 3 km/sec faster than compared to LEO.
So if doing major program to Mars, one isn’t going put everything on one rocket a blast off from Earth
to go to Mars. You going do some kind assembly/docking in space, and high earth seems better in many ways than compared to LEO.
If trying to leave earth and need about 10 km/sec of delta-v, if you needed 3 km/sec less delta-v or
7 km/sec of delta-v, thus make leaving Earth a different ballgame. Similarly with leaving Earth to go to Mars [or wherever].
The next thing you do wrong is don’t use hohmann transfer. There no way of getting to Mars faster than 6 month using hohmann transfer trajectory- cause that is 8 months, and only by modifying a hohmann transfer [patched conic] can you get to Mars in 7 month [as has been done with]. Nor if you using a undeveloped fusion rocket engine would use a hohmann transfer. But if want to go to Mars in 3 month, it will not be similar or some kind of “patched” hohmann transfer.
Instead we want to do the 18th century way- the wrong way.
If cannons could fire something at 20 km/sec or more from the Earth surface [impossible] how would shoot it at Mars, assuming you want reach Mars the quickest travel time.
If the cannon did 12 km/sec, you use hohmann transfer. If cannon only did 25 km/sec you use what?
With the 12 km/sec you fire cannon in same direction as Earth orbit. If fire it at 90 degree to Earth orbital path, it will not reach Mars distance. Because you add 12 km/sec vector at 90 degrees to a 29.8 km/sec. It does if one adds 25 km/sec at 90 degrees to 29.8 km/sec.
So one is wasting delta-v altering vector- but you arrive faster, because the path is shorter.
So it’s wasting a lot chemical rocket propellent and going in wrong direction.
BUT if you not “instantaneously” adding delta-v, will also will be going in wrong direction- spiraling out is constantly going in “wrong direction”. Ion rockets same thing. Anything which does not have high thrust [or accelerate the spacecraft at couple gees]involves going in wrong direction and gravity loss.
So I sort of mean, a suborbital trajectory to Mars. Or said differently matching the trajectory of orbit which could similar to say, hohmann transfer from say Mercury to Mars.
If leave from Mercury on hohmann transfer to Mars it takes a shorter transit time, than leaving from
Earth to Mars. If the Mercury to Mars trajectory passes near Earth, and send spacecraft to match this trajectory you get to Mars quicker than compared from Mercury [it’s portion of travel time the Mercury to Mars transit time]. And then arrive at Mars with little different in your velocity as compare to Mars’ velocity.
So if Mercury’s orbit wasn’t at angle [making it difficult] and was instead on the solar plane as is Earth and most planets, then “peoples” on Mercury could get faster to Mars using a true hohmann transfer than peoples on Earth using true hohmann transfer to get to Mars. Though from earth orbit
it takes less delta-v [ around 1 km/sec less].
And to match the trajectory of Mecurcy to Mars hohmann transfer at earth distance does require a lot of Delta-v, but with chemical rocket and starting from high earth it is doable.
Why is going the wrong direction and wasting vast of amounts chemical rocket fuel
a “good way” to go to Mars?
So first this only applies to crewed vehicles.
And with Manned Mars program, the mass of crew delivered to Mars
surface is basically insignificant compared to everything else you need
to get to Mars surface. So, less than 1/10th of mass which will be needed.
And longer crew stay on Mars surface, the more insignificant the mass
of the crew are. Of course large portion of mass is “for the crew”- where
sleep, what they eat, water, manned rovers, power supply, etc. etc.
And the longer it takes crew to travel from Earth to Mars, the more mass
is needed for the crew to stay alive. Which includes maybe creating artificial
gravity, or exercise equip and space to do it, water or recycling water, food,
sheilding, etc. So there a big difference between stuff needed for crew,
in a travel time of 3 months vs 7 months. Or it’s twice the mass [or more].
