Author Topic: Space and Humanity.  (Read 35629 times)

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Space and Humanity.
« Reply #80 on: 12/04/2014 12:20 pm »
The gov't can pay for somebody to explore, much like Lewis and Clark.

And should.

I agree with both of you. Those who insist, without cause, that the "resources" need to be shipped back to Earth as the only viable economic reason for a successful off-world colonization effort, are mistaken.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline mikegi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Space and Humanity.
« Reply #81 on: 12/04/2014 01:30 pm »
Do you think the Chinese manned lunar program would be too expensive. And therefore it will not done?
Or perhaps it will be done even if it is too expensive?
If the Chinese do it then it would be because they want to show off their technical prowess, not for science or technical advancement. My bet is that they'll eventually give up.

Quote
Generally what think should be done is lunar program which takes less than 10 years and cost about 4 billion per year. So such manned lunar program has total cost of 40 billion- would  that be example of something you would regard as too expensive?
Yes. I'd rather see that money spent on a vigorous robotic exploration and experimentation program. I believe we'll get much greater bang for our bucks.



Offline D_Dom

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 655
  • Liked: 481
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: Space and Humanity.
« Reply #82 on: 12/04/2014 02:51 pm »
  I think of the effort as expressing a primal need for mankind to explore, beyond our current level of understanding. Anybody who thinks humanity will simply give up because the effort is too hard is missing my point. We haven't given up, the Russians haven't given up, the British, French and Germans haven't given up. All countries that are currently working to develop this understanding will realize the challenges inherent in HSF, humanity will continue to overcome them.
Space is not merely a matter of life or death, it is considerably more important than that!

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Space and Humanity.
« Reply #83 on: 12/04/2014 06:54 pm »
The gov't can pay for somebody to explore, much like Lewis and Clark.

Are you saying that this is what should be done? NASA should contract out exploration to astronauts working for Boeing, SpaceX, etc.?

Why not? [...]

I wasn't trying to argue against it. I was trying to understand Jim's argument. He mentioned in a prior post that he is against government-lead exploration.  But it wasn't clear what he meant by that. By his Lewis and Clark comment, I am guessing that he isn't against government funding space exploration per say, he is against government leading the exploration efforts. There is some logic in that. But I don't know how realistic it is. Detractors are likely to call it crony capitalism if SpaceX (or Boeing, etc.) gets to decide everything. Plus, if both the government and SpaceX (or Boeing, etc.) agrees that Mars is the destination. It shouldn't matter who picks the destination because they are going to the same place.

Given that NASA is the customer, there is some logic in NASA choosing the astronauts. Using SpaceX (or Boeing, etc.) astronauts might make international cooperation more difficult.
« Last Edit: 12/04/2014 07:10 pm by yg1968 »

Offline nadreck

Re: Space and Humanity.
« Reply #84 on: 12/04/2014 07:12 pm »

Given that NASA is the customer, there is some logic in NASA choosing the astronauts. Using SpaceX (or Boeing, etc.) astronauts might preclude international cooperation.

Contrariwise, under evolving political climates, SpaceX choosing to partner with NASA might preclude international co-operation. Though arguably they have already precluded some international options in other activities by looking for certification to carry DoD payloads.

Ideally I would love to see 2 or 3 different LEO/MEO permanent manned stations that are international and commercial in nature along with say an international government(multiple governments) sponsored one and any national ones that individual nations want.

Same thing only more so on the Moon/Mars and elsewhere in the solar system. I also believe HSF is at serious risk if there isn't at least a half dozen viable companies producing manned space craft by the 30's.
It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Space and Humanity.
« Reply #85 on: 12/04/2014 07:31 pm »
On second thought, commercial missions wouldn't preclude international cooperation. We saw examples of that with DC signing agreements with ESA and JAXA. SpaceX (or Boeing, etc.) could easily barter with foreign governments or with ESA.
« Last Edit: 12/04/2014 07:31 pm by yg1968 »

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Space and Humanity.
« Reply #86 on: 12/05/2014 12:03 am »
Do you think the Chinese manned lunar program would be too expensive. And therefore it will not done?
Or perhaps it will be done even if it is too expensive?
If the Chinese do it then it would be because they want to show off their technical prowess, not for science or technical advancement. My bet is that they'll eventually give up.

