The Morning Summary, April 25, 2011

8/6/26:

Folks may want to know some stats. This blog was cross-posted from the original blog, and so this post was on the original blog. It should still be there, but this update won't be. Different blog now.

I'll give some general stats for this blog starting now.

All time views, per Google's Blogger Platform: 361464

April 25, 2011 : The original post:

The statistics:

Time approx 4:30 am

Sitemeter; Mon. am. 4618; v. Sun. am 4599; 19 up 1 from Sun

Blogger: Sun. 83, up 24 from Sat. (59); overnight is 12 so far, compared with 21 this time yesterday.

Nothing to report on bids, nor sales, still zero on revenues, no clicks on Amazon.  Nobody appears to be clicking on the Products page nor on the Marketing pages.

New record for this blog on Blogger pageviews.

YouTube page: 848 v 847 channel views previously, 493 v. 492 upload views previously. Channel views improve by 1, upload views improve by 1.

It is gratifying to hit new records. On the other hand, the lack of marketing success is frustrating.

Update:

I think I am going to be lite with the blogging today. That's my agenda today. Just to think.


Update:

One thing I thought about was the Space Show yesterday. If you were to get large quantities of turpentine and nitric acid in orbit at a reasonable cost, that could be a plus. On the other hand, these hypergolics may be hard to find and to synthesize in space. It would be necessary to get this up there somehow. Once up there, they can be more useful than trying to store cryogenics. The big dumb rocket could send up buttloads of the stuff. Also, the Space Cannon concept may be able to send it up at a reasonable price.

Also, after I finished the above post, I started reading up on fusion. I may need to spend some time in these forums.

Update:

It is interesting to go back and look at previous posts like this.  It is all an education, just like yesterday.  I didn't know about Interorbital until I listened to the Space Show.  It is still a matter of getting educated on what's out there.

If I may interject a thought into these discussions.  Everybody is going at this in their own way.  But what if no single way exists?  That's a question that should be considered.  Take fusion, for example.  The fact that fusion can take place now is not in dispute.  The problem is getting it to do what we want.  But if we want to do something like generating electricity, it may not be possible by a direct approach.  Let's say if you wanted to use fusion for propulsion and then use that propulsion to emplace solar stations that would send energy back to the Earth.  But I don't think anyone is thinking that way.  Instead, they want to get it to produce net electrical power.  Maybe that isn't even necessary.  That's my point. 

Mining the Sky

6/26/26:

If memory serves, this is one of the earliest posts for the Boots and Oil blog. My history with blogging goes back further, to 2004. Blogging was a new thing in that time, but all the oxygen went out of the space once Facebook, Twitter, and so forth became big time haunts for the public. Quick note: This post was spun off the Main blog and placed in this blog, which was once called Kardashevian Aspirations. The name of this blog has changed in order to protect the innocent.

Getting some traction out there has become friggin' impossible. I've been doing this steadily for fifteen years, and still like a salmon swimming upstream. But that's okay. I'm doing what I like to do.

As for Mining the Sky? With Elon Musk's new Starship coming online, this is becoming feasible. The one technology that is not proven, yet necessary for this to happen, will be orbital refueling.

There are more and better ways to skin that cat, which is something that is covered in the blog. No time to look for that for ya'll. It's there, you just have to look around!

9/29/10:

The title of this post is the title of a book that can be purchased on Amazon.
I didn't read it, but it does has some interesting ideas.

I thought about this after reading a proposal to put fuel in the sky for space
missions into deep space, such as a trip to Mars. It is much more efficient
to put a fuel station in orbit than to launch all the fuel you need and put it
into space all at the same time.

The means to do this would be a space cannon in the sea. The space cannon
concept is getting near the proof of concept phase according to one article I
read in Next Big Future. If this concept does indeed work, a mission to Mars
becomes much more affordable and feasible.

The space cannon will launch small projectiles into space in rapid fire order.
Therefore, it can launch a lot of stuff in a small amount of time. Just collect
the stuff in one location, like a gas station in orbit, and then fill up with a space
ship that can be launched into orbit separately. Once the space ship has enough
fuel for its long journey back and forth, its off to Mars. Or anywhere else you
may want to go.

A trip to Mars would be a science mission. But a trip to the asteroids could
become a commercial mission. There's gold in them thar asteroids. Also platinum
and numerous other rare metals that would be handy to have here on earth.
Something to think about, hm?

How to get stuff off the moon

Scott Manley discusses some lunar base ideas. He posed the question that I thought up myself awhile back.

This is what you call a "good question". It seems that I had a conversation with the gas gun guy who responded to my query about how to get stuff off the moon, and he said that you wouldn't even have to heat hydrogen that hot in order to reach escape velocity.

So a hydrogen gas gun would be better than a rail gun. By the way, you could recover electricity by having some brakes to slow down the accelerator device. The way it would work is that you would need to heat up a chamber full of sealed hydrogen. It wouldn't have to be all that hot. The expansion of the gas would create the push needed to get the sled up to escape velocity. The hydrogen gas can be re-compressed and liquified for storage for the next shot.

What would happen if you used a gas gun in space?

The topic has come up on the main blog, but I will post these brainstorm type post on this here blog instead.

Anyway, if a gas gun can expel an object at an escape velocity ( if memory serves ), then it might be useful as a propulsion system in space. That is, the recoil of the huge gas gun could be harvested for delta-v for a rocket. Presumably, it would be better than a rocket, but the effective velocity would be much higher.

Or would it be higher? I'm not savvy enough on these calculations. Perhaps a mathemetically inclined person could answer this. If a gas gun emitted a "shell" that massed out at 1000 kilos, then what kind of delta V could you get out of it to propel a payload through space?

It would depend upon a few considerations, such as the mass of the spacecraft. But also the amount of thrust in the metric system ( newtons ? ). The rocket equation may be able to determine the ISP, I would think.

It's possible that it may be superior to burning the fuel and sending it out a rocket nozzle. If the hydrogen gas were heated more than the heat of combustion from burning it, that would indeed be the case.

How to heat up the gas? Questions, questions.

Somebody smarter than I am could figure it out.

An Inexpensive Solution for Quickly Launching Military Satellites Into Space

www.nationaldefensemagazine.org


Sounds a lot like Quicklaunch. Quicklaunch uses a gas gun, which is the difference. In principle, the object that is supposed to reach orbit has to pass through the lower atmosphere at a very high velocity. That's the problem.

John Hunter of Quicklaunch believes he has the answer.  The author doesn't mention that problem, so he may not have a solution.

Burt Rutan interview

Popular Mechanics H/T Transterrestrial Musings

quote:

To allow public access to orbit, we would need breakthroughs that would lower the cost by a lot more than an order of magnitude and increase safety by a factor of 100 as compared to every launch system used since the first manned space flight. I think airborne launch will be a significant part of the safety solution. Breakthroughs to do the rest of the job are unknown.

Comment:

Just my opinion, and two cents here, but the problem may be that too much is expected from a single launch system.  If the Stratolaunch, or Birdzilla as some call it, can solve the safety problem, then some other technology can solve the other problems.

Spacex will most likely attempt to make Birdzilla launch platform fully reusable, which will help with the cost problem.

As for the rest of a comprehensive solution,  you can look at other systems to help with costs from LEO on outward.  For example, Quicklaunch can get materials into space cheaply.  If feasible, a LOXLEO system can skim atmospheric gases from LEO and use it to power spacecraft after achieving orbit, while reducing costs still further.  By combining these two systems, you could leverage a small payload of hydrogen from Quicklaunch into much more by using a LOXLEO system.  Once you have the water in orbit, you can then split it into hydrogen and oxygen.  This could support missions to cis Lunar space where the moon can be further exploited into a base for interplanetary exploration and development.  Thus, not all of the requirements needed will come from one system, but a series of systems.

Boeing Tapping Heritage Programs for Space Taxi Design

SpaceNews.com

excerpt:

“For this program, we’re going to be pulling heavily off of our human space experience and our commercial aircraft experience to develop a safe, reliable and affordable system,” Chuck Hardison, Boeing’s production and ground systems manager for the CST-100

Comment:  That's a four year lag with no US based manned launches.  Was this necessary?

By the way, I wanted to speculate further on the Quicklaunch system.  An idea came to me to launch carbon into LEO by this method.  It won't melt or present a problem if it gets thermalized.  A rigid tungsten alloy can encapsulate it.  Subsequent missions could be determine if a fuel can be made in space from this carbon and additional fuels sent up by other methods, or by Quicklaunch.  The idea is to practice in situ resourcing.  By using a rather sturdy material, such as carbon, and combining it with hydrogen, one might gain the  benefits of cheaper access to space for the bulk of the material.  Hydrogen, being lighter, should not be as costly to lift in great quantities, should it not be feasible to send it up by Quicklaunch.

Note: Carbon and Tungsten have the highest melting points of all the elements.  It could survive a hot ride up.

George Nield speaking at ISPCS

I found this from the Quicklaunch Facebook Page. I have a question and answer posted there, in case you're interested.

Frankly, I wasn't familiar with the ISPCS!  Helluva note, I tell you.  I've been blogging on this subject for over a year now and my ignorance of this astounds me.

Quicklaunch was at this conference, so I was looking for some videos to put up here of that conference.  I first one I found was of George Nield.  Nield was a guest on the Space Show on several dates listed here.  If you are like me and are amazingly ignorant of a so many things, a great introduction can be had from Dr. Space, as he does an outstanding job of introducing his guests.

It is an interesting talk below and if you have the time, I recommend watching it all the way through.



Incidentally, ISCPC has their own YouTube Channel here.

Update:

Robert Bigelow remarks at the conference

Quicklaunch series: Sprint rockets

I've just added this as a new category because I think it is an interesting concept which I want to explore further.

In order to follow this thread, click on that label which follows this post.  All posts on that subject will come up and you can easily follow it there.  At the moment of this writing, I've not attached all the labels yet.  By the end of the morning, that task should be complete.

I'll write a post for today on this subject, and I've already updated the previous post.  I'm adding it again on the top post because I want to emphasize the point.

On the recent Space Show, John Hunter spoke of Sprint rockets, which were part of an operational program, albeit short lived, which were designed for missile defense.  The program was discontinued almost immediately, which, in retrospect, appears to be another one of the inexplicable actions of our failing government.  If there was one program that definitely should not have been scrapped, it was this one.

But that is beside the point of this post, but the point is well taken in connection with the rest of this blog.  As long as I'm referring to my dissatisfaction with this ridiculous decision making process that we seemed to be afflicted with these days, I'll remind anyone interested that I have a entire category dedicated to that subject.

No, the point is that these rockets were very, very fast.  Since "Charles"  (Pooley) of Micro Launchers called to challenge John Hunter of Quicklaunch on  this concept, a bit of devil's advocacy led to investigate the feasiblility of the idea.    Sprint rockets are fast, but not as fast as Hunter's Quicklaunch vehicle.  The top speed of the Sprint was Mach 10, which it reached very quickly.  Thermal issues appeared to be of concern, so Charles' objections need to be answered, I would think.  Running some numbers that's about 7600 mph for the Sprint and 13000 mph for the Quicklaunch.  Hunter needs to explain how he can protect his payload when the thermal issues are going to me much greater than the Sprint.  Hunter responded to Charles by asking him to prove it on the blackboard, which Hunter says he's already done.

The Sprint webpage, referred to above, does not rule out the possibility of Quicklaunch.  That's key.  It only says that:

Within seconds, the missile reached a speed of Mach 10+, and the extreme thermodynamic heating demanded sophisticated ablative shielding (the nose was already glowing red-hot less than a second after launch).

This is probably a similar technology which the shuttle used upon reentry.

Hunter's idea is to put his payload inside, but that may be a problem because of the intense heat, and the extraordinary amount of high g acceleration.

As for the blackboard component of this discussion, Hunter mentioned Johns Hopkins, which I will go to next.   However, I'm probably not qualified to get very far with that.  My math skills are not that advanced.

Update: approx 2pm

I found one pdf file associate with John Hopkins.  It did indeed have John Hunter included amongst the authors.  One thing that I found was that his numbers appear to be much better than the ones mentioned in this file.  The report does say that this method of launching satellites- using gas guns- is technically feasible.

Unless Hunter knows more than what was reported in this 1999 file, I'd say his claims run the risk of being overblown.  It will fly, most likely, but for what purpose?  If the costs really are as attractive as he claims, which I can't see in this report, this could be a viable new option.

John Hunter of Quicklaunch is interviewed by Sander Olson (June interview )

Next Big Future

This was an interview done back in June this year, about the same time that Hunter was on the Space Show.  Looks like I missed this interview at that time, since it isn't referenced in the post indicated in bold.

I'm writing this post in connection to the nuclear Jules Verne post, which I spent some time this morning thinking about.  That particular concept doesn't appear to be a project that anybody is actually working on at this moment, unless it is the Chinese, but Quicklaunch appears to be a going concern.  I got curious about his progress, so I listened to the space show broadcast once again.  There was a Facebook page mentioned, in which I found a link to Quicklaunch's webpage.  There's not a whole lot of information there, which is a bit of a let down.

Quicklaunch has figured in the speculative couple of posts here titled "The Elements of a Space Exploration Infrastructure".  It looks like one of these can be emplaced on the moon so as to facilitate moving goods around the lunar surface.  It would be advantageous to do so, at least at first, since this method of transport would require the least amount of infrastructure.  As the lunar colony gets built out, a lunar transportation system could be substituted in its place.

By the way, the nuclear Jules Verne most likely would not work because of the atmospheric drag would be too great.  You need as little surface area as possible, plus you'd need something that could withstand the enormous amount of heat, which isn't likely.  A small scale nuke, like a suitcase nuke, may be workable in the technical sense.  However, everyone knows what the no nukes will do to that idea.  Suitcase nukes can get as small as a half a kiloton, if memory serves.  That's about a million pounds of tnt.  Aside from the anti nuke types, you'd have other problems as well, such as destruction of your launch site after every launch.  Better get it right the first time.

Hunter's business angle is to launch a lot of fuel for space exploration.  He says it will take a lot of fuel in order to get each astronaut to Mars.  He means to get that business. 

What if he used it to make a moonstalk instead?  It would take an enormous number of shots to do that though.  You need about 6000 tons at EML-1 for a moonstalk ( don't quote me on that).  Either you get it there from the lunar surface by a lot of launches from there, or from the Earth.  It would seem to be an easier task on the moon because of its lack of atmosphere and shallower gravity well.

A VASIMR could be used to take a lot of mass to EML-1.  It would be like a tug.  The Earth based Cannon could get mass to LEO and the VASIMR could take it the rest of the distance.  Let's say you were to take a smaller version of the cannon to the moon, then use it to build up the moonstalk.  That would simplify getting the matter in place at EML-1, or so I am speculating.

There are smaller versions of the Cannon, which can be set up on solid ground.  The Quicklaunch system, by the way, is emplaced in the ocean, or deep body of water.  These smaller versions could do the job on the moon, or so I speculate.  Hunter said on the space show that these things need to be muzzle loaded.  That may be tricky on the moon, therefore complicating the matter.

Update:


I'm listening to this show for the second time today.  There are some fine points that I'd like to make note of:

1. He says that you only have to heat the hydrogen to 1500 deg K in order to get the 6 km/sec velocities.  This temperature is reachable by using concentrated solar power.
2. Length of the gun is proportional to the mass desired to be shot cubed.  For example, if you double the length, then cube the payload deliverable.
3. Small payloads are possible, as small as 200 lbs.  Start up costs for that is only $50 million.  Sweet spot is between 100-1000 lbs.
4. Million pounds per person propellant to get to Mars : comment- if you launch from EML3, you could do a lot better than that (I think).
5. First shots goals will be 3 clicks per sec ( 3 km/sec I gather).  comment: Faster than escape velocity of the moon.
6. Recommends John Hopkins and SHARP to "Charles".  Charles likes to be challenging.  Hunter also recommended one of Andersons books on hypersonics.

Update: 11/17/11

Hunter mentioned his challenges with social media, which reminded me that I'm on Facebook too.  It sometimes doesn't occur to me to use that, but this reminds me to use it more in the future.  Let's see what that does.

The Elements of a Space Exploration Infrastructure, revisited

http://www.freemars.org/l5/aboutl5.html

One element in the last post was the Moonstalk, which would extend from the lunar surface to the Lagrange points L1 and L2.   Since that last post,  I have learned about LFTRs, which could supply power from the lunar surface up to L1 and back down again toward the surface.  This would enable a base to operate anywhere on the surface on the moon even while it is in the lunar night, which lasts two weeks.

How?  There would be a LFTR at the polar region, which would beam microwave energy toward L1.  The L1 base would then convert that into electricity and back into microwave energy to beam back down to the surface.  The surface base would then collect the energy and use it.

The L1 base could also beam energy to geostationary bases which could do the same toward the Earth, but not toward the surface, but towards collectors on VASIMR powered craft.  These craft could go to L1 or to other Lagrange points in order to supply them or to crew them.

Meanwhile, back at the lunar base, which is being powered from the L1 base, will be building a Moonstalk infrastructure from the surface up toward L1.  Eventually, the two will be linked, so as to enable a crew and cargo easy access from the surface to L1 and indirectly, back to Earth.

Transportation from L1 to the pole regions could be accomplished either by linking up to the L1 station, or by using Space Cannons to launch cargo back and forth.

To start, you would need a base on L1.

From L1, you would travel back and forth to the pole region selected and build a Moonbase there.

You would begin to exploit the materials available there to support the Moonbase and to build a LFTR on the moon.  Once the LFTR is built, begin building a microwave transmitter for the Moonbase and a receiver and transmitter for the L1 station.

After this is accomplished you will need one more receiver for the ground where you will begin building a Moonstalk.

You will also need transmitter/receivers for the geostationary units orbiting the Earth.  These will be used to supply energy for the VASIMRs, which will be bringing supplies and crew back and forth between the Earth and L1.

Prior to that, you will be using conventional rocketry.

Once the VASIMRs are going, propellant needs will be vastly reduced.  VASIMR missions could also bring materials from the Earth, which will serve as an anchor for the Moonstalk.  Also, materials can be brought up from the lunar surface as well.  Once the Moonstalk is built, the final piece is to connect all the pieces together with the Space Cannon.

Once all this is in place, you can start building your second Moonstalk at L2, on the back side of the moon.

You could also build a nuclear thermal powered rocket which would never land on any planetary surface.  It could dock at L2 only, so as to always be away from the Earth, and never pose any radiation hazard towards Earth.

L2 is the gateway to the solar system.  Once you have L2 constructed and the nuclear thermal rocket constructed, plus all the other materials in place, you will need only incidental support from the Earth.  The moon could supply most of its own needs, plus it could begin to support the outward push to the planets.

O'Neill: Ch VIII,IX

Chapter eight discusses the nuts and bolts of the first colony.  It will require a base on the moon, and a mass driver.  It would have taken six years.  The cost figures calculated are based upon Shuttle estimates, which were not in the cards.  Therefore, it couldn't have been economical.  It would have required an extra heavy lift vehicle to be constructed. That didn't happen, and still hasn't happened.

Chapter nine discusses space solar power as an economic activity for the colony.  It was not to be, and for the same reason- which was launching costs.  Interestingly enough, O'Neill doesn't discuss how to solve this problem.  I think he assumed that the Shuttle would do that, but as we all know now, it didn't happen that way.

This chapter also discusses his ideas for a propulsion based up lunar dust as a reaction mass.  I can't say that I like that idea at all.

Oddly enough, he doesn't seem to making an economical case for building one of these things.  Even if his assumptions were correct, which they weren't, this doesn't make enough sense to me.

He does make a case for his colonies to perform science.  Would a government be willing to support such large colonies for primarily scientific reasons?

Self preservation of the species was also mentioned. If that is the goal, it can be done more cheaply.

Moonbase continued

Having trouble with Blogger again.  It won't let me update the previous post.  If it looks a little rough, that's why.

Correction therefore here:  if each piece of the outer rim is 500 ft, then for a 1 mile in diameter torus, you would need more than 3 miles to do the job.  This means 15624 feet.  Dividing this by 500 gives 31 pieces.  It so happens that the picture of the bicycle tire shows about that many spokes.  So each piece could be connected to the hub by 1 spoke.

This also means that you would need to launch each piece with a connecter to the hub and one at each end so that they can be connected together.  If they use a 16 inch "space cannon", the connectors between will be limited to no bigger than that.   Enough room for a man to go through?  Maybe barely.  Each would be like an airlock, so that it would preserve the air pressure inside.  Not real comfy, but livable, with 500 feet of space inside.

Mass driver at Moonbase

I ran the numbers with the artificial gravity equation, which I discussed here. You can reach orbital velocity from the Moon with a racetrack set up of diameter of two miles, with an RPM of about 10. That means that it circles the track every six seconds or so and goes a little over 6 miles. Approx 1 mile per sec. The number of g's would probably be too high, but I could possibly calculate that from the lunar gravitation constant.

substituting lunar gravitation constant in upper equation

I don't know if that is valid, but for the numbers above the "g" force would be ??? Actually, the number got larger for some reason. One would think otherwise. In the original equation, it would be over 160 g's. That would be too much for people.

On second thought, a racetrack setup like this may be unrealistic. Perhaps you could set up a "space cannon" type gizmo in order to move stuff around on the moon, or into orbit. Those were tested at hypersonic speeds on Earth already.  I wonder if you could build one that would obtain orbital velocity?

Actually, the ground test mentioned here would achieve escape velocity from the Moon.

How could you build something comparable on the Moon? You could load one of these on a space craft that could land on the lunar surface. It would have to be constructed in place and it may need to use materials obtained from the Moon itself. Or, if it couldn't be obtained from the Moon itself, the raw materials could come from the Earth, and processed on the Moon.

By processing, I mean, taking say, basic steel, or aluminum, or some other metal that could be easily transported to the lunar surface. It would then be melted down and cast into a the appropriate shape desired.

Here's an idea that I've considered in connection to landing on the Moon without incurring as large of a mass penalty. You could use solid metals as reaction mass for your descent. The descent should be nearly vertical over the landing area so as to "recycle" the metals later after landing.

You would heat a gas, probably hydrogen hot enough that it could push a larger mass of metal downward with considerable velocity towards the lunar surface. The opposite reaction is according to Newton's laws, and it would slow down the descent as it would with a hot gas. The difference is that the gas dissipates, but the metal remains to be collected later.

Several tons could be expelled in such a manner. Although the final descent should be with a conventional engine setup. This could be considered a dual staged descent.

Update:

The discussion of a space gun as an example above mentions a 16 inch 100 caliber Navy gun.  Here is a discussion of how big such a gun would be in length.   The calculation would be 16 inches x 100 = 1600 inches long.   133 feet!  The slug weighed in at 180 Kg.  ( nearly 400 lbs).

Now, in order to build a O'Neil colony in space with lunar materials, you would need to somehow break down the pieces to that size and weight, and fire them many, many times.  You may want to aim at L4 or L5 Lagrange point in the Earth Moon system.  One proposition would be to load up a module of carbon nanotube superstructure at a time.  The superstructure would be able to be inflated when it arrives the Lagrange point.  Subsequent firings could place stuff inside the superstructure to build it from the inside.

An estimate to its size?  Maybe 500 ft to 1000 ft cylinders that would fit end to end so that it could make a torus, or donut shape.  Or perhaps, the torus could be made with the carbon nanotubes making up the foundation of subsequent construction.  It would be set up in a ring 1 mile in diameter, consisting of 500 to 1000 ft at a time.  This would mean 3 to 6 main pieces connected together to form the basic structure.

It might look like a bicycle tire, with the carbon nanotubes making up the rim.  You would then build inwards toward the hub with "spokes" to fit towards the middle towards the hub.   The spokes could be tethers that fit into a central hub and extended out towards the periphery where the carbon nanotube "tube" is.  Like the bicycle tire.

http://www.everybicycletire.com/

Pardon me for the amateurish example above.  It is a common ordinary bicycle tire from an advertisement on a webpage.  It will serve as an illustration of what I propose.  So far, I have describe the outer ring of carbon nanotubes which are inflated and connected to each other to form the torus.  The spokes are connected to a hub in the middle so that the hub and the outer rim are connected.   The habitable part will be between the rim and the spoke with a connecting point to the rim on one side and the spoke on the other.

Now, getting the spokes and the hub into position with the space gun may be a challenge.  But since they are tethers, they may be coiled inside a container.

By the way, I am making this stuff up as I go along.  This is like thinking aloud.  The problem I see is that the carbon nanotube that forms the rim may be desirable a habitable space, but since they have to be shot up separately and connected together, they won't be as open as you may like.  This may give something of a confining feel to the place.

Why Colonize Space?

For the sake of argument, let say there aren't any rational reasons to colonize space.   Let's reconsider that in another light by making an analogy.   What if you could compare an off world colony to a child?   What if you could consider the Earth having a son or daughter world that could be born and raised up until it can go out on its own?   Let's consider if that is possible.   Then it can be considered as a choice to do or not do.

Now for the matter of whether or not it could be done.  Let's start with the Moon.  We now know that there is water on the Moon.  There may be other "volatiles" that could be useful in life support.  In addition to all this, there is abundant matter on its surface.   With some effort and expense, a permanent lunar colony could be started which could do...  what?

I think that it should immediately put to the task of creating an artificial world that O'Neil envisioned.   Getting material from the Moon to space is a lot easier from the Moon itself than from directly from Earth.  The advantage is in the same vein as it would be to put a colony on the Moon.  It is easy to escape the Moon, and easier still to escape an O'Neil colony.  From an O'Neil colony, it could then be possible to begin colonizing the rest of the solar system.

The O'Neil colony would be the ultimate goal, but in the meantime, we have to fix up a Moonbase. We need access to its resources, which could consists not only of its volatiles, but also of thorium, which can be used as a source of energy.  Why thorium?  Assuming that fusion is still a long ways off, we know that thorium can be used with today's technology.  Therefore, the second task on the Moon, after mining it for its volatiles, would be to mine it for its thorium.  Now, let's inventory the lunar capabilities.  You have a life support system in place which, with an energy source, can begin major processing of lunar ores.  In short, you can start making stuff for your O'Neil colony.  In addition, with an energy source like thorium, you can have a propulsion system that can get you off the surface.

You need a transportation system on the Moon in order to move materials around on its surface.  This can be achieved with mass drivers, or some similar technology.  In this manner, a lunar trading system can be emplaced, which could move materials from where there are to where they are needed.   Now, you have a life support system, an energy production system, a transportation system, and an economic system.  It is beginning to look like a society that can begin to support itself.  Not to mention, it can cooperate with Earth and create another O'Neil colony in space.  In this manner, the colonies begin to act like an organism that replicates itself.

And that is the whole idea.  Life doesn't have to be "rational" in the sense of always being economical.  If you want a child, for example, it isn't so you can make money off the child.  You want a child to pass along what you know to the next generations to follow.  It is like a bond from the past towards the future.  A society that no longer cares about this no longer cares about continuing to exist.  What kind of world do we want to leave our progeny?  A world in which can be ever increasing and expanding, or one in which is always contracting and dying off?  A colony would be an investment in our own future.  Even more, it can be our guarantee of even having a future.   We may not benefit directly ourselves, but we can be assured that those following us will have a place in the sun.

Eve wrap, 5/8

Busy day posting. This is the 12th post. For a long time, I averaged just 3 a day. Here's the list of posts.

Looking back on the day, it began as a political day, but ended as a space day.  By the way, while I was thinking up my next post, I read about Quicklaunch, better known for the Cannon to the Planets idea by John Hunter.  I was wondering how all that turned out.

Anyway, it's time to shut down for another day.  I'll put in a video for your amusement.  Thanks for coming by.

More on the Space Cannon

I could have been a bit hasty in saying that the Space Cannon concept is around the corner.  So, I spent some time today on the subject to see if anything there looks different this time around.

Here's a wikepedia entry on the man, John Hunter, who presented the video which I had linked to in the earlier post.  There are a few more links about the man from the wikipedia entry to check out, but information is sketchy.

This presentation is a little over a year old, so I am looking for signs of progress since that time.  He is on a 8 year time table according to the presentation.  So, it has been a year.  What has been done in the past year?  It's a bit hard to tell from where I am standing.  This comment is the most recent I can find.  It doesn't tell anything.  In fact, it isn't even relevant.

In his presentation, he admits that he is not a rocket scientist, but his concept will require one.  That's because the projectile that he plans to put into orbit with his space gun will need a rocket to get into orbit.  Also, he says in his presentation that he will meet some venture capitalists for funding.  I wonder how that went.

If, by any chance, that things went well, sometime in the next few years, there could be an IPO for his company.  A lot will have to happen before that can occur, however.  For one thing, he will need a customer.  Most likely, even at this point, his only customer is likely to be NASA.  Maybe some private companies can use this service,  however.  I am not well versed on the subject enough to make a guess on the probability of that.  If he can secure one big customer, like NASA, he could be on his way.

So, in the end, his problem is that he could have a technology that needs a customer.  Without a mission from NASA or a private customer with a need for his service, it won't matter if his idea will work or not.

Now for a dash of speculation.  What if you were to employ this concept on the Moon?  It would be a way to avoid using much propellant.  And it would be better than a mass driver.  That, according to Hunter.  The trick would be in getting the gun up there.  But a lunar version of a gun like this wouldn't have to be nearly as powerful.

If a version of this gun were to be used to move lunar volatiles to the equatorial region so that a Moonstalk could be built, that would be interesting, yes?

A 64K dollar question

The Cato Institute asks if NASA can compete with Spacex.  After the last few posts, I think the answer is becoming obvious to me.  Two of the more significant developments (in my opinion), the VASIMR and the Space Cannon, are private initiatives.  Throw in Spacex, and it looks like NASA is out of a job.  Well, maybe that's going a little bit too far, but it gives you the general idea, does it not?  NASA isn't at the forefront anymore.  Neither in cost nor performance.  I'd say again that NASA should go into survival mode  if they want to hang around.  Otherwise, they will go away.  The world will see to that.

Hat tip: Transterrestrial Musings

hostgator coupon

The Future of the ISS

I have been subconsciously and loosely following this outline.  I wrote a little further on the topic here.  On that post, I suggested taking the ISS to L4 or L5.  But rather than doing that, why not take it to L1?  The reason for this is so that it can serve as mass for the eventual construction of a lunar space elevator.   Or rather than taking the entire station up there, take only the parts that would be the most useful.  It would be useful to keep portions of the ISS in LEO, I would think.

The idea of deorbiting the ISS and sending it to a fiery doom seems like a terrible waste.  Surely, the basic materials alone are worth something even if their only value is as a counterweight for a lunar space elevator.  It is consistent with in situ resourcing- "living off the land", which Zubrin has been writing about.  It is the principle behind the idea of recycling the shuttle's external tanks, which I have been writing about.  It will save the money that it costs from having to launch from the Earth's deep gravity well.  No matter how much launch costs can be reduced, it would still be good practice to economize where practical.

The ISS is scheduled to last until 2020.  It is never too soon to think about what comes next.


Update: 12/29/10: 9am

If a space cannon can get fuel up to a space station, that would be helpful way of utilizing the cold box idea I wrote about here.  The cannon can launch the fuel, then dock with the cold box and unload its fuel.  After making its drop, the projectile can reenter the atmosphere and be refilled over and over again for launches into space.  Keep launching these projectiles and filling the cold box until it is full.  When the cold box is full and since the rockets are still attached, fire them up which takes it to EML-1 and mate them together until you have the necessary mass for the lunar space elevator.

Update 12/29: 1:00 PM approx.

Found this webpage about a future moon base on the lunar south pole.  Interesting.

Also, I added a new website (see left side bar under news and info) from one of the Google ads running on my page.  Its a space elevator blog.

Update 12/30: 6 am approx.

The space cannon idea above is said to be relatively cheap ( 250 dollars per pound) way of getting payload to orbit.  It is said to be able to do 1000 lb payloads.  The below is a video about using this concept to fuel rockets that can explore the planets.





One of the things it can launch is argon fuel for the VASIMR propulsion system which is close to being tested on the ISS.  This could be a valuable technology in its own right, and its just around the corner.

Another alternative to Moon landings

Joseph Friedlander has a guest post up at NextBigFuture which is titled Setting up an Industrial Village on the Moon . It looks like another method of getting matter up there to the Moon in order to make a permanent presense there.  But there can be no permanent presense unless there's an economical reason for being there. What could that be?  He's looking for a way to bootstrap a colony.

The ideas he mentions say nothing about space elevators or tethers.  Rather, it is looked at from another angle entirely.  In order to get matter to or from the Moon, or from one location to another in general, a method is needed in order to protect the cargo.  The way that he mentions, which by the way, I like, is to use explosions as a decelerator. That idea isn't new, as the Russians used it in the sixties for hard landings on the Moon.

The trick is not to avoid crashes, but make the crashes not quite so hard, so that will not cause disintegrations. The remainder of the mass that's not disintegrated can be salvaged.  This makes setting up a Moon base more economical.

As the old saying goes, there's more than one way to skin a cat.  It can indeed be an economical way of getting materials up there that can be used to build that permanent presense.  Is there yet another way to skin the cat?

I suggest this: why not used controlled crashes to ship stuff from one part of the Moon to another?  From the lunar base to a equatorial base?  Use mass drivers on the polar base, and then catapult the cargo to the equator.  Then send up the cargo by way of a space elevator to the space station that I mentioned earlier.

Why send it all the way from the Earth if the goal is to be more economical?  It could be used to send materials not found on the Moon from the Earth, but for matter that is already there on the Moon, try this other way instead.