NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture

On 2005-10-05, tomcat wrote:

The He-3 market could exceed 10 billion per year right away.

Add to that the fact that He-3 would work great in spaceships both as
motors and as electrical generators. He-3 would be the fuel of the
Outer Space future.

This is, it seems, roughly analogous to someone in 1920 expounding the
Incredibly Wonderful Economic Potential of uranium. Remember all those
fifties novels where U-238 would be a *currency*?

--
-Andrew Gray

in article , Joe Strout at
wrote on 10/3/05 7:54 AM:

In article ,
George Evans wrote:

in article , Joe Strout at
wrote on 10/2/05 8:04 PM:

In article ,
George Evans wrote:

snip

Certainly not! NASA should be customers of these companies. You're
absolutely right, where innovation is needed, investors will step up to
the plate -- if they can be convinced of a market (which, incidentally,
NASA could substantially help to provide).

Well then, NASA shouldn't pay anyone until they can do something cheaper.

Cheaper than what? Cheaper than NASA? Just about anybody can do that.

Can do, as in can do tomorrow, not can do someday.

Correct. Look at Sea Launch for example.

Right now it looks like they could launch about 20,000 lbs into LEO. That's
not enough.

I would be very surprised if the bureaucrats at the NHA were the ones
building the houses at all.

Nor are the bureaucrats at NASA the ones actually building launchers. But
they nonetheless cause it to happen, to the space industry's great
detriment.

No detriment. NASA paying for goods produced by private companies makes it a
customer.

"Makes" here should be "WOULD make".

Having a rich customer is good for an industry.

"Is" should be "would be" here.

It's when the government becomes a producer that an industry suffers.

"When" here should be "because". Then your text will be correct.

Perhaps you misinterpreted what I meant by the bureaucrats causing launchers
to be built. They do this not by ordering launches on the open market, but by
having NASA employees make all the major design decisions and then contract
out only the manufacturing. It is still NASA designing its own inefficient
launchers, even if Mike Griffin himself is not going to be wielding a rivet
gun.

It's not like NASA needs a car to drive down the road. It can't go out and
buy a launch because no one makes one. They are doing things for which
vehicles have not been designed. I wouldn't want missions constrained to
designs that fit within packages available on the market.

You haven't been watching NASA long, have you? At least we agree on what
*ought* to happen.

I agree I haven't been watching NASA critically for long. But I have had some
experience with government contracts.

Perhaps it's different in other branches of the government -- DARPA, for
example, is quite encouraging of innovation and private industry. NASA is
quite the opposite.

They've had their ups and downs. From what I have read recently including
the CAIB report, the shuttle program saddled them with an impossible
task--making "all the people happy all the time". So I can see how someone
could have your opinion over the past few decades. OTOH, I think NASA did a
lot of innovation in the process of almost accomplishing the impossible.

Stop whining for Pete sake.

If by "whining" you mean "trying to make you understand," then fine, I'll
stop. But, like Rand, I do feel sorry for your students. Ignorance is
excusable, but willful ignorance is not.

You have more to worry about than me. In one impromptu survey of my science
students, one third didn't understand the concept of 1/2 or a midpoint. But
I am sure you will be happy to know that most of my students think the
shuttle is a waste of money.

George Evans

in article , Len at
wrote on 10/4/05 8:38 PM:

Jake McGuire wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:

Ah. We can't find a market ourselves, so it behooves the Goverment to
provide us one.

It *has* worked before, with air mail.

Yes, we need the modern equivalent of air mail.

Guaranteed markets could be more effective for getting the interest of
investors than one-shot prizes. I am planning to float the following idea
before some Congressional aides I have met (comments invited):

Congress would establish potential guarantees in the amount of $1 billion or
more for the transport of water or equivalent payloads to LEO at a price not
to exceed $2000/kg. These market guarantees would be open to any and all
companies that are able to deliver--not promise--at that price or lower.
Lower prices would enjoy higher priority in accordance with an economic
elasticity of 2. For example, a company delivering water (or equiavalent
payload) for $500/kg would be paid for eight times as many kg of water than a
company charging $2000/kg.

