Asteroid Mining: the Race for Space Riches

Notional small asteroid retrieval probe [NASA].

David Szondy

NEWATLAS

There's gold in them thar asteroids – also iron, nickel, copper and, most valuable of all, water. According to the proponents of asteroid mining, these space rocks are a virtual El Dorado in the sky with more obtainable minerals in the largest three in our solar system than on the entire Earth. The question is, where exactly is all this mineral wealth and how do you get it without going broke in the process?

There's something of an international race to the asteroids underway at the moment, with countries from the United States to Luxembourg backing missions. On the surface it seems like a two-tier race – NASA and ESA are sending giant spacecraft and even manned missions, while private firms are concentrating on tiny probes that look like scale models. But while these approaches to asteroid exploration are very different, they are far from mutually exclusive.

Before we examine these exploration plans, let's look at the asteroids and why anyone would be interested in spending billions to visit a far flung rock.

View full article and Gallery, HERE.

Clementine - The Legacy, Twenty Years On

Engineering model of the Clementine spacecraft in the Lunar Exploration Vehicles exhibit at the National Air and Space Museum. Interstage and solid rocket motor (bottom half) was discarded before insertion into lunar orbit.

Paul D. Spudis

The Once and Future Moon

Smithsonian Air & Space

The first spacecraft to globally map the Moon left lunar orbit on May 3, 1994.  Clementine, a joint Department of Defense-NASA mission, had systematically mapped the Moon’s surface over 71 days, collecting almost 2 million images.  For the first time, scientists could put results of the Apollo lunar sample studies into a regional, and ultimately, a global context.  Clementine collected special data products, including broadband thermal, high resolution and star tracker images for a variety of special studies.  But in addition to this new knowledge of lunar processes and history, the mission led a wave of renewed interest in the processes and history of the Moon, which in turn, spurred a commitment to return there with both machines and people.  We peeked into the Moon’s cold, dark areas near the poles and stood on the edge of a revolution in lunar science.

Prior to Clementine, good topographic maps only existed for areas under the ground tracks of the orbital Apollo spacecraft.  From Clementine’s laser ranging data, we obtained our first global topographic map of the Moon.  It revealed the vast extent and superb preservation state of the South Pole-Aitken (SPA) basin and confirmed many large-scale features mapped or inferred from only a few clues provided by isolated landforms.  Correlated with gravity information derived from radio tracking, we produced a map of crustal thickness, thereby showing that the crust thins under the floors of the largest impact basins.

Two cameras (with eleven filters) covered the spectral range of 415 to 1900 nm, where absorption bands of the major lunar rock-forming minerals (plagioclase, pyroxene and olivine) are found.  Varying proportions of these minerals make up the suite of lunar rocks.  Global color maps made from these spectral images show the distribution of rock types on the Moon.  The uppermost lunar crust is a mixed zone, where composition varies widely with location.  Below this zone is a layer of nearly pure anorthosite, a rock type made up solely of plagioclase feldspar (formed during the global melting event that created the crust).  Craters and large basins act as natural “drill holes” in the crust, exposing deeper levels of the Moon.  The deepest parts of the interior (and possibly the upper mantle) are exposed at the surface within the floor of the enormous SPA basin on the far side of the Moon.

Topographic map of the Moon made from Clementine laser altimetry in mid-latitudes and stereo images near the poles. Large depression in southern far side is the South Pole-Aitken basin.

Clementine showed us the nature and extent of the poles of the Moon, including peaks of near permanent sun-illumination and crater interiors in permanent darkness.  From his first look at the poles, Gene Shoemaker (Leader of the Clementine Science Team) got an inkling that something interesting was going on there.  Gene was convinced that water ice might be present, an idea about which I had always been skeptical.  At that time, no trace of hydration had ever been found in lunar minerals and the prevailing wisdom was that the Moon is now and always had been bone dry.  With Gene arguing to keep an open mind and Stu Nozette (Deputy Program Manager) devising a bistatic radio frequency (RF) experiment to use the spacecraft transmitter to “peek” into the dark areas of the poles, we moved ahead on planning the observations.

To my astonishment (and delight), a pass over the south pole of the Moon showed evidence for enhanced circular polarization ratio (CPR) – a possible indicator of the presence of ice.  A control orbit over a nearby sunlit area showed no such evidence.  However, CPR is not a unique determinant for ice, as rocky, rough surfaces and ice deposits both show high CPR.  It took a couple of years to reduce and fully understand the data, but collection of the bistatic collection was successful.  In part, our ice interpretation was supported by the discovery of water ice at the poles of Mercury (a planet very similar to the Moon).  We published our results in Science magazine in December 1996, setting off a media frenzy and a decade of scientific argument and counter-argument about the interpretation of radar data for the lunar poles (an argument that continues to this day, despite subsequent confirmation of lunar polar water from several other techniques).

Along with Clementine’s success came a growing interest in lunar resources and a new appreciation for the complexity of the Moon.  This interest led to the selection of Lunar Prospector (LP) as the first PI-led mission of NASA’s new, low-cost Discovery series of planetary probes.  LP flew to the Moon in 1998 and carried instruments complementary to the data produced by Clementine, including a gamma-ray spectrometer to map global elemental composition, magnetic and gravity measurements, and a neutron spectrometer to map the distribution of hydrogen.  LP found enhanced concentrations of hydrogen at both poles, again suggesting that water ice was probably present.  The debate on the abundance and physical nature of the water ice continued, with estimates ranging from a simple enrichment of solar wind implanted hydrogen in polar soils, to substantial quantities of water ice trapped in the dark, cold regions of the poles.

Buttressed by this new information, the Moon became an attractive destination for robotic and human missions.  With direct evidence for significant amounts of hydrogen (regardless of form) on the surface, there now was a known resource that would support long-term human presence.  This hydrogen discovery was complemented by the identification in Clementine images of several areas near the pole that remain sunlit for substantial fractions of the year – not quite the “peaks of eternal light” first proposed by French astronomer Camille Flammarion in 1879 but something very close to it.  The availability of material and energy resources  – the two biggest necessities for permanent human presence on the Moon – was confirmed in one fell swoop.  Combined, the results of Clementine and LP finally gave scientists the Lunar Polar Orbiter mission we had long sought.  These two missions certified the possibility of using lunar resources to provision ourselves in space, permanently establishing the Moon as a valuable, enabling asset for human spaceflight.  Remaining was to verify and extend the radar results from Clementine and map the ice deposits of the poles.

The Clementine bistatic experiment led to the development of an RF transponder called Mini-SGLS (Space Ground Link System), which flew on the Air Force mission MightySat II in 2000.  This experiment miniaturized the RF systems necessary for a low mass, low power imaging radar.  With the 2008 inclusion of our Mini-SAR on India’s Chandryaan-1 lunar orbiter, we finally got the chance to build and fly such a system.  Chandrayaan-1 not only mapped the high CPR material at both poles, it also carried a spectrometer (the Moon Mineralogy Mapper, or M3) that discovered large amounts of adsorbed surface water (H2O) and hydroxyl (OH) at high latitudes.  Coupled with the measurement of exospheric water above the south pole by its Moon Impact Probe, Chandrayaan-1 significantly advanced our understanding of polar water, revealing it to be abundant and present in more varied forms on the Moon than had previously been imagined.

