Book Review: "The War of the Worlds" by H.G. Wells

Forget any movie you may have seen with this title, be it the 1956 or 2005 version.  This book by H.G. Wells was written in 1898 and is set fully in England during that time period.  If you live in England, or have visited, you will have a better time imagining the scenery.

In brief, the Martians, being green and ugly intelligent lifeforms, realize their civilization on Mars is dying and look to Earth, a young, more lively planet, and they want to settle on it.  They invade by sending down meteor like objects, and them arm themselves with impenetrable metal armor, using heat rays and poison gas, they wander the English countryside, and London, and destroy everything in its path.  There is a scene where a human gets eaten, as the Martians also find a plentiful food supply (humans).

The hero of the story, a man unnamed, narrates the entire story, giving his viewpoint, and constantly runs from these Martians, enduring panicking crowds in London, a companion hiding in a watched, abandoned house with a companion who also panics all the time making his life miserable, and afterward, runs into a soldier with plans on how to fight the Martians once they are settled.  He also endures starvation, sleepless days and nights, and all in all, rough survival techniques.

Before you compare this to more recent science fiction, I advise you not to judge this book negatively or call it “dated”.  It was written and released in 1897 and is set in the time period, dealing with the Mars as we then knew of it, compared to what space technology and NASA space probes such as Mariner, Viking, Spirit and Opportunity, and Curiosity has finally revealed to us today.  In reading this book in this day and age, you must suspend your knowledge of what the real Mars is and enjoy the story for what it is.  You will be surprised.

Also remember that H.G. Wells is one of the pioneers of modern Science Fiction, along with other greats such as Jules Verne.  Wells also has written other classics such as “The Time Machine” and “The Invisible Man,” also recommended.  He has also written many non-fiction essays dealing with the world and humanity during his time.

Many of Wells’ editorial beliefs are in this book.  One little known fact is that in the time it was written, Wells’ was making a satirical comment on the British colonization of Africa during the buildup of the British Empire, and how the British colonists were treating the natives of these lands.  To this I should add India, China, Australia (the aborigines), and Ireland.  Read these histories to understand.

In the book, the Martians are technically advanced but unsympathetic, but Wells compares this to a human stepping on an anthill.  Also think about this.  If and when we settle space and finally reach another star system, and we find it had intelligent life, but not as developed as ourselves, how would we treat them?  Would we, in our enlightenment, leave the planet alone and let them develop on their own, or would we take the planet, going as far to exterminate its natives?!  In a sense, we would be the evil Martians that Wells depicted, and I think he was fully aware of this.

Although Mars itself has shown to have no life, this book is not outdated by any means.  It is also a warning to us that as we ourselves venture out into space, we have to know at all times who we are, and what we must not become.

Book Review: How We'll Live on Mars by Stephen L Petranek

This is a brief but informative book, about 77 pages with photographs in the middle of the book.  Brief doesn’t mean bad;  in fact, I think it’s rather good, pertaining to the intelligent person, even if they know little about space development.  In other words, it’s for anyone who is interested in this topic.

The author, Stephen Petranek, takes the Mars of what modern science has revealed to us through it’s probes, from Mariner to Curiosity and what theses probes have analyzed and found.  A brief history of rocketry and the proposals of using them for Mars exploration are also covered, from Robert Goddard and Werner von Braun in the early 20th century all the way down to Elon Musk of SpaceX and the Dutch entrepreneurs, Bas Lansdorp and Arno Wielders, who proposed the Mars One missions, being one way trips to Mars where people would go and live out the rest of their lives on the red planet.

In landing on Mars, Petranek anticipates what may go wrong, such as drilling for water through rock and permafrost and using the wrong drill bits.  Problems such as these are those the average person, and a rocket scientist would not anticipate.  He describes the climate, the thin atmosphere, the gases of which it is composed, and the radiation coming from the Sun and space, and how the first settlers will have to deal with them.  

In the last two chapters, he describes terraforming, making Mars more like Earth where one can live without spacesuits, and why we must go there.  The main reason is simply that we have to.

I agree.  Many people say that Mars is so dead and desolate (it is) that no one will want to go there.  I believe, that with the terraforming, and the minerals it holds that people will want to mine to make money, it will attract the right kind of settlers.  There’s another reason:  Earth is getting overpopulated, and troubles throughout the world, such as war and starvation, are multiplying, and people will want to escape that, going anywhere no matter what.  Any place, rather than staying where they are and suffering.

My own view is that we will, and must, settle and industrialize near Earth space, being the Moon and near Earth asteroids first before venturing on to Mars.  These are in Earth’s neighborhood, and we need to establish state of the art transportation and life support systems, along with bases that will support a trip to Mars before venturing there.  It may take 40 years, or 20, who knows.  

One thing I do like is the Mars One project, sending people on a one way trip where they will learn survival skills and to develop the resources there while we still develop the Moon and asteroids.  Unfortunately, they do not (yet) have the financing.

This book is brief, and the predicted date of first landing here is 2027.  Whether or not we make it on time, this book provides a good vision on how we can handle the challenges.  The Moon and near Earth space is not mentioned here, but that, in this case, is irrelevant.

As I stated, I myself believe in a step by step approach to Mars, going to the near Earth asteroids, the Moon, then Mars, then the asteroids between Mars and Jupiter (where the book ends), and eventually, out to the stars.  But let’s not get ahead of ourselves!

Space and the Environment

The space movement and the environmental movement should join together.  They should and need to do that, because they would complement each other in ways either side cannot imagine right now (the space advocates can, but the environmentalists have yet to understand), and this article will explain why.

To summarize, we all know of pollution and climate change.  Factory and power plants are spewing out carbon dioxide, methane, mercury, and many other toxic chemicals that are heating the atmosphere, melting the ice caps and raising the sea level, causing sever weather disruption, and poisoning the air, ground, and water and killing both plant and animal life, including human beings.  Mining for minerals from coal and iron to gold and platinum require the use of chemicals that poison the water and destroy the landscape.  Mountain top removal for coal mining destroys both the landscape and the surrounding environment, literally making it uninhabitable. 

The other side of the coin is that we need our energy to run our homes, factories, and transportation systems and live comfortably.  We need our factories to have a vibrant economy to have jobs and, again, live comfortably.  We want a clean world, and yet we want to maintain our quality of life.  These two are not mutually exclusive.  We can have both, but we need to invest in clean energy, clean up our oceans and rivers, have factories not pollute the air, land, and water, and work to replant the forests and jungles we have depleted.  We also need a cleaner way to obtain badly needed minerals.

Is all this possible?  Yes, but we need to look to space to build factories, power plants, and mine for minerals on near Earth asteroids, the Moon, and eventually,  beyond Mars to the outer asteroids.  Mercury, the planet nearest to the Sun, is also a candidate for mining minerals, especially iron, but we have to build life support systems and machinery that can withstand the Sun’s intense heat.  

