Heavy dose of reality

Yesterday's Space Show wasn't liveblogged because I couldn't get it to work.  It appears that the reason might have been that they were experimenting with video mode of delivering the show.

I have just listened to the recorded show and it was all about fuel depots.  It is a tough problem.  Like a lot of things, it is a lot easier said than done.  I haven't studied the program, and I don't know that I will do that.   It may be better to listen to it yourself, if interested.

Summary statement: 1) Depots warrant further investigation.  Steep tech curves, though.  Money for promising programs than he has heard about.  2) Promising, but lot of incremental demonstrators could answer a lot of questions- medium size steps needed.  Need to get answers soon, should be taking steps now which aren't expensive now. 3) need a balance between concepts and doing something.  Worry about tendency to make hardware too soon, precludes pathways that could be beneficial. 4) life science realities- don't know how biology fits into these other questions 5) delta v for plane changes are expensive; but attractiveness of depots are rising with respect to size of vehicle.  Physics- no show stoppers, looks like economic problem.   6) Need alternatives, don't get into big rush. 7) Chemical propulsion too limiting- nuclear propulsion should be looked into.

Nerva, revisited

I was just thinking of this yesterday.  Brian Wang of NextBigFuture has this little nugget of a news item about nuclear powered spacecraft.


The Wikipedia entry the power capability of this thing was rather significant.   This is a long discussion, so you may want to read the whole thing.

The NERVA rocket would also be a nuclear-powered upper stage for the Saturn rocket (the Saturn S-N), which would allow the upgraded Saturn to launch much larger payloads of up to 340,000 pounds to Low Earth Orbit. 

Another idea that may be impractical

Is it possible, I wonder, that the Apollo lunar modules can be salvaged in any way?  Could the rocket engines still have any use, and would it be worthwhile to attempt to salvage them?  There were six landings, each with the lower descent stage remaining behind when the astronauts returned from the Moon.  Just a thought I was having.

Checking out the Space Show today

I may live blog it on a casual basis.  It is challenging to keep up with the program.  If I am really interested in it, I will make the attempt.  I am somewhat interested today.

Update:
Doing a little prep before the show.  More information about today's guest.   And about ARRL Teachers Institute on Wireless Technology .  I think the acronym means National Association for Amateur Radio.  Only that doesn't seem to match up.  I guess we'll find out on the show.

The eham.net site looks interesting.  Ham radio, (amateur radio)by the way.  Well, that's all for now.  Going to the top of the blog and will point down here for readers to look this stuff up, if needed.

Recycling the ET's revisited

What can you do with the shuttle derived external tanks, assuming that they will exist in the future?  One thing to keep in mind is that when the shuttle's main engines quit firing, the external tank is 98 percent of orbital velocity.

It wouldn't take much more to get it up to orbital velocity.   I suggest that in future missions, a way should be reserved to keep the ET's in orbit,  as opposed to splashing them into the sea.

Once getting it up there, what do you do with it?  I've gone over that in previous posts.  Here's another idea, and hopefully, I can keep it real.  Let's say that you attach a propulsion device that can gradually lift the ET out of Earth orbit, and place it in lunar orbit.  Then, once in lunar orbit, send it to the surface at a predesignated spot and control crash it.  Why?  In order to obtain its materials for use on the lunar surface.

ET's weigh over 50,000 pounds.  That's a lot of metal which won't have to be mined from the lunar surface and processed.  It just needs to be melted down and recast into a useful product for use on the moon.

The Russians control crashed at least one of their lunar probes.  I believe the technique involves using an explosion that will slow down the craft and allow it to land at speed which would not cause too much damage to the probe.  Since the mission is to impart materials to the lunar surface, the condition of the tanks when they land is not that important.  Only that they are salvageable for some purpose.

What propulsive device?  Let's look at VASIMR.  This program is nearly operational.  Attach a VASIMR to an ET and send it to the moon.   Then do a in situ salvaging operation on what's left.

If the VASIMR will be powerful enough to keep the ISS in orbit, it may well be powerful enough to do this job.  It will take awhile, but it would be unmanned, so there's no big hurry.

Liveblogging the Space Show today

Paul Spudis will be on.  I'd be interested to hear what he says about the moonbase proposal.  The show will be on in less than two hours.  Check back here at that time.

Update:  About 20 minutes before the show.  I was just now thinking about the Superhero series.   The reason I was thinking of it was that my commenter here included a link to the site in which I saw something that he wrote that interested me and I downloaded it.   Not to say much more here, other than I was reading a bit from the download while I was waiting for the show to begin.  ( It's about storytelling.)

