NASA Administrator Michael Griffin’s highly detailed budget analysis of the spaceflight program he has inherited and shaped drew a wide range of comment –- from thoughtful to downright silly. Here’s an example of the former type, which takes an even longer view than Griffin’s look at the past 50 years and (reluctant) prediction of the next 50. To keep the discussion going, what do you think of Mr. Wingo’s view of the Moon as a source of helium 3 to meet Earth’s energy needs, and the interim steps he proposes to get there?

-- Frank Morring, Jr.

Posted by: Dennis Ray Wingo | March 15, 2007 at 06:25 PM

I do not think that looking to the Apollo Era is the right historical analogy. We are about where Portugal and China were in the early 15th century regarding Ocean travel. However, it is Spain that developed the New World and did so with riches derived from the new regions themselves. The Netherlands, France and England enter the competition to cut into the new stream of wealth that is changing the balance of power in Europe. International competition in Europe drives that relatively backward region to Modernize before the rest of the World. thus, a whole new situation at the Global level emerges in terms of the balance of wealth and power. China was the technology leader and could have done it first, but did not, thus history as we know it.

So, I ask Michael Griffith why he cannot envision a growing and expansive space program that pays for itself, at least for the R and D to develop new technology? I see a new space race involving the Moon that includes a series of true space transportation breakthroughs.

Don't ask what it will cost to get to the Moon or Mars as an end in itself? Ask what we will be doing on the Moon and how the balance of payments will work out. What wealth will be generated, by and for whom as we increase payload capacity and efficiency? What were the competitive economics that produced the Clipper ship, and then took us to the steamship era? Why don't we use nuclear power for commercial shipping even today, long after the Navy has mastered that technology?

I think that the Moon will become important 40-50 years after the Earth masters fusion energy, there is no more oil to burn for energy production and coal is being phased out due to environmental concerns. Then we will want to be able to mix Deuterium from the oceans of Earth with the Helium-3 that the solar wind deposits on the Moon to produce the ideal Fusion Reactor fuel mix. When the Moon is akin to the Persian Gulf of today in the energy economy - when riches beckon those who would develop and settle the Moon- then one will see the kind of effort that goes into transporting coal and oil today pouring into space travel.

The 50 year projection offered to us by NASA today will look timid indeed at that point, but how about the interim?

NASA's job should be to identify and remove the bottlenecks in the development of space technology of today and set the stage to move to the next generation of capabilities. I think in the chemical rocket era, the bottleneck is the cost of getting supplies of LOX to LEO to refuel Chemical rockets. As long as it takes 90% of your fuel to get to LEO, you can't do much when you have arrived. Add refueling capability in LEO and everything else gets easier. LOX is key since it is 80% of the burden of rocket fuel by weight. It cuts into payload capacity to carry more than is needed to reach orbit and SSTO is not a reasonable goal until one has an in space refueling capability.

The Moon has a much less daunting gravity well than the Earth. At one sixth the gravity of Earth. lifting LOX off the Lunar surface and delivering it to Earth LEO makes sense. The Moon is actually oxygen rich, with lots of oxide ores. What it lacks is hydrogen to turn that resource into water and a readily available power source to enable one to extract oxygen from the rocks. These are tough by manageable problems-worthy challenges. However, success would be richly rewarded.

What will drive the development of the Moon prior to fusion reactors on Earth needing Helium-3 will be the demand for oxygen in LEO. This will be "paid for" in a gas trade of hydrogen from Earth for Moon oxygen, a gas trade system. With chemical rocket fuel, water production and oxygen production infrastructure in place, then Space Tourism to orbiting hotels and underground hotels on the Moon become acheivable economic challenges.

How do you build a massive space structure? Not bit by bit with a lot of spacewalks, the way NASA built ISS. You do it by sending up sections that are complete and usable on arrival, like Skylab, but can be linked together. Where do you build this structure? Not on Earth, or in LEO. You build it where you have some gravity to hold tools in place and can create a good working environment without space suits but can keep workers protected from cosmic radiation. In the end, one wants to be able to lift sections 5 or 6 times the size of what you can lift from Earth in a single shot as a unit to orbit, and then take it to Earth LEO or GTO.

