>Proton: $3,500 / kg * 2.2 =~ $7,700 / lb >Shuttle: $20,000 / kg * 2.2 =~ $44,000 / lb Try: >$3,500/kg / 2.2 = $1,590/lb $20,000/kg / 2.2. >= $9,090/lb There's 2.2 lbs to the kg not the >other way around!
Argh! Almost every day I encourage my co-workers to go home after 8 hours because a person is bound to make stupid errors when they're tired. So, what do I do? Make a simple (and incorrect) calculation in haste right before I go to bed and post it to a public forum. Yes, those cost / conversion figures are dross, but I'll stand by the others.
You're right when you say that costs should tend to go down as launch mass goes up, as would fit with other economies of scale. However, launchers to date have been the exception which breaks that rule. As an example, the Titan IV, which offers the largest payload to orbit of any active launcher (Energia or Saturn V would be more) costs more to construct and operate each and every time it's launched.
Unfortunately, the complexity of a launch vehicle increases with attempted reliability no matter what the scale. With a little luck, new realistic designs (like those offered by Kistler) will fix this problem and bring about the launch costs and realiability which we're all hoping for.
>Your figures are way off. Way, way, wayyyyyyy >off. The space shuttle costs $9,000 / lb and that >may be the most expensive vehicle ever! Check >out: http://www.ssc.se/ssd/diary001.html.
A quick check at that web site URL gives:
"...$3,500 per kg offered by the Proton or $20,000 per kg it costs to fly the Space Shuttle..."
Proton: $3,500 / kg * 2.2 =~ $7,700 / lb Shuttle: $20,000 / kg * 2.2 =~ $44,000 / lb
At 20,000 lb for a hypothetical Proton launch, that'll run you ~$154,000,000. Seems like a little more than $70,000,000 to me.
As the shuttle costs show, human-rating a launch vehicle (with all the shielding, life support, redundancies, etc. which that entails) costs a huge amount of time, effort and cost. No amount of arm-waving will change that.
>Incidentally the latest module launched for the >ISS was close to 20 tons, and that was launched >on a Proton.
Zvezda was its own transfer vehicle. Launching a chunk 'o mass into LEO and waiting for orbital decay to do its work isn't the most effective means of running a space mission -- you need a transfer vehicle to take you and your payload somewhere else.
>According to: >http://www.russianspace.com/proton.html the LEO >launch capability of a PROTON-K is 20.6 tons, >PROTON KM is 23.5 tons.
...add in the transfer vehicle and you'll get a dramatically reduced figure. I stick to my previous (peer reviewed, industry-standard) figure from AW&ST of a Proton-K launch delivering 12,100 lbs into a 28.5 degree transfer orbit.
>Still, theoretically, how much extra weight is a >couch and an enlarged nose cone? There'd be more >aerodynamic losses, but I'd be surprised if they >were that significant.
Making any design change to a launch vehicle (particularly if it's human-rated) requires a great deal of time and effort in desiging and adequately testing your solution. What you're proposing is an entirely new spacecraft, which is hardly an 'off-the-shelf' solution.
>Most of the thrusting is >outside the atmosphere anyway. Volume is mostly >irrelevant, its mass that counts...
Volume is irrelevant? Try telling that to an aircraft or satellite design team. You can't just wish your payload into an ideal shape, nor change the laws of physics to suit your fancy. People may object to being crushed into a 10cm / 10cm cube to enable efficient packing on-board your luxury liner to space.
>But the real point was purely illustrative. You >are taking this way too seriously.
You're right: I am taking this far too seriously.
After working for some time in the space-sector, I've grown extremely agitated by space "enthusiasts" who claim that physics and private-sector finance will save the day in the next-generation of spacecraft, while chosing to ignore those laws of physics and private-sector finance which get in the way of their daydreams.
The problems you've brought up are real and they can't be resolved by re-photonizing trans-modulated di-lithium through the flux-capaciting thruster core. If you want to see real-world space travel, use real-world spacecraft and the real-world physical limitations they're up against.
>As for talking to politicians. Thanks but no >thanks. I'm more tempted to talk to a hotel or a >banker.
...and get laughed out of the building. The private sector makes money from established technologies, the public sector creates new technologies (communications satellites, launch vehicles, computer technology, Internet, etc. etc.) which the private sector later champions, once the technology is established and the risks are (mostly) gone.
>I'm in the UK, the government may not >be able to find 1 billion. The US government/NASA >can't make money by law so wouldn't go for it.
http://www.esa.int/
Your tax dollars for space go there. Ariane V has a comparable payload capacity to Proton-K.
Stay in fantasy-land or try to make it a reality. It's your call.
>>No, there is no _inherent_ reason. However, since >>a rocket is a big tube 'o propellant which pushes >>itself upwards through a controlled explosion
>No explosions are involved.
Err... Have you found a different means of Earth-to-Orbit propulsion aside from chemical combustion? I know a few engineering firms who would like to chat with you if you have...
>Anyway, most failures these days are stupid >things like guidance system screwups- software >bugs that sort of thing. The point is that all >failures are removable with practice, process or >redesign changes. There's nothing in the laws of >physics that says that 2% of all rockets explode.
Nope, there's nothing at all that says 2% of rockets should explode. The problem is, 2% of rockets _do_ explode for the reasons you stated (faulty turbopumps, software, guidance systems, etc.). Do you intend to make 100 rockets into test articles (with zero payload and zero revenue for all flights) to try and work out the bugs?
>Oh sure. Proton has about the lowest cost at >present $60-80 million for 21 tons. Let's take >$70 mill. Lets assume an average weight, >say 85 kgs and you end up with about 280 people >per launch.
What?!?! Are you going to melt people into goo and pour them into the fairing? How do you intend to shove 280 people into a payload fairing the size of a school bus? Intend to add any seats, oxygen, radiation sheilding, etc. while you're at it?
How did you get that 21 ton figure for a Proton's payload capacity? My Aviation Week & Space Technology Sourcebook says that a single Proton-K launch can deliver 12,100 lbs into a 28.5 degree transfer orbit. Just a wee bit less than you're dreaming of.
And where did you get that cost figure!?!? Last I read, the __lowest__ commercial launch cost in the world (including the Proton or Long March) will give you $10,000 / lb to Low Earth Orbit, with a Proton launch costing significantly more than the $70 million you're claiming.
>Its definitely doable, but it's getting over the >startup hump that's the problem- like most >businesses.
Yes, it's definitely do-able -- the Space Station (if nothing else) is proving that. However, human spaceflight is _not_ commercially viable.
You seem to be as honestly keen about the space program (and humanity's future in space) as I am. The things you are discussing are possible but you're pulling numbers out of thin air and wishing for a reality that does not exist. You're not doing the space program or yourself any favours by turning physics into fiction.
I'd suggest you take a peek into some peer-reviewed publications such as Acta Astronautic, Advances in the Astronautical Sciences, The Journal of the British Interplanetary Society or periodicals such as Aviation Week and Space Technology to get an idea of what's possible today and what is likely to be possible tomorrow (without the advent of some miracle like anti-gravity). All of these publications can be found in an average-sized university library and can be perused for free.
While you're at it, why not take the time you spent on Slashdot today and write a letter to your MP / Congressman / Senator encouraging a stronger budget for your own nation's space program? I'm off to do that right now...
>There's no inherent reason why rockets have a 1 >in 100 failure rate.
No, there is no _inherent_ reason. However, since a rocket is a big tube 'o propellant which pushes itself upwards through a controlled explosion, I'd say there's a very _good_ reason why rockets tend to have a 1 in 100 failure rate: They are very complicated things to manufacture, maintain and operate and cost a great deal in time, money and effort to do so reliably.
>In fact rockets are quite unreliable the first >few launches and then improve quite considerably. >The problem with launchers at the moment is they >haven't launched enough times to get the bugs >out.
Rockets are not necessarily unreliably the first few launches, nor do they fix themselves after being launched over 100 times.
Given that logic, I'm sure Windows will become the most reliably O/S on the market if it's launched enough times to get the bugs out, too!;-)
>>So, it costs $350,000 to launch a person to >>orbit...
>Very roughly, atleast this is the current freight >cost.
Do you have numbers to back that claim up?
>In theory (though probably not in >practice), the only thing that needs lifting is >an hour of air, and my naked body, and I don't >suppose a swimming costume would break the budget >;-)
>The rest can be up there already if need be.
I'd say the need for it being up there is pretty high, seeing as you intend to launch yourself naked through space, saving your swim suit.
>Sure whatever happens its going to cost many >billions; but there's plenty of projects of that >size on the earth.
