Jim Oberg has a good piece today. It’s just not as easy as the Barsoomophiles want to believe. That doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be an ultimate goal, but we need to put first things first — reducing the costs of launch, developing critical technologies (particularly propellant handing and manufacturing from ISRU) and preliminary scouting to the moons before it will be practical to put people on the surface.
[Mid-afternoon update]
It’s official: NASA is a jobs program. Not that that’s news…
“…critical skills”, “industrial base”, and “workforce retention” have been frequently-mentioned items in the committee’s deliberations to date, so I suppose I should have seen this coming, but it’s still one of the starkest illustrations I’ve encountered why government programs and NASA in particular will never accomplish the goal of making humans a spacefaring species.
Fortunately, there are alternate paths.
Rand
A couple of simple funding “equations” that really are as unshakable as the law of gravity when looking at space policy.
One for government programs.
Jobs = Votes = Congressional Support = Funding
Minnesota and Wisconsin never had many NASA jobs so it was not surprising the main opposition to space exploration came from their delegations. Nor that government solutions will always focus on maximizing the jobs in different Congressional Districts.
And no, as long as their are Congressional elections this equation will not change. Reform is great to talk about but human nature is human nature.
This is why NASA will never create a space faring society. And why those interested in creating one and expanding the human econsphere beyond GEO should forget about NASA. Its value in the endeavor will be marginal at best. Let NASA stay focused on basic science and missions to Mars where as Jim Oberg shows there are many basic questions to be answered.
By contrast the equation for commercial programs is also simple.
Revenue = profit = Funding
And as long as there are profit seeking investors this equation will not change.
So if you want a sustainable lunar return you need to leverage the commercial equation and use it for crafting space policy.
One possible model for a sustainable lunar return would be to use ‘Comsat” as a model for creating a Lunar Infrastructure Development Corporation. Give it about 5 billion in seed capital, bonding authority, and a path to privatization (IPO) when it reaches sustainability with financial incentives for senior management when privatized to keep them focused on that goal.
Same with fuel depots. Think in terms of a commercial model rather then a NASA one with a path to privatization. And look for existing markets like Comsats like Orbital Recovery was doing with its system to extend their service life to leverage the commercial equation.
This is a good one
Even today aboard the International Space Station less than 500 kilometers from home, proving out truly long-term reliable regenerative life support hardware is only now showing signs of success.
Yeep.
There is also the surface power issue. To do serious ISRU for propellant you need power, more power than solar is going to give you, therefore you need nukes, which drives up the cost.
Good article.
To do serious ISRU for propellant you need power, more power than solar is going to give you, therefore you need nukes, which drives up the cost
But not on the moon, right? I thought you were a proponent of solar powered ISRU on the moon. On the other hand atmospheric ISRU might be easier than regolith processing, though perhaps not if you use high power systems.
Ack. I guess I forgot to add the closing ‘/’ to the html …
Brock,
The comsat business model works now but was still very questionable in the early 1960’s (cable and microwave towers were other options) which is why a government chartered corporation, Comsat, helped with closing the business model and bringing it to where it is today. Its a useful model for other space activities.
For example imagine a government chartered Fuel Depot Corporation that would invest R&D in the technology needed, establish standards based on it and then purchased specific amounts of specific fuels for specific delivery dates. Then let private providers bid on supplying those needs, just as early airlines bid on airmail contracts. Lowest bidder wins, but if they fail to produce it goes to the next in line.
This would get the ball rolling on fuel depots. In terms of customers, it could be NASA, military, foreign, whoever wishes to take advantage of the depot. The government Fuel Depot Corporation would act as the financial buffer that enables the markets to get started until they reach a point of being self-sustaining. Then the Fuel Depot Corporation is sold off to the highest bidder or via an IPO.
Tom, I proposed Comsat as a depot development model a year and a half ago at Space Access.
