What shall I do with a billion dollars?

TwinBeam · 2006-03-17 01:57:39

Suppose Bill Gates has a bout of temporary insanity, and offers me a billion dollars to accelerate human expansion into space. A billion dollars isn't a lot for space - but it isn't pocket change either...

Suggestions? Just in case Bill calls?

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2006-03-17 06:33:49

yeah, its a big lump of cash but not a lot when used in mega-sized space exploartion

cIclops · 2006-03-17 13:23:35

Suppose Bill Gates has a bout of temporary insanity, and offers me a billion dollars to accelerate human expansion into space. A billion dollars isn't a lot for space - but it isn't pocket change either...
Suggestions? Just in case Bill calls?

Phone Bill's business partner Paul Allen and ask him, his $20 million investment in SpaceShip One was very productive.

GCNRevenger · 2006-03-17 15:35:15

A billion dollars is not pocket change, but it won't get any one thing accomplished either. Enough to develop a private space capsule maybe, but probobly not the vehicle to launch it, nor a place for it to launch to, and so on.

Probobly the most productive use for $1Bn would be to develop the Falcon-IX rocket and facilities to launch it, and develop it with a tripple or penta-core configuration like the Delta-IV Heavy and its potential five-core sucessor. Such a rocket would have more lift then any rocket in the world short of the SDV heavy lifter, perhaps in the ~50MT region depending on upper stage.

The single and tripple core version would put a source of income in the hands of the only AltSpace venture that looks like it has a chance of sucess, with the option to launch masses big enough to think about Lunar mining. Elon also is thinking about a capsule to ride on the single-core version, which could be paid for by satelite launch income.

I am not overly confidant in the Kistler RLV however.

GCNRevenger · 2006-03-17 17:12:33

Suppose Bill Gates has a bout of temporary insanity, and offers me a billion dollars to accelerate human expansion into space. A billion dollars isn't a lot for space - but it isn't pocket change either...
Suggestions? Just in case Bill calls?
Phone Bill's business partner Paul Allen and ask him, his $20 million investment in SpaceShip One was very productive.

No, it really wasn't. SpaceShipOne, compared to a REAL orbital space vehicle, is a pathetic joke. None of the technologies associated with the vehicle - its construction, its heat shield, its propulsion - are realisticly able to be extrapolated to an orbital craft. In fact, Burt's bid for a CEV competitor is a capsule with completly different construction and propulsion.

TwinBeam · 2006-03-18 03:19:52

While a billion won't buy a new ship, it could buy several launches. How might that be made useful?

EuroLauncher · 2006-03-18 03:59:57

While a billion won't buy a new ship, it could buy several launches. How might that be made useful?

Let's assume every launch pad on the planet is available.

Most expensive : You might not be able to afford a Japan rocket, ask the Japanese for a lift ? This is very expensive due to their over-priced bubble economy and high-labor costs in Japan. They haven't lifted heavy craft and recent Japan rockets have been unreliable and might even explode.

Quiet Expensive: USA and Europe ( high success rates and large payloads ) but at a high cost when compared to Russian rockets. The most expensive American launch is the STS-Shuttle which costs about a billion to get moving.

Ruskies: Prices might go from $40-million to 120$-million depending on what you're after. Russia offers great prices and good payload ability but the problem is all the political back scratching you'll have to do, and you may find yourself no longer in charge of your own mission and find the Ruskies and Kazakhs running the show. Russia has great launch vehicles but the Russian pads aren't ideal for geostationary orbit.

Ultra-Cheap: Israel, India, North-Korea, Brazil, ...et cetera. The problem with these guys is that many of their launch vehicles look like ugly-Scud missiles and they mostly launch the payloads of sounding-rockets, there is also a high possibilty that these rockets will blow up on the pad or fall back down on your head.

Rxke · 2006-03-18 06:26:31

Work together w/ NASA's moonbase plans to set up a beginning of lunar mining. H20 or PGM's.

it would create demand for cheaper launches and transport to and fro the moon if there is an even intermittently manned activity w/ economical drive.