Quote
Generally what think should be done is lunar program which takes less than 10 years and cost about 4 billion per year. So such manned lunar program has total cost of 40 billion- would  that be example of something you would regard as too expensive?
Yes. I'd rather see that money spent on a vigorous robotic exploration and experimentation program. I believe we'll get much greater bang for our bucks.

Well I used to think a manned lunar program for about 5 billion dollar was something NASA could do, but this was before NASA starting doing SLS.
So I would say 40 billion program is essentially a compromise on my part- or something more politically realistic.
I also become less Mars vs Moon, and more interested in integrating them into single policy.
I have never thought a Manned Mars could be cheap- not even a flag and foot print type "program".
But seem pretty hopeless to expect we could explore Mars adequately with just robotics missions.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: Space and Humanity.
« Reply #87 on: 12/05/2014 12:11 am »
Do you think the Chinese manned lunar program would be too expensive. And therefore it will not done?
Or perhaps it will be done even if it is too expensive?
If the Chinese do it then it would be because they want to show off their technical prowess, not for science or technical advancement. My bet is that they'll eventually give up.

Quote
Generally what think should be done is lunar program which takes less than 10 years and cost about 4 billion per year. So such manned lunar program has total cost of 40 billion- would  that be example of something you would regard as too expensive?
Yes. I'd rather see that money spent on a vigorous robotic exploration and experimentation program. I believe we'll get much greater bang for our bucks.




I don't want exploration without exploitation. Some science return happens, yes, but it's not the driver to make us a spacefaring civilization. Exploitation is the way to do that. And for that you need humans.

For it to make sense we need that order of magnitude (better... 2... even better 3 orders) reduction in launch costs. But we ALSO need much research on ISRU. Of everything.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Space and Humanity.
« Reply #88 on: 12/05/2014 02:30 am »
I'd rather see that money spent on a vigorous robotic exploration and experimentation program. I believe we'll get much greater bang for our bucks.

Have you heard Steve Squyres on that topic?  Or read this paper?

Sure, robots are cheaper, by orders of magnitude.  But apparently they're so much less effective on the ground that human exploration is still better value for money even for pure science.
« Last Edit: 12/05/2014 05:21 am by 93143 »

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Space and Humanity.
« Reply #89 on: 12/05/2014 03:01 am »
Do you think the Chinese manned lunar program would be too expensive. And therefore it will not done?
Or perhaps it will be done even if it is too expensive?
If the Chinese do it then it would be because they want to show off their technical prowess, not for science or technical advancement. My bet is that they'll eventually give up.

Quote
Generally what think should be done is lunar program which takes less than 10 years and cost about 4 billion per year. So such manned lunar program has total cost of 40 billion- would  that be example of something you would regard as too expensive?
Yes. I'd rather see that money spent on a vigorous robotic exploration and experimentation program. I believe we'll get much greater bang for our bucks.




I don't want exploration without exploitation. Some science return happens, yes, but it's not the driver to make us a spacefaring civilization. Exploitation is the way to do that. And for that you need humans.

For it to make sense we need that order of magnitude (better... 2... even better 3 orders) reduction in launch costs. But we ALSO need much research on ISRU. Of everything.

I want exploration focused on future exploitation. Or exploration for potential exploitation.

I don't want NASA trying to exploit lunar resources. I am not certain that use of lunar resources is profitable and I think what is required is exploration to help determine this. If lunar resource were easily profitable, I don't want NASA exploiting them, if marginally profitable I don't want NASA exploiting them, and only a slight or large loss exploiting them, I don't want NASA exploiting them.
And I don't want lunar mining "supported" like solar panel and wind power use on Earth is supported with subsidies. The subsidization I want is NASA exploring the Moon to determine if and where lunar water is minable.
The question NASA should be required to answer is something some people assume is true, but no one actually knows,  and question is, is lunar water minable.

