Replace NASA With Us

[Bill_Wright]

First a word on measurement. My intent in using "15kmh" was to express 15,000 mph - I have been working on a report in Imperial units and got "stuck". Nor did I calculate how many dips and at what speed and altitude it would take to ground the object. I assumed (due to the shuttle) that there would be no impact on people on the ground, provided they weren't hit. I also was totally unaware that our accuracy at picking the spot that something will hit was so poor (due to the shuttle).

Having said that, we will all be dead before we see a deep space presence at the rate we are going, and by we I mean our whole generation. Health care is an example of how efficient our government is at tackling relatively easy problems. Germany does not have socialized medicine yet takes better care of their citizens than we do at a lower cost. Yet with that as an example our Congress has frittered away a whole year basically doing nothing.

I know what I do best and that is manage programmers working on specialized medical algorithms. What I had hoped to get out of this thread were positive suggestions on leveraging the space program out of the hands of our government and into ours. I think we could manage the technology better, I think we could be more transparent, and I know that those of us who read these threads want to see it happen. So why the rush to criticize rather than suggest solutions? Is that so much easier? If you all like the status quo, then fine. Just don't complain on your death beds when we are still stuck in LEO.
Bill

[Shpaget]

Like I said, there are several private companies doing various space related experiments and research. Why not support one of them?

[MeteorWayne]

Sorry Bill, but it would have been better had you proposed something realistic. The abilty to capture an asteroid into earth orbit is a century or more away. The amount of energy required is enormous. Where will it come from? Then the ability to cut it into 30 meter chunks and aim them at specific impact point on earth? The energy required is astronomical.
C'mon, you have to be somewhere near realistic. And you also need to do this with a mostly iron asteroid, or the concentration of valuable materials would be too low. They are pretty rare...and they are 95% Iron, and 5% nickel. Anything else it trace elements. I don't think we need enough of either to make your plan anywhere near economical.

[tampaDreamer]

I'd gladly sell my shares in iraq and afghanistan for $10,000 each, and invest $5,000 in the space program.

[Bill_Wright]

OK Folks,
It was an incredibly stupid idea that would never work. I apologize for getting you to waste your time. I'm sure that NASA and Congress will get everything sorted out and America will go on to rule the stars.

[Shpaget]

It's not incredibly stupid idea.
It's just not feasible with technology currently available or the tech that is likely to be invented in near future.
On the other hand, mining asteroids and using the materials in orbit is much more practical.

[missionunknown]

When referring to space and viable business surely we need to talk about tourism first? Its the opposite to what has happened on earth with other industries preceding tourism i know.

Fire Bill gates strapped to a rocket around the moon with other billionaires (donald trump maybe) and watch as they take it to the next step and start masterminding building hotels on the moon which may open the door for heavy industry, or just other activity in general, on the lunar surface.

[MeteorWayne]

Is that supposed to be an intelligent post?

[kelvinzero]

I would love to see a commerical approach work, and I would pay money for results if I thought they would arrive...

But an organisation run like a business whose sales pitch runs along the lines of "Give us 300 billion dollars and then we will build you a mars architecture" isnt going to work. Such an institution would have far less motivation to actually deliver than a government would.

For a business to work it would need to happen in much smaller steps. First they must commit their own money to demonstrate a product we want, then we buy, then with the money they make they create an even better product, which assuming they judged the market right, we also buy although it may cost more. Along the way they build up consumer confidence. (This isnt the advice of a business guru, just the commonsense observations of a consumer)

To work even better, you want many companies competing and learning from each other's successes and failures.

People often point out there is no at-hand way of making money from space. SSP, asteroid mining, even space hotels are a long way away from delivering a service. However we often spend money on things that we merely want and in no way add to our wealth. Videos and beer for example. We pay for them and do not complain that after years of paying for them we have not accumulated anything of value.

I find these nasa and google prizes very promising and would like to see a lot more of them. Because I would like to see more I am willing to pay. Not too much perhaps, but video and beer money anyway. Even video game money. I would pay a hundred dollars to see another LCROSS-like type mission if I knew a million other people would do the same.

