Elizabeth Howell is the senior writer at Universe Today. She also works for Space.com, Space Exploration Network, the NASA Lunar Science Institute, NASA Astrobiology Magazine and LiveScience, among others. Career highlights include watching three shuttle launches, and going on a two-week simulated Mars expedition in rural Utah. You can follow her on Twitter @howellspace or contact her at her website.
A view from the Curiosity rover on Sol 794 (Oct. 31, 2014) from its outpost at the base of Mount Sharp (Aeolis Mons). Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech
NASA’s Curiosity rover has struck hematite — an iron-oxide mineral often associated with water-soaked environments — in its first drill hole inside the huge Mount Sharp (Aeolis Mons) on Mars. While in this case oxidization is more important to its formation, the sample’s oxidization shows that the area had enough chemical energy to support microbes, NASA said.
Hematite is not a new discovery for Curiosity or Mars rovers generally, but what excites scientists is this confirms observations from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter that spotted hematite from orbit in the Pahrump Hills, the area that Curiosity is currently roving.
“This connects us with the mineral identifications from orbit, which can now help guide our investigations as we climb the slope and test hypotheses derived from the orbital mapping,” stated John Grotzinger, Curiosity project scientist at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.
This is the latest in a series of finds for the rover related to habitability. In December 2013, scientists announced it found a zone (dubbed Yellowknife Bay) that was likely an ancient lakebed. But Yellowknife’s mineralogy eluded detection from orbit, likely due to dust covering the rocks.
Photo mosaic shows NASA’s Curiosity Mars rover in action reaching out to investigate rocks at a location called Yellowknife Bay on Sol 132, Dec 19, 2012, in search of first drilling target. The view is reminiscent of a dried up shoreline. Curiosity’s navigation camera captured the scene surrounding the rover with the arm deployed and the APXS and MAHLI science instruments on tool turret collecting microscopic imaging and X-ray spectroscopic data. The mosaic is colorized. See the full 360 degree panoramic and black & white versions below. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/Ken Kremer/Marco Di Lorenzo
Hematite is perhaps most closely associated with spherical rocks called “blueberries” that the Opportunity rover discovered on Mars in 2004. While Opportunity’s discovery showed clear evidence of water, the new Curiosity find is more closely associated with oxidization, NASA said.
The new find, contained in a pinch of dust analyzed in Curiosity’s internal Chemistry and Mineralogy (CheMin) instrument, yielded 8% and 4% magnetite. The latter mineral is one way that hematite can be created, should magnetite be placed in “oxidizing conditions”, NASA stated. Previous samples en route to Mount Sharp had concentrations only as high as 1% hematite, but more magnetite. This shows more oxidization took place in this new sample, NASA stated.
Curiosity will likely stick around Pahrump Hills for at least weeks, perhaps months, until it climbs further up the mountain. Among Mount Sharp’s many layers is one that contains so much hematite (as predicted from orbit) that NASA calls it “Hematite Ridge.”
An astronaut retrieves a sample from an asteroid in this artist's conception. Credit: NASA
We’re still a few years away from the cute robots in Moon or Interstellar that help their human explorers. But if we want to build a base off of Earth, robotic intelligence will be essential to lower the cost and pave the way for astronauts, argues Philip Metzger, a former senior research physicist at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center.
In the last of a three-part series on getting a base ready on the moon or an asteroid, Metzger talks about the steps to get robots ready for the work and what barriers are standing in the way of accomplishing this.
UT: A table in your 2012 paper talks about the steps of lunar industry, starting with tele-operation and an “insect-like” robotic intelligence and then progressing through a few steps to “closely supervised autonomy” (mouse-like) and eventually “nearly full autonomy” (monkey-like) and “autonomous robotics” (human-like). What sorts of developments and how much time/resources would it take to progress through these steps?
