Russian Rocket Company Aims for Moon Base by 2015

[Space Tycoon]

Russian Rocket Builder Aims for Moon Base by 2015, Reports Say (http://www.space.com/news/ap_060126_russia_moon.html) Nikolai Sevastyanov, the head of the state-controlled RKK Energiya company that built Soyuz and Progress spacecraft, said that mining helium-3, a potential rich source of energy, and harnessing it back to Earth would be a key priority in the moon exploration program, the Gazeta.ru and Lenta.ru Web sites reported.

Sevastyanov said a Russian moon base could start tapping helium-3 in 2020.

[MPG]

I'd be willing to bet everything I own that there will not be a base mining helium-3 on the Moon in 2020.

Before anyone would ever greenlight the financing for such a project, a few things would have to happen first:
1. It would have to be shown that "simple" fusion using deuterium/tritium is feasible, can be sustained indefinitely and yields sufficient amounts of energy. The next step to get there that I know of is the ITER (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER) reactor, which will go online in 2016 and even ITER is not expected to actually yield a reaction that goes on longer than just a few minutes, and with a fairly low energy efficiency. Don't get me wrong, it's going to be a huge step forward, but it's going to be only the second or third step in a series of probably five or six steps that are needed to achieve this first goal.
2. Once the first step is done, it would have to be shown that helium-3 can actually be used as a fusion fuel. This can't be done before the second step, because the ignition temperature for helium-3 fusion is significantly higher than for deuterium fusion, making the whole issue much more complex.
3. It has to be proven that there is actually sufficient helium-3 on the moon and that it can actually be mined in an efficient manner. You don't want to use more energy to mine and return it to Earth than you are going to gain through the fusion reaction. So far, it is being assumed that there is enough helium-3 on the Moon, and I don't think that anybody has really figured out yet how to mine it. First, you need several Moon missions to resolve this rather important issue. When is the first of these missions supposed to be?

As for the difficulties of building a Moon base, just a quick comparison with the ISS: First of all, shortly after the original plans were made, it was quickly found that it is too expensive to be built by a single country. This should already give you pause, because now we're talking not about a space station that is 220 miles above Earth, but about a Moon base that is more than 200,000 miles away from Earth. Planning for the ISS as we know it now began in 1993, the first module was placed into orbit in 1998. Now, in 2006, the station still is not complete and not much progress is being made. It may not seem fair to say that, seeing how the Columbia accident could not have been expected, but this only shows the kind of issues you have to deal with in space exploration. Even if the construction of a moon base for mining purposes were started today - we obviously can't construct a comparably small space station in orbit above our planet within 14 years, so how are we going to construct a huge self-sustaining Moon base for mining purposes on the Moon within that time?

Putting all these points together, if I had to give a very optimistic estimate for a timeframe, I'd say that we could have a Moon base in 30-40 years. Note that this is a really optimistic estimate, tainted by wishful thinking. A useful Moon base (e.g. for mining purposes) is not likely to happen within our lifetime.

[Space Tycoon]

I really have no idea when He-3 fusion, or indeed any fusion, will become commercially viable. You've got me there.

But I do know this: if there is a good chance of it being the fuel, or one of the fuels of the future, it would make sense to have a reliable, high-volume system of extraction and transportation in place years in advance, would it not? Think of it as multi-tasking on a grand scale. It would hardly seem efficient to wait until HE-3 fusion became viable, then spend a decade or two constructing a lunar resource extraction system.

There has to be a reason that governments and businesses around the world-- from US to Russia, China, India, and even Malaysia, believe it or not-- are suddenly looking at the Moon as a serious location for exploration and development. I believe much of the reason for that interest is energy, pure and simple. Just as surely as energy is the driving force in our foreign policy, it is becoming the driving force in our space policy.

You have often mentioned the halting progress of the ISS as an example of why to avoid unbridled enthusiasm in predicting space efforts. I believe the this agonizingly slow progress has as much to do with economics and politics as it does our level of technology. At this point in time, if I have my facts correct, it costs upward of about $10,000 to launch a pound of payload into orbit. And by extension, it costs anywhere from half a billion to a couple of billion dollars for every Space shuttle mission.