So as in comparison we know there is trillions of tons of water on Mars- and would I say, within the near term that this Martian water is not minable. It's extractable but not minable. There could minable water on Mars moons and perhaps NASA should explore these moon also to determine whether there is minable water on them. But it seems to me the highest chance of minable water in space is on the Moon. And once lunar water is mined, then other locations in space *become* minable- which may even include the Mars surface.

Or in other words, NASA should be looking for the lowest pickable fruit in space.
NASA should explore Mars because it might be the easiest first location in system in which people can live.
Or Mars might the lowest pickable fruit in terms of human settlements in space. But once you get any mars settlement, you will also get human settlements in other places than Mars.
In terms of NASA and ISRU, NASA's work should focus on finding really cheap water- water which could as cheap as it is on Earth. And lots of it. If can get a cheap lake of water on Mars- then you will get human settlements on Mars. Or million tons at 1$ per ton is very cheap. And this should also mean that within decades of time it could $.50 or less per ton [similar to Earth].
But for purposes of manned bases, one should look for water which costs somewhere around $1 million per ton or less. Assume the base over it's operational life will need more than 1000 tons, and total cost is less than 1 billion.
One could spend over 10 billion dollar just to find such water [don't include this cost] just the total cost it takes to get 1000 tons of usable water.
If that is wildly impossible, maybe NASA should not explore Mars- or perhaps it's not low hanging fruit for settlements.
Assuming this is possible, then NASA should focus it's ISRU on finding far cheaper water. It should also have other things it's exploring or developing into operational technology which are related to human settlements- farming, finding and using caves, etc.
« Last Edit: 12/05/2014 05:11 pm by gbaikie »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Space and Humanity.
« Reply #90 on: 12/05/2014 11:47 am »

I don't want exploration without exploitation. Some science return happens, yes, but it's not the driver to make us a spacefaring civilization. Exploitation is the way to do that. And for that you need humans.


Then the gov't should not be the lead for it.

Offline mikegi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Space and Humanity.
« Reply #91 on: 12/05/2014 04:49 pm »

I don't want exploration without exploitation. Some science return happens, yes, but it's not the driver to make us a spacefaring civilization. Exploitation is the way to do that. And for that you need humans.


Then the gov't should not be the lead for it.
Jim, you should put some sort of time limit on your original post (e.g. "within the next 50-100 years") otherwise it drifts off into posts about large scale off-planet colonies, mining, spacefaring civilizations, etc. None of that's going to happen in any of our lifetimes and it's really pointless to discuss it. Everyone wants photon torpedoes and warp drives.


Offline nadreck

Re: Space and Humanity.
« Reply #92 on: 12/05/2014 06:40 pm »
So as in comparison we know there is trillions of tons of water on Mars- and would I say, within the near term that this Martian water is not minable. It's extractable but not minable. There could minable water on Mars moons and perhaps NASA should explore these moon also to determine whether there is minable water on them. But it seems to me the highest chance of minable water in space is on the Moon. And once lunar water is mined, then other locations in space *become* minable- which may even include the Mars surface.

Or in other words, NASA should be looking for the lowest pickable fruit in space.
NASA should explore Mars because it might be the easiest first location in system in which people can live.
Or Mars might the lowest pickable fruit in terms of human settlements in space. But once you get any mars settlement, you will also get human settlements in other places than Mars.
In terms of NASA and ISRU, NASA's work should focus on finding really cheap water- water which could as cheap as it is on Earth. And lots of it. If can get a cheap lake of water on Mars- then you will get human settlements on Mars. Or million tons at 1$ per ton is very cheap. And this should also mean that within decades of time it could $.50 or less per ton [similar to Earth].
But for purposes of manned bases, one should look for water which costs somewhere around $1 million per ton or less. Assume the base over it's operational life will need more than 1000 tons, and total cost is less than 1 billion.
One could spend over 10 billion dollar just to find such water [don't include this cost] just the total cost it takes to get 1000 tons of usable water.
If that is wildly impossible, maybe NASA should not explore Mars- or perhaps it's not low hanging fruit for settlements.
Assuming this is possible, then NASA should focus it's ISRU on finding far cheaper water. It should also have other things it's exploring or developing into operational technology which are related to human settlements- farming, finding and using caves, etc.

