Round up the posse, we're heading to Los Angeles
by guest blogger Ken Murphy
Well, we're in line for final approach to the 2006 International Space Development Conference in Los Angeles this week. Tickets are double checked, baggage restrictions on Texas booze are checked, how much it's going to cost when I blow through the weight allowance is checked (owww!), speakers list checked against books in the Lunar Library, ISDC 2007 buttons and pens with luggage - check, hat dusted, boots polished. Oh boy, things are fixin' to get wild.
These are definitely interesting times in the space industry in the U.S., and Jon and I have certainly documented a fair share of it here at the Selenian Boondocks in the last getting-close-on-a year. This blog was created in the aftermath of the auto-da-fe over at the old Space Arena Board, which was once known as the Return to the Moon Board, and hosted by the Space Frontier Foundation.
Things were free-wheeling, and got out of hand, and spammers were popping up like bestioles out of woodwork. Some folks that should have taken things to personal correspondence instead got nasty in public, and the forum was closed. Jon decided to take matters into his own hands and set up shop out here in the Selenian Boondocks. He invited me along, and we've been bloggers commenting on space ever since.
Another old hand from the Boards was Dennis Wingo. He's been quite busy with his recent projects at Orbital Recovery, actually doing a lot of the stuff that many of us only blabber about (although I did buy a CanSat. Did you?). He took time out on Saturday to take the various space blow-hards such as yours truly out to the woodshed for a spanking. The source of his ire? The overall lack of commentary on John Marburger's Keynote Address at the AAS 44th Robert H. Goddard Memorial Symposium. He's right. There really was little commentary on it, despite its publication in Space News on April 3rd, and later at Ad Astra Online.
Mr. Marburger's comments are exactly what John and I and Dennis and many, many others have been saying for years, and still others for far longer. They are important here because Mr. Marburger is the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy for the Executive Office of the President. That means that his words carry far more import than those of either Jon of myself or even Dennis.
Space as a commercial domain is critical to any future for humanity there. Space is important, and humans must go there to really understand it and put it to good use. That means that there has to be a return of value, and I think that's what Mr. Marburger was trying to get at. A distinction has to be drawn between the nether reaches of the cosmos that we will be observing only for a while to come yet, and the nearer reaches within the grasp of our Sun, that will be our sandbox and playground for a good while. When considering the nearer realm the question of value needs to be asked. Notice I say value, not economic return or "maximum value to the shareholder". Value is a sticky concept, and while it always boils down to what could be considered an economic exchange, the exchange is often one that might not be in the form of dollars and cents.
It's important to do things like study the characteristics of supernovas. The economic $ return might be negligible, but the knowledge of an impending one nearby is certainly important, and what Mastercard might call priceless. This is the reason we should continue to fund, at a certain level, the kinds of astronomical studies that we have been conducting since our earliest days of history. But within our Solar system, we have to think about how that value is returned. It may be nice to know if Europa has life on it, but it may be more relevant to do an All-Sky Asteroid Survey (ASAS) down to 10m or some arbitrary limit, and looking back in towards the Sun as well, that allows us to develop not only a gravimetric map of the Solar system (so that we can plan future trajectories better), but also to start characterizing items of interest.
By items of interest, I mean exploitable near-Earth objects (NEOs). With a map of resolution down to 10m you can start thinking about just scooping up smaller metal objects. Once you start thinking that way, you realize you need to characterize those asteroids with spectral scans, so you start upgrading to round two of equipment. If you're doing this from outside of the atmosphere (like say at L-1!) then you're able to characterize the composition across a much broader spectrum of electromagnetic radiation, and golly we're going to need some new equipment for that too.
This is all stuff that will have direct applications as we work our way outwards. We have to start learning how to process stuff all over again in this new environment. Some of it we can guess at, but we need to go there to do it. That means we need science to lay the groundwork with projects like the one above. It's directly relevant to life on Earth (security), it offers economic opportunity (commerce), and helps us to learn more about how our Solar system came to be (science).
