SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon.

[RGClark]

...
The same goes for Dr Spudis and his "credentials". Credentials don't magically make you correct. Spudis' assumptions, methods, and motivations are just as fallible as those of anyone else. And there is good reason to be skeptical of them when you read some of the other advocacy coming from him (such as how it is important for the US to capture the Moon as a "military high ground", of all things).

I would prefer to phrase that as "just as anyone else, he is fallible." But there are degrees within an area of expertise.

Also, I gather your "military high ground" phrase is referring to this article by Spudis:

January 14, 2012
China’s Long March to the Moon.
http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/2012/01/china’s-long-march-to-the-moon/

Note he does not use this phrase in the article. The phrase was used by others to criticize his viewpoint in the article but if you read the article carefully, that is not what he is arguing.
What he is saying is that China appears to have a focus on sending manned missions to the Moon. Then the question arises would you or any space advocate be happy with the Chinese having manned bases on the Moon while the U.S. stands on the sidelines? I think the answer is no based on the fact that nobody seems to be happy that Russia and China have manned launch to orbit capability while the U.S. does not.


Bob Clark

 

[T.Neo]

It is exactly pandering to the notion of the Moon as a 'high ground'.

Also: why should I care about the US operating a base on the Moon? I am not an American (Ok, I lie: I would prefer a US-operated lunar base to a Chinese one, but for other reasons).

Furthermore the entire issue of the Moon being greatly important stems from Spudis and co in the first place. Spudis is a Moon Advocate. Which means that he is like a Space Advocate, but worse.

To put it as politely as I can, I haven't found lunar advocates to be particularly objective people.

 

[RGClark]

...
As I said to keep costs low these missions should be privately financed. NASA is planning to launch an asteroid sample return mission in 2016. This would not return the samples though until 2023 and is budgeted at $800 million without even launch costs:

NASA to Launch Asteroid-Sampling Spacecraft in 2016.
Mike Wall, SPACE.com Senior WriterDate: 25 May 2011 Time: 07:10 PM ET
http://www.space.com/11788-nasa-asteroid-mission-osiris-rex-1999-rq36.html

When you add on launch costs and considering the usual NASA cost overruns this will probably wind up being a billion dollar mission. Also, since some proposed human missions to asteroids would have a duration of 5 to 6 months, these sample return missions could return their samples in months rather than the seven years planned for the NASA mission.

Note that all the components for such a mission already exist, the launcher, the spacecraft, and the rover. All that is required is to mate them together. On that basis such a mission probably could be launched within a year. Note also all of the U.S., Russia, and Europe have the required 20 mT launcher, and the upper or space stage capable of the space traverse. And China will also with the introduction of the Long March 5 in 2014. Then the question arises, who will be first?

A common complaint leveled at the space program is what is it good for? If the U.S. government fully financed the mining operation then based on an estimated $20 trillion value for the minerals on a single asteroid, this would have enough value to retire the entire U.S. debt(!) Preferably though the U.S. would only be a partial investor to retain the costs savings of a privately financed venture. Even then as a minority investor, the return in value to the U.S. government could be in the trillions.

However, it may indeed be possible that a fully NASA financed venture could maintain the low costs of a privately financed one - with the right management. I consider the LCROSS lunar impactor to be the perfect NASA mission because it returned such profoundly important results and at low cost, only $79 million without launch costs, which is like pocket change for planetary missions:

Inside NASA's Plan to Bomb the Moon and Find Water.
By Michael Milstein
October 1, 2009 12:00 AM

Typically, 10 to 15 percent of a spacecraft's budget goes into instruments; on LCROSS, it's roughly 3 percent, or $2 million. When Anthony Colaprete, NASA's lead scientist for the mission, went to big aerospace companies for instruments, they laughed at his budget. So he turned to small outfits instead. He bought near-infrared spectrometers from a company that makes them for breweries to test the alcohol content of beer on assembly lines. He resisted agency reviewers who wanted him to put an anodized coating on the aluminum storage boxes. "One of their arguments was, `It's not very expensive--just do it,'" he says. "I'm like, `Well, I want to save that $1000. I'm very cheap.'"

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/4277592

LCROSS: A HIGH-RETURN, SMALL SATELLITE MISSION.
Daniel Andrews, LCROSS PM
NASA-Ames Research Center, MS 240-3, Moffett Field, CA 94035, USA.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20100028203_2010030093.pdf

Academy of Program/Project & Engineering Leadership.
Lunar CRater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS).

