NASA accepting proposal for lunar mining

[K. A. Pital]

Actually, the leading people behind China's Lunar and Mars programs specified that their goal is to create a sustainable inhabited space infrastructure that would allow humans to send equipment to Moon/Mars on a regular basis, not just make a one-time shot for the Moon or Mars. I don't remember the exact statements, but it has been like this for quite a while now.

Who is funding it? Well, I'm kind of wrapping my head around the emergence of two nations that could both have economies 1,5-2 times of the modern US - even with modest funding they are capable of doing a lot, since they are single states after all. Even India could send a probe to Mars with their own rockets. Emerging SSTO technologies can bring down the LEO cost per kilogram to a ridiculous 500-600 dollars, with obvious consequences. We could do more with less. It is not the best outcome if space financing stays on the same level relative to nations' GDP, but maybe it is a sensible approach to exploration - GDP is growing, space tech and orbital launches are getting cheaper and better.

[Guardsman Bass]

I'm sure they've proffered that as a goal, but that's like NASA saying that their goal is to go to Mars. You don't know whether it's just a far-off "wouldn't it be nice?" future goal that they won't reach any time soon because there's no real resources or commitment for it, or an actual goal they're aiming for and committing resources for in the present. China's done well with their manned missions so far, but they could be doing a lot more right now with it and aren't despite being flush with cash and eager to expand their scientific and technological output.

Not so sure about the SSTO stuff (that's been promised before without panning out), but I can think of stuff that would make it possible . . . eventually. Good robotics and telepresence could let you do all kinds of assembly stuff in Earth orbit that takes expensive astronaut missions now, and might be a lot cheaper.

[PeZook]

Thing is, space is actually cheaper, relatively to the world's economy, than most people realize, especially if we consider it in timeframes of several decades. Apollo cost 120 billion over 14 years, or 8.5 billion per year and, discounting test launches, got around 1300 tons of stuff into orbit.

That's a lot of money, nominally speaking, but not something that would require EXTRAORDINARY commitment from the world to accomplish. Over 30 years, building even a really huge space station is actually achievable for any number of private companies!

I think that, barring apocalyptic shifts in the world's economy, space mining will come about naturally even without any special government intervention, if only for things like propellant to maintain space hotels and satellites (yeah, right now refuelling satellites is not that attractive because they quickly become obsolete, but that's not something that is a law of nature).

[K. A. Pital]

I'm sure they've proffered that as a goal, but that's like NASA saying that their goal is to go to Mars.

It isn't like NASA saying something, because NASA has enough achievements under its belt that most people feel "So what" whenever something comes out of NASA's mouth. China and India don't have many to begin with. Their space agencies need to prove that they're actually worth the money spent in the eyes of their citizens.

You don't know whether it's just a far-off "wouldn't it be nice?" future goal that they won't reach any time soon because there's no real resources or commitment for it, or an actual goal they're aiming for and committing resources for in the present. China's done well with their manned missions so far, but they could be doing a lot more right now with it and aren't despite being flush with cash and eager to expand their scientific and technological output.

That is a wrong view of the Chinese space program. They are doing a lot more with rather limited means, and the limiter is not the cash but the technical expertise and capabilities of Chinese enterprises to make the necessary very high quality steels that are required for running a decent space program with inteplanetary probes and manned missions to orbit or beyond. Establishing this base is way harder than just throwing cash at your space agency.

Think of it that way: manned missions for China are not so much vain pride as it is proof that it has its own viable space medicine research and, crucially, materials research which allows the program to proceed. They are also running a TSTO program that should culminate in an SSTO by 2050 - that's very ambitious for a nation which barely learned to build reliable man-rated rockets in this decade, plus the Moon and interplanetary programs. In fact, the Chinese space exploration program by 2020 may well eclipse the Soviet interplanetary research program, which I still consider one of the best in the world, and by 2030 we'll be breaking completely new ground.

Not so sure about the SSTO stuff (that's been promised before without panning out)

Problem is, before it was just drawing board designs with little proof of concept. Now we've gone slightly beyond that with SKYLON and it seems that the basic engine concept is valid, which means only good things.

[Irbis]

Who is funding it? Well, I'm kind of wrapping my head around the emergence of two nations that could both have economies 1,5-2 times of the modern US

Unless we find 2 more Earths full of resources to fuel them, no they won't. We're already overtaxing the planet with current economy, much less one three times larger.

Emerging SSTO technologies can bring down the LEO cost per kilogram to a ridiculous 500-600 dollars, with obvious consequences.

Launch loop, made from ordinary steel, can potentially bring the cost down to 3$. I don't know how viable the calculations are, but even at 5x the maximum projected cost it's still not outside the means of EU, USA or China.

[K. A. Pital]

Unless we find 2 more Earths full of resources to fuel them, no they won't. We're already overtaxing the planet with current economy, much less one three times larger.

You are forgetting that a mixture of renewables, clean(er) coal and nuclear-thermonuclear can make far larger economies survive under the same or smaller footprint.

