Happy weekend, everyone.
Are you serious about this relationship we have, NASA? We’ve been messing around for years and it’s been fun but I’m not a young kid anymore. I’m getting impatient. I’ve invested more than a decade in you and what has it gotten me? Let’s get real: are we going to Mars or not, NASA?
All joking aside, a few items make me wonder how serious NASA really is about getting humans to Mars. Consider:
1. We don’t have a budget. NASA has yet to tell us how much it is going to cost to send humans to Mars. We literally have no official estimate of the price tag, could it be well over $100 billion? It’s hard to take the organization’s commitment seriously if they won’t say how much they need from Congress to do it.
2. We don’t have a schedule. NASA and the President give different deadlines for completing the mission. In a major space policy speech in 2010 President Obama said we would land on Mars “in the mid 2030s.” NASA’s website concurs, saying we will land “in the 2030s” i.e. by 2039. But in November 2015, the NASA administrator randomly moved the landing date up to 2030. In light of this confusion one can’t help but think NASA has a sincere hope of going to Mars but no actual plan.
3. Mars is killing me. Or it would, if I was on the way there. Really, between the zero-gravity and the radiation, an astronaut might arrived crippled or brain-damaged before even setting foot on the planet. NASA’s plan to figure this out? Send one guy to live in space for a year. A sample size of one is insufficient to fully understand these risks and mitigate against them.
Listen NASA, I love you, I really do. I want to make this work. Please get your act together and let’s go to Mars already, ok?
Update: The Marshall Space Flight Center is developing super-fast nuclear Mars rockets. I’m so happy!! Maybe, just maybe, NASA, we can work this out after all??
If America can put a man on the Moon…
…why can’t America put a man on the Moon?
This is the question posed at the beginning of an intriguing (dare I say groundbreaking?) study recently published by NexGen Space.
The study was funded by NASA, reviewed by an all-star cast of actual rocket scientists and, to top it all off, endorsed by Buzz Aldrin himself.
Bottom line: we can return to the Moon in seven years (from when we say go!) and do it within NASA’s current human spaceflight budget ($3B per year). A decade or so after that, we can have a fully functioning manned Lunar outpost delivering rocket fuel to orbit, greatly facilitating Mars exploration.
We can return to the Moon with the existing NASA budget and in less than seven years.
Don’t believe it? Read the report yourself, right here:
At one point or another every space enthusiast asks the question: when can I get my trip to the Moon? When will I get to walk on Mars and mine asteroids? When will I be able to visit a gigantic space settlement and check in to my zero-gravity hotel room? In short, when is all this space stuff going to become real?
Loyal readers know that This Orbital Life likes to take a comprehensive view of the space development arena. We cover technology and engineering but also financial, political and societal developments related to space. We’re not just a news site; we’re also a discussion and analysis site. As such, This Orbital Life is well-placed to take a dispassionate, holistic view of the current space development field and make some long-term predictions.
Some notes before we dig in: this list is a sampling and does not include every activity or firm in the commercial space universe. It is biased to those companies and organizations that This Orbital Life thinks has the best chance of turning their plans into reality. So you will not see companies like Golden Spike or Deep Space Industries in this article. This Orbital Life wishes them all the best but their absence is a sober acceptance of the fact that these firms are poorly financed and unlikely to achieve their goals. You will also not see a mention of exotic vaporware like single stage to orbit, laser-propelled launch vehicles, space elevators, or other things that are unlikely to come to fruition in the next fifteen years. Finally, you’ll notice that many of these items (like the SLS Exploration Mission 1) appear on the timeline later than they’re currently scheduled to occur. This is not a mistake; it is our prediction as to when these things will actually happen.
With that disclaimer, let’s get to the predictions. Here they are, starting a few years in the future:
What do you think? Be sure to comment! (scroll to the top of the page to leave comments)
On April 7, 2001 NASA launched the Mars Odyssey spacecraft from Cape Canaveral. Mars Odyssey is an orbital probe (not a lander) that circles the Red Planet. It’s mission, essentially, is to act as a communications satellite for landers on the surface and to detect water on Mars. It found strong evidence for water in 2002, a discovery that was later confirmed by the Phoenix lander in 2008.
If that’s not cool enough, we taxpayers really got our money’s worth (all $297 million) for this little guy. Mars Odyssey holds the record for the longest-surviving continually active spacecraft in orbit around a planet other than Earth. Finding water, relaying messages to surface landers and keeping an eye on Martian weather. What a hard-working little robot. And it’s still going strong!
Hat tip: Encyclopedia Astronautica
As you may have already heard, Scott Kelly and Mikhail Kornienko will spend a year aboard the International Space Station.
They will work, play, eat, exercise, sleep and live in a space no larger than the interior volume of a 747. With four other people.
Their lives will be defined by tubes: they’ll eat food out of foil tubes, pee into plastic tubes all inside a giant aluminum…tube.
They’ll see tens of thousands of sunrises and sunsets as the space station passes from night to day and back again.
They’ll see the majesty of earth from orbit every single day.
So, besides the awesome view, why the heck are these guys agreeing to do this? All joking aside, a year is a long time to be away from friends and family and..uh..fresh air.
We really don’t know how to keep someone alive in space for years at a time.
For comparison’s sake, you might recall that an Apollo mission took about a week from start to finish. By sending an astronaut up for a year, NASA is hoping to learn how the human body reacts to extremely long duration space flights so as to figure out some ways to mitigate radiation and microgravity risks. In short, Scott Kelly has become the world’s most expensive Martian guinea pig.
Bottom line, if you wanna go to Mars, you gotta learn how to live in space first. Hmmm sounds like another reason why space settlement would be a good first step to a Mars mission.
Space News recently published an op-ed implying that $1.5 trillion is a reasonable amount of money to spend on a manned Mars program. That’s one point five trillion dollars, with a T.
The op-ed was written by O. Glenn Smith, a former manager of the Space Shuttle program. Because of his experience at NASA, we can safely assume he knows what he’s talking about and his estimates are sound. Which is part of the problem: expecting Congress to spend $1.5 trillion on a manned Mars program is unrealistic. It’s worse than unrealistic, it’s bananas. It will never, ever happen.
Expecting Congress to spend $1.5 trillion on an Apollo-like Mars program is, quite simply, bananas.
The author writes that NASA’s annual budget will have to increase to $54 billion per year, up from $18 billion per year. A 300% increase for at least twenty years. There are only a few scenarios where Congress might be persuaded to spend that kind of money on the civilian human space program:
1. Sentient alien life is found on Mars. Like, ya know, little green men with ray guns.
2. China or Russia or [insert any geopolitical boogieman] decides to bankrupt itself and go to Mars first. Not gonna happen; their economies are slowing and they have higher priorities like feeding their populations.
3. Tens of millions of heretofore unknown American voters are discovered living in a hidden space colony on Mars.
But let’s be serious. Despite the shortcomings in the article, the author should be commended for having the courage to put a number on a Mars program. There are a lot of unrealistic expectations about Mars and this will hopefully put a lot of them to bed. Which is good: it will help the space community focus on what is achievable rather than tilting at Martian windmills.
Establishing self-sufficient, self-replicating human communities in space should be the first step in any Mars program.
What is achievable? Establishing self-sufficient, self-replicating human communities in space via public-private partnerships between NASA and the aerospace industry. Once these communities are up and running, a sprint to Mars becomes easier, less expensive and more feasible.
by Liam Ginty
As we push toward a space settlement future, some of the earliest safety questions will regard deadly radiation. How will people live safely in space for extended periods of time amidst the ocean of cosmic rays that surrounds our planet and permeates space beyond the protective bubble of Earth’s magnetosphere? What methods of protection will the people living and working in space colonies need, and how capable are we of providing those protections now?
Surprisingly, the question of radiation is a relatively short term one. It is thought that around six feet of soil or around two meters of water works as an effective radiation shield, and the citizens of a large scale space colony would have a great deal more mass than that between them and the invisible rays bombarding their home. The risk of radiation is one that the earliest pioneers would have to face: the asteroid miners, construction workers, and architects working and living in the orbital equivalent of pre-fab offices and living spaces.
There are several kinds of radiation that threaten the early settlers of space. Solar radiation is the most common and is one of the easier threats to negate. The more problematic elements of solar radiation come from coronal mass ejections. These massive solar events happen fairly frequently, around once every five days. They see the Sun shudder off intense solar weather; this solar wind carries an incredible amount of charged particles that could be dangerous to any insufficiently shielded humans, or even computers, in space.
Astronauts aboard the International Space Station (ISS) have experienced these ejections countless times, and by and large they have been relatively uneventful. There is a procedure in place whereby astronauts are to retreat to heavily shielded areas of the ISS (such as the Discovery module, or the Zarya module), close the window shutters and wait out the solar storm. Similar tactics could be utilized by the builders and miners living in space – their short term homes could be constructed with a central radiation shelter, reinforced with crushed rocks and metals or a layer of water.
