Quote from: Jim on 12/03/2014 12:53 pmThe gov't can pay for somebody to explore, much like Lewis and Clark.And should.
The gov't can pay for somebody to explore, much like Lewis and Clark.
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?
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?
Quote from: yg1968 on 12/03/2014 09:14 pmQuote from: Jim on 12/03/2014 12:53 pmThe 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? [...]
Quote from: Jim on 12/03/2014 12:53 pmThe 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.?
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.
Quote from: gbaikie on 12/04/2014 10:11 amDo 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.QuoteGenerally 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'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.
Quote from: mikegi on 12/04/2014 01:30 pmQuote from: gbaikie on 12/04/2014 10:11 amDo 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.QuoteGenerally 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 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.
Quote from: Lar on 12/05/2014 12:11 amI 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.
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 $1 million per ton or less. Assume the base over it's operational life will need more than 1000 tons, and total cost is less than 1 billion. One could spend over 10 billion dollar just to find such water [don't include this cost] just the total cost it takes to get 1000 tons of usable water.If that is wildly impossible, maybe NASA should not explore Mars- or perhaps it's not low hanging fruit for settlements.Assuming this is possible, then NASA should focus it's ISRU on finding far cheaper water. It should also have other things it's exploring or developing into operational technology which are related to human settlements- farming, finding and using caves, etc.
Quote from: gbaikie on 12/05/2014 03:01 amSo as in comparison we know there is trillions of tons of water on Mars- and would I say, within the near term that this Martian water is not minable. It's extractable but not minable. There could minable water on Mars moons and perhaps NASA should explore these moon also to determine whether there is minable water on them. But it seems to me the highest chance of minable water in space is on the Moon. And once lunar water is mined, then other locations in space *become* minable- which may even include the Mars surface.Or in other words, NASA should be looking for the lowest pickable fruit in space.NASA should explore Mars because it might be the easiest first location in system in which people can live.Or Mars might the lowest pickable fruit in terms of human settlements in space. But once you get any mars settlement, you will also get human settlements in other places than Mars.In terms of NASA and ISRU, NASA's work should focus on finding really cheap water- water which could as cheap as it is on Earth. And lots of it. If can get a cheap lake of water on Mars- then you will get human settlements on Mars. Or million tons at 1$ 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.
Quote from: nadreck on 12/05/2014 06:40 pmQuote from: gbaikie on 12/05/2014 03:01 amSo 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.
Quote from: gbaikie on 12/05/2014 11:43 pmQuote from: nadreck on 12/05/2014 06:40 pmQuote from: gbaikie on 12/05/2014 03:01 amSo 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.
So in your opinion how could NASA help to start the commercial mining of ice trojan of Jupiter?
Quote from: gbaikie on 12/06/2014 07:59 pmSo in your opinion how could NASA help to start the commercial mining of ice trojan of Jupiter?Moving a small asteroid