Mosaic of Clementine images of the south pole of the Moon. Dark regions contain water ice and small areas near pole are sunlit for significant fractions of the lunar day.

The ever increasing weight of evidence for the presence of significant amounts of water at the lunar poles led to the LCROSS experiment being “piggybacked” on NASA’s 2008 Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) mission.  LCROSS was a relatively inexpensive add-on, designed to observe the collision of the LRO launch vehicle’s Centaur upper stage with the lunar surface, looking for water in the ejecta plume of that impact.  Water in both vapor and solid form was observed, suggesting the presence of water ice in the floor of the crater Cabaeus (at concentration levels between 5 and 10 weight percent).  LRO orbits the Moon and collects data to this day.  Although much remains unknown about lunar polar water, we now know for certain that it exists; such knowledge has completely revised our thinking about the future use and habitation of the Moon.

The Clementine programmatic template has influenced spaceflight for the last 20 years.  The Europeans flew SMART-1 to the Moon in 2002, largely as a technology demonstration mission with goals very similar to those of Clementine.  NASA directed the Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) to fly Near-Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR) to the asteroid Eros in 1995 as a Discovery mission, attaining the asteroid exploration opportunity missed when control of the Clementine spacecraft was lost after leaving the Moon.  India’s Chandrayaan-1 was of a size and payload scope similar to Clementine.  The selection of LCROSS as a low-cost, fast-tracked, limited objectives mission further extended use of the Clementine paradigm.

The “Faster-Better-Cheaper” mission model, once panned by some in the spaceflight community, is now recognized as a preferred mode of operations, absent the emotional baggage of that name.  A limited objectives mission that flies is more desirable than a gold-plated one that sits forever on the drawing board.  While some missions do require significant levels of fiscal and technical resources to attain their objectives, an important lesson of Clementine is that for most scientific and exploration goals, “better” is the enemy of  “good enough.”  Space missions require smart, lean management; they should not be charge codes for feeding the beast of organizational overhead.  Clementine was lean and fast; perhaps we would have made fewer mistakes had the pace been a bit slower, but overall the mission gave us a vast, high-quality dataset, still extensively used to this day.  The Naval Research Laboratory transferred the Clementine engineering model to the Smithsonian in 2002.  The spacecraft hangs today in the Air and Space Museum, just above the Apollo Lunar Module.

It is probably not too much of an exaggeration to say that Clementine changed the direction of the American space program.  After the failure of SEI in 1990-1992, NASA was left with no long-term strategic direction.  For the first time in its history, NASA had no follow-on program to Shuttle-Station, despite attempts by Dan Goldin and others to secure approval for a human mission to Mars (then and now, a bridge too far – both technically and financially).  This programmatic stasis continued until 2003, when the tragic loss of Columbia led to a top-down review of U.S. space goals.  Because Clementine had documented its strategic value, the Moon once again became an attractive destination for future robotic and human missions.  The resulting Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) in 2004 made the Moon the centerpiece of a new American effort beyond low Earth orbit.  While Mars was vaguely discussed as an eventual (not ultimate) objective, the activities to be done on the Moon were specified in detail in the VSE, particularly with regard to the use of its material and energy resources to build a sustainable program.  Regrettably, various factors combined to subvert the Vision, thereby ending the strategic direction of America’s civil space program.

Clementine was a watershed, the hinge point that forever changed the nature of space policy debates.  A fundamentally different way forward is now possible in space – one of extensibility, sustainability and permanence.  Once an outlandish idea from science fiction, we have found that lunar resources can be used to create new capabilities in space, a welcome genie that cannot be put back in the bottle.  Americans need to ask why their national space program was diverted from such a sustainable path.  We cannot afford to remain behind while others plan and fly missions to understand and exploit the Moon’s resources.  Our path forward into the universe is clear.  In order to remain a world leader in space utilization and development – and a participant in and beneficiary of a new cislunar economy – the United States must again direct her sights and energies toward the Moon.

Note: Background history for the Clementine mission is described in a companion post at my Spudis Lunar Resources blog, HERE.

Originally published at his Smithsonian Air & Space blog The Once and Future Moon, Dr. Spudis is a senior staff scientist at the Lunar and Planetary Institute. The opinions expressed are those of the author but are better informed than average.

Some Related Posts

NASA announces partnership opportunities for U.S. commercial lunar lander capabilities

Other than development of the Ares booster, the only essential program actually tossed under the bus, when Congress and the administration scrapped Constellation, was the Altair lunar lander.  Now NASA will conduct a "Pre-proposal teleconference," January 27, 2014, at 1600 (UT) and proposers will have an opportunity to ask questions about the "Lunar CATALYST" unmanned program, discussed HERE. [NASA].

Trent J. Perrotto
NASA HQ Washington

Building on the progress of NASA's partnerships with the U.S. commercial space industry to develop new spacecraft and rockets capable of delivering cargo, and soon, astronauts to low Earth orbit, the agency is now looking for opportunities to spur commercial cargo transportation capabilities to the surface of the moon.

NASA has released an announcement seeking proposals to partner in the development of reliable and cost-effective commercial robotic lunar lander capabilities that will enable the delivery of payloads to the lunar surface. Such capabilities could support commercial activities on the moon while enabling new science and exploration missions of interest to NASA and the larger scientific and academic communities.

NASA's new Lunar Cargo Transportation and Landing by Soft Touchdown (Lunar CATALYST) initiative calls for proposals from the U.S. private sector that would lead to one or more no-funds exchanged Space Act Agreements (SAA). NASA’s contribution to a partnership would be on an unfunded basis and could include the technical expertise of NASA staff, access to NASA center test facilities, equipment loans, or software for lander development and testing.

"As NASA pursues an ambitious plan for humans to explore an asteroid and Mars, U.S. industry will create opportunities for NASA to advance new technologies on the moon," said Greg Williams, NASA's deputy associate administrator for the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate. "Our strategic investments in the innovations of our commercial partners have brought about successful commercial resupply of the International Space Station, to be followed in the coming years by commercial crew. Lunar CATALYST will help us advance our goals to reach farther destinations."

The moon has scientific value and the potential to yield resources, such as water and oxygen, in relatively close proximity to Earth to help sustain deep space exploration. Commercial lunar transportation capabilities could support science and exploration objectives, such as sample returns, geophysical network deployment, resource prospecting, and technology demonstrations. These services would require the ability to land small (66 to 220 pound, or 30 to 100 kilogram) and medium (551 to 1,102 pound, or 250 to 500 kg) class payloads at various lunar sites.