Launch loop, made from ordinary steel, can potentially bring the cost down to 3$. I don't know how viable the calculations are

No one knows. Even pre-feasibility reports haven't been carried out on this design, much less feasibility reports or actual planning. Engineering is not "we think it will cost three bucks if made", it's "we don't know how much it will cost and if it can even be built" when it comes to most paper projects. SSTO is a lot more feasible and the dynamics are better understood since we exploit high-altitude planes and spaceplanes, and we understand how a mix of a plane and a spaceplane would work if we make it work - servicing, launch strips, fuel expenditure and man-hours can be estimated more or less reliably. Launch loops, hyperloops, various maglev-assisted launches and vacuum trains are all projects that are based on sound physics, but cost estimates for them cannot be trusted now at all. Even the SSTO cost estimates may be way off-base - while undeniably true that they'll offer a reduction, it may be less drastic than we think.

[Guardsman Bass]

I think that, barring apocalyptic shifts in the world's economy, space mining will come about naturally even without any special government intervention, if only for things like propellant to maintain space hotels and satellites (yeah, right now refuelling satellites is not that attractive because they quickly become obsolete, but that's not something that is a law of nature).

It's also got to compete with making easier-to-replace satellites, especially if launch prices go down. I like propellant depots, but they're mostly useful if you either already have stuff up there that you want to keep up (and which is too expensive to replace periodically), or you're doing some serious interplanetary missions and want to give your probes/spacecraft more fuel.

On the cost issue-

If it was just the high cost, I don't think it would be as huge of a barrier. The development time and uncertainties loom just as large there in stuff like asteroid mining. If you could say, "We found this Near Earth Asteroid with valuable raw materials which we can bring back within five years with a 20% risk of failure", then you could much more easily find investors who might be willing to back that if the returns were big enough on it. But having to say, "We're hoping to bring back an asteroid for mining in 20 years" is a guarantee that you're not going to get much funding outside of a handful of eccentrics.

In fact, the Chinese space exploration program by 2020 may well eclipse the Soviet interplanetary research program, which I still consider one of the best in the world, and by 2030 we'll be breaking completely new ground.

I'll be cheering them on with you when they do it (Yutu made me very pleased). Same goes for the SSTO - I'd love for it to work out, even if past attempts make me skeptical.

You are forgetting that a mixture of renewables, clean(er) coal and nuclear-thermonuclear can make far larger economies survive under the same or smaller footprint.

We can also be way, way more efficient in how we use and recycle raw materials.

[K. A. Pital]

And we are finally getting more efficient: the advancements of the last 20 years started pouring into mass production at last. The footprint of Singapore has already been discussed in another thread - it is a huge town with diverse industries, but a small footpring. Non-EU Europe (e.g. Poland, Czech Republic) have a product per capita that is similar to what I think China and India can field in a very close future, especially for China. Yet both are quite close to the sustainable footprint (though slightly above it), and that with a lot of obsolete and dirty early Soviet-era industries and huge persistent reliance on coal, oil and cars. With a GDP of Poland China will already be like Europe and US combined, and such a life level is in my view hardly unacceptable for a prolonged period. If we consider Taiwan's example (or Korea and Japan) it becomes clear that running a large modern economy allows you to both clean up the mess and make sure ecological efficiency is rising.

Cost in terms of space programs is not the biggest problem. Cost of rocket launches tends to adjust to a lower figure after prolonged exploitation, and "do more with less" is a perfectly viable approach, provided you don't terminate programs that you already run! The biggest problem is a string of bad decisions: the Space Shuttle, a prolonged "gap" in the 2000s, and a row of bad events that are unrelated to space (first the Cold War military meddling in civilian space affairs, something that ties into the Shuttle debacle and in many Soviet failures too, then the collapse of the USSR which destroyed the last viable ultra-large rocket program "Energia").

What is problematic is the loss of industrial and intellectual potential with a termination of certain programs (if personnel is not reassigned) and the extreme complexity of getting a space program to run for years undisturbed by politics. That's not a cost issue. It's a "humans are good at making dumb decisions" issue.

[Irbis]

You are forgetting that a mixture of renewables, clean(er) coal and nuclear-thermonuclear can make far larger economies survive under the same or smaller footprint.

I am not forgetting. Even if your electricity is freely provided by gods, economy still needs iron, concrete, oil, copper and aluminium to function, at least. Make economy larger and you need more of it. From where it will come from? And that is barebones XX century standard, forget about modern economy with just that.

Renewables? Please, not only they are laughably inefficient, they devour quite a lot of rare elements in production, making problems worse, not better. Meanwhile, your now richer citizens demand more food, better food, cars, phones, clean water, more of everything. From where it is coming from? USA already consumes 2 continents worth of resources, and you're talking about economies 5 times larger. We don't have 10 continents. Hell, we already cherrypicked all the easiest resources and we're going downhill.

No one knows. Even pre-feasibility reports haven't been carried out on this design, much less feasibility reports or actual planning. Engineering is not "we think it will cost three bucks if made", it's "we don't know how much it will cost and if it can even be built" when it comes to most paper projects.

