Space Industry

Jun

2020

The Great Objection and its Confutation

(image: the recently discovered golden asteroid, worth $700 quintillion)

THE GREAT OBJECTION AND ITS CONFUTATION

— Why we cannot solve any problems on Earth before going to space —

The original version of this article was written in 2009, and reviewed by the author in May 2020

(from the old Technologies of the Frontier www.tdf.it website)

Before going to space, should we solve the problems here, on Earth?
The need for growth
The management of scarce resources is possible only by despotic regimes
The only way is space industrialization

Before going to space, should we solve the problems here, on Earth?

Whenever we speak about human presence in space to a general audience, and quite often when we talk with specialists as well, we have to hear the Great Objection: ”Before going to space, we have to solve our problems here, on the Earth”.

As soon as we reason about it we understand that the Objection is in fact a general dialectic scheme, which consists in changing the topic, pretending that the alternative is more important and urgent and so avoiding to reply to what the speaker has said. In short, it is a sort of quite-another-ism: “The problem is quite another, the cause is quite another…”.

But the Objection is Great, because too many people use it and take it for good, therefore we must face it at once and make people understand that the truth is exactly the opposite: if we don’t go to space and we don’t do it quickly, we are destined to a bad future here on the Earth. The reason is that the Earth has a finite size, to live all well we need economic growth and already now its resources are not enough, then we have to look for resources elsewhere – that is in the immense universe out there!

Continue reading →

Aug

2016

Additive manufacturing: a disruptive renaissance technology!

Additive manufacturing: a disruptive renaissance technology! by Adriano V. Autino
As promised, here is a short reportage—and a few considerations—of the Additive Manufacturing workshop that ran from July 20th to July 22nd 2016. The workshop, organized by ASI, took place in the auditorium of the Tor Vergata branch in Rome. The initiative—relying on the expertise of Roberto Formaro, head of ASI’s Technology and Engineering Division, Danilo Rubini, and their staff—has without doubt been a success. During the course of three days, it has seen more than 300 participants, mostly from the industrial and academic fields. During the workshop, about fifty speakers have taken the floor. Of these, the 60% were representatives from industrial or technological research entities, 30% from universities, and 10% from research institutions. Among the universities, many came from Milan Polytechnic and Tor Vergata University. I was a little taken aback by the more limited—although of remarkable level—participation of the Turin Polytechnic, especially considering the prominent presence of Turin-based companies at the workshop. Would you believe it possible that, during this seemingly endless economic crisis, in Italy of all places, an industrial sector is seeing growth rates in double figures? Well, this sector exists, and it is called Additive Manufacturing.
.		. During the workshop the involved parties had the opportunity to meet face to face, without hiding a certain surprise in realizing we are currently, in many cases, talking about actual production, and not only prototyping anymore, and that 3D printed components are already flying. There was extensive discussion on manufacturing process standardization and certification, a key step strongly recommended by ESA—represented at the workshop by Tommaso Ghidini, head of the Materials Technology section—for the safe use of such products.
. See also this great TED conference on 3D printing in space by Tommaso Ghidini. In the first part it is also shown the section of lunar wall printed in 3D by D-SHAPE (Enrico Dini). Enrico Dini, in his presentation at the workshop, demonstrated his 3D printing technique, achieved through a very big plotter that “writes” the chemical binder on layers of simulated lunar regolith.	.