Or more twice, because risk/complexity and crew discomfort/debilitation
add more mass. Example: if sending crew for 3 month journey, one could
have smaller crew. The per seat cost go up with less crew, but question
is how many do want on Mars surface at the beginning, is 2 as good as
4 or 6 at the beginning. One might want base which holds dozen crew
but do you dozen at the beginning of start of the base.
The advantage of a crew on Mars, is if this crew can control spacecraft
which is near Mars, you don’t have the light speed delay as compared
“crew” on Earth controlling something hundred of million of km distance.
So a small crew can help build a bigger base. So first crew could more focused
on the logistics of the Manned mars program, rather than focused on “exploration
and/or science”. And perhaps or perhaps not by the 10th year or longer into
Manned Mars you think of lower the cost per seat, by having larger crewed
spacecraft. So ever increasing the capability of the Mars base. And I think
the focus should be to keep the crew on mars for as long as is reasonable,
so +4 years. And of course have emergency abort as emergency option.
So if one deal 1/10th of mass and tripe the cost of this 1/10th, you not
significantly added cost to the entire program. And you eliminating
costs and shortening time of beginning of program.
So first crews, if getting there in 3 months, don’t need worry much about
microgravity effects- no more than crew going to ISS for 4 months, has
be concerned about it. Nor is radiation any more significant than crew
going to ISS for say 6 months or year. One doesn’t one focus much recycling
water. And all waste can be dumped just prior to Mars arrival [it’s radiation shielding]
and/or crew leave the vehicle for the capsule which lands on Mars.
Or going to Mars in 3 months would like going some close space rock which took
3 months to travel to.
The cost of rocket fuel to high earth, can be fairly minor in terms of program cost.
The cost of fuel depot developed to for LEO, could higher than cost to deliver
rocket fuel to high Earth for one manned trip to Mars.
Or how develop a fuel depot could cost more than cost of shipment of rocket fuel.
So rocket delivery in terms of mass could be about 2 billion. Or entire cost to
send crew to Mars could be 2 1/2 billion per seat and you have 2 seats: 5 billion.
So said maybe you want to lower the per seat cost to 1 billion, but it’s particularly
important in the beginning of Mars exploration. So add more seats, one could
even go slower to Mars, once there already a Mars base crewed at Mars. These
are modifications and “improvements”. I would get to Mars first and maybe worry
about them later.
I thought the biggest barrier was the gravity well.
Indeed. which is why I don’t quite understand many people’s desire to leave this gravity well in order to go and live in another one on Mars.
Back in the days when Mars had canals and plants and bikini-clad princesses to rescue, that would have made perfect sense, but today it looks like a place to avoid, not a place to head to.
No bikinis, just harness to hold weapons and gear.
You can’t quite understand that desire, but Ken Anthony and Robert Zubrin do; and Paul Spudis thinks that the moon is obvious; I’m primarily interested in the very shallow gravity wells of asteroids. I’m sure others are more interested in the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. All of these are worthy.
I think the biggest barriers may be psychological. For decades, huge defense contractors and the deep pockets of government defined the manned and robotic presence in space. There are a few chinks in the armor here and there commercially, but for many people space will continue to be viewed as “something NASA does” or “something governments do”.
Computers used to be viewed the same way, back when they were the size of a gymnasium. More than the technical problems, it took a psychological shift: the idea that people could have a computer in their homes. It was technically possible years before it happened, with only a few hobbyists tinkering away.
I think we’re at that tinkering hobbyist stage with space exploration, and just about to head into that psychological shift, where people start to see it as something they can do themselves, and not just the space cadets who populate forums like this one.
This idea that only governments can “do space” is at the root of the humans-vs-robots debate and moon-vs-mars debate: if only governments can do it, and they have to pick only one, then everyone has to fight for their idea to be the one chosen. If instead the average person starts to see it as something they can get involved in personally, then who cares if it’s robots vs humans, or Moon vs Mars? It’ll all get done simultaneously.
Why can’t I find bikini pics on mars? No, princess Leia was never on mars and those green girls are orions, not martians. That barsoom girl with all the tatoos never wore a bikini.