R&D+ building of mining equipment that fits in DRM plans. Would involve paying NASA (or even Russia) to train 'Miners-Astronauts' maybe, that work for the mining operation AND do 'service' for NASA: a lot of the engineering and setting up stuff, so NASA's scientists can forcus on science, not exchanging air-filters etc. At the initial building-stage of the outpost, they could do 6 months "tour of duties", doing the 'dirty' work, while visiting scientists stay only 14 days, or how long it takes to switch crews. Make it cheaper for NASA than if they would use their own astronauts (you'd heavily bleed money, initially, in other words)

GCNRevenger · 2006-03-18 08:45:28

What good is buying a half a dozen medium rockets or a dozen or two lighter ones if you can't afford them without a big one-time non-reoccuring cash donation? And isn't the goal to start some sort of non-exploration enterprise?

The rules of the game need to be changed if man is to do more then explore or play tourist for a breif time, and the rule that needs changing most is launch cost.

Of all the potential routes for decreasing the cost of launch that could be developed for under $1Bn, building the Falcon-IX rocket, with multi-core options, and the facilities to launch them seems to me the safest investment.

With such a rocket in hand, SpaceX could capture a signifigant chunk of the launch market, and with this flow of cash could look to the future, and build & fly cargo vehicles for the ISS (if its still around).

NASA will set up a Moon base with a LOX generator, do some prospecting, and perhaps test mining/refining technologies for the only current viable export, PGMs.

Then, when the technology is ready and the beach head base established and SpaceX having some money in the bank, the multi-core Falcon-IX could be equipped with a lander to move payloads of mining equipment, TransHAB housing, etc to the Moon.

From there, it is a short hop for M. Griffin at NASA to ink a deal with E. Musk at SpaceX to put a manned capsule on Falcon-IX, fitted with a lander and empty acent stage LOX tanks for direct Earth return. Then, NASA could stop spending bushels of cash on CEV/CLV and SDV-HLV to tend/build a Lunar base and set its sights on Mars in earnest. Said vehicle would also serve to transport PGM bars back to Earth.

GCNRevenger · 2006-03-18 09:13:36

Note: other companies besides SpaceX would have to build the mining equipment probobly... maybe an entry point for AltSpace ventures that failed to get off the ground.

Anyway, something like this:

The single core Falcon-IX in its heavy configuration should be able to carry ~25MT, or so Elon claims, so the tripple-core Falcon-IX should be able to haul around ~40MT at least. Perhaps more with a Hydrogen-burning upper stage. Anyway, this class of vehicle would be ideal for resupply and light-to-medium cargo flights to the Moon.

For manned trips or heavy payloads, the each sortie would launch a Hydrogen-powerd EDS stage (design licensed from NASA?), and another for the direct flight capsule/acent-stage riding on top of the decent/Lunar-deceleration stage.

The vehicle would use its decent fuel for a direct abort to Earth in the event of trouble enroute, with a second and fully fueled capsule/acent-stage would be kept on the surface for emergencies at the base.

cIclops · 2006-03-18 09:32:30

t/Space were talking about needing $500 million to build and test an airlaunched orbital spacecraft.

They have recently made a bid for COTS, it may be based on the CXV design above.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2006-03-18 11:24:23

While a billion won't buy a new ship, it could buy several launches. How might that be made useful?
Let's assume every launch pad on the planet is available.
Most expensive : You might not be able to afford a Japan rocket, ask the Japanese for a lift ? This is very expensive due to their over-priced bubble economy and high-labor costs in Japan. They haven't lifted heavy craft and recent Japan rockets have been unreliable and might even explode.
Quiet Expensive: USA and Europe ( high success rates and large payloads ) but at a high cost when compared to Russian rockets. The most expensive American launch is the STS-Shuttle which costs about a billion to get moving.
Ruskies: Prices might go from $40-million to 120$-million depending on what you're after. Russia offers great prices and good payload ability but the problem is all the political back scratching you'll have to do, and you may find yourself no longer in charge of your own mission and find the Ruskies and Kazakhs running the show. Russia has great launch vehicles but the Russian pads aren't ideal for geostationary orbit.
Ultra-Cheap: Israel, India, North-Korea, Brazil, ...et cetera. The problem with these guys is that many of their launch vehicles look like ugly-Scud missiles and they mostly launch the payloads of sounding-rockets, there is also a high possibilty that these rockets will blow up on the pad or fall back down on your head.