That's why I said '5x the maximum projected amount', and that would still be cheaper. Fuck, even if the loop costed 900 billion to make it's barely 2/3 of the whole Iraq adventure, so it's not like we can't afford it. And it's not like it will just help space travel, reliable and cheap maglev technology would revolutionize ground applications.

SSTO is a lot more feasible and the dynamics are better understood since we exploit high-altitude planes and spaceplanes, and we understand how a mix of a plane and a spaceplane would work if we make it work - servicing, launch strips, fuel expenditure and man-hours can be estimated more or less reliably.

This is like a man 150 years ago saying cars suck, we should stick to horses because we already know how to use them and have well built network of veterinarians and hay shops.

Launch loops, hyperloops, various maglev-assisted launches and vacuum trains are all projects that are based on sound physics, but cost estimates for them cannot be trusted now at all. Even the SSTO cost estimates may be way off-base - while undeniably true that they'll offer a reduction, it may be less drastic than we think.

The prudent course of action would be a series of ITER-like projects, testing each in an attempt to provide affordable space launcher model in decade, then final version in two. Instead, we're mucking with 80 year old technology that doesn't offer any big hope for improvement. That's why I am disappointed with China and EU, instead of trying to go forward they waste money on already obsolete programs. We need an intellectual and industrial base first, why build obsolete one when you can build modern?

We can also be way, way more efficient in how we use and recycle raw materials.

Tell that to USA with loons arguing recycling should be immediately abandoned. And anyway, as much as I am pro-recycling, it simply doesn't work with some materials, not without huge re-education campaign and money investments.

Non-EU Europe (e.g. Poland, Czech Republic) have a product per capita that is similar to what I think China and India can field in a very close future, especially for China. Yet both are quite close to the sustainable footprint (though slightly above it), and that with a lot of obsolete and dirty early Soviet-era industries and huge persistent reliance on coal, oil and cars.

Nice to see people outside have brighter picture than these inside Still, I don't think the picture is quite that rosy.

[Borgholio]

Tell that to USA with loons arguing recycling should be immediately abandoned. And anyway, as much as I am pro-recycling, it simply doesn't work with some materials, not without huge re-education campaign and money investments.

That article made my brain hurt. Recycling is bad because, free market? Really?

[K. A. Pital]

I am not forgetting. Even if your electricity is freely provided by gods, economy still needs iron, concrete, oil, copper and aluminium to function, at least. Make economy larger and you need more of it. From where it will come from? And that is barebones XX century standard, forget about modern economy with just that.

Actually, modernization of industry often reduces the demand for materials pro given item, so "do more with less" is an acceptable idea to move forward. Renewables, and by that I mean also biomass and hydropower, are not "laughably inefficient", and they are not making problems worse. USA consumes way more than its footprint precisely because it was built in the dirtiest way possible, but it is not consuming "two continents worth" of resources - even at peak of the US might it only consumed around a third of world raw resources.

That's why I said '5x the maximum projected amount', and that would still be cheaper. Fuck, even if the loop costed 900 billion to make it's barely 2/3 of the whole Iraq adventure, so it's not like we can't afford it. And it's not like it will just help space travel, reliable and cheap maglev technology would revolutionize ground applications.

Weren't you the one who said just above that new technology is dirty? Maglev is dirty technology by modern standards - it requires rare minerals to make the components, and electromagnetic pollution is an obvious consequence of use in populated areas. As for "5x" - not even sure that it's 5x. It may be zero, simply because the thing has problems even at the theoretical level and thus never gets built.

This is like a man 150 years ago saying cars suck, we should stick to horses because we already know how to use them and have well built network of veterinarians and hay shops.

No, it is not like this. Internal combustion engine went a long way before the car. Same here. This is not a car; this is a project for which even the theoretical feasibility is doubtful and resources of more than one nation-state would be needed (for a car, the resources of a private company suffice).

The prudent course of action would be a series of ITER-like projects, testing each in an attempt to provide affordable space launcher model in decade, then final version in two. Instead, we're mucking with 80 year old technology that doesn't offer any big hope for improvement. That's why I am disappointed with China and EU, instead of trying to go forward they waste money on already obsolete programs. We need an intellectual and industrial base first, why build obsolete one when you can build modern?

Because things you read about on Wikipedia aren't what you think they are. I am sorry. There are engineers who work in the field and I'm sure they could tell more about it, but from my experience if something doesn't get built, it is quite likely problems even on the theoretical scale, if something gets built but abandoned - that was a bad idea in the first place.

Nice to see people outside have brighter picture than these inside Still, I don't think the picture is quite that rosy.

I am not saying its "rosy", I'm not that naive. Sustainable footprint means bombing yourself into the stone age for some nations. But other nations work at actually making society function while still having a small footprint, and if some succeed, others can follow.

[Grumman]

Launch loop, made from ordinary steel, can potentially bring the cost down to 3$. I don't know how viable the calculations are, but even at 5x the maximum projected cost it's still not outside the means of EU, USA or China.

Where are you going to put it? You're talking about a monolithic moving object that stretches from Los Angeles to Houston, or from France to the Ukraine.