Posted on

Reproduction off Earth and its implications for space settlement

Launch of the Space Shuttle Atlantis (STS-66) on November 3, 1994. The mission carried an experiment called NIH.Rodent 1, the first of only two study’s to date on rats launched at mid-pregnancy and landed close to full term to study the effects of microgravity on reproduction. Credits: NASA

In a MDPI Journal Life paper, Alexandra Proshchina and a team* of Russian researchers summarize the research that has been performed thus far on reproduction of invertebrates in space. As mentioned in the article, the only data we have on mammalian reproduction in microgravity since the dawn of the space age is from two experiments carried out over 26 years ago. The studies looked at pregnant rats launched aboard the Space Shuttle on missions STS-66 and STS-70 in 1994 and 1995 respectively, and there have never been any births of mammals in space. This huge knowledge gap on reproduction in space is problematic for human space settlement. Yet Elon Musk, The Mars Society, and other groups are charging ahead with plans for cities on Mars. What if we discover that humans cannot have healthy babies in 0.38g? SSP has covered the quest for determining the gravity prescription before looking at JAXA’s effort to at least start experimenting with artificial gravity in space, albeit on adult mammals (mice). We are still waiting for JAXA’s published results of 1/6g experiments carried out in 2019.

The data from the Space Shuttle program only looked at part of the gestation period (after 9 days) and only in microgravity. The results did not bode well for reproduction in space. Some findings “…clearly indicate that microgravity, and possibly other nonspecific effects of spaceflight, can alter the normal development of the brain itself.”

Histological cross section through a representative rat brain from NIH.Rodent 1 experiment from STS-66. Left side (a) is low magnification and right side (b-d) are high magnification. Red arrows show areas of neurodegeneration. 1 – Nasal cavity, 2 – olfactory nerve, 3 – olfactory bulb, 4 – eye, 5 – cortex telencephali, 6 – hippocampus, 7 – fourth ventricle, 8 – cerebellum. Credits: Alexandra Proshchina et al.*

So we have this one piece of data for reproduction in microgravity and nothing in higher gravitational fields except what we know here on Earth in 1g.

Would partial gravity like on the Moon or Mars be sufficient for normal fetal development in rats (or mammals in general, especially humans) during the full gestation period? If problems are identified could it be extrapolated to human reproduction? The fact that homo sapiens and their ancestors evolved on Earth in 1g for hundreds of thousands of years is a big red flag for future space colonists that hope to settle on the surface of planetary bodies and have children.

We don’t know how lower gravity conditions could affect embryonic cell growth. How would the changes in surface tension and embryo cell adhesion be altered in these environments? We have very little data on cellular mechanisms and embryonic alterations that lower gravity may induce that could affect fetal development.

“There are also many other questions to be answered about vertebrate development under space flight conditions.”

A recent report on giving birth in space by SpaceTech Analytics looks at many of the factors that need to be considered for human reproduction off Earth. Most problems could be potentially mitigated through engineering solutions such as radiation protection, medical innovations tailored for space use, life support technology, etc. In this entire presentation the authors gave very little consideration to partial gravity affects on human embryos and child birth. One slide (number 70) out of 85 discusses these issues.

It is clear that more and longer term experiments will be necessary to determine how partial gravity affects the reproduction and development of mammals before humans settle space. Some researchers are actually considering genetic modification to allow healthy reproduction in space, and the ethical considerations associated with this course of action. Obviously, such a drastic methods would come only if there was no other alternative. One would think that building O’Neill type habitats rotating to produce 1g of artificial gravity would be preferable to such extreme measures.

Clearly, we need a space based artificial gravity laboratory to carry out ethical clinical studies on the gravity prescription for human reproduction, starting with rodents and other lower organisms. SSP recently covered a kilometer long version of such a facility that could be deployed in a single Falcon Heavy launch. And don’t forget Joe Carroll’s proposal for a LEO partial gravity test facility. Doesn’t it make sense to invest in such a facility and do the proper research before (or at least in parallel to) detailed engineering studies of colonies on the Moon or Mars intended for long term settlement? This research could inform decision making on where we will eventually establish permanent space settlements: on the surface of smaller worlds or in free space settlements envisioned by Gerard K. O’Neill. Elon Musk may want to consider such a facility before he gets too far down the road to establishing cities on Mars.