I think the low hanging fruit are ice Trojans of Jupiter or Saturn, potentially the lowest energy requirement to bring millions of tons to LEO. Fuel, NTR/STR reaction mass, O2 to breath, shielding, all where we get off the very very expensive bus at the way station that Heinlein described as being half way to anywhere else in space.
It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Space and Humanity.
« Reply #93 on: 12/05/2014 11:43 pm »
So as in comparison we know there is trillions of tons of water on Mars- and would I say, within the near term that this Martian water is not minable. It's extractable but not minable. There could minable water on Mars moons and perhaps NASA should explore these moon also to determine whether there is minable water on them. But it seems to me the highest chance of minable water in space is on the Moon. And once lunar water is mined, then other locations in space *become* minable- which may even include the Mars surface.

Or in other words, NASA should be looking for the lowest pickable fruit in space.
NASA should explore Mars because it might be the easiest first location in system in which people can live.
Or Mars might the lowest pickable fruit in terms of human settlements in space. But once you get any mars settlement, you will also get human settlements in other places than Mars.
In terms of NASA and ISRU, NASA's work should focus on finding really cheap water- water which could as cheap as it is on Earth. And lots of it. If can get a cheap lake of water on Mars- then you will get human settlements on Mars. Or million tons at 1$ per ton is very cheap. And this should also mean that within decades of time it could $.50 or less per ton [similar to Earth].
But for purposes of manned bases, one should look for water which costs somewhere around $1 million per ton or less. Assume the base over it's operational life will need more than 1000 tons, and total cost is less than 1 billion.
One could spend over 10 billion dollar just to find such water [don't include this cost] just the total cost it takes to get 1000 tons of usable water.
If that is wildly impossible, maybe NASA should not explore Mars- or perhaps it's not low hanging fruit for settlements.
Assuming this is possible, then NASA should focus it's ISRU on finding far cheaper water. It should also have other things it's exploring or developing into operational technology which are related to human settlements- farming, finding and using caves, etc.

I think the low hanging fruit are ice Trojans of Jupiter or Saturn, potentially the lowest energy requirement to bring millions of tons to LEO. Fuel, NTR/STR reaction mass, O2 to breath, shielding, all where we get off the very very expensive bus at the way station that Heinlein described as being half way to anywhere else in space.

I think what is most important is not millions of tons, but rather the first 1000 tons.
You can't mine water in space if one only has 1000 tons to mine- you can't profitably mine. But you can mine less than 1000 tones in the first year. Or with banking or venture capital and stock market you can start a business in the red, as long as it has reasonable future profitability. Or it's possible to just mine 1000 tons of lunar water in 10 years, but it has to be a future where one mining a lot more than this [say +200 tons per year, which which go to 500 or 1000 per year]. The more critical aspect is how it going in first 3 years- is it possible to sell your share at this point in time.
So, if it mining say, 50 tons a year, and you are back ordered for as much you can deliver and  improving sales.
Or mining and selling 100 tons a year, it's probably viable- but still hasn't returned the initial amount invested within the first 5 years.
Or the value involved is company ability to perform, which is better than no competition or the other competition.
It's growth investment with a considerable risk- with biggest risk probably what government may do to screw you [which is typical high risk for most growth investment].

There is a lot water in space. Many earth oceans of fresh water. Problem is right now, there is no market in space for rocket fuel unless you want to count ISS and CRS [Commercial Resupply Services ].
And biggest problem is creating a large enough market.
The Moon has a lot advantages in terms potential to increase the market of rocket fuel in space.
Or if somehow started a market of rocket fuel in space, then the Moon becomes a destination of those buying the rocket fuel.
Another advantage of Moon is it's near GEO.

