Slashdot Mirror

Whether it was a waste of money or not estimate of the Apollo 13 mission cost is put at about 1 400 000 000 $ (1994 prices) Ref

Wheras the Beagle2 project cost 30 000 000 GBP (2003 prices)

I know it's hitching a ride on another ship, but the comparison still holds that it cost a fraction of the price, and is going to do some groundbreaking (literally) science. I'm not sure if that is the cutting edge, but its certainly a cutting edge.

The Artemis Society figured that it could do a minimal but sustainable lunar base mission for $1.42 billion. $800 million of that being launch costs.

The Artemis Society figured that it could do a minimal but sustainable lunar base mission for $1.42 billion. $800 million of that being launch costs.

Although finding water would be nice, the real issue is finding a long-term source of hydrogen on the moon. The moon offers plenty of long-term sources of oxygen as a byproduct of processing moon rocks. But hydrogen may be scarer, unless there really is a concentration of either water or hydrated rock at the poles. Without hydrogen, life gets much harder. Perhaps the moon really is a harsh mistress.

Check The Man Who Sold the Moon.

And, to firmly plant both feet on either side of the fence, check out The Artemis Project.

We'll get there. We need a D.D. Harriman, and exceptional circumstances, or simple, inevitable time, and someone (or some people) less well-placed than D.D. will get the human race there.

Yep, I'm a security expert who is an optimist - but only about things other than security.

That's He-3, or helium-3. It gets dropped on the Mooon by solar wind, and is trapped in the lunar regolith. H-3 is hydrogen-3 (tritium), which is radioactive with a fairly short half-life (~12 years) which makes it very rare except in environments where it is continuously being replenished. (To add further confusion, both isotopes make excellent fuels for fusion reactions...)

For those who are interested, here and here are a couple of articles on the science and economics of helium-3 fusion. He-3 is a desirable fusion fuel because its reaction with deuterium produces very few neutrons. Consequently, very little in the way of radioactive waste is generated. It's very clean, and very safe. I'm too lazy to look up the numbers, but I suspect is may be an easier reaction to ignite, as well.

Sir, it's bad form for a scientist to tell people that they don't know what they're talking about. If I am incorrect, exercise the option of teaching rather than insulting.

Anyway, since I don't want you holding (or refusing to hold your breath), I did a little research. For those, who are still interested, below is a wonderful set of links to websites that discuss the rocket equation. The second is my favorite. Enjoy!

Teachin' Science
Rocket Equation Applet
Wolfram

Michael.

Well, as others have already responded, your Earth-based perspective really doesn't apply to extraterrestrial resource extraction; yes, the primary purpose of mining the Moon would be for space-based uses, although ultimately, until we have a vital solar system economy outside this planet, funding will have to come from sales to Earth (tourism, retirement, science, energy (solar, He3), military benefits, etc.)

A lot of this has been analyzed in an interesting little publication known as the "Moon Miners' Manifesto", which has been publishing on these issues since 1986. Some older articles are available from the Artemis Databook - newer items require a subscription or membership in a partner organization such as the Moon Society.

The big problem is startup money - at least a few billion dollars just to get a base up and operating, with an additional $2 billion or so for each human visit. Estimates to get the lunar solar power system running to something like break-even start at about $150 billion... It's not going to be cheap, and government sponsorship of at least some of the process seems inevitable. It looks like China, at least, "gets it"...

Any State Party to the Treaty may give notice of its withdrawal from the Treaty one year after its entry into force by written notification to the Depositary Governments. Such withdrawal shall take effect one year from the date of receipt of this notification.

I know you did not do this, but, just in case anyone wants to raise the moon treaty, "please note that the United States is a signatory to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, but did not sign the 1979 Moon Treaty." . I do not know if China is a signatory to either of these treaties.

How about the moon? "When do you get to go?"

