15 thoughts on “More Spudis Paper Thoughts”

  1. I agree, and that he used a shuttle derived HLV that would keep that workforce/infrastructure in place, to me, means that he ultimately knows where his bread is buttered.

    He toed the party line on Constellation and it looks like he is still going to on a NASA heavy lift and I just can’t bring myself to believe that NASA management is capable of managing that program in a cost effective manner.

  2. He goes into a lot of details and I keep thinking about how no plan survives beyond initial conditions. He says the first objective beyond LEO is the moon, but that can only be the second objective at best. The first objective is a reliable transportation system from earth to LEO and that seems to be going well with many private companies in competition and multiple launchers.

    The second objective is reliable transportation of large quantities of supplies from LEO to lunar orbit. I call that a spaceship.

    Then he describes half a dozen or so different landers. Well I can see different landers made by different companies for different purposes, but it seems to me that focusing on one reliable, reusable SSTO gives you not just the moon but a whole lot of other places as well. How close is Bezos?

    But the key not mentioned is property rights. Get dozens of people selling fuel on the lunar surface and you’ve got some robustness. If they can do that robotically, then that’s fine. However, any scheme that expects the land value itself to pay for everything is short sighted. Plot size should not be more than a reasonable size (something you could walk the perimeter of in two weeks?) We need to figure out how to give private property plots to developers that can actually develop them for resale.

  3. Ken,

    [[[We need to figure out how to give private property plots to developers that can actually develop them for resale.]]]

    The surest way to delay any commercial ventures on the Moon is to open up the debate on real property rights. A similar unnecessary debate set back sea mining for the last three decades and counting. The value of commercial lunar ventures will be in the form of physical goods produced and intellectual property, not real estate.

    When the lunar settlers declare independence they are welcome to debate real property rights, but for now that is nothing but an unnecessary from hang over a agricultural economy mindset. Space is not the Old West.

  4. @Thomas Matula

    [[The value of commercial lunar ventures will be in the form of physical goods produced and intellectual property, not real estate.]]

    Yes, exactly right.

    And, intellectual property produced on the Moon or elsewhere in space already is protected under current law as is ownership of materials collected and transported for resale (such as water, lunar O2 or PGM).

    Non-interference provisions in the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 also already prohibit competitors from physically harassing or blocking the operations of others.

    Actual land ownership will need a government to claim sovereignty and that will be problematic for a quite a while longer.

  5. @Vladislaw, Ken:

    Y’all are missing the point:

    From Paul:

    The modular, incremental nature of this architecture enables international and commercial participation to be easily and seamlessly integrated into our lunar return scenario. Because the outpost is built around the addition of capabilities through the use of small, robotically teleoperated assets, other parties can bring their own pieces to the table as time, availability and capability permit.

    Spudis and Lavoie have sketched out a plausible upper limit to the cost to lunar return with an eye towards a permanent and expanding presence on the moon and all points along the way. A cost that accounts for Congressional hostility towards dismantling the “public option” launch infrastructure, and a cost that “falls under the projected budget run-outs supplied by NASA to the Augustine Committee.” And finally a cost that can plausible fall as public option architectures are replaced with commercially competed ones when and where available.

    This paper represents the minimum quality of planning we should expect out of NASA’s leadership. We’re not getting it.

  6. Umm.. it’s not plausible because they haven’t justified any of their costs.. at all. Some of them are just blatantly wrong, like the complete lack of development costs for cryo engines or boiloff mitigation for stages and depots. The whole thing is just handwaiving.

  7. @Trent:

    Umm.. it’s not plausible because they haven’t justified any of their costs.. at all. Some of them are just blatantly wrong, like the complete lack of development costs for cryo engines or boiloff mitigation for stages and depots. The whole thing is just handwaiving.

    You might want to take it up on Once and Future Moon, but:

    1. The paper doesn’t propose to mitigate of cryogen boil-off at the depots at all. That’s about as conservative as it gets.

    2. Why cryo engines?

    3. You’re looking at a preprint summarizing a set of trade studies. Why should we hold Spudis to a higher standard for release than say Augustine?

  9. Presley, read the paper.

    The fundamental basis of the whole thing is lunar landers with cryo engines.. that’s never been done.. it’s not going to be cheap if you try to get NASA to do it.

  10. Trent,

    1. Take your own advice.

    2. We’ve done lunar descent and ascent before. We’ve done LO2/LH2 engines before. What’s your problem?

    3. The fundamental basis of the paper is to describe a series of incremental steps towards a permanent, self-sustaining presence on the Moon that can ultimately grow itself along with industry throughout the Earth sphere.

  11. Actual land ownership will need a government to claim sovereignty

    Bad assumption. Treaties specifically say no sovereignties.

    When the lunar settlers declare independence they are welcome to debate real property rights

    If a framework isn’t in place, people will fight over resources long before any issue of independence comes up.

    Property ownership leads to best use. For the first time in human history we can make ownership absolute. No eminent domain. No sovereigns to steal by taxation. We can define what constitutes a claim so everyone can play by the same rules. It doesn’t necessarily have to be defined by government. California miners defined the law regarding claims and government came later.

    Ownership of mineral rights means there is an incentive to produce profitable resources like rocket fuel to sell to others rather than expect everyone to produce all their own resources vertically. That means you get a diverse thriving economy rather than a central plan. The wild west is exactly what it should be… Haven’t any of ya watched Serenity?

  13. Trent, don’t be a dumbass. There’s no off-the-shelf lunar lander period. I’m pretty sure Spudis knows this, and nobody’s impressed you’ve managed to figure as much out all by yourself.

  14. @ Ken Anthony

    Property ownership leads to best use. For the first time in human history we can make ownership absolute. No eminent domain. No sovereigns to steal by taxation. We can define what constitutes a claim so everyone can play by the same rules. It doesn’t necessarily have to be defined by government. California miners defined the law regarding claims and government came later.

    This vision cannot be easily achieved if those seeking this vision first ask for permission (or a framework) from ANY terrestrial government, including the one inside the Beltway.

    Who would create such a framework if not a government?

    That said, flagging one’s lunar operations in Isle of Man, or Singapore, or Dubai, or Bermuda could help limit interference from terrestrial governments while remaining inside a recognized system of international law.

Comments are closed.