This is how the folks at NASA need to start thinking when they start looking for funding or wonder why their project was cut. Does the project address multiple aspects of the VSE?
A probe to the Moon will map the terrain better (science/commerce), characterize the hydrogen better at the poles (science/commerce) and look for ancient alien bases (security ;-). A probe to Enceladus will study its features (science). Put in that context, it's easier to prioritize what it is that the U.S. taxpayer should be funding: that which returns the most value to the taxpayers and the American commonweal.
A trip to the surface of the Moon can show us what raw materials we have to work with, while at the same time providing a work environment unavailable on Earth. Compact, portable and hyper-efficient solar furnaces developed for use at the Lunar poles may have applications in future asteroid mining efforts. Working in vacuum we can fine-tune the efficiency of full-spectrum solar cells. (and yes, I realize that the peak energy output of the Sun is in the yellow part of the spectrum and it drops off to either side, but still...) What are the right doping materials and in what proportions? Large-scale Solar power satellites in GEO can be used to ensure energy supply to security forces in the event ground networks are compromised (security). The guys who build it will probably be blue-collar teamsters (commerce). We need the knowledge of how to do it right (science).
So NASA affiliated scientists need to re-visit their projects and be able to say that it addresses x, y & z aspects of the American Vision for Space Exploration. Just a marketing tip from Ken.
This is all especially interesting in light of the ongoing on-line debates about the implementation of ESAS, NASA's response to the VSE, and the Vision itself. In "An Alternate Vision for Space Exploration" by Eric Hedman over at the Space Review, the author suggests we revisit ESAS, and think about using the existing launch assets we have and have invested a great deal of money in being able to supply (and I'm not talking about the STS here). He thinks that the ESAS is requiring too many big decisions too soon, and he may have a good point. He mirrors my indifference to whether the crew vehicle is a capsule or lifting body (at least for Earth to LEO ops. It's silly to take a heatshield beyond LEO), or caplet. He'd like to see continued use of ISS, but would like to see its orbit slowly changed with a tether (I think it's fine where it is, EML-1 doesn't care, and we can build the next gen station in a more convenient orbit, and EML-1 still doesn't care, same delta-V). View of 85% of the land mass of Earth is a feature, not a bug. He wants a fuel depot, and outlines an alternative path to heading back to the Moon using an incremental approach. He's not sold on the need for an HLLV.
Someone who is sold on the need for an HLLV is John Strickland, whose "Space Advocate Reviews the Vision for Space in 2006" over at Space Daily has its own bones of contention with ESAS. He also makes reference to Mr. Marburger's comments, before giving a brief bit of background on how we've come to be where we are today. I disagree that the reports prepared in 2004 weren't made readily available to the public as I remember commenting on them at the time. He does take the current NASA leadership to task for what he characterizes as "a massive and unnecessary communications gap between NASA, its natural supporters (the advocate community) and the public" and calls for a new era of glasnost between NASA and the American collective, I mean general taxpaying public.
(Full disclosure: I know John personally and we've discussed many of these issues. I'm proud to say that he was the very first person to lay his money on the table and register for the 2007 ISDC in Dallas.)
The irony is that NASA is now a Presenting Sponsor of this year's ISDC in Los Angeles. One thing I'm going to be paying attention to is whether the NASA folks that are there are listening to the people who really, really want America (and all of humanity) to succeed in space, or are there to tell the space community what the party message is for America's space future. The distinction is important.
Oh, and I had an article published at Ad Astra Online called "The Accidental Space Activist", but without the pictures it's not so good and likely a bit dull, so be forewarned.
Well, we're in line for final approach to the 2006 International Space Development Conference in Los Angeles this week. Tickets are double checked, baggage restrictions on Texas booze are checked, how much it's going to cost when I blow through the weight allowance is checked (owww!), speakers list checked against books in the Lunar Library, ISDC 2007 buttons and pens with luggage - check, hat dusted, boots polished. Oh boy, things are fixin' to get wild.
