Space Age Large Scale Industry

[Scytale]

I'm new to this forum, so if I was supposed to plug this thread into the Purgatorium, please excuse. Basically, I intend to give a serious "study" spin to a bunch of sci-fi stories, mostly clarkian. I'll get right to the point.

Why is space exploration so expensive? Why is it so hard for us to send even the smallest probes to distant planets? Because of two main components : the cost of technology and knowledge and the crude industrial expenses of manufacturing infrastructure + the payloads themselves. I'm not going to take on the former, because it's obvious that technology advances, and will do so at an accelerating pace, due to the ever increasing computing (and even reasoning) powers of machines (lately quantized by the ascent of parallelism).

There will come a time when technology will not be the main issue, but industry; when mass production will apply to shuttles, orbitals, and interplanetary spacecraft. We can see the traits right now, with the integration of suborbital enterprises into the open, "civilian" economy. Having a strong grip of the technology, we will need a strong industrial base to increase the order of magnitude of space operations. And, it's obvious that we could not have that on Earth, because of environmental concerns.

That's why the question I bring before you is : what would it take for humanity to build such a large scale industrial base on a planet or planetoid - in the foreseeable future ?

Let's assume, for the sake of the discussion, that there will be no ethical concerns in doing everything to a planet such as - say - Mercury. An entrepreneur could unscrupulously take the planet through thermonuclear hell, blasting caverns for the purpose of mining the juicy core. A few gigatons should do it, for the first phases Solar power cells could be deployed on the surface of the planet, to power the initial mining operations. Assembly bands and self-replicating factories would pour out zounds of general-purpose automatons which would maintain this system, and build new facilities. NASA engineers would be playing a realistic strategy game on Earth, while the platforms on Mercury build a huge solar sail, the hull of a space ark, anti-matter, or the solar system-sized particle accelerator imagined by S. Hawking - required to upgrade the GUT to the UFT

Why Mercury ? Well, it's the perfect industrial environment, once you have the tech to exploit it. Odds are that it's metal-rich (a couple of preliminary missions and studies would need to confirm that). It's small so takeoffs and landings don't burn much energy, but it's got some gravity to hold everything into place. The long mercurian nights can be used to dig in equipment, and expand, while during daylight the solar cell grids could power up. Of course the difference in temperatures between day and night is huge, but just imagine the applications of regular thermodynamics one could implement there.

So, if you were the CEO of a consortium bound to exploit Mercury, through a long-term automated "remote" enterprise, under the supervision of the govt, and you had access to technologies available today, or ready to be implemented during the next decade or so (let's not go Star Trek here), how would you go for it ? What would be the optimal strategy ?

Fire up the think-tank, people

[Evil Dr Ganymede]

That's why the question I bring before you is : what would it take for humanity to build such a large scale industrial base on a planet or planetoid - in the foreseeable future ?

An economic reason, and a strong will and rational purpose.

For all of Bush's blathering about wanting to send humans to Mars and the Moon, it's pointless if all they're going to do is stick flags in the ground and leave footprints behind. Really, one could easily argue that it's not even worth it if they're going to do science - as demonstrated by the Mars Rovers, unmanned vehicles can do the job just as well and for much cheaper than sending humans up into space (you don't need to worry about extra mass for life support and habitation, it's not such a huge disaster if there's an accident etc).

Forget the romantic BS about "ah, but it's our destiny to go to the stars". It would cost billions of dollars to get up there, and as the ISS is demonstrating it is very easy for those costs to overrun, and you'll likely end up with a useless pile of junk (like the ISS) that can't do what it's built for unless you have a very tight rein on how and where the money is spent. And this is just something in Earth Orbit too.

We need a tangible, immediate return from space to make it worth going up there. One possible return is Helium-3 mining on the moon, if we ever get working fusion reactors that require that as part of the chain reaction. The lunar regolith traps a lot of He-3 from the solar wind, so the moon could be strip-mined that the He3 extracted and sent back to power the reactors on Earth - it's much more common element on the Moon than it is on Earth (though it's still very rare). That's a possible industrial base right there, if it can be made economically viable to go to the moon and send it back.

Presumably a similar situation exists on Mercury (maybe it has even more He3), but it's a damn sight harder to get there than it is to the Moon. Orbital paths need to be rather complex to get to Mercury at the moment - presumably because you have to fall down the sun's gravity well to get to it and it's hard to actually get in orbit around it because of that. But the ample solar power could be useful for various things there.

[Scytale]

I don't think the Moon would be a good industrial base. I mean, think about it, what do we want ? We want resources, and juice. The Moon is not *that* resource rich. And "controlled" fusion is still not open for exploitation.

