Slashdot Mirror
NASA Planning Lunar Mining Tests, Other New Tech
FleaPlus writes "NASA has released the initial details on its ETDD (Enabling Technology Development and Demonstrations) program to 'develop and demonstrate the technologies needed to reduce cost and expand the capability of future space exploration activities.' The ETDD program is initially planning on funding small-scale demonstrations in five technology areas: in-situ resource utilization (with a robotic lunar resource extraction mission in 2015), high-power electric propulsion, autonomous precision landing (building on the success of the Lunar Lander Challenge), human-robotic collaboration (2011/2012), and fission power systems. More info on NASA's larger-scale Flagship Technology Demonstrations (FTD) program is expected in the coming month."
And maybe save a few lives besides? Sounds worth the cost, no?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
One way trips to the moon. Mining technology not included.
lunar mining: Cheapest way to build a moonbase. Just keep tunneling and put several seals to keep air in. There is no point in going to the moon, or anywhere else, if we don't have a cheap mining unit to get resources and build a base. Otherwise it' was a wasted trip. Powerful electric propulsion and fission power plant: Excellent way to overcome the limits of of carrying fuel up the gravity well all of the time. Great way to re-use the ship you build out of it from mars so you can get a ferry going every few weeks. I'm not going to keep the lovefest going for the other ones, but I definitely think this is a change for the better.
According to the RFI at http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=34056 nuclear propulsion is excluded unless it is used solely for heat generation or as a power source for electric propulsion. Thus, some of the most promising nuclear technologies for rocket propulsion such as micro pellet inertial confinement compression-induced fission are excluded.
these are the holdover missions that NASA will have to be content with until there is an administration that is serious about space exploration.
Even if this is a stealth attempt by Obama to kill off manned spaceflight, it still means that he's more serious about space exploration than any president since Lyndon B. Johnson.
You probably don't know very much about space exploration do you? All the fluffy expensive bull shit like the ISS and manned space travel actually produce very little that will help space exploration. This is the one thing that will possibly provide humanity with usable resources from space, and make travel and construction in space a reality instead of a one-off dick measuring contest between super powers.
You mean like this administration?
They have given more money to NASA and killed a boondoggle that was wasting what little money NASA had.
...to get our hands on good cheese.
Not according to these guys.
This ain't rocket surgery.
No you won't. People don't solve complex problems never before attempted or tried just because. They solve complex problems and do things never attempted before in pursuit of a goal. These are effectively research grants, the way you keep the money flowing is say "we're working on it, but for that key next step we will need more funding for next year."
Also there is a reason we should put people in SPACE, the reason is because we are a group of explorers and doers. Once we remove the challenging parts, we'll be neither.
I'll let you in on something all you Obama cocksuckers don't understand. This nation is declining, it is not going to be a great nation where people who work hard wish to come. It will fail to lead the world in things like Space or Medicine (both of which our Congress and President have trashed).
We're replacing the explorers and visionaries who discovered and defined the world with egotistical intellectuals, who mistakenly think they understand the real world. The best way to expand and increase the cost effectiveness of NASA is convert it to a goal driven agency. Don't pay to research or study something. Instead setup prizes like the X-Prize or Google's Android challenges to motivate everyday Americans, small business startups, Universities, etc. to solve challenges. Send a rocket to the moon get X million. Put a Satellite in orbit of the moon get Y million, send a crew to circle the moon get Z million, etc. Then we the tax payers only pay for success and we only pay the winning scientists (or garage engineers). But with this current NASA funding joke, we will get the bill with no results.
Respect the Constitution
Large masses are few and far between in space. Therefore to get anywhere we are probably going to looking at a series of space stations. The nice thing about this moon mining idea is that it may give the raw materials we need to build space stations, without falling to the 60's idea that the goal is to live on the moon. That is like flying cars. A neat idea, but what we really want are hover craft.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
interesting bbc article, sounds like Tibetans would make great astronauts.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8680503.stm
> egotistical intellectuals, who mistakenly think they understand
> the real world.
You want national leaders with no ego? Lose your own, then run for office.
And if intellectuals bother you, you're in the wrong place.
As to "mistakenly thinking they understand the real world", how do you know you understand it better? Do you have broader experience? A better advisory staff? More resources? Greater access to NASA?
I agree with you on the X-Prize approach. You have good points in there, but they can get drowned in the ranting and hyperbole.