Most of the advances in robotic artificial intelligence are being made in software, but they also require advances in computing power. We mentioned in the paper that really only “mouse-like” robotics is needed for it to become successful in a near-Earth environment. We will need robots that can pick up a nut and screw it on a bolt without every motion being commanded from Earth. I believe we are on a trajectory to achieve these levels of autonomy already for robotics here on Earth. I am more concerned about developing robots that can be made easily in space without an extensive supply chain. For example, we need to invent a simple way to manufacture functional motors for the robots, minimizing the assembly tasks for robots making the same motors that are in themselves.
It is very difficult to estimate how long this will take. Here are some guiding ideas. First, robotics and manufacturing technologies are already on an explosive growth curve for terrestrial application, so we can ride on the coattails of that growth as we re-purpose the technologies for space. Second, we are not talking about inventing new capabilities. Everything we are talking about doing in space is already being done on Earth. All we need to do is discover what sets of equipment will function together as partial supply chains using space resources. We need to develop a sequence of partial supply chains, each more sophisticated than the last, each one capable of making a significant portion of the mass of the next. It will require innovation, but it is lower-risk innovation because we already have Earth’s more sophisticated industry to copy.
R2 and D2? NASA and General Motors have come together to develop the next generation dexterous humanoid robot. The robots – called Robonaut2 – were designed to use the same tools as humans, which allows them to work safely side-by-side humans on Earth and in space. Credit: NASA
Third, we tend to estimate things will happen faster than they do in the near term, but slower than they do in the long term. Consider how much technology has changed in the past 200 years, and you will agree that it won’t take another 200 years to get this done. I think it will be much less than 100 years. I am betting it will be done within 50 years, and if we try hard we could do it in 20. In fact, if we really wanted to, and if we put up the money, I think we could do it in 10. But I’m telling people 20 to 50 years. Don’t worry if you think that’s too slow, because the fun of doing it can start immediately, and we will be doing really cool things in space long before the supply chain is complete.
UT: Is it really cheaper and scientifically viable to have a robotic fleet of spacecraft than humans, given development costs and the difficulties of making the robots as efficient to do work as humans?
Biological life needs a place like planet Earth. Humans need more than that; we also need a food chain, and in the final analysis we need an entire ecology of networked organisms interdependent on each other. And if we want to be more than hunters and gatherers, then civilization requires even more than that. We require the industrial supply chain: all the tools and machines and energy sources that we have developed over the past 10,000 years.
When we leave Earth, we need to take not just a canister of air to breath to replicate the physical conditions of our planet. We need the benefit of the entire ecosystem and the entire industrial base to support us. So far we have stayed close to Earth so we have never really “cut the surly bonds of Earth.” We take a consumable supply of food and spare parts from Earth with us, and we send up rockets to the space station when we need more. Even schemes to colonize Mars are depending on regular shipments of things from Earth. These are the things that make it expensive to put humans in space.
Robots, on the other hand, can be adapted to living in the space environment with nothing more from Earth. They can become the ecosphere and the supply chain in space that we humans require. Under our guidance, they can transform any environment analogously to how life has transformed the Earth. They can make air, purify water, and build the habitats and landing pads. Then, when we arrive, it will be vastly less expensive, and it will be safer, too. And this will free us up to spend our time in space doing the things that make us uniquely human. In the long term, robots will make space vastly cheaper for humans.
Canada’s Dextre robot (highlight) and NASA’s Robotic Refueling Experiment jointly performed groundbreaking robotics research aboard the ISS in March 2012. Dextre used its hands to grasp specialized work tools on the RRM for experiments to repair and refuel orbiting satellites. Credit: NASA
But yes, in the near-term there are things we can do more affordably in space by skipping development of robotic industry. We can shoot off sortie missions to various places, and when we are done we can zip back home before everyone dies. But that doesn’t fulfill our great potential as a species. It doesn’t take civilization to the next level. It doesn’t enable scientific research with a billion times the budget we have today. It doesn’t save our planet from overuse and industrial pollution. It doesn’t bring all humanity up to the standard of living many of us are enjoying in the west. It doesn’t make our existence safe in the galaxy. It doesn’t terraform new worlds. It doesn’t take us to other stars. All these things will be possible for almost no additional investment once we pay the tiny cost of bootstrapping industry in our solar system. It’s worth the cost.
