Trump may end funding for ISS

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
If it had any relevance to the topic at hand it could have been funny.

Im not offended in the least... just totally confused, as it’s so left field.

But back on topic, I’d love to goto space. But I can’t convince my job to send me to Hawaii either.
 
But, realistically there needs to be a reason better than “just because”. Was hoping someone had one.

No idea whether Helium3 will create clean nuclear power, but ... the theory is that 25 metric tons of He3 (about a boxcar or a shuttle load) would power the US electrical grid for a full year, and there's an estimated 1,100,000 tons of it on the moon.

https://www.asi.org/adb/02/09/he3-intro.html

https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/...h/Energy/Helium-3_mining_on_the_lunar_surface

There's a great mural in the JSC museum all about this.
 
No idea whether Helium3 will create clean nuclear power, but ... the theory is that 25 metric tons of He3 (about a boxcar or a shuttle load) would power the US electrical grid for a full year, and there's an estimated 1,100,000 tons of it on the moon.

https://www.asi.org/adb/02/09/he3-intro.html

https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/...h/Energy/Helium-3_mining_on_the_lunar_surface

There's a great mural in the JSC museum all about this.

now that’s what I’m talking about. Even as a long shot, it’s a solid reason
 
No idea whether Helium3 will create clean nuclear power, but ... the theory is that 25 metric tons of He3 (about a boxcar or a shuttle load) would power the US electrical grid for a full year, and there's an estimated 1,100,000 tons of it on the moon.

Agreed. Something like this will be needed for space to be commercially profitable, but we are not there, yet. Controlled thermonuclear fusion has yet to be proven feasible.
 
Last edited:
To put this into perspective, those 25 tons of 3He are distributed over roughly 860 square kilometers (assuming even distribution across the moons surface). That's a slightly larger in area than NYC and nearly 8 times the area of the biggest surface mine I could find with a quick Google search, the North Antelope Rochelle Mine in Wyomings Powder River Basin. With anything less than 100% efficient extraction, the area requirements increase accordingly.

From a strictly commercial point of view, I can't see how it makes sense to go to the moon or to operate the ISS for the foreseeable future, but a worthwhile endeavor doesn't have to be driven by short term profits.

Reinhard
 
To put this into perspective, those 25 tons of 3He are distributed over roughly 860 square kilometers (assuming even distribution across the moons surface). That's a slightly larger in area than NYC and nearly 8 times the area of the biggest surface mine I could find with a quick Google search, the North Antelope Rochelle Mine in Wyomings Powder River Basin. With anything less than 100% efficient extraction, the area requirements increase accordingly.

From a strictly commercial point of view, I can't see how it makes sense to go to the moon or to operate the ISS for the foreseeable future, but a worthwhile endeavor doesn't have to be driven by short term profits.

Reinhard

It's 1.1 million tons of the stuff, is deposited from the sun and is therefore apparently spread across the surface. I would think you could use something like a grader to skim the 3He from the surface, but who knows. But I completely agree with your last point - it's worth doing because it's worth doing. Our species wasn't meant to stop advancing.
 
Space exploration is not, nor is ever likely to be, an immediately profitable economic enterprise.
If that’s the basis on which the decision’s being made, might as well forget the whole thing.

From a strictly commercial point of view, I can't see how it makes sense to go to the moon or to operate the ISS for the foreseeable future, but a worthwhile endeavor doesn't have to be driven by short term profits.

Short-/long-term, profits have to be there for private companies to get involved. Which is exactly right.
Otherwise it's not a business activity, it's a hobby.
Or a political cheer-leading brouhaha.
The latter two can still be very inspirational, and very fun. But private business will steer well clear of those, for all the right reasons.

The latter two are the domain of the national governments, that pursue them with little care for tangible ROI.
Queue in the motivational speeches about humans being "space faring species", or desire "to do what's hard", or "asteroids are coming, we need to start packing now", etc, etc.

Somewhat interestingly, the most expensive US space program in history wasn't Apollo V, but the fragile Space Shuttle:
To bring this thread back on subject, ISS was the second highest (through the dated 2010 #s, may be the most expensive by now).
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/1579/1

a
 
Somewhat interestingly, the most expensive US space program in history wasn't Apollo V, but the fragile Space Shuttle:
To bring this thread back on subject, ISS was the second highest (through the dated 2010 #s, may be the most expensive by now).

However, keep in mind that the Space Shuttle spanned 30 years from 1981 to 2011 costing about $200 billion. The Apollo program only spanned 11 years from 1961 to 1972 costing about $109 billion. The Shuttle had about 100 launches making the cost per launch about $2 billion. The Apollo program had about 17 launches or about $7 billion per launch.