Galactic cosmic rays are a wholly different story. Mysterious beams of charged particles from far off supernovae moving with more energy than those launched by the Large Hadron Collider, cosmic rays stand as one of the most severe barriers to orbital colonization. These charged particles are notoriously difficult to shield against and some shielding can actually increases the amount of radiation exposure. It’s thought that exposure to these rays alone would increase an adult’s chance of lethal cancer by 10-17% over the span of 3 years.
Coronal mass ejections seem to ‘deflect’ galactic cosmic rays
Interestingly, the spurts of increased solar weather brought on by coronal ejections may actually help protect our hypothetical pioneers. Due to an observed, but not entirely understood effect known as a Forbush Decrease, coronal mass ejections seem to ‘deflect’ galactic cosmic rays that can provide a window of reduced exposure. This, combined with a series of mechanical and biological radiation protection could prove invaluable to the future workers of space.
The risks posed by these rays are not solely biological. Cosmic rays can cause EMP-like effects on electronics and cosmic rays are thought to have caused damage to the Voyager 2 probe in 2010. Cosmic rays and radiation can cause ‘soft errors’ in sensitive electronics, such as corrupted data, unusual CPU performance, and other issues. As transistors shrink in size, these issues are becoming a concern for ground-level electronics. Several solutions for these issues already exist, with most space-borne electronics being ‘rad-hardened’ to avoid many of the issues. Research is still ongoing, with more advanced concepts, such as Intel’s proposal for including a ‘Cosmic Ray Detector’ in future processors, which would resend commands when a cosmic ray is detected.
These rays may seem unbeatable, but conventional shielding can reduce exposure significantly. Assuming construction of thicker radiation shielding is made a priority by any mining or construction mission, the threat becomes more manageable. The reason radiation is viewed as a roadblock to space exploration is not due to the impracticality of constructing effective material shielding, but due to the vast expense of launching the shielding itself, with launch costs around $5,000/lb, it just isn’t feasible to launch a ship with several tons of shielding. A construction crew could utilize in situ materials to construct far more effective shielding than it would ever be cost effective to launch from Earth.
Finally, a more advanced form of radiation shielding could provide the perfect defense against both cosmic rays and solar radiation: electromagnetic shielding. Large superconducting magnets could, in theory, be attached to smaller colonies and project a powerful magnetic blanket over the exterior of the habitat, warding off a significant amount of radiation. This, combined with a layer of water or some other material shielding, would protect against almost any imagined assault by radiation. Active Shielding is currently being explored by many groups, such as NASA’s Innovative Advanced Concepts program, but, as Shayne Westover of the Johnson Space Center puts it – “The concept of shielding astronauts with magnetic fields has been studied for over 40 years, and it remains an intractable engineering problem. [But] superconducting magnet technology has made great strides in the last decade.”
Even with the material shielding and artificially generated magnetic fields, radiation creates a huge risk for any long term human presence in space. Stations and habitats of the future have been designed with this in mind, and have included large amounts of shielding in their engineering. Most design their central living spaces within a layer of rock and dirt, gathered from nearby asteroids or the lunar surface, providing the required 5-10 tons/m2 of mass required to simulate Earth’s protective atmosphere.
Island Three, one of Gerard O’Neill’s designs, is angled as to ensure solar radiation has to pass through a large, shielded ‘cap’ before it reaches inside the colony, with large shielded mirrors tilted to provide sunlight to the inhabitants. In Kalpana One, a settlement designed by Al Globus of the NSS, colonists can take refuge inside a central swimming pool during extreme solar storms, taking advantage of the added protection provided by the water.
While the prohibitive issue of mass and launch costs stop any Earth-borne space mission from constructing the sorts of extensive radiation shielding discussed above, such restrictions would not apply to a colony or work camp constructed in space. Utilizing asteroids and lunar minerals to construct as much shielding as required to properly protect the workers and colonists is the ultimate construction solution.
Despite all of these options, radiation still poses a threat to humanity’s future in space. Many of the solutions rely on a small established presence in space to begin with, therefore the earliest workers will be taking a large risk in constructing these footholds. The threat of radiation is, however, a threat we can understand and overcome – the technology to do so already exists for the most part, the problem, once again, is financial.
Radiation even provides an additional reason why space colonization is so vital to our efforts as a species. With an established space colony, construction on a truly safe, deep space-faring ship would be trivial compared to building one on Earth. With no concerns for launch costs, the radiation shielding and safety measures would be unconstrained and future exploration of the solar system could be a much safer affair.
 Water in this instance would prove a more effective shielding method, as the water can also be used for coolant
 For example, high atomic-number materials such as lead works very well against photons, but can produce body-harming X-Rays when interacting with beta particles.
 Based on an estimate from the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on a manned mission to Mars (Radioactivity in the Environment (vol 7, p 894))
Getting into space is complicated. It’s expensive. It’s risky. So what’s the average, run-of-the-mill space enthusiast to do? You know, the type of person who isn’t an actual rocket scientist or astronaut? Sure you can watch the launches, go to the museums and defend NASA at cocktail parties but that won’t get you or your stuff into space. If you’re the type of person that longs to go into space, that scribbled rocketships in the margins of your notebooks in school, that watches Firefly and thinks space pirate should be an actual career option, well, have I got the project for you.
This is not a model. It is the design of a real spacecraft that the National Space Society intends to build, launch and recover. It will be packed with experiments, one of which could be yours.
Now, some reality checks are in order. It will only be eight feet long so it won’t carry people, or even one person. And the NSS needs to raise a whopping $40 million to fund the entire project. They say they have a number of deep-pocketed corporate sponsors but 40 million is, needless to say, an ambitious fundraising goal. We shall see.
But they picked a great name: this project is called the Enterprise in Space. It will be the first (non-fictional) object with the name Enterprise to fly in space. How cool is that? We here at This Orbital Life salute the NSS for giving all of us a chance to be involved in the construction of a real spaceship.
by Liam Ginty
Warning sirens blare throughout the station – red lights flash and alert the inhabitants of the incoming danger. Solemn glances are exchanged in the control room, and the view screen fills with the image of a massive chunk of rock, headed directly toward the colony. The smaller rocks hit first; holes are smashed into the glass encasing the habitat, sending a rain of broken glass into the orbital home. The habitat starts to vent its oxygen, just as the asteroid collides with the cylinder. A plume of fire and metal expands where the colony once stood.
Sound familiar? Sci-Fi would have us believe that the inevitable end result of almost any space colony is a fiery explosion brought on by a massive asteroid collision. But how likely is it that a colony would face this sort of destruction, and is there anything that could be done to avoid it? In this article, we take a look at our neighbors in the solar system: Asteroids.
A sphere of debris surrounds Earth, both the man-made satellites that clutter our skies and the thousands of asteroids and comets that swing close to the Earth. We refer to these as Near Earth Objects (NEOs). NEOs are one of the most useful, valuable assets available to a space colony – they are filled with vast mineral riches, more than enough to fuel a spacefaring civilization for eons. They also constitute a serious threat, not only to any future space colony, but to Earth itself.
There is, unfortunately, very little research done to determine exactly how dangerous the regions of space beyond our atmosphere can be. While NASA operates a series of projects aimed at cataloging NEOs in our close proximity loosely known as ‘Spaceguard’, these are mostly designed to protect the Earth from the threat of a catastrophic asteroid impact. Several experiments and projects have given us some vital information, however. Prime among these are the seismic detectors placed on the Moon by the Apollo missions; these tools were used in the 70s to collect data on moonquakes and other seismic events, including impact events. In his book, The High Frontier, Gerard O’Neill compiled the data from several sources including these devices and concluded:
One finds that in order to be struck by a meteoroid of really large size, one ton, a large ‘Island Three’ [O’Neill’s proposed orbital colony] community would have to wait around a million years. Such a strike should by no means destroy a well-designed habitat, but it would certainly produce a hole and cause local damage.
While one could call O’Neill’s predictions of the colony’s sturdiness optimistic at the least, his examination of the data available to him is relatively sound. He goes on to say that high velocity, high frequency impacts would be a far greater concern, stating, “…there’d be a strike by [a small tennis ball sized meteoroid] once every 3 years.” The reason for the small number of impacts stems from the relative remoteness of the habitat’s potential location: far enough away from Earth and the Moon’s gravity wells that most meteoroids would be swept away by their respective masses.
Much of the data O’Neill worked with has been supplanted by more up-to-date information. The new data is significantly less optimistic, with smaller impacts happening once every year or so. Although these tennis ball sized impacts still pose a large risk to the colony (jamming the rotation motors, smashing radiation shielding or the solar arrays, even puncturing the habitat itself), the relatively low frequency of these impacts, coupled with compartmentalization and proper safety polices, these risks are manageable. While Hollywood would have us believe even the smallest puncture in the outer shell of a space station will instantly lead to a massive decompression event, the reality is that on a reasonably sized colony, it would take months for the atmosphere to leak out.