* Authors of Reproduction and the Early Development of Vertebrates in Space: Problems, Results, Opportunities: Alexandra Proshchina, Victoria Gulimova, Anastasia Kharlamova, Yuliya Krivova, Nadezhda Besova, Rustam Berdiev and Sergey Saveliev.

Posted on

Freedom Engineering in Space

A tongue-in-cheek Freedom Engineering poster encouraging space settlers to produce oxygen through plant growth as an alternative to dependency on centralized oxygen production facilities. Credits: Charles Cockell

At the 24th Annual International Mars Society Convention held October 14 – 17, Dr. Charles Cockell, professor of Astrobiology in the School of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Edinburgh, gave a talk on what he calls Freedom Engineering. His viewpoint was also published in a paper via the journal Space Policy in August of 2019. Cockell makes the case that due to the extreme constraints imposed by the laws of physics on living conditions in space settlements, freedom of movement will necessarily be restricted. Such conditions could be exploited by tyrannical governments to limit social, political and economic freedoms as well. To address these concerns Cockell suggests that colony designers utilize proactive engineering measures in planning off Earth communities to maximize liberty in the space environment. For example, rather then one centralized oxygen production facility or method that may be leveraged by a despot to control the population, it is suggested that settlements be designed with multiple facilities distributed widely and if possible, other types of oxygen production (e.g. greenhouses) be employed to minimize the chance of monopolization.

This engineering philosophy raised many questions among colleagues of mine so I reached out to Dr. Cockell for an interview via email to provide answers. He graciously agreed and I’m very grateful for his responses.

SSP: How is Freedom Engineering different from standard engineering practices of designing for redundancy to prevent single point failure?

CC: There is a strong overlap. For example, if you want redundancy, you multiply oxygen production. That would also be a desired objective to minimize the chances of monopolistic control over oxygen. So often the objectives are the same. However, I suggest that freedom engineering is a specific focus on engineering solutions that cannot be used to create coercive extraterrestrial regimes, which is not always the same as redundancy. For example, we might minimize the use of cameras and audio devices to monitor habitats for structural integrity, an objective consistent with general engineering demands, but potentially antithetical to human freedoms.

SSP: Since the added costs are significant and we may not be able to follow these practices initially, how do we get around the problems you mention after being on the Moon a decade or two? Wouldn’t the forces of tyranny have already won?

CC: Liberty is never cheap in resources and human effort. You can take a cost-cutting approach and hope that tyrannical regimes don’t take hold in a settlement or you can plan before hand to minimize their success, even if that involves more cost. However, as many freedom engineering solutions are compatible with redundancy, it is not necessarily the case that introducing measures like maximizing oxygen production and spacesuit manufacture motivated by considerations on liberty would add significantly to a cost already incurred by ensuring redundancy.

Liberty is never cheap in resources and human effort.

SSP: How do we avoid centralized control of transportation? Will we have two or more landing pads, several sets of rockets? – e.g., Musk, Bezos, and ULA?

CC: I would say that maximizing the number of entities with transportation capabilities is a good idea. Here too, we would want to achieve this for redundancy, but it would also reduce the chances of monopolization and the isolation of a settlement (particularly if leaving the settlement can only be achieved with one provider). This could also include multiplying the physical number of rocket launch and arrival points.

SSP: There are always non-redundant systems, which you acknowledge. At some level there are critical infrastructures that cannot be made redundant because then we get into an infinite loop. If a tyrannical power wanted to control everything on the Moon, for example, that is where they would focus their control. Can you comment?

CC: That’s true. It goes without saying that, as on Earth, a determined despot with enough support can find ways to take over a society. However, as the framers of the US Constitution understood, if you can introduce enough checks and balances you can make tyranny an outcome that requires many of those to fail. You reduce the risk. So by minimizing the number of single point controls in an extraterrestrial society you never eliminate the chances of tyranny, but you reduce the number of options open to those with tyrannical tendencies.