TRANSORBITAL ANNOUNCES SUCCESSFUL MOON TEST LAUNCH;
NOW READY FOR ROUTINE MOON TRAVEL IN OCTOBER 2003

SAN DIEGO TransOrbital, Inc. and International Space Company (ICS) Kosmotras
today announced a "perfect launch" of TransOrbital's "Trailblazer" satellite at 8pm, Russian time.
The launch represents a major milestone in TransOrbital's much-anticipated routine lunar
delivery service.
Today's launch, from the Baikonur Cosmodrome, Kazakhstan, of the "Trailblazer" into
low Earth orbit was pronounced a total success by TransOrbital president, Dennis Laurie. The
mission was designed to test rocket separation, downlink telemetry, spacecraft orientation and
mass properties in preparation for the formal lunar launch.
Vladimir A. Andreev, Director General of ICS Kosmotras, said, "We are excited about
teaming with TransOrbital's first commercial development of the Moon. The ICS Kosmotras
Dnepr LV SS-18 ICBM provides a proven cost effective technology for lunar launches."
TransOrbital is on target to begin routine Moon travel, starting in October 2003. Laurie
stated, "Significant commercial demand exists for high definition (HD) video, lunar mapping,
data storage, scientific research, communications, and data archiving. Many corporate
marketers see their products associated with the first commercial missions to the Moon."
"Additionally, there is worldwide demand from private citizens to send personal items
such as photographs, legal documents, business cards, burial ashes, and jewelry
to the Moon."
TransOrbital is the first and only commercial company licensed by the U.S. Department
of State and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for private
sector flights to the Moon.
Sir Arthur C. Clarke noted visionary and renowned writer, praised today's mission and
commented, "All good wishes on TransOrbitals successful "TrailBlazer" launch."
Support for the Trailblazer program has been provided by a number of companies,
including Lunar Enterprise Corporation and Space Age Publishing.

For those of you that don't know, this is something that author Marshall T. Savage proposed in his "Millenium Project", a book in which he set out a plan for how human beings can colonize the universe. Though I think he's far-fetched, the plan to build world-wide floating cities on top of hydrolical power-generating hexagons is feasible.

Check out information on the Millenial Project here or here.

This also brings me to the interesting Free State project, mentioned on Libertarian Candidate Rachel Mill's Homepage which links to The Free State Project. Interestingly, Rachel Mills decided to raise money for her run for office by selling pushup calendars of the female Libertarian candidates. Yep, Libertarians stand up for your rights and (some of them) do it while looking good too. A much better way to raise money than what the corrupt Democrats and Republicans do, which is by accepting tacit bribes from special interest groups.

• SMART-1 from ESA (the only one this BBC article mentions)
• LUNAR-A from ISAS/NASDA (Japan).
• SELENE also from ISAS.
• TrailBlazer and Electra from TransOrbital Inc.
• Lunar Retriever from AppliedSpace Resources
• IceBreaker from Lunacorp
• Lunar Service from Celestis (you have to be dead...)
• Lunar Architecture is a subject of study for HJ Rombaut, including a recent Lunar Base design workshop
• Bill Mook's lunar tours
• The Artemis Project

The cost of a working moonbase would be well over $300 billion dollars, and would take at least twenty years.

Did you pull those figures out of your butt, or are you quoting any particular study? The International Space Station is only going to cost a fraction of that, and that's largely due to it being a huge orbiting pork barrel. Returning to the Moon is obviously a bit beyond John Carmack just yet, but well within China's reach if they set it as a national priority.

The world has moved on since Apollo, but everybody seems stuck with the concept that spaceflight is only ever going to be a national project on a pyramid-building scale. It's still going to be expensive for quite some time, but the fact that we don't have to reinvent the wheel, compact computers, carbon fibre or Tang helps keep it a bit more affordable than the '60s NASA program.

There are several groups looking at private Moon exploration, Artemis being perhaps the most well known. I think that they are kidding themselves, but good luck to 'em.

No, seriously. Did you pull the figures out of your butt?

You don't take photovoltaic cells to the moon, you build a factory on the moon and make the cells there. Just about everything you need is there: water, minerals and even some things that you don't find that often on Earth.

This is probably as far beyond our immediate capability as getting to the moon was to people of the 1940's - just a matter of time, money and will. The latter seems to be the most lacking.

Geosynchronous orbit is at 42,245m...

I think you need to revise that number for geo. GEO is about 42,000 km from the center of the earth and about 35,000km from mean sea level.

Also, just to add some more math to the rocket equation.

