Space review: The vision thing

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/59/1
Jeff Foust writes a good review on the recent buzz over the new vision for
the possible new space policy directions. I found one aspect severely
lacking in the article, though.
It looks like economic and ecologic reasons are totally neglected like
possible triggers or drivers for "the space vision".
Quote:
"What this review makes clear is that there is widespread interest in
developing some kind of vision for NASA in the form of a goal or goals for
human spaceflight beyond Earth orbit. Beyond that general interest, however,
there is little consensus regarding not only what that vision should
be-Moon, Mars, asteroids, or elsewhere-but how that vision should be
developed among the executive and legislative branches and the general
public. That dissonance is a recipe for yet another space policy failure."

As you see, the possible "visions" on the table are only what one would call
destinations. I'd see no purpose on visiting the moon, if it werent for
turning it into economic benefit for humankind later on. I'd think selling a
destination, like it was done with Apollo, would be a tough trick to pull
off the second time around.
But selling a better future for people or their children, either through
potential for clean energy sources from space ( SPS) , prospects of getting
a chance to visit the space for themselves ( space tourism ), utilizing
other vast resources from space apart from energy to make for better living
on earth. That could actually sell, if a coherent plan is put forth, with
measurable progress milestones. Of course, one of the methods to implement a
coherent plan is through a destination like moon, but the reasons for going
there should be clearly stated, and actually serve some useful purpose.
So its still a question of finding a appealing purpose of being in space,
which, then, can be tied to a destination to drive the developments better.
I havent heard of any serious speculations on what that new underlying
purpose might be. Until now, its been a generic "to explore and advance
humankind, expand frontiers". A tough sell which is hard to get behind.

-kert

"Kaido Kert" wrote in message
...

But selling a better future for people or their children,

NASA's been flying the Spinoffs flag for decades. People stopped believing
them years ago.

I once witnessed a speech made by the guy who invented teh high-pressure
turbopumps used in SSMEs. The guy was blatantly pimping for NASA, adn one of
the "future uses" he claimed for the shuttle was to act as "ambulances" to
take critically ill people to orbiting space hospitals. When I asked him
just how many critically ill people would survive the actual launch, he
replied that that was a myth, the shuttle was way smoother than Apollo, in
fact it pulled fewer Gs than a rollercoaster. To which I replied "okay, how
many critically ill people would survive a roller coaster ride?" Never got
an answer to that one...

either through
potential for clean energy sources from space ( SPS) ,

Bull****. utter bilge. SPS as a ground-based power supply is a massive
boondoggle.

Even the proponents of solar power satellites (or Space Solar Power, for
those trying to evade the subject) eventually have to admit that the launch
and operations costs of SPS are prohibitive, and always will be so as long
as we're stuck using chemical rockets.

To give you some idea: a single SPS would have to be roughly 20-25 square
miles. Has to be, no way to build 'em smaller and still beam enough power
down to Earth to mean anything.

Question: how do you send up enough material into GEO to build that first
SPS? Well, the current idea is to use "millions" (direct quote from several
SPS proponents) of individual modules, each of which is 500-600 feet across
when fully deployed. They get launched individually, then use something like
a solar-to-ion drive (similar to Deep Sace 1) to propel tehmselves into GEO,
where they attach themselves automatically to their fellow modules.
Eventually, the entire SPS is constructed and away we go.

Sounds like a plan, right? Wrong. Each "module" would be "very compact" and
"lightweight", of course. Powersat.com's plan seems to be fairly
representative of the general scheme. It calls for each module to stow into
a 36'x21' launch configuration. (which is too wide to fit in the shuttle
bay, btw, so you have to send it up on its own ELV).

Getting accurate, consistent numbers out of SPS studies is challenging at
best. Powersat.com claims that each module would deploy to be about 600 feet
across, in which case you would need about 2000 to form the entire receiver
(that's totally ignoring the transmitter, which itself is humongous, or the
rectenna on the ground). That's *two thousand* separate boosters just to get
the solar cells on orbit. And since their sales pitch claims that the SPS
would comprise "millions" of individual modules, I'm assuming that the
600x600 configuration is just to propel itself into GEO, at which point it
discards most of its mass.

So at bare minimum, you'd need several thousand launchers just to get the
space-based components for *one* SPS (which would only supply enough power
for *one* large city) into space.

Anybody out there think it's remotely feasible for anybody on Earth to
assemble, check out, and launch a couple thousand boosters within a 5-10
year span? Didn't think so.

Second, there's teh economics of SPS. Frankly, they suck. Even the
proponents of SPS admit that. An SPS would have startup costs roughly 150%
of a similar terrestrial power plant. And then, *maybe*, after 15-25 years
they could get the retail price of the electricity down to 7-10 cents per
kWH. But terrestrial power is currently about 5-6 cents. So *at best*, after
decades of development and improvement, the power from an SPS would be
40-60% more expensive than from a coal-fired or nuke plant. At *best*.

One of life's little ironies is that some of the more prominent space
advocates who criticize NASA because they way overhyped the performance and
profitability of the Shuttle are making *exactly* the same kind of utter
bull**** claims about SPS, and have been doing so for *exactly* the same
length of time that NASA has been bull****ting about the shuttle.

