Buzz Advocates Lagrange Point Spaceport

thrasymachus writes "Buzz Aldrin has an editorial in the New York Times (free reg req) advocating a spaceport at a Lagrange point between the Earth and the moon over simply more moon missions. He emphasizes the cost and practicality of such a station, as well its potential as a 'bridge to the heavens.'"

Comments

Buzz on cable news

[N8F8]

Saw an inteview this morning on CNN I believe. He talked about the L2 point idea as well as the dificulty with all the other things going on in the world as well as the budget deficit.

Most opponents to this idea don't consider that they are talking about realigning NASA in the direction of achieving this one big mission instead of the aimless direction it has been moving if for quite awhile. Not more money, just applying existing resources in a specific direction.

Re:Buzz on cable news

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, the shuttle design was nothing incremental. There was a TV program last week on Radio-Canada (french division of the CBC) on that. Sorry I don't remember the actual name of the show.

The first "ideal" design was turned down because it was too costly. After the Apollo missions, the budget went down and NASA was forced to ask for funds from the military. The military wanted a different type of vehicule. One that would be able to put their large spy satellites in orbit and service them.

The original space shuttle design was much smaller, had short wings and was piggy-backing a booster (a bit like now, but in front of the booster, not at the end of it). Unfortunatly, because the military needed a large cargo bay, that meant a heavier vehicle. This also meant that they needed more thrust. Thus the addition of solid rocket boosters. That design was quickly eliminated by NASA engineers. But since it cost less and the budget was split with the military, the design was forced upon NASA by congress (or some other highly political body, I don't remember).

In that light, both accidents (Challenger and Columbia) would not have occured. Since the vehicle didn't have SRBs, they would not have exploded. Even in the event of a main booster explosion, the astronauts would have been sheilded by the back of the shuttle. And this would have allowed for an ejection system. As for Columbia, no debris would have hit the shuttle since it was in front.

So in the end, it was compromises and politics that designed the shuttle. Not scientists, engineers and common sense.

Don't disagree with Buzz!!!

[Keebler71]

Here is a link the famous Buzz Aldrin "punch" video wherein he punches some moron who calls him a liar about having ever been to the moon. Posted for your enjoyment :)

Re:Don't disagree with Buzz!!!

[Glock27]

Here is a link the famous Buzz Aldrin "punch" video wherein he punches some moron who calls him a liar about having ever been to the moon. Posted for your enjoyment.

Nice left for a 72 year old guy!

(BTW, don't forget that this idiot also called him a "coward".)

The best part, though was the epilogue: "The Los Angeles County District Attorney's office has declined to file charges.". Sometimes, there is justice in the world. :-)

Building bridges in the wrong place?

[ShavenYak]

Something like 90% of the energy needed to get to the Moon is spent just getting to low earth orbit. While it might be an interesting project, a Lagrange point space station isn't going to make space travel much cheaper. We've got to solve the "first 100 mile problem", to paraphrase the telecomm industry.

I can't say whether a space elevator is feasible, but it seems a more useful goal to shoot for. That, or some method of launch better than strapping on a shitload of explosives and lighting the fuse.

Re:The Moon or Lagrange? I still choose Mars.

[Keebler71]

you can build things there

No you can't because it hasn't been done yet... we need to walk before we run.

Zubrin't table of delta-V's has a fundamental error in it... it doesn't include the fuel required to launch an vehicle from Earth to parking orbit, the fuel for the transfer orbit to Mars, the fuel for Mars capture or the fuel required for landing at Mars. Don't forget you aren't just moving the spacecraft to Mars but all the ground support equipment, mining equipment and fuel refining equipment as well.

Don't get me wrong, Zubrin has some excellent ideas and I would never question his conviction, but we still must walk before we run.

Re:L Point

[Chmcginn]

I think this is good as it is a step out of the 'Cradle' and probably requires nearly the same energy as a trip to the moon (TLI or whatever). However the advantage of the moon is that you can burrow in and they might be water at the poles.

While the moon only costs a little bit more to get to, it costs a lot more to leave. That's the whole point of his arguement. An interplanetary spacecraft assembled at L1 wouldn't have to worry about escape velocity - it's already pretty close to it. And if there is any ice, it's a lot more sparse than previously suggesteed - Doubts Resurface about Lunar Ice

Re:I pay my taxes knowingly and willingly

[Moofie]

I'd have much less issue with performing my civic duty of paying taxes, if my elected representatives did THEIR civic duty and spent those revenues wisely.

And BOTH parties have a hideous record on that front.