It goes without saying that, as on Earth, a determined despot with enough support can find ways to take over a society.

SSP: How would a tyrannical off-Earth settlement get its citizens when moving to such a settlement would seem like a terrible idea?

CC: It’s true that an overtly tyrannical settlement may eventually find it difficult to recruit people and might therefore fail. One might hope that this would be a feedback loop that would discourage tyranny in space. However, when building free government[s], it’s a good idea to assume the worse to achieve the best, i.e. assume that people will attempt to, and can, create a tyranny, and then build a system that minimizes this possibility. It’s also worth pointing out that once people are in a settlement, they will be physically isolated under some governance power. Just as it isn’t trivial to remove a tyranny on Earth that has a population corralled under it once it is established, it may not be easy to free a settlement once it has a population under its control. It is worthwhile to attempt to design societies that avoid this possibility from the beginning.

SSP: Would a space settlement economy with multiple competing companies providing essential needs such as life support, obviate the requirement for engineering redundancy since it would be more difficult for a tyrannical government to take over all the means of production?

CC: Yes, I think in many ways multiple competing companies is a form of redundancy – providing many conduits for production and minimizing single points of control or failure. Maximizing productive capacity is essential. I would mandate some basic level of oxygen production capability, for example, that any settlement must be capable of producing to keep people alive, and then try and stimulate a private market in fashionable oxygen machines of various kinds, different oxygen production methods etc. Of course, one should not be utopian. A coercive monopoly could still control a lot of this, but in general the more entities that produce vital resources, the more likely real choice can emerge in some form.

SSP: One reasonable measure that can be taken that doesn’t fall under normal engineering approaches is standardizing data transparency. It might make sense that it should be a matter of public record, and easily assessable, the records of who does what with vital resources and how activities that seriously impact human safety are managed. This can be done without compromising anyone’s intellectual property. The full light of day can be good protection especially when used proactively, and establishing such standards would head off the opportunity to wave things away as bias or smear campaigns. Open-source approaches to data are already a big thing for all the space agencies and may be the best course of action. Do you have an opinion on this philosophy?

CC: I think this is essential. The freedom engineering approach I suggest is just one mechanism for reducing coercive governance, but a free society is constructed from many other needs. In some of my previous papers I have discussed exactly this – the need for transparency in information about oxygen production, who is funding it, and how etc. A general culture of openness is necessary. There may be some novel approaches such electing members of the settlement by lot to take part in meetings to do with oxygen or water production, for instance, and write public reports. Corporations will find all this very annoying of course, but the wider culture of liberty will be enhanced by a very ‘leaky’ society with respect to information. Other essential things are a free press (even if that is just informal lunar or Martian newspapers), transparency in elections for running the settlement, and perhaps maximum terms on people involved in health and safety tasks to create fluidity in the network of officialdom that oversees the potentially large number of health and safety concerns with respect to radiation, dust, production of essential items.

Corporations will find all this very annoying of course, but the wider culture of liberty will be enhanced by a very ‘leaky’ society with respect to information.

Posted on

Coming soon: the $10M orbital condominium

Living space in a Kalpana orbital space settlement. Credits: Bryan Versteeg

Kasper Kubica presents an optimistic business case for space tenants moving in (er, up) to deluxe condominiums orbiting the Earth within 10 years. Initially for the ultra rich, the price tag is comparable to high end real estate currently on the market. Of course the devil is in the details, so lets dive in.

In a post on Medium, Kubica uses the rotating habitat Kalpana as an illustrative example of his “Spacelife Direct” approach for an orbital settlement spinning to create 1G of artificial gravity and hosting north of 400 condominiums in LEO. Such a facility would be shielded from radiation by Earth’s magnetosphere if it were located in low equatorial orbit and therefore could be constructed with less shielding. This results in a significant reduction of mass driving costs way down. Running the numbers on this scenario opens up exciting possibilities with the amazing capabilities of Elon Musk’s Starship currently under development by SpaceX.