"In recent years, lunar orbiting missions, such as NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, have revealed evidence of water and other volatiles, but to understand the extent and accessibility of these resources, we need to reach the surface and explore up close," said Jason Crusan, director of Advanced Exploration Systems at NASA Headquarters in Washington. "Commercial lunar landing capabilities could help prospect for and utilize these resources."

Lunar CATALYST supports the internationally shared space exploration goals of the Global Exploration Roadmap (GER) NASA and 11 other space agencies around the world released in August. The GER acknowledges the value of public-private partnerships and commercial services to enable sustainable exploration of asteroids, the moon and Mars.

Commercial lunar cargo transportation systems developed through Lunar CATALYST could build on lessons learned throughout NASA's 50 years of spaceflight. New propulsion and autonomous landing technologies currently are being tested through NASA's Morpheus and Mighty Eagle projects.

NASA will host a pre-proposal teleconference on Monday, Jan. 27 during which proposers will have an opportunity to ask questions about the announcement. Proposals from industry are due by March 17. The announcement of selections is targeted for April with SAAs targeted to be in place by May.

The Advanced Exploration Systems Division in NASA's Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate manages Lunar CATALYST. Advanced Exploration Systems pioneers new approaches for rapidly developing prototype systems, demonstrating key capabilities and validating operational concepts for future human missions beyond Earth orbit.

As NASA works with U.S. industry to develop the next generation of U.S. spaceflight services, the agency also is developing the Orion spacecraft and the Space Launch System (SLS), a crew capsule and heavy-lift rocket to provide an entirely new capability for human exploration. Designed to be flexible for launching spacecraft for crew and cargo missions, SLS and Orion will expand human presence beyond low-Earth orbit and enable new missions of exploration across the solar system, including to a near-Earth asteroid and Mars.

For more information about the announcement and teleconference, visit: http://www.nasa.gov/lunarcatalyst.

trent.j.perrotto@nasa.gov
- (202) 358-1100

Mining the Moon, Fueling the Future

Remote-operated demonstration of in situ resource utilization (ISRU), believed to be a necessary prelude to mining the Moon and gaining a true foothold in space. Should the artist's notional decals have been those of the Peoples Republic of China? [Pat Rawlings].

Paul D. Spudis
The Once and Future Moon
Smithsonian Air & Space

Much of the mass we launch for space missions is what I call “dumb mass” – heavy things like water and fuel that, while absolutely necessary, contain low amounts of information.  Regardless of launch costs, there is no virtue in launching this type of mass from Earth.  Learning to use what we find in space to create new capabilities is a skill that we must master to become “space faring.”  The Moon is in an excellent location relative to Earth; it is a well-stocked laboratory where we can learn and hone these skills.

Press coverage since the December 14 soft landing of China’s Chang’E 3 on the Moon has quoted officials of the Chinese space program as stating their interest is in “mining” the Moon.  The desired commodity usually bandied about is 3He, the light isotope of helium that (in theory) could be used to fuel a “clean” nuclear fusion reaction and generate electrical power here on Earth.  Other possible lunar products mentioned in passing include metals such as titanium and aluminum.  But what exactly is meant when we talk about “mining” the Moon?  What materials on the lunar surface are useful and thus valuable?  Perhaps the term “useful” needs some exposition.

Mining merely means the extraction of some useful product from a planet.  In the context of extraterrestrial mining, useful might mean useful in space, not necessarily useful to import back to the Earth.  For example, right now, there are abundant terrestrial supplies of aluminum.  It makes no economic sense to mine aluminum from the Moon or some other space object for import back to Earth.  However, if we’re in the process of establishing a permanent presence on some extraterrestrial object, several tons of aluminum from local sources might be very handy.   While no one would suggest exporting simple, low-processing materials such as bulk soil (regolith) and aggregate (concrete and adobe) back to Earth, they have uses and thus enormous value on the Moon and in space for local building and other engineering requirements.

The real value of extraterrestrial mining is accessing material outside of Earth’s gravity well and making products that enable and create new capabilities in space and on other worlds.  So far, we have not found any deposits of unknown materials in space that cannot be found on Earth (the “unobtainium” beloved of science fiction writers).  But we have found deposits of common materials that, while having no economic value for return to Earth, have enormous value in space.  Anything that we can find and use on another world means that much less material that has to be launched from the surface of the Earth.  With launch costs of many thousands of dollars per pound, every bit of mass that we can find and use in space is that much less budget-busting dumb mass hauled up from Earth.

I believe that the real game-changer for mining the planets is water.  This most common of substances is the most valuable commodity in space because it has so many uses.  Water is attractive because it is easily transportable in solid or liquid form, but it is massive and thus, expensive to move around in space.  Most of the uses of water in space will probably happen close to the sources from which we extract it, either on the planetary surface or in the space just above and near them.

[Karnik]

Water is required for life in general and in particular, for human life here and in space.  We can drink the water, use it to reconstitute dehydrated food, use it for thermal ballast, and protect ourselves from the hard radiation environment of deep space by jacketing spacecraft and habitats with it.  Water is a simple molecule (H2O) and can be broken into its constituent elements by the process of passing an electrical current through it; we can thus easily “crack” water into its components (hydrogen and oxygen) and store these gases for later use.  The obvious use for this oxygen is to provide breathable air for space habitats.  But additionally, because the water cracking process is reversible, we can take these gases and combine them in fuel cells to create electricity.  This makes for a fascinating possibility; during the day, we can crack water into hydrogen and oxygen using electrical power derived from solar panels and store these products in tanks.  During times when the Sun is not visible (either night on a planet or during eclipse in space), we can re-combine these gases to generate electrical power.  Such a device is called a rechargeable fuel cell (RFC) and can provide continuous electrical power for space vehicles and habitats.  Thus, water becomes a medium for energy storage, being broken apart during daylight and recombined during the night, allowing for continuous and reliable power in space.  The valuable by-product of this process is excess water for life-support and other uses.

The last major use of water is probably the most important in terms of creating new capabilities in space.  When water is broken into its constituent gases and then frozen into liquid (cryogenic form), it becomes rocket fuel.  Liquid hydrogen and oxygen are the most powerful chemical propellant known.  The ability to make rocket fuel in space changes almost everything we know about the economics of spaceflight.  Because of its high cost, anything that we can do to lower the required mass launched from Earth saves money and makes spaceflight more capable.  In the case of missions beyond low Earth orbit, most of the mass of the Earth departure vehicle is fuel.  For a human Mars mission, more than 80% of its total mass is propellant.  Most of that propellant will be used in the rocket burn to leave Earth.  Thus, by obtaining the required propellant from a space-based source and refueling there, the total lift-off weight (cost) from Earth is much lower.