Oh cheer up! Between post-Iraq military procurement cutbacks, coupled with the USAF’s decision to phase out piloted vehicles in favor of UAV’s, retirement of baby boomers in industry and government, and some shuttle-related layoffs, probably half the folks currently employed in aerospace will be doing something else within five years — mostly I suspect living on their pensions and social security.
If this is your idea of a sucessful jobs retention program, I have some bridges to sell you.
Martin
Talking about Mars here.
Talking about Mars here.
OK, makes sense. I believe you have opposed putting nukes on the critical path in the past, thinking of the moon. If Mars or Phobos is the first place where ISRU is done, would you then advocate putting nukes on the critical path? You would likely prefer a lunar off-ramp first, as would I, but suppose that’s not an option.
An interesting question has arisen here: What would compel somebody to visit Mars…. for profit?
While I can imagine some valid business scenarios that would involve going to asteroids or even to the Moon that would generate a considerable income for a commercial venture, it seems to me that Mars is at the bottom of a deep gravitational well and offers little of interest that can’t already be found in abundance on the Earth. It would be a real kicker to find out that Mars has petroleum reserves or other more familiar mineral resources similar to what is found on the Earth… but getting them off of Mars would be so incredibly difficult that it would not be done for anything other than for local consumption by folks on Mars itself. Even a discovery of “yellow cake” (Uranium) or
As it turns out, landing on Mars is even harder than trying to land on the Earth or the Moon…. the atmosphere is just thick enough that you have to deal with it and thin enough that it isn’t really useful for aerobraking other than to bleed off initial speed. It is for this reason that close to 50% of all landing attempts on Mars end up crashing into the surface instead. If anything, James Oberg’s piece understates the technical difficulties in getting to Mars and doing something once you get there.
There will be some folks like Richard Branson who, once the raw technical capability has been achieved, will be willing on their own to foot the bill to go to a place like Mars on their own dime. Elon Musk may be one of these kind of rich fools too (assuming that SpaceX and Tesla turn him into a multi-billionaire). Even so, I really don’t see the economic case being well presented for Mars… other than legitimately pointing out that of all of the places in the Solar System other than the Earth, Mars is the “most friendly” to human life. As if a place that makes Antarctica look like a sauna someplace that seems hospitable to life.
er…. my dangling sentence above: “yellow cake” or even pure gold nuggets found on the surface. You couldn’t find a cheap method of shipping this stuff, processed, to the Earth for a price that isn’t substantially overwhelmed by the shipping costs alone.
The point being that economic value can be a driver, but the ability to make money in space… particularly on Mars… is a really hard sell and something that hasn’t been done yet.
Robert Horning —
Still, consider say Des Moines, Iowa. What does Iowa have to contribute to the modern world economy? Some milk cattle,
some seed grain, rosy cheeked boys and girls who grow up and move to the coasts? What else? What could conceivably explain the billions of dollars spent over the last few centuries to build cities and highways and airports and universities and churches and libraries in the middle of a thousand mile wide prarie? If Des Moines were to vanish tomorrow, a la New Orleans, by act of God or catastrophe, would we notice? Would we consider it necessary to replace the place?
And yet, Des Moines exists, Iowa exists, Several million generally contented people live there, finding consolations and pleasures which need no justification, and by and large their existence creates no problems for economics. Who lives in Des Moines? Iowans. Whom do they buy their houses from, but other people in Des Moines — even the realtors they use come from Des Moines. The teachers who educate their children live in Des Moine, and are paid salaries by a Des Moines school system, funded by Des Moines citizens. The public libraries, the theaters, the grocery stories and porne shoppes are all staffed by fellow Iowans. Even the newscasters on local television make their living in Iowa, invest their paychecks in Iowa, invite families and friends from elsewhere in the country to come visit them — in Iowa!
You get the point, I trust. 99% or so of Iowa’s economy is supplied by Iowans. (An economist with trade figures and statistics would probably quibble with the amount, but not with the basic point). Similarly, if humanity ever makes a real go at colonizing Mars, the time will come when Mars belongs to people who think of themselves as Martians, doing business with other Martians, mutually supporting one another. The “yellow cake” or “red sand” it exports will probably seem a negligable part of the economy.