Space manufacturing plants can replace many on Earth that are burning coal and oil to manufacture steel and other metal products, by building these factories in space.  The Sun itself can be used as a heat source to process these minerals and convert them into useful products.  The problem of pollution would also be greatly reduced.  While solid waste cannot and should not be emitted, because space junk is a major problem in Earth orbit (see my essay “Out Beyond the Sky Lies a Junkyard”) and in space, it can always be reused.  The emitting of toxic liquids and gases, mostly gases, from the processing of minerals will not be a problem in space, because when liquids and gases are emitted in space, they disperse into atoms into the infinite void, posing no threat to anything else whatsoever, present and future.

Radioactive waste will pose no problem either, because space itself is radioactive.  The sun is one big nuclear furnace exponentially emitting more radiation than we can ever produce here on Earth.  Just a thought; when space travel becomes a lot easier, say 50 years down the road, perhaps nuclear wastes from Earth could be lifted into space and thrown into the sun, if a use for it is not yet found.  This is one more way how space development can help clean up Earth’s environment.

Asteroids can provide the metals necessary to manufacture these parts, using the sun’s rays to process this metal instead of coal here on Earth.  Zero gravity can also allow new allows to be formed that cannot be formed on Earth because of its gravity, so many new metal products, with a lot more finery, can be formed.  If the majority of these factories were to go into space, pollution would be cut down by a huge percentage.

Granted, one cannot manufacture an entire car and bring to Earth, but many car parts can be manufactured and bought to Earth for assembly.  This concept would apply to any other large machinery.  Manufacture the parts in space, assemble them on Earth.

Power plants generating electricity is another problem involving the emissions of greenhouse and other toxic gases, and in the case of coal, toxic ash also.  The Energy business is literally one of the world’s dirtiest businesses, but the advent of clean energy, such as solar, wind, and geothermal, is a new trend, and growing.  One little known source of clean energy lies in space.

I have pointed out in another essay (“Energy and Space Development - They do go Together) about Solar Power Satellites, Helium-3 fusion with the Helium-3 obtained from the Moon and other celestial bodies, and the use of Platinum mined from the Moon and asteroids for use in fuel cells for future transportation, power by Hydrogen, forming a new Hydrogen economy.  All this would replace coal, oil, and eventually, natural gas to fuel our societies, along with terrestrial solar, wind, and geothermal energy.  

Clean energy means no carbon dioxide, methane, mercury, and other poisonous gases spewed out into the atmosphere, or poisoning our waterways and land.

This brings us to the last major subject, mining.  Mining everything from coal to platinum brings deadly toxins to the environment.  In rare minerals such as diamonds and gold, chemicals are needed to extract them from the rock, and these very chemicals then leak into rivers, poisoning water needed for irrigation and drinking.  Mining coals causes black lung disease in miners, and the process of transporting it will give off coal dust, to be inhaled by anyone in the vicinity.

If we were to mine the minerals from asteroids and other planets, there would be little need to mine these same elements here on Earth, saving the landscape.  Whatever landscape has been damaged can then be restored nearly to its original shape.  Granted, it will never be the same as it originally was, but new soil can be laid, a new ecosystem can be placed, similar to what originally was there.  

This will take work, resources, and money, but it is a possibility, and it has been done in other exploited areas.  The science of land restoration is being practiced and improved upon, and we will need professionals in this field. 

Putting factories and power plants in space and mining the asteroids, and the Moon, will cut down greatly on pollution, perhaps, eventually, reversing the damage done to the Earth.  Should most of these factories be put up into space, pollution and climate change will be less of a problem. 

There will still be manufacturing plants on Earth producing items that cannot be made in space due to the unavailability of the required materials.  Petroleum products, such as plastics, will still be produced on Earth, due to the fact that there is no oil in space, and shipping it up there for that purpose will take a lot of effort, and money.  The same holds true for any other chemicals not available in space.  

Minerals and energy will not be a problem, and these will cut down on pollution by a wide margin.  How much is hard to tell at this moment, but it will be over 50 percent, probably a whole lot more.

Perhaps, from denuded and scorched areas, forests and jungles can be replanted, slowly reversing the effect of climate change.  When these polluted areas are cleared of their source, a new form of land restoration will begin, improving on this technology as we progress.

Eventually, as more polluting industries migrate to space, the Earth will slowly be restored to its natural beauty, becoming a park.  This is possible.  I do not believe that it is too late to do this. 

This will not be as easy as it sounds, and problems do lie ahead, but we can only try.  This is one of the prime reasons why space needs to be developed, to increase the quality of life, including the healing the of environment, here on Earth.

Note:  A new problem will develop.  As a lot of industries migrate into space, a lot of jobs will be lost down here on Earth, resulting in high unemployment.  Outsourcing to space will be a problem and raise objections worldwide, and the entire world economy will be greatly affected.  Whether this will be a positive or negative effect remains to be seen, and will be covered in the next essay.                                   

Alastair Browne

Clean Energy and Space Development - They Do Go Together

We are in another energy revolution, with the advent of clean energy.  We have to be.  Climate change is coming at us with a vengeance.  We still have plenty of coal, oil, and natural gas, but we no longer can afford to use them on such a large scale.  Nuclear power, once “too cheap to meter” has caused two major disasters on this planet, so far.  

Solar and Wind are increasing in usage worldwide, and their output is increasing at rates we never imagined 20 years ago.  Geothermal energy, the least touted of these three, is also on the rise.  

Hydropower was once thought to be a clean energy source, but dams have done unpredictable damage to the environment by blocking fish migrations, hindering, even stopping needed water from flowing downstream, dwindling the water supply further down the river where it is equally as vital, and has even been known to cause earthquakes.

Coal is the most polluting of fossil fuels.  Mercury is one major ingredient of coal, and the burning of it, in spreads into the air, causing permanent mental disfunction's in young children.  Other toxic chemicals contained in coal include lead, cadmium, arsenic, chromium, selenium, and at least five other carcinogens.  After the coal is burned and reduced to ash, these same chemicals remain in the ash, and the ash has to be permanently stored away for the environment.  Recently, there was a case where Duke Power stored ash next to a coal burning plant by the Dan River in North Carolina, where the pile collapsed and spilled into the river and cause a major ecological disaster.

This problem is repeated worldwide.  Coal is the biggest producer of energy in the world, and though the U.S. is reducing their coal burning plants, China and India are increasing theirs.  There are case in Beijing where the air is so polluting for coal that the residents either have to stay in or literally wear gas masks.

