Manned Space: Too Fail To Big

To paraphrase Bill Freeza, how many times do the court astronauts (and scientists) have to be wrong about the impact of expensive government economic interventions in the space industry before we add them to the unemployment rolls?

…why are [space] activists who promote enlarging the size and scope of… [manned space] shocked when one [space] program after another is hijacked by [both new and old space] corporations that find it easier to seek favors in Washington than customers in the marketplace?

Interventionist thinking is furthered by the insidious onset of the fantastical (and I mean that in a bad way) efforts like the Beyond Planet Earth effort at the American Museum of Natural History, presented with a scientific veneer when being steeped in science fiction is the reality. Note: is it just me that thinks perhaps the museum was trying to be ironic in placing a futures display in a history museum? Perhaps it would be better called, in this example, the American Museum of Science Fiction Futurism?

As the Beyond Planet Earth exhibition is profiled by the New York Times, it is “to look forward 50 or 100 years.” What will this future yield?

The exhibition plays shamelessly to those of us who were captivated long ago by science fiction dreams and the notion that humanity’s destiny is somehow tied to the stars. For the most part these plans don’t come with price tags attached nor, for that matter, any indication of what currency the price should be denominated in.

Snip

Getting there [to the moon, regularly, by 2030] is also going to be interesting. By then, [exhibit curator] Dr. [Michael] Shara figures, we will have had enough of the violence of rockets and will descend and ascend from the lunar surface on a lunar elevator, “a skinny cable rising thousands of miles from the Moon into the sky,” anchored at the far end by the gravity of the Earth. In time, Dr. Shara said, the cable could be extended almost all the way to Earth.

The ‘violence’ of rockets is a big cost regarding space access, but let’s be real: something beats nothing. While it’s possible that breakthroughs in materials will have occurred by 2030 (and support a space elevator) and that an economic case for going to the Moon may be supportable, with the trend line we’re on, it seems… improbable. And there’s all that pesky radiation as well.

Don’t like Moon life? Well, how about Mars?

Some geologists think that Mars could be transformed, or “terraformed,” into a livable planet over time in what would be the grandest and most expensive engineering project ever, one that would take thousands of years and entail the Mother of All Environmental Impact Statements and, yes, “trillions of dollars.” Only trillions?

These may well be the same geologists who think that California’s high-speed rail can also be brought in on spec, on budget, and on schedule.

Somewhere, teased out of all this, is the profound lesson that humans are the only creatures who can lie to themselves.

To quote myself, I have seen the future of space (and warfare) and it’s unmanned.

 

 

Space Tourism: Laugh Your Guts Out

Popular Science offers up a bit on space tourism.

The most laughable line: “A five-day stay [in space] will cost about $165,000.”

Oh, and what’s the cost to get there?  $56 million?

Or is that just the government rate?

Who Then, Shall Regulate Us?

Question of the moment: What if having a vibrant space program requires bypassing NASA?  

The question really means “What if having a vibrant space program requires bypassing the U.S. government as the primary space customer and space regulator?”  That’s because NASA, the Air Force, and the NRO don’t build the space hardware or provide space services, but rather, operate things that are placed in space by aerospace contractors. 

What the USG agencies do is provide “oversight” and sometimes “insight” into the myriad processes needed to get a satellite on orbit.  Similarly, the FAA tries to mitigate risk by requiring compliance with procedures, rules, regulations, and the like.

Wayne Crews, writing at Forbes, has a few excellent observations (meaning great minds think alike) on the way ahead for commercial space:

But while it’s still early in the game, we should strive to keep regulators earthbound.

Earthbound is of course a sort of space-faring metaphor for largely out-of-the-way USG oversight, insight, and risk mitigation.  Yet some regulator involvement will be required in order for commercial space providers to obtain insurance and to help build public confidence and trust in the endeavor (the effort, not the Space Shuttle Endeavor).  Without any trust in commercial space, consumers of all sorts won’t be inclined to use it.  Crews expands this idea in the second half of his article. 

More from Crews:

We’ll inevitably need to revisit the global Outer Space Treaty…

[and]

Subsidies should be discouraged…

Why?  Because if we don’t, the OST will continue to inhibit the commercial use of space and without such commercialization, space will continue to suffer the consequences of being largely dependent on government programs and subsidies. This means that space should be viewed as a frontier and not as an extraterrestrial commons (as the OST views space and do other platitudinous sayings such as ‘space reflects the common heritage of mankind’).  A frontiers mentality has a goal of making life better on earth and that’s what free-markets are best at.  Conversely, legacy government space programs have little or no interest in this area and are subject to regulatory capture.

Commercial space, in my mind, is closer to what the new space actors are doing and further from the space-tourism thing (go up to 100km, float around for a few seconds and then come home) that Branson has in mind.  New space has the opportunity to create real value for Americans (energy production and materials); space tourism is a thrill-ride for the rich (to include the USG, which is more profligate than rich). The hope many have (and remember, hope is not a strategy) is that the economies of scale brought about by space tourism will focus more people on the things a robust (and not government dependent) space economy could provide.   

Better Astronauts Through Genetic Mutations?

If you want to travel safely through space, among other things, you need your body to be shielded from radiation.  The alternative would be to have a body that’s impervious to radiations effects.

Maybe Monsanto is working on genetically modified astronauts (GMA).

From DNA, Daily News and Analysis:

A study has found that exposure to cosmic radiation outside the Earth’s magnetic field could be detrimental to astronauts’ arteries.

