Q&A: Richard P. Speck of Micro-Space Inc

[rpspeck]

(There happened to be a lot of posts in the SpaceX thread which are actually more in reference to Micro-Space, so I've moved them (in time order) into this thread, which becomes the Q&A proper later in the thread - James Lowe - Moderator.)


“As to computers, it occurred in phases, not all at once. How you financed silicon valley start-ups at the time was off of the easy to prove productivity improvements, and may of the ventures were seeded on less than $50k. Wozniak and Jobs built Apple 1 out of junk from a junk dealer FYI. I don't think this is a good comparison.”

The MOS Technology 6502 processor Steve Wozniak used did not come from a junk dealer, since the part had just been announced.  Wozniak and I (and thousands of others) ordered our first units the same week – the week the part was announced and offered for $25.  MOS Technology spent far more than $50,000 putting this near state of the art IC into production.  It was a severe “White Space” venture for them to offer this microprocessor for that price.  But, by breaking away from the 10x to 20x higher price then asked by Motorola and Intel for samples of comparable parts, they broke open a previously invisible market.  

Wozniak did some extremely clever things, turning the weaknesses of these parts, and of the available MOS memory ICs, into strengths.  The result was an “affordable” (1/2 the price of a Volkswagen) computer with live, color graphic display (on a TV). My own efforts buried the processors in some very nice automatic test systems and served niche markets for decades.

My major point is that IBM blindly but accurately dismissed these cut rate “Toy” computers.  They in fact stripped good transistor logic circuits down to a barely functional equivalent, implemented them with slow and unreliable transistors and were built into machines with too little memory for anything but classroom use.  And the displays, while arguably color graphic, were of such low resolution that no IBM scientist would look at one (They actually could be used with only 40 characters per line of text, initially all capitals).  


We have close, accurate (and potentially blind) parallels dismissing the Falcon 1 in this thread.  On the one hand, it does little new.  On the other hand it may produce the economic breakthrough which opens radically new markets.  Time will tell.


The big breakthrough for the new “Toy” computers (beyond the hobbyists served by your $50,000 startup hardware assemblers and software companies) was that they were cheap enough to sit on your desk waiting for your input.  This enabled “VisCalc”, the mother of all spreadsheets, modeling interactive formulas in real time.  No such thing can be done on a timeshare terminal (with characters hammered out on a Teletype at 10 per second) not with batch processed programs. At that point no corporate manager could live without one, and, at the going price, few had to.   The “Toy” turned into a corporate necessity.  

It is easy to dismiss both “low cost” and “Ultralight” space ideas, but millions of people actually want to go into space.  There are limits to how low the price can go:  The fuel used in a typical family car in a year, when combined with 2.6 times its mass in low cost liquid Oxygen, is sufficient to launch a man, with spacesuit and reentry system, into orbit using conventional rockets.  

Richard P. Speck,  Micro-Space, Inc.  

Most of this is off-topic and not helpful.

rpspeck - 5/4/2007  7:47 PM  “As to computers, it occurred in phases, not all at once. How you financed silicon valley start-ups at the time was off of the easy to prove productivity improvements, and may of the ventures were seeded on less than $50k. Wozniak and Jobs built Apple 1 out of junk from a junk dealer FYI. I don't think this is a good comparison.”  

The junk dealers name was Marty Spergel. He lives in Los Gatos. He later ran operations for Woz's "Cloud 9", which sold poor quality universal TV controllers. The cherrywood boxed unit 1 he couldn't afford a audio cassette storage, so in demoing the unit, he'd have to type in the binary hex codes for the integer basic interpreter. I could go on for hours like this. I was present for it, along with many other "big name" deals. So what - this is a forum about Commercial Space, not computers.

The MOS Technology 6502 processor Steve Wozniak used did not come from a junk dealer, since the part had just been announced.  Wozniak and I (and thousands of others) ordered our first units the same week – the week the part was announced and offered for $25.  MOS Technology spent far more than $50,000 putting this near state of the art IC into production.

MOS Technology FAILED as an investment and isn't around. Intel still is. They had little to do with Apples success, which had more to do with VisiCalc improving productivity than which microprocessor was chosen.

It was a severe “White Space” venture for them to offer this microprocessor for that price.  But, by breaking away from the 10x to 20x higher price then asked by Motorola and Intel for samples of comparable parts, they broke open a previously invisible market.

Actually, this wasn't related to technology as market pricing - all of the 8-bit processors cost about the same, and many different ones were used. The Signetics one was similar to the 6502 in price. The issue was one of discount to buy-in an installed base, where Intel had an early advantage and wouldn't discount, and Moto was a big firm that didn't need to discount. Woz could have used another. Not "white space"

   Wozniak did some extremely clever things, turning the weaknesses of these parts, and of the available MOS memory ICs, into strengths.  The result was an “affordable” (1/2 the price of a Volkswagen) computer with live, color graphic display (on a TV).

Woz made color graphics affordable with a trick, making it more attractive than its rival on price. Not "white space".

If anything, the software like VisiCalc made the success, with productivity improvements - some were "white space". But the computer markets. both horizontal and vertical, engaged broad  consumer and enterprise markets. Aerospace isn't a broad market, so again these are rotten examples.

It is easy to dismiss both “low cost” and “Ultralight” space ideas, but millions of people actually want to go into space.    

Sorry. Not a space cadet. Work in the real world with very real interests and enjoy it. Find it easier to answer market need with real products and real public/private funds. No one would be a more serious advocate for new space technology. But it comes from the hard work both in business and engineering in confronting requirements and making things work across the board. Not from fantasy.

You're not impressing me. Some of us have rather wide experience, across many industries. You'd do better here to explain your microspace investment thesis in terms of the space industry, assuming you have the ability to do so. Those in this list would welcome "real" stuff - but they are good at challenging the unreal. For the space industry is literally the most difficult one in the world.

[privateer]

Jim - 5/4/2007  5:13 PM

rpspeck - 5/4/2007  5:36 PM
Additional note: I believe the U2 pilots spend a lot more than two hours suited up.

1.  U-2 pilots are a select group of people performing a national security mission.  They weren't John Q. Public, who would have an issue with spending a long time in a spacesuit.

rpspeck, I must admit that I find your proposal 'crazy' and therefore potentially leading to something good. Let's see.
Basically, you propose to pack LV passenger into EVA suit, and then shave off  weight from spacecraft:
* Unpressurized crew compartment (lighter than pressurized).
* No airlock.
When craft arrives to ISS, astronaut leaves the capsule and simply walks in ISS's airlock!

Jim, If I can get a ride to the orbit for several millions $$$ less than on "conventional" capsule, I will be quite willing to spend a few ("more than 2") hours in EVA suit. Also, a research/development on better (more comfortable) EVA suits should be significantly less costly than LV development.

What are the disadvantages?

[Avron]

privateer - 6/4/2007  7:30 AM


What are the disadvantages?

Single point of failure.. I just don't see the FAA or who-ever granting the licence for launch. If something goes wrong, criminal charges may be an option here for the authorities.

[braddock]

Richard P. Speck of Micro-Space Inc is becoming a regular visitor to the NSF forums, and is willing to take questions from members here.

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site36/2006/1015/20061015_032914_CD16_micro.jpg">

http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_4494989 (A Denver Post article about Mr. Speck and Micro-Space)

Mr. Speck is head of Micro-Space Inc, which is developing modular liquid rocket systems to compete in the Lunar Lander Challenge (and beyond).  He has been working on components for the Micro-Space system for over 10 years.

http://www.entrespace.org/Micro_Space/MICROnews/903bA.jpg">
Test by Micro-Space of one of their Liquid fueled propulsion modules, 2004
http://www.entrespace.org/Micro_Space/MICROnews/MICnewsA1.html

Micro-Space was also a contender in the X Prize Cup.

http://estaticos01.cache.el-mundo.net/fotografia/2004/09/xprize/imagenes/microspace.jpg">

Mr. Speck will take questions here, although due to time constraints it may take him some time to respond.