I know of several other groups also developing 3D printers that could work on the Moon or Mars to print things directly out of regolith. The KSC Swamp Works is pursuing one technological approach and has built a prototype, and Professor Behrokh Khoshnevis at the University of Southern California is pursing another approach and has printed many things already. My friend Jason Dunn who founded Made In Space, which put the 3D printer into the ISS, has another concept they are pursuing. My friends at NASA have told me that this is healthy, having a portfolio of technologies to pursue rather than just one.
To be ready for missions in space you have to do more than test things in a lab. You need to do testing in reduced gravity aircraft to see if the materials like regolith will flow properly, in vacuum chambers to make sure nothing overheats or jams, and in rugged field locations like a desert or on a volcano to check for dust problems or other unexpected effects. After that, you are ready to start designing the actual version that is going into space, to do the final qualification testing where you shake it and bake it half to death, to assemble and test the flight version, and to launch it.
Deputy Program Manager Matthew Napoli examines a 3D printed piece at Marshall Space Flight Center. Image courtesy Made In Space.
So there are years of work ahead before all that is done. NASA’s direction is to put humans on Mars by the mid-2030’s, so we also have time and there is no rush. If we start to bootstrap space industry in the near-Earth region of space in parallel with getting ready for a Mars campaign then we will probably start testing regolith printers at field sites and making them interoperable with other equipment sooner than NASA presently needs them.
UT: What are the main barriers to robotic exploration on the Moon and beyond?
Budget is the only barrier. But taking a step back we might say a lack of vision is the only barrier because if enough of us understand what is now possible in space and how revolutionary it will be for humanity then there will be no lack of budget.
UT: Is there anything else you would like to add that I haven’t brought up yet?
We live in a very exciting time when these possibilities are being opened to us. It is exciting to think about the world our grandchildren will see, and it is exciting to think of what we can do to bring it about.
Whenever I speak on this topic, afterward the young people in the audience come up and start asking what they can do to get involved in space industry. They tell me that this is how they want to spend their lives. It gets that response because it is so compelling, so logical, and so right.
The International Space Station as seen by the departing STS-134 crew on May 29, 2011. Credit: NASA
A spacecraft attached to the International Space Station did an “emergency maneuver” to push the complex, which now houses six people, away from a threatening piece of space debris Oct. 27, the European Space Agency said in a statement.
A hand-sized shard of the Russian Cosmos-2251 satellite, which collided with a U.S. Iridium satellite in 2009, would have come within at least four kilometers (2.5 miles) of the orbiting outpost. This was close enough for the space station partners to agree to a move six hours before the potential impact.
“This is the first time the station’s international partners have avoided space debris with such urgency,” the European Space Agency wrote. The push to a safer orbit took place using the agency’s automated transfer vehicle Georges Lemaître, which docked with the space station in August.
The International Space Station in October 2014, with the European automated transfer vehicle Georges Lemaître attached. Credit: Alexander Gerst/ESA/NASA
While many collision threats are spotted at least days before impact, occasionally ground networks aren’t able to see a piece until 24 hours or less before the potential impact. Since 2012, the space station has normally done last-minute maneuvers using Russian cargo Progress vehicles, but this time around none were docked there. This is where the ATV came in.
Controllers at the ATV control center in France then did a four-minute preprogrammed move that raised the station’s orbit by one kilometer (0.6 miles), enough to get out of the way.
The ATV is expected to remain at the station until February, when it will undock and burn up in the atmosphere. This is the last of the series of ATVs that Europe agreed to make as a part of its space station agreement.
How much would it cost to establish a space base close to Earth, say on the Moon or an asteroid? To find out, Universe Today spoke with Philip Metzger, a former senior research physicist at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center, who has explored this subject extensively on his website and in published papers.
