Ever since manned spaceflight began, a vocal minority has been asking, "Why?" It seems so wasteful--there is no real benefit--there are better things to spend the money on. The carping was somewhat muted around the Apollo timeframe; the inspiration Apollo gave to the whole human race was hard to naysay. Today, however, with constrained government budgets and urgent terrestrial priorities, it is not going too far to say that US human spaceflight is in trouble.
This was recognized by NASA in 2009, when it assembled the "Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee," informally known as the Augustine commission. The committee issued a report entitled "Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great Nation." The title suggests the "why" that the committee had in mind: greatness; worthiness. But one must ask: in the face of global shortages of food, energy and water, uncertainty about the Earth's climate, the emergence of pandemic-capable microorganisms, and massive politically-motivated violence, is pursuing a human spaceflight program on the basis of "greatness" justifiable? The committee viewed the spaceflight question in isolation, not in the context of these global issues.
Jeff Greason, CEO of XCor Aerospace and a member of the Augustine panel, helped advance the thinking with his magnificent address at ISDC 2011. He began by proposing a structure for the discussion: goal--strategy--objectives--tactics, terms that one might use in military history. He believes that the goal of U.S. human spaceflight, at the highest level, is "settlement," and he finds this goal embedded in Presidential and NASA pronouncements. With that as a goal, one could develop a strategy, within which are objectives, which are supported by tactics. Merely by suggesting this structure for the debate, Jeff made a major contribution.
But is the U.S. goal for human spaceflight really settlement (of the Moon, Mars, or other bodies)? Since Jeff had to find it "between the lines" of many space policy speeches, that in itself suggests that the goal is tentative--that the nation, the Obama Administration, and NASA are uncommitted to it. And critics have always derided the idea of settlement by saying, "Oh, yes, when we're done ruining this planet we can just move to another one."
Last Wednesday, at the Future Space 2013 conference, the NASA Deputy Administrator and the former chair of the House Science Committee gave us the latest high-level discussion of goals and strategy. One argued that we should pick a goal (location) and go there, developing whatever technology is needed; the other argued that we should work on the technology primarily, and choose appropriate missions that mesh. Neither mentioned "settlement." Neither connected the human spaceflight program to global crises and challenges. The two debaters have widely differing views of where to go and how to get there, but they share a parochial, space-flight-for-its-own-sake viewpoint.
Such myopia is a recipe for the collapse of the program. As Jeff emphasized in his talk, human exploration of Mars is unachievable on government funding alone. There is competition for NASA money; NASA budgets will be level at best, and likely declining, for decades.
The parochial advocacy for human spaceflight contrasts strongly with the non-human-spaceflight part of NASA, which enthusiastically embraces missions of tangible benefit to humanity. NASA spacecraft have made crucial, invaluable contributions to understanding atmospheric chemistry, climate change, meteorology, solar cycles, land use, and disaster monitoring. No knowledgeable person could demean the contributions of these instruments. But the human spaceflight aspect of NASA remains, so far, disconnected from Earth's problems.
Toward the end of Jeff's talk, he opined that commercial activities might fuel the long-term success of human space exploration. Literally fuel--he referred to the idea of propellant being mined commercially and sold to NASA as one of many customers. This, he said, could make the difference between failure due to budget shortfalls, and success. Obviously if NASA were the sole customer, there is no advantage to this approach, but if off-Earth-mined propellants are being purchased by others, the overall cost is lower and the system can be sustainable.
What we're talking about here is an interplanetary economy.
And is there any benefit for the people back on Earth? Well, there could be. Recall that 870 million people are chronically undernourished. 1.5 billion people have no electricity nor clean cooking methods. These basic human needs would be expensive to address, and would require additional resources, particularly energy. Interplanetary mining of propellant and structural materials could make space-generated power an affordable addition to current terrestrial energy production. And this energy production would not pollute the atmosphere, scar the soil, nor create radioactive waste.
Having the goal of "resources for Earth" for U.S. human spaceflight is a unifying theme. No longer would the various components of the space flight program have to be defended tooth and nail against budget competitors; these systems are urgently needed to obtain resources to help the Earth at a time of critical population growth and resource insufficiency.
By the way, if a robust interplanetary economy is established, we get "settlement" for free. It's merely a spinoff of the activities required to keep the infrastructure running. "Settlement" now occurs for a valuable economic purpose--robot repair, teleoperation, whatever--and not merely as an activity for its own sake.
How much of the economic work is done by robots and how much by humans is what Jeff would call a tactic, or even sub-tactic. Planetary Resources and Deep Space Industries are eying all-robotic architectures; Shackleton Energy has emphasized human operators. The important thing is for NASA to cooperate with these fledgling industries, helping to develop the technologies they think they need, and assigning its experts to make the interplanetary economy a reality as soon as possible.
Space operations are expensive; those involving humans are more so, and dangerous as well. They can be justified if the goal is to address urgent human needs on Earth. If we do that, the inspiration that humanity will feel will even exceed Apollo. Helping humanity address its resource challenges with economically sustainable space activities is the unifying "why" that we must adopt.
Monday, July 22, 2013
Thursday, May 9, 2013
A real space hero for Australia
I had lunch the other day with Kirby Ikin, the president of Deep Space Industries and Managing Director of Asia Pacific Aerospace Consultants. While I was already a fan of his, I learned more about the many forays Kirby has made into the commercial space arena, and the high esteem in which he is held by the community.
Here is a signature Ikin accomplishment, from APAC's website: "For ten years he worked as a space insurance underwriter at GIO in Australia and in 1998 was appointed Managing Director of the newly created GIO Space [his own initiative]. GIO Space was one of the largest space insurance underwriters in the world with annual premium income of over A$175m (approximately US$110m at the time)." That's not just PowerPoint, folks.
In addition to being a highly capable businessman, Kirby is helping to spread the "gospel of space." He is the chairman of the board of directors of the worldwide National Space Society, formerly the L5 Society. He succeeded in that position none other than Buzz Aldrin. He is also organizing the biennial Australian Space Development Conference to be held in Adelaide in July.
The new ventures in off-Earth mining will be more successful for the influence and management of people like Kirby Ikin. Australia can look at him as a real space hero.
Here is a signature Ikin accomplishment, from APAC's website: "For ten years he worked as a space insurance underwriter at GIO in Australia and in 1998 was appointed Managing Director of the newly created GIO Space [his own initiative]. GIO Space was one of the largest space insurance underwriters in the world with annual premium income of over A$175m (approximately US$110m at the time)." That's not just PowerPoint, folks.
In addition to being a highly capable businessman, Kirby is helping to spread the "gospel of space." He is the chairman of the board of directors of the worldwide National Space Society, formerly the L5 Society. He succeeded in that position none other than Buzz Aldrin. He is also organizing the biennial Australian Space Development Conference to be held in Adelaide in July.
The new ventures in off-Earth mining will be more successful for the influence and management of people like Kirby Ikin. Australia can look at him as a real space hero.
Monday, April 29, 2013
Looking at Australia from space
Earth observation satellites aren't exactly New Space. In fact, they are as Old Space as you can get. But some nations are just starting to appreciate how important that data from space can be.
Australia has just announced its first Government Space Policy. Coincidentally, my year in Australia has been spent on a team developing an Earth-observing radar satellite for measuring the water in Australia's soils.