In short, you need a workshop at about 1/6th the gravity of Earth, with lots of metallic and silicate raw materials locally available. Such a site is to be found on the Moon. Space hotel sized space stations will be assembled in underground lunar chambers in 1/6th G by workers six times as strong as they would be on Earth.

Actually only about a third of the workforce will be on the Moon. Most of it will still be on Earth operating levers and joysticks that manipulate robotic arms and remotely operated production tools of various types. At the speed of light the command to do something will get to the Moon in under 2 seconds and the Earth based worker will be able to see what happened in about 3 seconds. That is an acceptable response lag for a worker trained to be used to it.

Earth and the Moon could be complementary bases for the development of a space faring organization that is willing to reinvest the profits of space based economic activity into the development of new capability and pay its own way to greatness.

Begging for investment funds from a national government with changing priorities is not the way to sustainable growth of a pioneering organization with a vision to acheive. You must generate investment capital yourself by serving client agencies and paying customers. Then you invest in your vision while seizing opportunities as they arise. An entreprenurial spirit is what is needed.

Government funding will periodically offer one time investment funds to achieve particular ends, or capabilities, and that is a special opportunity. However, a government is unlikely to commit to 30 years of level funding, come what may, come what might-for good and obvious reasons.

Comments

[Gaetano Marano - Italy]

.
.

the comment seems posted by John M Wilkes (again, too small fonts) ...however, I don't agree in some points

the first point is about "deliver lunar LOX to earth orbits" that is VERY INEFFICIENT, then, a wrong idea

to have a small amount of lunar-LOX in earth orbit we need to:

1. carry some giant empty LOX tanks in earth orbit

2. launch them towards the moon performing a Trans Lunar Iniection (TLI) that needs very much propellent

3. brake the giant tanks around the moon performing a Lunar Orbit Insertion (LOI) that (again) needs very much propellent

4. send the LOX from the lunar surface (to fill the giant LOX tanks) with many ascent/descent flights of a special (reausable) LSAM that burns very much propellent at every flight

5. launch the (VERY HEAVY) filled LOX tanks towards the earth orbit performing a Trans Earth Iniection (TEI) burn (that, again, needs very much LOX/LH2)

6. last, brake the GIANT and HEAVY (filled) LOX tanks to the (6x lunar gravity) earth orbit (probably) using near all the LOX produced on the moon AND a giant quantity of LH2 that we must send FROM EARTH

then, use the lunar-LOX to fill earth parked vehicles and rockets is simply ABSURD (if not impossible!)

the ONLY efficient way to use the lunar-LOX is ON THE MOON for life support, to make water (with LH2 sent from earth), to drive surface vehicles and to refuel reusable (cargo and/or crew) LSAM-like vehicles for suborbital jumps from points to points on the moon and to/from the lunar orbit to dock the Orion or a Lunar Space Station

I agree that a (ready made) Lunar Space Station is absolutely necessary (mainly for the astronaut's safety) and must be sent BEFORE the first manned launch, as suggested in my June 5, 2006 article here: http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/009_LSS.html

also, the best "remote-controlled operations" on the moon are NOT the "hotel modules' manufacture" but the exploration of the ENTIRE moon surface with LOW COST moonrovers, as suggested in my "Vision for Moonrovers Exploration" article here: http://www.gaetanomarano.it/moonrovers/moonrovers.html

last but not least, I completely DISAGREE with all peoples that claim we must go on the moon "to find the Helium-3" (if any...) or to use the H3 mining as a modern "gold-rush" (sorry... "helium-rush") that (also) must DRIVE the private effort to develop a lunar-based economy...

first of all, the best fusion research scientists are NOT confident about reaching a stable (and power-efficient) fusion in the next 50+ years... (also, they are NOT completely sure to hit this goal at all...)

second, we don't need to have soon the H3 fusion since the lack of energy is only a GIANT ILLUSION of a paranoic world !!!

the problem is that we confuse "oil" with "energy" but...

