Archive for the ‘Al Globus’ Category

Life in outer space? 37-year-old NASA project depicts how leading minds of the time dreamed about colonizing space

Friday, December 14th, 2012

The New York Daily News published this story on December 13, 2012.

The story quotes two National Space Society Directors: Mark Hopkins and Al Globus.

“Amazing artwork from the 1970s shows scientists’ vision of creating settlements in space. They got most of it right, say experts. But funding for the massive endeavor remains a large hurdle.”

Read the story at: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/amazing-1970s-artwork-envisions-colonized-space-article-1.1219511

See higher resolution versions of all the art work on the NSS website: http://www.nss.org/settlement/nasa/70sArt/art.html

Image: Cutaway view of the Stanford Torus space settlement design for 10,000 inhabitants. From Space Settlements: A Design Study, NASA SP-413 (1977), online at http://www.nss.org/settlement/nasa/75SummerStudy/Design.html.

Moon Mines: Visionary or Senseless?

Wednesday, December 21st, 2011

Editorial by Al Globus, December 2011

Do lunar mines make sense? The answer depends on what you want to do in space. If what you want is something close to what we have now: a booming commercial communication satellite business and government programs for science and exploration, then no. Lunar mines built entirely with tax dollars are expensive and unnecessary. On the other hand, if you see further than a few years ahead, if you see civilization, humanity, and Life itself expanding into space, if you see large scale industrialization, commercialization and settlement of space, then lunar mines are of enormous importance. The interesting thing is, the second vision will probably cost the taxpayer a lot less and deliver much greater value to the people of Earth.

First, let us consider what lunar mines can supply a growing civilization in space:

1) Shielding mass. Our atmosphere protects us from the intense radiation in space. For those who seek to spend long periods in space, particularly beyond Earth’s protective magnetic field, radiation shielding is a must. To mimic the atmosphere, roughly 10 tons/square-meter is necessary. The Moon is ideally situated to supply these bulk materials.

2) Rocket propellant. Today’s rockets are propelled by chemical reactions. The highest performance propellant is hydrogen and oxygen, which combine to produce water and the energy and thrust necessary to travel in space. Most of the weight, roughly 90%, of this propellant is oxygen. The Moon has very large quantities of oxygen tied up in surface materials.

3) Water. A great deal of money is spent today bringing water to the International Space Station (ISS). The same oxygen that supplies most of the mass for rocket propellant can be used to make water. There are also large quantities of water in the craters at the lunar poles where the Sun never shines.

4) Metals. Lunar materials returned by the Apollo astronauts contain large quantities of titanium, aluminum, iron and other metals. These metals can supply materials for large space structures, including habitats.

5) Silicon. Silicon and metals from the Moon could be used to build the space segment of Space Solar Power (SSP) systems. These satellites would gather energy in space and transmit it wirelessly to the ground. If successfully developed, SSP could supply massive quantities of clean energy to Earth for literally billions of years. A recent paper published in the NSS Space Settlement Journal [A Contemporary Analysis of the O'Neill – Glaser Model for Space-based Solar Power and Habitat Construction. Peter A. Curreri and Michael K. Detweiler. December 2011.] suggests that using lunar materials for the SSP satellites requires more up-front capital than ground launch but begins generating profits much sooner.

6) He-3. Over billions of years the solar wind has implanted He-3, an isotope that is particularly well suited to fusion power, into lunar surface materials. This could be mined, brought to Earth, and used in future fusion power plants.

Thus, a vigorous lunar mining system could be part of a system to deliver energy to Earth, build large structures in space, and even provide radiation protection, water and oxygen to those who want to spend significant time in orbit. Developing lunar mines will be an enormous effort and would cost huge amounts of taxpayer money if it were done the same way Apollo, the Space Shuttle, and the ISS were developed. Fortunately, there is another way.

In the 1960s the U.S. government provided modest subsidies to start up the communication satellite business. Today, communication satellites are a $250 billion/year global business producing yearly tax revenue far greater than the subsidies.

The U.S. government is currently providing subsidies to help develop private, commercial launch vehicles. The cargo versions are almost complete. Two launchers, one of which has flown, were developed at a small fraction of the usual cost for government launcher programs. The human launch versions are being developed by the commercial crew program, which was budgeted for $6 billion and scheduled to develop two or three vehicles that could deliver astronauts to the ISS by 2015. [The budget for the first year was cut from $850 million to $406 million. This is expected to delay the first flight by a year or two.] By contrast, the all-government Space Launch System (SLS) is not scheduled to fly astronauts until 2021 and is estimated cost $40 billion to develop. Although the SLS is much larger, variants of the commercial vehicles may approach or even exceed SLS performance sooner and at much less cost. [The first SLS version is expected to place up to 70 tons into Low Earth Orbit (LEO); a later version may lift up to 130 tons. The Falcon Heavy, due to launch in late 2012, is expected to place up to 50 tons in LEO. SpaceX has also proposed a larger version of the Falcon that could lift 150 tons to LEO; it is projected to take five years to develop at a total cost of $2.5 billion.]

