Three scenarios how industry may develop in space. "Civilization Fully Revolutionized" means offloading industrial footprint from Earth to save the planet, all humans benefit from developed economies (health care, etc..."Post Scarcity"), vastly greater horizons for science...1
2/...reaching to the stars. The Slow Growth Scenario means only government space agencies like NASA invest pre-economically in off-Earth industry, and we leave commercial businesses to slowly develop profitability and new business cases. Because space is hard, this is slow.
3/ The Rapid Bootstrapping Scenario means there are actors motivated to make it happen faster than the market forces will do. They may be visionary individuals with means, citizen-led movements, or governments that see the long-term benefit of getting beyond our planetary limit.
4/ Because rapidly bootstrapping a full supply chain in space is beyond the means of even the wealthiest individuals, and because it is hard to convince people of the benefits of something so abstract, we are not (yet) on the rapid pathway. So...
5/ at the present I think the third path, the middle-speed, is the most likely. That's where we have a combination of space agency investment, some visionary pre-economic investment, and some commercial growth. Eventually the progress they collectively produce proves the case...
6/...then politicians finally realize there is a looming revolution only decades away, and it could be very very good, or very very bad, depending how it goes down. I think that's when national governments go all-in to shape it according to their own visions of the future.
7/ It MAY or may NOT be a great outcome, depending who wins the race to shape the future and how enlightened they are. When they reach "ignition", they will be in a position to abandon negotiation and to never again dilute their equity in this off-Earth industry. So...
8/...now is the time to shape the future of industry in space. It is a limited time between now and "ignition", and the stakes are huge. Let's work together to make the world of our children and grandchildren just, healthy, safe, and amazing. One way to do that is....
9/...to create a movement that puts us into the Rapid Bootstrapping Scenario, to create a coalition of likeminded citizen movements and enlightened governments committed to a good future so we reach the "ignition" point first by being fast. Can we do this? I think we can.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A little background. The earlier version of this mission was the Resource Prospector Mission. When Jim Bridenstine was appointed NASA Administrator, NASA cancelled it without his permission just hours before he was sworn in. I can’t confirm this, but rumors say he was livid! /1
2/ Mr. Bridenstine was appointed by Pres. Trump, and the Trump Transition Team had people assigned to plan space policy. They were calling people for input. I got one such call and the person told me they not only WEREN’T going to cancel Resource Prospector, but instead…
3/ …they were thinking about having MANY Resource Prospector missions. We talked about what would be the scientific, engineering, and economic value of building multiple copies of the mission. There was strong interest in the lunar ice to support building a sustainable program.
1/ You need enough surface area around the base of the rocket for the gas to flow out, or the engines will choke. Imagine a cylinder extended below the rocket to the ground. The exterior of that cylinder must exceed the exit area of all the rocket nozzles that are firing.
2/ With more engines firing you would need longer legs to keep that area large enough. If not, then the flow will choke meaning it goes subsonic and super high temperature and pressure, comparable to inside the combustion chamber, which can destroy the nozzles or engines.
2/ Here is what they look like on the inside. They are something like 98% empty space, and the rest is a glass fiber. The fibers touch each other along small contacts, so thermal conductivity is very low. (The scale bar is 100 microns, or 0.1 millimeter.)
3/ This is an extreme case of a “granular material” where the grains are long fibers. I did research on shuttle tiles when I worked in a physics lab at NASA, and I did research on thermal conductivity through granular materials, so I can report something interesting about this.
This was the same reaction the science team had during the Apollo program — surprise that bone-dry soil could have so much cohesion! See the clods in the footpad image, especially. Short 🧵 1/N
2/ Closeup image of the clods. These are likely very porous, low density clods — very fluffy material — that will easily fall apart between your fingers. Yet they are in blocky shapes somehow held together as the footpad impacted and disrupted the ground.
3/ The first hint of this came from the famous boot print made by @TheRealBuzz. Scientists’ jaws dropped when they saw the clean, vertical sidewalls of this print in such dry, fluffy material! How could the sidewalls stand straight without any moisture?!
Untrue. This does touch on something related that actually happened, which people have apparently distorted and used to prop up the dumb conspiracy theory. I will explain… 1/N
2/ First I’ll tell you what I know about the videos, then the telemetry.
When I analyzed the plume effects of the lunar landings, starting in the late 1990s and early 2000s, I tracked down the original data. One of the guys on my team worked with Houston to get the videos.
3/ The originals had been converted to digital and this was more convenient for us to use, since we wouldn’t need reel-to-reel NTSC video equipment, so this is what we got. I had high resolution copies of all the landing videos. There was no lost video. It all exists.