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: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


No! For the love of God no! No gas stations in space....NASA needs to think wisely and spend it's time and money,developing new technologies. This whole...Shuttle....It got retired for a reason... It's just so...old fashioned...

Have you seen it close up? All covered in patches? The space shuttle is the Ford Pinto of the universe....

It's high time we start figuring out... a better way to travel....

We are essentially traveling by horse, when we could be taking a Ferrari, so to speak.




posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Pervius
 


Venus is beyond repair for a lot of reasons. Rotational speed, near absolute void of water or hydrogen, and the CO2 is coming from the rocks by it's extreme heat. Venus does have a magnetosphere, that is not the answer. It's too close to the sun and it's day is longer than it's year! It is because of the thick 97.5% CO2 atmosphere on Venus that it's surface temperature is largely stable, hot enough to melt lead and tin, hotter than Mercury, a near 900ºF.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 02:33 AM
link   
Detailed information for those interested:

www.nasaspaceflight.com...

Looks like a great plan to me



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


Here is a link and a quotes from an interesting article about fuel depots. It's more complicated than I realized.


Propellant transfer is a flexible approach. Propellant might be delivered by a variety of providers using big rockets or small ones, and the depot could be placed in whatever orbital location makes the most sense. However, by embracing that flexibility, advocates have avoided specifying the details that determine whether a design closes—that is, whether it really works. At least one viable proof of concept example is needed before the idea can be evaluated. Each reference design should specify, among other things: how big the tankers are and how and when they are launched; how the various propellant spacecraft operate together; the orbits, trajectories, and maneuvers assumed; and whether the in-space propellant transfer assets can be reused for multiple missions or are deployed fresh for each mission.



In engineering, there are four fundamental steps to inventing the next big thing. First, come up with a new idea that looks promising. Second, figure out the details of how it would work. Third, compare it to known alternatives to figure out whether the new idea is actually any better. Propellant depots for exploration have gotten through step one. But until someone performs steps two and three to figure out whether depots really are an improvement, it’s premature to move to step four: making it happen.

Doubts about Depots

NOTE: This is from 2009, maybe there are more recent studies that resolve that author's doubts?
edit on 14-12-2011 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


NASA dont need gas in space because they have solar power.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by wlasikiewicz
 


The solar power doesn't provide any propulsion, it powers the equipment on board. All propulsions still emit or burn a variety of different fuels and/or gasses, even the ion thrusters, though they also require an additional power source in the form of electricity usually.



new topics

top topics
 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join