In this article published online today in The Conversation, I argue that there is no more important data for Australia than its water resources. What's curious about the Space Policy is that it doesn't make any commitments to develop this or any other capability.
That discussion is just beginning.
Australia has just announced its first Government Space Policy. Coincidentally, my year in Australia has been spent on a team developing an Earth-observing radar satellite for measuring the water in Australia's soils.
The Garada synthetic aperture radar satellite. Image: EADS Astrium.
In this article published online today in The Conversation, I argue that there is no more important data for Australia than its water resources. What's curious about the Space Policy is that it doesn't make any commitments to develop this or any other capability.
That discussion is just beginning.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Astronauts to an asteroid: yes or no?
My April 6th post called for a mission shift for NASA: help commercial space industries succeed, don't compete with them. Other US government departments understand this. The Energy Department sponsors research that helps make electricity more efficient, renewable sources more efficient, and even funds some large-scale projects. The Food and Drug Administration imposes strict tests on pharmaceuticals, which tend to make them more expensive, but in the end add to their safety and hence their desirability. The FAA runs an air traffic control system in order that commercial airlines can be safe and, yes, profitable.
NASA doesn't seem to get this. Case in point: the newly proposed NASA mission to capture an asteroid, tug it to a Lagrange point, and then have astronauts visit it.
The mission was called into question as the NASA Administrator testified before the House Science Committee. He said that "the goal is to remain the world's leader in space exploration." Well, at least there IS a goal. One Congressman asked, "Wouldn't going to the Moon be better preparation for an eventual manned Mars mission?" The Administrator said that "both are good" but that the Moon would be more expensive.
Sadly, the idea that NASA ought to be supporting the fledgling space resources industry didn't show up.
The choice of asteroid over Moon was apparently based on money. The Administrator stated, "Going to the Moon is a factor of three times more expensive." Really? I would pose several questions based on that statement:
1. Does that claim include the $18 BILLION being spent on the Space Launch System and the Orion capsule? In other words, would it cost $54 BILLION for a manned mission to the Moon? Of course not.
2. Then does the Administrator mean that the MARGINAL cost of the asteroid mission, $2.5 billion ABOVE the SLS and Orion development, is 1/3 of the MARGINAL cost of a Moon mission? This suggests that his mental model for re-developing the LEM is $7.5 billion. That seems about right.
3. Has the Administrator spoken to any member of the space resources industry, at Planetary Resources, Deep Space Industries or Shackleton Energy? How do they assess the value of manned asteroid and lunar missions to their own business plans? What would they find most helpful?
The Administrator's statement of purpose, "exploration," can only represent the first phase of human expansion into the solar system. As has happened throughout history:
I'd propose an alternative goal: an interplanetary economy. This concept emphasizes the role of robots, because human spaceflight is expensive, dangerous, and tends not to add much to the mission set that robots can already perform. NASA and its Congressional supporters are protecting human spaceflight because that was the source of past glory.
And let's go ask Planetary, Deep Space and Shackleton to help put together the long-term strategy. You won't get the same answer from the three of them: Shackleton wants to use astronauts (commercial employees, not NASA ones) to generate fuel from lunar ice. The other two want to extract minerals from asteroids. Where a manned mission to a captured asteroid fits with either of these, I don't know. Couldn't the money be better spent on developing autonomous technologies, robotic on-orbit assembly, and lightweight space robotic components? Perhaps. NASA should be asking people with skin in the game.
NASA doesn't seem to get this. Case in point: the newly proposed NASA mission to capture an asteroid, tug it to a Lagrange point, and then have astronauts visit it.
The mission was called into question as the NASA Administrator testified before the House Science Committee. He said that "the goal is to remain the world's leader in space exploration." Well, at least there IS a goal. One Congressman asked, "Wouldn't going to the Moon be better preparation for an eventual manned Mars mission?" The Administrator said that "both are good" but that the Moon would be more expensive.
Sadly, the idea that NASA ought to be supporting the fledgling space resources industry didn't show up.
The choice of asteroid over Moon was apparently based on money. The Administrator stated, "Going to the Moon is a factor of three times more expensive." Really? I would pose several questions based on that statement:
1. Does that claim include the $18 BILLION being spent on the Space Launch System and the Orion capsule? In other words, would it cost $54 BILLION for a manned mission to the Moon? Of course not.
2. Then does the Administrator mean that the MARGINAL cost of the asteroid mission, $2.5 billion ABOVE the SLS and Orion development, is 1/3 of the MARGINAL cost of a Moon mission? This suggests that his mental model for re-developing the LEM is $7.5 billion. That seems about right.
3. Has the Administrator spoken to any member of the space resources industry, at Planetary Resources, Deep Space Industries or Shackleton Energy? How do they assess the value of manned asteroid and lunar missions to their own business plans? What would they find most helpful?
The Administrator's statement of purpose, "exploration," can only represent the first phase of human expansion into the solar system. As has happened throughout history:
- The Spanish court sent Columbus to the New World on 4 missions of exploration. But after that, Spain's interest was in settlement, commerce and conquest.
- James Cook came to the South Pacific on 3 missions of exploration. But after that, Britain needed a place for its prisoners, so Australia was colonized.
- Lewis and Clark explored the Louisiana Purchase, but the intent was to understand where America's growing population could live, farm and prosper.
I'd propose an alternative goal: an interplanetary economy. This concept emphasizes the role of robots, because human spaceflight is expensive, dangerous, and tends not to add much to the mission set that robots can already perform. NASA and its Congressional supporters are protecting human spaceflight because that was the source of past glory.
And let's go ask Planetary, Deep Space and Shackleton to help put together the long-term strategy. You won't get the same answer from the three of them: Shackleton wants to use astronauts (commercial employees, not NASA ones) to generate fuel from lunar ice. The other two want to extract minerals from asteroids. Where a manned mission to a captured asteroid fits with either of these, I don't know. Couldn't the money be better spent on developing autonomous technologies, robotic on-orbit assembly, and lightweight space robotic components? Perhaps. NASA should be asking people with skin in the game.
Saturday, April 6, 2013
Government's role in the space economy: help it grow
My article on the space economy ended with a comparison to commercial aviation. It noted how modest government investments, such as air mail and an air traffic control system, helped that industry bootstrap itself into the economic powerhouse it is today.
A colleague added:
"The role of government is to provide infrastructure and assume large investments and risks that a fledgling private industry cannot carry.
"A
good analogy is the US Eisenhower Interstate highway system which has
been estimated to have an ROI of 6:1 for the public money invested. The
trucks that roam the highways are not owned or operated by the
government but they do rely on the good roads, law and order, and gas
station amenities."
Some US government agencies certainly get this. For example, here's the mission of the Federal Aviation Administration: "Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world." By including efficiency in their mission, the FAA is supporting the profitability of commercial air lines.
Similarly the mission of the Department of Commerce is "a business environment that is productive, innovative, fair and safe." They don't actually use the other P-word, profit, because somehow that's politically tainted, but clearly they want to see American business be successful.
Now, what about NASA? Here's what we learn from their vision statement:
"What Does NASA Do?
"NASA's vision: To reach for new heights and reveal the unknown so that what we do and learn will benefit all humankind.
"To do that, thousands of people have been working around the world -- and off of it -- for 50 years, trying to answer some basic questions. What's out there in space? How do we get there? What will we find? What can we learn there, or learn just by trying to get there, that will make life better here on Earth?"