...and they generate Billions in revenue or benefit, too! That's why they're pursued.
The cost of building that facility in itself will ruin your $350,000 dream flight. How do you intend to spread that multi-billion cost around? Presuming you could manage to launch and construct your space facility for $20 billion (a bargain price for a space habitat!), you'd need to find 20,000 customers willing to pay $1,000,000 for this thing to pay for its construction costs alone. Then there's on-going maintenance, replenishing fuel, oxygen and food (how much do you intend to eat while you're there?) which need to be launched for every visit. Or do you intend to construct a hydroponics facility, too? How much mass in food, clothing, life-support, etc. etc. etc.? More than one-person's body weight for each visiting person?
I'd like to believe you could go to space safely and visit for $350,000 (REALLY I do) but it's just not possible given forseeable technology.
You can believe what you want, but if you can't back it up with numbers, it's just wishful thinking and arm waving.
I share your concern with space junk, but measures have and continue to be taken today to reduce the quantity of debris in orbit.
Some things to keep in mind:
Expended boosters are de-orbited, along with expired satellites, once their mission has been completed.
Companies which violate this policy (by screwing up and creating debris) face heavy financial penalties. It's not worth a company's while to keep junk in orbit.
Lens caps, protective covers, etc. remain attached to spacecraft these days. They do not fly off into the ether when finished with, as they once did.
Orbits decay. Once you put something about the Earth, the (very thin) atmosphere creates drag which slows the item and draws it back into the atmosphere to be burned up. I doubt you'll find a one-inch bolt which floated away from an old Apollo mission.
As romantic as your imagery is, we are not creating "another modern monument that will last eons". Thought _is_ being given to "all that stuff we leave behind".
>Anyway think about this. The Russian proton >launcher if it was man rated (it isn't); it could >launch people for around $350,000 per person. If >there is competition in this market; this price >can fall by 4 or more, easily. 10x is harder. But >there are credible designs that reduce it by a >100x.
...and operate at a slightly reduced margin of risk? Is one spacecraft lost in 100 a good margin for you? Would you take that kind of risk at an airport?
So, it costs $350,000 to launch a person to orbit on your dream ship...
Plan on bringing any food? Clothing? Air? A habitat? I'll bet you could find a Western launcher able to hoist your naked body aloft for $350,000, too.
Looks like you're spending too much time waving your arms (wishing Reeeeeeeeeeeeally hard) and not enough time being an engineer.
Folks, I want to see cheap access to space as much as the next guy, but those limits placed on the Russian boosters were justified.
During the "bad old days" of communism, constructed items did not have a cost as western markets understand it -- they were constructed with parts and labour lovingly grafted from the collective (i.e. They were FREE). So, when the iron curtain fell and everything went up for sale, the prices the Russians put on their boosters were arbitrary. They did not reflect market reality and would heavily distort the launch market (which, at the time the limits were implemented, was dominated by _European_ boosters, not the Big Bad 'ol United States) and damage the global industry if they were to be sold at the quantities and prices desired at the time.
Today, Russia still has the same old boosters with the same old infrastructure but now they're charging western rates for the goods. Sure, they could go back to the $10 million per launch cost they claimed to be able to do before, but now, since they actually PAY their people in money, it wouldn't be a viable business and would collapse if they charged that rate.
This price equilization would have occurred sooner or later without the imposition of limits. However, limits minimized the damage to the rest of the world's space sector while giving Russia time to get their act together.
If Russia wants, they can still charge bargain prices for their "superior" launch technology. Nothing is stopping them from running themselves out of business if they want to.
You're planning to boycott corporations which provide resources for the music you love and enjoy, in support of another corporation whose only purpose (or the only purpose for which it is employed) is to enable the theft of intellectual property.
In picking one faceless corporation over the other, why are you choosing the one that enables the theft of the content you're claiming to support?
It looks to me like you've fallen for their spin-doctoring "We represent freedom of information on the Internet" B.S. hook, line and sinker. As someone else wrote on Slashdot earlier, would you be defending the Napster technology just as strong if it was Microsoft who introduced it?
First off, you can find out a lot about contemporary events through reading "Aviation Week and Space Technology" (affectionately known as Aviation Leak for their bleeding-edge news reputation), "Space News" or visting www.spacer.com
Most of the best stuff I've found was printed back in the mid to late 80s, since everyone was anticipating Space Station Freedom and the incredible research and manufacturing opportunities which would result. 15 years later, you'll find many of the journal articles are quite similar (yes, we're still waiting).
Anyhow, some relevant journal articles include:
R. Kohli, L.A. Ranceitelli, "Materials Processing in Space", Advances in the Astronautical Sciences (AAS), 86-442, pp. 1753-1759 (1986).
E.M. Jones, "Putting Space Resrouces to Work", Acta Astronautica, 26, pp.16-18 (1992).
G.E. Maryniak, "Harvesting Nonterrestrial Resources - A Status Report", AAS, 86-341, pp. 1735-1749 (1986).
B.Iannotta, "Shuttle Serves as Fertile Ground for Medical Research", Space News, p.11, July 31 (1995).
M.E. Vaucher, "Business Considerations Affecting the Future of Space Manufacturing", AAS, 86-444, pp.1761-1777.
...and for some off-planet stuff:
C.O'Dale, "The Development of a Commercial Lunar Infrastruture", Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Vol. 51, pp.49-56 (1998).
Those should give you a good start. Look in the bibliography section of each of these papers for leads to many more.
Sadly, there's not much up there to justify a microgravity research and manufacturing infrastructure just yet. There are a few possibilities though (any errors are due to my haste -- always rely on peer-reviewed publications):
Materials processing for the mixing of new alloys, chemicals, drugs, etc. can be done in a "containerless" environment, where the reagents are suspended in a magnetic field and manipulated without gravity yanking the substances down by mass.
Along those lines, initial experiments (to be expanded on in the ever-under-construction Space Station) have indicated that you can build molecules atom-by-atom in these containerless environments and make substances which would not easily (or even possibly) form in a 1-Gravity environment. This opens some exciting possibilities since, thanks to the Human Genome Project, we're starting to understand just how WE're put together atom-by-atom. Given the ability to custom-make organic materials, gene therapy to target specific ailments would be greatly assisted by such microgravity research labs. That's not to say that we'll come across something which can't be made on Earth, rather that being able to build what you want from scratch (instead of messing about with aproximations in a lab) would help speed up the experiementation process.
Microgravity research has already helped some groups in understanding their materials processing better (metals, rubbers, industrial plastics, medical assistance) and accelerated their own research. That's why companies such as SpaceHab and facilities such as Russian, European and (a few) American automated research capsules have launched full of commercially (and some government) funded experiements.
Another interesting research area is in combustion. The idea is: Compare combustion on Earth with a duplicate experiment environment in microgravity. What difference are seen? What is due to the 1-G field of Earth and what is due to properties of combustion which have so far gone unnoticed (since we're all stuck in that 1-G environment)? Even if combustion research resulted in improved efficiencies of just 1% for all new internal combustion engines, the annual fuel savings alone could justify a space research lab.
Going back to that atom-by-atom stuff, what would computer chips be like if you could build them up with raw materials, instead of scratching them out of a wafer of Silicon? Would it be possible to stick a Cray on your Palm Vx?
Along those lines, given a rarefied vacuum using a "wake shield" or other such spiffy device (do a web search on "wake shield facility") Gallium Arsenide (GaAs) wafers can be 'grown' cost effectively in large quantities. These can be used in the manufacture of computer chips in theory, though only a few wafers have been constructed in the on-orbit facilities to date, so testing remains to be done.
There are quite a few other items but, returning to your question, none of them have been demonstrated to date.
I like to think of microgravity research and manufacturing in context with the original Sputnik launch: Many people wondered what all the fuss was about with this "beeping orange" whizzing overhead. No one (well, aside from Arthur C. Clarke;-) forsaw wonders we take for granted today like telecommunications and direct-broadcast satellites. You can use a Globalstar (www.globalstar.com) telephone to call from anywhere on the planet, to anywhere on the planet, or use an ORBCOMM (www.orbcomm.com or www.orbital.com) device to send e-mail anywhere-to-anywhere.
GPS? Weather satellites? Remote Sensing to improve crops? On-orbit imagery to "keep the peace";-) or understand our environment better? There are a LOT of direct (and highly profitable) benefits which have come from human endeavours in space and all of them were impossible at some point.
If you'd be interested in reading more, I don't have any web links, but do have quite a few technical references you could find in any university library. Just say the word and I'll post 'em for you.