One sells something where one can get the most money. So with equal demand, one wants to sell rocket fuel in high earth orbit rather than LEO. Or from Earth, high earth orbit cost more to ship to than LEO.

With any source of water in space, High earth orbit is cheaper to ship to than LEO. and it's worth more [and one can say that water has higher energy content- it's "better" rocket fuel].
So if mining asteroids [or Ceres] where want to deliver to is high earth orbit. And you will only deliver to LEO if desperate for more sales volume.
And another good place is Mars orbit [assuming there is any demand and assuming it doesn't cost much more or is cheaper to deliver to- and considering liability- there less chance of accidentally hitting anything at Mars [and it's orbits].
And similarly the best place to sell rocket fuel is on the Lunar surface. The only problem with selling on lunar surface is lack of demand at lunar surface, and to get more demand you sell at the second best spot, lunar orbit, and third best spot is anywhere in high earth orbit or Mars orbit.

Or put this way, if one can only sell 100,000 tons of water in total for next two decades, where do you get the water?

Edit: 10,000 tons of water on lunar surface in any container,  would be good price to buy for 5 billion dollars [1/2 million per ton- $500 per kg]. The company that mined it, is probably worth more than 5 billion dollars. Either is bargain.
And still reasonable that it's worth twice this. But the company could possibly be unavailable to buy even at 5 times as much [though not the water].
100,000 tons of water is worth less per kg, but the company that mined it, is worth much more.
« Last Edit: 12/06/2014 05:12 am by gbaikie »

Offline nadreck

Re: Space and Humanity.
« Reply #94 on: 12/06/2014 06:08 pm »
So as in comparison we know there is trillions of tons of water on Mars- and would I say, within the near term that this Martian water is not minable. It's extractable but not minable. There could minable water on Mars moons and perhaps NASA should explore these moon also to determine whether there is minable water on them. But it seems to me the highest chance of minable water in space is on the Moon. And once lunar water is mined, then other locations in space *become* minable- which may even include the Mars surface.

Or in other words, NASA should be looking for the lowest pickable fruit in space.
NASA should explore Mars because it might be the easiest first location in system in which people can live.
Or Mars might the lowest pickable fruit in terms of human settlements in space. But once you get any mars settlement, you will also get human settlements in other places than Mars.
In terms of NASA and ISRU, NASA's work should focus on finding really cheap water- water which could as cheap as it is on Earth. And lots of it. If can get a cheap lake of water on Mars- then you will get human settlements on Mars. Or million tons at 1$ per ton is very cheap. And this should also mean that within decades of time it could $.50 or less per ton [similar to Earth].
But for purposes of manned bases, one should look for water which costs somewhere around $1 million per ton or less. Assume the base over it's operational life will need more than 1000 tons, and total cost is less than 1 billion.
One could spend over 10 billion dollar just to find such water [don't include this cost] just the total cost it takes to get 1000 tons of usable water.
If that is wildly impossible, maybe NASA should not explore Mars- or perhaps it's not low hanging fruit for settlements.
Assuming this is possible, then NASA should focus it's ISRU on finding far cheaper water. It should also have other things it's exploring or developing into operational technology which are related to human settlements- farming, finding and using caves, etc.

I think the low hanging fruit are ice Trojans of Jupiter or Saturn, potentially the lowest energy requirement to bring millions of tons to LEO. Fuel, NTR/STR reaction mass, O2 to breath, shielding, all where we get off the very very expensive bus at the way station that Heinlein described as being half way to anywhere else in space.

I think what is most important is not millions of tons, but rather the first 1000 tons.
You can't mine water in space if one only has 1000 tons to mine- you can't profitably mine. But you can mine less than 1000 tones in the first year. Or with banking or venture capital and stock market you can start a business in the red, as long as it has reasonable future profitability. Or it's possible to just mine 1000 tons of lunar water in 10 years, but it has to be a future where one mining a lot more than this [say +200 tons per year, which which go to 500 or 1000 per year]. The more critical aspect is how it going in first 3 years- is it possible to sell your share at this point in time.

