Article: "Going Beyond The Status Quo In Space"

[mjessick]

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1334
Dennis Wingo, Paul Spudis, and Gordon Woodcock
Sunday, June 28, 2009

 

[Urwumpe]

Nice article, I can subscribe to that.

As Robert Zubrin so eloquently stated about Martian development, the most important developments are the ones we don't know about yet and will be invented as part of the pressing needs of developing the Moon. Mars? With a lunar space port and the ability to build large hardware there, Mars becomes much closer than it will ever be by focusing on developing new heavy lift launch vehicles on Earth. That much is evident by the past 37 years of our failure to move humans beyond low Earth orbit.

 

[Ark]

We'll never have reusable space-only vehicles to ferry stuff from LEO to Moon orbit. Why? Because the contractors wouldn't get hundreds of millions of dollars apiece to build launch vehicles that only get used once.

There is one and only one reason so much attention has been focused on HLLVs: Contractors get paid s***-tons of money to build them, and their lobby is going to kill any ideas that seek to jeopardize that. The end result is that eventually the taxpayers will get sick and tired of spending billions and billions keeping contractor's pockets lined and stockpiling scrap metal in LEO while the world falls apart around them.

The only way any of this would change is by tossing out the old system in it's entirety and starting from scratch, and that'll never happen.

 

[SiberianTiger]

The article contains few statements that feel like being too overly bold and dances on tips of yet unrealized possibilities. Some statements are simply wrong.

[FONT=geneva,arial,verdana][SIZE=-1]While appearing barren, the Moon has the resources upon which to build a prototype space civilization.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Okay, we have iron and oxygen there. What about other kinds of resources our industry consumes: air, water, organic sediments, gas, oil, coal, rubber, cellulose, copper, nickel, rare earths, actionids? If you just compare the two planets with an unbiased mind, it's easy to see which one is more abundant of resources.

Another thing is the proposed location of the "Luna City" at one of the poles of the Moon: it has an advantage in energy producing, but see what happens: whatever industry we build there will be limited to using local resources in a relatively small area. It may turn out, the outposts around the Moon Globe will become a necessity.

[FONT=geneva,arial,verdana][SIZE=-1]With living space you can then start growing food in a separate compartment for food production. Hydroponics has been proven in these applications. With the importation of just a bit of fertilizer from the Earth (brought up by a modular, standardized lander on a Soyuz, Falcon 9, H-II, or light EELV) food production for the crew on the lunar surface would be possible, dramatically cutting the demand for Earth resupply.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

Unproven. Even the contrary, experiments on the Salyuts, the Mir and the ISS suggest that high plants don't produce very much of air in a space greenhouse conditions (actually, they consume more oxygen than they produce). And there are terrible problems with breeding any living beings: the embryos have an unacceptably high mortality rate.

It is really interesting, however, how the situation is different at a Lunar base: this is clearly worthy of researching.

[FONT=geneva,arial,verdana][SIZE=-1]Additional living space, bulldozer chassis, large machine bodies, and other metallic hardware could be built using methods known for centuries on Earth.[/SIZE][/FONT]

For really profitable industry, it has to be something more than a screwdriver assembly type enterprise. And anything bigger that that means basic industry. And with its traditional technologies it has some basic problems when situated on the Moon.

[FONT=geneva,arial,verdana][SIZE=-1]Instead of lofting large integrated systems, only parts and information are needed from Earth. These parts would include motors, computers, actuators, seals, sealing material, etc. Heavy lift is simply not needed for delivering these things. Small parts could be carried to the Moon on any commercial ELV.[/SIZE][/FONT]

One still needs to transport people forth and back. A heavy launch vehicle is required for that. Another way is to build a staged transportation system which is a chain of hops like Earth - LEO station - LLO station - Moon. This will take extensive use of nuclear energy.

[FONT=geneva,arial,verdana][SIZE=-1]We will need engineers, machinists, and "blue collar" workers to make the lunar spaceport work. Yes, we are going to need people who can clean dishes and toilets as well.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Are we going to transfer terrestrial social models and the related problems to the whole Universe? How nice. It looks like a dumbest statement in the article.