Funny, that...

--
Terrell Miller


"Very often, a 'free' feestock will still lead to a very expensive system.
One that is quite likely noncompetitive"
- Don Lancaster

"Kaido Kert" wrote in message
...
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/59/1
Jeff Foust writes a good review on the recent buzz over the new vision for
the possible new space policy directions.

The space shuttle was born from a vision -- cheaper space flight. It didn't
pan out. We kept the shuttle, but abandoned the vision. NASA made a couple
of attempts at cheaper space flight, such as X-33, but they didn't follow
through. We need a vision, but we also need competent execution.

I'm not one of the Mars advocates. It costs too much, the benefits are too
low, and it is too easy to turn it into a dead-end program. That's one
reason why Bush Sr's vision died.

I agree that the President is in the best position to sell a vision to the
American public. It is getting late in Bush's administration and if he
doesn't get re-elected, his vision won't matter.

"Terrell Miller" wrote:

Anybody out there think it's remotely feasible for anybody on Earth to
assemble, check out, and launch a couple thousand boosters within a 5-10
year span? Didn't think so.

With a properly designed booster, and production/checkout system,
there's no particular reason why a one-launch-a-day rate can't be
sustained indefinitely. (Assuming the money is available and barring
a strike or massive bank failures.)

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

In article ,
Derek Lyons wrote:
Anybody out there think it's remotely feasible for anybody on Earth to
assemble, check out, and launch a couple thousand boosters within a 5-10
year span? Didn't think so.

With a properly designed booster, and production/checkout system,
there's no particular reason why a one-launch-a-day rate can't be
sustained indefinitely. (Assuming the money is available...

2000 launches in 10 years is 200/yr, which is only twice the rate that the
Soviets consistently sustained during their busiest launch years. And
much of that traffic was Semyorkas -- fairly complex rockets with a long
checkout/launch cycle. (You wouldn't think anyone would build an ICBM
with a countdown longer than the B-52 flight time from Maine to Plesetsk,
but that's exactly what they did...)

It's not merely remotely feasible, it's clearly and straightforwardly
feasible. Good design in the launcher and the ground-support facilities
will certainly help, but the only part that's *necessary* is ample money.
--
MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer
pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. |

"Terrell Miller" wrote in message
...
"Kaido Kert" wrote in message
...

But selling a better future for people or their children,

NASA's been flying the Spinoffs flag for decades. People stopped believing
them years ago.
I didnt mean spinoffs. I meant as direct benefit from what is being done in
space.

either through
potential for clean energy sources from space ( SPS) ,

Bull****. utter bilge. SPS as a ground-based power supply is a massive
boondoggle.
Even if it will turn out to be "utter bilge" ( which i dont think it will),
its worth a try. ( I never said a word about launching all the stuff from
earth, for SPS )

You completely, entirely, with absolute certainty missed the entire point of
my post. I wasnt pitching another pet project, i wasnt pitching an solution
or destination. I dont care about endless circular arguments whether space
solar power, space tourism, space resources, or mars colonization could
technically be made to work. Any of those things might work, and it might
not. At least it doesnt mean we definitely should not try.

I was merely trying to find a .. fundamental drive for a space effort, that
lots of people could get behind. An overarching goal.

Like some said, for shuttle it was "cheaper space flight". Well, for Joe
Average it doesnt mean squat. So what if Delta V will cost ten times less
than its precedessor, Joe still cannot even imagine going to space himself.
Even some space advocates do not give a rats ass about cheaper space flight,
as long as their pet destination gets attention.
There was a grand meeting by space advocacy groups a couple of months ago,
Space Settlement Summit i think. They found the common driver to be "space
settlement". Well, for long-term vision this would work, but for near-term,
talking about space settlement to general public will be like talking about
benefits of living in Paris to native americans five hundred years ago. Joe
doesnt _want_ to live in space. Neither does he believe its possible for at
least a couple of centuries yet.
Now economic, and to somewhat lesser extent, ecologic benefits are something
that Joe could understand. So if you sell him the idea of thriving space
thrill ride industry after a decade is out, he actually might get
interested. If you sell the idea of clean power from space for his children,
he might get interested.

In short, should it be,
"ten thousand people will visit space before the decade is over", ( really ?
you mean like ... regular people ? )
"one percent of power production will come from space before the decade is
over" ( really ? how is it possible ? i thought we had to burn coal forever,
or cover the fields with windmills to cope )
"we are going to colonize space" ( umm .. ? WHAT? like star trek ? )

as opposed to traditional:
"we will have _cheaper_ space flight before the decade is over" ( no,
honestly, who cares ? )
"we will visit moon before the decade is over" ( Really ? Again ? Why ? )
"we will visit mars before the decade is over" ( some sci and space nuts
will get psyched, others will pull their hair. General public will read the
headlines and forget )
"we will build a new shiny spaceship before the decade is over" ( yeah,
w00t )
"we are going to .... enhance science in space before the decade is over"
( ok )

Now i know, like 99% of people will say that space will never turn any
economic or ecologic benefit ( of course forgetting current remote sensing
and communications satellites ), or we cant have that before we have those
other things ( cheap access, moonbases, whatever ). Well i just think
selling a simple destination as a reason itself for having a space effort,
will not work anymore.
You need to have a clear, believable reason for going there. And it has to
have a direct, traceable benefit for Joe or his children. Otherwise, you
wont get much support.