Although hydrogen-oxygen is the most powerful rocket propellant, its use does have some drawbacks.  Hydrogen has a very low boiling point, only about 20° above absolute zero (-253° C).  This extremely low temperature is difficult to generate (i.e., power intensive) so making cryogenic hydrogen is a tough proposition.  Moreover, hydrogen has an extremely low density, so storage tanks for liquid hydrogen are very large and bulky and must be carefully insulated to minimize the “boil-off” of the fuel.  Boil-off is an important problem that must be solved if we are to use space-derived cryogens for propellant; it involves capturing the boiling vapor and condensing it back into liquid form again to prevent its loss to space.

Some argue that since hydrogen is so volatile and difficult to work with, we should focus solely on obtaining oxygen from planetary sources as that gas is 16/18ths (89%) of the mass of water.  Producing liquid oxygen (boiling point of -183° C) is much easier than liquid hydrogen and it is more easily handled and stored.  However, we would still need some type of fuel to burn with this oxidizer; a variety of other substances could be used for rocket fuel, including methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), sulfur (S) and even powered aluminum (Al).  Interestingly and fortunately for us, all of these substances are found in the deposits of the lunar poles – the most valuable real estate in our Solar System with peaks of near-constant sunlight for power generation.

The real value created by mining the Moon (or any extraterrestrial object) is capability – the ability to move more freely, more often and with more mass in and about cislunar (Earth-Moon) space where most of our national security and economic satellites reside.  By creating an off-planet supply depot, we free ourselves from the tyranny of the rocket equation.  I don’t know if the Chinese see the “problem” this way or not.  But they should.  I believe that eventually, they will.  And so must we.

The Chinese do not appear to be waiting for “magic beans” to lower launch costs.  There are many reasons to believe that those costs have already fallen about as much as they will, barring some major new launch vehicle paradigm.  By holding back and betting on some major new launch breakthrough materializing, the United States could be walking away from a sure thing – leaving the innovation and technology field, and with it the economic and national security benefits that will follow, to countries who recognize the strategic value and potential of the Moon and are already making plans to tap into it.

Originally published December 27, 2013 at his Smithsonian Air & Space blog The Once and Future Moon, Dr. Spudis is a senior staff scientist at the Lunar and Planetary Institute. The opinions expressed are those of the author but are better informed than average.

Some Related Posts:

China hopes for international development of space resources (December 2, 2013)

'A Resolve to mine the Moon' (July 16, 2012)

Heavy hitters join to 'expand Earth's resource base' (April 19, 2012)

A Rationale for Cislunar Space (April 12, 2011)

Chang'e-3 APXS delivers its first surface analysis

Active Particle-induced X-ray Spectrometer (APXS) components on the Chang'e-3 "Yutu" lunar rover [Xinhua/CNSA/CLEP/IHEP/CAS].

The Active Particle-induced X-ray Spectrometer (APXS), on the Yutu rover delivered to the lunar surface by the Chang’e-3 lunar lander, on December 25 sent back its first X-ray fluorescence spectrum of the lunar regolith around the landing site in northwest Mare Imbrium.

The announcement was made by the Institute of High Energy Physics (IHEP) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), December 30.

Initial analysis indicates a marked presence of eight major rock-forming elements: magnesium, aluminum, silicon, potassium, calcium, titanium, chromium and iron (Mg, Al, Si, K, Ca, Ti, Cr and Fe) and at least three minor elements, strontium, yttrium and zirconium (Sr, Y and Zr) identified in this spectrum. 

First X-ray florescent spectrum of the lunar surface at the Chang'e-3 Mare Imbrium landing site (click to enlarge) [IHEP/CAS].

The energy resolution of APXS is estimated at roughly 135 at 5.9keV (thousand electron volts), demonstrating the small instrument is among the best X-ray spectrometers yet deployed in direct planetary exploration.

APXS was initially powered up on December 23, and in-flight calibration, establishing a baseline by analyzing a common basalt rock sample of known composition mounted on the rover, was completed over five minutes, preparing a stable performance on the lunar surface. After two terrestrial days APXS was successfully deployed to within two to three centimeters over the regolith of Mare Imbrium on the robotic arm of Yutu and began its designed operation. 

Complimenting its X-ray spectrometry, the APXS instrument measured returned X-ray count rate at various distances.

APXS components (sensor head, radioactive heat unit (RHU) and inflight baseline calibration target [IHEP/CAS].

China's Institute of High Energy Physics (IHEP) developed APXS in collaboration with the China Academy of Science Purple Mountain Observatory (PMO). Before the on-going Chang'e-3 mission two X-ray Spectrometers developed by IHEP, flown on Chang’e-1 (2007) and Chang’e-2 (2010).

Has NASA 'RESOLVE'd' on Canadian lunar rover?

The Canadian Space Agency test platform "Artemis, Jr.," fitted with NASA's RESOLVE surface materials probe package "RESOLVE," on Day 3 of field testing on Hawai'i, July 2012 [CSA].

Tom Spears
Ottawa Citizen

Neptec Design Group of Ottawa is the front-runner to build the next moon rover — a traveling robot that will hunt for water on an unmanned NASA mission in 2017. NASA has asked the Canadian Space Agency specifically for Neptec’s rover, called Artemis Jr., said Mike Kearns, president of space exploration with the Ottawa aerospace engineering firm.

It has chosen a Canadian drill and Canadian avionics, too.

“One of the missions on that path is called RESOLVE, renamed by some people now as the Lunar Prospector Mission,” Kearns said.“NASA, for funding reasons, has asked CSA to provide the rover and the drill. And they actually asked for our Neptec rover ... and for the drill that is made by a company called Deltion.” (Deltion Innovations of Sudbury took over the design that originated with NORCAT. Its drill developed out of Canadian mining technology.)

What sealed NASA’s interest was a test drive of the rover prototype on the side of a Hawaiian volcano, in 2012. Chosen to simulate the harsh landscape of the moon and Mars, it provided a place for Artemis Jr. to drive, pivot and steer past obstacles using its vision system and navigation software. It passed nine days of tests.It’s called “Jr.” because this is a scaled-down version of a Neptec rover designed to carry astronauts, called Artemis.

Searching for water in space is vital. Not only can astronauts drink it, but it can be broken down into oxygen and hydrogen, both used in rocket propellant. Artemis Jr. could also search for methane.Neptec hopes the 2017 date will resonate with politicians who want some flag-waving in Canada’s 150th year.

“The question that always comes up is: That’s very nice but what’s the financial benefit? What’s the return to the taxpayers. And the answer is that ... for every dollar that CSA gives us, we end up with $10, mostly in export sales. We sell those products around the world.”

While the Canadian Space Agency can open the bidding to include MDA, the CANADARM builders, Kearns says NASA’s preference gives his company’s Artemis Jr. rover a strong chance. MDA officials weren’t available for comment Monday.

NASA is publicly leaning toward the Neptec team. In a description of the mission it writes: “RESOLVE is not just a NASA effort; the Canadian Space Agency provided Artemis Jr., which is the rover for the payload; the onboard drill and sample transfer system; as well as avionics microprocessors.”

Fanciful rendering of the Artemis, Jr. platform on the floor of Mare Crisium. A better view of the system, in the real world and in more detail is available, HERE.