Additive Manufacturing: a quick and non-exhaustive technical data sheet Since not all of us are experts of industrial productive techniques, a few informative notes are necessary. It is simple enough: traditional mechanical manufacturing technologies are called subtractive, since they mostly work on metals by subtracting material. From a round or squared piece, superfluous material is sheared through turning or milling with the support of CAD/CAM tech. I hope experts in mechanical processing technology will forgive me for this extreme simplification, but I just aim to give a general idea to the non-experts. Additive manufacturing—commonly known as 3D printing—operates instead in the opposite way, by adding material where it is needed. This is done by layering material in shapes based on CAD/CAM models. Prime materials are in this case powders from metal or other materials, then mixed with additives to obtain alloys and compound materials. The powders are then melted with lasers or other heat-based methods, following the outline of the digital model. 3D printing can also be used to create objects starting from polymers or polymeric alloys. Precision additive manufacturing is divided in a few sub-technologies. I will list here the ones I was able to note down: EBM (Electron Beam Melting), DMLS (Direct Metal Laster Sintering), SLM (Selective Laser Melting), SLS (Selective Laser Sintering), LBW (Laser Beam Welding), FDM (Fused Deposition Modeling). Large scale 3D printing, presented by its inventor Enrico Dini (D-SHAPE), utilizes sand mixed with chemical binders, and obtains a compound similar to rock. This is used to build habitable facilities and a variety of different elements—including artificial coral reefs to repopulate ocean floors. Since 2010, ESA has been experimenting with this technology to “print” habitable modules on the lunar surface, using regolith as construction base material. For more on this, see the famous videos of architect Norman Foster, one of the partners in the D-SHAPE team. As widely discussed during the workshop, these are technologies destined to radically change the ways of industrial production. Or maybe we could say—if by industrial production we mean the tayloristic model of serial factory, or its modern adaptation, the robotic islands—that these technologies are destined to embody the ways of post-industrial production. Of course, for mass production purposes, serial production chains will continue to exist. But the most important aspect that seems to have reached its end—or at least to be significantly reduced—is the paradigm of economies of scale: “the larger the volume the lower the production cost”. This is because 3D printers allow to drastically lower the production costs for small or very small series as well. The advantages of additive production, compared to subtractive, are plenty and, as revealed during the workshop itself, many of them are yet to be discovered. Here, in random order, are the ones I was able to capture from the slides shown by workshop participants. Through additive manufacturing, it is possible to create geometries and structural properties that would be impossible to create with traditional processes. It is possible to create components of incredible geometric complexity. It also becomes exponentially easier to customize production, even for low volumes. 3D printing allows for a great reduction of the number of components needed to make up an object—if not, in many case, for the production of a single shaped piece. Prototyping and production times are also much shorter, compared to traditional techniques. The finished product is much more durable, resilient, and compact, thanks to the substantial absence of mechanical stress—which in classic processing happens due to “violent” processes such as turning, milling, bending. Also, the finished pieces tend to be significantly lighter in weight. Last, but not least, additive manufacturing definitely presents itself as a “green” technology—or, in other words, sustainable. The saving of material and waste reduction are huge: just consider that the leftover powders not used in the process are not ruined or modified in any way, and can therefore be reused in the process for a very high number of cycles. At the same time, there is a great reduction of environmental pollution, both through the production process, through the massive reduction in transport and logistics activities, and also through saving of material. Compared to traditional foundry, we have less use of energy, and no emission of toxic waste, such as dioxins, etc. Mechanics is not “mechanic” anymore As noted by the various speakers at the workshop, and in particular by Professor Quadrini, from Tor Vergata University, the shapes of the objects developed through AM are very different from the shapes—usually squared or roundish—of traditional mechanical products. They resemble more closely the organic shapes of nature instead: bones, trees, seashells. Through opportune study of the structural characteristics of certain natural shapes, it will be then possible to create 3D printed components with similar qualities of flexibility and durability. For those endowed with artistic sense, 3D printed shapes are very stimulating tools, and it’s not difficult to imagine an age that will inspire artists as much as the futurism-mechanics duo did for the great artistic movements of the past century. Let’s forget terms such as beams, clamps, pillars, and let’s adopt words maybe a little more disquieting, because they resonate with our own biology—for example trabecula. These terms make us think of future blends between medical science and mechanical engineering, and not only on obvious common grounds such as robotics and