Some are saying He3 can be made cheaper on earth. Some are saying it can be cheaper to get from the moon. The reason that He3 is of interest is that the deuterium-He3 reaction is aneutronic, i.e., the reaction products contain a proton, not a neutron. A proton can be managed with electric and magnetic fields. A neutron cannot be managed easily. The common tritium-deuterium reaction, which has the easiest cross-section for fusion, generates a 17 mev neutron, which is difficult to manage. (Tritium is expensive and its half-life is 12 years. Periodically, the US needs to go into its nuclear arsenal and replace the tritium, because the thermonuclear bombs are loosing their potency.) The high-speed proton in contrast can actually be plated out to electrodes to generate electricity by direct energy conversion. The downside is that the D-He3 reaction has a lower cross-section for fusion. Boron-11, which is plentiful, is also aneutronic, but again the cross-section for fusion is low (or one might say higher ignition temperatures).
 
Last edited:
How much energy can a kilo of He3 produce in an optimistic but not unrealistic model?

Now consider:

How much energy does it take to create an He3 mine on the moon? This is the investment portion.

How much energy does it take to mine a kilo of He3 on the moon and transport it safely to Earth, then refine it to fuel standards? This is marginal, as in the incremental energy spent per kilo to create the fuel. Factor in maintenance and eventual replacement of the facility.

It would shock me if an all-inclusive analysis showed an energy benefit, even considering optimistic models of efficiency and availability of earth-based He3 reactors which currently don't exist.

It's like mining asteroids for iron. Possible, but much more expensive than alternatives.
 
I'm no scientist, but this makes me think of electric cars. Sure, we could pass laws making everyone drive electric cars, but then how many more power plants would we need to build to accommodate the additional current draw for all the charging stations? Okay, so hybrids charge themselves. But then where do all the batteries go when the cars reach the end of their lifespan?
 
How much energy can a kilo of He3 produce in an optimistic but not unrealistic model?

Now consider:

How much energy does it take to create an He3 mine on the moon? This is the investment portion.

How much energy does it take to mine a kilo of He3 on the moon and transport it safely to Earth, then refine it to fuel standards? This is marginal, as in the incremental energy spent per kilo to create the fuel. Factor in maintenance and eventual replacement of the facility.

It would shock me if an all-inclusive analysis showed an energy benefit, even considering optimistic models of efficiency and availability of earth-based He3 reactors which currently don't exist.

It's like mining asteroids for iron. Possible, but much more expensive than alternatives.

I think that the real interest in mining fuel (or iron for that matter) on the moon or on asteroids isn't to bring it back to earth. That is, as you noted, far too expensive and doesn't make economic sense. Mining fuel or other commodities on the moon, or in space, makes sense if you are building structures or spacecraft *in space.* It might be more expensive than mining and manufacturing on earth, but cheaper (in theory) than the cost of bringing those same things up out of earth's gravity well.
 
I'm no scientist, but this makes me think of electric cars. Sure, we could pass laws making everyone drive electric cars, but then how many more power plants would we need to build to accommodate the additional current draw for all the charging stations? Okay, so hybrids charge themselves. But then where do all the batteries go when the cars reach the end of their lifespan?

Automotive LiPo batteries are already recycled:

https://auto.howstuffworks.com/can-electric-car-batteries-be-recycled.htm

If more people get roof-top solar, then less power plants need to be constructed. Of course the power companies don't want you to do it, any more than Ford wants you to buy an electric car. I overbuilt my solar panel system by just 10% and have more than enough energy to keep an electric vehicle charged.
 
Mars Society President Robert Zubrin has just issued a position on the Trump NASA budget. There is food for thought here. I agree with him that the Lunar space station is a weak idea. This could easily end up as a boondoggle waste of money. It would be better to actually land on the moon and work towards building a base there and developing the resources to find water there. A manned lunar space station directing robots on the surface can be done from earth.

https://mailchi.mp/marssociety/anou...ciety-convention-banquet-1102229?e=480d62ce58
 
We need to implement colonization efforts on the moon. This has to happen first before we throw ourselves into a 300 day trip to Mars. Fact is, if we can't get it straight on the moon, you can start counting DOA's on Mars real quick. Prior moon missions were essentially hop, skip and jump visits. Now we need to stay for elongated periods. Totally different from previous lunar missions as this will require growing your own food, manufacturing water from the moon, creating your own replenishable oxygen source not to mention shielding from long term exposure to radiation. Medical issues must also be addressed on the moon including any surgical procedures. We've got the added luxury of a four day trip or so for any unforeseeable circumstances on the moon. You're out of luck with Mars. Don't put the cart before the horse.
 