Why? why? why.
Here ya go, Ken. You’re welcome.
Yup. That qualifies.
Trying to get out of the Earth’s gravity well using chemical rockets is roughly similar to trying to cross the Pacific Ocean in a canoe. It can be done, but it’s just barely feasible (I wouldn’t be surprised if there were more people who crossed the Pacific in a canoe than have gone into earth orbit. Depending on how you define “canoe” and “cross” there is probably more like two to three orders of magnitude more people who have crossed the Pacific in a canoe than have gone into orbit). What’s the going rate to orbit now? $50 million/ton? (it’s a messy number to pin down–I think you need to factor in the cost of the launch site and equipment and development and the pay of the workers–not just the incremental cost of the rocket) That could be reduced by maybe a factor of 10-20 if there was a market and the government didn’t interfere. But a better answer would seem to be to not use a canoe.
A beautiful insight Ed (one of your many) to which I’d like to add: The justification for early microcomputers and living on mars is exactly the same… people want it (200k+ now signed up at Mars One) and the cost has already come down enough that nobody else is forced to pay for it.
Of course there’s a difference between $10k and $10b. But the same justification exists in both cases. The same denial of that justification exists as well. Why would you spend thousands of dollars on a hobby when real computers are only for government and really big companies? How blind are we? Even the maker of those big computers didn’t see the need for many of them and no need at all for people to each have one of their own.
Yes you can buy land on earth for $20 an acre and it’s much easier to live there than on mars. But mars offers something to some people that can’t be found on earth even if the land were free here on earth (which is happens to be on mars.)
FreeDOM. That is not spelled FreeDUMB. People that don’t get it, just don’t. Many never will, even after millions are living off the earth.
As for chemical rockets and canoes. We can always do better. Never in history have we waited even when better was completely within our reach. We don’t NEED cheaper access to space. What we need are more billionaires. Don’t worry, Obama is definitely working on that (as have most politicians since WW2.) Wheelbarrows of money for a loaf of bread is not just a bit of history. It’s our future.
Too much? Definitely. But all true. Ed I hope you get your asteroid.
Living in a gravity well? What have you got against the earth?
I forget that some are not old enough to remember that we did spend $10k in the early days for something not as powerful as your cell phone (not your smart phone, just a dumb cell phone that only makes calls. Mine can play angry birds even though it’s not a smart phone.)
Regarding necessary pressure, it would appear that it’s partial pressure of oxygen that’s important. For a habitat with natural plant growth this would also need CO2 and probably nitrogen (the last because nitrogen-fixing bacteria are important in ecologies). O2 partial pressure of 3 psi has been used for long periods with no issues; it’s quite possible that 2 psi would do – as others have commented, that’s roughly the oxygen partial pressure that people need to survive quite readily.
Another important variable is humidity; too high or too low are both potentially somewhere between unhealthy and dangerous.
What partial pressure of nitrogen is necessary? AFAIK the real answer to this is “we don’t know”. As in, nobody’s done the experiment – although an upper limit for this can probably be guessed by noting that plants grow up to around 4500m if other conditions are met.
Low pressures would cause minor problems with such things as cooking and washing, of course. I remember that way back when, when I was living for a few years with my parents on the High Veldt of South Africa (around 1600m) my mum was forever complaining that she couldn’t make a decent cup of tea. 🙂
She should have gotten a pressure cooker…
By raiding a bone yard for the fuselage of most any retired business jet, you can get a workable pressure vessel that you can attach to your house and use as a kitchen, pressurizing it with a cheap air compressor and eating off a tray table to avoid opening the door and letting the sea-level pressure escape. Is the ideal solution, technically, architecturally, and operationally? I like to think so.
That would mean having to boil the tea. Shame on you Rand! 😉
Semi-seriously, I imagine that the same would apply to coffee – and that cooking times would become unmanageably long (and also cooking wouldn’t be as reliable as it should be for making food safe) at that sort of pressure. Pressure cooking would be necessary, no doubt.