Neat idea, but lots of pitfalls

[Entrope]

I would like to see a more detailed analysis of his cost estimates -- $15 billion seems rather low for "developing a new, more flexible launch vehicle," designing a sophisticated (and large) long-life station, shipping the thing up to L1 point, and assembling it.

He also doesn't address things like radiation concerns: Where are the Van Allen belts in relation to L1? L1 is outside the inner (high intensity) Van Allen belt, which means it is likely to get more solar radiation than we do on Earth. You need a lot of shielding to make long-term habitability practical.

Why pick L1 over L4 or L5? L1 is an unstable point -- items there tend to fall to one of the two major bodies; L4 and L5 are stable points.

He doesn't address the fuel cost to go the extra distance; ISS is 250 miles up, while L1 is about 190,000 miles up. Even though neither location is far down the gravity well, astronauts can't afford the slow boat, so you have to spend more fuel to get up to speed and brake at the far end.

NASA Goals

[mntgomery]

Why is it that NASA always seems more interested in the public perception than the actual progression of space exploration? The reasoning seems to be that moon landings are "cool" and "sexy" and look great in the short term.

Seems that Aldrin is at least being a little more of a visionary and thinking about where we can go from there rather than appeasing the public and its contant "what have you done for me lately" philosophy.

Re:Guess what's in space? Nothing!

[__STDC__]

How much energy does it take to balance a broom. L1 is unstable, but that is a benefit not a hinderance. It means that when you want to leave you just "lean" in the direction you want to go while to leave the moon you have to fight its gravity.

Not only can you leave without much effort, you can also get there with as little. You just have to plan well and accept a long trip.

Using the Lagrange points requires a different philosopy to mission planning.

Re:Where would this point be?

[devphil]

A space station at the Lagrange point would need some energy to stay in position anyway - it would invariably drift over time if not corrected due to the solar wind and inaccuracies in the initial positioning.

Not nearly as much as you think; possibly none at all. That's the whole reason to put one in the Lagrange points, well, half the reason anyway.

You know those "gravity/mass" diagrams that start with a flat Cartesian grid, and whenever a body is added, it sinks down like a well, or a rock weighing down a bedsheet? More massive bodies create larger wells, and so forth? Imagine the Earth (large well) and the Moon (small well). Now imagine 5 tiny dimples, moving in the same stable orbits along with the Earth and Moon.

Anything humans can build anytime soon is going to mass very little than the bodies involved in the system (Earth and Moon), and will fit comfortably within those dimples. The dimples are shallow; it doesn't mean we can just sort of get close and then suddenly the spaceport will fall in and get jerked into place. But "stationkeeping" will require much less work (fuel) than if we had been in some other random orbit point, out there on top of the bedsheet.

The other half of the reason behind choosing a Lagrange point is that they're connected by "superhighways" where the energy required to travel between them is less than normal... I'm explaining this poorly, I know... imagine little grooves carved between the dimples; a small enough marble can just roll between the various dimples with a very small push and not much steering.

Cost benefit analysis

[kippy]

So the plan is to build a station at L1 and use it as a jump off point. Let's think about that. We'll have to burn fuel (cash) to get away from Earth. Dock with the station for some reason, then blast off to other places. Does this really save fuel? Wouldn't it be cheaper to just blast off from Earth to Mars or the belt? Why the middle man?

Even if there is fuel savings in that plan, the infrastructure is this: launch hundreds of tons of equipment into L1. Fly up, put it together and maintain it. That would cost billions just to do that. How long until that initial investment is made up by any possible energy savings in going from Earth to L1 then outward? I would guess it would be decades if not centuries if there's any savings at all. Wouldn't we have space elevators, fusion and all that other cool stuff by then anyway?

I maintain that just blasting off to the destination remains the best way to go. No interplanetary rest stops. They'll probably smell like pee just like on Earth anyway.

Re:The Moon or Lagrange? I still choose Mars.

[jacksdl]

Trip to Mars from Earth -- several months (variable depending on relative positions of planets)

Trip to Lagrange from Earth -- days

Gravity on Mars -- 0.4G
Gravity at Lagrange -- 0.0G (Artificial gravity through rotation gives relatively easy access to everything between 0 and 1G and beyond -- difficult to recreate on Mars)

Raw materials on Mars -- plentiful and varied but at the bottom of a gravity well

Raw material in Space near Lagrange -- NEO materials are available

I think the astronaut has it right!

Keep sending the robots...

[Inflatable Hippo]

When robots are capable of assembling and maintaining a fully functional and habitable environment for us on the moon or mars, that's the time to start packing our suitcases.