Thus, the evidence suggests that reorienting our space program to support commercialization and industrialization of space, as opposed to 100% government missions, may produce far greater results at much less cost. Lunar mining could be a major component of such space industrialization. There is already at least one commercial company that intends to mine the Moon. Perhaps we should support it.

A Space Solar Power Industry for $2 Billion or Your Money Back

Saturday, November 5th, 2011

The latest addition to the NSS Space Solar Power Library is a paper by Al Globus, a member of the National Space Society Board of Directors, proposing a system of prizes to kick-start a vigorous space solar power industry. In recent years prizes such as the Ansari X Prize, the DARPA Grand Challenge, and the Google Lunar X Prize have all been successfully used to develop important technologies and even entire industries.

ABSTRACT: A system of prizes to develop space solar power (SSP) is proposed. If successful, a one or two billion dollar investment could kick-start a vigorous SSP industry, which in turn could provide humanity with essentially unlimited quantities of clean electrical energy. If unsuccessful, the money is returned to its source. The prize is structured to subsidize the construction of nine SSP satellites by at least three different entrants using different designs. The prize is aimed at developing small SSP systems delivering a few tens of megawatts to utilities on the ground. Under some reasonable assumptions, the prize money is sufficient to make one or perhaps two of the satellites profitable and provide a significant subsidy to the other seven. Once small SSP systems have been successfully developed, producing large systems that can make a real difference to global energy production will be much easier. While $2 billion is a great deal of money, should this effort be successful, it is reasonable to hope that Earth’s energy and greenhouse gas problems could be solved.

Read full paper.

International Space Solar Power Symposium Videos Now Online

Wednesday, August 31st, 2011

Videos from the 2011 International Space Solar Power Symposium are the latest addition to the Space Solar Power Library on the National Space Society website.

Space Solar Power: The First International Assessment of Opportunities, Issues, and Potential Pathways Forward
John C. Mankins (Artemis Innovation) - 41 minutes

Space Solar Power: Near-Term Demonstrations and Applications (We Can Get There From Here)
Seth Potter (Boeing Company) - 49 minutes

Space Solar Power: Advantages of Space Solar Power
Darel Preble (Space Solar Power Institute) - 15 minutes

Space Solar Power: The Space Power Grid
Video produced by Georgia Tech School of Engineering - 5 minutes

Space Solar Power: Naval Research Laboratory Sandwich Panel R&D Status Update
Paul Jaffe (Naval Research Laboratory) - 65 minutes

Space Solar Power: Two Cell High Efficiency Rainbow Concentrator, the Space Alternative for Clean Energy
Thomas C. Taylor (Exploration Partners LLC) - 18 minutes

Space Solar Power: Asteroid Capture for Space Solar Power
Stephen D. Covey (Former Director of Research & Development for Applied Innovation) - 27 minutes

Space Solar Power: Towards an Early Profitable PowerSat
Al Globus (San Jose State University) - 24 minutes

Space Solar Power: A US-India Power Exchange Towards a Space Power Grid
Naryanan Komerath (Georgia Institute of Technology) - 23 minutes

Space Solar Power: Studies of Space Solar Power Systems (SSPS) in Japan
Tatsuhito Fujita (JAXA) - 18 minutes

Space Solar Power: WPT Experiments to Enable Future Solar Power Satellites
Nobuyuki Kaya (Kobe University, Japan) - 25 minutes

Space Solar Power May Be within Our Grasp

Wednesday, July 13th, 2011

According to National Space Society Director Al Globus, the development of thin-film solar cells may bring the reality of space solar power closer than ever.

Solar power originated roughly 50 years ago to power the satellites just beginning to orbit the Earth. From those roots it spawned a terrestrial-based power industry. Ironically, the same technology has, until recently, been prohibitively expensive for space based solar power. Thin-film solar cells are now changing the equation.

The terrestrial solar power industry relies upon a type of photovoltaics that uses a crystalline structure. Manufacturing costs of crystalline PV modules over the past few decades has decreased substantially. Combined with the ability to assemble each unit in a modular fashion, crystalline PV is now a viable source of power.

Space solar power using crystalline photovoltaics is expensive because the mass is high and launch costs tend to dominate. Industry people measure the effectiveness of a solar cell by its specific power, or output per weight. The unit of measurement is Watts per Kilogram (W/kg). The goal is to achieve 1000 W/kg. Recently, thin-film photovoltaics have exceeded this critical point. Very thin (10-25 micrometers) metallic substrates can achieve and exceed the required specific power targets.