Artemis Jr. is actually the product of a group of Canadian companies: Ontario Drive and Gear, from New Hamburg, Ont.; ComDev and Neptec from Ottawa; Deltion; and NGC from Sherbrooke.

The four-wheeled rover can pivot on one spot, moving the right wheels forward and the left ones in reverse. It has coarse metal treads for traction, and a solar panel on top.

It’s designed for NASA’s Regolith & Environment Science and Oxygen & Lunar Volatile Extraction (RESOLVE) project, which involves heating the “regolith” (loose minerals on the moon’s surface) to extract gas.

Related Posts:

Good things delivered in small packages, Paul Spudis (August 19, 2013)

Geological sampling and planetary exploration, Paul Spudis (February 19, 2013)

Canadian Lunar Exploration Light Rover Prototype (September 11, 2012)

Update: ISRU mission simulations on Hawai'i 2012 (July 30, 2012)

'a RESOLVE to mine the Moon,' Brian Shiro (July 15, 2012)

Bound for Hawai'i, NASA KSC shows off latest rover concept (June 13, 2012)

ISRU: NASA KSC prototype rover photo op (June 11, 2012)

Watch where you step on the Moon

Should those on Earth control and restrict the use of off-Earth real estate or should people use and profit from what they find in space? We have conducted reconnaissance and mapping of celestial bodies for centuries using telescopes, orbital and landing spacecraft, and (forty years ago) explored it with people. Earth’s scientists have studied the returned data and we’ve dreamed of returning to the Moon and to new places where humanity has never set foot. Entrepreneurs and social engineers see a time in the near future when we will make that next step and they each hold somewhat different views — some want to develop and capitalize on their investment, some want to preserve and permit only limited access.

Soon after following Neil Armstrong down the descent stage ladder Apollo 11 lunar module pilot Buzz Aldrin snaps his own footprint. Left undisturbed, average levels of micrometeorite "gardening" will erase these first direct human contacts with the lunar surface in 2 million years. These individual first foot prints, however, were probably erased by subsequent steps minutes later. [NASA/JSC].

Paul D. Spudis
The Once and Future Moon
Smithsonian Air & Space

In a recent Popular Science article, Veronique Greenwood argues for having the Moon declared an “International Park – an off-World Heritage site.”  And not just the Apollo sites but all 14 million square miles of the lunar surface.  Greenwood likes the legal model of Antarctica, an entire continent that the nations of the world agreed to not develop but use solely for scientific study.  Understanding that profit motives will be behind the drive to the Moon, she allows there may be carve-outs for mining (after environmental impact studies) but legally, the Moon will be protected as a preserve for history and science, serving as the template for human expansion beyond the Moon.  She doesn’t want it “damaged.”

Greenwood’s concerns stem from her belief that humans (even when they’re careful) “tromp all over things” and that without government preservation and oversight, cultural artifacts on the Moon (such as the Apollo 11 crew’s “One Small Step” footprints and various “important craters”) are in danger of destruction.  She argues that “because the Moon was part of Earth until 4.5 billion years ago” (a proposition not yet established), the United Nations should have legal sovereignty over its use and disposition.  She notes that the 1979 Moon Treaty was never ratified (“flopped spectacularly”), a presumed “victim of the Cold War era.”  In fact, the treaty’s “flop” had nothing to do with the Cold War – a concerted lobbying effort by various space advocacy groups (such as the L-5 Society) was largely responsible for the Senate’s refusal to ratify it.  No nation that had space faring capability at that time ratified the Moon Treaty.

Her article illustrates that the “green” anti-development worldview has expanded to include opposition to unfettered space utilization.  Because we’re not dealing with anything green, I suggest that we dub the lunar environmentalists “Grays.”  Stemming from their belief that humans are harming the Earth, the Grays fear that it is not right to allow unrestricted access and development of the Moon.  Fifty years after those interloping Apollo astronauts tromped on, drove over and kicked up a lot of dust on the Moon, a more enlightened humanity will return to peacefully – and carefully – explore its surface and, in the words of the National Park Service, “Taking only photographs, leaving only footprints.”  If environmental impact studies allow it, some limited mining activity might be permitted, presumably to pay for these Luna Park overseers.

The analogy to Antarctica, beloved of academics, is of limited value in this instance.  The reason nations of the world do not bother to mine or drill for oil in Antarctica is that there are alternative and cheaper sources of oil and minerals that do not require the costly build up of infrastructure in that challenging environment.  Such is not true for the Moon; the alternative to using the resources of the Moon is to bring everything you need with you from the deep gravity well of the Earth.  With launch costs of thousands of dollars per pound (and unlikely to come down significantly for the foreseeable future), it makes good sense to look for and obtain as much of the required “dumb mass” (i.e., air, water, shielding and propellant) needed for extended presence from “local” sources – the extraterrestrial bodies themselves.  Launch from Earth should be reserved only for high information density items – high-technology equipment, instruments and people.  The raw materials of space will provision us – and we need to learn how to do it out there, starting with the Moon.  You cannot lock up new territory and then expect entrepreneurs to invest their capital in getting you there.

"There is no “ecology” to preserve on the Moon..."

While Greenwood uses Antarctica as a model for the Moon, in my mind, a better analogy is Alaska, a vast area (656,424 square miles) of great natural beauty and abundant resources.  Alaska serves a multitude of purposes, including mining, fishing, oil and gas production, tourism, recreation and settlement, as well as maintaining and protecting vast reserves of national and state wilderness.  No one could call Alaska a decimated paradise or an industrial wasteland – it is an immense landscape with room for every imagined activity, commercial and non-commercial.  It is a harsh place, yet one where self-reliant humans migrated for profit, play and its wide-open spaces.  It also has the virtue of being part of a self-governing republic, not an “administrative area” controlled by international bureaucrats.  And yet, even though the land has been developed and used, the people have conserved, protected and managed the landscape and resources of the state.  But Greenwood points to the Antarctica “peaceful and scientific use of” model, whereby the U.N. would own and control the Moon, thereby setting a precedent for the rest of the Solar System.  Talk about throwing cold water on pioneering outer space!  Greenwood’s suggestions certainly do that.

One of the best LROC NAC surveys of the artifacts of Apollo 11, observation M175124932R, from only 24 km overhead, November 5, 2011. From the LROC Featured Image Apollo 11 collection [NASA/GSFC/Arizona State University]..

Setting aside the obvious objection that the United Nations has not shown any particular management capability (nor does it possess the ability to oversee natural resources 250,000 miles from Earth), a more important objection to this proposal is the negative impact it will have on investment toward the development and support of commercial space activity.  If advocates of commercial spaceflight think dealing with the federal government is difficult, they haven’t seen anything until they start dealing with a U.N. authority.  Greenwood wants “important craters” protected from defacement by ATVs, but that begs the question as to who decides which craters are “important,” what needs to be protected, and who gets those limited mining rights?  Would she leave these environmental assessments and commercial allocation judgments in the hands of U.N. decision makers and arbitrators?