Some data suggests that a habitat at L5 would be safer with respect to asteroids than a station orbiting the Earth, considering that the massive gravity wells of the Moon and the Earth pull the vast majority of all debris toward them. Any habitat sufficiently outside of Earth’s orbit will not have to contend with the barrage of man-made debris either. Finally, the development of specialized radar equipment and anti-meteoroid systems could nullify the risk posed by all but the biggest asteroids – and even those would not pose an insurmountable challenge to a well-designed colony.
For those reasons, the construction of a colony in space would by necessity lead to an expansion of our planetary defenses as early industry establishes itself in Earth’s orbit. Space-based sensor arrays would be a requirement on any large colony, and these would collect endless reams of data on asteroids, both big and small. This – combined with the relative ease with which a colony could construct and conduct an asteroid-capture mission, would almost completely negate the risk to our civilization by a large asteroid impact. Currently Earth is a sitting duck with barely a single percent of space funding being put towards a planetary defense system.
While the worst case scenario of a massive asteroid colliding with a colony makes for good TV, the reality of the situation is that we have far more to benefit from these massive rocks than we risk. Asteroids are almost certainly the answer to many of the problems we are currently facing as a civilization. In the near future, much of the resources we rely on for our current level of development will begin to dwindle. This can be offset by advances in technology, recycling, and other measures, but sooner or later, humanity will run out of these materials. Luckily, high above us floats a treasure trove of vast riches, just waiting to be exploited.
Even some of the smallest asteroids we observe contain many tons of raw materials, the combined total material mass of even just the closest, most easy to reach NEOs is unfathomable, many times more than the Earth’s reserves – take the oft mentioned asteroid 1986 DA, containing over 10 billion tons of iron, a billion tons of nickel as well as ten thousand tons of gold. Colonies in space would allow us to quickly and easily capture and mine these space rocks, providing us with an ample supply of materials not just to fuel the Earth’s constant need for them, but also to expand industry in space. Currently if we want to build a space station, or a solar power plant, or any other large scale project, the materials have to be constructed on Earth and sent into space bit by bit, using an exorbitant delivery system that hamstrings any real meaningful development of this new frontier.
If a single colony were to be established in space, this would become a null point. A structure in space would be able to launch missions to retrieve asteroids with relative ease, bringing the rocks to the colony for processing, or mining them in-situ via relatively traditional mining methods or more advanced methods, such as magnetic rakes or heat treating the rock.
Currently, several groups and corporations have proposed mining operations. Planetary Resources plans to create a fuel depot in space by using water extracted from asteroids, Deep Space Industries aims to begin mining by 2023, and NASA has been investigating several different methods for determining if asteroid mining is profitable. Recently a group of astronomers at Strathclyde have determined a number of asteroids as EROs, easily retrievable objects.
Many of these plans attract a great deal of skepticism and rightly so: asteroid mining will almost certainly never be a profitable venture when the mission has to overcome Earth’s gravity first. But the establishment of a colony will see the cost of retrieval plummet and provide a place for workers and skilled engineers to live while they process the raw materials of an asteroid into new structures and usable materials.
All of the pie-in-the-sky designs and plans we so often hear about would be completely within the realms of possibility. Large scale solar collectors could be constructed to transmit unlimited solar energy to Earth, sun screens could reduce the effects of climate change on our planet, and even the elusive dream of a Moon base would be easily within our grasp.
Asteroids are scary. They are responsible for at least one mass extinction event on our world and may be responsible for thousands of deaths and injuries since – we all remember the shocking images and damage caused by the small meteor strike in Russia in 2013. While it is easy for us to cower from these seemingly unstoppable juggernauts, humanity has a history of turning its adversaries into allies and our threats into opportunities. Asteroids are just another one of these tamable beasts, waiting for the first brave pioneers to make use of their vast wealth.
 Although many NEOs are not metallic, asteroids with other compositions have a variety of uses.
Last summer, SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell said the company is planning for a reusable Falcon 9 to cost no more than $7 million to launch. If SpaceX achieves that goal (which looks likely to occur), it will provide the lowest cost launches in history. See the table below:
|Max payload to Orbit|
|Cost per lb||kg||lbs||Cost per launch|
|Atlas V 401 (EELV)||$2,392||18810||41382||$98 Million|
|Falcon 9 v1.1||$2,115||13150||28930||$61 Million|
|Falcon 9-R||$242||13150||28930||$7 Million|
So what does that really mean? We crunched the numbers here at This Orbital Life. Today it would cost about $2.2 billion to boost something the size of the ISS into orbit. For the same amount of money (but using the Falcon 9-R) we could boost ten times the mass into orbit. So, instead of a station that supports only six astronauts, we could put enough mass in orbit to support sixty.
We could use that mega-sized space station as a staging ground and a construction yard for Mars missions. Lots of them. Current plans call for NASA to spend almost $2 billion just to launch the fuel the spacecraft will need to go to Mars. That doesn’t count the actual spacecraft itself. For that $2 billion and, again, at $242 per pound, we could launch four complete missions to Mars. Four full missions for the price of just the fuel for one mission.
Falcon 9-R could boost ten times the amount of materiel into orbit for the same price we are paying today.
For those who prefer tables, maybe this will help:
|Object||Mass (lbs, est.) delivered to orbit||NASA rocket ($5,200/lb)||Atlas V 401 ($2,392/lb)||Falcon 9-R ($242/lb)|
|ISS||921,800||$4.79 Billion||$2.2 Billion||$0.22 Billion|
|Nautilus-X||792,000||$4.11 Billion||$1.89 Billion||$0.19 Billion|
|Mars mission||1,867,140||$9.71 Billion||$4.47 Billion||$0.45 Billion|
So I know that’s a lot of numbers. But what it shows is that if the Falcon 9-R is successful we could be on the verge of an explosion of activity in orbital space. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that it could enable the fulfillment of lots of long-held space dreams. Things like zero gravity resorts, vacations to the Moon, settlements on Mars, asteroid mining and lots of exciting scientific discoveries and engineering breakthroughs.
The Falcon 9-R is already being tested. We here at This Orbital Life believe it could become commercially available within the next five years. Once proven, it won’t take long for the impacts to be felt. Strap yourself in, the future is coming fast!
A previous post proposed a new national space policy, specifically regarding human spaceflight. A key component of the new policy will be public-private partnerships to solidify and expand the permanent human presence in Earth orbit, and thus lay the groundwork for a mission to Mars. This post will describe three public-private partnerships that will help to do just that. They are ‘Commercial Station’, ‘Commercial Resources’ and ‘Commercial Transport.’
Luckily, humanity already has a permanent foothold in space in the form of the International Space Station. At any one time there are six human beings living and working in space aboard ISS, or simply ‘Station,’ as it is called. Station is a incredible feat of engineering and international cooperation. It took decades to design and build and it rivals the Apollo program as humanity’s greatest achievement in space.
Unfortunately, it’s deteriorating rapidly and will have to be replaced no later than 2028. It cost over $100 billion to build and billions more per year to operate. We must find a cheaper solution if we are to continue the research necessary to push on to Mars.
Happily, as a result of the experience gained with ISS, the private sector is in a position to provide commercial space stations. NASA does not have to spend $100 billion and ten years to build a whole new station. Instead, by 2028 it will be possible to rent space in a private space station, just like one can rent space in an office building on Earth today.
But how to develop the market and ultimately choose a landlord? Well, why not have a competition? The private sector makes a compelling case. For instance, Bigelow Aerospace, a premier commercial space station operator that has already flown station hardware, is offering a station equivalent in size to the ISS for $1.35 billion per year. For comparison NASA requested over $3 billion for Station operations in fiscal year 2015. However, due to design efficiencies, Bigelow’s station could accommodate at least twice as many astronauts.
For instance, one private space station offers twice as much capacity for half the price of the NASA station.
So how might the aforementioned competition work? It would be very simple. NASA could issue a request for proposals (RFP) for commercial operators to provide accommodations for government astronauts to live and work on a privately-operated space station. NASA could offer, say, $1.35 billion per year for six astronauts to occupy 900 cubic meters (the volume of the current space station). The respondents to the RFP would work with NASA to meet the government’s specific criteria before any contracts were signed. Over time with subsequent proposals and more competition, it is likely that the price might fall even further. Additionally, other space agencies and commercial operators, like space tourism companies, would join NASA as tenants in the burgeoning commercial space station industry.