Update:  Looks like the show is about to begin.

 Intro beginning.  Announcements:  phone, email, podcast access to program, website has all current info, newsletter uploaded this evening, upcoming plans, future guests can be seen on website, shows are archived.

It is a nonprofit ( where I got the idea for this blog).  Donations are tax deductible.  Begin intro of Dr. Spudis.  Effective articulation of going back to moon.  Senior staff scientist, awards received and has a book out based upon his blog.  Has a cd in the back of the book.

Corrects the URL into the Doctor. gave.    Asks about book.   Why in a book?  Got requests and said it would be handy in a book.  Traveling literature.  Good thematic collection.  A serious change in national space program.  Formally collect those to keep a record.

Running commentary of lunar science.  Running log of operations.  Collection of mini essays.  Like an op ed column.  Half revolved around policy.  Evolved in differently than what they anticipated.

Question:  Clarify article about NASA meetings going to the moon, but going back to Moon cancelled.  Are we going to Moon?  We do we stand?  Answer:  Yes and No.  Phenomenon: a large program get reoriented by big organization not everybody gets message.  Get confusion called Brownian Motion.   Got the project proposed changed, but Congress disagreed.  ( Part of the confusion )  Only partly implemented Prez proposal.  Of seven points, 3 mentioned lunar surface.  No one knows what the mission is.  Chaos.  Also the budget situation in Congress.  No budget for this year nor next year.

How do you plan for that, asks David.  Ans.  Don't.  In reactive mode.  In chaos.  Good plan to destroy NASA he says.

Suggestion on how to move forward?  Ans:  Lack of leadership have chaos.  Need to bring order out of chaos.  A budget will emerge eventually.  May be painful (new budget).  Until then, all up in air.  No comfort to offer, he says.  Never seen it this bad.

Q: Are we really moving forward without timelines?  A: Yes we do need them.  NASA works better with a schedule.  NASA is operational agency.  Need realistic program.  Cost overrun were supposed to be handled by scheduling.

Caller:  John in Montana.  Asks about competition from India, China will spur competition?  How will to turn things around given lack of leadership, competence, vision and having everyone "diving into their own navel"?

Ans:  Spur into action?  Sputnik effect?  But not so sure that it would make a difference.  It will take something dramatic or negative to make that happen, hopes not.

Stop navel gazing?  Will continue that, he says.  Small groups will make things better.  These people will emerge and move us forward.  At some point, realize space is important to society and we need it.  Practical reasons.  Once that is realized, a more stable rational program emerges.

follow up: can it be reversed?  Ans.  Yes, it can.  Need a critical mass.  A rational reason to do this.  Is possible to change it.

call in number  18666877223

Half of questions are aligned with these thoughts.  Tries to convey enthusiasm for the science.  But the edifice is crumbling too.

No shortage of publicity, but not driving it.  Perplexing.  Evidence stronger for return to Moon.

Alan in Seattle: do we need a commercial driver or is it still government.  He says both.  Doesn't have to be a conflict.  Can make money and are important national interest.  Knowledge base improving.

Carla asks  focus should build heavy lift vehicle?  Ans.  argument on both sides of that.  The language in bill was in bill.  Congress concerned by retiring shuttle, they are worried losing capability we might need in future.  Keep the infrastructure.  Build around shuttle hardware.

Now a test of wills between NASA and Congress.  Ugly battle.

Why does NASA oppose this?  Pres is opposed.

My opinion:  do both commercial and heavy lift on shuttle technology.

Shuttle sidemount a possible solution.  Meets all requirements.

Policy from the top down.

caller:  John in Atlanta.  mixture of two influences 1) academics rely on unmanned probes 2) certain elements want commercial space  Ans.  fair comment, he says.  Agrees about 1), but influence is less than that.  Not powerful  on 2) in agreement that commercial guys want to get a chance at the money.  Don't help them build their vehicles.

Democrats not been manned program fans.  A certain wing of party.  Ans.  Bipartisan support.  Philosophical divide, not partisan.

 Can't gut the program.  What are the goals?  Won't see Apollo funding.  Need funding to move to get you to goal.

