NASA Looking To Build 'Gas' Stations In Space 201
coondoggie writes "Fuel is a major issue when it comes to long-duration spaceflights — its weight is a problem for launch and once a spacecraft runs out of fuel there's no place to get more. That's where in-space 'gas' stations located at strategic spots along a route would be a boon to spaceflight. Which is exactly what NASA is looking to do by beginning to solicit proposals for what it calls an In-Space Cryogenic Propellant Storage and Transfer Demonstration that will lay the groundwork for humans to safely reach multiple destinations, including the Moon, asteroids, Lagrange points and Mars."
Re:Space dock (Score:5, Insightful)
The raw materials available for building components in space via NEOs (near Earth objects) are orders of magnitude greater than they are on earth. The problems lie more in the host of technologies that do not yet exist for harvesting, transforming, and manufacturing in space. There are further logistical issues regarding getting to the materials. Flying out to an asteroid isn't cheap, neither is returning with the goods.
All that said, the rewards for conquering these technological hurdles is mind boggling. To date we've only been getting our toes wet with respect to researching technology leading to the industrialization of space. Because of which much of this seems more sci-fi than anything. The short-term thinking majority can't conceive of any kind of substantial future in space. But they are the same kind of visionless people that wouldn't have bothered trying to industrialize Earth because it was too hard with solutions difficult to imagine. Explaining our vision for humanity in space to such people is like trying to explain your vision for creating what we know today as a smartphone to a pre-industrialization era person. All you'd get is mockery and ridicule about your pie in the sky, day dreaming flights of fancy.
Re:Makes sense...not politically sexy...won't happ (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, not only is it not politically sexy, but it's outright politically dangerous. Having fuel depots allows you to use existing rockets for exploration beyond low-Earth orbit, alleviating the need to develop heavy-lift rockets. A number of politically-powerful congressional districts (and congressmen) are heavily banked on NASA building a heavy-lift rocket from Shuttle-legacy components, while that isn't the case for fuel depots. I predict it won't be long before this particular effort is squashed by Congress, perhaps even outright banning it like they did with the TransHab inflatable modules [wikipedia.org].
Re:Putting the cart before the horse. (Score:4, Insightful)
Men and ships are just as expendable today as they were 100, 300, or 600 years ago. It is only your own vanity that makes you think that men's lives are worth more today. As for the expense of the ships - today's ships cost a lot of bucks, yesterday's ships cost a lot of currency as well. That famous Armada that was sunk in the storm off of England's coast was a substantial part of the kingdom's budget. You'll note that the Armada wasn't replaced, in fact, couldn't have been replaced as quickly as the United States replaced her damaged fleets after Pearl Harbor.