Does this vision actually support successful space economic activities? If so, it's implicit, not explicit.
NASA's Commercial Crew and Cargo programs are underway. Justifications include wanting a backup ISS access capability, not wanting to rely on Russian rockets, and bringing back experiments. But there's nothing there about wanting to see a robust, diverse, sustainable space economy. Nothing about supporting space tourism, off-Earth mining, or space solar power. There's also nothing there about leveraging commercial launch capabilities to make human space exploration more affordable.
In fact, the present emphasis on development of the Space Launch System is competing with commercial launch providers, denying them a valuable market. To quote from Walker and Miller's opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, "it makes no sense for NASA to build rockets that are already available or can be developed at much lower cost by U.S. private industry. Why spend approximately $20 billion to build an unneeded SLS super-heavy-lift rocket, for instance, when existing commercial rockets can carry payloads more often, efficiently and cheaply?"
But the launch controversy is only one aspect of the larger issue. NASA is focused on its own heritage and image, not on the huge benefits to humankind to be gained from exploiting off-Earth resources. I wonder if NASA and its political supporters even subconsciously feel as though that would be somehow immoral? Does NASA feel as does this commenter of my article:
"The idea of interplanetary harvesting absolutely astounds and appals me!
"Have we humans not learned anything from the impact of over harvesting of resources on planet earth?
"What in heavens name will the repercussions be if we start messing with resources on other planets??? I for one shudder to think what they might entail."
Hmm. There are 870 million chronically undernourished people in the world. One quarter of the world's population lacks electricity. Is it important to address these inequities? If so, more resources will be required. Obtaining those resources off-Earth will reduce the scarring of the surface from mining, reduce the greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere, and reduce the production of wastes. Those resources will not be available if they cannot be obtained economically, even profitably.
And speaking of ROI, a very thorough study of the UK's space industry shows it to be one of the most productive of all industrial sectors. I don't know of a corresponding study for the US, but anecdotally, I understand that NASA typically uses the figure of $8 returned for every $1 invested.
Government support of the space resources industry should become like government support of aviation, electrical transmission, nuclear power, pharmaceuticals, and virtually every other economic sector. It will help the companies flourish, and make new benefits available to all.
An updated NASA vision should support this.
A colleague added:
"The role of government is to provide infrastructure and assume large investments and risks that a fledgling private industry cannot carry.
"The role of
private industry is to use the legal framework, infrastructure and new
technologies to enhance economic activity in nimble ways.
Some US government agencies certainly get this. For example, here's the mission of the Federal Aviation Administration: "Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world." By including efficiency in their mission, the FAA is supporting the profitability of commercial air lines.
Similarly the mission of the Department of Commerce is "a business environment that is productive, innovative, fair and safe." They don't actually use the other P-word, profit, because somehow that's politically tainted, but clearly they want to see American business be successful.
Now, what about NASA? Here's what we learn from their vision statement:
"What Does NASA Do?
03.12.13
"To do that, thousands of people have been working around the world -- and off of it -- for 50 years, trying to answer some basic questions. What's out there in space? How do we get there? What will we find? What can we learn there, or learn just by trying to get there, that will make life better here on Earth?"
Does this vision actually support successful space economic activities? If so, it's implicit, not explicit.
NASA's Commercial Crew and Cargo programs are underway. Justifications include wanting a backup ISS access capability, not wanting to rely on Russian rockets, and bringing back experiments. But there's nothing there about wanting to see a robust, diverse, sustainable space economy. Nothing about supporting space tourism, off-Earth mining, or space solar power. There's also nothing there about leveraging commercial launch capabilities to make human space exploration more affordable.
In fact, the present emphasis on development of the Space Launch System is competing with commercial launch providers, denying them a valuable market. To quote from Walker and Miller's opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, "it makes no sense for NASA to build rockets that are already available or can be developed at much lower cost by U.S. private industry. Why spend approximately $20 billion to build an unneeded SLS super-heavy-lift rocket, for instance, when existing commercial rockets can carry payloads more often, efficiently and cheaply?"
But the launch controversy is only one aspect of the larger issue. NASA is focused on its own heritage and image, not on the huge benefits to humankind to be gained from exploiting off-Earth resources. I wonder if NASA and its political supporters even subconsciously feel as though that would be somehow immoral? Does NASA feel as does this commenter of my article:
"The idea of interplanetary harvesting absolutely astounds and appals me!
"Have we humans not learned anything from the impact of over harvesting of resources on planet earth?
"What in heavens name will the repercussions be if we start messing with resources on other planets??? I for one shudder to think what they might entail."
Hmm. There are 870 million chronically undernourished people in the world. One quarter of the world's population lacks electricity. Is it important to address these inequities? If so, more resources will be required. Obtaining those resources off-Earth will reduce the scarring of the surface from mining, reduce the greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere, and reduce the production of wastes. Those resources will not be available if they cannot be obtained economically, even profitably.
- Do airline companies make profits? Yes, and low-cost air transportation is available even to those of modest incomes.
- Do pharmaceutical companies make profits? Yes, and their products save millions of lives.
- Do electric utilities make profits? Yes, and cheap, reliable electricity keeps food refrigerated, houses warm or cool, and cell phones charged.
And speaking of ROI, a very thorough study of the UK's space industry shows it to be one of the most productive of all industrial sectors. I don't know of a corresponding study for the US, but anecdotally, I understand that NASA typically uses the figure of $8 returned for every $1 invested.
Government support of the space resources industry should become like government support of aviation, electrical transmission, nuclear power, pharmaceuticals, and virtually every other economic sector. It will help the companies flourish, and make new benefits available to all.
An updated NASA vision should support this.
Friday, April 5, 2013
Articles on space economy ignite conversation
A couple of months ago, I posted an article in the online academic journal The Conversation. The theme was the great progress that space robots have made. My purpose was to create some buzz in advance of our off-Earth mining forum. We certainly got that--we received international media attention. For a week I was a TV figure.
All the attention and exhausting interview schedule caused me to forget that article completely. But several weeks later, I noticed that it had been viewed 1,700 times. Hmm, thought I, not bad!
So I wrote another one. The theme, this time, is how the global economy might some day become interplanetary. The central discussion point is how to put a value on resources found in space. Protection of Earth's environment, while providing energy to raise living standards for billions on Earth, provides the motivation.
It has been viewed 1,500 times in the last 24 hours. The buzz continues.
All the attention and exhausting interview schedule caused me to forget that article completely. But several weeks later, I noticed that it had been viewed 1,700 times. Hmm, thought I, not bad!
So I wrote another one. The theme, this time, is how the global economy might some day become interplanetary. The central discussion point is how to put a value on resources found in space. Protection of Earth's environment, while providing energy to raise living standards for billions on Earth, provides the motivation.
It has been viewed 1,500 times in the last 24 hours. The buzz continues.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
What are asteroids worth?
It is just fascinating to watch the worldwide interest in space mining grow. Our Off-Earth Mining Forum at the University of New South Wales drew international media attention.
As you might expect, as in other "viral" phenomena, there is some craziness. It's a great ride!
One crazy thread is the discussion about "What are asteroids worth?" Deep Space Industries kicked off the topic as they breezily suggested that asteroid 2012 DA14 might be worth $195 billion. Since we are so early in the space resources business, such speculation might not be too harmful. (Our friends engaged in actual mining on Earth remind us that value estimation of mineral resources is subject to strict regulation, and mis-stating values can get you sued or even imprisoned.)