Mercury on the other hand, is said to have plenty of both. And could be transformed into a profitable industrial operation without a human being ever setting foot out there. Of course, getting there is a lot harder, but not impossible; Mariner 10 used Venus to alter its path, and pass Mercury. You can easily immagine a less eccentric orbit which would make the lander "catch up" with Mercury, even if it would take some time.

I agree with you though, that space exploration today is simply wrong. I mean, sure, man on Moon, on Mars, or on Europa is very romantic, but nothing comes out of it. The ISS has a supercharged bill because you need to keep people out there, regulate their environment, have shuttles service them constantly, etc. Same thing with Mars - it would take a huge spacecraft to carry some guys over there, and a lot of resources to keep them alive. Output ? Someone flapping their arms near Valles Marineris.

If, on the other hand, effort and research would be focused at building a spacecraft equipped exclusively with the robust equipment needed to start an autonomous base, which would "live off the land" and thrive, the payback would be the infrastructure we need for human space exploration. Ultimately, it would be cheaper to build space stuff out there, and shoot it back into Earth orbit, than building it down here.

[Evil Dr Ganymede]

I don't think the Moon would be a good industrial base. I mean, think about it, what do we want ? We want resources, and juice. The Moon is not *that* resource rich. And "controlled" fusion is still not open for exploitation.

Given how rare Helium-3 is on earth, and how essential it is for the more efficient fusion reactions, I think lunar He3-mining could be a very lucrative business in the future.

Mercury on the other hand, is said to have plenty of both. And could be transformed into a profitable industrial operation without a human being ever setting foot out there. Of course, getting there is a lot harder, but not impossible; Mariner 10 used Venus to alter its path, and pass Mercury. You can easily immagine a less eccentric orbit which would make the lander "catch up" with Mercury, even if it would take some time.

Well, the currently planned Mercury missions (Messenger and Bepi-Colombo) all have somewhat longwinded flightpaths to get to Mercury - and I'm not sure if it's easier to get from Mercury back to the Earth. Plus there are other concerns - temperature extremes are MASSIVE on Mercury's surface between the day and night side, there's constant bombardment by the solar wind and equipment and a base would be especially vulnerable to flares. Probably the best way to build a base on Mercury would be to do it underground, with only extensive solar panel arrays exposed on the surface.

These problems aren't insurmountable, but we don't even remotely have the tech to overcome them at the moment. Saying we can do it on paper is very different to getting it working in practise - you have development costs, politics, engineering, and all sorts of things to get around first.

If, on the other hand, effort and research would be focused at building a spacecraft equipped exclusively with the robust equipment needed to start an autonomous base, which would "live off the land" and thrive, the payback would be the infrastructure we need for human space exploration. Ultimately, it would be cheaper to build space stuff out there, and shoot it back into Earth orbit, than building it down here.

But again, why would you send humans up there? Especially given that autonomous robotic technology is getting better and better with time.

[Scytale]

Well, the currently planned Mercury missions (Messenger and Bepi-Colombo) all have somewhat longwinded flightpaths to get to Mercury - and I'm not sure if it's easier to get from Mercury back to the Earth. Plus there are other concerns - temperature extremes are MASSIVE on Mercury's surface between the day and night side, there's constant bombardment by the solar wind and equipment and a base would be especially vulnerable to flares. Probably the best way to build a base on Mercury would be to do it underground, with only extensive solar panel arrays exposed on the surface.

...it's the perfect industrial environment, once you have the tech to exploit it. Odds are that it's metal-rich (a couple of preliminary missions and studies would need to confirm that). It's small so takeoffs and landings don't burn much energy, but it's got some gravity to hold everything into place. The long mercurian nights can be used to dig in equipment, and expand, while during daylight the solar cell grids could power up. Of course the difference in temperatures between day and night is huge, but just imagine the applications of regular thermodynamics one could implement there.

But again, why would you send humans up there? Especially given that autonomous robotic technology is getting better and better with time.

Because tourism is an industry just as profitable as the others. Plus, a new industry would arise - creating real estate out of nothing and selling it.

These problems aren't insurmountable, but we don't even remotely have the tech to overcome them at the moment.

That's what I'm skeptical about. I do think we have the tech, or we could get a hold of the tech in a relatively small ammount of time, if there was a political will and momentum to do it (which equals money).

[Evil Dr Ganymede]

Because tourism is an industry just as profitable as the others. Plus, a new industry would arise - creating real estate out of nothing and selling it.

You'll need to get the costs to get into orbit - let alone deep space - WAY down for tourism to be even an option. Plus, it's damn risky. On Earth tourism is profitable when people want to go see a place, and they know they won't be shot, lynched, or die from disease where they're going. In space, the risks are equally high - let's not mince words here, Space is an utterly LETHAL, very high risk environment. A crack in the wall in your hotel room on Earth means you complain to the manager. A crack in the wall of your space hotel means you start decompressing and have to evacuate or die a horrible death. Tourism will only be viable in space as a bona fide industry if it's SAFE and affordable to the masses - and that's a hell of a long way off.