The basic problem with the attitude of the Grays is that it is misdirected.  There is no “ecology” to preserve on the Moon because there is no life there.  The only thing that can be preserved is the Moon’s pristine state – an ancient surface unsullied by the tread of endless footprints.  It would take tens of thousands of years, if then, (since few would live on the Moon) to put a footprint on every square meter of the lunar surface, an area greater than the continent of Africa.  Even the most rare and valuable terrains on the Moon – the water-containing areas near the poles – are enormous regions, hundreds of square kilometers in extent, containing tens of billions of tons of water ice and other valuable deposits.  As these materials are the most accessible and useful products in near Earth space, they are crucial to the creation of new space faring capability.

If the entire territory of the Moon is designated the property of Earth with U.N. oversight, we will handicap ourselves from becoming a space faring species.  We must learn how to use what we find in space to create new capabilities.  Even the most ardent developers would not object to preserving the historical sites of the first impacts of spacecraft on the Moon (Luna 2), the first soft-landers (Luna 9 and Surveyor 1), and of course, the site of the first human landing on another world (Apollo 11).  But the rest of the Moon should be open to exploration, development and use.  It is wrong to restrict the use and development of whole new worlds in order to assuage the overly emotional and misguided aesthetic sensibilities of the Grays, as opposed to opening up of a frontier that can be profitably used and enjoyed for the benefit of all humanity.

Originally published November 8, 2013 at his Smithsonian Air & Space blog The Once and Future Moon, Dr. Spudis is a senior staff scientist at the Lunar and Planetary Institute. The opinions expressed are those of the author but are better informed than average. 

Toxicity of lunar dust

Gene Cernan, soon after the completion of the third and last EVA of Apollo 17, also the final EVA of the Apollo program. His moon suit carries a heavy accumulation of lunar dust, as does his skin. Three years earlier mission planners had been worried about astronauts, along with their spacecraft, sinking into the accumulation of dust on the surface. After Apollo, and decades later, mitigating the clinging affect of dust on equipment and human life remains a problem evading easy solution [Schmitt/AS17-145-22224].

Dag Linnarsson, et al.
Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm/ESA

Abstract - The formation, composition and physical properties of lunar dust are incompletely characterized with regard to human health. While the physical and chemical determinants of dust toxicity for materials such as asbestos, quartz, volcanic ashes and urban particulate matter have been the focus of substantial research efforts, lunar dust properties, and therefore lunar dust toxicity may differ substantially. In this contribution, past and ongoing work on dust toxicity is reviewed, and major knowledge gaps that prevent an accurate assessment of lunar dust toxicity are identified. Finally, a range of studies using ground-based, low-gravity, and in situ measurements is recommended to address the identified knowledge gaps. Because none of the curated lunar samples exist in a pristine state that preserves the surface reactive chemical aspects thought to be present on the lunar surface, studies using this material carry with them considerable uncertainty in terms of fidelity. As a consequence, in situ data on lunar dust properties will be required to provide ground truth for ground-based studies quantifying the toxicity of dust exposure and the associated health risks during future manned lunar missions.

Introduction - The current renewed interest in human exploration of the Moon is driven not only by an urge to expand the human presence to other celestial bodies, but also by genuine scientific interest. Many aspects of the origin and evolution of the Earth and the other bodies in our solar system remain unclear. The Moon is thought to hold important information about the time when our own planet was formed, and humans remain capable of much more intelligent and adaptive exploration of the Moon than even the most sophisticated robotic and remote-controlled devices (e.g., Crawford et al., 2012). Identification and retrieval of representative or exotic mineral specimens, and drilling deep into the lunar subsurface are examples of tasks for which astronauts are superior to machines. The most compelling argument for human exploration is the unique ability of humans to identify and quickly assess the unexpected, enabling real time adjustment of a pre-planned exploration strategy.

Although humans have landed on and returned from the Moon during the Apollo era, it is still a formidable challenge to secure the health and safety of astronauts during Moon missions. Challenges for future missions include long-term low- or microgravity, radiation exposure, and the maintenance of a number of life support systems during a much longer period than was the case during the Apollo flights (e.g., Cain, 2010, 2011).

One of the biggest challenges may be related to the presence of dust on the lunar surface. The ubiquity of fine dust particles on the surface of the Moon plays an important and often dual role in many aspects of human lunar exploration. On the one hand, identifying the mineralogical and chemical composition of the dust fraction of lunar soils can provide in situ geological context for both robotic and human landing sites. In addition, lunar dust may be an ideal starting material for a range of future in situ resource utilization activities on the Moon (e.g., Taylor et al., 2005), and dust is an important component of the lunar exosphere (Horanyi and Stern, 2011).

On the other hand, dust can adversely affect the performance of scientific and life-support instruments on the lunar surface. Fine dust was spread over all parts of the Apollo astronauts space suits, ending up in the habitat (Figure 1a), resulting in astronaut exposure times of several days. The Apollo astronauts reported undesirable effects affecting the skin, eyes and airways that could be related to exposure to the dust that had adhered to their space suits during their extravehicular activities, and was subsequently brought into their spacecraft (Figure 1b).

Figure 2. Steps of cell and tissue interaction with nano and micron-sized particles in the lung. When attained the alveolar space the particle may react with endogenous molecules (step 1). The particle may then be cleared out of the lung either through the mucociliary escalator (step 2) or through alveolar macrophage (AM) clearance (step 3). If reactive, AM activation will follow with release of several factors and recruitment of other immune cells (AM and polymorphonucleate cells, PMN), eventual cell death and establishment of permanent cycles of ingestion (step 4). This process produces chronic inflammation (step 5). Combined with the direct action of the particle (step 6) this will cause damage to the target cells (epithelial, endothelial). If the particle is nano-sized, it may easily escape from the lung to the pleura and to systemic circulation (step 7).

Figure 3. The role of particle and cell derived free radicals and reactive oxygen species (ROS) in cell damage, oxidative stress and diseases.

Dust exposure and inhalation could have a range of toxic effects on human lunar explorers, especially if longer exposure times become the norm during future manned exploration missions. There is therefore a need to assess the risks to health. The physical and chemical determinants of dust toxicity for terrestrial materials such as asbestos, quartz, volcanic ashes and urban particulate matter have been studied in great detail, and lunar dust simulant (synthesized from terrestrial volcanic material) has been found to exhibit toxic effects (Lam et al., 2002; Latch et al., 2008; Loftus et al., 2010). Unique features of actual lunar dust (described in more detail in section 3), resulting from its formation by (micro)meteoroid impacts and its extended radiation exposure in the absence of oxygen and humidity, could lead to toxic effects significantly exceeding those of simulants made from Earth materials. At present, the formation, composition and physical properties of lunar dust remain incompletely characterized with regard to human health.