Oh, and you're right about drop-towers and parabolic flights: They're great for manufacturing and experimenting with some things, but most materials processing and medical experiments require more than a few seconds time. That's why the fates invented microgravity;-)
This looks like the most expensive game of "make believe" I've ever seen.
"Look everyone! I made a planetary habitat out of my couch cushions! Wanna come over and pretend we're on Mars?"
Can't the space advocacy groups concentrate on something useful (if boring) like inexpensive commercial transportation to orbit?
Re:It's not too OLD to code, but rather too YOUNG.
on
Too Old To Code?
·
· Score: 3
Well, that and your lack of a "collage" (sic) or university degree indicates that you might not have the patience to stick to a job pounding code for four years. That's a red flag my own company tends to look for.
Don't underestimate the experience you can get from school projects, or the value of a degree. If you believe you're "highly qualified" while at 18 and never having held down a full-time job, you might be in for some nasty surprises on your first real project.
Perhaps I'm too cynical, but I think the main appeal for hiring younger workers is that you can get them for peanuts (relatively) and they'll work insane hours for months at a time because someone in management keeps telling them that they're having "fun" at work -- Oh! And they get 'free' Coke and pizza;-)
Older workers have been there before and know it's bull. 80 hours work with 40 hours pay = 40 hours working for free (and away from your wife / girlfriend / kids / pet fish / Quake) no matter how you slice it.
The secret to staying employed AND keeping your hours to an approximate 9-6? Make sure you USE your experience and move up the ladder to team leader, project manager, pointy-haired boss, etc. etc. and develop into a flexible, effective asset to any company (no matter what the language, O/S, etc. -- they're all easy to obtain after you've picked up a few and worked on a variety of projects). You don't necessarily have to stop coding as you're promoted (though you may grow tired of it after a decade) but a person who stagnates in a given position over a period of decades is often the first to get fingered when the layoffs come -- especially if they're in an easier-to-replace position (like Programmer) and can be replaced by 3 recent grads at half the price.
The problem with that excellent Shuttle software is that it costs mondo-dollars to plan, document, write and properly QA.
The 'private sector' shuttle would probably re-boot four times on the way to orbit -- presuming a cynically small enough budget and horendous time-constraints.
I can just picture the development manager's suggestion now: "Why not let the Astronauts beta-test it for us?"
Regardless of the merits of the case, the resulting Fear Uncertainty and Doubt should do wonders for my Cinram stock -- even though CD and DVD sales have been increasing each year DESPITE the 'horrors' of MP3.
>Actually, they where lent money to complete a >completely *DIFFERENT* module, the command >module..;-P
Close! The Russians were all-out given that money -- the Zarya module was constructed under contract for the United States. The module which has been delayed was/is supposed to be the Russian contribution to the International Space Station project; much like the Japanese JEM module, European Columbus, Canadian MSS robotics, etc. etc. the Russians were supposed to donate these efforts for the privilege of participating in the ISS project.
>As far as them borrowing money to make >improvments on Mir, I'd like to read and URL's >you might have, hadn't heard about it..
I don't have URLs (my research comes from journals -- sorry) but you can check in the public / university library for:
Aviation Week and Space Technology, February 21, 2000, Page 41 gives a brief summary of the situation -- later issues have covered this in more detail. They may have a web site with this information, but it will probably require a paid subscription.
To quote from the news snippet (titled "Seeing Double"):
(quote) "NASA is asking Congress for another $35 million to buy Russian hardware that would enable it to dock the backup Interim Control Module (ICM) to the International Space Station's "Zarya" FGB tug. That comes on top of a $60-million bailout for Russia that Congress approved in late 1998--a fund from which Moscow has "borrowed" to help reactivate its aged Mir space station. Meanwhile, Administrator Daniel S. Goldin last week railed against what he said was double-dealing by Russia's RSC Energia company. After trying to charge NASA $65 million for a single Soyuz re-supply vehicle, Energia sold a Soyuz, two Progress vehicles and 45 days on Mir to a private company for just $20 million." (end quote)
As a bonus, the April 17, 2000 issue of AW&ST (page 94-95) discusses the reasons for the upcoming shuttle mission, including:
(quote) "STS-101 is necessary in large part because Russian Khrunichev operations personnel at the TsUP Flight Control Center near Moscow accidentally used procedures to charge the FGB batteries that have seriously limited battery life." (end quote)
Doesn't sound like the Russians are the most dependable of subcontractors. I doubt they'll be all that eager to pay for the screwup either.
Mir is not a commercial project -- it is old Soviet technology kept alive by U.S. tax dollars. Any similarity to a commercial project is purely co-incidental.
--- Any possible misinformation, typos, etc. in this posting are my own fault due to off-the-cuff quoting and unreferenced research. As always, I'd recommend independent research to confirm these opinions before you'd care to repeat them.
As I understand it, Russia was provided with funds from NASA (a 'loan' which no one expects to be paid back) to complete their "contribution" to the Space Station -- they had the people, technology AND money to do the job.
Instead of using these funds for Station, they spent it on Mir; in their words, "borrowing" money from the ISS funding to assist in the "commercialization" of Mir.
As it limps along in orbit, Mir continues to distract Russia's efforts from Space Station and make a bad situation worse. The United States is right to raise a fuss -- NASA is getting rooked in the name of international harmony.
>I wish i could buy stock in them! I think this >kind of thing should continue to happen!
Good news: If you pay taxes in the U.S., you already did!
The cash which was used to construct and launch the Soyuz was "borrowed" from Space Station funding NASA gave to complete the service module. (which is Russia's "contribution" to the ISS effort)
Those wily Russians! They can steal cash from Americans and then rub their nose in the "commercial" space project which results.
Why this aspect of the mission isn't getting press I'll never know...
Re:There is a... Correction
on
On to Mars
·
· Score: 1
Whoops! Looks like I should check on my own 'Basic Geology' before I go shooting my mouth off: The Moon is 40% Oxygen by mass, not 60%. You can check the figures (and learn more about the goodies which the other 60% contains) by reading:
T. Iwata, "Technical Strategies for Lunar Manufacturing", Acta Astronautica, 26, pp.29-36 (1992).
Re:There is an economic reason to go to Mars
on
On to Mars
·
· Score: 1
Shuttle-C technology doesn't exist yet. Sure, it's a little jump from Shuttle when you compare it to building a whole new booster system, but you still can't walk up to LockMart and say "Hi, I'd like to order 7 Shuttle-C boosters, please". Performing major modifications to the shuttle will require billions -- it's human rated.
The "ISRU stuff" is also not ready. Zubrin has performed experiments in the lab (back when he was in the Martin Marietta part of LockMart, I believe) and created a few trickles of O2 and H2 from rocks (which were NOT from Mars) but ISRU has not yet been demonstrated 'in-situ', which is where you'd care about it if you were standing on a lifeless planet, millions of miles from home, requiring 40 kg of O2 by TODAY or you're all _dead_. I don't want to be the beta-tester on that one!
How about the habitat modules? The 100% success 1-ton hydroponics garden that'll make food for the whole team? The spiffy mini-nuclear reactor he uses to power the whole shebang on the Martian surface? The 'Mars return' vehicle that'll magically lift off the Martian surface using 02 and H2 with a single stage?! How about the Mars-transit vehicle which will get it all there in the first place?
This stuff hasn't been invented yet and will require many, many billions to design, construct, test, test, test and transport to Mars. This is not stuff which can be "bought off the shelf*" -- you're starting into arm-waving.
Re:There is an economic reason to go to Mars
on
On to Mars
·
· Score: 2
That 1989 NASA study is slammed pretty frequently. I'd suggest you take a look at what was behind that half-trillion ($US) figure. If my memory is serving me correctly, that Mars misson plan included the construction and maintenance of:
A permanently inhabited space station in LEO.
A permanently inhabited space station at one of the Lagrange points.
A permanently inhabited space station in Lunar Orbit.
A permanently inhabited Moon base to support Mars operations.
and... the Mars mission itself. So, at then end of the whole dog-and-pony show, we would be left with more than a few pretty pictures of astronauts on Mars -- the human race would have a complete space-based infrastructure which could be used to construct whatever step you wanted to pursue next.
The 1989 study was a 'mission statement' outlining what the next step into space would be for the space agency and the human race. Nastily enough, it considered what the whole enterprise would actually cost.
If the authors were dishonest about the dollar figures, they'd probably have received more positive press. ANYONE can say they have the solution to colonizing space ("just give me $100 Million, and I'll build you the spiffiest darned rocket y'all've ever seen!") the trick is actually backing it up with real-world technology.
