It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NASA Wants Gas Stations In Space

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 02:17 AM
link   
I found this article looking for entertainment.



If humans are ever to live and explore in deep space for extended periods, space gas stations may prove a vital necessity. Toward that end, NASA has awarded contracts to four companies with plans to study how to store and transfer fuel in space.

It's not simply a matter of building a Shell station in orbit. Rocket fuel is cryogenic, meaning super-cold substances like liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen. If not kept extremely chilled and protected, some of those liquids tend to boil off into gases.

"Storing cryogenic propellants such as liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen in space for long periods of time with minimal boil-off is critical for deep space human exploration," according to a NASA statement. [Gallery: Visions of the Future of Spaceflight].

See the link below for full article.



I have a question......

What the crap are they planning on refueling up there?


With NASA's space shuttles now retired, the agency is embarking on a program to pursue human missions to an asteroid by 2025, and to Mars by the mid 2030s, per a directive by President Barack Obama. For these missions, and eventual colonies in space, spaceships will likely need to refuel either in orbit or on the surface of another planet or moon.

news.yahoo.com/nasa-wants-gas-stations-space-135201590.html

I see no mention of anything in the works. I even clicked on the links to the asteroid mission....No mention of anything that will take us there....

Is there really a plan?

Or are they pi$$ng in the wind?

What are they going to do, seriously? Are they going to use the Orion or not?


edit on 7-8-2011 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-8-2011 by liejunkie01 because: toned it down a hair




posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 02:29 AM
link   
Here is some of the article from one of the links in the story.


"By 2025 we expect new spacecraft designed for long journeys to allow us to begin the first-ever crew missions beyond the moon into deep space," Obama said during an April 2010 speech at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida. "So we’ll start by sending astronauts to an asteroid for the first time in history. By the mid-2030s, I believe we can send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to earth, and a landing on Mars will follow."

www.space.com/11189-nasa-asteroid-choice-astronauts-deep-space.html

Still no mention of what space craft...

Are they going to use the Orion, or did they cut it out totally?


Here is the picture that the artist come up with for NASA. It mentions the Orion



This artist's illustration depicts a 'Plymouth Rock' asteroid mission with astronauts and NASA's Orion spacecraft as envisioned by Lockheed Martin



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 02:40 AM
link   
I kinda understand why they want this. Having fuel already there might help to refill to come back to earth since it's pretty far. Unless they get lucky and hitch a ride with some hippy aliens



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01
What the crap are they planning on refueling up there?



NASA has always wanted refuelling stations in space, and quite frankly should have spent more (or indeed any at all) time developing the technology before now.
Its all part of the general idea of assembling a larger long distance craft in space from prelaunched parts, as opposed to the old (and dumb) idea of launching the whole craft from earth in one hit.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


I do not dissagree with you and revs....They do need refueling up there...

The problem I see is, there is nothing to refuel......

It is like standing alone on the side of a deserted road with a gas can.........There is no vehicle around to put the gasoline in...(if that makes sense).....But you got fuel...

I feel Nasa's priorities are all out of whack.......They are paying the Russians a ridiculous amount of money to ferry astronauts to orbit....All the while "planning" the future.......I am stumped, and I have lost alot of confidence in the organization.
edit on 7-8-2011 by liejunkie01 because: spelling



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 02:55 AM
link   
i quite like the idea of water-based propellant, as envisioned by isaac asimov..

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by alfa1
 


I do not dissagree with you and revs....They do need refueling up there...

The problem I see is, there is nothing to refuel......

It is like standing alone on the side of a deserted road with a gas can.........There is no vehicle around to put the gasoline in...(if that makes sense).....But you got fuel...

I feel Nasa's priorities are all out of whack.......They are paying the Russians a ridiculous amount of money to ferry astronauts to orbit....All the while "planning" the future.......I am stumped, and I have lost alot of confidence in the organization.
edit on 7-8-2011 by liejunkie01 because: spelling


If you really think that the space technology is at it's height with what we KNOW to be out there i think you should open up some more threads here.

I wouldn't be surprised if one of those companies "came up" with a design within the next half year.

Edit:

Wouldn't it be easier instead of harder btw to keep things frozen in space (just keep the fuel orbiting the shadow side of a planet/moon/asteroid?)
edit on 7/8/11 by Romekje because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01
I feel Nasa's priorities are all out of whack.....



Agreed.
They let the shuttle go for way too long.
It was abundantly clear even back in the 1980's that the shuttle they ended up with was going to be an expensive dead end, and the next generation (whatever it was) should have been built shortly after that.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by liejunkie01
I feel Nasa's priorities are all out of whack.....



Agreed.
They let the shuttle go for way too long.
It was abundantly clear even back in the 1980's that the shuttle they ended up with was going to be an expensive dead end, and the next generation (whatever it was) should have been built shortly after that.



Imo the shuttle was just to keep the public aware of "A" space program so they would have something to justify all those invested billions with.