We have never outgrown the paleolithic model of "big dumb boosters," thrown away and discarded after each launch. Even the Shuttle follows this pattern: that glorious External Tank is discarded and destroyed following every single launch. The Shuttle itself is better described as a salvageable vehicle, rather than a truly reusable one. That's why I would look closely at companies such as Transformational Space, (www.transformspace.com) who claim they can establish a Lunar exploration system (http://www.transformspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=projects.view&workid=7A828E3D-96B6-175C-9D4AB8EB1A173B97) for a much lower price than NASA's "Battlestar Galactica" approach. Their reasoning is solid, and their motives are all business:

Helium3 is valuable now, even though researchers haven't achieved energy breakeven levels when conducting fusion tests. Machines that achieve momentary fusion at less-than-breakeven levels already can produce proton and neutron streams "on demand" for medical imaging, land mine detection, and other uses. Preliminary lunar 3He mining efforts can bring back the isotope to make these important uses more economical, while proving out the best techniques for large-scale mining when fusion for electrical power generation becomes feasible.

[MPG]

I guess I need to set something straight: I am not claiming that mining helium-3 on the Moon will never happen. If it's commercially viable, it will happen - no doubt about that. In fact, it's possibly one of the most exciting possible scientific developments for the future of mankind. I'm just saying that the timeframes are going to be disappointingly long.

As for fusion as such, I think it's practically a given that ITER will reach the break-even point with ease. So sooner or later, fusion will become a reality. It's again just a matter of timeframes. :winks:

[Space Tycoon]

I learned a long time ago not to place total faith in NASA or anyone else's stated deadlines or predictions on space efforts. I also believe that the introduction of real competition to the space sector will generate new vehicles and accellerate activity in LEO an beyond. It's just a question of taking real risks, I suppose.

One thing I've learned about Americans is they need a good kick in the pants sometimes to get motivated. Sputnik is a good example. Once Russians, Chinese, Indians, Brazilians, Malyasians and others start to show some real movement in the area of lunar exploration, the wheels will turn over here as well.

Fingers crossed.

[Bokchoi Cowboy]

We have never outgrown the paleolithic model of "big dumb boosters," thrown away and discarded after each launch. Even the Shuttle follows this pattern: that glorious External Tank is discarded and destroyed following every single launch. The Shuttle itself is better described as a salvageable vehicle, rather than a truly reusable one. That's why I would look closely at companies such as Transformational Space, (http://www.transformspace.com) who claim they can establish a Lunar exploration system (http://www.transformspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=projects.view&workid=7A828E3D-96B6-175C-9D4AB8EB1A173B97) for a much lower price than NASA's "Battlestar Galactica" approach. Their reasoning is solid, and their motives are all business:


Space, beside the shuttle, the "big dumb boosters" are the cheapest way to go to loft material into space. The problem with any space launch capability we have right now, is that it is all done by just a few companies accustomed to sucking off the bloated tit of the government. These companies factor in so much cost into the programs on purpose that any launch is a costly endeavor.

Small companies, like Transformational Space, are indeed going to be the ones who break that mold. Any more players in the launch industry will drop prices through the leverage of competition (simple economics 101 stuff), plus the smaller guys have the benefit of running their operations like a business instead of a governmental institution. There are so many factors that influence what Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, and the other companies in the industry can and have to charge that they could not stop the pricing they follow even if they wanted to. Consider how the programs are run: Government oversight, which includes NASA, Pentagon, and Congressional committees, audits, procedures, paperwork, bean counters, legal reviews, inspections, hearings, reports, etc., etc. The way of doing business is not with an eye on recuction of costs.