cybernetics. As noted by the various speakers at the workshop, and in particular by Professor Quadrini, from Tor Vergata University, the shapes of the objects developed through AM are very different from the shapes—usually squared or roundish—of traditional mechanical products. They resemble more closely the organic shapes of nature instead: bones, trees, seashells. A.M. and space development Up to here, we have been talking about a new technology, certainly revolutionary and fit for the renaissance—yet definitely confined to terrestrial purposes. Additive manufacturing, as Professor Quadrini himself observed, works by stratification, in a vertical direction, depending heavily on the force of gravity. It is therefore limited, at least for now, to terrestrial applications. In just a few instances—Loredana Santo from Tor Vergata University, Maurizio Romeo from BEAMIT—the discussion verged on 3D printing techniques in microgravity conditions, that could be tested aboard the ISS. Why, then, the strong interest shown by ESA and ASI for this technology? First of all, we must not forget, for the time being the main focus of most companies is still satellite activities. However, the wind is definitely changing, as demonstrated by the strong interest towards the Moon shown by ESA after the assignment of the new general Director Johann-Dietrich Wörner, and by Professor Roberto Battiston’s speech at the end of the workshop. We wait with bated breath for these promising intentions to be translated into actual Intended Tenders. Nevertheless, it is still an important step forward that ESA started a great mediatic outreach, on a true expansion programs. The production of components using A.M. techniques is already started, and in the aeronautical field 3D printed components have been flying for a while now. In the space field, Space X employs 3D printed valves on the Falcons, and the Super-Draco engine is equipped with an entirely 3D printed combustion chamber. Nowadays additive technologies allow to significantly reduce launch costs for all components, from launchers—much cheaper—to payloads (satellites). It will be possible to design, prototype, and produce everything at least one order of magnitude faster; it will also weight less, and cost less, reducing as well the constricting requisite of high durability of space components. When missions used to cost a billion, it was inevitable to rely on fully established technologies, thus neglecting innovation. As remarked by Mauro Varetti—CEO of 3D-NT, ambitious Turin-based startup—additive techniques will open the aerospace field to experimentation, without skipping on reliability requisites—especially when missions include human beings. All of this would be hard to even imagine if Elon Musk had not knocked down launch costs from the 900 million standard—maintained for so many years by United Launch Alliance—to 60 millions, even before the coming of entirely reusable rockets. It is predicted that, when the process of reuse will be established, launch cost will settle around 500.000 dollars. Up to here, we have been talking about a new technology, certainly revolutionary and fit for the renaissance—yet definitely confined to terrestrial purposes. Potential of AM for the development of civilian astronautics The potential of AM is even greater. There is, in fact, the possibility of reducing the cost of launching satellites into orbit almost down to zero, at least for launching from Earth. We can imagine a series of orbital production facilities, using lunar and asteroidal raw materials reduced to powder. The powder would be produced through factories, installed at the lunar poles and at the Lagrange points. The designs for satellite parts and others will be transmitted from Earth, and produced by 3D orbital factories. Astronaut technicians will assemble the satellites and, through suitable interorbital vehicles, they will take them to their destination; technicians would also be responsible for maintenance and, at the end of satellites’ life cycle, for decommissioning. In time, the space infrastructure will be able to sustain its production using only extraterrestrial resources. Satellites will be rid of the expensive and sophisticated automated components—expensive because of the robustness required by launch stress—currently used to unfold solar panels and antennas. Of course, as soon as entrepreneurs will start to populate the geo-lunar space—together with researchers, inventors, and technicians—industrial activity will not be limited to satellite components anymore. It will naturally extend to all the areas that sustain terrestrial civilization, and probably much more will bloom into the human mind as soon as it will be able to think—in 3D!—outside of Earth’s gravitational well.
. At the end of the workshop, Professor Roberto Battiston, president of ASI, has taken on the challenge of Space X and NASA. He hypothesizes that, with to the great reduction of rocket engine costs thanks to additive manufacturing, expendable rockets might in the future become more convenient compared to reusable ones. The certain thing is that powerful renaissance forces are now into play: reusable rockets from Space X, and additive manufacturing technologies. Both these forces are breaking down the wall—that until recently seemed insurmountable—of the high cost of transport from Earth’s surface to low orbit. And this will open, from any point of view, the high frontier to many private entrepreneurial initiatives. Be these activities industrial, touristic, service, civil activities: civilian astronautics in short—the development of which is a conditio sine qua non to complete the renaissance started back in 1500!			.
(English language editing by Ginevra F. Autino)

