Steven Pietrobon - 23/4/2008 8:49 PMWhat resources are there that could be used for further exploration? Oxygen and metals derived from rocks. Perhaps water and hydrogen from the Lunar poles....What about launching the oxygen to a Lagrange point where the Mars spacecraft rendezvous and fills up? That's better, but you have to carry the hydrogen to the Moon in order to get the oxygen from the Moon. Even at a 6:1 oxygen to hydrogen ratio, this is very expensive to do and may not be worth it. Something to study though.
Steven Pietrobon - 24/4/2008 11:49 AMIf you want to argue about making space more accessable, then money directed at reusable launches and space elevators would be much more beneficial then throwing money at the Moon or Mars. This is what happened to the Space Task Group. NASA tried to to make a reusable launcher, and only succeeded in making spaceflight even more expensive at the cost of 14 lives. This is a really hard problem.
Norm Hartnett - 24/4/2008 9:10 AMWhat I found most thought provoking about Dennis’ article was his link to Thor Hogan’s Mars Wars book. I’ve only read about a third of it so far but the applicability of this kind of analysis to the VSE is obvious.
On 25 May [1989], Mark Albrecht called Admiral Truly to ask whether NASA could return to the Moon by the end of the century—in preparation for a Mars mission early in the next century. Albrecht was stunned by Truly’s response. ‘“His first reaction was 'don’t do it.’ NASA cannot handle this.” The NASA Administrator was unsure whether this request was simply Albrecht playing ‘what if’ games, or whether this was a serious proposition. As a result, he called Vice President Quayle, who confirmed that both he and President Bush wanted to know whether this was something NASA could accomplish. After consulting with Frank Martin, Director of NASA’s Office of Exploration, Truly concluded that there was no way he could rebuff a presidential initiative. Albrecht recalled later “his initial impulse turned out to be quite revealing, because in the end, NASA couldn’t handle it.” What is equally revealing, however, is the fact that nobody at the White House reconsidered the wisdom of announcing a new initiative given the agency’s reluctance.
NASA did get some sympathy from Truly, who was administrator during the abortive Space Exploration Initiative (and who lost his job because of the conflicts that stemmed from it.) “I think this time around it’s much better thought out,” he said of the Vision for Space Exploration. Announcing plans to phase out the shuttle, he said, provided a “theoretical” way for help paying for the program that didn’t exist during SEI. He also credited O’Keefe for his work putting the Vision together in the aftermath of the Columbia accident. “My hat’s off to him"
Norm Hartnett - 24/4/2008 1:10 AMwhile I have every faith that NASA could design a cart that would work with the horse in the rear,
HIP2BSQRE - 24/4/2008 8:30 PM If people could buy moon dust, scupltures, anything from the moon---you would have a market.
Eerie - 25/4/2008 3:13 AMQuoteHIP2BSQRE - 24/4/2008 8:30 PM If people could buy moon dust, scupltures, anything from the moon---you would have a market. Are you serious? Because that suggestion is so stupid it is not even funny. You think a f%#$ing Moon Base can be made sustainable by selling souvenirs? :laugh:
gospacex - 25/4/2008 3:30 AMI wouldn't jump to conclusions so fast.I am not a businessman, and much of what they do _appear_ stupid to me. But I try to account for the fact that they probably know better how to make business work better than me.
gospacex - 23/4/2008 11:21 PMStop for a second and realize that non-hydrogen fuels also exist, and for the Moon it can turn out that it's much easier to produce and use those instead.
ChrisInAStrangeLand - 25/4/2008 5:48 AMQuotegospacex - 23/4/2008 11:21 PMStop for a second and realize that non-hydrogen fuels also exist, and for the Moon it can turn out that it's much easier to produce and use those instead.I agree, the Apollo samples brought back were absolutely drenched in hydrazine and rp1.
Eerie - 25/4/2008 4:13 AMQuoteHIP2BSQRE - 24/4/2008 8:30 PM If people could buy moon dust, scupltures, anything from the moon---you would have a market. Are you serious? Because that suggestion is so stupid it is not even funny. You think a f%#$ing Moon Base can be made sustainable by selling souvenirs? :laugh:
William Barton - 25/4/2008 7:03 AMQuoteChrisInAStrangeLand - 25/4/2008 5:48 AMQuotegospacex - 23/4/2008 11:21 PMStop for a second and realize that non-hydrogen fuels also exist, and for the Moon it can turn out that it's much easier to produce and use those instead.I agree, the Apollo samples brought back were absolutely drenched in hydrazine and rp1.Where did the RP1 come fom? I'm under the impression RP1 was only in the S1C, which winds up in the Atlantic. Upper stages were LH2, CSM/LM propellants were all hypergols. Am I mistaken?
Jim - 25/4/2008 7:10 AMQuoteWilliam Barton - 25/4/2008 7:03 AMQuoteChrisInAStrangeLand - 25/4/2008 5:48 AMQuotegospacex - 23/4/2008 11:21 PMStop for a second and realize that non-hydrogen fuels also exist, and for the Moon it can turn out that it's much easier to produce and use those instead.I agree, the Apollo samples brought back were absolutely drenched in hydrazine and rp1.Where did the RP1 come fom? I'm under the impression RP1 was only in the S1C, which winds up in the Atlantic. Upper stages were LH2, CSM/LM propellants were all hypergols. Am I mistaken?She was being facetious.
It might also be possible to substantially increase the short-term price for lunar platinum by adding an intangible value to the initial shipments of PGMs sent from the lunar surface. In the long term, the global commodity price of platinum will invariably fall once humanity locates an abundant lunar supply of PGM (perhaps offset by rising demand from innovative new uses), however, it may be possible to enhance temporarily the market value of initial shipments of lunar metals by fusing intangible value to an otherwise tangible asset.Many small diners or retail shops across America have a 20 dollar bill taped to the wall behind the cash register. Why? The first dollar earned has emotional significance far beyond the actual value of the currency. Wouldn’t the first kilogram of lunar platinum ever mined by our species belong in the Smithsonian? Collectors and speculators will surely wish to share in the history and cachet associated with the first lunar materials returned to Earth for commercial purposes.One mechanism to transform these intangibles into a commodity would be to create numismatic value. For example even a relatively common 1799 Silver Dollar is worth more than 100 times the bullion value of 27 grams (slightly less than one ounce) of silver. The 1964 JFK half dollar is another example. Close to four million proof coins were minted and current prices for these coins fall between two and two and a half times the current bullion price for silver. The very first coins minted from lunar metals should be worth far, far more that the raw commodity price for platinum. Today, China mints panda platinum coins that are worth between 150% and 200% of bullion value.
tankmodeler - 22/4/2008 11:45 PMI must agree that this is one of the best space pieces I've seen in a long long time. Bloody well done, Dennis.As to the point:QuoteBut I do think that the rocket is a big part of the problem too. More specifically, the problem is what the architecture choice does to NASA's budget. Well, on a tactical level, I think you're right, but Dennis' piece is at the strategic level and if NASA had been going down the self-sufficient architecture route from the beginning, the entire discussion of Ares/Direct/EELV might be quite moot. You're arguing whether we should be bunting or going for the home run. Dennis is suggesting that perhaps we should be playing hockey.Paul
But I do think that the rocket is a big part of the problem too. More specifically, the problem is what the architecture choice does to NASA's budget.