I'll start out by asking Mr. Speck to describe the Crusader LL lunar lander challenge vehicle pictured above, what particular innovations it holds, and whether we'll be seeing it fly this fall in the next LLC.

[jimvela]

OK, I'll bite with a first question.

First, greetings from a fellow Coloradan... ;-)p

It seems to me that one important lesson learned from various launch systems is that high-value matter (people or payloads) belong at the top of a rocket stack where there is the highest probability of survival in the event that things go wrong with the launch vehicle.  Aside from being furthest away from the excitement, this position also enables various means of crew escape in the event of a lower stage failure.

In looking at the rendering of your X-prize concept, the monkey is sandwiched between two clusters of boosters.  What is your rationale for this configuration?

[rpspeck]

There are many problems with our X-Prize configuration.  It emphasized our modular propulsion approach and made a manned flight vehicle possible.  On the other hand, I knew far too much about Burt Rutan to believe anyone else ever had a chance to win the X Prize.

Rutan had been flying his Proteus for years (and borrowed pressure suits from Edwards to set an altitude record in that Jet Propulsion vehicle’s class).  The cabin on both White Knight and SpaceShipOne were taken from that aircraft, and the mentioned experience allowed him to skip pressure suit use or high altitude tests with the X Prize systems.  

We gave serious consideration to bailout, from between the propulsion units, on this vehicle, particularly at modest altitude during early, manned flight tests.  This actually jumpstarted our successful work on compact, long duration life support equipment.

The moderate grade Hydrogen Peroxide we continue to work with, used with Methyl Alcohol as a bipropellant, is not hypergolic and rather difficult to make burn at all.  It is far less explosive that hypergolics or even liquid Oxygen.  It also allows very light weight, high pressure fuel tanks.  This is a technology we have perfected after much effort, and the high mass ratio systems it allows have factored heavily in our projections and flying hardware.  

The benign nature of the fuels and observed failure modes made the “High Energy, Fireball” a distant concern.  A far greater concern was a fire, in the air or prelaunch, on the ground.  In this case both CO2 flood firefighting (conspicuously missing on Apollo 1) and water deluge were planned, and other than a good Nomex / Kevlar flight suit this demanded a long duration air supply.  In point of fact, the recent “Sea Launch” and a much earlier Delta II are the only “Fireball Failures” I can recall for several decades.  

It is easy to fixate on low probability failures.  But at some point this is like the avalanche hazard in mountaineering:  when you have taken all practical safety steps, you accept the risk of a random, killing event.

A far bigger risk was propulsion failure at too low an altitude to successfully bail out.  Given fairly high takeoff thrust, and full motor stabilization before launch, this also drops to modest probability, involving less than five seconds after release.

Although the SpaceShipOne placed the pilot in the nose, there was no mechanism to detach the motor section in case of fire or failure.  In fact, the vehicle could not be flown if the motor broke off the vehicle (out of Center of Gravity range).  In theory, the nose could have been unscrewed in flight and the pilot could have crawled out of that opening, and parachuted to the ground. But in fact, with the potential spin failures which at least twice faced the SpaceShipOne pilot, this possibility was always remote.  

Richard P. Speck,  Micro-Space, Inc.

[rpspeck]

Jim - 6/4/2007  4:13 PM

rpspeck - 5/4/2007  5:36 PM

“1.  major error in this is passengers don't want to be in a spacesuit for the whole flight.”

Additional note: I believe the U2 pilots spend a lot more than two hours suited up.

2.  A more serious note:  Given the proven loss of life (Russian) from spacecraft depressurization and experience with fast and slow depressurization in less demanding aircraft situations, why has the manned spaceflight industry decided to reverse aviation standards and condemn participants to death following any hull failure, including serious leakage?  The large cross section of the pressure hull becomes an “Acceptable”, single point Fatal failure?   To buy into this scenario and then talk about “Risk” in a spacesuit makes very little sense.  To avoid the fatal single point failure, all astronauts need to stay in their pressure suits until they at least transfer to a more robust (probably double walled) low stress space station.

3.  For two hour rendezvous, I assumed a more precision control system than used in Mercury/Atlas.  Probably a “Hot Dog” like the 486 used on ISS.  Plus I assumed use of GPS so you would know where you were.      

4.  Re Ejection: You can eject from a rocket after engine shutdown (near apogee if still deep in the atmosphere) with a bungee cord plus your standard deployment mechanism (already in freefall).  It is hard to think in these terms since explosive “Flight Termination” has been more common than Thrust Termination.


Richard P. Speck,    Micro-Space, Inc.

1.  U-2 pilots are a select group of people performing a national security mission.  They weren't John Q. Public, who would have an issue with spending a long time in a spacesuit.

2.  You have no idea what you are talking about.  Both Russian and American spacecraft use pressure suits for launch.  Once on orbit, the pressure shells of both spacecraft are just as good as the space stations.  If there is a leak, the life support system pumps in enough air to maintain pressure long enough to allow the crew to put on their suits.  Also, the space stations don't use double hulls.

3. It has nothing to with a computer.  It is sensors and thrusters and a capable LV.   GPS is not one of the sensors (radar, laser, LLL cameras, etc).  And as I stated before there isn't a 2 hour rendevous.

4.  No you can't bail out, especially near apogee because you will burn up also

I will clarify for readers who have not followed this disjointed conversation, starting with item 4 first:

4. My words “deep in the atmosphere” do not refer to high vacuum, 300km up. The prior reference was to the near vertical flight terminated below 5000 feet by Falcon 1 in 2006.  The rocket did not burn up, nor would an ejected pilot.  Waiting for the dynamic pressure (air drag) to drop and altitude to reach peak would be prudent.

I am describing flight to orbit an a lightweight spacecraft/reentry system which could be decoupled following thrust termination (as occurred in both Falcon 1 flights), and safely decelerate to a final parachute landing.

One current manned launch system presently calls for literal “bail out”.  It is called the STS or Space Shuttle, and is American made.  Moderate altitude failures are to be followed by the crew crawling out of a hatch and using a pole to aid them in clearing the tail structure.  I don’t know if anyone thinks this procedure will actually work. I am certain it has not been operationally tested.  

3.  GPS has been used in orbit and I have already discussed the accuracy obtainable with it (using VERY conservative accuracy numbers).
 
2. “Three Russian cosmonauts died during the Soyuz 11 mission in 1971” due to loss of cabin pressure.  Subsequently, the Russians wear pressure suits. This was a good thing for them, and American passengers, since a similar depressurization occurred in the past year.  I do not believe that the Russians can take off their pressure suits in the confines of their small spacecraft.
 
Americans continued to make do without pressure suits until after the failure of “CHALLENGER STS-51L” (1986).  Until then, aircraft safety standards were discarded.

Many ships use double hulls due to the severe consequences that can follow hull rupture.  I did not think either ISS or the STS used such double hulls, but this was a discussion about safety, and avoidance of catastrophic, since point failures.
 
I understand that the STS is too well designed to fail – OOPS, I mean too well designed to fail AGAIN!

1. I don’t write or think about tourists (John Q. Public).  I let others do that.  I think about the 3000 people who have “walked” up Mount Everest  (or, like myself, have experienced similar conditions on smaller peaks).  These people spend more than 12 hours in protective gear, usually including Oxygen masks.  Those who “have an issue” with what I am describing can either stay home, spend ten times as much money for their tickets, or decide – as I will – to put up with inconveniences.

[privateer]

Avron - 6/4/2007  9:12 AM

privateer - 6/4/2007  7:30 AM
What are the disadvantages?