I would imagine the problems with Russians are similar to problems with using China's launch.

One must be careful with all the over-rated press the private sector gets and all the hype behind Elon and those SpaceX Falcon's, the private method is not always the best route. Yes its true you gotta admire the American and Western spirit behind the private jump to Space ( Aquarius, Canadian Arrow, DaVinci Canada, Silver Dart, SpaceX, Spaceshipone ) but what are they really offering ? They'll never be able to build a Launcher that can take you to Mars and back, they won't have the greatest launch site, nor will they ever match the very Heavy Energia or Saturn-V payloads to LEO. Someday in the future the SpaceX and their Falcon's if they are very lucky might be able to lift medium-heavy payloads similar to the Titan-Centaur or the Russian Proton, but at what price could they do it ? Cheaper than the Russia launchers who have really low labor costs ? Some of the advert pics for the later Falcon rockets look very nice, however their small payload rocket Falcon-1 still hasn't lifted anything and will have trouble lifting a tiny 700 kg payload into a useful orbit.
Just because America's private sector is cheaper for launches doesn't mean Bush is going to buy it. Remember Bush recently went to India ( a Cold-war rival ) to defend 'outsourcing', and his lunar exploration plans might be outsourced to India as NewDelhi is getting to launch US satellites and use US technology, maybe GW will come up with some more whacky ideas for his VSE, ideas such as 'Outscouring Congress' ?

TwinBeam · 2006-03-18 22:32:27

The problem I'd have with investing in Falcon is that it creates yet another way to get into space, without creating any added economic purpose for going, and without vastly reducing launch costs so that a whole new spectrum of applications become possible.

I don't expect that one could do anything, with a mere billion dollars, that could export anything of value back to Earth.

But perhaps one could establish some infrastructure in space that would reduce the costs of going into space? The O2 and H2O mining on the moon is a good example of this - though even that might be beyond a billion dollars?

Perhaps something like a solar powered ion engine "tug" for moving cargos between Earth and Lunar orbit? Since it wouldn't need to land in a gravity well, it seems likely to be less expensive to develop, more affordable to make it last longer. Just an example - not saying it'd be the best investment.

SpaceNut · 2006-03-18 22:47:50

Cheap access to space is a must in order to establish any infrastructure that would allow for a second step to occur.

Returns on investment is only practical if there is something to return for going...
O2 and H2O while these are infrastructure building need for sustained lowered cost and of a colonies self subsistance it however are not what would make a profit. H3 as well would not other than to give science a better chance for fussion by giving a greater supply of it.

GCNRevenger · 2006-03-19 07:26:11

Yang Leiwi said:

"They'll never be able to build a Launcher that can take you to Mars and back, they won't have the greatest launch site, nor will they ever match the very Heavy Energia or Saturn-V payloads to LEO. Someday in the future the SpaceX and their Falcon's if they are very lucky might be able to lift medium-heavy payloads similar to the Titan-Centaur or the Russian Proton, but at what price could they do it ? Cheaper than the Russia launchers who have really low labor costs ?"

No, they will probobly never build a true HLLV, but they don't have to in order to contribute to getting man off this rock. If NASA is going back to the Moon to establish a base, then they are going to have to spend in the region of $800M-$1Bn every time they need to exchange crews, $500-600M for every heavy unmanned payload, or around $300-400M to send a Progress-like supply mission. If they have to send these on a regular basis, then this will chew up probobly around 33-50% of NASA's manned spaceflight budget, which will make doing Mars right and well difficult.

Elon's rockets don't have to be cheaper then Russias, which is possible anyway on the account that they are built simpler perhaps, they just have to be cheaper then what NASA is paying now. Why? Simple, so that Russia doesn't have veto power over the US Lunar program if Putin or his sucessor decide they need to excercise some political leverage over us. As I have said many times, Russian rockets are financially cheap, but politically speaking they are ruinously expensive. Elon's rockets don't have this limitation, not to mention the company is American, which will make Congress much happier too.