In a micro-/hypo-gravity environment the risk of inhalation of dust is increased due to reduced gravity-induced sedimentation. Inhaled particles tend to deposit more peripherally and thus may be retained in the lungs for longer periods in reduced gravity as will be the case in a future lunar habitat (Darquenne and Prisk, 2008; Peterson et al., 2008). Inhalation of particles of varying size may affect the respiratory and cardiovascular systems in deleterious ways leading to airway inflammation and increased respiratory and cardiovascular morbidity (Frampton et al., 2006; Sundblad et al., 2002).

In this contribution, we review our knowledge of the physical chemistry determinants of dust toxicity, of the composition and size of lunar dust, and all aspects related to its toxicity. We identify a number of knowledge gaps that need to be filled to constrain the required extent of mitigation activities protecting astronauts from the potentially toxic effects of lunar dust during and after a stay on the Moon. We also recommend a range of future studies using ground-based, low-gravity, and in situ measurements on the lunar surface to better constrain lunar dust toxicity.

arXiv:1206.6328 (v.1)
62 pg. (PDF)

ISRU: NASA KSC prototype rover photo op

From the Hawai'i summer season of 2011, NASA and academia will continue the methodical testing and development of semi-autonomous and robust robotic rovers will continue this year [NASA].

An excellent overview of a recent lunar analog study, released (PDF) May 2012
Desert Research and Technology Studies (DRATS) 2009: A 14-Day Evaluation of the
SpaceExploration Vehicle Prototype in a Lunar Analog Environment
Abercromby, Gernhardt and Litaker, JSC

Media are invited to a briefing and photo opportunity Tuesday, June 12, at the Press Site television auditorium at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida to view a prototype of a lunar prospecting mission.

The Regolith and Environment Science and Oxygen and Lunar Volatile Extraction, or RESOLVE, consists of a lunar rover and drill provided by the Canadian Space Agency to support a NASA payload that is designed to prospect for water, ice and other lunar resources. RESOLVE also will demonstrate how future explorers can take advantage of resources at potential landing sites by manufacturing oxygen from soil.

Journalists will have an opportunity to photograph the hardware, as well as interview NASA and Canadian Space Agency officials.

NASA will be conducting field tests in July outside of Hilo, Hawaii, with equipment and concept vehicles that demonstrate how explorers might prospect for resources and make their own oxygen for survival while on other planetary bodies.

Journalists without Kennedy accreditation must apply for credentials by 4 p.m. June 11. International media accreditation for this event is closed. Badges for this specific event can be picked up at Kennedy's Badging Office on State Road 405. Media must apply for credentials online at: https://media.ksc.nasa.gov

For more information about NASA's exploration plans, visit: http://www.nasa.gov/exploration

Heavy hitters join to 'expand Earth's resource base'

HT: Doug Messier
ParabolicArc.com

"Join visionary Peter H. Diamandis, M.D.; leading commercial space entrepreneur Eric Anderson; former NASA Mars mission manager Chris Lewicki; and planetary scientist & veteran NASA astronaut Tom Jones, Ph.D. on Tuesday, April 24 at 1730 UT (10:30 a.m. PDT) in Seattle, or via webcast, as they unveil a new space venture with a mission to help ensure humanity’s prosperity.

"Supported by an impressive investor and advisor group, including Google’s Larry Page & Eric Schmidt, Ph.D.; film maker & explorer James Cameron; Chairman of Intentional Software Corporation and Microsoft’s former Chief Software Architect Charles Simonyi, Ph.D.; Founder of Sherpalo and Google Board of Directors founding member K. Ram Shriram; and Chairman of Hillwood and The Perot Group Ross Perot, Jr., the company will overlay two critical sectors – space exploration and natural resources – to add trillions of dollars to the global GDP. This innovative start-up will create a new industry and a new definition of ‘natural resources’.

"The news conference will be held at The Museum of Flight in Seattle on Tuesday, April 24 at 10:30 a.m. PDT and available online via webcast.

Among those scheduled to attend the news conference are Charles Simonyi, Ph.D., Space Tourist, Planetary Resources, Inc. Investor; Eric Anderson, Co-Founder & Co-Chairman, Planetary Resources, Inc.; Peter H. Diamandis, M.D., Co-Founder & Co-Chairman, Planetary Resources, Inc; Chris Lewicki, President & Chief Engineer, Planetary Resources, Inc. and Tom Jones, Ph.D., Planetary Scientist, Veteran NASA Astronaut & Planetary Resources, Inc. Advisor

Some Related Posts:

• Astrobotic changes plans, aims for lunar north
• America's Deeps Space Vision
• "You can't always get what you want..."
• A Rationale for Cislunar Space
• Can we afford to return to the Moon?
• Potential lunar ISRU experiments and missions
• A Sustainable Return to the Moon
• Field analog testing of of In-Situ Resource Utilization for Moon & Mars exploration
• Bio-ISRU: Living off the Land
• Who will own the Moon and the worlds?
• The Moon, Asteroids, and Space Resources

"As we enter the 21st century, humankind must deal with the energy crisis, the depletion of natural resources and the pollution of the earth. The solution to all these problems lies beyond the Earth by tapping the vast resources of the solar system, in particular the Moon and asteroids, as a source of materials and the sun as a source of power, which will also remove to outer space some of the major sources of pollution. Uncountable dollars worth of metals, fuels, and life-sustaining substances await in nearby space. Vast amounts of these important substances are locked away--for now--in the asteroids, comets, moons and planets of our own solar system. The abundant resources of the solar system, including effectively limitless solar energy, could support a vast civilization a million times our present population. John S. Lewis argues in his book Mining The Sky that the "shortage of resources is an illusion born of ignorance."

JPL Foundation

Student demostrates thermal storage from regolith

Rock star ... Aaron Bonanno used powder from a local quarry to simulate moon dust as he looks to develop a solar energy system that could be used on the moon [Dallas Kilponen / Brisbane Times].

Jen Rosenberg
Brisbane Times

IMAGINE if you could harness the sun's energy to power the moon.

Aaron Bonanno has found a way to make the improbable possible and has designed a renewable energy system to power a futuristic moon colony.

The boy who soaked up anything to do with space, travel and exploration is now a fourth-year university student about to appear before a conference of some of the finest space engineers to present his findings.
Advertisement: Story continues below

The American Society for Civil Engineers has invited Mr. Bonanno to explain his research at the Earth and Space 2012 Conference in California this weekend.

Using basalt from a quarry on the central coast to simulate moon dust, he has developed solar thermal energy blocks that are lightweight and easy to transport and store.

Read the article HERE.

Moonscraper - 2040

This project ends with the arrival of the first human settlers on the Moon; it is merely a case study for process informed by complex phenomena and its potential implications in Architecture [eVolvo / Luis Quinones]..

Honorable Mention :  2011 Skyscraper Competition

In challenging the typology of a skyscraper this proposal considers an alternative set of criteria to reexamine habitation, construction, and organizational logic. In examining our global trajectory resulting in issues of overpopulation and depletion of natural resources, this project proposes a developmental shift away from the Earth. The chosen site for this project is on the Shackleton Crater Rim on the South Pole of the Moon.