Of course, this new generation of space station, as well as any eventual mission to Mars, will need supplies. Things like fuel, oxygen, water and radiation shielding. That brings us to the next partnership that will enable the new national space policy:
The ten or twenty people living in space once ‘Commercial Station’ is up and running will require relatively small amounts of supplies to survive. Those supplies will probably be brought up from Earth on rockets.
However, getting to Mars is a completely different story. One trip to the Red Planet will require 428 tons of fuel. For comparison, the ISS (the biggest thing ever to be put in space) masses about 419 tons. So we’re talking a lot of fuel. To get it all into orbit, NASA is planning to spend billions of dollars.
But making rocket fuel is a relatively simple process, even in space. And the raw materials are up there too, in the form of asteroids just floating around. Perhaps the private sector could deliver propellant to NASA and figure out a way to do it cheaper than sending it all up from Earth?
Theoretically, if NASA used the cheapest rocket to launch 428 tons into orbit (which they won’t), it would cost $1.07 billion. Instead, NASA could offer to purchase the equivalent amount of fuel for $1 billion, assuming it was delivered where they needed it (low earth orbit) and in a usable form. And that’s only for one mission; they could offer the same deal for every other mission to Mars. This would save the taxpayer tens of millions of dollars and provide a billion incentives for the private sector to set up a sustainable rocket fuel industry in space.
Oh and by the way, the same stuff that makes rocket fuel also makes great drinks, breathing air and radiation shielding: it’s good ol’ water ice. So our Commercial Resources partnership not only provides fuel for the mission to Mars cheaper than NASA could do it, but it also establishes a supply chain in space for cheap oxygen, water and shielding.
Going to Mars will require humans to test equipment and techniques on the Moon which in turn will require an intermittent base on the lunar surface. But in order to properly establish and supply a base, we need a means to get to and from said base. In short, what we need are regularly scheduled commercial flights between low earth orbit and lunar orbit.
What we need are regularly scheduled commercial flights between low earth orbit and lunar orbit.
In 2004, NASA estimated it would cost $63.8 billion to return humans to the moon once. Just once. But getting something the size of the original moon lander into orbit today would only cost about $70 million (using the cheap rockets referenced above). To get it all the way to lunar orbit would require additional fuel and a booster spacecraft costing about another $500 million. So, rounding up, let’s say it will cost $600 million, one way to the Moon. That’s for a craft that holds two astronauts and a few tons of cargo. Of course our estimate doesn’t count development costs. But, come on, we’ve done this before. Will it really cost NASA $63.2 billion to reinvent the wheel?
If so, it’s an opportunity for another partnership. Rather than spending all that money on something it’s already done, NASA could instead issue another request for proposals indicating it wants to purchase, say, ten round trip flights to the Moon for $12 billion (assuming a one-way trip costs $600 million). There could be two trips a year (every six months) so the budgetary impact would be $1.2 billion per year for ten years. This would take astronauts from the Earth’s surface to low lunar orbit. Then they would use the NASA lander to finish the trip and go down to the NASA base on the lunar surface to perform their research and experiments. $1.2 billion per year may sound like a lot but it sure beats $63 billion plus. Also, the Commercial Transport provider will have other customers: there are lots of other firms with plans to go to the Moon for various reasons. And they all need a ride to get there.
Towards An Orbital Economy
A summary of the costs so far, compared to space station spending:
|$ billions per year||deliverable for the year|
|Commercial Station||1.35||12-astronaut capacity space station|
|Commercial Resources||1.00||428 tons of LH2/LOX in low earth orbit|
|Commercial Transport||1.20||2 round trips between Earth and low lunar orbit|
|FY2016 NASA Budget Request for
|3.13||6-astronaut capacity space station|
The total cost of these proposals total is $3.55 billion per year. Compared to $3.13 billion for ISS operations in 2016.
But let’s set the costs aside for a moment. Stepping back, one can see that these plans create an economic ecosystem of self-sustaining and self-reinforcing business relationships in space. Over the long term, Commercial Transport could provide transportation services to private entities wishing to get out of low earth orbit and establish stations, mining facilities or workshops in other areas of the orbital neighborhood. Commercial Resources will provide the fuel and supplies for those entities and Commercial Station will provide the housing.
These plans create an economic ecosystem of self-sustaining and self-reinforcing business relationships in space.
And by acting as an anchor tenant in the beginning stages NASA will not only enable Mars exploration, but it will also kick-start the creation of an enduring orbital economy.
To comment, please click the link at the beginning of the article.
With the U.S. Presidential election now underway, it’s a good time to start thinking about how to improve our national space policy. The existing space policy covers a lot of ground in various areas. This post will focus on the sexy stuff: civilian human space flight. In other words, how to get astronauts into space and figuring out what they should do once they’re up there.
The next President should instruct NASA to pursue three goals in sequence: first, expand the permanent human presence in orbit. Second, establish an intermittent presence on the Moon. Third, a ‘sprint’ to Mars.
Three goals: humans in orbit, an outpost on the Moon, and a sprint to Mars (and back).
Why three goals? The first two steps are needed to properly achieve the third. Sending humans to Mars is a good and worthy goal. Learning once and for all whether or not life evolved on a separate planet could change our species. Furthermore, learning if Mars can once again support life (like, say, human life!) will change the world again. Also, a mission to Mars is an inspiring event, especially if it is an international collaboration, as we here at TOL think it ought to be.
But current policy makes a human to Mars mission unlikely. It’s too expensive, too bureaucratic and it won’t happen for decades (assuming Congress funds it all). Worse, once it’s done, there will be little infrastructure left in space to do it again. In other words, the current strategy will spend tens of billions of dollars to get flags and footprints on Mars. After that, all the rockets and technology developed for the project will be put into mothballs. It’s happened before and we’re on the path to make the same mistake again.
The alternative policy proposed here will provide a more enduring human presence in space. A key component of the strategy is to engage the private sector to lower costs and allow NASA to focus on exploration versus transportation. First, the U.S. government should establish a public-private partnership to replace the International Space Station with a commercial venture. Rather than spending billions to build a new space station (once the current one is retired in 2028), the U.S. government can rent space from a private space station operator to perform experiments related to advancing technology needed to go to Mars. Similar public-private ventures can be used to supply the space station with fuel, water and oxygen derived from asteroids and comets. A partnership already exists to get astronauts into orbit on private spacecraft. A similar one should be established to get astronauts to lunar orbit.
It would be foolish to go all the way to Mars before testing how certain machines operate in a dusty, low-gravity environment. Do it on the Moon first.
Once in lunar orbit, NASA should establish intermittent missions down to the lunar surface. Such missions are needed to test techniques and processes that might be used on Mars. It would be foolish to go all the way to Mars before testing how certain machines operate in a dusty, low-gravity environment. Do it on the moon first before going all the way to Mars. This lunar outpost could be partially built and operated by another public-private partnership, like the ones described above.
What does this get us? A network of privately-managed space stations, fuel depots and workshops in orbit. A small but permanent lunar outpost. NASA will be a prime tenant for these facilities but by no means the only one: space tourism and research facilities will also be big players in this new commercial economy in space.
Private-sector activity in space will make a Mars mission easier, safer and more likely to succeed.
Just as important: kick-starting a commercial human presence in space via competitively awarded partnerships will make a Mars mission easier, safer and more likely to succeed. Astronauts going to Mars can take advantage of the fuel and supply depots in orbit and, if necessary, be that much easier to rescue should something go wrong.
Once this network is up and running, NASA will be ready for it’s ‘sprint’ to Mars. Using advanced propulsion technology developed in orbit, an international crew of astronauts will fly to Mars in three months or less, spend a week or so on the surface, and then scoot back to the relative safety of Earth orbit. Using a combination of fast engines and the infrastructure provided by the new orbital economy, there should be no need for a years-long journey to Mars costing tens of billions of dollars (as is currently planned).
What might all this cost? Unfortunately, it won’t cost less than the current policy. In fact, it will probably cost more. But not that much more due to the extensive use of competitively-bid private sector partnerships. Sounds too good to be true? We’re already doing it.
Furthermore, it delivers not just Mars but also a moon base and an enduring human presence in Earth orbit. Basically, three for (almost) the price of one.
The private sector has proven itself ready and willing to join NASA in exploring the universe. The next President should instruct NASA to engage these partners to build an enduring, self-sustaining commercial human presence in space, a lunar outpost and finally fulfill humanity’s long-term goal of sending humans to Mars.
To comment, please use the link at the top of the post.
by Liam Ginty
History is full of explorers and if we think about these noble pioneers, our minds are filled with fantastical images: massive Spanish galleons boldly cutting through the waves of the Atlantic, majestic explorers cresting a mountain top to look upon a fruitful and fertile land below them. We, as humans, revere those who went before us, those brave men and women who looked to the distance and left the comfort of their homes for the wild unknown.