I disagree if your cost per ton for the first 1000 tons are hundreds of times what they could be and you have created a business model based on that price.  I am not suggesting mining an ice trojan of Jupiter or Saturn where it is, I am suggesting moving it to LEO, putting a sun shield around it and processing it in situ in LEO.

Other pieces of ice could be moved to Mars orbit.
It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: Space and Humanity.
« Reply #95 on: 12/06/2014 07:29 pm »

I don't want exploration without exploitation. Some science return happens, yes, but it's not the driver to make us a spacefaring civilization. Exploitation is the way to do that. And for that you need humans.


Then the gov't should not be the lead for it.

Couldn't agree more.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Space and Humanity.
« Reply #96 on: 12/06/2014 07:59 pm »
So as in comparison we know there is trillions of tons of water on Mars- and would I say, within the near term that this Martian water is not minable. It's extractable but not minable. There could minable water on Mars moons and perhaps NASA should explore these moon also to determine whether there is minable water on them. But it seems to me the highest chance of minable water in space is on the Moon. And once lunar water is mined, then other locations in space *become* minable- which may even include the Mars surface.

Or in other words, NASA should be looking for the lowest pickable fruit in space.
NASA should explore Mars because it might be the easiest first location in system in which people can live.
Or Mars might the lowest pickable fruit in terms of human settlements in space. But once you get any mars settlement, you will also get human settlements in other places than Mars.
In terms of NASA and ISRU, NASA's work should focus on finding really cheap water- water which could as cheap as it is on Earth. And lots of it. If can get a cheap lake of water on Mars- then you will get human settlements on Mars. Or million tons at 1$ per ton is very cheap. And this should also mean that within decades of time it could $.50 or less per ton [similar to Earth].
But for purposes of manned bases, one should look for water which costs somewhere around $1 million per ton or less. Assume the base over it's operational life will need more than 1000 tons, and total cost is less than 1 billion.
One could spend over 10 billion dollar just to find such water [don't include this cost] just the total cost it takes to get 1000 tons of usable water.
If that is wildly impossible, maybe NASA should not explore Mars- or perhaps it's not low hanging fruit for settlements.
Assuming this is possible, then NASA should focus it's ISRU on finding far cheaper water. It should also have other things it's exploring or developing into operational technology which are related to human settlements- farming, finding and using caves, etc.

I think the low hanging fruit are ice Trojans of Jupiter or Saturn, potentially the lowest energy requirement to bring millions of tons to LEO. Fuel, NTR/STR reaction mass, O2 to breath, shielding, all where we get off the very very expensive bus at the way station that Heinlein described as being half way to anywhere else in space.

I think what is most important is not millions of tons, but rather the first 1000 tons.
You can't mine water in space if one only has 1000 tons to mine- you can't profitably mine. But you can mine less than 1000 tones in the first year. Or with banking or venture capital and stock market you can start a business in the red, as long as it has reasonable future profitability. Or it's possible to just mine 1000 tons of lunar water in 10 years, but it has to be a future where one mining a lot more than this [say +200 tons per year, which which go to 500 or 1000 per year]. The more critical aspect is how it going in first 3 years- is it possible to sell your share at this point in time.

I disagree if your cost per ton for the first 1000 tons are hundreds of times what they could be and you have created a business model based on that price.  I am not suggesting mining an ice trojan of Jupiter or Saturn where it is, I am suggesting moving it to LEO, putting a sun shield around it and processing it in situ in LEO.

Other pieces of ice could be moved to Mars orbit.

Let's review.
I want NASA to explore the Moon in order to lower the risks involved with commercial lunar mining by exploring the Moon to determine whether and where there is minable lunar water.
I believe that commercial lunar mining will lead to mining water in other places in space [ie asteroids] .
So I explaining what and why NASA should explore the Moon. And after determining whether and where
lunar mining is possible, I think NASA should begin Mars program.
Or I don't want NASA spending any more time or money on lunar related activity, and use the majority of budget on Mars. [also to have enough money by this time NASA should not spending billions per year  on ISS]
So in your opinion how could NASA help to start the commercial mining of ice trojan of Jupiter?