Single point of failure.. I just don't see the FAA or who-ever granting the licence for launch. If something goes wrong, criminal charges may be an option here for the authorities.

1) Just wonderful. Now FAA will tell me how exactly I can risk my life, and how I cannot. Is this legal?

2) How come today's astronauts are allowed to perform milti-hour EVAs? In the very same spacesuits! Isn't it very similar? This is even worse because they don't have a capsule around them, two-millimeter sized grain of space junk and they are dead. Where is FAA now?

[rpspeck]

privateer - 7/4/2007  2:38 PM

Avron - 6/4/2007  9:12 AM

privateer - 6/4/2007  7:30 AM
What are the disadvantages?

Single point of failure.. I just don't see the FAA or who-ever granting the licence for launch. If something goes wrong, criminal charges may be an option here for the authorities.

1) Just wonderful. Now FAA will tell me how exactly I can risk my life, and how I cannot. Is this legal?

2) How come today's astronauts are allowed to perform milti-hour EVAs? In the very same spacesuits! Isn't it very similar? This is even worse because they don't have a capsule around them, two-millimeter sized grain of space junk and they are dead. Where is FAA now?

Actually the FAA has no section of the "Experimental Launch Permit" addressing either flight or ground crew safety: “at your own risk”.  I like the fact that this is to an extent still a free country.  Once NASA was removed from space flight oversight (following Challenger?) many obstacles were removed.  

The FAA concern is that death of a pilot will remove a valuable “safety system” and that the remaining systems must be adequate to protect the public.  

Thank you for noticing that ISS EVA has the same, catastrophic single point failure characteristic: I have been having trouble making this point.  (A shroud/windshield will be in place in the atmosphere just as it is for satellites, which are more fragile than humans – watch a super bowl game closely if you don’t believe this.)

I have also tried to make the point that a mechanical counter-pressure suit, with multifeed mask, removes suit pressure envelope failure as a catastrophic event.  With a small cross section and high energy threshold, destruction of a well designed mask system is far less likely than mechanical destruction of the user’s brain.    

[Avron]

privateer - 6/4/2007  4:38 PM

Avron - 6/4/2007  9:12 AM

privateer - 6/4/2007  7:30 AM
What are the disadvantages?

Single point of failure.. I just don't see the FAA or who-ever granting the licence for launch. If something goes wrong, criminal charges may be an option here for the authorities.

1) Just wonderful. Now FAA will tell me how exactly I can risk my life, and how I cannot. Is this legal?

2) How come today's astronauts are allowed to perform milti-hour EVAs? In the very same spacesuits! Isn't it very similar? This is even worse because they don't have a capsule around them, two-millimeter sized grain of space junk and they are dead. Where is FAA now?

Think the proximity of the station, airlocks, and life support within the structures "close" at hand may have something to do with it, but after looking at the pics of that Gove, maybe "two-millimeter sized grain of space junk ' is not a guarantee , that you are dead, if you have someplace to get to close that can support life.

[Avron]

rpspeck - 6/4/2007  5:54 PM
Actually the FAA has no section of the "Experimental Launch Permit" addressing either flight or ground crew safety: “at your own risk”.  I like the fact that this is to an extent still a free country.  Once NASA was removed from space flight oversight (following Challenger?) many obstacles were removed.  

My bad, I don't know US law, but in Canada, start filling in forms...

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/RegServ/Affairs/cars/Part5/549.htm

[rpspeck]

nobodyofconsequence - 6/4/2007  11:30 PM

You'd do better here to explain your Micro-Space investment thesis in terms of the space industry, assuming you have the ability to do so.

I have a simple “investment” thesis.  It assumes that some of the people who crowded around TV sets in 1969 still exist and that others have inherited their interest.

It assumes that many of these would rather watch space exploits than cars grinding rubber tires into dust, or actors eating a dead rat in a “reality” script.  

I know that I can push the cost of space exploits (using existing LEO launch and ultralight space systems) below the cost of “Indy car” and “Formula 1” racing teams (over thirty of each currently in operation).   And I know that I can achieve sufficient safety that I will be willing to fly in these craft.  

I know that there are adventurers willing to accept risks and difficulties, both on this planet and off, far beyond my personal limits.

I believe that the market of affluent viewers I have described will attract advertising and sponsorship which, added to the personal investment of “space cadets” (who want to go personally) and speculative early investors, will allow first, feasibility demonstrations and second, dozens of operational space adventures including Lunar and Mars landings.    Richard P. Speck,  Micro-Space, Inc.

[braddock]

You have been talking about space tourism with little but a space suit and a heat shield.  This seems reminiscent of the DynaSoar-era MOOSE inflatable foam-filled single-man reentry systems.

http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/m/moose.jpg">
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/moose.htm

What is the state of this technology?  Has anyone else dusted it off in the past 40 years?
I love the idea of space tourism as an extreme sport instead of a tour bus.  John Carmack has lately been talking in similar terms (he recently added a saddle to one of the Armadillo rockets).

[rpspeck]

I haven't heard any one else talking about it.  

The folding, inflatable system isn't necessary if you are going to fly it up, and our prototypes all use rigid foam/fiberglass structures.   This saves weight.  Attitude control can now be included for less than a pound and the radios are almost too light to count.

[rpspeck]

nobodyofconsequence - 6/4/2007  11:30 PM

MOS Technology FAILED as an investment and isn't around. Intel still is.

In Denver, in the late 1970s, 6502 based systems were in stores everywhere, the core of Commodore and Atari systems as well as the premium priced Apple II.  To you, in silicon valley, it was apparently obvious that MOS Technology was a “one trick pony” with no second act.  Z-80 s and CPM were eating up the corporate market and Intel was preparing to demolish all 8 bit business micros.

This makes the important point (very much relevant to this thread) that what you see depends very much on where you stand.  

The very VISIBLE technology leaders then were the ones doomed to a slim future.  

[Flightstar]

In your claim that you are the main competitor to Armadillo Aerospace, what advantages (that you can speak of freely) do you have over them with your concepts.

[rpspeck]

I claim that we were, in October 2006, the primary competitor to Armadillo.  We had then, and now, 17 flights of our bipropellant, liquid fueled rocket (plus numerous static tests) and 2 very successful flights of near hover, gimbaled motor, gyro referenced guided rockets.  We also had then, and now, fuel tanks for a pressure fed system which were so light (allowing a high mass ratio) that our moderate performance fuel chemistry would be sufficient for both 90 and 180 second flights.  The flight weight vehicle (including transport damage and some temporary tubing connections) we displayed at that show had <50 pounds dry weight.

Bad luck erased the lead Armadillo had from having flown in 2005, and from having started FAA paperwork early.  Unfortunately, other obligations and cash flow considerations have made OUR progress since October much less than expected.  We are far ahead of where we were last year, but know that success this October will require a lot of hard work.  Ours is a small and minimally funded team.


Beyond the competition, it was somewhat a surprise to us to realize that our storable fuels (Hydrogen Peroxide – upgraded to 90% - and Methyl Alcohol – probably with some Hydrazine added) equal the ISP performance of N2O4  based chemistries with the same fuel component (ie Hydrazine), and offer vacuum performance in excess of 300 seconds.  With a 2:1 mass ratio, the 300 pound fuel load we planned for our level two vehicles (with 10 fuel tank modules), and the known vehicle dry weight, could actually land >250 pounds on the Moon.

This is sufficient for a human adventurer in his spacesuit.  An identical lander unit would carry down the fuel (used in either vehicle) to return the astronaut to lunar orbit.   Roughly 1200 pounds in lunar orbit (including the astronaut) would allow one person to walk on the Moon and return.  