Case in point: I work for a propulsion and system subcontractor to Lockheed-Martin and Boeing. Say we are working on some sort of part for a product they are producing for a NASA program. Our production staff discovers they need to order some components from one of our suppliers to complete the manufacture of the part. It is discovered the supplier is out of the component, and will not be able to provide one in a timely manner. We have to find another source to make the part within our contracted time. We locate another supplier, with a really good price and fulfilment time that is agreeable. BUT, since this is a government contract, we have to check with the government requirements established for how to complete this contract. We discover that the government requires, through standard "business fairness" requirements, that we must order this part from a business that employs fewer than a certian amount of people, is woman or minority owned, or has no other contracting with the prime contractor. Well, this makes us look elsewhere to obtain the required components legally, and the price we end up paying is not the bottom-line best price on the market.

I can understand the government is looking to be fair to businesses, but calling requirements like that is one of the reasons for the price of work with/for the government to be pushed high.


Competition with other nations would be a great thing, since then the government may put their swing behind the projects in the manner of the Space Race of the 1950's-70's.


Back to the big dumb boosters: If we are not man-rating stuff, it is cheaper to have an expendable rocket right now. The shuttle is a kludge anyway, and the technology for it is a joke. A completely reusable ship would lower costs, but for cargo, it can be simplified enough that it still would come out cheaper than the stuff proposed by most of the companies like Rutan's Scaled Composites.

[Space Tycoon]

Bokchoi, I think we are basically in agreement on the big picture.

One point though: t/Space (who include in their organization Kistler Aerospace and Scaled Composites) claim they can develop an entirely new orbital launch system for the price of a Shuttle launch, based around an expansion of the White Knight/Spaceship One architecture.

Whether this is just sales talk or a real possibility I don't know. I learned a long time ago, if it sounds too good to be true... But if this in fact comes to pass, I think old-school boosters would suddenly be less attractive if not obsolete.

Clearly, there are many corporate interests, as well as governmental, who are not keen to see this happen. As with any entrenched technology facing a challenge from radical innovation, a lot of highly-placed people stand to lose a lot, potentially.

[omicron]

Forgive me my ignorance, but isn't using huge boosters contributing to the growing problem of space junk? (http://www.space.com/news/ap_060120_space_junk.html)

Omi

[neglet]

Stop that, Omi, you're ruining the sexy space talk with thought of space trash. :(

Go ahead, boys, talk more about helium mining and booster rockets!

[DarkJedi]

I knew this was turning you on, Negs.

[Space Tycoon]

I guess I need to set something straight: I am not claiming that mining helium-3 on the Moon will never happen. If it's commercially viable, it will happen - no doubt about that. In fact, it's possibly one of the most exciting possible scientific developments for the future of mankind. I'm just saying that the timeframes are going to be disappointingly long.

As for fusion as such, I think it's practically a given that ITER will reach the break-even point with ease. So sooner or later, fusion will become a reality. It's again just a matter of timeframes. :winks:

It doesn't help when certain environmental groups spread unfounded, frankly hysterical assertions about fusion power:

The project experienced large opposition from environmental groups such as Greenpeace. "Pursuing nuclear fusion and the ITER project is madness," said Bridget Woodman of Greenpeace. "Nuclear fusion has all the problems of nuclear power, including producing nuclear waste and the risks of a nuclear accident." [9] "Governments should not waste our money on a dangerous toy which will never deliver any useful energy," said Jan Vande Putte of Greenpeace International. Instead, they should invest in renewable energy which is abundantly available, not in 2080 but today".

Who's saying we shouldn't pursue other renewables as well? These people make it sound as though we're going to abandon solar, wind etc. in favour of some fusion wet dream that will never pan out. Fusion is long term, no doubt. Eventually, someone will make it work, and I'd like us to be in on the ground floor when it happens.

[Bokchoi Cowboy]

Stop that, Omi, you're ruining the sexy space talk with thought of space trash. :(

Go ahead, boys, talk more about helium mining and booster rockets!

I can picture it now.....gone are the days where the gentleman asks the lady if she would like to come up to see his etchings.....

Now we will hear: "Would you like to come up to my launch pad and check out my interceptor missile?"