According to Globus, this may bring space solar power within our grasp. Thin-film solar cells currently in use in space on the Ikaros solar sail achieve approximately 1,250 W/kg for power generation. However, this does not include the rest of the system (power beaming, ground receivers, etc.). Using current day technology, a thin-film based PowerSat could probably achieve around 275 W/kg. If we assume a reasonable R&D program to develop the basic technologies, it appears that 1,380 W/kg can be achieved in a reasonable time scale.

More on thin-film solar cells.

The End of the Space Age?

Monday, July 4th, 2011

The cover story of the July 2 edition of The Economist loudly proclaims “The End of the Space Age.”

National Space Society Director Al Globus responds below (opinions expressed are his own and not necessarily those of the National Space Society).


The last space shuttle flight is on the launch pad, so we can expect any number of gloom and doom articles like The Economist’s  “The end of the Space Age.” These articles mourn the end of the socialist model of human space flight: government developed, owned, and operated vehicles taking government employees into space.  “The end of the Space Age” is particularly odd because it starts with a long list of vigorous commercial space activities, which together have a combined budget perhaps 10 times greater than NASA’s.  In other words, “No bucks, no Buck Rogers” doesn’t mean the bucks have to come from government.  In fact, there are a lot more bucks if they don’t.

The piece goes on to claim that we will henceforth be limited to Low Earth Orbit (LEO).  Apparently The Economist didn’t notice that the Russians have already sold one seat for a private mission around the Moon and, if they can sell one more, the mission is a go. Furthermore, as these articles frequently do, The Economist ignores the rover on Mars, the orbiters circling Mars, Moon and Mercury, the mission to Pluto, and the private robotic race to the Moon spawned by the Google Lunar X Prize. It’s as if Lewis and Clarke’s primary objective, creating detailed maps, is somehow irrelevant if done comprehensively and accurately by robots at relatively low cost.

What is really happening is that space development is moving beyond national prestige projects towards delivering direct value to people on the ground.  NASA, and The Economist, have not yet realized this. Most of NASA’s budget, the human space flight program and space science, has almost no direct benefit to the people who pay for it. The parts that do directly benefit taxpayers, Earth observation, solar science, protection from asteroids, and aeronautics, are woefully underfunded by comparison. Worse, space solar power receives no funding at all, even though successful development would solve major energy and environmental problems, not to mention put those who do it in the global energy driver’s seat. After all, what would make a nation stronger, a man on Mars for a few months or a terawatt of space solar power? What would protect us better, knowledge of quasars or knowing exactly which asteroids are likely to hit us and how to deflect them? The cost to government of developing space solar power and finding asteroids is a fraction of heavily funded but significantly less useful activities.

The Economist bemoans the fact that the International Space Station (ISS) is due to be deorbited in 2020.  They fail to mention that until a year or two ago it was scheduled to be deorbtied in 2014, and that by 2020 there may well be a private alternative. Bigelow Aerospace has two small space stations in orbit and is developing a full sized facility as you read this. The market: national human space flight programs for a tiny, tiny fraction of the $100 billion cost of the ISS. However, to succeed, Bigelow Aerospace needs a commercial launch vehicle for the crews. Fortunately, President Obama has proposed and funded a program to do exactly that:  develop private commercial human space launch.

I mourn the end of the shuttle. The shuttle is, by far, the most capable space vehicle ever built. However, the coming government fiscal tsunami will severely reduce all government programs, including NASA. We need to refocus NASA’s brilliant space program on developing industry and commerce. Our model should be space communications, which pays lots of taxes today, not the Apollo program, which has been dead for 40 years. Ask yourself, what will make us stronger and more space-capable: putting small numbers of government employees on big rocks far away? Or developing space solar power, space tourism, micro-g materials, and asteroid mining?

– Al Globus

Space Solar Power with Small, Operational Single-Launch Satellites

Sunday, June 26th, 2011

The latest addition to the NSS Space Solar Power Library is a paper by Al Globus which he presented at the 2011 International Space Development Conference: Towards an Early Profitable Power Satellite Part II. Globus investigated technologies and designs that could deliver small, operational single-launch power satellites for niche markets. A reasonably sized R&D program could jump start the project into a vigorous space solar power industry. Indeed, the necessary precursor work may be significantly easier than the paper suggests, with an almost 31% efficiency under space conditions. And if you missed it, here is Part 1 of the paper from 2010.