You have that reason, you devise best path, the means, intermediate goals of
getting there ( which actually might include one of those pet goals ) There
are countless roadmaps already developed for implementing either space
settlement, space solar power, and even space tourism ( X-Prize Cup, ISS as
a tourist destination etc. )

To make a long story short, im hoping that GWB will not be talking about
humanitys future, importance of science, our natural need to explore and
somesuch if and when he makes he's announcement at Kitty Hawk. I also hope
that he doesnt say that we need to go back to the moon for importance of
science, need to explore, or humanitys future, or general "benefit of
humankind". Neither to mars.
Im hoping he says something along the lines "from now on, NASA will work to
make space accessible for regular people. Ten thousand people will visit
space, before the decade is over", or, "our energy future belongs to space.
We will make a start, and produce 1% of power in space by the end of this
decade. Its a small, but important first step to take", or something that i
havent thought of, but would make _some sense_. I think i have about 0.01%
chance of being right.

-kert

"Kaido Kert" wrote in message
...

I was merely trying to find a .. fundamental drive for a space effort,
that
lots of people could get behind. An overarching goal.
To reply to my own post ... i think Chinese already have it and it goes down
very well. To show how great nation they are to entire world.
I dont think this would fly far in US at this day and age.

-kert

(Henry Spencer) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Derek Lyons wrote:
Anybody out there think it's remotely feasible for anybody on Earth to
assemble, check out, and launch a couple thousand boosters within a 5-10
year span? Didn't think so.

With a properly designed booster, and production/checkout system,
there's no particular reason why a one-launch-a-day rate can't be
sustained indefinitely. (Assuming the money is available...
....
It's not merely remotely feasible, it's clearly and straightforwardly
feasible. Good design in the launcher and the ground-support facilities
will certainly help, but the only part that's *necessary* is ample money.
Does anybody have a clue how much money is needed to design such a
booster (Zenit?, Angara?, ??) and the related automated production and
launch facilities? The scale (thousands of launches) would certainly
justify investing
quite a big $$$ into production/launch automation.

A rocket could (and should), after all, be simpler then the car I am
driving. While it would have much more metal and fuel, the costs of
those should be in the noise (about as much as in my car).

Stefan

P.S. What I would like to see (in addition, and in parallel with the
research into cheap launchers) is basic engineering research into
- simple, low cost and reliable reentry systems (ballutes?, ...)
- how to operate machinery in the lunar environment (dust, thermal
extremes)
- how to process lunar regolith into solar panels (the panels
could be inefficient, but the process should be automatic)
- trying out a small scale rotovator with currently available
technology (spectra?), just to figure out the potential unknown
problems
- ...

All of this done in real space, not just viewgraph engineering.

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 11:16:29 +0200, "Kaido Kert"
wrote:

Like some said, for shuttle it was "cheaper space flight". Well, for Joe
Average it doesnt mean squat. So what if Delta V will cost ten times less
than its precedessor, Joe still cannot even imagine going to space himself.

You assume Joe WANTS to go to space.

Newsflash: Most people, 99%, would never want to. Very few would ever
care if they could or not. They'd be damn happy to have some other guy
do it.

Hence, astronauts: The 1% who DO want to do more than sit on their ass
and who want to get into space; the 1% of THOSE who could actually
SURVIVE and WORK in space with any degree of competence. Somehow, I
doubt many average people (assuming "average" physical fitness) could
sustain the G-forces of launch without either getting themselves
killed, or hurting themselves.

Even if they could, I'm not sure many people DESERVE to go to space;
Joe Q. American generally has too short of an attention span to
appreciate such a thing.

John

In article , John Penta wrote:

Newsflash: Most people, 99%, would never want to. Very few would ever
care if they could or not. They'd be damn happy to have some other guy
do it.

Hence, astronauts: The 1% who DO want to do more than sit on their ass
and who want to get into space; the 1% of THOSE who could actually
SURVIVE and WORK in space with any degree of competence.

Okay. There are ~280m. Americans. One percent of one percent is around
28,000 people... and maybe 300 have ever flown in space. Yes, I know
what you meant, but over a sufficiently large population even tiny
fractions add up.

Even if only one percent of one percent of the US population wants to
fly to space, that's still two orders of magnitude higher than are
likely to under the current circumstances (ie, as "astronauts").

Somehow, I
doubt many average people (assuming "average" physical fitness) could
sustain the G-forces of launch without either getting themselves
killed, or hurting themselves.

Hmm. What are the G-forces pulled on launch? I suspect from vague memory
they're nothing that a reasonably average (ie, not clinically obese,
asthmatic, or suffering any other notable problems) adult couldn't
handle with a modicum of training and possibly some assistance - padded
couch, or the like. (Aborts may be more interesting, though)

--
-Andrew Gray