The Moon was chosen as a testing ground for its ability to depart from the traditional constraints we find on Earth. There are limitations, such as low gravity, non-existent weather, and an abundance of unexploited natural resources such as large traces of frozen water and hydroxyl gases. These are particularly useful if combined, with the use of Regenerative Fuel Cells, where the process of electrolysis is proposed as means of sustaining energy and life by extracting the hydrogen and oxygen molecules from the water. In order to maximize solar gain due to the low oblique angle of the Sun, the skyscraper is the optimal building typology. However, this verticality is not solely expressed above the lunar surface. Instead a nested verticality of embedded towers deep below the surface provides protection from radiation, meteor impacts, and temperature differentials.

The embedded areas of the towers are networked together through a multitude of robots working together to produce a self-organizing system. The operation is a simple technique of mound building like termites and ants colonies. This behavior is characterized by programming local interactions, which give rise to emergent structures. In the development of these behavioral and bottom-up techniques a complex network of relationships will emerge. Ideally, this settlement would grow into the size of a contemporary human city, with developed infrastructure and habitation systems.

This research deals primarily with non-linear systems, termite structures, robotics, and algorithmic design. This project ends with the arrival of the first human settlers on the Moon; it is merely a case study for process informed by complex phenomena and its potential implications in Architecture.

Full Poster Views HERE.

eVolo / Architecture Magazine is an architecture and design journal focused on technological advances, sustainability, and innovative design for the 21st Century. Our objective is to promote and discuss the most avant-garde ideas generated in schools and professional studios around the world. It is a medium to explore the reality and future of design with up-to-date news, events, and projects.

The Path of Exploration

Roald Amundsen, first to the South Pole, 100 years ago today.

Paul D. Spudis
The Once and Future Moon
Smithsonian Air & Space

One of the last major milestones in the history of terrestrial exploration was achieved one hundred years ago today – the attainment of the South Pole by Roald Amundsen and his team on December 14, 1911.  His rival, Robert Falcon Scott and crew, were still more than a month away from the pole and (although denying they were in a race) destined for heartbreaking disappointment when they arrived to find the Norwegian flag flapping in the howling Antarctic wind.

The Amundsen-Scott polar drama time stamps a major shift in our thinking about the meaning of exploration.  This shift in our perception of what it means to explore holds ramifications to today’s debates on space policy.  Traditionally, exploration is a very personal activity.  It involves someone’s decision to see what lies over the next hill.  This act is exploration in its purest sense; it dates from the Stone Age and is principally responsible for humanity’s reach into all corners of the Earth.  This exploration is undirected and random –motivated by the human desire to scratch that unrelenting itch of curiosity.  You finance and outfit yourself and go, while adhering to the maxim, “It is easier to ask for forgiveness than to get permission.”

As society grew and evolved, a different type of exploration emerged.  For difficult or expensive journeys to far corners of the globe, people pooled their knowledge and resources to collectively explore the unknown by creating government-sponsored projects.  Until modern times, such exploration was considered to include not only discovery and initial characterization, but also utilization, exploitation and eventually colonization – all with an eye toward wealth-creation.  By the end of the 19th Century, the regions of the world unclaimed by western powers were all but gone, gobbled up in a frenzy of imperial land-grabs by industrially developed nations.  All that was left were the seas (whose freedom of access for all nations was guaranteed by the British Royal Navy) and the North and South Poles.

The shift of attention to the poles coincided with the rise of science and with it, a significant change in the “exploration” ethic.  It was actually thought at one point in the late 19th Century that all nature had been finally and thoroughly explained.  After numerous failed attempts to find a Northwest Passage to the Pacific north of Canada (economic motivation), expeditions to the polar regions began to focus on scientific observations and measurements (knowledge gathering).  This shift in emphasis also coincided with a global rise of nationalist conscience, the idea that some nations were destined to discover and conquer remote parts of the Earth.  Given the global extent of the British Empire at that time, the English were particularly susceptible to this idea.

These various motivations were threaded together in the early 20th Century as science joined with nationalistic chest-thumping to create government-sponsored scientific expeditions to remote locales.  Important and difficult expeditions requiring teamwork and pooled resources became national exploration efforts.  Science became a fig leaf rationale for realpolitik global power projection.  There was still the occasional “because it’s there” type of expedition to some remote mountain or plateau but most often it was privately financed.

And so we come to the Space Age, which in basic terms has followed the knowledge-gathering template of polar exploration.  A new movement for national power projection in space has yet to fully emerge.  National security may be the only motivator of sufficient political power to launch an earnest, national drive into space.  Traditionally the military conducts exploration in peacetime.  In the late 18th Century, Royal Navy Captain James Cook conducted three expeditions to the Pacific – not for pure science but rather for applied science – to improve navigation for commerce and other purposes.

Perhaps this link to applied science may guide us toward a new understanding of the term “exploration,” or rather, to recover an old meaning that has been lost.  The idea of exploration leading to exploitation (currently tossed aside in the modern equation of exploration and science) could serve as the “new” guiding principle for modern spaceflight.  By making space the singular preserve of science and politics, both are ill served, much to the determent of humanity.  For now, we remain wedded to the template of launch, use, and discard – a modus suitable to an occasional, expensive and limited presence in space but one wholly inappropriate for undertaking the creation of a modern, permanent space faring infrastructure.  Instead, beginning with the creation of a reusable, extensible cislunar space faring system, we should learn how to use space for national interests by using the Moon and its resources.  This will require a long-term research and development project geared to acquiring the understanding and ability to gather and use the resources available to us in space in order to routinely access, explore and exploit cislunar space and the frontier beyond.

This model of a national space program fits the classic understanding of exploration – we go into space as a society and what we do there must have societal value.  Because cislunar space has critical economic and national security value, we need to create a system that can routinely accesses that region of space with robots and people.  Hence, I advocate resource production bases on the Moon, reusable systems, and the build-up of a cislunar spaceflight infrastructure.  Some may not consider this to be “exploration” but the great explorers of history exploited and settled after they found and described.

The attainment of the South Pole one hundred years ago today shifted the meaning of the word exploration and boxed us into an artificial separation of the concepts of discovery and use.  That modern connotation is both arbitrary and historically incorrect.  Exploration includes exploitation and we can exploit the Moon – our nearest planetary neighbor – to create a permanent space faring capability. The development of cislunar space is exploration in the classic sense – a plunge into the unknown:  Can we do this?  How hard is it?  What benefits – beyond those we can recognize now – might we realize from it?   History shows that such undertakings promote new discoveries by opening windows of innovation and generating new streams wealth creation.

Originally published December 14, 2011 at his Smithsonian Air & Space blog The Once and Future Moon, Dr. Spudis is a senior staff scientist at the Lunar and Planetary Institute. The opinions expressed are those of the author and are better informed than average.