Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday November 08 2017, @09:07PM   Printer-friendly

Trump space adviser: Blue Origin and SpaceX rockets aren't really commercial: Scott Pace likens heavy-lift rockets to aircraft carriers.

In recent months, the executive secretary of the National Space Council, Scott Pace, has worked assiduously behind the scenes to develop a formal space policy for the Trump administration. In a rare interview, published Monday in Scientific American, Pace elaborated on some of the policy decisions he has been helping to make.

In the interview, Pace explained why the Trump administration has chosen to focus on the Moon first for human exploration while relegating Mars to becoming a "horizon goal," effectively putting human missions to the Red Planet decades into the future. Mars was too ambitious, Pace said, and such a goal would have precluded meaningful involvement from the burgeoning US commercial sector as well as international partners. Specific plans for how NASA will return to the Moon should become more concrete within the next year, he added.

In response to a question about privately developed, heavy-lift boosters, the executive secretary also reiterated his skepticism that such "commercial" rockets developed by Blue Origin and SpaceX could compete with the government's Space Launch System rocket, which is likely to make its maiden flight in 2020. "Heavy-lift rockets are strategic national assets, like aircraft carriers," Pace said. "There are some people who have talked about buying heavy-lift as a service as opposed to owning and operating, in which case the government would, of course, have to continue to own the intellectual properties so it wasn't hostage to any one contractor. One could imagine this but, in general, building a heavy-lift rocket is no more 'commercial' than building an aircraft carrier with private contractors would be."

I thought flying non-reusable pork rockets was about the money, not strategy. SpaceX is set to launch Falcon Heavy for the first time no earlier than December 29. It will have over 90% of the low Earth orbit capacity as the initial version of the SLS (63.8 metric tons vs. 70).

Previously: Maiden Flight of the Space Launch System Delayed to 2019
First SLS Mission Will be Unmanned
Commercial Space Companies Want More Money From NASA
U.S. Air Force Will Eventually Launch Using SpaceX's Reused Rockets


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Thursday November 09 2017, @01:07AM (1 child)

    by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Thursday November 09 2017, @01:07AM (#594330) Journal

    Some points:

    1. Drugs and exercise can mitigate some of the effects of microgravity. Sure, staying 1 year or more in microgravity sucks, but the individual isn't crippled for life on return to Earth. As for the radiation risks, IIRC NASA is looking to not exceed something like +3% cancer risk for a journey to and from Mars. Their acceptable risk levels are conservative, our ships could be built with better shielding, and the radiation risks are just overblown.
    2. Government has dominated space travel since the beginning of the Space Age. As space funding rapidly died down after the Moon landing/end of the First Space Race, NASA's failures and deaths hit the agency much harder, making it much more risk-averse. Musk on the other hand has stated the same harsh [theregister.co.uk] truth [theverge.com] as you have: people will need to be prepared to die to make space colonization successful. Obviously, Musk and Bezos have to show that they are at least not rushing human-rated rockets, but people will certainly die en route or on Mars if many thousands of colonists are being sent. Anyway, the commercial pioneers are indicating that they will tell people to expect death on Mars, and it is not hard to find people who will accept this (at least while they are still excited).
    3. Robots are an obvious choice to do some of the heavy lifting in advance. They can be sent on cheaper, slower rockets/ships and don't require life support or much radiation shielding. If we want to live on Mars or the Moon, we should aim for colonies with no need for resupply. That will involve digging, processing icy rock into water, growing plants, and beginning simple manufacturing of useful stuff like plastics, or at least building materials like lunar/Martian "concrete". Having buildings and greenhouses prepared in advance would make colonization that much easier.
    4. The Moon is clearly a better destination than Mars. It has less than half the gravity of Mars, but the short travel time should more than compensate for that and the 0.1654g should be a lot healthier than microgravity. Solar power is more efficient on the Moon than the Earth (I believe it is +27% [popsci.com]) and much better than on Mars [pveducation.org] (although Jupiter and beyond are the real losers). If you have a medical emergency on the Moon and you can stabilize the afflicted person, getting them back to Earth is very easy. With Mars, you might as well not even try. The Moon can act as training wheels for space colonization.
    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by dry on Thursday November 09 2017, @05:33AM

    by dry (223) on Thursday November 09 2017, @05:33AM (#594453) Journal

    A couple of points,

    If we want to live on Mars or the Moon, we should aim for colonies with no need for resupply. That will involve digging, processing icy rock into water, growing plants, and beginning simple manufacturing of useful stuff like plastics, or at least building materials like lunar/Martian "concrete". Having buildings and greenhouses prepared in advance would make colonization that much easier.

    My understanding is that the Moon is missing some vital elements needed for life and therefore colonies with no need for resupply are basically impossible. Looking quickly, I see that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Moon#Elemental_composition [wikipedia.org] mentions that carbon and nitrogen are almost non-existant with only deposits from the solar wind. Be pretty hard to have a self supporting colony without carbon and nitrogen. Pretty sure there are other elements that we need that are in short supply on the Moon.

    Solar power is more efficient on the Moon than the Earth (I believe it is +27% [popsci.com]) and much better than on Mars [pveducation.org]

    Don't forget the long nights, something like 330 hours of dark. Possibly the poles could be a workaround but the poles look very rugged. I'd assume that flat areas will be needed for space ports. The need for large fairly flat areas for landing multiple space craft will also be an issue with all colonies including on Mars. Those lava tubes may not be in the most accessible locations.