Following on from that – pressure cookers are a hazard. Both in terms of the possibly of nasty burns and also that pressure cookers can and do blow up if not regularly inspected or if misused – perhaps by weighing down the relief valve. I’m not sure, but believe that regular replacement for frequently-used pressure cookers might be necessary. Metal fatigue and all that.
Most spacecraft are thin skinned. It would be a terrible shame to lose one to depressurisation caused by exploding cooking implements…
Further to that, there are probably many things like this that are taken for granted living in an Earthly environment and would become a problem living in space. We almost certainly won’t catch them all.
Perhaps some sort of discussion group might be set up, to think of minor but serious problems such as this.
I used to work with a guy who lived in Divide, Colorado which is roughly 9,000 feet (~2740 meters) above sea level. He cooked spagetti in a pressure cooker. Cooking it in an ordinary pot took over 30 minutes at that altitude.
Now you know one of the things martians will do for fun. You can’t get a decent pizza at this elevation but if you couldn’t get a pizza at all somebody would figure it out.
So, did anyone attend or watch this thing and have any reports?
So how deep is that deep space? Why do all the panelists look like they come straight out of SLS/Orion?
I think we may have gone off the deep end here.
We
almostcertainly won’t catch them all. FIFYThat’s why we don’t study the issues to death. Better to let those onsite figure out the issues.
In other words, I imagine newly arrived colonists can expect an orientation briefing from earlier colonists (not something you want discussed over radio) so they don’t do the most obvious stupid things. Living anywhere is a learning process.
Trying to get out of the Earth’s gravity well using chemical rockets is roughly similar to trying to cross the Pacific Ocean in a canoe.
Well you get points for an analogy attempt but… Getting to orbit takes about 3 minutes and we can do it with pretty good consistency. The ocean swallows up boats, let alone canoes, quite regularly. Try any coastal shallow river and you’ll be dodging those that didn’t make it. The oceans have more, they just aren’t just below the surface.
ken anthony – You’re probably right; the problems mostly won’t be found before someone runs into them. For that reason, it might well be a good idea for any serious colonisation attempt to include a selection of standard mechanical parts (bar stock, metal tubing, plastic hose, that sort of thing) and a compact machine shop – so that any widgetry that turns out not to have been thought of and also to be needed ASAP can be made on site.
Maybe a 3D printing unit would be a useful bit of equipment to take?
As for the business of orientation briefing – well, sure. However, there will be a time right in the beginning when NOBODY knows things they will need to know. And people can and will die as a result.
Well, that’s happened on every frontier, probably since proto-humans left the trees. Sadly, progress costs.
Well said, Fletcher. That’s what I mean by oversupply. Individually they may be doing it for themselves. As a group they are doing it for humanity. It would only be right for humanity to kick in a little (voluntarily rather than taxed.)
The only way people are going to kick in a little voluntarily is if they see it as a way to make a profit for themselves personally. That’s exactly what will happen when SpaceX goes public and people buy the stock.
Makes me wonder if my settlement charter shouldn’t be set up as some kind of corporation? Or perhaps the company that puts a Sundancer class ship in orbit should make the settlement charter it’s own.
…first crew could [be] more focused on the logistics
You might want a preparation crew that goes into mars orbit, never landing on mars itself but perhaps visiting the moons, to run telerobots on the martian surface and them comes back to earth. I just think that wastes a mission.
My thought was that the crew going to mars doesn’t have to immediately transfer to landers. They could stay in orbit for a while telerobotically preparing their base. My thought was that a crew of twelve land in stages, four at a time, each on a separate lander. The first four, ‘the canaries’, are assisted by the eight still in orbit. A few weeks later the next four join the first. Eventually all twelve are on the ground and the empty ship is heading back to earth for the next dozen or so.
BTW, that reusable ship really puts the focus on cost of fuel to LEO (or Lagrange point) which is exactly what it should do. People have a nasty habit of not focusing on the correct issue until you whack ’em on the side of the head with it.