Oil is the fuel for transportation and accounts for 70% of all oil burned.   Except in countries in the Middle East that are mostly hostile to the West, the age of easy oil is gone.  A surge in oil has reemerged in the form of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, where a pipe is drilled into shale and chemically treated water is forced into the shale, cracking it, and forcing both oil and natural gas upward.  This process has been around since the early 1940s, but has taken off in the early 2010s, almost doubling the amount of oil on the world market and deceasing oil costs.  It’s beneficial to the U.S. and detrimental to the Middle East, but it’s also detrimental to the environment.  The oil and gas have been known to seep into the water tables, poisoning them, and there have been cases where people in areas of Pennsylvania and New York has gotten sick and relocated due to this problem.

Mining the Oil/Tar sands of Alberta, Canada have depleted forests and contaminated the land, and more energy from natural gas, with lots of water is needed to separate the oil from the sands.  Carbon dioxide is released in the air increasing climate change, making it worse.

Natural gas is being used to replace coal fired plants, but this should be considered an interim, a step to clean energy plants.  Although only one half as polluting as coal when burned (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/natural-gas-really-better-coal-180949739/?no-ist), it still gives off climate changing gases. If released in the atmosphere unburned, as this happens every minute, the methane emitted will have a more powerful effect on the atmosphere than carbon dioxide in causing global warming.  Of course, with fracking, the natural gas released will have an adverse effect on the environment, beginning with the water tables.

Nuclear power does not give off any polluting gases, but it does give off radiation, and in the event of a meltdown, which happened in Chernobyl, Ukraine (in the then U.S.S.R.) in 1986 and and Fukishima, Japan, after an earthquake in 2011.  As a result, the towns are permanently contaminated and may never be inhabited again, at least not in Chernobyl.  

There is also the problem of ever increasing nuclear waste, with a half life ranging from 10 to 24,000 years, or more (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/radwaste.html; “Backgrounder on Radioactive Waste”).  We cannot find a permanent place to store it.  The nuclear industry is definitely on its way out, although it may be several more decades before the last nuclear power plant shuts down for good.

Clean energy, once touted as gimmicky, or believe to not be able to produce more than a small fraction of the country’s, or world’s energy needs, is coming into its own, and the quality of it is progressing at unbelievable rates.  In this category, there are, as of now, three main sources of renewable energy, with the promise of a future, and they are solar, wind, and geothermal. 

Solar power is making inroads beyond our wildest dream.  Photovoltaics, the concept of literally turning light into electricity, has improved in efficiency so much that where electricity from a solar panel once costed $75 per watt now costs seven cents per watt.  Because of this, a solar revolution is occurring where homes, schools, and businesses are installing solar panels on their roofs on a massive scale.

Many countries, such as India, China (which also manufactures solar panels, and has a glut of them on the market, thus lowering costs even further), Germany (where it is mostly cloudy), Japan, almost the entire world have join in on this trend.  Entire coal and gas powered plants are being shut down in favor of solar farms.  Countries and many U.S. states have set goals for how much solar energy they will product by a certain date, in the trillions of watts.  

Solar energy has become a disruptive technology where the utilities feel threatened, where the decentralization of power production is taking place, where homes are getting off the grid permanently.  

Wind power is another disruptive technology.  It is now bigger than solar, generating four times the amount of electricity worldwide.  The top countries deriving wind power are China, the U.S., Germany, Denmark, and the U.K.  In the U.S., there are wind swept plains that are ripe to wind turbines, from North Dakota to Texas, and these plains states, and California, are building turbines exponentially.  The problem of them stopping when the wind stops is now becoming irrelevant, because, being hooked to the national grid, somewhere, there will be turbines running producing power.  The best part is that the amount of wind we use today has zero effect on the wind we use in the future, so it is inexhaustible.  Of course, there are successfully replacing gas, nuclear, and gas power plants.

Geothermal energy, the third of the big three renewables, is big, especially around parts of the Earth where tectonic plates meet, such as the Pacific Rim, the Continental divide in North America, Iceland, Africa, Southeast Asia, everywhere.  Iceland derives 90% of space heating, and 99% of their energy from geothermal sources, powering the aluminum industry.  China leads the world in geothermal energy, with Turkey, Japan, Iceland, India, Europe, the the U.S. following.

The U.S. taps 25% of the world’s geothermal energy in use today.  The states where Geothermal energy is mostly derided is California, Alaska, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado.  The amount of geothermal energy is the U.S. waiting to be tapped is 90% of it potential.  

It is known that about 82 countries use geothermal energy directly, and about 40 countries could be completely energy independent on geothermal energy alone.  These include countries in Africa, Central America, and Southeast Asia.

These are the three main sources of clean energy.  Hydroelectric power, as mentioned earlier, only works up to a certain point and is known to be environmentally disruptive, sometimes on a massive scale.  Burning biofuels, even wood, is polluting, and natural gas, even though is only one half as polluting as coal, is still polluting and still emits greenhouse gases.

The question here is, if the would is to run completely on clean energy, would solar, wind, and geothermal be enough?  These three sources are growing in power generation, but, according the the U.S. Energy Information Administration, they only generated 21% of the world’s electricity in 2011, with a projected rate of 25% by 2040.  Should the use of these three clean energy sources continue to rise, the projected rate may be higher, and it looks like it will be, but we will still need more massive sources of energy, clean energy, to satisfy the ever growing demand, in homes, transportation, and industry.  Coal and nuclear power are slowly being phased out, oil extraction is both politically dangerous and destructive to the environment, and natural gas is only a temporary fix.

Energy from space is the answer, in three forms:  space solar power, the mining of Helium-3 from the Moon for nuclear fusion (that leaves no nuclear wastes), and platinum group metals from the Moon, but mostly from asteroids, to help power a hydrogen economy.

The energy from the sun is literally billions of times greater in space than it is on Earth.  Because of Earth’s atmosphere, Earth’s infusion of the sun’s power in only one in 23 billion of the Sun’s output in space.  This means that electric power emitted from the sun in space is 23 billion times greater than on Earth (http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/; “Space Solar Power”).  A solar panel on a satellite up in space can absorb these Sun’s rays and power the satellite as long as the panels face the Sun.  

Solar Power Satellites is a concept thought up by Peter Glaser in 1968.  A satellite, with solar arrays, spreading out for 10 kilometers, would be placed in geosynchronous orbit (GEO).  GEO is 22,300 miles (35,000 kilometers) up from Earth’s surface, where the satellite would orbit the Earth in 24 hours.  Because of this, it would hover over one point on Earth at all times.  

A solar satellite placed in this position would collect the sun’s rays, convert them into microwaves, and beam them down to a receiving antenna (rectenna) on one spot of the Earth, where five to 10 billion watts of direct current would be generated and distributed to where that grid might deliver it, even at a distance of several thousand miles/kilometers.