To calculate fuel masses, here's the magic equation you need:

Delta_V = Isp * g * ln(Mo/Mf)

where:

Delta_V change in velocity, in units
compatible with the value you
use for g

Isp specific impulse, in seconds

g acceleration of gravity at the
earth's surface 32.174 ft/sec/sec
(9.805 m/sec/sec)

ln() natural logarithm function

Mo Mass before the burn

Mf Mass after the burn

What this basically means that if you can drop your mass before the burn you can have a bigger mass after the burn. But then again that's the point of the railgun, save on fuel so that a large mass can get into orbit.

I'll leave arguing with your main points to other people, but I'd like to give you a link to a bunch of privately funded people who just might make something of the moon: the Artemis Project.

I wish them all the luck in the world, except for my luck. I need it myself.

http://www.asi.org/adb/06/09/04/1999/08/news-19990 814.html

It's not very much, but it exists, and it would probably sap a significant amount of the microwaves destined for Earth.

The Artemis Project is more of a space club than a business (although it has some of the latter, and it is pretty successful compared with other clubs). Their web site contains a Data Book which was pretty good, but seems to now be members-only. Another good site is P.E.R.M.A.N.E.N.T. with lots of details about things like all the different minerals on the moon. Much of it is kind of long term (for example, mining applications which only make financial sense if you are using the minerals off-earth). And at the risk of immodesty I have pages on mining and novelties (with the former being more for the intrinsic value, such as platinum for its appearance or chemical properties, and the latter more having value by virtue of being from the moon). My pages are more focused on near-term applications (such as bring platinum group metals to earth). I try to include some numbers (such as prices of platinum, how much flooding the market would affect the price, how much it would cost to get materials back from an asteroid and stuff), so that you can tweaks the assumptions and see how that affects the finances.

A few years ago, Artemis started a committee called the Microlander Committee to investigate what the smallest possible lander that could be put on the moon was. I know 'cos I asked the original question.

After much work, notably by Paul Blase, this committee acquired considerable aerospace know-how and transformed into TransOribtal.

As an aside, amongst the board members is Dr Richard Van Allen, he who the Van Allen belts are named after and who ran the Pioneer missions for NASA. This ain't no hoax.

Vik :v)

We are, however, signatory to the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which does not rule out commercial activity, but doesn't exactly encourage it, either. . .

. .. has anyone looked into what The Artemis Project is up to lately ?? THEY were planning a private moonshot years ago. . . .

Space.com has another version with more graphics.

Except the article refers to a consensus reached 25 years ago, but I believe the actual "collision with a Mars-sized body" consensus came from the Kona, Hawaii meeting in 1984. So that's only 17 years... And basically this model is just an incremental improvement (will a big increment - 20,000 body simulation instead of 3,000) over previous simulations of the process. Still interesting though!

It does lend some

The downsides are that the D/He-3 reaction has a higher energy threshold, so it requires a better confined plasma to make D/He-3 energy production plausible. Also, the supplies of He-3 on Earth are limited. Of course this disadvantages leads to a interesting convergence of interest between fusion research and space exploration. There's plenty of He-3 (deposited from the solar wind) on the moon. So He-3 mining could be powerful reason to maintain a base on the moon.

--
I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations ...

If the Artemis Project has anything to say about it, it may come a lot sooner than you think.

Though I'll agree the chances of this particular design (outside sleeping quarters at the top of the tower??) are slim to nil.

Karl

Many people have heard of the Mars Society and know of their efforts to create human habitats on Mars. What you may not know is that a significant group of people are also working on getting back to the moon - this time to stay! Relevant URLs: The Moon Society and The Artemis Project

I thought spending on space projects was going down!

Our culture is supposedly dominated in areas like science by people who say that they believe in evolution. The next obvious step would be space (although the previous atomic age doesn't seem to have got very far in that direction). Without a program like this, Dr Malthus wins, albeit later than he figured, and everyone else loses (most of us die without any help from a rapacious industry, militant eco-nuts, Chernobyl or the Inquisition). Yet funding for space-oriented development is slowly, steadily drying up.

Why?

I have a few interesting links to private projects, that might just show the path to commerce in space, such as tourism, mining and research.

Artemis Project - A private venture to establish a permanent self supporting community on the moon.
Space Frontier Foundation - Want to open up the new frontier for everyone.
Space Island Group - Among other things, they wish to creat low earth orbit commercial space stations.
The X Prize - A prize dedicated to boost the development of private space crafts.

Ok, this was probably off topic, but I guess that my point is, governments will probably not be able to finance all the space projects. There are not enough money. The private sector can do this. Competition is always good, and I think that it will some day make it possible for anyone to go into space.