1. the (known) oil world's reserve is evaluated to be sufficient for the next 50 years (before they end) ...but we must consider the UNKNOWN sources we will find in future (that may be sufficient for a a further century!)

2. if and when the oil reserve will end, we can use methane, ethanol and other fuels

3. but the giant (and poor used) resource is the carbon coke that is avaiable in over 30 countries and has reserves sufficient for 250 years!!! ...of course, it must be treated (with ready available technologies) to reduce the pollution when used to produce energy

4. while the oil price will ride up, MANY other technologies (ready avaiable now, but not price-competitive with a so cheap oil on the market) will grow very fast and give us great part of the energy now made with oil and methane

5. again, while the oil price will grow, great part of the houses, cars, etc. will be made/modified to SAVE energy, since, to-day, up to 50% of the energy is (simply) wasted !!!

6. last but not least, we will have (at least) THREE (simple, low cost and available ALL OVER THE WORLD) leader technologies that will give us INCREDIBLE quantities of energy: a) the low cost "printed" polymer solar cells... b) the 10+ miles deep earth's drilling geothermal energy, and... c) the high altitude rotors driven by high speed jet stream winds

Gaetano Marano

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/

http://www.ghostNASA.com/

.
.

[sy levine]

Since Bush has been president thousands of innocent people died needlessly in 911. Yet, neither the Secretary of the Department of Transportation (DOT) nor the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have lost their job. Hijacking and Terrorist attacks have traditionally accounted for about 10% of fatal accidents world-wide. This known threat existed and was well tabulated/tracked prior to 911 in world fatal accident statistics and still President Bush’s appointed a political head of the FAA that had little security or aviation experience. Neither the DOT nor FAA took the required steps necessary to keep the public and the nation safe even though the threats were known and it was their job to assure the security and safety of our sky. They operated out of fear of losing the aviation industries support for maintaining their positions and thereby allowed the nation and the traveling public to suffer needlessly. The deaths that occurred on 911 won’t even show up on the FAA’s fatal accident statistics. This is done intentionally to minimize aviation related fatalities and to give the public a false sense of security. Thus 911, like Katrina, was the result of President Bush’s Republican political appointees that had little knowledge of their appointed critical tasks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At first look it isn't obvious that the golfer Payne Stewart, and the Helios (2005 - 100+fatality) decompression crashes and 911 are related but from a aviation safety and security system view they are:

When a plane substantially deviates from its approved flight plan it is presently possible to have a remote pilot located in a secure simulator fly the plane to a safe landing at a sparsely populated airfield. Over 70% of all fatal air crashes occurrences are readily preventable if handled correctly.

Unfortunately, the data needed to accomplish this is locked up in the flight recorder and is utilized predominately in an autopsy mode. If the data is so important that it is necessary to discover the cause of a fatal crash it is much more important to prevent a fatal crash. Yet because of the aviation industry's partnership with the FAA and NTSB none of the flight data coming out of the recorders is available in real-time to proactively prevent fatal crashes. The inability to use the flight data in real time has jeopardized the safety and security of the traveling public and the nation. The astronauts were guided back from the moon because the data was telemetered to the ground in real-time. Once it got to the ground it was analyzed, and then via a concerted effort by experts, using simulations the proper and safe way to handle life threatening situation was accomplished. Yet this proven technique isn't utilized by the industrial/government partnership to keep our nation and air-passengers safe and secure.

One year prior to 911, I was the guest speaker at the International Aviation Safety Association meeting in NY where I spoke on how terrorists and decompression fatal crashes are preventable via remote control of a deviating aircraft using ciphered technology developed for our ballistic missiles. This technology can prevent most aviation crashes (approximately 70%) even those from mechanical problems and errors of commission and omission. At present a pilot has displayed only a fraction of the information necessary to make the right decision to prevent a crash. The pilot in many instances is seeing a problem for the first time. The aircraft data and air traffic control data isn't shared extensively so experts on handling the aircraft's problem aren’t consulted nor can the problem be simulated to aid in crash prevention. This data vacuum is responsible for most fatal crashes. For example, the Swiss Air and Alaskan Air fatal crashes could have been prevented if handled correctly.