Still, it’s reasonable to ask what kind of assets a Martian colony might bring to the table. Independence for some number of space-involved banks and corporations who don’t want to deal with earth governments strikes me as one. Proximity to possible mining operations in the asteroid belt is another. Opportunity to found new societies which differ from those on earth, for yet another. A frontier for those who chafe at government intrusiveness. Build the rockets to get people there, make the fare cheap enough, and Mars will have no shortage of inhabitants. I’d go.
Rand,
Do you have a link to the presentation on it? I would like to see it if you do. Also how was the idea received by the new space community?
Tom
[[[Mars is at the bottom of a deep gravitational well and offers little of interest that can’t already be found in abundance on the Earth.]]]
Bingo. If you have to launch material out of a deep gravity well and an atmosphere you may as well do it from Earth where you already have the manufacturing base to add value to what is launched. The nice thing about the Moon is the lack of atmosphere makes externally powered systems like mass drivers, rail guns, etc., practical for bulk cargo launch.
[[[the atmosphere is just thick enough that you have to deal with it and thin enough that it isn’t really useful for aerobraking other than to bleed off initial speed. It is for this reason that close to 50% of all landing attempts on Mars end up crashing into the surface instead.]]]
Yes, the real curse of Mars for settlement. I understand both MERs came very close to being lost from high winds on the way down. Then add in the dust storms and lightening and the atmosphere becomes a real pain to settlement.
Which brings up another question. Any models of how far the radioactive cloud would travel on Mars if you have a reactor meltdown? And how much, if any, it increases the radiation threat to human operations? On the Moon I suspect all you would get from a meltdown is a radioactive slag heap which you could salvage with tele-operated robots. Which is why its a great environment for using nuclear power. The key is the worst the consequences the more safety systems you need to include which equals cost.
Mars will be a great place for science, especially if life is found, but it makes little sense for human settlements. Actually I suspect there will be few settlements on any of the large space bodies not associated with mining resources. I believe the future of humanity is not on planetary services but in variations of O’Neill colonies distributed throughout the Solar System. The Moon is of value because it is within the range of tele-operated systems from Earth, is full or raw material and has no atmosphere. That is why it is key to jump starting a true space economy while Mars is a dead end for anything but science.
Oops, the last was in response to Robert’s post.
The issue of profitable use of Mars is quite simple:
1. Steal people’s underwear and ship them to Mars.
2. —
3. Profit!
*Special thanks to Cartman, Kenny, Kyle, and the gang.
Do you have a link to the presentation on it? I would like to see it if you do. Also how was the idea received by the new space community?
Not handy, but search “Space Access 2008 propellant depot panel.” I think that Jon Goff uploaded all the Powerpoints somewhere.
Rand,
Thanks! I found it.
http://selenianboondocks.blogspot.com/2008/03/space-access-2008-propellant-depot.html
I am teaching a graduate business course this fall on Space Commerce which I will also be web streaming. I will add this link to the resource page I am building for it.
Tom
Mars is hard because it’s made of stone.
/runs away
Oberg has a bit in there about the importance of “spin-in” technologies. While I very much agree with this, it should be realized what this implies for space advocacy.
There is this notion that space will be opened up only by spending a lot of money on [b]space[/b], and without that spending, no progress is made. But if “spin-ins” are so important (and possibly even rate-limiting for the whole space enterprise), progress will be made even if the space program is shut down entirely, as long as technology continues to advance down here on Earth for purely terrestrial purposes.
Space advocates need to sell space based on benefits it will bring in the near term, not because of long term goals that arguably might be better achieved by focusing attention elsewhere for now. Maybe pushing the development and maturation of terrestrial robotics, biological engineering, AI, neuroscience, etc. will do more for the long term move into space than making a bigger, or even a less expensive, rocket.