Admittedly, this follows the old practice – once in vogue for emergency parachutes – of providing a separate system for each participant.  It of course raises the chance of one astronaut being killed, but radically reduces the chance of all astronauts in a team being killed.  As for “economies of scale” for a multi-person lander, I will let that question be answered operationally.  

The primary advantage we have is production capability of flight qualified, lightweight, high pressure fuel tanks.  Our current production tank weighs only 1/20 as much as the fuel it can contain (20:1 mass ratio limit) and has a bursting pressure of >700 psi.  Operating pressures are a temporary 300 to 400 psi.  (Safety factors are higher for tanks held at full pressure for years and simultaneously exposed to severe thermal and shock stresses.)

Due probably to poor resource management we currently have in stock enough flight qualified tanks to BOTH accelerate an astronaut in a lightweight craft from LEO to an orbit around the Moon, and build two human lunar lander systems.  

We have more than enough motors of our proven design to propel human test flights.  We do not, however, have any of the welded Niobium (also called Columbium) C-103 alloy motors necessary to handle the more energetic fuels in a “radiatively cooled” motor.  This is the material used in the glowing, Falcon 1 second stage and in most satellite thrusters.

The long duration life support systems work we continue probably also reflects poor management as it is irrelevant to the X Prize Cup competition.  We started it when we became an X-Prize (human spaceflight) team and haven’t had the sense to stop it.  This fixation probably includes nostalgia since I was deeply involved in research in Pulmonary Physiology in the 1960s, producing several innovative instruments and research systems and coauthoring several research papers.    Richard P. Speck

[rpspeck]

nobodyofconsequence - 6/4/2007  11:30 PM

You'd do better here to explain your Micro-Space investment thesis in terms of the space industry, assuming you have the ability to do so.

I neglected to describe how investors (if they wake up before adventurers) would profit form our program:

Over roughly ten years, a number of adventurers (“The First Hundred”) will accomplish noteworthy objectives in space, including several Mars and Moon landings.  About 30 solo and small team missions will embark with budgets averaging $65 Million.  Nearly 80 % of these costs will be for “freight” carried to LEO (possibly all by SpaceX).  The rest will pay “outfitters” for customized deep space hardware of the type Micro-Space is developing.  

Since to be the “first” to achieve anything is the essence of a race, success (fame, prestige and more funding opportunities) accrues to those who get an early start and go fast.  A supplier who has prepared the necessary equipment in advance can command a premium price from those who intend to win.



For the adventurer the situation is simpler.  It may already be too late for those who want to accomplish a first in space. They can start to prepare lightweight expeditions now, or join our efforts and start 16 years ago.  

We are offering options and contracts for mission specific deep space hardware.  Any adventurer capable of funding a $50 to $100 Million expedition in three to five years will have no trouble raising 1% of that total now.  We are presently talking to more than one, qualified adventurer about space missions, including a Mars landing.    

[braddock]

rpspeck - 8/4/2007  9:13 PM
I claim that we were, in October 2006, the primary competitor to Armadillo.  We had then, and now, 17 flights of our bipropellant, liquid fueled rocket (plus numerous static tests) and 2 very successful flights of near hover, gimbaled motor, gyro referenced guided rockets.

Wow, that much flight time would make you quite the dark horse LLC contender.  
Any video or photos of the test flights?
Any desire to partner some of your work with one of your better funded competitors?

[sandrot]

Is what I see at http://www.micro-space.com/ the X-Prize contender?

It looks a lot like a 4xGoddard's rocket.

[rpspeck]

As indicated by the prior posting, we welcome funding from those who want publicity (sponsors) or for those who have personal ambitions in space (adventurer customers).  

There is in fact no better way to enhance the prospects for attracting the multimillion dollar funding necessary to get a personal adventure into LEO than to invest seed money with the teams who are demonstrating that  human ventures into deep space – far beyond LEO - are feasible and affordable NOW!

SpaceShipOne started resurrection of the dream of personal spaceflight and exciting forays into the final frontier.  More steps are necessary before a large audience wakes up to today’s realities (particularly with nay saying “experts”) and exciting possibilities.  


At present, other LLC teams are both modestly funded and technically in fair shape.  The advantages we offer have more to do with future possibilities than this competition itself.  Our life support systems are irrelevant. Our fuel tanks can not be used with cryogenic liquid Oxygen, and the higher performance of that fuel (compared to our present low grade Peroxide) makes up for a worse mass ratio.  Much heavier vehicles of course make up for a small payload fraction, if one is not hauling the greater mass to LEO.  The benefit of our fuel tank technology can only be used with storable propellants.  

Thus I think that cooperation with other LLC teams is unlikely.

[rpspeck]

sandrot - 10/4/2007  10:05 AM

Is what I see at http://www.micro-space.com/ the X-Prize contender?

It looks a lot like a 4xGoddard's rocket.

Other than the gimbaled motors, guidance system and thrust control, it does look like that.  

Our normal launches are over dusty ground, not concrete pads, and we anticipated the problem of landing in a big cloud of dust, and actually blasting out a big hole with the motors close to the surface.  

The LLC competition avoids this expected problem with concrete pads, but a similar problem does occur on the Moon.  

Elevated motors never enhance stability (contrary to expectation), but they get the motors up out of the dirt.  A penalty, with the offset clusters, is major pitch moment resulting from mismatched thrust.  Our motors have been well enough behaved to make this tolerable.  

[sandrot]

Ok, but you need to move away from that scheme. Or your Adventurer Customer's adventure will start right away, through the rocket exhaust plume.

[rpspeck]

sandrot - 10/4/2007  10:54 AM

Ok, but you need to move away from that scheme. Or your Adventurer Customer's adventure will start right away, through the rocket exhaust plume.

A close look will show that the motors are laterally displaced and angled out, away from the core.  The prototype of the manned system we are working with splits the tanks ito two groups, with a place for the user to stand (or hang in parachute harness) between the tank groups.  (This works well in 0.16 to 0.4 g environments, but is not adequate for high "g" Earth launch to orbit, and is not intended for that purpose).  

In this version, the motor groups are outside of the tank clusters, and still angled outward.

[rpspeck]

Micro-Space is preparing for new tethered tests in a confined test space.  I am not sure I would call this a “Launch”.  The actual date is dependent on upgrading some subsystems, extracting test data for our FAA application and unrelated activities associated with maintaining “Cash Flow”.    

[meiza]

Pictures, videos, pictures, videos. That will gather the attention and make you 100000% more known in the x-prize / lunar lander challenge things.

[rpspeck]

meiza - 17/4/2007  6:53 PM

Pictures, videos, pictures, videos. That will gather the attention and make you 100000% more known in the x-prize / lunar lander challenge things.

You are of course correct.  We have perhaps “wasted” a great deal of time and money over the years developing life support systems for deep space missions.  Engineering prototypes and proof of concept breadboards produce very unimpressive photographs!

Our successful “proof of concept” lash up to verify the attainable performance for our short range “Tractor Beam” was spectacularly unimpressive.  It did prove that magnetic fields could be used to produce safe and gentle ARD (Autonomous Rendezvous and Docking), but the agency which requested proposals on this topic proclaimed that the idea was “Unworkable”.   It of course would take hours to accomplish docking, and take over from gas thrusters only at ranges of a few times the spacecraft dimensions.  But, of course, STS docking with the ISS also takes hours.  A safe method for accomplishing such docking for unmanned spacecraft and satellites should have some uses.  

No, I am not good at producing video of our tests for online distribution.  And, no we have not achieved the performance Armadillo has demonstrated with Pixel.  We have successfully flown both thrust vectored, near hover vehicles, and 17 flights with the same liquid fuel motors used in our “Crusader LL” lunar lander entry.

It is also true that we presently have less financial resources than we once did.  This slows down our progress.  