But, in fact, DSI's comment was probably useful, because it keeps the conversation going. And indeed it has: one tech blogger in Forbes countered that the asteroid's value is zero. Well, that bounds the problem!
Both DSI and the Forbes chap are inexcusably wrong. DSI's $195 billion estimate is wrong because it doesn't cost the tech development. Tim Worstall's estimate of zero is wrong too. If someone gave me $50 billion, I could CERTAINLY develop a complete asteroid mining architecture. Technology doesn't have to be completely in hand for things to have value. The oil industry is constantly developing new technologies to exploit previously inaccessible but known oil reserves.
But unlike the oil case, if there is no market, valuation is very challenging.
If we decide that resources mined in space are going to be brought back to Earth, then there are existing markets. But we also know that it's hard to compete in those markets. I have created a new aphorism which addresses this: "Reentry burns up value." We suspect that our mining products have significant value in space, because of launch cost avoidance. But THERE ARE NO MARKETS IN SPACE. Yet. And to state the obvious: there is no justification for developing a commercial technology if there is no commercial market.
This work led to the realization of how ephemeral the concept of "value" is. An
early output of our tool was a set of design points for an
imaging spacecraft system--many cameras in space looking at the Earth,
able to downlink images in real time. The optimal design point would
change as the number of images per day was varied. If you're only
interested in 1000 images per day, you don't need 100 cameras, but if
you're interested in 100,000, you need several, etc., and the processing
power, downlink, etc., all varied.
But the question is: how many images per day do you want? If
this is a commercial system, the question becomes, how many images per
day CAN YOU SELL? It's not an engineering question, it's a MARKETING
question. The engineer should not proceed to design until the customer
has made a decision on this point.
Which brings us back to space mining and the value of
asteroids. For the sake of credibility, the industry needs to be doing CO-DEVELOPMENT OF TECHNOLOGY AND MARKETS FOR
SPACE RESOURCES. This actually represents a fascinating intellectual challenge. How does a given technology IMPROVE the ultimate market?
As you might expect, as in other "viral" phenomena, there is some craziness. It's a great ride!
One crazy thread is the discussion about "What are asteroids worth?" Deep Space Industries kicked off the topic as they breezily suggested that asteroid 2012 DA14 might be worth $195 billion. Since we are so early in the space resources business, such speculation might not be too harmful. (Our friends engaged in actual mining on Earth remind us that value estimation of mineral resources is subject to strict regulation, and mis-stating values can get you sued or even imprisoned.)
But, in fact, DSI's comment was probably useful, because it keeps the conversation going. And indeed it has: one tech blogger in Forbes countered that the asteroid's value is zero. Well, that bounds the problem!
Both DSI and the Forbes chap are inexcusably wrong. DSI's $195 billion estimate is wrong because it doesn't cost the tech development. Tim Worstall's estimate of zero is wrong too. If someone gave me $50 billion, I could CERTAINLY develop a complete asteroid mining architecture. Technology doesn't have to be completely in hand for things to have value. The oil industry is constantly developing new technologies to exploit previously inaccessible but known oil reserves.
But unlike the oil case, if there is no market, valuation is very challenging.
If we decide that resources mined in space are going to be brought back to Earth, then there are existing markets. But we also know that it's hard to compete in those markets. I have created a new aphorism which addresses this: "Reentry burns up value." We suspect that our mining products have significant value in space, because of launch cost avoidance. But THERE ARE NO MARKETS IN SPACE. Yet. And to state the obvious: there is no justification for developing a commercial technology if there is no commercial market.
There
have been some suggestions of markets that could develop. Jeff Greason,
CEO of XCor Aerospace, was a member of the Augustine commission that
reviewed US plans for human spaceflight. Jeff suggests that the US
government could pay for propellants in order to make human planetary
exploration more efficient. Surely I've included Jeff's ISDC 2011 talk in previous blog entries, but if not, here it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
The
Augustine report itself also
makes reference to propellant depots--but does not say how they will be
filled!
Wannabe space resource developers must address the establishment of
markets for their space products, thereby addressing the value question. DSI has actually been very open about its business case, as have Planetary Resources and Shackleton Energy. Shackleton is focusing on the propellant market.
The
question of value versus system design was at the core of my work as a principal investigator for the DARPA F6 project developer's kit.
The inventor of that concept, my good friend Owen Brown, published
several articles on introducing real options into spacecraft engineering. Owen and co-authors found that a fractionated architecture gave options
that enhanced the value of the architecture as a whole, and value of
each participant's piece. My own work built on the advances of computer scientist Dr. Tatiana Kichkaylo to develop an automated design
tool, which searched for optimal designs within fractionated (and
non-fractionated) design spaces.
Let us not be daunted by our current lack of market understanding. The computer industry, as did most of the revolutionary technologies of the 20th century, developed with significant misunderstanding of the market. Bill Gates, one of the world's most successful businessmen, has at least three huge misapprehensions attributed to him: "We'll never develop a 32-bit operating system," "No one needs more than 640k of RAM," and "OS/2 is destined to be the most important operating system of all time."
Perfect understanding doesn't seem to be required. What is required is courage and determination. Gates had them. I hope the space resources community maintains its courage and determination too. The good stuff is out there.
Monday, March 11, 2013
A good summary of the off-Earth mining concept
The Australian radio show Future Tense pulled together half a dozen guests with fairly sophisticated insights in the area of exploiting off-Earth resources. The half-hour broadcast looks at technical, legal and economic prospects in an even-handed and thoughtful way.
What's funny to me is that I was portrayed as a skeptic!
What's funny to me is that I was portrayed as a skeptic!
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Dumb like foxes
There are so many new programs for Earth-observing satellites, it's hard to imagine how the market could support them all. The number of national space programs is astonishing (Australia, in contrast, sees no value in such things). Then there's Skybox Imaging, whose unique business case includes data mining and HDTV from space in addition to the mundane imaging market.
Lest you think that the supply side is saturated, check out how the asteroid miners at Planetary Resources are positioning their Arkyd 100 imager for the same market. This should silence some of the skeptics: PRI is not going to wait for decades until the profits roll in from platinum-containing asteroids (don't hold your breath); they are putting out dual use products that can provide near-term revenue.
Mark Sonter, director of the other asteroid mining company, Deep Space Iindustries, is an expert on the history of mining. He gave a fascinating lecture at our Off-Earth Mining Forum here in Sydney. (His slides haven't been released yet; keep checking the link if you're interested.) One of his main points was that mundane, run-of-the-mill terrestrial mining projects span many decades. There is thus no reason to be contemptuous of off-Earth mining efforts simply because of the time scales being discussed.
DSI does not mention the Earth imaging market in their business case. But they do mention an intriguing mid-term revenue source: replenishing the propellant tanks on GEO satellites. This will not come to fruition as quickly as the imaging market, but it could represent a viable business, given that every kilogram of stuff DSI provides avoids the $40,000 cost of launching it to GEO. And recall that NASA is developing the other end of the technology: the robotics to put the propellant into the satellites.
Asteroid miners: dumb like foxes. I've been trying to get this message out in all the radio and TV interviews I've been giving. And the most important reason for that is to keep the flow of engineers coming--our bright young people need to know that this is real, and not be discouraged by the skepticism.