If SpaceX can offer a launch vehicle in the region of Delta-IV HLV or TheStick for his advertised $50M, how could NASA and the USAF not buy them?

TwinBeam said:

"The problem I'd have with investing in Falcon is that it creates yet another way to get into space, without creating any added economic purpose for going, and without vastly reducing launch costs so that a whole new spectrum of applications become possible.

Its a chicken-and-egg problem: the world uses small but nontrivial quantities of platinum and related metals, which are mined from asteroid impact craters here on Earth. In most of its applications (industrial catalyst, electronics), Pt and its brethern are irreplaceable, that is, they behave in such a way that no other available material does. Also, as electronics become more energy hungry, batteries are not keeping pace very well, particularly for soldiers in the military. Direct alcohol fuel cells can provide the power, but do require a substantial amount of platinum metal.

The world supply of the metal is not unlimited, and with increased demand it very well could simply run out, and the cost of this economically vital reasource would skyrocket to our detriment. This metal is available on the Moon, which will be going to pretty soon, and which we will be needing a new source of pretty soon too. This is the economic purpose of going you are talking about... The trouble is, unless the stuff reaches truely absurd prices, there is no way to profitably mine it with today's launch prices. Elon claims his rockets can match the current biggest launchers in the world for about 1/5th or 1/4th of the price, and frankly, his is the only game in town that has a chance to pull this off that is politically palatable. I think this is a big enough decrease to begin limited mining.

An ion tug, despite being highly-efficient, is not a magical propellentless vehicle, a 25MT class tug will only have enough fuel for one or two trips and back, and you still have to get the payload down to the surface. And, part of VSE is to build such infrastructure, namely a liquid oxygen plant on the Moon. THAT would make it possible for Elon's rockets to theoretically do the crew rotation function that NASA will spend so much on.

Commodore · 2006-03-19 13:49:45

$1Billion would go a long way towards "lunarizing" the full range of regolithmoving, refining, and milling equipment needed to properly exploit all local resources. The sooner we can establish the full range of ISRU, the cheaper bases will be to build and expand.

TwinBeam · 2006-03-20 02:24:52

GNC:
Well, I wouldn't expect an ion tug would be "magic" - I presume it isn't impossible to refuel such a thing?

I don't even know if it's a solution - just how much fuel mass might it save, per cargo trip to the moon?

Maybe a better approach would just be to subsidize private launches and private enterprises - buy as much launch capability as cheaply as possible, and re-sell it for maybe $100/pound to LEO, to help bootstrap some business.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2006-03-20 08:29:45

GNC:
Well, I wouldn't expect an ion tug would be "magic" - I presume it isn't impossible to refuel such a thing?
I don't even know if it's a solution - just how much fuel mass might it save, per cargo trip to the moon?

You'd save huge money the only trouble is that alternate-propulsion has its limits today.
You still need lots of rocket fuel to get from Earth's ground up into Earth orbit like LEO, then when you've been lifted you can start using your ion-drive but when you're in Lunar orbit you still need rocket fuel to help your Lunar-lander.
The Europeans have been testing this method of travel - their current moon mission is called Smart-1 ( check out the unmanned thread section of newmars )

GCNRevenger · 2006-03-20 08:52:30

An ion engine has roughly five to ten times the efficiency, depending on how much you want to trade for a slower trip. However, the tug itself will weigh quite a bit more "dry" then a comperable chemical rocket stage, so a signifigant portion of the fuel savings will be taken up by the extra mass of the tug. Also, the tug will have to spend considerable time in the Van Allen belts, so reguardless if you have an easy way to refuel it, the tug itself won't be good for many trips. If nothing else, the radiation will cause the solar arrays to break down. The ISS arrays are expected to lose 20-30% of their output, and it never goes near Earth's radiation belts.

Subsidising rockets doesn't change the rules of the game either, a billion dollars won't discount the cost of a Delta or Atlas rocket much. The money ought to go to mitigating the biggest problem in spaceflight, which is launch costs. A billion dollars won't buy you a super RLV nor build you a space elevator, but it would pay for Elon to build his bigger Falcon-IX, which would cut costs by ~3/4 or more for medium lift.