More important is a truth proclaimed by experts on this forum:  THERE IS NO MARKET!  No independently developed spaceflight technology can expect to find customers, and programs purporting to provide such access have all the attributes of a FRAUD!  

It takes either prophetic insight or UNBOUNDED STUPIDITY to envision a market for such developments.  Investors are not attracted to either.

The “Lunar Lander Competition” is attractive as a hobby effort and we are still in the running.  However it is clearly defined as having NO FOLLOW ON opportunity!  There is no upside potential beyond the listed prizes.  Yet, we push on (slowly).

[sandrot]

What is the distance at which you envision the tractor beam would be activated?

I have the feeling that, by the time the magnetic fields kick-in it would take minutes to dock, so there is no advantage to switch to a different approach method with a different control loop, to obtain just the same result as using thrusters.

[rpspeck]

sandrot - 24/4/2007  9:42 AM

What is the distance at which you envision the tractor beam would be activated?

I have the feeling that, by the time the magnetic fields kick-in it would take minutes to dock, so there is no advantage to switch to a different approach method with a different control loop, to obtain just the same result as using thrusters.

Re Tractor Beam:

This development was stimulated by an SBIR topic for “Autonomous Rendezvous and Docking (ARD)”.  The DOT component decided that they had an important problem: I didn’t.

The electromagnetic system is known to me and others as offering precision 6 DOF (Six Degree Of Freedom) relative position data with resolutions to < one millimeter.  Ranges to more than a kilometer (for position information) would be usable with this system, making it a nice bridge from radar and GPS data to fine motion docking.

If it were judged that existing thrusters were either too unreliable or too coarse in action to provide slow, safe unsupervised docking, then “milli g” electromagnetic accelerations could be used for the final adjustments – even if these took more than an hour.

The advantage of microsecond electronic control, embedded verification, and light weight multiply redundant hardware is well known.

If ARD is a “done deal”, and we only pay the Russians to haul supplies to the ISS as a politically motivated deal, then I understand why the DOT might ask for something they don’t actually need.      

[sandrot]

And this tractor beam will not have any electromagnetic interference downside, right?

[rpspeck]

ARD (Autonomous Rendezvous and Docking):

I have never suggested that these techniques (which I will soon explain in more detail) are trivial to employ or have no side effects.  The presumption remains that ARD (Autonomous Rendezvous and Docking) is challenging, but worth doing.  The context is of course docking of a potentially fragile payload with a very expensive and fragile spacecraft.  Think of the ISS, where a runaway interceptor could do tens or hundreds of $$ Billions of damage.  

The solicitation was in the SBIR program, with its hypothetical focus on INNOVATIVE.  New ideas always bring their own engineering problems, but may provide workable solutions to existing challenges.  One sure way (apparently well known to this program’s personnel) to guarantee meager results is to reject unexpected ideas out of hand.  

The proposed work would have validated in detail this electromagnetic system for providing infinitely gentile 6 degree of freedom accelerations, combined with accurate monitoring of the results and having a pronounced advantage (with much higher short range acceleration) for terminating a poorly controlled approach (“wave off”).  Combined with affordable, high level redundancy, these seem like attractive attributes for autonomous rendezvous in high risk situations.  

If it were possible, I would have appealed this rejection to Dr. Ronald M. Sega (Under Secretary of the Air Force.  Previously, “Director of Defense Research and Engineering”, Office of the Secretary of Defense).  

Dr. Sega spoke highly of my work and accomplishments when I worked with him, and Dr. John Jackson, on an interesting project in 1989.  At the time I was doing business as “Spectron Instrument Corp.”.

I do not think Dr. Sega would be pleased by the fact that many successful, innovative small businesses consider the SBIR program to have all the attributes of a fraud.

Yet the SBIR program has no appeal process, and a man as successful as Dr. Sega understandably moves beyond casual communication.  

Beyond this, I also understand the “special” attributes of this industry.  Innovative ideas are screened for “adding complications”, “conflicting with established procedures”, “being old (and rejected) technology”, “being new and unproven”, “using unproven parts”, “being expensive” and “being unbelievably low in estimated cost”.  The null set which remains is of course embraced with open arms!

Accurately judging the financial prospects of my patentable technology (dating from 1998), I will soon place this technology in the public domain by publication in this forum.     Richard P. Speck  4/24/2007

[rpspeck]

I confess to being in a bad mood yesterday.  

Work on our “lunchbox” size drive, automatic test and calibration box for the JHMCS HMD (Helmet Mounted Display) wasn’t going well.  The coordinate transform rotator and keystone correction image remapper had developed erratic performance.  This was not the section we were even working on!  We were updating the command authentication and UUT protection modes.  With our Navy customers from PAX due in today to verify the performance of their HMD Test System upgrades, and those to the Night Vision MTF and OTF analysis system, stress levels are high!

I do understand the space industry. I understand its “One strike and you’re out!” law: out of work, out of business, out of a career.  One risky decision by the lead engineers on a multimillion dollar projects sets them up to be the scapegoats who will pay for failure.

This industry lacks an “experimental” component, where failure is affordable.  (This was actually spelled out in one DOD SBIR solicitation.)  This dooms the industry to slow technological growth.  And it doesn’t look like this is going to change.  R.P.S.  

[rpspeck]

Tractor Beam: Technology Disclosure: Part 1   (By Richard P. Speck, Micro-Space, Inc.)

I reiterate my appeal to Dr. Ronald M. Sega, for I believe that some reader of this forum can forward a message to him.  Other of our technologies, disclosed in proposals to DOD components (and similarly rejected) deserve attention but will not be publicly released.  

(Dr. Ronald M. Sega, Under Secretary of the Air Force.  Previously, “Director of Defense Research and Engineering”, Office of the Secretary of Defense).  

Dr. Sega spoke highly of my work and accomplishments when I worked with him, and Dr. John Jackson (professor at UCCS), on an interesting project in 1989.  At the time I was doing business as “Spectron Instrument Corp.” (since renamed Micro-Space, Inc.).

 
Tractor Beam: Technology Disclosure: Part 1   (By Richard P. Speck, Micro-Space, Inc.)

This DISCLOSURE addresses the use of electromagnets to generate fields which will allow deliberate manipulation of an object in space by a system in space at moderate distance.  The focus will be on active, coordinated systems, using wireless communication to synchronize electromagnet activation on both objects.  A subset of the listed forces can be produced using passive coupling, but this mode will not be discussed further.  This discussion will envision manipulation of a small “Payload Delivery Unit” (PDU) by a larger and relatively static “Station”, although in fact all interactions are symmetrical and reciprocal.  Nothing in this technology is presumed to violate any law of known physics, and energy, momentum and angular momentum will be conserved when appropriately calculated.  

Magnetic “Torque Rods” are commonly used in spacecraft for attitude control through their interaction with the Earth’s magnetic field.  Instantaneous control is limited to two axes, with no torque producible around the axis of the local magnetic field.  (Cyclic variation of this vector in common orbits often allows cumulative 3 Degree of freedom attitude control.)   The disclosed technology is related to these procedures.

This technology was disclosed in “proprietary” proposals to a DOD component in 1999.  It is here PUBLICLY disclosed and thereby PLACED IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN by Richard P. Speck, and Micro-Space, Inc. (a Colorado Corporation) April 27, 2007.  This terminates our ability to obtain patent protection, forecloses such an effort by others and flags our 1998, 1999 record of invention date for those claiming prior invention in existing applications.  

RESULTS:  This technology, as will be discussed in subsequent sections:

1.  Multiplies the torques which can be produced to orient a PDU (Payload Delivery Unit) by factors of 100 to 10,000 – when compared to “Magnetic Torque Rods” – and produces instantaneous 3 Degree of Freedom torque control. (The listed multiple is available only at short range, with a “docking gap” comparable to the PDU diameter.)