The Good Enough Spacecraft.
From Andrews‘s perspective, the LCROSS spacecraft had to be ―faster, good enough, cheaper.‖ He made clear to his team from the beginning that LCROSS was not about maximum performance. ―It was about cost containment,‖ Andrews said. ―LCROSS was not about pushing the technical envelope. It was about keeping it simple – keeping it good enough.‖
The LCROSS team had 29 months and $79 million to build a Class D mission spacecraft. (See below for a brief explanation of NASA mission risk classifications.) The low-cost, high-risk tolerance nature of the project led to a design based on heritage hardware, parts from LRO, and commercial-off-the-shelf components.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/474589main_LCROSS_case_study_09_23_10.pdf

LCROSS rode piggyback on the LRO mission so did not have to pay for the Centaur space stage, but even if you include this that would only be an additional $30 million or so.

LCROSS Program Manager Daniel Andrews and lead scientist Anthony Colaprete deserve major kudos for using innovative methods to accomplish such a successful mission under cost saving constraints. If we were to have NASA financed asteroidal and lunar prospector landers then they would be my choice to manage those missions.

Note now that if NASA funded these exploratory lander missions that proved definitively that asteroids or even the Moon contained such extraordinary mineral wealth, then under the principle that the government has the authority to grant mining rights to private companies, the U.S. government could sell these rights for a total of, say, $1 trillion, while only having to have spent ca. $200 million for the lander missions.

Bob Clark

 

[T.Neo]

LCROSS was a relatively simple spacecraft. Not part of a fully functional lunar infrastructure. :facepalm:

Also, you're misunderestimating the difficulty of mating different systems together again. And where is this nonexistant rover?

It almost seems as if you have no clue about either the technical or economic realities of retrieving trillions of dollars worth of material from an asteroid (or anywhere else for that matter).

 

[RGClark]

And where is this nonexistant rover?

The Scarab lunar rover prototype has been undergoing field tests since 2008:

There will be a media demonstration of the Scarab lunar rover using a new fuel-cell technology on Wednesday, Feb. 29th at the NASA Glenn center:

Media Invited to NASA Glenn to See New Fuel Cell Demonstration on Mobile Rover.
Source: Glenn Research Center
Posted Thursday, February 23, 2012

CLEVELAND - A demonstration of a fuel cell that will allow rovers on extraterrestrial surfaces to go farther and last longer will be conducted at NASA's Glenn Research Center on Feb. 29 at 11 a.m.
The new type of fuel cell will extend the range of surface operations for rovers that will explore new worlds as part of future NASA missions. Unlike a conventional fuel cell that needs a pump to remove the water produced inside the device, this non-flow-through fuel cell uses capillary action to wick away the water. By eliminating the pump, a non-flow-through fuel cell is simpler, lighter, and more reliable.
The rover that will demonstrate the fuel cell in Glenn's Simulated Lunar Operations (SLOPE) facility is called SCARAB. It was developed by Carnegie Mellon Robotics Institute, Pittsburgh, under a grant from Glenn, and is regularly used for Human Robotic systems project mobility research in SLOPE.​

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=36206
​

Perhaps one of the reporters will inquire when the test vehicle can be turned into a flight ready version.


Bob Clark

 

[T.Neo]

There's a difference between a prototype and actual field hardware that can be (relatively) mass produced, shipped to the location, and expected to work fairly well under local conditions.

Also, time isn't the only issue, you forgot about economics again. No bucks, no Buck Rodgers.

 

[RGClark]

I'd like to see the U.S. do a lunar polar sample return to find out the possible value of the lunar deposits, and soon.