[FONT=geneva,arial,verdana][SIZE=-1]A robust operational capability on the Moon will allow us to build space vehicles there that simply could never be built on Earth. These vehicles could carry heavy structures from the Moon to geosynchronous orbit to build large platforms for communications, remote sensing, climate and solar monitoring.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Almost true, but remote sensing requires operating from LEO. It may be more advantageous to launch LEO-bound satellites from Earth than from the Moon, regardless of production possibilities.

[FONT=geneva,arial,verdana][SIZE=-1] ISRU can help us with things as mundane as dealing with environmental waste on a global scale.[/SIZE][/FONT]

How come?

[FONT=geneva,arial,verdana][SIZE=-1]The development of new robotic systems that will be force multipliers on the Moon can contribute to balancing the advantage of cheap labor that other countries have in manufacturing.[/SIZE][/FONT]

I smell a tint of some funny globally directed concern in this. The practice tells us that technology transfer happens very shortly after a successful technology is employed, and it's primary direction is towards stronger economies. The "other countries" aren't bound to use of cheap labor in manufacturing forever. Even more other countries will take their place with time.

But, please don't get me wrong. I want a Moon base. Here's my take on why it may appear and be sustained:

• Military use
• Prestige race
• Unobtainuim found

And before thinking seriously of colonizing space, we must develop MORE UNIVERSAL BASIC INDUSTRY first (how about industrializing the ocean's bed, for one?). Take what nature offers more intensively, through better ingenuity. This is the key.

 

[Suzy]

More "Space Cadet" dreaming. Can't see this happening in the near future, if ever. Horrendously expensive to implement with current technology, and governments have more urgent priorities. Possibly private companies (or some eccentric individual) might start such a venture if they can come up with the $billions needed. (I'm a Cynic)

 

[ar81]

We'll never have reusable space-only vehicles to ferry stuff from LEO to Moon orbit. Why? Because the contractors wouldn't get hundreds of millions of dollars apiece to build launch vehicles that only get used once.

Could it explain why airlines have discardable planes nowadays?:lol::rofl:

But, please don't get me wrong. I want a Moon base. Here's my take on why it may appear and be sustained:

• Military use
• Prestige race
• Unobtainuim found

A military outpost on the moon? To watch against alien invaders?:lol:

 

[SiberianTiger]

Could it explain why airlines have discardable planes nowadays?

They don't have discardable planes because they can usually refuel at a destination. Imagine Lindbergh was required to fly all the way back to the USA without refueling in Europe... I'm afraid the record setting would have to be postponed until building a version of Fosset's GlobalFlyer... Or someone would come up with a concept of a staged airplane that carries a smaller plane and fuel store for it to use on the way back. This way, it would be a real discardable plane.

I doubt any airline would ever appear under such conditions, though.

A military outpost on the moon? To watch against alien invaders?

Softer sorts of alien invaders (potentially winnable by our military strength) would be a blessing for us all, but I don't dare to hope for that. I'm mostly thinking of using the dark side of the Moon as a perfect test ground for any nasty weapon and of controlling distant reaches of the near-Earth space.

 

[atuhalpa]

It'll never happen because humans are infected with the fatal disease "Craniorectaltis". This will preclude any real advancement and will relegate humans to devolution and eventual extinction.

 

[ar81]

I'm mostly thinking of using the dark side of the Moon as a perfect test ground for any nasty weapon and of controlling distant reaches of the near-Earth space.

We haven't reached the moon yet and we are thinking about polluting and making it inhabitable? That's what I would call "development". Why not testing superweapons on our sun to make it a supernova? :lol:

And do we send our garbage as debris to space so we can have rings like Saturn? :lol:

They don't have discardable planes because they can usually refuel at a destination. Imagine Lindbergh was required to fly all the way back to the USA without refueling in Europe... I'm afraid the record setting would have to be postponed until building a version of Fosset's GlobalFlyer... Or someone would come up with a concept of a staged airplane that carries a smaller plane and fuel store for it to use on the way back. This way, it would be a real discardable plane.