Once the base and (cheap unmanned) supply chain is reliably up and running people can go and do the stuff that robots/remote sensing can't accomplish (still a hell of a lot).

This also has the virtue of enforcing a severe simlicity and modularity on the design of the whole venture since everything has to be autonomously assembled. Who wants a fancy home when you're hundeds of millions of miles from the hardware store anyway.

If we don't yet have the technology to do this then I'd question our ability to reliably send people on such missions and kepp them alive for much longer than it takes to plant a flag.

Re:$10 for ISS, or $10 for a hungry child?

[bheer]

Why? Because the AIDS vaccines won't help you when the Earth becomes so crowded and unlivable that you have water riots because of the way Asia has f*cked up her groundwater.

Because all the bountiful GM crops won't help you when there is carnage in Europe as Africa's and Asia's hordes invade those greying lands (look up Europe's population dynamics if you can, also look up how well her minorities are integrated - case in point Paris' sensitive districts).

And all the vaccines on Earth won't help you when we've sucked our homeworld dry of minerals.

And all your bleeding-heart piety will not help us when an asteroid decides to change course, or the sun decides to clear its throat a little.

> $10 for ISS, or $10 for a hungry child?

Eggs, Basket. All I'm trying to say is that your goals are laudable, but it is not a question of either/or. We must do both.

Lets get the problem straight

[Yanray]

Fundemental problems of space exploration:

--Air, Water, Food, all building materials, and the humans to operate must be lauched into orbit (first 500 miles are the hardest)

This seems to be slowly being addressed. However the best solution is to minimize the materials needed to be lifted into orbit. Most of the material needed for the construction and operation of an L2 station, Lunar Outpost, or other space infastructure should be produced in space at the lowest possible cost. The proposed NASA Tug's designed to stop small asteroids from hitting earth could quite easily push a NEAR object made of water, iron, nickle, etc into leo were the materials could be extracted.

This activity (mining, extracting, refining, and molding in 0-G) could have huge benefits scientifically in the US (and other countries) manufacturing community and bring support for further space projects.

--Radiation and 0-G are not condusive to long term life in space. This is addressed using brute force engineering on the Moon (bury yourself under a ton of regiloth. This can then be modified to be used in space. A condenced hardened shell of the lunar surface should provide a Mars mission with sufficient radiation and heat shielding at a fraction of the cost of launching that material from earth. Same with shielding manned Lagrange stations.

--Costs: Definiately difficult to justify because of the lack of positive returns on investment to date. However long term research and science along with creative problem solving are the precursers to creative success. Suriving in space nessesitates such problem solving and long term benefits will present themselves in the challeges we overcome.

Questions:
-Is the Lunar station to be preminantly manned form the start or will it resemble plans for early mars mission plans? (Completing early constuction missions using such a plan could be highly beneficial.)
-Is L1 suposed to be manned or just serviceable by passing ships? (Given radiation and other hazards of living that far from assistance it would make more sence to construct a serviceable automated platform.)
-Who is resonsible to make the New Saturn V's capable of large payloads?

Re:I pay my taxes knowingly and willingly

[TheMidget]

Which is exactly the reason third parties aren't succesful - people are convinced they can't be successful.

No, it's a problem with the US system of election. In the US system, a third party can only be successful if people are convinced that it can be successful. The reason is because there is only one round of (presidential) election: the first to have a relative majority wins. Which means that people are afraid of squandering their votes by voting for the lesser known parties: they prefer to vote Dem, rather than Green, even if deep down in their heart they would prefer Green.

In a two-turn system (such as in France), such an issue doesn't exist. To win in on turn you need an absolute majority (i.e. more than 50% of the votes; 49% against an opponent who has 48% is not enough). If no one has an absolute majority, the two top-ranking candidates face each other in a second turn, which determines the winner.

With such a system, the following might have happened in the US on the last election:

• First round: Nader gather a great bunch of votes, maybe overtaking Al Gore. Bush gets the number he really got.
• Second round: Nader vs Bush. Nader would obviously collect votes that would have gone to Al Gore otherwise (i.e. "lesser evil" reasoning in reverse, by traditional Dem voters)
• No war in Iraq

Or, if Gore had more votes than Nader:

• Second round: Nader is no longer running, so Gore collects all hist votes. Together with these, Gore would have overtaken Bush
• No war in Iraq

===> in any case, a two-turn system allows people to vote honestly in the first round, without any fears of "wasted votes" because not enough fellow citizens think likewise.

Alexander Tyler, I believe

[ChristTrekker]

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage.