Private Space Flight
I agree with the central assertion that nuclear power is the single logical energy source for a human mars expedition. It is currently the logical energy choice for anything above geosynchronous orbit. Sadly, it has been hamstrung in the US by environmentalist concerns over a failed launch. I guess because they think they are saving this planet they don't need to worry about the next one.
I read the FLOC article and agree that its practical uses are limited. I think Bimese/Trimese options are logical, but the idea of any kind of a rendevous creates such high operational risks it would never be a practical launch option. The possibilty of a reuseable liquid fuel booster attached to a nuclear-powered ion propulsion craft, either on its own or during a gravitational slingshot, sounds like a good possiblity for getting craft from L2 to Mars, but the complications of a launch into orbit are such that I doubt the FLOC concept would work: for each connection you exponentially (well not quite..) increase your chances of a failure.
I find two trends worthy of great attention, both of which could provide interesting results. The first is of course the sea change in the private spaceflight arena: from 'plucky' entrepeneur types and tech billionaires to massive aerospace and (with good 'ol RB) airlines. Personally, I don't think I would shell out for the 4.5 mins of LEO in a SpaceShip 2, but I would shell out for 3 days on Bigelow's hotel. The parallels to early air travel are compelling, especially in relation to the now expansive X Prize foundation, as well as private challenges such as Mr. Bigelow's hotel limo operator's prize. The margins are, as you pointed out, in payloads. But the glory is in passengers, and both will be needed to make it into space. Interestingly, and this is an odd matter of psyche, I do not think that a private fatal accident in space would deter the industry nearly as much as NASA disasters traditionally—and especially recently—have. To me, the logic is that if a NASA astronaut dies, it was the fault of the nation, and every taxpayer is in part responsible. If a Rocketplane fails to make re-entry, it would be seen as a very private failure, but a failure that would likely have the blame placed on the operator of the services (as operators in this case are almost all also the manufacturers) just as it is with airline crashes. In the early days, the majority of the public would simply think of it as silly rich people throwing their lives away, just as the they do on Everest every year. But for those who wish to make it into space, it would simply refine their rational choice of service providers.
The second, and possibly most important development is the commercialization option. This will be first undertaken by nations, as the private sector does not have the size or the funding to build out such an approach. The shortest term option, and one which may likely be providing power in 20 years, is the mining of the moon for helium-3. This is already the opjective of two different joint ventures: the first between the US and the UK, the second between Russia and China. Helium-3 is rare on earth, but the beauty of it is that when used for a fusion reactor, it directly produces electricty—no conversion to heat, resulting in 70% efficienceis (theoretical). It would be clean, and highly scalable (as compared to current non-nuclear options such as wind or water – which for many reasons, not the least of which NIMBY, are not scalable to the same degree, or traditional fission, which cant seem to find a home outside China, especially with Yucca on hold.) Depoisted in the regolith—a near-surface layer of the moon's crust, only goes down about 10 feet—the helium-3 is a deposit of the solar wind. The upside potential is that helium-3 is worth $40,000 an ounce. At a projected 15-30ppm in the regolith, the economics are quite good. Of course, building the whole thing would cost a lot, for for a country which has already built and proven a launch platform (or is going to build one anyway: China and the US), a lot of the development work has already been done. The danger here of course is that commercialization leads to competition and militarization. Who owns the moon? Russia was the first to drop little aluminum copies of their flag, but the US was the first to have a guy standing on it (a pretty traditional measure of ownership, especially as there are no locals that need ignoring this time around). Effectively, and by treaty, no one owns it. But does that stop you from mining it? If Russia, the US, China, and the ESA all think you can, I doubt anyone else is going to step up to the plate.
I love the idea of the commercialization of space, I just want it to be done by corporations. Sadly, that may not be the case, but at the least helium-3 mining should prove that space can be profitable, which goes a long way to solving the age-old "should we go to space or pay for more 5th grade English teachers debate." I, for one, am glad that might finally be settled, so that we can get on our way.
I read the FLOC article and agree that its practical uses are limited. I think Bimese/Trimese options are logical, but the idea of any kind of a rendevous creates such high operational risks it would never be a practical launch option. The possibilty of a reuseable liquid fuel booster attached to a nuclear-powered ion propulsion craft, either on its own or during a gravitational slingshot, sounds like a good possiblity for getting craft from L2 to Mars, but the complications of a launch into orbit are such that I doubt the FLOC concept would work: for each connection you exponentially (well not quite..) increase your chances of a failure.
I find two trends worthy of great attention, both of which could provide interesting results. The first is of course the sea change in the private spaceflight arena: from 'plucky' entrepeneur types and tech billionaires to massive aerospace and (with good 'ol RB) airlines. Personally, I don't think I would shell out for the 4.5 mins of LEO in a SpaceShip 2, but I would shell out for 3 days on Bigelow's hotel. The parallels to early air travel are compelling, especially in relation to the now expansive X Prize foundation, as well as private challenges such as Mr. Bigelow's hotel limo operator's prize. The margins are, as you pointed out, in payloads. But the glory is in passengers, and both will be needed to make it into space. Interestingly, and this is an odd matter of psyche, I do not think that a private fatal accident in space would deter the industry nearly as much as NASA disasters traditionally—and especially recently—have. To me, the logic is that if a NASA astronaut dies, it was the fault of the nation, and every taxpayer is in part responsible. If a Rocketplane fails to make re-entry, it would be seen as a very private failure, but a failure that would likely have the blame placed on the operator of the services (as operators in this case are almost all also the manufacturers) just as it is with airline crashes. In the early days, the majority of the public would simply think of it as silly rich people throwing their lives away, just as the they do on Everest every year. But for those who wish to make it into space, it would simply refine their rational choice of service providers.
The second, and possibly most important development is the commercialization option. This will be first undertaken by nations, as the private sector does not have the size or the funding to build out such an approach. The shortest term option, and one which may likely be providing power in 20 years, is the mining of the moon for helium-3. This is already the opjective of two different joint ventures: the first between the US and the UK, the second between Russia and China. Helium-3 is rare on earth, but the beauty of it is that when used for a fusion reactor, it directly produces electricty—no conversion to heat, resulting in 70% efficienceis (theoretical). It would be clean, and highly scalable (as compared to current non-nuclear options such as wind or water – which for many reasons, not the least of which NIMBY, are not scalable to the same degree, or traditional fission, which cant seem to find a home outside China, especially with Yucca on hold.) Depoisted in the regolith—a near-surface layer of the moon's crust, only goes down about 10 feet—the helium-3 is a deposit of the solar wind. The upside potential is that helium-3 is worth $40,000 an ounce. At a projected 15-30ppm in the regolith, the economics are quite good. Of course, building the whole thing would cost a lot, for for a country which has already built and proven a launch platform (or is going to build one anyway: China and the US), a lot of the development work has already been done. The danger here of course is that commercialization leads to competition and militarization. Who owns the moon? Russia was the first to drop little aluminum copies of their flag, but the US was the first to have a guy standing on it (a pretty traditional measure of ownership, especially as there are no locals that need ignoring this time around). Effectively, and by treaty, no one owns it. But does that stop you from mining it? If Russia, the US, China, and the ESA all think you can, I doubt anyone else is going to step up to the plate.
I love the idea of the commercialization of space, I just want it to be done by corporations. Sadly, that may not be the case, but at the least helium-3 mining should prove that space can be profitable, which goes a long way to solving the age-old "should we go to space or pay for more 5th grade English teachers debate." I, for one, am glad that might finally be settled, so that we can get on our way.
Comments
Post a Comment