Sorry but you really can't tell me that strapping a shuttle to a rocket and blasting it into space is that expensive every time. R&D might be, but since thats already done the rest of the money is most likely funneled into the "black" space program.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 03:20 AM
link   
Oh, finally. Propellant depots are simply required for any serious exploration or colonisation beyond Earth orbit. This will increase our spaceflight capabilities considerably.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 03:44 AM
link   
explodemia, explodemia

frist of all, i'm pretty positive space is cold as ****, so they should be fine. secondly, this is a massive wealth-sink. invest in an energy that isn't ridiculously dangerous, finite, and difficult to use and make. massive amounts of money would be wasted trying to make space gas stations. oh and those won't be totally dangerous when they fall out of orbit or if something goes wrong. not only will astronauts have to be trained to operate them and maintain them on top of everything else they have to do, they are extremely dangerous, and unecessarily costly. this isn't somethin that needs to be a reality or even considered. we have no business in space right now. not for a long long time.
edit on 7-8-2011 by shagreen heart because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 03:59 AM
link   
reply to post by shagreen heart
 





invest in an energy that isn't ridiculously dangerous, finite, and difficult to use and make.


What energy do you have in mind?

If they (we) are complaining about costs now, how can we afford to develope and implement this new idea? I am just curious......Last time I checked the space elevator is not invented yet.

I say at least lets roll with what we got........Blast them up......At least we have something to show for our money....And a few jobs to boot.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   
Another distraction and "Pipe Dream" No offence to you op but lets face it. The Govts of the world can't take care of the planet were on. Besides if the speculators ever get ahold of the futures price, no one will be able to afford it



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by shagreen heart
 





frist of all, i'm pretty positive space is cold as ****, so they should be fine.


Not when the Sun and the light reflected from Earth and Moon shines. It takes a lot of engineering to keep cryogenic hydrogen from boiling off.




secondly, this is a massive wealth-sink. massive amounts of money would be wasted trying to make space gas stations.


Quite the opposite, this will make space exploration more affordable, or a bigger bang for the same buck. And NASA space exploration makes up less than 0,5 % of federal budget. It is not massive, it is insignificant.




oh and those won't be totally dangerous when they fall out of orbit or if something goes wrong.


No, they wont. Why should they be?
edit on 7/8/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by liejunkie01
What the crap are they planning on refueling up there?



NASA has always wanted refuelling stations in space, and quite frankly should have spent more (or indeed any at all) time developing the technology before now.
Its all part of the general idea of assembling a larger long distance craft in space from prelaunched parts, as opposed to the old (and dumb) idea of launching the whole craft from earth in one hit.



So why the big deal over ending the Apollo Program?
What was that all about? Just political grandstanding?
It was a dinosaur.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by shagreen heart
 





invest in an energy that isn't ridiculously dangerous, finite, and difficult to use and make.


What energy do you have in mind?

If they (we) are complaining about costs now, how can we afford to develope and implement this new idea? I am just curious......Last time I checked the space elevator is not invented yet.

I say at least lets roll with what we got........Blast them up......At least we have something to show for our money....And a few jobs to boot.




Innovation, invention and enterprise among inspired and educated people.
This will come from the same place all new things come from.
Dedicated science....and necessity.




edit on 7-8-2011 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
A nuclear powered space craft wouldnt need a fueling station. Chemical propulsion will greatly limit where we can travel in space, atleast if we intend on returning.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   
you dont need to ferry cryogenic fuel into orbit, you take water into orbit then use solar energy to split it, ie eletrolysis
as for storage, its only hot in space in direct sunlight i believe, in the shadows, its very cold indeed
so storage 'costs' shouldnt be overly high



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
It would be easier to let Japan build Optimus Prime and send him out to explore for us.


Maybe in a year he could build us a nice Holliday Inn on Mars, detonate some nukes above Mars' atmosphere to create a radiation belt to generate a stronger magnetic field around the planet to make Mars habitable by humans.

Likely in 10 years the same robot could do the same to Venus and terraform it. Nuclear detonations around Venus to create radiation belt....planet gets shielded from the sun....starts cooling down....acidic compounds start breaking down into safer more complex molecules.....

It's Time for Prime. © (i called it)...ha ha ha



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Heat from solar radiation in space and on the moon is usually a bit misrepresented. Let's take the moon for instance and the Moon Hoax believers about temperatures on the moon during it's long 2-week day. It is true that the 'surface' of the moon in direct sunlight can reach very high temperatures but in the vacuum of space there is no 'carrier' to radiate the heat not in direct contact with the surface. There is no air to carry the heat like holding your hand above your electric range. What you need is a highly reflective shell of a suit, and simple water or an air cooled pocket to feel a normal 74ºF environment. Just wear good shoes when walking on the moon in late lunar day, it's also one reason the Apollo astronaut's visit was short, and in the lunar morning before the surface reached a high temperature, there is no 'air' in space.

Space is cold.
edit on 7-8-2011 by Illustronic because: stupid spelling errors




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join