As for real estate... why would anyone (by which I mean mere mortals like us who don't have billions of dollars to blow) want to buy land out there? It'd cost a fortune to build anything on it.

That's what I'm skeptical about. I do think we have the tech, or we could get a hold of the tech in a relatively small ammount of time, if there was a political will and momentum to do it (which equals money).

No, we don't have the tech. We have the theoretical knowledge, but we need to develop the materials and build the ships, get the things working safely and properly, ensure there's a proper reason for doing it (the current Bush plan is exactly the opposite of a "proper reason"). And really, there is no way in the current socio-political environment that the proper political will and momentum can exist.

[Scytale]

Let's leave the current socio-political environment aside otherwise it will kill this thread

Picture space tourism as a stage in the development of the entire space industry. In order to reach the high security standards and low costs needed to get tourists in, you have to do a lot of work with robots, monkeys and underpaid Eastern Europeans. But tourists will eventually flock in. I mean, it's obvious that before building a hotel you must first build a house, but the hotel will eventually be built nevertheless, as long as there is a market for it.

As for real estate, I wasn't writing about buying a piece of the moon, when all we have out there is a flag and some dusty footprints. I was writing about profitable real estate : company A comes and lays down infrastructure, sells property at price x, company B then builds some sort of habitation dome, sells property at price y, company C buys the property. It's actual value, not just some piece of the moon.

Tech-wise, we may not have the tech now, but don't you think that by having that political will - which we don't have - and by starting to throw an ever increasing quantity of robots into space, the tech will be there in a relatively short ammount of time ? Whether it's space alloys manufactured aboard the ISS, some probe clashing into a comet to find its composition, or some gamma-ray interferometer thingy orbiting Mercury to figure out if there is anything worth strip-mining on that planet, tech is coming in, and would be coming in at an alarming rate.

[Bob Hegwood]

Picture space tourism as a stage in the development of the entire space industry.

Scytale?

Just thought I'd mention that Burt Rutan and his winning of the X-Prize with
"SpaceShipOne" has already started the drive toward space tourism. I
believe that his company, Scaled Composites, LLC. has already received
numerous requests for sub-orbital tourist flights from those who can afford
a million or two just to be able to see the curvature of the Earth.

It's coming, my friend... All we had to do was get the government out of the
way.

Take care, Bob

[selden]

Rutan's company is more a design company. I doubt he'd want to get into the complications of running a transportation company.

Virgin Air, on the other hand...
See http://www.virgingalactic.com/

[rthorvald]

Same thing with Mars - it would take a huge spacecraft to carry some guys over there, and a lot of resources to keep them alive. Output ? Someone flapping their arms near Valles Marineris.

Just going slightly OT here: i have never understood the urge to land people on Mars when robots are so much safer and cheaper... If they send people there, wouldn??t it be better to stay in orbit and remote-control a bunch of robot explorers? No landing/takeoff hazards or costs, no need for a surface habitat - and eliminating the radio delay would open up for much more efficient use of machines...

-rthorvald

[selden]

Runar,

I think it's a matter of short-term versus long-term goals. In the short term (decades), robotic exploration does seem to be the most cost effective. In the long term, however, we really need to have self-sufficient off-world colonies. Keeping all of our eggs in one basket is not a viable survival strategy.

[rthorvald]

I think it's a matter of short-term versus long-term goals. In the short term (decades), robotic exploration does seem to be the most cost effective. In the long term, however, we really need to have self-sufficient off-world colonies. Keeping all of our eggs in one basket is not a viable survival strategy.

Absolutely... But until we have an industrial platform in space, manned exploration (or colonisation) does not make any sense to me - it??s sort of romantic to explore in person, but the cost is prohibitive, and it is largely unneccecary. Anyway, what i meant, was, the first manned trip to Mars: i don??t understand why people should *land*. Much cheaper to stay in orbit and use a joystick...

Colonizing other worlds is certainly neccecary in the long run, anyone with a minimum of imagination can see that...

[Scytale]

Why *orbit* Mars ? From what I understand, the big problem of a mission to Mars would be transporting the crew to such a long distance, and keeping them there safely until a window to fly back to Earth arises. Methinks that if a manned Mars mission would be planned, they would definitely land. Otherwise, what's the point ? Why would you send them out there anyway ? This isn't the sixties, you don't need to first orbit the darn thing and then land

Anyone got any links to some comprehensive geological data on Mars, Mercury and the Moon ?