Jun

2016

Our interview with Jeff Greason – Are the major space agencies supporting the development of civilian astronautics?

Space Renaissance International has kicked-off the discussion leading towards its second world congress, mainly targeted to update our analysis of the status of civilization and development of civilian astronautics. Our first reflection is a self-critical one, about the forecast we made during our first congress held in 2011 when we anticipated the kickoff of civilian astronautics that would be catalyzed by space tourism. Following the general expectations, we had no doubt that Virgin Galactic, XCOR or perhaps some other entity would have initiated commercial suborbital flights before 2016. It was a logical perception: space tourism is the only (or at least the first) private initiative that could develop in a self-sustaining manner by selling tickets to private passengers – initially for suborbital flights, then to orbit, to the Moon, and so on. The growing market would work as a positive feedback scenario, decreasing the cost of tickets and boosting the investments for further improvement of technologies.
There is no doubt that the space frontier will be opened by private enterprise and our focus remains on the private sector. But it hasn’t happened so far. The long promised start of commercial suborbital flights did not occur as expected. However, in the meantime, SpaceX has become a key part of the revolution by developing reusable rockets obtaining NASA contracts. Reducing the cost to orbit objectively supports the civilian astronautics development which allows more private enterprises to enter the market. Robert Bigelow is also taking key steps in the area of civilian astronautics with the first experimental inflatable module deployed on the ISS and by working with NASA as well.Jeff Greason, who recently joined the Space Renaissance USA Chapter, says that there is more work to be done between LEO and GEO than what we expect. So attention students, both young and less young specialists, please take good note that: “one thread that people don’t seem to emphasize” said Jeff “is that the number one problem in the space economy right now is … a shortage of labor! There are many, many activities which cannot be conducted economically because there is an insufficient source of labor in the space industry to do the jobs that need doing.”

Q. So, Jeff, let’s start with this quite interesting point. Could you tell us something more about the activities you are talking about?

R. Today, the bulk of activity in space is satellites. Most of the expense of satellites isn’t directly in the launch cost – though indirectly, the constraints of launch being expensive and hard to schedule are a big driver. But satellites have a lot of mechanisms to unfold solar arrays and antennas, and the components which might be quite affordable for a terrestrial application are expensive because they have to withstand a very rough ride on launch, and then last for ten years or more without maintenance or repair. Now imagine there was a facility for doing some very simple assembly work on orbit, and transportation from LEO to GEO. Satellites are very modular – so many transponders, so big an antenna array, so much solar panel. You could send those elements up, plug the modules together, and build quite large satellites ‘by the meter’ so to speak. It would be a simple task for a technician – if only you had technicians. A lot of money has been spent on research to service and repair GEO comsats. If instead you brought them to a technician, again, most of that could be done. And we know there are materials on the Moon of tremendous economic interest – water for propellant for one example. What’s missing isn’t the machines to do the mining and processing; they’re relatively simple and could be launched if there were need. But they need to be set up, maintained, and repaired – a small base could provide that labor, if economic activity were its focus rather than scientific research. Energy harvesting in space is a definite possibility, but again, the requirement to make the entire architecture 100.00% self-assembling is a big driver of cost; it doesn’t take much to plug pieces together.

Q. On the bad side of the news, we observe that Virgin Galactic was forced to build a new SpaceShipTwo after the tragic accident in 2014 and is still on ground, and that XCOR seems to have suspended the Lynx program, in favor of projects that are bringing in revenue.
Is that only due to difficulties in fundraising and finding investors or are we also witnessing a strong resistance by military lobbies and governments to release their control on outer space enabling private commercial ventures? If so, how could SRI’s lobbying action in favor of paradigm changing measures be effective?

R. There’s been absolutely no resistance from military lobbies that I have seen – if anything, there is friendly interest in the developments of frequent, reliable, affordable space transportation. The space environment is changing – it is no longer a place where military assets are safe from interference by hostile powers. So the best way to peacefully maintain space as a place for the use of all nations is to make satellites not worthy targets to attack. Making them easy and cheap to replace is an excellent way to do that. So there is a lot of beneficial overlap between commercial and military interests in space.
All space endeavors have, until recently, been very difficult to finance. What’s changed that is that small satellites have shortened the development cycle for commercial satellites so that new applications can be tried and show their economic value – or fail – within a few years, which is the time horizon of interest to institutional investors. The reason I’m working on the business plan at Agile Aero is to try and do the same thing for space vehicles – shorten their development cycle. But until we, or someone, does that, investment in space transportation is going to remain a challenge. That’s why right now the bulk of the investment in that area is from high net worth individuals investing in their own projects – which is a very welcome development, but not enough of a foundation for a healthy industry.

