And we can do it soon, without picking a planetary surface, or building a heavy-lift vehicle.
Category Archives: Space
Why Phobos-Grunt Failed
Reading this, it would have been shocking if it had been a success. And yet Congress is determined to keep us dependent on the Russians indefinitely.
The Developing World And Space
There’s a piece on space law up at the Denver Law Review on the need to help the developing world participate in space. I think it has some flawed assumptions embedded in it:
Developing states were largely left out of the creation of space law.[14] As a result, there are few accommodations in space law documents providing meaningful guarantees of inclusion.[15] Although ideas of international cooperation are in all space treaties and principles, this has little practical effect.[16] In 1996, the General Assembly directly addressed this concern by adopting the Declaration on International Cooperation for space activities.[17] This declaration reiterated ideals of international cooperation for the benefit of mankind while emphasizing “[p]articular account should be taken of the needs of developing counties”[18] and that space activities should “consider the appropriate use of space applications and the potential of international cooperation for reaching [developing states’] development goals.”[19]
Space technologies must be a part of developing states’ economic development schemes. Coupled with traditional economic development programs, space technology can bolster development goals with advances, for example, in pharmaceuticals, building materials, and food management.[20] However, despite the recommitment to developing states’ needs and interests, there has been little in the way of meaningful extra-terra cooperation. The main barrier is the staggering cost of becoming a space-faring state; if not addressed, developing states will be unable to share the benefits derived from space activity.[21] Addressing this barrier requires developed states to abide by space law principles by including developing states in meaningful space activities.[22]
First of all, there is an implicit assumption that “leaving out developing states” from the development of space law is intrinsically a bad thing, with no explanation why. I guess that it’s supposed to be obvious that it’s somehow “unfair.” Interestingly, a major goal of the 1979 Moon Treaty (which isn’t mentioned at all in the paper) was to address this “injustice.” But the other flawed assumption is that the cost of becoming a space-faring state is intrinsically “staggering.” I think that SpaceX has pretty much put the lie to that. Fortunately, at least he recognizes that we don’t (yet) have a world government that can compel spacefaring states to share in the supposed space bounty:
Because outer space is not easily accessible to all, special considerations must be made to include developing states. Even a minor space mission is a significant portion of a developing state’s annual budget.[38] Professor Ghidini argues that space research does not conform to traditional notions of “free competition” because international programs are available only to the “happy few” sponsors.[39] Space-faring states must be compelled to include developing states.[40] Cooperation on terms beneficial to developing states, therefore, is essential for their meaningful inclusion.[41]
Space-faring states, however, cannot be forced to cooperate with developing states. Outer space activities cannot be mandated by an international regime and must operate according to market forces.[42] Not only will forced cooperation create a disincentive for expensive space missions, it could also stifle competition and weaken intellectual property protections.[43] An incentive structure that protects space research’s return on investment while keeping developing states’ economic development goals in mind is the most efficient model.[44] Current bilateral agreements can operate on this market-based model. Satellite tracking facility agreements, for example, often provide information and research from the space activity in exchange for the facility’s presence.[45]
The problem is that there is an assumption that a developing nation won’t benefit from space commerce unless it is actively involved in the development of such commerce, but this is clearly nonsense. All developing countries benefit from remote sensing, GPS and communications satellites, despite the fact that they had nothing to do with their development. I really think that this is all a solution looking for a problem.
Seasteading
A long but interesting article at The Economist. There are some lessons here for space settlements.
Space Debris
A discussion of the legal and political issues.
George Nield
An interview on the subject of space transportation safety. Just for the record, I have always thought, and continue to think, that the notion that private operators are likely to be less safe than NASA to be foolishly ludicrous. All the incentives are the other way.
“Uniting In Criticism Of ITAR”
Is the US space industry really doing that? Nope. With a bonus citation of one of my tweets.