UT: Your 2012 paper specifically talks about how much development is needed on the Moon to make the industry “self-sustaining and expanding”, but left out the cost of getting the technology ready and of their ongoing operation. Why did you leave this assessment until later? How can we get a complete picture of the costs?
PM: As we stated at the start of the paper, our analysis was very crude and was intended only to garner interest in the topic so that others might join us in doing a more complete, more realistic analysis. The interest has grown faster than I expected, so maybe we will start to see these analyses happening now including cost estimates. Previous analyses talked about building entire factories and sending them into space. The main contribution of our initial paper was to point out that there is this bootstrapping strategy that has not been discussed previously, and we argued that it makes more sense. It will result in a much smaller mass of hardware launched into space, and it will allow us to get started right away so that we can figure out how to make the equipment work as we go along.
Moonbase rover concept – could be used for long-term missions (NASA)
Trying to design up front everything in a supply chain for space is impossible. Even if we got the budget for it and gave it a try, we would discover that it wouldn’t work when we sent it into the extraterrestrial environments. There are too many things that could go wrong. Evolving it in stages will allow us to work out the bugs as we develop it in stages. So the paper was arguing for the community to take a look into this new strategy for space industry.
Now, having said that, I can still give you a very crude cost estimate if you want one. Our model shows a total of about 41 tons of hardware being launched to the Moon, but that results in 100,000 tons of hardware when we include what was made there along the way. If 41 tons turns out to be correct, then let’s take 41% of the cost of the International Space Station as a crude estimate, because that has a mass of 100 tons and we can roughly estimate that a ton of space hardware costs about the same in every program. Then let’s multiply by four because it takes four tons of mass launched to low Earth orbit to land one ton on the Moon.
That may be an over-estimate, because the biggest cost of the International Space Station was the labor to design, build, assemble, and test before launch, including the cost of operating the space shuttle fleet. But the hardware for space industry includes many copies of the same parts so design costs should be lower, and since human lives will not be at stake they don’t need to be as reliable. As discussed in the paper, the launch costs will also be much reduced with the new launch systems coming on line.
The International Space Station in March 2009 as seen from the departing STS-119 space shuttle Discovery crew. Credit: NASA/ESA
Furthermore, the cost can be divided by 3.5 according to the crude modeling, because 41 tons is needed only if the industry is making copies of itself as fast as it can. If we slow it down to making just one copy of the industry along the way as it is evolving, then only 12 tons of hardware needs to be sent to the Moon. Now that gives us an estimate of the total cost over the entire bootstrapping period, so if we take 20 or 30 or 40 years to accomplish it, then divide by that amount to get the annual cost. You end up with a number that is a minority fraction of NASA’s annual budget, and a miniscule fraction of the total U.S. federal budget, and even tinier fraction of the US gross domestic product, and an utterly insignificant cost per human being in the developed nations of the Earth.
Even if we are off by a factor of 10 or more, it is something we can afford to start doing today. And this doesn’t account for the economic payback we will be getting while starting space industry. There will be intermediate ways to get a payback, such as refueling communications satellites and enabling new scientific activities. The entire cost needn’t be carried by taxpayers, either. It can be funded in part by commercial interests, and in part by students and others taking part in robotics contests. Perhaps we can arrange shares of ownership in space industry for people who volunteer time developing technologies and doing other tasks like teleoperating robots on the Moon. Call that “telepioneering.”
Perhaps most importantly, the technologies we will be developing – advanced robotics and manufacturing – are the same things we want to be developing here on Earth for the sake of our economy, anyway. So it is a no-brainer to do this! There are also intangible benefits: giving students enthusiasm to excel in their education, focusing the efforts of the maker community to contribute tangibly to our technological and economic growth, and renewing the zeitgeist of our culture. Civilizations fall when they become old and tired, when their enthusiasm is spent and they stop believing in the inherent value of what they do. Do we want a positive, enthusiastic world working together for the greater good? Here it is.