A problem though is that people will get the pleasure of these achievements whether they pay or not so the money would still really just be donations rather than paying for a product.

What I think could work quite well is a horse-race or stock market like game where a reputable organisation manages a large number of prizes for achievements and people make contributions that will actually pay back for some, if only prestige and some stock in the successful company. This prestige would be very valuable in the internet forum enviroment because it would demonstrate who actually knows how to pick a winning horse. There could be large prizes (for companies, not consumers) for lunar return missions and such if you like (it costs nothing until a company claims it) but the secret would be the smaller prizes that cascade into achieving the larger ones.

For example with ion-drive or solar thermal lunar orbiters, robotic luna landers and regolith shovelers and microwave sintering and robots able to print primitive solar panels across acres of simulated regolith, soon we would have a thriving robot colony on the moon exploring, exploiting insitu resources and writing your messages in the luna dust for a small fee.

[HopDavid]

I don't think my proposal would take 100 years to turn a profit. I don't think my proposal would be that hard to fund.

There are hundreds of NEOs and asteroids. Spectroscopes could wean out the ones that might be rich in metals that are in short supply on Earth. Robotic missions could confirm that. That could be done in 5-7 years, about the time frame that Orion and the new launcher (let's call it Saturn VI) would be ready. That should also be the time that we have figured out how to get a pretty big object into Earth orbit in another 6-8 years. So we harvest our first profit in 15 years. Warren Buffet (sp?) just made a $30B+ investment that he believes will lose money short term but make money in the really long run (20-100 years). There are few investors with that kind of cash, but Paul Allen comes to mind as someone with a lot of money who can make a large investment. Meantime there are several million people who can do the $1k+, and many, many people who can do the $20+. Once people see that there is a return on investment the number of investors would increase greatly.

So give these rich venture capitalists your sales pitch.

[missionunknown]

Is that supposed to be an intelligent post?

if your talking to me - yes. (apart from the strapping of people on to a rocket that is, i meant conventionally transporting 'highflyers' in rockets).

[Bill_Wright]

As referenced I am not a pitch-man. I am a scientist / engineer who knows how to manage projects on time and on budget. I never posted that we would have to raise $300B before lifting a finger, but I do think that we could send scout robots to search for NEOs and asteroids for well under $1B each. I know there is Indium in asteroids due to the layers found associated with major collisions. Where there is Indium there are likely to be other precious metals.

I also know that when you start pushing research boundaries surprise products fall out of the cracks. Maybe the corporation discovers a new way to develop integrated circuits. Maybe the corporation develops superconducting materials that revolutionize electric power transfer. Maybe the corporation develops magnets that make $50k medical imagers that fit in a briefcase and can be run by battery power. Maybe they create Tang that actually tastes like OJ (joke). In the meantime the share price is going up, dividends are getting paid, and we are getting closer to the real goal of detecting, defending from, and harvesting asteroids and comets.

Once we get a survey partially complete of the asteroids maybe we find an asteroid with a metal core that we can learn to turn on to emulate Earth's magnetic field. Now terra-forming Mars becomes a real possibility. Our corporation owns the rights to the technique. What do you think the share price would be then? By this time we might be able to really harvest non-NEO objects and all of what was junk lying around the solar system becomes usable material. Our corporation owns the rights. What do you think the share price would be then? OK, maybe we don't get rich, but our grandkids do. Is that a bad thing? Remember that the alternative is to let some current billionaire make her or himself richer, or even worse, our wonderfully efficient 2-year plan government manages to spend a few (very few) $Bs and do nothing. Those are some alternatives.

Now just for grins instead of using your wits to trash my ideas try using them to come up with better ideas, ideas that bring satisfaction to us for doing something and wealth to our grandkids. Further thoughts?

[kelvinzero]

Now just for grins instead of using your wits to trash my ideas try using them to come up with better ideas, ideas that bring satisfaction to us for doing something and wealth to our grandkids. Further thoughts?

My post was my attempt at exactly that. Read beyond the $300 billion quip in the third line! To summarize, smaller more concrete goals, each of which moves us forwards within a larger well structured plan, and delivers a constant stream of successes. X-prizes and nasa moonlander prizes and many more of them. Add a bit of a horse race to give us some buy-in.

[nimbus]

Looks like he meant that for HopDavid.

[Bill_Wright]

Again, I never said we had to raise the whole $350B before starting the first project. Just start. If the first project is to ally with the "X" organization and start funding little contests, fine. Just get the government out of it and don't let some billionaire or two dominate space. Space belongs to us if we want to take it. If we sit back and wait then we will find ourselves either shut out of participating, or watching the government trickle out funding so as to virtually guarantee that progress will be so slow that it becomes hard to measure. This isn't a case of first do no harm. Almost anything we did in an environmentally responsible manner would help progress. The important thing would be to get a group of us on the same page and then write the best possible project plan that leads to the ultimate goal and that is fairly cheap solar system space travel for all while returning a profit. There would be some sacrifice at the beginning, but that is common with start ups. The important thing is that we achieve our goals and make a few bucks while doing so. I guess I would also add that not selling out to greed would also be a good goal, tough but I think we could do it.

[Valcan]

I like that your thinking beyond the make the Government do it for us to man people today walk around like lost children until there told what to do.

Here's a idea.

Step A: Invest in lowcost launch tech like Space X.

Step B: Invest, launch, and construct multi stage space station. Space station houses and maintains small space craft that can dip into leo and retreive defunt satelites other space junk. This is then processed into useable minerals, equipment etc. Station would contain habitation modual for well...isnt it obvious, habitation by say 10 or so people.
Garage area for the storage and maintanence of retreval craft and satelites. Storage and processing center for the storage of processed materials.

Later other moduals can be added. Can at first be powered by solar power later maybe by materials picked up in orbit or by small reactor sent from earth. Later can be the base of shipyard.

Step C: Construct mining ships in orbit. These ships will just go out to the lagrange points around earth moon system. Borring into and excavating the insides of smaller asteroids say between 60 to 100 meters. Spin the asteroid up using the mining vessel or use the mined material itself as a way to spin up the asteroid.


Anyways it gets longer and bla bla bla.................

But you get my point. Steps its all in steps.

Let governments fund the initial investment. Hey how much of the tarp money are we seeing any return in?
Then private firms can take over. Mining corporations have been lookin to space for a long time they just havent seen a way to do it. Mining in first world countries is for the most part very expensive. And especialy in the ones where the greenies have run amuck retarded by legal fees laws, and petty BS.

[kelvinzero]

Smaller steps! even smaller steps!

I think the steps should be way smaller than even the google x-prize. (land a robot on the moon, move 500 meters, send back pictures.. that is still a huge ask and therefore seems to be attracting some vastly overoptimistic candidates IMO)

Investment in promising enterprises seems like a good step but there is the risk that they make nothing out of your investment but salaries. The general public are not rocket scientists and it would be easy to be exploited.

Looking at the x-prize site, one thing I think it lacks is the ability to donate towards a specific prize. Perhaps as well as the funded prizes there should be a bunch waiting for funding that can be donated to directly.

[Bill_Wright]

Cool - some positive thinkers. In my opinion the first two steps are to identify an achievable goal with economic return possibilities then write a project plan using a tool that can produce GANTT and PERT charts as well as cost projections. You then hide the cost projections from the vendors and put out a Request For Proposal (RFP). Now I am accustomed to contract work which doesn't map perfectly to contests. But maybe the way you do it is to take your cost projections, cut them back a bit, and make that the prize. I have no experience though with contests. With contracts I always used the best bid that offered some quality methodology. I then put teeth in it for poor performance and a bonus for exceeding contractual goals. Remember, I am not volunteering to lead some space initiative. These are merely statements of how I have done things in the past because I do not have the years or health to see such a project through. Even if contests happen every year there must be a program owner that can see through to the end of a 20-30 year project. I can hear the scoffs now but I have brought in on time and budget some very complex multi-vendor projects while fighting unions and even cliques within my own company. Miracles do not happen, but good leaders can make it look like they do. I am positive that we could use an NEO to mine an asteroid and get material to Earth in less than 30 years. Furthermore, I am positive that profitable "stuff" would fall out of the project in far less time, certainly not the quarterly time frame that some investors demand, but certainly within a 2 to 3 year time-frame. I'd probably go for either magnet or superconductivity technology. Both would be essential for space travel and both have tremendous non-space potential for highly profitable projects. As much as I have enjoyed these take-off/hover/land contests I just don't see a product coming out of them in 2-3 years. Maybe I am just not imaginative enough so someone help show me the money in this kind of contest.

[HopDavid]

but I do think that we could send scout robots to search for NEOs and asteroids for well under $1B each.

Here we agree on something. I've always advocated mass producing a fleet of prospector probes. With miniaturization, maybe they could be made quite small, like Smart-1. With ion engines, they'd have lots of delta V.

If mass produced on an assembly line, unit costs would fall. If they're small enough, several probes could be lofted with a medium sized rocket.

I think inexpensive prospector probes are doable.

I know there is Indium in asteroids due to the layers found associated with major collisions. Where there is Indium there are likely to be other precious metals.

Initially I believe water will be the most valuable asteroid resource. Propellent from extinct comets could help lower the cost of moving about the solar system and thus make mining asteroid metals profitable.

Now just for grins instead of using your wits to trash my ideas try using them to come up with better ideas, ideas that bring satisfaction to us for doing something and wealth to our grandkids. Further thoughts?

I happen to be a fan of NASA, their accomplishments are mind boggling. You seem to be among the folks who believe if we just got the stupid and bungling NASA out of the way, private business would colonize the solar system lickety split.

One of the reasons we're moving so slowly is that our goals are difficult.

When you say "I don't think my proposal would take 100 years to turn a profit. I don't think my proposal would be that hard to fund." you seem to be glibly stating that it's easy.

You don't think twice about attacking NASA but get all huffy when someone dares to criticize your views.

[Bill_Wright]

Now just for grins instead of using your wits to trash my ideas try using them to come up with better ideas, ideas that bring satisfaction to us for doing something and wealth to our grandkids. Further thoughts?

I happen to be a fan of NASA, their accomplishments are mind boggling. You seem to be among the folks who believe if we just got the stupid and bungling NASA out of the way, private business would colonize the solar system lickety split.

One of the reasons we're moving so slowly is that our goals are difficult.

When you say "I don't think my proposal would take 100 years to turn a profit. I don't think my proposal would be that hard to fund." you seem to be glibly stating that it's easy.

You don't think twice about attacking NASA but get all huffy when someone dares to criticize your views.

You are such a fan of NASA that you have failed to read my posts. The 2-year US government cycle is the main problem, as I have written repeatedly. I am a fan of President Jefferson. He felt a revolution every 20 years or so was a good idea. I am not a fan of violence and anarchy, and I have sworn an oath to defend the US Constitution, so I cannot advocate such a revolution against our country. I do think NASA is old enough to have acquired a lot of dead weight, and more than deserves a real make-over. That is why I advocate that the upper half (per annual reviews) be kept as employees with tenure, and the lower half kept as non-tenured contractors. If they don't raise their performance then they should be allowed to find jobs they can be successful in. As far as keeping NASA, if you are so blindly in love with the name then I suggest the government gives it to you. However, I believe that our space program can never satisfy us while it works for our short-cycle government. Apollo was special because JFK proposed it, became our martyred President, and nobody in our government had the guts to change it. That is a one-time event, probably one we will not see again for decades if ever. It also occurred in a relatively non-partisan period in our government that we will not see again, at least for quite a while. So get the space program out from under the control of our government. Keep it out from under the control of a few billionaires. Get it under our control. So if it makes you happy we will make you the commissar of names and you can call our privately owned space company NASA. But if you are happy waiting for the government to conquer space then be prepared to grow old and die a very unhappy person because it just ain't gonna' happen. BTW, you have never seen or read me being huffy. Certainly not in this thread.