Lest you think that the supply side is saturated, check out how the asteroid miners at Planetary Resources are positioning their Arkyd 100 imager for the same market. This should silence some of the skeptics: PRI is not going to wait for decades until the profits roll in from platinum-containing asteroids (don't hold your breath); they are putting out dual use products that can provide near-term revenue.
Mark Sonter, director of the other asteroid mining company, Deep Space Iindustries, is an expert on the history of mining. He gave a fascinating lecture at our Off-Earth Mining Forum here in Sydney. (His slides haven't been released yet; keep checking the link if you're interested.) One of his main points was that mundane, run-of-the-mill terrestrial mining projects span many decades. There is thus no reason to be contemptuous of off-Earth mining efforts simply because of the time scales being discussed.
DSI does not mention the Earth imaging market in their business case. But they do mention an intriguing mid-term revenue source: replenishing the propellant tanks on GEO satellites. This will not come to fruition as quickly as the imaging market, but it could represent a viable business, given that every kilogram of stuff DSI provides avoids the $40,000 cost of launching it to GEO. And recall that NASA is developing the other end of the technology: the robotics to put the propellant into the satellites.
Asteroid miners: dumb like foxes. I've been trying to get this message out in all the radio and TV interviews I've been giving. And the most important reason for that is to keep the flow of engineers coming--our bright young people need to know that this is real, and not be discouraged by the skepticism.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Next steps for off-Earth mining
We've wrapped up the Off-Earth Mining Forum, hosted here by the Australian Centre for Space Engineering Research at the University of New South Wales. After two days of talks by some of the world’s experts,
informal discussions stretching late into the evening, worldwide media coverage, and a rousing public lecture on the Curiosity Mars ScienceLaboratory, we have gone our separate ways. Each of us is asking: how can we continue helping this bold venture succeed?
Of course, we still haven't answered the questions many of my friends and the general public are asking: “Does this make any sense? Is this just an unaffordable pipe
dream? Aren’t the technologies required just too demanding?” Here's a nice, balanced article in an Australian newspaper, looking at both sides of the coin.
An example I’ve been using to provide a different
perspective is the Sydney Harbour Bridge, one of the world’s most famous feats
of engineering (although perhaps not as photogenic as the Opera House).
(University of New South Wales)
When the First Fleet pulled into Sydney Harbour in 1788,
someone like Captain Arthur Phillip might have said, “I say, it would be jolly
to have a bridge going over to the north shore.” In fact, architect Francis Greenway proposed it in 1815. But at just over a kilometer,
he would have recognized that no contemporary material was up to the
task—not wood, not cast iron. A few decades later, Bessemer made high-quality,
low-cost steel available. The design of the Harbour Bridge began in 1900, and it was completed in 1932.
A century seems like such a long time—especially to
politicians. But in the sweep of human history, it’s a blink. A century from
now, there will be a vibrant space infrastructure, which will generate new prosperity for humanity. The health of our own planet's environment will be protected by beaming down energy from orbit. Those of us in the field are building the
technological roads that will enable these things.
Another story from Australian history is germane as well.
The early settlers learned that there were vast grasslands to the west of the
Blue Mountains bounding Sydney.
(Government of New South Wales)
But the Blue Mountains are carpeted by dense,
impassable brush and forest. Governor Lachlan Macquarie ordered a road leading
west from Sydney—a brutal undertaking, using prisoners as laborers. With its
completion, grazing lands for vast herds of sheep and cattle were connected to
a port. The wealth of Australia began to multiply exponentially with the
cutting of that road.
In addition to our space technology “roads,” we need to
build some institutions to support the construction of an interplanetary
infrastructure. The terrestrial mining industry is supported by programs at
universities, technology conferences, a legal framework, industry associations,
and interplay with numerous other sectors of the economy. As an off-Earth
economy begins to develop, the same broad base of enabling structures must be
developed.
It should also be noted that off-Earth mining is synergistic with planetary defense--which basically means deflecting asteroids. Some of the early products of the space miners will be small telescopes, to search for good asteroids to mine. Those could well warn us of previously unobserved bodies headed for Earth.
(Associated Press)
Conference attendees noted how timely the Chelyabinsk meteor was for our topic!
To move forward, we "space miners" will start with baby steps--including creating more superb conferences like this one.
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Day One of the Off-Earth Mining Forum
My boss at the University of New South Wales, Professor Andrew Dempster, began organizing this forum several months ago. He simply realized that Australia’s world leadership in mining automation could be brought to a conference with space engineers, creating a dialogue about how we might mine the Moon and other planets. The two asteroid mining companies, Planetary Resources and Deep Space Industries, hadn’t even been announced when he started organizing.
A few weeks ago, we published a couple of small articles on
an online academic discussion site here in Australia, talking about the forum
and how Australia might make some technical contributions to this field. Evidently we struck a chord with the press and the public. In
the last five days, I’ve been interviewed on television five times (two were
live!) and at least that many times on radio. Andrew has done an equal number
of spots, and we’re not done yet. And here's an example of the print media coverage--fairly well informed and balanced.
We have some “space mining superstars” attending the
conference. Our keynote speaker is Rene Fradet, deputy director of the
engineering and science directorate at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Rene
was the flight system manager for the amazing Curiosity rover now crawling
around Mars. Earlier, at the head of his own company, he built Curiosity’s
amazing robotic arm. The attendees were in awe of the complexity and capability
built into Curiosity, and how it was all made to work together. In my
introductory talk, I used Curiosity as an example of the first step in mining—prospecting.
Also here is Dr. Laurent Sibille of the Kennedy Space
Center, a world expert in the properties of “moon dirt,” or Regolith. Laurent
and his colleagues are working on processing the regolith found on asteroids and the Moon. He
emphasized a common theme: using the resources we find out in space will change
the game. We will transition from isolated, one-way exploration missions to a
robust space infrastructure with greatly expanded economic productivity for all
of humanity.
Dr. Hijame Yano from ISAS/JAXA in Japan came to share his asteroid
geophysics research, which has benefited from his experience as part of the
first team to explore an asteroid. For 17 years, he was part of the remarkable
Hayabusa robot mission that explored asteroid Itokawa, and returned its sample
capsule to Earth in the Australian desert in 2010. Some of the most valuable
information from that mission was the very close-up photography of Itokawa’s
surface.
(JAXA)
Many of its features look similar to Earth’s—landslides, gravel beds,
boulder fields—but why should they be similar, given how much smaller the
asteroid’s gravity is? Hijame is actually starting an entire new field of
science—Microgravity Geology.
Honeybee Robotics is a small 50-person company that has
accomplished some amazing things. They built one of the tools at the end of
Curiosity’s arm, a small mechanized brush used for cleaning the surface of
rocks so the chemistry would be accurate. Dr. Kris Zacny represented Honeybee
here at the conference. Kris is a particularly appropriate speaker for this forum since, in addition to being a
“space guy,” he is also a highly experienced miner, with 10 years in South
Africa and other mining venues.
We got a good turnout from the Australian mining community,
too. The idea was to get some real-world, hard-won experience in Earth mining
projects. A speaker who bridged the gap between high technology and production
was Dr. Adrian Boeing of Transmin, the mining equipment company. Adrian talked
about the 13-year development of RockLogic, a highly automated rock breakingand processing system. Adrian performed a valuable service for the rest of us—he
taught us the steps that were necessary to address real-world mining issues in
the development of automated processes. One important point he made was that,
once automated systems were in place, the improvement in safety was dramatic. Automated systems also improved system "up time" by reducing human error.