NASA scientist Tony Colaprete says a lunar polar lander can probably be ready by 2014:

Mining on the moon: gold, fuel, and Canada's possible role in a new space race.
Peter Rakobowchuk, Sunday, February 26, 2012 7:30 AM

The lead scientist on NASA's RESOLVE drilling project, Tony Colaprete, was also the principal investigator for LCROSS, the 2009 lunar probe that found a significant amount of water ice on the moon.
Colaprete says the next step is to find the veins of water on the moon and map out its distribution. That's where RESOLVE would go to work, drilling for samples and analyzing their components.
He says the equipment will be ready to be flown to the moon at the end of 2014. He adds that people are already interested in flying it, both commercially and within NASA.
One missing piece is a rocket to get RESOLVE to the lunar surface.
The United States is now focusing its attention on developing a heavy-lifting rocket known as the SLS, which will replace the shuttle program, but Colaprete says it isn't due to launch until 2017. The SLS, or Space Launch System, is a heavy-launch vehicle being designed by NASA and is expected to be the means of transportation for the RESOLVE payload.
That means the soonest there could be a rover driving around on the moon with RESOLVE is likely around the end of the decade, if all goes well with SLS."

http://www.globaltoronto.com/money/...ole+in+a+new+space+race/6442588944/story.html

I like the fact the author calls it a "new space race." It's also interesting that the article mentions gold. There was a detection of gold by the LCROSS mission:

SCIENCE -- October 21, 2010 at 2:05 PM EDT
Moon Blast Reveals Lunar Surface Rich With Compounds.
BY: JENNY MARDER
"There is water on the moon...along with a long list of other compounds, including, mercury, gold and silver. That's according to a more detailed analysis of the chilled lunar soil near the moon's South Pole, released as six papers by a large team of scientists in the journal, Science Thursday."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2010/10/its-confirmed-there-is-water.html

but as far as I know this has not been definitively confirmed.
I wonder if the author of the "Mining on the moon" article was informed of some further information to firm up that detection.

I don't know why though Colaprete says you need a heavy lift rocket to get this robotic prospector to the Moon. The RESOLVE instrument package and the Scarab rover to carry it are supposed to weigh less than 400 kg. We already have rockets capable of landing that on the Moon.

The U.S. has the competitive advantage in regards to these autonomous lunar rovers. If we don't take advantage of that advantage while we have it, we might find ourselves once again taking a backseat in the production of valuable resources:

How China Plans To Send Robots To the Moon.
POSTED BY: Evan Ackerman / Mon, May 09, 2011
"For the past four years, China has been engaged in a three-phase plan that will ultimately culminate in a lunar rover and a lunar sample return mission, scheduled to take place in 2013 and 2017 respectively. "
http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/...on/how-china-plans-to-send-robots-to-the-moon

China's lunar rover in desert testing.
Updated: 2011-10-26 17:24
"Ye said tests are now being carried out in the desert 200 kilometers from Dunhuang city in Gansu province. 90 scientists are working together to conduct relevant tests, making sure the lunar rover can move across the surface of moon successfully after being transported there by the Chang'e-3 probe.
"As China's third unmanned lunar probe, following Chang'e-1 and Chang'e-2, Chang'e-3 is expected to be launched in 2013, with a successful soft landing on the moon being its main objective."
http://europe.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-10/26/content_13982769.htm

12 August 2010 Last updated at 20:55 ET
Race to launch Moon landing probe.
By Anatoly Zak
"After months of negotiations, Russian and Indian engineers have started working on a robotic mission together.
"This would see the landing of a small four-wheeled rover on to the surface of the Earth's celestial neighbour.
"It is set to launch in 2013, to roughly match the scheduled lunar landing of China's Chang'e-3 spacecraft."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10960409

Next step for ESA’s first Moon lander.
16 September 2010
"The mission aims to land in the mountainous and heavily cratered terrain of the lunar south pole in 2018. The region may be a prime location for future human explorers because it offers almost continuous sunlight for power and potential access to vital resources such as water-ice."
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMUV2KOXDG_index_0.html


Bob Clark

 

[RGClark]

Astrobotic Technology Reveals Design for Robot to Prospect at Moon’s
Poles.
April 3, 2012 – 8:00 pm|Releases

PITTSBURGH, PA – April 3, 2012 – Astrobotic Technology unveiled
its new Polaris lunar rover design, which will prospect for
potentially rich deposits of water ice, methane and other resources at
the moon’s north pole in three years.
A powerful Falcon 9 rocket from SpaceX will launch Polaris from Cape
Canaveral in late October 2015. Four days later Polaris will land
during north pole summer, when patches of ground that are in cold
shadow most of the year get brief illumination. This is where ice will
be found closest to the surface, and when a solar-powered robot will
get the sunlight needed to sustain exploration. Polaris will search
for ice for the next 12 days until sundown in early November.

http://astrobotic.net/2012/04/03/as...-design-for-robot-to-prospect-at-moons-poles/

Such missions are very important to further quantify the amount of
water and other minerals suggested by orbiter missions to lie within
the polar regions of the Moon. They are a key first step, though there
is nothing better than having the actual sample in your hands for
geologists to assay and determine if there really are such valuable
minerals as gold and silver tentatively identified by the LCROSS
mission.

