Hot topics to be discussed and cleared

In this critical historical age, philosophy matters, more than ever. We are in the middle of a great change, on many aspects of human existence on Planet Earth. Different ways of perceiving reality, different ways of joining efforts for shared goals, different ways of investment: old and new paradigms are competing to win the consensus and get more momentum, on the world scenario.

The space enterprises and programs are not an exception: traditional aerospace industry still thinks and estimates costs and times in terms of old space parameters. The New space industry is working on a fully different ideological base, determined by reusable rockets and a pragmatic philosophy, having assumed the fundamental goal of opening the high frontier to private investors and ultimately to all earthlings.

Our Congress will stress the relevance of the New Space approach to Space Settlement, focusing at least the following topics:

• A realistic timetable for space settlements
• New technologies vs. re-engineering old technologies
• New financial environment favoured by the electronic money
• Reusable vs. spendable rockets
• Connecting space: harnessing solar power from space
• Some other intriguing questions, to switch on lamps in our brains

A realistic timetable for space settlements

Old space analysts are making rather conservative forecast, based upon the old paradigm of spendable rockets and traditional aerospace industry methodologies. The development of new technologies was a default requirement for all space programs, the strategies for quality were nominally very high, but essential quality was often neglected. NASA sticks on requiring a new rocket to Space X for the Crew Dragon missions, but a reasonably used machine is obviously safer than a brand new one! The outcome was an unchanged high cost of Earth to orbit transport. Elon Musk already demonstrated that a more pragmatic methodology is better and cheaper.

Our scope is to make a realistic forecast in the hopeful scenario that the proper priority will be given to civilian space development during next 10 years.

• How long will it take to have low cost safe and comfortable fully reusable vehicles for passengers transportation in space?
• How long will it take to have a demo O’Neill city at L5, with untrained civilian pioneers?
• How long will it take to have space settlements with a few million citizens?
• We should try to reply these questions considering all of these conditions:
  • technological and scientific foreseeable advance
  • socio-economic conditions, that will be different (worse) wrt the pre-covid world
  • consider that many assessments are still based on costs and methodologies of the traditional aerospace (pre-new space age)
  • new financial environment favored by the electronic money, in a context where big infrastructures will be considered feasible

^TOP

New technologies vs. re-engineering old technologies

Supporters of longer timetables for space settlement say that many new technologies are needed. They put a huge emphasis on the term ‘new’, talking about space initiatives. However, the lesson we had by Elon Musk is pragmatism:

• Let’s use the technologies we already have, in a better way.
• Think about quality, more than innovation.
• Innovate only when really needed.

A positive example: using 27 engines together.

• Russians tried to do the same in 70s, but they renounced in favor of a big engine, because it was too hard to ccordinate the trust of many engines using the technology of that time.
• Space X adopted such a solution, made now possible by modern computer technologies.

A negative example: NASA X33

• NASA X33 was charged of many ‘scifi like’ new technologies.
• Many billions were wasted on that project, just to demonstrate that cheap access to space was not possible. Everybody knew that X33 was never to flow.

^TOP

A new financial environment

The following is a quite ingenuous and naive way to introduce this issue: experts in economics will have many comments and remarks.

However it is universally acknowledged that the global economy is bearing a giant total reset, and we are going to a totally new financial environment: for the better or for the worse it will only depend on the choices that will be made during the next 10 years, or even before.

Pandemics and environmental concerns lead to reducing industrial activities, travels, tourism, consumption. A giant economic crash is following the multi-crisis, and will lead to adopt some kind of ‘universal income’, to avoid exacerbation of social issues. I.e. – in simple popular words — people will be paid for doing nothing.

Governments will generate money to fit such a need. The old measurement means (stock exchange, etc…) will become more and more not sufficient to measure the world real economic process.

Some kind of ‘virtual economy’, will allow people to survive as consumers, in a world where they will not be anymore allowed to be producers.

The global issues will however keep on growing and getting worse, needing proper mitigation actions and countermeasures.

Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of World Economic Forum, in his discussion about the “Great Reset” of the world economy due to Covid19, talks about the need to “move from a shareholders economy to a stakeholders economy”. Soon the governments should arrive to understand that paying people to do something useful will be better than paying them for doing nothing. The Ronald Reagan’s administration, in 980’s, was dedicated to make the government to step back, and the business to step forward. Nowadays the role of government is getting more sense again, and leaders are showing to tbe totally unprepared.

New big international public ventures will see the light, in which the governments will have a bigger role, compared to the one they covered during the first 20 years of the new millennium. A few examples: desert claiming, oceans farming, coasts defense against sea level raising, hydrogeological management of the ground, anti-seismic construction, maglev and vacuum trains, climate control by space, big natural international parks to preserve wild-life. And, the chief development, justifying all of the other big projects: human expansion into outer space.