2.  Provides high resolution 6 Degree of freedom data quantifying the relative position and orientation of the PDU and Station.  (This mode will be usable to at least 1 km distance.) This data allows intelligent planning and monitoring of Rendezvous and Docking including autonomous procedures (ARD).

3.  Produces linear forces, both lateral and radial, to guide the PDU through its correct docking procedure.  Thus full, 6 Degree Of Freedom (6 DOF) control is produced with infinite resolution to produce infinitely gentile ARD of fragile payloads.  

4.  The radial, linear force in particular can become quite large at short range (docking gap < the PDU diameter) and thus terminate or “Wave Off” a poorly executed docking attempt with significant inward velocity whether produced by this magnetic system, by gas thrusters or from other cause.  At maximum usable range, typically 100 meters, the forces become quite small and may require an hour to achieve the desired effects.  

BASIS FOR INVENTION:

A key component of this invention is recognition that if synchronized excitation of the coil sets on the PDU and Station occurs with temporally “Orthogonal” waveforms, each such temporal pattern will produce time averaged magnetic interaction effects AS IF THE OTHER COMPONENTS DIDN’T EXIST.  (The sine wave harmonics provide the “Orthonormal” set used in the Fourier transform.)  The zero order, static term in the orthogonal waveform set is reserved for interaction with the Earth’s magnetic field.

Although magnetic fields form a linear, additive vector system in space, the interaction forces result from the product of the Station and PDU fields and coil magnetic moments and this squares matching waveform components.  This strong nonlinearity makes the time average of the products VERY DIFFERENT from the product of the time averaged, vector sum fields.  

The existence of controlled, independent interactions allows undesired side effects of a required interaction to be neutralized.  For example, linear magnetic forces usually have a radial component and often have undesired torques.  This independence allows cancellation of the radial forces and the torques to leave a desired lateral force.  A prerequisite is that the waveforms cycle much faster than the resulting motions, so that the time average effect is meaningful, and that any vibration produced by the cyclic interactions be tolerable.  

THEORY:

To begin the discussion of this technology it is necessary to recognize that electromagnetic coils produce a dipole type magnetic field.  (Magnetic monopoles don’t seem to exist and can’t be generated).  These fields drop in strength with the third power of distance, rather than the second power as expected for monopoles.  As a result, interaction forces drop by a factor of 1000 when the distance is increased by a factor of 10, and the time required to achieve a desired motion increases by a factor of 32.  “Higher Order” field components are also produced by real magnets, but these fields drop faster with distance until the dipole component dominates.  The existence of these “high order” components complicates terrestrial experiments: when magnets are close enough to produce obvious forces, the high order components have substantial effect.  At maximum range in sustained freefall, the pure dipole effects will be seen.  

An interesting property of the dipole field (whether created by a current carrying coil of wire or by a permanent magnet), is that it exists everywhere around the source: there is no “Null” axis or space.  There is only a 2:1 variation of the magnetic field strength on a spherical surface around a compact dipole.  Both radiated electromagnetic fields and the higher order “Quadrapole field” have a null, zero field axis in their field patterns.  

The interaction of an energized PDU coil (producing a magnetic dipole moment) with the magnetic field produced by the Station may produce both torque moments (the cross product of the dipole moment vector and the background magnetic field vector) and a scalar interaction energy (the dot product of the dipole vector and the background field).  (With oscillating excitation, only the synchronized Station field qualifies as a relevant “Background”.  The time averaged interaction with the Earth’s static field is zero.) The gradient of this scalar interaction energy appears as a linear force vector on the PDU.  Both magnetic components can be adjusted in milliseconds to maintain a desired configuration, torque or force.  

For example, an optimum repulsive radial force places the PDU in unstable equilibrium with the torques produced by imperfect alignment accelerating misalignment.  This is handled as with any stability augmentation: detection of the error leads to correction of the alignment with temporary overcorrection to reverse the accumulated error and damp out any cyclic tendency.

For another example, optimum torque, with no radial force, is obtained when the dipole moment is normal to the local field.  Rotation of the PDU will reduce this torque and produce an undesired radial attraction.  Detection of this motion can trigger modification of drive to the PDU coil cluster to sustain the orthogonal alignment and zero the radial force.  In terrestrial use this is called “brushless commutation”.  This will allow the PDU to be accelerated to a high rotational rate, with independently controlled radial position.  (IMPORTANT NOTE: as stated in the beginning, momentum, angular and linear, is conserved.  The sustained PDU rotational acceleration pictured here will produce a matching torque and proportional acceleration of the station, unless magnetic torque rods or other mechanisms are used to “unload” this angular momentum.)  

This part maps out the unlimited torques which can be produced for rotational alignment of the PDU, and introduces radial attractive and repulsive forces.  Four of the Six degrees of freedom are thus covered.      Richard P. Speck   4/27/2007

[rpspeck]

Tractor Beam Part 1 Addendum,

I am not intentionally trying to make this difficult, and am quite willing to answer questions.  My posting is in response to a DOD SBIR appraisal:

“This won’t work.”  (And by implication, “You don’t know what you are talking about!”)

It actually is working, and I have some interesting demonstrations running.  I do actually know what I am talking about.  If I were to oversimplify at the outset, the weaknesses in the simplified explanation might be seized upon as “Proof” that this is a “Hoax”.  I welcome input from professors and other experts if my attempt to explain this is still flawed.  (Even that can’t remove the fact that these systems are working.)  

It has been some time since I worked on this technology, and I am reviewing the math in the subsequent sections before posting them to keep down the number of errors.  Also I sometimes try to squeeze in work I get paid for!

One point I must clarify:  This is not a “Beam” in any physical sense of the word, for the fields extend in all directions around the source.  It only “acts like a beam”, in that strong interaction can be initiated between pairs of objects without affecting anything else in the neighborhood.  (Simultaneous independent interaction between the “Station” and several “Payload Delivery Units” is also possible).

This is a challenging “Thesis Project”, and I have outlined the work, disclosed the core of the technology and listed the results.  I will not post the entirety of a Thesis presentation (which I have not actually written) in this forum.  

Please note that modest magnetic fields are involved to produce the performance I mention (rendezvous and docking much faster than currently done when the STS meets the ISS.)  Peak fields in this case are about 30 to 50 Gauss (old standard units) and can be produced by Copper, Aluminum or metallic Sodium coils (the later has 39% lower mass than Aluminum for equal conductivity).  These I could use in an “economy”, Ultralight spacecraft.  

It is also possible to do all this with Superconducting coils.  These can reduce the input power to near zero while increasing the magnetic fields by a factor of 8000.  The field interaction forces increase by a factor of 64,000,000 and the usable range increases by a factor of 400 (40 km. instead of 100 meters).

“Wave Off” rejection of a flawed rendezvous can then accommodate many meters per second of velocity BUT the short range forces in this case become very large. Pulsed magnets in this field range regularly show plastic flow of solid copper, and high strength superconducting magnets need to be very strong.  Still the reality of high force, long range options exists.  (High temperature superconductors, if shielded from sunlight, may not need active cooling in interplanetary space.)     Richard. P. Speck,  Micro-Space, Inc.

[sandrot]

Now that the technology is disclosed, let's see the videos of the interesting demonstrations running.

[rpspeck]

sandrot - 10/5/2007  3:38 PM

Now that the technology is disclosed, let's see the videos of the interesting demonstrations running.

Your suggestion is relevant, so I am working on it.  

Keep in mind that the proposed work was never funded, so the existing demonstrations only scratch the surface of this technologie’s potential.  

[rpspeck]

In related news, Micro-Space is presently pushing to reach 4.5 to 5 hr duration (3 full orbits) for our lightweight “Rebreather” Oxygen system.  Less that half this has been accomplished to date, with minor systems problems cropping up and being fixed.  