Using the scaled down Kalpana Two version as discussed in Tom Marotta and Al Globus’ book, The High Frontier, an Easier Way, the cylindrical habitat is sized at just over 100 meters in diameter and the same in length, weighing in at 16, 800 metric tons. Kubica estimates that it would take 140 launches to loft the required mass to LEO. Assuming costs keep coming down as Starship launch cadence increases (a safe bet), at $10M/launch the cost of just the materials to LEO would be $1.4B. Of course there are many more expenses associated with design, development and fabrication, not to mention insurance of such an orbital condo complex. For the sake of argument Kubica triples that figure arriving at a total price tag of $4.2B.

But would there be a market for real estate in LEO? Kubica provides comparable examples of skyscrapers with similar costs and over 200 condominiums recently selling for over $10M in Manhattan.

“The clamor for earthside luxury condos is massive and growing. Orbital condos — representing an exclusive experience far beyond that available to anyone on earth — could generate astronomical demand.”

With the economics of Starship opening up limitless possibilities, Kubica lays out a roadmap over the next 10 years to realize the Spacelife Direct opportunity. First would come financing the venture though a team of visionary entrepreneurs and investors (are you listening Dylan Taylor?). Design and development would come next including the robotic systems that would be required for assembly in space. Laying the groundwork for this infrastructure may be completed soon by Orbital Assembly Corporation which could potentially be leveraged as a Spacelife Direct supplier. To keep labor costs down much of the facility would be fabricated on Earth in launchable modules that would be assembled in orbit. The final stages would activate life support systems and finish out the interiors for the occupants to begin moving in.

So what about the rest of us? As history has shown in the aerospace industry at the beginning of the last century and we see unfolding in the space tourism market today, the rich help pave the way so that mass production and economies of scale will drive down costs eventually making space settlement affordable for the masses.

“We don’t want to live in space because it’s an economic necessity, we want to live in space because we are explorers and adventurers, and space is humanity’s next frontier!”

Posted on

The emerging in-space manufacturing economy

Diagram depicting the market sectors of the nascent in-space economy. Credits: Erik Kulu / Factories in Space

Erik Kulu, a Senior Systems Engineer in the satellite industry, has a passion for emerging technologies…especially those in the in-space manufacturing field. He’s created the largest public database of companies active in the emerging in-space economy. Called Factories in Space, it tracks companies engaged in microgravity services, space resources, in-space transport services, the economies of LEO, cislunar space, the Moon and much more.

Kulu provides an overview of commercial microgravity applications for both terrestrial and in-space use. His listing and analysis of potential business ventures provides a comprehensive summary of unique profitable commodities manufactured in microgravity, including fiber optics, medical products, exotic materials and many more.

Breakdown of the in-space manufacturing sector of the space economy. Credits: Erik Kulu / Factories in Space

“This is the missing piece to speed up development for the exciting Star Trek-like future. I believe in-space manufacturing will be the kickstarter and foundation.”

In a recent industry survey examining the commercial landscape of space resources in 2021, Kulu renders a statistical breakdown of the currently evolving development stages of in-space manufacturing companies, levels of funding by market sector, timing of company founding and geographical location of the main players. His analysis shows a marked increase in the formation of companies from 2016 – 2018 dropping off over the last 3 years.

Prominent founding peak of space resource companies in 2018 with drop at end of the last decade. Credits: Erik Kulu / Factories in Space

I asked Kulu about what he thought caused the downward taper because it seemed to have started before the COVID-19 pandemic, and so was probably unrelated. He agreed, and offers this explanation:

“Primarily, I think the decline is a mix of following:

  1. There was a boom of some sorts, which has slowed down in terms of very new startups. Similar graphs [indicate the same trend] for nanosatellite, constellation and launcher companies. Funding boom is continuing though.
  2. As many of those space fields do not have obvious markets, some potential new actors might be in wait mode, because they want to see what happens financially and technically to existing companies.
  3. Startups could be in stealth mode or very early stage and as such I have not become aware of them yet. They will likely partially backfill.”

“While there was a decline, I forecast Starship and return to the Moon will kick off another wave in about 2-3 years.”

Kulu also tracks NewSpace commercial satellite constellations, small satellite rocket launchers and NewSpace funding options through his sister site NewSpace Index. But he doesn’t stop there. The world’s largest catalog of nanosatellites containing over 3200 nanosats and CubeSats can be found in his Nanosats database.

Learn more about how Erik Kulu got started tracking the in-space economy in this interview from earlier this year over on Filling Space. And be sure and tune in live to The Space Show next month when I cohost with David Livingston for his debut appearance, exact date to be determined. You can call the show and ask Erik questions directly. Check TSS Newsletter, updated weekly, for the show date once its set. This post will be updated when the schedule is finalized, so readers can check back here as well.

Posted on

A lunar space elevator achievable with today’s technology

Conceptual depiction of a lunar space elevator. Credits: Cool Worlds Lab via YouTube.com

As SSP posted previously, a space elevator serving Earth holds great promise for reducing the cost of access to space but remains out of reach at least for a couple of decades as there are no existing materials strong enough to support their own weight in Earth’s gravity well. But a lunar space elevator (LSE) is possible with commercial polymers available today and could be built for about $2 billion according to Charles Radley, a Systems Engineer and AIAA Associate Fellow. In a paper available on Academia.edu he shows how a “… lunar elevator is both feasible and affordable, and indeed profitable.”

A functional LSE would require a tether of low mass material that is also strong enough to support its own weight in the Moon’s gravitational field. In addition, it needs to be robust enough to transport payloads reliably and repeatedly over the entire working distance in cislunar space. The LSE would be a very long tether extending from the Moon’s surface up to a station at the system’s center of mass (COM) located at either of two Earth-Moon Lagrange points, L1 or L2. The physics of the system requires that the tether extend beyond the COM terminating at a counterweight several thousand kilometers higher. For the L1 system, the tether extends about 58,000 km up from the Moon to the station at the COM and then extends another 220,000 km up (toward the Earth) to the counterweight.

Several high tensile strength, low mass polymers developed in the 1990s that fulfill the system requirements are commercially available in large quantities today (e.g. T1000TM, DyneemaTM and ZylonTM * ). A 48 ton system composed of the tether, the L1 COM station, a lunar surface attachment fixture (SAF), counterweight and payload climbers could be launched on a single Falcon Heavy vehicle.

Starting at L1, the deployment would begin with the counterweight and SAF simultaneously played out in opposite directions (up and down in relation to the Moon, respectively) unspooling the tethers at rates that maintains the COM station at the L1 position. Upon the SAF reaching the desired location on the Moon, it would be affixed to the surface by drilling down to a sufficient depth to anchor the structure such that it could adequately withstand tension and lateral forces.

When compared to chemical rocket operations on the moon, there is a significant cost reduction in lifting materials off the surface if multiple climbers are used and the frequency of their trips up and down the LSE is maximized. The cost reduction is on the order of 9X, enabling the system to pay for itself in one month. Radley concludes that:

“These large cost reductions are game changing and will enable major expansion of human activities beyond Earth orbit, and establish profitable lunar based industries.”

The Liftport Group, a collaborator on the paper, is administering The Alexandria Project, a database repository collecting and organizing questions about the infrastructure needed for development of an LSE toward creation of a requirements document.

* T1000G is a trademark of Toray Composite Materials America, Inc.; Dyneema is a trademark of Royal DSM NV; Zylon is a trademark of Toyobo Corporation

Posted on

Kilometer long artificial gravity facility could be deployed in a single launch

One kilometer long spinning space station producing 1G of artificial gravity deployed from a single Falcon Heavy launch vehicle. Credits: Zachary Manchester, graphic by Tzipora Thompson

This year’s NASA Innovative Advance Concepts (NIAC) award winners presented their ideas in a virtual poster session last week. Zachary Manchester of Carnegie Mellon University and Jeffrey Lipton at the University of Washington have come up with a rotating habitat to produce artificial gravity. But to do this without causing severe disorientation that would result from a short radius habitat, their novel facility is one kilometer long spinning to produce 1G at both ends. Manchester and Lipton’s innovation is a deployment mechanism that leverages advances in “mechanical metamaterials” to reduce mass while increasing expansion ratios such that the structure can be squeezed into a single Falcon Heavy payload envelope but when deployed, expands to 150 times its stored configuration size. The structure can be erected autonomously and without any assembly in space.

The key enabling technologies are a combination of “handed shearing auxetics” (HSA) and branched scissor mechanisms. HSA is described in a 2018 paper in Science by Lipton and other researchers where they “…produce both compliant structures that expand while twisting and deployable structures that can rigidly lock.”

“The station can…be spun at 1-2 RPM to generate 1g artificial gravity at its ends while still maintaining a microgravity environment at its center near the spin axis, providing the crew with the flexibility of living in a 1g environment while performing some work in microgravity.”

All the NIAC Fellow poster presentations can be found at the 2021 NIAC Symposium Virtual Event website.

Posted on

Astrosettlement Development Strategy for human expansion into the solar system and beyond

Conceptual illustration of a Habitat Autonomous Locomotive Expandable (HALE) mobile self sustaining habitat under propulsion near a planetary destination. Credits: unknown artist via Thomas Matula

Dr. Thomas Matula, Professor at Sul Ross State University Uvalde, Texas, has developed an economically based strategy for space settlement. His plan addresses the deficiencies in many proposed visions of human expansion beyond earth, namely the missing economic and legal aspects needed for sustainable settlement of the solar system. Matula discussed his approach with David Livingston on The Space Show September 14 and in a paper entitled An Economic Based Strategy for Human Expansion into the Solar System attached to the show blog.

Astrosettlement Development Strategy (ADS) can be boiled down into a four step economically based roadmap for space settlement which could be started with minimal private funding. Each step would achieve economic success before moving on to the next level. The four levels are Earth based research, industrialization of the Moon, developing and settling the solar system and interstellar migration.

In the first step of Earth based research, Matula suggests developing a subscription based online role playing computer game with the purpose of creating a virtual simulation of a space settlement to model the social and economic aspects of communities beyond Earth. SSP has been following similar efforts already underway by Moonwards. Further research in this phase would look into space agriculture to understand the types of plants and dietary needs of space settlers and improving the efficiency of crop growth paving the way for self sustaining habitats. Matula has penned a different paper along these lines called The Role of Space Habitat Research in Providing Solutions to the Multiple Environmental Crises on Earth, also attached to the Space Show Blog, which could have duel use applications in addressing environmental problems on our home planet. There are already efforts underway in this arena with Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) utilizing greenhouse automation through the Internet of Things leading to reduction of water needs and an increase in crop yields.

“Developing the technology
to green the Solar System will also green the Earth for future generations”

Next on the roadmap is lunar industrialization. The focus of this step is to use robotics and in situ resource utilization to minimize the mass of materials lifted from Earth and to create lunar manufacturing capability in a cislunar economy that can be leveraged to build space based habitats for expansion into deep space.

Developing the solar system comes next. Once an economic foundation of industrialization of the Moon has been established, large mobile habitats can be built at the Earth-Moon Lagrange points L1 and L2. Called HALE, for Habitat Autonomous Locomotive Expandable, these are 1km wide self sustaining habitats with 1G artificial gravity capable of low energy transit throughout the solar system including out to the Kuiper Belt, where they can use the resources there to add to their size or build copies of themselves.

The final phase combines mobile free space settlement with advanced propulsion to develop the capability of expansion into the Oort cloud and on to the stars.

“…propulsion technology could advance to a point that would allow mobile space habitats designed for the Oort Cloud to be transformed into the first generational starships.”

Posted on

Modeling a water based cis-lunar economy

A conceptual illustration of the operational layout for a possible future cis-lunar ecosystem based on lunar water resources to refuel GEO satellites and support of a lunar base. Credits: Marc-Andre Chavy-Macdonald et al.*

Most forward looking space planners believe that lunar water will be one of the primary resources that will drive cis-lunar economic activities. But can the growth of a water-based ecosystem be modelled to make future revenue predictions? Using a new methodology that combines System Dynamics with scenario planning a team of researchers in Japan and France has done just that by quantifying the parameters of two scenarios likely to unfold in the near future: a lunar settlement called “Moonopolis” and a long term exploration effort named “Apollo 2.0”. The analysis was just published in Acta Astronautica in a paper entitled The cis-lunar ecosystem — A systems model and scenarios of the resource industry and its impact.

System Dynamics (SD) is time-based modeling to frame, understand, and discuss dynamic behavior of complex systems. Originally developed in the 1950s to improve a company’s understanding of industrial processes, SD is used in both the public and private sectors for policy analysis and to drive strategy.

In the study, the authors* find that three factors are essential for success: government support for R&D, private capital re-investment, and continued growth of the telecom satellite industry in geosynchronous orbit. With these stipulations a cis-lunar economy of $32 billion is projected after 20 years.

Key insights gleaned from this novel holistic model reveal the dynamics of a space resource economy and the interaction of of key technical, policy and socioeconomic variables along with their uncertainties to make future projections.

Incidentally, the authors partnered with a Japan-based company called iSpace on the study which has its own plans for a lunar city called Moon Valley. They are projecting that 1000 people could be living there by 2040.

* Authors of The cis-lunar ecosystem — A systems model and scenarios of the resource industry and its impact: Marc-Andre Chavy-Macdonald, Kazuya Oizumi, Jean-Paul Kneib, Kazuhiro Aoyama

Posted on

Are we close to a tipping point for human spaceflight?

Artist depiction of Starship on the lunar surface returning astronauts to the Moon as part of NASA’s Artemis Program. Credits: SpaceX

What will be the impact on the direction of U.S. space policy should SpaceX successfully demonstrate an orbital flight of Starship? Doug Plata, President and Founder of the Space Development Network believes that when Starship achieves orbit, policy makers should “…place Starship at the center of the country’s human spaceflight program…”. In an article in The Space Review he makes the case that if successful in its efforts, SpaceX may be edging us closer to a tipping point on deciding which path to take for the country’s human rated launch vehicle: Space Launch System (SLS) or Starship? This question is accentuated by recent news reports of yet another delay in the Artemis 1 uncrewed test flight of SLS which Ars Technica reports may not launch until the summer of 2022…assuming everything goes perfectly. Meanwhile, SpaceX continues its development of Starship at a breakneck pace, while simultaneously building the manufacturing infrastructure to “…crank them out by the hundreds”, says Plata. With the delay of Artemis 1, it is possible that SpaceX will demonstrate the first orbital launch of Starship before NASA’s first launch of SLS.

NASA has already selected SpaceX to return astronauts to the Moon via Starship as the Human Landing System for the Artemis program, although work has stalled on the contract due to Blue Origin’s lawsuit. But with a reusable Starship at a fraction of the cost, comparable heavy lift capability and a much higher flight rate, how long can SLS last? A case could be made for keeping SLS until SpaceX’s Super Heavy booster is human rated and Starship can be reliably shown to reenter the Earth’s atmosphere and land safely. But this won’t be long given Elon Musk’s aggressive timelines. Will it continue to make sense to launch astronauts on SLS/Orion, transfer them to Starship in lunar orbit and descend to the surface of the Moon when the the whole mission could be accomplished without SLS at a fraction of the cost?

“At some point, it will be obvious that SLS is an unnecessarily expensive alternative to Starship”

With Starship’s anticipated payload capabilities of delivery of 100s of tons and large crews to the lunar surface, and recent advances in inflatable technology, a habitat with a footprint of about 21,000 sq. ft. is within reach. Plata believes that the billions of dollars slated for SLS would be better spent contracting with SpaceX for delivery of inflatables and their supporting infrastructure to the lunar surface. This could lead to a large international lunar base which may eventually become a permanent settlement.

Instabase
Conceptual illustration of InstaBase – a fully inflatable lunar base capable of supporting an initial crew of eight. Credits: The Space Development Network via The Space Review

“But there is an important historic significance to Starship as well…the real historic prize to be seized is the establishment of humanity’s first foothold off Earth.”

Posted on

Where is the mother lode of space mining? The Moon or near-Earth asteroids?

Conceptual rendering of TransAstra Honey Bee Optical Mining Vehicle designed to harvest water from near-Earth asteroids: Credits: TransAstra Corporation

Advocates for mining the Moon and asteroids for resources to support a space based economy are split on where to get started. Should we mine the Moon’s polar regions or would near-Earth asteroids (NEAs) be easier to access?