The truth is, behind this near-mythical depiction, many of our ancestral explorers were simply people looking for a home; somewhere to plant their feet where food and resources were slightly more plentiful than where they came from. Sometimes explorers and settlers have been profit driven; the great colonization of the Americas was pushed by a great many things: gold, whaling, spices.
Orbital colonization is the next step in humanity’s growing need to expand beyond what we call home and seek out greener pastures. The Start Here series seeks to show the benefits, dangers, safety aspects and concerns of orbital colonization. We begin with an introduction to space settlements, and pose the question: what stands between us and a home in the stars?
Humankind has dreamed of living amongst the stars since we first looked up to them, but the concept was first discussed seriously in the 1970s with the formation of the Space Studies Institute (SSI) and Professor Gerard K O’Neill’s book, The High Frontier. In the book, O’Neill outlined a roadmap for the future of the US Space program, following the Apollo missions.
Beginning with the use of small habitats constructed from space debris, O’Neill’s plan called for a slowly expanding permanent human presence in orbit: developing satellites, refining ores mined from near Earth asteroids and preforming a variety of scientific endeavors. These small communities would eventually expand into larger, more stable habitats. Several of these designs were proposed, but all are vastly different from the space stations we build now. These designs called for construction on a massive scale, with some stations requiring upwards of 10 million tons of material. Space construction on such a scale is impossible using current methods since many of the designs relied on a large scale mining operation to construct them in-situ.
O’Neill’s stations would be used for a variety of purposes, mostly aimed at facilitating the industrialization of space, particularly near-Earth orbits. The cost to build and launch a satellite from an orbital colony would be minuscule in comparison to current prices for Earth-based launches, and would allow the development of large-scale projects, such as massive solar collectors, planetary defenses, and space sunshades. Orbital colonies would also rapidly increase humanity’s abilities to expand further into our solar system, by providing a base from which missions could supply themselves: the need to launch with months of heavy fuel, food, water, air and vital equipment would be rendered void.
An orbital colony would also provide easy access to the near Earth objects (NEOs) that surround the Earth. These asteroids contain near limitless minerals useful for almost any purpose imaginable. With the ability to cheaply mine these asteroids, the scarcity of such resources on Earth would be abated.
The benefits are not all financial or technological – many saw these habitats as a potential mechanism for enabling humanity’s immortality. With a self-sustained orbital colony able to produce its own food, water, and oxygen, a calamity that could initially wipe out the Earth won’t destroy all of humanity.
The excitement behind these stations eventually subsided along with the US’s interest in orbital expansion. Without a major nation or private interest in space colonization, public interest dwindled. Efforts by a variety of groups such as the L5 Society and the National Space Institute maintained the concept as a viable path of space development and campaigned for the abolition of the Moon Treaty, amongst other projects seeking to maintain the viability of space colonization. Eventually, several of O’Neill’s ideas were shown to be far too expensive to be feasible for our means and the dream of orbital colonization settled down for a time.
Now, private companies and nations are taking another look at orbital colonies. Companies such as SpaceX are producing rockets with a lower launch cost than ever before. Engineering and biological advances and understanding have made habitats more viable than ever and more nations have spaceflight capability than ever before. The time would seem ripe to revisit the viability of orbital colonies, and many are.
However, despite the renewed interest, there are still many dangers to orbital colonization. Without the powerful defenses of the Earth’s magnetic field and atmosphere, colonies are exposed to upwards of 100 times the amount of radiation as we are exposed to on Earth. Therefore, colonies would have to be designed with large-scale anti-radiation solutions, and biological methods of radiation protection may be necessary.
Another long term issue is the matter of asteroids and micrometeoroid impacts. While the image of an immense asteroid smashing a station apart is an astronomically unlikely event, thousands of smaller impacts will constantly erode the outer surface of any space station. Current space stations and launch craft use a variety of methods to defend themselves from the constant sandblasting of outer space, but a permanent colony would require a much more robust solution to the problem.
Finally, there is the issue of basic human needs. A colony as envisioned by O’Neill and other scientists would need to be capable of sustaining thousands of lives, providing food, water, and oxygen for everyone on-board, as well as power, entertainment, and other requirements of modern life. All of this would require farms, power generators, and the means of refining raw asteroid or lunar materials into water, oxygen, fertilizer and building materials.
In addition, there are other safety concerns: microgravity, space sickness, and any number of unforeseen biological issues. The mechanical aspects also have problems: heat management and manufacturing, as well as the immediate problems of launch costs.
With so many complications, it’s easy to see why the attempts to settle the solar system failed in the 1970s. At that time, many of the issues discussed here were not understood or even discovered yet, and most solutions to the known problems only increased the already massive cost of the undertaking. However, the greatest challenge facing human colonization of space is not radiation or even asteroids: it’s money. As Gary Hudson, current president of the SSI puts it:
Naturally, the greatest roadblock to realization of space settlements of the O’Neill type is the money required to execute the vision. Tritely, ‘…no bucks, no Buck Rogers.’ There are technological challenges to be sure, yet they would be overcome with sufficient financial resources.
In this series, we will examine the problems and safety concerns of space colonization and their solutions. We will look at the trials, the challenges, and the rewards of human expansion into space and discuss how humanity might live in the high frontier.
 Some of the larger habitats, such as Island Three, would require several more magnitudes of material.
 3554 Amun, a small M-Class asteroid contains more gold than has ever been mined on Earth, and its raw metals are valued at around $20 trillion dollars.
 While there had been a small amount of interest from soviet scientists, the push for space settlement was primarily a US based one, albeit with many of the various advocacy groups being made up of a multinational membership.
 Freeman Dyson, O’Neill’s successor in the SSI, spoke about how the proposed road maps were almost 300 times more expensive than originally thought.
This article was first released in Space Safety Magazine in 2014.
Previous posts asked how ‘the age of space settlement’ might affect people on Earth. Specifically, is it worth the cost? We started to answer that by describing the effects that are guaranteed to occur when giant space cities orbit the Earth. This post will continue the discussion by describing things are likely to happen (but not guaranteed) once space settlement really gets going.
Let’s start with drugs. For example: pharmaceuticals research in the zero-gravity environment of space could result in advanced medicines and super-cures for numerous diseases. Separately, asteroid mining could cause the price of rare minerals like platinum to plummet as new sources derived from space enter the marketplace. As a result of this price drop, numerous advanced technologies – like electric car batteries, wind turbines and mobile phones – will become cheaper and more effective. And more electric cars and renewable energy will reduce fossil fuel use with resulting environmental and geopolitical benefits.
Additionally, the age of space settlement will eliminate space debris and is very likely to eliminate the threat of asteroid strikes and hazardous space weather. It is fair to assume that communities in space will use whatever means necessary to protect themselves from the threats inherent in their environment, both manmade and natural. Thus, space settlers can be expected to clean up and prevent space debris: not only because debris can harm their structures but also because it is a valuable source of refined material ready for recycling and reuse. Similar logic can be applied to asteroid strikes: space settlers will see asteroids not as threats but as a source of raw materials. They will closely scan the skies in order to detect and capture asteroids. In the course of these scans, rocks that threaten the Earth will be identified and either re-routed or captured and refined into usable materials. Also, space settlements will keep a close eye on the Sun in order to prepare for and avoid solar flares and other hazardous space weather events that might affect on-orbit operations. The electric and communications grid on Earth will benefit from these space weather forecasts as well.
Finally, space settlements will develop all sorts of new technology that will be applicable to life on Earth. For instance, imagine a house that generates all its own power, water and heat, and also recycles all of its own waste. No more power outages, no more water and sewer bills and no more taking out the trash. The technologies developed in space settlements could be used to build such a house.
If you think that’s cool, in the next post we’ll discuss some really outrageous things that space settlement will make possible. Stay tuned!
An update on the post below: no commercial station but yes on a possible commercial lunar lander:
Building on the progress of NASA’s partnerships with the U.S. commercial space industry to develop new spacecraft and rockets capable of delivering cargo — and soon, astronauts — to low Earth orbit, the agency recognizes the U.S. industry’s interest in reaching and exploring the moon, and has competitively selected partners to spur commercial cargo transportation capabilities to the surface of the moon.
Commercial robotic lunar lander capabilities could address emerging demand by private customers who wish to conduct activities on the moon and could also enable new science and exploration missions of interest to the larger scientific and academic communities.
It’s important to note that this initiative, with the acronym CATALYST, is un-funded (boo!). From this release, it looks to be a partnership directed at boosting, or at least piggy-backing on, the Google Lunar X-prize.
“I congratulate the SpaceX and NASA teams who have made today’s success possible. We look forward to extending our efforts in commercial space to include commercial crew by 2017 and to more significant milestones this year on our journey to Mars.”