The proposed technology has been improved to a point where 10 kilometers of panels are not necessary, and one proposal has a series of satellite 400 kilometers up, where they would beam lasers into a mirror and beam the power to Earth (http://www.energy.gov/maps/space-based-solar-power “Space Based Solar Power”).  When one satellite has passed, another would take its place, so the power would be constant.

These series satellites and SPS systems would complement, not replace, renewable energy sources, and would provide the massive power needed for industries and ever growing populations that Earth solar, wind, and geothermal energy could not provide.  Not only that, but remote areas in places like China, India, and Africa could have rectennas and provide power to places where the inhabitants would not normally have power, or would use polluting sources or needed plant life, thus providing power and saving their environment simultaneously. 

Helium-3, though not yet developed, is a vital fuel for nuclear fusion, a process of fusing atoms together, producing great amounts of power and leaving no nuclear waste.  Should nuclear fusion be developed, that would be another massive source of clean energy in areas unable to support receiving antennas for solar satellite systems.

Helium-3 is a helium element with two electrons and neutrons, like the normal helium atom, but with only one proton in its nucleus.  It originates from the sun and it carried by a solar wind to various bodies, such as the Moon and the gas giants, but also the Earth’s upper atmosphere, and quite possible Mercury itself, although that is never mentioned.  It can also be created with the decomposition of tritium.

Helium-3 would be used for nuclear fusion, the process of literally fusing two atoms into another element, producing massive amounts of power, with no generator or turbines, and little or no radioactivity.  

The first phase would be a deuterium-tritium reaction, the first step that is necessary to take to lead to the development of a helium-3 reaction.  The reaction here will leave a lot of radiation.

The second phase would be a Helium-3/Deuterium reaction, fusing into an element of on helium atom with one proton, and the proton could be used to generate more electricity.  There would be low level waste that can be taken care of easily.  With the advent of space technology, it can be transported into space and disposed of, should there be no use of it here.

The third phase would be a double Helium-3 reaction, the fusing of two helium-3 atoms into one conventional helium atom and two free flowing protons, again, that can be used to generate more electricity.  There would be massive amounts of electricity with no radiation or waste (http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/a235/1283056/; “Mining the Moon;”  Dec 6, 2004).

The third phase would be absolute clean energy.  The second would be clean energy up to a point, but with manageable waste or low level radiation that can be prevented from harming the local populations.  (I am aware of what happened at Chernobyl and Fukishima, be this was nuclear fission, the splitting of atoms, not nuclear fusion.)

Helium-3 can be found in the upper reaches of Earth’s atmosphere and on the surface of the Moon.  On the Moon, the amount of this element has been found to be 50 parts per billion (ppb) maximum, so digging nine feet lunar regolith about three quarters of a square mile, and processing the regolith would supply enough Helium-3 to power a country as large as the United States for a year.  With the addition of other energy sources, this amount of time could be stretched, but constant processing the the dirt would still be required.  The good news is that other needed elements, metals and oxygen are also contained in this dirt in a greater amount, so these elements would have to have priority;  i.e. taken out first, with the Helium-3 element at the same time, to save costs and labor, and make profits from these other elements.  Process the dirt for everything, and separate the Helium-3.

The planet Mercury would definitely have this same element, perhaps in greater amounts since it is closer to the sun, but it is also hotter during the day cycle, so there would need to be greater protection from the heat.  It would be mined like the Moon.  Near Earth asteroids would also contain this vital element.

The Earth’s atmosphere can be mined for this element, very easily with sub-orbital, unmanned spacecraft.

In later decades, long after we reach Mars, the gas giants could then be targeted for Helium-3:  Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.  That would be at least after the year 2100 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3).

Now that we know the availability of Helium-3 and its potential for producing massive amounts of clean energy, all we need to do is to develop fusion technology.  Research on this technology has been ongoing for over 60 years, and the break even point, where one can generate as much energy as one expends, has not yet been reached.  After this, we need the breakthrough, generating more energy than expended.  Countries have been researching this on their own, but I feel it is time that all scientists and nuclear engineers from all countries collaborate on this venture, putting together what they have learned, and how to continue from there.  It can be done.  We need more research, facilities, and, of course, funding.

The last subject of this I would like to discuss is the hydrogen economy, involving platinum and platinum group metals.  These elements are rare on Earth, but are a lot more common in asteroids, and there are enough near-Earth asteroids to provide this metal.

Platinum, for now, is needed as a catalyst to help power fuel cells.

From the beginning, the hydrogen economy is slowly coming, and by this, I mean hydrogen can be used to power vehicles such as cars and trucks, and airplanes.  Hydrogen powers transportation vehicles not be generators, but by fuel cells, where hydrogen is mixed with oxygen, from the air, producing electricity.  The waste product emitted is water, so there are no polluting gases whatever.
There are many different types of fuel cells, using different fuels, but what will be covered here will be the Polymer Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell, that uses hydrogen.

If you look at the diagram, it can guide you as I explain the process.  Pressurized hydrogen gas (H2) enters the fuel cells through the anode, the negatively charged electrode of the cell.  When it comes in contact with the platinum coating on the anode, the hydrogen molecule splits into two electrons and two ions (positively charged particles).  The electrons then proceed through the cathode where oxygen (O2) enters through the cathode, splitting into two oxygen atoms, with a negative charge.  This attracts the ions from the hydrogen and, through an electrolyte in the cell, combine with the oxygen and the two electrons from the circuit, forming water (H20).  This also releases electricity to power the vehicle.  Other devices are required to channel the electricity, such as fuel cell stacks and bipolar plates, but this is the basics of a fuel cell and how it works (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/alternative-fuels/fuel-cell2.htm “How Fuel Cells Work.”)

In a hydrogen economy, there will literally be hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of vehicles running on hydrogen.  Obtaining the hydrogen should be simple.  Without the need for transporting it, there could be small refueling stations that will have the technology to take water and split it into hydrogen and oxygen on the spot, thus supplying the fuel.  

The issue here is the platinum.  With all those vehicles with fuel cells, platinum will be in high demand, and it can be found in only a few places on Earth, in places like Africa.  The process of mining it can threaten, even destroy the environment surrounding these deposits, so we will have to look elsewhere.  This is where we go into space to obtain it.

There are two places to mine these metals: the Moon and near Earth Asteroids (NEAs).  It is widely believed that platinum and platinum group metals (PGMs) might exist on the Moon.  These metals, because of their scarcity compared to other metals, are known as trace elements.  This list includes not only platinum, but other metals such as osmium, iridium, gold, and other related residual elements that may be of use on fuel cells.  If there are metals, we can mine them from the regolith, simultaneously with other elements, including Helium-3.  In order to obtain these PGMs, they would not be the metals to be mined, but other, more abundant resources, such as iron, carbon, magnesium, nickel, and these trace elements would be byproducts of the extraction of these other metals.