It is really astonishing that neither WEF in their Great Reset discussion, nor UN with the 17 SDG 2030 agenda, consider expansion into the outer space as the leading solution, allowing all of the social and environmental goals to be achieved.

The 2021 Space Renaissance Congress shall switch on a great spot on such concept: none strategy bounded to the limit of our atmosphere will succeed to go over the multi-crisis. Expanding into space is urgent and overdue.

We are not doing this congress to understand whether civilization expanding into space is necessary or not: we already know that it is. We are doing this congress to understand how to do it as soon as possible. And how to convince the large public opinion about that.

^TOP

Reusable vs. spendable rockets

A discussion is going on, among the supporters and the opposers of reusable rockets, around the real benefits provided by reusability. Traditional aerospace dealers, such as ULA, question what is the real saving of reusability. And suggests that reusable are worse than spendable rockets, in several aspects: reusable rockets have a reduced payload capacity, since they must have added fuel for the return trip, they need a more robust construction. And, of course, the cost of the refurbishment should be considered as well.

United Launch Alliance has claimed that a company needs to reuse a rocket 10 times for the economics to make sense.

In response, Musk wrote: “Payload reduction due to reusability of booster & fairing is <40% for F9 & recovery & refurb is <10%. So you’re roughly even with 2 flights, definitely ahead with 3.”

Assuming Musk’s most recent claim is correct, the costs of reusing a booster come out ahead after three flights. How many flights could SpaceX do with a single booster? Musk, in response, claimed there was perhaps no limit: “I don’t want be cavalier, but there isn’t an obvious limit. 100+ flights are possible. Some parts will need to be replaced or upgraded. Cleaning all 9 Merlin [Falcon 9 engine] turbines is difficult. Raptor [the engine for the upcoming Starship] is way easier in this regard, despite being a far more complex engine.”

Elon Musk is right on this topic. The ULA people reason upon the old parameters. Space X re-flied many times the same boosters. The only problems they had were on the new booster, that NASA wants for the Crew missions. Of course anyone asked what is better, for a long travel, between a brand new car and a used (but not very old) one, definitely will choose the second one.

This whole discussion is about old space vs. new space.

So far the discussion is about Falcon 9, but Starship is quite a different machine. Starship is the first real fully reusable launch vehicle. And using steel is far more better than using composites materials.

But very few are trying to compete with Space X. Blue Origin is developing the New Glenn, still based on Falcon 9 model (a 10 years old one). China kicked off the development of reusable rockets. Europe is now working to a reusable Ariane 7, that will be ready in 10 years (!).

The real challenge – low cost access to space – is still pursued by few brave entrepreneurs, whole it should be the highest priority of all the spacefaring governments and space agencies.

^TOP

Connecting space: harnessing solar power from space

Abstract from Arthur Woods & Marco C. Bernasconi proposal to ESA

“Humanity is facing an imminent Energy Dilemma in that the limited proven reserves of fossil fuels could reach exhaustion levels at mid-century and none of the current alternative terrestrial energy options – nuclear – wind – ground solar (PV) – can be sufficiently scaled to achieve the goal of divesting from fossil fuels by the year 2050 as is being called for by the United Nations, the European Union and numerous organizations to address the Climate Emergency.

Space Based Solar Power (SBSP) is the only near term technically feasible and scalable alternative currently available to humanity to divest from fossil fuels while meeting its future energy needs.  According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2019 which lists World Primary Energy Consumption by region and country and by energy source,  on the average for the next 30 years, 572 new power plants would have to go on line each year. Wind and solar photovoltaic (PV) generators have significantly lower availability and their inherent intermittency and storage aspects make it necessary to deploy multiples of their equivalent rated (peak) power levels to equal the output, e.g., of nuclear power systems.

Thus, all terrestrial energy solutions seem highly unlikely to meet the climate goals and to supply sufficient energy for powering civilization in the years ahead. Therefore to address the Energy Dilemma and the Climate Emergency,  a determined space solar power development program is necessary.”

Our considerations, and invitation to discuss this topic in our Congress.

While the development of SBSP appears the only sustainable way to plug Earth directly to the energy source – our Sun – we should take care of some relevant aspects.

REGISTER TO THE 2021 SPACE RENAISSANCE CONGRESS FOR FREE
SUBMIT YOUR PAPER ABSTRACT
JOIN THE SPACE RENAISSANCE

Some other intriguing questions, to switch on lamps in our brains

^TOP

REGISTER TO THE 2021 SPACE RENAISSANCE CONGRESS FOR FREE
SUBMIT YOUR PAPER ABSTRACT
JOIN THE SPACE RENAISSANCE