What other significant commercial milestones could he be referring to? Did he just tip his hand? Could NASA be laying the groundwork for, say, “Commercial Station” or maybe “Commercial Lunar Lander”? What could be more significant in the COTS world than having U.S. astronauts ‘fly commercial’ into orbit? That’s already pretty amazing, does NASA have something else in mind? Hmmm…
Happy new year! One of my resolutions is to post at least once a week. So here goes. Wish me luck.
If people start to live, work, play and have families in space – in other words, actually settle space instead of just floating around up there – there will be a bunch of things that will definitely happen back here on Earth.
Obviously, there will be a dramatic improvement in the capability of communications satellites. With workshops and technicians able to manufacture and maintain them in orbit, satellites will become bigger and more powerful. As a result, back on Earth the cost of satellite communication will plummet. More people will be able to talk, text and videochat with one another for less money than ever before. Similarly, earth-observation satellites will proliferate and their capabilities will improve resulting in more precise weather forecasting, better agriculture and fewer impacts from natural disasters. So, better Internet, more food, and fewer rain delays.
On the darker side, improvements in satellite performance will also extend to surveillance. An orbital industrial base will allow nation states to construct and maintain more powerful spy satellites. Pervasive surveillance of any spot on the globe will become easy and inexpensive, with a commensurate erosion of privacy and secrecy. Surveillance ‘birds’ may become so cheap to build and operate that cities will use them to monitor their street grids twenty-four hours a day and issue traffic citations based on orbital imagery and video. One can quickly get carried away imagining far darker scenarios of rogue nations using pervasive surveillance to oppress their own populations and terrorise others.
But enough of that scary stuff.
There will be other less technologically-inclined impacts that are almost certain to occur once the age of space settlement begins: those that will happen in the cultural arena. The unique architecture of space settlements and the peculiarities of the space environment – like zero-gravity – will provide great fodder for media, sports and art. Television shows and movies produced in orbit will become a part of our cultural landscape. Entirely new sports will be created to take advantage of the zero-gravity environment. Orbital art depicting the globe and the cosmos will proliferate. Anthropologists and sociologists will study the new communities of space and apply their findings to Earth. In short, space settlement – the act of literally building new worlds – is almost certain to excite the minds of many creative individuals and result in new cultural trends and phenomena.
Next post: things that will probably happen once people are living in space.
On December 19 Mason Peck, former chief technologist for NASA, and general space tech bad-ass, was interviewed on SciFri. The title of the podcast was Making Space a More Democratic Place. Mason is an outstanding speaker and advocate for space technology and space industrialization. But don’t take my word for it, check out these killer quotes:
Turns out you can build a spacecraft out of commercial parts…and they work quite well
– talking about the Sprites nanosat concept, but applicable to lots of other areas of space development as well!
All the mass we need to explore the Solar System is already in space.
– discussing ‘massless exploration’ i.e. the concept of using asteroidal, lunar and martian resources to build and supply space exploration missions.
Whenever we take on an extraordinary problem like exploring Mars…innovation is necessary.
In the longer term those innovations create jobs, save lives and create revenue..here on Earth.
– explaining how space exploration and spending on NASA benefits life on Earth. He says the payback ratio varies from two to seven times i.e. the economic benefits of NASA technology is at least twice as much as the cost, and often much more.
Preach on brother! Great stuff. Check out the podcast.
Please click on the title of the post to comment.
The International Space Station, also known as the ISS, will be retired in 2028. By that time the oldest parts of the station will be thirty years old and dangerously deteriorated in the harsh environment of space. Having a space station is essential to continue research for the upcoming asteroid mission and an eventual Mars landing. But all of those things won’t get done before the ISS falls apart in 2028. So if we’re going to Mars, we need a replacement for the ISS.
So, no problem, you say. Let’s just build another ISS! Well the first one cost about $100 billion and had the Space Shuttle to help build it. We don’t have the Space Shuttle anymore and, while we learned a lot from ISS, no one really wants to spend $100 billion doing something we’ve already done. Especially if we’d rather spend most of our time and money getting to Mars.
Luckily, there is an alternative. When the Space Shuttle was cancelled, the U.S. still needed a way to get astronauts and their stuff to and from the space station. Rather than building a new Space Shuttle (or relying entirely on Russian rockets), NASA asked the private sector to find a solution. Rather than spending a ton of time and money doing something they’ve already done (build a rocket), they outsourced the project to the commercial sector. They called it Commercial Cargo and Crew.
And it worked! Cargo is now regularly delivered to the International Space Station on rockets that were developed entirely by the private sector. NASA pays only for the transportation services, not the maintenance costs. It’s sort of like a trucking company, but in space. Next year private companies will begin testing crewed capsules in order to send astronauts up to the station. All this costs way less than the Space Shuttle ever did.
So why not apply the same method to replacing the space station? There are a handful of companies who already have the capability to build commercial space stations. NASA should work with these firms now to define its needs and, if met, commit the funds currently used for ISS maintenance (over $3 billion in 2015) to pay for renting out space in the new commercial stations.
In fact, if ‘Commercial Station’ is as successful as Commercial Cargo and Crew were, there should be significant funding left over to transfer to the primary mission of NASA: getting astronauts on Mars. It will do this while continuing to provide a sustainable human outpost to support that mission.
Just as important, it will show that commercial vendors can operate safely and profitably in orbit. It will open space for other commercial ventures like space tourism, manufacturing, research and media. By promoting Commercial Station, NASA could jumpstart the orbital economy.
Click on the title of the post to comment.
UPDATE: NASA selected Option B for the Asteroid Redirect Mission: plucking a <4 meter diameter boulder from a larger asteroid. While this is not TOL’s preference, NASA makes a good argument for their choice. ARM will still test key asteroid defense mechanisms (gravity tractor) and big-ol’ solar electric propulsion equipment. Most exciting: this mission will also test technology that might be useful for asteroid mining someday. Cross your fingers, let’s hope this one gets done!
NASA’s Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) does not have strong support. Several prestigious groups, such as the NASA Advisory Council and the National Research Council, have questioned the value of the mission and argued that the money spent on ARM could be better spent elsewhere. It’s not good when a phrase like “dead-end” is most often associated with a proposal.
Also, yesterday, NASA announced it is delaying a decision on how it will execute the ARM. It will either snag a smallish boulder off a larger asteroid or just bag an entire asteroid with a diameter of about 10 meters. In either case the asteroidal material will be transported to lunar orbit where it will wait for astronauts to come and inspect it.
So it’s either snag and scoot or bag and drag.
I prefer the latter option because it will best advance the cause of space industrialization. Learning how to identify, approach, corral and transport whole asteroids (even small ones) and then transport that asteroid to a stable ‘storage’ orbit will be incredibly valuable for space manufacturing. Asteroids are raw materials, they will supply the space factories of tomorrow. ARM will test how to collect those raw materials and stockpile them in a convenient place.
So, This Orbital Life votes on Option A for the Asteroid Redirect Mission!
By now, regular readers of this blog know that the Dragon Flyer will be the first privately-financed deep space mission. It will return an intact, pristine asteroid to Earth. Not only is this something that the scientific community wants, but Dragon Flyer will do it better than previous missions, and at a lower cost.
The Dragon Flyer is also a good investment providing more than a 30% return on capital. This assumes a <$250 million total mission cost and a $700 million revenue event (i.e. when the customer pays for the asteroid once it is delivered). The investment time horizon is four years.
The Dragon Flyer will provide a 30% return on capital for a forward-thinking aerospace corporation.
A 30% return is probably too low to attract venture capitalists. However, it is high enough to attract investment from mining, aerospace or utility corporations. See the chart below:
|Type of Investor||Internal Rate of Return Expected by Investor||Total Paid to Investor over Four Year Time Horizon||Profit Realized By The Dragon Flyer*|
|Kind venture capitalist||41%||$719,534,390.36||-$263,234,390|
|Realistic venture capitalist||>100%||$3,655,500,000.00||-$3,199,200,000|
|Commercial gold mine||~30%||$452,331,570.00||$3,968,430|
|Aerospace project e.g. Airbus 380||<19%||$245,001,165.48||$211,298,835|
|New nuclear power plant||<17%||$212,966,313.08||$243,333,68|
The Dragon Flyer will provide a rate of return higher than recent aerospace projects like the Airbus 380 and will require a far lower capital outlay. In conclusion, the Dragon Flyer is an attractive project for a forward-thinking, innovative aerospace corporation.
By 2014 various national governments will have launched six sample return missions to asteroids or comets. This marathon of sample return missions began in 1999 with the American Genesis mission which returned miniscule samples of solar wind. This cavalcade will conclude with the Japanese Hayabusa 2 mission which launched in 2014. In between those missions are Stardust, Hayabusa, Fobos-Grunt and OSIRIS-REx. All of these missions were designed to return a total of less than 7 kilograms of asteroidal or cometary material back to Earth for analysis.