The nearly five hour demonstration, suitable for a “John Glenn” style 3 orbit adventure, or attempted rendezvous with a space station with abort to Earth, will consume only 130 grams of Oxygen, and a matching 160 grams of Lithium Hydroxide CO2 scrubber.  Doubling these quantities (for a 290 gram mass penalty) will provide an operational safety margin for delayed reentry, or an overexcited astronaut.  Note that a rebreather suffers no penalty for hyperventilation of an excited user, but uses Oxygen only to supply metabolic demands, resting or with exertion.  A number of problems, important to aerospace use, but not present in diving applications, have been documented and addressed in our systems.  

We have already used the “Third Port” of our Oxygen mask to sip water and liquid nutrients.

Note that our “Zero G” centrifugal distillation evaporator is still spinning, after 644 days (about 2/3 of a Mars round trip).  Its speed is still 14 times the required rotational rate.  

[jimvela]

I just read here:
http://www.livescience.com/blogs/author/leonarddavid

the following:

Another team — Micro-Space of Denver, Colorado has missed a required milestone — a Team Summit — making them ineligible to win prize money in 2007. The team will continue their development, however, and have a presence at this year’s Wirefly X Prize Cup.

It's been a while since we've had an update here, perhaps Mr. Speck can give some insight into the state of the team, the non-attendance at the team summit, and what various things they've been up to...

[tnphysics]

For the Mars missions, how much space will the astronaut have?

How many men could be landed on Mars using your techniques and a Falcon 9 as the LV? If you are
allowed a Falcon 9 Heavy?

Assume that both Mars surface EVA and Mars sample return are requirements.

[rpspeck]

jimvela - 30/8/2007  9:14 PM

I just read here:
http://www.livescience.com/blogs/author/leonarddavid

the following:

Another team — Micro-Space of Denver, Colorado has missed a required milestone — a Team Summit — making them ineligible to win prize money in 2007. The team will continue their development, however, and have a presence at this year’s Wirefly X Prize Cup.

It's been a while since we've had an update here, perhaps Mr. Speck can give some insight into the state of the team, the non-attendance at the team summit, and what various things they've been up to...

As noted, we will not be flying at the X Prize Cup this year.  We are making slow but steady progress with our lunar lander units, but realized that obtaining the FAA flight license in time was not going to happen.  We are getting close to hovering flight tests.

We are preparing to fly our "Human Lunar Lander" configuration soon thereafter.  This design resulted from recognition that when the low empty weight and high mass ratio of our systems were combined with the performance of high concentration peroxide and a hydrazine alcohol mix in vacuum, the 25 kg payload capability of our "Level 2" contender became a  110 kg payload.  This is enough for a human astronaut in a pressure suit.  

Our "Human Lunar Lander" basically splits the large cluster of fuel tanks on our "Level 2" vehicle into two groups, and puts the astronaut in a parachute harness between them.  

In addition we continue to make progress with our life support systems.  In particular we presently have three operational "Portable Life Support System" backpacks with fully redundant, fail safe systems.  To eliminate the pressure suit envelope as a catastrophic single point failure risk (like 1900s diving dress), we have of course jumped to current positive pressure breathing mask designs, which can provide the fail safe features of modern SCUBA gear.

We are presently working with three Mars Expedition teams planning to use ultralight gear and commercial "freight" services to get their expedition gear to LEO.  Two are embryonic, but what I call "Mars Team One" (the founders of www.explorersweb.com) and publicising their preparations.

[rpspeck]

tnphysics - 8/9/2007  11:17 PM

For the Mars missions, how much space will the astronaut have?

How many men could be landed on Mars using your techniques and a Falcon 9 as the LV? If you are
allowed a Falcon 9 Heavy?

Assume that both Mars surface EVA and Mars sample return are requirements.

Anything up to a 3.6 meter (12 foot) diameter habitat should be no problem.  I typically estimate "small airliner cabin" sizes (3 meter diameter and 4 meter long) at 40 to 60 pounds mass.  Volume need not be "expensive" as payload mass.  

The Falcon 9 should be able to handle a lightweight SOLO mission with Mars surface EVA and modest sample return.  

The Falcon 9 - S9 both allows a two person landing crew and greater capability for sample return or other expedition complexities.

[Lampyridae]

Have you considered other missions beside LEO, the moon and Mars? If your system pans out, explorers could visit asteroids - literally be the first to set foot on another world every time. Maybe bring along some ISRU stuff and camp out for a year until they boost back to Earth. Another opportunity would be a Venus fly-by. In terms of Delta V, it costs less to get to Deimos than the surface of the moon (which I'm sure you've looked at already). Maybe you could even work in small ion drives at some later stage.

Seems to me your tractor beam also has applications indoors as well. Zero-gee astronaut training in a room on Earth, "artificial gravity" out in space if you attach units to an astronaut's torso and limbs. Assuming I'm reading your post right. You could always spin the unit for G-force if you wanted fancy things like non-zero G toilets.

[rpspeck]

Lampyridae - 14/12/2007  10:15 PM

Have you considered other missions beside LEO, the moon and Mars? If your system pans out, explorers could visit asteroids - literally be the first to set foot on another world every time. Maybe bring along some ISRU stuff and camp out for a year until they boost back to Earth. Another opportunity would be a Venus fly-by. In terms of Delta V, it costs less to get to Deimos than the surface of the moon (which I'm sure you've looked at already). Maybe you could even work in small ion drives at some later stage.

Seems to me your tractor beam also has applications indoors as well. Zero-gee astronaut training in a room on Earth, "artificial gravity" out in space if you attach units to an astronaut's torso and limbs. Assuming I'm reading your post right. You could always spin the unit for G-force if you wanted fancy things like non-zero G toilets.

We have considered a wide range of missions in what we call "The First Hundred" (or next 88).  This is our estimate of the number of individuals who will be able to attract serious funding for deep space adventures (probably in the 2010-2020 decade).  Eventually, these adventures will, like mountain climbing, become "old hat" and have difficulty attracting funding unless they establish a niche as "competitive sports".  What I call "serious funding" is in the range of current funding for ocean racing sailboats or INDY and Formula One auto racing teams.

Venus visits, both flyby and a "landing" - actually floating high in the atmosphere - are on our list.  Asteroid visits are also.  The moons of Mars may or may not be done with the first flyby visits, but they will certainly be visited before a Mars surface landing.  

Unfortunately, our tractor beam is impractical in full Earth gravity, and does its best work in free fall orbits or deep space.

[rpspeck]

I want to wish all readers a Merry Christmas!  This day commemorates the day The Creator initiated a 33 year process which opened the door for all willing humans to enjoy a previously rare intimacy with Him!  This, for those who choose to receive it, is the greatest imaginable “Christmas Present”!  Yet it remains optional: many choose to march to a different drum and cherish other beliefs.  

I choose this day to “Come Out Of The Closet” (the “Prayer Closet” in this case). It is neither traditional nor recommended for an expert in science and technology to admit to a deep faith in Jesus Christ. Yet Jesus of Nazareth was identified in his home town as the “Tekton” (the root word for Technology, poorly translated “Carpenter” in Mark 6:3.  This is a poor translation since it is a classical Greek term for an “Artificer”, and woodworking was, and is today in Israel, a less common trade than stone work and metalwork. In a small community, most artificers would combine a number of such skills.)   It should be no mystery that Technology, and the prosperity which flows from it, have flowered in those countries which have been free to seek intimacy with the Lord Jesus Christ: the Tekton.  

