astronomy Archives - Page 3 of 418 - The Spacewriter's Ramblings

So, apropos of the launch of four Axiom Space astronauts to the International Space station, I did a short interview with a writer in Singapore about the future of space commercialization. They asked me what I thought two big directions for commercialization would be. Now there are many directions space commerce can and will take. I chose two that have piqued my interest: space tourism and asteroid resource mining. Space tourism is more likely to happen sooner, mostly because the infrastructure for mining is still to be built. And, of course, the market needs to be defined and built. There ARE companies thinking about this, so it will happen. It just remains to be seen WHEN it will happen.

The Axiom 1 mission carried commercial astronauts to space aboard a Space X Falcon 9 rocket. — A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket, carrying the company’s Crew Dragon spacecraft, carried the Axiom Mission 1 (Ax-1) to the ISS. The Ax-1 mission was the first private astronaut mission to the space station.

Space Commercialization: People Have Opinions

I noticed that after the Axiom launch, the discussion about commercializing space ramped up on the social media channels. Some people are all for commercializing space, while others disapprove of anything that smacks of space tourism for rich folks. I get that. We actually discussed it on the Weekly Space Hangout last week. Part of the conversation focused on the idea that it’ll be a long time before “regular folks” go to space. For the time being, rides to space are limited to the folks who can pay for it. Or, the folks are being sent by government agencies.

Surprise: It’s Not a New Idea

In truth, space has been commercialized for a long time. You could look at it one way and realize that the involvement of commercial enterprises has always been there. Who do you think built spacecraft for NASA? Aerospace companies. And that was the first step toward commercializing and industrializing space. That hasn’t changed. There are many companies involved in space and always have been. And, the whole New Space movement is predicated on younger, nimbler companies stepping up to do the business of space. A Harvard Business Review article published earlier this year pointed out that there are actually two main parts to the “space sector”—what they call “space for Earth” and “space for space.”

In “space for Earth”, companies are involved in creating goods and services produced in space for use here on the ground. That includes some very venerable “product”: Earth-observing satellites, national security assets, and research done on orbit (such as on the ISS).

Newer activities, such as the launch of Starlink (to provide Internet access), and advanced telecommunications, comprise others. It seems like there’s a Starlink or other launch every week or so. This ready access to space by SpaceX, ULA, RocketLab and others benefits from decreased launch costs for hardware, and so on. That’s really helped, for example, the satellite industry.

What’s the Future of Space Commercialization?

The future of space tourism and asteroid mining and the creation of goods and services produced in space for use on orbit, or on the Moon, or on the way to Mars—that’s a little farther out. I’m talking about things like building habitats, supply stations or research stations, bases for asteroid exploration, or jumping-off points to Mars, for example.

One other thing that I want to say is that while there is a lot of scoffing going on about the rich guys flying in space, the advent of space tourism isn’t that far away. And, if you can make money transporting the non-rich folks up for a suborbital or a quick stay at a station, there’s nothing stopping you from transporting folks who want to live and work in space—and that’s going to spur on a lot of other businesses.

We’re already seeing the seeds of this in the current commercialization—and that commercialization started way back in the 1960s. We maybe just didn’t realize it at the time. But, like it or not, the era of space commercialization is now entering new levels of investment in both funding and human capital.

Planetary scientists can usually tell a great deal about a world’s history by looking at its surface. This is particularly true of the Moon. Of course, we’re all familiar with the so-called “near side”—it’s what we see from here on Earth. It has large plains called “maria” (Latin for “oceans”). These are wide, dark-colored old lava flows that flooded the surface between 1 and 3 billion years ago. There are also many craters, which were “excavated” by objects plowing into the surface. In fact, the entire Moon is pockmarked with craters from that period.

The lunar Near side, as seen by NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter in 2010. The large dark areas are the Mare, created by extensive volcanic flows. Impact craters surround the maria and imply a lot of bombardment early in the Moon's history. Courtesy NASA. — The lunar Near side, as seen by NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter in 2010. The large dark areas are called “maria”, created by extensive volcanic flows. Impact craters surround the mare and imply a lot of bombardment early in the Moon’s history. Courtesy NASA.

The lunar far side (the one that always faces away from us), looks much different. There are no maria, but we can see a LOT more craters over there. It’s almost like each side of the Moon has its own history. The Moon is tidally locked to Earth (meaning the far side always faces outward from Earth). So, we had no idea how different they were until the Space Age allowed orbiters to study the entire lunar surface.

The lunar Far side shows much more impact cratering and very few basins. The darkened area in the lower middle is the Aikin-South Pole basin. Image made by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter between 2009-2011. Courtesy NASA. — The lunar Far side shows much more impact cratering and very few maria and basins. The darkened area in the lower middle is the Aikin-South Pole basin. Image made by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter between 2009-2011. Courtesy NASA.

Explaining the Moon’s Two Sides

Most of the Moon’s craters formed during an event called the “Late Heavy Bombardment”. That happened some 3.8 billion years ago, although objects do still collide with the Moon today.

Still, there are some mysteries about the Moon that need solving. One of them involves a strange mix of chemical elements known as KREEP, and what their existence on the lunar near side tells us about its history.

Could KREEP be related to the difference between the two sides of the Moon? That’s a question that planetary scientists have been working to answer for many years. The visual evidence tells them that something happened. But, to get a true understanding of the event that caused the Moon to look so different, they looked for reasons that might explain the “two-sided dichotomy”.

A Heck of an Ancient Impact

Lately, scientists have pursued an idea that may tell the tale. It all starts with a feature near the lunar south pole called the “South Pole-Aitkin” (SPA) basin. It’s an impact basin that measures about 2500 kilometers across and over eight kilometers deep. It probably formed about four billion years ago. The most likely explanation is that a slow-moving object plowed into the Moon. The force of that impact melted a lot of rock and launched a plume of heat through the Moon.

An LRO image map of the Aitken-South Pole region on the Moon. Courtesy NASA. — An LRO image map of the Aitken-South Pole region. C ourtesy NASA.

As it traveled through the Moon, the plume would have carried such elements as thorium (which produces heat), rare earth metals, phosphorus, and other metals. That “splash” of heat would have spurred volcanic activity on the near side, creating the maria. In fact, there’s evidence for this idea in the chemical composition in a near side region called Oceanus Procellarum. It has a high concentration of these materials, often referred to as KREEP (K for potassium, REE is for rare earth elements, P is for potassium).

KREEP Tells the Tale

For a long time, scientists wondered how Procellarum could be rich with KREEP materials when the rest of the Moon isn’t. The impact that created the South Pole-Aitkin region would have been the trigger. In addition, the far side didn’t get “resurfaced” by volcanism since all the heat went to the near side. That could explain why the far side appears so much more cratered—its impacts weren’t obliterated by volcanic flows.

A computer model of heat convection in the Moon during and after an impact that sent a plume of heat and heat-producing elements through the lunar interior. Courtesy Brown University.

This hypothesis about the South Pole-Aitkin impact and its effect on the near side of the Moon is the latest attempt to tell the tale of the Moon’s two faces. It has been the subject of intense computer modeling by scientists at Brown University, Purdue, the Lunar and Planetary Science Laboratory, Stanford University, and NASA-JPL. You can read more about their work at this site.

The Spacewriter's Ramblings

Category Archives: astronomy

Space Commercialization: Some Thoughts