I can see a possible future where a team of scientists at a university will send a mission to Pluto, mining companies establishing mines on the moon, you will go to the low earth orbit space hotel for your vacation. Ok, this is far in the future, but I think it will happen one day.

As proposed by O'Neil would place the energy collectors in geosynchronous orbit. This is something we could do today (and could have done twenty years ago...).

Gordon.

Think about flywheels. There's a good Wired article here and another interessting page (artemis project) here.

Added to solar panels, they would provide a pretty good alternative to batteries for energy storage.

/max

But it will be the people who eventually live there that will decide this... not some foreign government!

It seems like establishing a national monument on the moon or any other extraterrestrial body is a step over the line established by the various international treaties regarding space.

I joined the Artemis Society http://www.asi.org to do that, but it's taking a wee while to happen. It's got as far as booking a launch on a converted SS18 ICBM for a satellite (TB2001) that should prove I'm serious enough.

Once the world wakes up (and the TransOrbital lunar satellite should provide some impetus for that), I'm sure interplanetary travel will eventually be practical for the individual. I'm fairly confident that will happen within my lifetime.

Meanwhiles, back at the ranch, we'd like to build the ranch. "Geek Compound" as we call it, is envisaged to be built in a relatively isolated community centred around a high-speed data pipe and a self-contained pizza bakery in a warmish part of New Zealand. Other geeky features of this little village include a hydroponic greenhouse (trial system on my web page), use of renewable power sources and impressive perimeter monitoring systems. Good fences make good neighbours.

'Cos I'm married to this wonderful geek lady called Suz, it'll have to be done on a couples basis. Cats welcome, and dogs too as long as they aren't too stringy.

Vik :v)

There are a number of organizations who are interested in developing space for its commercial applications. These include (but are not limited to):

• Artemis Society
• PERMANENT
• The Mars Society
• The Island One Society
• The Lunar Society

At the current time, there is to obvious economic benifit to going beyond geosyncronous orbit. Yet all of these organizations believe that we should so proceed. Why? Because there are abundant resources available on the moon, Mars, and asteroids. No, they are not in the forms that we are used to using them, but they are the same 100 odd elements of which everything here on Earth is made. I will not repeat the cases for going to the various bodies in our solar system... the different organizations which I listed above, and others like them, make a better case that I have time or space for here.

Currently, the chief restriction to executing any of these exploration and development programs is the high cost of getting materials into orbit. Face it, the space shuttle is overpriced, and alternative launch vehicles are not much better. However, several private firms (in addition to several government contractors) are in a race to develope low cost launch systems. Will they succeed? Almost certainly so within the next five years.

And once we have low cost (relative term) launch systems, I expect we will see a space tourism market begin. That will probably be the early economic force in the development of space.

And beyond that? As Robert Heinlein said in his writing, "Once you reach Low Earth Orbit, you are half way to anywhere in the Solar System."

I am all for companies partnering up and moving forward like this. NASA has a joint venture thing going on with Dreamtime as discussed in last weeks slashback . Why shouldn't corporations do this to? If NASA's ever dwindling federal budget is preventing this type of lunar exploration then they will need to do commercially exploitive things like this as well. RadioShack partnering up with LunaCorp for this type of mission could be a great thing if handled correctly. Every program that NASA has put together has benefited us as a civilization directly and indirectly with new technologies. No need to list them here as most /.er's probably know of atleast 3 (not including TANG) off the top of thier heads. Unfortunately, i fear that this venture will lead to tons on IP trademarks/patents designed to benefit a select few pockets. I am not against making a buck or two but there has to be some benefit to all of US (read civilization as a whole not just the already deep pockets of corporations). I wonder what thier take on the technology involved is. Hopefully, the science aquired on this mission won't go the route of some of the companies involved in the human genome project. Commercial space ventures are an inevitable event that needs some form of government supervision/regulation before it gets out of hand. What bothers me about this venture is that a) LunaCorp is a privately owned corporation b) RadioShack is a publicly owned corporation c) Buzz Aldrin is now a (albeit heroic) civilian d) It would appear that NASA is out of the loop on this deal. I did not see a mention of NASA's involvement in this anywhere on the LunaCorp site even though there are several shameless plugs for Carnegie-Mellon. Rather conspicuous, no? If you are curious go check out The Artemis Project. The Artemis folks have carefully thought out most of the issues and thier plan seems cogent for the most part. IAAMOAC - so are you

That's why we need to do it privately. Avoid all the politicians and bureaucracy and budget cuts and do it with a private company. A company with dedicated individuals of any and all nations who all work toward a common goal.

