Space Travel & Exploration

[Skulltaker]

I'm not following how Gateway will be the replacement to ISS. It's my understanding that Gateway will be an outpost orbiting the Moon that provides vital support for a long-term human return to the lunar surface. If it's orbiting the moon, it's going to be too far away for any LEO missions.

Well, in theory, it's easier to reach LEO from a Lunar Orbit than from Earth itself, but you still have to get everything from Earth to a Lunar Orbit, so... Maybe it is more feasible to ship stuff in bulk to a Lunar Orbit, and from there to LEO? But I somehow doubt it...

[PACOX]

Pretty sweet.

I was doing some back-of-the-envelope math. If the U.S.'s new rocket force - SLS, SpaceX, Virgin (IIRC, Bezos is getting people to space, but has yet to achieve LEO - should if I'm off on that assessment) - can each launch significant weight, the U.S. might be able to get a pretty good weight portion of the ISS into space. In other words, replacing the old ISS, on a commercial basis, might not be that relatively difficult. Obviously, it would need to be designed and built, but none of the private agencies have been bothered in the past with cribbing NASA plans.

NASA is probably going to abandon LEO deeming it 'proved technology/territory, and the major space agencies (SpaceX, ULA, I guess Blue Origin) with it. The US has a number of smaller agencies that can fill the void and SpaceX can crew the ISS as long as necessary. NASA itself won't need an LEO station like the ISS but there's room for private companies to build orbital labs if there's a market for it. The ISS has actually hosted (it might still be there) a commercial space module that was successful.

The US has two more heavy launchers slated besides the ones you mentioned. One from Bezos and one from ULA (basically the alliance of OGs of US rockets at this point). Surprise...surprise, they are both bottlednecked by Bezos/Blue Origin, waiting on engines. Blue Origin rocket being the New Glenn, sort of a half step between the space shuttle and SpaceX's Starship. ULA's rocket is the Vulcan, a more traditional, semi-reusable heavy rocket that will replace the Atlas V. Publicly ULA says they will get their engine from Blue Origin by the end of this year, doubtful. The Vulcan was supposed to launch in the summer but its payload wasn't ready so I guess you can say it's not behind schedule if it's first customer wasn't even prepared to fly? Either way it will be the work horse for Space Force/DoD/and probably most unmanned NASA missions once it's shown reliable (ULA has a good track record...Blue Origin has a good one with New Shepard but unproven when it comes to large rockets).

[Elegiac]

I'm not following how Gateway will be the replacement to ISS. It's my understanding that Gateway will be an outpost orbiting the Moon that provides vital support for a long-term human return to the lunar surface. If it's orbiting the moon, it's going to be too far away for any LEO missions.

It isn't a replacement, and I didn't say it was other than it being the recipient of funds currently tied up in the ISS. Rofl.

My point is that the ISS likely isn't going to have a direct replacement even among private companies because there's not really a point to manned LEO missions beyond vanity projects for the mega-wealthy these days, and despite the hype there's no evidence that space tourism is a remotely viable commercial market or going to become one in the near future. It's largely bullshit which the people selling know is undeliverable but is good for ginning up investment to fund aforementioned vanity projects, as is usually the case with high tech infrastructure startups in our Late Capitalist hellscape of a society.

[cubby]

It isn't a replacement, and I didn't say it was other than it being the recipient of funds currently tied up in the ISS. Rofl.

My point is that the ISS likely isn't going to have a direct replacement even among private companies because there's not really a point to manned LEO missions beyond vanity projects for the mega-wealthy these days, and despite the hype there's no evidence that space tourism is a remotely viable commercial market or going to become one in the near future. It's largely bullshit which the people selling know is undeliverable but is good for ginning up investment to fund aforementioned vanity projects, as is usually the case with high tech infrastructure startups in our Late Capitalist hellscape of a society.