John in Montana:  Other than LBJ has been fan of space?  All Prez have supported space.

break

The nuts and bolts of government bores me, I have to admit.  This discussion was getting tedious to me.  I am more interested in the moonbase.

back now

Propellant depots.  Ans.  Not critical of heavy lift.  Budget figures struck him on asteroid mission.  Each architecture got only 1 mission to asteroid.  Took too long and got so little for it.  End point trivial to what it took to do it.  ( criticism of president)

another comment was that we spend same amount of money but by end have capability.  Better deal.

(Spudis): Never said propellant depot was dumb.  Depends on what you are trying to do.  One off program is dumb.
Like asteroid.  ( YES!)

This discussion looks very bad for President Obama.  ( my comment)

Discussion goes off on propellant depots and such.  My mind is wandering back to the ET discussion that I wrote about on this blog a few months ago.  Can save the shuttle derived system he was talking about, plus make it more cost effective.

Arc jets?  Dennis Wingo mentioned.  A lot of noise on the line.

David goes off on one his "rants".  Says he has radically changed his views.  Never in 10 year history have totally bullcrap been talked about.  Equated as reality to build is ridiculous.  Tired of powerpoints.   Lack of knowledge and so forth.   Says not doing any good to bombard us with nonsense.  Get Real his says.  He's really getting into it!!!

Spudis agrees with 3/4 of it, he says.  Lot of people on internet.  ( like me?) Don't consider myself an expert.  I try to keep it real.  Spudis, blames it on the lack of leadership in Washington.  He thinks it will get worse.

break

Comment:  The last thing I want to do is to harm the space program.  If that was the result of what I am doing, I would shut everything down immediately.  I want to keep everything real.  That's the whole point.

 back to show

Blogging the Moon is the name of the book. 

Academic community feels that manned space program too costly, Spudis disagrees.   Cold traps are colder than surface of Pluto.  Cold traps keep water there forever.  Areas near poles are in near perpetual light.  Axis tilt is very low.  Sun is always on horizon.  Mapped out these areas.  Perfect situation to occupy the Moon.  Human presence on a sustainable basis is possible.

Vaporware problem.  Bang on!!!!!  I noticed this.

Spudis says exercising the imagination is a good thing.  Daydreaming is a good thing not a bad thing.  Only bad if allow to replace day to day living.  "Don't be a wanker!!!!"

Widget factories don't make flight hardware, he says.

Need to go to polar region to observe in place.  Anyone can do this, says.  Says he has already done it on the Indian mission.

Any missions to surface?  Looks like no.

Moon v Mars.  (NASA) Never thrilled about Moon.

Rate the optimism  10 perfect 0 worse than today in 5 years?  Spudis at the 30 percent level.  Nothing going to happen in couple years.  Still going to be shell shock at NASA.   Looks for indecision to be extended.  Won't get back on track in couple years.  May take next election.  After that, resolution one way or another.

Future direction is emerging, he says. Spudis can be contacted through his website.  Can't transcribe this stuff fast enough.   Gives pearls of wisdom and closes the show.

Final notes on show:  I think Spudis is right.  I think Obama is mostly wrong, but I am in favor of commercial crew.  I am in favor of sidemount, just use it for cargo.  Try to reuse shuttle ET tanks.   Don't use sidemount for crewed missions.  Don't need to man rate it.   Can use SpaceX for manrated hardware.  Decide on that or another but decide soon.  Agree with Spudis that we need to find out about what is on the Lunar pole regions.  This seems like high priority to me.

Working with spreadsheet and doing what if scenarios

I hope this is readable. I worked on some spreadsheet comparisons in order to get some idea on what would be economical in terms of various scenarios. I started with what is commonly looked at, and then proceeded to something from my own experience as a driver. I got some pretty interesting numbers.

 I've got six scenarios.  1) today's gas prices with current comparable vehicles with some likely numbers filled in for trade in's and so forth  2)  today's gas prices, but add a fuel cell and increase the price of the vehicle accordingly, assume a 250000 life  meaning drivers who drive a lot ( like me)  3) the same scenario, but assume increasing energy prices average 50 percent over the time period  4) Now switch to a bigger vehicle and adjust gas mileage according, reset back to today's prices and assume you can add a fuel cell at the price indicated  5) same as 4, but increase fuel prices by 50 %, , and finally 6) double the fuel prices.

Conclusion:  If they can make a pickup truck that will last 250000 miles, get a decent range between fillups, and don't lose too much in fuel economy while doing it, they will have a winner.  They will have a BIG winner, if gasoline prices go up a lot, which is distinct possibility.  Car makers should concentrate on putting fuel cells on larger vehicles first.

NOTE: I regret the lack of readability. Sorry.