In addition it is not only terrorists that sabotage aircraft. Commercial and Military pilots have also done it. When a pilot deviates substantially from the approved flight plan the aircraft should be safely remote piloted to a landing at a sparsely populated airport. Several years ago a rogue military pilot substantially deviated from his approved Continental United States (CONUS) flight plan and flew an A-10 aircraft loaded with bombs clandestinely across multiple states. It took two weeks to find the plane which had crashed into a Colorado mountain. The plane was eventually found but the bombs are still missing. Exhaustive searches were made but no one has a clew as to what happened to the bombs. Must we wait for a bigger disaster than 911 before any action takes place?

Everyone knowledgeable about the holes in our aviation system, brought about by the industrial government partnership, knew that a 911 could occur and the government allowed it to occur. Even though we knew about Payne Stewart nothing was done and so we got Helios' 100 + deaths. Presently we are just as vulnerable to a 911 disaster, decompression disaster, ... etc. as we were in 2001. The public needs to know the system is fixable for the good of our nation. Even though 3000 people died needlessly on 911 the system doesn't fix the data vacuum mode of operation. It works around the system with attempted patches that are costly and ineffective fixes simply to protect the industry from liability suits. The necessary data is only available in the tombstone/autopsy mode. With all of the deaths that were preventable not a single FAA or NTSB person was even laid-off. Thus, the industry won out and the public and nation suffered. It is quite possible that we went into an unnecessary and horrible war just because we protected the special interest of the aviation industry. The cost of those disasters alone would have been a small fraction of the cost necessary to fix the system and we would now have a safer and securer nation. Instead, things are the same and we are vulnerable.

If you should need more info on this please don't hesitate to contact me (you can see some of my work by going to Google and doing a search on "aviation security, safety and sy levine" or go to my web site www.safelander.com. My work was also featured on the BBC show called "The Black Box". There is simply no reason, technical, cost or data privacy wise" for not using the Black Box Data in real-time, in addition to its autopsy mode, to make our nation safer and securer. The fear of liability, via law suits, should not stand in the way of the airline passenger safety, the safety of people on the ground, or our national security. It is imperative that the traveling public write to the President, their Congressional Representatives, the DOT, FAA and NTSB and demand that the Black Box data be available and utilized in real-time for the security of our nation and to substantially reduce fatal crashes.

Sincerely,
Sy Levine
[email protected]

[Gaetano Marano - Italy]

.
.

reading the last year's news, we know the problems of the Ares-I design (too high R&D costs, very long timeline, budget cuts, etc.) that forced NASA to SHIFT the (already delayed) first manned Orion launch from the (planned) "end of 2014" to the mid 2015, then, now (after suggesting MANY possible solutions of these problems in my past articles) I've published the "new Ares-I design" article that follows the same "money and time saving" philosophy: http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/023newAres.html

.
.

[Gaetano Marano - Italy]

.
.

over 1.5 year ago I've suggested the (criticized) "VME", a low cost (alternative) "Vision" for Moon(rovers) Exploration":

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/moonrovers/moonrovers.html

but now China has unveiled its plan to land soon (in 2012) on the moon the first "3-D view" moonrover:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-04/02/content_5923351.htm

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CHINA_MOON_MISSION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

this is the image of the rover's prototype:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-04/02/xinsrc_0420404021118546135542.jpg

and, since China already IS (and will be more in future) the country able to mix high technology and low costs at their extreme level, we can expect to see HUNDREDS low cost ("made in China") moonrovers landing and running around on the moon (exploring the ENTIRE moon surface, as suggested in my VME article)

maybe... the NASA/ESA/RSA/Japan/etc. manned-moon-missions' plans will just remain "virtual" ... ?

.
.

[Robert Ambrose]

Great article !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Robert Ambrose]

Great article !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Dennis Wingo]

>the comment seems posted by John M Wilkes (again, too small fonts) ...however, I don't agree in some points

********************

The comment supposedly from me listed on the page before is definitely not my writing!!! While the sentiments are similar to what I write I completely disagree with both the structure and several of the points in the article.

Is there some way to get my name taken off of that comment?