Dook · 2006-03-20 09:40:21

Put that $1 billion into an interest earning account and have the proceeds go to NASA.

I'm sure they could use an extra $50 million a year forever.

PurduesUSAFguy · 2006-03-20 15:41:48

Actually, I think if it's carfully managed, and in private hands one could do alot with a billion dollars. For example if you poured that money into a start up to development efficent industrial manufactoring techniques for carbon nanotube and CNT based composites. You could make a ton of money in none space related applications and use the profit to fund the Merlin II and BFR from Space X then launch a space elevator in a ten to 20 year bussiness plan.

GCNRevenger · 2006-03-20 17:44:28

I think that its premature to start talking about a CNT space elevator, the technology has come some distance since CNTs have been discoverd, but it is still a question if its even possible to make a composite with that kind of strength. Right now, our very best composites still aren't there yet, and are some distance off. As far as commertial applications, nobody is really talking CNTs for practical applications yet, tubes and the asscociated processing to dispurse them is awfully expensive to do on any scale.

If Elon can make the Falcon-I work, then I think its a relativly safe bet that Falcon-IX is within the realm of possibility, while an elevator is not (yet). Since Kistler's rocket might or might not work, putting the money into Falcon-IX is the safe bet which could actually accomplish something. A rocket with the power of the Atlas-V or Delta-IV HLV for the cost of a whimpy Delta-II, or perhaps even more powerful with a Hydrogen or Methane upper stage. If PGM prices rise, which barring a new source they probobly will pretty soon, then Lunar mining with Falcon-IX might be pretty close to a practical business case.

Edit: Falcon-IX with a Hydrogen upper stage starts sounding alot like the unbuilt intermediate Saturn rocket... If it could lift in the 40MT region, then you could get a crew vehicle to the Moon for only around $100M of launch vehicle (two launches, one for TLI stage and one for capsule/lander).

Commodore · 2006-03-20 18:30:34

Its possible that infusions of other minerals could drop prices of traditionally expensive materials, allowing uses previously deemed too expensive, thus creating new markets, and new space based businesses to supply those markets. Titanium comes to mind. Its important for NASA to establish methods of using all resources present, even if they do not an immediate use. Materials and exploitation research should be one of the primary goals of extended duration missions.

The biggest hurdle for the construction of a space elevator is the anchor. Nanotube research is going full tilt on Earth for a huge number of applications, and will mature on its own. Our consern is the search for an anchor, and a space based source of carbon. If moving a ready made carbon rich asteroid is out of the question, then we have to put huge amounts of material up there in smaller, more managable peices. Getting enough carbon is going to be tricky as well.

GCNRevenger · 2006-03-20 18:55:54

Its possible that infusions of other minerals could drop prices of traditionally expensive materials, allowing uses previously deemed too expensive, thus creating new markets, and new space based businesses to supply those markets. Titanium comes to mind. Its important for NASA to establish methods of using all resources present, even if they do not an immediate use. Materials and exploitation research should be one of the primary goals of extended duration missions.
The biggest hurdle for the construction of a space elevator is the anchor. Nanotube research is going full tilt on Earth for a huge number of applications, and will mature on its own. Our consern is the search for an anchor, and a space based source of carbon. If moving a ready made carbon rich asteroid is out of the question, then we have to put huge amounts of material up there in smaller, more managable peices. Getting enough carbon is going to be tricky as well.

Uh, no. Without a real, honest-to-goodness "we're not kidding this time" super RLV or a space elevator, mining anything except the most rare precious metals on the Moon will never be profitable. It would just cost too much to mine it, and we have enough Titanium right here on Earth. Only the super-rare stuff, Platinum, Ruthenium, Osmium, and Helium-3 are worth even talking about.

"The biggest hurdle for the construction of a space elevator is the anchor. Nanotube research is going full tilt on Earth for a huge number of applications, and will mature on its own. Our consern is the search for an anchor, and a space based source of carbon. If moving a ready made carbon rich asteroid is out of the question, then we have to put huge amounts of material up there in smaller, more managable peices. Getting enough carbon is going to be tricky as well."