The Japanese Kibo robotic arm on the International Space Station deploys CubeSats during February 2014. The arm was holding a Small Satellite Orbital Deployer to send out the small satellites during Expedition 38. Credit: NASA
UT: We now have smaller computers and the ability to launch CubeSats or smaller accompanying satellites on rocket launches, something that wasn’t available a few decades ago. Does this reduce the costs of sending materials to the Moon for the purposes of what we want to do there?
Most of the papers about starting the space industry are from the 1980’s and 1990’s because that is when most of the investigations were performed, and there hasn’t been funding to continue their work in recent decades. Indeed, changes in technology since then have been game-changing! Back then some studies were saying that a colony would need to support 10,000 humans in space to do manufacturing tasks before it could make a profit and become economically self-sustaining. Now because of the growth of robotics we think we can do it with zero humans, which drastically cuts the cost.
The most complete study of space industry was the 1980 Summer Study at the Ames Research Center. They were the first to discuss the vision of having space industry fully robotic. They estimated mining robots would need to be made with several tons of mass. More recently, we have actually built lunar mining robots at the Swamp Works at the Kennedy Space Center and they are about one tenth of a ton, each. So we have demonstrated a mass reduction of more than 10 times.
But this added sophistication will be harder to manufacture on the Moon. Early generations will not be able to make the lightweight metal alloys or the electronics packages. That will require a more complex supply chain. The early generations of space industry should not aim to make things better; they should aim to make things easier to make. “Appropriate Technology” will be the goal. As the supply chain evolves, eventually it will reach toward the sophistication of Earth. Still, as long as the supply chain is incomplete and we are sending things from Earth, we will be sending the lightest and most sophisticated things we can to be combined with the crude things made in space, and so the advances we’ve made since the 1980’s will indeed reduce the bootstrapping cost.
Philae's landing site, dubbed Agilkia, as seen by the Rosetta spacecraft on Oct. 30, 2014. The spacecraft was 26.8 km (16.7 miles) from the comet's center when the picture was taken. Credit: ESA/Rosetta/NAVCAM – CC BY-SA IGO 3.0
After sifting through 8,000 entries in multiple languages — even in Esperanto! — the contest to name Philae’s landing site on Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko has resulted in an Egyptian-themed name.
The European Space Agency lander will touch down on the comet on a site dubbed “Agilkia”, which is named after an Egyptian island that hosts the Temple of Isis and other buildings that previously were on the island Philae. The buildings were moved due to the Aswan dams flooding Philae in the past century.
Agilkia, which was voted for by more than 150 people, fits in perfectly with ESA’s decision to informally name features on the comet after Egyptian names. Mission planners for the Rosetta orbiter and its lander, Philae, previously dubbed the site “J” before the landing contest was announced.
NAVCAM image of the comet on 21 September, which includes a view of primary landing site J. Click for more details and link to context image. (Credits: ESA/Rosetta/NAVCAM)
“The decision was very tough,” stated steering committee chair Felix Huber, who is with the DLR German Aerospace Center. “We received so many good suggestions on how to name Site J, and we were delighted with such an enthusiastic response from all over the world. We wish to thank all participants for sharing their great ideas with us.”
Alexandre Brouste from France was voted the overall winner and will be invited to follow the Nov. 12 landing live at ESA’s Space Operations Control Centre in Darmstadt, Germany. The landing is expected to take place around 12 p.m. Eastern (4 p.m. UTC), and you can follow the livestream here.
In this near-infrared mosaic, the sun shines off of the seas on Saturn's moon, Titan. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Arizona/University of Idaho
See that yellow smudge in the image above? That’s what the Sun looks like reflecting off the seas of Titan, that moon of Saturn that excites astrobiologists because its chemistry resembles what early Earth could have looked like. This image represents the first time this “sunglint” and Titan’s northern polar seas have been captured in one mosaic, NASA said.
What’s more, if you look closely at the sea surrounding the sunlight, you can see what scientists dub a “bathtub ring.” Besides looking pretty, this image from the Cassini spacecraft shows the huge sea (called Kraken Mare) was actually larger at some point in Titan’s past.