What did that 7 kilograms of material cost? In other words, what did the national governments of Japan, Russia and the United States spend on those six missions? Over $1.9 billion dollars.
The Dragon Flyer, on the other hand, will cost much less. It is proposed that the payload (i.e. the captured asteroid) be sold to a national government or space agency like NASA or the ESA. The target price for 3000 kilograms of pristine asteroidal material: $700 million.
This is $300 million less than what NASA will pay for the OSIRIS-REx return mission which will return only 2.1 kilograms of asteroidal material.
Furthermore, it is a risk-free expenditure for whatever entity decides to purchase the asteroid. Should NASA agree to purchase the asteroid, it will not have to spend one penny “up front.” The risk of the venture will be borne by the private backers and NASA will only have to pay once the asteroid has been safely returned to Earth. Contrast this with the recent Fobos-Grunt sample return mission – the Russian government expended over $160 million on a space probe that failed to leave low Earth orbit due to a glitch. That is $160 million lost. However, should NASA agree to purchase the Dragon Flyer’s payload and should it subsequently fail, NASA will not have lost a dime (except the opportunity costs associated with the funding – a negligible penalty). Instead, the backers of the mission will have lost money, and NASA will be free to re-obligate that $700 million to other projects.
But what if the Dragon Flyer is a success? What will the mission backers gain? This will be discussed in the next post.
Click here and fill out the form to read the full report.
Dragon Flyer will not only return asteroidal material of a higher quality than all other previous space probes, but it will also return more of it. A lot more.
Between 1999 and 2014, national governments will have commissioned six asteroid or comet sample return missions. They will have returned to Earth, in total, less than seven kilograms of material.
Dragon Flyer, on the other hand, will return up to 3000 kilograms of asteroidal material. This is more than 400 times greater than what all other asteroid and comet sample missions will return between 1999 and 2014. This is also more than seven times the amount of lunar material returned by the Apollo missions.
In the next post I will begin discussing total project costs. This will show that despite returning more material, Dragon Flyer will do so at a much lower cost than comparable missions.
Remember, you can download the entire paper here, for free.
Returning an intact asteroid to Earth will provide benefits to both the space development community as well as to the greater scientific community.
Astronomers in particular attach great value to the idea of studying an intact asteroid. Asteroids are usually billions of years old and are considered time capsules that can provide details about how the solar system formed. However, all asteroid or comet samples currently available for study are less-than-ideal. Most samples are derived from asteroids that have crashed to Earth (meteorites) and thus have been deformed and melted by their fiery path through the atmosphere. As for samples collected by robotic probes in space, they are usually miniscule in size and, as such, do not provide the full story of the asteroid being sampled. In fact, to date, less than 7 kilograms of asteroidal and cometary material has been, or is planned to be, collected in space by robotic probes.
Numerous astronomers have indicated their desire to study a large, pristine, intact asteroid. But perhaps Jeremie Vauballion, of the Paris Observatory, said it best:
“When found, such an asteroid will immediately raise the question whether or not we should go, and I’m ready to bet that many astronomers will argue that we definitely have to go!” Vaubaillon said in an email [to Space.com]. “The reason is simple: What astronomers would not want to have a full and intact (unaltered by any physical process) piece of space rock? [emphasis added] Meteorites are all altered because they go through our atmosphere. The only piece of asteroid we have comes from the Japanese Hayabusa mission (a few grams at the very most). The comet grains the Stardust mission got back from comet Wild 2 were all altered.”
Benefits to the space development community should be obvious: asteroids represent a rich source of raw materials for future space communities. They are numerous, easier to access than other raw material sources (like the Moon), and small enough to exploit with relatively little equipment. Dragon Flyer will be the first step in learning how to manipulate and capture what could be a source of raw materials for future space communities.
The full paper has significantly more information from the scientific community about their desire to study an intact asteroid.
While doing some research for an article about the Asteroid Redirect Mission I made a shocking discovery. It appears that NASA’s strategic goals as well as the U.S. National Space Policy do not include any mention of anything close to space settlement. Neither do any of the President’s major speeches on space. Or if they do, I can’t find them anywhere.
Let me repeat:
the U.S. government has no strategic direction for a permanent, self-sustaining human presence in space.
This is despite spending upwards of $60 billion per year on both civil and national defense space programs. What the hell are we getting for all that money? Yes, things like GPS are important, but what are we working towards in the long run? Spy satellites, vaporware asteroid missions and “retaining space professionals?”
Is it me or is that just freaking crazy?
Human space exploration has a long-term goal of landing on Mars. Look, it’s time to face facts. It pains me to say it but a government-funded Mars mission will not occur in our lifetimes. There’s too little funding, too little public interest and no geopolitical rationale for such an endeavor. There won’t be another space race. The Chinese boogeyman will not land on Mars any time soon due to slowing economic growth and a bleak demographic picture in China. Despite these facts, our space policy continues to cling to the fiction of shooting for Mars. It’s not going to happen!
Part of the problem is that the American space community thinks the Apollo model can be applied to a Mars mission. It cannot: Mars is too far and too complex. Going there will be too expensive (especially using the centralized top-down Apollo model) to only spend a few days or weeks on the surface and then come back. Every few years a President recommits the U.S. to going to Mars and then the whole thing falls apart because of price concerns. By trying to ‘do Mars’ the way we ‘did Apollo’ we keep tripping up because it’s just too expensive.
So should we give up on Mars? Absolutely not!!
The United States should continue to plan to explore the Red Planet. But if we go there, we should go to stay. And once we decide to do that, we will need a new strategy. Settling Mars will require extensive diplomatic and legal preparations; it will almost certainly have to be an international mission. This will be a major benefit: look at how well international cooperation has helped to sustain the International Space Station for over 20 years. And, of course, there will need to be technical preparations. Settling Mars will be easier if there is a robust, self-sustaining industrial base in orbit stretching from Earth to the Moon and on to the Martian system.
In short, going to Mars the right way will require a self-supporting human community in cislunar space and beyond. Going to Mars will require space settlement.
In the previous post I asked the question, is space settlement worth the cost? Before we continue to discuss that provocative question, let’s delve a bit into how that world might look. Let’s travel in time to the ‘age of space settlement’; a few decades from now when thousands of people are living and working in large, self-sustaining communities in space. Specifically, there are a handful of enormous settlements at the Lagrange points and many more, smaller stations in geosynchronous and low earth orbits. The settlements are technically under the auspices of a nation state but have de facto independence from Earthly government interference. Life in the settlements is like life in a company town: everyone knows one another, and there are one or two big employers and lots of smaller ‘cottage’ industries and mom-and-pop shops. They have sufficient gravity, food and medical care for people to raise children there, although it is rare. Life is sheltered but bustling with activity.
Outside of cislunar space, there is a small outpost on Mars and humans have begun to explore the moons of Jupiter and the asteroid belt. Back in the Earth-Moon system, tens of thousands of tons of asteroidal raw material are converted to manufactured goods and structures every month on the various stations and settlements. Commerce and transportation between Earth, the stations and the settlements is commonplace and relatively inexpensive. Large multinational corporations, small nation-states, universities and non-profits all perform research, manufacturing, and other efforts in orbit, contributing to the development of the human-centric economy in space.
You may not think it but having such a constellation of human activity in space will have incredible repercussions for the lives of the majority of humans still on Earth – sort of like how a few offshore oil platforms can make or break the economy back on the mainland. The following posts will discuss those repercussions – both the good and the bad. The repercussions will be organized into three categories: the first describes effects that are very likely to result from the world described above i.e. things that will happen. The second describes effects that are feasible but not necessarily likely; things that might happen. Finally, the third category describes possible effects: those that will take significant effort and luck (either bad or good, depending on your opinion) to attain. That is, things that could happen. See you soon!
In our future scenario described in a previous post, the Moon does not play a prominent role in space settlement. In the future there will be a small Moon base with a few dozen people and it will be managed by the United Nations and a consortium of earthbound nations. There, dozens of people perform research and pursue limited commercial endeavors, not unlike the International Space Station today. But lunar activities will be strictly regulated under existing treaties (due to the historic and cultural significance of the moon) forcing most development to occur in the orbital settlements. It is unlikely that major settlement or exploitation of lunar resources will ever occur due to the prominence of the Moon in several religions and cultural contexts. Groups like these will vigorously object any attempts to develop the Moon, causing delay and confusion. Furthermore, consider this: would the average American permit strip mining in Yellowstone Park? Certainly not because Yellowstone is considered to be a national treasure. It is for these same reasons that businesses will be unlikely to invest in commercial activities on the Moon: it is our common heritage and so many people may object to using it for private gain.
“…every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”
President Dwight D. Eisenhower, April 16, 1953
Is space settlement worth it? Shouldn’t we focus on solving earthly problems like poverty and disease? President Eisenhower was referring primarily to defense spending in the above quote. However, many people feel the sentiment could be applied to space expenditures as well.