Update:  I reworked the spreadsheet and added a scenario.  Also, I made the fuel economy of the larger vehicle less and still got some favorable numbers.

What I was looking at last night

The Nissan Leaf , that is looking at it on the Wikipedia.  The Leaf comes with a 24kwh battery pack.

I'm looking at what kind of combination of fuel cell and battery that you would need to make it an all electric vehicle.  It looks like if you were to fit it with a 20 kwh fuel cell, that would fill the bill for most scenarios that you may encounter while driving.  Here's a chart to illustrate it

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Leaf

The most challenging scenario was on the highway with the a/c running and outside temperatures in the nineties.  As you can see, I added some notes to the far left.  The discharge rate for that scenario is 19 kwh per hour.  With a fuel cell of that capacity, it should be able to keep the battery charged while driving under these conditions.  All other conditions are easily met.

Nissan believes it can reduce production costs of the battery in half.  That would put the battery cost at $8000 per car.  Given that Nissan is already absorbing this cost, then halving the cost of the battery would still allow it to be sold for the same price, presumably with a profit.  What about the fuel cell?

Here's an estimate of the cost per kwh of a fuel cell from a page that is undated.  The claim is $225 per kwh according to the DOE.  For a 20 kwh fuel cell, that would cost $4500.

If you used the Ford configuration, with only a 25 mile range ( 8 kwh battery), the cost of the battery goes down to about 2500 dollars.  A 20 kwh fuel cell could keep this battery charged as well.

If you were to meet Ballard's estimate of the mass produced cost of a fuel cell,  which was 73 dollars back in 2005, the price of the fuel cell drops to $1460.  The latest numbers for this estimate (50 dollars) are here.

These costs are not at all prohibitive.

The cost of the electrolyzer may not be possible to estimate here.  Let's assume that the electrolyzer is left out and the electrolysis takes place at the refueling station.  At that point, you can buy the hydrogen for $2 per kg plus the cost of compressing it or cryolyzing it.  Let's say that doubles the price.  It would then be $4 per kg.

If you get 60 mile per kg, the operating cost would be $4.00/60 mile per kg, yielding a cost per mile of 6.7 cents per mile.  That compares to 16 cents per mile at $4 gal gas for 25 mpg conventional car.  Every mile would save 9 cents in operating costs.  That means $9 thousand for every 100,000 miles.

Assuming the sale price could be held at 32000 dollars, which may be possible under mass production, the vehicle could be economically feasible.  Whatever the reason for it not being built, it probably doesn't have to be economic.

Freedom of Speech

This is tough to write because I don't like any infringement by government upon liberty.  But there are times when the media is harmful in the way they report events.  There's a write up about the nuclear troubles in Japan at NRO  which make me wonder sometimes about whether this freedom is always a good thing.

You see the media is a business enterprise.  They have to make money.  But people need information and it needs to be accurate.  There doesn't seem to be a way to get around the fact that the media can influence public opinion anyway they want.  If that power is abused, we all suffer for it.  In this case, when the media hypes a problem all out of proportion to what actually exists, they are not performing a public service, but instead, are performing a public disservice.  It's times like this that makes me wonder if the media should be regulated in some way.

The impossibility of that, regulating speech, prohibits that idea.  Short of that, what can you do?  Here is the media hyping the nuclear problems and they are going to make it difficult, or maybe even impossible to meet future energy needs because of this type of reporting.  It may be regrettable that we may have to depend upon rather imperfect ways of getting our energy, but to block all access to energy because of some risks involved in the means of getting it, is counterproductive to say the least.  At some point, the counterproductive reporting may have its consequences.  The consequences is that we may lose that which we take for granted, including the right to speak freely.  All could be lost if the times become desperate enough.  Better to avoid that scenario than to help bring it on by irresponsible reporting.

I remember the Chernobyl accident and the reporting of that time.  What struck me about it was the hype.  The initial reports were that thousands were dead.   We now know that number was highly inflated.  It may well be that whatever comes from this will likely be reported to be much worse than what it really is.  And that what makes it reprehensible.  Energy is such an important part of our lives.  It is vital that the public have accurate information about it.

Cheap source of gas

I've been thinking about that problem and it occurred to me that people throw away tons of waste all the time.  This waste can be used as an energy source, provided that someone finds a way to do it.  The same is true on the farm.  Inasmuch as there is plenty of hydrogen in this waste, it seems that there should be a way to harvest it and use it to make ammonia as described in an earlier post.