Using stuff which hasn't been invented yet as core infrastructure in your reference plan doesn't count. That's not engineering, it's arm-waving.
Re:There is an economic reason to go to Mars
on
On to Mars
·
· Score: 1
>>No, there is no economic reason to go to Mars.
>You seem rather confident of that.
Yes, I am very confident of that. Mars offers: Tons of dirt at the bottom of a gravity well with no protective atmosphere (ie: you will DIE from the solar radiation without major protection). Earth offers: Tons of dirt at the bottom of a gravity well with LOTS of atmosphere - we're designed to live here. Mars offers everything Earth has with many, many more disadvantages to enjoy. There is no commercial point in inhabiting it.
>>If you wanted cheap O2 and H2 in LEO, mine Phobos, use a comet or release the volatiles at the >>Lunar poles with a solar mirror. The gravity well of Mars is far too strong to bother visiting when you >>have the Moon and tons 'o other chunks of matter floating about which require far less energy to reach.
>Those ideas all seem pretty far-fetched. For one thing, comets don't stay put.
Comets don't stay put, but neither does Mars. You'll find that hacking a chunks off of a 1km-diameter comet and sending them LEOward is a lot easier than lifting 1 cubic km of ice off of Mars (even better [if more far-fetched], just re-direct the whole darned thing to where you want it). As for asteroids, consider that a single, fair-sized asteroid contains more metal than has been mined in the history of humanity. That's a LOT of mass!
>And what's this about a solar mirror? There hasn't even been any water proven on the moon and >really, it looks pretty darn dry.
Okay, some basic geology here: Earth's Moon, like Earth itself is around 60% Oxygen by mass. There's a LOT of O2 there, the trouble is it's tightly bound into the rocks. Many, many, many studies have been performed on regolith returned by the Apollo missons to determine HOW you can extract the stuff with little energy. Although there hasn't been an ideal solution presented yet, using chemical reactions (with reagents like Flourine, etc. brought from Earth) is one possibility.
Another (much more attractive) possibility is lunar ice, held in the 'cold traps' at the poles. The gamma ray spectrometer (sic?) on Lunar Prospector has demonstrated that, if there isn't water there, it's something MUCH more interesting (like ammonia) with ample amounts of H2 and O2 for the taking. Last I heard, the mass estimate was a 'fair-sized lake' of the stuff, just sitting there waiting to be processed. Now, how do you extract ice? Heat it! A reflecting mirror offers enough heat, you just need to trap the vapour as it dissipates (eg: put it the ice in a jar and place it in the sun, pour out the resulting soup a few minutes later).
If you're interested in lunar resource extraction, processing, etc. I'd suggest you stop by the library and take a look at:
R.Kohli, L.A. Ranceitelli, "Materials Processing In Space", Advances in the Astronautical Sciences (AAS), 86-442, pp. 1753-1759 (1986).
G.E. Maryniak, "Harvesting Nonterrestrial Resources - A Status Report", AAS, 86-341, pp. 1735-1746 (1986).
T.A. Heppenheimer, "Prospects for Lunar Resources", AAS, 80-212, pp.99-124 (1980).
Or, more germaine to this discussion:
E.F.Marwick, "Lunar Masses as an Energy Source for Space Transportation and Space Stations", AAS, 89-643, pp.403-406 (1989).
There are TONS of other discussion papers looking at the topic, so it won't take much time to track one down. Might I suggest also looking into "Acta Astronautica" (Zubrin published a few papers there in the early 90s. Very good ones too!), "The Journal of the British Interplanetary Society" (a few issues were dedicated to the topic of lunar industrialization, one paper in Volume 50 (1997) discusses the means (and challenges) of establishing a commercial infrastructure in space, without depending on fancy technologies that haven't been invented yet), or "The Journal of Aerospace Engineering" (which has a few discussion papers on extra-terrestrial resource utilization from time to time).
>Whereas Mars isn't at all. Mining phobos is practically the same as mining Mars - you'd have a permanent colony on Mars anyway.
Unfortunately, no. You still need to ship the mass UP from Mars by using a LOT of energy and fancy rockets, whereas you can get out of Phobos' gravity well with a little more energy than a high-jumper uses to pop 2.5m up on Earth.
>No, I really don't think you've made your point.
I beg to differ. If you could outline a commercial opportunity on Mars, for a market that exists TODAY (not 2050, 2090, 5483, etc.) then you might have a case. Otherwise, an honest assessment of the situation would lead you to conclude that a mission to Mars is a political opportunity and no more.
>>Wouldn't you rather see your space-tax bucks spent on something more useful than a one-shot trip to >>Mars that will require a decade (or more) to prepare for?
>You were reading with your eyes closed. We're talking about colonizing Mars. And this would mak >me a whole lot happier than a lot of other things my tax bucks are spent on.
Nope, my eyes are wide open. Colonizing Mars is a remarkably difficult thing to do (heck, we haven't even been able to reliably travel to LEO for under $10,000/lb yet, let alone Mars or Luna), why not learn how to crawl before we start to walk and run? Develop a commercial infrastructure on the Moon and near-Earth space, demonstrate that it's possible to make lots of practical cash there, and then use the GOBS of resulting venture capital to consider moving out the the asteroids and, if you want, Mars as well.
Re:There is an economic reason to go to Mars
on
On to Mars
·
· Score: 1
No, there is no economic reason to go to Mars.
If you wanted cheap O2 and H2 in LEO, mine Phobos, use a comet or release the volatiles at the Lunar poles with a solar mirror. The gravity well of Mars is far too strong to bother visiting when you have the Moon and tons 'o other chunks of matter floating about which require far less energy to reach.
Despite what Zubrin would lead you to believe, the technologies required for a human Mars landing are NOT ready. For one example, many of his missions profile a single-stage-to-orbit Mars lander / launcher to return humans to the mother ship. Since we aren't near making a viable SSTO ship yet, that one piece of hardware alone will require many bucks and time yet to develop.
Instead of sending people to Mars, why not whip up a quick robot lander with a boot attached and a candleabra of flags to plant? The lander could snap a shot of the footprint and the flags, and we'd all be happy for another few decades.
Wouldn't you rather see your space-tax bucks spent on something more useful than a one-shot trip to Mars that will require a decade (or more) to prepare for?
Folks, if you really care about this subject, posting your response here isn't going to help. For the most part, you're 'preaching to the converted' and the people who need to read your words aren't reading this.
NASA's, ESA's, CSA's, NASDA's, etc. budget has been slashed to ribbons over the past decade and albatrosses like Space Station are just going to keep making the situation worse. If you Really Care(tm) about seeing space technology move forward (ie: if you're sick of the 1970s Space Shuttle dog-and-pony show and "Faster, Better, Cheaper - Work Smarter Not Harder" stuff) and would prefer to see something more useful than a foreign aid package parceled up as a "science project" be the result of decades of brilliant engineers' work, then write your government representative and let THEM know.
Writing isn't the only thing you can do (and by writing, I mean a physical piece of paper with ink or toner, placed into one of those foolish envelope things and given to the postal service of your choice -- a disk full of 2k e-mails doesn't quite have the same impact when furiously waved about in Congress). You can also:
Visit schools and give a classroom presentation on technology (it can be exclusively about space technology, if you'd like -- you probably know more about it than the teachers). Why not call the principal of your local high / public / middle school and ask for a half-hour of lecture time? I was surprised, when I first asked, at how happy they were to have an outside visitor stop by to tell the kids a bit about the 'real world', and not have it involve drugs or 'anger management'. I was also shocked when bright 17 year olds were asking me if there were already human bases on Mars! Keep in mind: in just a few years, these are the people who will vote in your next rep.
Ask to visit your local member of parliament, congressman, senator, etc. in person. It sounds like a long-shot, but they're often open to the idea of taking a half-hour to speak with 'regular folk' when they have the time, and if you're not ranting about saving the spotted Albanian tree-toad or asking for cash, they're surprisingly open to hearing about your world-view. Why not take an afternoon to have a pleasant chat with a politician about the practical applications of space technology and the means by which it will help the nation and (in some cases) their district? Try to tone down the 'human destiny in space' schtick though - most people will just think you're a loon.
Suggest that others do the same! Suggest to them that instead of watching another episode of Star Trek, they can spend the hour crafting a letter to their government representative and make a step towards seeing the fiction become real. If we each do that (maybe even once every few months), a few billion bucks might find themselves tossed into a useful program.
Remember folks: More and more of us weren't even born when N. Armstrong set foot on the Moon. Let's do something to ensure we're not all dead before it happens again.