These are definitely interesting times in the space industry in the U.S., and Jon and I have certainly documented a fair share of it here at the Selenian Boondocks in the last getting-close-on-a year. This blog was created in the aftermath of the auto-da-fe over at the old Space Arena Board, which was once known as the Return to the Moon Board, and hosted by the Space Frontier Foundation.
Things were free-wheeling, and got out of hand, and spammers were popping up like bestioles out of woodwork. Some folks that should have taken things to personal correspondence instead got nasty in public, and the forum was closed. Jon decided to take matters into his own hands and set up shop out here in the Selenian Boondocks. He invited me along, and we've been bloggers commenting on space ever since.
Another old hand from the Boards was Dennis Wingo. He's been quite busy with his recent projects at Orbital Recovery, actually doing a lot of the stuff that many of us only blabber about (although I did buy a CanSat. Did you?). He took time out on Saturday to take the various space blow-hards such as yours truly out to the woodshed for a spanking. The source of his ire? The overall lack of commentary on John Marburger's Keynote Address at the AAS 44th Robert H. Goddard Memorial Symposium. He's right. There really was little commentary on it, despite its publication in Space News on April 3rd, and later at Ad Astra Online.
Mr. Marburger's comments are exactly what John and I and Dennis and many, many others have been saying for years, and still others for far longer. They are important here because Mr. Marburger is the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy for the Executive Office of the President. That means that his words carry far more import than those of either Jon of myself or even Dennis.
Space as a commercial domain is critical to any future for humanity there. Space is important, and humans must go there to really understand it and put it to good use. That means that there has to be a return of value, and I think that's what Mr. Marburger was trying to get at. A distinction has to be drawn between the nether reaches of the cosmos that we will be observing only for a while to come yet, and the nearer reaches within the grasp of our Sun, that will be our sandbox and playground for a good while. When considering the nearer realm the question of value needs to be asked. Notice I say value, not economic return or "maximum value to the shareholder". Value is a sticky concept, and while it always boils down to what could be considered an economic exchange, the exchange is often one that might not be in the form of dollars and cents.
It's important to do things like study the characteristics of supernovas. The economic $ return might be negligible, but the knowledge of an impending one nearby is certainly important, and what Mastercard might call priceless. This is the reason we should continue to fund, at a certain level, the kinds of astronomical studies that we have been conducting since our earliest days of history. But within our Solar system, we have to think about how that value is returned. It may be nice to know if Europa has life on it, but it may be more relevant to do an All-Sky Asteroid Survey (ASAS) down to 10m or some arbitrary limit, and looking back in towards the Sun as well, that allows us to develop not only a gravimetric map of the Solar system (so that we can plan future trajectories better), but also to start characterizing items of interest.
By items of interest, I mean exploitable near-Earth objects (NEOs). With a map of resolution down to 10m you can start thinking about just scooping up smaller metal objects. Once you start thinking that way, you realize you need to characterize those asteroids with spectral scans, so you start upgrading to round two of equipment. If you're doing this from outside of the atmosphere (like say at L-1!) then you're able to characterize the composition across a much broader spectrum of electromagnetic radiation, and golly we're going to need some new equipment for that too.
This is all stuff that will have direct applications as we work our way outwards. We have to start learning how to process stuff all over again in this new environment. Some of it we can guess at, but we need to go there to do it. That means we need science to lay the groundwork with projects like the one above. It's directly relevant to life on Earth (security), it offers economic opportunity (commerce), and helps us to learn more about how our Solar system came to be (science).
This is how the folks at NASA need to start thinking when they start looking for funding or wonder why their project was cut. Does the project address multiple aspects of the VSE?
A probe to the Moon will map the terrain better (science/commerce), characterize the hydrogen better at the poles (science/commerce) and look for ancient alien bases (security ;-). A probe to Enceladus will study its features (science). Put in that context, it's easier to prioritize what it is that the U.S. taxpayer should be funding: that which returns the most value to the taxpayers and the American commonweal.