“The southern portion of Kraken Mare … displays a ‘bathtub ring’ — a bright margin of evaporate deposits — which indicates that the sea was larger at some point in the past and has become smaller due to evaporation,” NASA stated. “The deposits are material left behind after the methane and ethane liquid evaporates, somewhat akin to the saline crust on a salt flat.”
In this near-infrared global mosaic of Titan, sunglint and the moon’s polar seas are visible above the shadow. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Arizona/University of Idaho
The sunlight was so bright that it saturated the detector on Cassini that viewed it, called the Visual and Infrared Mapping Spectrometer (VIMS) instrument. The sun was about 40 degrees above the horizon of Kraken Mare then, which is the highest ever observed on Titan.
The T-106 flyby Oct. 23 was the second-to-last closeup view Cassini will have of Titan this year. The spacecraft has been circling Saturn’s system for more than 10 years, and is now watching Titan (and Saturn’s) northern hemisphere enter summer.
Titan is covered in a thick, orangey atmosphere that hid its surface from scientists the first time a spacecraft zoomed by it in the 1980s. Subsequent exploration (most especially by Cassini and a short-lived lander called Huygens) have revealed dunes on and near the equator and at higher altitudes, lakes of methane and ethane.
Building a lunar base might be easier if astronauts could harvest local materials for the construction, and life support in general. Credit: NASA/Pat Rawlings
So can we get off of Earth already and start building bases on the Moon or an asteroid? As highlighted in a recent Office of Science and Technology Policy blog post, one way to do that quickly could be to use resources on site. But how do we even get started? Can we afford to do it now, in this tough economic climate?
Universe Today spoke with Philip Metzger, a former senior research physicist at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center, who has explored this subject extensively on his website and in published papers. He argues that to do space this way would be similar to how the pilgrims explored North America. In the first of a three-part series, he outlines the rationale and the first steps to making it there.
UT: It’s been said that using resources on the Moon, Mars or asteroids will be cheaper than transporting everything from Earth. At the same time, there are inherent startup costs in terms of developing technology to do this extraction and also sending this equipment over there, among other things. How do we reconcile these two realities?
PM: Space industry will have a tremendous payback, but it will be costly to start. Several years ago I was frustrated because I didn’t think that commercial interests alone would be enough to get it fully started within our generation, so I asked the question, can we find an inexpensive way for the governments of the world (or philanthropists or others who may not have an immediate commercial interest) to get it started simply because of the societal benefits it will bring? That’s why my colleagues and I wrote the paper “Affordable Rapid Bootstrapping of Space Industry and Solar System Civilization.”
We are advocating a bootstrapping approach because it helps solve the problem of the high startup cost and it enables humanity to start reaping the benefits quickly, since we need them quickly. A bootstrapping approach works like this: instead of building all the hardware on Earth and sending it into space ready to start manufacturing things, we can send a reduced set of hardware into space and make only a little bit of what we need. We can send the rest of the manufactured parts from Earth and combine them with what we made in space. Over time we keep doing this until we evolve up to a full manufacturing capability in space.
On a clear day, astronauts aboard the ISS can see over 1,000 miles from Havana to Washington D.C. Image Credit: Chris Hadfield / NASA
This is how colonies on Earth built themselves up until eventually they were able to match the industry of their homelands. The pilgrims, for example, didn’t bring entire factories from Europe over on the Mayflower. Now it took hundreds of years to build up American industry, but with robotics and advanced manufacturing and with some intentionality we can get it done much more quickly at still an affordable price. We have done some rudimentary modeling of this bootstrapping approach and it looks as though it would be a small part of our annual space budget and it could establish the industry within just decades.
What I think is even more important than the cost is that with a bootstrapping approach we can get started right away. We don’t need to complete the entire design and development up front. It also spreads the cost over time so the annual expenses are very low. And it allows us time to evolve our strategy, to figure out what works and what will have more immediate economic payback, as we go along. Many people are looking for the immediate ways to get a payback in space, and there are some great ideas and I am sure they will be successful. One example is to set up a mining operation that refuels communication satellites in geosynchronous orbit. These sorts of activities will contribute to, and will benefit from, the effort to start industry in space, and they will generate revenue to fund their portion of the effort.