I didn't mean to imply that you said that, I was just asking in general if Gateway replaces the ISS then how will NASA deal with any/all LEO projects, including launches to Gateway - unless the big launchers from SLS/SpaceX can get all the way to Moon orbit in one launch - but it was my understanding that LEO to Moon orbit actually takes a significant number of other launches to get the fuel up into space (I believe @PACOX had a chart for that).

Interesting point that NASA might just leave it all up to the private vanities, and perhaps require that anything that goes up also have a means for assisting the boost to Moon Orbit and therefore Gateway.

- - - Updated - - -

NASA is probably going to abandon LEO deeming it 'proved technology/territory, and the major space agencies (SpaceX, ULA, I guess Blue Origin) with it. The US has a number of smaller agencies that can fill the void and SpaceX can crew the ISS as long as necessary. NASA itself won't need an LEO station like the ISS but there's room for private companies to build orbital labs if there's a market for it. The ISS has actually hosted (it might still be there) a commercial space module that was successful.

The US has two more heavy launchers slated besides the ones you mentioned. One from Bezos and one from ULA (basically the alliance of OGs of US rockets at this point). Surprise...surprise, they are both bottlednecked by Bezos/Blue Origin, waiting on engines. Blue Origin rocket being the New Glenn, sort of a half step between the space shuttle and SpaceX's Starship. ULA's rocket is the Vulcan, a more traditional, semi-reusable heavy rocket that will replace the Atlas V. Publicly ULA says they will get their engine from Blue Origin by the end of this year, doubtful. The Vulcan was supposed to launch in the summer but its payload wasn't ready so I guess you can say it's not behind schedule if it's first customer wasn't even prepared to fly? Either way it will be the work horse for Space Force/DoD/and probably most unmanned NASA missions once it's shown reliable (ULA has a good track record...Blue Origin has a good one with New Shepard but unproven when it comes to large rockets).

Why won't they need the ISS or something like it in LEO?

[PACOX]

Why won't they need the ISS or something like it in LEO?

The only article I could fine is paywalled but NASA was to leave LEO to private ventures so they can focus on lunar and beyond research (when it comes to human spaceflight and research). LEO stations won't teach NASA how to get people from Earth to Mars. NASA wants to get comfortable sending people outside the relative safety of LEO where they are a bit more exposed and on their own should things happen.

There's still scientific need for an LEO lab like the ISS. We'll probably see NASA work with private/civilian companies to get something going and NASA will oversee develop from a distance but it won't be something NASA calls it own.

Edit: I think I understand what you're asking a little more. Like an intermediate point between Earth and the Moon to aid departures/returns? That's something still on the table but not in immediate plans. Also something they could get private companies to build. Maybe Space Force something like a corp of engineers.

[Endus]

Well, in theory, it's easier to reach LEO from a Lunar Orbit than from Earth itself, but you still have to get everything from Earth to a Lunar Orbit, so... Maybe it is more feasible to ship stuff in bulk to a Lunar Orbit, and from there to LEO? But I somehow doubt it...

This is why the big step is orbital mining. We're practically there, tech-wise. There's no major innovations required, just investment. Some of the conveniently-close asteroids have high metal content; if we can snag them and push them into a stable orbit or, more likely, a LaGrange point, there's literally trillions to be made in just platinum and gold alone, and those are trace materials in the asteroid I'm thinking of. It's mostly iron. And that iron could be smelted and refined almost incidentally, while extracting the rarer metals, and then you've got millions of tons of iron and steel that's already outside of any significant gravity well, and a simple nudge in the right direction can get it wherever you need it to be for construction, requiring only a similar nudge on the other end to "catch" it. The harder the "nudge", the faster the transit, but it's not like it's being damaged en route.

The problem is this is very much an "invest tens/hundreds of billions, make many trillions" scale project. And it's got a long turnaround before that investment will start producing revenue, let alone paying itself off. Like I said at the start; it's an investment problem, not really a technology problem. Once we take that step, though, it's a short move to megastructures in space, like space stations that can house tens of thousands of people or more. The biggest problem with doing so is the cost of lifting structural materials into space, and orbital mining basically trivializes that.

[Attackrabbit]

I've started playing Kerbals Space Programme again...that sort of fits in this thread

[bladeXcrasher]

The only article I could fine is paywalled but NASA was to leave LEO to private ventures so they can focus on lunar and beyond research (when it comes to human spaceflight and research). LEO stations won't teach NASA how to get people from Earth to Mars. NASA wants to get comfortable sending people outside the relative safety of LEO where they are a bit more exposed and on their own should things happen.

There's still scientific need for an LEO lab like the ISS. We'll probably see NASA work with private/civilian companies to get something going and NASA will oversee develop from a distance but it won't be something NASA calls it own.

Pretty sure NASA already has Axiom slated to work on the commercial space station. They moved to Houston recently and were hiring positions for the project.

[Elegiac]

I didn't mean to imply that you said that, I was just asking in general if Gateway replaces the ISS then how will NASA deal with any/all LEO projects, including launches to Gateway - unless the big launchers from SLS/SpaceX can get all the way to Moon orbit in one launch - but it was my understanding that LEO to Moon orbit actually takes a significant number of other launches to get the fuel up into space (I believe @PACOX had a chart for that).

Iirc SLS and SpaceX were both looking at single shot lunar missions.

But again, even if there were a fuel depot in LEO it doesn't necessarily need to be manned.

Interesting point that NASA might just leave it all up to the private vanities, and perhaps require that anything that goes up also have a means for assisting the boost to Moon Orbit and therefore Gateway.

Yee. Mind you, I'm not saying space tourism will never be a thing; but the commercial exploitation of space is still very much in its infancy due to the fact there really isn't like... large scale demand (go figure that space travel is evidence supply side economics doesn't work) and any infrastructure will have to be built from scratch. It also runs up against that thing whereby capitalism is really, really bad at long term planning; and the investments needed probably won't see a return for a long time.

[Skulltaker]

This is why the big step is orbital mining. We're practically there, tech-wise. There's no major innovations required, just investment. Some of the conveniently-close asteroids have high metal content; if we can snag them and push them into a stable orbit or, more likely, a LaGrange point, there's literally trillions to be made in just platinum and gold alone, and those are trace materials in the asteroid I'm thinking of. It's mostly iron. And that iron could be smelted and refined almost incidentally, while extracting the rarer metals, and then you've got millions of tons of iron and steel that's already outside of any significant gravity well, and a simple nudge in the right direction can get it wherever you need it to be for construction, requiring only a similar nudge on the other end to "catch" it. The harder the "nudge", the faster the transit, but it's not like it's being damaged en route.

The problem is this is very much an "invest tens/hundreds of billions, make many trillions" scale project. And it's got a long turnaround before that investment will start producing revenue, let alone paying itself off. Like I said at the start; it's an investment problem, not really a technology problem. Once we take that step, though, it's a short move to megastructures in space, like space stations that can house tens of thousands of people or more. The biggest problem with doing so is the cost of lifting structural materials into space, and orbital mining basically trivializes that.

Yeah, somehow putting incredibly heavy rocks into earth orbit sounds like a medium bad idea. Too many bad spacepocalypse movies, probably, or too many botched orbits in Kerbal Space Program. Oh well. I'd expect that if we get to a point we can feasibly mine and process ore from space we'll put refineries etc in a Lunar orbit, not an earth orbit. Same with fuel depots etc.

Also, fuel will be a limiting factor. Ion engines are neat, but to taxi the mass we're speaking off, I doubt we can do it without old-fashioned chemical boosters.

And then there's the question of 'who gets to claim what resources.

[Elegiac]

This is why the big step is orbital mining. We're practically there, tech-wise. There's no major innovations required, just investment. Some of the conveniently-close asteroids have high metal content; if we can snag them and push them into a stable orbit or, more likely, a LaGrange point, there's literally trillions to be made in just platinum and gold alone, and those are trace materials in the asteroid I'm thinking of. It's mostly iron. And that iron could be smelted and refined almost incidentally, while extracting the rarer metals, and then you've got millions of tons of iron and steel that's already outside of any significant gravity well, and a simple nudge in the right direction can get it wherever you need it to be for construction, requiring only a similar nudge on the other end to "catch" it. The harder the "nudge", the faster the transit, but it's not like it's being damaged en route.