Slashdot Mirror
>Proton: $3,500 / kg * 2.2 =~ $7,700 / lb /kg / 2.2 = $1,590 /lb $20,000 /kg / 2.2. /lb There's 2.2 lbs to the kg not the
>Shuttle: $20,000 / kg * 2.2 =~ $44,000 / lb Try:
>$3,500
>= $9,090
>other way around!
Argh! Almost every day I encourage my co-workers to go home after 8 hours because a person is bound to make stupid errors when they're tired. So, what do I do? Make a simple (and incorrect) calculation in haste right before I go to bed and post it to a public forum. Yes, those cost / conversion figures are dross, but I'll stand by the others.
You're right when you say that costs should tend to go down as launch mass goes up, as would fit with other economies of scale. However, launchers to date have been the exception which breaks that rule. As an example, the Titan IV, which offers the largest payload to orbit of any active launcher (Energia or Saturn V would be more) costs more to construct and operate each and every time it's launched.
Unfortunately, the complexity of a launch vehicle increases with attempted reliability no matter what the scale. With a little luck, new realistic designs (like those offered by Kistler) will fix this problem and bring about the launch costs and realiability which we're all hoping for.
>Your figures are way off. Way, way, wayyyyyyy
>off. The space shuttle costs $9,000 / lb and that
>may be the most expensive vehicle ever! Check
>out: http://www.ssc.se/ssd/diary001.html.
A quick check at that web site URL gives:
"...$3,500 per kg offered by the Proton or $20,000 per kg it costs to fly the Space Shuttle..."
Proton: $3,500 / kg * 2.2 =~ $7,700 / lb
Shuttle: $20,000 / kg * 2.2 =~ $44,000 / lb
At 20,000 lb for a hypothetical Proton launch, that'll run you ~$154,000,000. Seems like a little more than $70,000,000 to me.
As the shuttle costs show, human-rating a launch vehicle (with all the shielding, life support, redundancies, etc. which that entails) costs a huge amount of time, effort and cost. No amount of arm-waving will change that.
>Incidentally the latest module launched for the
>ISS was close to 20 tons, and that was launched
>on a Proton.
Zvezda was its own transfer vehicle. Launching a chunk 'o mass into LEO and waiting for orbital decay to do its work isn't the most effective means of running a space mission -- you need a transfer vehicle to take you and your payload somewhere else.
>According to:
>http://www.russianspace.com/proton.html the LEO
>launch capability of a PROTON-K is 20.6 tons,
>PROTON KM is 23.5 tons.
...add in the transfer vehicle and you'll get a dramatically reduced figure. I stick to my previous (peer reviewed, industry-standard) figure from AW&ST of a Proton-K launch delivering 12,100 lbs into a 28.5 degree transfer orbit.
>Still, theoretically, how much extra weight is a
>couch and an enlarged nose cone? There'd be more
>aerodynamic losses, but I'd be surprised if they
>were that significant.
Making any design change to a launch vehicle (particularly if it's human-rated) requires a great deal of time and effort in desiging and adequately testing your solution. What you're proposing is an entirely new spacecraft, which is hardly an 'off-the-shelf' solution.
>Most of the thrusting is
>outside the atmosphere anyway. Volume is mostly
>irrelevant, its mass that counts...
Volume is irrelevant? Try telling that to an aircraft or satellite design team. You can't just wish your payload into an ideal shape, nor change the laws of physics to suit your fancy. People may object to being crushed into a 10cm / 10cm cube to enable efficient packing on-board your luxury liner to space.
>But the real point was purely illustrative. You
>are taking this way too seriously.
You're right: I am taking this far too seriously.
After working for some time in the space-sector, I've grown extremely agitated by space "enthusiasts" who claim that physics and private-sector finance will save the day in the next-generation of spacecraft, while chosing to ignore those laws of physics and private-sector finance which get in the way of their daydreams.
The problems you've brought up are real and they can't be resolved by re-photonizing trans-modulated di-lithium through the flux-capaciting thruster core. If you want to see real-world space travel, use real-world spacecraft and the real-world physical limitations they're up against.
>As for talking to politicians. Thanks but no
>thanks. I'm more tempted to talk to a hotel or a
>banker.
...and get laughed out of the building. The private sector makes money from established technologies, the public sector creates new technologies (communications satellites, launch vehicles, computer technology, Internet, etc. etc.) which the private sector later champions, once the technology is established and the risks are (mostly) gone.
>I'm in the UK, the government may not
>be able to find 1 billion. The US government/NASA
>can't make money by law so wouldn't go for it.
http://www.esa.int/
Your tax dollars for space go there. Ariane V has a comparable payload capacity to Proton-K.
Stay in fantasy-land or try to make it a reality. It's your call.
>>No, there is no _inherent_ reason. However, since
>>a rocket is a big tube 'o propellant which pushes
>>itself upwards through a controlled explosion
>No explosions are involved.
Err... Have you found a different means of Earth-to-Orbit propulsion aside from chemical combustion? I know a few engineering firms who would like to chat with you if you have...
>Anyway, most failures these days are stupid
>things like guidance system screwups- software
>bugs that sort of thing. The point is that all
>failures are removable with practice, process or
>redesign changes. There's nothing in the laws of
>physics that says that 2% of all rockets explode.
Nope, there's nothing at all that says 2% of rockets should explode. The problem is, 2% of rockets _do_ explode for the reasons you stated (faulty turbopumps, software, guidance systems, etc.). Do you intend to make 100 rockets into test articles (with zero payload and zero revenue for all flights) to try and work out the bugs?
>Oh sure. Proton has about the lowest cost at
>present $60-80 million for 21 tons. Let's take
>$70 mill. Lets assume an average weight,
>say 85 kgs and you end up with about 280 people
>per launch.
What?!?! Are you going to melt people into goo and pour them into the fairing? How do you intend to shove 280 people into a payload fairing the size of a school bus? Intend to add any seats, oxygen, radiation sheilding, etc. while you're at it?
How did you get that 21 ton figure for a Proton's payload capacity? My Aviation Week & Space Technology Sourcebook says that a single Proton-K launch can deliver 12,100 lbs into a 28.5 degree transfer orbit. Just a wee bit less than you're dreaming of.
And where did you get that cost figure!?!? Last I read, the __lowest__ commercial launch cost in the world (including the Proton or Long March) will give you $10,000 / lb to Low Earth Orbit, with a Proton launch costing significantly more than the $70 million you're claiming.
>Its definitely doable, but it's getting over the
>startup hump that's the problem- like most
>businesses.
Yes, it's definitely do-able -- the Space Station (if nothing else) is proving that. However, human spaceflight is _not_ commercially viable.
You seem to be as honestly keen about the space program (and humanity's future in space) as I am. The things you are discussing are possible but you're pulling numbers out of thin air and wishing for a reality that does not exist. You're not doing the space program or yourself any favours by turning physics into fiction.
I'd suggest you take a peek into some peer-reviewed publications such as Acta Astronautic, Advances in the Astronautical Sciences, The Journal of the British Interplanetary Society or periodicals such as Aviation Week and Space Technology to get an idea of what's possible today and what is likely to be possible tomorrow (without the advent of some miracle like anti-gravity). All of these publications can be found in an average-sized university library and can be perused for free.
While you're at it, why not take the time you spent on Slashdot today and write a letter to your MP / Congressman / Senator encouraging a stronger budget for your own nation's space program? I'm off to do that right now...
>There's no inherent reason why rockets have a 1
;-)
...
>in 100 failure rate.
No, there is no _inherent_ reason. However, since a rocket is a big tube 'o propellant which pushes itself upwards through a controlled explosion, I'd say there's a very _good_ reason why rockets tend to have a 1 in 100 failure rate: They are very complicated things to manufacture, maintain and operate and cost a great deal in time, money and effort to do so reliably.
>In fact rockets are quite unreliable the first
>few launches and then improve quite considerably.
>The problem with launchers at the moment is they
>haven't launched enough times to get the bugs
>out.
Rockets are not necessarily unreliably the first few launches, nor do they fix themselves after being launched over 100 times.
Given that logic, I'm sure Windows will become the most reliably O/S on the market if it's launched enough times to get the bugs out, too!
>>So, it costs $350,000 to launch a person to
>>orbit
>Very roughly, atleast this is the current freight
>cost.
Do you have numbers to back that claim up?
>In theory (though probably not in
>practice), the only thing that needs lifting is
>an hour of air, and my naked body, and I don't
>suppose a swimming costume would break the budget
>;-)
>The rest can be up there already if need be.