Q. Today, Space Renaissance International is making a qualitative and quantitative step, as we say, towards SRI 2.0. Since the end of 2008, our first years of activities, SRI was mainly a philosophical association, a think tank dedicated to developing the advanced concepts of a space age philosophy and to indicate the main strategic direction for our civilization. Recently , SRI more than doubled its presence on social networks, with almost twenty national Facebook pages world wide. SRI USA was incorporated as a 501(c)4 non profit association by Manuel Perez, with a quite focused strategic plan which includes lobbying the US Congress and collaboration with government agencies. Thus, SRI will now develop political goals and not only philosophical ones, by working with national and international institutions and striving to unify as much as possible the space advocacy movement on a platform of a few shared goals. Each national chapter will be encouraged to develop its own proper plan tuned to the national environment and social climate where they are located.
In such perspective, some questions become relevant for SRI as well as for the broader space advocacy movement from a strategic point of view.
Elon Musk has invested much of his previously accumulated fortune – made by brilliant great inventions, such e.g. PayPal — in his SpaceX enterprise and few other futuristic industrial ventures, e.g. the Tesla electric car and the very high speed vacuum tube train. It appears however evident that, with regards to Richard Branson and other new space entrepreneurs, Musk has something extra that allows him to produce many rockets and to recover from accidents in just a few months. The availability of substantial capital is due to the contracts that NASA is assigning to SpaceX for the use of Falcon 9 rockets and Dragon capsules to serve the ISS. It is likely that this momentum is also attracting further investments to SpaceX which now appears to be a successful corporation.
NASA already named the first four astronauts who will fly on the first U.S. commercial spaceflights in private crew transportation vehicles being built by Boeing and SpaceX, as soon as mid-2017, if all goes well. (Gizmodo).
NASA, by supporting SpaceX with lucrative contracts, is de facto supporting the development of fully reusable launch vehicles which is something that space advocates have been promoting for at least thirty years as the essential key factor for the downsizing of the cost of transportation from Earth to orbit. Consequently, the development of a private commercial space industry and market is being supported as well.
But this is not the only good news. On the other side of Atlantic, ESA’s new director Johann-Dietrich Woerner from the German DLR was selected in 2015. During his first interview, he challenged ESA with a grand goal: to build a first village on the Moon during the 2020-2030 decade! Such strategic address was initially announced in a symposium – Moon 2020-2030 – that was held at ESTEC, in Noordwijk in December 2015. If realized, this would be a key step on a path of settlement of outer space.
How do you see this process? Is NASA supporting the development of civilian astronautics by giving contracts to Elon Musk? Is that within the frame of a strategic plan? Or is it just the basis of a pragmatic orientation, because lower launch costs is however convenient?

R. Talking about “NASA” and “strategic plan” together probably overstates the case. NASA is a collection of dissimilar interests flying in formation. I would love to see an overall strategic plan for NASA but so far I haven’t. Certainly, however, national policymakers and some farsighted people within NASA have seen the value of adding NASA’s demand to commercial and military demand to stimulate the overall launch market – and of course so the taxpayer can derive the benefits of lower prices that come from a more competitive launch industry. It’s been a slow process dating back to the decision in 1986 to withdraw the Space Shuttle from the commercial launch market. Not everyone realizes that all the military launches in the U.S. and all NASA science missions are already launched on commercial rockets and have been for some time. NASA is providing the critical early customer support for SpaceX and ATK rockets by purchasing commercial cargo service to the Space Station and is doing the same for crew transport on Boeing and SpaceX capsules. I think that is all positive. There are some enormous missed opportunities, however. NASA is still spending about $2 billion a year on a large heavy lift booster that will start with 75 ton and eventually lift 125 ton payloads to orbit and fly every other year. That same price would pay to put up over 300 tons per year on the existing commercial market – and if an additional 300 tons per year of launch were purchased, the price would certainly come down. It’s really a mistake to think of this in terms of one provider; thanks to the efforts of both military and NASA launch the U.S. is now the only country with internal competition for launch and that competition is really improving the performance of ALL of the providers.

Q. Whatever the rationales behind this new orientation of the major space agencies, there seems that a new phase is opening in which many new space enterprises, having civilian astronautics in their mission, can hope to get contracts and to work with space agencies in order to develop technologies that will favor the growth of the commercial astronautic industry. There is, not yet, a big private space travelers market, but it is however a serious development vs. the old exploration paradigm. So, in your opinion, which are the themes upon which a new space enterprise may consider working with NASA, while being coherent with its own civilian astronautic mission?