New Solar Fiction
This
The Unaffordable SLS
John Strickland makes the case against it over at The Space Review today. I don’t think this is right, though:
It is hard to imagine being able to quickly set up such a [lunar] base without a launch campaign of at least five HLV launches per year. To do this you will also need one or more cryogenic propellant depots in Earth orbit to assure that the propellant to support such a launch rate from LEO to the Moon or Mars is guaranteed to be available in LEO before the buildup begins. (Without the depots, the total cargo delivered to a base site for a given number of SLS launches would be cut about in half). The depots would also need to be launched by HLV boosters. Assuming a minimum of five SLS launches per year at $5 billion a launch, the total cost is $25 billion a year, far beyond NASA’s overall annual budget, let alone its human spaceflight budget. With a launch every two years, it would take a decade to provide the most minimal equipment for a surface base, and most of that would have been sitting there for many years and would thus likely be thermally damaged and unusable.
I really need to see the work here. On what is he basing the need for five launches per year? And how does the depot double the lunar payload? And why does the depot or depots require a heavy lifter? Is he assuming they will be launched full? The depot structure itself doesn’t weigh all that much and could easily go up on an Atlas or even a Falcon 9. And doesn’t that five billion per launch for the SLS assume a low flight rate? Presumably, if they really could do five a year, the per-flight cost would be much less. I’m not saying his numbers are wrong, but I’d need a lot more explanation to accept them. I do agree with this:
In addition to the political impasse over booster development, the nature of the current NASA planning system results in a vicious circle, seemingly created by deliberately not including advanced technology components into future mission plans. The reasoning behind these decisions are that the components do not yet exist, but the result is that the badly needed components are never developed, since there is never a specific mission designated where they will be used. Then when the mission is flown, its capabilities are greatly reduced due to the lack of the component. For example, NASA is currently budgeting money to develop cryogenic propellant depots in orbit, yet the depots are not included in or integrated into any plans for the BEO missions using the SLS. (This issue was the focus of a letter on September 27 to Administrator Bolden by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher.) Such delays and/or sapping of funds from technology programs for use by the SLS development by Congress allows mission planners to continue to exclude advanced technology solutions from future BEO mission plans.
This is the perennial institutional problem of technology development at the agency because, unlike its predecessor the NACA, technology development doesn’t seem to be viewed as NASA’s job, at least not enough to actually fund it. It’s always chicken and egg in that no one wants to put a new technology on the critical path for a mission, and because no mission requires it, the technology never gets the priority it needs for development. The solution to this is to refocus the agency on tech development, but that doesn’t provide enough pork in the right places.
Jeff Bezos
An interesting interview. It’s mostly about Amazon’s business model and plans, but Blue Origin does come up:
Levy: You have a separate company called Blue Origin that hopes to send customers into outer space. Why is that important to you?
Bezos: It is a serious effort. When I was 5 years old, I watched Neil Armstrong step onto the moon. It made me passionate about science, physics, math, exploration.
Levy: Will you walk on the moon someday?
Bezos: Me? Are you saying would I if I could?
Levy: I bet you’d like to, but do you think you will?
Bezos: Boy. I’ve been asked to make tough predictions before. That one’s very tough. But that’s not what this is about. If I wanted to buy tourist trips to fly to the International Space Station and Soyuz and those things, there’s nothing wrong with that. But that’s $35 million. I want to lower the cost of access to space.
Levy: How do you do that?
Bezos: I like to say, “Maintain a firm grasp of the obvious at all times.” For Amazon, that’s selection, speed of delivery, lower prices. Well, for Blue Origin it’s cost and safety. If you really want to make it so that anybody can go into space, you have to increase the safety and decrease the cost. That’s Blue Origin’s mission. I’m super passionate about it.
Levy: Do you feel that it’s a bit disconnected to start a space-exploration company in this economically grim time?
Bezos: No. We employ a lot of aerospace engineers. They have families, their kids go to college. We buy a lot of materials. Somebody made those materials, right?
I don’t even understand that last question, but note the use of the e-word. I wish we could get people to think about space in terms other than science and exploration.
[Late morning update]
This is sort of related. Lileks isn’t impressed with the Kindle Fire.