As mentioned, The Mars Society, as well as the Space Frontier Foundation, the Artemis Project, and the X-Prize are all great examples of stimulating private space exploration and development. Click here for another site with some good links.

I believe that if NASA is to continue on their ever dwindling federal budget (drug enforcement rates higher dollars and votes, even deeper issues that need to be responsibly re-addressed and handled completely differently than presently managed) they need to do many more things like this. I remember reading a few years back in Analog about an idea where Hollywood and NASA should team up. The partnership would benefit both sides mutually. The entertainment industry has very deep pockets and NASA has financial needs that our country for some reason feels needs to be neglected. This is a very sad statement to ponder as many of our modern conveniences like cellular phones, remote control tv/vcr/dvd's, extended life rechargeable batteries and lest we forget Tang all stem from technologies developed during the Gemini and Apollo programs. Our society now depends on may of these technologies to the point where they are all 'must haves' yet we don't want to fork over more funding to continue because most folks don't realize the origins of where these things came from. We could have and should have at this point established a moon base in the 30 years since we have been there. Why haven't we? Mostly because of money.Imagine if Tom Hanks had filmed his from earth to the moon series in a joint effort where NASA could have benefited financially from it. If a portion of ticket sales (lets say $2) from Apollo 13 were going to NASA and the public was made aware of how this kick back was working the public could help fund these programs. If you really like the movie you could go more than once etc. whatever but you see my point. Considering the hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue that motion pictures bring in these days (not to mention residuals and royalty monies) there is a huge potential for this to help the cause. The Artemis Project is based on this type of idea. Look into it if you like. It is totally possible to have missions to space that generate a profit and the Artemis folks have carefully thought out most of the issues. Twelve men have walked on the moon and in the time passed since then a whole generation has grown up. If you were born after 1970 you are truly a child of the space age. Shouldn't you be able to experience and contribute to your part of history?
IAAMOAC - so are you

An extremely detailed map would allow for planning a more in-depth mission. Possibly for mineral/metal prospecting for future mining missions. For a corporation the moon may be the most valuable untapped resource EVER.

BINGO! Someone here gets it!

If I correctly recall, the TrailBlazer probe is optimized to look for a number of very specific things, such as lava tubes. There are known lava tubes on Luna, but they became known because they were not structurally stable and collapsed akin to terrestrial sinkholes. Structurally stable lava tubes would be prime real estate, in that you are shielded from the sky (Gamma radiation and the like, but we're geeks who never go outside anyway, right?), and can pressurize them for crops, strolls, hobbies absurd on Earth (flying with wings, anyone?), et c.

Here is a respectable article on the uses for lava tubes: http://www.asi.org/a db/06/09/03/02/100/lava-tube-settling.html

I must admit that I'm a bit disappointed in most of the posts here. If I didn't know any better before reading them, I would have to assume that there's no reason to leave Earth ever, that it doesn't matter that we're in the middle of another mass extinction (no falling rock needed this time, just a bunch of members or a species of large mammal with destructive potential and limited grasp of the fragility of their environment), and that the notion of existing offword is nothing more than just another genre of escapist fantasy.

WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO EXPAND. There are too many of us here, and being able to move a large percentage of people off of Earth before we ruin it is going to require steps in between. We can't do it right now but we can take a few steps IN THAT DIRECTION to at least increase the chances of it someday being possible.

...not to mention the notion of BACKING UP some of the life on the only example of a living biodiversity before we finish wrecking the original.

The Artemis Project (http://www.asi.org) is still going strong.

TransOrbital Inc. initially spun off from the Artemis Project, as a company to prove that commercial flights to the moon were possible. It still has that aim, but has aquired a slightly wider scope.

Some of the images (which are to be much more detailed than Clementine's) will be used by the Artemis Project to determine if usable structures such as lava tubes exist.

Vik :v)
[Designer/Artist for TransOrbital]

You're absolutely right. I attended a seminar some years about this topic. The navy has researched this for sometime. He(3) is an isotope of Helium. Very rare. On earth is is produced during the natural decay of Plutonium. Very rare indeed.