I'd say the need for it being up there is pretty high, seeing as you intend to launch yourself naked through space, saving your swim suit.
>Sure whatever happens its going to cost many
>billions; but there's plenty of projects of that
>size on the earth.
...and they generate Billions in revenue or benefit, too! That's why they're pursued.
The cost of building that facility in itself will ruin your $350,000 dream flight. How do you intend to spread that multi-billion cost around? Presuming you could manage to launch and construct your space facility for $20 billion (a bargain price for a space habitat!), you'd need to find 20,000 customers willing to pay $1,000,000 for this thing to pay for its construction costs alone. Then there's on-going maintenance, replenishing fuel, oxygen and food (how much do you intend to eat while you're there?) which need to be launched for every visit. Or do you intend to construct a hydroponics facility, too? How much mass in food, clothing, life-support, etc. etc. etc.? More than one-person's body weight for each visiting person?
I'd like to believe you could go to space safely and visit for $350,000 (REALLY I do) but it's just not possible given forseeable technology.
You can believe what you want, but if you can't back it up with numbers, it's just wishful thinking and arm waving.
I share your concern with space junk, but measures have and continue to be taken today to reduce the quantity of debris in orbit.
Some things to keep in mind:
Expended boosters are de-orbited, along with expired satellites, once their mission has been completed.
Companies which violate this policy (by screwing up and creating debris) face heavy financial penalties. It's not worth a company's while to keep junk in orbit.
Lens caps, protective covers, etc. remain attached to spacecraft these days. They do not fly off into the ether when finished with, as they once did.
Orbits decay. Once you put something about the Earth, the (very thin) atmosphere creates drag which slows the item and draws it back into the atmosphere to be burned up. I doubt you'll find a one-inch bolt which floated away from an old Apollo mission.
As romantic as your imagery is, we are not creating "another modern monument that will last eons". Thought _is_ being given to "all that stuff we leave behind".
>Anyway think about this. The Russian proton
>launcher if it was man rated (it isn't); it could
>launch people for around $350,000 per person. If
>there is competition in this market; this price
>can fall by 4 or more, easily. 10x is harder. But
>there are credible designs that reduce it by a
>100x.
...and operate at a slightly reduced margin of risk? Is one spacecraft lost in 100 a good margin for you? Would you take that kind of risk at an airport?
So, it costs $350,000 to launch a person to orbit on your dream ship...
Plan on bringing any food? Clothing? Air? A habitat? I'll bet you could find a Western launcher able to hoist your naked body aloft for $350,000, too.
Looks like you're spending too much time waving your arms (wishing Reeeeeeeeeeeeally hard) and not enough time being an engineer.
Folks, I want to see cheap access to space as much as the next guy, but those limits placed on the Russian boosters were justified.
During the "bad old days" of communism, constructed items did not have a cost as western markets understand it -- they were constructed with parts and labour lovingly grafted from the collective (i.e. They were FREE). So, when the iron curtain fell and everything went up for sale, the prices the Russians put on their boosters were arbitrary. They did not reflect market reality and would heavily distort the launch market (which, at the time the limits were implemented, was dominated by _European_ boosters, not the Big Bad 'ol United States) and damage the global industry if they were to be sold at the quantities and prices desired at the time.
Today, Russia still has the same old boosters with the same old infrastructure but now they're charging western rates for the goods. Sure, they could go back to the $10 million per launch cost they claimed to be able to do before, but now, since they actually PAY their people in money, it wouldn't be a viable business and would collapse if they charged that rate.
This price equilization would have occurred sooner or later without the imposition of limits. However, limits minimized the damage to the rest of the world's space sector while giving Russia time to get their act together.
If Russia wants, they can still charge bargain prices for their "superior" launch technology. Nothing is stopping them from running themselves out of business if they want to.
Okay, folks, I'm confused here:
You're planning to boycott corporations which provide resources for the music you love and enjoy, in support of another corporation whose only purpose (or the only purpose for which it is employed) is to enable the theft of intellectual property.
In picking one faceless corporation over the other, why are you choosing the one that enables the theft of the content you're claiming to support?
It looks to me like you've fallen for their spin-doctoring "We represent freedom of information on the Internet" B.S. hook, line and sinker. As someone else wrote on Slashdot earlier, would you be defending the Napster technology just as strong if it was Microsoft who introduced it?
You can get even better stuff from the friendly biker gangs a few hundred kilometers to the east in French Columbia.
Glad to be a help.
First off, you can find out a lot about contemporary events through reading "Aviation Week and Space Technology" (affectionately known as Aviation Leak for their bleeding-edge news reputation), "Space News" or visting www.spacer.com
Most of the best stuff I've found was printed back in the mid to late 80s, since everyone was anticipating Space Station Freedom and the incredible research and manufacturing opportunities which would result. 15 years later, you'll find many of the journal articles are quite similar (yes, we're still waiting).
Anyhow, some relevant journal articles include:
R. Kohli, L.A. Ranceitelli, "Materials Processing in Space", Advances in the Astronautical Sciences (AAS), 86-442, pp. 1753-1759 (1986).
E.M. Jones, "Putting Space Resrouces to Work", Acta Astronautica, 26, pp.16-18 (1992).
G.E. Maryniak, "Harvesting Nonterrestrial Resources - A Status Report", AAS, 86-341, pp. 1735-1749 (1986).
B.Iannotta, "Shuttle Serves as Fertile Ground for Medical Research", Space News, p.11, July 31 (1995).
M.E. Vaucher, "Business Considerations Affecting the Future of Space Manufacturing", AAS, 86-444, pp.1761-1777.
...and for some off-planet stuff:
C.O'Dale, "The Development of a Commercial Lunar Infrastruture", Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Vol. 51, pp.49-56 (1998).
Those should give you a good start. Look in the bibliography section of each of these papers for leads to many more.
Happy reading!
Sadly, there's not much up there to justify a microgravity research and manufacturing infrastructure just yet. There are a few possibilities though (any errors are due to my haste -- always rely on peer-reviewed publications):
;-) forsaw wonders we take for granted today like telecommunications and direct-broadcast satellites. You can use a Globalstar (www.globalstar.com) telephone to call from anywhere on the planet, to anywhere on the planet, or use an ORBCOMM (www.orbcomm.com or www.orbital.com) device to send e-mail anywhere-to-anywhere.
;-) or understand our environment better? There are a LOT of direct (and highly profitable) benefits which have come from human endeavours in space and all of them were impossible at some point.
;-)
Materials processing for the mixing of new alloys, chemicals, drugs, etc. can be done in a "containerless" environment, where the reagents are suspended in a magnetic field and manipulated without gravity yanking the substances down by mass.
Along those lines, initial experiments (to be expanded on in the ever-under-construction Space Station) have indicated that you can build molecules atom-by-atom in these containerless environments and make substances which would not easily (or even possibly) form in a 1-Gravity environment. This opens some exciting possibilities since, thanks to the Human Genome Project, we're starting to understand just how WE're put together atom-by-atom. Given the ability to custom-make organic materials, gene therapy to target specific ailments would be greatly assisted by such microgravity research labs. That's not to say that we'll come across something which can't be made on Earth, rather that being able to build what you want from scratch (instead of messing about with aproximations in a lab) would help speed up the experiementation process.
Microgravity research has already helped some groups in understanding their materials processing better (metals, rubbers, industrial plastics, medical assistance) and accelerated their own research. That's why companies such as SpaceHab and facilities such as Russian, European and (a few) American automated research capsules have launched full of commercially (and some government) funded experiements.
Another interesting research area is in combustion. The idea is: Compare combustion on Earth with a duplicate experiment environment in microgravity. What difference are seen? What is due to the 1-G field of Earth and what is due to properties of combustion which have so far gone unnoticed (since we're all stuck in that 1-G environment)? Even if combustion research resulted in improved efficiencies of just 1% for all new internal combustion engines, the annual fuel savings alone could justify a space research lab.
Going back to that atom-by-atom stuff, what would computer chips be like if you could build them up with raw materials, instead of scratching them out of a wafer of Silicon? Would it be possible to stick a Cray on your Palm Vx?
Along those lines, given a rarefied vacuum using a "wake shield" or other such spiffy device (do a web search on "wake shield facility") Gallium Arsenide (GaAs) wafers can be 'grown' cost effectively in large quantities. These can be used in the manufacture of computer chips in theory, though only a few wafers have been constructed in the on-orbit facilities to date, so testing remains to be done.
There are quite a few other items but, returning to your question, none of them have been demonstrated to date.