Offline nadreck

Re: Space and Humanity.
« Reply #97 on: 12/06/2014 10:46 pm »

So in your opinion how could NASA help to start the commercial mining of ice trojan of Jupiter?

Moving a small asteroid
It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Space and Humanity.
« Reply #98 on: 12/07/2014 02:10 am »

So in your opinion how could NASA help to start the commercial mining of ice trojan of Jupiter?

Moving a small asteroid

The only thing I don't like about moving a small asteroid is the lack of planning and/or lack of a program-  in fact I believe I suggested the general idea before NASA did or Obama was President. Though I was thinking of 10 meter or maybe 20 meter rock
I suppose the 7 meter works too.
A main reason is such a small rock is not much of a threat to Earth.
So less of political problem moving small rocks vs larger rocks to the Earth/Moon system
But as recall it I thought simple regolith would have value in high earth orbit- Ie, shielding for a space station.
And other main advantage is there a lot of NEO less than 20 meters in diameter.
So at  low cost, a program which would strengthen the the search of hazardous earth crossers- one could find more of these rocks and out the +50,000 small objects which are findable  one could find a few which in near perfect trajectory.
Nor as I recall I did I suggest it could only be done with ion rockets.
Nor do I currently think it could only be done with ion rockets.
But I guess using ion rocket might be a good idea.

But lately I think of saving ISS [as I once thought saving Mir] would been a good idea.
My main reason why I want to save ISS is I think it's bad PR for NASA to crash ISS into Earth and think it
Dennis Wingo who brought up this obvious aspect.
Or it simply does not look good- particular to anyone who isn't a space cadet. Bad optics.

So I think it's worth a few billion to save an International Space Station [as compared to spending 1/2 billion to de-orbit it].

We don't need to do this now, but we should be planning for it.
In terms of sequence, first NASA should develop depots- Depot at KSC 28 inclination, second exploring the Moon OR first save ISS. Or both starting at about same time.
ISS happens to be about the same mass a the 7 meter rock [probably not chance- perhaps some people are thinking the rock mover could also move ISS].
And I think we should first move ISS before moving the rock.

I think we need to strengthen the program to look for more earth crossers in an even shorter period of time. Or in terms of scale of money- add + 1/2 billion to it.
So continue with looking for +120 meter, but if looking for the +120 meter faster, and we also find more of nearer smaller rocks. So all +120 meter rocks before 2020.
A depot at 28 inclination before 2020.
And say move ISS before 2025.
Have started lunar program before 2025 [robotic part of program], end program less than 10 year after this.
Start Mars program 2035.

And getting a rock could be contracted-  a contract to get a rock and give the price of doing and NASA considers whether this is worth it. Whoever doing it, may want to sell the whole rock to NASA, or sell certain aspect or rights to the rock. And if ISS is in high Earth orbit, one might need shielding for it.
Also someone might buy shadow at Earth/Moon L-1/2- for a better thermal environment [depot related].
Whatever moved ISS, if owned by NASA, can sold or leased to anyone wanting the get a rock. Or moving dead GEO satellites somewhere.

So get a rock is really about getting a tug- which one thing it can do is get a rock.
Generally speaking if had a choice between NASA the rocket maker/owner and NASA the space tug maker/owner, I would pick NASA the space tug owner.
But would rather NASA focusing on exploration and encouraging the rocket making and space tug making
by private sector and do so  by exploration for resources which are exploitable.

Edit: I said above that were looking +120 meters, it's actually +140 meter:
"With over 90% of the near-Earth objects larger than one kilometer already discovered, the NEO Program is now focusing on finding 90% of the NEO population larger than 140 meters."
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/stats/
And:
"As of December 03, 2014, 11941 Near-Earth objects have been discovered. Some 865 of these NEOs are asteroids with a diameter of approximately 1 kilometer or larger. Also, 1523 of these NEOs have been classified as Potentially Hazardous Asteroids (PHAs). "
« Last Edit: 12/07/2014 06:58 am by gbaikie »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1