If fused perfectly (assuming my memory holds) it releases heat + water + hydrogen.

What a great fuel for deep space travel. You get the energy from the fusion to propell your ship and as a byproduct water to drink and more fuel.

The talk I attended discussed mining it from the surface of the moon.
see this link . not sure if this is the same group but it is the same idea.

And again this link (gotta love google). This one discusses fusion with deutrium. The talk I saw was He3+He3.

Our space agency has become an outdated dinosaur, capable only of ponderous movement, when it isn't mired in the swamp of bureaucracy. A number of up and coming private companies (including, but not limited to Cerulean, Pioneer, Kistler, and Kelly) are working on inexpensive launch systems. One or more is certain to manage it in the next few years.

Once we have this cheap access to space, there are any number of Entrepeneurs waiting to exploit it. Most well known is Bigelow, but there are others.

Space, and our activities therein are popular with a lot of people. The growth of such private organizations as Permanent, The Mars Society, and Artemis is strong evidence of this.

NASA may not be prepared to go fetch some rocks from Mars anytime soon, but they may find others already there when they do.

--

Nobody has yet mentioned the Artemis Society International's project for establishing a privately-funded colony on the moon. The Artemis Project was mentioned in an article by rocket scientist Gregory Bennett in the January 1995 issue of the Analog SF magazine. It has since grown into a fairly sizeable undertaking which looks like it might have a real chance to reach the moon within their proposed schedule. Check out their web site, join their mailing list, even send them money. It's worth a look.

There is no technical reason that we could not establish permanent bases on the moon, Mars, or on an asteroid. The fact that we could send manned missions to the moon with less than 10 years lead time (from the idea being first proposed) suggests that we can develop the technology.

It is unlikely that NASA would be able to execute such a mission. Unfortunately, the space agency is no longer the can do group it was in the 1960's. Instead, it has grown into another Bureaucratic monster, more concerned with maintaining its funding that searching out new, expansive goals.

We can expect privately funded space launch services such as Rotary Rocket or Cerulean Freight Forwarding Company within the next five years. With these and other companies providing access to low earth orbit, there will be a ten fold decrease in the cost off access to space. This will allow more activity in space, which in turn will encourage more launchers to provide access. It is quite likely that Space Vacations will be available for the affluent inside the next ten years, with costs as low as $100,000 per person for a two week stay in a space.

There are groups who want to move permanently into space. Eventually, we will be going to the moon, Mars, the Asteroids, and elsewhere. If you are interested in promoting space, I recommend that you join one or more of these organizations.

There is a project I stumbled upon that is purporting to do just this. The site is Artemis Society International and they state that they want to do a privately funded lunar colony, similar (but not exactly like) the D.D. Harriman project in "The Man Who Sold The Moon," by Robert Heinlein.

According to the The Artimis Project:
The Moon is a venue of "lex nullus"; that is, it is identical in legal status to the high seas, meaning that nobody can own it and everybody can go there.

Uh, guys, isn't this a novelty item?

Nobody owns the moon. Ownership is prohibited by a few treaties. Details of the legal aspects of owning the moon can be found off the Artemis Society homepage, specifically in the Frequently Raised Objections section.

As an aside, TransOrbital Inc. is going to be taking pictures of the moon using a telescope in lunar orbit, so people will be able to have a picture of "their" plot if they choose.

Vik :v)

Uh, guys, isn't this a novelty item?

Nobody owns the moon. Ownership is prohibited by a few treaties. Details of the legal aspects of owning the moon can be found off the Artemis Society homepage, specifically in the Frequently Raised Objections section.

As an aside, TransOrbital Inc. is going to be taking pictures of the moon using a telescope in lunar orbit, so people will be able to have a picture of "their" plot if they choose.

Vik :v)

The only workable solution, whereby mankind can be forever freed of this persistent philosophical terrorism of nuclear-biological ICBMs, is the original Space Defense Initiative plan, based on laser technology using new physical principles. Although the development cost might seem higher, once developed the defensive cost is pennies per shot. At that point, each missile could contain thousands of warheads and decoys, to no avail. The lower economic cost of defense simply destroys the economic feasibility of any missile based offense, by anyone, forever. Of course, this kind of defensive power must be open sourced, for all nations to use for their defense. And, IMHO, that is the real power, i.e. the danger to certain parties, of a new paradigm, the open source idea which is being proven by the slashdot community.