We need to implement colonization efforts on the moon. This has to happen first before we throw ourselves into a 300 day trip to Mars. Fact is, if we can't get it straight on the moon, you can start counting DOA's on Mars real quick. Prior moon missions were essentially hop, skip and jump visits. Now we need to stay for elongated periods. Totally different from previous lunar missions as this will require growing your own food, manufacturing water from the moon, creating your own replenishable oxygen source not to mention shielding from long term exposure to radiation. Medical issues must also be addressed on the moon including any surgical procedures. We've got the added luxury of a four day trip or so for any unforeseeable circumstances on the moon. You're out of luck with Mars. Don't put the cart before the horse.

While I would be happy to pay my share of the tab on this, the average American wouldn't. I'm willing to gamble on potential long term benefits. But, in the short and mid term (as in under 20 years probably), this will be a financial sinkhole with no economic benefit.

Let's be clear: any giant investment like this has to have a clear path to a payoff within a potential 8 year (two presidential term) window. If there's no reasonable expectation of ROI by then, it won't happen.
 
I agree that it makes more sense to build bases on with the Moon first, and then think about going to Mars later. We should first send rovers to the Moon to explore the poles to look for water. We should also explore a few lava tubes, which could provide shelter from radiation and a constant temperate for future Moon bases. Initially, we will have to ship food and building materials from earth to the Moon. We should be able to tap into the water that is at the poles. Growing food and becoming self-sufficient is long ways away.
 
We already possess the technology to accomplish these things. As always, it's the funding. To colonize the moon would see a long term benefit as we would begin to move away from earth eventually. This rock isn't going to last forever and the need to spread our seed becomes more pronounced. The investment is our future survival as a species. Putting all your eggs in one basket isn't advisable. If that "big rock" ever comes, it would be nice to have a backdoor to step through.
 
Here is an article with people seriously supporting the current administration's plan for a lunar space station. I agree with Zubrin on this one. This is a waste of money waiting to happen. There are better ways to do lunar exploration.

https://www.space.com/39985-nasa-lunar-orbital-platform-gateway-science-plan.html

According to the article, it sounds like the purpose of the Gateway is to have a “strategic presence in cislunar space”, whatever that means, not science. The meeting described in the article was to brainstorm ideas for how to use it scientifically, but that’s apparently not the primary purpose.

My feeling is that a space station in cislunar space might have some scientific value, but maybe not enough to be worth the cost if it takes funding from more productive projects. And a space station around the moon to establish a strategic presence has even less value. A base on the moon could have great scientific value, and if we need a strategic presence, we could garrison the Space Marines at the base.
 
We first need to put a rover on the lunar south pole and go look for water ice. If there is ice there, we need to develop a nuclear reactor to land there to process the ice into water, hydrogen, and oxygen. A manned base could then follow to take advantage of the water products. The base would be occupied by crews periodically arriving and leaving directly from earth. BTW some reports say there are lava tubes on the moon large enough to hold a city. This is another thing for rovers to go and explore.

A lot of money can be spent on a paper study for a lunar space station without ever cutting metal or some metal could be cut and the whole thing then cancelled. A true boondoggle waiting to happen. To top everything off NASA is currently without a "permanent" top administrator. NASA is setting records for the longest time without a top appointed administrator.
 
Last edited:
Besides the benefit of human propagation on other celestial bodies is concerned, where there are humans, there will be business very much like what we have here on earth. Consumerism. So the sooner we colonize the moon, the sooner money making capitalism can get under way and there's your reason to go. Win, win. The first ones there can get a head start and the biggest chunk. Getting in on the ground floor with business and entrepreneurialism can be a great motivator.
 
I'm pleased to read that Robert Zubrin is continuing to criticize the WH proposal to put a manned deep space probe in orbit near the moon. This is a poor expenditure of manned space flight funds. The Chinese are proposing to put an unmanned such probe near the moon for directing unmanned rovers on the moon backside. This idea has considerably more merit. The US proposed space program is a boondoggle waiting to happen. Here are Robert Zubrin's thoughts:

https://mailchi.mp/marssociety/anou...ciety-convention-banquet-1102401?e=480d62ce58
 
While I would be happy to pay my share of the tab on this, the average American wouldn't. I'm willing to gamble on potential long term benefits. But, in the short and mid term (as in under 20 years probably), this will be a financial sinkhole with no economic benefit.

Let's be clear: any giant investment like this has to have a clear path to a payoff within a potential 8 year (two presidential term) window. If there's no reasonable expectation of ROI by then, it won't happen.
Thanks for being the voice of reason
 
Back
Top