I like to think of microgravity research and manufacturing in context with the original Sputnik launch: Many people wondered what all the fuss was about with this "beeping orange" whizzing overhead. No one (well, aside from Arthur C. Clarke
GPS? Weather satellites? Remote Sensing to improve crops? On-orbit imagery to "keep the peace"
If you'd be interested in reading more, I don't have any web links, but do have quite a few technical references you could find in any university library. Just say the word and I'll post 'em for you.
Oh, and you're right about drop-towers and parabolic flights: They're great for manufacturing and experimenting with some things, but most materials processing and medical experiments require more than a few seconds time. That's why the fates invented microgravity
This looks like the most expensive game of "make believe" I've ever seen.
"Look everyone! I made a planetary habitat out of my couch cushions! Wanna come over and pretend we're on Mars?"
Can't the space advocacy groups concentrate on something useful (if boring) like inexpensive commercial transportation to orbit?
Well, that and your lack of a "collage" (sic) or university degree indicates that you might not have the patience to stick to a job pounding code for four years. That's a red flag my own company tends to look for.
Don't underestimate the experience you can get from school projects, or the value of a degree. If you believe you're "highly qualified" while at 18 and never having held down a full-time job, you might be in for some nasty surprises on your first real project.
Perhaps I'm too cynical, but I think the main appeal for hiring younger workers is that you can get them for peanuts (relatively) and they'll work insane hours for months at a time because someone in management keeps telling them that they're having "fun" at work -- Oh! And they get 'free' Coke and pizza ;-)
Older workers have been there before and know it's bull. 80 hours work with 40 hours pay = 40 hours working for free (and away from your wife / girlfriend / kids / pet fish / Quake) no matter how you slice it.
The secret to staying employed AND keeping your hours to an approximate 9-6? Make sure you USE your experience and move up the ladder to team leader, project manager, pointy-haired boss, etc. etc. and develop into a flexible, effective asset to any company (no matter what the language, O/S, etc. -- they're all easy to obtain after you've picked up a few and worked on a variety of projects). You don't necessarily have to stop coding as you're promoted (though you may grow tired of it after a decade) but a person who stagnates in a given position over a period of decades is often the first to get fingered when the layoffs come -- especially if they're in an easier-to-replace position (like Programmer) and can be replaced by 3 recent grads at half the price.
The problem with that excellent Shuttle software is that it costs mondo-dollars to plan, document, write and properly QA.
The 'private sector' shuttle would probably re-boot four times on the way to orbit -- presuming a cynically small enough budget and horendous time-constraints.
I can just picture the development manager's suggestion now: "Why not let the Astronauts beta-test it for us?"
Regardless of the merits of the case, the resulting Fear Uncertainty and Doubt should do wonders for my Cinram stock -- even though CD and DVD sales have been increasing each year DESPITE the 'horrors' of MP3.
>Actually, they where lent money to complete a ;-P
>completely *DIFFERENT* module, the command
>module..
Close! The Russians were all-out given that money -- the Zarya module was constructed under contract for the United States. The module which has been delayed was/is supposed to be the Russian contribution to the International Space Station project; much like the Japanese JEM module, European Columbus, Canadian MSS robotics, etc. etc. the Russians were supposed to donate these efforts for the privilege of participating in the ISS project.
>As far as them borrowing money to make
>improvments on Mir, I'd like to read and URL's
>you might have, hadn't heard about it..
I don't have URLs (my research comes from journals -- sorry) but you can check in the public / university library for:
Aviation Week and Space Technology, February 21, 2000, Page 41 gives a brief summary of the situation -- later issues have covered this in more detail. They may have a web site with this information, but it will probably require a paid subscription.
To quote from the news snippet (titled "Seeing Double"):
(quote)
"NASA is asking Congress for another $35 million to buy Russian hardware that would enable it to dock the backup Interim Control Module (ICM) to the International Space Station's "Zarya" FGB tug. That comes on top of a $60-million bailout for Russia that Congress approved in late 1998--a fund from which Moscow has "borrowed" to help reactivate its aged Mir space station. Meanwhile, Administrator Daniel S. Goldin last week railed against what he said was double-dealing by Russia's RSC Energia company. After trying to charge NASA $65 million for a single Soyuz re-supply vehicle, Energia sold a Soyuz, two Progress vehicles and 45 days on Mir to a private company for just $20 million." (end quote)
As a bonus, the April 17, 2000 issue of AW&ST (page 94-95) discusses the reasons for the upcoming shuttle mission, including:
(quote)
"STS-101 is necessary in large part because Russian Khrunichev operations personnel at the TsUP Flight Control Center near Moscow accidentally used procedures to charge the FGB batteries that have seriously limited battery life." (end quote)
Doesn't sound like the Russians are the most dependable of subcontractors. I doubt they'll be all that eager to pay for the screwup either.
Mir is not a commercial project -- it is old Soviet technology kept alive by U.S. tax dollars. Any similarity to a commercial project is purely co-incidental.
---
Any possible misinformation, typos, etc. in this posting are my own fault due to off-the-cuff quoting and unreferenced research. As always, I'd recommend independent research to confirm these opinions before you'd care to repeat them.
As I understand it, Russia was provided with funds from NASA (a 'loan' which no one expects to be paid back) to complete their "contribution" to the Space Station -- they had the people, technology AND money to do the job.
Instead of using these funds for Station, they spent it on Mir; in their words, "borrowing" money from the ISS funding to assist in the "commercialization" of Mir.
As it limps along in orbit, Mir continues to distract Russia's efforts from Space Station and make a bad situation worse. The United States is right to raise a fuss -- NASA is getting rooked in the name of international harmony.
>I wish i could buy stock in them! I think this
>kind of thing should continue to happen!
Good news: If you pay taxes in the U.S., you already did!
The cash which was used to construct and launch the Soyuz was "borrowed" from Space Station funding NASA gave to complete the service module. (which is Russia's "contribution" to the ISS effort)
Those wily Russians! They can steal cash from Americans and then rub their nose in the "commercial" space project which results.
Why this aspect of the mission isn't getting press I'll never know...
Whoops! Looks like I should check on my own 'Basic Geology' before I go shooting my mouth off: The Moon is 40% Oxygen by mass, not 60%. You can check the figures (and learn more about the goodies which the other 60% contains) by reading:
T. Iwata, "Technical Strategies for Lunar Manufacturing", Acta Astronautica, 26, pp.29-36 (1992).
Shuttle-C technology doesn't exist yet. Sure, it's a little jump from Shuttle when you compare it to building a whole new booster system, but you still can't walk up to LockMart and say "Hi, I'd like to order 7 Shuttle-C boosters, please". Performing major modifications to the shuttle will require billions -- it's human rated.
The "ISRU stuff" is also not ready. Zubrin has performed experiments in the lab (back when he was in the Martin Marietta part of LockMart, I believe) and created a few trickles of O2 and H2 from rocks (which were NOT from Mars) but ISRU has not yet been demonstrated 'in-situ', which is where you'd care about it if you were standing on a lifeless planet, millions of miles from home, requiring 40 kg of O2 by TODAY or you're all _dead_. I don't want to be the beta-tester on that one!
How about the habitat modules? The 100% success 1-ton hydroponics garden that'll make food for the whole team? The spiffy mini-nuclear reactor he uses to power the whole shebang on the Martian surface? The 'Mars return' vehicle that'll magically lift off the Martian surface using 02 and H2 with a single stage?! How about the Mars-transit vehicle which will get it all there in the first place?
This stuff hasn't been invented yet and will require many, many billions to design, construct, test, test, test and transport to Mars. This is not stuff which can be "bought off the shelf*" -- you're starting into arm-waving.
That 1989 NASA study is slammed pretty frequently. I'd suggest you take a look at what was behind that half-trillion ($US) figure. If my memory is serving me correctly, that Mars misson plan included the construction and maintenance of:
A permanently inhabited space station in LEO.
A permanently inhabited space station at one of the Lagrange points.
A permanently inhabited space station in Lunar Orbit.
A permanently inhabited Moon base to support Mars operations.
and... the Mars mission itself. So, at then end of the whole dog-and-pony show, we would be left with more than a few pretty pictures of astronauts on Mars -- the human race would have a complete space-based infrastructure which could be used to construct whatever step you wanted to pursue next.
The 1989 study was a 'mission statement' outlining what the next step into space would be for the space agency and the human race. Nastily enough, it considered what the whole enterprise would actually cost.