Whatever the supply of PGMs on the Moon, be it ample or scarce, the first place these metals would be mined from are the asteroids, not the Moon.

It has been proven that asteroids have large deposits of platinum group metals, and John Lewis, author of “Space Resources” and “Mining the Sky” explains the types of asteroids in existence and which one have the PGMs, and they are a lot, enough to provide metal for fuel cells to power every vehicle on Earth, and then some.

Here, all we have to do is to mine the asteroids, which is what we are now about to do anyway.

There are many categories of NEAs, but the three main types we will focus on are the low-low (LL) chrondrite asteroids, the 90% nickel/iron (Ni/Fe) asteroids, and the 98% Ni/Fe asteroids.  The iron and nickel asteroids is estimated to be 25% of all asteroids in the system near and/or crossing Earth’s orbit (Lewis, John S., “Asteroid Mining 101: Wealth For The New Space Economy,” Deep Space Industries, 2015,  p.104).

As with the Moon, the PGMs would not be the metal primarily mined, by as byproducts of the more common metals of nickel and iron.  This process is of obtaining these byproducts is known as carbonyl extraction, meaning injecting carbon monoxide in the regolith for a chemical reaction to exact the platinum.  It is estimated that one can extract 31 grams per ton with the remainder being dirt and other metals.  Other PGMs range from germanium (1.02 kilograms per ton) to Rhodium and gold (a little more than 4 grams per ton.)  

This may not seem like much, but, as an example, take the asteroid name 3554 Anum, a metallic asteroid with a diameter of two kilometers.  The weight is estimated to be 30 billion tons.  John S. Lewis, Professor of Planetary Science at the University of Arizona’s Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, estimated that, in 2014 dollars, there are $8.88 trillion worth of PGMs in the single asteroid, and that is the smallest out of the tens of thousands of mineable asteroids so far discovered.

From this, I feel that, regardless of how rare platinum is right now, there is enough in the NEAs and lunar surface (and eventually, other planets and moons) to satisfy the demand for platinum in fuel cells, and don’t forget the other metals having priority.  There may be a substitute element for platinum for these hydrogen fuel cells that is more common, so the mining of so much platinum may prove unnecessary.  

It doesn’t matter, for space industry will take off regardless.

The combination of the three clean energy sources on Earth, solar, wind, and geothermal energy, supplemented with solar power satellites, Helium-3 nuclear fusion, and fuel cells for a hydrogen economy, can make create a totally clean energy economy for Earth.

Energy is one of the dirtiest businesses there is, and as we run out of energy sources, such as wood (the first energy source), coal, oil, natural gas, we have to look for other sources, requiring more advance technologies.  As we progress in producing energy, the technologies gets harder and more demanding, but if we are to maintain and improve our quality of life, we must go forward, not back.  We need to give up fossil fuels, though their use will be around for a long time to come, even as we advance into cleaner energy sources;  i.e. oil and gas are used for making plastics, chemicals, nylons, computer chips, even medicines.  

We do need advanced energy sources so as not to drown in our own poisons.  It is possible.  They are both down here on Earth, and up there in space.  We need only to work and invest the money to obtain them.

Alastair Browne

Other References not mentioned in this essay

1. Brown, Lester; with Janet Larsen, J. Matthew Roney, and Emily E. Adams;  Earth Policy Institute;  “The Great Transition - Shifting from Fossil Fuels to Solar and Wind Energy.”  W.W. Norton & Company;  New York;  London;  2015;  pp. 19, 21, 34, 35, 41, 73, 74, 76, 84, 85, 90, 91, 99, 100, 102-107, 121.

2. CBS News, 60 Minutes, “The Spill at the Dan River,” covered by Lesley Stahl, December 7, 2014.

3. Diagram of Helium-3/Deuterium reaction from “America at the Threshold - America’s Space Exploration Initiative;”  The Synthesis Group; U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.; 1991; p. A-33.  Redrawn by Charlie Shaw.

4. Diagram of Helium-3/Helium-3 reaction based on Helium-3/Deuterium reaction (Ibid. p. A-33) and redone by Alastair Browne.

5. Diagram of Fuel Cell by Alastair Browne.

6. Energy Information Administration;  (http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=527&t=4; “Frequently asked questions, How much of world energy consumption and electricity generation is from renewable energy?” updated December 18, 2014)

7. Lewis, John S.; Mining the Sky; Helix Books, Addison-Wesley 

Company; Reading, Massachusetts, etc.; 1996; pp. 112.

Out Beyond the Sky Lies a Junkyard

Sounds imaginary and poetic, except for one thing;  it’s a fact, and it’s a very serious problem.  I am talking about space junk, or space debris, and it’s getting worse.

To review, space debris is the result of the residue of spent stages of rockets used to launch spacecraft and are discarded in orbit, and satellites that have outlived their usefulness.  First of all, some of these rocket stages have exploded as a result of leftover fuel, scattering the remains.  Satellites, once they are obsolete, are turned off and burnt out, falling apart with scrap metal, bolts, o-rings, and anything else comprising it are scattered in orbit.  This space junk then orbits at speeds up to 18,000 miles per hour (28,800 kilometers per hour), with impacts to other satellites at a speed of 22,500 mph (36,000 kph), posing a threat to any functioning satellite and the International Space Station (ISS).  

Compare these velocities to that of a bullet fired from a gun.  On average, the bullet would travel at a speed of 3000 mph (4800 kph).  This means that a piece of orbiting space debris travels at a velocity six times that of a bullet.  Even the tiniest piece of space debris, traveling at these speeds can do extensive damage to a satellite upon collision.

The threat is increasing due to more space junk being created and has the potential to create unforeseen catastrophes.

Some space junk was created deliberately.  In 2007, China launched an anti-satellite weapon for testing, using a dead weather satellite as a target 500 miles above the Earth’s surface.  As a result, a cloud of space debris was formed, further threatening satellites in that level of orbit.   This means nuts, bolts, shards of metal, all speeding at 18,000 MPH in a cloud formation around the Earth indefinitely, that will damage and destroy any satellite that crosses its path.  That is how serious the threat is, and will remain so for hundreds of years.

Space junk comes in all sizes, from the size of a pebble, or a fleck of paint, to the size of school buses and bigger, and pose a serious threat to all satellites and the ISS.  

There was an incident where a fleck of paint hit the windshield of a space shuttle while in orbit, and penetrated two layers of the glass.  Had it been a small pebble or bigger, it would have been a disaster for the entire ship and crew.

This is a disaster waiting to happen.  Satellites could collide with one another, forming smaller, hazardous debris.  A chain reaction can then develop, with these pieces hitting even more satellites, forming more junk, hitting more satellites, exponentially expanding the cloud of debris, becoming a minefield.