If we don't have an active and funded unmanned space exploration mission, we can't do manned missions. Sending manned missions ahead without investigating the environment that people are going to have to deal with is tantamount to sending them on suicide missions.
It's not "either or" it's "do both at the same time" and if we spend too much on manned we won't have anything to spend on the unmanned that should precede them.
Of course we aren't spending enough on either, but that's because we have a lot of two and four year shortsighted idiots running our country. Reelection and quarterly profits are more important to them (and to many of the sheeples) than actually doing anything about the future is.
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
Do you realize that this is essentially a renamed department from Constellation? Yeah, that manned space program. Did you know that the stuff they are and will be working on is just like the stuff they were working on for Constellation, except now, it doesn't have a defined mission. Try designing a system and mission optimized system (to make it fun optimize it for anything you like) and send me your optimized design before you have any specific requirements.
"...And who wants to make buttprints in the sands of time?" ~Bob Moawad
Maybe if Bush put some of that money he spent tripling the military's budget on NASA we wouldn't have to bitch about missions going way over budget or something not working (because we could afford more than a few primary experiments).
The best way to expand and increase the cost effectiveness of NASA is convert it to a goal driven agency. Don't pay to research or study something. Instead setup prizes like the X-Prize or Google's Android challenges to motivate everyday Americans, small business startups, Universities, etc. to solve challenges. Send a rocket to the moon get X million. Put a Satellite in orbit of the moon get Y million, send a crew to circle the moon get Z million, etc. Then we the tax payers only pay for success and we only pay the winning scientists (or garage engineers).
You may want to read through NASA's new plans. From the Space Technology section of the new budget:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/428439main_Space_technology.pdf
The Centennial Challenges program seeks innovative solutions to technical problems that can drive progress in aerospace technology of value to NASA's missions in space operations, science, exploration and aeronautics. Beginning in FY 2011, Centennial Challenge activities associated with the Innovative Partnerships Program are transferred to the Space Technology Program. Centennial Challenges encourage the participation of independent teams, individual inventors, student groups and private companies of all sizes in aerospace research and development, and seek to find the most innovative solutions to technical challenges through competition and cooperation. NASA's original seven prize challenges have been successful in encouraging broad participation by innovators across our nation and across generations. Many of these technical challenges also have direct relevance to national and global needs such as energy and transportation.
Prize programs encourage diverse participation and multiple solution paths. A measure of diversity is seen in the geographic distribution of participants (from Hawaii to Maine) that reaches far beyond the locales of the NASA Centers and major aerospace industries. The participating teams have included individual inventors, small startup companies, and university students and professors. An example of multiple solution paths was seen in the 2009 Regolith Excavation Challenge. NASA can typically afford one or two working prototypes in a development program but at this Challenge event, over twenty different working prototypes were demonstrated for the NASA technologists. All of these prototypes were developed at no cost to the government. For three years of competitions with dozens of teams investing tens of thousands of hours, NASA spent only $750,000 in prize money.
The return on investment with prizes is exceptionally high as NASA expends no funds unless the accomplishment is demonstrated. NASA provides only the prize money and the administration of the competitions is done at no cost to NASA by non-profit allied organizations. For the Lunar Lander Challenge, twelve private teams spent nearly 70,000 hours and the equivalent of $12 million trying to win $2 million in prize money. Prizes also focus public attention on NASA programs and generate interest in science and engineering. Live webcasts of Centennial Challenge competitions attract thousands of viewers across the nation and around the world. The 2009 Power Beaming completion resulted in over 100 news articles and web features. Prizes also create new businesses and new partners for NASA. The winner of the 2007 Astronaut Glove Challenge started a new business to manufacture pressure suit gloves. Armadillo Aerospace began a partnership with NASA related to the reusable rocket engine that they developed for the Lunar Lander Challenge, and they also sell the engine commercially.
In selecting topics for prize competitions, NASA consults widely within and outside of the Federal Government. The $10 million per year FY 2011 request for Centennial Challenges will allow NASA to pursue new and more ambitious prize competitions. Topics for future challenges that are under consideration include revolutionary energy
and avoid oil spills on the moon. We just jammed up gulf of Mexico, avoid covering with tar palus Putredinis
I wonder if they let players interface with those mining drones via the that NASA MMO
Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
Funny you should make that comparison, I recently heard someone, rather older than myself, compare obama to LBJ.