If the authors were dishonest about the dollar figures, they'd probably have received more positive press. ANYONE can say they have the solution to colonizing space ("just give me $100 Million, and I'll build you the spiffiest darned rocket y'all've ever seen!") the trick is actually backing it up with real-world technology.
Using stuff which hasn't been invented yet as core infrastructure in your reference plan doesn't count. That's not engineering, it's arm-waving.
>>No, there is no economic reason to go to Mars.
>You seem rather confident of that.
Yes, I am very confident of that. Mars offers: Tons of dirt at the bottom of a gravity well with no protective atmosphere (ie: you will DIE from the solar radiation without major protection). Earth offers: Tons of dirt at the bottom of a gravity well with LOTS of atmosphere - we're designed to live here. Mars offers everything Earth has with many, many more disadvantages to enjoy. There is no commercial point in inhabiting it.
>>If you wanted cheap O2 and H2 in LEO, mine Phobos, use a comet or release the volatiles at the
>>Lunar poles with a solar mirror. The gravity well of Mars is far too strong to bother visiting when you
>>have the Moon and tons 'o other chunks of matter floating about which require far less energy to reach.
>Those ideas all seem pretty far-fetched. For one thing, comets don't stay put.
Comets don't stay put, but neither does Mars. You'll find that hacking a chunks off of a 1km-diameter comet and sending them LEOward is a lot easier than lifting 1 cubic km of ice off of Mars (even better [if more far-fetched], just re-direct the whole darned thing to where you want it). As for asteroids, consider that a single, fair-sized asteroid contains more metal than has been mined in the history of humanity. That's a LOT of mass!
>And what's this about a solar mirror? There hasn't even been any water proven on the moon and
>really, it looks pretty darn dry.
Okay, some basic geology here: Earth's Moon, like Earth itself is around 60% Oxygen by mass. There's a LOT of O2 there, the trouble is it's tightly bound into the rocks. Many, many, many studies have been performed on regolith returned by the Apollo missons to determine HOW you can extract the stuff with little energy. Although there hasn't been an ideal solution presented yet, using chemical reactions (with reagents like Flourine, etc. brought from Earth) is one possibility.
Another (much more attractive) possibility is lunar ice, held in the 'cold traps' at the poles. The gamma ray spectrometer (sic?) on Lunar Prospector has demonstrated that, if there isn't water there, it's something MUCH more interesting (like ammonia) with ample amounts of H2 and O2 for the taking. Last I heard, the mass estimate was a 'fair-sized lake' of the stuff, just sitting there waiting to be processed. Now, how do you extract ice? Heat it! A reflecting mirror offers enough heat, you just need to trap the vapour as it dissipates (eg: put it the ice in a jar and place it in the sun, pour out the resulting soup a few minutes later).
If you're interested in lunar resource extraction, processing, etc. I'd suggest you stop by the library and take a look at:
R.Kohli, L.A. Ranceitelli, "Materials Processing In Space", Advances in the Astronautical Sciences (AAS), 86-442, pp. 1753-1759 (1986).
G.E. Maryniak, "Harvesting Nonterrestrial Resources - A Status Report", AAS, 86-341, pp. 1735-1746 (1986).
T.A. Heppenheimer, "Prospects for Lunar Resources", AAS, 80-212, pp.99-124 (1980).
Or, more germaine to this discussion:
E.F.Marwick, "Lunar Masses as an Energy Source for Space Transportation and Space Stations", AAS, 89-643, pp.403-406 (1989).
There are TONS of other discussion papers looking at the topic, so it won't take much time to track one down. Might I suggest also looking into "Acta Astronautica" (Zubrin published a few papers there in the early 90s. Very good ones too!), "The Journal of the British Interplanetary Society" (a few issues were dedicated to the topic of lunar industrialization, one paper in Volume 50 (1997) discusses the means (and challenges) of establishing a commercial infrastructure in space, without depending on fancy technologies that haven't been invented yet), or "The Journal of Aerospace Engineering" (which has a few discussion papers on extra-terrestrial resource utilization from time to time).
>Whereas Mars isn't at all. Mining phobos is practically the same as mining Mars - you'd have a permanent colony on Mars anyway.
Unfortunately, no. You still need to ship the mass UP from Mars by using a LOT of energy and fancy rockets, whereas you can get out of Phobos' gravity well with a little more energy than a high-jumper uses to pop 2.5m up on Earth.
>No, I really don't think you've made your point.
I beg to differ. If you could outline a commercial opportunity on Mars, for a market that exists TODAY (not 2050, 2090, 5483, etc.) then you might have a case. Otherwise, an honest assessment of the situation would lead you to conclude that a mission to Mars is a political opportunity and no more.
>>Wouldn't you rather see your space-tax bucks spent on something more useful than a one-shot trip to
>>Mars that will require a decade (or more) to prepare for?
>You were reading with your eyes closed. We're talking about colonizing Mars. And this would mak
>me a whole lot happier than a lot of other things my tax bucks are spent on.
Nope, my eyes are wide open. Colonizing Mars is a remarkably difficult thing to do (heck, we haven't even been able to reliably travel to LEO for under $10,000/lb yet, let alone Mars or Luna), why not learn how to crawl before we start to walk and run? Develop a commercial infrastructure on the Moon and near-Earth space, demonstrate that it's possible to make lots of practical cash there, and then use the GOBS of resulting venture capital to consider moving out the the asteroids and, if you want, Mars as well.
No, there is no economic reason to go to Mars.
If you wanted cheap O2 and H2 in LEO, mine Phobos, use a comet or release the volatiles at the Lunar poles with a solar mirror. The gravity well of Mars is far too strong to bother visiting when you have the Moon and tons 'o other chunks of matter floating about which require far less energy to reach.
Despite what Zubrin would lead you to believe, the technologies required for a human Mars landing are NOT ready. For one example, many of his missions profile a single-stage-to-orbit Mars lander / launcher to return humans to the mother ship. Since we aren't near making a viable SSTO ship yet, that one piece of hardware alone will require many bucks and time yet to develop.
Instead of sending people to Mars, why not whip up a quick robot lander with a boot attached and a candleabra of flags to plant? The lander could snap a shot of the footprint and the flags, and we'd all be happy for another few decades.
Wouldn't you rather see your space-tax bucks spent on something more useful than a one-shot trip to Mars that will require a decade (or more) to prepare for?
Folks, if you really care about this subject, posting your response here isn't going to help. For the most part, you're 'preaching to the converted' and the people who need to read your words aren't reading this.
NASA's, ESA's, CSA's, NASDA's, etc. budget has been slashed to ribbons over the past decade and albatrosses like Space Station are just going to keep making the situation worse. If you Really Care(tm) about seeing space technology move forward (ie: if you're sick of the 1970s Space Shuttle dog-and-pony show and "Faster, Better, Cheaper - Work Smarter Not Harder" stuff) and would prefer to see something more useful than a foreign aid package parceled up as a "science project" be the result of decades of brilliant engineers' work, then write your government representative and let THEM know.
Writing isn't the only thing you can do (and by writing, I mean a physical piece of paper with ink or toner, placed into one of those foolish envelope things and given to the postal service of your choice -- a disk full of 2k e-mails doesn't quite have the same impact when furiously waved about in Congress). You can also:
Visit schools and give a classroom presentation on technology (it can be exclusively about space technology, if you'd like -- you probably know more about it than the teachers). Why not call the principal of your local high / public / middle school and ask for a half-hour of lecture time? I was surprised, when I first asked, at how happy they were to have an outside visitor stop by to tell the kids a bit about the 'real world', and not have it involve drugs or 'anger management'. I was also shocked when bright 17 year olds were asking me if there were already human bases on Mars! Keep in mind: in just a few years, these are the people who will vote in your next rep.
Ask to visit your local member of parliament, congressman, senator, etc. in person. It sounds like a long-shot, but they're often open to the idea of taking a half-hour to speak with 'regular folk' when they have the time, and if you're not ranting about saving the spotted Albanian tree-toad or asking for cash, they're surprisingly open to hearing about your world-view. Why not take an afternoon to have a pleasant chat with a politician about the practical applications of space technology and the means by which it will help the nation and (in some cases) their district? Try to tone down the 'human destiny in space' schtick though - most people will just think you're a loon.
Suggest that others do the same! Suggest to them that instead of watching another episode of Star Trek, they can spend the hour crafting a letter to their government representative and make a step towards seeing the fiction become real. If we each do that (maybe even once every few months), a few billion bucks might find themselves tossed into a useful program.
Remember folks: More and more of us weren't even born when N. Armstrong set foot on the Moon. Let's do something to ensure we're not all dead before it happens again.