Popular Science Magazine: The Case for Populating the Universe

Saturday, March 12th, 2011

The March issue of Popular Science magazine provides a feature cover story titled “After Earth: The Case for Populating the Universe — and How We’ll Get There.”  The 11-page nicely-illustrated article covers a wide range of space exploration and development topics and includes mention of the National Space Society and several other space advocacy organizations. NSS CEO Mark Hopkins is quoted, as is the chairman of the NSS Space Settlement Advocacy Committee, Al Globus. The article is also available online.

The article concludes with two piquant quotes:

Gregory Benford, physics professor, NASA consultant, and science fiction author, points out that “We Americans think we are basically the Columbus of space, making big discoveries. But I’m afraid we might be the Leif Eriksson. We go, we try a few things, and then it largely gets forgotten.”

Marc Millis, a NASA propulsion physicist who also runs the Tau Zero Foundation, concludes that colonizing space “isn’t just about survival, it’s about thriving…. What [better] can we do that makes for an exciting future to live in? Something where when you wake up in the morning you’re glad to be alive and a human?”

Paths to Space Settlement

Tuesday, September 1st, 2009

I’ve recently finished a paper on space settlement called “Paths to Space Settlement.”  Here’s the abstract:

A number of firms are developing commercial sub-orbital launch vehicles to carry tourists into space. Let’s assume they attract many customers and become profitable. The next, much more difficult, step is to develop orbital tourist vehicles and space hotels to go with them. These hotels will require maids, cooks, waiters, concierges and so forth, some of which may decide to stay, becoming the first permanent residents in space. At some point a bright entrepreneur may notice the large numbers of wealthy elderly people in wheel chairs willing to pay well to get out of them. Add good medical facilities to an orbital hotel and those people could be living in the first zero-g retirement home.

In the meantime, we could choose to solve, once and for all, our energy and global warming problems by developing space solar power, i.e., putting up enormous satellites to gather energy in space and beam it to Earth with no atmospheric emissions at all. To supply a substantial fraction of civilization’s 15 tw energy habit would require huge numbers of launches, not to mention developing the ability to build extremely large structures in orbit, and eventually tapping the moon and asteroids for materials to avoid the environmental cost of mining, manufacturing, and launch from Earth.

The best asteroids to mine would be known if Earth’s people realize we are in a cosmic shooting gallery and build telescopes to find the thousands of deadly asteroids crossing Earth’s orbit. Most of these won’t hit us for millions of years, but there could be one heading our way at any time. Exploiting these Near Earth Ob jects (NEOs) could be made even easier if we take the eminently sensible step of changing the path of a few completely non dangerous NEOs, just for practice in case one is found to be heading our way without much time to develop deflection techniques.

If we do all this, each step of which is justified in it’s own right, we’ll have excellent launch, small orbital living facilities, the ability to build large objects in orbit, and access to extra-terrestrial materials – most of what we need to realize Gerard O’Neill’s space settlement vision. At that point, expect some extremely wealthy religious fanatics to build themselves a small orbital habitat so they don’t have to live with any ’unbelievers.’ Since the first space settlement is by far the hardest to build, from there on it’s just a matter of time until we have an orbital civilization with trillions of inhabitants.

These are paths to space settlement.

By  Al Globus

Al Globus on Marcia Smith

Wednesday, July 29th, 2009

In MISSING THE MARK By Marcia S. Smith July 23, 2009 SpacePolicyOnline.com. Ms. Smith wrote “Alternatively, if President Obama does not care enough about the space program to adequately fund   it, let’s find that out now.”  In Washington there is only one measure  of caring that really matters: funding.  Furthermore, while speculating about future funding is fun, it’s rarely accurate.  What we do know is that in his first six months in office Obama has asked for, and received, billions in additional NASA funding.  He cares.

While many in the space movement equate NASA with the human space program and exploration, during the campaign Obama made it clear that  he wants additional funding for Earth observation, aeronautics and  other parts of NASA that directly benefit the American people. Not  surprisingly, that’s where a lot of the additional funding has gone.

A final point, the reason the human space flight program is in trouble is that is has the wrong goal:  exploration.  If you want knowledge about space, robots are cheaper and, for most things, better.  We have 40 years of data on this.  It’s a fact.  Human exploration, as presently pursued, boils down to flags and footprints — which are not worth the money.  There is only one really important goal for humans in space: settlement.   It may be the only worthy goal, but it is of such vast, literally cosmic, importance that no other goal is needed. We are talking about the survival of not just civilization, not just humanity, but of life itself.   Someday, some way, this planet will become inhabitable.  It will probably be a long time, but right now we know how to settle the solar system.  It will difficult, it will be expensive, but we know how to do it (see  http://alglobus.net/NASAwork/papers/PathsToSpaceSettlement2009.pdf
for one approach).  Carpe diem!