The study by University of Alabama at Birmingham researchers used an animal model to assess the affect of iron ion radiation commonly found in outer space to see if exposures promoted the development of atherosclerosis, as terrestrial sources of radiation are known to do.

They observed that cosmic radiation accelerated the development of atherosclerosis, independent of the cholesterol levels or circulating white blood cells of the mice. It also worsened existing atherosclerotic lesions.

Of course, there’s all sorts of other radiation in space as well.  And it is likely to create detrimental effects other than just atherosclerotic lesions.

"But cosmic radiation is very different from X-rays and other radiation found on Earth. The radiation risks of deep-space travel are difficult to predict, largely because so few people have been exposed," he said.

Lead shields can block X-rays, however, cosmic radiation ions can become more dangerous when they interact with metals, generating secondary particles that also may have biological effects.

Hasta la vista space tourism?  Maybe not; the amount of exposure will be quite short.  But for longer travel?

The only people who have been exposed to high levels of cosmic radiation are the 24 astronauts who have been to the moon as part of NASA’s Apollo missions in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

One theory I’ve heard is that the astronauts’ level of exposure to cosmic radiation was largely suppressed during much of the space-race era due to the mitigating effects of beneficial space weather during those times.  Plus, how long were those guys up there anyway?

Leaving earth for other destinations is still fraught with plenty of risk.  While we often only think of the risk of launch and reentry, the detrimental effects of radiation are certain to be quite profound.

Space Tourism Will Be Augmented By Space Science (which is taxpayer augmented)

While a ride to, from, or on the $100 billion International Space Station may be almost priceless, four minutes of space tourism will only set you back $200K.

So what will space tourism mean for scientific researchers?  Less expensive and more available access to space, even though the planned apogee is only going to be about 62 miles above the earth with the aforementioned duration limited to about 240 seconds.

Still, as the New York Times reports, the Southwest Research Institute’s Alan Stern is on board:

“We have built, on our own dime, three payloads,” Dr. Stern said. “We’re buying tickets, before there is a government program from suborbital providers, for our own people to fly with those experiments.”

Yes, SwRI has contracted for a minimum of eight space “seats” with an option of up to 17.

I might offer the ‘on our own dime’ statement is perhaps subject to interpretation: SwRI exists to benefit government, industry and the public through innovative science and technology.  They likely don’t benefit government, industry, or the public on their own dime any more than NPR, the National Park Service, or the Department of Defense does. 

And while Dr. Stern may think “We’re really at the edge of something transformational,” my questions would be:

1. Transforming from what to what?

2. For what purpose?

So while space tourism may hold great promise, let’s be honest about all this: whether it’s the Southwest Research Institute or another space tourism customer, the National Science Foundation (a less ambiguous and wholly US government organization), the U.S. taxpayer will be underwriting the scientific endeavor somewhere along a continuum between “some” and “all.”

And hopefully we’re getting the space tourism government rate.

Space Tourism: We’re Doomed

Let us now rightfully agree to wring hands.

Why?  Because nature news is relaying the idea space tourism will accelerate “climate change.”

The findings, reported in a paper in press in Geophysical Research Letters, suggest that emissions from 1,000 private rocket launches a year would persist high in the stratosphere, potentially altering global atmospheric circulation and distributions of ozone. The simulations show that the changes to Earth’s climate could increase polar surface temperatures by 1 °C, and reduce polar sea ice by 5–15%.

The hypothesis is space tourism will release “black carbon” in the upper atmosphere and therefore, will change the world’s climate.

The black carbon layer caused the temperature to decrease about 0.4 °C in the tropics and subtropics, whereas the temperature at the poles increased by between 0.2 and 1 °C, he says, emphasizing that the exact details would have to be refined with further models. The black carbon also caused ozone reductions of up to 1.7% in the tropics and subtropics, and increases of 5–6% in the polar regions.

So wait…not so hot in the tropics and warmer at the poles: what’s not to like?

Still, who would have thought Richard Branson was an environmental terrorist?  It’s like the neighbors on TV talking about the mass murderer next door: “He seemed like a normal guy…”

I know: maybe he should buy some carbon credits in order to plant trees in outer space.

Seriously–no really, seriously–since there’s money at stake, Virgin Galactic may want to fund some meteorological studies to challenge those already being done via the government-academic complex.

The Rocket Bus and Space Truckin’

About fifteen years ago, a common space launch analogy was about the need for space launch “trucks”–reliable, unglorious,  and highly functional.  That was as opposed to what we had, then, when everything was viewed as a custom-made, hand-built, one-of-a-kind, always-operating-at-the-very-end-of-its-margin space launch Ferrari.

Today, I suggest a new analogy, the rocket bus.

Oops.  No, not that type of rocket bus, but the kind which can take groups of travelers where they need to go in space and cheaper than the $50 million per seat on Soyuz (and even more on the Shuttle).  I suppose the rocket bus in the video is more of a space launch Ferrari, to mix metaphors  (and analogies).

And here’s some real space truckin’, a five-star Song of Space and Nuclear War from often reorganized rockers Deep Purple.

One Small Test For Virgin Galactic, One Giant Leap For Space Tourism?

Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShipTwo was successfully drop-tested from its host aircraft and returned to Earth from its drop-height of 45,000 feet.

The dropped vehicle, also known as the VSS Enterprise, is on track for further testing and if all goes according to plan, to take tourists to space next year.

Of course, there’s no clear point of demarcation for space, but if access to space is to become cheaper, its will entail competition and economies of scale.  What Virgin Galactic is doing is supportive of both methods of improvement.

Advance the YouTube link to about 1:15 for the important stuff and end it about 2:45.