If you look at a satellite image tracking Earth orbit, it will look like a force field completely surrounding the Earth, like a shell, or a barrier.  This barrier may someday become impenetrable, meaning that no spacecraft will be able to pass it without a piece of space junk hitting and destroying it, thus creating even more space junk, increasing its impenetrability.  This can happen, and it’s headed in that direction.

It already has, on a small scale.  On February 10, 2009, Iridium-33, part of a constellation of communication satellites supporting cell phones, crashed into a dead Russian satellite, Cosmos 2251.  The result was the destruction of both satellites and more space debris.  

More recently, U.S. Defense Meteorological Satellite Program Flight 13 (DMSP-F13) exploded, creating 43 new pieces of space junk.

An average satellite in LEO orbits the Earth 16 times per day.  Close approaches between two satellites within a few miles occur 1500 times per day.  It is only a matter of time where pieces of space junk will destroy more satellites, creating the chain reaction described earlier in this essay.

It is estimated that over 6600 satellites have been launched.  According to Wikipedea (Under that heading “Satellite”), there are 3600 satellites presently in orbit with only 1000 of these functioning today (500 in low Earth orbit, being 200 miles (320 km), 50 are in medium Earth orbit (at 12,500 miles or 20,00 km), and the rest, about 450, are in geosynchronous orbit (at 22,300 miles or 35,680 km).  The rest, once they outlasted their usefulness and have been replaced, have either burned up in the Earth’s atmosphere or remained in orbit and are deteriorating.  

In low and medium Earth orbit, up to 1000 kilometers (625 miles), there are an estimated 300 million pieces of space debris, ranging from a few millimeters to the size of a school bus.  The total weight of all this junk is estimated to be about 6000 tons,  being both defective satellites, its parts, and spent rocket stages, even lost items from astronauts while space walking.  There was a time when garbage was thrown out of Soviet space stations, creating more litter, but fortunately, that practice was discontinued.

Beyond geosynchronous orbit (GEO), 22,300 miles (35,680 kilometers) up, the point where any satellite will hover over a fixed point on Earth 24 hours a day, there are over 400 dead satellites, jettisoned there in a graveyard orbit, to make room for other, newer satellites.  These dead satellites will remain there for centuries, or more.

Before going any further, I would like to mention the once believed Big Sky Theory, where space is so big, that anything launched in orbit will not collide with anything else.  Unfortunately, this theory has been disproven.   Earth orbital space is smaller than we ever imagined.  It is limited, and we are sending literally thousands of satellites up there, and the danger of them colliding is increasing.

LEO is 200 miles up, with most satellites, the Hubble Space Telescope, and the ISS orbiting in that area.

MEO, being mid Earth orbit, between LEO and GEO, holds weather satellites, the Global Positioning System (GPS), being a constellation of satellites, a given number in the same orbital evenly spread apart for constant, 24 hour, world wide communications.  There are also constellations of other satellite systems, such as communication satellites, including one system named Iridium.  

GEO carries mostly communication satellites, but there are proposals to place other kinds of satellites in that orbital path, such as solar power satellites, but that is way down the road.  Still, GEO is an orbital path with their slots for satellites in great demand from many different countries and other entities.

There are solutions to this problem.  Clean up the orbits of junk, and make Earth orbit safe for spacecraft.  That is known and obvious.  The difficulty will be developing new technology, sending people up there, which we plan to do anyway for other reasons, and, of course, money.  

There are creative ways, even ways to make a profit doing this.  

First, there is nature’s way.  Every 11 years or so, sunspot activity increases to a point where solar flares and ultraviolet radiation hit the Earth’s atmosphere with such intensity, that the atmosphere expands.  As it expands, the space junk in the area it expands into gets burned up, so as when the atmosphere contracts again to its normal state, there will be a clean orbit, but that’s only in LEO, and it will take centuries for this process to completely clean Earth orbit of debris.

Many live satellites, including the ISS, has shielding against debris, and the ISS has a system that can detect incoming space debris and is able to dodge it before colliding with it.

On Earth, there is a U.S. Space Surveillance Network, that tracks and catalogs space junk bigger than a softball.  For now, debris the size of marbles are beyond detection, but that could change.

What are some of the ways to clean up Earth orbit, be it Low, Middle, or GEO?  

My idea would be to hold up a large screen in orbit, a “flypaper,” catching marble sized and smaller debris until the screen couldn’t hold any more, wrap the whole thing up into a ball, and fling it in the atmosphere, where it will burn.  There would be hundreds of these screens doing the job.

Japan invented the idea of the fishing net, catching similar debris and bigger, with a similar process.  

Today, the amount of satellites properly disposed of is less than half the number of satellite that become defective.  To improve on this, we can attach a tether on a new satellite before it is launch, have it hidden inside until, in 10 or 20 years, the satellite wears itself out and is no long functional, release the tether where it will drag the satellite down into the atmosphere to burn.  An alternative to tethers would be solar sails, deployed when the satellite becomes defunct.

Another alternative is to have a small propulsion system attached to the satellite that, upon obsolescence, jettison the defunct satellite into the Earth’s atmosphere to burn.

At the present moment, lasers are being researched to track a piece of space garbage, no matter how small, and zap it, burning it in the atmosphere.  This can be done both on the ground and in space.  There is a proposal to attach a laser to the ISS to zap any piece of debris it detects, creating a clean and safe orbital path for the ISS.

A Japanese scientist, Dr. Toshikazu Ebisuzaki, proposed using a certain type of laser system called the coherent-amplification network device, developed for use in high-energy physics.  In its full development, it would be mounted on a satellite, or the ISS, shooting down literally tens of thousands of pieces of space debris annually.  Imagine have a fleet of satellites to perform this task.  

I propose a fleet of laser satellites in different levels of orbit constantly searching and destroying space debris, cleaning up Earth orbit.  This would be done on an international basis, involving the cooperation of all spacefaring nations, sharing in both the labor and the expense.

A space station in mid Earth orbit, with ships similar to the shuttle that could retrieve satellites for repair and upgrading on the station would save money and resources to the company owning the satellite.  The damaged, defective, or outdated satellite can be retrieved, and a crew on board the station could repair and upgrade it, giving new life to the satellite for another decade or two.  This would save the company the expenses of both building a new satellite and launching it.

One last way would be to salvage the satellite for recycling the materials itself, known as active debris removal, or ADR.  There are laws on the books against this activity, so one would have to obtain permission from the company that owns the satellite.  Any spent rocket stages are salvageable.  

There is the option that is a company want a defunct satellite back, or is ordered by law to remove (this is possible), they can pay for the salvager to retrieve it and return it to its original owner.