More importantly, if open sourced the new technology whereby we learn to control new concentrations of energy for defensive purposes, will also provide other economic benefits, such as a means to convert nuclear waste from existing nuclear power plants into an economic bonanza of sub-uranium metals and hydrogen and helium isotopes. This could improve the economic future for everybody.

Look at the fruits of the space program from the 1960's. Who ever thought we would discover oxygen and 20,000 terrawatts of thermal energy in the form of He3 on the moon. Look at the economic potential which that little discovery has created re fusion energy. For starters, see Artemis Project.

NASA is not the first to do this. Some of the other partners in the ISS have all ready started working on plans to lease access to the research space that they are entitled to. Canada and Spacehab announced talks on this a couple of months ago.

Lack of Volume & Scale - Spacecraft today are mostly made in ones and twos. Everyone in the industry knows that the key to reducing costs is through Henry Ford-style Economy of Scale. I've sat through dozens of "cheap spacecraft" seminars that each boiled down to, "...and by doing this umpteen zillion times we'll reduce cost to X".

Unfortunately, the sticking point is not that we need to figure out a clever way of engineering an assembly line (which we pretty much already know really well through the automotive industry) but in figuring out how to greatly increase the demand. Some people speculate that as costs lower, demand will naturally pick up. Maybe, but then you're stuck with the chicken and egg situation of needing to increase demand before the cost savings kick in.

Another problem is that it really isn't possible to design a Model T of spacecraft - each one is slightly different, and has slightly different needs. And with launch costs as high as they are, you really try to maximize the functionality you get from the mass you are allowed. This is the failing of _many_ spacecraft mass production schemes.

Risk Adversity (or, Politics & Regulations) - An incredible amount of money goes into making sure that a satellite will not fail. Most of this is plain old paperwork - tons of it. _Especially_ with expensive spacecraft. The cynic in me observes that this fear is driven less by the desire to avoid astronaut deaths or loss of expensive equipment, than the fear of having your career destroyed when something you're involved in fails - there is an incredible amount of shame associated with being involved in a failed spacecraft (or even a failed _test_!!). And this drives up costs a LOT. Build two, and if the first fails, fix the second and launch it.

Aerospace companies are so frightened about investing in a new piece of hardware, it makes me laugh that Golden expects them to invest in risky new space ventures! He's right, that NASA ain't the one to do it, but neither are the big massive aerospace companies. Way too much adversity to risk. $1B is a lot of money to be risking to a stray meteorite, when you could be putting it into internet IPO's. ;-)

Customization - Unlike cars, one satellite is not just like any other. Each one is custom tailored to meet particular needs.

Surprisingly, software is a major expense of satellite systems. It's very hand crafted. I would hope that some day someone abstracts the software for a spacecraft such that customization could be done via something like a config file, instead of custom low level hand coding.

Now, it seems to me that this need to customize each spacecraft could be addressed by making engineering software that is more dynamic and capable of doing most of the design customization automatically. But development of such software is beyond the ken of most aerospacers. The aerospace industry is still very much in the horse and buggy days when it comes to its design and analysis software. Most of it is in FORTRAN. That which is not, is often in Excel. But programming is considered to be monkey work, and is either given low priority, or inadequately funded (or both.) Smart, computer-literate kids like us end up quitting the aerospace industry and joining a dotcom.

Usually when I bring up the point that computers have gotten very powerful and can do a lot of the work that is currently done by hand, I usually get nothing more helpful than a "When I was your age, we used punch cards! And we liked it." 8-\ *Sigh* _ONE_ day someone will write a powerful, generalized and unified satellite engineering and design program and really clean up in the satellite business.

Anyway, I don't see these problems disappearing any time soon, and no matter how much NASA may wish for commercial companies to forge ahead in space exploration, it ain't gonna happen that easily. My personal opinion is that until a few more markets open up in space, commercial industry ain't going to be pushing us very far.

The next question is: How to build some new markets in space? That's the biggie that everyone is trying to answer. If you're curious of some of the many ideas people have thought of for getting started, check out www.asi.org, an organization founded on the very principles of furthering exploration through commercial means.

Bryce