The water would be available for electrolysis into propellants for deep-space
exploration--the cost of which should be highly dependent on the cost of
propellants in LEO. Within limits, NASA could specify other payloads in terms
of water equivalent; however, the launch company would have the option of
delivering either water or the equivalent payload. This plan takes the
bureauracracy out of the decision loop as to which companies get business.
Any company of any size could compete for the guaranteed business. This plan
also prevents all of the gaurantees being soaked up by cheap promises.
Performance, not promises, would count. No money would be paid out--or even
committed--except for actual performance.

Excellent concept. That is a level of service private companies are ready to
deliver. This would give startups experience with the now routine procedures
associated with launch, rendezvous, and docking; while not requiring the
non-routine capabilities of carrying crews or recovering spacecraft.

Look at Len Cormier, for example, who has decades of experience and some
very innovative ideas and patents for reducing launch costs and increasing
safety and reliability. But he's not independently wealthy (unlike the
founders of most other recent space start-ups), and has been entirely
unsuccessful finding investment, so his innovative ideas remain unused.
That's a sign of an unhealthy market, a situation which NASA could change
by simply resigning from the launch business. (posted by Joe Strout).

That he can't stay with a design concept more than a few months might also
have something to do with it. Investors are wary of someone who can't keep
his eyes on the prize for any length of time.

There is a proper balance between focus and flexibility. We've discussed this
before. IMO, the financial community is much too focussed on "focus"--and too
wary of flexibility. There is one thing worse than not getting investors
interested in a good project, and that is getting them locked into a poor
project.

I think that is a fact of life. I have found investors to have a surprising
lack of a sense of adventure. Exploration and adventure requires a patron so
wealthy that the funding required is mere throw away money. Usually this is
not a private entity. In my book, "venture capital" is an oxymoron.

Within my limited resources, the best use of my capabilities seems to be
improvement on the conceptual design level. As long as there is steady
improvement on the conceptual level, there should not be a stigma attached to
it. Once serious money is committed, it is time to shoot the engineer--as
Dutch Kindleberger used to say. I hope to unveil our Space Van 2010 shortly.
If the design and analysis work on this version continues to hold up, I feel
that it will be definitely superior to anything that I have done in the past
45 years--and perhaps superior to any other conceptual design of which I am
aware.

Sounds very impressive, but in keeping with your proposed legislation, have
you designed a Space Water Tanker 2010?

snip

George Evans

In article ,
George Evans wrote:

Cheaper than what? Cheaper than NASA? Just about anybody can do that.

Can do, as in can do tomorrow, not can do someday.

Correct. Look at Sea Launch for example.

Right now it looks like they could launch about 20,000 lbs into LEO. That's
not enough.

Not enough for what? CEV? That's right, NASA has carefully designed
the CEV to be just out of the reach of any commercial launcher. This
gives them apparent justification for developing their own launch
vehicle. I do NOT buy that this was a necessary decision, however; more
numerous, smaller launches could have done the job, with far more
robustness and without the need for NASA to have its own launchers at
all. (But that would not satisfy their political requirement to keep
large armies of rocket builders & maintenance staff employed.)

It's not like NASA needs a car to drive down the road. It can't go out and
buy a launch because no one makes one.

Nonsense. Several companies offer very capable launch services.

They are doing things for which vehicles have not been designed.

They are choosing to do things, by design, for which current vehicles
are too small.

I wouldn't want missions constrained to
designs that fit within packages available on the market.

Why not? If those constraints result in more frequent launches, a more
modular mission design, a greater number of actual accomplishments for
the same NASA budget, and lower launch costs for everyone, then what's
the problem? (Apart from the large number of unemployed NASA workers,
of course.)

They've had their ups and downs. From what I have read recently including
the CAIB report, the shuttle program saddled them with an impossible
task--making "all the people happy all the time". So I can see how someone
could have your opinion over the past few decades. OTOH, I think NASA did a
lot of innovation in the process of almost accomplishing the impossible.

Me too. I respect NASA; I just think it's time for them to get out of
the launch business, and I'm deeply saddened to see their renewed
refusal to do so.

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

George Evans wrote:
in article , Len at
wrote on 10/4/05 8:38 PM:

Jake McGuire wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:

Ah. We can't find a market ourselves, so it behooves the Goverment to
provide us one.

It *has* worked before, with air mail.

Yes, we need the modern equivalent of air mail.

