On Orbital Fuel Stations 152
dylanduck writes "Being able to fill up your spacecraft from a fuel depot in orbit round the Earth or Moon is key to the long-term prospects of astronauts exploring the solar system, according to NASA engineers. Trouble is NASA doesn't want to build it themselves. So there's $5 million for any enterprising groups who can develop a simple version themselves."
It's doable (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
So sure, once you get liquid hydrogen from the moon / some other energy source it'd be usefull.. which pretty much means we need a moonbase first.
I, for one, welcome our oxygen yielding overlords! (Score:3, Insightful)
Space One proved that a competition with a good incentive can produce results faster than state sponsored research. I hope the trend will continue.
Zero Gee problems? (Score:4, Insightful)
A short list includes:
Human health (bones, muscles, fluid accumulation etc)
Environment (air flow, hygeine)
Fluids in general (measuring, pumping)
Going to the toilet (or john)
And lots of others.
I have a question: Why aren't we putting some effort into artificial gravity? I mean centrifuge effects - not Star Trek. After all, we're expending all this effort into individual engineering solutions for each problem. If we had AG of some sort, wouldn't that remove the need for that?
Just my 2 pennies worth.
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Fuel depots make sense for aircraft on Earth because you can use cheap surface transport to deliver the fuel, store it, and then load it into your aircraft when needed.
This might work in space if you have ion powered slow boats to ship the heavy stuff, and fast human carrying vehicles to load up on fuel. But we are not that advanced yet. If we go to mars any time soon it might make sense to launch the cruise stage unmanned and then hook it to the command module in earth orbit. That would be a kind of fuel dump.
Re:Hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Zero Gee problems? (Score:4, Insightful)
If and when our technology has matured enough so we can start designing RAMA-style spaceships [wikipedia.org] or large spacestations with permanent crews of dozens or hundreds, then this or another kind of AG will certainly be included.
chemical reaction propulsion (Score:2, Insightful)
We won't become much of a space faring race until we have *advanced physics drives of some sort that work with gravitrons or something along those lines.
*note:said "advanced". We need to be able to understand and manipulate gravity in some fashion, right now the best we can do is we sort of measure it AFAIK.
One chemical alternative: wildcard long shot: could we build rockets where the structure (parts of it anyway) of the rocket itself could be transferred to being fuel? A cannibalizing rocket in other words, save a lot of weight that way and get more fuel to orbit.
This idea is a variation on the "caseless ammo" [wikipedia.org] concept. I saw one of these rifles before that used this sort of ammo, made by Daisy the BB gun guys, it worked perfectly fine, no brass at all. The concept never caught on much, but it worked. So maybe there is a way there to get a lot more fuel into orbit for much less cost than currently. Don't ask me for a detailed chemical composition outline though, no idea, just the concept of cannibalizing rockets.
Re:Zero Gee problems? (Score:3, Insightful)
To dock, you pull up to the middle and grab old of the rotating cable. You then lower yourself down to the station, and enter through a hatch on 'top'.
I think for long-term living in space, it's a win. For the short term, it adds complexity and cost that nobody wants to pay for.
It's not rocket science