Comments on: Economics and Survival: An In-space 2-for-1 Bargain https://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/09/economics-and-survival-an-in-space-2-for-1-bargain Safeguarding Humanity Tue, 20 Sep 2011 21:53:47 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.5.3 By: JohnHunt https://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/09/economics-and-survival-an-in-space-2-for-1-bargain#comment-91365 Tue, 20 Sep 2011 21:53:47 +0000 http://lifeboat.com/blog/?p=2197#comment-91365 Scott Brown > All intelligence points to the Chinese establishing a colony on the Moon in the next two or outside three years.

Well, I would be very suprised if it was in three years or less. They are just now preparing for a Mir-sized LEO station. I haven’t heard anything about a Chinese lunar lander. But if they are able to pull it of…more power to them.

Scott Brown > I assume from past experience that we here in the USA will still be arguing.

…or it could be a Sputnik 2.0 moment!

]]> By: Scott Brown https://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/09/economics-and-survival-an-in-space-2-for-1-bargain#comment-91093 Fri, 16 Sep 2011 22:26:43 +0000 http://lifeboat.com/blog/?p=2197#comment-91093 All intelligence points to the Chinese establishing a colony on the Moon in the next two or outside three years.
It might well be a one-way trip with re-supply the goal.
They will be generating 24/7 live TV for the world to see and share in the experience.
I assume from past experience that we here in the USA will still be arguing.

]]> By: Donald Maclean https://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/09/economics-and-survival-an-in-space-2-for-1-bargain#comment-91062 Fri, 16 Sep 2011 14:52:40 +0000 http://lifeboat.com/blog/?p=2197#comment-91062 Thank you John for your informative article. You help me understand the need for off-earth self-sufficient colonies. Not knowing about the moon project, I thought that Mars was the goal and I imagined it would take about 200 years to establish a viable colony, which would be too late to save civilization from the existential threats that will come this century, and yes, as a non-scientist, I do understand the risks. I wish you the best in the important work that you do.

]]> By: JohnHunt https://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/09/economics-and-survival-an-in-space-2-for-1-bargain#comment-90921 Wed, 14 Sep 2011 15:58:35 +0000 http://lifeboat.com/blog/?p=2197#comment-90921 @Stuart — Wow, kettle propulsion. Who would have ever guessed?!!

Yes, I think that water is clearly the first economically viable space resource (after sunlight on solar panels). I’m glad to hear of the develops that you shared.

Ray > The key to lunar colonisation is launch cost.

Sort of yes, sort of no. The beauty of beyond LEO is that reusability becomes relatively easy. A single Falcon Heavy launch could put up an Orbital Transfer Vehicle (OTV) which could make numerous trips between LEO and the lunar surface before breaking down. So the cost of that one launch (actually 53t to LEO for $100M) could be spread over dozens of OTV trips. We might actually be on the verge of an era of relatively inexpensive in-space operations.

> how much more will it cost to take hundreds of tonnes in terms of humans, supplies and equipment to the moon?

A few billion to be sure. But this could fit within the range of normal NASA Human SpaceFlight (HSF) budgets. Also, if we use ISRU by producing our own bulky metal parts, fewer Falcon Heavy launches would be needed which is the equivalent of lowering launch costs. I look forward to reviewing your idea. I believe there are solutions. Thanks for the input.

]]> By: Ray Wright https://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/09/economics-and-survival-an-in-space-2-for-1-bargain#comment-90906 Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:51:00 +0000 http://lifeboat.com/blog/?p=2197#comment-90906 Fully agree with all the above, but I would go on to say that I think that it will not be enough to rely on the modest reduction in launh costs offered by, say, Falcon-9H. The key to lunar colonisation is launch cost. If cost ~$100M to put 10t into LEO, roughly speaking, how much more will it cost to take hundreds of tonnes in terms of humans, supplies and equipment to the moon? Perhaps the LF could work on a programme to design a really low-cost reusable launch vehicle, as a replacement for the Atlas-5, say, with low-technology and low-development-cost aims. To do what we know needs to be done, the launch costs need to be less than 1% of what they are now. I have an idea. See http://spacefleet.co.uk.

]]> By: Stuart Eves https://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/09/economics-and-survival-an-in-space-2-for-1-bargain#comment-90880 Wed, 14 Sep 2011 07:55:11 +0000 http://lifeboat.com/blog/?p=2197#comment-90880 A couple of recent developments are also heading in a positive direction relative to this proposal.
Intelsat are now actively looking at the idea of refuelling their GEO satellites to extend their lifetimes, so the principle of, and technology for, in-orbit refuelling should be well established within the timeframe that a supply service of water from the Moon could be established.

And my own company SSTL is looking again at using a water-based thruster system for our LEO missions. The specific impulse of water is clearly not as exciting as hydrazine, but the cost and complexity of a “kettle” is far less than traditional propulsion systems, and if the propellant fluid could be supplied from the Moon, this might make it economic for GEO satellites to use water too.

Regards,

Stuart

]]>