Certainly not, you've got it all backwards.

The "anchor" is perfectly simple, you just wind out some more cable so that your initial spool-carrier is above geostationary orbit, such that the center of mass of it, the cable, and the payload remains at GEO. Then just haul up more cable and weights to make it thicker and handle more mass with less rolling out. It will take a little Newtonian balencing act, but computers can do it.

Nanotube research, despite this nonsense about it "going full tilt," may or may not ever be able to reach the strength required for elevator cable. Such material will require tubes that are essentially perfect and are of arbitrary size, and inexpensive enough to produce several hundred tonnes worth. We can't make perfect nanotubes, we can't make ones arbitrarily long, and we can't make them in anything bigger then gram quantities. Make no mistake, don't listen to the fairy-tale-folk at LiftPort and the like, there is a good chance that CNT technology won't ever be able to make cable material, and even if it can, its still a long ways off.

And why do we have to worry about carbon supplies? Just lift up a spool of cable up the initial rocket-launched elevator and splice it with the first.

Edit: Most people see CNT technology as a rung on the ladder of the inevitible progression of science and technology; nothing could be further from the truth. It just might not ever be practical to make nanostructures that big so pristine and perfect as well as practical to manufacture in quantity, just as so many other chemical problems are intractable. I don't think non-chemists really appreciate just how daunting of a task making elevator cable is.

Commodore · 2006-03-20 21:14:01

Uh, no. Without a real, honest-to-goodness "we're not kidding this time" super RLV or a space elevator, mining anything except the most rare precious metals on the Moon will never be profitable. It would just cost too much to mine it, and we have enough Titanium right here on Earth. Only the super-rare stuff, Platinum, Ruthenium, Osmium, and Helium-3 are worth even talking about.

You want a super expensive Shuttle to ferry bulk minerals out of the sky? Natures been doing it since the beginning of time. Just strap one of those cheap inflatable heat shields and a parachute on it and your good to go.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2006-03-17 01:57:39

Re: What shall I do with a billion dollars?

#2 2006-03-17 06:33:49

Re: What shall I do with a billion dollars?

#3 2006-03-17 13:23:35

Re: What shall I do with a billion dollars?

#4 2006-03-17 15:35:15

Re: What shall I do with a billion dollars?

#5 2006-03-17 17:12:33

Re: What shall I do with a billion dollars?

#6 2006-03-18 03:19:52

Re: What shall I do with a billion dollars?

#7 2006-03-18 03:59:57

Re: What shall I do with a billion dollars?

#8 2006-03-18 06:26:31

Re: What shall I do with a billion dollars?

#9 2006-03-18 08:45:28

Re: What shall I do with a billion dollars?

#10 2006-03-18 09:13:36

Re: What shall I do with a billion dollars?

#11 2006-03-18 09:32:30

Re: What shall I do with a billion dollars?

#12 2006-03-18 11:24:23

Re: What shall I do with a billion dollars?

#13 2006-03-18 22:32:27

Re: What shall I do with a billion dollars?

#14 2006-03-18 22:47:50

Re: What shall I do with a billion dollars?

#15 2006-03-19 07:26:11

Re: What shall I do with a billion dollars?

#16 2006-03-19 13:49:45

Re: What shall I do with a billion dollars?

#17 2006-03-20 02:24:52

Re: What shall I do with a billion dollars?

#18 2006-03-20 08:29:45

Re: What shall I do with a billion dollars?

#19 2006-03-20 08:52:30

Re: What shall I do with a billion dollars?

#20 2006-03-20 09:40:21

Re: What shall I do with a billion dollars?

#21 2006-03-20 15:41:48

Re: What shall I do with a billion dollars?

#22 2006-03-20 17:44:28

Re: What shall I do with a billion dollars?

#23 2006-03-20 18:30:34

Re: What shall I do with a billion dollars?

#24 2006-03-20 18:55:54

Re: What shall I do with a billion dollars?

#25 2006-03-20 21:14:01

Re: What shall I do with a billion dollars?

Board footer