Also presenting was my good friend Professor Behrokh
Khoshnevis of the University of Southern California. Behrokh defines the term
“innovator.” One of his most famous inventions is the Contour Crafting process—using
robots to do 3-D printing with concrete. This concept has tremendous
applicability on Earth, particularly in its potential for providing low-cost
housing for billions of the lowest income people on Earth. Behrokh came to the
forum to discuss his NASA-funded project studying how to do Contour Crafting on the Moon, an important idea for establishing permanent bases and robotic
factories.
Notice that a crucial technology and a common theme of these
presentations was the importance of robotics. Everyone at the conference
understood that off-Earth mining is a robotic process, not one done with
astronaut miners. And after a little explaining, even the press seemed to get
it!
At the end of the first day, conferees were treated to a
cruise on Sydney Harbour. The weather was absolutely perfect. Discussions
between miners, space geeks, roboticists and materials scientists continued
over wine and dinner on the boat deck.
This topic, and this conference, really have captured
people’s imaginations. During dinner on the cruise boat, my cell phone rang.
“Hello, this is BBC London.” My interview on World Update (minute 19 of the World Update link) was broadcast
throughout the UK and the US.
Rene Fradet generously agreed to give his talk a
second time, this time for a general audience instead of a bunch of
engineers. We’re using the largest venue on campus, 950 seats. Registration was
maxed out a week ago!
I'll post again after the conference concludes.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Launch, robots, and Investing for a grand future in space
I have very strong feelings about how the US should invest in launch vehicles. So I was surprised to find, going back over the entries in this blog, that I really haven't spoken about launch. This excellent Wall Street Journal editorial was the catalyst. There's a WSJ paywall that might prevent you from reading the editorial, so I'll summarize it here. The authors are former Congressman Robert Walker and space consultant Charles Miller:
There's a lot of detail missing in the WSJ piece, so let's probe a little. What missions justified the SLS in the first place? Going to Mars. If you look at the Review of Human Spaceflight Plans Committee report--titled "Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great Nation," informally known as the Augustine report-- you see missions beyond low Earth orbit characterized by very large payloads--many tens of tons, much more than current launchers can lift. The report argues,
"No one knows the mass or dimensions of the largest hardware that will be required for future exploration missions, but it will likely be significantly larger than 25 metric tons (mt) in launch mass to low-Earth orbit, which is the capability of current launchers. As the size of the launcher increases, the result is fewer launches and less operational complexity in terms of assembly and/or refueling in space. In short, the net availability of launch capability increases. Combined with considerations of launch availability and on-orbit operations, the Committee finds that exploration would benefit from the availability of a heavy-lift vehicle."
Or in a nutshell, "Obviously we need a bigger launcher."
Obviously? Here's an alternative: using existing launchers, launch PIECES to orbit, and put them together there, using robots. Now the existing launchers get more business--their development costs are amortized, they become more reliable, costs come down.
The Augustine report is silent on the possibility of on-orbit assembly using robots. (Strangely, it extensively analyzes another untried technology, in-space refueling, which significantly enhances the efficiency of the architecture.) The committee may have rejected on-orbit assembly due to its low technology readiness or its development cost--as if the Space Launch System wasn't going to be expensive! Instead, they advocated developing an SLS which has NO other missions, rather than cooperating with industry to develop a highly reliable, dual-use launch infrastructure. And should we note that SpaceX is vigorously pursuing their Falcon Heavy design, which will have a LEO capacity of 53 metric tons?
Let me springboard off the WSJ article to pose a set of principles for a unified investment strategy in the entire launch and space operations infrastructure. And when I say entire, I mean not just NASA's missions, but everyone's: the asteroid miners, the space tourism purveyors, the settlements, the researchers, the space solar power station builders, everyone's infrastructure.
1. Invest heavily in space robotics. The miners need space-hardened robots, as will the on-orbit assembly tasks, as will the in-situ resource utilization projects, as will the GEO servicing missions, as will a robot rescue vehicle to fix JWST when one of its deployment mechanisms doesn't open. There is nearly complete synergy here, and a lot of unsolved problems. DARPA is investing via the Phoenix program, and NASA via the Robotic Refueling Mission on ISS, but these are small potatoes. We need to get serious about this.
2. Invest in very cheap small launchers. Every piece of space hardware needs to be tested in space. There is no substitute. Universities need to be able to launch things more often, to train more students for the grand space future. Launch failures must be tolerated. Range costs must be slashed. We may need to find a place with low population density where high-risk launches are tolerable (Australia comes to mind, but perhaps only because I currently live here.) Small launchers won't have the commercial viability of the big ones, so this is an important Government responsibility.
3. Provide development funds to commercial launch vehicle manufacturers when it makes sense. DARPA gave SpaceX $20 million to reserve space on Falcon 1 for a couple of payloads. This wasn't because it was DARPA's only option, but because they saw what SpaceX was doing as valuable. If a commercial rocket company needs some funds to enable on-orbit assembly, for instance, that should be considered.
4. Tolerate failure. NASA killed 14 astronauts on two Shuttle failures due to "underlying weaknesses, revealed in NASAŹ¼s organization and history, that can pave the way to catastrophic failure". How many NASA managers were fired? Zero. How long were the hiatuses in Shuttle flights? About two years each time. It would be unacceptable for the government, following a fatal accident on a commercial launch, to be more severe on the company than it has been on itself. The government issues licenses to the commercial launch people, and will tend to be very severe on companies to prove how safety conscious it is. Bureaucrats have to be closely watched to ensure they do not become an impediment to progress.
In fifty years, we can have settlers on Mars kept healthy by indigenous resources; producing fuel from lunar ice to help get them back and forth; getting completely clean energy on Earth from space solar power stations; harvesting asteroids to facilitate those projects; and generating MONEY from all of this to make it self-sustaining. This is the grand possibility, and we need to invest wisely to make it happen.
- The heavy-lift Space Launch System is unnecessary, and a waste of taxpayer funding.
- The nation has funded the development of the Atlas V and Delta IV, and contributed to the development of the Falcon 9; let's maximize the use of those.
There's a lot of detail missing in the WSJ piece, so let's probe a little. What missions justified the SLS in the first place? Going to Mars. If you look at the Review of Human Spaceflight Plans Committee report--titled "Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great Nation," informally known as the Augustine report-- you see missions beyond low Earth orbit characterized by very large payloads--many tens of tons, much more than current launchers can lift. The report argues,
"No one knows the mass or dimensions of the largest hardware that will be required for future exploration missions, but it will likely be significantly larger than 25 metric tons (mt) in launch mass to low-Earth orbit, which is the capability of current launchers. As the size of the launcher increases, the result is fewer launches and less operational complexity in terms of assembly and/or refueling in space. In short, the net availability of launch capability increases. Combined with considerations of launch availability and on-orbit operations, the Committee finds that exploration would benefit from the availability of a heavy-lift vehicle."
Or in a nutshell, "Obviously we need a bigger launcher."
Obviously? Here's an alternative: using existing launchers, launch PIECES to orbit, and put them together there, using robots. Now the existing launchers get more business--their development costs are amortized, they become more reliable, costs come down.