R. I think the real opportunities are ahead of us. For decades, ambitious human spaceflight goals have been discussed by NASA and other space agencies. Expeditions to Mars, bases on the Moon, visits to near-earth asteroids. The private sector is talking seriously about private robotic missions to the Moon, or human missions to Mars orbit, and providing resources from the Moon and near-earth asteroids. The opportunity for NASA and other space agencies is that if they planned such ambitious missions, NOT as the agency that would perform the mission but simply as customers for those missions, leaving most of the execution to private sector firms to do in the most cost-effective manner, then they could actually afford to DO the things we’ve dreamt of. For example I’ve little doubt that a human return to the Moon, even with a permanent base could be done privately for something on the order or $10-$20 billion. No space agency is likely to do that so cheaply, and it is very difficult for the private sector to justify spending that money. But if space agencies really wanted a return to the moon – they can afford it, if they just buy it. And of course the space agencies have relevant expertise – but that expertise can be made available to private actors where there is need. All these efforts feed each other – the more things are being done in space, the easier it is to do more. For example, if there were some kind of transportation node in cislunar space – say at L1 or L2, it would be easy to stage components for a Mars mission from there, eliminating the need for very heavy lift launch beyond what other customers demand. But sadly, there are still too many in national space efforts who view ambitious space goals not as ends to be achieved, but as justifications for ongoing programs that will be funded year after year, with little incentive to reach the goal and move to the next one.

Q. We have always in mind your historical slides presented at the ISDC 2011, when you were talking about the missing 2nd step of the NASA strategic vision: “step 1 = exploration / step 2 = ? / step 3 = settlement”. We at SRI represent step 2 as a coherent plan for a progressive industrial expansion beyond Earth’s atmosphere based on humanist concepts, starting from LEO, recovering and reusing space debris, developing interorbital maneuverability, improving re-entry technologies, then developing infrastructure in the cislunar space, L4 and L5, on the Moon, using Near Earth Asteroids as raw materials and possible habitats.
What is your vision of a coherent plan for colonization of the Geo-Lunar space region?

R. The missing element right now is extraterrestrial sources of propellant. We know they’re out there, we know how to get them, but we haven’t developed those resources. Once we have that, moving from LEO to GEO, or from LEO to destinations beyond LEO, becomes much more cost effective. I personally think we will need humans to maintain and operate some of that equipment, which implies a transportation capability for people as well as cargo and a logistics resupply ability to bring cargo where we need it to be. Whether that material comes from Lunar or asteroidal sources or (as I suspect) from both doesn’t really matter – once we start to disconnect our umbilical to Earth and supply a big part of what we need to do things in space from resources IN space, we’ll be well on our way to a virtuous cycle where more and more of that becomes the norm. Once you start extracting resources, your next need is energy – it takes a lot of energy to extract and process that material. And of course there’s no shortage of demand for energy on Earth either; we’re 10-15 Terawatts short of what it would take to bring the whole world up to a modern standard of living. So the same infrastructure we need to collect industrial quantities of energy from the Sun, in space, for space-based customers can over time extend to supplying our needs here on Earth.

Q. From our humanist point of view, the overdue change of paradigm – from space exploration to space settlement – a few key areas of scientific research should have an high priority. If it is foreseen that the number of civilian passengers and settlers will increase in space, especially beyond the protective Van Allen Belt, the issues of protection from cosmic radiations and artificial gravity should be addressed, in order the migrants will not be subject to fundamental physiological changes in a few years. These type of research should be better developed by public money, as well as scientific research for a single stage to orbit vehicle, and exobiology, selecting the best vegetables to be cultivated in space, for food and for oxygen regeneration. Do you think a lobbying action may have a chance to orient governments and agencies in such a direction?

R. I hope so, but I’m not counting on it. The idea that the goal of government action in space shouldn’t be to visit it, but to develop it as an economic arena and frontier for human settlement is one that has been growing slowly and not always steadily. Clearly, that is not yet motivating our investments in space research because these problems remain unsolved. It is unpardonable neglect of our research priorities that more than 50 years in to the space age, we still have NO idea what the long term health implications of 1/6 or 1/3 gravity are on human beings. If national space agencies have a purpose, this is the kind of problem they should be solving. And again, how they solve it matters. If they think it’s too expensive – then put out a contract to buy that data. A lot of smart people have been thinking of cheap ways to get that data – surely there is SOME price at which NASA or ESA could afford to answer this question.

[English language editing by Arthur Woods]

OTHER LANGUAGES VERSIONS OF THIS ARTICLE: