Today, in an email discussion of leading space power engineers, there was a consensus that the DC folks have tried to limit the discussion too much to a narrow set of choices which may be unworkable in the end (because of the high cost of getting to space today, and even tomorrow under the current SpaceX and SLS plans).
One key conclusion: Trump is getting bored with the ho-hum rerun of "let's get to the moon again to stay." He should be. Why not change it: "let's return to the moon to MAKE money." REAL money, not the phony nonsense of stealing money from taxpayers with no return. Let's structure our investment in the moon strategically, to get as soon as possible to the time when more value flows out of the moon than we spend to keep our base going. That requires EXPORTS... and I learned that this is much closer at hand as an option than I knew last week.
=======================================
So with that introduction out of the way, here are some details, which I posted to that list just now:
I share your feeling that there has been some premature closure here.
The two days on SSP last week at ISDC were a great experience for me... with good news and bad news both.
Some things exciting and encouraging, others bummers.
The worst bummer for me by far was at the panel on the second day, when it was clear that political and sales type incentives have been at work here, not so different in nature from the forces which turned NASP and the space shuttle from something truly positive and great to something... not so great... as the plans got chewed up by political game plans. Premature closure was part of it.
Before Abdul Kalam died, NSS placed great emphasis on opening up new cooperation with India, with great respect for his understanding (not complete, but a lot better than what we see in the political class here). He and his people were firmly convinced that mirror technology is a real and important option. Gary's Brayton ideas and Cassiopeia also sounded worthy of more attention, so far as I could tell, and I was not impressed by how they were treated in the end. It is not that I am advocating any one of them VERSUS SPS ALPHA, which I still view as the "A team" approach to SSP (especially as formulated by Paul Jaffe, by Kaya and by CalTech)\,
nbuilding on Mankins' important book The Case for Space Solar Power). But life has taught me that new "B team" approaches can often work better, and even sooner, if justice is done for them. Various photonics approaches also fit.
What I found most deeply disturbing was the claim that the problem of low cost launch has been solved.
That reminded me of a time in the late 1990's, when a guy I funded had demos showing how to solve the unsolved problem of hit to kill GNC in missile interception. When I discussed this with a key AF guy, he said that: (1) "you are wrong" in alleging that the Patriot missile has a 3% success rate; it is more like 1%"; (2) we cannot consider new approaches, because it is officially a solved problem, and billions of dollars to big stakeholders are based on selling the idea that it is a solved problem. It took incredible effort and special circumstances to get that problem solved, to the point where in 2009 I heard the Lockheed guy tell Congressional staff at the Marshall Institute: "NOW we can do real missile defense, thanks to .. (the guy I had funded)." But even now, Scientific American reports that we are only up to 50%, and the program has been re-Washingonized, sending the money to the right people, who are adamantly not going to allow the Phase II which would make us more likely to survive in the event that we finally tick off north Korea or Iran, let alone anyone else.
Low cost launch is crucial not only to SSP but to simple defensive protection of our people, and to our options to deal with extreme climate change, which is not politically popular any more than vulnerability to North Korea is popular... but also ever so real. Mirrors COULD reduce the risk, IF launch costs could be reduced.
Chip Proser at ISDC was putting together videos on our current knowledge of climate change, knowledge which is woefully in need of improvement, but is far beyond the silly partisan debates which are all that most people seem to have access to on either side.
There was also good news and bad on launch costs and technology at ISDC, but this email is long enough already.
There has also been premature closure on Gerard O'Neill's vision of how to cope with launch costs.
If mass comes from the moon, we may not need quite so low as $1000/kg-GEO. I was delighted to hear from Steve Leete of Grumman (formerly SSI) that we really could set up mass drivers near any new human settlements at the poles of the moon, providing a way to export stuff from the moon, and maybe get to a zero trade balance for lunar settlements sooner than I had thought possible. Not easy, but a truly rational plan for lunar settlement would be based on a "decision tree" optimal strategy to get to zero trade balance as soon as possible, at minimum cost and risk. I am not arguing that SSP work should wait for the culmination of that strategy.. but I was also surprised on Thursday that folks would kowtow to Trump on the climate issue but ignore the Pence/Trump interest in the moon.
I have heard that Trumpexpfressed worry that return to the moon would not seem novel or exciting enough, and that he has second thoughts. Well, if anyone offered him a chance to say "We will make money from the moon," THAT would be novel (at the presidential level).. and it would not only make more sense technically, it would resonate more with what Trump's supporters want from him.
One may hope...
============
By the way, I also got an update on the ways we are ready to USE what could be sent up from moon to orbit by these mass driver systems. And I was delighted to hear that Jeff Bezos might have a role, if all goes well...
but I also learned about a couple of additional bases which need to be touched to build a real low-cost launch system from earth, in addition to what I usually talk about when given a chance..
No comments:
Post a Comment