I doubt any airline would ever appear under such conditions, though.

It means a good business opportunity to open a gas station in the way... :rofl:

 

[Notebook]

For SiberianTiger:-

They don't have discardable planes because they can usually refuel at a destination. Imagine Lindbergh was required to fly all the way back to the USA without refueling in Europe... I'm afraid the record setting would have to be postponed until building a version of Fosset's GlobalFlyer... Or someone would come up with a concept of a staged airplane that carries a smaller plane and fuel store for it to use on the way back. This way, it would be a real discardable plane.

I doubt any airline would ever appear under such conditions, though.

Wonder if it would have caught on?

N.

 

[SiberianTiger]

We haven't reached the moon yet and we are thinking about polluting and making it inhabitable?

Are you stating the Moon is habitable? Or that we did not reach the Moon?

 

[ar81]

Are you stating the Moon is habitable? Or that we did not reach the Moon?

I referred to the fact that we haven't reached there (to colonize) and we are already thinking about ways not to bring the best of us there.

 

[SiberianTiger]

I referred to the fact that we haven't reached there (to colonize) and we are already thinking about ways not to bring the best of us there.

It was merely my own opinion on possible ways of Lunar colonisation. Blame myself if you like. And I still can't see why the Moon is a place that's prohibited from being 'spoiled' by human activities. Do you believe that what you deem 'not best of us' is best done on Earth instead?

Presence of a kind of green movement in favour of defending the Moon from 'spoiling touch of humanity' already stopped to surprise me.

---------- Post added at 13:56 ---------- Previous post was at 12:04 ----------

For SiberianTiger:-

Wonder if it would have caught on?

N.

Very interesting, but it wasn't taking the approach to its extremity: the larger seaplane was not abandoned like a used out rocket stage.

 

[Urwumpe]

Also, we have the multistage principle for planes already for almost a century.

• In the beginning of transatlantic flights, planes landed in the middle of nowhere to refuel. That was why seaplanes had been optimal for transatlantic flights in the beginning: they needed no airports, just a protected harbor.
• Military aircraft used drop tanks and even expendable rocket boosters already soon after WW1.
• Gliders in WW2 had been expendable: After a successful landing, it was not mandatory to have them fly again. It was just nice if enough parts are left to build a new one.
• The SR-71 spyplane, the still fastest air-breathing manned plane in the world, needed to refuel in the air even on short missions: It used a large part of its fuel after take-off only for getting to refueling altitude, because it's engine are painfully ineffective at low speeds. The SR-71 is one of those planes which need less fuel, the faster they fly. The refueling plane served as first stage, as it transported the fuel more effective to 22000 ft altitude as the SR-71.

Of course, it is nowhere like rockets. Rockets have much higher energy demand. But still, the pony express style was pretty common in the beginning of air travel: You fly your fragile mail plane to the next small airport and throw the bag into the fresh plane waiting there. Your plane is now overhauled - even if this means effectively rebuilding the engine - the old piston engines had been so painfully unreliable compared to even the earliest jet engines, that you can't imagine it today. Today we can fly over the ocean with just two engines and be sure that the plane will get to the destination. In the 1950s, it was still common to take-off with four engines and land with just 2-3 working engines.

And IMHO such developments will also happen to rockets. NASA has already developed a very promising technology called full-flow staged combustion, which combines the high effectivity of staged combustion engines with the endurance of expander cycle engines, by letting the full mass flow of the rocket engine run through the turbines, resulting in lower turbine temperatures and lower turbine RPM needed for the same power - instead of running for minutes, such a engine could run for hours. The problem is just that the technology is currently limited to mid-sized engines of less than 15 kN thrust. Getting the combustion cycle stable for larger engines will require more research.

The energy demands for flying have also never really dropped, but what changed was how much energy was needed to be produced by the engines for getting this energy for flying in the end. The same is possible with rockets. Currently most energy gets lost as heat in a rocket engine - heat inside the exhaust is good, heating the turbines, pumps and pipes is not. A lot of potential to get improved, as this amount of heat loss could get reduced to 30% in theory.