Imagine a space garbage truck, picking up satellites and rocket parts.  Imagine “mining” the graveyard orbit of all the space junk there, taking them back to a space factory to reprocess the metals and manufacture other goods.  It is possible, with a space truck and a space factory.

There are problems and obstacles to this endeavor.  Governments and private companies still own these defunct satellites, even when they are no longer operational and deteriorating in orbit, and they still retain their rights to this ownership.  We may have to deal with each government and private entity on a one-to-one basis in removing these satellites and salvaging its materials.  Of course, one incentive can be that if their satellite damages any other satellite, they would be held liable, so they may be more than glad to have it removed.

Technically, it may not be, at present, possible to reach and grab every piece of space junk, so more forms of space technology will have to be developed.  

There is also the cost of salvaging the satellite, or rocket part.

If legal issues are resolved, the contents of the satellite or rocket stage could help pay for the salvaging process.

As of the present moment, we can only rely of the 11 year sun cycle and build future satellite with tethers, solar sails, or rockets for them to plunge into the atmosphere once they become obsolete.

Alastair Browne

1. “Char Wars - How to Clean Up Space by Shooting Down its Junk;”  The Economist, April 25, 2015, p. 75.
2. NASA Orbital Debris Program Office; “Orbital Debris - Frequently Asked Question;”  http://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/faqs.html#16.     3.  Rossettini, Luca;  “Space Debris Prevention, Remediation, or Mitigation?”  Space News, March 23, 2015, pp. 19, 21.
3. Rossettini, Luca;  "Space Debris Prevention, Remediation, or Mitigation?"  Space News, March 23 2015, pp. 19, 21.
4. Space Junk 3-D;  Blue-Ray Video, RLJ Entertainment, Melrae Pictures and Red Baron Production, 2013.

5. Wikipedia, “Satellite,”  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite.

Book Review: "Beyond: Our Future in Space" by Chris Impey

This is an overview of space exploration, past, present, and future. This is not a textbook, nor is it a book on space technology or business. It isn’t meant to be. What it is is to give you a view on space from a historical and realistic point of view, the dreams of space exploration from our earliest times, in a positive manner that is hopefully to be our next step in our evolution of civilized man. It will not progress in a straight line, and there will be setbacks as well as unexpected obstacles in setting out on this new endeavor. It will not be progressive as computer technology, where, one buys the latest computer, and a few years later it becomes obsolete because of a fast paced technology. Space technology, as we have learn since Sputnik, back in 1957, is not fast paced, and it never has been. In many cases, we, being not only the U.S. but Russia as well, are still using 1960s technology.
In a manner of speaking, this book tells you why, and it is not the fault of any country or entity such as NASA. We went on a fast paced race to the Moon from President Kennedy’s announcement in 1961 to the landing in 1969, and continued to pursue it until 1972, and then stopped, in pursuit of other space projects; Skylab, the space shuttle. We slowed down because our interest waned, as any new venture does with the public at large. Privatization, in the launching business, and set to expand in other industries.
Chris Impey’s Beyond is divided into four sections, each beginning with part of a fictitious tale, all being one story, of an adventurer setting out on the frontier a century or more from now, ending, in the last section, of landing on a planet orbiting another star. The first three sections deal in the past, present, and future, and the fourth covers a century or two from now when we may set out for the stars (titled “Beyond”).
When man set out from his birthplace in Africa to wander Asia, Europe, and then the Americas in the span of over one hundred thousand years, to a tale of a Chinese government official, Wan Hu, tying rockets (fireworks) to his chair to launch himself into space. They never found him, but there were explosions in the sky, to the 20th century with a brief summery on the launch of Sputnik, the Apollo Moon landings, and the space shuttle.
It is in the second section, justifiably called “present,” that gives the run-down on what is happening now, with Chapter 4 optimistically called, “Revolution is Coming.” This section first describe NASA’s low period after the Moon landings ended, to how and why its budget fell from five percent to 0.5% of the federal budget, and what NASA subsequently did. The history of airplane and space flight is covered here, and then fast forwards to the present, with the advent of space tourism, and what is required to participate.
The entrepreneurs, from Burt Rutan of Virgin Galactic to Elon Musk of Space X are all here, along with the financial problems and solutions of setting up one’s business.
Many little known facts, of all aspects of space travel are mentioned, from space sickness to government red tape (regulations, and fees) in setting up your own business. If one can handle all this, the next challenge would be to figure out how to deal with the space frontier itself, i.e. how much fuel is required to get to a satellite or space station in low Earth orbit, how much will it cost, how cheap can you make it and still turn out a profit. Note, this does not necessarily point out what space has to offer for you to make money. The book merely states the complexities of doing so; what is required, how much will it cost, what are the risks. Space technology is compared to other high tech industries, but also points out that it is not progressing at the same speed.
Many experiments have been mentioned, such as Biosphere 2, where the media hyped it, but turned out to be a failure because oxygen ran down and had to be resupplied from outside, but it also covered on what has succeeded in that experiment, and how one can correct the mistakes and capitalize on its successes.
Of course, there has also been a lot of government waste (of money) in the space program, which was why the entrepreneurs are now coming in and picking up the slack. A shuttle launch costed $1.5 billion. A SpaceX launch costs $10 million, and decreasing.
There is the future. China, of course, will be a participant. Settlements on the Moon, colonies on Mars, and what has been proposed has been covered. Will it be that simple? Mars One is a project to put people on Mars permanently. What will be the psychological effects?
New propulsion systems such as solar sailing, and it various types, are explained.
Lastly, we hope to go to the stars. But, complex technology is involved, requiring energy at least 10 times as much as the entire Earth presently produces in order to travel one tenth the speed of light.
The writings of visionaries are featured, from Gerard O’Neill’s space habitats to Freeman Dyson’s “Dyson Sphere,” along with honorable mentions from prominent science fiction writers.
This is a book that covers man’s history of wandering the Earth, his dreams of traveling to space since the Middle Ages, the present accomplishments, and what is being done now from both governments and entrepreneurs, and what is required to finally achieve this dream. It is possible, but not with risks and dangers, new advances in technologies, the travelers who are able to physically and psychologically handle the venture, and, of course, lots of money.

Alastair Browne

There's Big Money in Space!

“You have to spend money to make money.”

-What the owner of a pizza place 

once told me back in 1970

During the Apollo-Shuttle Era, no one business could invest in space because little was known about the opportunities there, and the transportation costs were too high.  There has been talk about “cheap access to space” meaning the government (NASA) should build cheaper rockets, but the reality is they are not in the business of doing so.  Not only that, they can’t, no matter how hard they try.  

For decades, there has been talk about private enterprise moving in, and now, with the shuttle gone, they are finally doing so, and not just with transportation, but with space tourism, asteroid mining, insurance, and the stock market.  Many other industries will soon come in, industries doing tasks we have never before imagined.