The Augustine report is silent on the possibility of on-orbit assembly using robots. (Strangely, it extensively analyzes another untried technology, in-space refueling, which significantly enhances the efficiency of the architecture.) The committee may have rejected on-orbit assembly due to its low technology readiness or its development cost--as if the Space Launch System wasn't going to be expensive! Instead, they advocated developing an SLS which has NO other missions, rather than cooperating with industry to develop a highly reliable, dual-use launch infrastructure. And should we note that SpaceX is vigorously pursuing their Falcon Heavy design, which will have a LEO capacity of 53 metric tons?
Let me springboard off the WSJ article to pose a set of principles for a unified investment strategy in the entire launch and space operations infrastructure. And when I say entire, I mean not just NASA's missions, but everyone's: the asteroid miners, the space tourism purveyors, the settlements, the researchers, the space solar power station builders, everyone's infrastructure.
1. Invest heavily in space robotics. The miners need space-hardened robots, as will the on-orbit assembly tasks, as will the in-situ resource utilization projects, as will the GEO servicing missions, as will a robot rescue vehicle to fix JWST when one of its deployment mechanisms doesn't open. There is nearly complete synergy here, and a lot of unsolved problems. DARPA is investing via the Phoenix program, and NASA via the Robotic Refueling Mission on ISS, but these are small potatoes. We need to get serious about this.
2. Invest in very cheap small launchers. Every piece of space hardware needs to be tested in space. There is no substitute. Universities need to be able to launch things more often, to train more students for the grand space future. Launch failures must be tolerated. Range costs must be slashed. We may need to find a place with low population density where high-risk launches are tolerable (Australia comes to mind, but perhaps only because I currently live here.) Small launchers won't have the commercial viability of the big ones, so this is an important Government responsibility.
3. Provide development funds to commercial launch vehicle manufacturers when it makes sense. DARPA gave SpaceX $20 million to reserve space on Falcon 1 for a couple of payloads. This wasn't because it was DARPA's only option, but because they saw what SpaceX was doing as valuable. If a commercial rocket company needs some funds to enable on-orbit assembly, for instance, that should be considered.
4. Tolerate failure. NASA killed 14 astronauts on two Shuttle failures due to "underlying weaknesses, revealed in NASAŹ¼s organization and history, that can pave the way to catastrophic failure". How many NASA managers were fired? Zero. How long were the hiatuses in Shuttle flights? About two years each time. It would be unacceptable for the government, following a fatal accident on a commercial launch, to be more severe on the company than it has been on itself. The government issues licenses to the commercial launch people, and will tend to be very severe on companies to prove how safety conscious it is. Bureaucrats have to be closely watched to ensure they do not become an impediment to progress.
In fifty years, we can have settlers on Mars kept healthy by indigenous resources; producing fuel from lunar ice to help get them back and forth; getting completely clean energy on Earth from space solar power stations; harvesting asteroids to facilitate those projects; and generating MONEY from all of this to make it self-sustaining. This is the grand possibility, and we need to invest wisely to make it happen.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Off-Earth mining: get the business case right
I think that The Economist is a great magazine. Their insights, objectivity and priorities have always impressed me. But in their recent article on off-Earth mining, I think they got it completely wrong.
The problem is, they're thinking in the short term, and on a small scale. It surely does not make sense to mine asteroids to make some pathetically small increase to consumption of resources on Earth. I believe that 345 tons of platinum are produced annually on Earth; how can asteroid mining possibly make a dent in that? (actually platinum is easy to dent...)
The materials are worth much more if they STAY IN SPACE. I made this point in a recent post; let's look at some numbers.
The cheapest ride nowadays is the Falcon 9. It will put about 8,000 kilograms into low Earth orbit for $59 million. That's $7,300 a kilogram. If you want to go on to geosynchronous orbit, where all the money is made, multiply that by 3 or 4. Let's say $20,000 a kilogram to GEO: that's only about 40% of the spot price of platinum ($54587.485 a kilo recently) but lumps of platinum aren't very useful in orbit. Instead let's compare that to the spot price of ALUMINUM, which is actually useful in space for things like structure: aluminum (99.5% minimum purity, LME spot price, CIF UK ports) is going for about $2000 a metric ton. That means $1 a kilo--so the cost to launch aluminum girders to GEO is 20,000 times greater than the cost of the materials.
Thus, using off-Earth-mined materials presents a new value proposition: cost avoidance. That was probably obvious; but the case only closes if someone wants to build large things in space ("large" meaning "requires enough material to justify the infrastructure cost of off-Earth mining and processing.")
In 100 years, we should be well along toward colonizing Mars, using large domes to contain breathable atmospheres, enable agriculture, and keep habitable temperatures. The transportation system in the solar system should consist of trips between orbiting fuel depots. At the same time, and using the same technologies, power on Earth and Mars should be produced by completely clean solar energy captured in orbit and beamed to the surface.
All these projects need structural materials. Nothing fancy, just strong enough to hold together in space (maybe a little better than that for the Martian surface). Even sintered dirt might do. In that large-scale vision, off-Earth mining makes complete sense.
So the asteroid miners, Planetary Resources and Deep Space Industries, are making long-term plays. They are trying to capture the market decades in the future. We are so used to thinking only to the next budget cycle or next election that we've forgotten what it means to plan for the truly long term. Or at least The Economist has.
The problem is, they're thinking in the short term, and on a small scale. It surely does not make sense to mine asteroids to make some pathetically small increase to consumption of resources on Earth. I believe that 345 tons of platinum are produced annually on Earth; how can asteroid mining possibly make a dent in that? (actually platinum is easy to dent...)
The materials are worth much more if they STAY IN SPACE. I made this point in a recent post; let's look at some numbers.
The cheapest ride nowadays is the Falcon 9. It will put about 8,000 kilograms into low Earth orbit for $59 million. That's $7,300 a kilogram. If you want to go on to geosynchronous orbit, where all the money is made, multiply that by 3 or 4. Let's say $20,000 a kilogram to GEO: that's only about 40% of the spot price of platinum ($54587.485 a kilo recently) but lumps of platinum aren't very useful in orbit. Instead let's compare that to the spot price of ALUMINUM, which is actually useful in space for things like structure: aluminum (99.5% minimum purity, LME spot price, CIF UK ports) is going for about $2000 a metric ton. That means $1 a kilo--so the cost to launch aluminum girders to GEO is 20,000 times greater than the cost of the materials.
Thus, using off-Earth-mined materials presents a new value proposition: cost avoidance. That was probably obvious; but the case only closes if someone wants to build large things in space ("large" meaning "requires enough material to justify the infrastructure cost of off-Earth mining and processing.")
In 100 years, we should be well along toward colonizing Mars, using large domes to contain breathable atmospheres, enable agriculture, and keep habitable temperatures. The transportation system in the solar system should consist of trips between orbiting fuel depots. At the same time, and using the same technologies, power on Earth and Mars should be produced by completely clean solar energy captured in orbit and beamed to the surface.
All these projects need structural materials. Nothing fancy, just strong enough to hold together in space (maybe a little better than that for the Martian surface). Even sintered dirt might do. In that large-scale vision, off-Earth mining makes complete sense.
So the asteroid miners, Planetary Resources and Deep Space Industries, are making long-term plays. They are trying to capture the market decades in the future. We are so used to thinking only to the next budget cycle or next election that we've forgotten what it means to plan for the truly long term. Or at least The Economist has.