One thing that is obvious is that Obama is no LBJ. LBJ wouldn't have let Congress get out of hand. But I think some of Obama's problems come from not having influence over Congress and its leaders.
That is like flying cars. A neat idea, but what we really want are hover craft.
That analogy is broken since we really don't want either. We really want fast point to point transportation (well, we might also want something we can bling up, but that's the primary desire). Neither flying cars nor hovercraft can deliver that to us today.
Do you realize that this is essentially a renamed department from Constellation?
Not true. The reason is because Obama is proposing to end Ares I. Everything currently running in Constellation revolves around that choice for a launcher. Orion is designed to fly on that rocket (and I think, cynically perhaps, that it was originally designed to be just a bit too heavy to fly on the Delta IV Heavy). The choice of heavy lift vehicle, Ares V just so happens to require Ares I development in order to be cost effective. That's virtually all of the current or already planned technology development in Constellation.
Don't presume to speak for everyone. Some of us really DO want to live on the moon. And no, I don't want flying cars or hovercrafts.
I'm with Stephen Baxter on this--mining near Earth asteroids is where it's at. Easier than the Moon, with quicker pay-offs. Supposedly, the raw materials we could get from just one metallic asteroid would be enough seriously upset the world-wide market for many sought-after metals and minerals.
Most of space is more like the surface of an asteroid than it is like the surface of the Moon.
The high cost to the human race's colonisation of space is caused by the complexity and danger of reaching and leaving escape velocity within the earth's atmosphere.
The Space Shuttle turned out to be an expensive and dangerous white elephant, the reason the Shuttle was so expensive is, because of its complexity with millions of different manufactured parts, and the need to cover it with bathroom tiles.
There is another route, we can reach the edge of space no problem Burt Rutan proved this with Space Ship one, when he won the 'X' prize by reaching over 100 km twice in one week.
Yes the Shuttle was 'reusable' but in name only. They could not have turned that around in a week.
What NASA should be doing is creating rocket fuel on the moon, there is lots of water on the moon, use solar energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen which makes very good rocket fuel.
Use the rocket fuel to fuel a space tug, use the space tug to accelerate and decelerate Space Ship one, to and from escape velocity in the safety of a vacuum.
Once we can accelerate and decelerate space craft with rocket fuel that is obtained from out of the earth's gravity well, space travel becomes cheaper by many orders of magnitude, ok the capital cost would be very high, but once the systems are in place, the number of human beings, living in space increases exponentially. A good example for the way high capital cost projects work is the Panama canal.
It's called an elephant's trunk whereas it is in fact, an elephant's nose, a nose by any other name would smell as sweet
While the requirements that drives ETDP (the current project that will evolve into ETDD) are based on the Constellation rocket stack (Ares I&V, Orion, Ares), the test readiness level of the technologies explored by this department are 3-6. That means taking something from a "this is reasonably feasible" phase to a "with minor tweaking you could shove this on a rocket" phase. ETDP and ETDD don't develop flight hardware, they develop potential solutions that end up getting turned into flight hardware. Ares I and Ares IV have a minor role in the technology development for Constellation, honestly. "Virtually all of the current or already planned technology" seems unlikely, as the work currently being done from ETDP, at least on the thermal side, does not involve Ares whatsoever. My primary disagreement with the original parent was the assertion that finally work like this is getting done, when in fact it's been getting done, and during a program that the original poster seems to think was hindering this progress. Furthermore, the requirements driving the actual flight hardware on Orion and Ares give a realistic "go-by" for the ETDP and ETDD work, as well as highlighting the technologies and areas where development is most beneficial. In tech dev. it's a good thing to have a working article up and running nearby, because it gives good insight into what does and doesn't currently work well.
"...And who wants to make buttprints in the sands of time?" ~Bob Moawad
Alternately, you could look at where the money is getting spent in Constellation. Looking around, I see that ETDP funding was being cut in 2009 and operating well below desired funding levels. That indicates to me that it wasn't a serious part of the Constellation program. In comparison, Ares I development along with Orion (and other associated systems like a launch abort system) has apparently consumed somewhere around $10 billion dollars since 2005. For example, the Ares I-X test alone probably outspent ETDP spending in 2009 by more than 50% (400 million dollars supposedly for the test versus 250 million dollars for the ETDP program).