Bob Clark

 

[RGClark]

Astrobotic Technology Reveals Design for Robot to Prospect at Moon’s
Poles.
April 3, 2012 – 8:00 pm|Releases

http://astrobotic.net/2012/04/03/as...-design-for-robot-to-prospect-at-moons-poles/

Such missions are very important to further quantify the amount of
water and other minerals suggested by orbiter missions to lie within
the polar regions of the Moon. They are a key first step, though there
is nothing better than having the actual sample in your hands for
geologists to assay and determine if there really are such valuable
minerals as gold and silver tentatively identified by the LCROSS
mission.

I've just been informed that Astrobotic actually has changed their Google Lunar X Prize entry into a lunar polar prospecting mission:

Monday, April 9, 2012
Astrobotic changes plans, aims for lunar north.
http://lunarnetworks.blogspot.com/2012/04/astrobiotic-changes-plans-aims-for.html

Note that the Astrobotic rover is built by the same Carnegie Mellon robotics lab that built the Scarab lunar polar rover. The Astrobotic rover will be launched on just a Falcon 9 so this is a smaller and cheaper lander/rover than one that would require the heaviest 20 mT capacity launchers. Though it will not be sample return, it can certainly confirm the large amounts of water suggested by the orbital studies. It may also be able to confirm the tentative detections of precious metals such as gold and silver found by LCROSS.
Again because the delta-V requirements to a NEO are less than those to the Moon, this lander/rover could also serve as a prospector for asteroid missions. There was a recent article discussing the idea that a loophole in the Outer Space Treaty might allow private land claims on outer space bodies:

Loophole Could Allow Private Land Claims on Other Worlds.
By Adam Mann | April 5, 2012 | 6:30 am | Categories: Space
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/04/moon-mars-property/

Then the intriguing question arises: could landing of such a low cost rover on a NEO allow the Astrobotic backers to claim full mineral exploitation rights on potentially a $20 trillion asteroid?


Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

There was a recent article discussing the idea that a loophole in the Outer Space Treaty might allow private land claims on outer space bodies

A loophole that doesn't exist - once a government starts managing property rights, it claims ownership per responsibility. The bigger loop hole is the fact that no international treaty has yet the ability to stop a 120mm APFSDS projectile (But some might work as protection against 9 mm bullets). Might does make right sometimes.

Then the intriguing question arises: could landing of such a low cost rover on a NEO allow the Astrobotic backers to claim full mineral exploitation rights on potentially a $20 trillion asteroid?

No. Landing a group of mine workers, lawyers and soldiers on the asteroid and managing to STAY there would be the only way, so you can count as government outside the range of international law. But the following embargo might be hard to circumvent.

 

[T.Neo]

Then the intriguing question arises: could landing of such a low cost rover on a NEO allow the Astrobotic backers to claim full mineral exploitation rights on potentially a $20 trillion asteroid?

Not any more than tossing a piece of wood with my name scratched on and a radio transponder taped to it into the sea off of Cape Town would entitle me to ownership of the South Atlantic...

 

[PhantomCruiser]

Don't forget to include a flag. That proves ownership, right? (worked for Columbus)

 

[RGClark]

...
Again because the delta-V requirements to a NEO are less than those to the Moon, this lander/rover could also serve as a prospector for asteroid missions. There was a recent article discussing the idea that a loophole in the Outer Space Treaty might allow private land claims on outer space bodies:

Loophole Could Allow Private Land Claims on Other Worlds.
By Adam Mann | April 5, 2012 | 6:30 am | Categories: Space
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/04/moon-mars-property/

Then the intriguing question arises: could landing of such a low cost rover on a NEO allow the Astrobotic backers to claim full mineral exploitation rights on potentially a $20 trillion asteroid?

Bob Clark

There is debate among legal scholars about the Outer Space Treaty. While it does ban national ownership, there is debate on whether it bans private ownership. This article on The Space Review site discusses the issue in more detail:

Staking a claim on the Moon.
by Jeff Foust
Monday, April 9, 2012
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2058/1

The opposing view is expressed here:

How the U.S. Can Lead the Way to Extraterrestrial Land Deals.
By Berin Szoka and James Dunstan April 9, 2012 | 1:58 pm | Categories: Space, Wired Opinion
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/04/opinion-space-property-rights/

I don't agree with the argument that Szoka and Dunstan give that Article VI of the treaty bans private use of outer space bodies. This article in the treaty states:

Article VI
States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty. The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty. When activities are carried on in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, by an international organization, responsibility for compliance with this Treaty shall be borne both by the international organization and by the States Parties to the Treaty participating in such organization.

This article only seems to be talking about that the uses shall only be for peaceful purposes and that rescue operations need to be undertaken for other nations manned missions if needed.

However, another part of the Szoka/Dunstan argument I do find compelling: that different countries would grant overlapping land claims. Then it would appear such claims would have to be granted by an international organization.


Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

The problem is: Can you have private ownership without a government guaranteeing your right of property? It is a matter of sovereignty.

An international organization wouldn't work, because of the other articles - it could only grant temporary use or use according to the treaty by a nation or a private entity representing the nation.

A new treaty would be needed in first place, that replaces the current Outer Space Treaty towards private ownership - the "failed" Moon Treaty for example goes in the opposite direction, despite granting more applications of celestial resources.

 

[Hlynkacg]

In this case I'd say that the asteroid or celestial body belongs to whoever sets up camp on it.

The true power of law enforcement lies in enforcement. Whether or not the UN decides that private asteroid mining is legal matters little. What are they gonna do about it?

 

[Jarvitä]

The true power of law enforcement lies in enforcement. Whether or not the UN decides that private asteroid mining is legal matters little. What are they gonna do about it?

Have member states freeze/confiscate assets of anyone who tries their luck? Impose economic sanctions against states that refuse? Block all extra-terrestrial imports? Shoot down unmanned delivery vehicles?

 

[NovaSilisko]

I think for asteroids smaller than a kilometer or so, they can claim rights to minerals, but not to actual OWNERSHIP of the asteroid.

 

[T.Neo]

What are they gonna do about it?

Considering that a considerable infrastructure just in organisational terms is required for a space operation (even a minor one) I doubt it would be impossible to shut these things down on the ground.

If I understand correctly, if you manufacture a product or piece of hardware from extraterrestrial resources (say, something like a bar of platinum), it belongs to you. Which would make any concern about 'laying claim' or 'establishing mineral rights' to an asteroid pointless.

 

[Hlynkacg]

Have member states freeze/confiscate assets of anyone who tries their luck? Impose economic sanctions against states that refuse? Block all extra-terrestrial imports? Shoot down unmanned delivery vehicles?

That would require cooperation from the member states.

Likewise for the disruption of ground-based infrastructure.

If asteroid mining becomes profitable, all that's needed is one country who values the income potential, more than they fear UN sanctions.

---------- Post added at 11:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:13 PM ----------

Shoot down unmanned delivery vehicles?

Sounds like a good reason to make supply vehicles manned then. :thumbup:

 

[RGClark]

Another team has now announced plans to do mining from
the Moon:

Renowned scientists join tech visionaries at Moon Express to mine the
Moon for planetary resources.
“MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif., April 24, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- Moon Express, a
Google Lunar X PRIZE contender, announced today that some of the
world's leading planetary scientists have joined its Science Advisory
Board (SAB) to assist the company in its plans to explore and
ultimately mine the Moon for precious planetary resources.”
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...e-moon-for-planetary-resources-148632035.html

I happen to think off-world mining will be the "killer app" that makes space flight routine. For it, we will need low cost heavy lift and low cost manned flight.
Some people have advised that I should open up a blog for these technical discussions - sometimes meant as a constructive criticism, sometimes not. In any case I have decided to do so. On the blog so far are posts discussing creating a super heavy lift vehicle at the few hundred million per launch range, compared to NASA's SLS at ca. $10 billion per launch(!), and of manned lunar missions also at the few hundred million per launch range.

Low cost HLV.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/05/low-cost-hlv.html

SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/05/spacex-dragon-spacecraft-for-low-cost.html

Comments on the blog posts and on improving the blog are invited.


Bob Clark