Categories
Bill Whittle Now

Bang Zoom! NASA Picks SpaceX, Blue Origin, Dynetics for Lunar Lander

NASA picks Elon Musk’s SpaceX, Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin and Dynetics to build a lunar lander, slated for a 2024 moon mission. Bill Whittle, creator of the four-part documentary ‘Apollo 11: What We Saw’, looks at the progress (as Jackie Gleason would say ‘bang zoom!’) to the moon, and the promise of profits in our off-the-planet future.

Watch Bill Whittle’s landmark series ‘Apollo 11: What We Saw‘ 

Bill Whittle Now with Scott Ott is a production of our Members, who enjoy backstage content and exclusive features that make them a band of brothers and sisters. Join us today and find your people.

Join the Rebellion

Listen to the Audio Version

Bill Whittle Network · Bang Zoom! NASA Picks SpaceX, Blue Origin, Dynetics for Lunar Lander

10 replies on “Bang Zoom! NASA Picks SpaceX, Blue Origin, Dynetics for Lunar Lander”

I was a huge NASA fan growing up during the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs. I was not a big fan of the space shuttle because it killed too many people for the number of missions. I was always concerned that the tiles on the orbiter were way too fragile. The O ring problem on the Challenger was just stupidity.

There are 2 major problems with manned missions to the moon.

The first problem is moon dust. Dust on microscopic level is much sharper than any sand or dust on the Earth due to the lack of water and wind to round off the jagged edges. It absolutely destroys any moving parts in spacecraft, spacesuits or anything mechanized. It would be very difficult to keep dust out of the living areas in a base. The dust destroys your lungs, it’s much worse than silicosis on earth.

A second problem is space blindness. In low gravity or microgravity environments, fluid pressure increases in the eyes and permanently mis-shapes the them to produce myopia. There is one case of an astronaut in orbit they went from 20/20 vision to 20/100 vision in 6 months. The longer you are exposed the worse vision gets.

Just these 2 problems alone seem like dealbreakers.
Just my 2 cents.

As I only follow this stuff on a superficial level, all I’m going to say is that I hope SpaceX gets the contract in the end because he’ll not only make it awesomely functional, he’ll also make it fun.

Bill,

Your assertion that “fusion produces no radioactive byproducts” is misleading to those who don’t know the actual details of the process.

A fusion reaction produces helium, which is an inert gas. It also produces and consumes tritium, which is a rare radioactive isotope of hydrogen, within the plant in a closed circuit. Tritium is radioactive (a beta emitter) but its half life is short, so the posed danger is negligible when compared to the much heavier isotopes found in fission. It is also only used in small amounts so, unlike long-lived radioactive nuclei, it cannot produce any serious danger. The activation* of the reactor’s structural material by intense neutron fluxes is another issue. This strongly depends on what materials are selected for the various structures, and its reduction is an important challenge for future fusion experiments.

Needless to say, fusion is not currently the panacea that you paint it to be.

*Neutron activation is the process in which neutron radiation induces radioactivity in materials, and occurs when atomic nuclei capture free neutrons,

There are a number of fusion reactions involving tritium, but the reaction Bill is referring to is He3 + He3 -> 2H1 + He4. Fusion is one of those technologies that’s been just 50 years away for the past 60 years. I like Peter Thiel’s take on the state of physics in that regard.

As a nuclear engineer, I understand at least that much.
The point that needs to be remembered is with regard to the practical implementation of the fusion reaction. In order to benefit from the produced energy, such reactions must be contained on Earth. To do so requires heavier materials, which will inevitably be exposed to high neutron fluxes; therefore, activation will occur. Unless we somehow create an unconfined nuclear fusion reaction in the void of space from which we can continuously and efficiently draw power, we must consider the practicalities associated with the engineering requirements imposed by our environment on the planet.
Needless to say, my point is we must be exceedingly careful with how we describe the potential benefits of fusion power sources; otherwise, we are misleading people into thinking there are no associated risks.

The only kind of fusion that is “within reach” (i.e., perpetually “just around the corner”) is D-T fusion. D-D fusion requires higher criteria and is further out of reach. He3-D fusion is the next step up, and He3-He3 is beyond that.

D-T and D-D both produce fast neutrons, which are dangerous. He3 reactions are “clean.”

Orbital manufacturing is incredibly exciting. Just looking at the electronics industry, space has large supplies of all of the needed materials plus 100 to 1000 times better vacuum than our production tools can manage.

I’m also curious about the feasibility of operating a high output synchrotron in orbit. We’re already spending billions on extreme UV lithography systems on Earth.

John Ringo’s Troy Rising series is a fun, if somewhat unrealistic, take on the glories of space capitalism.

Leave a Reply