Joel Sercel, founder and CEO of TransAstra Corporation, is positioning his company to be the provider of gas stations for the coming cislunar economy. In a presentation on asteroid mining to the 2020 Free Market Forum he makes the case (about 10 minutes into the talk) that from an energy perspective in terms of delta V, NEAs located in roughly the same orbital plane as the Earth’s orbit may be easier to access for mining volatiles and rare Earth elements.

Scott Dorrington of the University of New South Wales discusses an architecture of a near-Earth asteroid mining industry in a paper from the proceedings of the 67th International Astronautical Congress. He models a transportation network of various orbits in cislunar space for an economy based on asteroid water-ice as the primary commodity. The network is composed of mining spacecraft, processing plants, and space tugs moving materials between these orbits to service customers in geostationary orbit.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-7.png
Illustration depicting the layout of a transportation network in an asteroid mining industry in cislunar space. Credits: Scott Dorrington

On the other side of the argument, Kevin Cannon of the Colorado School of Mines in a post on his blog Planetary Intelligence lays out the case for the Moon being the best first choice. All of the useful elements available on asteroids are present on the Moon, and in some cases they are easier to access in terms of concentrated ore deposits. Although delta V requirements are higher to lift materials off the Moon, its much closer to where its needed in a cislunar economy. Trips out to a NEA would take a long time with current propulsion systems. In addition, he thinks mining NEAs would be an “operational nightmare” as most of these bodies are loose rubble piles of rocks and pebbles with irregular surfaces and very low gravity. This makes it hard to “land” on the asteroid, or difficult to capture and manipulate them. In an email I asked him if he was aware of SHEPHERD, a concept for gentle asteroid retrieval with a gas-filled enclosure which SSP covered in a previous post, but he had not heard of it. TransAstra’s Queen Bee asteroid mining spacecraft has a well thought out capture mechanism as well, although this concept like SHEPHERD are currently at very low technology readiness levels.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-2.png
SHEPHERD-Fuel variant harvesting ice from a NEA and condensing it into liquid water in storage tanks, then subsequent separation into hydrogen and oxygen (top). These tanks become the fuel source for a self-propelling tanker block (bottom) which can be delivered to a refueling rendezvous point in cislunar space. Credits: Concept depicted by: Bruce Damer and Ryan Norkus with key design partnership from Peter Jenniskens and Julian Nott

Cannon also makes the point that there is very little mass in the accessible NEAs when compared to the abundance of elements on the Moon.

“There’s more than enough material for near-term needs on the Moon too, and it’s far closer and easier to operate on.”

Finally, he believes that the Moon would be a better stepping stone to mining the asteroids then NEAs would be. This is because most of the mass in the asteroid belt is located in the largest bodies Ceres and Vesta. Operations for mining on these worlds would be more akin to activities on the Moon then on near-Earth asteroids.

Image of Vesta taken from the NASA Dawn spacecraft. Credit: NASA/JPL

What about moving a NEA to cislunar space as proposed by NASA under the Obama Administration with the Asteroid Redirect Mission? Paul Sutter, an astrophysicist at SUNY Stony Brook and the Flatiron Institute, investigates this scenario and suggests that at least the argument for these asteroids being too far away might be mitigated by this approach, although it would take a long time to retrieve them using solar electric propulsion, as recommended in the article. The trip time might be reduced with advanced propulsion such as nuclear thermal rockets currently under investigation by NASA.

It should be noted that TransAstra has both bases covered. They are working on innovations such as their Sun Flower™ power tower for harvesting water at the lunar poles as well as the company’s Apis™ family of spacecraft for asteroid capture and mining of NEAs.

Conceptual illustration of TransAstra’s Sun Flower™ power towers collecting solar energy above a permanently shadowed region on the Moon to provide power for ice mining operations. Credits: TransAstra Corp.

Update 28 August 2021: Take a deep dive into TransAstra’s future plans with Joel Sercel interviewed by Peter Garretson, Senior Fellow in Defense Studies at the American Foreign Policy Council podcast Space Strategy.