The problem is this is very much an "invest tens/hundreds of billions, make many trillions" scale project. And it's got a long turnaround before that investment will start producing revenue, let alone paying itself off. Like I said at the start; it's an investment problem, not really a technology problem. Once we take that step, though, it's a short move to megastructures in space, like space stations that can house tens of thousands of people or more. The biggest problem with doing so is the cost of lifting structural materials into space, and orbital mining basically trivializes that.

Very much this.

One the infrastructure for manufacturing things in orbit/space is there, the rest will follow.

[Endus]

Yeah, somehow putting incredibly heavy rocks into earth orbit sounds like a medium bad idea. Too many bad spacepocalypse movies, probably, or too many botched orbits in Kerbal Space Program. Oh well. I'd expect that if we get to a point we can feasibly mine and process ore from space we'll put refineries etc in a Lunar orbit, not an earth orbit. Same with fuel depots etc.

That's why I said it's more likely we'd use a Lagrange point. The orbital dynamics lead to things generally settling into those points, so it's not really a long-term concern at all. It's also not close; The L4 and L5 are the most likely ones to use and they're about equidistant from the Earth and Moon.

Earth orbit reduces transport times, but not a huge factor. Lunar orbit is only "better" than the L4 or L5 Lagrange if you're building on Luna, and if you are, then we're getting to the same issues you've got with Earth orbit.

Also, fuel will be a limiting factor. Ion engines are neat, but to taxi the mass we're speaking off, I doubt we can do it without old-fashioned chemical boosters.

Yep. But that's investment.

The trick is; there are a lot of rocks that pass really close to Earth. So it's pretty much just drilling some rockets into the rock mid-flight (and we've basically done that, on a smaller scale, with both asteroids and comets, already; this is what I mean by this not being a technological gap), boosting like mad, and slowing it down and nudging it over to the Lagrange point. We're not talking about the asteroid belt or something, here; we're talking near-Earth objects. Smaller rocks are easier, obviously, and if you want to establish the premise maybe you start there.

Once you get something set up, ion engines become a more-reasonable option, since you can set MUCH longer time-frames; "we need this rock in place by 2080 or so" kind of stuff. The low thrust combined with wily orbital dynamics and you can likely work out some pretty crazy options that wouldn't be feasible for normal-scale operations due to the time frames. But really, that'd only make sense for really high-value rocks in the first place, and you have to weigh whether it would be more efficient to just mine them in-situ.

And then there's the question of 'who gets to claim what resources.

That's just gonna get me to rant against capitalism some more, so I'll just point out this really isn't a "space mining" problem, it's a "literally everything" problem.

[PACOX]

Yeah, somehow putting incredibly heavy rocks into earth orbit sounds like a medium bad idea. Too many bad spacepocalypse movies, probably, or too many botched orbits in Kerbal Space Program. Oh well. I'd expect that if we get to a point we can feasibly mine and process ore from space we'll put refineries etc in a Lunar orbit, not an earth orbit. Same with fuel depots etc.

Also, fuel will be a limiting factor. Ion engines are neat, but to taxi the mass we're speaking off, I doubt we can do it without old-fashioned chemical boosters.

And then there's the question of 'who gets to claim what resources.

They wouldn't really orbit the Earth. You can 'park' objects at certain points, Lagrange Points, where they basically remain with minimal effort.

[https://youtu.be/7PHvDj4TDfM

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't mean to imply that you said that, I was just asking in general if Gateway replaces the ISS then how will NASA deal with any/all LEO projects, including launches to Gateway - unless the big launchers from SLS/SpaceX can get all the way to Moon orbit in one launch - but it was my understanding that LEO to Moon orbit actually takes a significant number of other launches to get the fuel up into space (I believe @PACOX had a chart for that).

Interesting point that NASA might just leave it all up to the private vanities, and perhaps require that anything that goes up also have a means for assisting the boost to Moon Orbit and therefore Gateway.

Ah the chart.



Real wish I could fine one without Blue Origin's commentary because it adds a bit of a bias. Musk believes the fuel job can be done in 8 flights but could be up to 16. I don't remember the number cited on NASA's offical documents they submitted to the Government Accountability Office. Its going to come back up as that case moves forward.

Musk confirms the fueling flights.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/...551423489?s=20

[Zuben]

Ah the chart.

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/08...8110099090.jpg

Real wish I could fine one without Blue Origin's commentary because it adds a bit of a bias. Musk believes the fuel job can be done in 8 flights but could be up to 16. I don't remember the number cited on NASA's offical documents they submitted to the Government Accountability Office. Its going to come back up as that case moves forward.

Musk confirms the fueling flights.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/...551423489?s=20

https://i.imgur.com/EOVhcLY.png

https://i.imgur.com/0GRdZ9M.png

I see these numbers, but lack understanding for what they mean. Like, does the fact they're launching 8-16 Starships to get 1 to the moon and back mean it costs more than their bid of $2.9 billion? Or not? Does this maneuver really make the operation so much more risky?

Since I can't tell myself this is something where I just have to take people at their word. Bezos says it's unreasonably complex, Musk says it's totes doable. If it was just them I wouldn't know what to think, but at the end of the day NASA chose SpaceX with awareness and understanding of the details. If they think it's fine I think Bezos can't convince me otherwise. It feels like that chart is an attempt to get science-illiterate tax payers to support his National Team. Confuse the plebs with numbers and set them barking at the space agency to add public pressure. That's what it feels like.

[PACOX]

I see these numbers, but lack understanding for what they mean. Like, does the fact they're launching 8-16 Starships to get 1 to the moon and back mean it costs more than their bid of $2.9 billion? Or not? Does this maneuver really make the operation so much more risky?

Since I can't tell myself this is something where I just have to take people at their word. Bezos says it's unreasonably complex, Musk says it's totes doable. If it was just them I wouldn't know what to think, but at the end of the day NASA chose SpaceX with awareness and understanding of the details. If they think it's fine I think Bezos can't convince me otherwise. It feels like that chart is an attempt to get science-illiterate tax payers to support his National Team. Confuse the plebs with numbers and set them barking at the space agency to add public pressure. That's what it feels like.

You're not too far off about the chart. You can ignore the paragrah under Immensly Complex.. thats Blue Origin being salty they lost to SpaceX. The part in black at the bottom is what NASA put in their offical report, as well as the number of launches needed to fuel the mission.

[cubby]

This is why the big step is orbital mining. We're practically there, tech-wise. There's no major innovations required, just investment. Some of the conveniently-close asteroids have high metal content; if we can snag them and push them into a stable orbit or, more likely, a LaGrange point, there's literally trillions to be made in just platinum and gold alone, and those are trace materials in the asteroid I'm thinking of. It's mostly iron. And that iron could be smelted and refined almost incidentally, while extracting the rarer metals, and then you've got millions of tons of iron and steel that's already outside of any significant gravity well, and a simple nudge in the right direction can get it wherever you need it to be for construction, requiring only a similar nudge on the other end to "catch" it. The harder the "nudge", the faster the transit, but it's not like it's being damaged en route.

The problem is this is very much an "invest tens/hundreds of billions, make many trillions" scale project. And it's got a long turnaround before that investment will start producing revenue, let alone paying itself off. Like I said at the start; it's an investment problem, not really a technology problem. Once we take that step, though, it's a short move to megastructures in space, like space stations that can house tens of thousands of people or more. The biggest problem with doing so is the cost of lifting structural materials into space, and orbital mining basically trivializes that.

I wonder if that long-term payoff is something that China can shrug off, given their marriage of state and corporate run businesses. If megastructures are already technically possible, and we're just missing the investment/payoff side, China may be after some of those easy to access asteroids.

China Wants to Build a Mega Spaceship That’s Nearly a Mile Long

China has always been about the long view, and a kilometer long ship floating in space would be doable with an asteroid full of metals.

[Ripster42]

Well, in theory, it's easier to reach LEO from a Lunar Orbit than from Earth itself, but you still have to get everything from Earth to a Lunar Orbit, so... Maybe it is more feasible to ship stuff in bulk to a Lunar Orbit, and from there to LEO? But I somehow doubt it...

Not more feasible. Lunar to LEO is more efficient than earth to LEO because you're not fighting to get out of earth's gravity well. Earth to LEO has a much lower delta v requirement (~9km/s) than earth to a lunar orbit (~17km/s), negating any benefit you could possibly gain by getting in a lunar orbit first.

[Easo]

This is why the big step is orbital mining. We're practically there, tech-wise. There's no major innovations required, just investment. Some of the conveniently-close asteroids have high metal content; if we can snag them and push them into a stable orbit or, more likely, a LaGrange point, there's literally trillions to be made in just platinum and gold alone, and those are trace materials in the asteroid I'm thinking of. It's mostly iron. And that iron could be smelted and refined almost incidentally, while extracting the rarer metals, and then you've got millions of tons of iron and steel that's already outside of any significant gravity well, and a simple nudge in the right direction can get it wherever you need it to be for construction, requiring only a similar nudge on the other end to "catch" it. The harder the "nudge", the faster the transit, but it's not like it's being damaged en route.

The problem is this is very much an "invest tens/hundreds of billions, make many trillions" scale project. And it's got a long turnaround before that investment will start producing revenue, let alone paying itself off. Like I said at the start; it's an investment problem, not really a technology problem. Once we take that step, though, it's a short move to megastructures in space, like space stations that can house tens of thousands of people or more. The biggest problem with doing so is the cost of lifting structural materials into space, and orbital mining basically trivializes that.

I would say the investment itself is going to be in trillions. We don't have the tech, dude. There is not enough engine power and fuel capacity to grab an asteroid and tow it back. You can forget about a single mission to deliver the, heh, delivery infrastructure to one, it would take many, with each dragging the engines and fuel over there, landing them, then finally turning it all on to start the trip back.

[Biglog]

The Russians had an advantage in that for years they had a monopoly on the huge heavy-lift rockets left-over from the Soviet moon race days. The Russians price gouged the US for decades overcharging for old rockets that had been sitting in warehouses since the 60's for the ISS. Same for Soyuz seats. Now finally there are alternatives and that easy money has ended which Russia isn't happy about, but they knew the end of that was inevitable. They were down to the last handful of rockets left anyway. The Chinese Tiangong space station should be an impressive feat to do by themselves once it's done, but even when it's eventually finished it will only be 20% the size of the ISS. So yes it's a 'space station', but like a Mini Cooper and a F350 truck are both vehicles.

Space mining is a whole different topic, but the issue there is the math breaks for valuable minerals like gold and platinum. The value of those is fairly static because they are difficult to find and there is essentially a finite amount on Earth. The price isn't going to stay static when say a trillion pounds of platinum or gold are space mined. It would make gold as valuable as silver or copper, crash it's value globally, and the mining company would then make 10 cents on the dollar that they spent getting it instead of the money they projected when gold was still $2000/oz. Eventually someday I'm sure it will happen, but I don't think it's very close.

[Elegiac]

I would say the investment itself is going to be in trillions. We don't have the tech, dude. There is not enough engine power and fuel capacity to grab an asteroid and tow it back. You can forget about a single mission to deliver the, heh, delivery infrastructure to one, it would take many, with each dragging the engines and fuel over there, landing them, then finally turning it all on to start the trip back.

That's...not how orbital mechanics works, dude. This shit can literally be accomplished with sound mathematics and a few nukes.