Friday, January 25, 2013
It's getting blurry
Add vision impairment to the list of issues confronting dreams of long-duration human spaceflight.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
A meeting of the mines
Here Down Under, we're about to hold a forum on off-Earth mining . My boss has gotten some great publicity for the forum.
Off-Earth mining is the very epitome of New Space. It is far more likely to be conducted by robots than by human astronauts. It is far more likely to be conducted by private concerns than by governments. It will require extensive cooperation to get all of the technology, financing and facilities to make it happen.
As some have suggested, off-Earth mining might not make sense if you're going to bring the products back to Earth. Diamonds? They're artificially inflated anyway. Platinum? What for? Helium-3? Do we really have a way to use it economically even if there was an unlimited supply?
On the other hand, off-Earth mining is the very best approach for building large structures that DON'T come back to Earth. If you need structural materials for large geosynchronous platforms, or perhaps solar power stations--bringing the structural materials from the Moon or asteroids will avoid the huge costs of launching them from Earth. At some rate of consumption, the equation favors off-Earth sources.
The technologies for off-Earth mining will be synergistic with robotic on-orbit servicing, and robotic assembly of large objects on orbit. They will also benefit from the work now going on to automate mining operations on Earth.
This is an exciting field for new engineers to enter.
Off-Earth mining is the very epitome of New Space. It is far more likely to be conducted by robots than by human astronauts. It is far more likely to be conducted by private concerns than by governments. It will require extensive cooperation to get all of the technology, financing and facilities to make it happen.
As some have suggested, off-Earth mining might not make sense if you're going to bring the products back to Earth. Diamonds? They're artificially inflated anyway. Platinum? What for? Helium-3? Do we really have a way to use it economically even if there was an unlimited supply?
On the other hand, off-Earth mining is the very best approach for building large structures that DON'T come back to Earth. If you need structural materials for large geosynchronous platforms, or perhaps solar power stations--bringing the structural materials from the Moon or asteroids will avoid the huge costs of launching them from Earth. At some rate of consumption, the equation favors off-Earth sources.
The technologies for off-Earth mining will be synergistic with robotic on-orbit servicing, and robotic assembly of large objects on orbit. They will also benefit from the work now going on to automate mining operations on Earth.
This is an exciting field for new engineers to enter.
Getting to Mars without getting sick
We don't talk about human spaceflight too much on this blog. But I couldn't resist weighing in on this discussion on BBC about the merits of centrifuges for inducing artificial gravity . Get it? Weighing in?
To some, it's "obvious" that creating a centrifugally-induced artificial gravitational field will mitigate the health effects of weightlessness. To others, maybe not so obvious. The BBC article itself talks about "theories" of how this could benefit long-duration space travelers.
About 50% of all astronauts get space sickness. One of the most comprehensive and comprehensible accounts is in the marvelous "Packing For Mars" by Mary Roach. And these are ASTRONAUTS. But more worrisome is the bone mass loss that seems inevitable in zero-g. Roach tells us that you might be able to exercise your way around much bone loss, as Commander Peggy Whitson did on her first ISS trip. But this increases oxygen and food consumption--is that really a good thing?
Perhaps a centrifuge is the answer. But how many hours a day in the artificial gravity of a centrifuge would be enough to mitigate health effects? How much difference might it make that the gravitational field at the astronaut's head is different from the one at her feet? That's called the "tidal force," by the way--a change in field over a relatively short distance.
The most important experiment ever conceived for the International Space Station was the centrifuge experiment. It hasn't been done, for whatever reason. Until it is done, one of the greatest risks of a long space voyage (the other being radiation damage) is still not understood.
To some, it's "obvious" that creating a centrifugally-induced artificial gravitational field will mitigate the health effects of weightlessness. To others, maybe not so obvious. The BBC article itself talks about "theories" of how this could benefit long-duration space travelers.
About 50% of all astronauts get space sickness. One of the most comprehensive and comprehensible accounts is in the marvelous "Packing For Mars" by Mary Roach. And these are ASTRONAUTS. But more worrisome is the bone mass loss that seems inevitable in zero-g. Roach tells us that you might be able to exercise your way around much bone loss, as Commander Peggy Whitson did on her first ISS trip. But this increases oxygen and food consumption--is that really a good thing?
Perhaps a centrifuge is the answer. But how many hours a day in the artificial gravity of a centrifuge would be enough to mitigate health effects? How much difference might it make that the gravitational field at the astronaut's head is different from the one at her feet? That's called the "tidal force," by the way--a change in field over a relatively short distance.
The most important experiment ever conceived for the International Space Station was the centrifuge experiment. It hasn't been done, for whatever reason. Until it is done, one of the greatest risks of a long space voyage (the other being radiation damage) is still not understood.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
How to refuel a satellite
The Spacecraft Servicing Capabilities Office of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center has organized a series of tests to show how a satellite can be refueled with robotics tools. The chief tool is Dextre, a multi-armed robot built in Canada and attached to the end of the Canadarm on the International Space Station. A five-day experiment showing how to remove the "gas cap" has made the news in Canada.
One thing to notice about these experiments: both the tools, and the simulated satellite, are firmly attached to the ISS. There are no dynamics in the problem, i.e., things aren't moving around relative to each other. That is a critical requirement for complex, dexterous manipulation.
In a real situation, where a space "gas truck" wanted to refuel a free-flying satellite, how would the dynamics be taken out of the problem? Most likely by joining the two together, using robot arms to make the connection rigid and firm. Fortunately, we've known how to do that since 2008.
One thing to notice about these experiments: both the tools, and the simulated satellite, are firmly attached to the ISS. There are no dynamics in the problem, i.e., things aren't moving around relative to each other. That is a critical requirement for complex, dexterous manipulation.
In a real situation, where a space "gas truck" wanted to refuel a free-flying satellite, how would the dynamics be taken out of the problem? Most likely by joining the two together, using robot arms to make the connection rigid and firm. Fortunately, we've known how to do that since 2008.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Another advance for commercial space operations
Today's news feed from the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics reports:
"NASA, Bigelow Reach An Agreement On Inflatable Space Habitat.
"NASA, Bigelow Reach An Agreement On Inflatable Space Habitat.
"Space News
(1/8, Leone, Subscription Publication) reports, 'NASA and Bigelow
Aerospace have reached an agreement that could pave the way for
attaching a Bigelow-built inflatable space habitat to the international
space station, a NASA spokesman said.' NASA spokesperson Trent Perrotto
said a deal was signed last month, but revealed little else to the
publication other than a formal announcement is coming. The article
notes 'Bigelow
and NASA have been discussing an inflatable addition to the space
station for years.'"
Bigelow Aerospace is the creation of Robert Bigelow, founder of the Budget Suites hotel chain. Like Elon Musk's SpaceX, Bigelow Aerospace is privately funded. And it's a small world: SpaceX is Bigelow's exclusive launch provider.
The inflatable habitat technology was originally developed by NASA. The history of Bigelow in Wikipedia gives an excellent explanation of the design enhancements they've made, and the applications they are targeting. Often it's thought that the goal is space tourism--which is an enduring legend consistent with the fact that the founder is a hotelier. But the goals are much broader, as the NASA-Bigelow agreement shows.
Here's a NASA image of the ISS configuration with the Bigelow inflatable module attached:
As we've said before, New Space is going to be more about companies and less about governments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)