A trip to the surface of the Moon can show us what raw materials we have to work with, while at the same time providing a work environment unavailable on Earth. Compact, portable and hyper-efficient solar furnaces developed for use at the Lunar poles may have applications in future asteroid mining efforts. Working in vacuum we can fine-tune the efficiency of full-spectrum solar cells. (and yes, I realize that the peak energy output of the Sun is in the yellow part of the spectrum and it drops off to either side, but still...) What are the right doping materials and in what proportions? Large-scale Solar power satellites in GEO can be used to ensure energy supply to security forces in the event ground networks are compromised (security). The guys who build it will probably be blue-collar teamsters (commerce). We need the knowledge of how to do it right (science).
So NASA affiliated scientists need to re-visit their projects and be able to say that it addresses x, y & z aspects of the American Vision for Space Exploration. Just a marketing tip from Ken.
This is all especially interesting in light of the ongoing on-line debates about the implementation of ESAS, NASA's response to the VSE, and the Vision itself. In "An Alternate Vision for Space Exploration" by Eric Hedman over at the Space Review, the author suggests we revisit ESAS, and think about using the existing launch assets we have and have invested a great deal of money in being able to supply (and I'm not talking about the STS here). He thinks that the ESAS is requiring too many big decisions too soon, and he may have a good point. He mirrors my indifference to whether the crew vehicle is a capsule or lifting body (at least for Earth to LEO ops. It's silly to take a heatshield beyond LEO), or caplet. He'd like to see continued use of ISS, but would like to see its orbit slowly changed with a tether (I think it's fine where it is, EML-1 doesn't care, and we can build the next gen station in a more convenient orbit, and EML-1 still doesn't care, same delta-V). View of 85% of the land mass of Earth is a feature, not a bug. He wants a fuel depot, and outlines an alternative path to heading back to the Moon using an incremental approach. He's not sold on the need for an HLLV.
Someone who is sold on the need for an HLLV is John Strickland, whose "Space Advocate Reviews the Vision for Space in 2006" over at Space Daily has its own bones of contention with ESAS. He also makes reference to Mr. Marburger's comments, before giving a brief bit of background on how we've come to be where we are today. I disagree that the reports prepared in 2004 weren't made readily available to the public as I remember commenting on them at the time. He does take the current NASA leadership to task for what he characterizes as "a massive and unnecessary communications gap between NASA, its natural supporters (the advocate community) and the public" and calls for a new era of glasnost between NASA and the American collective, I mean general taxpaying public.
(Full disclosure: I know John personally and we've discussed many of these issues. I'm proud to say that he was the very first person to lay his money on the table and register for the 2007 ISDC in Dallas.)
The irony is that NASA is now a Presenting Sponsor of this year's ISDC in Los Angeles. One thing I'm going to be paying attention to is whether the NASA folks that are there are listening to the people who really, really want America (and all of humanity) to succeed in space, or are there to tell the space community what the party message is for America's space future. The distinction is important.
Oh, and I had an article published at Ad Astra Online called "The Accidental Space Activist", but without the pictures it's not so good and likely a bit dull, so be forewarned.
posted by murphydyne at 7:26 PM
2 Comments:
One for your lunar book collection: A scanned and converted (into Adobe Acrobat) version of Wilhelms' classic Geologic History of the Moon. A great companion for his To A Rocky Moon:
http://cps.earth.northwestern.edu/GHM/
Talk about asteroid resources makes me wonder if we are overlooking a potentially vast supply of raw materials to get us started up there. That is possible debris collected in Earth-Sun L4 or L-5.
I found an abstract on an observation done in 2000 which seems to rule out a cluster of objects at the 100s of meters size, but for resource purposes, it seems to me both unlikely that NOTHING would have collected there and likely that what has would be quite useful and easy (and cheap!)to get to.
But is anyone pursuing this actively?
Post a Comment
<< Home