The communications industry, incidentally has had private satellites since the 1960s (ComSat, etc.), but this is about to expand, big time.

Before going any further, I would like to state loudly and clearly that, despite the title of this essay, you must know, and let this sink in, that no industry will invest in the space field unless they know they can turn a profit.  Without profits, there will be no incentive to go up there and invest.  When a business, any business, loses money, it folds.  Do not forget this!

This is why businesses didn’t invest in space in the past, unless it was by way of government contracts.  There, with the Moon landings and later, the shuttle, along with military rockets and satellites, profits are guaranteed, even if the project fails or is cancelled.

With the exception of the military, those days are gone.  NASA and the government will have major roles to play in the future, but not the same role as they played in the past.

Before the tourism and mining industries, before we get to settle into space, on the Moon, and eventually to Mars and beyond, we must have cheap and reliable transportation.  NASA is unable to provide this (a space shuttle launch costed $1.5 billion), but now, private industry in stepping in with SpaceX, Orbital ATK, and Boeing, and others are quickly joining the launch industry.

When it was solely NASA’s job to launch rockets, be they Delta, or Atlas, or any other class of rockets, launch costs varied, from $3000 to $6000 per pound of cargo.  To launch on the space shuttle, one had to pay about $10,000 per pound (costs are projected in 2005 dollars).  This was only to low Earth orbit.

In order to launch to geosynchronous Earth orbit, 22,300 miles up, where the satellite is above a fixed point on Earth at all times, the costs increased.  These costs varied, from $10,000 to $18,000 per pound.  Russia advertised lower costs, but these were subsidized by their government.  Real launch costs in Russia, China, and Europe are not much better.

Then came SpaceX.  SpaceX, with their Falcon Heavy, has broken the $1000 per pound launch cost barrier, and costs are projected to decrease further.  This is 10% of that of the shuttle, and the Chinese themselves have stated that they couldn’t compete with that.  This is due to 1) low manufacturing costs, where the entire rocket is built in one factory, as opposed to different stages of the rocket being built by different companies and transporting them for assembly;  2) low operations costs, efficiency and fewer man-hours required to launch and 3) high-efficiency performance.  Time is reduced, from manufacturing engines to fueling up the rocket itself.

Other private launch companies are up and coming.  Among them are XCOR, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic, Sierra Nevada, Boeing, and the list continues to increase as of this writing.  All of them have their own unique way of lowering costs, from hypersonics to shuttle like designed space planes, and they will complete fiercely with SpaceX for cost.  

With lower launch costs come an increase in demand from customers, doing various projects, from near zero gravity experiments to building new and privately owned space stations, space factories, a needed space infrastructure, and mining the asteroids for minerals that will be in great demand, starting with water ice.

Many of these asteroids are partly composed of water ice, and they are very easy to find.  Planetary Resources, one of two asteroid mining companies, have expressed great interest in mining these asteroids of ice, to be melted into water and used and fuel, and there is a market for it that already exists.

You might ask, “how can water be used for fuel?”  Water, H₂0, from the symbol is composed of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen.  Through a process of electrolysis (the use of electricity, which can be obtained by using solar energy in space), you can separate these into hydrogen and oxygen.  When you fuel both into a rocket, or in this case, a satellite, it creates a reaction that will propel the rocket or satellite into its desired orbit. 

This is a market that is needed right now!  There are over 400 satellites that need refueling in order for them to remain in their proper orbits, or else their orbits will deteriorate and fall back into the Earth’s atmosphere, where they will burn.  Should this happen, and it does, all the time, the company will have to replace the satellite, with building a new one, along with the cost of launching it, which means, they will have to spend a lot of money in order to replace it.  This is just one satellite.  Think of how much it would cost to replace several, or a whole network, being 50 or more.

Should these satellites be refueled, they can propel themselves back into their proper orbits, adding years, perhaps decades, of use, thus saving the companies who own them millions, billions of dollars.

The market for fuel will be huge.   How much will these companies pay for these fuels, to keep their satellites in orbit?  Gold, as of this writing, is said to be worth $18,000 per pound.  Water, in space is said to be worth $23,000 per pound.  In space, water is worth more than gold.  

It is estimated that it would cost $50 million to fuel one satellite per year.  The price may sound steep, but think about the cost of building a new satellite plus the cost of launching it.  With 400 satellites needing fuel to stay in orbit, we are looking at a $20 billion a year market, just with water from asteroids alone.  

Later, we can build fueling depots in space, not just for satellites, but with any rocket launched from Earth needing to venture further than low Earth orbit (200 miles up).  This could lessen the need for heavy lift launch vehicle from Earth (i.e. the proposed Space Launch System).  Space stations also need refueling, for the same reason as satellites. 

Water would be a fuel, but would also be for traditional uses:  sustenance for humans and plants (agriculture).  One little known fact is that water can also be used for radiation shielding.  One cubic meter of water can shield all radiation, especially in the event of solar flares.

Water will be the first extraterrestrial element to be harvest from asteroids, and it won’t be the last.  Asteroids are also composed of other elements, among them being Platinum Group Metals (PGMs), for computers, components in solar power satellites, and, of course, jewelry.  Other metals will be mined for construction materials for space stations, habitats, factories, and settlements on the Moon.  Wealth will come from all these elements, along with the process of manufacturing materials needed for construction of space colonies.  Mostly, whatever is mined in space will be used in space.  

Factories in zero gravity will produce pure crystals, alloys, and medicines, chemical mixtures and compounds that cannot be mixed on Earth because of its gravity.  New cures for diseases can be found, and its being done on the International Space Station right now.  Of course, mass producing all this will bring in profits.

Space tourism, the first money making venture on the list, will become popular as costs decrease, with orbital flights, stays in orbiting hotels, and eventually, on the Moon.

Transportation will play a large part in all this, and what will be needed is fuel.  This will not come from the Earth, but the asteroids near Earth’s orbit.

And so it begins.  Space tourism will come first, then, when we reach an asteroid, we will start to mine it, starting with the most valuable element, water.  This process will then start a chain reaction, a slow one, but a reaction nonetheless, of what will be needed afterwards to either stay in business, and create new businesses.  Many of these will be those that we, at present, can’t even imagine.  

Recently, a new company called “Tethers Unlimited” proposed to build a satellite, or many satellites, that can construct large structure in space by using tethers, generating them and then spinning them, like that of a spider, into whatever shape it pleases.  This process is similar to that of a 3-D printer, which is being used on the International Space Station right now.  This is something I never would have imagined.  

Anyway, once transportation, and then mining of water from asteroids takes off, there will be other industries following in their wake, and space business will start to boom into a multi-trillion dollar economy.  That’s right, trillion!

Alastair Browne