UT: Why do you feel the Moon is a good spot to start operations? What would be some activities to start with there? How do we move from there into the rest of the solar system?
When my colleagues and I wrote the paper, we were focused on the Moon in part because that was during NASA’s Constellation program to establish a lunar outpost. However, it is equally possible to use near-Earth asteroids to start this space industry, or to use both. In any case, we need to start space industry close to the Earth. That will keep transportation costs low during the startup. It also enables us to work with much shorter time delay in the radio communications, which is important in the early stages before robotics become sufficiently automated. Ideally the industry will be fully automated; we want robots to prepare the way for humans to follow.
The cancelled Constellation Program. Credit: NASA
However, if we think we will need humans during initial start-up of the industry – for example, to fix or troubleshoot broken hardware, or to do complex tasks that robots can’t yet do – then starting near Earth becomes even more important. It turns out that both the Moon and asteroids are excellent places to start industry. We now know that they have abundant water, minerals from which metals can be refined, carbon for making plastics, and so on. I am glad there are companies planning to develop mining in both locations so we can see what works best.
Another reason to start industry close to Earth is so it can have an early economic payback. In the end, when everything including spaceships and refueling depots are made in space by autonomous robotics, then industry becomes self-sustaining and it will pay us back inestimably for no further cost. Getting to that point requires some serious investment, though, and it will be easier to make the investments if we are getting something back. So what kinds of payback can it give us in the near-term? I keep a list of ideas how to make money in space, and there are about 19 items on the list, some crazy and some not so crazy. A few of the serious ideas include: space tourism; making and selling propellants to NASA for exploration and science missions; returning metals like platinum for sale on Earth; and manufacturing spare parts for other activities in space.
Artist’s rendition of a Moon Base. Credit: John Spencer/Space Tourism Society.
Some of the initial things we will do on the Moon or asteroids includes perfecting the low-gravity mining techniques, learning how to make solar cells out of regolith, and learning how to extract useful metals from minerals that would not be considered “ore” here on Earth. All of these are possible and require only modest investment to make them work.
It will take decades of effort to make space industry self-sustaining. Maybe 2 decades if we get started right away and work steadily, or maybe 5 decades if we have a lower level of funding. But if robotics advance as fast as the roboticists are expecting, soon there will be no manufacturing task a robot cannot do. When that day arrives, and we have set up a complete supply chain in space, then it will be an easy thing to send sets of hardware to the main asteroid belt to begin mining and manufacturing where there are billions of times the resources more than what we have on Earth.
Then, the industry could build landing craft to take equipment to the surface of Mars where it can build cities and eventually even terraform the planet. When we have machines that can use local resources to perform work and build copies of themselves, then they can perform the same role on dry worlds that biological life has performed here on our wet Earth. They can transform the environment and become the food chain so those worlds will be places where humanity can work and live. I realize this sounds too ambitious, but 20 to 50 years of technology growth is going to make a huge difference, and we are only talking about manufacturing – not rocket science — and that is something that we are already quite good at here on Earth. With just a little extrapolation into the future it is not a crazy idea.
Artist concept of a Moon base. Credit: NASA/Pat Rawlings.
UT: What are the main pieces of equipment and robotics that we need up there to accomplish these objectives?
PM: There is an interesting open source project developing what they call the “Global Village Construction Set.” It is 50 machines that will be capable of restarting civilization. It includes things like a windmill, a backhoe, and a 3D printer. What we need is the equivalent “Lunar/Asteroid Village Construction Set.”
A study was done by NASA in 1980 to determine what set of machines are needed in factories on the Moon to build 80% of their own parts. The other 20% would need to be supplied constantly from Earth. In our paper we argued that we can start at much less than 80% closure, making it more affordable and allowing us to start today, but the system should evolve until it reaches 100% closure. So the first set of hardware might make crude solar cells, metal, 3D printed metal parts, and rocket propellants.