We are commanded to “examine the fruit” of any scriptural conjecture or teaching.  We have Proverbs 8:12 in the King James reading “I Wisdom dwell with prudence and find out knowledge of witty inventions.” to back up this focus.  With the uneven treatment of technology by biblical scholars, the word “inventions” is often lost.   But the understanding of the Hebrew word translated “prudence” here as including “subtlety”,  and “shrewd” or “crafty” (in negative applications)  supports this older translation. The renown of King Solomon, who deliberately sought God’s Wisdom, is a strong point. The work of Nehemiah, who was given the wisdom to plan and execute the complete rebuilding of Jerusalem’s walls in 52 days – a task which reasonably should have taken years – is another.  

But what I can not ignore – as an honest scientist – is the fact that after following the “prescriptions” in God’s workbook (“The Holy Bible”) I have received the same sort of supernatural insights.  I have also experienced, observed or participated in many of the types of miracles recorded in that Book, including hearing God’s voice.  Note that God is patient with the “Honest Agnostic”, and will show seekers the truth.  But He will turn away from “Dishonest Agnostics” who choose to reject the truth God knows they have seen.  

There are those equipped to do great deeds in the world without God’s help:  I am not one of them.  I abandoned that attempt 22 years ago, and must give credit for unexpected opportunities and accomplishments since then to the Lord I serve.  I invite all others whose dreams exceed your grasp, and who do not insist on going forward alone, to accept adoption as the son (or daughter) of a Loving God.  

I expect and intend to walk on the surface of the Moon.  This discussion will not enhance my reputation with nonbelievers, but I do not think that many of them will be attracted to the radical adventures I advocate.  As Apollo 8 appeared from behind the Moon, on Christmas Eve, 1968, the crew read the Creation story from Genesis to the world.  A leather bound Bible rests on the Moon from another crew.  One crew celebrated Holy Communion on the lunar surface.   It takes a special mindset to actually GO where none have gone before.  Isaac Asimov – a self proclaimed “Humanist” nonbeliever - envisioned the wonders of space, but was unwilling to leave Earth’s surface in an airplane.  As a (mediocre) mountaineer I know what it takes to combine an understanding of your equipment with faith and step off a rock face into a free rappel.  Similar understanding and faith are required to trust your rockets and life support systems far from your home planet.

I particularly invite those who have chosen to walk as I have to Dream BIG!  To reach even beyond my intentions and expect to walk on other worlds!  We need but a fraction of the wisdom granted to the Biblical Scholar, Sir Isaac Newton to accomplish the flights I have outlined.  Step by step, the necessary pieces are coming together.  For those with the required faith, these adventures will become a reality.  

Richard P. Speck   12/24/2007      

[tnphysics]

What are some performance numbers (including cost!) for your rockets?

Also, what is the mission profile in detail?

[rpspeck]

As our "Deep Space" systems are customized, and are launched to LEO on commercial vehicles, the possibilities are numerous.  Our components include a nearly operational Lunar “HTS” (Human Transport System) which can Either take an astronaut to the Moon's surface, or back to LLO.  (Two are needed for the round trip).  With 40 pound empty weight, and 300 pound fuel capacity,  the HTS can handle 300 pounds of astronaut in a pressure suit.  The pair required for a Moon walker will total 1280 pounds in initial Low Lunar Orbit – including the suited astronaut.  Add 150 pounds for Lunar escape and Earth transfer for the astronaut (his habitat and reentry system are listed separately below).  That combination will require some 6,600 pounds (3,000 kg) in LEO with the fuel for lunar transfer and injection. 

A minimum mass Earth reentry system (like the GE “Moose”, with improved and rigid heat shield) will add about 1100 pounds in LEO.  Doubling that number to allow for a tent like inflated habitat pushes the total to 8,800 pounds (4,000 kg) in LEO to accomplish a manned lunar landing.   

Since this is no strain for commercial launch vehicles, there is room for “weight growth” while maintaining feasible costs. ($30 -$50 Million?) Validating these systems in space will be a demanding process and involve up front $10 million in launch costs.  But there is actually very little technical risk in this plan, since the commercial launch systems exist and the deep space systems do also.  There is the very significant Human Risk, since the Lunar Lander may not have been tested on the Moon (equaling the Apollo 11 situation).  On the other hand, a preliminary landing of the HTS is feasible within the listed funding. 

The traveler in this case would have “austere” accommodations, like those for Steve Fossett's  “Round the World” balloon flight.  (No flush Toilet!)

[rpspeck]

Google Lunar Communications Summary

We have been working on the communications problem since we received the SETI Institute information at the February 21, 2008 “Kick Off”.  The 42 presently installed antennas at SETI should provide about 1000 square meters of signal capture area (+51 dBi at 1200 MHz, assuming 80% capture efficiency). (The eventual array is planned to produce almost ten times this signal capture).  The estimated “Gigabyte” of information required for the prize can be sent at reduced speed.  Using 1000 seconds for this transmission gives about 10 Million bits per second rate including error correction data. Using BPSK modulation with Reed Solomon (255, 223) plus R-1/2, K=7 Viterbi error correction reduces Eb/No to 2x for an excellent Bit Error Rate (10 exp -7).

As discussed previously, the “Oversize” nature of the SETI antenna array gives an advantage over a single large antenna (or close spaced array) by reducing the radio noise temperature for signals from the Moon.  This comes at the cost of introducing “sidelobes” which are the mathematical equivalents of “Aliases” in sampled signal processing.  (The “esoteric” part of the prior discussion mentioned that widely spaced radio antennas in an array have the same mathematical effect as widely spaced samples (beyond the Nyquist Criteria) in signal processing.  The “Aliases” produced in signal processing are like the “side lobes” in antenna theory.  Regularly spaced samples produce discrete aliases, often related to harmonics of the desired signal.  The same is true of the spaced antennas.  Both can be moved to pseudo random spacing which increases the number of aliases, but decreases their amplitude.)  The sidelobes and  the increased  resolution have major impact on the use of such arrays in Radio Astronomy.  To receive communication from the Moon, such an array, with proper phasing of its receivers, provides all the signal of a 40 meter diameter antenna, with a lower noise level than that huge unit would provide! 

Our estimate of a 20 to 30 K noise temperature should be well above the floor the cryo-cooled receivers in the SETI system should produce, and includes a portion of the 213K Lunar Radio Noise Emission.  With systems noise temperature below 28K, No is (4 exp -22) Joules  and Eb/No = 2.0 is achieved with 8 exp -22 Joules/bit received power.  Combining this with the 10^8 bps rate assumed above produces a minimum of 8 exp -15 Watts received power, or 8 exp -18 Watts/m^2 received for this antenna array.  Using 400,000 km to the Moon = 4 exp 8 meters, 4xPixR^2 equals 2 exp 18 m^2.  Thus only 16 Watts Isotropic ERP is required from the Moon to achieve reliable wideband communication!  This would be increased to 160 Watts ERP if a single, 40 meter diameter receiving parabola were used (with the higher noise temperature that results), and would increase to 16,000 watts if a single, 1.2 meter receiving parabola were used. 

The Lunar Lander could produce this wideband communication with a single Watt of transmitter power if a thin, lightweight transmitting antenna 14 inches square (12 dBi) were aimed at the Earth (at 1200 MHz). This transmitting array would have a beam width of 40 degrees,  so aiming would not be very critical.  But keep in mind that if the services of SETI were not secured (including payment for the ½ of the data capture not offered free), the power requirements would be much larger!  The 1.2 meter diameter antenna mentioned above would need 1000 Watts transmitter power, continued for 20 minutes, even with this transmitting antenna.   Any antenna or array  more than ten times this area (still requiring 100 Watts transmitter power on the Moon) would be a major development and construction project.  A few Ham (Amateur Radio) operators have built such systems for “Moon Bounce” (EME) communications, and might be induced to cooperate if a suitable communications frequency were selected.