Guaranteed markets could be more effective for getting the interest of
investors than one-shot prizes. I am planning to float the following idea
before some Congressional aides I have met (comments invited):

Congress would establish potential guarantees in the amount of $1 billion or
more for the transport of water or equivalent payloads to LEO at a price not
to exceed $2000/kg. These market guarantees would be open to any and all
companies that are able to deliver--not promise--at that price or lower.
Lower prices would enjoy higher priority in accordance with an economic
elasticity of 2. For example, a company delivering water (or equiavalent
payload) for $500/kg would be paid for eight times as many kg of water than a
company charging $2000/kg.

The water would be available for electrolysis into propellants for deep-space
exploration--the cost of which should be highly dependent on the cost of
propellants in LEO. Within limits, NASA could specify other payloads in terms
of water equivalent; however, the launch company would have the option of
delivering either water or the equivalent payload. This plan takes the
bureauracracy out of the decision loop as to which companies get business.
Any company of any size could compete for the guaranteed business. This plan
also prevents all of the gaurantees being soaked up by cheap promises.
Performance, not promises, would count. No money would be paid out--or even
committed--except for actual performance.

Excellent concept. That is a level of service private companies are ready to
deliver. This would give startups experience with the now routine procedures
associated with launch, rendezvous, and docking; while not requiring the
non-routine capabilities of carrying crews or recovering spacecraft.

Thanks, George. I do plan to float the idea before
some appropriate congressional aides--so any further
ideas would be welcome. I have purposely avoided
the specification of orbital inclination, although
I think altitude should be at least 450 km. One
aspect of the plan that I did not elaborate on before,
was the non-interference with NASA's present plan.
I understand that Griffin is rightfully reluctant
to support ideas that would conflict with NASA's
basic plan. If there are no companies capable of
delivering water or equivalent payload at low cost,
then this should have little impact on present
planning. However, the unplanned availability of
perhaps 1000 tonnes, or 10,000 tonnes, of water in
LEO should open up a lot of new possibilities for
NASA.
.......snip IMO, the financial community is much
too focussed on "focus"--and too wary of flexibility.
There is one thing worse than not getting investors
interested in a good project, and that is getting
them locked into a poor project.

I think that is a fact of life. I have found investors to have a surprising
lack of a sense of adventure. Exploration and adventure requires a patron so
wealthy that the funding required is mere throw away money. Usually this is
not a private entity. In my book, "venture capital" is an oxymoron.

Oxymoron, indeed. I thoroughly agree.

....snip
Sounds very impressive, but in keeping with your proposed legislation, have
you designed a Space Water Tanker 2010?

There are two basic versions. One is a space tourism
version with an oversize cabin to allow zero-g play for
about 11 orbits--without an immediate need for a small
orbital hotel. This version has two pilots, a flight
attendant and provisions for eight passengers. We hope
to cover operational costs and ROI at a price of
$1 million per flight--or $125,000 per passenger. The
second version is a cargo version with a single pilot
and an oversize cargo bay--the theory being that volume
is just as important as mass for prefab modules. At the
present time, it looks like cargo payload will be about
1500 kg to a 60 degree, 450-km. We could back off a lot
on cargo bay size for water tanker missions.

Besides tourism, we see a "huge LEO" telecom system as
being economically feasible with mass-produced telecom\
satellites. Performance and economics should be vastly
superior to any of the big-LEO systems that have floundered
because of poor performance and high cost to the consumer.
Like previous big-LEO systems, the required investment is
huge. However, proof of concept might be as low as
$250 million: $200 million for the SV 2010, and $50 million
for a few proof-of-concept satellites. With 4096 satellites,
one is overhead at all times. Capacity is enormous and
signal strength is as much as 32 db better than Iridium.
Even at partial capacity, cost of the space segment to a
subscriber could be quite low for unlimited use of a
20 kHz channel in L-band.

BTW, the Space Van 2010 uses only LOX/kero in both stages.
It looks like we can avoid using hydrogen even as a
tripropellant concept. Our patent-pending "kite plane"
approach plays a key role--even though we now have
ultralight, low-stressed metallic skins and stage at
about mach 4.6 and 70 km.

snip

George Evans

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
(change x to len)
http://www.tour2space.com

Paul F. Dietz wrote:
tomcat wrote:

This is not a theoretical concept. It has been done at the University
of Wisconsin. If that simple He-3 reactor was replicated a few hundred
times and a source of He-3 secured, our energy problems would be over.

Utter bull****, tomcat. Where do you get these bizarre
false beliefs?

Check out the University of Wisconsin web site.

What a wonderfully non-precise reference. How about you
give a URL with this mythical claim of a working, greater
than breakeven, 3He-burning, reactor demonstration?

I suggest you are misremembering a web page that talks about
a concept that might work, maybe, if someone built it (unless
it's that IEC concept, which is known to not be workable
as a power-producing reactor, even with DT.)

Paul


Take a look at this. It is a PDF from the University of Wisconsin.
Perhaps it will give you the information you need:

http://www.fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep533.../lecture25.pdf


tomcat

Take a look at this. It is a PDF from the University of Wisconsin.
Perhaps it will give you the information you need:

http://www.fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep533.../lecture25.pdf


tomcat


Correction:

http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep533/FALL2001/lecture25.pdf

Brad Guth wrote:
tomcat,
I totally agree about He3. However, I'm thinking it'll be worth nearly
a trillion per year by the time we've sucked most of our oil wells dry
and having dug up that last quality tonne of accessible though still
downright nasty coal. By then a gallon of gasoline should be worth $100
if not $1000, with most all other fossil energy related products and
services as equally impacted, if not worse off.

Of course, if someone actually had the LSE up and running, at least
then getting whatever safely and efficiently over the tether distance
of 64,000 km, such as transporting to/from the lunar surface and that
of utilizing the massive CM/ISS should do quite nicely without
involving any of those spendy and somewhat testy fly-by-rocket landers
that haven't even been R&D prototype proof-tested as we speak.
~

Life on Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm



Earth resources are dirty, both to use and store the waste. Oil is
running out and coal will too. It is time to find new energy sources.

He-3 is clean and powerful, fully capable of energizing the U.S. grid.
The Moon has 100 million tons of he-3 ready and waiting.

Solar power is clean and becoming more practical with improvements in
solar cell efficiency.

Hydrogen is clean and can take the place of gasoline for cars.
Microbes can convert methane into hydrogen. We have plenty of methane.

He-3, solar power, and hydrogen are my 3 top picks for new energy
sources. Each could be on line in 10 years.


tomcat

tomcat
Very good mindset that'll save humanity from itself, but don't leave
out a considerable degree of wind-energy conversions or that of having
to store whatever the surplus of such squeaky clean and renewable
energy as H2O2.

With H2O2 we could then cleanly burn the likes of corn or even oily
dirt, or that of the worst quality of coal at a fraction if any
atmospheric consumption to boot. H2O2/aluminum also makes for one hell
of a nifty battery energy density, that's every bit just as clean and
renewable unless we keep using using up our limited reserve of aluminum
for accommodating those rather massive SBRs.
~

Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

Len wrote:


I understand that Griffin is rightfully reluctant
to support ideas that would conflict with NASA's
basic plan. If there are no companies capable of
delivering water or equivalent payload at low cost,
then this should have little impact on present
planning. However, the unplanned availability of
perhaps 1000 tonnes, or 10,000 tonnes, of water in
LEO should open up a lot of new possibilities for
NASA.

You need to sell this as a benefit to NASA. If the plan fails, it has
no impact on NASA. If the plan succeeds, does it:

A: Make NASA look stupid, having invested in HLV etc to get to the
moon. They now need to completely revise their architecture

B: Enable NASA to continue with Constellation but at a much reduced
cost / enhanced capability, by reducing the costs of the basic low
value components, whilst maintaining NASA's ability to launch the
precious stuff on the Stick.


Provision of water creates problems of electrolysis and pumping. Would
not hydrogen and oxygen be more useful? That can be made into water and
power, or used as rocket fuel. Or perhaps Kerosene and LOX?

An initial market might be to replace the EDS with 20 ton flexi rocket
modules. Private contractors would deliver these for under $40 million
(in your figures). A simple design would only add a few million on top
of that. Three of these would be attached to provide the Earth
Departure and Lunar Insertion Stage. Manwhile, one or two Sticks, and
no HLV, would bring the precious CEV and Lunar Access Module.

The beauty of this is that it doesn't rely on simulateneous launches,
or in orbit propeallant transfer. Your space station acts as a Rack, on
which several Flexi-Rocket-Modules will be waiting. The rack would
equipped with a manipulator arm to assemble the components - plug and
play, and no propellant transfer.