Having just that will allow us to make a significant mass of the next generation of hardware as well as support the transportation network. Over time, we want to develop an entire supply chain which would be more extensive than just 50 different types of machines. But before we put anything in space we will want to test them in rugged locations here on Earth, and in the process we will discover what set of machines makes the most sense for the first generation. The idea is to learn as we go, so we can get started right away.
Comet Siding Spring shines in ultraviolet in this image obtained by the Mars Atmosphere and Volatile EvolutioN (MAVEN) spacecraft. Credit: Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics/University of Colorado; NASA
As Comet Siding Spring passed close by Mars on Sunday (Oct. 19), NASA’s newest Mars spacecraft took a time-out from its commissioning to grab some ultraviolet pictures of its coma. What you see above is hydrogen, a whole lot of it, leaving the comet in this picture taken from 5.3 million miles (8.5 million kilometers).
The hydrogen is a product of the water ice on the comet that the Sun is slowly melting and breaking apart into hydrogen and oxygen molecules. Because hydrogen scatters ultraviolet light from the Sun, it shows up rather clearly in this picture taken by the Mars Atmosphere and Volatile EvolutioN (MAVEN) spacecraft.
Check out more recent pictures of Siding Spring below.
Is this an image of Comet Siding Spring? It’s the only fuzzy object in the field photographed on Sol 3817 (October 19) by the Opportunity Rover. Click for original raw image.Comet Siding Spring near Mars in a composite image by the Hubble Space Telescope, capturing their positions between Oct. 18 8:06 a.m. EDT (12:06 p.m. UTC) and Oct. 19 11:17 p.m. EDT (Oct. 20, 3:17 a.m. UTC). Credit: NASA, ESA, PSI, JHU/APL, STScI/AURAAnother photo, just in, taken of the comet and Mars today (Oct. 19) by Rolando Ligustri. Beautiful!Comet 2013 A1 Siding Spring on October 17, 2014, with two days to go until its Martian encounter. Very dense Milkyway starfield in the background with many darker obscured regions. Credit and copyright: Damian Peach.
A view of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko on Sept. 26, 2014 from the orbiting Rosetta spacecraft. Credit: ESA/Rosetta/NAVCAM
While you can’t smell in space — there is no medium to carry the molecules, the same reason you can’t hear things — you can certainly detect what molecules are emanating from comets and other solar system bodies. A new analysis of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko by the orbiting Rosetta spacecraft thus found a rather pungent chemistry combination.
The spacecraft detected hydrogen sulphide (the smell of rotten eggs), ammonia and formaldehyde with traces of hydrogen cyanide and methanol. But compared to the amounts of water and carbon monixide 67P has, these molecule concentrations are quite miniscule.
“This all makes a scientifically enormously interesting mixture in order to study the origin of our solar system material, the formation of our Earth and the origin of life,” stated the University of Bern’s Kathrin Altwegg, from the center of space and habitability.
“And after all: it seems like comet Churyumov was indeed attracted by comet Gerasimenko to form Churyumov-Gerasimenko, even though its perfume may not be Chanel No 5, but comets clearly have their own preferences.”
More seriously, astronomers do say that at three astronomical units (Earth-Sun distances) from the Sun, the comet is emitting more molecules than expected. The next step will be to compare Rosetta’s data with ground-based data of other comets to see if this is common.
Standing on the ground, we’re used to seeing the bolts and flashes of lightning during epic thunderstorms. But how would it look like from space? These three Vine videos from orbiting NASA astronaut Reid Wiseman provide a glimpse.
As you can see in these videos he uploaded to his Twitter account a few days ago, flashes and pools of light appear in this lightning storm over Kansas that he spotted from the International Space Station. Check out more below the jump. Continue reading “Videos: From Space, Lightning Looks Like Creepy White Blobs”