And they might be right! But, on the other hand, you can’t deny that space exploration has provided huge benefits to humankind in the last fifty years. For example, take global positioning satellites…you know, GPS? You use GPS every time you use the maps function on your cellphone or any time you consult Google Maps for directions. GPS is used to track shipments for Amazon and make sure your plane arrives safely and on time. It’s everywhere! In fact, a recent study indicated that GPS provides over $67 billion in benefits to the United States alone, every year. Compare this to annual U.S. space spending of about $60 billion per year. And GPS is only one technology. MRI scanners, Velcro, Kevlar and numerous other technologies were initially developed by the American space program. So, yes, space is expensive. Yes, the money spent on space could be used for other things. But, historically at least, space has provided incredible benefits for us: benefits that exceed the cost of space exploration.
But what about the future? Will this trend hold? Should we cut our losses, take the win and redirect space spending to things like healthcare and education? Maybe. But before we do, maybe we should consider what benefits space might create in the near future. What might we lose out on if we eliminate space funding and abandon the goal of space settlement? Future posts will attempt to answer this question. Up next: describing the age of space settlement!
On the November 9th edition of the Space Show (I just listened to the podcast today), Dr. Livingstone and his guest Mark Whittington discussed media coverage of the recent Virgin Galactic and Antares mishaps. They agreed the media coverage had implied that commercial space travel is too dangerous for private tourists and thrill-seekers. The doctor and Mr. Whittington went on to list several risky activities – such as skydiving, scuba diving, and even driving – that cause many deaths every year, none of which get nearly the kind of media coverage the recent space tragedies received. They felt this was unfair to space. This is incorrect: their reasoning is flawed because they both inhabit the space policy echo chamber.
Now, before we go on, two things need to be made very clear. First, what happened to Virgin Galactic, particularly the test pilot Michael Albury, was a bona fide tragedy. Anything written here is not meant to diminish that event or hurt those affected by it. Nor is anyone suggesting that the Space Show is diminishing the tragedy. Second, This Orbital Life enthusiastically supports the Space Show and salutes Dr. Livingstone for maintaining what has become a critical venue of discussion regarding space commercialization. Any disagreement described here is not intended to be confrontational and is offered in the spirit of a collegial debate.
Back to my original point. The two gentlemen essentially argued that space travel garners an unfair amount of media attention when there is a disaster. They said things like “24 people died skydiving last year but that wasn’t in the news!” But the point is not how many people died but rather how many people did it safely. Space travel accidents get lots of media attention because safe, uneventful trips to space are still relatively rare! In 2013, the United States Parachute Association recorded 24 fatal skydiving accidents in the U.S. out of roughly 3.2 million jumps. If the media continues to focus their attention on space accidents when there are 3.2 million tourist visits to space, then space enthusiasts will have a valid complaint. But until civilian space travel is commonplace it is absolutely fair for the media to highlight space tragedies when there are only a few dozen launches per year. More importantly, we have to realize that because space travel is so limited, it can appear downright scary to the general public!
Rather than focusing on unfair media attention we in the space advocacy community need to remember that not everyone is sold on the promise of space, in fact quite the opposite. Therefore, in order to counter media attention that focuses exclusively on the perils of space – we need to work extra hard to get the word out to the general public about the promise of space. That will have the double benefit of raising awareness of space and reducing anxiety towards it as well.
The previous post described how space settlements are different from contemporary space stations. These things are so big that one can’t even really call them space ships, they are literally cities in space. Because they’re so large, life in a space settlement will be similar to life on Earth. So why move to space at all? Two words: customizable weather.
Of course there are other compelling reasons to move to space, too (in case choosing your own weather wasn’t enough).
Living in a space settlement could actually be better for your health than living on Earth. The vast majority of the food consumed by residents of a space settlement will be grown inside the structure itself. Remember, these things are big and they will be designed to be self-sufficient. This means that once you move to a space settlement, all of your food will be locally grown and naturally pesticide free.
Why pesticide free? Because, of course, there are no pests in space settlements! No mosquitos, flies, mice, rats or vermin of any kind. Also, because the environment is literally made from scratch and since all industry is outside of the settlement, there will be no pollution. No climate change, no smokestacks and no cars belching exhaust into the air. In fact, there won’t be any cars at all. Early space settlements, like Kalpana One (from the previous post) will resemble business parks or large cruise ships. Walking and biking will be easy and, for longer trips, advanced transportation systems will be built into the structure.
So, no bugs and plenty of local, chemical-free food to eat. Oh and about that customizable weather: it’s true! Space settlements will allow their occupants to literally design their own climates. That means perfect weather all the time. Consider it: no snow, no rain, no hail, no icestorms. That is, unless the residents want it – the climate and the weather will be absolutely customizable. Furthermore, no mudslides, earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes or any natural disasters whatsoever. Why not? Because those are Earthly afflictions and would be utterly impossible in a space settlement.
Space settlements also offer the opportunity to establish a greater degree of freedom and independence. They will be separated from Earth by many thousands of miles, just like the original New World colonies were separated from their mother countries by the Atlantic Ocean. As a result of that isolation the colonies were able to pursue their own activities without interference. It is conceivable that space settlements will enjoy similar de facto independence, as well as the benefits of living in a small town.
Besides the political benefits, there are recreational benefits as well. As we know, there is no gravity in space. While space settlements will produce artificial gravity by rotating, there will be portions of the settlement without gravity. This will give rise to new sports and recreational activities. How about a dip in the zero gravity spherical swimming pool? Perhaps you’d prefer to strap on a pair of wings and literally fly through the air like a bird? All of this will be possible in a space settlement.
Finally, consider the views. Literally endless views of the cosmos. The Earth spinning slowly, gracefully below you. The moon, the planets and the stars seemingly at your fingertips. Space settlement will undoubtedly offer the best views in the universe.
So, no traffic, no pollution, small town living, tailor-made weather and incredible views. Well that’s great, but what about the rest of us stuck on Earth? What benefits will space settlement provide for the vast majority of humanity? To be continued…in our next post.
“Not Your Mother’s Space Station”
When we think about space settlements – a place where people live in space – the image that comes to mind might be the International Space Station. I’m delighted to inform you that’s not what we’re talking about here, folks.
Reader, meet Space Settlement.
Space Settlement, meet Reader.
Compared to the International Space Station, space settlements will be larger, more comfortable, less dangerous and more accessible.
Room to Run
Imagine the size of a typical shopping mall. Space settlements would be at least this large, and perhaps much larger, encompassing acres upon acres of living space. A well-known space settlement design, Kalpana One (pictured above), will have thousands of occupants and it will be open, airy, and full of trees, greenery and water features.
Space settlements will be extremely safe places to live and visit. Current space stations rely on mechanical systems to provide oxygen and water. Such systems are prone to failure and require constant upkeep. Space settlements, on the other hand, will use more reliable biological systems to provide fresh air and water. This is possible because a space settlement is enormous and can accommodate a complex ‘ecosystem infrastructure’ to provide breathable air and drinkable water, not to mention food and fiber. There is another important safety difference between space stations and space settlements: settlements will be in a higher orbit, thus avoiding the risks of collision with space debris. There will be no catastrophic explosions on a space settlement like you may have seen in the movie Gravity.
Open to Everyone
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, space settlements will be accessible to all types of people, not just the highly trained specialists and uber-zillionaires who go to space today. Because of their large size and robust construction, space settlements will accommodate all types of people. Babies, elderly people, short people, fat people, all kinds. Rather than being tiny scientific outposts, they will be more like small towns or cities. Occupants will live in houses and apartments and go to work in offices. They may even forget they’re in space. Space settlements, in short, represent a quantum leap in space technology and they will permit a quality of life similar to what is experienced on Earth but instead, it will be in space.
Rather than being tiny scientific outposts, they will be more like small towns or cities.
So, if space settlements will be similar to towns and cities on Earth, why build them at all? Great question! In the next post we will explore the unique advantages of life in a space settlement and how, someday, most people may prefer to live in space rather than on Earth.
To read some background on the story, click here.
Orbital space settlement describes the concept of humanity establishing permanent towns and cities in very large man-made structures in space. These structures can technically be called space stations but they are much, much bigger and not at all like the space stations in existence today. The structures are better described simply as space settlements or space colonies.
You may also know that humanity has had a permanent presence in space since the early 2000s on the International Space Station (ISS). The ISS, however, is not a space settlement. Astronauts go up there for a few months but then return to Earth. People will want to spend the majority of their time, if not their entire lives, in a space settlement. In a space settlement, people will be born, go to school, raise families, start businesses and do whatever people do on Earth.
In a space settlement, people will be born, go to school, raise families, start businesses and do whatever people do on Earth.
Curious? Then click here to read more about the basics of orbital space settlement!